Living Death Knights, Part 2

[Dragonbeard]

I have three things to add:

1. The biggest problem with living Death Knights has to do with how powerful they truly are. Their power comes from their runeblades (real ones) which give them an incredible amount of strength and magic power. They are a prestige-level class, and completely different from the shock trooper, Third generation DKs.

2. Living Death Knights are most certainly going to be allied with the Lich King. It doesn't make much sense to say that your character prostrated themselves in front of the Frozen Throne to become a powerful minion of the Lich King and then just decided to change their mind one day. You have to be a pretty twisted sister to join ranks with the Lich King willingly and it also is not likely that Ner'zhul/Arthas would grant anyone that power if they were likely to change their mind. No, those sort were probably killed at the door and turned into Ghouls.

3. I trust that everyone has the ability to make some changes to their character. No one likes to be retconned, but it happens to all of us. When I heard about the Naaru, I nearly choked a baby. Blizzard pulled a George Lucas and "explained the Force with midi-chlorians." NO! The Light is a philosophy and a mystical thing that cannot be seen, but can only be felt; it is not something emitted by a giant, glowing Pokémon.

Back to the point. I personally understand how many would be upset by having to change some things. However, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, it may mean you have to deal with these changes. My best advice for you is to make it work. Do the best with what you're given, because in life, that's all you can really do.

[PvtFrog]

1. The biggest problem with living Death Knights has to do with how powerful they truly are. Their power comes from their runeblades (real ones) which give them an incredible amount of strength and magic power. They are a prestige-level class, and completely different from the shock trooper, Third generation DKs.

2. Living Death Knights are most certainly going to be allied with the Lich King. It doesn't make much sense to say that your character prostrated themselves in front of the Frozen Throne to become a powerful minion of the Lich King and then just decided to change their mind one day. You have to be a pretty twisted sister to join ranks with the Lich King willingly and it also is not likely that Ner'zhul/Arthas would grant anyone that power if they were likely to change their mind. No, those sort were probably killed at the door and turned into Ghouls.

I believe you have mixed up 2nd Gen Death Knights with the 3rd Gen. 3rd Gen. Death Knights are the ones that the playerbase can play, they are the Knights of the Ebon Blade. The ones I believe you are talking about are the ones that willingly went to the Lich King which are the 2nd Gens. 2nd gen Death Knights were gifted with vampiric runeblades which are possibly one of the few most OP weapons in WoW lore. The Death Knights that we're allowed to play don't have these weapons, they only have swords/axes/(fill in with weapon name) that they have etched runes onto.

[Dragonbeard]

1. The biggest problem with living Death Knights has to do with how powerful they truly are. Their power comes from their runeblades (real ones) which give them an incredible amount of strength and magic power. They are a prestige-level class, and completely different from the shock trooper, Third generation DKs.

2. Living Death Knights are most certainly going to be allied with the Lich King. It doesn't make much sense to say that your character prostrated themselves in front of the Frozen Throne to become a powerful minion of the Lich King and then just decided to change their mind one day. You have to be a pretty twisted sister to join ranks with the Lich King willingly and it also is not likely that Ner'zhul/Arthas would grant anyone that power if they were likely to change their mind. No, those sort were probably killed at the door and turned into Ghouls.

I believe you have mixed up 2nd Gen Death Knights with the 3rd Gen. 3rd Gen. Death Knights are the ones that the playerbase can play, they are the Knights of the Ebon Blade. The ones I believe you are talking about are the ones that willingly went to the Lich King which are the 2nd Gens. 2nd gen Death Knights were gifted with vampiric runeblades which are possibly one of the few most OP weapons in WoW lore. The Death Knights that we're allowed to play don't have these weapons, they only have swords/axes/(fill in with weapon name) that they have etched runes onto.

I haven't mixed anything up?

Edit: Perhaps I should have been more clear. By Living Death Knights, I mean Second Generation. Those are the only Living Death Knights supported by any Lore.

[Alykia]

Even then, it is only an argument that those death knights where 'living'. I still hold to the belief that upon coming to the Lich King and giving over willingly, even they were made undead when they were turned into death knights.

Case example: Baron Rivendare, one of the 'second generation' of death knights, is listed on the NPC table as being not humanoid mind you but -undead- whenever faced in game.

It is rather blatant that for all sakes and purposes, all death knights are considered an undead class and there is absolutely no death knights in game or lore that is addressed as being anything but. As previously mentioned, Arthas does not count because he is a powerful lore character that is a class within his own.

I really do hope a GM wide event is considered as I think that is a good alternative to retconning. It allows for character development of all involved while adressing removing the lore-bending character set at the same time.

Some good example of such a GM wide event were that the 'living' death knights where to have a plague affect them, like a mental sickness of going crazy, a roll over from their previous affliction (Kind of like how radiation sickness can have results in life later on)... Or a GM NPC could try to use their state as death knight to control them where the Lich King once dead... or even a role-play event where the strain of what it takes to be a death knight starts to eat away on their bodies and spirits. It could begin to corrupt itself as they risk to be taken over by the magics they yelled.

