[CA Race Lore] Dreadknights - Servitors of the Dark

[milksoda 2884]

omg!! shake your dreads pallo!!!

 

credit to drrandomk for inspiration and gaja for lifelong support

[Chimeraof1999 1187]

[Eri 113]

I dread coming across these irp. +1

 

credit to drrandomk for the joke and gaja for popularizing it

[xo31 3979]

peak stuff as per usual 

[Jaslaw 602]

Alright first of, huge +1 love this lore and it doesn't really seem broken or anything! Bleeding is a huge thing so having high durability for the cost of wounds being taken uniformly on the whole body seems very nice. [Will not be the case of darkstalkers where people just keep going for the head 24/7]

 

Second of all, WHERE WAS THIS LORE WHEN I WAS MAKING URZUL?!

 

Lastly with my only critique, as much as I myself use a greatsword and love them I do not belive locking dreadknights into only using them is good.

 

My choice to use a greatsword was the same as in this lore, its relatively ''not deadly'' in many peoples eyes and it does relatively poorly against armour. But that also means a lot of people powergame while fighting against greatswords which kind of sucks so it being the only option is kind of 50/50 and simply limiting? Other than that its amazing though!

[SimonItorp 124]

The vibes are up, ladies and gents

[TheCaptain 639]

Oh how dreadful, gave it a read and the vibes are amazing, I love it!

 

credit to drrandomk for the joke and gaja for popularizing it

[Kirakuru 152]

To me MY DULLAHAN!!!! +1

[Xergarok 811]

Glad to see the finished product posted! I think it was a widely desired thing; also to solve the Pale headaches people have had... Perhaps this'll make me play my old character again, definitely looking forward to it :)

[scoobi 124]

ty pallodium for feeding the hungry

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

After a thorough read, I have a lot of issues/concerns with this lore. In theory I like it. The background is good. It looks clean. But I feel like a lot of its mechanics are way off what I'd either personally like to see, or in some cases directly affect its viability on the server. This is the only one I'll have to -1 from you Pallo. I tried to list out the issues I have with its mechanics here but it turned into a very long-winded thing I could not be bothered formatting. Would be happy to share in DM's if you or anyone wanted to know. It can be tldr'd to: Even as a regular joe with no magics no alchemy, nothing, I'd simply not be scared of these mechanically. And thematically they're far removed from where I'd like to see them.

 

I am but one man though and my thoughts are easily discounted! There's a reason you're ST and I'm not! I wish you luck regardless B^J

[MysticalWeasel 910]

@Werew0lfHey buddy its 2026 we dont say slop anymore!

[King_Kunuk 3022]

I think it's alright :3.

 

Better then current pale knight lore, but I still feel hesitant on the idea of a "merger" or however it is put. Who really cares if two CAs follow a similar niche. Frankly how this reads, their is more implication on the Blood Mage side of the lore then the Mystic Side of the lore.

 

Beyond "a few aesthetics" there is 0 variation and genuine mechanical differences between mystic dreads and blood magic dreads which hurts both mystics and blood mages instead of helps them. There should be a genuine difference in what spells, augments, and abilities they should have. Such a lack in difference harms the CA more then helps, convergence in magics be damned; ghostly rock people are different enough from alphons from FMA who was bound to his metal chaise in blood.

 

I am sorry but I don't approve completely with the execution of this lore. That being said it is flawlessly written, mechanically sound (even tho some abilities feel underwhelming), and pretty dope.

 

Also 3/4 of the comments and replies are mindless pallo formating and lore glaze (sorry guys it's the truth) (and Samson's +1 reply isn't glaze since it actually contains a solid opinion behind his approved).

 

Edit (after Pallo Edits. I refuse to ruin rep ratio for lore gooning).

After the changes which have been made (such as removal of augments, oath blades), I think it is SLIGHTLY better. I firmly believe Rusting is cringe as **** and should be removed entirely as a mechanic (considering BM and Mysticism basically call on you to MURDER someone), but I suppose we can't all get the best things in life. I think allowing them to learn the magics does in a way, help them be more different, but I think this comes with its own flaws.

