This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While the term Lich is p --Rob W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.192.9 ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2004
The gaming related things are not nonsense. They are a cultural phenomena and are relevant because they are a primary modern expression of this mythological creature as valid as other literature. I would advise to keep them in. 66.178.143.98 ( talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How is Lich pronounced? -- Neg 22:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to Webster's, lich (as in lych-gate) is pronounced to rhyme with witch. That's also how I've always heard it prnounced. Guest. 10:24, 28 May 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.231.55 ( talk • contribs)
It can be pronounced several different ways, but the best candidates are: /laɪk/ (rhymes with "Mike"); /lɪtʃ/ (rhymes with "Mitch"); or /lɪk/ (rhymes with "Mick") as in the Heimlich Maneuver. The last pronunciation is not very likely though, and it is probably a corruption due to being used in a personal name. Interestingly, "lich" is a late Middle English spelling of the word "like," and "like" is derived from the same Old English root as "lich." A non-cognate term " lichen", that came into English with the same spelling as "lich," is acceptably pronounced as either /laɪkən/ or /lɪtʃ.ən/ However, most games and gamers (and other game-related media such as the D&D films) pronounce "lich" as /lɪtʃ/. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The lich was apparently in a book from 1926, although it appears to be interchangable with a mummy. This is the quote i've seen(quoted in NetHack):
-- JeffBobFrank 03:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Clark Ashton Smith seems to use the word "lich" simply to refer to a corpse; in "Empire of the Necromancers," he makes a distinction between two types of animated corpses: skeletons and liches. I take his use to mean that if there is still flesh on the bones, it is a lich. This is the standard, dictionary-definition of lich-- an archaic term for a corpse-- but used to describe something horrifying, that is, a walking corpse.
D&D borrowed "wraith" from the Ringwraiths, not "lich". D&D uses a general term-- lich, meaning corpse-- for something specific-- the animated corpse of an undead wizard. This is typical of D&D, and games in general, to use a general term (wizard, wight, wraith, warlock, just for the W's) to mean something specific; and in popularizing an obscure general term, many people either forget or remain unaware that there is a more general meaning.
So, when reading Clark Ashton Smith, for instance, don't expect every lich he refers to to be a powerful magician with his disembodied soul encased in a hidden phylactery. He may have written about such a creature (like maybe Malygris?) but it is D&D that "standardized" these characters as "liches," not Smith. Silarius 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The term "Lich" is also used in H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Thing on the Doorstep" (1933), to refer to a corpse formerly, and possibly still, inhabited by the soul of an evil wizard named Ephraim Waite, who attempted to gain immortality by shifting his soul from one body to another. It's not clear whether he is using the term merely as an archaic reference to a corpse, or specifically to refer to a reanimated corpse, but a reanimated corpse does feature in the story, so it is possible. However, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard (see below) were all part of "The Lovecraft Circle", along with many other like-minded writers, and frequently exchanged ideas with one another, so the question of who first used the term, and developed into its modern context may be unanswerable. Denorios 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it Lieber's "Gods of Lankhmar" that are being referred to here? -- L. 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed "comes from the Slavic licho" since there is no reference regarding this etymology. In any case, the modern English "lich" is derived from the Old English word. Given the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon, it seems unlikely that this word "comes from" a Slavic word, though they could have both some common Indo-European root (or the similarity could be coincidental). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.50.190 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 June 2006
On the subject of Voldermort, I rewrote that passage. It is unfair to claim that Voldemort isn't a lich simply because he hasn't been "referred to as such." Rowling has made a career out of taking things out of existing mythology and giving them different names. For example, in Half-Blood Prince, she adds monsters called "inferi," which are described as mindless corpses that some evil wizard has animated to do their bidding. Obviously, that's what the rest of the world calls a "zombie;" just because Rowlings makes up names doesn't change that fact. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... -- L. 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this is an article about Dungeons & Dragons, not about Liches. Look I played my AD&D when I was young, but I really think this article is way too much about AD&D then someone stuck in some historical context as an afterthought. I think I can make this a better article, more useful to people who have never even heard of Dungeons & Dragons. I am going to work on clarifying and reorganizing this article tonight. GestaltG 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that Skeletor's physique is muscular and non-rotting and the fact that he is actually a living, breathing (fictional) person. His origin story (according to the original books sold with the action figures) is that he came from a planet of blue-skinned, skull-faced living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.169.236 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 August 2006
