New Race: Revenant (is FR losing its "setting feel"?)

516 posts / 0 new
Last post
Note that I, personally, consider this thread to be both irrelevant and of no earthly or LFR use and should have died 10 pages ago. At least until the COMPILED version of the Revenant is released. All until then is smoke and mirrors, really.

Sigh. The Lore and Setting is quite clear on this subject. How many times does "ALL Undead" need to be explained to you? It means precisely that. "ALL Undead". You're just being deliberately disingenious now.

And never mind the fact that, without a canon reference, Revenants have sod all to do with the Realms!

So, Kelemvor is against all the good undead that ARE in Realmslore? Baelnorm, for example?

And, yet again, the problem is that inflexibility should not be part of any PC's RP. Inflexibility is one of the primary attributes of much of the evil that the PCs should be going out to fight.

If you check out the "rules" of fantasy in general, you would note that the evil overlord maintains his power by inflexible rules and regulations, while the good king loses his kingdom because he is more flexible and open to new things.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is more flexible and forgiving than "guilty until proven iinnocent." Which rule would you rather be tried under?
...barring exceptions.

Gomez

Show me where in the written text of, say, Faiths and Pantheons where it says "All Undead Barring These Exceptions".

You can't.

As written, there are NO exceptions.

But then we've already seen that the prevailing attitude amongst many folks here is for the setting to go screw itself. Its not Living Forgotten Realms, its Living Kitchen Sink with some Faerunian whitewash.
Note that I, personally, consider this thread to be both irrelevant and of no earthly or LFR use and should have died 10 pages ago. At least until the COMPILED version of the Revenant is released. All until then is smoke and mirrors, really.



So, Kelemvor is against all the good undead that ARE in Realmslore? Baelnorm, for example?

And, yet again, the problem is that inflexibility should not be part of any PC's RP. Inflexibility is one of the primary attributes of much of the evil that the PCs should be going out to fight.

If you check out the "rules" of fantasy in general, you would note that the evil overlord maintains his power by inflexible rules and regulations, while the good king loses his kingdom because he is more flexible and open to new things.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is more flexible and forgiving than "guilty until proven iinnocent." Which rule would you rather be tried under?

We are not talking about the Rules of Fantasy in General, we are talking about the Forgotten Realms. Go play Living Fantasy in General if you want to bring in real-world moral arguments, but when you are in the Realms, you abide by the Canon of the Realms.

And all the canon the Realms has quite clearly stated that the Kelemvorite position is emphatically against ALL undead.

And Revenants are NOT part of FR Canon. Their inclusion in LFR is simply a mechanical oversight.
In the same way, you cannot point out a source that says: "all undead, NO exceptions", in those words.

Any absolute statement always has exceptions (and yes, even this statement here).
Kelemvor's 'absolute' edict may have exceptions. These are not mentioned, because they are exceptions. Revenants, being new, may be among those exceptions. All you have to do as a player is say 'Revenants are possibly exceptions', and role from there.
That does not kill lore. It does not invalidate an absolute statement by Kelemvor - since exceptions are 'built into' any absolute statement.

Note that I find it insulting when people assume mine or other people's attitude towards the Realms and belittle it. I politely ask you to refrain from such behavior.

Gomez
And Revenants are NOT part of FR Canon. Their inclusion in LFR is simply a mechanical oversight.

WotC owns the Forgotten Realms.

WotC has stated that "it's all D&D" - meaning that what's in the "core" is good for any campaign setting. What's in a campaign setting is good for the core or any OTHER campaign setting.

While Revenants may not, historically, have been canonical - they are now. Period. (Remember - there was a time, though it may not seem like it, that Drizzt Do'Urden wasn't canon either - then some Salvatore guy made him up and *poof* he was canon).

We're playing in the modern version of the realms - and they include things like Reveanants, Dhampyres, Warforged, Drow, Tieflings, Dragonborn, and more.

You're welcome to YOUR view of the Realms - nobody here is going to debate that (I think).

What (I think) we're trying to get you to see, however, is that your view is YOUR view - and it doesn't necisarily match the view held by WotC for 4E - and therefore it doesn't really gel with the view needed for LFR.

By all means, make characters and play them how you see fit (so long as you aren't disrupting others) - but at the very least be aware that your personal view of the Realms is no more or less valid than, say, mine.

Also know that the rules don't/haven't changed. All evidence points to the fact that the Revenant will likely be RPGA legal - no matter how much you rail against it, if that's the way the cards fall, it's what we'll all have to abide by.

If this is a major issue for you, it's up to you to decide if LFR is a version of D&D you want to continue to be involved with.

Keep in mind that this isn't a Forgotten Realms problem either - it's a difference of opinion between you and WotC about campaign settings.

