I can buy that his patron is the one who enchanted the sword, but having that enchantment be selective just strikes me as silly. If my PC is also a Blackguard with a fiendish patron, shouldn't I be able to figure out how to make it work? Just sayin'.
But your PC isn't. He (or she) is a 20 years old foster son (or daughter) of Gorion who grew up in Candlekeep. I'm fairly certain someone would have noticed the presence of a fiendish patron making pacts there.
But your PC isn't. He (or she) is a 20 years old foster son (or daughter) of Gorion who grew up in Candlekeep. I'm fairly certain someone would have noticed the presence of a fiendish patron making pacts there.
Right, except that he is. My PC is a blackguard, as I mentioned.
@Schneidend It's specifically Dorn's patron that grants Dorn's abilities. I'm sure your PC could have made a deal of some sort with Ur-Gothoz, but you were terrible at negotiation and fancy swords aren't a perk you get.
But your PC isn't. He (or she) is a 20 years old foster son (or daughter) of Gorion who grew up in Candlekeep. I'm fairly certain someone would have noticed the presence of a fiendish patron making pacts there.
Right, except that he is. My PC is a blackguard, as I mentioned.
A blackguard, yes. But your biograpghy in Candlekeep leaves no room for a fiendish patron. Your PC is a 20 years old blackguard who is the foster son of Gorion and grew up in Candlekeep. If you *were* a blackguard with a fiendish patron, you would have the some power as Dorn, and your own sword.
I guess I'm just more used to things simply working. I mean, if this kind of enchantment is doable, why doesn't everybody do it?
I guess most of the "ordinary" enchanted items were made for sale, or for use by a particular group rather than an individual (e.g. "the palace guards" rather than one particular guard), so they need to work for whoever picks them up else they'd be worthless.
Even with a bespoke enchanted item made for a specific individual, s/he might want to be able to sell it when s/he retires from adventuring, or pass it on to a son or daughter, etc.
Bilbo Baggins can't use the One Ring to rule Middle Earth either.
A little devil's advocate here: I'm not entirely brushed up on my Tolkein, but I was always under the impression that Bilbo, Frodo, and briefly Sam were highly resistant of the Ring's influences. Had they lost the ring to an evil person, or even a more easily-swayed individual like Boromir, invisibility would have been the least of our worries. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Actually I think it is a pretty fair comparison; see below.
The point about the One Ring is that Sauron forged it himself and imbued part of his own spirit into the Ring as he did so - Tolkien is quite specific about this, Sauron's spirit resides (partly) in the Ring. That's why the Ring is always seeking to return to its true master, and why its major powers are only available when it is worn by Sauron himself, re-uniting his spirit. Anyone else wearing it just gets the invisibility, which is merely a minor side-effect of its real powers ... and gradual corruption by the presence of Sauron's spirit. As his spirit gradually takes over the ring-wearer's will, Sauron can unlock a portion of the ring's power for the victim, which the victim initially thinks he is exercising by his own will ... but he eventually turns into a ring-wraith, wholly dominated by Sauron.
The potential RP analogy with Rancor is that Ur-Gothoz may have deliberately connected the sword to Dorn's spirit, or indeed used part of Dorn's spirit in its manufacture ... which may in turn explain why Dorn's CON stat is a little lower than you might have hoped. If so, I reckon Dorn got a pretty bad deal - the Spider's Bane is a significantly better sword for Dorn. (But of course, getting shafted when dealing with demons is pretty standard!)
A little devil's advocate here: I'm not entirely brushed up on my Tolkein, but I was always under the impression that Bilbo, Frodo, and briefly Sam were highly resistant of the Ring's influences. Had they lost the ring to an evil person, or even a more easily-swayed individual like Boromir, invisibility would have been the least of our worries. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
He would have turned into a Nazgûl. Those coincidentally wield pretty cool two-handed swords by the way.
Interesting points regarding the One Ring. But if that's the case, what's Sauron's endgame? It's not like he has a corporeal body to wear the ring again. I guess there would have been some sort of dark ritual to resurrect him wholly once the Ring had been reclaimed? (Note that I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious)
Regarding Rancor, Gallowglass, I'm hoping it'll have the potential to be upgraded in BG2. If it truly is infused with Dorn's vital essence, it should naturally improve as Dorn becomes more powerful. Could be a nice side quest, too.
