Community

DMs can, however, make life very difficult in-game for the PC.

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

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



-karma

Sithobi1 wrote:

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

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

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

KarmaInferno wrote:

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

-karma

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

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

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

How's that?

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

Fanboyism rocks.

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

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

4e Lore and LFR lore NOT THE SAME. (not a personal attack, just making it VERY clear)

Telvin3d wrote:

It's up in the air whether a DM can outright ban options at their table.

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

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

Yay! I wish more DMs where I play would do that... If I play my Minotaur I expect NPCs to react differently than they would an elf or human. Of course, there is a fine line between adding the flavor to the chosen PC race through NPC interactions and excluding a player from playing.

Dragon9 wrote:

Yay! I wish more DMs where I play would do that... If I play my Minotaur I expect NPCs to react differently than they would an elf or human. Of course, there is a fine line between adding the flavor to the chosen PC race through NPC interactions and excluding a player from playing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a positive note, with the introduction of Adventuring Companies, you could start one that only lets in Damphyr worshippers of Kelemvor... start your own sect!

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

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

If people are such selfish gits that they *cannot* and *will not* abide by the basic lore of the Realms, then can I suggest that LFR is *not* for you? Try World of EroticPrehensileTentacleCraft or something instead. Or even FATAL.

GreenKnight wrote:

Sure there is. A Kelemvor worshipping Dhampyr wouldn't kill themselves just because they found out they were a Dhampyr...[snip]

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

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

I'll just leave it at that.




-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

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

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

I'll just leave it at that.




-karma

A Dhampyr isn't undead. They do not have the undead keyword. They age and die. Part of the Kelemvor hatred of undeath is that something is "cheating" death. The Dhampyr aren't and will die at their appointed time. Now, as soon as they gain powers that make them ageless or undead, a Dhampyr (or any race for that matter) will have trouble with the Kelemvorites.

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

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

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

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

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

_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.

JosephKell wrote:

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

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

Oops. :D

Sigh.

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

Fanboyism rocks.

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

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

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

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

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

KarmaInferno wrote:

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

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

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

Case in point. A Dhampyr isn't undead. As a point of fact, the prerequisite for being a Dhampyr is a Living humanoid race. So no, they're not undead, and the Kelemvorite hatred of undeath doesn't apply.

The way I see it Damphyr are D&D's version of Connor (Angel) he is Angel and Darla's human child concieved as part of a mystical prophecy. Connor is not a vampire or even undead but a living human with a soul that possesses all the strength, speed, agility, and supernatural senses vampires do just like the Damphyr. I can see Kelemvor having Damphyr as followers because they would make for more effective warriors and many of them hate the undead just as Kelemvor does.

Vamroc wrote:

The way I see it Damphyr are D&D's version of Connor (Angel) he is Angel and Darla's human child concieved as part of a mystical prophecy. Connor is not a vampire or even undead but a living human with a soul that possesses all the strength, speed, agility, and supernatural senses vampires do just like the Damphyr. I can see Kelemvor having Damphyr as followers because they would make for more effective warriors and many of them hate the undead just as Kelemvor does.

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

*sigh*

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

Of course in LFR, this is all a moot point.

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

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

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

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

This really has been an interesting discussion over the immutable and sometime contradictory nature of LFR rules vs. fluff... pray continue...

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

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

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

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

No, but it means someone will. And since it's legal, if you have a problem with it, and you cause a scene at a table, you'll be the one in the wrong.

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

Spoiler: Show






-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

Spoiler: Show

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

-karma

Spoiler: Show

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.

Except that there isn't any lore slaying going on. What there is, though, is a lot of invented lore, made-up lore, or "I feel it in my gut" lore used to justify player prejudices. Or ignorance of Dhampyr lore and knee-jerk reactions leading to mistakenly believing them to be undead, when they're not, and the article explicitly states that they're not.

In addition, Kelemvor's supposed to be fair and just. So he'd hate Dhampyr's... just because? It certainly wouldn't be due to their being undead, because they're not. And as ElJeffeX points, out, Kelemvor holds no special hatred for Demons, due to their being born what they are. Why should the same hold true for Dhampyr's? Especially since they're not universally evil. So there really isn't any reason for Kelemvor to hold any kind of animosity towards them.

Hell, in all likelihood, he'd be very accepting of them. After all, Kelemvor more then anyone else knows what it's like to have a little monster inside of you. He couldn't commit a good deed without transforming into a werepanther and killing everyone in sight. And he's going to condemn people who have the ability to drink blood, even if they don't have the necessity nor an uncontrollable urge to do so, and who may very well never drink anyone's blood? Who were born that way, just as he was born into the Lyonsbane curse? Doubtful. Add to that the singleminded dedication that many Dhampyrs have to destroying the undead, and their ability to detect undead, and they'd probably be welcome in the church.

Pint_Glass_Crusader wrote:

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?

You misunderstand. Once the Elf had explained that no, he wasn't actually a drow (despite the fact that he had showed up in a darkened tunnel ahead of the party, complete with black skin and white hair in a similar fashion to a drow ambush a few weeks previously) and showed that his hair was dyed white, then my dwarf stopped trying to kill him. He still mistrusted him, but that's another matter entirely.

By the way, wouldn't Kelemvor have more difficulties with Warforged, since they don't age and die; than with dhampyrs, since they do?

So, how about the true Realmslore Slayer, the Warforged Dhampyr Cleric of Kelemvor?

Now you can go all ballistic on me, if you really feel that way.

"I was created, not born. But I was created with emotions and my own will, rather than an as an emotionless, non-sentient guardian of an area or object. My creators were horrified at my free will, and tried to destroy me as a "mistake." They failed, and so I continue to exist.

"As time went by, and I traveled out in the world, learning the things that those born naturally learned. I learned about the gods and people of the world, and, as I learned, found myself growing more and more angry with those who created me and those like them.

"I decided that I would follow the beliefs of the deity named Kelemvor, as he believes that those who dabble in unnatural life should be punished, or so it sounded like to me. Indeed, I decided that I would represent the deity, by becoming a cleric.

"After being confirmed as a cleric of Kelemvor, I discovered that some other things I thought of as normal, were not. Apparently, the desire for living blood is neither normal for any construct, nor for the background that I though my parts were constructed from. Apparently, along with normal bits and pieces, those who created me included some pieces from a non-living source of some sort, apparently undead, and that also makes me more sensitive to finding those undead, and... making them subject to Kelemvor's desires."

And the Dhampyr Warforged Cleric of Kelemvor... smiles hungrily...

kinevon wrote:

Nice.

Very nice.

GreenKnight wrote:

Hell, in all likelihood, he'd be very accepting of them. After all, Kelemvor more then anyone else knows what it's like to have a little monster inside of you. He couldn't commit a good deed without transforming into a werepanther and killing everyone in sight. And he's going to condemn people who have the ability to drink blood, even if they don't have the necessity nor an uncontrollable urge to do so, and who may very well never drink anyone's blood? Who were born that way, just as he was born into the Lyonsbane curse? Doubtful. Add to that the singleminded dedication that many Dhampyrs have to destroying the undead, and their ability to detect undead, and they'd probably be welcome in the church.

Exactly "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's not that Kelemvor cares less for any of his other followers but every god has followers he deems as special. I can see some Damphyr filling that roll in much the same way many Drow serve Loth not all Drow are evil.

But would Shevarash allow a half-drow into his clergy?

It's just about the same thing.



-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

But would Shevarash allow a half-drow into his clergy?

It's just about the same thing.
-karma

Sure he would if one of the Forgotten Realms authors thought it would make a good story. Indeed, that sort of non-standard behavior is what makes most of the Forgotten Realms books interesting when you read them. Drow become good or fall in love, Lolth behaves in unpredictable ways etc. If everyone just behaved as stereotypes the books would be pretty dull.

Each player is writing their own story within what the rules allow. Some do it very well with detailed background and interesting twists that make their character unique but most just plod along with little or no thought to background. Some players optimize themselves into munchkinhood, some hobble themselves for roleplaying purposes. Some are playing combat chess and could care less who they are rescuing or what the story is and some take days to finish four hour mods. All of these variations are allowed within the framework of the rules and I would argue that several people in the thread have shown how non-typical dhampyrs can work even in a 'pure' Forgotten Realms story telling game. I might like to read a story about a Kelemvor worshiping Dhampyr someday and I sure wouldn't automatically condemn someone who gave one a go. The player may well just be a min-maxing munchkin, but they might also have a story to tell and they are well within the rules to tell it.

KarmaInferno wrote:

But would Shevarash allow a half-drow into his clergy?

It's just about the same thing.

Would a half-elf ever be able to wield an elven Moonblade? Oh wait... bad example :P

For those who aren't familiar with the elven god Shevarash, his entire portfolio and purpose as a deity is the complete and utter eradication of all things remotely Drow.



-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

For those who aren't familiar with the elven god Shevarash, his entire portfolio and purpose as a deity is the complete and utter eradication of all things remotely Drow.

And I think you're missing the point that Tancread and I are making. The Realms books are filled with examples of exceptions, as that is what makes them interesting.

