The Ebon Road, a guide to RPing a Death Knight

Wauw. Impressive guide! My vice with DKs has mostly been that it's easy to do nothing with your 'state' and simply be someone who happens to be dead. You've used the class and added it to your story! It's something I've tried hard to do with my night elf priest but I've failed to get interesting class-specific RP on her.


One small thing:

On the positive side, you can’t smell yourself rotting. That’d really suck.

Hypothetically if you're rotting and still alive to have a working nose. You wouldn't smell it either. I'm pretty sure humans disable their scent when they're exposed to a foul smell. It's a survival instinct.

Very interesting read! I'm not RPing my DK apart from time to time in my head ofc (But that is a very forgiving community and very biased). Very cool that you high lighted the runeblade's role. I wasn't fully aware.

In the first chapter you state the importance of creating a story about who the DK was alive. The later sections are all about what it would mean to be dead (as in opposed to be alive). So I am a little confused.

In your oppinion:
How much of your character's personality would be transferred to the deathknight?
How much memories would linger on?
Would a deathknight's memories be similar to those of a living person.
If positive feelings are so rare would a DK be likely to still be able to have goals and ambitions other then vengance?
Why would he strive to fulfil his ambitions if it gave him nothing?

Answer whatever questions you see fit. I'm interested in knowing your view that's all.

Frostfeather wrote:In the first chapter you state the importance of creating a story about who the DK was alive. The later sections are all about what it would mean to be dead (as in opposed to be alive). So I am a little confused.

Because I shouldn't have to tell people how to create living characters. The idea is that right at the start, you need to make your character as if they were alive, you don't really need my help with that. Once you have that character, then you can start to learn what they become after they have died (which is what the other sections are attempting to help with). You take the aspects of those sections and then apply them to the core of the character you have already made, seeing how it alters that core.

Just imagine how it would be if you took your main character and made them a DK. Imagine how that character would deal with the various issues brought forth.

In your oppinion:
How much of your character's personality would be transferred to the deathknight?
How much memories would linger on?
Would a deathknight's memories be similar to those of a living person.
If positive feelings are so rare would a DK be likely to still be able to have goals and ambitions other then vengance?
Why would he strive to fulfil his ambitions if it gave him nothing?

1) All of it, but the new emotional state as well as the presence of the runeblade/hunger will alter it. Again, you figure out the character's living personality, then once you have that, you apply the new variables which subtly changes it but at which that core still remains.
2) All of them that the character remembered in life.
3) Yes, though perhaps more bleak in perception.
4) Yes, because goals aren't driven by emotion. Many if not most goals are driven by logical desire. Things like love and other emotionally-charged goals won't really be possible (except for the desire to recover the ability to love), but most things do not require emotion. Look at Thassarian. He has a belief in duty as well as still cares for his family (Lyressa), and both Thassarian and Koltira have a sense of friendship towards each other that interferes with their duties in Andorhal. Goals do not need to have emotion. Emotion simply allows one to feel a sense of true happiness and fulfillment for completing a task. A DK won't feel that. So while they'll still have ambitions, when they actually accomplish those they won't really be able to experience the joy in accomplishing it that a living behind does.
5) Because he has nothing else. Because he needs to go through the motions of life or he will not be able to live with himself. Or the boredom and drudgery of his existence forces him to find goals (and due to the frequent lack of ability to go around killing people on a whim when not on a warzone, goals that do not fulfill the hunger ambition). There are people IRL who have limited emotions, or try to subdue them, but that does not stop them from having ambitions and goals of their own.

And remember, they do still have some emotion. Negative ones are much stronger, but positive ones are still there just at a very limited level. One can manage to achieve some measure of contentness for completing a task.

How did Thassarian and Koltira become friends without emotions? Isn't emotion pretty much a driving force behind forming friendships? Or should I interpret "sense of friendship" diffrently?

