AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

How does that work? Does he grant them their powers or are they finding other means of becoming Blackguards by contacting fiends?

I'm assuming that if Kelemvor grant powers to Paladins, that he would also grant them for Blackguards, but I could be wrong here. I'm not entirely certain.

I would highly doubt that Kelemvor would give anyone the ability to create undead (yes, I know clerics can cast it by default, but you have to make the conscious choice to do it, at which point you probably should be Fallen). The fiend part? Maybe, I dunno. Always thought it was weird he could have Evil followers, but I guess it still makes sense.

Anyways, other more knowledgeable people will undoubtedly chime in!

How could Kelemvor grant them their powers? He is not an evil outsider.

We have had Blackguards of kelemvor in the past. DM's seemd fine with it.

Last edited by Naivatkal on Thu, Aug 16 2012, 22:49 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yossarin wrote:

How could Kelemvor grant them their powers? He is not an evil outsider.

That's what I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if a deity can grant blackguard powers or not. I know it's always mentioned to be devils or demons and such, but no clue on deities.

Derp, I just noticed the 'evil' part. Also, Iron's post was helpful as well!

The Blackguard prerequisite demands friendly contact with an evil outsider. Whether this outsider striking the contract is actually an independent party or just an agent to a higher lord varies between cases. It seems quite possible that a neutral god would have evil outsiders serving him, and those servants could strike Blackguard deals with mortals in the god's name. I imagine that's how it works for most fiends: few blackguards actually meet with Orcus or Meph to bargain for their power, those vile lords have lesser fiends making the contracts on their behalf. It is much like a feudal system, no doubt. That is exactly how it worked for a certain Amian blackguard, who struck a deal with a fiend serving Bane. The fiend was one of Bane's lieutenants, and the blackguard had to agree that his soul would fight in Bane's armies under the command of this specific fiend for all eternity (among other things). The deal was struck with a lesser fiend, but the ultimate feudal allegiance was owed to Bane.

However, this requires that the god in question actually has evil outsiders as servants, and that he approves of the Blackguard class. This might apply to Hoar or Kossuth, for example. Demihuman Deities listed the kind of servants each god had, but it obviously only covered the demihuman deities. Faiths & Avatars didn't have this feature, so I can't be sure what kind of servants Kelemvor has.

I think I personally came to the conclusion years ago that the class is unfitting for Kelemvorites, as it doesn't grant the kind of powers that the clergy would need in their service to Kelemvor. Pretty much half of the Blackguard class revolves around undead or smiting goodly creatures. Neither of those would be of any relevance to a Kelemvorite, and they probably have better alternatives to fiends (such as the Minor Death outsiders). Why wouldn't they rather become evil Divine Champions or something? I'm also unconvinced Kelemvor's divine court has the kind of evil outsiders required to make the deal. I probably had a better case back then, but I've forgotten some of the argumentation.

Edit: to clarify to Naivatkal. Deities can grant blackguard powers directly. This is very simple when they themselves are the "evil outsiders" mentioned in the BG prereq. The right hand of Fzoul is a Blackguard of Bane. (What's her name, Scylla Blackhope or something?) What is of some contention is whether neutral deities grant BG powers directly, insofar as the deal is made by one of their legitimate evil servants. Alternately, the powers are granted by the lesser evil outsider who serves the neutral god, and thus the allegiance is ultimately to the god. This seems a trivial distinction from the mortal's perspective though, as he's nonetheless bound by the same divine expectations and morals. The last option is serving a god and then turning to an independent evil outsider for more power, but that might cause conflicts of loyalty and most gods would probably disapprove. Some might be fine with it, depending on the nature of the BG contract.

So then here's a better question. Do Blackguards have to serve a god, or could they just owe some powerful fiend their souls when their time is up?

No, Blackguards do not have to serve a god.

Blackguards get their powers from an Evil Outsider.

This can be a god - But only an Evil god.

If someone who worships an non evil god wants to become a blackguard, they have to go elsewhere. A Devil, for example.

And yes, that will mean things get tricky in the afterlife.

But when you say "Devil" do you mean the arch devils? Because that's isn't what I'm talking about. Could someone get their powers from a very old, very powerful Pit Fiend or Balor or some related power? I mean with his power actually coming from the fiend itself and not the god it serves.

Yes. I imagine the majority of Blackguard deals are with lesser outsiders, as I said. An old pit fiend is precisely the kind of fiend your average Blackguard might deal with, since approaching one of the Lords or Princes directly is pretty bold.

-Cloak-and-Dagger- wrote:

Blackguards get their powers from an Evil Outsider.

This can be a god - But only an Evil god.

If someone who worships an non evil god wants to become a blackguard, they have to go elsewhere. A Devil, for example.

I'm not sure where it says that, actually. It just says this: "The character must have made peaceful contact with an evil outsider who was summoned by him or someone else." You could even argue there is no pact involved, simply a contact that somehow taints the individual. The established interpretation of a fiendish pact is reasonable and clearly what was intended, but we must no read too much into this vague statement.

