Necromancy being completely Illegal

Hm. In my view DKs and warlocks are allowed to do their thing outside major cities/settlements, to a certain point. Aslong they don't harm anyone , of course.
Heck, in that Jaina novel, Varian even fought alongside a human warlock and her demon pets when storming Azshara with the Alliance fleet.
But in cities, I do expect for example a DKs huffling around with a ghoul/using other dark stuff to get linched/arrested. As it should be.

erwtenpeller wrote:. But not everyone wants to be a nasty dude that fights AGAINST the allies they had in life. Some players want to serve them in death. let them.

My views exactly.

Players are drawn to black magic. Shadow magic in particular. It's dark and cool. Not everyone who's drawn to these magics wants to play a villain, however. They want to do good with the bad. Wield the forces of evil to do good.

Why don't we just let them?

I always feel like players make necromancy, shadow magic and fel magic out to be much more dramatic than the actual game treats it. If somebody plays a gag on his friends in good humor in the pub by mind controlling them order drinks, are the guards going to arrest this man? Or hell, if it's used to save lives, are we going to execute the hero?

I don't like the compulsion that wants to formalize everything with rules and such. Especially when said rules restrict role-play more than they encourage it.

I guess all that's left for me is to repeat myself in saying that I just don't see what the big deal is.

The problem is that while some want to actually be the good guys, it's a huge minority. 90% or more use the class solely for playing villains, as DB has always been a very cultist-heavy server. Dru was the only consistently good guy darkcaster for years, a handful of others pop up from time to time but they usually don't last (or they go villain). Now that Dru herself has finally gone rogue, the argument for good darkcasters has taken a huge hit.

When 90% of the darkcasters are actually villains, it makes it very, very hard to justify the laws that permit its use. Now we can't actually go and change the overall acceptance because it's canon, but we can regulate it in a harsher fashion in response to all the cultists.

erwtenpeller wrote:If Nial would have gotten his way Dru would be unleashing Forst Wyrms onto the horde on a daily bases now.

They're not exactly something you can mass raise. She's unlikely to get another one.

Pao wrote:I don't like the compulsion that wants to formalize everything with rules and such. Especially when said rules restrict role-play more than they encourage it.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Drustai wrote:

erwtenpeller wrote:If Nial would have gotten his way Dru would be unleashing Forst Wyrms onto the horde on a daily bases now.

They're not exactly something you can mass raise. She's unlikely to get another one.

She would have done as she's told! If good sergeant Bloodbottle wishes for a Forst Wyrm a day, SHE WILL ARRANGE A FROST WYRM A DAY!

Well to me it seems logical that most dark-casters would turn bad sooner or later, or at the very least break the law in some form or another. That's kinda the thing with being addicted to the stuff and the constant urge to get more and more. Its a slippery slope.

and it is that slippery slope that's the most fun from a character development perspective in my humble opinion.

besides the only consistly good dark-caster i've known is Gahalla

To you it makes sense. Some might think otherwise. Those players should have the right to role-play their characters as they see fit without getting harassed.

erwtenpeller wrote:To you it makes sense. Some might think otherwise. Those players should have the right to role-play their characters as they see fit without getting harassed.

Please tell me, where in my post you read anything remotely akin to the mere suggestion of telling people to rp a certain way, and thus arising this response?

I'm sincerely curious, since no where did I even hint towards forcing people into a specific play-style, but a simple comment as to why the majority of dark-casters are "ebul", or turn "ebul" over time.

Amaryl wrote:Well to me it seems logical that most dark-casters would turn bad sooner or later, or at the very least break the law in some form or another. That's kinda the thing with being addicted to the stuff and the constant urge to get more and more. Its a slippery slope.

and it is that slippery slope that's the most fun from a character development perspective in my humble opinion.

I will agree that that's an interesting facet to play out, which is why I'm not really opposing Dru's story going that route (though I'm still annoyed that her outlawing ultimately stems from her healing someone), but it makes it very hard to justify allowing darkcasters in the Alliance.

besides the only consistly good dark-caster i've known is Gahalla

I never really considered Gahalla a darkcaster, since I never saw her use it.

Drustai wrote:but it makes it very hard to justify allowing darkcasters in the Alliance.