Drefurion wrote:How did Thassarian and Koltira become friends without emotions? Isn't emotion pretty much a driving force behind forming friendships? Or should I interpret "sense of friendship" diffrently?

First off, again, positive emotions are not 100% impossible. They're just very subdued. One can still feel a sense of acknowledgment of another individual's merits and personality.

And no, I do not believe friendship is based off of emotion. Love might be, but not friendship, because friendship can arise from completely logical pursuits. For example, Dru's friendship with Theraluin mostly arose from the fact that the two of them were both interested in the same types of magic (even darker pursuits), and he did not judge her like many others do. There was only a limited emotional connection there, for her, but a strong ideological/intellectual one. She was content in his company.

Koltira is one of my favourite NPC's ever.

I RP my DK as a cold bitch, with a lust for death and destruction. But in life, she was something of a haughty fashionista, which mirrors in the way she dresses now. Her hair is constantly dyed to match her current fancy outfits, and she always has her runeblade in full view. Just to see peoples expressions change. She still has her elven supremacy, even if she knows she's dead, only this time round, she'll kill to prove it, for the rush it gives her.

I still friendship essentially means being close to a person illicits some positive emotions, you feel good speaking with them, feeling relieved when you share your sorrows with them. Even having a mutual interest is tied to your emotions, since you feel good doing what ever you may like and you feel good speaking with about it with other people. Even not being judged by him is tied back to your emotions, since you don't have to endure the unpleasent sensation of being resented around that person.

A relationship based purely on logical pursuits, I wouldn't call a friendship. friendship implies an interest in the actual person himself, not what he knows or can offer you.

I suppose they just have enough of a history to actually have some sort of emotional connection, perhaps one that runs less deep than a friendship between living. Hmm, Thassarian shows love for his sister too right, in Nothrend?

Drefurion wrote:I still friendship essentially means being close to a person illicits some positive emotions, you feel good speaking with them, feeling relieved when you share your sorrows with them. Even having a mutual interest is tied to your emotions, since you feel good doing what ever you may like and you feel good speaking with about it with other people. Even not being judged by him is tied back to your emotions, since you don't have to endure the unpleasent sensation of being resented around that person.

Those are things I'd place on the lower level of positive emotions. Strong positive emotions aren't really possible, but once again, limited ones are. So feeling content while speaking with them, feeling relieved when sharing your sorrows, etc, that is all still possible.

I suppose they just have enough of a history to actually have some sort of emotional connection, perhaps one that runs less deep than a friendship between living. Hmm, Thassarian shows love for his sister too right, in Nothrend?

He does. And yes, I see it running less deep that a friendship between the living in general, though not always.

ah realy love this guide.. I actualy did have an elf huntress that saccumed to the pluage shortly beffor the dk's split off from arthus I must have rp'ed her for 4 months beffor I dk'ed her (I treeted it as she only went part way threw the transformation... she got full dk stuff but that was when the dk's faught back.. she had to learn everything herself.. but.. as she was my first rp toon.. the origional caricter had flaws that followed threw into undead that i couldnt repair as people got to know her and decided bad.. thow this guide will help me well in the fututre if i decide to dk up a fresh one (thow it will not be archious one as the time scales are so far out now)

Informative, inspiring, and even humourous. I loved your guide and I hate you for it because now I have to delete character to make a DK as soon as I get back!!!

:) I'm so happy you made is though, seriously!! I always thought Drustai to be such an expansive and perfect character, which is is ironic because she is so flawed ha!

Drustai wrote:

Frostfeather wrote:In the first chapter you state the importance of creating a story about who the DK was alive. The later sections are all about what it would mean to be dead (as in opposed to be alive). So I am a little confused.

Because I shouldn't have to tell people how to create living characters. The idea is that right at the start, you need to make your character as if they were alive, you don't really need my help with that. Once you have that character, then you can start to learn what they become after they have died (which is what the other sections are attempting to help with). You take the aspects of those sections and then apply them to the core of the character you have already made, seeing how it alters that core.