As I argue above, it seems perfectly plausible that the ultimate source of power is neutral, as long as contact was made with an evil intermediary. This only applies to neutral gods who have evil outsider servants, though. Efreeti making Blackguard deals on behalf of Kossuth seems very believable, for example. And even if the power comes from a lesser outsider and not the god itself (an inconsequential distinction to the mortals on the receiving end), that outsider may still serve the god and there is no allegiance/afterlife conflict.

The more I think about it, the more Kossuth seems like the best example. He is neutral, but he has plenty of evil servants and the genies of fire serving him are always Lawful Evil. But again: I don't think this applies to Kelemvor, because I don't think he'd have the kind of evil outsiders capable or interested in blackguard pacts, and I doubt he would approve.

According to the 3rd Ed Forgotten Realms Campaign setting (pages 258-259), Kelemvor does have a contract with the devils about what they do in the Fugue Plane.

There are some small enclaves of devils in the Fugue Plane, they're not allowed to harm or trick the souls, but they can bargain with souls for the purpose of claiming them and turning them into devils. it might sound good to evil souls who pissed their deity off by failing or whatever so they can avoid eternal torment, plus they'll might still get something out of the deal like an early promotion from lemure or getting a devil kill team to take out their still-living enemies.

Kelemvor is also bit of a dick when you read how he treats the False, so I can see him having evil followers at least. For clarification the False are people who have intentionally betrayed their faith to which they had made a personal commitment too, for this they are punished by Kelemvor according to the level of their crimes. Some of the False get off light, while some get it really bad which is where the devils can come in 'helping' Kelemvor enact his sentence of eternal torment.
(Mind you I don't think the 'crimes' are measured by good/evil, but rather the extent of their betrayal to their faith.)

Finally the devils help defend the Wall of the Faithless against demons who make the occasional raid in an attempt to steal souls.

So there's plenty of precedent of devils working for/with Kelemvor at least. How a blackguard will serve Kelemvor is another question, I'm not familiar with the entirety of Kelemvor's dogma and how the devilish dickishness would play into it.

Those devils have a deal with Kelemvor. They're his business partners, so to speak. They don't actually serve him any more than the guy who picks up your trash serves you. It's his job and he gets paid by someone else. The devils have a speicifc job of offering deals to condemned souls, they wouldn't cooperate with Kelemvor if they wanted to lure living people into trouble.

Blackguard of Kelemvor?

No.

Kelemvor is not a goodie of course but he has no need to strike faustian bargins with motals.

Blackguards are evil incarnate and I wish folks would stop claiming ludicrous rp positions on the basis that nwn/amia doesnt prevent it in character generation and so it "must" sanctioned...

Well wasn't that a sophisticated academic analysis. Thank you for your contribution to our democratic decision on truth and falsehood.

There is this Jergal god..

I'm fairly confident that to have Blackguards, you would have to allow your followers to channel negative energy. Much like St. Cuthbert in Greyhawk, the Lawful Neutral gods like Kelemvor who are staunch opponents of undeath would likely never allow their followers to channel it or be in a position where they could.

Plenty of spells use negative energy, and gods don't "disallow" it any more than some other type. Perhaps if you were the elemental deity of positive energy you might prohibit it.

I think the reasons why there probably aren't any have been pretty exhaustively covered. It's superfluous to come up with speculative theories on why it might not fly, when it's pretty obvious that it simply wouldn't be efficent to sponsor a class that isn't allowed to use half its abilities. Obscure references to negative energy aside, he won't tolerate undead in the first place so it's not prudent and cost-efficent of him to grant abilities to animate them and then prohibit their use.

IronAngel wrote:

Plenty of spells use negative energy, and gods don't "disallow" it any more than some other type. Perhaps if you were the elemental deity of positive energy you might prohibit it.

What's not what I mean; I'm talking about channeling negative energy as a class feature (IE: Rebuking Undead rather than Turning). Even St. Cuthbert is fine with using Inflict and Harm spells to cause destruction and retribution.

IronAngel wrote:

... it's not prudent and cost-efficent of him to grant abilities to animate them and then prohibit their use.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall stance, Iron, but doesn't Kelemvor technically already grant every cleric in his service the ability to cast Animate Dead, and then bar them from using it?

Lizzie wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

... it's not prudent and cost-efficent of him to grant abilities to animate them and then prohibit their use.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall stance, Iron, but doesn't Kelemvor technically already grant every cleric in his service the ability to cast Animate Dead, and then bar them from using it?

Technically (IE: according to the fact that NWN allows you to cast it), yes, but also technically (IE: according to the fact that the deity would never actually grant the spell to his clerics in tabletop) no.

Lizzie: I don't know. It's a valid point, but still not very convincing. I mean, the cleric spells are there in the Weave whether there's a god or a cleric to work with them. But class powers are something specific you make an effort to learn.