That's the thing. It's not up to you to justify it, it has already been justified. Warlocks and Death Knights fighting for the alliance are a thing. In fact, the player character that has chosen the warlock or Death Knight class are exactly that. Dark casters who fight for the alliance.

They're here! They're not Illegal, and they're kicking ass all over the place. Deal with it. <3

The problem is that while some want to actually be the good guys, it's a huge minority. 90% or more use the class solely for playing villains, as DB has always been a very cultist-heavy server. Dru was the only consistently good guy darkcaster for years, a handful of others pop up from time to time but they usually don't last (or they go villain).

They go villain because they haven't much of a choice on the matter. I'll keep saying what I said earlier. If you keep treating a char shit, the player behind it has no other choice than 1)Make him be a sort of martyrized hero Jesus way or 2)make him do the only thing a normal person would do, means going rogue and perhaps looking for revenge for all the shit he had to bear. Of these two choices only one makes actual sense, and it's the second. The only thing that keeps my dk on the good side it's only that he's not compromised so much and has a strong sense of good and evil, and most importantly, found people whom he actually cares for, and is cared by.

When 90% of the darkcasters are actually villains, it makes it very, very hard to justify the laws that permit its use. Now we can't actually go and change the overall acceptance because it's canon, but we can regulate it in a harsher fashion in response to all the cultists.

That is exactly what makes no sense. The rped chars are just a fraction, a minority of the actual people in lore. The 90% of darkcasters in lore are across the shores in Pandaria fighting the Horde, or in the other continuous battles in the old world. The 90% of the dks are Ebon Blades who fought together with Darion and Tirion at Icecrown. I could go on with other classes/races.

Bettween 'harsher' and 'lorelollish' there's a line. The situation is that atm nobody can play a 'good' dk or warlock without 1)Getting his char terribly shortlived or 2)Without making him go villain for the sake of saving the char, or 3)making him again a sort of martyr, risking his life for people who just hate him. And this is -wrong- from any perspective, lore and simple rp.

erwtenpeller wrote:

Drustai wrote:but it makes it very hard to justify allowing darkcasters in the Alliance.

That's the thing. It's not up to you to justify it, it has already been justified. Warlocks and Death Knights fighting for the alliance are a thing. In fact, the player character that has chosen the warlock or Death Knight class are exactly that. Dark casters who fight for the alliance.

They're here! They're not Illegal, and they're kicking ass all over the place. Deal with it. <3

We can't change that fact, but we can make it more restricted. Having been playing on this server for as long as I have, and seeing a million different warlock and undead cultists and most good Ebon Knights/Ebon Blade guilds going rogue, there is very little actual in-character reason to be permissive of them.

Drustai wrote:

I will agree that that's an interesting facet to play out, which is why I'm not really opposing Dru's story going that route (though I'm still annoyed that her outlawing ultimately stems from her healing someone, while her raising a frostwyrm barely got any negative comments), but it makes it very hard to justify allowing darkcasters in the Alliance.

Well the best difference there could be that the frostwyrm was done in a warzone, and the commanders either didn't mind (like Amy), or didn't know (Like Valestrion).
The -healing- was done in a city, amongst civilians and nobles, which is ultimately a completely different setting with different reactions.

I'm not saying that justifies it, but whom the act touches or who views the act, has a great impact on how an act is perceived in the long-run.

I never really considered Gahalla a darkcaster, since I never saw her use it.

Exactly! but still she was a fel addicted bitch

What I learned from this thread:

If you want to play an Alliance-alligned darkcaster, stay away from Stormwind!

Drustai wrote:We can't change that fact, but we can make it more restricted.

But why would you? You're only hurting diversity in RP. If people play evil cultist dudes, they make that choice, and you can hunt those players down and persecute them all you want.

Drustai wrote:Having been playing on this server for as long as I have, and seeing a million different warlock and undead cultists and most good Ebon Knights/Ebon Blade guilds going rogue, there is very little actual in-character reason to be permissive of them

Some of them might have gone rogue not because they wanted to, but because they where left no other choice. No other room to role-play in. I've seen the Ebon Shroud go down because of persecution, and I believe War Sect is next. Isn't anyone getting tired of that?