And if you missed my reference about a half-elf wielding an elven Moonblade (which is for the purpose of "select a ruling family for Evermeet" - ElaineC), then read the Songs and Sword series. ElaineC has said herself that though Arilyn could never be a ruler of Evermeet, the sword still accepted her. Likewise for Elaith Craulnober, another example of breaking all the rules.

And saying that Shevarash is devoted to the utter eradication of all things remotely drow is a little shallow and an over-simplification.

Demihuman Deities, pg 130:
"Shevarash has moderated his hatred towards Elilistraee and the good-aligned drow who worship the Dark Maiden. He does not kill them out of hand, but he still dislikes them thoroughly."

KarmaInferno wrote:

But would Shevarash allow a half-drow into his clergy?

It's just about the same thing.

-karma

Not the same thing at all, because you're either dead, undead, or mortal. There's no "half-undead" vagaries, here. Kelemvor hates undead. Vampires are undead. Therefore, Kelemvor hates vampires. Dhampyr's are mortal. Kelemvor doesn't hate mortals. Therefore, Kelemvor doesn't hate Dhampyrs. It's as simple as that.

Tancread wrote:

Indeed, that sort of non-standard behavior is what makes most of the Forgotten Realms books interesting when you read them. Drow become good or fall in love, Lolth behaves in unpredictable ways etc. If everyone just behaved as stereotypes the books would be pretty dull.

Wait... Lolth is a Chaotic Evil deity... isn't she supposed be behave unpredictably? You know... the whole Chaos thing?

Corwynn wrote:

And I think you're missing the point that Tancread and I are making. The Realms books are filled with examples of exceptions, as that is what makes them interesting.

Yeah, it's RAW!! Specific beats general!

Doesn't part of the article say that dhampyrs could also result just because the person or the person's parrents live in an area infused with dark energies from Shadowfell? Why focus all that much on the vampire origin?

In any event, dhampyr is legal. Hence PCs can be clerics of Kalemvor who are dhampyrs and killing them on sight would fall under the RPGAs code of conduct for DMs. Treating them with mistrust is fine, and in fact, should be expected. Making it impossible for them to be played is not.

Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator

Madfox11 wrote:

Doesn't part of the article say that dhampyrs could also result just because the person or the person's parrents live in an area infused with dark energies from Shadowfell? Why focus all that much on the vampire origin?

In any event, dhampyr is legal. Hence PCs can be clerics of Kalemvor who are dhampyrs and killing them on sight would fall under the RPGAs code of conduct for DMs. Treating them with mistrust is fine, and in fact, should be expected. Making it impossible for them to be played is not.

Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator

If they are legal (never mind the fact that they go against the Lore completely) I will simply not play with such a character at the table. I'd get up and leave. I'd also ask to be excused from DMing such a character. I have principles. It seems other people, who are more interested in playing Angel Ripoffs, don't.

Since they are in the compiled version, yes they are legal. And I didn't realize you determined what the Lore was. I thought it was the company that owned the rights to it.

You know, if you don't like it you don't have to play in RPGA at all. It would probably be easier for the rest of us than having someone who won't commit to a table until you quiz all the characters to determine if they pass your Lore test.

(never mind the fact that they go against the Lore completely)

Once again, where's the lore? Here's some relevant lore.

Undeath is an affront to Kelemvor. Undead creatures are to be destroyed or given true death whenever they are met with, and even sought out and hunted down for that holy purpose.

Clerics of Kelemvor consider all undead abominations, and do whatever they can to put them to eternal rest. They contend that those who create undead are fit only for swift and utter destruction.

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.

Yes, the Church of Kelemvor is anti-undead. Without a doubt. However...

Dhampyrs are mortal.

Prerequisite: Living humanoid race

Despite the powers they can share in common with vampires, dhampyrs are not undead.

So once again, what lore slaying? Kelemvor is anti-undead, but Dhampyr's are not undead. So on what basis would Kelemvor or his church be anti-dhampyr? Here's some more lore.

Kelemvor has made no official statement to single out good-aligned undead creatures as an exception to his policy, though specific temples and individuals often take only lenient action against or ignore such creatures in the field, preferring to concentrate their efforts on those creatures of obvious malevolent intent or who are likely to quickly multiply.

Wait, wait, wait, what?!? So the Church of Kelemvor has... *gasp* ...been MERCIFUL towards good undead? Wow, who knew? And yet somehow we're expected to believe that they'd be absolutely ruthless to creatures who aren't even undead?

Here's some more lore for you.

Undeath is an affront to Kelemvor. Undead creatures are to be destroyed or given true death whenever they are met with, and even sought out and hunted down for that holy purpose. Priests of Kelemvor are free to hire or take as companions folk of other faiths to assist them in this purpose, for the great sin of undeath must be stamped out by whatever means possible.

Members of the clergy tend to be taciturn, even morose at times. Many came to the church after losing loves ones to undead incursions...

Kelemvorite clergy sometimes declare crusades against the undead or against creatures deemed to have caused to much untimely death. Occasionally, this leads them to employ adventurers to solve problems with which they cannot contend alone.

Coupled with the ability to recognize those of vampire blood, dhampyr make effective vampire slayers. These avenging heroes, however, seldom limit themselves to solely hunting vampires. They are equally adept at tracking and slaying several forms of undead...

With the innate ability to sniff out the undead, you have dedicated your life to the stalking and slaying of such abominations. Perhaps the calling of this vocation was passed down from your parents as a macabre tradition. Maybe vengeance has motivated you to slay the unliving. Perhaps you’ve turned your birthright into an asset that allows you to protect those weaker than you.

First up, we see a whole bunch of commonalities, like a strong desire to destroy the undead. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Then we see that the Church of Kelemvor has been known to hire out people to destroy the undead. And who better to do the job than someone who's both adept at tracking them, and with the motivation to destroy them?

Come to think of it, why DOES Kelemvor hate the undead?

Kelemvor is interested in having followers who recognize that death is but a part of life. It is not an end but a beginning, not a punishment but a necessity. There is no deceit in death, nothing concealed, nothing chaotic. Death is an orderly process.

Because of Kelemvor’s deep respect for both life and death, the undead enrage him.

The charge of Kelemvor to his novitiates is this: “Death is but part of life: fear it not, evade it not, and view it not as evil. To fear death delivers you into the hands of those who can bring death down upon you. Die with dignity, neither raging nor seeking to embrace undeath.

So we see he hates them because they disrupt the natural process of life and death. You're supposed to be born, grow old, and die. Undeath isn't supposed to be part of that cycle. That's why he hates undead, despite how wildly different they all are. He doesn't hate zombies because they eat brains. He hates them because they're undead. He doesn't hate Wights because they sap levels. He hates them because they're undead. And he doesn't hate vampires because they drink blood or turn into mist. He hates them because they're undead.

But blood drain, mist form, etc, the abilities that Kelemvor doesn't give a damn about, that's all the Dhampyr's inherited from the vampires. Nothing more. They're not undead in the slightest. They're born, just as every other mortal is born. They'll age, grow old, and die, just as every other mortal will age, grow old, and die. They're governed by natural processes, which makes Kelemvor automatically a fan of them. Sure, they're more longlived, but there isn't any lore with him having a problem with longlived races. He has no issues with Elves, Dwarves, or Eladrin due to their lifespans, because they're still governed by natural processes. They'll still grow old and die.

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.

Kelemvor doesn't hate demons, because they're born what they are, and we're expected to believe that he'd hate Dhampyr's when A) They're not even undead, B) Are mortal, and C) When quite often their beliefs and interests coincide with his own? So I ask, where's the overriding bit of lore that proves indisputably that Kelemvor hates Dhampyr's? Where's the lore that shows that, where Kelemvorites have been known to be merciful to good undead, they're completely merciless to Dhampyr's? I'm anxious to see it.

I have principles. It seems other people, who are more interested in playing Angel Ripoffs, don't.

From the sound of it, your "principles" are just an excuse to justify your player prejudices, seeing as how you're already insulting anyone interested in playing a Dhampyr by claiming they want to play Angel rip-offs. You certainly haven't produced a single shred of lore to back up your assertion. So again I ask, where is the lore that states that Kelemvor hates a mortal race, any mortal race, as he does the undead? Where's the copious lore that states that someone coming into existence because of the undead is equally hated, despite not being undead? If it's a "fact" that it "goes against the lore completely", then by all means, show us where in the lore we can read this for ourselves.

Green Knight wins. :D

StarBog wrote:

If they are legal (never mind the fact that they go against the Lore completely) I will simply not play with such a character at the table. I'd get up and leave.

[sarcasm]I am sure you will be popular with event organizers.[/sarcasm]

I'd also ask to be excused from DMing such a character. I have principles. It seems other people, who are more interested in playing Angel Ripoffs, don't.

[sarcasm]Real popular.[/sarcasm]

But in all honesty, you will find your name on people's lips after you bail on running a table because a player at it is playing a PC with the Vampire Heritage Feat. Your name will get passed around and put on all kinds of black lists.