Whoever wrote the article seems to be under the impression that the term 'necromancer' is applied to all magic-users specialising in the undead, and that the term 'lich' is reserved for the most powerful; as far as I know (unless there are definite GW sources to disprove this), necromancers are living undead-specialist wizards whereas liches are their actual undead counterparts- the before and after pictures, to look at it another way. I'll rewrite the passage if wanted, if noone has any objecion? Naturally if there's new GW source material that elaborates on this stuff then go with that, as I'm not totally up to date on new Warhammer stuff. 172.188.214.14 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the "Fictional Works" section to the bottom of the article because it is the least pertinent to an encyclopedic article on Lich. I'm not volunteering to do it right now, but the "Fantasy Works" section also needs to be cleaned up and probably pared down. The Fictional Works section should adhere to the general purpose and feel of an encyclopedia. Beatdown 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
According to what I understand about J.R.R Tolkien's writings, Sauron was actually a Maia, an immortal being incapable of dying in the regular sense of the word. Therefore, he would not be considered a lich or even undead at all. Note that when he died, his spirit was banished, as was Saruman's, who was also a maia. I propose taking his name off the list Sylverdin 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, just an anonymous LotR geek. Incidentally, Sauron was not a Maia, like Gandalf and Saruman, but rather (originally) an elf. He was famous for betraying his kind to join the service of the then present dark Valar (god) Melkor (or Morgoth). Anyhow, cut a *long* story short, Melkor was banished to the void, leaving Sauron as the prime force of evil (though still a mortal) in Middle earth. He used to be incredibly beautiful and charismatic, apparently due to this, he managed to salvage his reputation and make good face with most of the leaders of the world from his citadel (located near Mirkwood, IIRC). Cut another *long* story short, he betrayed the world again when he forged the one-ring, binding his soul to it and rendering him immortal. Henceforth, he was effectively a lich, in that he was indestructible (each time he got killed he would simply 'come back). After defeated by the lord of Numenor the first time, he was dragged back as a slave, only to become the kings advisor (I didn't write this stuff), and condem the island kingdom to being sunk by the Valar for depravity. He survived the sinking of Numenor, though was much uglier and weaker (as drowned corpses often are) and fled to Mordor to recuperate. This is the sauron we all know and saw in the flashbacks of the movie(that gondor used to fight). As you know, he hid his horrible appearance in an elaborate suit of armour, and was 'killed' in the battle of the last alliance of elves and men prior to helms deep (you saw it, the part where he exploded after having his finger cut off). Anyhow, seeing as the ring was not destroyed, he lived on, though now had no physical form, and instead manifested as an eyeball (whatever floats his boat). Finally he was destroyed by frodo when he threw the ring (or had it wrested from him) into the fires of mount doom where it was forged.
Now in terms of D&D, it had always seemed to me that (like most of the 1st ed data) the Lich was a simple plagiarism of Lord of the Rings. Though it never explicitly said in any of the appendices that Sauron was undead, you can assume the point that he forged the ring and stopped dying when killed relates to that. Plus we also the fact that Demi-Liches' phylacteries are treated as artifacts, in that they can only be destroyed in very limited difficult ways (Sauron actually being a demi-Lich, at least by the time of Aragorn). Sauron was the original Lich. In fact, the label was created for him, so you must forgive him if he doesn't perfectly meet the standards for this retrospective template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 May 2007
The comments about Sauron are incorrect. He was never an elf, but he did appear to them as one in order to win their trust and create the One Ring. The destruction of the One Ring did not kill him, but rather left him in such a weakened state that he could no longer create a physical form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhitcomb ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 June 2007
Sauron was a Maia of Aule (the smith) which is why he knew how to make such powerful magical rings. He is not undead, he is simply immortal. The maia are divine beings, not unlike Christian angels. Anyway, "he ain't no lich" Queson 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sauron was living immortal and therefore fails to match the trait of liches being mortals who gain immortality in undeath. However, he is a major inspiration for the oher main (and possibly focal) trait of having a phylactery. Koschei is the only other source that matches exactly the condition of reincarnation upon death unless phylactery is destroyed. All other historical mythological creatures and fictional horror creatures are different in this aspect. Therefore even if Sauron is not a lich he is at least the second most influential factor as inspiration for liches! -Forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
i deleted that lich picture to make a point. it is not vandalizm. i knew someone would restore the picture right away. my point is in all the world can you not find a better picture of a lich than that stupid cartoon that is posted right now? a person coming here who does not have any knowledge of liches and how powerful and terrifying they are would look at that stupid cartoon lich and just laugh. it is a ridiculous picture and it is childish when you consider how mean and smart and powerful liches are. if i find a good picture can it be posted? can i draw a picture and post it so we can have a real picture of a lich and not some silly stupid nerd stuff like right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hound of odd ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2006
In AD&D, a demi-lich is not "half Lich and half god". Acererak from Gary Gygax' Tomb of Horrors represents the first use of the term and should be regarded as the very definition of a "demi-lich". Acererak was actually far LESS powerful than a lich, having once been one himself. Per Gygax: "Eventually even the undead life-force of Acererak began to wane..." (ToH, page 10). Like a demigod, a demi-lich is a lesser version of the real thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Yeah, Demi-Lich is to lich what Arch-angel is to Angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 May 2007