@Schniedend Do Blackguards necessarily need demonic patrons? As I understand it, just because the PC can be a Blackguard doesn't mean they made a pact with a demon lord. There's precedent with paladins not having specific patron deities, right?
Interesting points regarding the One Ring. But if that's the case, what's Sauron's endgame? It's not like he has a corporeal body to wear the ring again. I guess there would have been some sort of dark ritual to resurrect him wholly once the Ring had been reclaimed? (Note that I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious)
He had been recovering since the war where he lost the ring. The ring contained his remaining power which could restore his body. You could read the Silmarillion, it's not that long.
A blackguard, yes. But your biograpghy in Candlekeep leaves no room for a fiendish patron. Your PC is a 20 years old blackguard who is the foster son of Gorion and grew up in Candlekeep. If you *were* a blackguard with a fiendish patron, you would have the some power as Dorn, and your own sword.
How does it leave no room? WHERE did I get my nasty superpowers if not from a dark god or evil demon? I'm not suggesting PC Blackguards have the same fiendish benefactor that Dorn does. Far from it. What I am suggesting, however, is it's not too far-fetched that I could use my own dark powers to wield Rancor to its true potential.
@Schniedend Do Blackguards necessarily need demonic patrons? As I understand it, just because the PC can be a Blackguard doesn't mean they made a pact with a demon lord. There's precedent with paladins not having specific patron deities, right?
Naturally, just about anything's possible when it comes to things as esoteric as magic and deities. The description in the manual, however, says that Blackguards are "Consorting with demons and devils and serving dark deities."
It's specifically Dorn's patron that grants Dorn's abilities. I'm sure your PC could have made a deal of some sort with Ur-Gothoz, but you were terrible at negotiation and fancy swords aren't a perk you get.
I doubt Ur-Gothoz would mind too terribly if I killed Dorn and offered to co-opt his responsibilities, then. I'm an enterprising sort, and to him mortals are no doubt hard to even tell apart.
Interesting points regarding the One Ring. But if that's the case, what's Sauron's endgame? It's not like he has a corporeal body to wear the ring again. I guess there would have been some sort of dark ritual to resurrect him wholly once the Ring had been reclaimed? (Note that I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious)
He had been recovering since the war where he lost the ring. The ring contained his remaining power which could restore his body. You could read the Silmarillion, it's not that long.
Perhaps. I'm fascinated by Tolkein's world, but I find his actual writing to be inaccessible. I read the Lord of the Rings when I was about nine, didn't particularly like the books, then went nuts over how good the movies were, so most of my LotR knowledge is from the films. I may get to the Silmarillion eventually, though.
I would assume a blackguard could be the paladin of a "darker deity". There are clerics and paladins of Helm, too. So a demonic or fiendish patron isn't neccessary.
@KidCarnival Then, yes, I am a Blackguard who has made a pact, whether with a dark god or demon. Being raised in Candlekeep doesn't somehow prevent CHARNAME from making pacts with one type of entity and not the other.
With the amount of (presumably good-neutral aligned) wizards and clerics, I more think such a pact would not have been made in Candlekeep, because the people in there would have seen to it that an evil creature stays away from them.
The fiend would not need to be physically present. Ur-Gothoz didn't physically manifest to Dorn in his prison cell. He simply spoke to him telepathically.
If we want to have narrative consistency with some of the less-likely PC classes, you have to rewrite a bit of the beginning in your head for everything to make sense. Being a Cleric of Talos is quite unlikely in Candlekeep for example, and there aren't many ways a child who has never been outside the walls of a library-fortress could develop druidic powers.
I'd have no problem with considering a PC blackguard to have been a simple fighter in Candlekeep, then beginning to conspire with dark forces after Gorion's death.
I RP that there's some literature Gorion told my CHARNAME not to read, so of course he conspired with Imoen to get his hands on it. Boom, communed with an Archfiend.
