A question on Living Death Knights

[FlyingSquirrel]

The elite 25 to kill a single man? Yes, I find that quite possible.

But to kill a Frost Wyrm? Nigh, the most powerful Frost Wyrm in existence? Then, to go on a kill The Lich King? You're underestimating him by calling him a man.

But, of course, 10 men can kill an Aspect, so why not a man?

[Beltharean]

To play the devil's advocate, I'm going to say that -half- of those 10,000 Scourge present at the Battle for Light's Hope were Death Knights. The main, bulk force of the attack were Death Knights, as the reason they were created was for that battle specifically. In any case, bumping it down to 5,000 from the 8,000 I would normally consider... That leaves, with the 3% (3 living for every 100 undead) margin, about 150 living Death Knights. We have 67 approved DK's, call it 115 even though there's likely less unapproved DK's than twice as many as approved. Call half of the current DK population living, leaving us with 57 living DK's out of the 150 that are viable as far as lore is concerned; Be it through willfully giving oneself, a mistake, or spite on the case of the necromancer, another member of the Scourge, or the Lich King.

That being said, we play heroes here. There's no reason for us to be hell bent on playing the 'average' DK the same way you yourself didn't feel like playing an 'average' Tauren, to use your description of Kairg based on the wiki entry he has. The nearly sixty living DKs that are played are sixty that we, the player base, have decided are what we, the player base, enjoy playing when it's well within the lore we, the player base, have had given to use.

[FlyingSquirrel]

To play the devil's advocate, I'm going to say that -half- of those 10,000 Scourge present at the Battle for Light's Hope were Death Knights. The main, bulk force of the attack were Death Knights, as the reason they were created was for that battle specifically. In any case, bumping it down to 5,000 from the 8,000 I would normally consider... That leaves, with the 3% (3 living for every 100 undead) margin, about 150 living Death Knights. We have 67 approved DK's, call it 115 even though there's likely less unapproved DK's than twice as many as approved. Call half of the current DK population living, leaving us with 57 living DK's out of the 150 that are viable as far as lore is concerned; Be it through willfully giving oneself, a mistake, or spite on the case of the necromancer, another member of the Scourge, or the Lich King.

That being said, we play heroes here. There's no reason for us to be hell bent on playing the 'average' DK the same way you yourself didn't feel like playing an 'average' Tauren, to use your description of Kairg based on the wiki entry he has. The nearly sixty living DKs that are played are sixty that we, the player base, have decided are what we, the player base, enjoy playing when it's well within the lore we, the player base, have had given to use.

But why would they make Living Death Knights? I neglected the above reasons.

[Binkleheimer]

Symbolic reasons, mostly.

[PvtFrog]

But why would they make Living Death Knights? I neglected the above reasons.

I would think that it's more for the demoralization than anything. Think about it this way, if you saw your closest friend or comrades kill people that were once on his side and it was obvious he wasn't a rotting corpse. I would think that it would be a lot more disheartening than seeing a headless zombie with his name attacking villagers. That and even if they were living, if they happened to die during the course of the events, they could always be raised by the necromancers or val'kyr stationed there.

[muhaha8]

Belth. Fail math is fail. You say 3% is a number fairly acceptable, then toss out a number of around -33%- of our population. I spy a problem. Besides, if we're talking 3% of 5,000 men, that's pretty damn special, IMO. Hardly enough to constitute something CotH calls allowable for play; I've seen ideas for characters shot down, who had a population far greater than that. Why are living Death Knights allowed, with an impossibly small population, if other things with an equal or greater, but still small population, aren't?

Edit: If you're going to apply a number to us, then apply it directly to us, not to the total. If you're given a 3% living rate, then out of say, 150 Death Knights you'd have 5 living.

[FlyingSquirrel]

But why would they make Living Death Knights? I neglected the above reasons.

I would think that it's more for the demoralization than anything. Think about it this way, if you saw your closest friend or comrades kill people that were once on his side and it was obvious he wasn't a rotting corpse. I would think that it would be a lot more disheartening than seeing a headless zombie with his name attacking villagers. That and even if they were living, if they happened to die during the course of the events, they could always be raised by the necromancers or val'kyr stationed there.

Two things:
1) I mentioned this above. In both of the Acherus beginning armor sets, you cannot see much of their body. Abdomen for the end set, and biceps for the beginning. Both of the faces are covered. How would you know it was your friend?

2) How did the Death Knights even survive through it? It's not like the Scourge fed them, bandaged up their wounds, whatever. How would they've survived?


And Binkle, can you give any examples?

[PvtFrog]

1). I would imagine the Scourge probably didn't take the time to feed them or bandage them up. This could be a reason why we IC-ly started with the first aid skill. As for the food part, this either led them to pillage or they simply died and were raised into undeath.

