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

516 posts / 0 new
Last post
Why are you singling out the player who is actually trying to role-play his character, and to follow the lore?

It's more that he's singling them out about being belligerent to the player as well as the character. I know if I was a DM and 6 players sat down and gave brief intros of their characters and a Kelemvorite started ranting about the Revenant and threatening to attack the character I'd tell them to find a way to make it work or leave.

One player out of 6 causing a scene because of another player's legal character option is the problem, not the one who is "despised." Now if was a table of 5 Kelemvorites and a Revenant... then I'd probably say the Revenant character may want to switch with another table. :P
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
However, this does not absolve the revenant player of any responsibility for their choice.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would choose to play a revenant without knowing full well that it will cause friction among a significant number of tables they are likely to play at.

I play a drow in LFR. Just like I did in LC. (In fact, it's the same character). I do so with the full knowledge that it will cause tension at some tables and I accept the responsibility for that.

I will refrain from making it a problem (I might not play her as so flamboyantly Drow if there was a cleric of Shevarash at the table, for example) - unless of course I know the player and am sure they can roleplay out the mutual hate in a responsible manner.

I certainly will never tell a Sheverashan player to deal with it or leave. I'd leave first, or more likely switch characters, to avoid a problem.

It was my choice to pay a hated race, after all, and the other guy is only playing what really would be in any other situation, a heroic, true-to-setting character.

And yes, like the revenant, I don't think Drow should have been a freely-playable race in LFR. Maybe only available in some sort of unlock system, like earning them as a player reward. But since those are gone...


-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
I am totally going to make a Warforged-Soul Revanant cleric of Kelemvor. And make him a dhampire :p

The soul of a dead golem, reincarnated. And out to suck your blood.
True, but that assumes that the Kelemvorite player is willing to compromise, and the statements from the vocal proponents of that faction have not, repeat NOT, been very compromise-friendly.

Blame what's been put out as lore by WOTC for more than a decade.

What part of "Clerics of Kelemvor consider all undead abominations, and do whatever they can to put them to eternal rest" (Faiths & Pantheons) makes it sound like Kelemvorite clerics are doing anything but OOC meta-gaming if they follow the "but it's an undead PC" mindset.

The logical result of your argument is that Kelemvor needs to be banned as a legal patron deity in the campaign, not that Kelemvorite PCs are playing their characters wrong. Wastri's dogma was more PC-friendly than this, and we know how that ended.

If you're playing a priest of Sheverash, you might not like non-evil drow, but you can look at the lore and see things like "Shevarash has moderated his hatred toward Eilistraee and the good-aligned drow who worship the Dark Maiden. He does not kill them out of hand, but he still dislikes them thoroughly." (Demihuman Deities)

Everything that WOTC has released about Kelemvor since 2e's inception has been that he hates all undead and commands his followers to destroy them. If I'm looking to blame someone for causing strife at the table, it's not the player who playing his character exactly as he's been told he should for years.

And, no, I don't think the real issue is whether Kelemvorites are going to be attacking revenant PCs, because it's easy enough to justify not taking immediate violent action. The real problem is that I can't see a RPed Kelemvorite willingly starting many adventures with a revenant, or willingly assisting them in any way if they're somehow forced to adventure together.

And, yes, I think it's unfair to the new player who has no clue that there's anything different between the core setting and the Realms and is just showing up to play D&D with his kewl new emotionally tortured PC to get blind-sided with "Sorry, we don't want you at our table", but I place the blame on WOTC, and don't think the answer is to tell players they need to stop roleplaying.

Since it's out now, here's the important snippets from the Revenant race:

They take damage from Turn Undead.
Show
Undead: You are considered to be an undead creature for effects that relate to that keyword. You are also considered a living creature.
Past Life: Select a race other than revenant. You can take feats, a paragon path, and an epic destiny that have the selected race as a prerequisite, as long as you meet all other prerequisites.
Appearance:
Show
Revenants have the same range of complexions as humans, but a revenant’s skin is ashen and the features are sunken. Eyes are most commonly solid black with a single point of red light in place of a pupil, but other eerie eye colors—including yellow, white, silver, and gold—are not uncommon, although they always share the same fiery red pupil. In most cases, the eyes lack an iris and pupil, and some glow with a ghostly light. Revenant hair typically ranges from black to white. They can grow facial hair, and males often have beards or mustaches that accentuate their dreadful countenances.

