Jump to content

Talk:Lich/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

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

What is this article really about?

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)

Hang on there. The reason this article is about Dungeons & Dragons is because D&D invented the Lich. The "Historical background" section deals with things that are not liches, but merely similar to them and possible inspirations for the idea. If you know of some generic accepted term for "lich-like undead wizards" that the rest of that historical background information could be grouped under then splitting some of it off into a new article on that subject might be good, but reducing the D&D content of this article is definitely not the way to go. Bryan 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok then, so assuming for a moment that Dungeons & Dragons "invented" the lich. The editorial point I am trying to make here is why not just put in a sentence or paragraph saying that Dungeons & Dragons invented the modern lich (I notice now that it has been clarified) rather than having half the article be about all of the different Dungeons & Dragons games, references, and related computer games? A simple sentence would have sufficed to make that point, rather than several paragraphs. GestaltG 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I notice that you have now deleted the entire reference to Robert E. Howard's Sand Lich? Robert E. Howard died in 1936. I highly doubt that Dungeons & Dragons invented the Lich if it appears in a story by Robert E. Howard. I think you are trying way too hard to "rewrite" history so that Dungeons & Dragons somehow invented the Lich. At the very least, I would consider J.R.R. Tolkein's ringwraiths a kind of Lich. Why did you remove the Robert E. Howard reference? Next thing we know, you are going to try to tell us that Dungeons & Dragons invented sword and sorcery? GestaltG 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe you have me mistaken for somebody else. The last time I made a substantial change to this article (other than fiddling with the capitalization and pluralization of headers) was a little over a year ago, when I added non-D&D-related material. Here's the diff: [1]. Prior to that my only other contributions were to add a category and to add a paragraph mentioning demiliches [2]. As for calling ringwraiths "a kind of lich", that strikes me as being revisionist. Ringwraiths get their own article, which as it happens doesn't mention "Liches" at all. Bryan 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The Conan reference was moved up to the list of liches in fantasy fiction. "Conan and the Sorcerer" is a pastiche, not an original Robert E Howard story, and was published in 1978, after D&D debuted its own liches. -Sean Curtin 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with using the word "pastiche" and that is part of my confusion here. According to the dictionary, a "pastiche" is either 1) a work that imitates the style of a previous work or 2) a composition made up of selections from different works. Clearly by pastiche you meant the former; it may well be that Conan and the Sorcerer is an "imitative" pastiche published in 1978. My confusion comes from Conan the Conquerer, which is an original Robert E. Howard work, but is a novel pieced together from various original Howard writings. This work could also be called a "pastiche" of the second sort. Knowing a bit about how Robert E. Howard's works have been published, I thought the 1978 Conan and the Sorcerer (which I have never read) might also be a cobbled collection of Howard writings. At the least, this suggests that you should clarify the reference in the article to the 1978 work. GestaltG 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy concerning liches in Warhammer

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)

Fictional Works Section Moved

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)

I'm a bit impatient, so I took the liberty of cleaning up the Fantasy Works section. There is simply no need to post every obscure reference to lich that pops up in fictional works. Beatdown 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

First appearance?

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):

But on its heels ere the sunset faded, there came a second
apparition, striding with incredible strides and halting when
it loomed almost upon me in the red twilight-the monstrous mummy
of some ancient king still crowned with untarnished gold but
turning to my gaze a visage that more than time or the worm had
wasted. Broken swathings flapped about the skeleton legs, and
above the crown that was set with sapphires and orange rubies, a
black something swayed and nodded horribly; but, for an instant,
I did not dream what it was. Then, in its middle, two oblique
and scarlet eyes opened and glowed like hellish coals, and two
ophidian fangs glittered in an ape-like mouth. A squat, furless,
shapeless head on a neck of disproportionate extent leaned
unspeakably down and whispered in the mummy's ear. Then, with
one stride, the titanic lich took half the distance between us,
and from out the folds of the tattered sere-cloth a gaunt arm
arose, and fleshless, taloned fingers laden with glowering gems,
reached out and fumbled for my throat . . .
The Abominations of Yondo, Clark Ashton Smith, 1926

--JeffBobFrank 03:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it too large a stretch of the imagination to think that, given how Dungeons & Dragons borrows so many elements from the Lord of the Rings, the lichs in D&D might actually be derived from the ringwraiths? Just a thought. Wyborn 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Jesus - I never thought of that! --L. 4 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
Made a small change - didn't think it appropriate that the article should say that other sources derived the lich concept from Dungeons and Dragons, given how old the idea is. --Wyborn 08:59, September 4, 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)

Lich in other fictional works

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)

Psyduck looks like a duck and... well, you get my point. Most Pokémons look like animals. That doesn't mean we have any right to claim they are real animals. Inspired, perhaps. But not the same thing. That should be clear also on the lich article. --Kaonashi 18:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
this section is getting rather large. liches are in hundred if not thousands of other fictional works.
perhaps an other page, a list page? or it should be removed altogether. Drag-5 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Demi-lich = demi (less), not demi (more)

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).

