Talk:Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Changed "he can slay mortals with a mere touch" to "he can put mortals in a paralyzed state of hibernation with a touch, making them seem dead to others", as described of http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm Myomoto 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: The way it's currently worded, the article gives the impression that liches are immediately transformed into skeletal beings. While most depictions of liches show them as such, it is also mentioned (in the Monster Manual, I believe) that their bodies simply become undead, expanded abilities aside. As they exist ("live" is obviously not quite the right word) for years and years in a state of undeath, their bodies naturally decay into the common walking-corpse appearance. The parts about the poison are also, to my knowledge, not commonly listed in the books.
For that matter, the first two paragraphs of the Ecology paragraph are a bit iffy and could use some references. Between the Monster Manual, Libris Mortis, and other publications, there should be no shortage of sources for information. I'm fascinated by the Undead, but unfortunately, the books are expensive, and I don't have as many as I'd like. If someone could look this up it'd be great; otherwise, I'll try to do some research over the weekend or early next week. Xiphe 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Lichdom 

message: The image :Image:DieVecnaDieCover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:DieVecnaDieCover.jpg

message: In the section on good lich, it says that lichdom cannot be forced on an individual, but page 90 of Monsters of Faerun says "...a very few liches sought undeath (or had it forced upon them)...". Very first paragraph of the good lich section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.85.243 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot be forced 

message: What no Wulgreth?, no Skall?  I'm sure we can do better folks. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.192.194 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: add them! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There may have been, but without a citation it's not possible to be certain. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liches list 

message: As I understand it, it's only the first part of the requirements of NFCC - the no-free equivalent part - that is being questioned here. Is that an accurate reading of the situation? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it's NFCC #8 and NFCC #1. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFCC 

message: BOZ, you can unprotect the article if you like. You have my assurance I won't revert if SudoGhost removes the image again. I'm giving up not only on this article but on all D&D articles, as this kind of dispute is more than I can take. I apologize for my edit warring here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed the content unquestioningly failed to meet NFCC, but I see that this is not the case.  That should have been established first, and until the above is resolved, I have no intention of editing the page (in regards to the image) further without a consensus. - SudoGhost 11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry to hear that, Polisher of Cobwebs. :(  I'm afraid that similarly vigorous debates have driven away many other regular D&D-article editors in the past, and hate to see it happen again. I hope you will reconsider at some point in the future. BOZ (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect article, please 

message: Why dies phylactery redirect here? There are several magic items of type "phylactery", is it only because there is no other article on the subject?Sheriffjt (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Phylactery is a disambiguation page, not a redirect.  Phylactery (Dungeons & Dragons) redirects here because that relates specifically to liches in D&D; would you care to elaborate on what other magic item types relate to phylacteries in D&D? 2601:D:9400:3CD:C1BF:FC9D:15E7:A222 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phylactery of Bravery, Phylactery of Faithfulness, Haroistem's Phylactery of Faithfulness, Phylactery of Long Years, Phylactery of Monstrous Attention, and the Phylactery of  of Righteousness. There may be more than that, it seems as though some other reference should be made, or at least make it more clear why it goes straight to Lich.Sheriffjt (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt any of those have the same recognition as the Lich's phylactery, that's why it redirects here. Do you have any third-party sources that note any of these as being particularly notable? - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylactery redirect 

message: I added a footnote that "Phylactery" (meaning amulet and more properly called a "soul box") should not be confused with tefillin, after a friend wrote that she hadn't realized that liches were Jews. My wife and I managed to straighten her out in a 1/2 hour Zoom session.
"Phylacteries" was an unfortunate choice of words in the AD&D Monster Manual, but there is no going back in time to fix that, so I've added a clarification to this article.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the following source for this. While the focus of the book is on the  poetry and philosophy of Michel Deguy and Jacques Derrida, the "Three Phylacteries" section (pg 229-237) breaks down the etymology of the word, the various historical origins and some of the modern usage (including a footnote on D&D on pg 230) in order to give some context on Deguy's work. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Crazy. Eulenbär (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google books finds the most random things. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylactery notes 

