Inhuman domain lords don't really make sense to me - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Inhuman domain lords don't really make sense to me

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
harzerkatze
Aug 22, 2003 4:02:30 One thing that I have a problem with in Ravenloft is the existence of real monster races as domain lords.

I mean, although it isn't said like that, Ravenloft gives the impression that people who do heinous acts get their own domain by the powers, as a means to punish them, for they are always forced to not get what they want. Think of Azalin who doesn't learn new magic, which he craves, Strahd who always has to lose his love again etc.

I like that, it's real gothic horror. But if this is typical, having inhuman monsters as domain lords doesn't make sense. I am not talking about vampires or werewolves who are almost human. But Harkon Lukes for example must be as "good"-aligned as a wolfswere can be. OK, he sometimes kills humans when in a rage. But the other wolfsweres do it all the time for sport and living. Harkon at least is a social being who usually limits his frenzys and gets his power at singing contests, not by killing everybody as his fellow race members do. Why the hell should he be punished with a domain and not any other wolfswere?
Same goes with fiends. If you're from the abyss or baator anyway, how could you be punished for evil deeds?

As I said, I realize that Ravenloft never explicitely says why domains are existing and why a certain lord is chosen. It's one of the mysteries of ravenloft. But seeing the power check system, we can make a solid guess. But having fiends and inhuman monsters make power checks just doesn't make sense IMO. So why do they get domains?
#2
john_w._mangrum
Aug 23, 2003 15:04:16 I think you have a better opinion of Harkon than we do. He's charismatic -- the darklord everyone always "likes" -- but he's not nice. He kills as often and as callously as any other wolfwere.

The difference between Harkon and the other wolfweres is that they are animalistic predators who exist on the fringes of human society. They're creatures of the wilds, and don't like being surrounded by human society. Lukas, on the other hand, has plunged himself deep within that society, and preys upon it from within.

Normal wolfweres are the wolves picking off sheep from the edges of the herd. Lukas is the wolf sitting unnoticed at the heart of the herd, directing it away from the shepherds.

As for the other monster darklords, if you look closely I think you'll note that each of them have, in some way, demonstrated that they are much worse than their peers.
#3
zombiegleemax
Aug 27, 2003 0:59:26 So far as I know there are no fiendish Darklords in the Core. (Well Gwydion (sp?) but, its a special case and I don't count the rift as a major part of the Core). Arijanni comes close on his cluster but his storry puts him head and shoulders over other Rakshassa as one *EVIL* monster.

Who specifically are you talking about?

-Eric Gorman
#4
harzerkatze
Aug 27, 2003 3:27:31 Well, you probably know more about the darklord's stories than I do.
Regarding Harkon Lukas, I know only his outlines from the rulebooks. But since wolfsweres prey on human, I would say the difference between him and his peers is that they are hunters and he is a butcher, keeping his domesticated animals around until he kills them, not preying on them in a hunt. From a moral point of view, I don't see a difference between a hunter and a butcher.

Regarding fiends, Gwydion was one I was thinking about. In my mind, his is clearly a domain. Whether it's part of the core or not doesn't seem to be an issue. Easan would be another one, seeing that Easan himself never did anything evil that I know of, before being possessed by a fiend as punishment. That drove him insane, but that's pretty much like an illness: It wasn't Easan's fault, nor are his actions part of a willing attempt to do something evil for his personal gain. So what is evil in Easan is pretty much the fiend in him, I would say, or the madness caused by that fiend.
Ebonbane would be another example of a purely inhuman thing that's just evil and nothing else. Seeing that a lot of purely evil intelligent magic items exist, I don't see how normal morals apply to it. These are the ones I can think of right now, there may be others that I overlook.

My point is: The position of darklord should be limited to individuals that have the capacity to freely decide how to act on a moral scala between good and evil, and that have that scala and understand it like humanoids understand it. That's an integral part of the gothic horror in my eyes: You can escape your captors with your crimes, but you cannot escape fate, which will hunt you down in it's own way. Remember the quote that says gothic horror is like a primitive detective story, where god or fate plays the detective? That's the gothic horror element I am talking about here. there is a lot of dark poetic justice involved here. That giving in to temptation doesn't make you the winner in the end, but that that path to damnation has to be walked by your own free will.

That's why I say neither monsters, that don't understand good or evil as we do (you should do good, not evil), nor madmen, who can't decide freely, should be darklords. They just don't have what it takes for the ultimate evil act: To freely choose what is in essence wrong.
#5
hida_jiremi
Sep 07, 2003 23:53:19 On the concept of "inescapable fate", I generally agree, but Lukas still falls within that spectrum from his more detailed backstory. What he's being punished for isn't the murder or butchery of humans, but his presumption at going against the natural order of his kind. Wolfweres are solitary predators, not social butterflies like Lukas.