1. Dreadknights have 0 genus or the ability to hold it. This needs amending. They shouldn't be able to generate it naturally, but letting them suck it out of corpses or people could work

2. Rusting needs to go. Just remove it. Templars don't get punished for gooning someone. Vampires don't get punished for gooning someone. Dreadknights get punished for gooning someone?

3. SInce dreadknights can learn BM and Mysticism, they should not have the innate ability to create more of their kind without the intervention of occultists. I would remove this mention and just say "needs Mystic or Needs Blood Mage" and call it a day (as they can not BE the mystic or Blood Mage).

regardless, went from 3/10 slop to 6.5/10 "i think its okay". Still better then current pate knights.

[Samson Option 9652]

Thank you for letting me weigh in with a series of questions and overall, I am satisfied with this potential Paleknight rewrite and wholly content to handle any nerfs and/or alterations to overall capabilities.

Let me state outright that it is a +1 from me.

 

I've shared my thoughts on Coursing privately. I really love the premise, but unfortunately I think some among ST/LT do themselves a disservice by abstracting away the very real fact that we are playing Minecraft. I don't see it working unless some effort is made to moderate players from quasi-metagaming coursing Dreadknights.

 

As I mentioned to Pallo in DMs, I want to ask @Hawkeye_Goughwhat is the rationale for restricting weapon type/shape for Oathblades to "greatswords"? Pallo advised that was something I should "defer to hawkeye for a more in-depth explanation on this one sadly". This is not me "calling you out," but just curious if you can explain.

 

I do want to take this reply as an opportunity to encourage something I see severely lacking: Regardless of whether those of us players playing Paleknights convert to Dreadknights or not, I think we can unionize in a sense to both submit ourselves to tighter ST/LT scrutiny on quality of our roleplay while also insisting that we be very visible about whoever among us are playing Paleknights subpar in terms of discernable rule-breaking. I think it is silly that I have to look over my shoulder each time the shadowy "abusive" Paleknight does something stupid and rule-breaking. Out them por favor.

[Hawkeye_Gough 624]

14 minutes ago, Samson Option said:

As I mentioned to Pallo in DMs, I want to ask @Hawkeye_Goughwhat is the rationale for restricting weapon type/shape for Oathblades to "greatswords"? Pallo advised that was something I should "defer to hawkeye for a more in-depth explanation on this one sadly". This is not me "calling you out," but just curious if you can explain.

@Samson OptionI think it's a case of writers all assuming the other felt it best. I was of the assumption he felt it optimal for the lore to pass- and then may be amended, and I think he was of the assumption that I figured it would improve Dreadknights to rely on their special weapons. If it turns out we don't really think those things, it's not a necessary rule. In the morning we'll discuss removing it.
 

52 minutes ago, Samson Option said:

I think we can unionize in a sense to both submit ourselves to tighter ST/LT scrutiny on quality of our roleplay while also insisting that we be very visible about whoever among us are playing Paleknights subpar in terms of discernable rule-breaking. I think it is silly that I have to look over my shoulder each time the shadowy "abusive" Paleknight does something stupid and rule-breaking. Out them por favor.

I agree! I don't think that a set of admittedly nerfing changes should be a "punishment" to existing Paleknight players. I tried to word my thoughts on the purpose to avoid the really common accusation of "bad faithing" pales. I do NOT think that there's an issue of Paleknights over-powering themselves beyond what their lore allows. I DO think that the current lore simply leaves them very strong against mundane folks in a way that promotes spamming easier fights. Rather than place blame on specific names, I would give the example that I very infamously behaved this way, myself. Not to a level of powergaming, I took the advantages of Paleknights' state of balancing to be pretty exceptionally "strong", and until a few months in I never had anything I really did besides go and kill people. Of the Paleknights I've spoken to while writing, many felt a similar lack of "stuff to do", even if they behaved better than I did.