THE PACK Message Boards

Hamster wrote:What the hell is a Lich?

Shadow Wulf wrote:I think what he means is leach

'Lich' is correct. A lich is a being that defies death through magic. They are usually proficient in necromancy, and are often represented as powerful skeletons. They are among the most powerful undead.

Here is a passable representation:


-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:

Hamster wrote:What the hell is a Lich?

Shadow Wulf wrote:I think what he means is leach

'Lich' is correct. A lich is a being that defies death through magic. They are usually proficient in necromancy, and are often represented as powerful skeletons. They are among the most powerful undead.

Here is a passable representation:


-- Vilkacis

Cool! I might draw that. Not a Vamp and Lich but a Lich itself.

Hamster wrote:What the hell is a Lich?

You know what a skeleton is, right?

Take one, and give it nigh-godly magickal abilities. Thats a Lich.

Liches are generally made when a spellcaster gives up his flesh for the magick power and unending life that a Lich has. Liches, also have a really annoying item called a Phylactory, which contains the soul, and they can reform from this item if killed, usually requiring the destruction of the phylactory to destroy them for good.

As ancient and extremely powerful creatures, not to mention pretty hard to kill, they tend to be realyy really really really arrogant....

Edit: Damn, Vilkacis beat me. With a cool picture no less!

*shakes fist*

Hey, do you want me to draw wings on the vamp? I drew him in its true form.

Fenrir wrote:The only good vampire was dracula you got to give him credit he liked werewolves/wolves he may have been one of just a few but he said it

*wolf howels*

Listen to them the children of the night, what music they make

Ah crap I'am doing it again aren't I i'am defending the said that i hate

DARN IT!!!!!!!!!

It's odd...but despite all my dislike for Vampires in general, for some reason I find the Character DRACULA quite interesting. A whole army of vampires (and goth vampire-wanna-be's), is pretty annoying to me...but when it is just THE Vampire, then the characters presence is quite powerful.

The rest of the vamps can burn in the sunlight for all I care, (good riddance), but I've got to give props to the old Prince of Darkness.

Whether represented as Butt Ugly or Devilishly Hansome, Dracula has a certain Charisma and Presence that I can't help but respect.

I always viewed Vamps as Humans with fangs, myself, maybe some neato glowy eyes. Maybe claw-ish fingernails...but i've never been much of a fan of winged Vampires. Unless they turned into a bat or something, that is.


No 'True form'. Reeks of Van-Helsing.

Vuldari wrote:

Fenrir wrote:The only good vampire was dracula you got to give him credit he liked werewolves/wolves he may have been one of just a few but he said it

*wolf howels*

Listen to them the children of the night, what music they make

Ah crap I'am doing it again aren't I i'am defending the said that i hate

DARN IT!!!!!!!!!

It's odd...but despite all my dislike for Vampires in general, for some reason I find the Character DRACULA quite interesting. A whole army of vampires (and goth vampire-wanna-be's), is pretty annoying to me...but when it is just THE Vampire, then the characters presence is quite powerful.

The rest of the vamps can burn in the sunlight for all I care, (good riddance), but I've got to give props to the old Prince of Darkness.

Whether represented as Butt Ugly or Devilishly Hansome, Dracula has a certain Charisma and Presence that I can't help but respect.

*sigh* I have to admit that too. I really like the 1992 Dracula verison.

With Gary Oldman? That's my favorite portrayal of Dracula ever. The only other vampire I like is Lestat. I can't wait to see your drawing Hamster! Are you still working on it?

Black Shuck wrote:With Gary Oldman? That's my favorite portrayal of Dracula ever. The only other vampire I like is Lestat. I can't wait to see your drawing Hamster! Are you still working on it?

Yep! ....Oh yeah, it's done:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/21649320/

Hamster wrote:

Black Shuck wrote:With Gary Oldman? That's my favorite portrayal of Dracula ever. The only other vampire I like is Lestat. I can't wait to see your drawing Hamster! Are you still working on it?

Yep! ....Oh yeah, it's done:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/21649320/

I like it, satisfactorily gorey.

That's wicked!! Love it!! You do great artwork Hamster!

*sigh* Here we go again.
Pardon me for being blunt, but I find these kinds of threads extremely immature. I really can not see any reason to hate a fictitious being. If you don't like them, don't read the stories and don't watch the movies, simple as that.

