Questions about Dark Knight and Darkside's nature.

[Caspar]

I think the difference is that barehanded is the basic form of combat from which all other methods of combat are derived, and thus it is logically nonsensical to suggest only one country in the world thought it would be a good idea to create a system of combat based around it. Where things get messy is the concept of magic "laws of physics": an inherent force within a fantasy setting, such as The Force in Star Wars or Chi in the Jianghu, is universally true within the setting, otherwise it isn't a law. The question then becomes how hard is it to access this truth? By this I don't just mean using it, but becoming aware of it even. Would someone reasonably be able to discover the same fundamental force independently somewhere else?

 

Ultimately there's no obvious answer and it depends on whether you buy the often unreliable narration in the game. If you look at say the Monk questline, Erik draws scrutiny upon the exclusivity and special nature of the Chakra, but that still doesn't determine the difficulty of accessing this power. He could be wrong, the Fists could be wrong, and it all depends too on how hard it was to discover in the first place. Can convergent development emerge around the same universal force somewhere else? We probably won't get an answer, but I think saying it's impossible is like saying once one man discovers gravity, no one else is capable of doing so.

 

Yet it is far more ambiguous in the case of Dark Knights. We don't know how universal or even what's genuinely true about their powers; whether Darkside is a state anyone can enter or if it evolved specifically from the pressures in Ishgardian society as Frey insinuates. Is it a fundamental force or just delusion driving pre-existing aetheric powers? The deliberately mysterious and insular structure of the Knights, which lack even a real order, makes it hard to really grasp how much they've researched their own abilities and how difficult they are to access.

 

When these ambiguities arise, ultimately the safest bet is to either do something close to the existing data gathered from the lore or come up with something plausible by assembling bits of lore together. Like the spellblade idea.

[Faye]

We have reason to believe that there were so many civilizations (contemporary or not)  were full of unfair happenings that could've urged dark knight-type folks to take the DRK path, so to speak...

 

Valence brought up some good points. Yes, surely every civilization has unrest and corruption, and of course there are going to be people who fight against that, but the problem I'm seeing is... why would that manifest itself in the form of dark knights? Why is that inevitable, or even likely? Why wouldn't they just be regular ol' heroes and freedom fighters and good guys and adventurers? Why would they be people with giant swords wielding dark arts unless they adapted the idea from the Ishgardian dark knights? I'm just not seeing the correlation here. Every region of Eorzea has had just as much strife as Ishgard, but there's no native culture of dark knights for these places. I don't think the idea goes against lore so much that it's problematic to play, but I do think the justification is weak enough that you shouldn't push other people to accept the idea as potential lore or expect everyone to find your character concept favorable.

[Edda]

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.

[Mordred Lyloche]

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. 

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. 

 

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. 

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.

[Arrelaine]

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.

It's not that people want to avoid being 'special snowflakes', it's that people who want to follow lore to a T want to be able to play their character without later going 'oh crap, this new lore came out and now my character's story doesn't fit into it', or realizing that the lore for their Job doesn't allow a lot of wiggle room with backstories (such as WHM vs CNJ for example). Maybe they don't want to be pigeon-holed into a class, or maybe they realize that soul crystals are generally rare at large, or maybe if it's a Job with less lore they don't want to have to rewrite the character later.

 

There are other reasons for people to play non-Job (or characters who skirt jobs) characters that aren't 'I don't want to be a special snowflake'. It's rather insulting to those who do play plainer characters. We have many reasons to play them; not everyone is going to have the same reasons.

 

DRK happens to be one of those jobs that didn't have a lot of lore, and now that it does, people are trying to figure out how to make their character 'legit' in lore. One of the easiest ways to do that without tying them to Ishgard is to be a 'just' a dude who uses aether techniques coupled with his giant two-handed sword. A way to skirt the controversy of lore with WHMs is to be 'just' a dude who can use Conjury and heal things without having Succor.

[Kilieit]

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.

[Rahferu]

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. 

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. 

 

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. 

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.

[Faye]

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?"

[Caspar]

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. 

 

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.

[Arrelaine]

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).

[Kallera]

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).