Ancient Lich

For writers working on documentation, story prose, announcements, and all kinds of Wesnoth text.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
boru
Posts: 788
Joined: November 19th, 2009, 11:02 pm

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by boru »

Perhaps Lich-Lord would be a better name.
“It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can no other.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

My campaign: Swamplings - Four centuries before the founding of Wesnoth, the first wolf rider emerges from a tribe of lowly swamp goblins.

User avatar
A-Red
Art Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 1:21 am

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by A-Red »

boru wrote:Perhaps Lich-Lord would be a better name.
No, because that title is specific to Jevyan's order.

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Dixie »

For the records, I thought that the "Archlich" suggested earlier was good. The "demilich" alternative for the actual standard lich is also ok, I think, if need be.
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth

User avatar
johndh
Posts: 591
Joined: June 6th, 2010, 4:03 am
Location: Music City

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by johndh »

I think calling the L3 ones "demiliches" implies that they're less than the baseline. To me, it seems like the other way around. L3 are the "standard" liches, and L>3 are the ones who go above and beyond to become complete horrors. I think calling the L>3 ones "ancient liches" is fine, but "greater lich", "arch lich", or even "überlich" as Artax once described Raistlin in an old Nodwick cartoon would be good too. :wink:
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.

User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by thespaceinvader »

Yeah, i never liked demilich as a name. Demi means half. A half-lich is less than a whole lich.

Uber-lich is too modernistic.

Archlich doesn't read well, and Arch Lich is kind of weird. Greater Lich could work. I shall consult on IRC about this today I think.
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.

User avatar
pauxlo
Posts: 1047
Joined: September 19th, 2006, 8:54 pm

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by pauxlo »

elvish_sovereign wrote:Hm. From what I understand from the dialogue, every couple years or so (let's say 10 for now) a hero gathers his followers to kill the lich. I've managed to level Malin in the previous scenario before. That's a time span of like - no more than a couple days! That's what I have a problem with. Going from Lich -> Ancient Lich in a couple days is, uh. That's not ancient.
Maybe this could be solved by giving Malin some AMLAs as a "normal" Lich before letting him going to "Ancient", and upping the XP needed a bit.

User avatar
Vladcara
Posts: 143
Joined: March 15th, 2010, 11:16 pm
Location: Farnborough, England

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Vladcara »

Just a suggestion: What about 'Lichmaster'?
'Wow, Brazil's big!'
George Bush, when shown a map of the world

User avatar
Skrim
Posts: 312
Joined: June 10th, 2009, 7:19 am

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Skrim »

Being able to level up in the course of one scenario is not really a big problem here, given the nature of the leveling up mechanic. Magic users supposedly level up by improving their knowledge of magic, studying and practicing their art over time. Creatures like Woses and Trolls level up by simply aging. Even warriors would probably need several weeks of practice and training, along with combat experience, to level up - it's not as if a regiment of spearmen could simply drop their spears and switch to swords in the middle of a battle.

The lore aspect of leveling is thus completely unrelated to the game mechanic. A Wose could level up twice in a single battle and be called Ancient.
Of course, stuff that is not related to game mechanics, and is actually a lore glitch, as in case of the bandit-branch Mal M'brin being an Ancient Lich, are still a problem. This could be solved by making the relatively younger campaign-antagonist Ancient Liches into regular Liches, and making it possible for player-Liches like Ro'Sothian and Mal Keshar to upgrade with a very large amount of XP (Keshar of course, living in his cave for an indefinitely long time, and Ro'Sothian being pretty close to Ancienthood anyway given that his brother has already achieved it).

Schierke
Posts: 37
Joined: March 4th, 2010, 6:00 pm
Location: Colombia.

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Schierke »

I haven't played TRoW so i don't know a lot about the liches there, but from all this discussion i think the best solution is to keep the level 3 Lich, give it a level 4 upgraded Lich for undead baddies in some campaings and have keep the Ancient Lich a side unit but making it a level 5 and only to represent truly ancient characters according to lore.