In all three GM event examples, it is an un-reparable plight of a terminal condition where the character either finds a way to stop being a death knight, or dies- renaming as an undead death knight or being removed entirely if they chose to remain in the 'dead' state.

A firm date of when the characters either find a solution or are due to fall to their plight can be hard-set as well as announced so players know the timetable of the rp event and can better know how long their characters have to do what they need to do.

... either way an end date of the GM 'plight of the living death knights' rp event should still be hard set even if not announced so gamers do not simply take on the issue as another 'development characteristic' and continue to play a living deathknight indefinitely, which negates the point of having the rp event to begin with.

[Dragonbeard]

Even then, it is only an argument that those death knights were 'living'. I still hold to the belief that upon coming to the Lich King and giving over willingly, even they were made undead when they were turned into death knights.

I completely agree. I was just adding some other points for those who would still fail to see that point.

[flammos200]

...I haven't seen a bigger mish-mash since a cousin of mine tried drawing things from an old folk fairytale.

First off, there's no such thing as a fully living Death Knight. All Death Knights are undead or have undead characteristics in some way at the very least.

However, the degree to which they are undead may vary. "Living" Death Knights aren't living, really. Living means that they need to consume matter. These ones have all the traits of an Undead, except with added real, twisted emotions, a pulse and the need to breathe. That's it. That's everything that differentiates the two base-line.

Nothing else separates the two. They are the same machines of death. The same eternal and undying creatures that kill to live. The same - usually cold-blooded - murderers that slaughtered countless. The same beings that never tire, nor sleep, nor starve, neither become dehydrated, and might not even feel pain, or smell or taste - 'cept blood. They might like that as they slaughter stuff - that the differences are inconsequential.

Sure, it's easier to kill off one than the other, since you can just asphyxiate them or cut them and let them die of bloodloss. But I've ceased to see why the issue is such a big one? The differences are so small that they're utterly inconsequential in the long run.

Death Knights are Death Knights and they should be played accordingly regardless of what 'kind' they are. You slaughtered countless. You need to kill to live. You're immortal. You've been mind-controlled. Deal with it, character.

[Kaghuros]

...I haven't seen a bigger mish-mash since a cousin of mine tried drawing things from an old folk fairytale.

First off, there's no such thing as a fully living Death Knight. All Death Knights are undead or have undead characteristics in some way at the very least.

However, the degree to which they are undead may vary. "Living" Death Knights aren't living, really. Living means that they need to consume matter. These ones have all the traits of an Undead, except with added real, twisted emotions, a pulse and the need to breathe. That's it. That's everything that differentiates the two base-line.

Nothing else separates the two. They are the same machines of death. The same eternal and undying creatures that kill to live. The same - usually cold-blooded - murderers that slaughtered countless. The same beings that never tire, nor sleep, nor starve, neither become dehydrated, and might not even feel pain, or smell or taste - 'cept blood. They might like that as they slaughter stuff - that the differences are inconsequential.

Sure, it's easier to kill off one than the other, since you can just asphyxiate them or cut them and let them die of bloodloss. But I've ceased to see why the issue is such a big one? The differences are so small that they're utterly inconsequential in the long run.

Death Knights are Death Knights and they should be played accordingly regardless of what 'kind' they are. You slaughtered countless. You need to kill to live. You're immortal. You've been mind-controlled. Deal with it, character.

Quote for truth.

But then again, if everyone played them that way there really wouldn't be so much hurt over it, eh? It seems to me that the biggest supposed difference people find disagreement over, and the one that they will not mention in argument, is the one that leads to babby. Because everyone likes Death Knight ERP right? (right?)

[Dragonbeard]

But then again, if everyone played them that way there really wouldn't be so much hurt over it, eh? It seems to me that the biggest supposed difference people find disagreement over, and the one that they will not mention in argument, is the one that leads to babby. Because everyone likes Death Knight ERP right? (right?)

Also agreed. Though, I think most of us are just trying to make the point that Living Death Knights make no sense. I'm really just concerned about the twisting of the lore required to make this sort of character.

It seems to me that the only reason you'd want to make a living Death Knight is so it can have feelings like love.

On that note, why would anyone want to be a Death Knight that can fall in love? The entire purpose of the Death Knight is to be a brutal, murdering, unrelenting engine of destruction. Death Knights are supposed to be cold to the touch. Unless you love reading Twilight, why would you want to make love to a frigid, icy, undead body? I just...don't...know...

"I love your creepy, multi-tone voice. Say my name, Edward. Run your rotting hands through my hair. I love how it feels like Jack Frost is nipping at my nose."

But hey, that's only my opinion. The issues with the lore still stand.

[muhaha8]

Here's all I can say. If anyone can provide me with compelling, non-RPG book (as the RPG is retconned as to its canonical nature) lore, please do so. I have done my research and come up with none, as pertaining to Third Generation DKs.