From a very real perspective, Lukas has a terrible punishment - he's surrounded by song, which he loves, but everyone's good at it, so he's not all that exceptional by comparison. He rules a domain, both politically and spiritually, but it's a domain with no real power or authority. Almost no one besides its neighbors have ever heard of it - which drives Lukas mad. He has as much food (i.e., people) as he could ever want, but hunting them does him no good because the domain is too small to quickly repopulate; he's stuck being a herd owner instead of a predator. Not just that, but he has to regulate all of the other wolfweres' hunting too, lest Kartakass become depopulated; he has to administrate over a species that doesn't actually care about him or respect his authority beyond his ability to physically dominate them. His children are all traitors, and no one shares his dreams.

For a being who cares so much about being liked by his own kind, he's living in a nightmare. From which he can never escape. He's not being punished for his crimes against humanity - that's just his kind's nature - he's being punished for his crimes against his own kind, namely trying to organize them and shape them into a political people.

Brrr... kind of chilling.

Hida Jiremi
#6
zombiegleemax
Oct 03, 2003 21:59:34 If you read Heart of Darkness (one of the RL novels from the early nineties) It actually delves quite deeply into Lukas' psyche. Lukas is not benevolent towards people. He views them as deer and himself, well as wolf. They are nothing but prey (it's such a great book too. He closes off his domain and everything ^.^)

NEVER take a month off from the boards.
#7
rotipher
Oct 06, 2003 11:06:28 Moreover, Lukas is exceptionally evil because he -- unlike other wolfweres -- is fundamentally a hypocrite. Others of his breed use their human guise purely as a tool for ambush and protective camoflage, but Lukas has actually come to *emulate* humans, and envy them their society and sophistication. In some sense, Lukas wants to BE a human -- a powerful, evil one, but still a human admired by humans -- yet at the same time, he hypocritically excuses himself from the moral responsibilities that human nature and society entail. He calls himself an "animal" only as it suits him, in order to justify his depredations on humans, even as he covets those very things -- respect, fellowship, culture, authority -- human beings *only* obtain by renouncing the savagery of beasts.

Lukas can't have it both ways: either he has the ability to act as a man and overcome his instincts (eating people included), or he doesn't have that capacity and should go back to the woods. It's his pig-headed refusal to recognize this -- to be fully man or fully monster -- that makes him worse than both other wolfweres (who know what they are and aren't ashamed of it) and your average *human* villain (who doesn't try to write off his crimes as "instinct").

