Anti-Templar

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:57 pm

I know the GMs are incredibly busy with current guilds and upcoming guilds, but an idea I love is an "evil" Templar.

Dark Knight, Nether Knight, Knight of Corvus, etc.

A nether-based tank aligned with the Outpost. Armor-heavy, sword-board or heavy weapon based. Might have healing powers based on Corvus alignment.

Armor Mastery
A skill to summon the nether to coat a weapon in order to add flares/damage
Debuffs
Crowd control
etc.

My creative juices are failing me right now, but I absolutely love the idea of an evil warrior.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:02 pm

For the most part, that sounds like a melee-oriented member of the Rook Parlour (if you replace fire with ice).

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:06 pm

Except Rooks don't get a pass from Corvus. I'm talking a real evil dude part of an "evil" Church. Not some philosopher ninny that studies dead things.

I see what you're saying... but nether != fire or ice. It's just... nether.

Acarin · Post by **Acarin** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:33 pm

I like this idea. It would be very cool to have Vittoria (or Vittoria's living superior) leading a guild of fallen knights to assist in the fight against the church!

Post by **Rias** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:09 pm

As far as I'm concerned, Reynard gave the correct answer. We're not going to have good/bad equivaents in everything. Players can play a Rook, Mercenary, or Dwaedn aligned with Corvus (or an immortal to their liking, once we release info on more) if they want to go the "dark warrior" route.

Note I plan to have some minor powers granted by certain immortals. So a merc of Evilgod could compliment their warrior guild abilities with spooky immortal-granted powers.

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:28 pm

So we can have a Church of Light, but not a Church of [Other]?

I really dig the immortals idea, but I think Corvus needs a little more ammunition here. Seems like Claw set a standard.

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:28 pm

Also... the idea of a physical Rook makes me want to kill somebody.

June · Post by **June** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:01 pm

Hater's ganna hate.

Post by **Rias** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:00 pm

There are plenty of cults and other religious sects out there. Most of them likely more "religious" than the Church of Light, which is more a philosophy and doesn't worship any deity. But are there any Churches of Evil Dark Knights Who Wear Plate And Cast Evil Spells? No. There may well be a member of an "evil" religious group who wears plate and casts spooky spells, though. Perhaps a Rook in one of the various Crowhaven cults.

Rooks are generally geared more toward casting, but have abilities that will compliment a physical build as well, for those who choose it.

Nootau · Post by **Nootau** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:45 pm

Makkah, what do you even mean by deathknight/dark paladin? If you mean someone who can use nether but is a full plate user, why don't you look into rooks? I did it on my Rook when I played them. Just focus on Cryomancy spikes ability, this will allow you to wear plate and coat it with ice barbs for additional armor soak, then use a glave, my favorite weapon, and barb it or you would use a great sword. You will have increased soak and a good attack. You can train Sorcery and gain minor animation and create a ghoul minion. What is missing from this 'Deathknight'?

Now for this 'tainted' aspect of Rook.. why would a Rook choose to be tainted if he is an enemy of the church and plans to assault them in straight combat? What do these 'tainted' Rooks gain over untainted Rooks and what do they lose?

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:08 am

[quote=Nootau]Makkah, what do you even mean by deathknight/dark paladin? If you mean someone who can use nether but is a full plate user, why don't you look into rooks? I did it on my Rook when I played them. Just focus on Cryomancy spikes ability, this will allow you to wear plate and coat it with ice barbs for additional armor soak, then use a glave, my favorite weapon, and barb it or you would use a great sword. You will have increased soak and a good attack. You can train Sorcery and gain minor animation and create a ghoul minion. What is missing from this 'Deathknight'?

Now for this 'tainted' aspect of Rook.. why would a Rook choose to be tainted if he is an enemy of the church and plans to assault them in straight combat? What do these 'tainted' Rooks gain over untainted Rooks and what do they lose?[/quote]

To answer simply, knights are beings of lawful alignment. Rooks don't strike me so much as this. I have researched perhaps going the route you have identified, and while it may seem like something you dig, I don't particularly. I'd rather have a lawful evil character that practices great martial skill/abilities (think Shield bashes, weapon masteries, armor mastery) perhaps augmented by some taint, but not really cryomancy. Debuffs would be cool...

I do appreciate your ideas, Nootau. I have considered that route in the past.