So, vampires are nothing but bloodsucking snobs, eh? Well, maybe. After all, werewolves are nothing but drooling, man-eating brutes, right?
Open mind, people. Open mind.

Black Shuck wrote:That's wicked!! Love it!! You do great artwork Hamster!

Thanks guys. What really sucks is that looks better in person.


Ok Merrypaws, you have a point but it works like this. Have you ever watched a tv show and liked a character but don't like another? This is whats going on. I mean, we aren't syaing, "Vamps are poopyheads" we just don't like the character. They haven't harmed up or anything. Some people just don't like something or someone just because.

Merrypaws wrote:*sigh* Here we go again.
Pardon me for being blunt, but I find these kinds of threads extremely immature. I really can not see any reason to hate a fictitious being. If you don't like them, don't read the stories and don't watch the movies, simple as that.

So, vampires are nothing but bloodsucking snobs, eh? Well, maybe. After all, werewolves are nothing but drooling, man-eating brutes, right?
Open mind, people. Open mind.

Oh...but I LIKE to hate vampires...

...that is...we all suffer in this world, and therefore develop a natural desire to lash back and take revenge upon the Black evils that destroy our White lives.

However, in reality, everything is composed of varying shades of Grey, and so it is difficult, if not impossile to know what it is we should dirrect our anger towards.

That is why Pure Black Evils like Vampires are so common in liturature...because it is refreshing to come across something that you have no doubts about. You KNOW it is Evil, and that you are allowed and have every right to HATE it.


What is being discussed here is the seemingly irrational, (in our eyes) , trend of these entities of Pure Evil being portrayed and culturally accepted as "Cool" and the state of being as "desirable".

...where as, to us, they are dispicable, arrogant punks that prey on the weak and lack any qualities that make them more Charasmatic (pasty skin? ...people Like that?!?...), ultimately leaving them as creatures to be despised...not idolized.

Werewolves, on the other hand...



...maybe I'm just thinking about this too hard.
*OW*...My Brain Hurts. I think it's time for me to go to sleep.

Werewolves Rule!!! "Awroooooooooooooo!!!..."

...


....................*thunk* ......... ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Vampires are just something that peole love to hate, and who can blame them? Werewolves (which bring us all together here) are always second banana to them. Vampires are displayed as rich (or at least not dirt frickin poor) and sophisticated. Werewolves are always living in ghettoes. Even in Harry Potter, Remus Lupin was a hagard man who wasn't "ritzy" or anything. What was good about his portrayal was that he was smart and nice and did not want to harm others. If it's silly to hate something ficticious, I'd find it equally silly to love something that's also ficticious. Just me and what I think though...

Ooh, debate! Yay!

Vuldari wrote:That is why Pure Black Evils like Vampires are so common in liturature...because it is refreshing to come across something that you have no doubts about. You KNOW it is Evil, and that you are allowed and have every right to HATE it.

Okay, newsflash: Nowdays nothing, and I mean NOTHING is pure black or white. Especially the apparently much-hated "modern vampire".
Vampires began as dead farmers that crawled out of their graves to prey on their living relatives. In the middle ages they were accused of spreading the plague. Back then they really were beings of evil. But then came the horror/romance literature of 19th century, which turned them into refined aristocrats. These creatures, while they drank blood and killed people and all that, were sophisticated, outwardly most respectable people. Many were described to even have outstanding (if dark) sense of humor.
These new vampires didn't always even want the unlife they were forced to lead. One of the early vampire novels, 'Varney the Vampire: The Feast of Blood', which is believed to have inspired 'Dracula', portays a good man who has fallen into the clutches of evil and is forced to harm others. In the end of the story he kills himself by jumping into the crater of Vesuvius.

Black Shuck wrote:Werewolves (which bring us all together here) are always second banana to them. Vampires are displayed as rich (or at least not dirt frickin poor) and sophisticated. Werewolves are always living in ghettoes.

Often, not always. I'm sure you remember king Lycaon who was turned into wolf by Zeus. And in the middle ages a frenchwoman named Marie de France wrote a story called 'Lay of the Werewolf', which was about a baron who turned into a wolf on three nights every week.
It is true though, that werewolves are generally looked down upon. I really don't understand why.