Yep. Organizers don't like people that volunteer to judge a table then cancel without a good reason. And objecting to a player's choice of feats (when it is legal) and throwing a tantrum is not a good reason.

StarBog wrote:

If they are legal (never mind the fact that they go against the Lore completely) I will simply not play with such a character at the table. I'd get up and leave. I'd also ask to be excused from DMing such a character. I have principles. It seems other people, who are more interested in playing Angel Ripoffs, don't.

Well, if you're really that principled, then maybe the RPGA isn't for you since you are so offended by legal PC options. Your solution is perfectly valid, but you will probably quickly find that people don't want to sit with you and you won't be asked to DM. That doesn't leave much left.

_metz_ wrote:

or accept some SERIOUS consequences if in a game other PCs/folk discover that you are feeding off the living.

Wait a minute, a town is happy for me to go and kill a bunch of goblins that are terrorising them. However if I've been cursed and dare to feed upon those goblins in the course of saving the town, they'll crucify me? What if I simply cook and eat their remains as an ordinary human?

Besides which a thirst for blood does not equal a thirst for the blood of intelligent creatures. Anne Rice covered that loophole decades ago.

Also important to note, the article doesn't say you thirst for blood. You have the option to feed upon blood, but it doesn't say you must do so. It in fact says dhampyr have several of the powers of a vampire and none of the weaknesses. I'd consider requiring human blood to survive to be a weakness. Not anywhere (not even in the 3 character background samples) does it say you thirst for blood.

Its also important to note dhampyr make effective vampire slayers. Why a town that would be accepting of drow, tieflings, orcs, shadar-kai, gnolls and minotaur would automagically have a problem with a race that is effective at killing vampires is beyond me. That seems to be a town with a very specific prejudice. Unless there's an extraodinary reason for this town to have such a prejudice, its going to be pretty clear that the DM is letting his own feelings get in the way of people's enjoyment.

Now while you might think that's okay, would it really be okay if the DM hated halflings and suddenly said all towns hate halflings and gives every NPC the players interact with a reason to hate halflings? What about dragonborn which are another unpopular race? Or elves, or shifters (oh no! They're werewolves!) or gnomes?

As Dragon9 said, adding flavour to the game is great. Making a character unplayable is not. How is my character having a particular element in their backstory impacting your enjoyment of the game? Unless I'm going around feeding on people in broad daylight all the time, is it really necessary to try to push my character out of your games?

I know I've given one of my characters the feat. Not because I have any burning desire to play a vampire (I wasn't even too happy about gnolls or drow being available to play. I have since made 1 character of each race), but because I think it makes his background a bit more interesting. His pre-dhampyr background was this:

Thom has lived in Aglarond his whole life. Upon reaching 18 Thom became determined to seek out the Simbul and to return her to Aglarond to save it against Aglarond's enemies.

Run of the mill, I wasn't overly happy with the background but I couldn't think up anything better. This is his post-dhampyr background

Thom's mother was attacked by a vampire when she was pregnant with him, which caused Thom to be born a dhampyr. His mother had trouble showing him affection while he met much bigotry against him by his neighbours. As such he spent most of his time in the wild.

Upon reaching 18 Thom became determined to seek out the Simbul and to return her to Aglarond and to hopefully become a hero in the process.

I've gone from a boring adventurer trying to save his hometown, to an adventurer trying to save a home that showed him nothing but hatred. Despite this hatred, he still loves his hometown and hopes that one day people will be able to put aside their hatred of him (not that I expect anyone to, but its nice to have a goal for a character to work towards for 30 levels).

Also how the heck is everyone going to be so knowledgable as to determine who someone is a dhampyr? They look fey unless you're particularly knowledgable about dhampyr, you'll probably mistake them for fey.

IMO something 100x worse then a dhampyr, is a drizzt do'urden. If someone can make up an interesting drow or dhampyr that doesn't rely on "I'm the exception in my whole society, aren't I special. Look at me, look at me" I say go for it.

StarBog wrote:

If they are legal (never mind the fact that they go against the Lore completely) I will simply not play with such a character at the table. I'd get up and leave. I'd also ask to be excused from DMing such a character. I have principles. It seems other people, who are more interested in playing Angel Ripoffs, don't.

If that's how you feel I'd just as soon not have you at any table with me.

waytoomuchcoffee wrote:

Since they are in the compiled version, yes they are legal. And I didn't realize you determined what the Lore was. I thought it was the company that owned the rights to it.

That lore quite clearly states the position of Kelemvor on the living and the dead. THe situation here is that a few individuals wish to ignore that lore, to ignore the history of Faerun. And to make matters worse, they positively revel in that ignorance. That is the problem.

waytoomuchcoffee wrote:

You know, if you don't like it you don't have to play in RPGA at all. It would probably be easier for the rest of us than having someone who won't commit to a table until you quiz all the characters to determine if they pass your Lore test.

It is within my rights not to play at a table where people show such contempt for the lore. If you don't like that, tough.

JosephKell wrote:

[sarcasm]I am sure you will be popular with event organizers.[/sarcasm][sarcasm]Real popular.[/sarcasm]

*shrugs*

JosephKell wrote:

But in all honesty, you will find your name on people's lips after you bail on running a table because a player at it is playing a PC with the Vampire Heritage Feat. Your name will get passed around and put on all kinds of black lists.

So be it.

JosephKell wrote:

Yep. Organizers don't like people that volunteer to judge a table then cancel without a good reason. And objecting to a player's choice of feats (when it is legal) and throwing a tantrum is not a good reason.

It isn't a tantrum. It is merely pointing out what goes against the lore and what doesn't.

Your whole analogy is totally invalid, Greenknight. Kelemvor is also against the practise of necromantic (necrotic) magic, a process in itself which does not cause Undeath. Vampiric Heritage is sourced from that which he hates - undeath. It is a foul enough taint, and his hatred of the cause of such a taint is such, that it is obvious he would not allow such folks in his church, nor would he look at them as anything other than a blasphemy.

Secondarily, you've contradicted yourself several times. You claim that since Dwarves and Elves are longlived, Kelemvor would have no problem with longlived Dhampyr. That's incorrect. Dhampyr are unnaturally longlived for their species, this unnaturalness is a manifestation of the undead heritage, the taint that Kelemvor is unagainst.

Thirdly, it was *others* who brought up the Angel analogy. And as was said upthread, if you want to play a vampire Angel filled with teh angst, Whitewolf is that a way... ------------>

Fourthly, as I keep pointing out, but you and the others keep missing (hard of understanding?), just because you *can* play something (as a result of OOC decisions), doesn't mean you *have* to.

StarBog wrote:

That lore quite clearly states the position of Kelemvor on the living and the dead. THe situation here is that a few individuals wish to ignore that lore, to ignore the history of Faerun. And to make matters worse, they positively revel in that ignorance. That is the problem.

And it is a shame that you are, apparently, the exact type of person you rail against.

StarBog wrote:

It is within my rights not to play at a table where people show such contempt for the lore. If you don't like that, tough.

It isn't that we don't like that, it is simply that, as you limit what PCs you will "play" with, you will find yourself with fewer and fewer options as to the tables you can play at at conventions and game days. And telling an event organizer; "I can't play at any of these 3 tables because they have PC dhampyrs/drow/warforged/what-have-you." is bad gamesmanship.

Add to that, telling an event organizer, after he has seated a table with you as DM; "I can't run for this table because they have PC dhampyrs/drow/warforged/what-have-you." Do that once, shame on you for being inflexible. And you are likely to only get a chance to do it once. At that point, a responsible organizer is going to tell you; "Sorry, we find that we don't need your assistance as a DM today, nor any foreseeable day in the future."

Of course, I am cleaning this up for the message board, as you are likely to get a major negative reaction from anyone who understands that good gamesmanship is more than trying to stay straight with the "Lore". It is playing nicely with others, and (trying to) understand their position as well as yours.

To be honest, as a debater, I would have to rate you as a straight failure, since you are not bringing up valid statements from "Lore," nor are you actually able to properly debate with someone who has.

Also, and just for your information, if you participate in an Organized Play campaign, such as LFR, you are required to abide by the rules of the campaign, whether you think they violate "Lore" or not.

In the course of this thread, you have been given some fairly good examples of appropriate character backgrounds for dhampyr characters, including fairly "Lore-full" versions that could be played as clerics of Kelemvor. You refuse to participate in any other way than going; "It is against Lore!" Not an appropriate debating choice.

GreenKnight: 1
StarBog: 0

No, what we have in this thread is a bunch of special snowflakes wanting to play their Angel-ripoffs in a particular unacceptable way in a setting that is completely unsuitable for them.

As for your claim about goodgamesmanship - that's also incorrect. You are playing in the Realms. The Realms have rules. For example, divine characters must pick an LFR deity. Will you now be insisting that playing a paladin of Kord (for example) is legal in the Realms? I've just had that experience myself recently where someone insisted on playing a champion of Kord, despite the fact that no such deity exists in the Realms. He was not interested in picking a Faerunian alternative, but rather insisted that it should be the actual Kord.