If "Living Eberron" started tomorrow, Drow and Swordmages (and Revenants) would be part of the campaign. If rumors are correct and Dragonlance is the 2010 Campaign Setting - Living Eberron and LFR would both suddenly find themselves with Kender. "Living Dragonlance" would find Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warforged, Drow, Artificers, Revenants and more part of it's campaign as well.

WotC made a chioce with this edition that it's more about the game - and letting people have fun with ALL the options available - than it is about the story that's come before.

The story that's come before is, yes, locked in place as-is. But the heros (that would be us, the players) and what they do now is more important than what's happened previously.

How much you agree and/or accept this new paradigm is up to you. WotC (and through it the RPGA) are going to continue on this path - for 4E at least, and I'd imagine for future versions to come.

Whether or not this makes RPGA games palatable or not is something we all have to decide for ourselves. I happen to like the change and think its a step in the right direction. If you disagree, that's okay too - just be aware that official canon, and official play (like the RPGA) are going in a different direction than you might want.
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

In the same way, you cannot point out a source that says: "all undead, NO exceptions", in those words.

Any absolute statement always has exceptions (and yes, even this statement here).
Kelemvor's 'absolute' edict may have exceptions. These are not mentioned, because they are exceptions. Revenants, being new, may be among those exceptions. All you have to do as a player is say 'Revenants are possibly exceptions', and role from there.
That does not kill lore. It does not invalidate an absolute statement by Kelemvor - since exceptions are 'built into' any absolute statement.

Completely wrong. The burden of proof is on the proposer. You have claimed there are exceptions to the *specified* lore that Kelemvor is against "ALL Undead". You have been singularily unable to come up with any canon statement that Revenants are an exception to this. In terms of FR Lore and Writ, the statement "ALL Undead" is equivalent to the real world laws of physics. And just like the laws of physics, there are no exceptions.

Note that I find it insulting when people assume mine or other people's attitude towards the Realms and belittle it. I politely ask you to refrain from such behavior.

Gomez

Come off it. The whole thread people have claimed that becuase I stick to the Lore I am mentally ill (and worse).
Come off it. The whole thread people have claimed that becuase I stick to the Lore I am mentally ill (and worse).

And those people have been chastised for their comments - as SVCL I'd like to remind you that you're welcome to go back and report any posts that you feel are inappropriate - the ORCs have the power to edit/delete those posts, and if the offence is egregious enough take action against the poster.

However just because one or two people may find your stance to be indicative of mental illness doesn't mean we all do (though I think even those comments came more from misunderstanding and misattribution of comments than anything else. I think the prevailing assumption by the commenter was that if you refuse to play nice - to the degree that you become disruptive - that it may indicate mental instability - however there are large swaths of this thread I've only had time/mental acuity to skim, so I may be wrong).

I disagree with your hardline stance in light of the way 4E views campaign settings - but unless/until I hear about you disrupting tables at conventions, I have no reason to think you're mentally unbalanced.

You have an overwhelmingly inflexible view of the lore that I don't really understand/agree with - but it's just that - a disagreement. Nothing more.

However, gomez is right to ask (as we all are) for tolerance of other people's views - and to show that sort of tolerance in your posts.

Comments like "Come off it" read as borderline hostile - and end up feeling dismissive, which does nothing to endear you to the people you're communicating with - regardless of intent.
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

And those people have been chastised for their comments - as SVCL I'd like to remind you that you're welcome to go back and report any posts that you feel are inappropriate - the ORCs have the power to edit/delete those posts, and if the offence is egregious enough take action against the poster.

However just because one or two people may find your stance to be indicative of mental illness doesn't mean we all do (though I think even those comments came more from misunderstanding and misattribution of comments than anything else. I think the prevailing assumption by the commenter was that if you refuse to play nice - to the degree that you become disruptive - that it may indicate mental instability - however there are large swaths of this thread I've only had time/mental acuity to skim, so I may be wrong).

I disagree with your hardline stance in light of the way 4E views campaign settings - but unless/until I hear about you disrupting tables at conventions, I have no reason to think you're mentally unbalanced.

You have an overwhelmingly inflexible view of the lore that I don't really understand/agree with - but it's just that - a disagreement. Nothing more.

However, gomez is right to ask (as we all are) for tolerance of other people's views - and to show that sort of tolerance in your posts.

Comments like "Come off it" read as borderline hostile - and end up feeling dismissive, which does nothing to endear you to the people you're communicating with - regardless of intent.

Sorry, but asking for tolerance of obviously erroneous views* is like asking tolerance for folks who claim that they have made a perpetual motion machine. "Sure, we'll adjust the laws of physics for you and your tinfoil hat!".

I'm not being deliberately provocative here, I am merely pointing out that according to EVERY single source of canon lore, Kelemvor does not tolerate ANY undead whatsoever. There has been no canon to supercede this at all (even a single sidebar paragraph in the article to state the relationship between Kelemvor and Revenants would be enough for me to completely revise my opinion). Until this time, those who claim that Kelemvor tolerates undead are wrong according to the lore.

