D&D 5E Lich's To Weak for Their CR?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you make destroying the phylactery very hard (contrary to Gygax's intent - it bugs me that the 2e people didn't know a phylactery has to go on your head or wrist... but whatever)...

By chance might you have a citation of this intent? I've just checked by 1e monster manual, and the only mention of a phylactery present is in the sentence, "It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery."

 

[MostlyDm]

By chance might you have a citation of this intent? I've just checked by 1e monster manual, and the only mention of a phylactery present is in the sentence, "It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery."

I think you're checking a different reference than he had in mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin

I think he's just saying that in 1e this was assumed by common knowledge of the meaning of the word "phylactery."

In 2e, the phylactery is explicitly stated to often be hidden away. If not stated in this way, "phylactery" is a word with a known meaning.

Sort of like if it said the Lich maintains his status by "certain conjurations, enchantments, and a sexy nose piercing." The assumption would be, barring any other statement, that the nose piercing was actually present in the Lich's nose.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think you're checking a different reference than he had in mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin

I think he's just saying that in 1e this was assumed by common knowledge of the meaning of the word "phylactery."

In 2e, the phylactery is explicitly stated to often be hidden away. If not stated in this way, "phylactery" is a word with a known meaning.

Sort of like if it said the Lich maintains his status by "certain conjurations, enchantments, and a sexy nose piercing." The assumption would be, barring any other statement, that the nose piercing was actually present in the Lich's nose.

I suppose you may be correct, but I remain uncertain that Gygax intended any sort of implication that a lich is maintained in their un-living state by a box containing Hebrew texts on vellum.

Especially when that definition is not the only definition of the word, which a dictionary I've referenced (for my own sanity, not to intentionally be pedantic or argue semantics) lists as having definitions that include a receptacle containing a holy relic, and an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger.

So truly, without something written by Gygax specifying which definition was intended for the reader to assume, I don't think it is fair to state that someone went counter to that intention.

 

[MostlyDm]

I suppose you may be correct, but I remain uncertain that Gygax intended any sort of implication that a lich is maintained in their un-living state by a box containing Hebrew texts on vellum.

Especially when that definition is not the only definition of the word, which a dictionary I've referenced (for my own sanity, not to intentionally be pedantic or argue semantics) lists as having definitions that include a receptacle containing a holy relic, and an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger.

So truly, without something written by Gygax specifying which definition was intended for the reader to assume, I don't think it is fair to state that someone went counter to that intention.

Yeah, makes sense.

I'd say that outside of D&D and fantasy settings that I can't guarantee are clean of D&D influences, most instances of the word phylactery do go back to the Hebrew tradition. But I don't have any hard evidence that it's the most common non-D&D example of the word. Just a general impression.

 

[flametitan]

Yeah, makes sense.

I'd say that outside of D&D and fantasy settings that I can't guarantee are clean of D&D influences, most instances of the word phylactery do go back to the Hebrew tradition. But I don't have any hard evidence that it's the most common non-D&D example of the word. Just a general impression.

Don't forget that Gygax did use plenty of obscure references elsewhere (Gorgon as a bull comes to mind), so even if it's not the immediate definition, he might've used it anyway.

 

[S'mon]

I think you're checking a different reference than he had in mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin

I think he's just saying that in 1e this was assumed by common knowledge of the meaning of the word "phylactery."

In 2e, the phylactery is explicitly stated to often be hidden away. If not stated in this way, "phylactery" is a word with a known meaning.

Sort of like if it said the Lich maintains his status by "certain conjurations, enchantments, and a sexy nose piercing." The assumption would be, barring any other statement, that the nose piercing was actually present in the Lich's nose.

Indeed yes.

Gygax used the word in its normal meaning. There is zero indication of any other intent. Post-Gygax
the word later acquired a game-specific meaning that runs directly counter to its normal meaning: a phylactery in the normal sense of the word is efficacious only because it is worn, on head or wrist, not hidden away.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Gygax used the word in its normal meaning.

There are multiple normal meanings to the word "phylactery."

And I don't think that assuming someone is using the (probably) original meaning of a word, rather than one of the current meanings at the time of said use is a sensible thing to do. Especially given that language often wanders so far as to have a word end up meaning something entirely unlike its former meaning - like "nice" as an example.

 

[S'mon]

There are multiple normal meanings to the word "phylactery."

And I don't think that assuming someone is using the (probably) original meaning of a word, rather than one of the current meanings at the time of said use is a sensible thing to do. Especially given that language often wanders so far as to have a word end up meaning something entirely unlike its former meaning - like "nice" as an example.

Well I've given you my view - in my view there was one dictionary definition of the word in the 1970s and it included attachment to wrist or head. You are free to disagree.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well I've given you my view - in my view there was one dictionary definition of the word in the 1970s and it included attachment to wrist or head. You are free to disagree.

And I must disagree, because it seems more likely to me that the definition of the word phylactery used in the early Christian church according to the dictionary was present in dictionaries in the 1970s than that it was rediscovered as having been used way back then at some point after the 1970s.

So thank you for your ever so gracious permission to have my own opinion.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The classic liches I think of are from Conan, and all act in the field - Thugra Khotan, Xaltotun, and (arguably, at least) Tsotha-lanti.

Their powerful magic gives them the capability to overcome the adventurers that others lack!

That said, it sounds like the lich in @Zardnaar's adventure is a bit more of an accidental enemy than someone who is hell-bent on defeating the PCs? The only summary/review I found of the adventure with a quick Google was this - not very flattering!

1) I was talking about in game rather than in literature.

2) Thematically effective - contributes most strongly to overarching plot. Is most effective at conveying essential themes of the lich - in my opinion: an individual who has deliberately cast aside its humanity leaving an alien intelligence behind; undead; difficult or nearly impossible to kill permanently; returns to life when body destroyed; life force bound to a specific object; powerful spellcaster; generally inscrutable, implacable, and unnaturally patient; evil.

3) Howard was influential in the Sword-and-Sorcery genre that gave rise to D&D, but NONE of those are liches. Thugra Khotan is a mage who puts himself to sleep for a couple thousand years because invaders were about to sack his city. Xaltotun is a deceased high priest who is resurrected exactly ONCE by arcane dabblers using a powerful artifact in the hope that he can teach them secrets about the dark arts. Howard describes them as having unnatural traits, but Howard describes ALL wizard-types as unnatural regardless of whether living or not. A better example of a lich in classic fantasy literature IMO is no less than Tolkien's Sauron - who reforms repeatedly after death, whose life force is tied to a specific item (the one ring), and who, yes, is the equivalent of a sorcerer by middle-earth standards. Sauron operates completely off screen (at least in LOTR), which helps to dehumanize him, play up the theme of an alien mind, and maintain the impact of the threat he poses by keeping it unknown and/or ill defined.