A revenant’s face and skin clearly set a member of this unique race apart from other humanoids. A revenant’s visage has a masklike quality that can be disturbing to normal mortals. Rough, dark scales appear on the flesh near the ends of a revenant’s limbs, marking the revenant as one of those the Raven Queen allowed back into the world of the living. Revenant digits end in strong, black fingernails or toenails that resemble claws.
It's a +2 Con/+2 Dex race, which takes care of my primary fear, which is that the race would fit into one of the open class niches and become sufficiently mechanically beneficial that we'd start seeing a lot of them.

No reference whatsoever in the article to anything beyond the core setting.
Seems to me that the article is out now on the main page. If someone with an Insider subscription would be so kind as to take a look we could do the unthinkable and start debating based on the actual facts

EDIT: It seems that if you take 5 minutes to type something up someone will fulfil the request before it's even submitted. Thanks to bgibbons

So seems to me we have a race that is obviously visibly undead and that counts as undead for the purposes of that keyword. It also has no formal attachment to the Realms beyond being a legal class. Specifically there is no information or guidance as to how it relates to Kelemvor beyond Kelemvor's default stance on Undead.

This is a race designed to cause friction between players trying to follow the official rules and flavour of the game.

Two interesting observations as well. If you make a revenant Divine character (perfectly legal, although not optimized) there are actually more than a few bursts/blasts/zones that will cause significant damage to itself. For one thing, Turn Undead is completely out.

Since they also count as living, a Dhampyr Revenant Cleric of Kelemvor is a perfectly legal character.
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.
Since they also count as living, a Dhampyr Revenant Cleric of Kelemvor is a perfectly legal character.

Actually, I just edited my post to add the Past Life feature, which lets a revenant count as a member of another race.

This means you could be a Dhampyr Warforged Revenant Invoker of Kelemvor. (Gotta go with Invoker, since then you're channeling Kelemvor's power directly; none of that investiture nonsense.)
Actually, I just edited my post to add the Past Life feature, which lets a revenant count as a member of another race.

This means you could be a Dhampyr Warforged Revenant Invoker of Kelemvor. (Gotta go with Invoker, since then you're channeling Kelemvor's power directly; none of that investiture nonsense.)

With an ornithopter
Blah blah blah
It's not hard to make a rationale for a Kelemvorite to help or work with a revenant. The revenant was sent back to finish something to gain eternal rest. Then why not help the revenant finish his quest, so he can die in peace?

Gomez,
waiting for the assassin
Until the Revenant takes the "I escaped" Epic Destiny... because yeah Kelemvor is so down with those Undead...

I really hope they prohibit them... but I think they will not.
Blame what's been put out as lore by WOTC for more than a decade.

That's passing the buck from the players though.

In the RPGA it's up to the players to play nice with each other regardless. Pointing at the lore as justification for being a jerk isn't a valid justification. It's one thing if you are working the RP at being belligerent with each other IC and having fun with it, it's another thing entirely when one player is simply "Silence! I kill you!" and causing problems at the table.
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
Actually, I just edited my post to add the Past Life feature, which lets a revenant count as a member of another race.

This means you could be a Dhampyr Warforged Revenant Invoker of Kelemvor. (Gotta go with Invoker, since then you're channeling Kelemvor's power directly; none of that investiture nonsense.)

Spellscarred. Don't forget the spellscar. :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
The revenant's close burst/blast powers don't hit his own square, so he can safely channel Kelemvor's power.

Now, the Kelemvor ally who catches a revenant in the area would damage it. So, in LFR you'd have to avoid that unless the player agreed it was okay. I'm actually surprised Revenants didn't get a 'not affected by PC turn/rebuke/kelemvorsmash undead.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Things I found interesting. There are feats for all but 4 lfr legal races to mostly grant the races racials.

Deva, Orcs, Gnolls and Bladelings are left out of specific feats... I can understand the Deva not really becoming a Revenant, that one wouldn't actually make any sense. I found it odd the 3 of the 4 Dragon Magazine races (soon to be just 2 of 3 when ebberon players guide comes out) got the treatment and gnolls were left out.

Some other questions that come up though in my mind.

Past Life: Select a race other than revenant. You can
take feats, a paragon path, and an epic destiny that
have the selected race as a prerequisite, as long as you
meet all other prerequisites.

So if a revenant turns out to be open, does that mean I'm free to be an Orc Revenant without an orc card, can I be a bullywig revenant? A Kobold? Sure it locks me out of feats and stuff since Bullywig's and Kobold's don't have any feats available to players.
Blah blah blah
Yeah, that got to me too.

