I was wondering how that is reconciled with van richtens guide
ashy
They could be considered warrior liches as there are cleric and psionic liches out there. But they are more different than not.
As for the lich connection, I always thought they were just being descriptive through making a comparison (by saying they were lich-like) rather than meaning they actually WERE liches. I don't have the 1st ed FF or (any other resource that describes Death Knghts from that time), so I could be wrong.
Personally, I always thought they were inspired by the Nazgul in LotR...
the question becomes, if they are not a type of lich then where would Van Richten classify them? Ancient dead doesnt fit, nor does walking dead.
do we need a Van richtens guide to the cursed?
ashy
-- was one of the ancient dead. If we've really *got* to shoehorn death knights into a category, my guess is that mummies are probably closer to the mark than liches, given that death knights don't use phylacteries to restore themselves once slain AFAIK.Basically, one could almost make the connection between Lich and almost any cadaverous undead going solely by appearance. Liches may be completely skeletal or have a full covering of flesh (albeit gaunt stretched desicated flesh), so even their appearance is no guarantee.
Now a death knight doesn't become one on purpose. I know Soth was cursed by his dying mistress. I don't know about any other death knight though.
2nd ed leaves us hanging with just a new type of undead, except that the wizardly version of the death knight, the death warlock is described in such a way that it seems the only differences between it and a lich are the method of becomeing one and the phylactery. Requiem talks mentioned becoming undead, but the death knight wasnt mentioned as an option...possibley because there were supposed to be no true paladins in RL under domains of dread? (there was a dragon article adding new types of undead pcs from the requiem setting...the crawling claw was one....anyone remember the others?)
3e afaik, the only game mechanic difference between becoming a lich or a death knight, is what character class the undead template is being added to.
Rotipher has got to be at least partially right....the death knight does seem to fit superficially into VR's category of ancient dead. but there are key differneces, like the connection to the positve plane, several of the abiliteis and the preseved body. OtOH, differences with the lich are the lack of phylactery (in 2nd,3e), not having preformed the transformation by yourself (which isnt always the case even in 2nd ed....look at andres duvall...am surprised VR never mentioned him! aside: there was also a drow in an FR cunningham book who used a wand of lichdom....oy,), and the apparent lack of need for power riturals. Also..as far as anyone knows deathknights do not evolve.
It almost seems like death knights are merely cursed to live as liches, possibly due to the curse not needing periodic rituals, or the phyactery.....in exchange they are bound to inhabit the place their abode in life.
any other good thoughts?
ashy
Am I misremembering that?
-Eric Gorman
The original Fiend Folio does indeed describe the Death Knight as a form of Lich, but that's only one source out of how many? And even if it is the original, it is not the current source, and of all the other sources on Death Knights, it's the only one to ever make the connection, to my knowledge.
I mean what do we have in definate hard concrete common between the two? They are corporeal. They are undead. Not even appearance is guaranteed to be the same, because the Lich is atypically decaying and the Death Knight is a fire-blackened skeletal corpse. They can both cast spells, but the Death Knight casts these spells as innate abilites, and the Lich casts spells it knew in life.
As for Soth having a phylactery, where was this mentioned?
"The death knight -- and there are only twelve of these creatures known to exist -- is a horrifying form of lich created by a demon prince (it is thought Demogorgon) from a fallen human paladin."
And so far, that's the only thing I have ever read that makes a connection between the Lich & the Death Knight.
Originally posted by Rotipher
The one reference I've seen was that Sithican ranger's *belief* that the former lord of his land -- Cute, ain't it, how WW dances around the edge with the "dark knight of Sithicus", because they evidently don't have the legal right to use his name?
We probably did have the right to use Soth's name, but that was never made clear to us freelancers; we never got to see the licensing agreement. We took the safe route.
I wrote that chapter, incidentally, and I included Jameld's speculation to show that, for all his bravery and experience, he's not quite the scholarly investigator Van Richten was. VR was two for two on guessing the true undead nature of darklords; Jameld is 0 for 1.
Originally posted by Andrew Cermak
We probably did have the right to use Soth's name, but that was never made clear to us freelancers; we never got to see the licensing agreement. We took the safe route.