I'd be quite happy to play a Dhampyr character, but NOT one who follows Kelemvor, and I'd be damn sure to hide my heritage extremely well from anyone who was a Kelemvorite. And I'd be sure and prepared NOT to receive any assistance or healing from any clergy of Kelemvor. But wanting to play a undeath-tainted cleric of Kelemvor is like wanting to play a Whitewolf Vampire who likes sunbathing.

Its this egragrious flaunting of the history and background of Faerun that I have the problem with, and the fact that certain people here (including you) are proud that you ride roughshot over the lore just because you *can*.

StarBog wrote:

Will you now be insisting that playing a paladin of Kord (for example) is legal in the Realms?

CCG v1.8]Select a deity for your character, if applicable. See the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide or Player’ wrote:

Select a deity for your character, if applicable. See the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide or Player’s Guide for a list of deities available in the Realms.

If you can find a similar quote restricting player's choices for dhampyr from the CCG please quote it.

StarBog wrote:

Its this egragrious flaunting of the history and background of Faerun that I have the problem with, and the fact that certain people here (including you) are proud that you ride roughshot over the lore just because you *can*.

Plenty of people have offered lore to support their claims. You haven't. Placing your fingers in your ear and shouting loudly is not a valid debating technique. Your posts have been the equivalent of this by not addressing the points raised to counter yours.

Should a Kelemvor Dhampyr be allowed? Buggered if I know, but I find the lore used to support such a character an interesting read and difficult to refute. But then again I haven't read any meaningful claims against their points.

I personally don't see why Kelemvorites would be pro-Damphyr, seeing as their powers are DERIVED from stated abominations, but that's just me.

My interpretation is that Kelemvorites wouldn't necessarily kill a Damphyr, but I wouldn't see Kelemvor giving one powers either. But I am going off the old 3.5 way of viewing clerics.

I think the lore supports that approach. Again it's cause and causality. Is a fanatic less so if you introduce him to the son of their sworn enemy? I don't think so. Hence I don't see the relevance of the 'living' keyword. By association, based on Kelemvor's stated fundamentalism, they are still the PRODUCT of something he doesn't tolerate. By association my reasoning is that he wouldn't be a FAN. Not kill on sight, but they may make him unhappy in his pants or something.

Exceptions do exist, but they would have some explaining to do to my Kelemvor cleric, for example, as to what they are doing to right their tainted blood... I definitely wouldn't walk away from a table.

I have had to endure much more incongruous character concepts. (Elf Cleric of Wastri, who we ALL hated due to the innate contradiction)

I do think this argument has turned into a '4e realms suck' vs 'That was different before 4e' argument and in which case neither side will ever convince the other.

That lore quite clearly states the position of Kelemvor on the living and the dead. THe situation here is that a few individuals wish to ignore that lore, to ignore the history of Faerun. And to make matters worse, they positively revel in that ignorance. That is the problem.

Yes, it does. The lore does quite clearly state Kelemvor's position. Problem is, the only here ignoring that is you. As has been shown, Dhampyr's are quite clearly in the land of the living. Yet you continue to insist that Kelemvor's hatred for the undead be applied to them. And for a person who continues to claim that the lore clearly states this or that, you have yet to produce a single shred of lore that states anything of the sort. So if the lore says as much, then please, produce that lore. Show us some lore, any lore, that says that Kelemvor's hatred for the undead and for those who create the undead extends to the Dhampyr, who're not undead, and very much mortal.

Your whole analogy is totally invalid, Greenknight. Kelemvor is also against the practise of necromantic (necrotic) magic, a process in itself which does not cause Undeath.

His hatred of Necromancy extends solely to its use in creating undead or unnaturally extend ones life. He doesn't care about any other uses of Necromancy. Just look at the Repose Domain, specifically created for use for Kelemvor. Look at the domain spells on that list. They include Deathwatch (Necromancy), Gentle Repose (Necromancy), Speak With Dead (Necromancy), Death Ward (Necromancy), Slay Living (Necromancy), Undeath to Death (Necromancy), Destruction (Necromancy), and Wail of the Banshee (Necromancy). For a guy who supposedly hates Necromancy, period, no exceptions, he sure likes to hand out lots of Necromantic spells to his Clerics. This looks to me like another case of your stretching lore to suit your tastes.

Vampiric Heritage is sourced from that which he hates - undeath. It is a foul enough taint, and his hatred of the cause of such a taint is such, that it is obvious he would not allow such folks in his church, nor would he look at them as anything other than a blasphemy.

Then point to a source that indicates as such. Point to something, anything, that demonstrates that Kelemvor's hatred of undeath is such that it extends to those who've been touched by it, but who themselves are not undead. If it's so blazingly obvious, then please, by all means, point to a source that says so.

Secondarily, you've contradicted yourself several times. You claim that since Dwarves and Elves are longlived, Kelemvor would have no problem with longlived Dhampyr. That's incorrect. Dhampyr are unnaturally longlived for their species, this unnaturalness is a manifestation of the undead heritage, the taint that Kelemvor is unagainst.

Once again, point to a source that illustrates that Kelemvor would care about that. What Kelemvor cares about are the natural processes of life and death. And a Dhampyr, despite being long-lived, is still governed by those natural processes. They're born and are very much alive. They age, grow old, and eventually die of old age. You have yet to produce any shred of evidence that indicates that Kelemvor would be opposed to their existence, or that Kelemvor's hatred of the undead extends to mortal beings who came about as a result of the undead.

Thirdly, it was *others* who brought up the Angel analogy. And as was said upthread, if you want to play a vampire Angel filled with teh angst, Whitewolf is that a way... ------------>

Fourthly, as I keep pointing out, but you and the others keep missing (hard of understanding?), just because you *can* play something (as a result of OOC decisions), doesn't mean you *have* to.

Who here is arguing that they must be played? No one. I want to play one because I want to play one, not because I feel I must play one, as you seem to think for whatever inexplicable reason. And wanting to play such a character doesn't mean I want to play an angst filled character.

However, what you should remember is just because you don't like the character doesn't mean it's contradictory to the lore. Your likes and dislikes aren't what we judge lore by. We judge it by what's in the books. And by what's in the books, you're stretching by a wide mile to justify your own player prejudices, which you continuously reinforce. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the lore to support your position. You have yet to show anything that can be held applicable to Dhampyr's. That you continuously have to remind us how the lore quite clearly states this or that, while never producing said lore, is ample evidence of that fact.

StarBog wrote:

No, what we have in this thread is a bunch of special snowflakes wanting to play their Angel-ripoffs in a particular unacceptable way in a setting that is completely unsuitable for them.

Ah. An ad hominem attack. Well, when all else fails...

Its this egragrious flaunting of the history and background of Faerun that I have the problem with, and the fact that certain people here (including you) are proud that you ride roughshot over the lore just because you *can*.

In your opinion. But what you think, and what is, are two entirely different things. And as a 15+ year fan of the Forgotten Realms, I don't feel that I'm running roughshod over the lore with this idea in the slightest. IMO, a Dhampyr Paladin of Kelemvor very much fits into what I know of the Church of Kelemvor and what I know of Kelemvor, himself. Whether that be from the various supplements he's been in, or the novels he's appeared in. A god who's described repeatedly as "kind and just" is not gonna declare a jihad on a mortal being just because their mother was bitten by a vampire or they had a distant ancestor who was a vampire when they're still very much a living, breathing, mortal being.

Not only would that be unjust on his part, as well as contrary to the rules which he himself has laid out (which, according to established lore, is limited to the undead and those who create them, and ONLY the undead and those who create them. There is nothing to indicate it goes beyond that), but it'd also be immensely hypocritical on his part, as the Lyonsbane curse made him FAR worse than any Dhampyr when he was a mortal. And Kelemvor's neither unjust nor hypocritical.

As for the Kelemvorite Church, _metz_ has a point in that they wouldn't be wholly embraced. It depends, I suppose. Much like how those who only know orcs as bloodthirsty savages would have difficulty accepting an orc as an ally, so too would those who've encountered Dhampyr's as vampire servants have difficulty accepting a Dhampyr.

It'd vary from church to church, though. Because after all, as posted above, when it comes to good undead certain segments of the Kelemvor Church have been willing to ignore them or tolerate them up to a point, in favor of pursuing evil undead. And as also pointed out, they believe in stamping out "the great sin of undeath... by whatever means possible", and are known to look for the help of others to help them destroy the undead. So it strikes me as very likely that there're segments of the Church of Kelemvor who'd accept Dhampyr's into their ranks due to their ability to hunt down undead, and would find kindred spirits among them, as many Dhampyr's also have an untiring hatred of the undead.

Ok folks... simmadownnow. Heated, pasionate debates are fine, but keep the personal attacks out of it.

As it is I think this debate has reached it's stalemate and it won't be long before Godwin's Law comes into play. Besides, much of this should probably be debated in the Realmslore forum anyway. If no one else has any more questions about the legality of Dhampyr's in LFR the I think it may be time to lock the thread.

