Dhampyr legal in LFR ?

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
One of my players wants to retrain one of his feats for the Vampiric Heritage feat. Is this legal in LFR (as soon as this dragon issue is compiled) ?
One of my players wants to retrain one of his feats for the Vampiric Heritage feat. Is this legal in LFR (as soon as this dragon issue is compiled) ?

As it has been stated several times in several different threads, if the information is in the compiled version of the Dragon magazine it was presented in, then it is LFR legal. Barring it not being in the final Dragon or it being Banned in the next CCG, we will know when it goes final here soon.
But... can I play warforged? :P
But... can I play warforged? :P

But... can I play warforged? :P

Let the beatings commence!
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Can I be a Gnoll? How about a Githyaanki? Can I buy items from Adventurer's Vault? Can I have the Wheloon background? What about other FR backgrounds? Can I take the backgrounds from Dragon?

Hmm... I should start on that FAQ.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I still did not receive an answer to my question. I know about the dragon magazine use in LFR.

I want to know if the character can retrain a feat to use this feat since the article states that you should take it on 1st level and only can take it at later levels with DM's approval.

PS Can you really play warforged and gnolls ? :P
I still did not receive an answer to my question. I know about the dragon magazine use in LFR.

Stuff that appears in Dragon becomes LFR legal at the end of the month in which it was released (i.e. when the issue is compiled). So the Damphyr is not yet legal in LFR... check back at the end of the month...

I want to know if the character can retrain a feat to use this feat since the article states that you should take it on 1st level and only can take it at later levels with DM's approval.

A much trickier question... traditionally things that have "DM approval" are not allowed in LFR. However, in the past these things have been Artefacts and such-like... the Damphyr feat tree is something, not entirely new... but new for 4e.

It's a safe bet to say the feats will be legal if taken at lv.1 onward, I would even stick my neck out and say that retraining into Vampiric Heritage will be ok too, as it isn't really very powerful. But that hasn't been officially decided yet... wait until the end of the month.

Personally I am plannng to make a Damphyr... an Orc Battlerager Damphyr... but won't take Vampiric Heritage until level 8. So I hope that taking the feat after level 1 is allowed. ;)
The quick and dirty answer is: yes, you can retrain into it. While the article says you should take it at first and only take it later with DM approval... there is no such prerequisite in the feat itself. That's a guideline in the article for story considerations but not a hard and fast rule.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
The quick and dirty answer is: yes, you can retrain into it. While the article says you should take it at first and only take it later with DM approval... there is no such prerequisite in the feat itself. That's a guideline in the article for story considerations but not a hard and fast rule.

That's very good news as my Paladin of Kelemvor just hit eighth so not only do I have an open feat slot but Kelemvor is a god of the dead. I can easily see many of his followers taking the feat path in an attempt to become more like their god. While yes Kelemvor hates all undead one can easily see him granting a small amount of undead powers to his faithful in an attempt to bring the fight to the door step of the enemy.
That's very good news as my Paladin of Kelemvor just hit eighth so not only do I have an open feat slot but Kelemvor is a god of the dead. I can easily see many of his followers taking the feat path in an attempt to become more like their god. While yes Kelemvor hates all undead one can easily see him granting a small amount of undead powers to his faithful in an attempt to bring the fight to the door step of the enemy.

No, no, thrice no, and NO.

In the lore (even in 4e lore), Kelemvor would never grant any undead powers or allow his worshippers to have anything to do with the undead and undeath. The very concept of undeath goes against everything that Kelemvor stands for.

Honestly, if I were your DM and you suggested this, I'd have Kelemvor excommunicate you pretty much immediately. Certainly, if your character ever came across my own Cleric of Kelemvor, my character would radiant smite your heretical ass until you were nothing but a charred smoking lump as a warning to everyone else that some powers are best left unmeddled with.

Just as long as you get his permission first. :D
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Just as long as you get his permission first. :D

Who, Kelemvor's?

Honesty, this whole thing reminds me of the "But I wanna worship Lloth!" debacle....
Who, Kelemvor's?

No, Vamroc's. There's a rule in the CCG that you can take an action that attacks / damages another PC only if you first ask that PC's player's permission.
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
No, Vamroc's. There's a rule in the CCG that you can take an action that attacks / damages another PC only if you first ask that PC's player's permission.

