Living DKs: Special profile?

[Aphetoros]

In the end, we already need to have a profiled character to roll a DK, and I'm willing to give people who have needed enough of an understanding of lore to get one character though GM scrutiny the chance to play a DK.

Well you'd think that that's correct, Jonoth, however I've yet to see many good death knights, in fact most I see are (no offense) bad. I can name some people that play good ones off the top of my head, don't feel hurt if I forget you ;-; I'm not trying to be offensive: Etomsril (Sanya?), SourPuddle (Kafgar), and no one else really comes to mind currently...

[FlyingSquirrel]

Etmosril is Sanya.

[Aphetoros]

Thanks, I derped!

[BountyHunter]

You know, we could compromise and say you just have to make a normal profile and have it approved before you can create a Living DK. That would work much better than special profiling.

[rodentjoe]

I voted no. But I still just play a dead one.

I don't have a rant to really go after that, cause honestly, no matter how hard I try, I don't think I'll be able to change anyones opinion.

[Aphetoros]

Can't we do that for all death knights? And thus all unapproved death knights would now require one? I know people will complain, but honestly? It's for the best.

[rodentjoe]

Can't we do that for all death knights? And thus all unapproved death knights would now require one? I know people will complain, but honestly? It's for the best.

I will make a rant on that one actually. DK's aren't OP or nothing, there just anti paladins, so if that's the reason you want to make them special then I say no way. And also. Not everyone wants to play a DK (gasp, I know right) their kinda dark and messed up... not everyone want to play that. In my opinion I'll have to disagree with ya on that one -but- like I said before: "I don't think I can change -anyones- opinion on the matter. So my rant really doesn't mean anything I'm sure..."

Edit: Oh wait. Hold up. I read that wrong. I thought you said all DK's needed special pros was your argument. My bad. But still, DK's aren't really any much different then any of the other classes that I think that'd need that. I mean... we still are limited to needed gruntship first, so it shows that the people making those DKs are trusted users.

[Stormgald]

I have always thought that Death Knights should have special profiles. They are (in lore) extremely overpowered. No one in the right mind would disagree with this fact. Death Knights were created for one purpose. To destroy. These unyielding undead warriors are in fact, unyielding... They do not tire, they do not run out of breath, they do not fatigue. They were created to destroy and that is what they do.

A Death Knight is essentially born a Necromancer; and Necromancer is a prestige class. Though, these Death Knights are not as powerful as a pure Necromancer would be, but they are in fact, Necromancers. Necromancers that wield a large Rune-Blade, devastating powers, and plate gear. They are a prestige class. Read here:

The death knight was later adapted as a prestige class within the Warcraft RPG and they were former paladin warriors. - WoWWiki

There is no doubt in my mind that Death Knights should at least require a profile before becoming playable; and they should most definitely have a bonus to rolls in combat RP due to their OPness. Warrior vs Death Knight = Dead Warrior. It's that simple. Pretending they aren't as powerful as they are is outright annoying. It is almost zero fun to play my Death Knight knowing that a simple bard could kill him in an RP. I'm not saying Death Knights are indestructible, but they are pretty darn close.

By now you're probably thinking. "Oh this guy is just saying this because he already has a DK." Untrue, I would happily add more to his existing profile or even completely rewrite it if Death Knights were to become either prestige or special profiles.

Anyway, tl;dr? I vote yes for special profiled DKs. Said wiff luvv. <3

[Grakor456]

A Death Knight is essentially born a Necromancer; and Necromancer is a prestige class. Though, these Death Knights are not as powerful as a pure Necromancer would be, but they are in fact, Necromancers. Necromancers that wield a large Rune-Blade, devastating powers, and plate gear. They are a prestige class.

This was always one of the logical glitches with comparing the d20 prestige system to WoW. Death Knights aren't any more powerful than any other class of equivalent level. From a perspective on the MMO, a level 80 DK is exactly as powerful as a level 80 Warrior, no more and no less. The reason why DKs are so powerful in terms of lore is simply reflected by the fact that they start at a higher level.