It is true that the Kelemvorite chose to play an undead-intolerant character.

However, it is equally true that the player of a revenant also chose to play a controversial type of creature (undead) that is well known to be hated by many in the setting.

So if anything, the onus of "making it work" falls on BOTH players, not just the Kelemvorite player.

*

the revenant is not well-known for being hated in the setting. not everyone reads these forums, and not everyone who reads these forums will read this thread. also, the revenant is not hated by many in the setting, as not many in the setting would even know what a revenant is. it is, seemingly, hated by many players who have characters in the setting, and that shouldn't be a factor, whether it is known or not, in choosing what character someone would like to play in an organized play type of setting.

by your rationalization, if i made a human warlock who had a burning hatred for followers of kelemvor because his mother was (wrongly) executed by kelemvorites for being a necromancer, then someone playing a human paladin of kelemvor should be expected to consider not playing their perfectly legal character.

that sort of reasoning is nothing more than a passive-aggressive way to assert dominance of what someone thinks the setting should be. the truth is, no one has to pass a lore test in order to play LFR, and no one should. ever. and just because someone is more conversant in FR lore than another should not give that person any sort of leeway in being a jerky gamer snob.

and really, snobbery seems to be what a lot of this argument comes down to.

i have a elven paladin of kelmevor that i have yet to play. he is a devout follower of kelemvor, and his sole purpose in life is to root out and destroy the undead abominations that haunt faerun. if i sat down at a table with someone playing a revenant, i wouldn't have a single problem as a player. i can find ways to roleplay my hatred of the undead without having a hatred of any of the rest of the party.

the reason why the onus is on the player of the kelemvorite is because he is the one choosing to have a problem playing with another character, whether that problem is backed up by role-playing, lore, or a signed note from ed greenwood himself. the revenant is not creating a problem solely by choosing to play a legal character option. perhaps he does, and likely should, expect some strange and curious reactions from npcs within the (wholly fictional) game setting, but he should not, in an organized play setting, expect to receive any flak from the rest of the players for that choice. when making a character for an organized play campaign, you should not have to take time to wonder if other player characters are going to try and kill you.

sure, up until now, you were free to play a jihadist of kelemvor without having any consideration of other players, since there just wasn't an undead pc race. since the cover art of the current issue of dragon features the revenant, it's a pretty safe assumption that the revenant will make it into the final compilation. maybe there will be an added sidebar about the realms once it gets compliled, but i won't be holding my breath for it. now that there will be an undead pc race, you'll have to adjust to fact that you just may be sitting at a table with an undead pc (they may have even taken the feat that makes them no longer a living creature!).

LFR is not the forgotten realms. LFR is an rpga organized play campaign where players are expected to play together without being asshats to one another. this means finding a way to play with someone else's legal character choice, even if it's something that you don't like or doesn't pass your litmus test of previously established realms lore. there are benefits to organized play that you can't get with home games. there are also benefits with home games that you don't get with organized play. one of the latter is an organized play campaign is generally not as much of a deeply immersive role-playing experience as a home game can be. it's a trade off.



that's my take on the whole matter, at least.

*any use of "you" in this message is not indicative of any particular person.
Nevermind.
now that there will be an undead pc race, you'll have to adjust to fact that you just may be sitting at a table with an undead pc (they may have even taken the feat that makes them no longer a living creature!).

I think the thing that people on the "why not revenants" are missing here is that it isn't about playing nice in the sandbox. It is the why we're playing nice in the sandbox.

It would be extremely simple to put a sidebar in that explained Kelemvor's relationship to revenants. Something along the lines of "Kelemvor hates those who are truly not living, undead gain his ire, but as Revenants are still living, the clergy of Kelemvor are under no compulsion to destroy them. Though treating them with suspicion is quite justified."

Boom - the cleric of Kelemvor is not required to jump through hoops as to why he's not destroying the Revenant. The Revenant player has something to show the player of a cleric of Kelemvor who may not even have heard of Revenants and has just been put on the spot to "be nice" - now he doesn't have to be nice, he can just treat the Revenant with suspicion and get on with it.
I think the thing that people on the "why not revenants" are missing here is that it isn't about playing nice in the sandbox. It is the why we're playing nice in the sandbox.