From the posts in this thread people are defending the 'good' DKs, like they are very rare.
Aye, 90% or more of the playerbase of DKs went eeevul. But in lore, well.
Most DKs who joined the Horde/Alliance are still fighting for those factions. You only see mentions of them fighting for the Ebon Blade / their factions after Light's Hope Chapel if you ignore the one NPC who kept on being loyal to the Scourge (talkin' bout the Archerus ones).

But when people rage IC bout all DKs going evil, and don't understand me wrong. It only brings extra RP, the hatred to DKs. But mind that in lore the majority of non-Scourge DKs are (somewhat uh, 'kinda') good DKs.

(Also, I do -not- mind the 'evil' DK players at all, only bring more RP, so keep on being evil!)

Longknife/Decurius wrote:

The problem is that while some want to actually be the good guys, it's a huge minority. 90% or more use the class solely for playing villains, as DB has always been a very cultist-heavy server. Dru was the only consistently good guy darkcaster for years, a handful of others pop up from time to time but they usually don't last (or they go villain).

They go villain because they haven't much of a choice on the matter. I'll keep saying what I said earlier. If you keep treating a char shit, the player behind it has no other choice than 1)Make him be a sort of martyrized hero Jesus way or 2)make him do the only thing a normal person would do, means going rogue and perhaps looking for revenge for all the shit he had to bear. Of these two choices only one makes actual sense, and it's the second. The only thing that keeps my dk on the good side it's only that he's not compromised so much and has a strong sense of good and evil, and most importantly, found people whom he actually cares for, and is cared by.

Likewise for Dru. But the moment the Alliance turned on the people she cared for, instead of just herself, she broke. The same will likely happen with Decurius eventually.

When 90% of the darkcasters are actually villains, it makes it very, very hard to justify the laws that permit its use. Now we can't actually go and change the overall acceptance because it's canon, but we can regulate it in a harsher fashion in response to all the cultists.

That is exactly what makes no sense. The rped chars are just a fraction, a minority of the actual people in lore. The 90% of darkcasters in lore are across the shores in Pandaria fighting the Horde, or in the other continuous battles in the old world. The 90% of the dks are Ebon Blades who fought together with Darion and Tirion at Icecrown. I could go on with other classes/races.

Bettween 'harsher' and 'lorelollish' there's a line. The situation is that atm nobody can play a 'good' dk or warlock without 1)Getting his char terribly shortlived or 2)Without making him go villain for the sake of saving the char, or 3)making him again a sort of martyr, risking his life for people who just hate him. And this is -wrong- from any perspective, lore and simple rp.

The NPC argument only goes so far. Especially since there are very few actual good warlocks/DKs/shadowpriests in the Alliance even in lore. Most of the Ebon Blades were neutral (only very few, namely Thassarian, Koltira, the players, and a handful of NPCs actually rejoined their old factions). Considering how many evil necromancers, warlocks, and shadowpriests you fight, the NPCs fighting for the Alliance a huge minority even in lore.

Combined with the player character example of 90%+ being villains, that's more than enough reason to justify harsher restrictions.

Ildranor / Odgan wrote:(Also, I do -not- mind the 'evil' DK players at all, only bring more RP, so keep on being evil!)

Indeed, that must be said. Warlocks and Death Knight do make the most exquisite classes to RP evil dudes with.

erwtenpeller wrote:

Drustai wrote:We can't change that fact, but we can make it more restricted.

But why would you? You're only hurting diversity in RP. If people play evil cultist dudes, they make that choice, and you can hunt those players down and persecute them all you want.

Drustai wrote:Having been playing on this server for as long as I have, and seeing a million different warlock and undead cultists and most good Ebon Knights/Ebon Blade guilds going rogue, there is very little actual in-character reason to be permissive of them

Some of them might have gone rogue not because they wanted to, but because they where left no other choice. No other room to role-play in. I've seen the Ebon Shroud go down because of persecution, and I believe War Sect is next. Isn't anyone getting tired of that?

Yup. But it's a slippery slope. People go rogue, the rules get harsher, and so even more go rogue, encouraging even harsher rules. The majority of evil darkcaster characters has ruined it for the few good ones.

