Of course in 4e that's no longer true. Every race is a core race and most of those races weren't in the PHB 1. My question is do you think we should mix it up and allow any race to get dragonmarks (thus making the idea of a House separate from race) or should we stick to the established canon and keep the marks with the races that got them in the earlier version.
My apologizes if this has been asked before.
I don't think you should be opening up each of the houses to all races in general. Many of the histories of the houses are deeply connected to racial and family history, so you'd have a significant plot hole is anyone could manifest and join the house. House Phiarlan, for example, dates back to the phiarlans of Aeren's age. It wouldn't make much sense for humans or halflings to hold power in that house. House Ghallanda is another - their traditions arose out of the nomadic culture of Talenta. It'd be strange if a family of unconnected orcs started passing down the mark.
The setting is built on certain rules assumptions. Then the edition changes and the setting has legacy story elements that were based on older rules, but the new rules change some of those assumptions. Then another edition change comes along, and so on.
This is what happened to Greyhawk and FR. After a while, the settings lose a bit of what made them. I feel like that is happening a bit to Eberron.
Now having said that, I'm also stripping out all the 3.5 game mechanics and adapting the setting to a Savage Worlds campaign. I'm pretty much done with D&D these days.
That is a good thing.
There is no "canon". There are some things in articles and books that we the gamers can use or ignore. I said this on the FR forums and I wil say it here. We gamers are the luckiest SOBS in geekdom. In Heros (or any Scfi tv show) when a plot or season goes bad, the fans are helpless. When spidey makes a deal with the devil or when batman "dies" and their comics go to hell, those comic fans are helpless. When a gaming product does something that upsets you or goes against canon? We change it to fix our game so we can have fun. It is awesome to be an rpg geek because we have the power at the end of the day. Hell, most games are Houseruled out the whazoo anyway, even by people who love a game/setting/edition. That is what gaming is about and has been since waaay back in the day.
My idea of Eberron from the day I started liking it has been "screw canon I wanna have fun". The novels being canon-free shows this attitude also. Those novels are for people to have fun, and possibly inspire them to run or play in Eberron. Inspiring ideas is a great thing to me, being chained to canon and forever being lame because you favor the "canoncrutch" is just a shame. This is coming from soneone who was a canon junkie to another setting for years. I took a big dose of EB and am all better ;).
All of this is just my opinion of course.
I have been running a 4E EB game since September. I have had no real problems with the edition change. I am looking foward to the 4E EB book. If there are things I despise I won't use them. I don't see that happening. I deal with change. It does not irk me. From being on the EB boards I noticed the one thing about the campaign setting is that anything can happen.
That is a good thing.
There is no "canon". There are some things in articles and books that we the gamers can use or ignore. I said this on the FR forums and I wil say it here. We gamers are the luckiest SOBS in geekdom. In Heros (or any Scfi tv show) when a plot or season goes bad, the fans are helpless. When spidey makes a deal with the devil or when batman "dies" and their comics go to hell, those comic fans are helpless. When a gaming product does something that upsets you or goes against canon? We change it to fix our game so we can have fun. It is awesome to be an rpg geek because we have the power at the end of the day. Hell, most games are Houseruled out the whazoo anyway, even by people who love a game/setting/edition. That is what gaming is about and has been since waaay back in the day.
My idea of Eberron from the day I started liking it has been "screw canon I wanna have fun". The novels being canon-free shows this attitude also. Those novels are for people to have fun, and possibly inspire them to run or play in Eberron. Inspiring ideas is a great thing to me, being chained to canon and forever being lame because you favor the "canoncrutch" is just a shame. This is coming from soneone who was a canon junkie to another setting for years. I took a big dose of EB and am all better ;).
All of this is just my opinion of course.
I would like to second this. You are absolutely right. We can change anything in our games and make it anyway we want. That's a very important point and one that we RPG fans should not lose sight of.
That still leaves me curious about how other DM's intend to handle things in their games. Of course we can ignore what we want and add what we want but my question was more, what do you intend to ignore or add?
So far I'm hearing that the solution for most seems to be the gods either don't exist or are so distant that their existence is irrelevant. That is definitely keeping with the spirit of Eberron.
So far I'm hearing that the solution for most seems to be the gods either don't exist or are so distant that their existence is irrelevant. That is definitely keeping with the spirit of Eberron.