Until that point, were I be in a position that my cleric would be in the same table as a revenant, I would walk away or play a different character.

But this is not good enough for a certain subset of posters here on the board who might as well play Living Kitchen Sink as they obviously have no regard or no heeding whatsoever for the Forgotten Realms as a setting.
You have claimed there are exceptions to the *specified* lore that Kelemvor is against "ALL Undead".

No. I claim that there may be exceptions, and that those exceptions need not be noted because they are exceptions, and these are typically not noted.
I maintain that it is your choice to not allow such exceptions.
Canon lore does not force you to. It is your decision.

And last I checked, this is not physics or mathematics. It's a game. Fun and common sense are more important than absolute interpretation of text, so it is valid to usethe interpretation that 'all undead' does not include exceptions, using the not unreasonable assumption that exceptions are omitted for briefety. Especially as such alternate interpretation does not violate lore in any way.

Gomez,
who believes he ahs been civil, but who is getting testy
Sorry, but asking for tolerance of obviously erroneous views* is like asking tolerance for folks who claim that they have made a perpetual motion machine. "Sure, we'll adjust the laws of physics for you and your tinfoil hat!".

Then we'll have to agree to disagree - if only because I don't rank opinions on the made-up lore of a made-up world to be ANYWHERE near as important as things like scientifically documentable/demostrable fact.

Asking for tolerance on people's opinions, in fact, strikes me as one of the most civilized things we can do as a society. This is important to keep in mind, as these are social forums, and D&D is a social game. The RPGA especially - because of it's open social nature.

I'm not being deliberately provocative here, I am merely pointing out that according to EVERY single source of canon lore, Kelemvor does not tolerate ANY undead whatsoever. There has been no canon to supercede this at all (even a single sidebar paragraph in the article to state the relationship between Kelemvor and Revenants would be enough for me to completely revise my opinion). Until this time, those who claim that Kelemvor tolerates undead are wrong according to the lore.

And where the disconnect, as I see it, lies is that the game - or at the very least the 4E version of it (and the Realms) is that the game is made up OF exceptions. Yes, you're right, the lore doesn't list exceptions, but - why would it?

The lore doesn't show exceptions for, say, someone working for the Cult of the Dragon who got into the cult because they think they could subvert at least one Dracolich into the service of good.

Does that mean it would be wrong of a GM to incorporate such into a storyline? Or is it that very exception that makes a campaign special and unique?

On the other hand, if the lore specifically stated that Kelemvore despises all undead - oh, except a few - does that simply open the door TOO widely for too many exceptions.

[INDENT]"Ohhhh, I hate them undeads! Well, except for Bob. . .that mummy I played poker with. Oh! And Rhonda the Zombie., sure she's falling apart at the seams, but the bits that are still there. . . hubba hubba".[/INDENT]

Yes, I'm being satirical in this example, but it seems to me that the dogma of the Kelemvor church sort of needs to take a hardline stance for the masses. That doesn't mean that within the upper eschelons of the church they don't have a list of exceptions (Balenorns being the much touted example).

[EDIT]
Also, while you feel the burden of proof is on those saying that exceptions may exist, I could actually argue that the lore is silent on the issue of exceptions.

This leaves PCs room to play Revenants, and GMs running the Realms at home leeway as well if you want/need it
[/EDIT]

It also doesn't mean that an individual advenuring cleric is a "Robot of the Chruch" unable to make his own case-by-case judgements. It shouldn't happen lightly "Oh, you're a Revenant? I've never heard of your kind, though I can see you're undead - let's be friends" but it CAN give the individual player enough leeway to make an adventure tolerable.

[INDENT]"Well, that tall pale fellow was odd, and I couldn't put my finger on why - when I turned undead and he was thrust away from me, a chill ran down my spine and shook me to my very core!

What was most surprising, however, was even after I'd turned him, he saved MY life, and later explained to me about his. . . condition.

I hope I never meet him or his kind again, and I'm not sure what I'll do should our paths cross. . . but after all that happened, I can only wish him well, and hope he finds his way back to eternal rest"[/INDENT]

Until that point, were I be in a position that my cleric would be in the same table as a revenant, I would walk away or play a different character.

Which I don't agree with - but I find to be a mature way to handle a situation you won't compromise on.

But this is not good enough for a certain subset of posters here on the board who might as well play Living Kitchen Sink as they obviously have no regard or no heeding whatsoever for the Forgotten Realms as a setting.

Remember, again - we're playing in the setting, and by the rules, put forth by WotC and the RPGA as a whole for 4th Edition.

WE (the proverbial we, I don't really have a stake in this as I don't intend to play a Revenant in LFR - though I DO have a gnoll) feel we can make our characters fit in the lore, and we're playing combinations that are allowed.