GreenKnight wrote:

As for the Kelemvorite Church, _metz_ has a point in that they wouldn't be wholly embraced. It depends, I suppose. Much like how those who only know orcs as bloodthirsty savages would have difficulty accepting an orc as an ally, so too would those who've encountered Dhampyr's as vampire servants have difficulty accepting a Dhampyr.

That's pretty much my exact point. However understanding that this is the reaction you may get is usually all I require from a player who is going against the norm with concepts like this.

Stated Paladin of Kelemvor I would envision as NOT being part of the organised church, maybe backed by Kelemvor himself, but shunned or even reviled by the more fanatical members of the clergy...

[VCL]
Just following-up on what Dragon9 has said.

It's clear, and even a good thing, that people have strong feelings on this. However, we need to be careful about how we express our opinions - and how willing we are to listen to "the other side" in a given debate.

While I'm not going to lock this thread at this time, I'm going to be keeping a more careful eye on it for the time being, just in case.
[/VCL]

That said, It think there are a couple things that have been overlooked in this discussion/debate.

It's a shared world, and we all play by the same rules.

That means a Dhampyr Warforged Paladin of Kelemvor is legal (albeit greatly upsetting to my spell checker). I would personally hope that the person playing such a character would have put a lot of thought and effort into their back story- but it isn't required.

If options like this is something that bothers you greatly, you might want to reconsider if the RPGA is for you. Bottom line - you can't control what others play, so long as it's legal. This is just one of the concessions we make in a worldwide campaign.

There's nothing to prevent you from leaving a table that has an option you don't like - but don't confuse your distaste for a race/class/other combination for some kind of moral high ground either.

I find the higher ground comes from trying new things, and putting differences aside to have fun. That might even include letting your character explore the conflict they see with someone else. Perhaps they can have their opinion(s) change - even if its only an exception for "that character".

I have asked Ed Greenwood via Candlekeep for his thoughts on this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. If I'm right, there's going to be a lot of crow (as you USians say) round here.

Somehow I don't think any answer is going to detract from the fact you are willing to walk away from a table. Even Hitler wouldn't do that. (Sorry Dragon9, I couldn't resist )

And Godwin's Law is proved once again. :P

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Dragon9 wrote:

And Godwin's Law is proved once again. :P

Doesn't it have to be a serious comparison for Godwin's to be invoked?

Darkwolf_Bloodsbane wrote:

Doesn't it have to be a serious comparison for Godwin's to be invoked?

I dont see why... most invocations of Godwin's Law aren't serious. :P Well, maybe to the poster who wrote it, but they're usually ridiculous.

JosephKell wrote:

Yep. Organizers don't like people that volunteer to judge a table then cancel without a good reason. And objecting to a player's choice of feats (when it is legal) and throwing a tantrum is not a good reason.

I'm an organizer, and I'd fully support his decision.

Bluntly, I don't know or care enough about the Realms lore to know what's kosher and what's not, but I don't need that to understand his issue - I'm still having problems with towns that openly welcome WALKING TALKING DRAGONS.

True, his stance will cause headaches, but the headaches involved in mustering around his standards are nothing compared to the headaches I'd get if the people at the table weren't having /fun/, and there's just no way they'd have fun with him trying to DM that out.

JosephKell wrote:

Not to mention that the divine power source doesn't actually come from a deity

Actually, it does come from a deity. Deities are just not very concerned with granting or revoking it in person, so they delegate that specific bit to their churches to deal with.
Unless a deity dies, you generally keep drawing power, because one worshipper going astray is insignificant to draw a deity's attention (and likely, Ao looks askew at such willy-nilly behavior as well).

Regardless, Kelemvor would not grant such power on a worshipper. However, characters may obtain that power through their own and believe it comes from Kelemvor even though it doesn't.
Kelemvor's church would generally not look in favor upon a dhampyr. Still, they would not attack them, especially if it is one of their own, as long as there is no proof of crimes against the faith.

Gomez

gomeztoo wrote:

Regardless, Kelemvor would not grant such power on a worshipper. However, characters may obtain that power through their own and believe it comes from Kelemvor even though it doesn't.
Kelemvor's church would generally not look in favor upon a dhampyr. Still, they would not attack them, especially if it is one of their own, as long as there is no proof of crimes against the faith.

Why would the church not look in favor at a dhampyr? They are NOT undead, they are, indeed, fully mortal. To put it plainly, a church that despises the true undead would, indeed, serve as a viable haven for those whose lives have been affected or distorted by undead, and would probably look favorably on those who can find the vile undead more easily and help deal with them.

Or, to put it another way, those who have cited their opinions are invariably citing their own, personal, out-of-game dislike of the feat, not any verifiable lore that would support such a reaction from the Church of Kelemvor. All the lore I have seen cited has supported the belief of those who think Kelemvor wouldn't have any issues with it.

And most of them seem unwilling to follow up on their own belief in "WWKD" in regards to their non-dhampyr Priests of Kelemvor. Also known as not coming back from their first death, buh-bye, makes a PC priest of Kelemvor over a couple of levels, much less Epic level where just about every Epic Destiny includes features that Kelemvor, per these posters statements, would despise.

Heck, shouldn't being a Cleric or Paladin of Kelemvor mean that you have to auto-fail all death saving throws? Unnaturally extending life, after all...

OK you are thinking about it in the wrong way.

Person A hates X. X is something I will not abide, and destroy under any circumstances.

X reproduces and creates Y, which whilst different to X< possess many powers given and propogated by X.

By association, to a FUNDAMENTALIST (which btw, is what Kelemvorites actually are) Y is mistrusted and disliked by virtue of association with X, both as it's offspring and due to it's reminder of the presence therof.

I don't want to bring in real world examples, but there are PLENTY of situations where fundamentalists hate the offspring or those associated with the group they hate, purely because of the association.

That is the inherent problem I see with an organised church of Kelemvor accepting Undead, I am viewing it from a standard psychological analysis of Fanatics.

Also you are getting lore confused with the 'undead keyword'.

Necromancers get power from the Undead. But arent undead. Does Kelemvor like them? What about a good Necromancer? where is the line drawn?

Now whilst I can see individual Damphyr being granted divine powers to fight that which spawned them, I don't take with this argument of yours that the church of Kelemvor (As in the mortal one, with it's traditions and doctrine) would be fine and dandy with the little biters.

Also you seem to be confusing metagame concepts with the game world - death saving throws and so on have nothing to do with this debate.

- Note that I am not saying you can't do it, but would definitely see why it wouldn't be accepted practice amongst the standard clergy.

Kelemvor doesn't approve of thread necromancy to run over the same arguments again and again. His followers hate thread necromancers.

Tancread wrote:

Kelemvor doesn't approve of thread necromancy to run over the same arguments again and again. His followers hate thread necromancers.

In my defence, I was more putting down something someone else raised :P

Arin12 wrote:

I'm an organizer, and I'd fully support his decision.

Bluntly, I don't know or care enough about the Realms lore to know what's kosher and what's not, but I don't need that to understand his issue - I'm still having problems with towns that openly welcome WALKING TALKING DRAGONS.

True, his stance will cause headaches, but the headaches involved in mustering around his standards are nothing compared to the headaches I'd get if the people at the table weren't having /fun/, and there's just no way they'd have fun with him trying to DM that out.

Point of clarification: If this DM is the only DM for a particular adventure, and he sits down and there are Dhampyr players, and he requests to leave the table, you would be ok with that? You would, as an organizer, want a DM working for you that is going to put you in that position?

I've organized a couple cons, and co-organized a couple as well. I've been in the position of having to beg all my DMs to volunteer an extra slot that they were scheduled to play, and I've been the DM who was called on the phone at muster time to drive in and cover a table that didn't have a DM. So I understand the need to have DMs of less than optimal quality. However, that sort of attitude in a DM isn't the type of DM that makes a table have less fun in a single slot - that's the type of DM that causes players not to return to your convention if they found out that you knew about the DM's attitudes before accepting him as a volunteer. For good or for ill, the quality and behavior of DMs at a convention reflects on the convention and its organizer, and DMs that are going to walk away from a table because of a player option are going to be attaching their hostile reputations to the conventions willing to accept them.

JohnduBois wrote:

Point of clarification: If this DM is the only DM for a particular adventure, and he sits down and there are Dhampyr players, and he requests to leave the table, you would be ok with that? You would, as an organizer, want a DM working for you that is going to put you in that position?

I've organized a couple cons, and co-organized a couple as well. I've been in the position of having to beg all my DMs to volunteer an extra slot that they were scheduled to play, and I've been the DM who was called on the phone at muster time to drive in and cover a table that didn't have a DM. So I understand the need to have DMs of less than optimal quality. However, that sort of attitude in a DM isn't the type of DM that makes a table have less fun in a single slot - that's the type of DM that causes players not to return to your convention if they found out that you knew about the DM's attitudes before accepting him as a volunteer. For good or for ill, the quality and behavior of DMs at a convention reflects on the convention and its organizer, and DMs that are going to walk away from a table because of a player option are going to be attaching their hostile reputations to the conventions willing to accept them.