ABOUT DEMI-LICH ICONOGRAPHY The original demi-lich appears in Tomb of Horrors, by Gary Gygax, as a bejewelled skull. Tomb of horrors was written in 1975 (first published 1978). A very similar (if not identical) being appears in "Thieve's House" by novelist Fritz Leiber, written in 1943 (and clearly predating Gygax's work). It's therefore straightforward where the iconography comes from, and the [citation needed] tag is clearly meaningless. You need a citation to prove the sky is blue? Too often [citation needed] demonstrates just that those who put it there didn't do their research. Marco - 17/06/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 June 2010
the word lich is not exclusive to dungeons and dragons. this article is about lich, not about d&d. there is an article about lich specific to d&d. this article should be focused on the word lich and all its uses throughout history. it should not be biased towards d&d. the use of the word lich in any media or other works can not be attributed to d&d without a proper citation. coincidences can and do exist. Drag-5 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Voldemort does not belong under Historical background. I feel this information (and examples in other important fiction) is better suitable in a section titled Fictional Works, Fantasy Works or In Fiction (the first two of which used to exist on the page by the looks of it). It is questionable whether Voldemort fits the description of a lich at all. I'll move the information on Voldemort to its own section in a few days unless someone objects. — 121.209.186.16 ( talk) 12:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that's even remotely correct. The Nazgûl were wraiths, beings of no substance at all, who could interact with the physical world, and wore clothing or armor as needed; whereas Liches are powerful spellcasting (in some cases) corpses/skeletons. The difference might seem slight, but there is a difference. Call me crazy if you will, but I think the inclusion of Nazgûl in the list of Liches is a mistake -- and while we're at it, why are wraiths in the list as well? The two are not the same at all. Also, I belive the term originates with Old English "lic" meaning corpse or body, but I may be mistaken. 192.44.136.113 ( talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The description of a lich states that it is a "(...) who has used evil rituals to bind his intellect to his animated corpse and thereby achieve a perverse form of immortality."
Why is that perverse and immoral? There is no explanation of why that would be wrong. I would have done it, without much hesitation for example. Crakkpot ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
immortality means to live forever =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.222.249 ( talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's part of the "character mythology". Also, from a d&d perspective, the ritual used varies from setting to setting but is generally described as "unspeakably evil". Negative energy is used to animate the characters body, and this could be intepreted as corruptive to the personality. I know there's a description of good aligned liches in one of the manuals, animated by positive energy. In addition, there's Baelnorns, elven lich ancestor guardians, that are good aligned. You have to remember that in the d&d universe, good and evil is directly reflected in the universe and it's magic and vice versa. 79.136.61.34 ( talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the alternate pronunciation to the article based on the obsolete use of "lich" as an alternate spelling of "like" (with reference citation) and the accepted pronunciations of lichen. This was reverted because:
So I'm reverting to my edit. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
But the name for the fantasy monster--"lich"--is derived from the Anglo-Saxon / Old-English / Middle English "lich" for "body" or "corpse," so the obsolete / archaic pronunciation of the term seems to factor squarely into the consideration. And if an obsolete pronunciation is /laɪk/, as attested by the modern, non-cognate term lichen--that seems relevant. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Lich : this word is perfectly legitimate and indeed, like so many old words that have fallen into some disuse, should be revived. A recent example of its use in a work of fiction is in China Miéville's masterpiece : Perdido Street Station, where it is used in the modern meaning of 'an undead corpse' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.230.57 ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Are liches alive or dead? I read a fantasy novel where the lich was a wizard who used a spell to prevent himself from dying. However, his body aged into a skeleton. In this way, the lich never really *died* but just aged horribly. I read another fantasy novel where the lich is a wizard who bound his soul to an object which, when he died, made sure he came back in a new body. This example shows a lich as being dead and then coming back as undead. In other words is a lich living but close to death or undead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.11.235 ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As per D&D, a Lich is basically a corpse puppetered/possessed by the wizard, while his soul is stored inside/bound to this plane by his phylatchery. The phylatchery basically replaces his living body. The body is in all cases inanimate, and the power that animates it is drawn by the enchantment from the negative plane. There's nothing that really states that the body has to be skeletal, but that's how antagonist liches are generally displayed, as they are meant to be very old. You could simply preserve the corpse via magic, but due to how negative energy works, the corpse would basically be kept in near-stasis in a state of perpetual decay. The best that could be done would basically be to keep the corpse in the state a corpse is in just as the last bit of warmth has left it. For a hundred years or so, anyway. ;D 79.136.61.34 ( talk) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
An "original research?" note is attached to the sentence: "This image is consistent with the modern interpretation of the lich." If both the "modern interpretation" section and the Koschei section are substantiated, then the comparison is what the mathematician call "trivial"--it can be done "by inspection". If that is the kind of original research the Wikipedia abhors, then the Wikipedia is stupid. I will therefore delete the note.