Perhaps the etymology of the name has varied over the years, but the current standard references for version 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons are quite clear that a demilich is more powerful than a lich and I believe it has always been that way. See the SRD's entries for the lich template (found in the basic "monsters" listing) and the demilich template (found in the "epic monsters" listing) - the demilich template is applied to a lich and adds 6 to the challenge rating. Bryan Derksen 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Bryan. I just added an entry within this article for NetHack in which a demilich is more powerful than a lich. Perhaps this isn't how demilich was originally defined, but it certainly seems more widely used to mean more powerful, not less. ahpla 17:09, 23 February 2007 (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

I agree. Demi Moore is not a lich.124.176.5.96 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Sauron is a lich?

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)

Even though Sauron is not undead, the One Ring does have similarities to a phylactery, in that his life is bound to it, similar to how a lich's soul is bound to its phylactery. Still, this is somewhat of a stretch, and is likely coincedental. 66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (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)

Sauron is definitely a rebel Maia, not a "lich". The Nazgûl are arguably liches, having "phylactery" in their Nine Rings (held by Sauron) and using this dark art to extend their existence. But Tolkien used the word "wraiths" to describe the Nazgûl, and the word "wight" to describe the lich-like evil spirit haunting the Barrow-downs in LotR. Tolkien would certainly have known the word "lich" to mean "corpse", but never used it to mean an undead, afaik.
Despite a complainer, below, the use of "lich" as "undead sorceror" almost certainly begins with the release of the first Monster Manual by the late great Gary Gygax, in 1977. —Yamara ✉ 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

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)

Nazgûl are not Liches

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)

Pronunciation

How is Lich pronounced? --Neg 22:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's pronounced like "stitch" or "bitch." → JarlaxleArtemis 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've always hear it ponouced as 'Lish'. Ragzouken 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Artemis is right, "Ch" as in "Choo-Choo" Beatdown 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I've always heard it pronounced the same as the word "like." Check the dictionary link on the page, don't the earlier versions of the word appear to have a long 'i' and a hard 'k'? Milgex 01:57, 19 December 2006 (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)

IPA Pronunciation in article

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:

"revert: the "lich" pronounced your way is an entirely different lemma, and doesn't prove that our "lich" was pronounced like that. may be etymologically related, but that is speculation on your part"

