(11-26-2016, 05:53 PM)Edda Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2016, 01:28 PM)Kilieit Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, but then it's like
Oh yeah he wields a greatsword and he uses aether techniques and he has an impulsive side when it comes to injustices that means he can sometimes make reckless decisions and he has a manner that's unsettling to others and...
...so you're basically dancing around being like "oh yeah he's literally exactly the same as a dark knight but not a dark knight, because of reasons," just for the sake of, like... ~not being a special snowflake~? Which is just as pointless as adding needless complexity for the sake of standing out?
The reason my character has a DRK soul crystal in the first place is because another PC spotted his vigilante streak and was like "you're one of us" and gave my character said PC's own old crystal, even though I'd originally conceived of my character as someone who would be "like a DRK but not a DRK". It ended up with him becoming a DRK anyway just because of the natural flow of in-character interactions. I don't think it's far-fetched at all.
I think that's a pretty unfair assessment, and a bit hypocritical as well, considering your explanation of your own characters' creation. I wouldn't like to think that you consider the conception of your character to be pointless and done only for the sake of ~not being a special snowflake~. Actually, I hope you don't.
I see no issue with someone playing a character that skirts the line of being some job, without actually being one (since as we know, even the most common soul crystals don't exactly grow on trees). I also see no issue with one such character eventually coming across a soul crystal and taking up the mantle, as your character did. Whether that happens or not is at the RPers discretion. But I fail to see the logic in saying someone who RPs as Average Joe McDarkKnight Lite is only doing so to avoid being a special snowflake? Maybe I'm missing something.
Either way this is egregiously off-topic, so I apologize in advance for this. Good luck, OP.
It's when someone's saying "but why do you need to be the actual job", in a thread where the OP is expressing that their character
is a DRK and is asking after lore details, that I question whether the mention is coming from a place of thinking it would be genuinely constructive for a given storyline... or from simply thinking that anything job-shaped is Bad And OTT and anything more mundane is Good And Pure, which
is an attitude I've come across before.
Like, if you're forcing the invention of plot devices to bring DRK powers into the picture when what you actually
want to do is play someone who just wields a greatsword (like those threads we get sometimes that boil down to "I want to play a character who uses X weapon but I don't want to roleplay X+1 job, is that feasible?"), that's one matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case with the topic at hand in this thread?
My reply was made on the assumption we were still speaking in context of this thread's OP - I apologise if I misunderstood the intent of the poster I was replying to, or if my comment ended up incoherent with the context of the back-and-forth that I admit I didn't read very thoroughly.
(11-26-2016, 05:53 PM)R Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2016, 02:37 AM)Rahferu Wrote: [ -> ]Actually,
I'm pretty sure that nothing I said about that being a possibility due to the factors of injustice, political unrest and people having access to learn about dark arts prior to Ishgard was untrue. I think you're misinterpreting me here.
That's NOT the same as making up lore. There is a difference between using reasoning FROM THE LORE to justify/explain why your character has a tie to something--which you did, yourself.Â
The lore doesn't provide direct examples of what YOUR character did, or what many other people's characters did. You make a character and try to fit the storyline somewhere within the lore boundaries. Just because something isn't 100% proven in stone doesn't mean it isn't, or couldn't be, canon--given how SE actually gives us a lot of room to wonder and fill in the blanks.Â
You also said earlier on in this thread that we aren't sure WHERE dark knights originally came from--and I'm saying that the materials and conditions for a dark knight to function and exist in some form were very much around before Ishgard was.Â
The "true blue" lore tells us that there was suffering, access to the dark arts, and that people were victimized by severe injustice and villainy in other places pre-ishgard.
I am allowed to speculate, too--and so is everybody else, especially when I bother to research and justify my claims--which are TOTALLY based on the lore here. I'm not saying YEAH THAT WAS TOTALLY THE CASE, no questions asked....I'm saying it definitely seems likely, and here's a bunch of reasons why. This is part of RP and how people make characters. I fail to see how that's ridiculous.