If the Wikipedia is in fact stupid by my personal definition above--and since I have no authority whatever here, it is certainly free to be so!--it will be an easy fix to restore my change. But if this is done, I would very much appreciate knowing in what way the absence of the sentence can be considered an improvement for the reader compared to its presence. And if the argument is valid, then *I* will be, gratefully, less stupid! GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
After so much talk on this page, I'm surprised that the article is still so confused. We need to decide what the article is about and stick to that. First, wikipedia is not a dictionary so it shouldn't focus on the history of the word. I believe it should focus on the fantasy wizard-zombie monster, starting with the D&D version, since that is the version that most people are aware of, and then spread out so describe later version (other RPGs, computer games, etc) and the stories that D&D got inspiration from (pulp stories, older European folktales). Ashmoo ( talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The article List of liches was becoming a mess of an article, so I started to try to clean it up but found that most of the entries don't really have any sources to justify inclusion, and there's already a small(er) list on this page, so I've redirected List of liches to Lich#In popular culture, and I plan on working on finding references for the entries, or removing the ones where a reliable source cannot be found. I wanted to place this on the talk page so that others can be aware of what I'm doing and to discuss if there are any issues. Consistent with WP:IPC, I'm going to try to find third-party sources that can show that an entry warrants inclusion; simply including a lich because it exists in a webcomic or game would bog down any article or list and give undue weight to entries that crowd out others that are supported by reliable third-party sources. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of this entry because it doesn't meet the very basic inclusion criteria. A wiki is not a reliable source nor is a forum post. If there's no coverage, there's no inclusion in the article. If, as is being claimed, it's notable because it's "one of the first" liches in an MMO, there would be a reliable source showing that this was notable. There are hundreds of instances of liches throughout games; just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. If an entry can't even be supported with a single reliable source showing that it's in some way worth mentioning, the article doesn't need to mention it. - Aoidh ( talk) 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello JoePhin I'm just continuing our discussion on my talkpage here so that others can see and weigh in.
You point out WP:RSPRIMARY does permit some claims to be cited from primary sources. However more specifically to In popular culture sections WP:IPCV states:
Which is precisely the issue at hand here. I have no reservations that all the listed works do indeed have a lich in them, and have no issue with primary sourcing to be used to establish that fact if needed. However the issue is that they should be established relevant to be included at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
The following RfC on sourcing in such sections lays it out even more clearly:
The goal here is for a reader to be able to look at the section and understand works that have shaped the collective imagination for what a lich is. I don't really think the current section does that, it requires some more work. But one thing that I think hampers this goal is turning this into a random collection of works that have a lich in them. It makes it difficult for a reader to tell which instances are influential or important, by burying them in a pile of noise. And so enforcing a requirement on reliable secondary sourcing at least helps filter out some of the noise.
Regardless of all this, thanks for your contributions to this page. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the Kuva Lich be mentioned in the video game section? It appears to be an in-name-only mention, as neither the official source given or official art don't explain how it is supposed to be an undead magician. I mean, the IP who keeps putting this into the list does know that the official site doesn't even use the word "undead," right?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
At this point, your arguments haven't convinced multiple editors. If you check out WP:TALKDONTREVERT, there are a bunch of options to solicit outside opinions if you'd like to get more editors involved. Otherwise, please do not violate the three-revert rule. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't convinced multiple editors. They are the very same editors who have not been able to produce anything in Wikipedia's editorial policies to support their objections, and one of which seems to have a general dislike of all pop-culture topics that he/she/they were not honest about from the beginning.
