Living Death Knights, Part 2

[Grakor456]

Yes and no. This is where it's important to remember the psychological warfare aspect of Acherus's mission. Think about it. Is a risen corpse (which you've already done a lot of) of a dead champion, twisted to suit your own ends shocking? Well, isn't it more shocking to show your enemies that you can turn them into (again, I use the term relatively) "living supersoldiers" on the side of said undead, corrupted by your energies but still very much alive?

Personally, I'd see the latter as a more horrific prospect. Especially if fighting against zombies.

Disagree, mostly because I don't think it matters. The result is the same either way: the threat that if you fall to these guys, you could be a part of them and be twisted into that form. Keep in mind, even clearly undead DKs were capable of intelligent thought and speech. They were still possessing shreds of their past personality. Whether he's breathing or not seems rather trivial in the face of the fact that it's still Bob turned evil and now trying to cleave your face in with an unholy axe.

[LostStranger]

This isn't about undying Death Knights, this is about Living Death Knights.

That there could be a difference at all is boggling to me.

Spoiler:

[FlyingSquirrel]

This isn't about undying Death Knights, this is about Living Death Knights.

That there could be a difference at all is boggling to me.

Well, from how I'm seeing it, they're trying to lessen how bad Living Death Knights seem by giving them a new name, or whatever. From the times I've been to Booty Bay, I've seen Death Knights played just as is; Living Death Knights. Eating, drinking, all of that. They're saying that they don't do that. So, from what I've seen, undying Death Knights aren't played like Living ones.

[flammos200]

Well, they have the Psychological part, which I don't believe would happen. Why? Death Knights skin is covered, and they only talk to Scarlets during one quest in the chain. There'd be little to no way for the Scarlet Crusade to even know that one was living, or such. Then, on the other hand, we have the fact that the Death Knights were made to kill. Why would the Scourge waste the time, when something needs to be killed, to feed the Living Death Knight, to treat their wounds, to do anything they'd need to do for a living person. Why not just get rid of all of that and throw them onto the battlefield? Their job wasn't to intimidate or hurt moral, it was to kill.

Note, that I use the term undying, rather than living, since there's a difference. Namely, not requiring of sustenance, nor tiring, nor needing sleep.

That would generally be why. They are undead in a fashion, and very much possessing of their own unique powers and abilities to kill. It's just that they aren't the same sort of undead. Also, Forsaken Death Knights? Pretty much undead in every possible fashion.

This isn't about undying Death Knights, this is about Living Death Knights.

...Umm... What are living Death Knights?

-No- Death Knight -at all- suffers from fatigue, starvation, dehydration or mortality. None. They can't die of not eating. They can't die of not drinking. Sure, they can do it if they feel the psychological need to - or are trying to mimic their former states, but they won't be bothered at all if you don't feed them or give them stuff to guzzle down.

Sure, the Undying can try their hand - and inevitably fail at - breeding, since they have a pulse, and can drown if left underwater for too long, but combat-wise, other than feeling pain - which both Undying and Undead may or may not, depending on if they have working nerves or not - they're the same.

What do -you- mean by living Death Knights?

[muhaha8]

What needs to be considered here is this:

The Scourge. Complete control of its army, no? To be an Undead DK was to be completely subjugated. You had no willpower. At all. Why, then, would they make living minions who have willpower, and thus run the risk of breaking off, and supplying the enemy with knowledge of how to destroy the amassing army, all for a little ego trip of, "Haha, we made one of your guys into us and didn't kill him." Seeing your best friend, dead or alive, trying to remove your head is equally as terrifying, either way. Dead also has less a risk of breaking free.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Well, they have the Psychological part, which I don't believe would happen. Why? Death Knights skin is covered, and they only talk to Scarlets during one quest in the chain. There'd be little to no way for the Scarlet Crusade to even know that one was living, or such. Then, on the other hand, we have the fact that the Death Knights were made to kill. Why would the Scourge waste the time, when something needs to be killed, to feed the Living Death Knight, to treat their wounds, to do anything they'd need to do for a living person. Why not just get rid of all of that and throw them onto the battlefield? Their job wasn't to intimidate or hurt moral, it was to kill.

Note, that I use the term undying, rather than living, since there's a difference. Namely, not requiring of sustenance, nor tiring, nor needing sleep.

