Well, Dhampirs are not undead, they are the unfortunate offspring of a vampire and a mortal, so there might not be any reason for a Pharasman priest to smite him, unless he starts raising skeletons and zombies from the local gaveyard.
I have another question as one of my players wants to play a Dhampir Oracle. Fire Mystery and follower of Sarenrae. It's really not an issue on the character itself, rather that the Cleric will be playing a follower of Pharasma and we will also have a paladin.
Trying to figure out why the Paladin and Cleric wouldn't want to kill the Abomination. From what I know of Pharasma she despises undead with a passion...
I've tried to convince him to play an Oracle of Heavens that way we can work in Pharasma that way, but he really wants to stick with Fire.
Dampir's are not undead. If you need a reason not to kill him perhaps it's because he's an unfortunate victim of cirsumstance. The Cleric might just pitty him and want to help him lift his curse, but be unsure how to help.
|
I would think if anything the Paladin and Cleric should feel sorry for the dhampir, even pity him. He's torn halfway from life, tainted with undeath, and then to add insult to injury, the gods won't even directly bless him with their power the way they have the two of them. He has to get it in a roundabout, uncontrolled manner, ie being an Oracle.
The Cleric shouldn't want to kill the dhampir, he should want to Reincarnate him.
|
Even wanting to reincarnate him is imposing on the player's concept, pretty much wrecking it if it's forced.
If the cleric and paladin are coming into this hostile to the dhampir, the problem lies with them, not with the dhampir.
As said above, dhampir are not undead. They are no more inherently evil than tieflings. This particular dhampir is dedicated to Sarenrae and has divine connections related to her. He shouldn't have to bend any further backwards in order to not be murdered by his supposedly good fellow party members.
The concept can be mined for enjoyable drama, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to make the player miserable.
We have a dhampir paladin in our group, and while relationships between the characters might be strained, we're certainly not going to be threatening to kill his character or misttreat him out of hand.
|
Any paladin who would want to kill someone just for being a member of a specific race--albeit a creepy one--probably won't stay a paladin for long. Wanting to kill someone because they're a dhampir is pretty much like wanting to kill someone because they have porphyria: they have a genetic condition that makes them immune to some common things and more vulnerable to others, and can cause some unusual physical symptoms that make other people nervous. To be fair, historically people have killed each other over dumber things, but a paladin of Sarenrae (remember that forgiveness and mercy are part of her portfolio!) and a cleric of Pharasma (theoretically an expert in the undead should know that a dhampir isn't one) should know better.
|
|
Any paladin who would want to kill someone just for being a member of a specific race--albeit a creepy one--probably won't stay a paladin for long. Wanting to kill someone because they're a dhampir is pretty much like wanting to kill someone because they have porphyria: they have a genetic condition that makes them immune to some common things and more vulnerable to others, and can cause some unusual physical symptoms that make other people nervous. To be fair, historically people have killed each other over dumber things, but a paladin of Sarenrae (remember that forgiveness and mercy are part of her portfolio!) and a cleric of Pharasma (theoretically an expert in the undead should know that a dhampir isn't one) should know better.
Indeed. Keep in mind that Paladins have a requirement to be Lawful Good. How is killing a good-aligned living creature that isn't in any way threatening him in any way lawful or good?
The problem here isn't with the dhampir, it's with a few players that don't know how to play a character that isn't racist, bigoted, and genocidal.
|
The players guide does warn people that if you go with Damphir expect general loathing and prejudiced from the general populace of Ustlav. If the paladin or cleric are locals, then they can rightly so be expected to be down on the damphir.
Essentially playing a Damphir should be challenging, and rewarding. But if your players makes a duel scimitar wielding purple eyed damphir I think your all but obliged to use DM fiat to give him a cruel and terrible death.
The players guide does warn people that if you go with Damphir expect general loathing and prejudiced from the general populace of Ustlav. If the paladin or cleric are locals, then they can rightly so be expected to be down on the damphir.
Essentially playing a Damphir should be challenging, and rewarding. But if your players makes a duel scimitar wielding purple eyed damphir I think your all but obliged to use DM fiat to give him a cruel and terrible death.
"Down on" encourages role-play. The OP was talking about KOS. NPCs are free to have prejudice like that, just like they're far more free to be evil than PCs in most campaigns. A paladin, especially should be careful about killing people who might be good arbitrarily. A Dhampir (probably even an NPC one) should be able to expect at least that much leeway. Basically, if your character is going to seriously consider killing another PC when he meets him, you need to reconsider your character.
That said, I would be hard-pressed not to kill a purple-eyed dual-scimitar wielding anything named Drizam or anything like that.
Yah one of the Things the Cleric has said is he will release the poor soul from his damnation (aka kill him) lol.
Instant loss of divine abilities right there. Who is he to judge this person and kill him when Pharasma has decreed that he may live?