Think you got your threads slightly crossed there.
Regarding dragonmarks, I'm currently restricting them to the official races (the half-elf in my current game has a homebrew Least Mark of Storm I just whipped up), but once the Eberron PHB comes out I'll likely go with whatever it says in there; if that includes letting PCs pick up dragonmarks outside of their race, then so be it. I like to stick to canon as long as it doesn't rub me the wrong way, and the concept of just PCs picking up an off-race make is within acceptable parameters for me. :P
And regarding the gods: I presume we'll get more details when the official 4E books come out, but for now it seems likely that they'll continue along the 3.5 tack of never statting up the gods of Eberron. If you want to use existing deific statblocks, treat them as a Rajah or a daelkyr or, why not, an aspect of the Quor Tarai. Should the Eberron campaign I'm running now ever hit level 30, I'm expecting to use the Orcus statblock for a big Rajah showdown.
I also mess with canon freely when it suits me to do so. I am currently struggling with my desired changes to the map, because the new version is just so purty I hate to lose use of it. Anyone have any success editing the jpg? I really just need to create and move a bunch of islands.
Also, I always liked using the Elven subraces, so I created a backstory of several tribes of Elves (twelve, with a thirteenth that was lost forever, natch) that split after the Xen'drik rebellion. It seemed to me that the subraces were already there, despite the almost shrill insistence that they weren't. Between Valenar, Aerenal, Drow and a true-breeding Khoravar race, plus the dispersed "regular Elves" that were in the forests of Khorvaire, I thought you were already at five subraces in flavor, and three in mechanics. Making the half-elves (I have always hated them) a taller, more charismatic Elven race (Storm Elves) suited me, so I did it. Aquatics were in the 3.5 MM, so they had to be there somewhere, and the environmental splatbooks always included an Elven subrace. Subsequent materials made the Drow even more diverse, and now we will have Eladrin to contend with.
So no, not true to canon, but I sure like being able to pick and choose without ******* a bunch of people off. It doesn't seem like the FR community is so forgiving.
*wayne's world wiggly fingers*
In regards to dragonmarks, well I'm on the fence right now. I've been running a 4e Eberron campaign (which transitioned from 3.5e) since 4e came out. And my only request at the time was that players wait until Eberron 4e comes out before asking for Dragonmarks. The half-elf in the party is waiting until 4e Eberron before equipping a Mark of Storms. I must say that I do lurve the idea of PC's having alternate marks, it very much lets them stand out as something different and iterates that point.
That being said, there is a Brelish mage in the party who happens to favour the Blood of Vol. And this (poor) chap has just started to notice a small sigil over his heart after a recent near-death experience... mwuhahahaha.
I have been running a 4E EB game since September. I have had no real problems with the edition change. I am looking foward to the 4E EB book. If there are things I despise I won't use them. I don't see that happening. I deal with change. It does not irk me. From being on the EB boards I noticed the one thing about the campaign setting is that anything can happen.
That is a good thing.
There is no "canon". There are some things in articles and books that we the gamers can use or ignore. I said this on the FR forums and I wil say it here. We gamers are the luckiest SOBS in geekdom. In Heros (or any Scfi tv show) when a plot or season goes bad, the fans are helpless. When spidey makes a deal with the devil or when batman "dies" and their comics go to hell, those comic fans are helpless. When a gaming product does something that upsets you or goes against canon? We change it to fix our game so we can have fun. It is awesome to be an rpg geek because we have the power at the end of the day. Hell, most games are Houseruled out the whazoo anyway, even by people who love a game/setting/edition. That is what gaming is about and has been since waaay back in the day.
My idea of Eberron from the day I started liking it has been "screw canon I wanna have fun". The novels being canon-free shows this attitude also. Those novels are for people to have fun, and possibly inspire them to run or play in Eberron. Inspiring ideas is a great thing to me, being chained to canon and forever being lame because you favor the "canoncrutch" is just a shame. This is coming from soneone who was a canon junkie to another setting for years. I took a big dose of EB and am all better ;).
All of this is just my opinion of course.
word.
I'm not particularly attached to the 3rd Edition racial restrictions, myself ... I suppose I understand why, but I'm generally in favor of open options. And hey ... an 'off-race' dragonmark is an instant plot point.