Not sure rebuking undead has nothing to do with negative energy. If it does, that's pretty silly. The undead are subject to the power of the gods, and that's why a holy symbol can command them. That's the commonsensical explanation, anyway. But either way, negative energy as such is just energy. I don't see it as the decisive factor at all.

IronAngel wrote:

Not sure rebuking undead has nothing to do with negative energy. If it does, that's pretty silly. The undead are subject to the power of the gods, and that's why a holy symbol can command them. That's the commonsensical explanation, anyway. But either way, negative energy as such is just energy. I don't see it as the decisive factor at all.

What I mean is that the class ability "Turn/Rebuke Undead" is tied into whether your cleric channels positive energy or negative energy. The word 'channels' is the key word here, and by that I mean it's different than the word 'utilizes.' As a good cleric, or a cleric of a god that prefers positive energy (like Kelemvor), you can only 'channel' positive energy. That doesn't mean you can't utilize negative energy for spells like Inflict X Wounds or Harm, it just means you utilize it over negative energy when dropping spells for spontaneous Curing and you Turn/Destroy undead rather than the alternative.

Since Blackguards Create and Rebuke undead, and since channeling positive energy is the antithesis to that, it stands to reason that Kelemvor would not empower Blackguards.

(Edited for word choice.)

IronAngel wrote:

Well wasn't that a sophisticated academic analysis. Thank you for your contribution to our democratic decision on truth and falsehood.

Don't need fancy words and verbose explinations to state the bloody obvious. Furthermore is there a poll or vote I missed somewhere in this thread? As I am not sure where your democratic reference is going.

I guess you play a lot of elf or paladin characters so you can use your own academic analysis to better inform your method sanctimonious role play.
:roll:

There is no such thing as the obvious in this forum. (Assuming something to be obvious is a mistake in almost any context.) Explicit argumentation and references to canon material or DM posts determine how informative your post is. I may be mean and harsh, but my point was that this isn't a public vote, and dropping by to shout "yay" or "nay" without commenting on the previous discussion or pointing us to new information is actually rather insulting to those who've posted here. Only the DMs' posting "Yes" or "No" is somewhat valid, but even they shouldn't have to resort to that and probably will be badgered for an explanation. I'd rather we maintain a level of quality to the discussion.

Council: Reasonable enough. I don't remember the Cleric, Blackguard or deity entries in any books stating anything so specific about "channeling" energies, so I'm not sure how much of that is your own interpretation. It's plausible, but you don't need to make such a complex assumption to account for the fact that Kelemvor, simply, doesn't have much use for Blackguards (and possibly doesn't have the evil outsiders to make contact on his behalf). That's why I'm personally wary of establishing heavier explanations, because they might have unforeseeable implications to other questions.

Also remember that neutral clerics of neutral deities get to choose whether they Turn or Rebuke (and consequently, spontaneously Cure or Inflict). It might be that Kelemvor lorewise only sanctions Turning, but that's another assumption and the explanation gets more and more tangled.

It's really not that complicated.

What it comes down to is Kelemvor not allowing his paladins and clerics to use Rebuke Undead, and Rebuke Undead being a Blackguard class ability. That's it.

If you want another simple reason, then the fact that Blackguards cannot perform any good act, and since burying, sanctifying and guarding the dead is a good act, then Blackguards would lose their powers just trying to follow his example.

I like wordier explanations when I ask questions like this, which is why I divulged.

IronAngel wrote:

... the fact that Kelemvor, simply, doesn't have much use for Blackguards (and possibly doesn't have the evil outsiders to make contact on his behalf)...

I can kind of see how he might have a use for Blackguards, actually. There are some few good-aligned faiths who tolerate the creation of undead, albeit cautiously and/or reluctantly (Torm springs to mind). And I can easily imagine an order of Kellies taking upon themselves a holy crusade along the lines of "Go over to that temple of Torm and destroy the undead in it, regardless of all other factors, distractions, or consequences." And that definitely sounds like a job for a Blackguard, to me.

If that's the case, Kelemvor might make a point of going out and finding some evil outsiders to serve him, for the specific purpose of being able to sponsor Blackguards.

Even if the Cleric of Kelemvor in question is evil, they still can't create undead because Kelemvor would never empower them to do it. Blackguards don't get the choice, they have to Rebuke.

Last edited by Liz on Mon, Aug 27 2012, 18:15 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't mean to dispute those points, Council. I only meant to say that, setting aside mechanics for the moment, Kelemvor might indeed have an occasional use for utterly black-hearted people who have no compunction whatsoever about things like sacking a holy place of a good-aligned god.

EDIT, to add a further thought: Whether those black-hearted villains should mechanically be allowed to be Blackguards, rather than mere clerics, is debatable. But I do think that a lot of the arguments voiced in this thread against Blackguards of Kelemvor also apply equally well to plain evil-aligned clerics of Kelemvor. And nobody's arguing that Kelemvor shouldn't have evil-aligned clerics.