Just imagine how it would be if you took your main character and made them a DK. Imagine how that character would deal with the various issues brought forth.

Ah yes I've done so several times and somehow I end up with the conclusion that it would not be the same person. We are formed by our experiences and those people around us. Dying and spending some time with the Lich king in your head would affect you. Even after you broke free you have new powers and another insight in the darker side of the world.

I guess this is why so many decides to be "just" a DK. The thought of that all this would be so overwhelming, so dark and grim that your previous life appears only as feint memory.

In your oppinion:
How much of your character's personality would be transferred to the deathknight?
How much memories would linger on?
Would a deathknight's memories be similar to those of a living person.
If positive feelings are so rare would a DK be likely to still be able to have goals and ambitions other then vengance?
Why would he strive to fulfil his ambitions if it gave him nothing?

1) All of it, but the new emotional state as well as the presence of the runeblade/hunger will alter it. Again, you figure out the character's living personality, then once you have that, you apply the new variables which subtly changes it but at which that core still remains.
2) All of them that the character remembered in life.
3) Yes, though perhaps more bleak in perception.
4) Yes, because goals aren't driven by emotion. Many if not most goals are driven by logical desire. Things like love and other emotionally-charged goals won't really be possible (except for the desire to recover the ability to love), but most things do not require emotion. Look at Thassarian. He has a belief in duty as well as still cares for his family (Lyressa), and both Thassarian and Koltira have a sense of friendship towards each other that interferes with their duties in Andorhal. Goals do not need to have emotion. Emotion simply allows one to feel a sense of true happiness and fulfillment for completing a task. A DK won't feel that. So while they'll still have ambitions, when they actually accomplish those they won't really be able to experience the joy in accomplishing it that a living behind does.
5) Because he has nothing else. Because he needs to go through the motions of life or he will not be able to live with himself. Or the boredom and drudgery of his existence forces him to find goals (and due to the frequent lack of ability to go around killing people on a whim when not on a warzone, goals that do not fulfill the hunger ambition). There are people IRL who have limited emotions, or try to subdue them, but that does not stop them from having ambitions and goals of their own.

And remember, they do still have some emotion. Negative ones are much stronger, but positive ones are still there just at a very limited level. One can manage to achieve some measure of contentness for completing a task.[/quote]

I don't know what to say other than that I am impressed with those answers.

So what are all the DKs up to now? I mean do you meet any of them in the key quests in Cata?

Frostfeather wrote:

Drustai wrote:

Frostfeather wrote:In the first chapter you state the importance of creating a story about who the DK was alive. The later sections are all about what it would mean to be dead (as in opposed to be alive). So I am a little confused.

Because I shouldn't have to tell people how to create living characters. The idea is that right at the start, you need to make your character as if they were alive, you don't really need my help with that. Once you have that character, then you can start to learn what they become after they have died (which is what the other sections are attempting to help with). You take the aspects of those sections and then apply them to the core of the character you have already made, seeing how it alters that core.

Just imagine how it would be if you took your main character and made them a DK. Imagine how that character would deal with the various issues brought forth.

Ah yes I've done so several times and somehow I end up with the conclusion that it would not be the same person. We are formed by our experiences and those people around us. Dying and spending some time with the Lich king in your head would affect you. Even after you broke free you have new powers and another insight in the darker side of the world.

I guess this is why so many decides to be "just" a DK. The thought of that all this would be so overwhelming, so dark and grim that your previous life appears only as feint memory.

Faint memory it might be to some people, but those past experiences still shape who that person is. We are a product of our upbringing, and the change is just one more (traumatic) experience to that life. Some people might cling to the person they were, others might want to distract themselves from it so that they don't have to deal with the contrast, while some might be able to just continue on mostly undaunted.