That doesn't mean (most of us) have no regard for the lore - it just means we see places where we can fit. You're welcome to disagree, but again that doesn't make you any more (or less) right than we are.
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

Nevermind, I'm done with this.
So, Kelemvor is against all the good undead that ARE in Realmslore? Baelnorm, for example?

Actually yes, he is. Kelemvor is not a good deity and anyone who cheats dead is his foe, no matter how noble the reasons may be.

However as long as there are yet enough evil undead to fight it's seen as ill adviced to launch a crusade against an elven city for harboring baelnorns, but if there's ever the time when all evil undead have been dealt with, the good undead would be right at the new top of the list (or if there's ever the opportunity to dispatch a good undead without the other good guys noticing you, do it quickly)
And Revenants are NOT part of FR Canon. Their inclusion in LFR is simply a mechanical oversight.

As the race names "Revenenat" they're not, you're right. But if you just replace the term "revenant" with "generic good aligned free willed undead" then you have something that is very much part of FR canon. So far it was just taken the care that they and kelemvorites never meet each other, or when they did one just found true death and only one of them walked away.
Mirtek gives a good summary of the Kelemvorite position.

I hope that a) people learn and respect the canon and b) if Revenants are to be introduced into the Realms, they are done so in a fashion which does not conflict with the Realms as they currently exist. That's all I ask.

And with that, I'm out of this thread as well.
Actually yes, he is. Kelemvor is not a good deity and anyone who cheats dead is his foe, no matter how noble the reasons may be.


As the race names "Revenenat" they're not, you're right. But if you just replace the term "revenant" with "generic good aligned free willed undead" then you have something that is very much part of FR canon. So far it was just taken the care that they and kelemvorites never meet each other, or when they did one just found true death and only one of them walked away.

I think that is an interesting point these are not the typical "undead" they have gone through the natural process of death which Kelemvor holds dear. The reason Revenants walk amongst us is Kelemvor/Raven Queen has a purpose for them. Plus it's safe to call Revenants natural "undead" as opposed to undead animated by magic or created by lowly humans like lichs and Flesh Golems. I think the Crow example works best he was "dead" and yet very much alive Draven bled, he healed, and felt pain when forced to remember the past.
Sorry, but asking for tolerance of obviously erroneous views* is like asking tolerance for folks who claim that they have made a perpetual motion machine. "Sure, we'll adjust the laws of physics for you and your tinfoil hat!".

I'm not being deliberately provocative here, I am merely pointing out that according to EVERY single source of canon lore, Kelemvor does not tolerate ANY undead whatsoever. There has been no canon to supercede this at all (even a single sidebar paragraph in the article to state the relationship between Kelemvor and Revenants would be enough for me to completely revise my opinion). Until this time, those who claim that Kelemvor tolerates undead are wrong according to the lore.

Until that point, were I be in a position that my cleric would be in the same table as a revenant, I would walk away or play a different character.

But this is not good enough for a certain subset of posters here on the board who might as well play Living Kitchen Sink as they obviously have no regard or no heeding whatsoever for the Forgotten Realms as a setting.

As has been said before, there is nothing wrong with your point of view, in a home campaign, where the players and DM have complete control over the various elements that get introduced into their game world.

Unfortunately, Living Forgotten Realms is not such a place. LFR is less focused on holding steadfastly to the lore of the realm, and instead (and more importantly in my mind) focuses on providing an common environment where people can have fun, whether they are devotees to the lore or if they have just picked up the books at the con itself and want to give it a shot.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
And, yet again, the problem is that inflexibility should not be part of any PC's RP. Inflexibility is one of the primary attributes of much of the evil that the PCs should be going out to fight.

I'm going to leave aside the fact that your equating of flexibility with good is not only nonsensical but completely wrong in a game where the only lawful alignment is lawful good, and just focus on the fact that, on a fundamental level, I don't understand the bile thrown at Kelemvorites who want to roleplay their character the way the books tell them they should.

A time-honored method of explaining why Living PCs adventure (despite flimsy or non-existent plot hooks) is to have them be some variety of crusader seeking to stamp out some kind of evil. I find it difficult to blame players for not anticipating that a rational campaign would approve actual undead PCs without even a basic attempt to have that make sense. Had I thought about it, I would have put that somewhere on the list only a little above "PC followers of evil-aligned deities".

And, indeed, Dragon Magazine has also put out an article on how to be a non-evil follower of Bane. Fortuitously, RPGA staff had already realized that PCs with evil patron deities would be a really bad idea--though, it did take them until CCG v1.7 to make that decision; prior to that, an unaligned follower of an evil deity was perfectly legal.

Presumably, according to the "can't we all just get along" brigade, before that change, the PC with a "I'm a paladin of Torm dedicated to rooting out and destroying the forces of Bane" backstory would be the one at fault if he had any problem getting along with or healing a perfectly legal Banite PC.