Lizzie wrote:

I didn't mean to dispute those points, Council. I only meant to say that, setting aside mechanics for the moment, Kelemvor might indeed have an occasional use for utterly black-hearted people who have no compunction whatsoever about sacking a holy place of a good-aligned god.

I absolutely agree, that's why Kelemvor is neutral and not good. A Kelemvorite Cleric who does not give two licks about who's standing between him and the undead he wants to kill would be reminiscent of an Elven Cleric of Shevarash regarding Drow. Don't get in his way.

It would just be impossible for a blackguard to fill that role. /dead horse

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

It's really not that complicated.

What it comes down to is Kelemvor not allowing his paladins and clerics to use Rebuke Undead, and Rebuke Undead being a Blackguard class ability. That's it.

If you want another simple reason, then the fact that Blackguards cannot perform any good act, and since burying, sanctifying and guarding the dead is a good act, then Blackguards would lose their powers just trying to follow his example.

Where do you get this from? The Blackguard bit about good acts is completely false, but even the part about Rebuking is suspect. Evil clerics of Kelemvor should mechanically get Rebuke, whereas neutral clerics get a choice. The very "channeling of negative energy" you condemn is already done by thousands of evil and neutral servants of Kelemvor or other neutral deities, isn't it? (Unless there's a specific rule which says all clerics of Kelemvor Turn and Cure without choice, which wouldn't surprise me but which hasn't been cited here.)

I still agree Kelemvorite BGs don't really make sense, but these reasons are getting stranger and stranger.

When I say Kelemvor doesn't have much use for Blackguard, I specifically mean Blackguards. They have a kit that Kelemvor doesn't allow them to use. They're not specifically suited for harsh deeds in his service. A Kelemvorite Blackguard is definetely handicapped when pitted against a Kelemvorite Divine Champion, but both require similar investment from god and mortal alike. So it just makes little sense to become/sponsor a Blackguard when you could just have a stronger Divine Champion doing the same nasty stuff instead.

I think I see the miscommunication here.

I keep forgetting that I'm actually arguing against Neverwinter Nights, not discussing the finer points of D&D canon lore.

Kelemnvor isn't Good, but he isn't Evil either. I don't see a Blackguard of Kelemnvor working because, while Kelemnvor isn't dedicated to fighting general evil, he wouldn't want evil to spread either - as evil tends to cause life to end before its appointed time.

Plus, as I see it, Kelemnvor tries to paint death (or rather, the afterlife) as stable, peaceful and still. Not something a fear-inducing blackguard would be able to truly embody.

IMO and AFAIK, Blackguards are pure evil. They are. They know it, as much as a paladin knows he's a paragon of Law and Good (or at least, he should know it's expected of him). To them, evil is as much a tool as it is a goal. Kelemnvor is simply not evil enough by far to be an appealing patron for a Blackguard. If you want an evil Kelemnvorite warrior, I'd say go for Champion. Zealous enough to fit the holy warrior profile, without the restrictions that a paladin has.

And it's been mentioned before, but AFAIK Blackguards make pacts the same way Warlocks do, and in general only evil creatures/gods make pacts.

Lastly, this:

Strikeclone wrote:

Blackguards are evil incarnate and I wish folks would stop claiming ludicrous rp positions on the basis that nwn/amia doesnt prevent it in character generation and so it "must"
sanctioned...

Remember kids, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I'm also surprised (or I missed it) that the Doomguide PRC hasn't come up here yet.

IronAngel wrote:

(Unless there's a specific rule which says all clerics of Kelemvor Turn and Cure without choice, which wouldn't surprise me but which hasn't been cited here.)

Faiths & Pantheons, p.33 wrote:

Clerics of Kelemvor never rebuke or command undead.

I'd note that this is in direct contradiction to earlier 2nd Ed material, thereby overruling it.

And I'm not sure you need to pass the buck to NWN/Bioware weirdness in order to demonstrate that this is a very weird issue, Council. Considering the rule above together with this one...

d20 SRD wrote:

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures.

... leads one to the conclusion that Kelemvor either can't have evil clerics (contradicted here) or that Kelemvor is in the business of granting his clerics tools that he then forbids them from using. Either way, oddness seems built into the question inherently.

Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, Aug 27 2012, 19:36 PM, edited 1 time in total.

None of what I've said has certainly been in any way based on NWN. There's no Rebuke or spontaneous Inflict casting in this game anyway. The part about Blackguards not doing good deeds has no basis in canon.

That F&P is new to me, so we've been talking a bit past eachother. The entry should probably be read to mean that even evil clerics of Kelemvor get Turn Undead though, rather than that they get Rebuke and just can't use it. That makes sense. (If 2e material states otherwise though, I'm inclined to go with it as it's probably more detailed and thought through. Even if "new trumps old" is the official rule of thumb, often it results in bad lore. But given the same amount of detail, then new definetely trumps old.)