It would be extremely simple to put a sidebar in that explained Kelemvor's relationship to revenants. Something along the lines of "Kelemvor hates those who are truly not living, undead gain his ire, but as Revenants are still living, the clergy of Kelemvor are under no compulsion to destroy them. Though treating them with suspicion is quite justified."

Boom - the cleric of Kelemvor is not required to jump through hoops as to why he's not destroying the Revenant. The Revenant player has something to show the player of a cleric of Kelemvor who may not even have heard of Revenants and has just been put on the spot to "be nice" - now he doesn't have to be nice, he can just treat the Revenant with suspicion and get on with it.

This. With knobs and bolts on.

I would reject any claims of "snobbery" as utterly bizzare (Really? I'm a snob for making my character consistent with the Lore?). The Realms are not just any other setting where "kewl" stuff can just be tossed in with no problems - WOTC are contradicting themselves big time, and from the apparent lack of Kelemvorite mention in the article, they simply don't care.
Why are you singling out the player who is actually trying to role-play his character, and to follow the lore?

IMO, if the Revenant player can't stand the heat and can't play "in character", he should be expected to leave just as much as the undead-despising Cleric of Kelemvor (if not more so).

Oh, I don't (mean to) exclude them.

For me the problem is whomever is most likely to cause a disruption at the table.

If the Revenant is keeping calm and low-profile (especially after seeing a holy-symbol wield Cleric of Kelemvor in the party) and the Cleric just can't tolerate it - if the cleric's player keeps making a fuss and is bothering the revenant player. That's an issue.

Likewise, if the Revenant is dancing along singing "The hills are undead, with the sound of Ravens" and the cleric has tried to be tolerant - the Revenant player is clearly in the wrong.

Neither player should be actively antagonistic to the other - beyond perhaps some in-character (and in-character) only strife. At any point one should be able to turn to the other and say "okay, that's enough for now" and it should end.

Likewise the TWO of them should be sure not to let their strife become so involved that the rest of the players are yawning waiting on the great thespians to finish their playacting and get back to the story at hand.

Hence my point about it's up to the players in equal measure to make sure that the table is fun.

If I gave the appearance of weighing heavily on the cleric(s) in my example(s) it was unintentional, and/or driven by some of the more heavy-handed arguments in this thread, and I apologize.
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

True, but that assumes that the Kelemvorite player is willing to compromise, and the statements from the vocal proponents of that faction have not, repeat NOT, been very compromise-friendly.

This may have influenced my examples - again, unduly.
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 think the thing that people on the "why not revenants" are missing here is that it isn't about playing nice in the sandbox. It is the why we're playing nice in the sandbox.

It would be extremely simple to put a sidebar in that explained Kelemvor's relationship to revenants. Something along the lines of "Kelemvor hates those who are truly not living, undead gain his ire, but as Revenants are still living, the clergy of Kelemvor are under no compulsion to destroy them. Though treating them with suspicion is quite justified."

Boom - the cleric of Kelemvor is not required to jump through hoops as to why he's not destroying the Revenant. The Revenant player has something to show the player of a cleric of Kelemvor who may not even have heard of Revenants and has just been put on the spot to "be nice" - now he doesn't have to be nice, he can just treat the Revenant with suspicion and get on with it.

if we need a fluff text, lore, or rules to justify playing nice with others, we are a sad, sad lot.
That's passing the buck from the players though.

No, that's saying that this is a problem that needs to be fixed by a competent campaign DM.

And, to be honest, the idea the Kelemvorite priests will be killing revenant PCs is a bit of a straw man. I think the real problem is that, in many adventures, a priest of Kelemvor has to choose between being a jerk ("Sorry, this adventure assumes that we're all traveling together when the plot hook hits us, and I wouldn't travel with you. If you do find a way to get into this adventure, even if I don't take any direct action against you, I'm not going to do anything to keep you from permanently dying, because that's what my god tells me should happen to you.") or not roleplay what WOTC's books tell him a priest of Kelemvor should be. I don't think either of them are good things.

Indeed, were I playing any cleric/avenger/invoker, just the fact that having a revenant at the table means that I might be prohibited from using my Channel Divinity power against undead (or, if allowed, might end up hurting a fellow PC, making the group less effective) would make me less likely to welcome them.

This isn't simply racial enmity that a PC can choose to downplay. If there was a priesthood about which years of WOTC lore said things like "Clerics of Corellon consider all dwarves abominations and do whatever they can to kill them", then the campaign would either have to eliminate dwarves or priests of Corellon as valid player options, or find some way to make both them and dwarf PCs fit in the campaign.