My own character, Drustai, was changed by the experience in that it humbled her and actually brought out some of her better qualities. She had been very arrogant and prideful prior to dying, diving headfirst into dark magicks and vengeance and caring little beyond her own power (she was still a Shadow Priest at the time). Afterwards, she realized that she is not, in fact, invincible, and that worried her. She's become much more careful as a result.

The change also reminded her of her previously-failed attempt at atoning for other grave sins in her life, which has caused her to view the undead state as punishment for the fact that she failed at her redemption. That's humbled her, and forced her to take another look at the life she was leading. She's pulled back from the moral event horizon and has given up her Shadow faith (and much (though not all) of her desire for power at any cost). This has made her embrace her people again, whom she views as far better than herself, and has thus strengthened her links with her commune (albeit, the fact she still studies and practices dark magic continues to be an issue).

On the other hand, she never really cared about getting vengeance on the Lich King. She blames herself for her death, and is actually thankful that she was risen as an undead instead of being forced to embrace oblivion (which she greatly fears). So the war in Northrend didn't really mean much to her, and her goals post-Light's Hope were not the 'stock DK goal' at all. Instead, they were: restoring her people to their former glory, restoring herself to life (or, preferably for her, restoring her ability to experience life while keeping the strengths of undeath), vengeance against the orcs (what the LK did pales in comparison to what the orcs did during the Orc War, in her mind), and continued study of magic.

That's what I mean about the character's previous history/personality influencing who they become after they become a death knight. Traumatic incidents change people, but their core still exists, and that's going to determine the kind of person they become afterwards.

In your oppinion:
How much of your character's personality would be transferred to the deathknight?
How much memories would linger on?
Would a deathknight's memories be similar to those of a living person.
If positive feelings are so rare would a DK be likely to still be able to have goals and ambitions other then vengance?
Why would he strive to fulfil his ambitions if it gave him nothing?

1) All of it, but the new emotional state as well as the presence of the runeblade/hunger will alter it. Again, you figure out the character's living personality, then once you have that, you apply the new variables which subtly changes it but at which that core still remains.
2) All of them that the character remembered in life.
3) Yes, though perhaps more bleak in perception.
4) Yes, because goals aren't driven by emotion. Many if not most goals are driven by logical desire. Things like love and other emotionally-charged goals won't really be possible (except for the desire to recover the ability to love), but most things do not require emotion. Look at Thassarian. He has a belief in duty as well as still cares for his family (Lyressa), and both Thassarian and Koltira have a sense of friendship towards each other that interferes with their duties in Andorhal. Goals do not need to have emotion. Emotion simply allows one to feel a sense of true happiness and fulfillment for completing a task. A DK won't feel that. So while they'll still have ambitions, when they actually accomplish those they won't really be able to experience the joy in accomplishing it that a living behind does.
5) Because he has nothing else. Because he needs to go through the motions of life or he will not be able to live with himself. Or the boredom and drudgery of his existence forces him to find goals (and due to the frequent lack of ability to go around killing people on a whim when not on a warzone, goals that do not fulfill the hunger ambition). There are people IRL who have limited emotions, or try to subdue them, but that does not stop them from having ambitions and goals of their own.

And remember, they do still have some emotion. Negative ones are much stronger, but positive ones are still there just at a very limited level. One can manage to achieve some measure of contentness for completing a task.

I don't know what to say other than that I am impressed with those answers.

So what are all the DKs up to now? I mean do you meet any of them in the key quests in Cata?

Thassarian and Koltira are both commanders in their respective factions now. They each lead forces on opposite sides of Andorhal. Koltira wins that war, but due to the friendship between him and Thassarian, last we see him he is being drug off to Undercity to face Sylvanas for his traitorous sympathies. Thassarian on the other hand we don't really know other than that he and his forces retreated from Andorhal.

No others are met, to my knowledge. They remain lurking in Acherus. I imagine some would serve as watchers of the Scourge in Northrend, while others would be like Thassarian and Koltira, trying to find some new goal for themselves.