I'd go so far as to say that the whole "evil-rebuke, good-turn, neutral-choose" system is a simplification that shouldn't be considered normative lorewise. It's probably something the deity or local church determines: are the priests taught to destroy or utilize undead, what kind of control the deity's holy symbol exerts over them. Specific gods affect the undead in specific ways, independent of the cleric's intentions. Some gods no doubt offer choice: Hoar or Azuth certainly wouldn't mind either way. But other neutral gods have a pretty clear stance either for or against undead, so this is not a problem specific to Kelemvor.

Although I see where CoA is going with channeling energy (which is much cooler in Pathfinder), I think you can answer the Kelemvor Blackguard question very easily without ever having to dive into those mechanics.

Blackguards are defined by their pacts. It is the source of their "mystical" power. I don't care for the interpretation, necessarily, that blackguards are totally dependent upon that pact because it seems limiting, but that's how the class is constructed and, balance-wise, I suppose it makes sense.

First of all, Kelemvor himself is an outsider, but he is not an evil one, and thus cannot enter into pacts with Blackguards himself.

Followers of Kelemvor who are evil and wish to serve him, but lack the capacity to be clerics, have the option of seeking an evil outsider from which to gain power. The possibilities are numerous, to be honest, and there's no sense in getting into what they all are.

A crux question: would Kelemvor arrange for evil outsiders to supply Blackguards with a source of power so that they can serve Kelemvor's interests?

Knowing what I do of Kelemvor's character, both before and after his descent into the drudgery of his duties as Lord of the Dead, I have to say no. He is well aware that blackguards have the ability to Animate Dead (it is a class feature), and Kelemvor would not want to put that kind of power into an evil person's hands.

Now, your return fire question is, obviously, "But he grants spells to evil clerics, and Animate Dead is a clerical spell! So since there's no difference between a cleric animating dead and a blackguard animating dead and both of them serving his interests, why wouldn't he allow for both?"

To which I reply, "Ah, but you are wrong. Clerics that serve him gain their spells from him directly, and if they choose to Animate Dead, he can Fall them when he finds out what they've done. Kelemvor would not have direct control over a Blackguard's power, however, and thus could not stop a Blackguard from animating and animating and animating dead all over the place." Thus, it is clearly a matter of control.

On the matter of clerics and their divine spells: I've never seen any canon material that counters my theory/opinion on this, but I have always held that when clerics grant spells they do not do so with the IMMEDIATE BLESSING of their deity. It is not like an invocation or a prayer that suddenly fails if the deity doesn't want it to work (though I suppose in theory that is possible.) Having it operate like that suggests that the gods are more omniscient than they truly are (their omniscience is highly specialized and limited). That said, an evil cleric of Kelemvor CAN, yes, CAN animate the dead. The spell would work that first time.

But I almost guarantee you that within a short time after that, Kelemvor will know, and Kelemvor will fall that cleric.

If you do it the other way, where the deity simply restricts the use of certain spells, you remove the all important aspect of free will. Faithful followers must have the free will to follow (or reject) the dogma of their deities. Some spells are far more vague than Animate Dead and deities cannot just go around refusing spells because they have the potential to be used in a harmful way. We're just lucky that Animate Dead doesn't really have any "good" use except in those most contrived of circumstances.

So I guess the roundabout answer to the question is:

Can you be a Blackguard and a follower of Kelemvor? Yes.

Will Kelemvor like the fact that you are a Blackguard and serving him? No. You'll probably never receive any special favors from the deity or any of his followers. You might be included with some of his more evil clergy if you manage to convince them of your worth. And the minute you use your ability to Animate Dead, you can bet even those evil clerics of Kelemvor will have it out for you. But what does it matter? As a blackguard, you don't get your power from him, anyway, but instead from that incubus you promised to let anally double-fist you every time he gets rejected by a demoness.

IronAngel wrote:

There is no such thing as the obvious in this forum. (Assuming something to be obvious is a mistake in almost any context.)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as am I in this open thread and clearly we disagree on this point.

IronAngel wrote:

Explicit argumentation and references to canon material or DM posts determine how informative your post is.

So an opinion isn't valid based on ones own experience or take on lore/law without it first being the opinion of someone else. Right.

IronAngel wrote:

I may be mean and harsh

Try arrogant in the extreme, very good at attempting to score forum points with verbose replies and grand statements about my opinion has insulted everyone else because I stated my opinion in plain English without resorting to a government/lottery funded study into the geopolitical ramifications of saying no to an idea.

IronAngel wrote:

but my point was that this isn't a public vote

I don't remember anyone, myself included saying it was a vote or poll, my simple "No" was a clear statement of disagreement not a ballot.

IronAngel wrote:

dropping by to shout "yay" or "nay" without commenting on the previous discussion or pointing us to new information is actually rather insulting to those who've posted here.

Its a public open thread, therefore I am allowed my opinion, and I am allowed to express that opinion with as many or as few words as I desire it.
I didn't feel the need to quote anyone else’s opinions to validate my own.