KianTheArcher · Post by **KianTheArcher** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:40 am

There's nothing, I think, about the Rook Parlour that doesn't mean they could not be a lawful played character. If you're looking for a character augmented by taint, you could simply request to play a tainted character or, alternatively, use the Possession ability on your familiar, and use your familiar as your "weapon and armor" of choice, while your Rook remains in relative safety.

Nootau · Post by **Nootau** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:12 pm

Lawfully Evil... Can you please explain what this even means?

Armor Mastery only aid you in training armor skill, so not a real thing to mention.

Taint.. So far any one can be tainted.

Weapon masteries, okay...

You are sounding like you want not a Rook but just a Tainted Mercenary. What would really be needed then to complete this 'Deathknight' concept outside of the standard Mercenary abilities?

hadesfire · Post by **hadesfire** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:47 pm

Lawful evil is a character who follows whatever guidelines set down by its organization/master/kingdom except that the character and possibly it's master/etc is evil .

I don't think this constitutes a tainted mercenary because they use netherim, so the templar with Nether abilities seems like a better fit to me.

KianTheArcher · Post by **KianTheArcher** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:51 pm

A Lawful alignment means they respect the laws, period. Not just their own laws. Lawful evil means they find ways to use the laws for evil purposes. A member of the IRS that is trying to find a way to get more money out of an orphanage via taxes would be lawful evil.

Bryce · Post by **Bryce** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:51 pm

Knight with nether abilities, you mean? Templar with nether abilities would be an oxymoron.

Here's a link to help explain lawful evil and give examples:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:54 pm

[quote=Nootau]Lawfully Evil... Can you please explain what this even means?

Armor Mastery only aid you in training armor skill, so not a real thing to mention.

Taint.. So far any one can be tainted.

Weapon masteries, okay...

You are sounding like you want not a Rook but just a Tainted Mercenary. What would really be needed then to complete this 'Deathknight' concept outside of the standard Mercenary abilities?[/quote]

Never played a game with alignments? Please allow me to educate you. There are 9 basic types of people in different combinations of Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral in conjunction with Good, Evil, Neutral. Lawful people generally have respect for laws, truth, values and chaotic types don't. Neutral is obviously a grey area in-between. You then have basic "good" people and "evil" people. Although stance really depends on perspective. It's a fairly widely use and accepted system in pnp and MUDs. Here's a decent break-down: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

To complete a deathknight concept, basically, like I mentioned some type of debuffs and general badassery associated with nethertaint. An evil mercenary isn't a bad idea (in fact, I already have 2 in the Outpost), but they don't really fit the idea I have for this dude. Mercs I see more as the freelance pay-for-protection. That's not particularly lawful.

hadesfire · Post by **hadesfire** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:03 pm

Dangit Bryce, i almost clicked that link, I have things to do! But seriously, yeah, I guess that would be an oxymoron.

Nootau · Post by **Nootau** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:30 pm

BTW, I understand what D&D alignments are, but what role do they have in CloK? What is a Lawful Good or a Chaotic Neutral within CLok? I don't mean classes but examples of these. Heck, you don't even need to be 'Evil' to be an assassin(I meant assassin, not just those who follow Shar).

Seeing as class as very little to do with alignment it is a personal thing. What stops a Merc from being Lawful? What are the laws you are looking to even follow for evil intent? Mercs are also not mindless, they can turn down a job of they want to or not. Being a Merc is a job.

Now the only thing is missing is a 'debuff' ability as nethertaint has nothing to do with being in a particular guild. What do you mean by debuff? Any vague ability that would lessen your opponent in some way? Is that all or is there more focused concept that you are looking for? What kind of 'debuffs' would even be related to taint?

Bryce · Post by **Bryce** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:01 pm

Templar and monks need to be stereotypically good (but I think not lawful? I think they would choose the good choice over the lawful choice if they had to make an exclusive decision between the two). If not, they get kicked out, so it just depends on the guild. Sounds like Spearhead is showing interest in a guild that adheres to some type of code or guidelines, and are generally on the evil side of the alignment spectrum rather than the good.

Can a mod split this topic? This isn't even remotely about Minor Beacon anymore.

Nootau · Post by **Nootau** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:15 pm

The issue is 'I am Ebil!' is rather pointless. Being evil for the sake of evil in an area which is neutrally good or true neutral? Is the point of this Deathknight to be part of an organization who hates and wished to destroy the Order for reason X?

(The issue with parting the topic is.. where to put this DK part. It doesn't fit in anywhere)

Bryce · Post by **Bryce** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:39 pm

General Guild Discussion seems like a good place for it to me.