Living campaigns are generally "bring your own motivation" affairs where PCs are expected to be generically heroic and ready to leap into battle at the drop of a hat, where the sum total of explanation for a conflict might be "See undead; destroy undead" with little room for ambiguity or nuance, and PCs are often expected to go on quests for total strangers which may involve killing other total strangers, for no other reason than the first group of strangers are members of a "friendly" race or religion and the second group of strangers are not.

There are many a campaign where allowing PCs of every possible race, type and religion works. Living Forgotten Realms just doesn't happen to be one of them.
and PCs are often expected to go on quests for total strangers which may involve killing other total strangers, for no other reason than the first group of strangers are members of a "friendly" race or religion and the second group of strangers are not.

:D :D :D

I really like this summary. I would only change it into:


" PCs are often expected to go on quests with total strangers because they're all hired together by other total strangers to kill even more total strangers, for no other reason than that one group of total strangers hired them before the other group of total strangers"
Until that point, were I be in a position that my cleric would be in the same table as a revenant, I would walk away or play a different character.

But this is not good enough for a certain subset of posters here on the board who might as well play Living Kitchen Sink as they obviously have no regard or no heeding whatsoever for the Forgotten Realms as a setting.

No one had disputed anything about your decision to play a different character or walk away. They have disputed your very narrow view of the setting. As a matter of fact, they have all (AFAIK) said that your personal view is fine. You're entitled to it, however they see it differently. You have been the one who has been very vigorously stating that their view and interpretation of the setting is incorrect and wrong and you are right, no exceptions.

They have been trying to get you to understand that you are no more right then they are. And truthfully, the only one who is right is WotC as they own the setting and are the "GM" for the LFR campaign. So whatever they say is FR is FR. One can talk all day about how something isn't canon and isn't in the lore, but if WotC says it is, then it is whether they provide a handy write up of how it works into the setting or not. They have been trying to show you that there can be an exception for every rule. Lore is not, as a rule, infallible nor is it set in stone. If you view it as such, that isn't inherently wrong. It's just the way you view it, and in the RPGA there are thousands of different people with thousands of different perspectives on the setting.

This is what they have been trying to show to you. They haven't been trying to convince you your view is wrong.

IMAGE(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e192/mbeau/MudbunnyVCLHat.jpg)

[VCL]At this point the thread seems to have run its course. Some people believe the lore is sacrosanct and shouldn't be trifled with, others believe the setting is fluid and open to different interpretations. Neither side is wrong, they are just different.

I will give it until tomorrow to see if anything productive comes of the thread, if not I will lock it down. Each side has presented their opinions and are at an impasse and it's getting to the point where someone's going to be called Hitler or poopy-head before too long.[/VCL]
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
You're all poopy-headed Hitlers...

Ok there, now lock the thread :P

And yeah I agree..two sides very much with different views. The problem is, in this case at least, comprimise is impossible, as the two sides are on the black and white side of issues. One side wants to obey lore..the other side says throw lore out the window when it gets in the way. If the side wanting to obey lore...'comprimises' then their choice has suddenly made them ignore lore..and they no longer even represent their side. And the best the other side can do is just agree to obey certain bits of lore at all times...but even then what they agree to could get in the way of their personal fun and would they really want to not ignore it.

Heck..you can't even do the whole 'your rights extend until they step on anothers toes' thing. Because both sides have their points...and its hard to say who is exactly stepping on who's rights...because in the end its a case of both sides want to basically make the other not play in the way they want to play....

Honestly, and this is the sad part, the easiest way to for this to be fixed? For the revenant article to have something specific towards the Kelemvore. That is all it'd take...for the article to give a reason for someone who abhores undead..to accept the Revenant...thats it.

What I find funny is, even when someone, in this thread, right out says 'yes I want to roleplay my char..and if I see my chars roleplay would hurt the table..I'll just get up and walk away, or switch chars.' The reoccuring theme I see isn't 'that is mature of you, and thank you for actually taking in account your roleplay may cause problems'. No..its people calling them silly, stupid, making no sense, and basically acting like the person is crazy. Even some of the higher ups make such indications....just fueling on anyone who might take offense at the idea of someone not just saying 'I don't like playing that way' but indicating or saying 'you are such an idiot for playing that way'.


I'm assuming some who did it...didn't mean for their words to be taken in such a way...but trust me some of them were..if ya didn't mean that..might consider lookin over whats been said and how it can be construed....

Unfortunatelly I can't figure out a way to say the above without lookin snarky or 'high an mighty' so..I'll just end it with a smiley.