So I'm reverting to my edit. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the obsolete spelling of "like" was "lich" has no bearing on the pronunciation of "lich" the fantasy creature; although spelled the same, they are different words and have been different words for a very long time. Let's call the obsolete spelling of "like" A, and the word "lich" B. The fact that A, pronounced /laɪk/, used to be spelled the same as B, pronounced /lɪtʃ/, does not mean that B used to be pronounced /laɪk/. To put it bluntly, you can't make judgments about a word's pronunciation just based on the fact that another word was spelled like it a couple hundred years ago.
If you can find good, non-anecdotal evidence that people today pronounce "lich" /laɪk/, you are welcome to put it in the article. But there is no encyclopaedic value in pointing out that people a few hundred years ago pronounced an entirely different word, which just happened to share this spelling, /laɪk/.
Normally I would say I'll wait for someone else to come around and do the revert, but as this is a relatively low-traffic article I am going to do it myself. Please do not add speculation on the pronunciation of "lich" to the article unless you also cite a source verifying that that is how the word is generally pronounced now (as opposed to a hundred years ago). —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Since both "like" and "lich" (the word referenced by the article) derive from the same Old English / Anglo-Saxon root, and a late Middle English spelling of "like" is "lich," and a non-cognant word that came into English with the same spelling (viz., lichen) also supports the possible pronunciation of the lexeme as /laɪk/ (not to mention that there is plenty of, admittedly, anecdotal evidence of people pronouncing it as /laɪk/ in gaming forums)...I don't see what more is needed here.
To recapitulate: 1.) Etymologically, "like" and "lich" both have the same root; in the recent history of the English language the two spellings were interchangeable and context alone determined the nuance (not unlike the various connotations of the modern word "like" being context-bound). 2.) A non-cognate word shows that the lexeme is acceptably pronounced in modern English as the obsolete spelling of "like."
Given (1.) and (2.), please indicate what other lexical or morphological data is required to establish the alternate (note: alternate, not "normal") pronunciation. Thanks. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Before I say anything else, I would recommend that you read WP:SYNTH (a subsection in the Wikipedia policy on original reasearch)...what you are doing is essentially making a speculation based on several other facts.
Now, on to the other stuff. English has the largest vocabulary of any language in the world, and in many cases tens of modern words came from the same Old English root and are pronounced very differently now—in some cases, you can hardly even recognize the original root in the current word.
About the archaic spelling of the word "like" (which I'll try calling licha, and the fantasy monster lichb), again, that doesn't really have any bearing on the current pronunciation. They are two words with radically different meanings, which just happened to be spelled the same way a while ago. Just because licha was once spelled as "like" (and maybe pronounced as /laɪk/, although you haven't given any evidence yet to support that) doesn't mean that lichb was ever pronounced that way. Again, they are different words, and there's not much use speculating about the current pronunciations based on archaic spellings.
If you want to include another pronunciation in the article, the evidence you need to bring is very clear-cut: you need a dictionary or other publication specifically saying the word lichb is pronounced that way by people today. No other etymological data will do as, as I pointed out before, trying to synthesize a pronunciation out of other data would be tantamount to theorizing and producing original research. If you really want to put in the alternate pronunciation based on anecdotal evidence, you could insert it as a parenthetical expression in the beginning (something like "sometimes mispronounced /laɪk/ by gamers") and don't think anyone would remove it, as that kind of stuff is often given in articles without being sourced. But don't put in an alternate pronunciation like it's fact and then give a bunch of spurious evidence for it to make it look as if this is a widely accepted and factual thing. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll look for a source for the obsolete pronunciation of lichb as licha, but since pronunciation keys, let alone IPA renderings, are of very recent provenance, I feel like you're setting the bar to an absurd height (i.e., "If you can prove that something that didn't exist back then really existed back then..."). And I've yet to see how you can call into question the fact (supported by modern lexical aids), that the grapheme "lich" can be identified with either the phoneme /laɪk/ or /lɪtʃ/ (as in the non-cognate word lichen, which came into English with the same grapheme). And that alone seems like justification for the alternate pronunciation. Regardless of etymology or semantic content, the grapheme itself shares the same phonemes--that much is indisputable. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing "absurd" about that standard; the very fact that you've admitted the supposed pronunciation is obsolete, even if it did exist, shows that there's no point citing it in the article. The point is to give the pronunciation that is relevant, not all pronunciations that people may or may not have used at some indiscriminate point in the past. Arguing over an archaic pronunciation is irrelevant to this article. Note that in my previous message I specifically said, "you need a dictionary or other publication specifically saying the word lichb is pronounced that way by people today" (emphasis added).
And, once again, the fact that the spelling "lich" (it is not a grapheme, by the way; a grapheme is a single character...likewise, /laɪk/ is not a "phoneme") had two different pronunciations still does not come even close to proving that the word for a fantasy monster used both of those pronunciations. All you have proven is that some words spelled "lich" used to be pronounced /laɪk/; you haven't proven that this word spelled "lich" used to be pronounced /laɪk/. You have to remember that a spelling is not the same thing as a word. Take, for example the verb "desert" (to abandon, to leave) and the noun "desert" (dry place)...they share a spelling but are different words, and it would be ridiculous to say that one is pronounced the same as the other just because they have the same spelling. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
What's "absurd" is asking me to provide proof of pronunciation for an obsolete pronunciation of the word, beyond the simple fact that the uncontested pronunciation of the cognate word, "like", is /laɪk/, and "lich" was (at one time) an accepted alternate spelling of that word. Since pronunciation keys and IPA were unknown at the time when "lich" was an alternate spelling of "like," and in the absence of contrary evidence, we can only assume that /laɪk/ is a possible pronunciation of "lich"--the onus probandi is on the opposition, to show that "like" could be pronounced as /lɪtʃ/ (in which case the alternate spelling of "like," while retaining the semantic range of "like," was pronounced as /lɪtʃ/). Further, without getting into semantic disputes over whether polygraphs may be properly called graphemes, or whether polyphones may be properly called phonemes, there is still the recalcitrant data that a non-cognate word, composed of the same letters, supports both pronunciations.
So, without contrary evidence, we have proof that "lich" could be pronounced as "like"; and, we have evidence that the characters that compose the term (however one may which to classify them, in whole, or in part) can be pronounced as either /lɪtʃ/ or /laɪk/ (q.v., lichen). Please tell me again what is missing here? Ps. Semantic meaning has little impact on the discussion regarding pronunciation: "I like you" and "He runs like the wind" have very different semantic meanings, but they are, as anyone must concede, pronounced exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.3.27 (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting the idea that the burden of proof is on me, because on Wikipedia the burden of proof is on the inclusionist—ie, it's you who has to prove that information should be added to the article, not me who has to prove that it shouldn't. For the official policy, see WP:BURDEN.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but again, all you have proven is that the sequence of letters L-I-C-H was once pronounced /laɪk/; you have not proven that this word was once pronounced /laɪk/. A word is a different thing than a sequence of letters. You've shown that "like" used to be spelled differently, not that "lich" used to be pronounced differently. If you disagree with this, I suggest you go find one of the editors involved in articles such as International Phonetic Alphabet or related subjects to come here and give an outside opinion on the matter. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One more little thing....you say "there is still the recalcitrant data that a non-cognate word, composed of the same letters, supports both pronunciations." Again, that is original research talk. On Wikipedia you can't speculate about what might be true, no matter how likely, or about what is supported; you can only cite things that already appear in reliable sources. If it's impossible to find reliable sources for an obsolete pronunciation, then, tough luck, there's no way to include it in an article. The best you can do is publish an article on why you think the word used to be pronounced that way, then come back to this article and say, "X has proposed that 'lich' used to be pronounced /laɪk/." You can't put forth that proposal here; you can only cite it once it's been put forth elsewhere (i.e., in a reliable source). —Politizer talk/contribs 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What I see as your burden is to show that the spelling of "lich," when used as an alternate spelling for "like," was pronounced as /lɪtʃ/--this is the only way I can see to rescue the claim that "lich" absolutely cannot be pronounced as "like." I've provided the respectable, lexical source which shows that "lich" can be pronounced as "like" (unless you can show that "lich," when used as an alternate spelling for "like," was still pronounced as /lɪtʃ/). Further, the verbal component of interest in the non-cognate term lichen is acceptably pronounced using either /lɪtʃ/ or /laɪk/--there is no original research on my part, it's simply a matter of fact that the same letters can be pronounced in different ways. It is up to you to show why this particular arrangement of letters is sufficiently different from the same arrangement of letters in the word lichen to exclude a particular pronunciation. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The article isn't about the letter sequence L-I-C-H, it's about a fantasy monter called a "lich." Therefore, it's not about the possible pronunciations of the spelling L-I-C-H, but about the pronunciations of the word lich when it is used to refer to the fantasy monster. Everything else, including "lichen," is irrelevant. We're talking about a word here, not a group of letters. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:42, 24 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)