I never saw anything other than Aberrant dragonmarks in 3rd Edition, and that was always the one that did Shield, for use by two-weapon or two-handed fighters.
I'm not particularly attached to the 3rd Edition racial restrictions, myself ... I suppose I understand why, but I'm generally in favor of open options. And hey ... an 'off-race' dragonmark is an instant plot point.
That is the point of it all. A Mark appearing on a race that should not have it is not a canon thing but a gaming/fun/storyline thing. I think the EB crowd will get it also.
That is the point of it all. A Mark appearing on a race that should not have it is not a canon thing but a gaming/fun/storyline thing. I think the EB crowd will get it also.
I agree with the decision in terms of allowing for player choice, but it does take something away from the setting. Specifically I think we'll hit the "oh no, all dark elves are CG rebels yearning to throw off the legacy of their CE brethren" cognitive dissonance wall pretty quick. In other words the existence of cross-species dragonmarks will be really rare . . . except that every party has 2 or 3 of them.
Still probably the right way to go, though.
I agree with the decision in terms of allowing for player choice, but it does take something away from the setting. Specifically I think we'll hit the "oh no, all dark elves are CG rebels yearning to throw off the legacy of their CE brethren" cognitive dissonance wall pretty quick. In other words the existence of cross-species dragonmarks will be really rare . . . except that every party has 2 or 3 of them.
This doesn't bother me very much. Heck, it can bring a party together under the common banner of freakdom. Also, one can't consider the composition of a party as a representative sample of the world's population. Yeah, there may only be 5 people with off-race dragonmarks on the face of Khorvaire ... and it may just happen that four of them wound up hanging out. Even if half the party is cross-marked, that doesn't mean half the population of Khorvaire is.
If party composition WAS a representive sample of the game world population, no game world my group ever plays in would have humans ... nobody EVER plays one.
This doesn't bother me very much. Heck, it can bring a party together under the common banner of freakdom. Also, one can't consider the composition of a party as a representative sample of the world's population. Yeah, there may only be 5 people with off-race dragonmarks on the face of Khorvaire ... and it may just happen that four of them wound up hanging out. Even if half the party is cross-marked, that doesn't mean half the population of Khorvaire is.
If party composition WAS a representive sample of the game world population, no game world my group ever plays in would have humans ... nobody EVER plays one.
Oh I agree with you, but I also expect people to remark on the fact that cross-species dragonmarks show a remarkable propensity to have angsty pasts, be targeted by the evil corporatio-I-mean dragonmarked houses, and join up with a group of fellow adventurous souls to seek wealth and glory ;).
Oh I agree with you, but I also expect people to remark on the fact that cross-species dragonmarks show a remarkable propensity to have angsty pasts, be targeted by the evil corporatio-I-mean dragonmarked houses, and join up with a group of fellow adventurous souls to seek wealth and glory ;).
Eh, apparently that's popular these days. Me, I don't get it.
If I wanted to play Shadowrun, I'd play Shadowrun. Well, first I'd get sober, then NOT play Shadowrun ... eh, you know what I mean.
Eh, apparently that's popular these days. Me, I don't get it.
If I wanted to play Shadowrun, I'd play Shadowrun. Well, first I'd get sober, then NOT play Shadowrun ... eh, you know what I mean.
lol I've never even played Shadowrun, I didn't even mean to reference it! I was just playing off the generic trope of renegade-hunmted-by-the-evil-people-with-money thing! Which doesn't say a lot about Shadowrun, if that's immediately where you went with that . . . ;)
I agree with the decision in terms of allowing for player choice, but it does take something away from the setting. Specifically I think we'll hit the "oh no, all dark elves are CG rebels yearning to throw off the legacy of their CE brethren" cognitive dissonance wall pretty quick. In other words the existence of cross-species dragonmarks will be really rare . . . except that every party has 2 or 3 of them.
Still probably the right way to go, though.
I agree with you 100%. This is my biggest fear for the setting and seems to stem from what may have been playtesters whining that if only race x had mark y they'd be so much cooler/ powerful/ useful...
I agree, it takes something away from the setting. I understand that the thought process that in order to be unique, you have to be visually (racially) different from someone else (see dragonmark house's races)...