The rules DON'T say, however, that he needs to GIVE the permission. you only have to ask. :D

(and I thought the rules say you should ask, not must)
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
No, no, thrice no, and NO.

lol, lolz, LOLZ.

Also: wrong.
In the lore (even in 4e lore), Kelemvor would never grant any undead powers or allow his worshippers to have anything to do with the undead and undeath. The very concept of undeath goes against everything that Kelemvor stands for.

1... 2... Okay, two things wrong with that statement.

1. Kelemvor would never grant undead powers. While this is true, 4e has taken a very "deities are distant" approach, moreover, deities don't grant powers anymore.

2. Dhampyr aren't undead.

Honestly, if I were your DM and you suggested this, I'd have Kelemvor excommunicate you pretty much immediately.

If doing something a deity wouldn't approve of was all it took to get a deity to show up, worshipers of good deities would do bad things. And worshipers of evil deities would do good things. Not to mention that the divine power source doesn't actually come from a deity (it comes from within! "Be your own divine!"). So, again, wrong.
Certainly, if your character ever came across my own Cleric of Kelemvor, my character would radiant smite your heretical ass until you were nothing but a charred smoking lump as a warning to everyone else that some powers are best left unmeddled with.

LoLz. Intentional Player Killing falls under disruptive play and is grounds for eviction from a table (and I believe citing and possible removal from the campaign).
lol, lolz, LOLZ.
Also: wrong.1... 2... Okay, two things wrong with that statement.

1. Kelemvor would never grant undead powers. While this is true, 4e has taken a very "deities are distant" approach, moreover, deities don't grant powers anymore.

Sorry, FR lore trumps 4e lore. In the Realms, deities are NOT distant. Divine characters in the realms MUST have patron deities.

2. Dhampyr aren't undead.

Their power still comes from undeath.

If doing something a deity wouldn't approve of was all it took to get a deity to show up, worshipers of good deities would do bad things. And worshipers of evil deities would do good things. Not to mention that the divine power source doesn't actually come from a deity (it comes from within! "Be your own divine!")

Not in the Realms. Divine characters in the realms MUST have a patron deity.

Come back and talk when you've learned something about the campaign world you're playing in.

So, again, wrong.LoLz. Intentional Player Killing falls under disruptive play and is grounds for eviction from a table (and I believe citing and possible removal from the campaign).

a) I would not sit down at a table with a player who is so intent on riding so roughshot over the lore. b) neither would anyone else on the regular LFR circuit here in the UK.

If a player has undeath-inspired powers and claims to be worshipping Kelemvor, he'd get laughed at. He'd certainly not be allowed to run so roughshot over the rules by any DM I know.
Too bad DMs don't have the liberty to do what you're saying, then.
...Snipped...
a) I would not sit down at a table with a player who is so intent on riding so roughshot over the lore. b) neither would anyone else on the regular LFR circuit here in the UK.

If a player has undeath-inspired powers and claims to be worshipping Kelemvor, he'd get laughed at. He'd certainly not be allowed to run so roughshot over the rules by any DM I know.

The last few posts seem to be slipping into personality rather than issues. Regardless of your feelings of whether clerics of kelemvor should be allowed to be dhampyrs, they are allowed to. If a player shows up with one at a table he is bringing a legal character to the table and should be allowed to play. You and he can debate backstory after the game. Not everyone has mastered all the elements of Forgotten Realms backstory and even if they have not everyone will agree on all the elements. Warforged, Gnolls, Dhampyrs and many other can be legitimately questioned about their backstory and honest disagreements can exist, but they are all legal.
DMs can, however, make life very difficult in-game for the PC.

There really is no good in-game rationale for a Kelemvorite Dhampyr. They're really that rabidly anti-undead that they'd kill themselves if one found out he or she was one.

This is why so few people in the Realms actually become Kelemvorites. Not that many people can attain that level of fanaticism.



-karma

LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard | Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard | Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric

AL Character: Talia Ko'bori Silverwane - Tiefling Tome Fiend Warlock

Too bad DMs don't have the liberty to do what you're saying, then.

