The Ebon Road, a guide to RPing a Death Knight

So the muscles are the strings of your undead puppet?

Thank you for the comprehensive response, Drustai. I ask because I can imagine these details being important if the Death Knight is ever forced in to medical roleplay or has to roleplay certain physical injuries. And of course...the extent to how much an actual "body" is necissary for the Death Knight.

Within these chosen set of rules of Necromancy, one could easily make sense of a classic Headless Horseman. If the brain is pretty much dead and useless, a Death Knight would keep its basic cognitive functions when beheaded, except perhaps certain sensory ones that rely on being localized in the head. It wouldn't be a stretch to say those functions could be relocalized into a helmet. Those Ghostlights; there's no reason they couldn't be inside the eyesockets of a helmet instead of a skull, right? If so, roleplaying a true Headless Death Knight could be good stuff. Your "eyes" and perhaps certain other senses ("Scent" and "Hearing" ?) would be literally inside your helmet; without it you'd be blind. Since the Death Knight's voice seems to be fully Necromantic as well, you could speak just fine. Yes, I can see the potential: just wear a helmet that fully covers the entire head and you're set.

Not only would there be the possiblity of a Headless Death Knight existing, it would even make a whole lot of sense for there to be a few. Why waste a perfectly good body if the head gets chopped off? It would be an aweful waste.

Edit: Rewrote the whole thing as theorycrafting rather than a question, since there really wasn't one in that mess of a paragraph.

IMO As long as its death in battle. Geists seem to hav been hanged looking at the model so it suggests that executed criminals are concidered lesser. Unless the scourge hanged them ofc but there seems little sense in going to all that unless there is a lich who enjoys watching the dance.

Bumping this cos im re-reading it and it is great and Dru is awesome.

Also i am <3 the ic hatred SW

Dru was telling me tonight she would like some persecution also so it is only fair, to pick on her when you see her too

I've never actually played a Death Knight but apon reading this I actually got intrested, excellent work <3

Doooo it!

hehe come join the club!

A lot of people need to read this .___.
DK roleplayers have a tendency to (no offence, I have first hand experience of some awesome DK RP) be quite... Arrogant and unbelievably invincible.

Lyniath wrote:A lot of people need to read this .___.
DK roleplayers have a tendency to (no offence, I have first hand experience of some awesome DK RP) be quite... Arrogant and unbelievably invincible.

Yep.

Admittedly, DKs are much more hardy in certain kinds of fighting--much greater strength, endurance, pain threshold, etc. But they're not invincible, and are exceptionally weak against certain things (anything to do with fire or the Light).

Sadly, the DK class tends to attract the people who like to godmode. All classes do it, though--it's the person rather than the class that's the issue, and I doubt reading this guide would change such an individual's propensity towards godmoding.

Drustai wrote:But they're not invincible, and are exceptionally weak against certain things (anything to do with fire or the Light).

*Pushes Drustai in a Moonwell.*

Drustai wrote:
Admittedly, DKs are much more hardy in certain kinds of fighting--much greater strength, endurance, pain threshold, etc. But they're not invincible, and are exceptionally weak against certain things (anything to do with fire or the Light).

That means part of the problem of inappropiate invincibility is that the Death Knight's opponents do not exploit these weaknesses nearly enough. If you do not attack their weak spots, the Death Knights should hold the atvantage. Chuck a vial of holy water in their face, or lure them into consecrated ground, then proceed to pummel them. Dont just charge in and expect a "fair fight", because you shouldn't be getting that from Death Knights.

"Should hold the advantage" is a dangerous assumption. It assumes knowledge of their opponent. I would leave it at "they have unholy strength, endurance and pain tolerance" and let another choose how that weighs against their character's attributes.
I can imagine a blademaster with exceptional skill and an incredible training program might offer a good fight. They had perhaps a good arms training, but not to the extent of a blademaster. Then again, Instructor Razuvious wasn't exactly a wuss... But he doesn't seem to be the Yoda or Mister Myagi that helps a soul go beyond their abilities.

In short I simply mean that nobody should expect superiority by default. Instead, embrace a style and play out your own weaknesses, and another's strength to improve your own RP experience. I would recommend to use unholy strength to be an "active skill", like a piece of a puzzle or a spell you can use, not a passive attribute that makes you "hur hur stronger than all otherz".
I recall Drustai using it like that once, and it felt like a proper way to wield it.