To clarify even further, one of the few things we were ever clearly told about the license was "no Soth," which we learned right at the beginning.
Then, at the end, shortly after we'd had to engage in quite the tango to avoid the S-word in Gaz IV, we were told that, no, saying "Soth" was fine.
So, honestly, we just have no idea what the license allows.
But wait, the license does allow psionics.
Or does it?
Originally posted by Mortavius
The original Fiend Folio does indeed describe the Death Knight as a form of Lich, but that's only one source out of how many? And even if it is the original, it is not the current source, and of all the other sources on Death Knights, it's the only one to ever make the connection, to my knowledge.
actually no, the feind folio as i mentioned was only the source which easily came to mind. other sources in 1st ed also went off the idea that the death knight is a type of lich. most notibly soth is described in the world of krynn : "soth, as a type of lich" it also mentions that he keeps his soul in a hidden place though it doesnt mention the word 'phylactery'.
Originally posted by Mortavius
I mean what do we have in definate hard concrete common between the two? They are corporeal. They are undead. Not even appearance is guaranteed to be the same, because the Lich is atypically decaying and the Death Knight is a fire-blackened skeletal corpse.
well a) a lich and a deathknight both have apperances dependiing on how they died and how well preserved their bodies are so technically their apperance is/can be the same.
Originally posted by Mortavius
They can both cast spells, but the Death Knight casts these spells as innate abilites, and the Lich casts spells it knew in life.
um, duh? the lich was a wizard type in life, thus it can cast spells in death, the paladin type otoh it would make sense that in death they were given some innate abilities. the lich CAN have those abilites, but doenst always have to. andres duvall casts spells as a bard, it only makes sense that you dont loose your class spell progression method due to undeath...
so far the differences between the death knight and lich are few: the phylactery. (which first ed even seems to get rid of) it is also interesting to note that the death warlock is written of in terms that make it seem exactly like a lich except for the phylactery.
the only other arguements are the liches seeking undeath on its
own (which isnt always true, as shown to us by duvall and the requiem rules, also a paladin can also preform the ritual to become a death knight, as is the case of venris stormshield.)
incidently i would be interested in people mentioning fleshed out (no pun intended) deathknights who i may have overlooked/forgotten in my 20ish years of gaming, a brief list follows
roll call!
lorran
"kas the bloody handed"
soth
vecna's 2d6
venris stormshield
um that silly one from reverse dungeon whos name eludes me
anyone else?
ashy
I can't debate what Soth was portrayed as in early DragonLance products, since I have none.
But I can refute the appearance question. A Death Knight (again, to my knowledge) has always been described as a fire-blackened skeleton, due to them being consumed in holy fire as part of their punishment. It really doesn't have anything to do with their deaths.
And a Lich is not the same either. The Elemental Lich from 2E had a very different appearance than the common Lich, due to his focus, and not the way he or she died.
As for the spellcasting, I was using that as a comparison point, and I am perfectly aware that it has realistic bases.
But since you asked, here are more differences.
The Lich has a paralyzing touch attack; the Death Knight has no such attack.
The Lich has no granted spell-like abilities; the Death Knight does (Abyssal Blast).
The Death Knight naturally attracts lesser undead; the Lich does not.
The Death Knight has Spell Resistance; the Lich does not.
The Death Knight is immune to turning; the Lich is not.
And then, as you yourself mentioned, the Lich is sought by wizards, the Death Knight is forced upon it's victims by the Gods or Demons. Now, yes, Andres Duvall did not ask for Lichdom, but let's face it, Andres was and is the exception to the rule and was created by a unique set of circumstances. Using him as a basis for comparison wouldn't be fair.
Oh, and Kas the Bloody Handed was a Vampire, not a Death Knight.
In 1e, the death knight at one point was a lich. Eventually, probably early in 2e but definately by the time of 3e, the death knight was no longer the same thing. This is pretty obvious for the following reasons:
1) Death knights are no longer created by Demogorgon, who in fact is now rather weak and unimportant, not one of the two greatest evils in existance.
2) Death knights no longer have to be paladins.
3) There are more than twelve death knights in existance.
