Ecology of the Deathknight up

[Intrope]

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I felt like joining in the 4e conspiracy comments. Has anyone noticed, at the beginning of the article, how there's a description of the Death Knight creation story from the POV of Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings, but no Gnomes?

Does this simply mean Gnomes have no creation story for Death Knights, or that the article could only be so long and so couldn't fit in all the opinions, or is it another pointer towards the possibility (or is it probability by now?) that Gnomes aren't in the 4e PHB1?

Each of the first three stories imply that Death Knight #1 was of their race--and Orcus thinks Gnomes are too silly to make into Death Knights

I'm digging this; it does seem to have absorbed some of the Skeletal Warrior, but that's fine (do we really need two kinds of undead warriors?) Death Knights killed the Skeletal Warrior and took his stuff!

 

[Badkarmaboy]

It seems like the underlying principle is to make everything bland and corporate.

How so? Did they put them in suits? Wal Mart Greeter Armor?

All joking aside, can you elaborate?

 

[jester47]

Dragon Issue 324 Seems to have a similar armor configuration and sword design on its death knight.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm digging this; it does seem to have absorbed some of the Skeletal Warrior, but that's fine (do we really need two kinds of undead warriors?) Death Knights killed the Skeletal Warrior and took his stuff!

Skeleton warriors and Death Knights are vastly different even if the Death knight can no longer spam the battlefield with Walls of Ice. Skeleton warriors are duped undead soul slaves that would love to get back at their creators and end their tortured existence. Death Knights generally sought out or at least accept their new unlife.

Formerly powerful fighters, skeleton warriors are undead lords forced into their nightmarish states by powerful wizards or evil demigods who trapped their souls in golden circlets. The sole reason that skeleton warriors remain on the Prime Material plane is to search for and recover the circlets that contain their souls.

...But if the controller loses the circlet, either by accident or by a deliberate act, the warrior immediately proceeds toward the controller at twice its normal movement rate (12) to attack and destroy him. The warrior does not rest until it destroys its former controller or until control is reestablished. If the warrior holds the circlet to its head, both the warrior and the circlet turn to dust, never to reappear.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Problem is, Soth isn't the only death knight on Krynn. There's 3 or 4 others I can think of right off the top of my head. Whether the new death knight will fit them or not, I don't know. It might be easier to create a "Death Knight of Krynn" template.

You mean almost exactly like you did in 3.5?

 

[pawsplay]

Skeleton warriors and Death Knights are vastly different even if the Death knight can no longer spam the battlefield with Walls of Ice. Skeleton warriors are duped undead soul slaves that would love to get back at their creators and end their tortured existence. Death Knights generally sought out or at least accept their new unlife.

I thought Death Knights were cursed.

 

[Korgoth]

How so? Did they put them in suits? Wal Mart Greeter Armor?

All joking aside, can you elaborate?

What I mean is, they seem to be trying to give everything a "job" and make it "standard issue".

The old Death Knight is a Villain because it's very similar to a Hero: it is capable of handling itself in multiple situations. It has a number of different powers that, while they may not seem to follow a standard rationale, give it flexibility and "tricks up its sleeve". It is magic resistant, reflects spells, causes fear, gates in helpers, creates an ice wall, casts symbol and casts fireball. It usually rides a Nightmare. The point is, it doesn't have a "job" per se. It's good at practically everything: you can't reliably use spells against it, it's tough in melee, it can keep you at a distance, it can fry you, it can bring buddies, it can fly away on its hellhorse. There are only a few of these dudes (tragically, they are fallen paladins) but they are tough... the equal of any hero, or even most parties of heroes.

The "new guy" appears basically to be a Tank or melee monster. He has gone from a tragic creature of surprising and terrible capacities to a mere sword-lich. Why? Because everybody is supposed to have a "job", and Human Resources the DM has to know where to put him. If he could melee and cast fireball we'd have to circular file his resume because he'd obviously be "overqualified".

I see it going the same way with most things. They've already discussed "brutes", etc. I'm guessing you'll see things like "Orc Brute", "Orc Swiftrunner", "Orc Archer", etc.; because we certainly can no longer imagine a member of a primitive society who is reasonably self-sufficient and capable of doing more than one thing. Even tribal orcs will have an absolute division of labor: you don't send a Mail Room Orc to do a Customer Service Orc's job.