Besides, If the DM house marks can just spark up on anyone now (however rare it may be), how are they any different from aberrent marks? Which were dangerous and unpredictable and could manifest anywhere on anyone at anytime. How are the 4th ed. marks any different?
I dunno, personally it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I know why they did it, and I know everyone is gonna love it (from self healing making marked 'forged to super bounce house teleporting Orien Eladrin)...
Oh well...
It all depends on the DM and gamers. Some groups may want to play this way and others may not. They suggest the possibility of this event happening but it does not have to happen. If some groups have every Tom, Dick and Harry manifesting marks then it may dilute the concep, but if it is used here and there then it could be great. A DM can always say no, just like with anything in His/Her game. The game/setting is under the control of the DMs and Players, just because a rule is suggested in a book does not mean gamers have to use it IMO.
It all depends on the DM and gamers. Some groups may want to play this way and others may not. They suggest the possibility of this event happening but it does not have to happen. If some groups have every Tom, Dick and Harry manifesting marks then it may dilute the concep, but if it is used here and there then it could be great. A DM can always say no, just like with anything in His/Her game. The game/setting is under the control of the DMs and Players, just because a rule is suggested in a book does not mean gamers have to use it IMO.
For example, if you want to play an abberant marked human with burning hands, you say "I'm playing an abberant marked human with burning hands."
If you want to play a Mark of Healing human, though, you say "Can I play a human with the Mark of Healing?"
And my answer will largely depend on whether or not I think you're doing it just for a mechanical advantage or if you have a cool idea for your character's history and future. If you're just looking to get a mechanical advantage, my answer will invariably be "No."
The cross-species marks are supposed to be because you're someone special to the Prophecy, from a narrative standpoint. So if you're going to ignore the narrative, I'm going to ignore the request.
Personally I'll be making it very clear that a cross-species mark will be "If the DM allows".
I haven't seen the final text of the book, but this is certainly the way I will be using it. It's a special exception that's supposed to highlight the fact that the PCs are heroes (or villains) touched by destiny and the Prophecy, and that should be the basis for the decision... not just "I'm a cleric, so I want the Mark of Healing."
Besides, If the DM house marks can just spark up on anyone now (however rare it may be), how are they any different from aberrent marks? Which were dangerous and unpredictable and could manifest anywhere on anyone at anytime. How are the 4th ed. marks any different?
Key word: Dangerous. Aberrant marks typically channel destructive forces. The premise is that the marks themselves can be dangerous to the bearer, though this has only showed up mechanically to a limited extent. Pure marks are rarely directly destructive. Beyond this, there is the idea that two aberrant marks that have the same effect (say, burning hands) will not necessarily resemble one another - while the Mark of Healing is always the Mark of Healing, even if it manifests on another race.
This core concept - aberrant marks are dangerous (or at least disturbing, like speaking with vermin) - is one that was somewhat lost in 3.5 because of mark powers like detect secret doors and feather fall. But that may be one of the things resolved in 4E. If you're a commoner, a child with burning hands WOULD be fairly frightening... while to find directly destructive pure marks, you have to go to things like Lyrandar's Siberys Storm of Vengeance.
And, of course, this is supposed to be exponentially rarer than an aberrant mark.
The deal was that it was a unique occurrence that took place for the purposes of that particular story.
Key word: Dangerous. Aberrant marks typically channel destructive forces. The premise is that the marks themselves can be dangerous to the bearer, though this has only showed up mechanically to a limited extent. Pure marks are rarely directly destructive. Beyond this, there is the idea that two aberrant marks that have the same effect (say, burning hands) will not necessarily resemble one another - while the Mark of Healing is always the Mark of Healing, even if it manifests on another race.
I have been of the mind to run the existing Marks & Races per the Canon in the 3e book, and allowing other races to take Aberrant Marks. Aberrant Marks would be pariahs and / or outcasts from most Dragonmarked Houses. This way the players could take an "out-of-race" option.
Thankfully my players have seen little interest so far in the dragonmarked houses, other than buying equipment from them.
I think I'm going to go weep for the death of Eberron over in my corner.
Hmmm, so now PCs can have any mark they arbitrarly want so that they can maximize their ability to powergame without concern for the history of the setting.