That would generally be why. They are undead in a fashion, and very much possessing of their own unique powers and abilities to kill. It's just that they aren't the same sort of undead. Also, Forsaken Death Knights? Pretty much undead in every possible fashion.

This isn't about undying Death Knights, this is about Living Death Knights.

...Umm... What are living Death Knights?

-No- Death Knight -at all- suffers from fatigue, starvation, dehydration or mortality. None. They can't die of not eating. They can't die of not drinking. Sure, they can do it if they feel the psychological need to - or are trying to mimic their former states, but they won't be bothered at all if you don't feed them or give them stuff to guzzle down.

Sure, the Undying can try their hand - and inevitably fail at - breeding, since they have a pulse, and can drown if left underwater for too long, but combat-wise, other than feeling pain - which both Undying and Undead may or may not, depending on if they have working nerves or not - they're the same.

What do -you- mean by living Death Knights?

I'm talking about the Death Knights that need to eat, as I stated above. I'd link a profile, but that would break the rules of respect.

[Kiffles]

I'm trying to understand why any Death Knight would have to be 'alive.' I can't see how that would give them any sort of upper hand to anything. I'd think it would hinder what they have to do to survive, for lack of a better way of putting it. They're not really what they used to be in life - now they're monstrosities who have to kill to keep themselves sane, and that's probably what their first priority would be at the end of the day.

On the other hand, looking at them in the same light as vampires makes the thought of them as being 'living' more understandable, rather than looking at them on the same spectrum as the forsaken. That being the case, we have to remember that vampires (at least the ones that don't sparkle) are and were depicted several times as beings that can eat, drink, do whatever that living can/need to do. However, vampires have also been portrayed as horrifying, animalistic beings that act more like monsters than proper beings, so it's really a gray area. It's a hard discussion because they're dead, but at the same time they're animated and do plenty of things that anyone living could do - at least as far as thinking for themselves and killing go.

"Living dead" has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world. >.>

</twocents>

[Zoldam]

I thought a Death Knight was merely a fallen warrior/knight who pledged loyalty to the Scourge (Starting from the 2nd generation) with knowledge in undead powers/abilities/magic. Both living and undead can fit the criteria, similar to how Scourge Necromancer's can be undead and/or living.

EDIT: Granted very few living are likely able to achieve this.

[Uthaniel]

However, looking at them in the same light as vampires immediately makes me picture Arthas and Mograine -sparkling- on the sunlight.

Anywho, since I sparked this discussion (/fistpump) I feel the urge to post my own opinions and whatnot.

Living death knights should be allowed, if anything, because they already have been for a while now - Yes, that's not accurate to lore, but so wasn't the former Sin'sholai, or the battle for Stonetalon, Booty Bay's plague, humans and orcs hugging and being friendly to each other, but all those things happened before because of a sole reason.

It was fun.

I'm a major lore junkie. I am. I'd even go as far to say I border on being a lore nazi; Even then, in the end of the day, it's just better to have fun than to be 100% accurate; I mean, Blizzard doesn't know what they're talking about a good deal of time and they -made- this world.

As long as no exaggeration is made, I don't see why not allow them.

However!

Perhaps a guide should be made - or an existing guide highlighted - that tells just exactly -what- is the difference between an undying death knight and a living, normal human.

Sure, to some it's obvious. But to some people, quantum physics is obvious; Most just don't know.

Information is key.

[Aphetoros]

I still like the lore with living death knights being people who swore themselves in service to the LK willingly. Playable why? Because when the lich king died they were freed from service.

[flammos200]

However, looking at them in the same light as vampires immediately makes me picture Arthas and Mograine -sparkling- on the sunlight.

Anywho, since I sparked this discussion (/fistpump) I feel the urge to post my own opinions and whatnot.

Living death knights should be allowed, if anything, because they already have been for a while now - Yes, that's not accurate to lore, but so wasn't the former Sin'sholai, or the battle for Stonetalon, Booty Bay's plague, humans and orcs hugging and being friendly to each other, but all those things happened before because of a sole reason.

It was fun.

I'm a major lore junkie. I am. I'd even go as far to say I border on being a lore nazi; Even then, in the end of the day, it's just better to have fun than to be 100% accurate; I mean, Blizzard doesn't know what they're talking about a good deal of time and they -made- this world.

