Lich Skill Tree as an alternative to Vamp/WW

Blackhorne

No, I do not like the idea at all.

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromancers make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

Tessitura

Yes, I would like to see the Lich tree made a thing.

Blackhorne wrote: »

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromancers make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

This is why I asked people to read the link concept before voting. If you would please go and take a look you would see a solution to your belief that Liches can not disguise their nature. Liches are powerful mages and can use magic to make their bodies look alive.

Also this is not D&D Liches in TES only use Phylacteries for the ritual its self; once the ritual is complete they no longer need the phylactery.

Finally, Liches in most IPs ( Including TES ) are not just necromancers and it is not just necromancy. Remember TES magic is not like other IPs, The schools are not set by laws of physics and are a subjective concept. Necromancy is not a school by its self and is instead a mixture of schools. A mage does not need to be, ( and sometimes is not. ) a necromancer. It is a form of conjuration, mystism, destruction, and alteration.

The_Sadist

Yes, I would like to see the Lich tree made a thing.

crashen17b14_ESO wrote: »

I vote "No" with a caveat. I am not really opposed to the idea of a lich skill line, because I have always loved them and it has always been preferable to vampires, as far as I am concerned. BUT. I feel like "Yet another undead form" is not really needed. A pure caster life-state would be cool, but I feel like it should be something other than necromancer/lich/etc. I was actually thinking something like "Astromancer", where you gain unique abilities based on your mundus stone, maybe tapping into the power of Aetherius (thus precluding vampire and werewolf astromancers, as they are 'tainted' by oblivion).

So yeah, while I love liches, (Liches get all the ***), I don't think they are the solution. Yet.

It's not meant to be 'yet another undead form', it's meant to be another / alternative world skill line which just so happens to be undead. I don't see why there can't be many types of undead world skill lines, lycanthropy-based skill lines and potentially humanoid ones as well.
Interesting concept, though unheard of in the Elder Scrolls series.

They are not meant to be a solution to anything, they are simply meant to be a pure caster alternative to the current world skill lines. So basically you're saying no because you don't want another undead world skill line? I don't really think that's a proper argument, but fair enough.

Blackhorne wrote: »

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromance rs make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

What games have you been playing? http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich you do realise Liches appear in most, if not all, of the Elder Scrolls games, right? That being said, whoever wrote the description about the Lich in this article is a bit mistaken.

Mannimarco becomes a Lich who looks human in appearance, it isn't a stretch to assume that an incredibly powerful mage would also have access to incredibly powerful spells which could give them the illusion of life. Furthermore, there's a gem in game that turns people into skeletons and they don't appear to have any issue when it comes to questing and whatnot.

They are indeed always in their undead forum, but like I previously mentioned, magic goes a long way. No, in Elder Scrolls the phylactery becomes useless once the transformation is complete, mute point, read the lore. Furthermore, they don't strive to collect souls, this isn't D&D, they strive to gather knowledge at any cost.

What's your point? Vampirism was actually not a disease originally but a curse, likewise, lycanthropy is was also 'cursed' upon people. Yes they ARE diseases, but not all individuals who are afflicted contracted it via a disease, not sure what your point is. Yes and no, not a Liches are Necromancers, but most Necromancers strive to be Liches, take http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Barilzar for example, he was a powerful mage who become a Lich to protect the band from falling into the wrong hands. Given the nature of MMOs obviously there has to be some way to make becoming a Lich viable, the notion that 'No, I don't want it because it's too easy to get' isn't really a strong idea.

Yes and no, you do need to know a degree of Necromancy, but if you've played the main story at some point you make a Flesh Atronach, it's not a far stretch to assume you have a degree of talent.

I suggest reading the lore and coming back, if only to have solid arguments.

Blackhorne

No, I do not like the idea at all.

Tessitura wrote: »

Blackhorne wrote: »

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromancers make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

This is why I asked people to read the link concept before voting. If you would please go and take a look you would see a solution to your belief that Liches can not disguise their nature. Liches are powerful mages and can use magic to make their bodies look alive.

I did read the concept. You didn't solve anything in it; you just redefined lich to be what you wanted it to be.