Well...
Yes and no. It's up in the air whether a DM can outright ban options at their table. After all, there is nothing in the rules that says a DM must sit anyone who shows up.

And even if they let you play, life can be hard for characters who don't mesh well with the world. I had someone play a Gnoll in a DALE1-2 game I ran. Let me tell you, he was not impressed when he discovered that in my games Race affects more than ability scores. It's funny how hard diplomatic skill challenges can suddenly be. There are more than a few adventures out there where I could see having semi-undead in your party could make lots of NPC interaction more... interesting than you may be looking for.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
There really is no good in-game rationale for a Kelemvorite Dhampyr. They're really that rabidly anti-undead that they'd kill themselves if one found out he or she was one.

-karma

Oh? Let's say a very powerful vampire lord (on par with Strahd von Zarovich, or some FR equivalent) feeds upon a woman. She happens to be pregnant at the time, though not very far along in the pregnancy. The child inherits the vampiric bloodline from the lord due to the feeding, and the pregnancy is very difficult. Makes sense, considering the child is requiring more blood to help him grow.

The child is born, with the mother dying during childbirth. Though he is half vampire, he actually doesn't show his vampiric heritage until later in life. His mother's death haunts him, and because of the vampire that weakened his mother, he becomes a devout Kelemvorite, entering the priesthood.

At some point, his vampiric nature finally shows through. He now sees that the vampire has cursed him as well. He finds his own existence abhorrent, to be sure, but he makes a deal with Kelemvor: allow him time to track down the lord that gave him the taint of the grave and the Thirst and Hunger, and once that vampire is permanently destroyed, he will end his own life, laying the bloodline to rest forever.

How's that?
There really is no good in-game rationale for a Kelemvorite Dhampyr. They're really that rabidly anti-undead that they'd kill themselves if one found out he or she was one.

Sure there is. A Kelemvor worshipping Dhampyr wouldn't kill themselves just because they found out they were a Dhampyr, nor would your run-of-the-mill Kelemvor worshipping Paladin/Cleric/Invoker/Avenger automatically want to destroy the Dhampyr (although they may not trust them). Dhampyr's are what they are because of the undead, but they're not undead themselves. If anything, Kelemvorites would probably welcome Dhampyrs, although grudgingly, to better hunt down and destroy the undead.

Now, is there an in-game rationale for Kelemvor granting his worshippers Dhampyr abilities? Absolutely not. Kelemvor's not about to hand out a craving for blood to his worshippers! That doesn't make a lick of sense whatsoever. Kelemvor would hand out abilities which better allow his followers to destroy the Undead. You'll find THOSE Feats in the Legacy of Acererak article. But Mist Form? Blood Drain? Not a chance.

A better explanation would be to simply state that the character was always a Dhampyr, but his Dhampyr traits didn't come to the fore until recently. Done. No need at all to come up with a convoluted reason involving Kelemvor turning his worshippers into Dhampyr's for some inexplicable reason. Just as it took a while for you to manifest your Mist Form ability, so too did it take a while for you to manifest your Blood Drain ability, and leave it at that.

And personally, I'm looking forward to Dhampyr's becoming playable. I got half a mind to play a Human (Dhampyr) Paladin of Kelemvor, selecting a mix of Feats from both the Dhampyr list and the Paladin specific Feats from Legacy of Acererak, with maybe Astral Fire, Ritual Caster, and Healing Hands thrown in. That'd be pretty neat, I think.
Sigh.

Soon Vampires will sparkle in the sun and make us all the most popular girl at school. Oh wait, Twilight already does that.

Fanboyism rocks.

My attitude is that if you want to be a vampire, go play white-wolf, or accept some SERIOUS consequences if in a game other PCs/folk discover that you are feeding off the living. I aint breaking verisimilitude because you want to be 'awesome'

When push comes to shove, I have yet to meet a Kelemvorite that would permit a Damphyr's presence, let alone allow it to join the clergy :P

4e Lore and LFR lore NOT THE SAME. (not a personal attack, just making it VERY clear)
It's up in the air whether a DM can outright ban options at their table.

It's not up in the air. The RPGA CCG says what is a legal character option or not. If a player's character is legal, you can't not allow it at a table just because you don't like the rules item in question. I think people forget that in the RPGA, infractions can happen not just to the players but to the Judges also.