2). As for the hoods, I think that they would have some trouble keeping their hoods on when they were fighting against multiple enemies that wanted them dead.

[FlyingSquirrel]

1). I would imagine the Scourge probably didn't take the time to feed them or bandage them up. This could be a reason why we IC-ly started with the first aid skill. As for the food part, this either led them to pillage or they simply died and were raised into undeath.

2). As for the hoods, I think that they would have some trouble keeping their hoods on when they were fighting against multiple enemies that wanted them dead.

You forgot that the Death Knights were all mentally controlled. Unless you say they're living, at which point I ask you why the Lich King would give his enemies power and leave them with their own will.

And the hoods are metal. Hence why they're plate in-game.

[PvtFrog]

You forgot that the Death Knights were all mentally controlled. Unless you say they're living, at which point I ask you why the Lich King would give his enemies power and leave them with their own will.

True, but I would imagine the control over them is not absolute which is what adds to the fear factor of knowing it's your friend who's attacking you. Some death knights still seem to have a semblence of their original personalities as seen by Sir Zeliek of the Four Horsemen.

Some quotes from him:
"Flee, before it's too late!"
"I- I have no choice but to obey!"
"Do not continue! Turn back while there's still time!"

This leads me to think that while they can't control their actions, they are still conscious to a level that they know what they are doing. Or at least, enough to try and warn their friends to run away.

[Binkleheimer]

Simple.
It's akin to the targeting of Paladins in the Third War for Death Knighthood.
What's a better way on conveying fear to your enemies than to show them that their champions serve you as living and breathing creatures?
A dead Death Knight is rotting and merely a more powerful zombie. To the opponent, it's simply another person you raised.
But alive? That changes things. It gives the sense that they weren't forced into Knighthood, but more brought in.
Granted, this is far harder than simply bringing them back as an undead monster. Then again, Archeus was a necropolis focused on making Death Knights only. So, there might be a large force dedicated to this.

Psychological warfare can make all the difference.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Simple.
It's akin to the targeting of Paladins in the Third War for Death Knighthood.
What's a better way on conveying fear to your enemies than to show them that their champions serve you as living and breathing creatures?
A dead Death Knight is rotting and merely a more powerful zombie. To the opponent, it's simply another person you raised.
But alive? That changes things. It gives the sense that they weren't forced into Knighthood, but more brought in.
Granted, this is far harder than simply bringing them back as an undead monster. Then again, Archeus was a necropolis focused on making Death Knights only. So, there might be a large force dedicated to this.

Psychological warfare can make all the difference.

I talked about this above. You wouldn't know who they are. Their face is covered in both sets, and nearly all of their skin. Plus, how would they know the difference between alive and dead?

True, but I would imagine the control over them is not absolute which is what adds to the fear factor of knowing it's your friend who's attacking you. Some death knights still seem to have a semblence of their original personalities as seen by Sir Zeliek of the Four Horsemen.

Some quotes from him:
"Flee, before it's too late!"
"I- I have no choice but to obey!"
"Do not continue! Turn back while there's still time!"

This leads me to think that while they can't control their actions, they are still conscious to a level that they know what they are doing. Or at least, enough to try and warn their friends to run away.

Sir Zeliek is one of the Four Horsemen of Naxxramas. He was a paladin in life, so strong in his faith, that even in undeath, the power of the light still heeds his call, smiting his foes in battle.[1]

Though his body is forced to obey Kel'Thuzad's commands, Sir Zeliek managed to retain his sanity and morals despite his corruption. This could be seen as a mark of great spirituality and mental strength.

Source: Here.

[Uthaniel]

In the quest I mentioned above, where you kill a former friend/companion/leader or etc depending on your race, they recognize you despite what face gear you have on.

[King]

This conversation seems a bit silly, in the sense that the debate over lore accuracy can go on and on, but at the end of the day staff should perhaps decide what's playable and what's not on the basis of lore, but more importantly - what's fun.

I'm fairly certain that if they feel it does good to play high elves/living DKS/multiclasses/prestiges/nobles/bunnies/etc, they allow it - with restrictions and specific rules or not.

Wherever this debate goes, "This should not be playable because it conflicts with my understanding of lore." is a poor reason to limit RP options. Sure, it's tempting, because something will force you to rethink the world if it has to be real in the world you feel you have a grasp of, but that is the merit of a good improvisational co-writer (RPer) - to adapt to the new reality being outlined with each emote.

IMO, Anything that doesn't -break- lore should be playable, specific exceptions being made for things that would ruin the RP environment if they became commonplace. No offense meant, but what I feel is far more hindering than what-class-uses-what-weapon and what-class-can-have-what-heart-rate as RP tensions are people that insist on deciding for others what is feasible and what isn't.

[BountyHunter]

What King says is quite true. We allow Living Death Knights, that's all there is to them.