Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1095027That's not what I meant.

Did you notice the question? You still haven't explained your point. You under no obligation to do so, but I'm done with this beating-around-the-bush and not saying anything. Can't carry on a conversation that way.

Quote from: Pat;1095032Did you notice the question? You still haven't explained your point. You under no obligation to do so, but I'm done with this beating-around-the-bush and not saying anything. Can't carry on a conversation that way.

I'm not sure Box even HAS a point beyond not liking the way D&D catagorized its monsters and getting vaguely upset that others don't actually care.

Personally, all the undead in my system setting fall into Animated (mindless), Wights (intelligent corporeal) and Wraiths (bodiless intelligent). I chose those over other options because Wight and Wraith both start with 'W' and it felt like a people who regularly dealt with the undead would have similar sounding words for the two main types. I chose commonly known words for the undead because while the people in that world don't speak English, I'm translating it all to English and whatever they're calling it would be as easily understood by them as wight and wraith are by us.

Lich is a title taken by Necromancers who have transitioned into a wight with their spellcasting intact.

Ghoul is what people call wights whose favor with the dark powers gives them the ability to disguise themselves by consuming mortals' flesh or blood (I did go back to the mythic roots of ghouls who were more demonic and often shapeshifters and basically Arabic Vampires because my demons are, overall, based on Middle Eastern mythology; Ifrit, Jinn, Shedim, Kullu, Dybbuk, Gallu, etc.). Because they are almost always encountered wearing a mortal's face, the common folk think of them as very different than a wight even if they actually are one.

Death Knight is a title given to any wight sufficiently powerful to wrangle a group of undead into an organized military force. A Death Lord is a wight who's organized multiple Death Knights into a sort of Kingdom of the Dead.

A Mummy is any wight whose body was wrapped and preserved to protect it from the harsh sun of the Blood Wastes (all undead burn in direct sunlight in my setting; overcast skies or full body covering prevents it). Thus, there are Animated Mummies (mindless undead), Mummy Wights, Mummy Liches, Mummy Death Knights and Mummy Death Lords (Ghouls instead opt for disguises that keep them out of direct sunlight or wear the full robes of the desert nomads who reside in the Blood Wastes).

This also made them easier to stat, since they're all basically Wight+ (wight+spellcaster, wight+elite warrior, wight+hypnotic shapeshifter).

Quote from: Pat;1095032Did you notice the question? You still haven't explained your point. You under no obligation to do so, but I'm done with this beating-around-the-bush and not saying anything. Can't carry on a conversation that way.

I'm sorry. We seem to be suffering miscommunication.

Quote from: Pat;1095019What are you arguing? That D&D monster names should be longer, so you can use the shorter names more loosely?

Only for the minority of monster names that contradict their dictionary entries and the more well-known mythology, like lich, wight, and gorgon. Call the lich a "lichame,"* "liche lord", "no life king" or something and note the dictionary definition of "lich". Call the wight a "barrow-wight," "crypt-wight," "grave-wight", "mort-wight," "lich-wight," or whatever and note the dictionary definitions of "wight." Call the gorgon an "iron catoblepas" and call the medusa a "gorgon."

*With lichame in particular you could note how it is a compound of lich ("corpse") and hame ("afterbirth; covering; horse collar") and note the possible complement to phylactery meaning "amulet, reliquary, safeguard." A shrouded corpse-shell that keeps its soul guarded within a container for relics. Good wordplay or no? (Of course after centuries of linguistic drift this might not be apparent to fantasy world people. From there it could also be expanded to include death knights and mummies as variants since they have their panoplies and canopic jars as their phylacteries.)

Quote from: Pat;1095032Did you notice the question? You still haven't explained your point. You under no obligation to do so, but I'm done with this beating-around-the-bush and not saying anything. Can't carry on a conversation that way.

I'm sorry. We seem to be suffering miscommunication.

Quote from: Pat;1095019What are you arguing? That D&D monster names should be longer, so you can use the shorter names more loosely?

Only for the minority of monster names that contradict their dictionary entries and the more well-known mythology, like lich, wight, and gorgon. Call the lich a "lichame,"* "liche lord", "no life king" or something and note the dictionary definition of "lich". Call the wight a "barrow-wight," "crypt-wight," "grave-wight", "mort-wight," "lich-wight," or whatever and note the dictionary definitions of "wight." Call the gorgon an "iron catoblepas" and call the medusa a "gorgon."

*With lichame in particular you could note how it is a compound of lich ("corpse") and hame ("afterbirth; covering; horse collar") and note the possible complement to phylactery meaning "amulet, reliquary, safeguard." A shrouded corpse-shell that keeps its soul guarded within a container for relics. Good wordplay or no? (Of course after centuries of linguistic drift this might not be apparent to fantasy world people. From there it could also be expanded to include death knights and mummies as variants since they have their panoplies and canopic jars as their phylacteries.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1095105I'm not sure Box even HAS a point beyond not liking the way D&D catagorized its monsters and getting vaguely upset that others don't actually care.

I wouldn't say I'm upset that others might not care. I'd probably get upset if people were actively hostile, which you aren't. If I decided to use "lich" and "wight" in more general sense, like in "lich-slave" (zombie) or "lich-knight" (an undead knight) or "lich-owl" (an owl that haunts cemeteries) or "forge-wight" (the fiery spirit of a forge) or "house-wight" (the spirit of a heart and home), then would you guys get hostile over it? I don't expect you to.

Words can have multiple meanings that require context and/or qualifiers to distinguish.