Furthermore, I am NOT the only one in this thread to have suggested that it could've happened in other places and at other times. I think I've actually re-iterated what other have said and provided why my character personally has a tie to the concept of dark knights too.
I'm sorry you felt attacked and the like, enough to voice it on another medium, but I've got to admit that while the possibility exists that there are those who walk similar paths elsewhere in the world, utilizing Darkness, they wouldn't be coined Dark Knights and their own techniques and perhaps even weapon of choice would be wholly different. They would not be the Dark Knights of Ishgard clad in black armor and wielding outrageous greatswords.
We're given a lot of room to fill in the gaps with plenty of things, however, the fact of the matter is, the Dark Knights originate from Ishgard. My earlier comment stated that it is not so far-fetched to use something from your own character's culture / their people's culture, to tie them into such a thing. I.E. Sidurgu, as he came from Othard. We have a very clear example of someone from the only other place really explored in lore - thus far - completely unknowing to the traits of the Dark Knights. Thus, those from Eorzea and Othard must have gotten their knowledge of Dark Knights from Ishgard. Perhaps there are those within Othard who utilize the Darkness, but they are not Dark Knights nor would they utilize it in the same way. The only similarity would be their usage of entropic energies fed through emotion.
We're very aware of where the Dark Knights originated from: Ishgard.
You're allowed to speculate. The same as everyone else is, however, you're also allowed to be criticized. Thus, here we are. I always plug something before I pawn something off that is personal thought or not inherently lore. It's what separates lore from headcanon, a problem that seems to be very clear within our community.
However, I'm sorry you felt attacked.
It's okay. I was originally just trying to draw a parallel between my character and some of the aspects about the dark knight, but my thought process moved from my character to "hey, what about the lore in general?"
I apologize for any unrest this has caused! I just wanted some answers and I don't expect people to have all of them.
(11-26-2016, 07:16 PM)Kilieit Wrote: [ -> ]It's when someone's saying "but why do you need to be the actual job", in a thread where the OP is expressing that their character is a DRK and is asking after lore details, that I question whether the mention is coming from a place of thinking it would be genuinely constructive for a given storyline... or from simply thinking that anything job-shaped is Bad And OTT and anything more mundane is Good And Pure, which is an attitude I've come across before.
I usually only see this question come up when someone has given their character an attribute that is difficult to justify/pull off but seemingly adds very little to the character to make them interesting/developed nor adds much flavor to their RP. It's basically a way of asking that person why the detail is so important to them and what it adds to their character, and whether it's worth the trouble. It's less a statement of "this is bad don't do it" and more a question of "what's the pay off for doing this?"
While I do think the forum looks down on uniqueness to an unreasonable degree, I also think that it's valid to look at a character concept and ask why a certain element that is making it more challenging to write is necessary. If you can develop the story with a similar narrative device without the hassle, why not offer the alternative? If a player wants to go strictly along the lines established in the lore, or play a concept that is common *in* setting but not necessarily among RPers, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
The problem is with people who have a beef with a specific aesthetic and want to manipulate others to not adopt it, assume things about a player due to confirmation bias, or deride distinctiveness because they want their character to remain distinctive.Â
In this case, probably the only element that is at stake is terminology. The same powers, or similar powers, could be at work within the character, without being leashed to Ishgard (honestly, a win win IMO.) and all you'd need to do is not call him a DRK. It's totally fine to have the two concepts come together as a result of play, even. We can't know how accessible Darkside is as a power outside of Ishgardian society, but it is a truth of the setting and if you feel comfortable RPing it as a truth that one could in fact stumble upon, there are certainly ways you could write it into a character background. Just be cognizant of where you want to put the most of your effort in. If it's the story you feel confident you could write, then I think it's probably best you try and pursue it. You may ultimately find it's unnecessary to write a story that bends over backwards to preserve the official "Dark Knight" title.
(11-26-2016, 07:16 PM)Kilieit Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2016, 05:53 PM)Edda Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2016, 01:28 PM)Kilieit Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, but then it's like
Oh yeah he wields a greatsword and he uses aether techniques and he has an impulsive side when it comes to injustices that means he can sometimes make reckless decisions and he has a manner that's unsettling to others and...
