Different Liches [Magic/Horror]

Varyon · 06-28-2020, 05:59 PM

I suppose we should simply agree to disagree on this, maximara. So long as calling something a lich in your games doesn't cause any sort of disconnect/misconceptions for your players, everything should be groovy, it's just been my experience that "lich" brings to mind a fairly narrow definition, with "skeletal" (still having flesh acceptable, but in that case the entity should be exceedingly gaunt with the bones clearly showing through, like the draugr from Skyrim) and "spellcaster" being the most important bits and "has a phylactery" being optional but ideal. I'd be more inclined to accept the titular character from Overlord as a lich (he's a skeletal spellcaster, but doesn't appear to have any sort of phylactery) than I would be to accept Lord Voldemort (who is arguably undead, and certainly has a phylactery - quite a few in fact - but is more akin to a snake-man than a skeleton) as one, for example.

06-28-2020, 05:59 PM	#16
Varyon Join Date: Jun 2013	Re: Different Liches [Magic/Horror] I suppose we should simply agree to disagree on this, maximara. So long as calling something a lich in your games doesn't cause any sort of disconnect/misconceptions for your players, everything should be groovy, it's just been my experience that "lich" brings to mind a fairly narrow definition, with "skeletal" (still having flesh acceptable, but in that case the entity should be exceedingly gaunt with the bones clearly showing through, like the draugr from Skyrim) and "spellcaster" being the most important bits and "has a phylactery" being optional but ideal. I'd be more inclined to accept the titular character from Overlord as a lich (he's a skeletal spellcaster, but doesn't appear to have any sort of phylactery) than I would be to accept Lord Voldemort (who is arguably undead, and certainly has a phylactery - quite a few in fact - but is more akin to a snake-man than a skeleton) as one, for example. __________________ GURPS Overhaul