The Apotheosis of the Liches [Lich Lore Update]

[GodEmperorFlam 3447]

Liches are weaker than normal people, what're you all on about? They're just skeletal mages which you can smack to kill. Not sure why people are saying they're strong enough as is when that's so far from the truth.

[The Templar 195]

1 minute ago, The Pink Lion said:

Liches are weaker than normal people, what're you all on about? They're just skeletal mages which you can smack to kill. Not sure why people are saying they're strong enough as is when that's so far from the truth.

Considering how a lich can only be smacked to death if they don't roast you first, yeah that's pretty weak. Because they can roast, however, ya gotta get close. Giving them this buff will just make them a nightmare to deal with, particularly since that life-drain comes with the buff. We don't need more life-drainers, too powerful a spell.

[E__V__O 1984]

Liches are physically weaker than normal people. They also can have access to magic and immortal lives as with also having bigger RP benefits, such as stabbing a lich through the chest won't damage them like a normal person and have little to no effect.

 

That also being said this'll give a boon to necromancy liches (Possibly) which then increases a powerboom of necromancy in itself. With that stated with them able to turn people into a tad stronger liches only promotes the eye to be more appealing for players to become a lich. That stated it'll give a server boost of liches (possibly) which I can see this is what the creator wishes. Though more spooky characters are not so needed as it'll only reduce a fear factor people have towards them. 

 

Though that stated, giving an interesting Rp factor is good but giving them more gains now again which can also increase necromatic natures abilities shouldn't be allowed. I don't think necromancers that have been turned to liches should be able to use necromancy as it'll just give them yet another, power boost and substitution of wraith, another immortal being that they can harbor. 

 

You don't need additions to everything and even subtle additions which you can see can be the most inflicting on RP which is why I am against this lore addition. Maybe just put in place the "period" on which the phylactery needs to be refilled to be not so necromancer tied. 

 

Though I see the appeal in creating this lore to make liches more appealing over. The arcane immortals, ext. I just see this to be an addition which shouldn't be considered.

If you wanted this in, then you should've had it in the original lore. Not put it in now due to "Liches are statistically less appealing"

[GodEmperorFlam 3447]

1 minute ago, The Templar said:

Considering how a lich can only be smacked to death if they don't roast you first, yeah that's pretty weak. Because they can roast, however, ya gotta get close. Giving them this buff will just make them a nightmare to deal with, particularly since that life-drain comes with the buff. We don't need more life-drainers, too powerful a spell.

You don't have to get close to a lich at all to kill it. In all my time playing a cleric on both my main and my alt and hanging around the spooky community, I've never seen a lich win a fight. I'm not arguing that giving them life-drain would make them really strong or that this lore is beneficial, but I do believe that liches need some sort of buff.

[Swgrclan 2632]

5 hours ago, Jistuma said:

So... this lore removes four weaknesses of Liches, and adds an astetic soul gem that makes it even less likely to be destroyed (because it's pretty and players and characters don't know what it is)?

 

Weaknesses being removed:

• PK is no longer in effect, player only has to stop playing the lich for 3 months.
• Liches can learn new magics while in lichdom.
• Liches can now do necromancy.
• Liches no longer have a lifespam until having to be refueled.

Weaknesses not being removed, but that you probably wanted to remove:

• Liches will probably still be in the service of the necromancers, because the necromancers create the lich, they have the phylacterie, they control the lich (as in a 'do this or I'll kill you' way).

Advantages being added:

• Necromancers can now become liches and as such have a way to become 'immortal'.
• Some liches can now make new liches.

Weaknesses being added:

• They are weak to lifeforce drain. I think goes again with the fact that you wanted liches to not be in control of necromancers, but then kind of added a weakness that makes them not be a threat to necromancers.

 

 

Can't say I'm in favor of this lore, necromancers already have a powerful end goal that they can achieve, which is wraithdom.

 

I had addressed a lot of these points privately, but for the sake of public understanding I'll repeat a few of them here.

 

1; No, the PK clause is still wholly under effect. In fact, this change suggests that it becomes harsher by preventing the Lich from being revived soon after their phylacteries had been shattered, which by my experience had shown to be a wholly viable option when the security of a Necromancer's Lich was threatened. This now prevents that and puts a buffer zone between the point of phylactery-shattering and the point in time when the Lich can be revived, not will be revived. It's up to the choices of the Lich player and the Necromancers whether or not they should return the Lich after the three month limbo-death period has passed.