:invasion:

Look out the undead are taking over <.<
Completely wrong. The burden of proof is on the proposer. You have claimed there are exceptions to the *specified* lore that Kelemvor is against "ALL Undead". You have been singularily unable to come up with any canon statement that Revenants are an exception to this. In terms of FR Lore and Writ, the statement "ALL Undead" is equivalent to the real world laws of physics. And just like the laws of physics, there are no exceptions.



Come off it. The whole thread people have claimed that becuase I stick to the Lore I am mentally ill (and worse).

I'd just like to point out that the laws of physics do have exceptions, they are the things we don't know about yet or don't fully understand. Particle or Wave, one or the ohter, oh crap light is both now what. Expanding universe, not enough energy, what the heck energy in empty space, dark matter! woot, new discovery, exception to the rule etc.

Even the laws of physics are not immutable, because we don't know everything there is to know to make sure the "laws" are right, just like Kelemvor's views, a PC is NOT Kelemvor, therefore knowing everything about his views would not be possible, Exceptions can exist.
Blah blah blah
They have been trying to get you to understand that you are no more right then they are. And truthfully, the only one who is right is WotC as they own the setting and are the "GM" for the LFR campaign. So whatever they say is FR is FR.

I'm going to respond because you have utterly misread the situation.

(WOTC) have said REPEATEDLY via the pre-existing canon official lore that the position I hold is the 100% correct one. It is written down in black and white. Kelemvor does not tolerate ANY undead whatsoever. I have given repeated multiple extracts from WOTC's own products that confirm and reiterate this, but yet my...interlocuturs on this board still insist that black is white.

As I said to Gomez earlier, which part of "ALL undead" do they (and he) NOT understand?

Their position has been wrong from the get go, and they do NOT have the grace to admit that they have NO factual basis for ANY of their arguments whatsoever. All their arguments boil down to the kumbya argument, which utterly stinks as an argument.

I repeat, I am merely repeating WOTC's own position on this subject.
I'd just like to point out that the laws of physics do have exceptions, they are the things we don't know about yet or don't fully understand. Particle or Wave, one or the ohter, oh crap light is both now what. Expanding universe, not enough energy, what the heck energy in empty space, dark matter! woot, new discovery, exception to the rule etc.

They are NOT exceptions. And the wave/particle nature of light is NOT an exception either, it is merely a consequence of quantum mechanics.


Even the laws of physics are not immutable, because we don't know everything there is to know to make sure the "laws" are right, just like Kelemvor's views, a PC is NOT Kelemvor, therefore knowing everything about his views would not be possible, Exceptions can exist.

The lore is quite clear: Kelemvor wishes to destroy ALL undead, no exceptions.
They are NOT exceptions. And the wave/particle nature of light is NOT an exception either, it is merely a consequence of quantum mechanics.

The lore is quite clear: Kelemvor wishes to destroy ALL undead, no exceptions.

Exception, consequence etc, who cares, until it was understood better it broke the "laws".

The lore is actually quite clear you are correct about that, however the "no exceptions" part that you spout off every post you make is YOUR addition to the lore, the words no exception are not in the lore, those are your words.

Lastly, You do not speak for Wotc, you can't repeat their position when they have not weighed in on the discussion. Since Revenants were not in the lore when prior statements of lore were made it cannot be determined if the prior lore would stay the same in light of new ideas. That is how things work, if you can't see that so be it, but don't except everyone else to bend to your way of thinking when you are in an obvious minority.

And for someone who was done with a thread, you sure have posted a lot since that point.
Blah blah blah
I'm going to respond because you have utterly misread the situation.

(WOTC) have said REPEATEDLY via the pre-existing canon official lore that the position I hold is the 100% correct one. It is written down in black and white. Kelemvor does not tolerate ANY undead whatsoever. I have given repeated multiple extracts from WOTC's own products that confirm and reiterate this, but yet my...interlocuturs on this board still insist that black is white.

As I said to Gomez earlier, which part of "ALL undead" do they (and he) NOT understand?

Their position has been wrong from the get go, and they do NOT have the grace to admit that they have NO factual basis for ANY of their arguments whatsoever. All their arguments boil down to the kumbya argument, which utterly stinks as an argument.

I repeat, I am merely repeating WOTC's own position on this subject.

and i think that perhaps you have utterly misread the situation as well.

no one is saying that at the moment there are some undead that kelemvor is okay with all the time.

what they are saying is that there is nothing saying that every follower of kelemvor is going to react to everything exactly the same. that there is room within the lore to play a follower of kelemvor whose personal views may vary in some degree from the dogma of the church. that there is room in the campaign for followers of kelemvor who do not default to slaying a revenant.

they are not saying that this is your character, or that your character necessarily needs to change to be this. they are saying that there is room within the realms and the lore for such a character to exist. your posts seem to intimate that you feel that this is not the case, but you seem to skirt around saying it directly.

so, straightforward and simple: do you think that there is room in the campaign (without a sidebar directly spelling out exactly how they fit into the realms) for a player to choose to play a follower of kelemvor (say, a cleric, paladin, invoker, or avenger), not try to kill another player character who is a revenant, and in fact adventure alongside of him, and still consider themselves to be abiding by the lore?

if not, why not?
I for one am not specifically upset at anything being included in the newRealms.