This is why we have people in charge of a campaign, to either make decisions about what is allowed based on what fits the campaign, or to modify the campaign setting to make the allowed player options fit.
I would reject any claims of "snobbery" as utterly bizzare (Really? I'm a snob for making my character consistent with the Lore?). The Realms are not just any other setting where "kewl" stuff can just be tossed in with no problems - WOTC are contradicting themselves big time, and from the apparent lack of Kelemvorite mention in the article, they simply don't care.

first off, you're not playing "The Realms." you're playing LFR. there is a difference.

and actually, The Realms IS just another setting. that's all it is. it's nothing sacred, nothing hallowed, nothing sanctified. it's a fictional world, just like any of the others that TSR/WotC have published over the years. there is absolutley nothing that makes the realms special. not in any realistic way.

now, they may be special to you. you may feel a connection to the realms, the legends and lore of The Realms may be sacrosanct in your eyes.

yes, playing your character "consistent(ly) with the Lore" would make you a snob... if you take it to the point that "the Lore" is more important to you than playing a GAME with other real live human beings.

WotC is not contradicting themselves by virtue of creating the revenant race. nor are they showing that they "don't care" about the realms by not putting a sidebar in the article that directly addressing the revenant in the realms. not everything revolves around "the Lore" of "The Realms."
So, here's what *I* would expect to be reasonable if I were to roll an LFR Revenant - others may view it in varying degrees.

1) I would expect that most people wouldn't know what I am. Someone who's undergone some horrible accident? Some albino humanoid that's been living too near the underdark?

So long as I'm holding up my "heroic" end of the bargain I'd expect to be kept at arm's length on the fringe of the party in general - which fits the theme.

1b) I would not, upon sitting down, announce I'm a Revenant either. If asked I'd probably enigmatically answer "humanoid" or "Undefined" and just grin.

2) On the off chance that a normal PC recognizes me for what I am, I'd expect them to spread the word or not based on their character decisions.

3) If/when a cleric (especially of Kelemvor) recognizes me for what I am I expect tension. However, anyone who then raises a fuss, or goes out of their way to move beyond a fun RP experience and tries to alienate me on some personal level, we'll take it up with the GM - table or senior.

Likewise, I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonize such a character/player. In fact, I'd probably go out of my way to give ANY clerics/divine classes a wide berth. Meanwhile I'd secretly hope for an opportunity to "save" the divine character from a nasty hit - or a chance to make a heal check on THEM - again to open up RP opportunities as we proceed.

3b) And yes, if I play a Revenant - I do so knowing that a "Turn Undead" may well inflict me. Unless I'm near death when the cleric opts to pop it, I'll accept that risk when the cleric wants to use it.
---

That all said - that's because having read the article I'm REALLY enjoying some of the roleplay/story that such a character could introduce (the catch being that most of those would only be exploited in a home campaign).

I'm sure there will be players that will take it with little thought to RP or storyline. Just as there are (allegedly - I've never actually met one in the RPGA) players who only play Drow to be Drizzt - there will be those that play a Revenant Monk (or similar) just to be The Crow.

I think, at the end of the day, how we treat each other at the table is what's most important. Is in-game tension okay? Yes. In fact a little bit would actually be preferred some times.

However, what we all need to watch for is taking it too-far. Your cleric might despite the undead and make no exceptions for Revenants - but if he's the Defender you have for the day, and he needs healing - how much fun is the table going to have if you refuse to heal him?

Likewise - if that Defender Revenant is constantly in a Kelemvorite's face flaunting RPGA rules and shouting "you can't touch me, la-la-la-la-laaaa-laaaaaa" there's a problem.

If you're a die-hard on either side - start be trying to avoid conflict tables by stating your preference during marshalling.

If it can't be avoided - temper your character's views for that one table - or play a different character.

Just don't harsh on someone else "because the lore says I can".

A little reason goes a long way.
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

1) I would expect that most people wouldn't know what I am. Someone who's undergone some horrible accident? Some albino humanoid that's been living too near the underdark?

This seems to be supported by my skim-read of the article, which suggests that any individual PC revenant may be the only revenant in existence.

Of course that doesn't stop awkward IC conversations when you meet undead and have to convince the cleric/avenger/etc to be careful where he points that holy symbol ... or not have the conversation IC and utterly bewilder the other characters (though not players) when you end up getting pushed by turn undead.