The old pronunciation of like was not [laɪk], but [liːkə]. Anyway, that's irrelevant. The word lich is pronounced /lɪtʃ/, period. Discussion is moot, unless you actually have a source for some other current pronunciation, not speculations about what the pronunciation might or might not have been a thousand years ago. kwami (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, 400-500 years ago (we're talking late Modern English--Chaucer and Spenser--not Beowulf), but close enough. And I'm not sure how it's speculation about the pronunciation, given the standard IPA of "like" (where do you get the pronunciation you give above?)--and given a non-cognate polygraph (or grapheme or whatever you'd like to call it) is acceptably pronounced /laɪk/ (again, see lichen). As I said, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that some gamers pronounce the word this way, we have a non-cognate term with the same spelling acceptably pronounced this way, and we have this term as an alternate spelling of a cognate term which is pronounced this way (barring you showing where your proposed pronunciation comes from). This seems like it is verifiable, not original research. However, when all is said and done, I don't care if this alternate pronunciation makes it in the article or not, I just don't see any reason to exclude it. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Simple: because interpreting sources for their implications is OR. If you have a reliable source that gamers commonly pronounce it this way, fine, but without that your alleged pronunciation is just that. kwami (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Kwamikagami just beat me to that, but I second what he said above. WP is about the content of the sources, not the "implications" of the sources. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Then you should have no objection to including the alternate pronunciation, since a notable source (Webster) gives "lich" as an alternate spelling for "like" (and without verifiable sources to the contrary, we know from verifiable sources that "like" is pronounced as /laɪk/). So, where is the OR again? Ah, yes, it's in the "implications" that you (or I) draw from the source. Of course--you're neutral and unbiased, and I'm just throwing all sorts of unsupported opinions around--or course. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again..... the dictionary gives "lich" as an alternate spelling for "like," not "like" as an alternate pronunciation for "lich." Since all you're doing at this point is repeating yourself and making the same speculations over and over again, I'm not responding to this anymore. I'm just going to revert if you add any speculation to the article. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Like I said, I have no vested interest in the possible pronunciations of "lich." It is interesting, however, that you admit that a notable, verifiable source gives "lich" as an alternate spelling of "like," yet you are unable to produce any notable, verifiable source for a different pronunciation of "like" than /laɪk/. But that's an unwarranted synthesis, of course (heh). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

China Mieville

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)

Morality and perversity

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)

Alive or Dead

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)

Original Research--NOT!