As long as no exaggeration is made, I don't see why not allow them.

However!

Perhaps a guide should be made - or an existing guide highlighted - that tells just exactly -what- is the difference between an undying death knight and a living, normal human.

Sure, to some it's obvious. But to some people, quantum physics is obvious; Most just don't know.

Information is key.

Quantum physics is obvious, yup.

Back on track. I hate to reference my own posts, but...

Nya? http://www.conquestofthehorde.com/Thread...#pid182195

Also, I do not believe, under any circumstances that any sort of Death Knight needs to eat, or they'll die of starvation.

[Vaetai]

Just gonna put this in here. If a DK is resurrected by the light or druid magicks, wouldn't their body be living then?

[flammos200]

Just gonna put this in here. If a DK is resurrected by the light or druid magicks, wouldn't their body be living then?

Nope!

Death Knights and Forsaken are both resurrected exactly as they were. You can't De-Undeadify a character.

[Hexproof]

Final comment because I already dislike the way this discussion is going and don't wish to break any respect rules by being as vicious as my instinctual response wishes for me to be.

I don't believe any Death Knight is truly "alive" in the same sense that a Human or an Orc is. That said, I also don't believe they're all the same type of "undead" as the Forsaken. Vampirism is a fair comparison. They're effectively in stasis. All the "living" Death Knights, in my own opinion, would be more appropriately called "unliving", in contrast to being "undead".

The fact of the matter is that the Scourge wouldn't go to all the trouble of Acherus if their Death Knights were little more than dead things with runeblades. It just makes for bad use of resources, especially when they've got a metric posterior-load of living beings (Cult of the Damned) more than willing to sacrifice themselves for the Scourge if need be, plus all the corpses they could ever want. They made the Death Knights different and from a specific sort of person/corpse. That means that they may well not be "undead" in the traditional sense.

There's a "special" element to Death Knights, and I know how that word makes people cringe around here, but it's the truth. How are they special? Well it may be that a certain level of "life" is required to appropriately wield Death Knight rune magic, which would, in turn, mean that all "undead" Death Knights may not be entirely "undead" or something. I'm just spitballing here, mind, and getting sidetracked by "What if...?" scenarios.

My only other piece of advice is a request for both sides to reconsider their opinions. This is a pretty divisive split of opinion, and really I find both sides being just as rude.

The people who say Death Knights can be "alive" are not silly, stupid or any of the other things I've heard about them. Yes. Living Death Knights can be roleplayed badly, I've seen it. I won't call anyone out but I have seen it. I've also seen "dead" Death Knights played worse and that's really what this all boils down to.

If it's played well, the character is engaging and generally doesn't break lore (I'm looking at you, Half-Arthas DK babies.), why does this matter?

Player choice can be a wonderful thing, and my only real argument for "living" (and I use the term extremely loosely) Death Knights is that they add a bit more variety to a character class that seems to always boil down to "Rar. I have a runeblade. I'm dark and brooding. Look at my angst." There are exceptions, but apparently people also take issue with any Death Knight who isn't angsting all the time.

I mean no disrespect to anyone with my comments, but frankly, guys? This is just getting ridiculous, and I don't want to get caught up in the flamewar that's going to come of this because some people care so much about a rather trivial piece of lore. Do I want to retcon my own "living" Death Knight to undeath? Not really, no. But if that's what is decided because of logical argument that a Death Knight cannot be "alive", then so be it, and I'll happily retcon.

My honest belief is that this whole thing is silly and that people should just move on with their lives. The GM team needs to put a final, definite ruling one way or the other and seal it in concrete. That's my opinion. That's what I think about "living" Death Knights, and this is me walking out of this thread.

'Peace, hombres.

[muhaha8]

What needs to be considered here is this:

The Scourge. Complete control of its army, no? To be an Undead DK was to be completely subjugated. You had no willpower. At all. Why, then, would they make living minions who have willpower, and thus run the risk of breaking off, and supplying the enemy with knowledge of how to destroy the amassing army, all for a little ego trip of, "Haha, we made one of your guys into us and didn't kill him." Seeing your best friend, dead or alive, trying to remove your head is equally as terrifying, either way. Dead also has less a risk of breaking free.

I quote myself, due to the fact that people are presented with a logical argument and ignore it, after asking for one.