I agree with everything you just said, JP. I may have worded things a bit too bluntly, so thank you for that nuance. What I ment with "Should hold the atvantage" was "Death Knights have above average combat capabilities". Wether that means they hold the actual atvantage in any combat situation in a narrative and/or dramatic sense, remains to be seen and wholly depends on the circumstances.

And of course. keeping the laws of theatrics in mind, roleplaying a boring invincible killing machine that wins by default is no fun for anyone involved, so you would as a player actively seek out ways to play out your character's weaknesses, in order to tell the most engaging story possible.

My point was: the same ought to be expected from the opponent. He should adjust his style accordingly, exploiting possible holes the other player leaves open. It takes two to fight.

Jeanpierre wrote:"Should hold the advantage" is a dangerous assumption. It assumes knowledge of their opponent. I would leave it at "they have unholy strength, endurance and pain tolerance" and let another choose how that weighs against their character's attributes.
I can imagine a blademaster with exceptional skill and an incredible training program might offer a good fight. They had perhaps a good arms training, but not to the extent of a blademaster. Then again, Instructor Razuvious wasn't exactly a wuss... But he doesn't seem to be the Yoda or Mister Myagi that helps a soul go beyond their abilities.

In short I simply mean that nobody should expect superiority by default. Instead, embrace a style and play out your own weaknesses, and another's strength to improve your own RP experience. I would recommend to use unholy strength to be an "active skill", like a piece of a puzzle or a spell you can use, not a passive attribute that makes you "hur hur stronger than all otherz".
I recall Drustai using it like that once, and it felt like a proper way to wield it.

It is passive, JP. It isn't a spell-like ability. Undead have greater strength, endurance, and pain threshold as part and parcel of their very being. Just like certain races! Remember, a Tauren is going to be much stronger, by default, than a human. So will a draenei, or a dwarf. They naturally have the advantage in combat--that does not mean, however, that a well-trained human can't beat them. Having a disadvantage doesn't mean you are going to lose, it means you have to try harder, and perhaps exploit 'cheap' tactics (like holy water with a DK) in order to get the one-up. An exceptionally well-trained, strong Tauren or death knight might be absolutely impossible to beat in a 'straight-up' fight, but all that means is don't try to fight them in a straight-up fight! Find their weaknesses and exploit them in a way that downplays their natural advantages.

Ultimately, in every fight there is always advantages and disadvantages. Even something such as greater martial training is an advantage that one character might hold over another... but that doesn't mean the less-skilled person can't win. Drustai, for example, is a rather poorly skilled combatant--however, she can make up for it with her unholy strength and endurance, as well as with her magic. Or not. Sometimes her innate disadvantage will lay her low. That's fine. Point is, she is advantaged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others. She is around 20% stronger than the average draenei (whom are already somewhat stronger than humans), and never tires or gets out of breath--which means she can run and move faster and for longer. She is basically in far superior physical condition than most if not all humans, even the ones who are physically fit themselves. In a straight up contest of physical strength and stamina, she will win--in fact, she avoids such contests because she knows it 'isn't fair'. That doesn't mean she will win in fights. Where she might be very strong, she is not very well-trained in combat. She has only basic swordfighting skills, lacks true experience in combat, and is a coward (as much as a DK can be). Not to mention, the natural disadvantage against holy and fire attacks.

No one is perfectly equal. Everyone is different and unique. Certain races are naturally advantaged in physical fights (consider undead as a 'race' in this instance). It means they are formidable warriors, for sure, but, once again, that does not mean that the disadvantaged person can't win through craftiness, skill, or even damn luck.

Losing in RP is not a bad thing! Being disadvantaged in RP is not a bad thing! What is bad, is when an individual godmodes, ignoring attacks that should have laid them low (fire/holy stuff for a DK, for example). Those people exist on both the advantaged and disadvantaged sides.

Drustai wrote:It is passive, JP. It isn't a spell-like ability.

By definition, yes... but in terms of how you play with it, it helps to set the tone and style of the character. Compare these two emotes:
Drustai swings her blade fast and hard at Jeanpierre
Drustai calls to her unholy strength to swing the heavy runeblade with remarkable speed and strength at Jeanpierre.