I just read through the sources in question here and I don't find any compelling case for inclusion. These are primary sources that fail to establish that it is a notable example and arguably fail to establish that it is an example at all. I think some of our existing sourcing is pretty weak but this is incredibly weak sourcing. I think that in reference to WP:IPCV and this relevant RfC that the sourcing very clearly fails to meet the established criteria. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 18:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion the split from the main Lich article was totally unnecessary given that the monster originated from D&D. There is pretty much nothing in the main article that cannot be incorporated into this one. I would suggest it be merged back, and the popular culture section mostly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While the term Lich is p --Rob W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.192.9 ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2004
The gaming related things are not nonsense. They are a cultural phenomena and are relevant because they are a primary modern expression of this mythological creature as valid as other literature. I would advise to keep them in. 66.178.143.98 ( talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How is Lich pronounced? -- Neg 22:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to Webster's, lich (as in lych-gate) is pronounced to rhyme with witch. That's also how I've always heard it prnounced. Guest. 10:24, 28 May 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.231.55 ( talk • contribs)
It can be pronounced several different ways, but the best candidates are: /laɪk/ (rhymes with "Mike"); /lɪtʃ/ (rhymes with "Mitch"); or /lɪk/ (rhymes with "Mick") as in the Heimlich Maneuver. The last pronunciation is not very likely though, and it is probably a corruption due to being used in a personal name. Interestingly, "lich" is a late Middle English spelling of the word "like," and "like" is derived from the same Old English root as "lich." A non-cognate term " lichen", that came into English with the same spelling as "lich," is acceptably pronounced as either /laɪkən/ or /lɪtʃ.ən/ However, most games and gamers (and other game-related media such as the D&D films) pronounce "lich" as /lɪtʃ/. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The lich was apparently in a book from 1926, although it appears to be interchangable with a mummy. This is the quote i've seen(quoted in NetHack):
-- JeffBobFrank 03:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Clark Ashton Smith seems to use the word "lich" simply to refer to a corpse; in "Empire of the Necromancers," he makes a distinction between two types of animated corpses: skeletons and liches. I take his use to mean that if there is still flesh on the bones, it is a lich. This is the standard, dictionary-definition of lich-- an archaic term for a corpse-- but used to describe something horrifying, that is, a walking corpse.
D&D borrowed "wraith" from the Ringwraiths, not "lich". D&D uses a general term-- lich, meaning corpse-- for something specific-- the animated corpse of an undead wizard. This is typical of D&D, and games in general, to use a general term (wizard, wight, wraith, warlock, just for the W's) to mean something specific; and in popularizing an obscure general term, many people either forget or remain unaware that there is a more general meaning.
So, when reading Clark Ashton Smith, for instance, don't expect every lich he refers to to be a powerful magician with his disembodied soul encased in a hidden phylactery. He may have written about such a creature (like maybe Malygris?) but it is D&D that "standardized" these characters as "liches," not Smith. Silarius 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The term "Lich" is also used in H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Thing on the Doorstep" (1933), to refer to a corpse formerly, and possibly still, inhabited by the soul of an evil wizard named Ephraim Waite, who attempted to gain immortality by shifting his soul from one body to another. It's not clear whether he is using the term merely as an archaic reference to a corpse, or specifically to refer to a reanimated corpse, but a reanimated corpse does feature in the story, so it is possible. However, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard (see below) were all part of "The Lovecraft Circle", along with many other like-minded writers, and frequently exchanged ideas with one another, so the question of who first used the term, and developed into its modern context may be unanswerable. Denorios 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it Lieber's "Gods of Lankhmar" that are being referred to here? -- L. 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed "comes from the Slavic licho" since there is no reference regarding this etymology. In any case, the modern English "lich" is derived from the Old English word. Given the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon, it seems unlikely that this word "comes from" a Slavic word, though they could have both some common Indo-European root (or the similarity could be coincidental). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.50.190 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 June 2006
On the subject of Voldermort, I rewrote that passage. It is unfair to claim that Voldemort isn't a lich simply because he hasn't been "referred to as such." Rowling has made a career out of taking things out of existing mythology and giving them different names. For example, in Half-Blood Prince, she adds monsters called "inferi," which are described as mindless corpses that some evil wizard has animated to do their bidding. Obviously, that's what the rest of the world calls a "zombie;" just because Rowlings makes up names doesn't change that fact. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... -- L. 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this is an article about Dungeons & Dragons, not about Liches. Look I played my AD&D when I was young, but I really think this article is way too much about AD&D then someone stuck in some historical context as an afterthought. I think I can make this a better article, more useful to people who have never even heard of Dungeons & Dragons. I am going to work on clarifying and reorganizing this article tonight. GestaltG 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that Skeletor's physique is muscular and non-rotting and the fact that he is actually a living, breathing (fictional) person. His origin story (according to the original books sold with the action figures) is that he came from a planet of blue-skinned, skull-faced living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.169.236 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 August 2006