As a con organizer I'd rather the DM excused him or herself than go ahead and run the game with a chip on their shoulder.

bhale187 wrote:

As a con organizer I'd rather the DM excused him or herself than go ahead and run the game with a chip on their shoulder.

As a congoer, I prefer my DMs to have an open mind.

bhale187 wrote:

As a con organizer I'd rather the DM excused him or herself than go ahead and run the game with a chip on their shoulder.

The point I'm making is this: the poster I was referring to said that he'd be ok with the DM excusing himself from that table, and that's a situation that you can't always guarantee is possible. If that DM is going to be hostile to a legal rules item to that extent, it's probably a DM you don't want running games at your con at all.

Darkwolf_Bloodsbane wrote:

As a congoer, I prefer my DMs to have an open mind.

Well of course, but in reality that's not always the case, and being human DMs can hold grudges and prejudices that will effect game play. If you know the DM is holding something against the PCs it would be in everyones benefit for that DM to step down rather than run the adventure, and expect that he or she is capable of putting those prejudices aside both consciously and subconsciously.

As a con organizer you have to be ready to put a new DM in any slot or else bite the bullet and do it yourself because there are always a variety of things that can and do come up preventing a person from running a game they previously committed to.

JohnduBois wrote:

The point I'm making is this: the poster I was referring to said that he'd be ok with the DM excusing himself from that table, and that's a situation that you can't always guarantee is possible. If that DM is going to be hostile to a legal rules item to that extent, it's probably a DM you don't want running games at your con at all.

Agreed, and while I would not object to him stepping aside, I would also not be asking him to DM again if he refused to DM for something that in my opinion is so trivial.

It is the responsibility of a good RPGA DM to not allow their personal views to interfere with legal rules options.

As a con organiser, I would personally not want such DMs. If a DM refused to, I wouldn't ask them to DM again. It is that simple.

Being a DM in a living campaign means you have to accept its rules, failure to do so is a very bad sign. My opinions in this thread have been as a Player, but as a DM I would be much more diplomatic. (Contrary to impressions I may otherwise give...)

edit: I just noticed you said the same thing at the same time...

Agreed. The mark of a good DM is one who will run the game and make it fun for the players regardless of their personal feelings for the players and/or the options they have chosen.

Heck, there was a player who once pointed things out to the DM in a special that ended up getting my character killed... ending with "Shoudln't he be makign a massive damage save?"

It was annoying. I don't like that player. I ran him and his buddies through a mod at a local con after that and while part of me would have loved to kill his character, burn the body into tiny ashes and teleport them to the far ends of the world so he couldn't be rezzed... I didn't do it. I ran the game and they all said it was one of the most enjoyable mods they played at the con.

There are some things I may not like or agree with, but I will do my best to make sure the players have fun regardless and try to allow all the players to shine. Even if they're a Spellscarred Dhampyr Warforged Cleric of Kelemvor.

Dragon9 wrote:

There are some things I may not like or agree with, but I will do my best to make sure the players have fun regardless and try to allow all the players to shine. Even if they're a Spellscarred Dhampyr Warforged Cleric of Kelemvor.

in SPACE!!

:D

Now I want Dragon to publish Giant Space Hamster as a playable race. Or perhaps I can just roll a beastmaster ranger with a Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

kinevon wrote:

Why would the church not look in favor at a dhampyr

Because a dhampyr is associated with undead. The feelings do not have to be rational (they hardly ever are), but a Doomguide may think that a dhampyr is naturally drawn to undeath: all it's powers are potentially corrupting (or so they migtht hink).
Of course, dhampyr's do not automatically get corrupted, but most Kelemvor priests (and there are of course exceptions) are not so quickly to consider that.

In relation to previous posts: such averse feelings (from NPCs) should be use for flavor, not for some form of retaliation. Choices for character race, class, origin, and even gender may color how NPCs react (though not as much as PC behavior). It is, after all, a roleplaying game, and that is more interesting if NPCs do not react to every PC in the same way. But it should be fun.

Gomez

gomeztoo wrote:

Because a dhampyr is associated with undead. The feelings do not have to be rational (they hardly ever are), but a Doomguide may think that a dhampyr is naturally drawn to undeath: all it's powers are potentially corrupting (or so they migtht hink).
Of course, dhampyr's do not automatically get corrupted, but most Kelemvor priests (and there are of course exceptions) are not so quickly to consider that.

All necromancers are wizards. Necromancers create undead. Therefore all wizards are suspect.

Doesn't work in either case.

Besides, how would the prriest of Kelemvor even know someone is Dhampyr? Or has been raised from the dead, which it sounds like Kelemvorites hould be even more outraged at...

kinevon wrote:

Besides, how would the prriest of Kelemvor even know someone is Dhampyr? Or has been raised from the dead, which it sounds like Kelemvorites hould be even more outraged at...

Did you read my post about fanatics?

Spoiler: Show

kinevon wrote:

All necromancers are wizards. Necromancers create undead. Therefore all wizards are suspect.

I didn't say it is logical or even rational. Just that this is how they, imo, would think.

Gomez

gomeztoo wrote:

I didn't say it is logical or even rational. Just that this is how they, imo, would think.

That is the point. My Kelemvorite Cleric is such a fanatic. They really are the Faerunian equivalent of jihadists. It really is a jihad against the undead. The undead must either be destroyed or moved on, full stop. There is no room for any shades of gray. And that is what the canon Faerun lore demands.

My Kelemvorite cleric will refuse to adventure with anyone shes knows has the Dhampyr template, for IC reasons. IC, ideally, she would attempt to kill the abomination, but since that is verboten without consent for OOC reasons, they will not receive any healing and she will find a way to leave the presence of the Dhampyr as soon as she can. If that means OOC getting up and walking away from the table, then so be it. My Dragonborn barbarian or my dwarven cleric of Sune couldn't care less about Dhampyr as long as they don't hog the food in the former case and don't make a mess in the latter.

OOC the Dhampyr template is yet another example of WOTC deciding to take away what is special about the Realms and turning it into yet another generic fantasy setting in an attempt to appeal to the MMO-market (for Dhampyr read "We've got to get something to appear to WoW Forsaken players").

As for DMing, yes, I was pretty angry at the time, but what do you expect when people have no respect for the setting and deliberately abuse the lore just because they can?

StarBog wrote:

They really are the Faerunian equivalent of jihadists. It really is a jihad against the undead.

Careful with your real world allusions...

Jihad means "struggle", and can mean "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self". It can mean holy war, or it could mean giving money to the poor...

- This is why Metz didn't use a real world example

_metz_ wrote:

Did you read my post about fanatics?

Obviously, you didn't understand my response.

How does your garden variety priest of Kelemvor know someone has the Dhampyr template? They are alive, so they are not undead.

And, on the other part, metagame or not, wouldn't someone who accepts death therefore automatically fail a saving throw against death?

Which still ignores the fact that your hypothetical Kelemvorite fanatic would be murderously opposed to anyone who has been raised from the dead, whether they are undead or not, since they have broken Kelemvor's will and covenant.

You can't have one without the other, IMO.

Kelemvor is against undeath, not against people who don't wish to die prematurely...

And I was assuming cases where the Doomguide knows the other character is a dhampyr.

kinevon wrote:

How does your garden variety priest of Kelemvor know someone has the Dhampyr template? They are alive, so they are not undead.

They can with a cursory Knowledge Religion check. Seeing as you were advocating passive checks, that would be sufficient. Sucking someone's blood may give it away too. I am not saying they know straight away, but they can find out.

And, on the other part, metagame or not, wouldn't someone who accepts death therefore automatically fail a saving throw against death?

A death saving throw is a metagame mechanics concept to represent whether or not a wound is fatal. It is representing both a mental will to continue (as represented in any life form that wishes to live) as well as physical ability to withstand blows. You are breaking the 4th wall in your assumption that PCs are aware of it, I have no idea how you think that is relevant.

Which still ignores the fact that your hypothetical Kelemvorite fanatic would be murderously opposed to anyone who has been raised from the dead.

In the Lore, being raised from the dead is divine intervention that does not stop natural death, but rather deals with an UNTIMELY death. (Being stabbed through the head with a sword is not natural - despite what some folk might think) As such returning to life is not 'cheating' death or living past your time. You will still get old and eventually die as a humanoid should. As such Kelemvor is ok with it.

Undead circumvent dying *ever*, and as such it is completely different. They will not grow old, they will not die when it is their time, and they operate outside the bounds of nature. Damphyrs do die, but they are the product of aforementioned Undead, and represent, innocent or not, their ability to warp nature. Therefore, SOME Kelemvorites (particularly fanatical clergy) may not be very tolerant.

_metz_ wrote:

Therefore, SOME Kelemvorites (particularly fanatical clergy) may not be very tolerant.

This is the point of view I hold.

I think its a bit silly to toss a blanket statement on what the church will think in general.