Now, the thing to keep in mind when talking about d20 prestiges is that d20 prestiges are NOT, in fact, stronger than normal classes. They're just DIFFERENT. I use this example a lot, but in terms of gameplay, a level 10 Shaman/10 Spiritwalker is theoretically as strong as a level 20 Shaman and no more. While prestige class levels tend to have powerful abilities, this is balanced by the strict requirements that must be met to achieve them, as well as the weaknesses that may be inherent to the prestiges themselves (Spiritwalkers, for example, get penalized when trying to resist illusions.)

So, even in terms of the D20, DKs aren't more powerful than anyone else of equivalent level...they just have a head start. Trying to draw conclusions based on the mechanics of the d20 is often misleading, I wouldn't recommend doing it.

[Beltharean]

On top of that, what people don't seem to understand is, that the Death Knights we play were fodder. They were expendable troops that were used as bait to lure Tirion out of hiding. These aren't the DKs we find in the RPG books nor any other source for that matter; These are people forcibly raised with no more skill or dedication than your average forsaken aside from an additional ritual and some of the ridiculously expendable saronite armour to make them enough of a threat to make Tirion actually fight. If you take that armour off, then you have a Forsaken on your hands. If you take that sword from their hands? You have a -useless- forsaken. On top of that, if they're LIVING? You have an absolutely powerless individual with nothing going for them besides what little martial arts they may have been given through the spell to become a DK.

[Aphetoros]

That doesn't mean much, Belth. They're still weapons of destruction, -massive- destruction. Look what they did to the Scarlet place. They ripped it to shreds. They are given the powers of death-- it isn't hard for the Scourge to do. And they know how to rune their own weapons. A death knight could rune their -armor- and it would work as their blade if they wanted to. And death knights are a bit more powerful than forsaken, which is an understatement. Plus they can death grip without a runeblade, they can deathgrip the blade back. Additionally, ICly level means nothing, Grak. Therefore, they've no IC expression of their strength over others.

Their strength is hardly the issue, either. The problem is that people can't seem to RP them in a proper manner, in my opinion, which isn't going around and having sex, dating, marrying, living normal lives...

The reason why DKs are so powerful in terms of lore is simply reflected by the fact that they start at a higher level.

That reflects gameplay, not lore. Unlike Prologue, CotH doesn't use PvP or such game mechanics to balance it, there's nothing short of people who understand what death knights are. And to touch on my beginning point once more, just because they were meant to bait Tirion, doesn't mean they weren't powerful. Again, you saw what they did to the Scarlet Crusade. Arthas knew they wouldn't be able to stand up to the powerful lore characters stationed there. I remember DKs were special profiles in the old days, and if they were now we might actually see living people around, or death knights that know what they're doing instead of derping around in Booty Bay trying to live normal.

[Grakor456]

Additionally, ICly level means nothing, Grak. Therefore, they've no IC expression of their strength over others.

Re-read my post. I never attempted to say that level has meaning ICly. I was explaining the logic behind how the DKs were designed in terms of gameplay between WoW and the d20, since the person I responded to provided arguments based on how DKs were balanced in the d20.

You are correct, however, that the Death Knights were very powerful beings during their starting quests. However, what you fail to take into account is that other classes were doing similar feats around the same levels. Your average 50-60 level character is taking out titan constructs, scores of dragonkin, liches, Dreadlords, etc. with their quests and instances. Yes, DKs were absurdly powerful...but so was everyone else at that point in the game. I therefore fail to see how any of this is relevant as to whether DKs, as a whole, should be special or not.

[Stormgald]

I get where you're coming from, and please, don't take this personally but... Death Knights are directly inserted into lore more so than any random warrior or base class a character rolls. I'm having a hard time trying to explain this but. By lore standards and CotH standards, very, and I mean VERY few people have slain a dragon, titan, lich or dreadlord; and I believe that most if not all of us that are 'pro-special-profile' are completely basing our decision on lore facts rather than game mechanics.

[Aphetoros]

Additionally, ICly level means nothing, Grak. Therefore, they've no IC expression of their strength over others.

Re-read my post. I never attempted to say that level has meaning ICly. I was explaining the logic behind how the DKs were designed in terms of gameplay between WoW and the d20, since the person I responded to provided arguments based on how DKs were balanced in the d20.