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 harzerkatze Aug 22, 2003 4:02:30	One thing that I have a problem with in Ravenloft is the existence of real monster races as domain lords. I mean, although it isn't said like that, Ravenloft gives the impression that people who do heinous acts get their own domain by the powers, as a means to punish them, for they are always forced to not get what they want. Think of Azalin who doesn't learn new magic, which he craves, Strahd who always has to lose his love again etc. I like that, it's real gothic horror. But if this is typical, having inhuman monsters as domain lords doesn't make sense. I am not talking about vampires or werewolves who are almost human. But Harkon Lukes for example must be as "good"-aligned as a wolfswere can be. OK, he sometimes kills humans when in a rage. But the other wolfsweres do it all the time for sport and living. Harkon at least is a social being who usually limits his frenzys and gets his power at singing contests, not by killing everybody as his fellow race members do. Why the hell should he be punished with a domain and not any other wolfswere? Same goes with fiends. If you're from the abyss or baator anyway, how could you be punished for evil deeds? As I said, I realize that Ravenloft never explicitely says why domains are existing and why a certain lord is chosen. It's one of the mysteries of ravenloft. But seeing the power check system, we can make a solid guess. But having fiends and inhuman monsters make power checks just doesn't make sense IMO. So why do they get domains?
#2 john_w._mangrum Aug 23, 2003 15:04:16	I think you have a better opinion of Harkon than we do. He's charismatic -- the darklord everyone always "likes" -- but he's not nice. He kills as often and as callously as any other wolfwere. The difference between Harkon and the other wolfweres is that they are animalistic predators who exist on the fringes of human society. They're creatures of the wilds, and don't like being surrounded by human society. Lukas, on the other hand, has plunged himself deep within that society, and preys upon it from within. Normal wolfweres are the wolves picking off sheep from the edges of the herd. Lukas is the wolf sitting unnoticed at the heart of the herd, directing it away from the shepherds. As for the other monster darklords, if you look closely I think you'll note that each of them have, in some way, demonstrated that they are much worse than their peers.
#3 zombiegleemax Aug 27, 2003 0:59:26	So far as I know there are no fiendish Darklords in the Core. (Well Gwydion (sp?) but, its a special case and I don't count the rift as a major part of the Core). Arijanni comes close on his cluster but his storry puts him head and shoulders over other Rakshassa as one EVIL monster. Who specifically are you talking about? -Eric Gorman
#4 harzerkatze Aug 27, 2003 3:27:31	Well, you probably know more about the darklord's stories than I do. Regarding Harkon Lukas, I know only his outlines from the rulebooks. But since wolfsweres prey on human, I would say the difference between him and his peers is that they are hunters and he is a butcher, keeping his domesticated animals around until he kills them, not preying on them in a hunt. From a moral point of view, I don't see a difference between a hunter and a butcher. Regarding fiends, Gwydion was one I was thinking about. In my mind, his is clearly a domain. Whether it's part of the core or not doesn't seem to be an issue. Easan would be another one, seeing that Easan himself never did anything evil that I know of, before being possessed by a fiend as punishment. That drove him insane, but that's pretty much like an illness: It wasn't Easan's fault, nor are his actions part of a willing attempt to do something evil for his personal gain. So what is evil in Easan is pretty much the fiend in him, I would say, or the madness caused by that fiend. Ebonbane would be another example of a purely inhuman thing that's just evil and nothing else. Seeing that a lot of purely evil intelligent magic items exist, I don't see how normal morals apply to it. These are the ones I can think of right now, there may be others that I overlook. My point is: The position of darklord should be limited to individuals that have the capacity to freely decide how to act on a moral scala between good and evil, and that have that scala and understand it like humanoids understand it. That's an integral part of the gothic horror in my eyes: You can escape your captors with your crimes, but you cannot escape fate, which will hunt you down in it's own way. Remember the quote that says gothic horror is like a primitive detective story, where god or fate plays the detective? That's the gothic horror element I am talking about here. there is a lot of dark poetic justice involved here. That giving in to temptation doesn't make you the winner in the end, but that that path to damnation has to be walked by your own free will. That's why I say neither monsters, that don't understand good or evil as we do (you should do good, not evil), nor madmen, who can't decide freely, should be darklords. They just don't have what it takes for the ultimate evil act: To freely choose what is in essence wrong.
#5 hida_jiremi Sep 07, 2003 23:53:19	On the concept of "inescapable fate", I generally agree, but Lukas still falls within that spectrum from his more detailed backstory. What he's being punished for isn't the murder or butchery of humans, but his presumption at going against the natural order of his kind. Wolfweres are solitary predators, not social butterflies like Lukas. From a very real perspective, Lukas has a terrible punishment - he's surrounded by song, which he loves, but everyone's good at it, so he's not all that exceptional by comparison. He rules a domain, both politically and spiritually, but it's a domain with no real power or authority. Almost no one besides its neighbors have ever heard of it - which drives Lukas mad. He has as much food (i.e., people) as he could ever want, but hunting them does him no good because the domain is too small to quickly repopulate; he's stuck being a herd owner instead of a predator. Not just that, but he has to regulate all of the other wolfweres' hunting too, lest Kartakass become depopulated; he has to administrate over a species that doesn't actually care about him or respect his authority beyond his ability to physically dominate them. His children are all traitors, and no one shares his dreams. For a being who cares so much about being liked by his own kind, he's living in a nightmare. From which he can never escape. He's not being punished for his crimes against humanity - that's just his kind's nature - he's being punished for his crimes against his own kind, namely trying to organize them and shape them into a political people. Brrr... kind of chilling. Hida Jiremi
#6 zombiegleemax Oct 03, 2003 21:59:34	If you read Heart of Darkness (one of the RL novels from the early nineties) It actually delves quite deeply into Lukas' psyche. Lukas is not benevolent towards people. He views them as deer and himself, well as wolf. They are nothing but prey (it's such a great book too. He closes off his domain and everything ^.^) NEVER take a month off from the boards.
#7 rotipher Oct 06, 2003 11:06:28	Moreover, Lukas is exceptionally evil because he -- unlike other wolfweres -- is fundamentally a hypocrite. Others of his breed use their human guise purely as a tool for ambush and protective camoflage, but Lukas has actually come to emulate humans, and envy them their society and sophistication. In some sense, Lukas wants to BE a human -- a powerful, evil one, but still a human admired by humans -- yet at the same time, he hypocritically excuses himself from the moral responsibilities that human nature and society entail. He calls himself an "animal" only as it suits him, in order to justify his depredations on humans, even as he covets those very things -- respect, fellowship, culture, authority -- human beings only obtain by renouncing the savagery of beasts. Lukas can't have it both ways: either he has the ability to act as a man and overcome his instincts (eating people included), or he doesn't have that capacity and should go back to the woods. It's his pig-headed refusal to recognize this -- to be fully man or fully monster -- that makes him worse than both other wolfweres (who know what they are and aren't ashamed of it) and your average human villain (who doesn't try to write off his crimes as "instinct").