Community

_metz_ wrote:

This talk of whether or not they have the undead keyword is typical confusion of lore and mechanic. They are a creature supernaturally powerful (more so than an average human) as a result of a union with undead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

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

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

*Spoiler: Show