Drustai wrote:Faint memory it might be to some people, but those past experiences still shape who that person is. We are a product of our upbringing, and the change is just one more (traumatic) experience to that life. Some people might cling to the person they were, others might want to distract themselves from it so that they don't have to deal with the contrast, while some might be able to just continue on mostly undaunted.

My own character, Drustai, was changed by the experience in that it humbled her and actually brought out some of her better qualities. She had been very arrogant and prideful prior to dying, diving headfirst into dark magicks and vengeance and caring little beyond her own power (she was still a Shadow Priest at the time). Afterwards, she realized that she is not, in fact, invincible, and that worried her. She's become much more careful as a result.

The change also reminded her of her previously-failed attempt at atoning for other grave sins in her life, which has caused her to view the undead state as punishment for the fact that she failed at her redemption. That's humbled her, and forced her to take another look at the life she was leading. She's pulled back from the moral event horizon and has given up her Shadow faith (and much (though not all) of her desire for power at any cost). This has made her embrace her people again, whom she views as far better than herself, and has thus strengthened her links with her commune (albeit, the fact she still studies and practices dark magic continues to be an issue).

On the other hand, she never really cared about getting vengeance on the Lich King. She blames herself for her death, and is actually thankful that she was risen as an undead instead of being forced to embrace oblivion (which she greatly fears). So the war in Northrend didn't really mean much to her, and her goals post-Light's Hope were not the 'stock DK goal' at all. Instead, they were: restoring her people to their former glory, restoring herself to life (or, preferably for her, restoring her ability to experience life while keeping the strengths of undeath), vengeance against the orcs (what the LK did pales in comparison to what the orcs did during the Orc War, in her mind), and continued study of magic.

That's what I mean about the character's previous history/personality influencing who they become after they become a death knight. Traumatic incidents change people, but their core still exists, and that's going to determine the kind of person they become afterwards.

Yes that it a very interesting take, it fits nicely. I don't think it will work for most characters though, there are two keys that make that story reasonable. 1) Her lust for power while alive and her knowledge of the dark arts 2) The genocide she witnessed in her life

The point I am trying to make is that dying, being enslaved by the Lichking, etc. It is more than just another traumatic experience. For most it would be so over the top dang awful that they would change completely. Having witnessed your family and people being slaughtered in the past could possibly take the edge of that but for most character the things you did as a DK would be far more than just another traumatic experience.

Example:
A paladin sworn to protect the meek and to defend the light that wakes up realises that he has done the exact opposite of that - that he has become the very thing he was supposed to fight.

He has to change completely doesn't he? His path has taken a 180 degree turn. Those he loved now hates him, He failed his goals. He was once a man of virtue but now all feels are anger, hatred.

I understand now how it works well for someone that once was trying to become more powerful and ready to sacrifice all for that. So it works for certain alignments but not so well for others?

Frostfeather wrote:The point I am trying to make is that dying, being enslaved by the Lichking, etc. It is more than just another traumatic experience. For most it would be so over the top dang awful that they would change completely. Having witnessed your family and people being slaughtered in the past could possibly take the edge of that but for most character the things you did as a DK would be far more than just another traumatic experience.

Oh, it would change them greatly, yes. But that change is not going to be the same for everyone. The person they were beforehand will drive the person they become after. It's a major event, which will cause a major change... but the end result will not be the same for two different individuals.

Example:
A paladin sworn to protect the meek and to defend the light that wakes up realises that he has done the exact opposite of that - that he has become the very thing he was supposed to fight.

He has to change completely doesn't he? His path has taken a 180 degree turn. Those he loved now hates him, He failed his goals. He was once a man of virtue but now all feels are anger, hatred.

Does he? Maybe for some. But not all.