Drustai wrote:
Combined with the player character example of 90%+ being villains, that's more than enough reason to justify harsher restrictions.

You're confusing what the "player character" is with what people choose to role-play with their player character.
The player character is the blizzard default. When you roll an Alliance Death Knight or Warlock, they are "good" by default. The role-player may decide to say "to hell with you, blizzard!" and role-play something else with it. And that's awesome.

Drustai wrote:Yup. But it's a slippery slope. People go rogue, the rules get harsher, and so even more go rogue, encouraging even harsher rules. The majority of evil darkcaster characters has ruined it for the few good ones.

So un-ruin it. All these "rules" are player/community created. When they become too complicated to role-play comfortably, and the "power" is put in the hands of just a select few players, something has gone wrong.

This really is fascinating. It almost seems like different people in this thread are speaking different languages and are not really communicating with one another.

One half is considering things from an Out Of Character point of view, mainly, what players want, and what kind of experience in role-play are desireable and not-so-diserable.

The other half sticks to In Character considerations and lore arguments, argueing for both sides. Death Knights being evil or not in lore and in game and how characters ought to react to that.

But these are two different worlds, people. If someone makes the argument: "Hey, I don't like this, this isn't fun for me" only for someone to reply to it "But it makes sense, is logical and backed by lore", what kind of conversations are we having?

It seems most threads about this subjects derail into these kinds of miscommunications. "It's not fun, I don't like it!" versus "It makes sense!".

It's a dead end. It's the German trying to argue that the French's spelling is wrong because their grammar doesn't match theirs.

Drustai wrote:

erwtenpeller wrote:

Drustai wrote:but it makes it very hard to justify allowing darkcasters in the Alliance.

That's the thing. It's not up to you to justify it, it has already been justified. Warlocks and Death Knights fighting for the alliance are a thing. In fact, the player character that has chosen the warlock or Death Knight class are exactly that. Dark casters who fight for the alliance.

They're here! They're not Illegal, and they're kicking ass all over the place. Deal with it. <3

We can't change that fact, but we can make it more restricted. Having been playing on this server for as long as I have, and seeing a million different warlock and undead cultists and most good Ebon Knights/Ebon Blade guilds going rogue, there is very little actual in-character reason to be permissive of them.

Still Dru Lore > Player lore. As everyone keeps pointing out it almost does not matter how many locks or DKs go rogue, in lore sense 100 warlocks is nothing in a kingdom of a million. There is a further problem in which is the king of SW could not have been clearer on his words regarding DKs. If you want to go up against that you make it v hard to RP it out, what does the king say when his word (which is law) is being twisted. What does thassarian say when he is asked to sign a regester? What does mograine do to the alliance when his Knights are being legally oppressed. You can hate the player, but not the factions because of players.

As for RPing racism/any ism, I would urge RPers to get a clue. Bigiots do what they do to feel superiour, however they justfy it they are wrong. OOC if you want to be a Bigot then fine but it is a foul vice... You should think hard aout how to RP with it. The most frustrating aspect of DK RP is this "I was in lordaeron man so I r hate u." Far to simplistic when the true reason is "I feel loss from lordaeron, it is covered by being nasty to them" or "I have no city and a weak identity, who m I... Abusing warlocks makes me feel good", Also the simple form of bigotry it is an RP wall that can not change ic as the plaer will hold to it just so they can justfy being a dick to another guy, rather than seeing it as a flaw in their own char they operate that the flaw is in the other player for making a darkling. DKs are not forsaken or scourge, if your char was the badass soldier who fought the lichking they would know that.

Pao wrote:This really is fascinating. It almost seems like different people in this thread are speaking different languages and are not really communicating with one another.

One half is considering things from an Out Of Character point of view, mainly, what players want, and what kind of experience in role-play are desireable and not-so-diserably.

The other half sticks to In Character considerations and lore-arguments, argueing for both sides. Death Knights being evil or not in lore and in game and how characters ought to react to that.

But these are two different worlds, people. If someone makes the argument: "Hey, I don't like this, this isn't fun for me" only for someone to reply to it "But it makes sense, is logical and backed by lore", what kind of conversations are we having?