Bilbo Baggins can't use the One Ring to rule Middle Earth either.
A little devil's advocate here: I'm not entirely brushed up on my Tolkein, but I was always under the impression that Bilbo, Frodo, and briefly Sam were highly resistant of the Ring's influences. Had they lost the ring to an evil person, or even a more easily-swayed individual like Boromir, invisibility would have been the least of our worries. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Actually I think it is a pretty fair comparison; see below.
The point about the One Ring is that Sauron forged it himself and imbued part of his own spirit into the Ring as he did so - Tolkien is quite specific about this, Sauron's spirit resides (partly) in the Ring. That's why the Ring is always seeking to return to its true master, and why its major powers are only available when it is worn by Sauron himself, re-uniting his spirit. Anyone else wearing it just gets the invisibility, which is merely a minor side-effect of its real powers ... and gradual corruption by the presence of Sauron's spirit. As his spirit gradually takes over the ring-wearer's will, Sauron can unlock a portion of the ring's power for the victim, which the victim initially thinks he is exercising by his own will ... but he eventually turns into a ring-wraith, wholly dominated by Sauron.
The potential RP analogy with Rancor is that Ur-Gothoz may have deliberately connected the sword to Dorn's spirit, or indeed used part of Dorn's spirit in its manufacture ... which may in turn explain why Dorn's CON stat is a little lower than you might have hoped. If so, I reckon Dorn got a pretty bad deal - the Spider's Bane is a significantly better sword for Dorn. (But of course, getting shafted when dealing with demons is pretty standard!)
The point is Rancor is MAGIC, and fantasy literature is very consistent in protraying magic items as working DIFFERENTLY depending on who is using the item. It doesn't matter if you are talking about white gold rings, runeswords, elder wands, elfstones or the hammer of Thor (did the OP complain about Hulk being unable to lift it in the Avengers movie?) they funtion differently depending on who has them. It's one of the things that makes MAGIC different to TECHNOLOGY.
The default biography for a PC Blackguard implies that they do have an outsider patron. However, it is not the same outsider who is Dorn's patron, and to whom Rancor is tied.
If the OP is absoulutely determined that thier character is the true disciple of Ur-Gothoz, then I suggest they use Shadowkeeper and edit the game to make it the way they want it to be.
(It's not as if you can't get a better 2H sword early in the game anyway though)
@Fardragon I never stated that my PC Blackguard's patron and Ur-Gothoz were one and the same. I merely posited that, using a similar source of power, my Blackguard could fudge things and wield Rancor's full abilities. Because, like magic items working differently in the hands of different wielders, fantasy literature is also rife with characters bending magic to their will or using it in various ways that aren't reflected in things like game mechanics. Sarevok, for instance, despite being a Fighter, has mastered "the darkest of rituals" by the tutelage of Winski Perorate.
@Fardragon I never stated that my PC Blackguard's patron and Ur-Gothoz were one and the same. I merely posited that, using a similar source of power, my Blackguard could fudge things and wield Rancor's full abilities.
Why would that be the case? Rancor has Ur-Gothoz's name written on it in great big mystic runes. Ur-Gothoz says your patron can give out its own mystic weapons if it wants.
Because, like magic items working differently in the hands of different wielders, fantasy literature is also rife with characters bending magic to their will or using it in various ways that aren't reflected in things like game mechanics. Sarevok, for instance, despite being a Fighter, has mastered "the darkest of rituals" by the tutelage of Winski Perorate.
You can do that in BG. It's called using console commands, shadowkeeper, and mods. You want your Blackguard to be able to use the Flail of Xahtblxxxs? You can make it and add it to the game.
@Schneidend I appreciate the case you're making, it's interesting to consider. But in D&D the DM is the final arbiter. And for BG I would say that the game itself (it's lore, game engine mechanics, and scripts) amounts to a kind of de facto "DM." The DM has therefore ruled that no one else but Dorn can use Dorn's sword with the same THAC0 bonus. That's how I would view it, anyway.