I think I'm going to go weep for the death of Eberron over in my corner.
See my above post. And Hellcow agreeing with it.
Hopefully we'll get some sort of "if DM allows" tag line in the section about cross-race marks.
Like I said, if you're going to ignore the setting, I as DM am going to ignore your request to make that character.
See my above post. And Hellcow agreeing with it.
Hopefully we'll get some sort of "if DM allows" tag line in the section about cross-race marks.
Like I said, if you're going to ignore the setting, I as DM am going to ignore your request to make that character.
Pretty much. It seems like in some peoples games if something is in a book it is automatically in a game. Things are only allowed in my games if I and the players are cool with it. If my players really, really want to try and break my game? Let em try. I am the DM. I can always take anything they throw at me and give them what for! Hopefully my players know me well enough that they won't try and break my games.
I have a little rule in my game now that I do not give out individual XP. If a player dazzles me with roleplaying, gaming smarts, and plot progression he/she will get better gear. If a player involves themselves in my game and story not just the combat they will come out of it with cool stuff. Since only two of my players only show up to fight or get away from the wife everything is going great (I run with 6 players).
Hmmm, so now PCs can have any mark they arbitrarly want so that they can maximize their ability to powergame without concern for the history of the setting.
I think I'm going to go weep for the death of Eberron over in my corner.
Overreact much?
Overreact much?
I said the same thing, in some many words, as it were....
But I think it has a grain of truth.
As for the other poster and the question about the published adventure where the PC's gain dragonmarks. It was an eldritch machine that grants them the marks and I believe they were temporary...
Though it may be "bad form", **most** players will be reasonable if you say let's try and focus the game on things besides the munchkins.
I find it a reasonable request on my part, to assure that it comes from a true character background need and not from power-play whim.
Besides, just because the dragonmarks have always been race-linked, as far as anybody knows, that doesn't mean they have to remain that way. If the Prophecy is an ever-changing thing, that means things that the prophecy pertains to can change as well.
Besides, my players never play PHB races. If I ever want to see a dragonmark, I *have* to open it up.
In my campaign I only allow players to take dragonmarks if they come to the next session with it tattooed on their skin.
I find it a reasonable request on my part, to assure that it comes from a true character background need and not from power-play whim.
I'm not sure if you're being humorous in general, or trying to undermine a DM who wants people to not take advantage of the setting. If you were just making a light-hearted jest, please skip the response below and forgive my assumption.
You make an exxagerated request and then call it reasonable, mimicing the actual reasonable stances that I and others have taken on the issue. If you feel like arguing for it not being DM-fiat, then an actual point would probably serve you better than mocking ours.
Such as "the marks should be mechanically balanced regardless of fluff, so I don't see a reason to restrict it based on background." That would be an intelligent arguement.
I was thinking he was being dead serious..
I was going to have a follow-up post detailing a trip to the hospital to visit a player with a severe case of ink-poisoning after taking the Siberys mark the previous session - but I guess enough is enough.
I'm not sure if you're being humorous in general, or trying to undermine a DM who wants people to not take advantage of the setting. If you were just making a light-hearted jest, please skip the response below and forgive my assumption.
You make an exxagerated request and then call it reasonable, mimicing the actual reasonable stances that I and others have taken on the issue. If you feel like arguing for it not being DM-fiat, then an actual point would probably serve you better than mocking ours.
Such as "the marks should be mechanically balanced regardless of fluff, so I don't see a reason to restrict it based on background." That would be an intelligent arguement.
I was begin humorous.
I'm actually in agreement with your "If the DM allows" post and ieattrollsforbreakfast's: "PCs, being exceptional beings, have access to any they mark want." (as long as they can come up with a good character background to explain it).
Another thing to consider: players that are new to the setting, can sometime stumble upon such crunch limitations as the dragonmark-racial, which in turn cause them to ask questions and gain some better insight into the setting's lore (that might have gone by unnoticed at that stage if the racial limitations where not part of the character creation crunch).
In my campaign I only allow players to take dragonmarks if they come to the next session with it tattooed on their skin.
I find it a reasonable request on my part, to assure that it comes from a true character background need and not from power-play whim.
I tried doing that, but the munchkin in my group got all 13 tattoos and so I was kind of up sh** creek, moral high-ground wise.