A group being evil doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to step on kittens and kick puppies, or stab people in the face for laughs, or kill people just because they claim they're psychopathic killers and that makes them evil. They could have any sort of ultimate goal or purpose, and wouldn't need to be as grandiose and cliched as take over or destroy the world, and go about achieving that via morally and ethically controversial means. They could want to unite the independent people of the Lost Lands under a united order, and believe they know what's best for everyone and take that upon themselves, intending to rule by force and strip freedoms from the people in order to establish some sort of dark, twisted utopia where everyone is equal and crime is non-existent (thanks to this guild of dark knights keeping the peace of course). They could be out to make the world a supposedly safer place by indiscriminately eliminating whomever they perceive to be threats (other than themselves, of course).

Maybe they're the remnants of old Aetgard, and they want their land back, and want to kick everyone else out by force. Or maybe they're a group of estranged Fasa who think humans are ruining the land and should be purged to save nature.

Or maybe they serve an immortal like Malfant, and do anything they can to acquire ultimate knowledge and understanding, completely ignoring things like ethics other than their own twisted version, striving to achieve some kind of dark ascension once the ultimate enlightenment is achieved. Verungnr, the Creature of the Abyss also sounds like he, or she, or it, could be a good patron for a group of dark knights sent to collect offending souls and bring them to some twisted version of justice at the hands (or tentacles) of the abyssal horror.

Those are off the top of my head. While evil can be, and often is, portrayed as stupid or shallow, it can also be interesting and deep, and the best is when you can even understand and sympathize with it to some degree.

Makkah · Post by **Makkah** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:46 pm

Bump. Since you all were voting for this discussion to be moved.

Nootau · Post by **Nootau** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:00 pm

Bryce the issue with Interesting and 'Deep' evil is that it can easily be portrayed as not really evil, especially as evil is a bias point of view. It quickly starts to boil the questions to, 'What is always evil?'as evil in one group's eyes is not evil in another.

The idea of taking away other's emotions and freedoms in order to establish a world without war, strife or chaos is not evil but a extreme concept of a 'Lawful' alignment.(Are you talking about Equilibrium btw?)

Your example of 'Taking back our land from those foreign conquerors!' is also not evil.. and the Fasa topic is just another extreme, not inherently good or evil(though I would argue they are chaotically good). Lastly the focus on Malfant and Verungnr are candidates for chaos and torture, how do these not fall into your 'stupid or shallow' sect as they can only be negative and never seen as for a positive purpose? The main issue is this, Good and Evil are always a point of view, even the Order is subject to this.

They are not always 'good' in everyone's eyes while they are in others so.. what groupd see these 'deathknights' as just/good and which ones see them as evil?

Bryce · Post by **Bryce** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:13 pm

Congratulations, you've come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as pure, definitive good or evil, and we're dealing with a world that is various shades of gray. Spearhead isn't saying "this guild requires that its members be completely and utterly evil, verifiable beyond contestation by the world's leading philosophers." This is a game, and the proposal is about the guild's feel and style. The church guilds have a stereotypical good feel, this proposed guild would have a stereotypical evil feel. A group of knights who use scary dark magic and oppress others and throw around their weight and power for their own personal gain at the expense of others are probably going to fill the "evil knight" niche that some people enjoy. Serving a spooky immortal/demon/god whose name is likely uttered to scare disobedient children and to threaten or curse hated foes is going to add to that. (Note to self: think up some curses involving Malfant and Verungnr to spit at people)

I said nothing about chaos or torture. The idea behind Malfant was gaining knowledge at any cost, regardless of, and probably often employing, harm and hurt toward others. Not chaos, there's a definite goal and purpose in mind, and no requirement to sow chaos or discord in order to achieve it. The idea behind Verungnr was bringing damned souls, whatever that implies (going by the info on the wiki), to Verungnr's idea of justice. Whether that involves torture or not, I couldn't tell you. I don't know much about the Abyssal Horror. You're entitled to think those are stupid and shallow, but I think the fact that they've got goals other than (and less grandiose and over-the-top as) simple world domination/destruction, and would have their own code or set of rules of some sort would make them more interesting than, say, Kefka wanting to become a god out of sheer megalomania and insanity.

Now that I think about it, I've got some ideas about a darker-shade-of-gray guild that sows chaos in an orderly fashion for a clear and specific purpose (known to them, at least), but I won't waste any more proverbial pearls here. People are probably tired of reading or ignoring my posts on this subject.