Whoever wrote the article seems to be under the impression that the term 'necromancer' is applied to all magic-users specialising in the undead, and that the term 'lich' is reserved for the most powerful; as far as I know (unless there are definite GW sources to disprove this), necromancers are living undead-specialist wizards whereas liches are their actual undead counterparts- the before and after pictures, to look at it another way. I'll rewrite the passage if wanted, if noone has any objecion? Naturally if there's new GW source material that elaborates on this stuff then go with that, as I'm not totally up to date on new Warhammer stuff. 172.188.214.14 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the "Fictional Works" section to the bottom of the article because it is the least pertinent to an encyclopedic article on Lich. I'm not volunteering to do it right now, but the "Fantasy Works" section also needs to be cleaned up and probably pared down. The Fictional Works section should adhere to the general purpose and feel of an encyclopedia. Beatdown 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
According to what I understand about J.R.R Tolkien's writings, Sauron was actually a Maia, an immortal being incapable of dying in the regular sense of the word. Therefore, he would not be considered a lich or even undead at all. Note that when he died, his spirit was banished, as was Saruman's, who was also a maia. I propose taking his name off the list Sylverdin 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, just an anonymous LotR geek. Incidentally, Sauron was not a Maia, like Gandalf and Saruman, but rather (originally) an elf. He was famous for betraying his kind to join the service of the then present dark Valar (god) Melkor (or Morgoth). Anyhow, cut a *long* story short, Melkor was banished to the void, leaving Sauron as the prime force of evil (though still a mortal) in Middle earth. He used to be incredibly beautiful and charismatic, apparently due to this, he managed to salvage his reputation and make good face with most of the leaders of the world from his citadel (located near Mirkwood, IIRC). Cut another *long* story short, he betrayed the world again when he forged the one-ring, binding his soul to it and rendering him immortal. Henceforth, he was effectively a lich, in that he was indestructible (each time he got killed he would simply 'come back). After defeated by the lord of Numenor the first time, he was dragged back as a slave, only to become the kings advisor (I didn't write this stuff), and condem the island kingdom to being sunk by the Valar for depravity. He survived the sinking of Numenor, though was much uglier and weaker (as drowned corpses often are) and fled to Mordor to recuperate. This is the sauron we all know and saw in the flashbacks of the movie(that gondor used to fight). As you know, he hid his horrible appearance in an elaborate suit of armour, and was 'killed' in the battle of the last alliance of elves and men prior to helms deep (you saw it, the part where he exploded after having his finger cut off). Anyhow, seeing as the ring was not destroyed, he lived on, though now had no physical form, and instead manifested as an eyeball (whatever floats his boat). Finally he was destroyed by frodo when he threw the ring (or had it wrested from him) into the fires of mount doom where it was forged.
Now in terms of D&D, it had always seemed to me that (like most of the 1st ed data) the Lich was a simple plagiarism of Lord of the Rings. Though it never explicitly said in any of the appendices that Sauron was undead, you can assume the point that he forged the ring and stopped dying when killed relates to that. Plus we also the fact that Demi-Liches' phylacteries are treated as artifacts, in that they can only be destroyed in very limited difficult ways (Sauron actually being a demi-Lich, at least by the time of Aragorn). Sauron was the original Lich. In fact, the label was created for him, so you must forgive him if he doesn't perfectly meet the standards for this retrospective template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 May 2007
The comments about Sauron are incorrect. He was never an elf, but he did appear to them as one in order to win their trust and create the One Ring. The destruction of the One Ring did not kill him, but rather left him in such a weakened state that he could no longer create a physical form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhitcomb ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 June 2007
Sauron was a Maia of Aule (the smith) which is why he knew how to make such powerful magical rings. He is not undead, he is simply immortal. The maia are divine beings, not unlike Christian angels. Anyway, "he ain't no lich" Queson 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sauron was living immortal and therefore fails to match the trait of liches being mortals who gain immortality in undeath. However, he is a major inspiration for the oher main (and possibly focal) trait of having a phylactery. Koschei is the only other source that matches exactly the condition of reincarnation upon death unless phylactery is destroyed. All other historical mythological creatures and fictional horror creatures are different in this aspect. Therefore even if Sauron is not a lich he is at least the second most influential factor as inspiration for liches! -Forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
i deleted that lich picture to make a point. it is not vandalizm. i knew someone would restore the picture right away. my point is in all the world can you not find a better picture of a lich than that stupid cartoon that is posted right now? a person coming here who does not have any knowledge of liches and how powerful and terrifying they are would look at that stupid cartoon lich and just laugh. it is a ridiculous picture and it is childish when you consider how mean and smart and powerful liches are. if i find a good picture can it be posted? can i draw a picture and post it so we can have a real picture of a lich and not some silly stupid nerd stuff like right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hound of odd ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2006
In AD&D, a demi-lich is not "half Lich and half god". Acererak from Gary Gygax' Tomb of Horrors represents the first use of the term and should be regarded as the very definition of a "demi-lich". Acererak was actually far LESS powerful than a lich, having once been one himself. Per Gygax: "Eventually even the undead life-force of Acererak began to wane..." (ToH, page 10). Like a demigod, a demi-lich is a lesser version of the real thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Yeah, Demi-Lich is to lich what Arch-angel is to Angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 May 2007