4) 3e death knights don't even have the same powers as previous death knights.
So, at one point, death knights were a type of lich, but now they're not. Furthermore, Ravenloft has always treated the undead differently from official D&D, and unless there's a fairly up-to-date Ravenloft book that says death knights qualify as any particular type of undead, there's no specific answer. It depends on the campaign and the GM.
I would say that Van Richten's Guide to the Lich probably doesn't have any useful information for death knights, so even if they were liches, its useless to say they are. They seem to be most like the Restless Dead to me, but are much more powerful, have some different traits, and probably deserve their own book. (However, a book about death knights might not be very long; on the other hand, Ravenloft's writers were skilled enough to write entire books on liches, mummies, and hags, so maybe a death knight book is feasible.)
By the way, I'd just like to point out that in OD&D, the creatures now known as tanar'ri were epic level monsters that were classified by the sound they made or the terrain they inhabited, two people who grew up together in the same household and never left spoke different languages if their alignments were different (though they had Common as well), some of the chromatic dragons weren't considered evil (though evil was never defined well then anyway, as it wasn't an alignment), shadows were not a type of undead, and Demogorgon was something more than a minor general in the Blood War. In 1e AD&D, lots of OD&D stuff was no longer true, but Demogorgon was still important. In 3.5 Ravenloft, I'm not sure about the relevance of any book that mentions undead fallen paladins created by Demogorgon, but on the other hand, I don't know how much the "death knights are liches" claim can be disproven, since apparently Ravenloft hasn't made an official statement on the subject, and even if it did, that might have changed by time 3.5 came out.
Originally posted by Belac
Speaking of Soth, wasn't there something going around about Hickman saying that he never wanted Soth in Ravenloft in the first place, and that as far as Dragonlance was concerned, Soth had never left?
Different threads have covered this ad nauseum.
Originally posted by Mortavius
I can't debate what Soth was portrayed as in early DragonLance products, since I have none.
granted
QUOTE]Originally posted by Mortavius
But I can refute the appearance question. A Death Knight (again, to my knowledge) has always been described as a fire-blackened skeleton, due to them being consumed in holy fire as part of their punishment. It really doesn't have anything to do with their deaths.
actually you are thinking of soth only here, other deathknights are described differently. the reason soth is has a burned appearance is due to the rain fo fire that killed him in the catyclysm
QUOTE]Originally posted by Mortavius
And a Lich is not the same either. The Elemental Lich from 2E had a very different appearance than the common Lich, due to his focus, and not the way he or she died.
once again, that is due to cicumstance. if you argue that all elemental liches look the same and there is no variation then you are mistaken
QUOTE]Originally posted by Mortavius
As for the spellcasting, I was using that as a comparison point, and I am perfectly aware that it has realistic bases.
But since you asked, here are more differences.
The Lich has a paralyzing touch attack; the Death Knight has no such attack.
this seems only to be a different version of an innate power which as you have already falsely pointed out :QUOTE]Originally posted by Mortavius
The Lich has no granted spell-like abilities; the Death Knight does (Abyssal Blast).
VR identified several possible salient abilites that liches could use as spell-like abilities
Originally posted by Mortavius [/i]
The Death Knight naturally attracts lesser undead; the Lich does not.
this seems to depend on the death knight as other write ups dont agree
Originally posted by Mortavius [/i]
The Death Knight has Spell Resistance; the Lich does not.
look a little deeper and you will find that many varieties of lich DO have spell resistence. I never claimed that the death knight is just another lich, just a different variety of lich.
Originally posted by Mortavius [/i]
The Death Knight is immune to turning; the Lich is not.
as a former paladin it makes sense to me that it couldnt be turned.....liches already are turned as "special" it makes sense that special liches with higher spell resistence couldnt be turned
Originally posted by Mortavius [/i]
And then, as you yourself mentioned, the Lich is sought by wizards, the Death Knight is forced upon it's victims by the Gods or Demons. Now, yes, Andres Duvall did not ask for Lichdom, but let's face it, Andres was and is the exception to the rule and was created by a unique set of circumstances. Using him as a basis for comparison wouldn't be fair.
once again you iignore the evidence of the requeim. if andres duvall is the exception then he is far from the only precedent for an exception as there were dozens of mages of various levels in il aluk before the requeim. and as mentioned before, a paladin/knight can seek to become a death knight just as a wizard can a lich. just look at venris.