Quote from: Chris24601;1095105Personally, all the undead in my system setting fall into Animated (mindless), Wights (intelligent corporeal) and Wraiths (bodiless intelligent). I chose those over other options because Wight and Wraith both start with 'W' and it felt like a people who regularly dealt with the undead would have similar sounding words for the two main types. I chose commonly known words for the undead because while the people in that world don't speak English, I'm translating it all to English and whatever they're calling it would be as easily understood by them as wight and wraith are by us.

Lich is a title taken by Necromancers who have transitioned into a wight with their spellcasting intact.

Ghoul is what people call wights whose favor with the dark powers gives them the ability to disguise themselves by consuming mortals' flesh or blood (I did go back to the mythic roots of ghouls who were more demonic and often shapeshifters and basically Arabic Vampires because my demons are, overall, based on Middle Eastern mythology; Ifrit, Jinn, Shedim, Kullu, Dybbuk, Gallu, etc.). Because they are almost always encountered wearing a mortal's face, the common folk think of them as very different than a wight even if they actually are one.

Death Knight is a title given to any wight sufficiently powerful to wrangle a group of undead into an organized military force. A Death Lord is a wight who's organized multiple Death Knights into a sort of Kingdom of the Dead.

A Mummy is any wight whose body was wrapped and preserved to protect it from the harsh sun of the Blood Wastes (all undead burn in direct sunlight in my setting; overcast skies or full body covering prevents it). Thus, there are Animated Mummies (mindless undead), Mummy Wights, Mummy Liches, Mummy Death Knights and Mummy Death Lords (Ghouls instead opt for disguises that keep them out of direct sunlight or wear the full robes of the desert nomads who reside in the Blood Wastes).

This also made them easier to stat, since they're all basically Wight+ (wight+spellcaster, wight+elite warrior, wight+hypnotic shapeshifter).

Alliterative appeal is great. One of the dictionary meanings of wight is "intelligent being, particularly regarded as unfortunate." It isn't too much of a stretch that some Anglo-fantasians might apply it in this sense (or the fantasy language translation) to intelligent walking corpses.

That undead rank progression I linked to a few posts back listed "wight" as a generic term for 3-4 HD undead (more specifically: mummified wight, rotting wight, skeletal wight, ghostly wight, spectral wight) and "liche lord/elder/ancient" as the 7+ HD ranks for rotting and skeletal undead (which makes linguistic sense since the distinction between the two ceases by that point). The "spectral liche lord/elder/ancient" is the ghostly/spectral variant.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1095111Alliterative appeal is great. One of the dictionary meanings of wight is "intelligent being, particularly regarded as unfortunate." It isn't too much of a stretch that some Anglo-fantasians might apply it in this sense (or the fantasy language translation) to intelligent walking corpses.

Except you AGAIN keep missing the point because you're stuck in some retrograde etymological straight jacket.

I. DON'T. CARE that an ancient, obsolete and all but forgotten definition of 'wight' could be tortured into fitting my definition of undead. I care that, between Tolkein, D&D and the most popular television show of the last decade (Game of Thrones in case you were living under a rock), "Wight" is a word that anyone with even an ounce of fantasy pop culture awareness will recognize as an undead creature.

I bet less than one-in-a-thousand people who play fantasy themed games have even heard the term "lich" referring to anything but undead spellcasters and trying to apply it to every type of undead is just going to confuse people.

Literally (in the modern sense, meaning "figuratively") no one cares but you about what these words meant 500 years ago. We care about what they mean NOW so that we can communicate efficiently with each other.

In the case of D&D, being able to call something a zombie, wight, ghoul, lich, mummy, vampire, spectre, shadow, wraith, ghost, etc. is efficient use of the language because they refer to different sets of mechanics within the game.

All your insistent terminology does is make things take twice as long to say/write without any increase in clarity. Real students of language would probably have a desire to slap you for wanting to make the language used in games less understandable and efficient just because you're pulling the same stupid thing that every amateur enthusiast does; thinking this new thing you just learned is the most fascinating and important thing that everyone must embrace.

It's not. No one cares unless there's actually a practical use for it. I love the fact that etymological root of Lord is the same as for Guard and Ward/Warden (the Old English "werd") because they all derive from the act of protecting someone or something (and I chuckle that the "Guards and Wards" spell would be "werd & werd"). But I'm not going to insist that the Lord and the night watchman both be called "werds" because of thousand year old word meanings.

On the other hand I DO have a sidebar about it in my Aristocrat background because the setting is basically post civilizational collapse akin to Europe c. AD 500-ish, the whole concept of a hereditary aristocracy is just starting to get a foothold and just about anyone who clears a section of wilderness, establishes and protects a community there could legitimately claim the title of lord (and lords who fail to protect their people typically do not remain lords for long).

Basically, the etymology was useful as a segue way to discussing the importance of being able to protect your land and people to keeping your title as a lord and that it's not quite hereditary just yet so being the child of a lord only helps you to become his successor in the sense that it gives you a leg up on the training and equipment you need to be a respected warrior among the lord's men (and those men's willingness to defer to the wishes of the current lord that you get the job next).

Quote from: RandyB;1091410I fell in gamer-love with the Death Knights when they were originally published in 1e Fiend Folio. That went into overdrive with Dragon 79, which introduced Saint Kargoth, Patron Saint of Death Knights.

Lord Soth? Poseur.

My favorite from the days I used to subscribe to the Dragon, and I remember the name of Kargoth's sword: Gorgorin the Shatterer.