Also this is not D&D Liches in TES only use Phylacteries for the ritual its self; once the ritual is complete they no longer need the phylactery.

Finally, Liches in most IPs ( Including TES ) are not just necromancers and it is not just necromancy. Remember TES magic is not like other IPs, The schools are not set by laws of physics and are a subjective concept. Necromancy is not a school by its self and is instead a mixture of schools. A mage does not need to be, ( and sometimes is not. ) a necromancer. It is a form of conjuration, mystism, destruction, and alteration.

Really? Then why does UESPWiki say:

Liches are undead necromancers which have embraced the power of Lichdom, placing their soul in an object called a 'Phylactery', which is usually a jar or a chest. They are selfish and power-hungry, destroying all in their searches for souls to repair the Phylactery. Extremely intelligent and powerful, they are always resurrecting if their Phylactery is not crushed.

uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich

You can't just change the definition to suit your personal preference.

I think the idea of playing a lich could be cool, but what you describe in your concept isn't a lich, and what a lich actually is doesn't fit in with the player concept of this game.

Blackhorne

No, I do not like the idea at all.

The_Sadist wrote: »

Blackhorne wrote: »

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromance rs make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

What games have you been playing? http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich you do realise Liches appear in most, if not all, of the Elder Scrolls games, right? That being said, whoever wrote the description about the Lich in this article is a bit mistaken.

Player-character liches don't appear in any Elder Scrolls title.

They are indeed always in their undead forum, but like I previously mentioned, magic goes a long way. No, in Elder Scrolls the phylactery becomes useless once the transformation is complete, mute point, read the lore. Furthermore, they don't strive to collect souls, this isn't D&D, they strive to gather knowledge at any cost.

Cite the lore. According to UESPWiki, they need souls to keep their phylactery intact, and if their phylactery is destroyed, they will not be able to ressurect.

uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich

What's your point? Vampirism was actually not a disease originally but a curse, likewise, lycanthropy is was also 'cursed' upon people. Yes they ARE diseases, but not all individuals who are afflicted contracted it via a disease, not sure what your point is.

My point is, there is a specific event to initiate vampirism or lycanthropy, and that is the only prerequisite. To become a lich in a lore-friendly manner, you'd need to learn more than a little necromancy, and that isn't even possible in this game yet.

Yes and no, not a Liches are Necromancers, but most Necromancers strive to be Liches, take http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Barilzar for example, he was a powerful mage who become a Lich...

As has been said above, necromancy is not incompatible with being a mage. Most mages know some necromancy, so Barilzar being a mage does not negate the possibility of him being a necromancer. Him being a lich confirms that he practiced necromancy.

Yes and no, you do need to know a degree of Necromancy, but if you've played the main story at some point you make a Flesh Atronach, it's not a far stretch to assume you have a degree of talent.

Yo make a Flesh Atronach by folllowing instructions in a lab already set up for making Flesh Atronachs. That's a far cry from mastering the skills for becoming a lich -- skills which, as I've repeatedly mentioned, aren't even in this game yet.

I suggest reading the lore and coming back, if only to have solid arguments.

Yes, you should do that.

The_Sadist

Yes, I would like to see the Lich tree made a thing.

Blackhorne wrote: »

Player-character liches don't appear in any Elder Scrolls title.

Nor do Dragonknights for that matter, and yet they're a class in game. That isn't a good enough reason to not make it an option.

Cite the lore. According to UESPWiki, they need souls to keep their phylactery intact, and if their phylactery is destroyed, they will not be able to ressurect.

uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich

What did I just say? The person who wrote that particular article is misinformed, you choosing to overlook me mentioning that is your own fault.

Here you go: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:The_Path_of_Transcendence

'Yes, a Necromancer must transfer his soul into a physical vessel, but once that transference is complete, once the Necromancer has fully metamorphosed into his lich form, the vessel is inconsequential'.

My point is, there is a specific event to initiate vampirism or lycanthropy, and that is the only prerequisite. To become a lich in a lore-friendly manner, you'd need to learn more than a little necromancy, and that isn't even possible in this game yet.

Fair enough, I can agree with this point. However, if Necromancy becomes a guild skill line or a class, suddenly your argument has no solid ground. If it becomes an option in the future, would you continue to disagree with the concept?