I was thinking he was being dead serious..
It's okay mate, we all wonder about Gilo sometimes. If Gilo's fed more than one buckets of fishheads a week he/she get's a little hyper :P .
I was begin humorous.
Whoops. Sorry Gilo. ^_^;
Airships.
It's always been a bit of a bothersome point for me that the setting seems to imply pretty heavily "If you don't have the Mark of Storm, you can roll to pilot an airship but you'll never actually be any good at it." Airships are a really cool part of the setting, and there's almost always at least one person in my group who wants to be an airship pilot at some point; I'd rather not tell them "no, your half-orc / tiefling / gnome / changeling / etc. airship pilot concept won't work very well, you need to be a half-elf with some sort of blood tie to House Lyrandar." The restriction of the mark to Lyrandar half-elves makes a lot of sense for the setting, w/r/t the general mechanics of dragonmarks and the three-way monopoly Lyrandar, Cannith, and the Zilargo gnomes hold on airships, but it's always felt a little too restrictive to me for player character concepts.
On one hand, I've got one player who's really excited about the idea.
On the other hand, he plays a gnome artificer. And he wants the Mark of Making. And to work for House Cannith. Regardless of how much it ticks the Trust off.
It's not Prophecy, but it's a story. Besides that leaves room for the DM to fill the Prophecy part on his own. (Like this gnome causing a political ruckus enough to finally shatter Cannith into three seperate houses, who then start operating not as Dragonmarked Houses but as something completely new, maybe ushering in an era where the Korth Edicts are finally thrown out the window and the Dragonmarked families rise to power and all sorts of other stuff that has importance to the Prophecy.)
Of course, I could just use that as a source of adventures instead of as a source of instant death...
As for the Trust, I don't think they're THAT gestapo. If the gnome isn't giving away Zil Elemental Binding secrets to House Cannith, I don't see why the Trust would care.
Although, on the whole "you don't need the mark to be a tinker" thing, I wholeheartedly concur. I'll let him know... And, with any luck, he'll thing of a good roleplaying reason to have the Mark!
My first exposure to the Trust was reading the "Gnomes of Zilargo" dragonshard articles. So, I guess I might have a tendency to overstate their stab-adventurer levels.
However, a skilled gnome working for a Dragonmarked House wouldn't really be that harmful to the status quo. Unless the gnome in question is actively doing things to disrupt the Zil way of life (like destroying their monopoly on elemental binding in Khorvaire.) Zilargo, and therefore the Trust, actually have good relations with House Cannith, who use their expertise to create the Airships, Elemental Galleons, and Lightning Rail coaches that they then sell to House Lyrandar and House Orien.
In my campaign I only allow players to take dragonmarks if they come to the next session with it tattooed on their skin.
I find it a reasonable request on my part, to assure that it comes from a true character background need and not from power-play whim.
You win the thread.
The Trust always gives me the heebie-jeebies...
An interesting new thread proposal: "Original ways for the Trust to run obnoxious adventurers groups out of of Zilargo": I'm thinking about all sort of sting-type operations where the group get handed a false treasure map, or maybe wake up in the morning in an Aerenal jungle clearing (or maybe somewhere in Argonnessen) with a "I have a mark of death" note pined to the back of their armor (or to be more nasty - an illusionary mark of death painted to their skin).
Don't feed the Gilo in the cages cookies... PJammaGod will *facepalm* me to death now ;)
Don't make me break out "the Picard" :P .
Yeah anything involving "The Trust" goes well in my Eberron games. Having them chasing after the party is an exercise in scary, since they'll probably have most gnomes watching out for them, even if said gnome is completely unaware of how far along the chain their information goes.
You could also have the party come across incriminating evidence (up to the DM) on a nation with whom Zilargo has a treaty (again the details are up to the DM). National security dictates that the party be silenced before any political damage is done. Watch your backs ladies and gents...
Hmmm, so now PCs can have any mark they arbitrarly want so that they can maximize their ability to powergame without concern for the history of the setting.
Players can't do anything that their DM doesn't let them do.
I think I'm going to go weep for the death of Eberron over in my corner.
Oh please
Its getting a little old people proclaiming how 4e is the death of all things good. If you don't like 4e, that's fine. Its not for everyone. But can we please leave the melodrama behind? Please!Hopefully we'll get some sort of "if DM allows" tag line in the section about cross-race marks.
