Community

StarBog wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kinevon wrote:

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

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

However as long as there are yet enough evil undead to fight it's seen as ill adviced to launch a crusade against an elven city for harboring baelnorns, but if there's ever the time when all evil undead have been dealt with, the good undead would be right at the new top of the list (or if there's ever the opportunity to dispatch a good undead without the other good guys noticing you, do it quickly)

StarBog wrote:

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

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

StarBog wrote:

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

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

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

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

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



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

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