Quote:The pious Ishgardian clergy guide the flock, and the devout knights protect the weak. Yet even the holiest of men succumb to the darkest of temptations.

None dare to administer justice to these sacrosanct elite residing outside the reach of the law. Who, then, defends the feeble from the transgressions of those meant to guide and protect them?

A valiant few take up arms to defend the downtrodden, and not even the holy priests and knights can escape their judgement. Pariahs in their own land, they are known by many as "dark knights."

These sentinels bear no shields declaring their allegiance. Instead, their greatswords act as beacons to guide the meek through darkness.

(05-06-2015, 04:51 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: Thing is, I've always felt the best characters are those who do not attach a name to what they are, as a "crutch" for framing a character. While I'm sure there will be good Dark Knight roleplayers, I wager there'll be even better roleplayers who aren't anything of the sort at all.

(05-06-2015, 05:16 AM)Apl_Juice Wrote: I personally am not a fan of the Dark Knight lore solely because it feels as if it overlaps with a concept already present in many player characters. Many of our characters are incredibly powerful individuals when placed next to the every man, and many are moral or at least passively lawful as to avoid trouble. As such, the adventurer concept is already presented as being this heroic person coming to solve everyone's problems. In addition, perhaps it is simply a characteristic of roleplay, but I feel as if most characters will intervene when someone is roleplayed as 'being in trouble' simply because it is an opportunity to take part in roleplay. 

Alternatively, many players have their own arc and story which, 9 times out of 10, involves them struggling against some force for the sake of their friends, family, or people in general. As mentioned above, adventurers are portrayed to be heroic; they are at least certainly moral as they are a loose group that has support from the city states in the form of leves and Free Companies (which wouldn't happen if they were a bunch of troublemakers).

Perhaps Dark Knights just came to be thanks to Ishgard's restrictive society (does Ishgard have adventuerers? Probably not, right?). Perhaps they are less job/reward -centric than the typical adventurer. Either way, I can't personally find cause yet to view them as being much different, at least not yet.

(05-06-2015, 05:54 AM)Blue Wrote: I'm not the first one to say this, but I think the way the lore introduces it, Dark Knight is closest to the Spanish Inquisition than it is to Batman. Batman is a vigilante, a private, and unknown individual who acts with the acceptance, but not necessarily the title, of the actual authorities (and as such, is not tutelated by the institutions, and in some countries would even be seen as a criminal himself, here in Italy for example vigilantes are forbidden). Dark Knight the way it is explained instead seems to be an actual body of the forces of Ishgard, instituted by the Holy See and expected to do their job whatever their personal feelings may be, and who do not respond for their actions in person, but rather act in the name of the Archbishop.

So in short, yes, I plan my DRK (an entirely new characteR) to respect the lore we were given, but no, I'm not signing up to be Batman, because that is not what Dark Knight is.

(05-06-2015, 04:51 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: Thing is, I've always felt the best characters are those who do not attach a name to what they are, as a "crutch" for framing a character. While I'm sure there will be good Dark Knight roleplayers, I wager there'll be even better roleplayers who aren't anything of the sort at all.