 

They may learn new magics under heavily restricted context. Not only has learning rate been doubly-slowed for them, but they also cannot learn certain magics. Divine (of any Aengudaemons) magics, Shade magic and Necromancy are the most prominent types that Liches would be unable to learn. To compound upon both that point and another, yes, they may practice Necromancy under this revision - however, only if they knew it pre-Lichdom. As for longer lifespans, that was a flawed aspect of the last lore revision. Immortality is a given as long as they are "fueled", which happened as to prevent the Lich's death. So... this cuts out the middleman and makes Liches less dependent on what this lore aims to disconnect them from; enslavement.

 

2; I won't dwell on this too much, because a lot of this was based on miscommunication. The idea of literal Lich enslavement via claiming their phylactery is more of an RP dynamic, not an actual weakness in relation to the past-utilized commanding system.

 

3; Yes, they now have a proper goal to work towards instead of conforming to the struggles related to Wraithdom -- of which I never actually defined as the primary means for Necromancers to transcend. I only wrote it as one way to, and clearly established that seeking Wraithdom would never bring assurances of Wraithdom. This does, though, if a Necromancer is willing to sacrifice themselves for fleshless undeath.

 

4; This weakness had already been the case for a long time, it's just being clarified now.

 

2 hours ago, Evark said:

I don't really see a point in this... 

 

It's like you just want to improve an already powerful beast to just give it more appeal to other players to become one. I would vote against this lore as it just seems like "With other dark lores being appealing we need to make this" you already have ghouls and wraiths and writes, you don't need this. -1.

 

36 minutes ago, Evark said:

It does look interesting I won't lie. Though I feel like it's a bigger boost over negatives and strays further from what Lichdom was supposed to represent as with giving necromancy yet another +bonus+. Which is something it does not need.

 

If you read the lore proper, it doesn't actually add any bonuses besides the removal of Necromancer enslavement and the allowance of Liches practicing Necromancy by having been Necromancers before their turning. The same lore still applies, it just makes the concept better because this proposal removes the Lich concept from the boring, grounded, dependent role it's been forced to take - which it is all of those things. Continuous observation of Lich activity has shown the current model is simply uninspired and a bore to play without Liches clinging to Necromancers, whom themselves may go inactive sometimes and subsequently cause their Liches to go inactive.

 

If you think making an already existent concept better and more cohesive for players interested in it, I'm not sure how to make any further approach on that, but this claim that Necromancy is just getting another "bonus" is but a farce. It's the same thing that has existed, only better. Also, Wights don't fall into Necromancy.

 

33 minutes ago, The Templar said:

Ehhh, do we -need- to update liches? Y'all are already plenty powerful as it is.

 

Do we need more holy powers, or more magic types, or, more relevant, fixes to the canon of already existing magic types? Well, no, not really, not if we don't want to improve what is known to be flawed. I wrote this update because I know Lich lore is flawed - because I've observed it being flawed, and others whom also watched it exist for two years agree with it being flawed. So it needs to be fixed so it isn't a general waste of time to dedicate a character to.

[excited 10833]

2 hours ago, Evark said:

I don't really see a point in this... 

 

It's like you just want to improve an already powerful beast to just give it more appeal to other players to become one. I would vote against this lore as it just seems like "With other dark lores being appealing we need to make this" you already have ghouls and wraiths and writes, you don't need this. -1.

Implying that it's a beast in the first place shows you are grossly uninformed Evark, the lore has my support -- as for those claiming it to have excessive strengths you need to keep in mind that gold weapons and divine light normally utterly decimate these creatures anyhow, and that any experienced emote fighter would still be able to theoretically defeat one of these if they played smart. 

[E__V__O 1984]

3 minutes ago, Swgrclan said:

-snip-

 

I was suggesting the primarily of my post to giving prior necromancers the abilities of necromancy once lichdom is created. It provides another clause for an immortal necromatic character (such as wraiths), which gives them an un-needed strength. Just my personal opinion though.

 

Also my apologies for putting Wights under necromancy, it was my assumption that they where (due to a past necromancer being one).

 

2 minutes ago, Aerial said:

-snippie snip-

 

I referred to them as beasts due to that is what I call them IC on the server. I know that they are liches, created by necromancers with the lichdom ritual which consists of multiple necromancers to first be done. I know the lore quite well.

 

As with "divine" or golden weapons effecting them. Yes, they do. As with every dark art user it effects. It doesn't mean that due to that being the case you need to empower something that is already empowered in a RP standpoint. Not everyone has golden weaponry or divine holy powers to counter these 'beasts'.

[Swgrclan 2632]

15 minutes ago, Evark said:

Liches are physically weaker than normal people. They also can have access to magic and immortal lives as with also having bigger RP benefits, such as stabbing a lich through the chest won't damage them like a normal person and have little to no effect.