It's just a common cultural... metaphor? Submetaphor? I don't know the word for it. But I see it in a lot of things: standard point buys for characters, for example. Lots of people want to have the "standard issue" character which has a "default array" of stats, non-random hit points, 0% deviation from standard wealth-by-level guidelines, and which conforms to one of a set of collectively-determined "builds" in order to optimally specialize in a task. The fantasy version of an "empty suit", in my opinion. Doesn't matter if the suit is linen or mail.

The original Death Knight interests me precisely because it is a bit unconventional and unpredictable. It's a creation of dark magics, so it has ended up imbued with a fire ability (fireball) and an ice ability (wall thereof). That exercises my imagination because it makes me work for it. I can stretch my brain to think of how to use this guy, to think of why he is the way he is, to think of all the weird different stuff he could do. The "new guy", on the other hand, is entirely predictable. Skeleton in armor with a big sword? Let me guess: he hits people with his sword all the time? Got it... get in the Tank queue, skeletor. I'll call you when my Encounter Design Equation calls for a Sword15.

 

[Imaro]

I like the Deathknight articles in Dragon 290 & 291 way better than this one. Though I did notice the origin stories are very similar to the one's from the Deathknights of Greyhawk.

My biggest gripe is the whole, one must seek out the ritual to become a Deathknight business. I like the whole tempted or tricked in a moment of weakness theme that Deathknights had going in 3e. IMHO this change pushes them stylistically more towards a liche(actively seeking out the power of undeath) paradigm and makes them definite "bad guys".

In my mind what made Deathknights cooler than liches was the fact that they could be more sympathetic, even to the PC's. This is one of the reasons Soth is such an enduring character. The new direction seems to paint them as evil people who know what they are doing and just want more power.

I will also note that this take on the Deathknight(in Dragon 290 & 291) had nothing resembling the liche's phylactery as necessary to become a Deathknight. This seems pointless, and I like the insinuation in 290 & 291 that the Deathknight's soul is trapped in his body better than the soul weapon angle. Issues 290 & 291 also retained the "classical" appearance (chared skeleton w/prinpick eyes) that neither 3e or 4e are going with and clearly stated that Orcus, Kyuss, Nerull or Demogorgon could all create Deathknights.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

To me it appears there is a 3 in the green glow of the death knight's left eye socket (eye on the right side of the cover).

 

[Irda Ranger]

My biggest gripe is the whole, one must seek out the ritual to become a Deathknight business. I like the whole tempted or tricked in a moment of weakness theme that Deathknights had going in 3e. IMHO this change pushes them stylistically more towards a liche(actively seeking out the power of undeath) paradigm and makes them definite "bad guys".

Agreed that seeking out a ritual changes the flavor a lot -- but frankly, this is dirt simple to ignore. It doesn't even require any re-writing of the rules.

In my mind what made Deathknights cooler than liches was the fact that they could be more sympathetic, even to the PC's. This is one of the reasons Soth is such an enduring character. The new direction seems to paint them as evil people who know what they are doing and just want more power.

Soth isn't sympathetic in the sense that he made a single mistake, or suffered a moment of weakness. He was pretty much a bad guy for most of his life. It was just that his story was more understandable. It hit closer to home for most people, I think. Seeking immortality through magical means is obviously standard fair in fantasy, but it's so far outside the real-world human experience that people can't relate to it the way they can stories of love, jealously and betrayal.

I will also note that this take on the Deathknight(in Dragon 290 & 291) had nothing resembling the liche's phylactery as necessary to become a Deathknight. This seems pointless, and I like the insinuation in 290 & 291 that the Deathknight's soul is trapped in his body better than the soul weapon angle. Issues 290 & 291 also retained the "classical" appearance (chared skeleton w/prinpick eyes) that neither 3e or 4e are going with and clearly stated that Orcus, Kyuss, Nerull or Demogorgon could all create Deathknights.

Yeah. Luckily the whole Soul-weapon thing seems easy to ignore too. You still have to destroy the Knight himself to defeat him. Frankly, I'll probably ignore the bit about ensouling the weapon and just say that the Death Knights still wield the weapon they wielded in life, but now it has certain properties.