Dragonmark requirements

[magicalmagicman]

Least Dragonmark feat requirement says you must be the member of the house to take it; however, if you read the lore, you need their blood not their membership. By RAW reading of the feat, all you need to do is get accepted into the house via marriage or the like and you can take the feat, but according to the lore, you can't because you don't have the house's blood.

Also, a person who has the blood but is not a member can't grab this feat even though the lore says you just need blood and a stressful situation to acquire the dragonmark.

So which do we follow here? The lore that says you only need blood not membership, or the feat requirements which say you just need to be a member and don't need blood?

[BowStreetRunner]

The text of the feat itself states the requirement as "Member of appropriate dragonmarked race and house." (Eberron Campaign Setting, page 56.) I don't see anywhere that it defines what a member of the house would be. Since the same book repeatedly references 'members' of various races, blood would certainly seem to be an appropriate test of membership in a house.

Page 63 appears to support this. "...it is extremely rare for a person who is not a recognized member of one of these families to develop a dragonmark (and such cases usually result from indiscretions on the part of a lesser scion of the family)." Since such indiscretions would pass on the blood and not add the person to some theoretical written roll of the membership, it does appear that blood is sufficient.

As for someone adopted into a house, the dragonmark requirement states race AND house, so they would at the very least have to be of a dragonmarked race.

[lightningcat]

Not at my books, but iirc, any member of the apprpiate race could have a house dragonmark, but (fluffwise) they must be at least distantly related to the house. When it appears outside the house proper, they either adopt the individual, or treat them as a rouge dragonmark and kill them. The requirement for house and race is for the basic idea that everyone with a dragonmark is a member of the appropriate house.

[magicalmagicman]

Yeah the foundling has no membership and no ties other than a very distant family tree. It clearly says that appropriate race + bloodties = dragonmarks.

However, this is not RULES. It's FLUFF.

At no point does the book Dragonmarked attempt to provide an updated Least Dragonmark feat, is what the problem at hand is.

I always thought rules beat fluff, but here the fluff contradicts the rules, and is supposedly an update/expansion, but it's not rules. Is it?

So like, does this fluff beat the rules? Is there a rule saying fluff like this can defeat feat descriptions?

[Afgncaap5]

So like, does this fluff beat the rules? Is there a rule saying fluff like this can defeat feat descriptions?

Rule zero.

It sounds trite, but this really is a case of that, and it's something that comes up more frequently when you get setting specific things. Eberron is super big on the story being the driving force behind what's going on, so it's possible for rules to be obviated (but you'd better have a super fantastic reason in the story for why your Warforged is suddenly manifesting two different dragonmarks, or else the Emerald Claw, Lord of Blades, agents of The Twelve, any dragon interested in The Prophecy, and the Dungeon Master will suddenly be out to get you.)

Ultimately, RAI trumps RAW, especially in setting specific material, and Eberron's RAI is "This is the way things usually are. Figure out why it's different if you want it different."

(Having said that, if there's a rule other than rule zero, I'd also be interested in knowing about that one.)

[Zombimode]

However, this is not RULES. It's FLUFF.

The distinction you are trying to make here simply does not exist. There are only things that exist in the game world. Some of these things are described in more abstract terms, others in more concrete terms. Some people arbitrarily declare some entities as "fluff", usually to ignore restrictions that the "fluff" would impose.

If you accept the established lore of the setting, this will lead to an incoherent position: you would need to accept some statements as true (that is what "acceptiong the established lore" would entail) and on the same time declare those statements as false.


The established lore for Dragonmarks is that the following two are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions to develop a dragonmark :
- be of a dragonmarked race that corresponds to the dragonmark in question
- be related by blood to someone who has the dragonmark in question

If you accept this lore then you can't hold a coherent position that would allow the existence of a character with a Dragonmark that does not conform to those two conditions.
There is no room for your distinction of "rules" and "fluff".

[Red Fel]

So which do we follow here? The lore that says you only need blood not membership, or the feat requirements which say you just need to be a member and don't need blood?

Blood is membership, basically.

Dragonmarks, with very rare and few exceptions, tend to breed true - that is, say, a member of House Jorasco with the Mark of Healing is likely to have offspring with the Mark of Healing, whereas a random peasant is not. However, that doesn't mean that you have to be recognized or even honored by the House in order to have the Mark - bastards exist. For example, a disowned child of House Cannith who never manifested the Mark of Making might go off, build a new life for himself, and years later - bam, grandkid with the Mark. It happens.

Keep in mind that Favored in House is a separate feat - that's the feat where you're not only a member of a Dragonmarked House, you're a recognized member of that House. Characters without that feat can still be members of a House, they just aren't necessarily recognized.

But yeah. Blood is membership - if your character has the bloodline of Lyrandar, and manifests the Mark of Storm, he has the right to appear before the House and seek recognition and membership. They might have to figure out who his parents were, and why this particular Half-Elf came out of nowhere with their family birthright, but the Mark is proof of the blood, and the blood is proof of membership.

All that said? Rule 0 exists, as has been mentioned. And the lore acknowledges this, too - Dragonmarks are weird things that people don't quite understand. They do weird stuff and nobody quite grasps how or why. Like why Dragonmarks may skip a generation, or where they come from, or the Draconic Prophecy, or Abberant Dragonmarks. It's entirely possible, although it would cause a major uproar, that a character with absolutely no relation to a House might manifest that House's Dragonmark. By uproar, though, I mean the House would probably want that person brought in and autopsied, so keep that in mind.

[magicalmagicman]

It's entirely possible, although it would cause a major uproar, that a character with absolutely no relation to a House might manifest that House's Dragonmark. By uproar, though, I mean the House would probably want that person brought in and autopsied, so keep that in mind.

Do you have a source on this? Or do you mean "no relation" as in a super distant ancestor instead of literally no relation?

[Red Fel]

Do you have a source on this? Or do you mean "no relation" as in a super distant ancestor instead of literally no relation?

The "source" is Rule 0, along with the fact that - as stated in lore - nobody quite knows how Dragonmarks work. Is there an explicit source that says "Anybody, even somebody unrelated to a House, can manifest their Dragonmark?" I don't think so, particularly given that it would seem to contradict the feat itself - but the possibility is there, for a tolerant GM.

But yeah. Generally speaking, some relationship back to the House is basically assumed - even if it's the grandkid of a forgotten bastard child.

[Ryuuk]

As long as the race matches that of the dragonmark'd house's and there is some blood relation, a mark could be justified in setting. I think Dragonmarked (3.5, setting specific, splat book) outlines some possible origins for dragonmarked characters that aren't straight up Scions of the house:

Excoriates: Members of the house that are essentially excommunicated for some crime. Relationship with the house would be strained.

Orphans: Members that left the house willing, in order to avoid the limitations placed on them by the Korth Edicts (to be able to join a national military, to be able to own land or marry nobility). Relationship with the house would depend on how they left it.

Foundlings: Member of a dragonmarked race that suddenly manifests one. Their lineage can be traced to an orphan or an excoriate, maybe generations back. The house would be interested in recruiting such an individual into its rank.