Originally posted by Mortavius [/i]
Oh, and Kas the Bloody Handed was a Vampire, not a Death Knight.
the reason that character was originally in quotitions is that i refer to the "kas the bloody handed" death knight from DVD. a paladin that was corrupted by the false sword of kas and became a death knight.
ashy
Originally posted by Belac
2) Death knights no longer have to be paladins.
where was this written? admittedly in 3e i believe it is limited to undead blackguard, and the blackguard could have been a non paladin...but im not sure where in 2nd ed it said that.
Originally posted by Belac
I would say that Van Richten's Guide to the Lich probably doesn't have any useful information for death knights, so even if they were liches, its useless to say they are. They seem to be most like the Restless Dead to me, but are much more powerful, have some different traits, and probably deserve their own book. (However, a book about death knights might not be very long; on the other hand, Ravenloft's writers were skilled enough to write entire books on liches, mummies, and hags, so maybe a death knight book is feasible.)
*nods* i really like my earlier idea of a VR guide the the cursed. just looking through RLMC2 shows us what wide variety of cursed mortals (or otherwise) out there. curses were covered a bit in the vistani book but the subjects of the curses werent given much say. i think throwing the death knight into said book would be a great way to estabilsh it as a different classification of undead, other things such as knight haunts would also likely have a good place in said book.
ah the good old days of playing a LN hobbit and not understanding what the silly NG elf was saying......
ashy
Now with that unpleasantness out of the way...
I get the feeling from your posts that we are coming from different versions of the game. I started playing D&D early into 2E, but have since switched over to 3E, and I am basing all of my arguments on the existing 3E material, since it is the "current" accepted form.
You have corrected me on the point of appearance. The Death Knight has not *always* been described as a fire-blackened skeleton. Indeed, the original Fiend Folio does not even describe the phyiscal form of the Death Knight at all! It simply relies upon the reader's knowledge of a Lich's phyiscal form to make a comparison, saying that the Death Knight is a form of Lich (a point which I have already conceeded, I might add).
However, the current version of D&D, in the MMII, it describes the following: "...The face is a blackened skull..." So in current D&D, the Death Knight's description holds up.
Yes, I am mistaken if I were to say that all Liches looked the same. But we are trying to discuss a "species" (if I may use the term) of creature here, and in such discussions, one MUST make generalizations if the conversation is to continue at all. After all, I could say that there are Liches out there that are perfectly preserved (and why not?) and these creatures would certainly have a different form than the aforementioned Death Knights. But, we must make generalizations.
To say that the Lich's paralyzing touch is a variant of a Death Knight's Abyssal Blast is a stretch in my opinion. But, I shall concede to you on the point that both abilities are classified in 3E as Supernatural Abilities, and thereby a comparison could be made. I think it's a stretch personally, because one is touch attack usable at will and the other is a ranged attack that is usable once per day. But, if you want to use the two as a comparison point, I will agree to that logic.
You are also correct that different writeups of the Death Knight don't agree; however I would be remiss if I was to use any writeup other than the current version. After all, I could use an obscure version of the Lich found in some old D&D book that was a failure as my basis for what all Liches are like. And likewise with the Death Knight. But I am using a common frame of reference in the most current writeup.
As to VR positing salient abilites, here we are again moving into uncertain territority. Just as there are many Liches out there that can have salient abilities, there is just as much chance that a Lich may have no other abilites than what is presented in the Monstrous Manual. Who's to say who's correct? Thus, I am going once again from the common frame of reference that you and I can both share in, the Monster Manual.
Touche' however on the spell resistance issue. I gladly concede to your point on that issue.
Now on the issue of Turning, I find a flaw in your logic. You begin by saying "as a former paladin it makes sense to me that it couldnt be turned" but this doesn't make sense. For surely then a Clerical Lich, with an even stronger connection to the Divine than the Paladin (or at least just as strong a connection) should not be able to be turned either. And yet in both 2E & 3E, Clerical Liches are vulnerable to Turning. It's difficult yes, but they are still vulnerable.