IronAngel wrote:

Only the DMs' posting "Yes" or "No" is somewhat valid, but even they shouldn't have to resort to that and probably will be badgered for an explanation.

this

Strikeclone wrote:

Kelemvor is not a goodie of course but he has no need to strike fustian bargains with motals.

IronAngel wrote:

I'd rather we maintain a level of quality to the discussion.

And I would prefer to be able to choose my own words and the length of my own posts, rather than meet your nebulous and arrogant presumption that unless an opinion is reinforces by flowery prose and an "sophisticated academic analysis" that not only is it not a valid opinion but that I should not desecrate the sanctity of your posts with mine.

Final thought in retort to "IronAngel" I was at work surfing on a small e-reader device that is not the best item to use to post verbose, multi quoting forum posts, and I doubt I would have said much more than I already did even if I had been on my home pc as I am now.

I would suggest as a general rule that if someone wants to offer friendly and constructive critique on someones forum posts and replies style (as opposed to the actual content of the post/reply) that it would be better done via private message.

In that spirit I request that "IronAngel" and anyone else I have offended with my lack of "sophisticated academic analysis" and wandering verbose replies please take the matter up with me via pm from this point on.

Back on topic.

<reserved for sophisticated academic analysis after extensive research into why blackguards should not be allowed to also be Kelemvorites on Amia>

Yossarin wrote:

Can you be a Blackguard and a follower of Kelemvor? Yes.

Will Kelemvor like the fact that you are a Blackguard and serving him? No. <etc., snip.>

Does that open up a kind of ridiculous can of worms, though? At the risk of reducing the discussion to absurdity, if you can be a blackguard following Kelemvor with no say-so from Kelemvor, neither implied nor explicit, couldn't you just as easily be a blackguard serving *any* god? Regardless of alignment or dogma?

Sure, if you went around calling yourself a blackguard of Tyr, you'd just about certainly get yourself smote like nobody's business. But isn't it a logical extrapolation of your thoughts to say that an evil character who believed in some radically warped version of the doctrine of, say, Selune or Mystra could be a blackguard in their service? Is it just a matter best left to IC resolution; one which the rules and mechanics shouldn't speak to?

Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, Aug 27 2012, 20:10 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Lizzie wrote:

Does that open up a kind of ridiculous can of worms, though? At the risk of reducing the discussion to absurdity, if you can be a blackguard following Kelemvor with no say-so from Kelemvor, neither implied nor explicit, couldn't you just as easily be a blackguard serving *any* god? Regardless of alignment or dogma?

Sure, if you went around calling yourself a blackguard of Tyr, you'd just about certainly get yourself smote like nobody's business. But isn't it a logical extrapolation of your thoughts to say that an evil character who believed in some radically warped version of the doctrine of, say, Selune or Mystra could be a blackguard in their service? It is just a matter best left to IC resolution; one which the rules and mechanics shouldn't speak to?

That's exactly the kind of can of worms I would hope it opens. People selling their soul for power to do what they think is right in the name of their goodly deity is the stuff of classic stories. Their intepretation of the doctrine may be twisted, but that doesn't mean they aren't sincere. You know, some of them might not even be so far off the mark, and as layman worshipers they could be accepted into the afterlife if the BG pact didn't involve them promising their souls after death. (Which isn't even implied in the Blackguard class description or any of its powers, but people automatically assume to be the norm because of Faustus and the fact devils and demons do covet souls in the setting.) But no, I don't see anything problematic about people worshiping gods but failing to uphold the high standards expected of them, be it by falling into blackguardom or forgetting to go to church on sunday. Or something else entirely.

It's only somewhat problematic in the case of clerics (who have to be within their patron's accepted alignments). Even a cleric could certainly make a pact with a fiend, but it would probably soon end in your god disowning you if he disapproves. But note that Yossarin isn't talking about Cleric/Blackguards, at least not primarily. What he said about free will should apply here, though: you can become a Blackguard if you're of the right alignment, but once your god finds out there might be consequences.

Strikeclone: Just as you're entitled to posting how you please, I'm in my rights to point out when I think a post is uninformative or counter-productive. You begun the hostilities with your "I wish people would stop claiming ludicrous rp positions" outburst. These "people" don't meet your lofty standards, and you brought it up. Your post didn't meet my lofty standards, and I brought it up. You got to taste your own medicine, don't be a martyr about it. I'm no doubt arrogant, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also be absolutely right.

I don't consider it a can of worms, really. It's business as usual. Players tend to be egotistical and spoiled and think that because their character serves a deity that that deity serves and respects them. This may seem to be the case with character who receive divine-based powers (clerics, paladins, oracles, etc.), but deities are served by a ton of lay followers, as well, who receive no divine benefits and often live their entire lives serving a god without ever so much as a nod of gratitude. It's just that their beliefs line up with the practiced dogma of that god's faith.