ABOUT DEMI-LICH ICONOGRAPHY The original demi-lich appears in Tomb of Horrors, by Gary Gygax, as a bejewelled skull. Tomb of horrors was written in 1975 (first published 1978). A very similar (if not identical) being appears in "Thieve's House" by novelist Fritz Leiber, written in 1943 (and clearly predating Gygax's work). It's therefore straightforward where the iconography comes from, and the [citation needed] tag is clearly meaningless. You need a citation to prove the sky is blue? Too often [citation needed] demonstrates just that those who put it there didn't do their research. Marco - 17/06/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 June 2010
the word lich is not exclusive to dungeons and dragons. this article is about lich, not about d&d. there is an article about lich specific to d&d. this article should be focused on the word lich and all its uses throughout history. it should not be biased towards d&d. the use of the word lich in any media or other works can not be attributed to d&d without a proper citation. coincidences can and do exist. Drag-5 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Voldemort does not belong under Historical background. I feel this information (and examples in other important fiction) is better suitable in a section titled Fictional Works, Fantasy Works or In Fiction (the first two of which used to exist on the page by the looks of it). It is questionable whether Voldemort fits the description of a lich at all. I'll move the information on Voldemort to its own section in a few days unless someone objects. — 121.209.186.16 ( talk) 12:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that's even remotely correct. The Nazgûl were wraiths, beings of no substance at all, who could interact with the physical world, and wore clothing or armor as needed; whereas Liches are powerful spellcasting (in some cases) corpses/skeletons. The difference might seem slight, but there is a difference. Call me crazy if you will, but I think the inclusion of Nazgûl in the list of Liches is a mistake -- and while we're at it, why are wraiths in the list as well? The two are not the same at all. Also, I belive the term originates with Old English "lic" meaning corpse or body, but I may be mistaken. 192.44.136.113 ( talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The description of a lich states that it is a "(...) who has used evil rituals to bind his intellect to his animated corpse and thereby achieve a perverse form of immortality."
Why is that perverse and immoral? There is no explanation of why that would be wrong. I would have done it, without much hesitation for example. Crakkpot ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
immortality means to live forever =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.222.249 ( talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's part of the "character mythology". Also, from a d&d perspective, the ritual used varies from setting to setting but is generally described as "unspeakably evil". Negative energy is used to animate the characters body, and this could be intepreted as corruptive to the personality. I know there's a description of good aligned liches in one of the manuals, animated by positive energy. In addition, there's Baelnorns, elven lich ancestor guardians, that are good aligned. You have to remember that in the d&d universe, good and evil is directly reflected in the universe and it's magic and vice versa. 79.136.61.34 ( talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the alternate pronunciation to the article based on the obsolete use of "lich" as an alternate spelling of "like" (with reference citation) and the accepted pronunciations of lichen. This was reverted because:
So I'm reverting to my edit. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
But the name for the fantasy monster--"lich"--is derived from the Anglo-Saxon / Old-English / Middle English "lich" for "body" or "corpse," so the obsolete / archaic pronunciation of the term seems to factor squarely into the consideration. And if an obsolete pronunciation is /laɪk/, as attested by the modern, non-cognate term lichen--that seems relevant. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Lich : this word is perfectly legitimate and indeed, like so many old words that have fallen into some disuse, should be revived. A recent example of its use in a work of fiction is in China Miéville's masterpiece : Perdido Street Station, where it is used in the modern meaning of 'an undead corpse' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.230.57 ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Are liches alive or dead? I read a fantasy novel where the lich was a wizard who used a spell to prevent himself from dying. However, his body aged into a skeleton. In this way, the lich never really *died* but just aged horribly. I read another fantasy novel where the lich is a wizard who bound his soul to an object which, when he died, made sure he came back in a new body. This example shows a lich as being dead and then coming back as undead. In other words is a lich living but close to death or undead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.11.235 ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As per D&D, a Lich is basically a corpse puppetered/possessed by the wizard, while his soul is stored inside/bound to this plane by his phylatchery. The phylatchery basically replaces his living body. The body is in all cases inanimate, and the power that animates it is drawn by the enchantment from the negative plane. There's nothing that really states that the body has to be skeletal, but that's how antagonist liches are generally displayed, as they are meant to be very old. You could simply preserve the corpse via magic, but due to how negative energy works, the corpse would basically be kept in near-stasis in a state of perpetual decay. The best that could be done would basically be to keep the corpse in the state a corpse is in just as the last bit of warmth has left it. For a hundred years or so, anyway. ;D 79.136.61.34 ( talk) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
An "original research?" note is attached to the sentence: "This image is consistent with the modern interpretation of the lich." If both the "modern interpretation" section and the Koschei section are substantiated, then the comparison is what the mathematician call "trivial"--it can be done "by inspection". If that is the kind of original research the Wikipedia abhors, then the Wikipedia is stupid. I will therefore delete the note.
