I have silently observed the debate and I believe that some legitimate issues about this concept have been brought up, which I hope to solve with this new addition to the backstory:
That being, giving a backstory to the mentor too. Perhaps if I give him more reasons to do what he did than what I currently gave out (which is very little, admittedly) my character's job could have a more solid footing.
Dark Knights have to operate in Ishgard, and in secret. They root out the corrupt by breaking the law and often through murder, thus said secrecy is vital for the order to survive the Holy See's wrath.
But what if my character's mentor killed someone too important for him to get away with it (Mind that I am not talking about nobody that appeared or was even mentioned in the game or it's lore. Just an high-ranked knight or even a wealthy noble, perhaps)? Or perhaps a witness got away and talked. Now his cover is blown and the rest of his fellow knights will be discovered and killed too if he doesn't escape. Least the damage would have been severe on them all.
So this Dark Knight leads the chase as far away from his companions as he possibly could: Outside Coerthas. Technically he is not a Dark Knight anymore for he is basically exiled from Ishgard, but he still have his skills and motivations to go on with and fixes the wrongs he stumbles upon.
Now there's no reason for him not to take an apprentice of any race. He is stripped of his obligations to Ishgard (not by choice but because many years will have to pass before the ripples he caused calms down) and as a DRK, rebelling to most of Ishgardian customs is part of what he does, so I am of the opinion he wouldn't have any sort of race hate against others (everyone are equals in justice).
Enters my character. He trains her in the same philosophy and skill-set that a Dark Knight would have, but without the title. She can't be knighted proper because: Not only is she a non-ishgardian, but her mentor is also an exiled without access to other knights that may cast approval on a new face in the order, plus other reasons that many could come up with.
But she still would have all the motives, the mentality and the arts required to do what they do, and so they act on their own without following official rules which still fits with how the job works with or without title.
What do you guys think of this addition? If you heard this in roleplay, would you keep your suspension of belief and find it plausible, whether you like it or not on a narrative level? Does it give enough reason for my character to be what she is (or would be)?
Problems weren't addressed in the fourth draft that this one solves:
That being, giving a backstory to the mentor too. Perhaps if I give him more reasons to do what he did than what I currently gave out (which is very little, admittedly) my character's job could have a more solid footing.
Dark Knights have to operate in Ishgard, and in secret. They root out the corrupt by breaking the law and often through murder, thus said secrecy is vital for the order to survive the Holy See's wrath.
But what if my character's mentor killed someone too important for him to get away with it (Mind that I am not talking about nobody that appeared or was even mentioned in the game or it's lore. Just an high-ranked knight or even a wealthy noble, perhaps)? Or perhaps a witness got away and talked. Now his cover is blown and the rest of his fellow knights will be discovered and killed too if he doesn't escape. Least the damage would have been severe on them all.
So this Dark Knight leads the chase as far away from his companions as he possibly could: Outside Coerthas. Technically he is not a Dark Knight anymore for he is basically exiled from Ishgard, but he still have his skills and motivations to go on with and fixes the wrongs he stumbles upon.
Now there's no reason for him not to take an apprentice of any race. He is stripped of his obligations to Ishgard (not by choice but because many years will have to pass before the ripples he caused calms down) and as a DRK, rebelling to most of Ishgardian customs is part of what he does, so I am of the opinion he wouldn't have any sort of race hate against others (everyone are equals in justice).
Enters my character. He trains her in the same philosophy and skill-set that a Dark Knight would have, but without the title. She can't be knighted proper because: Not only is she a non-ishgardian, but her mentor is also an exiled without access to other knights that may cast approval on a new face in the order, plus other reasons that many could come up with.
But she still would have all the motives, the mentality and the arts required to do what they do, and so they act on their own without following official rules which still fits with how the job works with or without title.
What do you guys think of this addition? If you heard this in roleplay, would you keep your suspension of belief and find it plausible, whether you like it or not on a narrative level? Does it give enough reason for my character to be what she is (or would be)?
Problems weren't addressed in the fourth draft that this one solves:
- It is not a Dark Knight in the formal sense. Thus it does not violate the character of the actual job while still accessing it's assets.
- The timeline is less of an issue because the mentor could have had his accident at any point during my character's life. The he would meet her after the ordeal.
- It removes Ishgardian ties from my character other than the origins of what my mentor teaches, to which he is free to share. Due to said mentor's exile, they still wouldn't have access to Ishgard itself and thus no reason to force her interact with the nation prior to the present times at all.
- I can have some backstory out and about the Calamity without needing to worry too much about where/when/how my character did things.
- Without the title, the character loses the more RP-limiting obligations that comes with it (such as being technically bound to Coerthas). Thus I would need less reasons to be around and more RP possibilities open up.