[Dragonbeard]

Here's all I can say. If anyone can provide me with compelling, non-RPG book (as the RPG is retconned as to its canonical nature) lore, please do so. I have done my research and come up with none, as pertaining to Third Generation DKs.

To support the idea of a living Death Knight, you mean?

[muhaha8]

Yes, Living. Skrry, didn't say that.

[Dragonbeard]

Yes, Living. Skrry, didn't say that.

Oh, well, yeah. There's none. (That I could find.)

[muhaha8]

Exactly. Which is why I say, if there is -NO LORE- behind it, we shouldn't be allowed to play them.

[Aphetoros]

How death knights are created;

First death knights-
The first death knights were created by placing the souls of the slain warlocks of the Shadow Council into the corpses of fallen Stormwind knights, the first of whom was Teron Gorefiend. Unlike modern death knights of the Scourge, these ghoulish fiends were not battle hardened warriors; they were insidious necromancers who possessed superior intellect and tremendous magical power.

Firstly, they were made by first slaughtering the necrolytes and transmuting their hearts into gems of necromantic energy, forging the gems into truncheons and giving these truncheons to the fallen bodies of Stormwind knights, which would be raised and given the soul and mind of one of the slain warlocks (warlocks were slain too, but their hearts weren't transmuted.) They possessed battle prowess, but they could also cast spells as well, causing them to be formidable foes.

Creation of the second set of death knigts;
Years after the destruction of Draenor, the immensely powerful Lich King created a new breed of death knights: malevolent, rune-wielding warriors of the Scourge.

"Unlike Gul'dan's death knights, these dark champions do not possess free will and their minds are inexorably entwined with and dominated by the Lich King's vast consciousness. Despite the heavy costs of free will, some powerful mortals are intrigued by the promise of immortality and pledge their souls freely into the Lich King's service to achieve it."

They give themselves freely to the cause. And here's where the d20 lore comes in that actually makes sense.

"Thus the Lich King fashions his corrupted paladins: his greatest champions -- living or undead -- in his campaign to conquer all of Azeroth."

I recall reading something as well about the death knights serving alive until death, at which point they'd simply be reanimated and forced to serve in undeath, but I don't recall where.


(Now remember, the scourge are undead walking corpses so these too were of course, dead.)

Third death knight set (Aka the playable hero class);
The death knights of Acherus were the members of the former death knight order under the direct command of the Lich King.

(Note. Members of the -former- death knight order. The former death knight order were all dead as well, thus they remain so as the knights of Acherus.)

These, the playable death knights, are in fact. Dead. There's no getting around the fact-- you weren't taken alive as some might believe. You weren't unconscious. You were killed and taken to the hold for reanimation as cannon fodder. Albeit rather powerful cannon fodder. I mean, you did decimate the Crimson Legion.
--------------------

I think trying to consider the 'purchased another dawn for the world with your life' being a euphemism for something is a very long reach at best. I believe they were being very straight forward with saying that the cost of a war was your life. Aka you died. Especially considering that in no place in lore does it ever mention any death knight -not- being dead.


Of Retconning;

To fix issues with 'retconning' lore bendy-to-the-point-of-breaking characters, rather then retconning characters entirely without explanation and dropping role play.
Nobody wants their char to simply vanish or to just dump role-play they may have been enjoying, so for the sake of the players and server alike... how about having a massive GM run roleplay event that explains either the characters no longer being death knights, or dying. Some sort of massive war that would serve as an IC cleanup?

This would serve the dual purpose of allowing players to have their characters choose a race other then death knight if their char -has- to be alive, have their char 'die' again in the war and remain a dead death knight, and/or removing the 'living' death knight entirely while giving the player's character a nice IC wrap-up rather then it simply ceasing to exist.

That and a server wide GM event dealing with such a wide range of characters could be absolutely epic and everyone could get some great character development and enjoyment out of it.

Added note: Bleh. I wrote this all while very exhausted so sorry for the lack of further detail and proper grammar in my post.

You can't not be a death knight once you've been one. It doesn't work that way, unfortunately. The only cure would be a Divine Miracle.

...and those are prayers that directly request a deity or eternal to intervene. Good luck with that one, heh!

[Alykia]

I was simply trying to find some answer for the GMs on how to fix the lore bendy-to-the-point-of-breaking character issues.. without hurting the feelings of the players that have made these characters.

Some sort of graceful RP out way.

I have already read multiple posts by various game masters of CotH that seem to imply that most both do not approve of 'living' death knights and would like to see them removed entirely.

A heavy majority of the posts by players responding seem to echoes some form of either approval and/or agreement of such sentiment, which would imply that most of the player base of CotH is of the same opinion of the majority of the GMs that seem to both dislike and would like to see a removal of the oxymoron of the 'living' deadknight thing.

It seems counterproductive to the server to be generally adherent to lore within imaginative construction of role-play in almost every aspect... only to just blow lore out of the window for this one instance that both players and GMs alike seem to dislike and agree shouldn't exist.

Rather then pauncing around to save the feelings of a bare few, it would seem prudent to simply find a way to deal with the issue rather then let it continue.