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.
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.
[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.
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.
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*.
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.
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.