And even if they let you play, life can be hard for characters who don't mesh well with the world. I had someone play a Gnoll in a DALE1-2 game I ran. Let me tell you, he was not impressed when he discovered that in my games Race affects more than ability scores. It's funny how hard diplomatic skill challenges can suddenly be. There are more than a few adventures out there where I could see having semi-undead in your party could make lots of NPC interaction more... interesting than you may be looking for.

Yay! I wish more DMs where I play would do that... If I play my Minotaur I expect NPCs to react differently than they would an elf or human. Of course, there is a fine line between adding the flavor to the chosen PC race through NPC interactions and excluding a player from playing.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Yay! I wish more DMs where I play would do that... If I play my Minotaur I expect NPCs to react differently than they would an elf or human. Of course, there is a fine line between adding the flavor to the chosen PC race through NPC interactions and excluding a player from playing.

As an Orc Warlord... I often wonder why I ever bothered to train Diplomacy...

But, what you lose in structured debate you gain in threatening and bullying... go-go magic Intimidation!

When I DM I always treat the races differently... not badly, but the NPCs react differently to the different races... as do many of the better RP players in the group.

There are Thayans who don't bat an eyelid when there is a Gnoll in the group, while the Dalesmen grab their weapons every time one makes a sudden move.

Similarly there is one Thayan character of my acquaintence who will be taking Vampiric Heritage very soon (a legacy of having a society ruled by the Undead I would imagine). While there is a Kelemvorite Cleric who's "spider sense" tingles every time he's in the same group as the Thayan... for some reason...

As for Kelemvor "granting" Vampiric Heritage, I find that a bit of a stretch. However, if that's the way one particular Cleric or Paladin's Kelemvorite Sect wants to believe, that's fine... it's a legal character after all... but I don't see it as part of the mainstream doctrine for Kelemvor.

I find it far more likely that a Damphyr character woud turn to Kelemvor for help with controlling/removing the condition (if they believed it to be such a thing).

As has been said, Vampiric Heritage does not make your character Undead, it's much more like a curse... who better to remove a curse than a God.

On a positive note, with the introduction of Adventuring Companies, you could start one that only lets in Damphyr worshippers of Kelemvor... start your own sect! ;)
To expand what Metz said, I used to play World of Warcraft on an RP server. And there we (by 'we' I mean people who made an effort to abide by the setting) were plagued by people who didn't know the lore, didn't want to know the lore, and deliberately went out of their way to defecate on the lore from a great height. You know the type: half-demon half-lesbian vampiric long lost sons of Cloud, Arthas and Thrall with multiple prehensile appendages shaped like . They would get very arsey when it was pointed out to them that they were, to be frank, childish and taking the **** and their character concept had no place in an RP server.

So it is with all these "kewl" powers that are now appearing. Just because you *can* play a Damphyr, doesn't mean you *have* to. Especially if your character worships a deity that despises the whole concept of undeath and is expressly dedicated to the utter destruction of *anything* that is tainted by undeath, as is with Kelemvor in the Realms. Remember, you're playing in the Realms, not in generic 4e-ville. Please make an effort to abide by the commonalities of the Realms.

If people are such selfish gits that they *cannot* and *will not* abide by the basic lore of the Realms, then can I suggest that LFR is *not* for you? Try World of EroticPrehensileTentacleCraft or something instead. Or even FATAL.
Sure there is. A Kelemvor worshipping Dhampyr wouldn't kill themselves just because they found out they were a Dhampyr...[snip]

You truly don't know Kelemvor very well, do you?

Kelemvorites, in regards to undeath in any shape or form, are intolerant, unforgiving, and unreasonable.

I'll just leave it at that.




-karma

LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard | Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard | Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric

AL Character: Talia Ko'bori Silverwane - Tiefling Tome Fiend Warlock

You truly don't know Kelemvor very well, do you?

Kelemvorites, in regards to undeath in any shape or form, are intolerant, unforgiving, and unreasonable.

I'll just leave it at that.