Why do you need a book to tell you what you can and can't do? Just as anyone could allow cross-racial Dragonmarks in 3.5e, they can disallow cross-racial marks in 4e. You don't need WotC's permission!
If this is the level of moaning and groaning we're going to get over every change, this place will get as bad as the FR forums which I'd hate to see!
(as long as they can come up with a good character background to explain it).
I don't know if its necessary t come up with a good character background to explain it. I see the marks (and my PoV could be 110% wrong) as manifestations of some supernatural power called the Draconic Prophecy. How this power works is unknown to most mere mortals, and I'm not even sure if the dragons understand it completely. The Dragonmarks appearing among a small group of people were manifestations of this power. It being hereditary was also significant. If it were to spontaneously manifest itself on someone, that would also be significant and has a different meaning then when it is passed down to offspring.
What's that reason? Buggered if I know. I might consider making it important to the campaign, or I might not. But I'd see it as the person being born with the mark (which I would want to see influence their life).
As for a dragonmark manifesting itself halfway through the person's life (i.e. when the person levels), I don't know if I'd allow that. I'd want to have a definite reason as to why it happened (and while the player is free to offer ideas, I might decide my own idea) and if I couldn't, I wouldn't allow it. But that's because I have a certain idea as to what dragonmarks are and how they work.
As a DM you have to set boundaries. A "you must be of the appropriate race" or "your character must have been born with that dragonmark" is a pretty simple rule to make. If you can't make such a rule, then you're players are going to walk all over you when DMing and you're going to be a pretty poor DM in my opinion.
It seems the more 4e is about, the more people say "You must do this in 4e" and when I come along and say "no you don't, and that isn't how I'd do it in my game" the more I get told "that's not how the books say you have to do it." I don't give a darn what the books say (no offence to Keith and everyone else who worked on the books). For example I ran an adventure on Saturday that had a skill challenge in it and had a reputation point system I was suppose to use. I ended up ignoring the reputation point system (instead giving the players a reputation on how they roleplayed, rather then on how they rolled) and gave them XP for a skill challenge despite not making them give me the prerequisite number of rolls or even tracking whether or not they succeeded or failed in the rolls. I do things my way, if the players like it they'll stay. If they dislike it they'll leave. But ultimately what I choose to do is for the enjoyment of everyone at the table.
Also a sidenote. That Saturday was the most I'd ignored an adventure's "rules" and I was told it was the best adventure I'd run to date. I ultimately use 4e because it gives everyone a good starting point (and is much simpler then 3.5) and we then play from there. We don't adhere slavishly to what a book says, we do what's fun. And for the most part, the players are unaware of when I'm ignoring rules all over the place.
On the other hand, he plays a gnome artificer. And he wants the Mark of Making. And to work for House Cannith. Regardless of how much it ticks the Trust off.
I'd look at the character concept personally. If his character doesn't care about the Trust, and the Trust wouldn't have killed him before the campaign starts, I'd be fine with it. Otherwise I wouldn't allow it.
It's not Prophecy, but it's a story. Besides that leaves room for the DM to fill the Prophecy part on his own. (Like this gnome causing a political ruckus enough to finally shatter Cannith into three seperate houses
At first I'd say I wouldn't go that way because its a self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other hand many prophecies are. For example Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time things happening simply because the prophecy says it has to happen. I'm sure other fiction is rife with other examples as well.
An interesting new thread proposal: "Original ways for the Trust to run obnoxious adventurers groups out of of Zilargo": I'm thinking about all sort of sting-type operations where the group get handed a false treasure map
Heh, this just solved a dilemma I've had in how to start a campaign I'm planning for August
And yes I do have to plan that far ahead because I'm broke so I need to save up for the supplies I want (Stormreach book, ECG, EPG, MM2, DDi subscription, dungeon tiles/battlemap). As it is I can't actually afford most of that yet even with an August start-date.In my setting, Half-Orcs were a lot more plentiful and prominent. The Mark of Finding occurs exclusively on them (Humans don't get it). Furthermore, the Mark of Sentinel has been taken from Humans and given exclusively to Half-Orcs in the east, so they too now run House Denneith.