KOS
Could you please take the time to write the whole word(s)?
I didn't know KOS, so I looked it up on urban dictionary. Kill on sight was the second definition.
The first made you look like a pervert! ;-P
KOSCould you please take the time to write the whole word(s)?
I didn't know KOS, so I looked it up on urban dictionary. Kill on sight was the second definition.
The first made you look like a pervert! ;-P
Now I'm curious but afraid to look...
What I would do is advise that player to instead of seeking an oppurtunity to kill, he will be trying to talk with this 'poor soul' and trying to 'subtly' persuade him to choose the option of willingly letting his life be taken, or seek some other possible redemption.
Ethnic cleansing is evil even when it's subtle. "Your life is not dignified. I think you should end it." Is evil.
Except when you say it to dwarves, of course.
Now I'm curious but afraid to look...KOSCould you please take the time to write the whole word(s)?
I didn't know KOS, so I looked it up on urban dictionary. Kill on sight was the second definition.
The first made you look like a pervert! ;-P
Just a dirty word for something natural. So you don't have to be afraid of reading about some activity you'd never have thought human beings could voluntarily do to each other or themselves, or lose your sanity.
So totally unlike "prune handling"
The main focus to my arguments and suggestions is ROLEPLAYING in a 'realistic' and dark manner, and considering this Adveture path is set in Ustalav land of horror and dark things, don't ya think this is a good way to go about it?
Yes I know, it's evil, never once have I said it would be a good(alignment) action to go through with, heck I am not encouraging them in any way to kill the player.
Paladins are LG. All of them. And not just any old LG. They're held to the highest standards. That means not being a prejudiced racist.
Being wary, maybe. Until you are convinced the dhampir is not an agent of evil, you keep your eyes on him. But wanting to kill him because he might be evil? Not paladin-like.
I am presenting ways in which they can continue to roleplay their characters as being wary around this companion of their's, unsure of what to do with the situation without outright being totally and actively hostile on the player's character.
Yes, wary. I'm all for that. Be wary. "I want to kill him I'm just looking for an excuse" is not wary.
lol
That's not known to all, either. Some think it means "lots of love". Hence comments like "I read your mother died LOL!"
|
I don't know if the worshiper of Pharasma has actually read any of the information about their deity cause she doesn't believe in killing living things, which is what a Dhampir is.
She is the deity of birth, fate, and knowledge as well as death. It is stated that when a child dies at birth she feels great sorrow for the loss of a creatures potential to be something in life. A Dhampir is no different, she would see that the creature is something that has potential to become something greater than its undead progenitor.
I know in Carrion Crown I plan to play a Dhampir Inquisitor of Pharasma. I have read into great detail about her beliefs and no where does it say she kills creatures that can't choose who their parents are.
As for the Paladin, I agree that a LG character should in no way be allowed to go any farther than prejudice without straying from their beliefs and no longer being a paladin.
|
|
Why do you people feel they aren't roleplaying correctly? I feel they actually are trying to roleplay things 'realistically'. Natives of Ustalav are bound to be prejudice against dhampirs and the guide advises players to be natives.
Two things: "prejudiced against" doesn't mean "looking for an excuse to murder," and player characters are assumed to be a bit more worldly than the average insular torch-and-pitchfork villager. And honestly, realism counts for less than party integrity in my book, even laying aside concerns about alignment issues.
And honestly, realism counts for less than party integrity in my book, even laying aside concerns about alignment issues.
In my book, there isn't that much that counts for more than party integrity. Or, rather, group integrity, i.e. that all the players on the table feel comfortable.
If you want to play something that would infuriate someone else, and the infuriated has even a half-decent reason for this, you're not playing it.
In our case, that would nix the cleric and paladin, not the dhampir.
And honestly, realism counts for less than party integrity in my book, even laying aside concerns about alignment issues.In my book, there isn't that much that counts for more than party integrity. Or, rather, group integrity, i.e. that all the players on the table feel comfortable.
If you want to play something that would infuriate someone else, and the infuriated has even a half-decent reason for this, you're not playing it.
In our case, that would nix the cleric and paladin, not the dhampir.
QFT
Sorry, I couldn't help myself on that one. Your points on acronyms, etc. are spot on. This point about group dynamics is better, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this all revolves around the Dhampir I have another question. Would Pharasma the Deity accept a Dampir Inquisitor? I know he is alive. But being the product of Undead would she accept him?
I've been looking at a lot of Wiki's with info on Pharasma.
First up, here's my rule number 1 when it comes to letting players put together the characters: Look for ways to let them play what they want, not ways to discourage it. If you want a dhampir inquisitor of Pharasma in your game, sounds great! And I promise no one here is going to run to your place and tell you guys no or that you're having bad-wrong-fun.