Running D&D Adventurers League events in Sheffield, UK from August. Contact me for more details.

And, to be honest, the idea the Kelemvorite priests will be killing revenant PCs is a bit of a straw man. I think the real problem is that, in many adventures, a priest of Kelemvor has to choose between being a jerk ("Sorry, this adventure assumes that we're all traveling together when the plot hook hits us, and I wouldn't travel with you. If you do find a way to get into this adventure, even if I don't take any direct action against you, I'm not going to do anything to keep you from permanently dying, because that's what my god tells me should happen to you.") or not roleplay what WOTC's books tell him a priest of Kelemvor should be. I don't think either of them are good things.

Indeed, were I playing any cleric/avenger/invoker, just the fact that having a revenant at the table means that I might be prohibited from using my Channel Divinity power against undead (or, if allowed, might end up hurting a fellow PC, making the group less effective) would make me less likely to welcome them.

so, you would worry about damaging them with a power because it would make them less effective, but you wouldn't do anything to keep them from dying? there seems to me to be some sort of disconnect there.

that sort of stance makes me think that it's not such a straw man argument...
This. With knobs and bolts on.

I would reject any claims of "snobbery" as utterly bizzare (Really? I'm a snob for making my character consistent with the Lore?). The Realms are not just any other setting where "kewl" stuff can just be tossed in with no problems - WOTC are contradicting themselves big time, and from the apparent lack of Kelemvorite mention in the article, they simply don't care.

I'm sorry, but every time SOMONE refers to new stuff as "kewl" and disparage other people's character concepts by calling them The Crow or some other pop-culture topic, THEY are being a snob. THEY are saying that THEIR way of playing is obviously better than others and that others should listen to THEIR wisdom.

If ONE doesn't want to be called a "snob", don't act like one.
first off, you're not playing "The Realms." you're playing LFR. there is a difference.

and actually, The Realms IS just another setting. that's all it is. it's nothing sacred, nothing hallowed, nothing sanctified. it's a fictional world, just like any of the others that TSR/WotC have published over the years. there is absolutley nothing that makes the realms special. not in any realistic way.

now, they may be special to you. you may feel a connection to the realms, the legends and lore of The Realms may be sacrosanct in your eyes.

yes, playing your character "consistent(ly) with the Lore" would make you a snob... if you take it to the point that "the Lore" is more important to you than playing a GAME with other real live human beings.

WotC is not contradicting themselves by virtue of creating the revenant race. nor are they showing that they "don't care" about the realms by not putting a sidebar in the article that directly addressing the revenant in the realms. not everything revolves around "the Lore" of "The Realms."

Several points:

Firstly, why bother call it and promote it as "Living Forgotten Realms" if it is NOT the Realms? If your attitude to the basic elements of the setting is so cavalier then why are you here? What next? Wanting to play Lawful Good Worshippers of Lloth?

Secondly, if you really put that much more importance on getting together with your friends over and above the setting....why don't you just go play WoW or something?

Thirdly, your attitude is incredibly selfish. Basically its "screw the background and the setting, I'm in it purely for my own fun".
[VCL]
Before things get overly charged here, I'd like to poke everyone with a semi-gentle reminder that we're here to discuss/debate Revenants, how they relate to Forgotten Realms, and how to deal with them at LFR tables in light of conflicting (in-character) viewpoints.

Let's try to avoid personal attacks, judgements, and critisms as much as possible. That road only leads to hurt feelings, escalating arguments (instead of debate and discussion), ORCs, and locked threads.

Thanks, guys.
[/VCL]

[EDIT]
Now would be a good time (if you've made any posts that might be considered inflammatory) to go back, re-read them, and edit anything you think someone else might report.

We're a typically ORC-free zone, and I'd love to see it stay that way.
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

So, here's what *I* would expect to be reasonable if I were to roll an LFR Revenant - others may view it in varying degrees.

1b) I would not, upon sitting down, announce I'm a Revenant either. If asked I'd probably enigmatically answer "humanoid" or "Undefined" and just grin.

i'm 100% with you (as i usually am) except for this. sorta. now, i know this is just your personal preference for what you would do when playing, but i'm worried about some sort of atmosphere developing where a player feels the need to hide that information.

i don't think that there should ever be a reason for a player to feel like they have to hide anything about their character from the other players.
I'm sorry, but every time you refer to new stuff as "kewl" and disparage other people's character concepts by calling them The Crow or some other pop-culture topic, you are being a snob. You are saying that your way of playing is obviously better than theirs and that they should listen to your wisdom.