-karma

A Dhampyr isn't undead. They do not have the undead keyword. They age and die. Part of the Kelemvor hatred of undeath is that something is "cheating" death. The Dhampyr aren't and will die at their appointed time. Now, as soon as they gain powers that make them ageless or undead, a Dhampyr (or any race for that matter) will have trouble with the Kelemvorites.
This talk of whether or not they have the undead keyword is typical confusion of lore and mechanic. They are a creature supernaturally powerful (more so than an average human) as a result of a union with undead.

Ergo they are deriving a benefit from the interaction with undead, and the essence of undead is in them, even if they age and die. Kelemvor is not a fan of that. It's like being in LG and trying to argue why your cleric of Kelanan should be allowed to use a Bow, or an axe. Or why your Elf cleric is allowed to worship Wastri, the hopping prophet.

The Rules don't prohibit it, but the flavour does.

Vampires in LFR aren't like Vampires in twilight and modern fiction, they aren't tortured individuals who just want to love you, they are UNDEAD abominations (especially in Kelemvor's eyes). It's hard enough to get what little LFR lore there is right now. (separate rant in the 'Is LFR FR enough thread)

I prefer my LFR to have campaign integrity - what little there is.
This talk of whether or not they have the undead keyword is typical confusion of lore and mechanic. They are a creature supernaturally powerful (more so than an average human) as a result of a union with undead.

Ergo they are deriving a benefit from the interaction with undead, and the essence of undead is in them, even if they age and die. Kelemvor is not a fan of that. It's like being in LG and trying to argue why your cleric of Kelanan should be allowed to use a Bow, or an axe. Or why your Elf cleric is allowed to worship Wastri, the hopping prophet.

The Rules don't prohibit it, but the flavour does.

Vampires in LFR aren't like Vampires in twilight and modern fiction, they aren't tortured individuals who just want to love you, they are UNDEAD abominations (especially in Kelemvor's eyes). It's hard enough to get what little LFR lore there is right now. (separate rant in the 'Is LFR FR enough thread)

I prefer my LFR to have campaign integrity - what little there is.

But, it's only what you consider appropriate flavor or what you think is lacking in integrity. Regardless of what may have come in the past, LFR is based on 4E Realms. There is nothing as of yet that gives Kelemvor's stance, or that of his followers, regarding the Dhampyr. There probably never will be.

So, if a player can choose an option, because the mechanic says it is valid, then that character can exist within the lore of the world. It has to because someone, somewhere, will choose it.

In my opinion, it isn't contrary to the lore. It doesn't matter if vampires aren't like modern fiction. Dhampyr's aren't either. It's a creature of old Balkan legend, historically, and wasn't considered especially evil. As a matter of fact, they were known for hunting vampires.

Among all Balkan peoples it is believed that the child of a vampire has a special ability to see and destroy vampires. Among some groups, the ability to see vampires is considered exclusive to dhampirs. The powers of a dhampir may be inherited by the dhampir's offspring. Various means of killing or driving away vampires are recognized among peoples of the region, but the dhampir is seen as the chief agent for dealing with vampires. Methods by which a dhampir kills a vampire include shooting the vampire with a bullet, transfixing it with a hawthorn stake, and performing a ceremony that involves touching "crowns" of lead to the vampire's grave. If the dhampir can't destroy a vampire, he may command it to leave the area.

So, we shouldn't worry about what modern fiction says about vampires or dhampyrs. So, we can only go with what the lore of the Realms gives us. The Realms has no specific lore for Dhampyr, so we can only go by what is given in the Dragon article. Dhampyr are not undead. Dhampyr are mortal.

The lore on Kelemvor states that he is fair and just, "having set himself above the push and pull of law and chaos, good and evil." He is a staunch enemy of the undead, surely, but this doesn't set him against the Dhampyr. As a matter of fact, the most telling lore can be found in the description of Kelemvor's most devout, the Doombringers.

Undeath—the most blasphemous of abominations. Demons are born what they are, but to tether the spirit of the departed to a rotting shell or anchor it in the world with hate and misery—there is no greater evil in the world. It is up to you to set the souls of the wretched undead free, and send them on to Kelemvor’s waiting judgment. You send these wayward souls to their final reward, so they can pass into eternity as Kelemvor intends.