I like the idea of Liches tailoring their bodies in a non humanoid form but having to keep their original skull as a phylactery for their soul or something along those lines. I think that could be the difference between a level 3 and a level 4 Lich, the later one has forsaken any shred of humanity left in him (or it i should say) and the Ancient Lich is just one of those liches who has gained even greater power in virtue of it's age.

So i think that such a new Lich should be called something like "Horror Lich" or anything that emphasizes it's lack of humanoid form.

User avatar
johndh
Posts: 591
Joined: June 6th, 2010, 4:03 am
Location: Music City

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by johndh »

Let's stay away from the term "phylactery", shall we? A lich using a phylactery makes about as much sense as a rosary or the Five 'K's (i.e. none).
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.

User avatar
Darker_Dreams
Posts: 608
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Darker_Dreams »

phylactery, soul-jar, lichbox, safe, ovule, whatever... we have options for words for any of the concepts as long as everyone knows what we're talking about and (for whatever comment can be added) using the word phylactery in conjunction with lich gets everyone on the same page quickly. I'm not really sure that as a general rule we want to get into the whole concept with wesnoth, as it's not particularly cogent to the type of gameplay, and should probably stay in the realm of UMC and be something UMC creators deal with in their own pieces of work.

Back to the name discussion;

I like archlich, for whatever that's worth. Archangel, archmage, archlich. What's the difficulty?

Other ideas;
Appending to lich;
great lich, grand lich, elder lich

borrowing other recognized undead terms;
revenant

(which dovetails with) Doing what many other games/authors have done and abusing mythology callously;
ammit, dullahan, bai ze, kutabe, this list

Borrowing words that "sound cool"
amort, coronach, ascaridae, annuellar, mortuum, carnifex

User avatar
YB-Betacrow
Posts: 1
Joined: March 4th, 2010, 11:19 pm

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by YB-Betacrow »

thespaceinvader wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:Once a Lich reaches this point, it can leave most of its human bones behind, and begin to incorporate parts of other creatures. This can have high costs for the former necromancer's sanity, however.

The only certain constant is a human skull, the one piece the Lich always retains from its original body, and usually at least one pair of hands, for the casting and preparation of spells.
Are Lichs only human? IIRC, a couple of mainline campaigns had an elvish Lich.

If they are all human, why? I'd think if Humans can use Necromancy, some other races might be able too.

monochromatic
Posts: 1549
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 1:45 am

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by monochromatic »

http://wiki.wesnoth.org/Undead_(race)

Yes, but, as it is written here, it almost solely limited to humans. The only elvish lich I remember is Mebrin in TSG. Can you name anymore? Name three mainline instances, and I guess we could change then.

User avatar
Simons Mith
Posts: 784
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 10:46 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Simons Mith »

Wiki wrote:Necromancy is almost solely limited to humans. Even the legends of magically apt races like elves and mermen tell of very few of their kind who have ever delved in the dark arts. It is surmised that necromantic magic requires great adaptability and a flexible mind, extremes of which are most commonly found in humans.
Perhaps a more complete explanation is that you need a large enough pool of individuals with the right combination of:
a high degree of magical aptitude,
a sufficiently powerful fear of death,
a lack of fear of the adverse consequences of lichdom,
and a comparatively short lifespan.

I think humans might be roughly at the sweet spot of those four traits. Some orcs would love to become liches, but they don' have the magical aptitudes. Elves and mermen, who probably do, are longer-lived and/or innately more respectful of the natural order of things.
 

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Ancient Lich

Post by Dixie »

While I can agree that "the bulk of necromancers are human", to me it is really odd that they'd be the only ones, though. Even long-lived creature can fear death/feel like they'd accomplish more when their time has come, and any society will have that odd individual every once in a while that doesn't fit in with all its value and would go towards necromancy.

Also, saurians would probably make great lich-stuff: as I understanding it, they have insanely short lives, they have somewhat of a gift for magic, they are chaotic/darkness inclined, and they don't look like your average pro-life manifestant to me. I'd really love to see a saurian lich :P
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth

Post Reply