Perhaps that paladin becomes even more committed to his faith, because faith has become all he has left. Perhaps he disciplines himself against the dire hunger as best as he possibly can, enduring the pain as if he was in a priestly fast, in order to keep from committing even more atrocities. Perhaps he even continues to use the Light (rather than any death knight abilities), even if every part of his unholy condition fights against it.

To quote the Chapter of Holy Anethion: Faith shall overcome.

I understand now how it works well for someone that once was trying to become more powerful and ready to sacrifice all for that. So it works for certain alignments but not so well for others?

Correction: Works for certain people and not others. Everyone is different. That is, again, what I mean about fully understanding who the character is before being able to see who they become when they die. Everyone is an individual, with their own thoughts and behaviors. No two people will react exactly the same to the same incident. There may be similarities, and many might become dark, murderous, and hateful (much like the Forsaken). But not everyone.

Oh, it would change them greatly, yes. But that change is not going to be the same for everyone. The person they were beforehand will drive the person they become after. It's a major event, which will cause a major change... but the end result will not be the same for two different individuals.

you know that actually makes a lot of sense.

Guess my only objection to your OP was that they would keep so much of their personality but I think I understand perfectly fine now what you meant. I yield and join the choir of praises for this "guide" now.

*pats Frostfeather's head* good boy..

I would say this one is a good one to sticky somwhere

Fantastic read. At least, it inspired me in many ways. In particular the relation with rune magic and how it is handed to them in the role of shock troops. I imagine DK's might involve themselves in the hunt for more runes or sharing them... like building a spell book to increase their potential and versatility. For better or worse.

I've been RPing a death knight since not too long ago... I read up a lot on their backstory and such and asked around for general opinions. And I believe some things are more of a guess or preference than anything else. (I am very picky about how I like a death knight to be RPed, and I really like your guide)

I started out with a genuine character that has a history of her own and some lingering traits based upon that history. I would kind of like some opinions on how a death knight would feel about having had a child before she died. Since a mother-child bond is one of the strongest imaginable, I find it plausible it is still there, yet in a dulled state (but I believe my character would not want to burden her very young child with a cold mother's embrace). But I'd like some feedback on this view.

I am also toying with the idea of giving her some flaws for being an early 3th generation death knight. Endalynne died a high elf and was killed and raised during the scourge invasion. I spoke to Kristeas about his views on this matter and he claimed that Arthas would still have been rather new to his powers at that time. So I'm thinking of her having lost some weight when being raised, or that her runic powers tend to deteriorate when fighting a long battle. I haven't RPed this out yet, since I'm still new to this character and I had no need to mention these things yet. I would like to know if these ideas are any good though. ^^

If memories last, even in a mild form, then I doubt a bond between mother and child, or any parent and their child disappears entirely. Perhaps they wouldn't be able to feel the love or bond as they used to, but at the least their mind and willpower might push them to some loyalty towards their own offspring. I just picture the debate they go through whenever brought between the choice of the well being of their children or that of their runesword.
You'd be surprised how weak that "strongest" bond might become. Just think drug or alcohol addicts, and how their relation with their children degenerates... or tends to.

Emrýs wrote:I've been RPing a death knight since not too long ago... I read up a lot on their backstory and such and asked around for general opinions. And I believe some things are more of a guess or preference than anything else. (I am very picky about how I like a death knight to be RPed, and I really like your guide)

I started out with a genuine character that has a history of her own and some lingering traits based upon that history. I would kind of like some opinions on how a death knight would feel about having had a child before she died. Since a mother-child bond is one of the strongest imaginable, I find it plausible it is still there, yet in a dulled state (but I believe my character would not want to burden her very young child with a cold mother's embrace). But I'd like some feedback on this view.

More or less, yes. The bond is still there. What you cannot really feel is the emotions involved. It'd feel empty, more of a 'cold love' than the way it used to be, but still there.