It seems most threads about this subjects derail into these kinds of miscommunications. "It's not fun, I don't like it!" versus "It makes sense!".

It's a dead end. It's the German trying to argue that the French's spelling is wrong because their grammar doesn't match theirs.

Yup. Arguments that say, "but it isn't fun for me, the player," will never mean anything to me. Only thing that matters to me is the in-character developments and how they influence in-character responses. The rules might make it more complicated for the players, but it is the logical in-character response to in-character developments. Far as I'm concerned, the player should always take the backseat.

Lexgrad wrote:Still Dru Lore > Player lore. As everyone keeps pointing out it almost does not matter how many locks or DKs go rogue, in lore sense 100 warlocks is nothing in a kingdom of a million. There is a further problem in which is the king of SW could not have been clearer on his words regarding DKs. If you want to go up against that you make it v hard to RP it out, what does the king say when his word (which is law) is being twisted. What does thassarian say when he is asked to sign a regester? What does mograine do to the alliance when his Knights are being legally oppressed. You can hate the player, but not the factions because of players.

And in lore, the vast majority of darkcasters are evil villains. And the Ebon Blades are, for the most part, neutral, only a handful are part of the Alliance. There are probably less than 20 examples of Alliance-aligned darkcasters in lore.

Drustai wrote:

Yup. Arguments that say, "but it isn't fun for me, the player," will never mean anything to me. Only thing that matters to me is the in-character developments and how they influence in-character responses. The rules might make it more complicated for the players, but it is the logical in-character response to in-character developments. Far as I'm concerned, the player should always take the backseat.

I'm glad to see you articulate yourself so clearly, but...

*shudders*

It sends a shiver down my spine. I couldn't disagree more!

But to each his own, I guess. Everyone is free to understand and play the game as they please, as long as there isn't too much conflict between the different playstyles.

Some of them might have gone rogue not because they wanted to, but because they where left no other choice. No other room to role-play in. I've seen the Ebon Shroud go down because of persecution, and I believe War Sect is next.

War Sect can't be next because wasn't even given the chance to even exist. And this says it all.

Likewise for Dru. But the moment the Alliance turned on the people she cared for, instead of just herself, she broke. The same will likely happen with Decurius eventually.

I see that hard, considering that Feral is a very good dude. But in case that happens, it won't be Dec's fault, but only Alliance's/whoever's breaks him.

Yup. But it's a slippery slope. People go rogue, the rules get harsher, and so even more go rogue, encouraging even harsher rules. The majority of evil darkcaster characters has ruined it for the few good ones.

And again. We have hundreds, maybe thousands darkcasters IC and lorewise fighting for the Aliiance IC. Not acknowledging this and ignoring it is ignoring official lore, same making laws ignoring it. Dark Sphere, Omen, Legion and I could go on are and were only a minority of the IC and lorewise darkcasters. So your reasoning is flawed.

So un-ruin it. All these "rules" are player/community created. When they become too complicated to role-play comfortably, and the "power" is put in the hands of just a select few players, something has gone wrong.

QFT And here something has gone horribly wrong.

@ Pao

It's not an issue per se. I wouldn't have rolled a dk in the first place if I wanted tea and biscuits with my char, nor would I have rolled Tuo as he was rolled at start, or a cultist. I'm okay with my chars hated, mistrusted and persecuted. But what has happened, and it's keeping happening is a short-circuit between what is expected by lore and what instead some people want because of their idiosyncratic vision, heavily biased on some kind of server lore thing. What Drustai and some others are advocating makes no sense lorewise, and it's a dead end for at least two classes, warlocks and death knights, forcing them to be roleplayed not as they could, and meant, to be roleplayed in lore. And it's, I'd add, suicidal for the server's rp population.

OFFICIAL LORE > SERVER LORE, ALWAYS.

Perhaps Dru, unless blizz intended player DKs to be the norm. Regardless the Ebon Blade are no whipping posts, they have great support and respect, strong and hard allies in the AC. They fought alongside the alliance in Northrend, likely the war would have been years longer and thousands of souls more costly without them. It makes no sense to be so openly hostile towards them politicly or IC. It offends both of Thelos's points, IC it is not fun and in lore it is baseless.