You are correct, however, that the Death Knights were very powerful beings during their starting quests. However, what you fail to take into account is that other classes were doing similar feats around the same levels. Your average 50-60 level character is taking out titan constructs, scores of dragonkin, liches, Dreadlords, etc. with their quests and instances. Yes, DKs were absurdly powerful...but so was everyone else at that point in the game. I therefore fail to see how any of this is relevant as to whether DKs, as a whole, should be special or not.

My point was that it was more... IC. The DK starting quests were tailored very well, and I do believe that's what happened with most if not all of the death knights there. It's a brilliantly constructed, logical, cohesive story that's put together to show you just exactly how not only your death knight came to be free-willed, but also how you joined the Horde or Alliance. The events that happen within... are forced rather than a choice, as quests are in game, such as the taking out titan constructs, dragonkin, liches, dreadlords etc., my point is that their storyline shows them as what they are, which is powerful, slaughtering machines of death that killed thousands if not hundreds of innocents, watching themselves (unable to stop) kill them all. The psychological trauma is never RPed properly, from what I've seen, and it's exactly why I believe their strength isn't the prime factor of special profiles for them.

Others in the thread have also argued against it for the fact that they are not special profiles now, but instead are no-profile-needed, and it would be unfair to say that every one of these existing death knights would have to write a profile. My argument against? In the past the death knight was a special profile, and I've heard very good things about this from one of my good friends SourPuddle, who had one of these death knights. They were less common then now (often times you can walk around and see only death knights, and not living players) and the quality of their RP was better. I am neither against living death knights or for them, for that matter, I simply believe all death knights should either be special profiles or at the very least profile required due to their mental complexity and psychological difficulty.

[hiddengecko]

I voted no, but I agree with Bounty's assertion that a living Death Knight have an approved normal profile. Special profiles seem to be rarely checked, and they carry an aura of gimmicky-ness which I dislike implicitly. I also agree with Etmosril's post that Death Knights aren't necessarily supported by lore as being rotting corpses by default. You are a knight of death; you are not a dead knight. The living status, or lack thereof, is ambiguous enough to be entirely left up to the RPer. As for the "But they are often used for silly ERP" argument--so what? So are blood elves. So are draenei. Just because something is a challenge to RP or is often abused for ERP purposes does not mean it needs a special profile, unless it's something very challenging and risky to the community--such as a succubus.

As for the whole "But why would the Scourge not simply kill the captures they took before raising them," I think the "Insult to injury" argument holds up quite well. The Scourge is efficient, but not exclusively; they do have a love of the whole corruption spiel that seems so popular amongst villains. It's even mentioned, I believe, that former Paladins are preferred for Death Knights just for the sake of corrupting them. The comics show the process is in some cases begin initiated while the subject is alive, and that it is very painful. It is not shown that it always kills the victim, nor that it drives them to incurable madness.

Regarding Death Knights being used for relationship RP--I can understand the concern over the silly and badly-played relationships, but this is a concern with all relationships. This in particular is an inherently intriguing concept. A tragic monster falling in love with a normal person (or another tragic monster), being accepted for what they are, or learning to overcome it: this can be a very compelling framework for a story. A cliche, perhaps, but some cliches are treasured by all of us. This cliche in particular is used by many popular stories and franchises, and I see no reason to official restrict it beyond the normal RP policing policies.

My death Knight, Kelia, is living, and she hardly falls under the "happy, silly, promiscuous weapon of war." She is a chaste (not by principle, just because she doesn't view herself as alive), depressed, self-hating individual who views herself as a monster and struggles endlessly and futilely to control the endless hunger. I made her alive because playing undead is boring for me, because it removes many of the weaknesses of the flesh: pain, most fear, most emotional fragility and range, bleeding, hunger, tiredness and so on. As for why she is left alive, I left it ambiguous, mostly because of the knee-jerk elitism I keep seeing over this issue.

While I am more than confident in my ability to write a special profile for her if need be, it really seems a pointless restriction to good RP, and just an incomplete and fruitless patch against bad. We prevent further silly DKs from being made, and may well simply end up with more pointlessly evil Blood Knights paring up with Night Elf Druids who hate trees and are in motorcycle gangs or something equally absurd. Bad RPers are going to do bad RP.

A profile is a measure of writing ability, perhaps, but not always of RP skill. I have seen people with good profiles have terrible RP, and I have seen people with weak or no profiles have excellent RP. I don't think adding further irritating obstacles to being able to RP what you like is needed for this.