I am also toying with the idea of giving her some flaws for being an early 3th generation death knight. Endalynne died a high elf and was killed and raised during the scourge invasion. I spoke to Kristeas about his views on this matter and he claimed that Arthas would still have been rather new to his powers at that time. So I'm thinking of her having lost some weight when being raised, or that her runic powers tend to deteriorate when fighting a long battle. I haven't RPed this out yet, since I'm still new to this character and I had no need to mention these things yet. I would like to know if these ideas are any good though. ^^

Losing weight is fine provided they had started to decay and lost some mass before being raised. There is no reason for losing mass after or during being raised, though.

As for runic powers deteriorating when fighting a long battle... well, this would most likely have to be a completely mental thing (slipping up and making mistakes as the fight goes on). The undead body does not tire, so they can fight very long battles with ease. Nor would the runeblade 'tire' (which is a bit more important for runic abilities seeing as it does most of the work). You could, however, try something like her body siphoning life energy more rapidly than other death knights (due to being raised improperly). This would give the effect of tiring in longer battles (tiring in general though, not just runic abilities), and also requiring to 'feed' (kill) more often and thus be more hungry (and more mentally unstable) in general.

And it sounds to me like you were a 2nd generation, if you died during the Scourge invasions of Quel'thalas. 3rd generation is only Acherus-raised. Thassarian and Koltira, for example, who were both killed and raised during the Third War, would be 2nd generation.

Drustai wrote:

And it sounds to me like you were a 2nd generation, if you died during the Scourge invasions of Quel'thalas. 3rd generation is only Acherus-raised. Thassarian and Koltira, for example, who were both killed and raised during the Third War, would be 2nd generation.

Aren't 2nd generation DK's, paladins that one way or another got corrupted into Death Knights?

Maybe the dk in question that Emrys is thinking about (to use as an example) was risen as a DK during the invasion, but somewhere along the way died but was good enough to re-rise as an Acherus DK.

Also, my line of thought was that a DK risen during the invasion could be flawed, would be that he was still learning his power then. He didn't know from the start, for example, that he could create banshees, but learned it during the invasion. And I'm not sure that the cration process of 3rd gen. DK's would be known by Ner'zhul.

Ah I see, that already counts as 2nd generation? Well, is there something I need to take into account as a 2nd generation death knight (which is different from being 3rd generation)? Or are they now generaly the same as other death knights? Thassarian and Kolitra do not seem different to me at least (but I may be mistaken, I have not read into it yet)

And on the topic of the mother-child bond, I believe you have both given me a general idea ^^ It might leave her slightly empty and bitter about the void of emotions around the bond, but it is something I can work with!

Thassarian, according what I get from wowpedia, was killed by Falric in Frostmourne cavern. Nothing exactly states that Arthas had a hand in raising him.

And I'd say Endalynne has a similair raising history as Koltira.

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:

Drustai wrote:

And it sounds to me like you were a 2nd generation, if you died during the Scourge invasions of Quel'thalas. 3rd generation is only Acherus-raised. Thassarian and Koltira, for example, who were both killed and raised during the Third War, would be 2nd generation.

Aren't 2nd generation DK's, paladins that one way or another got corrupted into Death Knights?

That's the original definition, but as Arthas raised non-paladins (like Thassarian and Koltira) during the Third War (where the 3rd generation didn't exist, since the 3rd generation is ONLY Acherus death knights), that invalidated that definition.

Emrýs wrote:Ah I see, that already counts as 2nd generation? Well, is there something I need to take into account as a 2nd generation death knight (which is different from being 3rd generation)? Or are they now generaly the same as other death knights? Thassarian and Kolitra do not seem different to me at least (but I may be mistaken, I have not read into it yet)

They are more or less the same. It's more about the time when created than the process involved. 2nd generation might be more powerful, though, since they are almost all handcrafted by the Lich King, while 3rd generation were designed to be mass-produced shock troops.

They both are undead, still have the hunger, the bond with a vampiric runeblade, the undead strengths/weaknesses, and so on.