message: Sariel Xilo made a 17:37, 26 February 2021 edit with the following edit summary  I don't understand these changes. Namely:
: 1. "The nature and function of this "phylactery" was not explained." I would argue I don't need to source this, since this is evident from the primary source. But removing it for being "unsourced" seems overly harsh. I'll add the page reference momentarily.
: 2. The anchor was moved down, except "phylactery" is first discussed in the earlier section. Please argue why a reader following the redirect Phylactery (Dungeons & Dragons) is better off missing out on this initial info. 
: 3. The link to Phylactery. Ah, yes - the nature of those few disambiguation pages that really do more than just disambiguate :) I obviously realize that normally we shouldn't link to disambiguation articles - the theory being we should link directly to the intended target article - but look at the Phylactery article. The concept of "Phylactery" is explained there and not on any of its target articles. Linking to it was intentional, and I'll add the Phylactery trick to make this clear after hitting Enter here on talk. 
Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:DPL,  which is part of why I removed the sentence you added. The other reason I removed it is because it is unsourced, analysis of the original sourcebook. I also moved the anchor down to the section with the lore on phylactery which includes a note with more details so that's the most relevant part to redirect someone to rather than the publication history section for Liches. The first appearence in publication of a magic item doesn't really tell you anything about the item itself vs the lore section explains what it is and how it is used. The footnote (per Talk:Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)#Phylactery notes) next to the word phylactery also addresses the confusion on types of phlacteries (ie. real world religious items vs game magic items) so we don't need to link to the disambiguation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already explained why I feel it's a good exception to the general "don't link to disambiguation pages" rule. That rule is there because it assumes the disambiguation page is merely a junction of no intrinsic value itself. But there are disambiguation pages that are more than mere junctions. Which is why Wikipedia allows for exceptions to rules. I don't see a good reason not to link to our page on Phylactery - we have one and the reader gets the perfect overview of what that word is and how it is used through it. You claim we don't "need" to link to Phylactery and I'll ask: what if we want to link to Phylactery? That is, the particular construction of our note is not a good argument against the link, since we can easily reword it in that case. (No previous talk section even discusses this link let alone forms a consensus against it). Next, if you're going to be a stickler about the nature and quality of sources you have a lot coming your way when it comes to our articles on role-playing games. Hobby interests are notoriously badly covered once self-published sources are filtered out. Anyway I'd say it is a very harsh interpretation to accuse my addition of unsourced analysis. I am merely reporting what is obvious to any reader of that book in general and the "Lich" entry in particular. CapnZapp (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't have to link to a disambiguation page for an explanation when the explanation is right next to it in the footnote which says: . An argument could be made that we could link it in that footnote (similar idea to hat notes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Re:  I've been working on improving D&D articles for a while especially before they hit AfD. I'm not sure what your familiarity is with the D&D wiki project but Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where has a good roundup of deleted articles & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#So, what is left? has a good roundup of articles to improve. The most common issue with articles (on fictional elements) that go to AfD is poor sourcing (generally a mixture of unsourced statements & primary sources). There's been a push to find secondary sources; the phylactery source talked about above is like a golden goose in terms of finding sources for D&D articles. As it is, the publication history for this article really needs secondary sources as the current sources used in the reception section might not be enough for this article. Thanks for your help! Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off - do not thank me yet. So far, you have reverted all my changes and your stance remains unmoved on accepting any of them. What we're discussing here is your objections to my edits of the article (i.e. WP:BRD). Hopefully we are about to reach a compromise satisfactory to both of us. CapnZapp (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  Now then, again I ask you to please not assume we agree "we do not need" to link to Phylactery. I'm arguing there is value in our readers being aware of the fact we have a page on Phylactery, significant enough to merit an exception from the general rule not to link to disambiguation pages. Do you see why I think Phylactery belongs to the small subset of disambiguation pages that are "more" than just "junctions" to further content? (This isn't the only one - I have come across others). CapnZapp (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  I am well aware between the tension between Wikipedia's general policies and the fact that - if judiciously applied - lead to a severe undercoverage of recent pop-cultural elements such as tabletop role-playing games. Until very recently these were all but ignored by the sources Wikipedia accept (and even now really only D&D ever appear on the radar of RSes). But this isn't really relevant here since I'm arguing we do not need to violate policy to tell the reader "phylactery" was initially used without explanation. While synthesis is not allowed, Wiki policy does allow us to report obvious or trivial facts. And I see no reason to be extra harsh in this case. CapnZapp (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  anchor+link+source 

message: I'm removing this entire <ref> on the word phylactery: From a Classical Greek word meaning Amulet. Not to be confused with the use of "phylactery" as synonym for tefillin, which are worn during prayer services by Orthodox Jewish men. ()
To start with, the referenced text does not support the main thrust of this note. To be clear, it does state, among other things that meanings of "phylactery" include "an amulet", "a kind of vial which a character called the 'Lich' in the role-playing game 'Dungeons and Dragons' needs to preserve its life", and "tephillin" (as it is spelt in the cited text) and that the word "phylactery" itself is of Ancient Greek origin. However, it provides no synthesis between these statements that is relevant to this article and especially to this note in particular. It doesn't even go as far as to state that definitions of the Ancient Greek word included "amulet".
Secondly, after significant investigation, the implication of the note appears to be wrong. Yes, the word "phylactery" does derive from an Ancient Greek word meaning, among other things, "amulet". Yes, the Jewish tefillin is not a soul jar for an undead creature. However, D&D's usage of "phylactery" actually seems to derive from the "tefillin" meaning rather than the generic "amulet" meaning.
The earliest mention of "phylactery" I can find in D&D is in the 1977 Monster Manual which, as this very article currently notes, just briefly includes the word in the lich entry without physical description. The next mention of phylacteries I can find is in the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide. The DMG's glossary directly defines "phylactery" as "An arm wrapping with a container holding religious writings, thus a form of amulet or charm". Additionally, the treasure tables include three phylacteries—of faithfulness, of long years, and of monstrous attention—whose descriptions further specify that they are to be worn by clerics. The idea of phylacteries specifically being liches' soul jars came later—this article suggests 1985's Lair of the Lich and 1988's Lords of Darkness—well after D&D established that the game's usage of the term is derived from tefillin rather than a generic amulet. As such, the "not to be confused with" note is technically true in its most literal sense, but is misleading at best by suggesting there is no direct relation between the meanings.
The best result here probably would not be to remove the note, but rather to expand it to specify that while the meaning is derived from tefillin, the item itself is still distinct. Unfortunately, that note would be based on a synthesis of the timeline of the term's usage in D&D and thus constitutes original research unless there is a qualifying source we can cite. However, while my original research cannot add anything to article, it is still sufficient to remove a misleading-to-incorrect claim that is not sufficiently backed up by citation. - Masterzora (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing phylactery note/citation