 

That also being said this'll give a boon to necromancy liches (Possibly) which then increases a powerboom of necromancy in itself. With that stated with them able to turn people into a tad stronger liches only promotes the eye to be more appealing for players to become a lich. That stated it'll give a server boost of liches (possibly) which I can see this is what the creator wishes. Though more spooky characters are not so needed as it'll only reduce a fear factor people have towards them. 

 

Though that stated, giving an interesting Rp factor is good but giving them more gains now again which can also increase necromatic natures abilities shouldn't be allowed. I don't think necromancers that have been turned to liches should be able to use necromancy as it'll just give them yet another, power boost and substitution of wraith, another immortal being that they can harbor. 

 

You don't need additions to everything and even subtle additions which you can see can be the most inflicting on RP which is why I am against this lore addition. Maybe just put in place the "period" on which the phylactery needs to be refilled to be not so necromancer tied. 

 

Though I see the appeal in creating this lore to make liches more appealing over. The arcane immortals, ext. I just see this to be an addition which shouldn't be considered.

If you wanted this in, then you should've had it in the original lore. Not put it in now due to "Liches are statistically less appealing"

 

You keep speaking about power enhancement when there is no mention of that in the first place; that's not how Necromancy works. If an adept Necromancer becomes a Lich, they're still an adept Necromancer. If a master Necromancer becomes a Lich, they're still a master Necromancer.

 

How would letting the current concept stew in it's flaws justify a "you should've done it before" argument? No one knew that Liches would be so dull after all this time, but we do now, so we're gonna fix it and this is how it'll be done.

 

Edit:

 

Wraiths =/= Necromancers. It's improper to claim Wraiths are a viable means for Necromancer immortality when there's a number cap on them (only four can exist) and that Wraiths aren't intended to be for Necromancers in the first place. This change is for Necromancers.

[E__V__O 1984]

I do like this suggestion and idea, though my only quirm with this is that you shouldn't allow liches to have necromancy (if you remember the deal with Archmage_Cataris you can see why as one example). It makes a sense of giving them a life-drain but using a lifeforce which is tethered from a phylactery should at least have a delay to it being not existent as it creates a powerboom to them in a role play force. That is all I say to this. 

 

I hope you can see my reasoning as with my spelling I apologies due to English not being my first language and not being able to spell correctly.

[The Templar 195]

8 minutes ago, Swgrclan said:

Wraiths =/= Necromancers. It's improper to claim Wraiths are a viable means for Necromancer immortality when there's a number cap on them (only four can exist) and that Wraiths aren't intended to be for Necromancers in the first place. This change is for Necromancers.

Wait, so what's the point of a wraith then?

[Swgrclan 2632]

3 minutes ago, The Templar said:

Wait, so what's the point of a wraith then?

 

To act as an antagonistic presence or a challenge for players to confront or interact with however they choose to. Necromancy only acts as their structure and the means to achieve that kind of role, it does not define it.

[The Templar 195]

2 minutes ago, Swgrclan said:

 

To act as an antagonistic presence or a challenge for players to confront or interact with however they choose to. Necromancy only acts as their structure and the means to achieve that kind of role, it does not define it.

 

Huh. I suppose I can get behind the buff, then. I thought the whole wraith thing -was- your endgame. +1

[KarmaDelta 968]

To be honest, it is being experimented on in RP and enhanced too.

Why wouldn't they want to make their creations more powerful?

[excited 10833]

1 hour ago, Evark said:

 

I was suggesting the primarily of my post to giving prior necromancers the abilities of necromancy once lichdom is created. It provides another clause for an immortal necromatic character (such as wraiths), which gives them an un-needed strength. Just my personal opinion though.

 

Also my apologies for putting Wights under necromancy, it was my assumption that they where (due to a past necromancer being one).

 

 

I referred to them as beasts due to that is what I call them IC on the server. I know that they are liches, created by necromancers with the lichdom ritual which consists of multiple necromancers to first be done. I know the lore quite well.

 

As with "divine" or golden weapons effecting them. Yes, they do. As with every dark art user it effects. It doesn't mean that due to that being the case you need to empower something that is already empowered in a RP standpoint. Not everyone has golden weaponry or divine holy powers to counter these 'beasts'.

Gold and divine light doesn't necessarily act as a smashing force to Dark Magi who aren't tainted (i.e. Necromancers) rather it is the orbs of light or Ascended holy fire that does. Ascended fire because the soul is messed up, the orbs of light because the orbs hurt all people Dark Mage or not. 

[The Templar 195]

13 minutes ago, Aerial said:

Gold and divine light doesn't necessarily act as a smashing force to Dark Magi who aren't tainted (i.e. Necromancers) rather it is the orbs of light or Ascended holy fire that does. Ascended fire because the soul is messed up, the orbs of light because the orbs hurt all people Dark Mage or not. 

What, no love for the best of the three? Our swords still slice and dice, you know! <3