You don't want to be called a "snob", don't act like one.

Oh come off it. The revenant as a character concept is neither original nor anything special. It is generic, but that is beside the point: You are playing in the Realms. You base your character concept upon the lore and the setting. If you do not know the lore and the setting, you find out and you adapt your character concept to said lore and setting at the first opportunity. If you play an undead character, don't act so ****ing surprised when the followers of Kelemvor, whose sole raison d'etre is to smite undead (all of them) come after you and try and smite you.

To make things worse, the article does not mention the Realms, and indeed is designed for the default 4e setting. When asked about this directly, the author of the said article just responded "be nice to each other".
Several points:

Firstly, why bother call it and promote it as "Living Forgotten Realms" if it is NOT the Realms? If your attitude to the basic elements of the setting is so cavalier then why are you here? What next? Wanting to play Lawful Good Worshippers of Lloth?

Because Lloth is an evil deity and not a valid rules choice, this is a pointless example.

Secondly, if you really put that much more importance on getting together with your friends over and above the setting....why don't you just go play WoW or something?

Another example of snobbery. Referring to someone's playstyle as less valid than yours by making the tired and overused MMO analogy. Well done.

Thirdly, your attitude is incredibly selfish. Basically its "screw the background and the setting, I'm in it purely for my own fun".

And your attitude is not? Every player should be force to go out and by previous edition books and become as learned a scholar of the Realms as you, just so they can play the game? You can't seem to draw the line between your own selfish playstyle and that of others.

If a new player makes up a worshipper of Kelemvor with his only point of reference being the 4E Forgotten Realms Player Guide which is the only book he's really required to have as a reference, and he decides, "you know, it says that Kelemvor really hates undead, but I'm going to roleplay that my character is a little more liberal than that and judges on a case by case basis", then his character is perfectly valid.

No amount of pointing to previous edition lore or your own personal opinions and roleplay story can stop him from playing his idea. And to disparage him and his fun because it doesn't jive with yours is the essence of snobbery.
i'm 100% with you (as i usually am) except for this. sorta. now, i know this is just your personal preference for what you would do when playing, but i'm worried about some sort of atmosphere developing where a player feels the need to hide that information.

i don't think that there should ever be a reason for a player to feel like they have to hide anything about their character from the other players.

*nods* I don't feel I'd *have* to - and if I got enough odd looks at the table, I'd admit it. Again, I don't want others to feel uncomfortable playing.

However, with the answer would come a reminder that they probably can't quite place me.
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

To make things worse, the article does not mention the Realms, and indeed is designed for the default 4e setting. When asked about this directly, the author of the said article just responded "be nice to each other".

He actually responded with a fair bit more - "play nice" was, however one of his chief concerns - and one I share (and I imagine WotC and the RPGA as a whole support this as well).

So I chose to highlight that as a VERY important theme.

I may review his e-mail and share a bit more, but I have been asked not to quote his e-mail verbatim for a couple reasons.

I will say that he read this thread after I linked it, and he still didn't feel that the article needs a "FR Specific" call-out.

It may be that "my" Revenant is released by Kelemor. "Yours" may be from Jergal. "His" may be from some other force entirely. It's an option left somewhat open for the player to fill in the blanks for as part of their backstory.

Admittedly - that always causes problems for the RPGA, so at this point we can only wait and see if the make the issue compilation (I'm personally hoping they do, as I *like* having more options).

The question, I think, that's most important is how each of us will handle a Revenant at the table IF they do end up being legal.
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

It seems to me that a lot of the 'Kelemvor's should compromise' comments are attributing the actions and beliefs of the character to the player. If the character is a faithful follower of Kelemor unwilling to compromise their beliefs then the player is a snob and a jerk. In the same way, people choosing to play legal options with known potential for conflict are considered blameless for any negative (character) reactions that come up.

As a player or DM I have no particular animosity to Revenants or Dhampyrs or any of the other legal character options. But the Campaign Setting is a legal part of the official campaign resources just as much as any mechanical rule (or Dragon race like Revenant) is. I don't think people choosing to follow a legal and widely followed deity should be expected to change their character concept any more than I'd support using DME to ban legal options that might cause conflict with them.
Likewise, if the Revenant is dancing along singing "The hills are undead, with the sound of Ravens"

Well, since Revenants are not particularly exciting from a mechanical point of view I suspect the few that see actual play are unlikely to have been chosen because the player wants to downplay it.
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.
Oh come off it. The revenant as a character concept is neither original nor anything special. It is generic, but that is beside the point: You are playing in the Realms. You base your character concept upon the lore and the setting. If you do not know the lore and the setting, you find out and you adapt your character concept to said lore and setting at the first opportunity. If you play an undead character, don't act so ****ing surprised when the followers of Kelemvor, whose sole raison d'etre is to smite undead (all of them) come after you and try and smite you.