Demons are born what they are, so Kelemvor has no special hate for them. Dhampyr are born what they are, so the same should hold true. "Immortal heritage greatly extends a dhampyr’s life expectancy." They can expect to live perhaps a century longer than their living parent, but that is all, and as they are born this way, it shouldn't be an affront to Kelemvor. Undead use necromantic magic to gain a form of immortality and it is this that enrages Kelemvor.

Now, you are free to roleplay how you wish. You can have your PC follower of Kelemvor, or your NPC's if you are DM'ing, react with horror, disgust or whatever you find appropriate. What you cannot do is tell them they are wrong, that their character concept is invalid, because they aren't and it isn't. Sure, some young teen girl or hair-in-his-face emo boy may show up with an Edward Cullen-esque Dhampyr and cause you to grumble, but that is their right. Roll with the team spirit of the RPGA and at the very least, be polite, even if you think their idea blows. Give them a few years and they might come up with more palatable ideas and be an active part of our community.
Intentional Player Killing falls under disruptive play and is grounds for eviction from a table (and I believe citing and possible removal from the campaign).

So you're saying I can't take an Attack of Opportunity against a Warlock who uses me for Your Glorious Sacrifice?

Oops. :D
Sigh.

Soon Vampires will sparkle in the sun and make us all the most popular girl at school. Oh wait, Twilight already does that.

Fanboyism rocks.

Just because I think Dhampyr's look like an interesting player choice doesn't mean I'm a 13-year-old girl who enjoys the work of a writer who can't be bothered to research a subject they're writing about.

My attitude is that if you want to be a vampire, go play white-wolf, or accept some SERIOUS consequences if in a game other PCs/folk discover that you are feeding off the living. I aint breaking verisimilitude because you want to be 'awesome'

Except I don't want to be a Vampire. I want to play a Dhampyr. Two different beasts. Just like Shifters and Lycanthropes are two different things, even though Shifters are descended from Lycanthropes.

When push comes to shove, I have yet to meet a Kelemvorite that would permit a Damphyr's presence, let alone allow it to join the clergy 4e Lore and LFR lore NOT THE SAME. (not a personal attack, just making it VERY clear)

The problem here is that you don't seem to be at all clear on the lore for Dhampyr's. They're not undead. Kelemvor's problem is with undeath, with those who prolong their life through unnatural means. NOT with living, breathing beings who are born, grow up, grow old, and who'll die (unless they become immortal, but immortality isn't limited to Dhampyr's, as that's a common trait for most Epic Destinies).

You truly don't know Kelemvor very well, do you?

I know Kelemvor exceptionally well. On the other hand, you don't seem to be particularly knowledgeable when it comes to the 4E Dhampyr.

Kelemvorites, in regards to undeath in any shape or form, are intolerant, unforgiving, and unreasonable.

Case in point. A Dhampyr isn't undead. As a point of fact, the prerequisite for being a Dhampyr is a Living humanoid race. So no, they're not undead, and the Kelemvorite hatred of undeath doesn't apply.
The way I see it Damphyr are D&D's version of Connor (Angel) he is Angel and Darla's human child concieved as part of a mystical prophecy. Connor is not a vampire or even undead but a living human with a soul that possesses all the strength, speed, agility, and supernatural senses vampires do just like the Damphyr. I can see Kelemvor having Damphyr as followers because they would make for more effective warriors and many of them hate the undead just as Kelemvor does.
The way I see it Damphyr are D&D's version of Connor (Angel) he is Angel and Darla's human child concieved as part of a mystical prophecy. Connor is not a vampire or even undead but a living human with a soul that possesses all the strength, speed, agility, and supernatural senses vampires do just like the Damphyr. I can see Kelemvor having Damphyr as followers because they would make for more effective warriors and many of them hate the undead just as Kelemvor does.

You're not helping your argument by adopting the Special Snowflake approach, y'know.

*sigh*

The vast canon of established FR lore is quite clear: Kelemvor and his church would have nothing to do with Damphyrs, Necromancy or any other manifestations of Undeath.
Of course in LFR, this is all a moot point.

Damphyr are a legal LFR choice as is a Cleric/Paladin/Worshipper of Kelemvor.

Therefore you can have both and no DM (or player) has any right to say you cannot play the character.