But if you're going to put something in, PUT IT IN, don't just make a generic version of it that has no relation to the Realms, say it's legal for the Realms, and refuse to even at least put in a brief adaption sidebar on how they are supposed to fit in the Realms.

"It's up to the DM" is NOT an acceptable answer when the DM changes every four hours.


-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

I for one am not specifically upset at anything being included in the newRealms.

But if you're going to put something in, PUT IT IN, don't just make a generic version of it that has no relation to the Realms, say it's legal for the Realms, and refuse to even at least put in a brief adaption sidebar on how they are supposed to fit in the Realms.

"It's up to the DM" is NOT an acceptable answer when the DM changes every four hours.


-karma

This.

All it requires is for there to be a brief adapation sidebar on how they fit it (and there even was an excellent suggestion upthread on doing it via Jergal).

matblack76, there is no room because the canon tells us it cannot be. If the Canon changes so that Kelemvorites are not constrained by their deity to kill all undead, then of course there will be room. But until then, they are disobeying a direct order from their deity and thus if they *do* adventure alongside one of these undead, they lose all their divine powers.

ibixat, you are making things up. No exceptions have been noted. Next you'll be arguing that Waterdeep is actually a port city on the Sea of Fallen Stars (hey, it could be an exception!), Sune is the Goddess of Tyrann (hey, it could be an exception!), Ched Nasad is a Dwarven City (hey, it could be an exception!), Conan was a female (hey, it could be an exception!) and that the Miskatonic University is actually on the banks of the Seine.
matblack76, there is no room because the canon tells us it cannot be. If the Canon changes so that Kelemvorites are not constrained by their deity to kill all undead, then of course there will be room. But until then, they are disobeying a direct order from their deity and thus if they *do* adventure alongside one of these undead, they lose all their divine powers.

Or you know, they won't. Since deities do not directly grant the powers of divine characters in 4e. No matter what choices your character makes there is no risk of losing your abilities because you don't follow the dogma of the church. Unless you want to make an exception to the written rules.

ibixat, you are making things up. No exceptions have been noted. Next you'll be arguing that Waterdeep is actually a port city on the Sea of Fallen Stars (hey, it could be an exception!), Sune is the Goddess of Tyrann (hey, it could be an exception!), Ched Nasad is a Dwarven City (hey, it could be an exception!), Conan was a female (hey, it could be an exception!) and that the Miskatonic University is actually on the banks of the Seine.

No exceptions have been noted, and the phrase "no exceptions" that you are so fond of was also never stated. I've made nothing up, unlike you at this point (hey, see above for another thing you made up that isn't a 4e concept). You can't accept that your interpretation is not the same as a lot of other peoples and cry and moan that we are wrong and tell us that we are wrong. People have agreed to just disagree with you and you still can't do even that you just insist they are wrong.

I'll offer it again, we'll agree to just disagree on this, I won't say you're wrong, but I will say I don't think you're right either.
Blah blah blah
But if you're going to put something in, PUT IT IN, don't just make a generic version of it that has no relation to the Realms, say it's legal for the Realms, and refuse to even at least put in a brief adaption sidebar on how they are supposed to fit in the Realms.

I still fail to see anything about the revenant race that fails to fit right into the FR as written. Yes, the rules term of "revenant" refering to a specific full fledged player race is new to the realms, however there are already so many different types of sentient free willed undead that the revenants are just completly drowned in the crowd. They could have allowed any other sentient realmsian undead as a player race and it would cause exactly the same problems.
matblack76, there is no room because the canon tells us it cannot be.

The room would be to play a kelemvorite who's a sinner and knows it.
Next you'll be arguing that Waterdeep is actually a port city on the Sea of Fallen Stars (hey, it could be an exception!)

That's not an exception, so it is a bogus example.
An exception occurs when an otherwise totalitarian rules does not apply. Exceptions are typically not described because of that - normally you give the totaliotarion rule and deal with exceptions when they pop up. Hence, just because there is onyl a totalitarian rule doesn't mean there are no exceptions. Unless the rule specifically says 'no exceptions', and even then you'll find that that is often a rule just ment to be broken later.
An exception doesn't break canon.
Anyway, in the game, whether there are or are no exceptions to a rule is up to the DM. In this case, you are of the opinion that there are not. I am of the opinion that there are (or that there must be if we want a pleasant play experience).

Note that I don't care at all about your PC. If you don't play that's a fine solution, as others have stated. I do worry about you as a DM, and how you will behave if someone sits down with a revenant PC and the NPCs in the adventrue are Kelemvorites.