Charname was a young, inexperienced person talking to a powerful magical creature. Maybe the patron just screwed him over and said "yeah, sure, you can totally wield weapons made for other blackguards, you don't need your own"... and was lying. Evil creatures do that. Maybe it's a test of charname's abilities and determination, maybe he must earn his weapon, maybe the patron just finds it amusing?
A little devil's advocate here: I'm not entirely brushed up on my Tolkein, but I was always under the impression that Bilbo, Frodo, and briefly Sam were highly resistant of the Ring's influences. Had they lost the ring to an evil person, or even a more easily-swayed individual like Boromir, invisibility would have been the least of our worries. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Of course they were resistant, they get bonus Saving Throws for being Halflings! (insert troll-face)
Same reason why Gimli just chopped at it at Rivendell w/o bothering to even consider using it, while certain other characters hesitate when looking at it. Gimli has a higher CON, so his saves are a bit better than those halflings.
@Madhax I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Tolkien is awesome at world-building but fails to execute in the actual prose.
Hm I'd say it is the other way around. His world is derived from earlier books (like Grimm) and on Old Norse, Germanic and Celtic mythology. Everything, like for example Middle-Earth (Midgard) the Elves, Dwarves (dvergar), the Ainur (Aesir & Vanir) is directly based upon other similar sources with the same or similar entities.
Why would that be the case? Rancor has Ur-Gothoz's name written on it in great big mystic runes. Ur-Gothoz says your patron can give out its own mystic weapons if it wants.
Why would it NOT be the case? Magic is malleable. Rancor might just be a magical sword in Dorn's hands, but in Sarevok's it could possibly be used as a focus for summoning Ur-Gothoz himself. That's all speculation of course, but if standard fantasy tropes about magic are indeed valid arguments, then mine is no less than yours.
You can do that in BG. It's called using console commands, shadowkeeper, and mods. You want your Blackguard to be able to use the Flail of Xahtblxxxs? You can make it and add it to the game.
You're talking OOC here, while I'm referring to lore/IC. Besides, the original intent of this thread was to fully understand the patch note about Rancor and to contest the idea of not being able to use it's on-kill ability with CHARNAME, not to find out how to hack the game. I'm making the lore case for why CHARNAME should be able to use the sword as they could before the patch. Just telling me to go hack the game doesn't really refute anything that I'm saying.
In any case, Overhaul people haven't responded, so I can only assume this is not something that will change. Believe it or not, I'm OKAY with that.
@Schneidend I appreciate the case you're making, it's interesting to consider. But in D&D the DM is the final arbiter. And for BG I would say that the game itself (it's lore, game engine mechanics, and scripts) amounts to a kind of de facto "DM." The DM has therefore ruled that no one else but Dorn can use Dorn's sword with the same THAC0 bonus. That's how I would view it, anyway.
That's a pretty good way to look at it. And, being a DM myself, seems to be how I should have initially taken this, but I guess you could say it felt as though this spectral DM originally said "okay" and is now, suddenly and arbitrarily, saying "no," without really giving a good reason as to why that decision was reversed.
Hm I'd say it is the other way around. His world is derived from earlier books (like Grimm) and on Old Norse, Germanic and Celtic mythology. Everything, like for example Middle-Earth (Midgard) the Elves, Dwarves (dvergar), the Ainur (Aesir & Vanir) is directly based upon other similar sources with the same or similar entities.
Right, but all literature is at least partially derivative. He took all those disparate elements and fit them together in a single world that is more or less cohesive. That takes planning and creativity. On the other hand, he wrote The Silmarillion to establish all of the finer setting details and background in the LOTR universe, which is kind of cheating in fiction writing. Though, to be fair, he never published it himself. Still, it's important in writing that if you're going to talk about "the flame of Udun," you should probably clue your writer in to what the hell that even means within the confines of the same work, and not rely on your fictional encyclopedia to do it for you. The LOTR trilogy is full of stuff like that, as well as EXCRUCIATING detail about what exactly Samwise has packed onto his mule.
Comments
Even with a bespoke enchanted item made for a specific individual, s/he might want to be able to sell it when s/he retires from adventuring, or pass it on to a son or daughter, etc.