Arguing that Kelemvor would/could not stomach any Damphyr worshippers is immaterial... in LFR he does! :P

The reasons he does (I'm sure) are varied and imaginative... and I would like to hear them all...

This really has been an interesting discussion over the immutable and sometime contradictory nature of LFR rules vs. fluff... pray continue... ;)
The crux point is this: just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should*.

This is not new to LFR though, this has been going on for a long time. For example, I remember back at the start of Living Greyhawk, I refed one of the very first modules ("What lies beneath" I think it was called) and there was a new player on the table. He wanted to play a Paladin of Hextor called Gorgorgoth Bloodsplitter or something equally...Hextorish. The rest of the table were Lawful Good characters, including quite a few clerics and Paladins. Eventually, he was talked around to playing something a bit less..pillockish.

I'll give another example: years ago, back in AD&D days, I was playing a Dwarven cleric in a long-running dungeon-based campaign. Another person showed up, wanting to play an elf. Fair enough, you think. But he was utterly insistent that this elf be dark-skinned *and* with hair dyed white. He then spent the rest of the session complaining that my dwarf tried to kill him when he first met the party.

This is important in LFR, which is based upon a long running campaign world with a massive amount of lore backing it up. Its why I get so...pointy...when egregious lore-slaying starts to occur.
You're not helping your argument by adopting the Special Snowflake approach, y'know.

And you're not helping yours with the elitist jerk approach, either.

The vast canon of established FR lore is quite clear: Kelemvor and his church would have nothing to do with Damphyrs, Necromancy or any other manifestations of Undeath.

Please cite me examples of this vast amount of lore having to do specifically with Kelemvor's stance on Dhampyr.

The crux point is this: just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should*.

No, but it means someone will. And since it's legal, if you have a problem with it, and you cause a scene at a table, you'll be the one in the wrong.
The crux point is this: just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should*.

I agree... if someone makes a "non-fluff supported" decision just to be disruptive then they are trying to be disruptive... is that the fault of the rules or the player?

I'll give another example: years ago, back in AD&D days, I was playing a Dwarven cleric in a long-running dungeon-based campaign. Another person showed up, wanting to play an elf. Fair enough, you think. But he was utterly insistent that this elf be dark-skinned *and* with hair dyed white. He then spent the rest of the session complaining that my dwarf tried to kill him when he first met the party.

Again, was the player trying to be disruptive, perhaps by playing an "Chaotic Neutral/I'm actually Evil" Elf... if not... if perhaps, they had a reason their appearance favoured Drow*, then there isn't any problem, they are afterall an Elf.

Perhaps you are simply using the "fluff" in a manner to justify actions that are predjudicial against another player.
The Elf (for that is what he was) is justified in asking why you keep trying to kill him... can your Dwarf not tell the difference between a "dark-skinned, white haired Elf" and a Drow?

How many times does he need the difference to be explained to him?

This is important in LFR, which is based upon a long running campaign world with a massive amount of lore backing it up. Its why I get so...pointy...when egregious lore-slaying starts to occur.

As it stands... rules trump lore... if someone wants to play a legal character with a "lore-slaying" background, as long as they don't break the rules (worship an Evil deity being the best example or lore/rules crossover) then they can.

There really is little point in arguing that lore is important, as long as the rules can countermand the lore, the rules will always win.

It would be nice if people made their characters to fit the lore... but that isn't in the rules...

*
Show
We once had an Elf character who's mother had an unfortunate run in with the Drow... his appearance favoured his Drow parentage (skin colour and hair colour)... this was his reason for adventuring. He wasn't welcome in his homeland.
A fair and legitamate reason for having a character. Yes, some thought he was a Drow, but his erstwhile companions knew the truth. It was the reason he hung around with them.
Show
Heh, technically, by previous Realmslore, drow/elf pairings always result in pure drow or pure elf, no mixes.







-karma

LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard | Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard | Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric

AL Character: Talia Ko'bori Silverwane - Tiefling Tome Fiend Warlock

Show
Heh, technically, by previous Realmslore, drow/elf pairings always result in pure drow or pure elf, no mixes.


-karma

Show
Yep, but [of course] this this was LG... where almost anything seemed possible... and there were always exceptions in the interests of fun.
Sign In to post comments