Finally, just to be clear, I do wish there were gudielines in how to integrate new races in the campaign (not the world setting, but the campaign where we do not control who or what will sit down at the table and play).
I believe that woudl be helpful.
But I don't think it will happen any time soon. So it is up to us to add interpretations or individual backgrounds, and make it work as players and DMs.

Gomez
Fantasy in general, and especially Forgotten Realms is based on exceptions. I think at one point I could have safely said that dwarves hate all drow until that pesky Salvatore wrote a couple of books.

It is true that while the PHB explicitly points out that there are exceptions to all the general rules, there is nothing in print that I can find that states the same for lore. But it is repeatedly stated that adventurers are exceptional, different from the norm and choose their own destiny.

But the main problem with the "no exceptions" rule is that LFR is an open campaign. Many, many people who play only have a passing knowledge of FR. They may or may not recognize Kelemvor as a deity, much less know about his attitude towards undead. LFR is a social structure designed primarily to highlight D&D which happens to be set in FR. Because of that DMs and players should be a little lenient and accept non-canon characters while trying to have fun playing a game. In a home campaign I wouldn't allow half the races I see at the tables, but in LFR I play a gnoll.

If revenant warforged clerics of Kelemvor bother you so much, perhaps LFR isn't for you. LFR is a Living Campaign with all it's exceptions and compromises first and a Forgotten Realms campaign second.

Allen.

Note that the above is strictly my opinion and just my opinion.
matblack76, there is no room because the canon tells us it cannot be. If the Canon changes so that Kelemvorites are not constrained by their deity to kill all undead, then of course there will be room. But until then, they are disobeying a direct order from their deity and thus if they *do* adventure alongside one of these undead, they lose all their divine powers.

well, as others have stated, the loss of powers is not extant in 4th edition.

so any sort of discussion becomes impossible if you fail to realize or accept that a player can make a choice to play a character who goes "against the grain" and still be able to adhere to what has been written before. there are a few words for that, but i'm not going to go into them.

with no chance of actual discussion, there's no reason not to lock the thread.
Fantasy in general, and especially Forgotten Realms is based on exceptions. I think at one point I could have safely said that dwarves hate all drow until that pesky Salvatore wrote a couple of books.

so, i play a dwarven cleric with an extreme hatred of duergar, as is sensible with dwarves. in fact, i'm sure it's written somewhere in the lore that dwarves hate duergar.

now, when the next creation card comes out (as hinted at by chris tulach in another thread that i don't remember off the top of my head), my bet is that it's most likely going to be a duergar card.

now, so in the future i may have to sit at a table with a duergar. and my first thought isn't going to be that i have to either play a different character or leave the table... i will play at the table with the duergar in the party, but in character i will be very skeptical, keep a very close watch on the character, and possibly even, depending if the other player is someone who i know and someone i know can handle it, openly hostile toward the duergar, until he proves himself otherwise. at that point i may even begrudgingly accept him as a good ally, and perhaps eventually even as a friend.

there's a story that infinitely more interesting than dwarf kills duergar, moves on. and in an environment that so many complain is so lacking in roleplaying and character development, things like that are a golden opportunity.
When WotC decided that, for 4E, everything would be core, one of the things that I am certain that they considered the effect that it would have on living campaigns. They had two possibilities[a]:
  • Restrict the living campaign *only* to things that appear in that campaign setting;
  • Allow everything in the living campaign.


Obviously, WotC chose #2. They know that there will be a times when, due to allowing everything into LFR, that they will lose people who are not willing to compromise their PC's beliefs. They are betting that the loss of that player will be more than made up by new people who are just joining a LFR campaign and don't know all of the lore from the past 20 years or so.

[a]There more possibilities, but they tend to fall in between the two above.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
LFR is a Living Campaign with all it's exceptions and compromises first and a Forgotten Realms campaign second.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

This is not purely a Living campaign problem.

This would occur in a home game if a DM that previously allowed players to take a "hate X" option suddenly also allowed X as a player option.

And then did not bother explain why the hate X folks should be adventuring with X.

If it were a Living Campaign problem, we'd have seen it before. LFR is hardly the first. We had 10 years of Living City. 8 years of Living Greyhawk. 5 years of Living Arcanis. At least a dozen other Living Campaigns of varying sorts. This is something that really didn't happen before. Because previously, the other campaigns spent the effort to TRY and integrate new options so they fit smoothly with the old existing paradigm.

Now? Not even making the attempt. "Here's new stuff, don't care if it conflicts with the old stuff."

More and more it strikes me as not some new clever way of thinking, but as sheer laziness.

[a]There more possibilities, but they tend to fall in between the two above.

Yeah, you missed "Take the time and effort to integrate new things into the campaign in a way that make some remote sense"


-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

Lock is coming.
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
Sign In to post comments