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)

An OR tag doesn't mean the statement is wrong, only that it needs a reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to speculate and draw connections like this themselves; if this connection is drawn in a published source (which I imagine it has been) then that source should be cited. The tag doesn't mean anyone is asking for that paragraph to be removed; they're just asking for a source. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Origins

While the term Lich is p --Rob W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.192.9 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2004

not an expert at all, but I was paging through an Anglo-Saxon dictionary earlier, and I believe the term lich may come from the uninflected word for 'corpse': līc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.60.250 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 October 2006
Despite all this gaming nonsense, the legends of the lich are quite real (in that the legends absolutely exist) and there are a great many of them. The fictional portrayal of liches are fairly true to the idea as it stands. Whoever linked to The Golden Bough did the right thing -- there are several historical lich legends in there. We should really focus on that instead of the gaming nonsense and that "wonderful" picture that someone put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.248.206 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Removed Skeletor from Lich entry.

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

But then again, Prince Adam was not a part of the original He-Man mythos, either, and yet all the iterations of He-Man after the Filmation cartoon include him. In the 2002 cartoon series, Skeletor was a living person whose facial flesh was burned off by poison. About to die, he then made a bargain with the demonic Hordak to save his life. The process stripped the remaining flesh from his face, changing him into Skeletor. This process could be considered a form of undeath, and Hordak states later in the series that Skeletor's continued existence depends on this magic. But whether this makes Skeletor a true lich is debatable. 24.116.226.59 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Still, what is this about?

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)

Agreed. However, the D&D version has its own article, so that might be a problem. Also, I'll try to find a reliable source for the "Voldemort is a lich" claim. Edit: I took a look, and the only sources I could find are Reddit, SciFi.Stackexchange, TV Tropes, [arsmagisterii.blogspot.com/2017/02/voldemort-is-lich.html some] [thehogshead.org/is-voldemort-undead-or-how-to-lick-a-lich-2696/ blogs], and this article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

please stop with the dungeons and dragons

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)

additional, please review the following. http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?lich http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lich http://dict.die.net/lich/ http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LICH Drag-5 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Its there anything falling under reliable where the magical girls of Puella Magi Madoka Magica fall under "lich" as claimed by TV Trope's Our Liches are Different?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering as how Puella Magi Madoka Magica never even once uses the terms "lich" or "undead" to describe either its magical girls, nor the witches they mature into, AND considering TVTrope's egregious notoriety in allowing personal analyses and really sloppy original research (i.e., that the "Our Liches Are Different" also claims that Jesus Christ is a lich), no, we should not mention the PMMM magical girls here, let alone say that they are an example of liches.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2020 (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)

Okay, I got ill and had to take it very slow, but today I went and cleaned up the section as best I could. I removed entries that I couldn't find non-trivial sources for, and added sources to each entry. There are some of the entries that I don't really think warrant a mention here, but I didn't want to just completely gut the list (just mostly gut it). I went ahead and removed the "unreferenced section" and "in popular culture" tags because I feel like I put a good dent in those issues if not resolved them, but I wanted to at least get the section to a half respectable state. But given that the section is still larger than the entire rest of the article, I'm more than happy to see someone trim it further if they feel it necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stupid Lich picture from Wesnoth

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

If you can find a better picture to illustrate the article with it would be most welcome, and if you draw it yourself even moreso since you can post it under a free licence. Note that the Wesnoth image is under the GPL licence, though, which gives it an advantage over many better-looking but restrictively-licenced (or unlicenced) images out there. By the way, if you're going to make an edit that you know is going to be reverted, you probably shouldn't make the edit in the first place. We've got a guideline on this topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Bryan 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps either of these images may be more appropriate?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/DieVecnaDieCover.jpg)
(http://www.nascr.net/~jcburd/lich.jpg)
66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Those images are copyrighted though. I'm not too happy with the Lich myself (would prefer one with a phylactery, since that is a feature discussed in the article). Perhaps somebody with sufficient skill could draw one? Borisblue 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Amusingly, we're now using a better lich portrait, but it's still from Wesnoth. --Zarel (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a Lich picture that better represents what they look like in popular culture, i was given permission to use it, so im bringing it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Makrsh_P%27Tangh_from_The_4th_Coming.png, there is multiple versions to make the spell look more visible from Dialsoft i can upload later. Matthew Smith (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lich/Archive_1&oldid=1253344848"