The point about the One Ring is that Sauron forged it himself and imbued part of his own spirit into the Ring as he did so - Tolkien is quite specific about this, Sauron's spirit resides (partly) in the Ring. That's why the Ring is always seeking to return to its true master, and why its major powers are only available when it is worn by Sauron himself, re-uniting his spirit. Anyone else wearing it just gets the invisibility, which is merely a minor side-effect of its real powers ... and gradual corruption by the presence of Sauron's spirit. As his spirit gradually takes over the ring-wearer's will, Sauron can unlock a portion of the ring's power for the victim, which the victim initially thinks he is exercising by his own will ... but he eventually turns into a ring-wraith, wholly dominated by Sauron.
The potential RP analogy with Rancor is that Ur-Gothoz may have deliberately connected the sword to Dorn's spirit, or indeed used part of Dorn's spirit in its manufacture ... which may in turn explain why Dorn's CON stat is a little lower than you might have hoped. If so, I reckon Dorn got a pretty bad deal - the Spider's Bane is a significantly better sword for Dorn. (But of course, getting shafted when dealing with demons is pretty standard!)
Interesting points regarding the One Ring. But if that's the case, what's Sauron's endgame? It's not like he has a corporeal body to wear the ring again. I guess there would have been some sort of dark ritual to resurrect him wholly once the Ring had been reclaimed? (Note that I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious)
Regarding Rancor, Gallowglass, I'm hoping it'll have the potential to be upgraded in BG2. If it truly is infused with Dorn's vital essence, it should naturally improve as Dorn becomes more powerful. Could be a nice side quest, too.
Do Blackguards necessarily need demonic patrons? As I understand it, just because the PC can be a Blackguard doesn't mean they made a pact with a demon lord. There's precedent with paladins not having specific patron deities, right?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Tolkien is awesome at world-building but fails to execute in the actual prose.
I think I've used those exact words before. Agreed wholeheartedly.
Then, yes, I am a Blackguard who has made a pact, whether with a dark god or demon. Being raised in Candlekeep doesn't somehow prevent CHARNAME from making pacts with one type of entity and not the other.
I'd have no problem with considering a PC blackguard to have been a simple fighter in Candlekeep, then beginning to conspire with dark forces after Gorion's death.
The default biography for a PC Blackguard implies that they do have an outsider patron. However, it is not the same outsider who is Dorn's patron, and to whom Rancor is tied.
If the OP is absoulutely determined that thier character is the true disciple of Ur-Gothoz, then I suggest they use Shadowkeeper and edit the game to make it the way they want it to be.
(It's not as if you can't get a better 2H sword early in the game anyway though)
I never stated that my PC Blackguard's patron and Ur-Gothoz were one and the same. I merely posited that, using a similar source of power, my Blackguard could fudge things and wield Rancor's full abilities. Because, like magic items working differently in the hands of different wielders, fantasy literature is also rife with characters bending magic to their will or using it in various ways that aren't reflected in things like game mechanics. Sarevok, for instance, despite being a Fighter, has mastered "the darkest of rituals" by the tutelage of Winski Perorate.
Of course they were resistant, they get bonus Saving Throws for being Halflings! (insert troll-face)
Same reason why Gimli just chopped at it at Rivendell w/o bothering to even consider using it, while certain other characters hesitate when looking at it. Gimli has a higher CON, so his saves are a bit better than those halflings.
You're talking OOC here, while I'm referring to lore/IC. Besides, the original intent of this thread was to fully understand the patch note about Rancor and to contest the idea of not being able to use it's on-kill ability with CHARNAME, not to find out how to hack the game. I'm making the lore case for why CHARNAME should be able to use the sword as they could before the patch. Just telling me to go hack the game doesn't really refute anything that I'm saying.
In any case, Overhaul people haven't responded, so I can only assume this is not something that will change. Believe it or not, I'm OKAY with that. That's a pretty good way to look at it. And, being a DM myself, seems to be how I should have initially taken this, but I guess you could say it felt as though this spectral DM originally said "okay" and is now, suddenly and arbitrarily, saying "no," without really giving a good reason as to why that decision was reversed.