Ergo, it is entirely realistic to assume a lay follower (or even an evil cleric!) of Kelemvor might yearn for more power with which to serve their deity, power that doesn't come from the deity but from some other source, and thus enter into a blackguard's pact with that evil outsider in order to gain the power to serve their deity.

Remember: just because you follow a god doesn't mean that god follows you (or even cares about you).

Yossarin wrote:

On the matter of clerics and their divine spells: I've never seen any canon material that counters my theory/opinion on this, but I have always held that when clerics grant spells they do not do so with the IMMEDIATE BLESSING of their deity. It is not like an invocation or a prayer that suddenly fails if the deity doesn't want it to work (though I suppose in theory that is possible.) Having it operate like that suggests that the gods are more omniscient than they truly are (their omniscience is highly specialized and limited). That said, an evil cleric of Kelemvor CAN, yes, CAN animate the dead. The spell would work that first time.

But I almost guarantee you that within a short time after that, Kelemvor will know, and Kelemvor will fall that cleric.

If you do it the other way, where the deity simply restricts the use of certain spells, you remove the all important aspect of free will. Faithful followers must have the free will to follow (or reject) the dogma of their deities. Some spells are far more vague than Animate Dead and deities cannot just go around refusing spells because they have the potential to be used in a harmful way. We're just lucky that Animate Dead doesn't really have any "good" use except in those most contrived of circumstances.

This caught my attention. While my question applies to any Cleric, Kelemvor is also a good example since he's a little more cut and dry than some other gods, given that he has "do not use these" spells.

I gather it being a notion of free will and thus an aspect of faith (trust) and I kind of like that angle, but I find it odd that even with that in mind, Kelemvor would grant a spell like Animate Dead at all. But Clerics are also the servants of their deity's will. They are a god's mortal representatives. I could see it more with Chaotic and Neutral gods, but Clerics of Lawful gods seem like they better know what's up and adhere to it to the best of their ability, or reap a 'fine'. Maintaining Order, rather than shaking it up with innovative ways to test trust.

Surely, it may not result in a "fizzle" at the time of casting. I think instead, it would be more like a cleric goes to pray for spells at their appointed time, asks Kelemvor to grant them Animate Dead (which I always thought would be drawing a part of a god's attention onto the Cleric) and they simply don't gain that spell, at the very least. Perhaps consequences may befall them as well; receiving no spells at all that time to contemplate their mistake in solitude for that day, though not actually Falling.

What do you think?

I like Yoss's interpretation, but you're right that there are two stages: praying for and preparing a spell, and casting it. That's why you can heal a villain or smite an innocent - the spells have been granted with divine consent, but their use is not immediately controlled. But it's possible some spells wouldn't be granted in the first place. The rules do block some opposed spells entirely, but that's a bit boring.

IronAngel wrote:

Strikeclone: Just as you're entitled to posting how you please

QFT

IronAngel wrote:

I'm in my rights to point out when I think a post is uninformative or counter-productive.

Please remember then to point out its only your self righteous opinion and not that of the entire thread/forum, also try to keep in mind that your idea of large post = good post and mine is more short and to the point.

This is not being "uninformative or counter-productive" and in fact attempting to score points by various belittling methods whilst ego boosting to yourself no doubt, is in my opinion one of the most uninformative or counter-productive ways a forum member can conduct himself, it invites the target of your petty minded comments to respond and after a long shift at work my resistance to arrogant sods is much reduced.

As I said earlier if you have a problem with someones posting style use a PM, if you have a counter point to their actual post (as opposed to picking at the grammar or size of words used or the word count.....) then of course by all means make a point. And refrain from trying to score them.

IronAngel wrote:

You begun the hostilities with your "I wish people would stop claiming ludicrous rp positions" outburst.

There is no hostility to you or anyone in my sentence what so ever, just stating an opinion based on becoming ever more jaded with players creating increasingly ridiculous lore and immersion busting builds and expecting other players to blindly accept them, these kinds of players are the "The gate guards didn't stop me so I must be allowed, go cry to a DM" kind of players even as they stand next to the law tablet stating flat out they are not allowed in.
If you are not one of these kinds of players who my comment was loosely directed towards, how could you ever claim take offence to the point where you need to troll my post? :roll:

IronAngel wrote:

These "people" don't meet your lofty standards, and you brought it up. Your post didn't meet my lofty standards, and I brought it up.

I don't think that expecting every player on an RP server to create characters in the spirit of the lore rather than attempting to exploit the letter of the lore (or rather exploit that because nothing says they can't that they can and that its their "right" that everyone on the server must accept its legal/canon because nothing says its not legal/canon) is a "lofty standard" to be honest.

But I never presume to tell players what they should play, you however want to tell me (and probably) others how to post. That is so completely out of order.

IronAngel wrote:

You got to taste your own medicine, don't be a martyr about it.

No Idea to what you are refering to, your being a complete arse and even after I respectfully asked you to come to me via pm you continue to derail this thread, and damn me for helping you derail the thread by replying. But your just wandering into the realm of talking complete crap and again attempting for no reason to cut into me personally and score points whilst singularly failing to make any.