As has been said above, necromancy is not incompatible with being a mage. Most mages know some necromancy, so Barilzar being a mage does not negate the possibility of him being a necromancer. Him being a lich confirms that he practiced necromancy.

My point is not all Liches are Necromancers, yes, you need to have a degree of magical talent to become a Lich using Necromancy. Given lore states that he was a mage and not a Necromancer it's safe to assume that Barilzar wasn't a Necromancer.. This is reiterated given the fact he became a Lich to protect the band from falling into the wrong hands. Furthermore, this is another description of a Lich, which doesn't mention Necromancy, (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tribunal:Lich#Lich).

'A creature which once was a wizard attempting to gain immortality by capturing his soul in an object, turning him undead. A lich can cast powerful magic and resists various attacks. Care should be taken before confronting this enemy because few are known to exist but even fewer are known to tell.'

You make a Flesh Atronach by following instructions in a lab already set up for making Flesh Atronachs. That's a far cry from mastering the skills for becoming a lich -- skills which, as I've repeatedly mentioned, aren't even in this game yet.

And you become a Vampire by doing a quests while being instructed by a vampire, it's not a far cry to assume that a Lich can and may be willing to take on an apprentice or simply teach you how to undertake the ritual.

Yes, you should do that.

Perhaps you should take another look.

Tessitura

Yes, I would like to see the Lich tree made a thing.

Blackhorne wrote: »

Tessitura wrote: »

Blackhorne wrote: »

PC Vampires and Werewolves have provenance in earlier TES titles. Liches, not so much.

That in and of itself is not enough to negate this idea. But vampires and werewolves have one other property that liches do not: they can/do assume the form of the living for significant amounts of time. This makes it quite convenient and realistic for them to interact with the outside world.

Liches, on the other hand, are always in undead form and generally (necessarily?) stay close to their phylactery Their primary goal is the collection of souls. So a PC lich would be limited geographically, and questing would not fit with their motivations.

Finally, vampirism and lycanthropy are diseases which are caught by infection, while lichdom is an (some would say the ultimate) effect of the practice of necromancy. Only the most powerful necromancers make it that far, so the concept of a relatively easy ritual to become a lich doesn't really make sense.

You'd need an entire necromancy skill line to learn first, before being able to become a lich.

This is why I asked people to read the link concept before voting. If you would please go and take a look you would see a solution to your belief that Liches can not disguise their nature. Liches are powerful mages and can use magic to make their bodies look alive.

I did read the concept. You didn't solve anything in it; you just redefined lich to be what you wanted it to be.

Also this is not D&D Liches in TES only use Phylacteries for the ritual its self; once the ritual is complete they no longer need the phylactery.

Finally, Liches in most IPs ( Including TES ) are not just necromancers and it is not just necromancy. Remember TES magic is not like other IPs, The schools are not set by laws of physics and are a subjective concept. Necromancy is not a school by its self and is instead a mixture of schools. A mage does not need to be, ( and sometimes is not. ) a necromancer. It is a form of conjuration, mystism, destruction, and alteration.

Really? Then why does UESPWiki say:

Liches are undead necromancers which have embraced the power of Lichdom, placing their soul in an object called a 'Phylactery', which is usually a jar or a chest. They are selfish and power-hungry, destroying all in their searches for souls to repair the Phylactery. Extremely intelligent and powerful, they are always resurrecting if their Phylactery is not crushed.

uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Lich#Lich

You can't just change the definition to suit your personal preference.

I think the idea of playing a lich could be cool, but what you describe in your concept isn't a lich, and what a lich actually is doesn't fit in with the player concept of this game.

No body redefined anything. It was a suggestion for a solution that is perfectly capable of being added to the game. Liches are mages and have access to alteration and illusion magics. No reason they could not use these to hide in plain sight.

The site you are using for that link is a unofficial lore site. Good for finding books and game quotes. The bestiary is only good for names of creatures but mostly player added speculation on the nature of the entries in it.

Also there is very little in the way of official lore on liches in TES.
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:The_Path_of_Transcendence is the only real piece of lore on the subject of liches. This means there is plenty of room for this game to expand on the nature of Liches in TES.