Black Shuck wrote:Vampires are just something that peole love to hate, and who can blame them? Werewolves (which bring us all together here) are always second banana to them. Vampires are displayed as rich (or at least not dirt frickin poor) and sophisticated. Werewolves are always living in ghettoes.

To dredge up White Wolf again;

The dirt-poor ugly SOBs of Vampires in WoD are the nosferatu. Becoming one of these makes one ugly as sin, forcing the Nosferatu to hang out in dark alleys and sewers and such. Basically making them the street-rats of Vampire society.

Theres other less than sophisticated bloodlines, but Nosferatu are a pretty solid example of Vampires who don't sit in manors and seduce pretty women while drinking a glass of blood.



I find the stereotypical Prentious snobbish Vampire as tiresome as the Brutal mindless bloodthristy Weewolf. *shrug*

Ok, there was already a Vampire/Werewolf thread. I merged the 2 together.

Has anyone ever made a movie about Liches? That actually might be pretty interesting--although the Picture of Dorian Gray is a little similar to Liches (if you're going by the way they portray them in D&D--a Liches life is bound to a phylactery it creates).

For clarification, I DO like werewolves better than vampires. A lot.

Mmm.... Same here. Werewolves are defiantly better in my opinion. I don't like vampires, though at times I do find their movies quite amusing to watch. Now, I don't agree with all the madness and hate against the vampires all that much.

Werewolves are often seen as bloodthirsty, man-killing, evil brutes, correct? The hounds of hell, correct? At least, that's how most people see them, aye? But we don't agree with that, because we're fans and such... But that's not to say that that's why some people are fans of the werewolf.

Now, samething with the vampires. Some people like them because they are evil and the so called embodiment of darkness. Others like them for the characteristics and powers they've developed over the years. What with their aristocracy, charm, and the fact they've gone from nostferatu(sp?) to drop dead gorgous models.

We think werewolves have a soft side and the ability to love even in their wolfen forms. So do the fans of the vampires. We think that werewolves don't deserve all the bad rep they've gotten through legends and movies. So do they. Dispite all the hatred I've seen between the two fan bases, we have a lot in common, I think.

I'm not saying, "LET'S ALL LOVE THE VAMPIRES!!" No. As I said above, I don't particularly mind for them myself. But this close mindedness on the subject of vampires was beginning to irk me a little. And no I'm not defending the fans of the vampires. I'm just trying to point out how they view the CHARACTER that is the vampire.

... Wow that was a long post. o.0;;

And on a completely different note, I just watched 'The Howling'. Cool movie.

Wolfhanyou wrote:Mmm.... Same here. Werewolves are defiantly better in my opinion. I don't like vampires, though at times I do find their movies quite amusing to watch. Now, I don't agree with all the madness and hate against the vampires all that much.

Werewolves are often seen as bloodthirsty, man-killing, evil brutes, correct? The hounds of hell, correct? At least, that's how most people see them, aye? But we don't agree with that, because we're fans and such... But that's not to say that that's why some people are fans of the werewolf.

Now, samething with the vampires. Some people like them because they are evil and the so called embodiment of darkness. Others like them for the characteristics and powers they've developed over the years. What with their aristocracy, charm, and the fact they've gone from nostferatu(sp?) to drop dead gorgous models.

We think werewolves have a soft side and the ability to love even in their wolfen forms. So do the fans of the vampires. We think that werewolves don't deserve all the bad rep they've gotten through legends and movies. So do they. Dispite all the hatred I've seen between the two fan bases, we have a lot in common, I think.

I'm not saying, "LET'S ALL LOVE THE VAMPIRES!!" No. As I said above, I don't particularly mind for them myself. But this close mindedness on the subject of vampires was beginning to irk me a little. And no I'm not defending the fans of the vampires. I'm just trying to point out how they view the CHARACTER that is the vampire.

Dude, can I hug you? Please? I'm hoping the skill to put thoughts into words will rub off.

And just for the record, I do prefer werewolves, but I like vampires too.

Scott Gardener wrote: Running water: vampire lore, but people mistakingly believed that wolves would also avoid running water because it was "pure," not because it would hurl a hapless dog-paddler against rocks.

Actually, the water thing in both vampire lore and shapeshifter lore probably comes from witchcraft folklore. Water was thought to have anti-witch properties, and running water was thought to be particularly effective in reversing spells or enchantments.