It is true that I am ignoring the evidence of the Requiem. This is because I view the Requiem as a unique event. Was Lichdom forced upon many of the residents? Yes. I also choose to believe in a certain bit of rules-bending to allow the PC's to play a Lich. Personally, that's what I think the Requiem rules were. They simply wanted to allow PC's to play the undead. And they didn't care much if the broke the rules in the process. After all, who would want to play a Skeleton, when you could play a Vampire, Mummy, or Lich? Or even a Wight, Ghost, heck a Shadow would even be better.
I also take the view (and this may only be my view but so be it) that Necropolis is not filled with Liches. I in fact believe that there are few Liches in Necropolis. Many of the undead would become Zombies and Skeletons and simply retain their spellcasting classes. Note again, I am speaking from a 3E point of view where such a thing is very possible and easy to do, as opposed to 2E, where you were restricted to but a few forms of the undead that could still cast spells.
Finally, who is Venris? I have checked the Ravenloft Catalogue and he is not in there. Was he published in a Netbook or other unofficial source?
Dragonlance, not RL.
And so far as it goes-
Does it really matter of a Death knight is classified as some sort of warrior-lich? What possible difference does it make?
(This reminds me of a thread I saw on another board where a bunch of engineers and rules lawyers were arguing about whether adamantium was magnetic.)
The answer: "DM's option, now pass the beer nuts."
But if we didn't have these forums, where would we discuss and debate completely trivial matters like this, right?
Why? Because most (but not all) liches sought out lichdom. They chose it after years of skill and became it through their own power through magic rituals of their own doing. There are exceptions, but these are rare.
Death Knights are cursed and usually did not choose this fate. Once again, there are excpetions, but these are also rare.
A crossover of exceptions (cursed with lichdom, chose death knight-hood) hardly implies they are the same.
Furthermore, no Death Knight to my knowledge enacted the change upon themselves, it was always an outside power. I don't know about Ventris, but I suspect he chose to be cursed. It was not through his own power that he was transformed.
However, that was at a time when the number of undead in the entire game system -- skeleton, zombie, ghoul, ghast, shadow, wight, mummy. wraith, spectre, banshee, ghost, vampire, lich -- was so very limited that nobody at the time even *dreamed* that we'd need to categorize them, other than as "undead". Now that there are dozens of different kinds of undead, and the types we classify them as actually *mean* something, it might be of some significance to say that Undead Monster X is a "type of lich"! But back then, all it meant was that Monster X was a major badass undead that looked like an armored corpse instead of like Dracula.
Originally posted by Cole Deschain
Ventris is the new death knight on Krynn.
Uh, I have never heard that name before... and there not only just 1 death knight of krynn... i have heard of a few mentioned... Maybe you are thinking of Ausric Krell. He is a new death knight to krynn...
I wouldn't consider a death knight a lich, but it is kind of difficult to place him into any of VR's other creature 'molds' without finding some differences.
IMO, a death knight would be considered either
a.) A form of ancient dead that was powered by negative energies rather than positive- kind of like an electric car vs. a gas powered one.
or... b.) A form of restless dead whose existence was the result of powerful magic or curses- like the wrath of god, or the manipulation of a demon prince.
Of course, we could just consider Death Knights to be an extremely rare, very powerful form of undead completely unique in its make up from other forms of undead. Thus it would defy being quantified into one of VRs categories of the night's children, and become all the more dangerous to would be saviors foolish enough to classify it as a lich, ancient dead, or restless dead.
But that's just one fellow's opinion.
Originally posted by Deadbreaker
Of course, we could just consider Death Knights to be an extremely rare, very powerful form of undead completely unique in its make up from other forms of undead. Thus it would defy being quantified into one of VRs categories of the night's children, and become all the more dangerous to would be saviors foolish enough to classify it as a lich, ancient dead, or restless dead.
But that's just one fellow's opinion.
That's the way I play it. I don't like to classfiy death knights. Then again, I am a softy for Ol' Buckethead, so that may explain why.