If the Wikipedia is in fact stupid by my personal definition above--and since I have no authority whatever here, it is certainly free to be so!--it will be an easy fix to restore my change. But if this is done, I would very much appreciate knowing in what way the absence of the sentence can be considered an improvement for the reader compared to its presence. And if the argument is valid, then *I* will be, gratefully, less stupid! GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
After so much talk on this page, I'm surprised that the article is still so confused. We need to decide what the article is about and stick to that. First, wikipedia is not a dictionary so it shouldn't focus on the history of the word. I believe it should focus on the fantasy wizard-zombie monster, starting with the D&D version, since that is the version that most people are aware of, and then spread out so describe later version (other RPGs, computer games, etc) and the stories that D&D got inspiration from (pulp stories, older European folktales). Ashmoo ( talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The article List of liches was becoming a mess of an article, so I started to try to clean it up but found that most of the entries don't really have any sources to justify inclusion, and there's already a small(er) list on this page, so I've redirected List of liches to Lich#In popular culture, and I plan on working on finding references for the entries, or removing the ones where a reliable source cannot be found. I wanted to place this on the talk page so that others can be aware of what I'm doing and to discuss if there are any issues. Consistent with WP:IPC, I'm going to try to find third-party sources that can show that an entry warrants inclusion; simply including a lich because it exists in a webcomic or game would bog down any article or list and give undue weight to entries that crowd out others that are supported by reliable third-party sources. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of this entry because it doesn't meet the very basic inclusion criteria. A wiki is not a reliable source nor is a forum post. If there's no coverage, there's no inclusion in the article. If, as is being claimed, it's notable because it's "one of the first" liches in an MMO, there would be a reliable source showing that this was notable. There are hundreds of instances of liches throughout games; just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. If an entry can't even be supported with a single reliable source showing that it's in some way worth mentioning, the article doesn't need to mention it. - Aoidh ( talk) 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello JoePhin I'm just continuing our discussion on my talkpage here so that others can see and weigh in.
You point out WP:RSPRIMARY does permit some claims to be cited from primary sources. However more specifically to In popular culture sections WP:IPCV states:
Which is precisely the issue at hand here. I have no reservations that all the listed works do indeed have a lich in them, and have no issue with primary sourcing to be used to establish that fact if needed. However the issue is that they should be established relevant to be included at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
The following RfC on sourcing in such sections lays it out even more clearly:
The goal here is for a reader to be able to look at the section and understand works that have shaped the collective imagination for what a lich is. I don't really think the current section does that, it requires some more work. But one thing that I think hampers this goal is turning this into a random collection of works that have a lich in them. It makes it difficult for a reader to tell which instances are influential or important, by burying them in a pile of noise. And so enforcing a requirement on reliable secondary sourcing at least helps filter out some of the noise.
Regardless of all this, thanks for your contributions to this page. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the Kuva Lich be mentioned in the video game section? It appears to be an in-name-only mention, as neither the official source given or official art don't explain how it is supposed to be an undead magician. I mean, the IP who keeps putting this into the list does know that the official site doesn't even use the word "undead," right?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
At this point, your arguments haven't convinced multiple editors. If you check out WP:TALKDONTREVERT, there are a bunch of options to solicit outside opinions if you'd like to get more editors involved. Otherwise, please do not violate the three-revert rule. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't convinced multiple editors. They are the very same editors who have not been able to produce anything in Wikipedia's editorial policies to support their objections, and one of which seems to have a general dislike of all pop-culture topics that he/she/they were not honest about from the beginning.
I just read through the sources in question here and I don't find any compelling case for inclusion. These are primary sources that fail to establish that it is a notable example and arguably fail to establish that it is an example at all. I think some of our existing sourcing is pretty weak but this is incredibly weak sourcing. I think that in reference to WP:IPCV and this relevant RfC that the sourcing very clearly fails to meet the established criteria. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 18:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion the split from the main Lich article was totally unnecessary given that the monster originated from D&D. There is pretty much nothing in the main article that cannot be incorporated into this one. I would suggest it be merged back, and the popular culture section mostly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)