In the case of shapeshifters, I've come across a lot of legends about shapeshifters being forced to assume human form if they wade into running water (in some cases, this is extended to any water, as in Italian legends where a bucket of water thrown on a werewolf will return it to human form). It was assumed that werewolves were under an enchantment (sometimes of their own making, sometimes a "curse" cast on them by someone else) and that running water would break the enchantment, at least temporarily, that kept them in beast form.

In the case of vampires, they were often viewed as dead bodies (sometimes rotten!) that had been given a semblence of life by magic. In this case, getting rid of the enchantment was deadly. You go from undead to really dead if the magic gets turned off.

Running water is also supposed to be a barrier to ghosts in some folklore, and also to bar the passage of certain other magical creatures. One of my favorites is kelpies, who show a delicious irony. Despite the fact that they are water creatures, they are not supposed to be able to cross running water (or, in some legends, saltwater kelpies can't cross freshwater and vice versa).

Jamie wrote:

Scott Gardener wrote: Running water: vampire lore, but people mistakingly believed that wolves would also avoid running water because it was "pure," not because it would hurl a hapless dog-paddler against rocks.

One of my favorites is kelpies, who show a delicious irony. Despite the fact that they are water creatures, they are not supposed to be able to cross running water (or, in some legends, saltwater kelpies can't cross freshwater and vice versa).

That is ironic. So does that mean that the kelpie can't live in rivers? Or at least fast flowing rivers?

Merrypaws wrote:Dude, can I hug you? Please? I'm hoping the skill to put thoughts into words will rub off.

And just for the record, I do prefer werewolves, but I like vampires too.

Um.... sure.

Wolfhanyou wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Scott Gardener wrote: Running water: vampire lore, but people mistakingly believed that wolves would also avoid running water because it was "pure," not because it would hurl a hapless dog-paddler against rocks.

One of my favorites is kelpies, who show a delicious irony. Despite the fact that they are water creatures, they are not supposed to be able to cross running water (or, in some legends, saltwater kelpies can't cross freshwater and vice versa).

That is ironic. So does that mean that the kelpie can't live in rivers? Or at least fast flowing rivers?

There are legends of river kelpies, but I've never heard a mention of those not-crossing-running-water beliefs in river kelpie legends. Most kelpies live in lakes or the sea. These often cannot cross running water. However, you can't expect folklore to be entirely consistent. I've often come across beliefs, held by the same culture, that contradict each other or just plain don't make sense. Folklore is like that. Its not like a fantasy novel, where one writer can build a an internally consistent scenario of what werewolves are and how they work. I find it funny that a creature of the water could be "allergic" to running water.

As a side note, the novel Dracula considered the sea to be running water most of the time- because the tide is either running in or running out. Dracula could only enter or exit a ship at the exact moment that the tide changed. Then, he was stuck (on land or on the ship) until the tide changed again. Also, he was taken upriver on a boat one time by assistants. This was allowed because he didn't move himself, he was moved by others.

Jamie wrote:

Wolfhanyou wrote:

Jamie wrote: One of my favorites is kelpies, who show a delicious irony. Despite the fact that they are water creatures, they are not supposed to be able to cross running water (or, in some legends, saltwater kelpies can't cross freshwater and vice versa).

That is ironic. So does that mean that the kelpie can't live in rivers? Or at least fast flowing rivers?

There are legends of river kelpies, but I've never heard a mention of those not-crossing-running-water beliefs in river kelpie legends. Most kelpies live in lakes or the sea. These often cannot cross running water. However, you can't expect folklore to be entirely consistent. I've often come across beliefs, held by the same culture, that contradict each other or just plain don't make sense. Folklore is like that. Its not like a fantasy novel, where one writer can build a an internally consistent scenario of what werewolves are and how they work. I find it funny that a creature of the water could be "allergic" to running water.

As a side note, the novel Dracula considered the sea to be running water most of the time- because the tide is either running in or running out. Dracula could only enter or exit a ship at the exact moment that the tide changed. Then, he was stuck (on land or on the ship) until the tide changed again. Also, he was taken upriver on a boat one time by assistants. This was allowed because he didn't move himself, he was moved by others.

Interesting. And yay for loopholes!