I'd certainly prefer the latter one.

Jeanpierre wrote:

Drustai wrote:It is passive, JP. It isn't a spell-like ability.

By definition, yes... but in terms of how you play with it, it helps to set the tone and style of the character. Compare these two emotes:
Drustai swings her blade fast and hard at Jeanpierre
Drustai calls to her unholy strength to swing the heavy runeblade with remarkable speed and strength at Jeanpierre.

I'd certainly prefer the latter one.

I do the latter not to treat it as a 'spell-like ability', but to specifically inform you, the other player, that her swing is incredibly strong.

Therefore, I would emote it as "uses her unholy strength", rather than "calls to". And I do that in every physical emote that I make, except when she might not be using all of her strength (IE, I'm not going to emote that she 'picks up a book with all of her unholy might', because she doesn't need to use her greater strength for such a task).

Again, the reason I specifically reference it in my emotes is to remind people that it's there. Otherwise I would expect them to treat it like a normal blow, forgetting that as an undead it makes her strikes much more powerful.


I treat it as a passive ability, not an 'activated' one. Because that's what it is. It is only 'active' in that one can choose just how much strength to use in a specific task.

I like the idea of emoting that as many do not understand death knight lore.

But i also agree with Thelos.

To take dreth as an example, he is a street fighter. If he is in a situation where he is toe to toe with any skilled warrior he "loses". He does not have the training or the skill to beat a knight or anyone with formal training. It is worse with Those who use shields. He would try to "Win" a fight by using other means more dreth like means. A knife in the back whilst they are not looking, or trying to get his retliation in first. The point is that It is not op for a Paladin to roll over dreth, or a mage even. He has not the skill set to beat these people in a fair fight. If Dreth faced a DK it is not right to say he could not win, but he could not do it by drawing swords and going toe to toe.

The point is a DK is not OP, but if you are just a soldier, peasent levy, street thug or merc, can you really say you have the skill set to beat them in a fair fight? But if you use teamwork, or other means, play to your strengh, you can defeat them. If Dreth expects to cream a DK in open melee, he is the OP char.

Now in the shroud at least we have guild rules to try and limit ourselves just to avoid op. We will not use magic in the city, it is illegal. We will try to keep fights without using swords to. Largely we will back down alot and mostly will not attack randomly, we attack those who provoke.

But rembember if a DK kills you it is more than death, your soul is gone. It will rob you of the after life. That being said i know i would avoid them like the plague unless there was no choice.

if a DK kills you it is more than death, your soul is gone

That is not really true. If you chop his head off, he's dead. However, a Death Knight -can- steal the soul of the dead one, through many means. The Lich King used Frostmourn to steal Saurfang the Younger's soul at the battle of the Wrathgate. That would be feeding your runeblade, -axe or whatever you're using souls to empower it.

Eowale wrote:

if a DK kills you it is more than death, your soul is gone

That is not really true. If you chop his head off, he's dead. However, a Death Knight -can- steal the soul of the dead one, through many means. The Lich King used Frostmourn to steal Saurfang the Younger's soul at the battle of the Wrathgate. That would be feeding your runeblade, -axe or whatever you're using souls to empower it.

... which is what Lexgrad just said. <.<

Well yes, lore suggests you can elect not to take the soul. But I see not many reasons why a DK would kill you and not clame what is his.

The point is alot more than death is on stake. Personally I fail to see the point of fighting to the death over anything small and as the stakes could be higher than death I would not suggest getting into a fight with one.

which is what Lexgrad just said

No, what he said that if a Death Knight kills you, your soul is automaticly taken. I just took it upon myself to correct it. Otherwise, he's quite right. DK's arn't OP but street thugs, peasants and so on can't really expect to go into a fight without any training against a Knight that has been trained to be a killing machine.

We rp that if they dont take a soul however the soulblade will punish them some how. Plus i see no reason the DK would not take the soul, unless he was killing a friend for some reason or was a lighty and doesnt by rule.

Eowale wrote:

which is what Lexgrad just said

No, what he said that if a Death Knight kills you, your soul is automaticly taken. I just took it upon myself to correct it. Otherwise, he's quite right.

Ahh. Now I see.

To be exact then, if you started a street fight with Lex and he kills you, he takes your soul.