If they (Kelemvorites) hear tales of an elf born naturally, but exhibiting traits of vampirism out terrorizing the countryside, feeding off the blood of the innocent and doing other "vampy" things - they're probably going to see the taint of the undead on that person and hunt them down. Not ALL of them - there would be those that see the equal part of life that exists, and might try to capture or even befriend the Dhampyr in question. Try to turn them back to their elfen side and help them fight to embrace their life, not their heritage.

Alternately, the same Dhapyre Elf is talked about as doing good deeds - defending cities, rescuing pregnant mothers from orcs, etc. Rumor is that in the heat of a battle this elf sometimes exhibits Vampire-like traits. You're still not going to get a blanket reaction. Kelemvorites that know about Dhampyres will possibly seek such a character out - some to study him, some to hunt him, some to help him focus on being alive.

Now - take that same Dhampyre and make him focus on slaying undead at every turn. Blaming them for the taint upon his own soul. Someone who fights tooth and nail to hang on to every shred of elfanity (instead of humanity) they can. I think you'd start to sway MORE Kelemvorites - and while there would always be voices against him in the church, it wouldn't be THAT hard to find a sympathetic order to ordain him - if only to keep a closer eye on him. There will always be someone, however, who tries to prove his "evil" at any time.

The point is - there are a bunch of fun things that CAN be done with this character, and with the exception of a Dhampyre running around trying to high-five every Kelemvorite they meet, while wearing a big shiny "I love blood" button, I think there's room to make it happen with a little imagination.

StarBog wrote:

OOC the Dhampyr template is yet another example of WOTC deciding to take away what is special about the Realms and turning it into yet another generic fantasy setting in an attempt to appeal to the MMO-market (for Dhampyr read "We've got to get something to appear to WoW Forsaken players").

As for DMing, yes, I was pretty angry at the time, but what do you expect when people have no respect for the setting and deliberately abuse the lore just because they can?

You're making a false assumption here. The article in question wasn't specifically about the realms. It was a general article. What makes it apply to the Realms is that in LFR we are using almost all available rules.

Now obviously, that is something you don't like. However, there certainly seems to be fewer people complaining about the open inclusion of stuff than they were about the heavy exclusion of stuff we saw in the 3e campaigns.

With the exception of the crying over the lack of preview class legality. It's the whole issue of give them almost everything and they'll complain about the few things they don't have.

StarBog wrote:

As for DMing, yes, I was pretty angry at the time, but what do you expect when people have no respect for the setting and deliberately abuse the lore just because they can?

What I expect is the same thing I expect from everyone I play D&D with (and there are a small number of people I refuse to play with because they can't do one of these two), two standards that I first heard at the Last Triad Party at Origins 2008:

1. Have fun playing D&D.
2. Don't be a jerk.

If someone flagrantly breaks one of these two, I suck it up the rest of the slot, and remember it *after* the four hours is over.

StarBog wrote:

That is the point. My Kelemvorite Cleric is such a fanatic. They really are the Faerunian equivalent of jihadists. It really is a jihad against the undead. The undead must either be destroyed or moved on, full stop. There is no room for any shades of gray. And that is what the canon Faerun lore demands.

And again, we come back to this. You've been asked repeatedly to point to this "canon Faerun lore" that states that the church of Kelemvor considers dhampyr to be just as bad as undead and therefore must be hated. Just because you decided to play your character that way, just because in your mind that is how it should be, doesn't make you right. Your opinion does not make it canon.

My Kelemvorite cleric will refuse to adventure with anyone shes knows has the Dhampyr template, for IC reasons. IC, ideally, she would attempt to kill the abomination, but since that is verboten without consent for OOC reasons, they will not receive any healing and she will find a way to leave the presence of the Dhampyr as soon as she can. If that means OOC getting up and walking away from the table, then so be it.

I sure hope it does mean you'll walk away, because you are the one with the problem. Here's the situation with LFR ... you are going to see a lot of things that don't fit with what your view of the Realms should be. LFR is 4th edition and by its own rules must include a myriad of sources. Once those sources have become valid and people start using them, they MUST exist in the realms. It's legal and possible to play a warforged, therefore warforged exist in the Realms. It is legal and possible to play a Dhampyr paladin of Kelemvor, therefore this character does exist in the Realms. You don't have to like it, but you do have to "play nice." I'd hope you'd leave the table instead of sabatoging your fellow players' attempts by attempting to punish a single player you don't agree with and refusing to work with them. This will screw over the whole team.

OOC the Dhampyr template is yet another example of WOTC deciding to take away what is special about the Realms and turning it into yet another generic fantasy setting in an attempt to appeal to the MMO-market (for Dhampyr read "We've got to get something to appear to WoW Forsaken players").

Again, just your opinion. Dhampyr have been around long before WoW, long before WoD, long before the emo or goth trend. Just because someone chooses to play one doesn't make them fall into any of those categories you'd like to put them in so you can feel justified in looking down on them from your lofty perch. Frankly, I'm annoyed that the surface world is now lousy with drow, but hey, that's part of LFR. I deal and I don't make waves just to showboat or feel superior.

As for DMing, yes, I was pretty angry at the time, but what do you expect when people have no respect for the setting and deliberately abuse the lore just because they can?

I expect you to be a polite person and realize that not everyone's view of gaming will fit your own exactly. I expect you to not assume someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the holy purity of the Realms because they made up a character they thought was cool. Some people don't own 25 years worth of gaming material and pour over it everytime they make a character to make sure it fits perfectly. They just use the 4E books they bought, which is all they should need.

Primarily, I expect that if someone comes to your table with a legal build, you will run the game as you're supposed to. Walk away if you must, but even that is rude and could possibly scratch a whole table from play if there's not another DM to pick up the slack.

JohnduBois wrote:

Point of clarification: If this DM is the only DM for a particular adventure, and he sits down and there are Dhampyr players, and he requests to leave the table, you would be ok with that? You would, as an organizer, want a DM working for you that is going to put you in that position?

Okay, I will clarify.

1) Obviously, I'd prefer a heads up. If this DM feels this way, con day or game day isn't the first day I should know about it. (Usually not a problem, I know my volunteers)

2) My con uses Warhorn.net for pre-muster, so in some situations it's not gonna be a surprise.

3) IF THERE IS NO FEASIBLE WAY TO GET HIM OUT OF THERE, then yes, I would expect him to honor his commitment and run the table. (He and I would have had this 'worst case scenario' talk when he volunteered). This is extremely unlikely, because I should be able to swap him out with one of the other DMs at the con, and if I can't do that, I can always let him be the paperwork monkey and DM the table myself. Mind you, I'm not going to be happy with the Dhampyr either (particularly if he's 'out of the coffin' as opposed to hiding it), but in this world where they're walking next to minotaurs, walking talking dragons, cadres of good-aligned drow elves and futuristic golems with souls, a Dhampyr's really not even a blip on the radar. (God, I write that sentence and wonder how I can even look myself in the mirror while supporting the play of this campaign. Rebellion anyone?)

ElJeffeX wrote:

And again, we come back to this. You've been asked repeatedly to point to this "canon Faerun lore" that states that the church of Kelemvor considers dhampyr to be just as bad as undead and therefore must be hated. Just because you decided to play your character that way, just because in your mind that is how it should be, doesn't make you right. Your opinion does not make it canon.

This has been explained to you time and time again, and not just by me. See the earlier posts on the subject by gomez, metz and others. If you choose to ignore those explanations, your problem. And to top it all, Dhampyr is NOT a Faerunian concept at all.

It is something that has been hacked on in order to appease the special snowflake players who want to play Angel or Forsaken.

As for DMing and suchlike, I'm lucky to live in the UK, where LFR players actually care for the lore.

Well, I actually never quoted any lore on Kelemvor and dhampyrs, or Kelemvor and undead, for that matter. I merely pointed out why those who fight undead would look badly on dhampyrs.
I am not sure on how fanatic the church is, mind. I am not very into Kelemvor. So I won't claim that all or even most of the priests would instantly reach for the weapons. But I do think you can expect that in general they look with disfavor on anything related to undead, including dhampyrs, and that a fanatic priest won't easily be swayed just by the dhampyr behaving nicely.
Then again, yes, I do think there are Doomguides that won't have such prejudice. I assume they are the minority, since serving a faith as a priest does require a measure of devotion that will not that easily give sway to reason.
It is up to DM or player to decide which kind of Doomguide there is, which should be prompted by what would be the most fun.
Personally, I like to have NPCs recognise that I AM playing something different - I expect people to react differently to Valencia (a human), Tesh (a half-drow), and Samantha (a thiefling) - partly on how they behave, and partly for what they are.

as a note: I am considering taking Dhampur for Samantha, not as a 'vampiric' trait, but as a 'succubus' trait. I am unsure yet, since the feat power (grab someone, then bite) is fairly worthless to a bard who works ranged.

gomeztoo wrote:

Well, I actually never quoted any lore on Kelemvor and dhampyrs, or Kelemvor and undead, for that matter. I merely pointed out why those who fight undead would look badly on dhampyrs.

- What he said. I am actually somewhere in the middle, I see them as exceptions, rather than the norm is all.

And I would never walk away from a table with one, as a DM or Player, and would not prejudice them for it.