...so you're basically dancing around being like "oh yeah he's literally exactly the same as a dark knight but not a dark knight, because of reasons," just for the sake of, like... ~not being a special snowflake~? Which is just as pointless as adding needless complexity for the sake of standing out?
The reason my character has a DRK soul crystal in the first place is because another PC spotted his vigilante streak and was like "you're one of us" and gave my character said PC's own old crystal, even though I'd originally conceived of my character as someone who would be "like a DRK but not a DRK". It ended up with him becoming a DRK anyway just because of the natural flow of in-character interactions. I don't think it's far-fetched at all.
I think that's a pretty unfair assessment, and a bit hypocritical as well, considering your explanation of your own characters' creation. I wouldn't like to think that you consider the conception of your character to be pointless and done only for the sake of ~not being a special snowflake~. Actually, I hope you don't.
I see no issue with someone playing a character that skirts the line of being some job, without actually being one (since as we know, even the most common soul crystals don't exactly grow on trees). I also see no issue with one such character eventually coming across a soul crystal and taking up the mantle, as your character did. Whether that happens or not is at the RPers discretion. But I fail to see the logic in saying someone who RPs as Average Joe McDarkKnight Lite is only doing so to avoid being a special snowflake? Maybe I'm missing something.
Either way this is egregiously off-topic, so I apologize in advance for this. Good luck, OP.
It's when someone's saying "but why do you need to be the actual job", in a thread where the OP is expressing that their character is a DRK and is asking after lore details, that I question whether the mention is coming from a place of thinking it would be genuinely constructive for a given storyline... or from simply thinking that anything job-shaped is Bad And OTT and anything more mundane is Good And Pure, which is an attitude I've come across before.
Like, if you're forcing the invention of plot devices to bring DRK powers into the picture when what you actually want to do is play someone who just wields a greatsword (like those threads we get sometimes that boil down to "I want to play a character who uses X weapon but I don't want to roleplay X+1 job, is that feasible?"), that's one matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case with the topic at hand in this thread?
My reply was made on the assumption we were still speaking in context of this thread's OP - I apologise if I misunderstood the intent of the poster I was replying to, or if my comment ended up incoherent with the context of the back-and-forth that I admit I didn't read very thoroughly.
It morphed from the OP's questions to talking about very specific points of DRK lore (for instance, the one that ties DRKs to Ishgard). The poster was essentially giving a way to be a DRK from another area of the world without originating in Ishgard (before the expansion), but not actually being called a Dark Knight (since that's very specific to the group in/from Ishgard).
First of all, thank you very much for your responses. I have a gist on my chartacter's personality and how her darkside would manifest and express itself for her in and out of control. (she ended up getting hers in an investigation for fake job crystals.) In the rp group I'm with there are a number of DRKs, though how they came across it, the control and overall experience are likely going to vary. Despite being a Gridanian, I'm going to keep with the term, since it seems at least some people recognize the job in Eorzea even if reputation may require a bit of discretion(No parading my sword around).
((2. Ones actual Darkside does appear to be very personal. Fueled differently for each person. The only common descriptors for Darkness and Darkside are that they are stygian, shadowy, and, entropic in nature. There is also mention that the Dark Knight does have to maintain control of their own Darkside or face a form of backlash (described as being entropic energies) for failing to maintain control. Fear and wrath are the most common emotional fuels, but we know there are other emotions that can fuel it from the DRK quests))
Hello, I have a question about your quote here. I'm RPing a Dark Knight and I wanted to make sure that his backstory and development are not conflicting with the IG lore. I have some scenarios planned out but wanted to confirm some things.Â
1.Would "forfeiting" their life count as "losing control" and if so, what would be the outcome,Â
Would they be killed by the soulcrystal or just simply be unable to wield the Dark Knight's abilities? (regarding backlash)Â Â
2.Would sir-coming to Evil desires and losing their sense of duty also count or not? (For example, becoming some bloodthirsty mercenary)Â
3.