Living Death Knights, Part 2

[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.

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?)

Perhaps, then, the issue is not the degree to which a Death Knight is undead.

Instead, I would rather worry about the class's misportrayal as something that it is not, as a whole, regardless of "living" or fully, completely, Forsaken-level undead.

If there's one issue that should be addressed, it's that. The class as a whole, rather than the 'sides' and aspects of it which are intentionally left ambiguous by a developer that wanted life-vampires. 'S why they gave us all sorts of skin choices at character creation. So we can portray the level to which the Death Knight is undead.

I have seen as many poorly-done Undead DeeKays as I have so-called "living" ones(That, I will stress again, are -not actually living- in the normal sense).

In short, if a sanction or decision is to be taken, it should-No, must- affect every Death Knight, regardless of degree of Undeath.

What should be seen is well-played Death Knights, rather than a set of restrictions as to just if their ticker tocks or their lungs work.

[Rosencrat]

This topic is giving me an embolism.

[Uthaniel]

Immediately telling people "Go! Kill and retcon your characters because we're telling you to." is a tad one-sided, isn't it? Some people have dedicated time to developing the so-called living death knights (Undying sounds way better, really.) and nobody would enjoy being forced to retcon something when they have, at first, broke no rule whatsoever regarding it; It's something that has just appeared, not something that's been around for months, years, and people chose to ignore it - No. Up until then, we had the RPG as a source stating the ritual didn't kill - Which doesn't hold true anymore.

Maybe turning the undying into special profiles from now on, without forcing the already approved players to remake their profiles - Or not allowing them from this point forward, in the worst case scenario.

Kretol is free to come here and correct me, but I'm under the impression this server was made with the intention of allowing people to have fun, and not being 100% lore accurate with zero faults and a perfect lore you'd only find in a book written by Metzen himself. That couldn't possibly be true, because living death knights are hardly the only lore-breaking thing that has happened on CotH; And everyone here knows that. I've put a few examples in past posts, as well, so the thread can just be re-read in case.

No. The point is, some undying are apparently just not being role-played correctly. And because of that, people are just jumping at the opportunity of removing them entirely, while completely forgetting that there's other characters that aren't played incorrectly, and those people are taking the bullet for something they've done nothing to deserve. Again, we didn't break the rules. There's no place saying that playing an undying is forbidden; And we didn't cheat the application process, either. If we got our characters approved, that means they fit the same standard set for any profile whatsoever.

Myself, if it comes down to that, I'd rather have my own undying retconned entirely - And I'll struggle against it until the very last minute. A huge part of Callahan's persona comes from the fact he's alive; A fear of ceasing to exist as a rational creature rather than a mindless ghoul, for example, is what drives him to serve the Ebon Blade to this date. And hey, the character may be inactive now, as is his guild, but I've had my share of people complimenting how he was played; Which can only lead me to assume I'm not exactly doing it wrong.

Retconning Callahan would also lead to retconning months of RP with several other characters, including an entire guild, that had a nice number of members at it's peak. I've no clue if Callahan is the sole knight in this situation, but I know I'd not like to go around retconning or killing off my character because anyone other than me wants to do it.

Doesn't it go against CotH's golden rule, respect, to trample over other's work and force them to change something that was originally allowed and accepted? Or to erase that work entirely?

Or, considering the issue here is (assumed) against the incorrectly role-played Knights, rather than all living knights - should not, then, simply have these (hopefully few) characters reported and edited, instead of every single one?

Abiding by lore is reasonable, but if you'll allow incorrect bits of lore fly and only rise up against the ones that don't tickle your fancy, it's simply hypocrisy.

EDIT:

This topic is giving me an embolism.

Not the only one. This is quite accurately my face every time I read a new reply in here.

Oops, hold on. Wrong one.

I meant this.

[Zett]

Well, after reading all this post, all I can think is that everybody agrees : living death knights are "impossible".
But now, what will be done with the existent ones and with the up-coming ones?

[Xigo]

Ultimately I just feel the policy shouldn't change until Cataclysm, where we can do a full server restart and thus not mess with everyone's current DK RP.

[Rosencrat]

Ultimately I just feel the policy shouldn't change until Cataclysm, where we can do a full server restart and thus not mess with everyone's current DK RP.

This is what I believe as well.

...

And, there it is. Here comes the embolism.

HNNNNNNGH

[Uthaniel]

Ultimately I just feel the policy shouldn't change until Cataclysm, where we can do a full server restart and thus not mess with everyone's current DK RP.

[BountyHunter]

Topic adjourned.

[FlyingSquirrel]

What if we don't go to Cataclysm, though?

[Rosencrat]

Then we will cross that bridge when we get there.

To be honest, if we don't go to Cataclysm we will have more difficulties in our lap beyond whether DK's can be rosy, kissable pink or corpse-fun mottled green.

...Like member riots. Or anarchy. Or a revolution.

[BountyHunter]

...Like member riots. Or anarchy. Or a revolution.

Or a rebellion. Or a mutiny. Or a hostile takeover. Or a plea for democracy and a two party system. Etc.

[Rosencrat]

Is a man not entitled to play a living Death Knight?

'Yes', says the player from the forum, 'you just need to make a special profile.'

'Yes', says the Game Master from the top, 'you just can't after Cataclysm comes out.'

'...', says the Administrators from their den, 'Seriously, this is getting annoying. What we say is what will happen.'

I chose something different. I chose...

To argue on the forum about something that is completely out of both the player's and the GM's control.

[muhaha8]

My mind has been running for some time, and the hampster wheel has produced a thought: It is the sole responsibility of the roleplayer to come up with why his or her character would be in a situation. If something about your character has to change, then the ball is in your court to fix it. If you can't, then I say, "Too bad." We should not allow things that have more lore against them than for them. It is, to put it simply, asinine, to say we believe in following lore, then completely ignore the fact that one thing we allow is entirely against lore. Henceforth, I repeat my request for change and retconning. If you can't come up with a way to keep your character in a situation, then that's your fault, not mine.

[Uthaniel]

I'd say topic adjourned speaks lengths about wether or not you should keep arguing on this matter.

No?
Just me?
Okay.

[Hexproof]

...Like member riots. Or anarchy. Or a revolution.

Or a rebellion. Or a mutiny. Or a hostile takeover. Or a plea for democracy and a two party system. Etc.

What about a coup d'etat?

My mind has been running for some time, and the hampster wheel has produced a thought: It is the sole responsibility of the roleplayer to come up with why his or her character would be in a situation. If something about your character has to change, then the ball is in your court to fix it. If you can't, then I say, "Too bad." We should not allow things that have more lore against them than for them. It is, to put it simply, asinine, to say we believe in following lore, then completely ignore the fact that one thing we allow is entirely against lore. Henceforth, I repeat my request for change and retconning. If you can't come up with a way to keep your character in a situation, then that's your fault, not mine.

I'm not sure when you became an authority on other people's characters, but it's sort of disrespectful to not listen to a "topic adjourned" statement from like twenty (I'm embellishing a bit) people.

My response is to request/suggest a thread lock, perhaps? No more good can come of this discussion, methinks.