I disagreee 100% with the idea of a Kelemvorite being a blackguard, and I think its fairly self evident as to why and all of the reason I would have put forth have since my original post been added by others. But for the record...

Kelemvorites = hate undead by lore

Blackguards = love undead by class/lore

Kelemvorites = are required to harm undead by lore

Blackguards = are empowered to create and control undead by class/lore

I do not see anyway to reconcile these diametrically opposed postions, and whilst it might be fun RP wise to portray the whole for want of a better word "fallen" Blackguard who for some reason comes to the Kelemvorite stance on undead and thus suffer some sort of issues with his Blackguard half (or the other around).

I simply can not see the merit attempting to place such extremes of black and white philosophies in any sort of juxtaposition, they are anathema to each other.

IronAngel wrote:

I'm no doubt arrogant,

First accurate reply you have given me all day :lol:

IronAngel wrote:

but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also be absolutely right.

Doesn't mean you are absolutely right either, out here I mean in the real world, not that little sand box in your head :mrgreen:

I direct you again to my PM box.

Also for the record its gone midnight for me I really should be in bed but found myself unable to resist a final retort to "IronAngel" and a final thought on the actual topic of this thread, I am sorry for any disruption he or I may have caused in this needless tit for tat exchange and invite anyone with issue to grab a tissue. After that they are welcome to send a nice friendly pm and we can discuss this like the community of gamers we are (apparently)

Furthermore I am sorry for any typos, grammar errors etc I am very tired and can't be bothered to word process this at this time, I am a bad person and should have forum jihad put on me for my lack of respect to the size of words, composition and actual word count (not including quotations of course). *hangs head in mock shame*

Night all

I'm not interested in reading anybody's slap fight. This is a really interesting discussion without it. Please, please take it to PMs.

Funny thing is, I'd just got out of bed and finished writing an apology about my original catty jab that may not have been entirely warranted. Now I kind of wish I hadn't. :lol:

....okay, with that out of the way, that's a good point about praying for spells like and them not being granted. As usual I try vert hard to find an IC explanation for why things are the way they are OOC, and I always noticed all clerics have access to all the same spells regardless of the deity. Pathfinder has some variation on this with their fucking sweet domain system and a few special spells that only divine casters of a given deity can cast (Speak witb Dead being exclusive to clerics of Pharasma, for example), but even it keeps the all clerics have access to all spells rule.

IronAngel wrote:

Funny thing is, I'd just got out of bed and finished writing an apology about my original catty jab that may not have been entirely warranted. Now I kind of wish I hadn't. :lol:

An apology laced with further jibes and sanctimonius statements, deleted it and deleted the follow up message without reading. ironangel please do not bother sending anymore pm they will be deleted without reading, I do not play and post here to have to deal with abusive twats like you and its clear you can't be civil by any common definition of the word. You would have to come about fifty miles out of your own arse to do so.

P.S. I have replied here rather than with pm because he has made it clear that even via pm he is still a twat and feels the need to share it with everyone.

STOP derailing this thread with your personal shit. Keep it to pm's.

About the subject of kelemvor and blackguards. I feel that in light of the many statements of the DM's I am still split in my opinion wether it's appropriate or not for kelemvor to support blackguards.

Very_Svensk wrote:

STOP derailing this thread with your personal shit. Keep it to pm's.

About the subject of kelemvor and blackguards. I feel that in light of the many statements of the DM's I am still split in my opinion wether it's appropriate or not for kelemvor to support blackguards.

This. Please. A mask of anonymity doesn't mean you need to act omniscient or contentious. I'm assuming we're all grown ups, perhaps it would be best if we act like it. On the subject of Blackguards and Kelemvor(or any deity that would accept an evil follower for that matter), one should seriously take Yoss' words into account. The way I saw Blackguards of deities like Helm or Kelemvor was that the individuals making such a pact were willing to go through any means necessary to better serve their Deity, even if they must look in the darkest places...

We had a bg of kelemvor once, but I do not think it is appropriate lorewise percisely for the reasons Yossarin mentioned above. That does not however mean a blackguard can not be faithful to kelemvor while derriving his power from an evil outsider. He would simply not get any divine energy from him, and may end up being judged false when he arrives in the big guy's realm.

Caldera3 wrote:

This. Please. A mask of anonymity doesn't mean you need to act omniscient or contentious. I'm assuming we're all grown ups, perhaps it would be best if we act like it. On the subject of Blackguards and Kelemvor(or any deity that would accept an evil follower for that matter), one should seriously take Yoss' words into account. The way I saw Blackguards of deities like Helm or Kelemvor was that the individuals making such a pact were willing to go through any means necessary to better serve their Deity, even if they must look in the darkest places...

Yes..except to the point that once they make the pact they are no longer serving the purposes of their deity but the evil outsider's.

Kelemvor and Blackguards

Who is online