That said! A dhampir worshiper of Pharasma would be great! Firstly, Pharasma is the goddess of life, death, and fate. Not only does she have some measure of influence over what lives and dies from the get-go, she's the mistress of fate and knows weird and inscrutable things. Regardless of the feelings of a subset of her worshipers, it's totally possible she has some fate in mind for a particular servant, regardless of the circumstances of its birth.
Speaking of those circumstances, dhampirs are not dead, so they don't piss off Pharasma. Sure, the situations surrounding their birth are likely to be unfortunate, but it's nothing the dhampir had any control over. If they were undead, that might be an issue, but they have a soul and their not bucking the flow of life, so it's all good. Thus, as with all characters, regardless of their parentage its up to dhampirs to set their path in the world. Her faith shares this outlook.
Finally, who's to say someone's a dhampir? I mean, dhampirs look like humans, so unless it's common knowledge already, no ones going to know for sure about the character's susceptibilities until it's time to heal - and hopefully by that point the character has proven himself/herself enough of a boon to the party that they're not going to care that he's healed by negative energy. Also remember, despite the connotations of their names, negative energy is not evil and positive energy is not good. By the same extension, life is not good and death is not evil. It's all about what people do with those things - which is kind of central to what Pharasma is all about.
Overall, I think such would be fascinating themes to hold at the root of a dhampir character - which sounds to me like a fantastically fun character to play! Can't wait to hear how it all turns out!
And honestly, realism counts for less than party integrity in my book, even laying aside concerns about alignment issues.In my book, there isn't that much that counts for more than party integrity. Or, rather, group integrity, i.e. that all the players on the table feel comfortable.
If you want to play something that would infuriate someone else, and the infuriated has even a half-decent reason for this, you're not playing it.
In our case, that would nix the cleric and paladin, not the dhampir.
QFT
** spoiler omitted **
Sorry, I couldn't help myself on that one. Your points on acronyms, etc. are spot on. This point about group dynamics is better, though.
I thought it would mean Quoted For Truth. Of course, it can always be "Quit Frikking Trolling" (you can substitute other words starting with F; but the boards would censure the intended one...) ;-)
|
|
Since this all revolves around the Dhampir I have another question. Would Pharasma the Deity accept a Dampir Inquisitor? I know he is alive. But being the product of Undead would she accept him?
I've been looking at a lot of Wiki's with info on Pharasma.
First up, here's my rule number 1 when it comes to letting players put together the characters: Look for ways to let them play what they want, not ways to discourage it. If you want a dhampir inquisitor of Pharasma in your game, sounds great! And I promise no one here is going to run to your place and tell you guys no or that you're having bad-wrong-fun.
That said! A dhampir worshiper of Pharasma would be great! Firstly, Pharasma is the goddess of life, death, and fate. Not only does she have some measure of influence over what lives and dies from the get-go, she's the mistress of fate and knows weird and inscrutable things. Regardless of the feelings of a subset of her worshipers, it's totally possible she has some fate in mind for a particular servant, regardless of the circumstances of its birth.
Speaking of those circumstances, dhampirs are not dead, so they don't piss off Pharasma. Sure, the situations surrounding their birth are likely to be unfortunate, but it's nothing the dhampir had any control over. If they were undead, that might be an issue, but they have a soul and their not bucking the flow of life, so it's all good. Thus, as with all characters, regardless of their parentage its up to dhampirs to set their path in the world. Her faith shares this outlook.
Finally, who's to say someone's a dhampir? I mean, dhampirs look like humans, so unless it's common knowledge already, no ones going to know for sure about the character's susceptibilities until it's time to heal - and hopefully by that point the character has proven himself/herself enough of a boon to the party that they're not going to care that he's healed by negative energy. Also remember, despite the connotations of their names, negative energy is...
+1
This is exactly what I was saying. To be honest I love Pharasma, she is one of my favorite deities.
First up, here's my rule number 1 when it comes to letting players put together the characters they want: Look for ways to let them play what they want, not ways to discourage it.
Good advice. Not always easy to follow, but good.
Regardless of the feelings of her worshipers, it's totally possible she has some fate in mind for a particular servant, regardless of the circumstances of its birth.
In other words: Make sure the character won't overuse the word "precious" or talk to himself, and you're golden! ;-)
Seriously, though: I think that dhampirs would actually make for a great "Chosen of Pharasma" race. She's the goddess of Fate, and everyone who survives a pre-natal undead incursion and is born as a living (albeit not completely conventional) being instead of an undead seems to be really popular with Pharasma!
"Despite Urgathoa's best efforts, Fate prevailed and I am the LIVING proof!"
If you don't want to make him an inquisitor, consider some sort of preacher. As in proselytiser. A cleric, oracle or bard who carries her word to the world! Demonstrate to the masses the power of faith with every living breath!
The best poster child for anything since Cayden Cailean and his "Alcohol - Helping people to become GODS since AR 2765" stunt.