StarBog wrote:

This has been explained to you time and time again, and not just by me. See the earlier posts on the subject by gomez, metz and others.

Hrm ... let's see ... Gomez says:

Well, I actually never quoted any lore on Kelemvor and dhampyrs

and _metz_ follows with:

What he said

And as for you, you've only stated canon on the church of Kelemvor's stance on the undead, which is not in question. You have never once provided a shred of proof that canon shows the church specifically hates Dhampyr. All you can provide is flawed logic that they must and your only proof is your own opinion based upon your choice to play a fanatic.

If you choose to ignore those explanations, your problem.

I didn't ignore them, they just don't apply.

And to top it all, Dhampyr is NOT a Faerunian concept at all.

So the Realms can steal wholeheartedly from every lore that has existed on the face of the earth, except for one you don't happen to like? Seriously, Kara-tur, Maztica, Mulhorand, the Hordelands, Al-Qadim? We have conquistadors, ninja, genies, egyptian gods, bedouin, and Atilla the Hun wandering around the realms and you balk at Balkan folklore? The Realms has always been a smorgasbord of everything, so having a specific problem usually points to issues in some other area ... such as ...

It is something that has been hacked on in order to appease the special snowflake players who want to play Angel or Forsaken.

I see. You believe "your" Realms is being overrun with players who have watched TV or played MMOs. Oh my god, they want to be a special snowflake! (How many times have you used that phrase?) Everyone wants to have something different about their characters. Some might choose to play their priest of Kelemvor as an especially fanatic jihadist. I think that is just someone trying to get their time in the spotlight and is no different from someone wanting to be an angsty paladin of Kelemvor with a dark past.

The fact that you constantly reference other sources as something lesser and things that should not be drawn upon for inspiration is ridiculous. Is every character you make a completely original idea that has never once been touched on by another source? If so, you are the one player amongst millions with such a unique gift. Roleplaying has been rife with "borrowed" ideas since its inception. DnD was nothing more than someone's tactical warfare game with Tolkein trappings. If you have a special hatred for a particular source, that's your problem and you shouldn't bring your baggage to the gaming table where it will create issues.

As for DMing and suchlike, I'm lucky to live in the UK, where LFR players actually care for the lore.

Wow, I didn't realize that you spoke for every player in the UK and that they all have the exact same viewpoint as you. Lucky for me, I live across the pond. We have this thing where we embrace the new and aren't trapped in the past. (My apologies to others in the UK, I'm just trying to make a statement as outlandish as his. Frankly, I think for the last eight years we've been trapped in the past, but that's politics and I don't want to get into that.)

Every few years, Dungeons and Dragons releases a new edition. I've been there for all of them. My older brother bought the original boxed set at a comic shop across the street from the high school. One of my first jobs was in a game distribution warehouse, where I picked up the 2nd Edition FR Campaign book. I've enjoyed the changes that have come with each edition, even when I didn't like some of it. (Funnily enough, despite playing my main LFR character as a paladin of Kelemvor, who is not a dhampyr by the way, I've never liked the deity. I have no problem with his role or how he's portrayed as a god, I just didn't like the character in the Avatar trilogy.) When 3rd edition came out, I found myself wondering, "Do we need another edition?" Yet, once I played it, I has as much fun as always.

The thing is, the Realms have to change, or else they will stagnate and become boring. Each incarnation has changes and there have always been naysayers. But each incarnation has also brought in new ideas, new classes, new races and the like. The Dhampyr is no exception. The "warforged", call them what you will in the Realms, are now a core race thanks to Dragon and they are no exception. Swordmages are no exception. Once there was Spellfire and now there is the Spell Plauge and the plaguetouched. This is no exception. The new will be added with this edition, you need to be ready to adapt.

Instead of rejecting a concept and walking away from a table, causing bad feelings and screwing up everyone's attempt at fun .. why don't you just try rolling with it. Guess what .. Dhampyr may have never been a part of FR lore in the past. They are now. Deal with it ... or maybe LFR just isn't where you should be.

I'm from the UK and I don't mind anyone playing a Damphyr Paladin of Kelemvor...

Yes... it does smack of Angel and other such pulp TV shows... so what?

I liked those TV shows!

The Realms seems to be populated by singular individuals with contradictory natures... this type of thing is completely in keeping with the character of the Realms... even more in keeping is the statwart refusal of the "powers that be" (as characterised by the "fundamentalist Cleric of Kelemvor") to accept such characters.

In fact, I propse that refusing to play out the dialogue between such characters would be the thing that is against the "lore of the Realms"...

On one side you have a Cleric of unquestioned faith, faced with what is to him an abomination. How does he come to terms with the fact that his own god has sanctioned this individual? Can he overcome his hatred?

On the other side you have a faithful Paladin fighting against the evils of the undead while simultaniously struggling against his own dark urges and his supernatural links to the creatures he despises most... can he harness this inner demon and turn it into a weapon... or will he succumb to its temptations? Perhaps with the aid of a deity who opposes to his very nature he can...

These are things that are fun to play out at the table... establised lore be damned... players create the lore for themselves each and every time they play the game...

Rock on you crazy diamonds!

ElJeffeX,
They are *not* part of FR lore. The Dragon Article in question was not part of FR canon. If we go by your logic, then Vecna becomes part of FR canon. Vecna is NOT FR Canon, no matter what WoTC or Dragon magazone says.

The problem is that with 4e, the Realms has had what made it special taken away from it, and now the $hattered Realms is nothing more than a generic fantasy setting, thanks to the Realms-haters who couldn't cope with it being what it was; case in point - the writer's guidelines state that the LFR scenarios are merely 4e adventures with a thin veneer of Realms labels stuck over the top.

StarBog wrote:

ElJeffeX,
They are *not* part of FR lore. The Dragon Article in question was not part of FR canon. If we go by your logic, then Vecna becomes part of FR canon. Vecna is NOT FR Canon, no matter what WoTC or Dragon magazone says.

The problem is that with 4e, the Realms has had what made it special taken away from it, and now the $hattered Realms is nothing more than a generic fantasy setting, thanks to the Realms-haters who couldn't cope with it being what it was; case in point - the writer's guidelines state that the LFR scenarios are merely 4e adventures with a thin veneer of Realms labels stuck over the top.

This is the LFR forum you are trying to argue in. LFR rules state that certain things published in Dragon are legal. Dhampyr are one of those. Hence, in LFR they must now become part of the lore. You just refuse to accept it because you have a personal grudge. Vecna is excluded by the rules and therefore doesn't apply.

Do they specifically have to create a Forgotten Realms write-up of how the Dhampyr interact with the pre-existing 20 years of lore for you to be happy? Well, they're not going to. If you want to dwell in the past, then run a home game set in the old Realms with your fellow grognard friends and stop complaining in the LFR forum ... or do something useful and add to the conversation.

FR has long been a "steal whatever you feel like and throw it in the melting pot" world setting. There's just something new that you don't happen to like, so you've closed your eyes, plugged your ears and started yelling "la la la" hoping that you'll get your way and everyone will agree with you.

Dragon magazine has long been a part of Dungeons and Dragons. Things are included in there for everyone to use how they wish. Since nothing in the write-up states "there are no Dhampyr in the Forgotten Realms", then anyone is welcome to use them as they see fit, barring restrictions from their home game DMs. Do you only consider something valid and part of Realms canon if it was published as part of a Realms-specific article? Only in a FR sourcebook? Only from the lips of yon sage Ed Greenwood himself? You don't get to decide what is FR canon. You might have a list of what you think it should be and you are perfectly in your rights to use that in your home games. If you have a problem with all these new ideas, then you really shouldn't be DMing in the RPGA and specifically for LFR.

I'm curious, if you really want to continue this "head in the sand" argument ... why don't you list exactly what sources you do consider to be canon, so the rest of us can figure out where you're coming from?

"Balk at Balkan folklore". Heh. And don't forget the Yakuza. They're in the Realms, too.

As for adding Dhampyr in, so what? How many countless races are in the Realms, and how many of them have been added in over the years? An accurate count would be nice, but at a guess, I'd imagine that well over two-dozen races have been added to the Realms since its inception. And we're supposed to balk at the inclusion of the Dhampyr? A race which A) Doesn't have a large impact on the Realms, unlike other new additions like Genasi, and B) Which is tied into an already existing creature in the Realms and as such has a ready-made explanation as to why they exist in the Realms?

StarBog wrote:

ElJeffeX,
They are *not* part of FR lore. The Dragon Article in question was not part of FR canon. If we go by your logic, then Vecna becomes part of FR canon. Vecna is NOT FR Canon, no matter what WoTC or Dragon magazone says.

Seeing as how WotC owns Forgotten Realms, I'd think they have a little more say what is or isn't in the lore than you do.

Regardless, this thread has long since drifted from it's original purpose, and is degrading into "uh-huh!" versus "nuh-uh!"

As such I'm shutting it down. If you (the general "you" not anyone in particular) have a really convincing reason why I should let it live, feel free to make your argument in the RPGA VCL Request thread.

yay!