To make things worse, the article does not mention the Realms, and indeed is designed for the default 4e setting. When asked about this directly, the author of the said article just responded "be nice to each other".

And a fanatic religious person is no more original or special a concept as an undead character on a vengeance trip. I've seen tons of people play a fanatic devotee in many campaigns. If you had to play something completely original, no one would be playing any more. Instead of assuming that any revenant PC will be a re-hash of a old idea, why don't you wait until you see someone's actual character before calling it generic? By labelling the race you don't like as generic, you are dismissing it outright.

I was surprised when I discovered that there were some players who were so wrapped up in their own roleplay that they couldn't step outside of it and just simply be nice to another player. Instead, they insult and demean and insist that said player change their idea to fit or be ready to accept the consequences of playing something you don't like.

The author said "be nice?" What's so hard to understand here?
Because Lloth is an evil deity and not a valid rules choice, this is a pointless example.

Its not a pointless example. Its a perfectly valid example. When you play in a preexisting sandbox, you abide by the background of the sandbox.

Its like playing in a WW2 RPG and insisting on playing a "Good Nazi".


Another example of snobbery. Referring to someone's playstyle as less valid than yours by making the tired and overused MMO analogy. Well done.

It is nothing to do with "playstyles" and everything to do with deliberately not facing up to the consequences of your choices. Its like playing a Prince of Shade and walking into Blackstaff Tower and expecting to walk out unharmed.



And your attitude is not? Every player should be force to go out and by previous edition books and become as learned a scholar of the Realms as you, just so they can play the game? You can't seem to draw the line between your own selfish playstyle and that of others.

If a new player makes up a worshipper of Kelemvor with his only point of reference being the 4E Forgotten Realms Player Guide which is the only book he's really required to have as a reference, and he decides, "you know, it says that Kelemvor really hates undead, but I'm going to roleplay that my character is a little more liberal than that and judges on a case by case basis", then his character is perfectly valid.

His character, would per the background, get his powers withdrawn. Just as a follower of Kossuth who started venerating water ahead of fire would do so as well.

The lore is there for a reason. If you're going to act all Rabelaisian and start ignoring lore at a whim just to suit you, then *that* is selfishness personified.
One thing to remember is that content created by wizards is NOT created for the Living Forgotten Realms campaign.
We just happen to use it, partly for promotional means and partly becuse it makes the campaign rules simple.
That means you sacrifice a bit of immersion in the game when palying.
I don't like that aspect of LFR, but it is something you need to accept in order to play.

Things are not black and white. Things are never black and white. There is always a middle road. There are priests of kelemvor who will work with revenants becasue there are always exceptions.
It is not ideal, but if it works, it works.

Or to quote Tim:
Make it work.

Gomez
I was surprised when I discovered that there were some players who were so wrapped up in their own roleplay that they couldn't step outside of it and just simply be nice to another player. Instead, they insult and demean and insist that said player change their idea to fit or be ready to accept the consequences of playing something you don't like.

The author said "be nice?" What's so hard to understand here?

Be nice to someone IC just because you want to be nice OOC? What is the point of Roleplaying then? What is the point of having character concepts, decisions and consequences if you can never act upon them because you're under some sort of fatwa to "be nice" *in character*.

IC and OOC can be (and are) completely different things, you know.
Well, since Revenants are not particularly exciting from a mechanical point of view I suspect the few that see actual play are unlikely to have been chosen because the player wants to downplay it.

~shrug~ The one I have in my head (that would be for a home campaign I think, not really for LFR) would be a rather somber/downplayed personality.

I suddenly shudder at the thought of a Revenant Bard.
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

His character, would per the background, get his powers withdrawn. Just as a follower of Kossuth who started venerating water ahead of fire would do so as well.

As far as I can recall, 4E has removed this idea from the general rules.

If a cleric (or paladin) turns against the core beliefs of the religion, they don't lose their powers. Rather they may end up being hunted by their order.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere