You are correct. An Epic Level party will trash any Darklord save Azalin, any time of the day. Yes, even Strahd will be taken down by an Epic Level party. The only reason that I give Azalin top dollar is because his memory modification power makes him almost unbeatable in a stand up fight.
As for the relative power-level of a number of the Darklords, I would also agree. They are relatively "weak." But only in a physical, stand-up fight sense.
But that's a good thing. If the land was populated by 20+ level bad guys draped in dark armor...well, why not play on the Lower Planes? Demogorgon is who you need to be facing once you get to Epic Levels, not Gabrielle Aderre.
Now, just because a Darklord is physically weak doesn't make them not powerful. Let's look at Lex Luthor from DC comics. Luthor is...what to Superman? Nothing. He's a man who could be easily killed by Superman by a flick to the head. But Luthor surrounds himself with devices, sycophants, minions, and all sorts of goodies that protect him from Krypton's favorite son.
That's how Darklords should work in my opinion. If you go to Ivan Dilisnya's house to kill him, you find out that your fiance's been poisoned. Worse yet, your fiance's taken some Borrowed Time, so he'll have to keep taking the antidote that only Ivan knows how to make for the rest of his life. That, in my opinion, is how Darklords work. They're not there when you go to kill them, they're at your village torturing everyone you know, writing a message in blood for you on the cottage wall.
On a final note, I don't believe that Ravenloft is meant to support play at the higher levels. That may be just me, but I don't believe in trying to run a horror game once you get past 12th or 15th level.
Being able to kill someone is not the same as actually killing someone.
Heck, 99.9% of the RL population doesn't know about darklords and Dark Powers, why should the players get a special treatment in this regard? Let them sweat for it. It's not as if a Commune spell was all that was needed to answer that question.
Its that simple.
The darklord of the realm isn't the person you're trying to kill...if you go around hacking random darklords then you are going to become more evil yourself.
darklords aren't given power by the powers that be...they are given curses for their evil deeds. They aren't 'picked' out b/c they are powerful, but instead they commit such vile acts that they 'attain' the status of darklord as the final step in their curse. Darklords when put it bluntly are screwed. Even azalin is impotent to achieve what he wants.
Darklords like eveything else in the game are there to interact with...and to be interesting, and sometimes terrifying.
Defeating things aren't that simple...its not just a matter of running around and hacking at everything that moves...sometimes there are no clearcut answers. PCs have to make difficult choices...often having to pick from the lesser of 2 evils, or having to choose who really is the evil, or having to make sure they don't become evil...etc, etc. There is a lot of potential for all kinds of stuff...as much as one can imagine.
Of course...if you want a game where things just get progressively higher stats to go along with yours you could play faerun.
Any number of fun things can happen:
The Dark Powers have given great power to the Darklords, but really only seem to be attached to a select few of them. The rest are fair game -- by all means, sacrifice one (or more) of them to test the party's moral mettle. Is it better to live with the devil or live with the consequences of its absence? At the very least, word would get out around the Core that cataclysm follows in the party's wake, and the other Darklords would officially be on notice.
A party of 20th level PC's could probably make quick work of pretty much anything the dread realms could throw at them. It seems to me that once that instance occurs the game looses its principal objective, putting a good, healthy scare in its players. If they know they can defeat any creature or denizen sent against them, then they have little reason to fear anything. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
My solution has always been to end the campaign and have the characters retire. The closing session of a campaign can be the most important session of all, in my opinion.
On the other hand, the project I'm working on will address some of these issues. Some of them. I still maintain that Ravenloft isn't built for the high levels, plain and simple.
I've heard of people playing Ravenloft at the high levels, but those campaigns no longer represent what a "Ravenloft" game is to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, the point of the game is to have fun.
What did these people did do when they played high level Ravenloft? They used the Epic Level Handbook and used monsters like the Atropal or the Worm that Walks. Most of what they did was set in Bluetspur.
.I've heard of people playing Ravenloft at the high levels, but those campaigns no longer represent what a "Ravenloft" game is to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, the point of the game is to have fun.
What did these people did do when they played high level Ravenloft? They used the Epic Level Handbook and used monsters like the Atropal or the Worm that Walks. Most of what they did was set in Bluetspur.
While I generally agree that RL is best with low-level characters, feel free to take a look at the Epic-level Ravenloft campaign that DeepShadow is running here:
http://madstepdad.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=shadow
No Bluetspur, no epic level foes. An experiment to see if RL can be made to work for Epic levels without drastically changing things.
Some darklord have the undying soul ability to make them harder to kill. See Harkon Lukas (only bard level 8) for exemple, when slain, is soul is instantly transferred to the nearest dire wolf in kartakass. so you will have to kill every dire wolf then kill Lukas, but there is not way the PC can learn this. Unless the player do metagaming
He's just one of many darklords that are all but impossible to destroy: Strahd, Hazlik, Adam, Draga Salt-Biter, Malken, Azalin, the Three Hags, and more all have ways of coming back from the dead or avoiding death at the last second. Imagine how terrifying it would be to barely defeat Strahd, only to have him reappear two days later. In Hazlik's case, the person who slays him will most likely become him. Also pretty terrifying.
Dominic d'Honaire is a toughie, with his mental powers and all, but does anyone else think a Will Save DC of 19 is a bit low, even for non-epic characters?
Then we have people like Drakov. Even if you're going for him personally, you do have to contend with the entire army of Falkovnia if he finds out you're after him. Even Epic-level characters might have some problems with thousands of soldiers, many with decent levels of Fighter, Rogue, et cetera.
By the way, I haven't seen Elena Faith-Hold's new stats. How does she stack up?
- Yulian
"Grief is the agony of an instant, the indulgence of grief the blunder of a life." - Benjamin Disraeli
That said there are several techniques that can be used to "protect" weaker DLs from tougher PCs:
(1) Something I've used to good effect is to change the names to protect the guilty. For example I've run Dementlieu with a power struggle between the brain and Dominic (fairly standard) -but- I put Dominic's stats and abilities into another person on the council of brilliance. Now we still had a power behind the duke, and Dominic...but they weren't the same people.
Produced a real diaper moment and a lot of head scratching for the PCs when the NPC named Dominic was assassinated (and things didn't have realm shaking consequences besides the murder of a prominent noble).
(2) Something else to consider is to bring back a living DL (who gets killed) in an undead state. Either still as the DL or just as a more powerful evil NPC with an agenda against the PCS and/or regaining its former position. Ghosts in particular can be difficult to permanently detect and destroy. The added abilities gained in undeath can bolster a weak DLs abilities and confuse PCs to the sources of their woes.
(3) Tweak their abilities to cut out metagaming. I've often thought of changing Strahd from "Dracula" to a version of "Dorian Grey". If Strahd has a painting (finished with Segei's blood) that keeps him from aging and continues to hunt for the reincarnations of Tatyana the core of his character hasn't changed at all - but his powers and weaknesses have!
(4) Worse fates. PCs might not whack Ivana if the alternative is that Drakov and Falkovnia absorb the realm. Sure she sucks as far as good rulership goes, but she doesn't impale her peasants for entertainment either. Give the PCs moral choices between various evils.
-Eric Gorman
First, thank you for the opinion on a good 'cutoff' level. I am going to be paying close attention to that, I can assure you.
Name-changing is a cheap and dirty trick and I like to think I can trust my players enough not to go for the DL if, ICly, they don't know. But if they just can't help it...I guess it's viable.
I would really save bringing back a foe as undead in rare cases. In fact, one of the best nasty NPCs I ever came up with was an innocent NPC framed by a neutral-evil NPC for the attempted murder of Harkon Lukas. He was staked out and left for a pack of Winter Wolves I'd dropped into the Domain. One of the other PCs, a native Kartakan, wrote a dirge for the departed NPC, and the NE PC failed his powers check. In between sessions I rolled up what I now realize was an Arayashka and attached it to the song. I think it's more fun not to bring someone as big as a DL back that way.
Option 3 is intriguing. I'll have to really mull that one over.
As for 4, how would PCs know that things like that might happen? Inasfar as anyone in Ravenloft knows, didn't Strahd and Maloccio just conquer Gundarak militarily after Gundar bought it? I think that sort of thing really makes it tough for inhabitants of RL to even conceive of the idea of Borders.
- Yulian
"It's no accident that the church and the graveyard stand side by side. The city of the dead sleeps encircled by the city of the living." - Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider
(4) Worse fates. PCs might not whack Ivana if the alternative is that Drakov and Falkovnia absorb the realm. Sure she sucks as far as good rulership goes, but she doesn't impale her peasants for entertainment either. Give the PCs moral choices between various evils.
As for 4, how would PCs know that things like that might happen? Inasfar as anyone in Ravenloft knows, didn't Strahd and Maloccio just conquer Gundarak militarily after Gundar bought it? I think that sort of thing really makes it tough for inhabitants of RL to even conceive of the idea of Borders.
Logic, perhaps? Deprive a realm of its military strength (killing Ivan Dilisnya, in the case of Borca), and you can guarantee that any enemies it has will be dropping by with an army or two. Look at the end of the Borca section of Gaz IV for the logic results of the death of one or the other of the Dark Twins, and you'll see what I mean.
Oh, and that's Strahd and Gabrielle conquering Gundarak, not Strahd and Malocchio.
When playing with people who already know a lot of the ins and outs of RL (or any campaign world) its often hard to kick start the "wonders of discovery" that I believe is part of all great campaigns. Tweaking PCs expectations early on is a great way IMO of shaking things up. It also says obliquely to the players there aren't any sacred cows (even if there really are) and hopefully makes them rethink everything they thought they knew. FYI I had this pulled on me as a player long before I ever used it as a judge. After I got done gnashing my teath I thanked the judge for a great experince.
In RL especially I believe DMs are well served to keep both the identy of villians and their numbers/stats as concealed as possible. Everything is scarrier when you don't know what it can do. As soon as you can quantify the enemy it in terms of stats you can start planing in game with ways to deal with it or just flee if its too powerful. Just about all of my suggestions about handling the lesser DLs are variations on theme.
As for the return of a DL as an undead I agree its not to be done lightly. But many DLs have a mechanism to come back anyway...they just aren't easy as a class to get rid of. I was thinking of Vlad Drakov coming back as a vampire if he were somehow slain when I wrote that. In my mind that would fit.
Finally on the matter of worse fates you're moving into the relam of plot devices. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as regime change. Someone else suggested (as an example) Ivan could put someone close to the PCs (or a PC!)on borrowed time. If the PCs whack Ivan that (N)PC then dies. =(
If the party wants to go after weaker known DLs (who perhaps have a public persona as a despot) its not illegitimate as the DM to try and stear things in another direction if that's where you want the campaign to go (though ultimately you must bow to the party's actions). There are more subtle and more overt ways to go about it. What I've called worse fates is more heavy handed than most. How do PCs become aware of these fates? Usually someone tells them though logic as mentioned by Malus Black is also a possibility. Generally when i take this tack I either (1) leave a journal of some oldder "hero" who describes his or her fears about X (the worse fate) happening as a result of Blah blah blah. (2) the villian just tells the PCs. "You are now posioned with borrowed time., let me explain what this means to you..." or "You have interfered with my ruling of Barovia for the last time. I am the land and will no longer brook interference on pain of the death and animation of the village of valki. Your parents, your siblings, your friends will all face an eternity in undeath." (3) a PCs that is a scholarly type and has studied RL/Planes/mists might know enough by 8-12th level to have some idea of the outcomes. (4) finally a foreign party with a stake in the outcome can also tell the PCs. The vistani are the best choice for this but Azalin, Strahd, the Night Hag Stryxx, the Knights of Shadow, Fraternity of the Black Feather and the churches of Hala and Ezra probably have members with enough of a grasp on things to see how things might play out.
Just a few more thoughts and clarifications.
-Eric Gorman
If they're oulanders, they definitely don't know how the 'Loft works.
Well, that and you have Darklords like Lemot Sediam Juste, who don't need to fight the PCs to make them wish they were dead.
D'honaire's another example.
Or take some of the non-Darklords (characters the PCs are far more likely to run into IMC-
The Living Brain- Are you willing to slash your way through dozens of innocent people to get to this brain in a jar? If you are, congratulations, we have a domain for you.
Toben the Many- Chop, hack, slice, blast, atomize, he'll be back.
The Midnight Slasher- You've gotta find her to kill her. And she's already murdered your girlfriend, your young aunt, and your favorite barmaid. You wanna ressurect 'em? Be prepared to put 'em down if they come back as undead. To say nothing of that weird change you went through for meddling in the affairs of life and death.
Athakeetha- Immortal. Disintegrate him, he'll return.
The Gentleman Caller- Even if you foul one of his schemes, he'll almost certainly escape to destroy some more innocents.
Isolde- Mistakenly attack her and beat her, and you've killed off one of the greatest forces of good in the land of the Mists.
Senmet- Sure, go ahead and kill him. But did you really finish him off?
Emil Bollenbach- This guy's harder to get rid of than a cockroach.
So, has this player been trying this strategy yet? You should let him whet his whistle on some easy marks like goblyns and vrykolakas, then hit him with a clever wolfwere, doppleganger, or for pure smashfestery, an evil or undead treant. I think you can demonstrate the ill-advisedness of that approach relatively easily.
- Yulian
"It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." - Gore Vidal
Players (at any level) may choose to try and do something about the evil around them by striking at a percieved source - possibly a DL. In a long running campaign there will come a time when PCs of a heroic bent will have gathered enough knowledge about "the bad guys" to know how to go after some of them, and enough power to do something about it. It behooves DMs to think about ways of managing such critical conflicts. Taking hostages, striking at loved ones, leaving false trails etc. are all good at a tactical level but DMs might want to think strategically as well. Earlier I posted 4 tricks that I've used or seen used to keep PCs guessing.
PCs don't need to understand about DLs to decide something needs to be done about some of them. Baron Karkov is harder to get at that Ivan and Ivana, but is also more or less obvious to players who spend a significant amount of time in Valachan. Vlad Drakov, Strahd and Azalin are also all essentially obvious to any PC who casts a critcal eye their way over a reasonable period of time. (Though all but the most powerful PCs trying to act directly against will probably "self-correct")
Hunting DLs is a bad model but a game that progresses to levels where the PCs are a match for some DLs, IME players usually develop a reason to go after one or another.
-Eric Gorman
Given average intelligence, any darklord should probably be able to outwit most PC's.
- Darklords have usually been at the job for a while and have it down pat, while PC's are new to the area.
- Most darklords have some pretty effective ways to stay in power; otherwise, their evil (and their punishment for it) would be transient.
- Darklords should have a sizable home field advantage.
If I recall, most darklords have some degree of divination or social network to detect new high-level presence in their domains. So there probably wouldn't be much surprise involved.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't treat darklords like mindless, unoriginal zombies who are caught asleep at the wheel, there are probably enough tools at your disposal to make them the threat they are supposed to be.
If Ivana or Ivan know you want their heads, odds are they're going to take steps. As some of the least capable DLs in a straight fight, they make up for it with raw cunning. Ermordenung, for instance, can kill you with a touch and no one said they couldn't have character levels, did they? A level 10 Ermordenung Sorceress or Fighter could probably do a lot of damage if the party doesn't see it coming and they get one character alone. Heck, if the party is on-guard for female seduction, send one of the rare males with some backup to 'join them on their righteous mission'. We're also assuming the PCs have no friends or loved ones to go after, either.
Drakov, of course, has an army of thousands of NPCs at his command, as I said before.
Hazlik may not be super-high in level, but he does have a wizard's' academy and an army to command. Sure, they're not going to have a great many high-level spells, but if he could get even 20 of his students together...that's a lot of Magic Missiles and Fireballs.
Many DLs are, of course, practically unkillable on a permenant basis because there's almost no way even a high-level party is going to figure out how to do it. Kill every wolf in Kartakas? I can't even imagine how you'd even begin to figure that one out even if you saw the wolf he jumped into, because there's no outward change at that moment.
Also, don't forget alliances. At least four Core Domains have a mutual defense pact. Sure, at the moment it's directed towards Falkovnia but remember, the average citizen of Ravenloft often doesn't know about the DL and won't believe if told. Sure, Jaqueline Renier is an evil wererat, but you know what? The citizens of Richemulot, by and large, have no clue and have often taken an oath to defend that land. If a force of nature like a 20th-level party starts calling for blood, the repercussions will be Corewide and they will attract other foes. If someone like Azalin notices that more than one DL has been killed by the same group, he's very likely to start taking steps to kill them all before they start gunning for him. Cursed items, Kargat agents, careful use of propaganda...all these tools can be used to turn people against the party.
"So what?" they might scoff, "We're 20th+ level. We can kill an -army- of peasants!" Of course they can...and fail Powers Checks all the while because they won't back down from the DL sending those peasants to their deaths.
So basically, trying to gun for a DL is a losing proposition. I don't think, in canonical Ravenloft, it's ever been done successfully by someone who didn't become a Darklord themselves, like Aderre, Renier, and Dominiani.
- Yulian
"Pride sullies the noblest character." - Claudianus
Ooh, I hadn't thought of that. Good observation!
If I found myself with PC's hell-bent (literally) on killing a darklord, I would ensure that those actions came with a dire price.
I`m keen on the idea of native heroes managing to free their land from the grip of evil. It may well take them their entire career, but it should be something that can happen. True enough, it may cost them their lives in the final battle or otherwise end their career, but such a victory is needed once in a while to give the heroes of the land hope and to remind other dark lords that they should not take their position for granted when challenged by the forces of good.
So, if there is a "dire price" to pay, then it shouldnt be one where a player simply becomes a dark lord and it all starts again. There really should be a hope, however slim, that a powerful group of heroes can make a lasting difference, perhaps even destroying the whole evil place once and for good.
I need that hope as a GM, let alone as a player. Otherwise i would just feel that my games lacked meaning. Dark lords are really good villains to work with, but their story, like all stories, has a suitable conclusion that gives them meaning and justification. I would say that the most testing and significant time for a dark lord is exactly that time when a pack of powerful heroes comes beating down their door. At that time they are the ones to know fear and weakness and i would think that pleased the dark powers of Ravenloft very much indeed.
Ravenloft needs its heroes and it needs its legends. Without hope of success, then there is no fear, only hopelessness. The destruction of one dark lord and the freeing of his lands from the mists is not something to fear at all, as a GM. One day all of Ravenloft will go that way and its that thought which keeps me going as a GM when i use the setting. Not the thought that everything my players do will lead to nothing.
I dont like the sound of that. I would say there are certainly risks of temptation and corruption when struggling to defeat a dark lord, but it should be possible and there should be the chance of a good result, especially with native characters.
I`m keen on the idea of native heroes managing to free their land from the grip of evil. It may well take them their entire career, but it should be something that can happen. True enough, it may cost them their lives in the final battle or otherwise end their career, but such a victory is needed once in a while to give the heroes of the land hope and to remind other dark lords that they should not take their position for granted when challenged by the forces of good.
I need that hope as a GM, let alone as a player. Otherwise i would just feel that my games lacked meaning. Dark lords are really good villains to work with, but their story, like all stories, has a suitable conclusion that gives them meaning and justification. I would say that the most testing and significant time for a dark lord is exactly that time when a pack of powerful heroes comes beating down their door. At that time they are the ones to know fear and weakness and i would think that pleased the dark powers of Ravenloft very much indeed.
Ravenloft needs its heroes and it needs its legends. Without hope of success, then there is no fear, only hopelessness. The destruction of one dark lord and the freeing of his lands from the mists is not something to fear at all, as a GM. One day all of Ravenloft will go that way and its that thought which keeps me going as a GM when i use the setting. Not the thought that everything my players do will lead to nothing.
No offense, but I think you're missing a lot of the point of the setting. The Darlords do not sit pretty and enjoy their success. Part of the whole idea of being a Darklord is that they are cursed. It's not a reward, it's a punishment.
It's also impossible to "free their land from the grip of evil.". If they manage to defeat one Darklord, someone will immeditely take their place or something worse will happen. Your example more-or-less happened already, and we know the results. Duke Gundar was defeated by a group of heroes with help from Dr. Dominiani. You know what happened? According to canon, the heroes all died, Dominiani was granted a Domain, and Gundarak was absorbed into Invidia and Barovia and now the ethnic Gundarakites have it pretty bad in many places.
So as idealistic as your notions are, it doesn't seem to work that way. Besides, even one such victory would change the nature of Ravenloft forever. The setting isn't about "winning". It is, among other things, about doing what good when and where you can against overwhelming odds. In Ravenloft, there's always a price to be paid. Look at van Richten.
Okay, now some direct questions for you. What were you thinking would happen if some group of heroes actually managed to take down a Darklord? Also, what led you to believe that any Darklord "takes their position for granted"? They all suffer for it, after all, none of them enjoys what they have become.
Also, natives would have no clue that their land could be "freed from the mists". It'd be like someone on Oerth thinking that if they manage to free their kingdom from tyranny it's just going to vanish off the face of that world. In fact, why would the citizens of Ravenloft want that? That's a bit of metagame thinking, I'd say. 3e especially makes it clear that there are people who love their land, who would fight for it, who would die for it. I think that's far more the point of the setting. Ravenloft is different than almost any other Prime Material world, and I think it's more realistic (in the sense of fantasy) to embrace those differences and run with them, as opposed to haveing even a chance to change the most important element of the status quo.
Additionally, the Dark Powers probably just won't let it happen. As in Lovecraft's work, one of the themes of the setting is "There Are Bigger Things Out There Than You", and I don't mean monsters or Darklords. There are some forces out there that no hero can stand up to, and that's as it should be. So even if a band of heroes manages to slay a Darklord ... well ... they will likely all die or be cursed for their arrogance at thinking they can change the world (because they can't) and someone new will step up to take the old Darklord's place, or the land will be parceled out to other "pet projects". This doesn't destroy hope, quite the opposite.
Hope flourishes when given a challenge. The people of Gundarak hope for deliverance in the face of prejudice, and remember, -some- Domains aren't that bad to live in. Richemulot might be a hotbed of political intrigue, but it doesn't seem so bad, same with Mordent, or Lamordia. The people of Sri Raji also seem to have been dealt a pretty good hand when it comes to their everyday lives.
This was a bit of the rant, but I felt compelled to answer as it seems (in my opinion, mind you), that you're missing some of the best aspects of the game and making it a bit more like "standard fantasy" and by doing so, I think you're missing out on a unique flavour of RP.
- Yulian
"When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bustling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity." - Dale Carnegie
"It is entirely possible that the PCs will have utterly destroyed the vampire by the rules laid down in the Monstrous Compendium. However, the character of Strahd Von Zarovich will continue to appear in other Ravenloft game products. Therefore, the rumors of his destruction are to be greatly exaggerated. Barovia is free from his influence for a few years or even decades. However, he will return to rule again from the haunted spires of Castle Ravenloft.
Since Strahd never died, and hence was never buried, he is a part of The Land, not just a body in a crypt. As a result, he can rest anywhere, not just in his special coffin. He might flee to a hidden cave in the Balinoks in gaseous form. He may have to sleep for a long time, even years, before he can rise again to rule. No matter how thoroughly the PCs destroy him, he will return. Remember, "I am the Ancient, I am the Land" is the opening phrase of his personal tome. His desire for Tatyana transcended death. Even in the face of utter defeat, he will reform from the mists of Ravenloft, given sufficient time."
--House of Strahd page 61
This way, you can have your cake and eat it too. Your players can take on Strahd, and maybe even win (if they're really good and perhaps lucky) and have a "happy" ending, but Strahd will be back, he always comes back...like a comic book supervillain, he's too good not to use again. Still, you don't want to continuously throw your PCs at him again and again. That would get dull.
Sending your PCs against a darklord should be a major event in your campaign. And it probably will shake things up. That's a good thing. Nothing's more dull to a group of D&D players than a world that never changes no matter what they do. Your players should feel that they've made an impact on things, even if they don't manage to permanently kill Strahd, for example, they'll have thwarted a major scheme of his and set his plans back for a considerable amount of time...he might even abandon those plans completely if he's defeated thoroughly. And you don't have to kill or curse all your PCs afterwards, either--this isn't Call of Cthulhu. This isn't a world where people suffer for prying into "Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know!", it is the ultimate test of good vs. evil. In gothic literature, good suffers but eventually wins in the end, and evil is powerful but ultimately self-defeating. So, taking a cue from Ravenloft's roots, your PCs should suffer, but be given the chance to ultimately prevail....provided they are not tempted to evil themselves. If that's the case feel free to let loose with the curses and such, but allow them a chance at redemption.
The dark powers alternate between rewarding the darklords and reminding them of their evil ways. If Ravenloft was just about the darklord being cursed and punished, then at least a few of them would have actively repented and turned to the side of good by now. If some have done this in the new edition, then its something i`d be interested by.
There are a good few dark lords who are rich, powerful and often rulers of countries etc. Be they priests, military men or noble types, they have positions of authority that grant them a lot of perks and entertainments. Those ones do have a fairly wild time of it, despite their limitations or issues and they get a lot of kicks from generally throwing their weight around and being pandered to. Its not all bad for them, by any means.
Take Vlad Drakov as an example. His main issue is that he is a military man who wants to crush and rule other nations, by martial means. This doesnt work well, if at all, in Ravenloft, especially considering the neighbours he has to put up with. This, certainly, torments him greatly. However, he still gets a lot of enjoyment from day to day with his Falconry and with impaling people on spikes while eating and listening to fine music. He lords over his land in a practical sense and would be a lot more miserable should he not be able to do so. He is punished yes, but his position is still a large sight better than that of an average peasant. He isnt blind, he hasnt been cursed with terrible clumsiness and he hasnt had his legs cut off by the dark powers. They have thus not cursed him to the point where he no longer wants to rule his land or be a great leader of men.
Vlad is, in most terms, in a position that could be much worse. He thus has something to lose if a party of great heroes rises up and ruins him.
Dont forget, that the appearance and threat of heroes *is part of the dark lord's curse* in itself. There must always be some risk to them otherwise they would be so confident as to grow fairly contented in life, despite their curses and problems. Most people would accept some limitations if it meant that they could rule a land without anyone standing up against them.
***
It is true that knowing about darklords and so on is not a common thing, but, as has been mentioned by previous posters, it is possible for experienced heroes to find out how Ravenloft works. It is certainly true that the adventurers of some realms, where Darklords do not really interfere with daily life, wouldn't really need to worry about Darklords at all. There are, however, more than enough realms where the central issue is the Darklord him or herself and that is where the epic battles of good and evil will take place. The Darklords have good backstories and problems and primarily, heroes should, when they reach a good level, be steered into becoming a part of those stories and thus, even by accident, they will get involved with the Dark lord as their enemy or antagonist.
***
As to what should happen when a group of heroes finally takes on a Dark lord and wins...well, i feel that depends on the manner of the victory. As Bluebomber says, it isnt call of cthulhu where there players *do not matter* in the scale of things. Lovecraftian literature took great pains to compare humans to bugs under a microscope compared to the cosmic monsters in the universe. Humanity was not the hero, it was an accidental spectator and that, in itself, was a horrific thought.
Heroes in Ravenloft *do matter*. The land may be part of the Darklord, but a hero is his own animal. He isnt bound by the Dark lord's curse and, unliked the Dark Lord, he *can* make a difference. It is possible that the Dark Lord's only hope *is* that a hero will redeem or destroy them. This, in a way, makes heroes more important than the Dark Lord himself, since it is they who will ultimately decide the fate of the realm. The Dark Lords need heroes mixing things up in order to understand themselves. Otherwise they would never change and they would never have their characters tested by circumstance.
I am a strong fan for redemption of Dark Lords. I feel it can be done and that heroes can take a hand in that. A dark lord is like a stuck record, often frozen in time, chasing a lost love or regretting a past deed. Often the circumstances of their past are repeated in some way over and over, but on their own, the Dark lord cannot break out of the chain of events. It is the heroes who will have the power to, say, reconcile a dark lord with the reincarnated soul of a loved one that is sometimes reincarnated in his realm. It is the heroes who will teach a bitter darklord what it means to actualy love someone, or what it means to care.
Curses and punishments are lessons to be learned and they bring the possibility of reform. It is this that is key to what should happen should a dark lord die.
Should a dark lord's death have no meaning, then i would accept that a new dark lord take its place. Similarly, should a special dark lord, such as Strahd, be defeated without his story being resolved, then he will surely return one day (though there will be a period of respite and, as bluebomber said, his plans may be damaged). This sort of victory is easier to achieve and will only have limited results.
Should a Dark Lord be defeated in a manner that resolves their storyline, say, by teaching them the meaning of love or getting them to accept their guilty deeds etc, then i`m happy for the land to be freed from Ravenloft completely. In the olden days of Ravenloft, there was no land and there were no people either, it was all made up, whole cloth and could even have been a reflection of some mental battle going on in the dark lord's head. (If anyone had played American McGee's Alice game, you'll have seen this firsthand).
These days, though its still a matter for debate, there do seem to be real people, so the idea that they can be returned to a better place is a viable one. Especially as some realms seem to be exact copies of other places or seem to have been taken from them.
Ravenloft is a place with potential. Dark lords have the potential to be freed or redeemed, heroes have the potential to succeed and they have the potential to fall themselves. I would say that the true history of Ravenloft has never actually moved from day one. The setting, essentially, still relies on the same ideas and the same battle. It's just a battle that is so painfully slow as not to have been seen resolved in any major way. It is possible that the day that your players redeem a darklord or defeat them for good, that the realm itself falls to pieces and is banished. It may not happen in small steps, it may be one grand event, perhaps centering around Strahd himself and his story.
To assume that the Dark lords are here to stay from now until forever, is merely to look at what has gone before and to believe that, because there has been little or no success regarding them to date, that that is the way the realm operates. I hold the belief that it is going somewhere and that it will resolve with the forces of goodness winning the day, but that the game is always set at the start of this process *with the potential to move towards that goal*. Which is where the players come in, of course.
Even Strahd's story and that of Ravenloft itself, will have an end one day. There may be many setbacks and heroes cast down, but they will make a difference, even if their victories are so very small compared to those of other realms. A single raindrop raises the sea.
If Ravenloft was just about the darklord being cursed and punished, then at least a few of them would have actively repented and turned to the side of good by now. If some have done this in the new edition, then its something i`d be interested by.
From what I understand, Lord Soth did exactly that.
And you don't have to kill or curse all your PCs afterwards, either--this isn't Call of Cthulhu. This isn't a world where people suffer for prying into "Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know!", it is the ultimate test of good vs. evil. In gothic literature, good suffers but eventually wins in the end, and evil is powerful but ultimately self-defeating. So, taking a cue from Ravenloft's roots, your PCs should suffer, but be given the chance to ultimately prevail....provided they are not tempted to evil themselves. If that's the case feel free to let loose with the curses and such, but allow them a chance at redemption.
Actually, gothic literature is full of tales (some very archtypical of the genre) where evil does exactly that, gets away scott free. It's a very ingrained part of the genre. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's otherwise. Heck, John Polidori's The Vampyre, which is the tale which gave us Lord Ruthven, is exactly that sort of tale. Ruthven totally wins out in the end. The True Story of a Vampire, by Eric, Count Stenbock also follows that pattern. I could go on for quite some time citing important gothic stories in this vein. Edgar Allen Poe wrote numerous stories and poems with that sort of ending too. I certainly wouldn't say the evil in Dracula was self-defeating, either. It took numerous sacrifices on the parts of the heroes to bring him down.
I would also argue the point about the "secrets man was not meant to know" thing too. Victor Mordenheim is being punished for just that, trying to unlock the secrets "only the gods should have", and Mordenheim is, of course, strongly based on Victor Frankenstein.
So I'd say, to stay true to the gothic spirit, sometimes (not always, or what's the point of the PCs trying) but sometimes, evil is going to win in the end, and win big. I never "let" my players solve an adventure if they haven't figured out the right thing to do or missed several opportunities to fix things. That's part of the essence of gothic literature. It's escapism, but not from some of the harsher realities of the real world. To quote The Last Action Hero "In this world, the bad guys can win!"
And I don't see anything wrong with that happening, from time to time.
As for Shard's points, I think you're taking too bright a view of the place. Soth, for instance, accepted his culpability for his failings, but he isn't sorry for any of it and certainly didn't turn to the side of good. He still rationalizes what he did, but he just accepts that he made a choice.
I think some things are eternal and some people are totally irredeemable. I think planning to target the "ultimate challenge" in a setting is looking at it from the wrong direction. This is one reason I'm not too fond of Epic games in D&D. I like to think that some things are bigger than the PCs and always will be, or they'd be playing deities.
Also, canonically speaking, the makeup of the land has changed and several Darklords have been taken down, and the status quo of the land hasn't changed all that much. Sure there was the Grand Conjunction, Gundar's death, some reshuffling of the Core and Islands, but in the end? The experiment/prison/whatever is still up and running.
Remember, one of the theories of what Ravenloft is involves seeing what Good will do when it's apparently stuck in a situation it cannot win in the long-term. Heroes in Ravenloft have never been able to change the world in any drastic way, but they can help people right where they are and make things better in the part of the world they happen to be in. Sometimes that's all you can do.
Remember also, that this environment has forged some of the greatest heroes in any plane in the D&D multiverse. Maybe they don't have the raw power of many, or the vast experience gained by traipsing all over creation, but Rudolph van Richten, the Weathermay-Foxgrove twins, Alanik Ray and Arthur Sedgewick are true heroes in the sense that they will do anything in their non-Epic, non-demigodly power to stop evil whenever and wherever they find it while being only "fragile mortals". Notice that most great heroes in this setting aren't crusaders or warriors in the typical sense, they're thinkers, planners, and detectives (with an interesting preponderance of doctors). These are the kinds of people who don't aim to topple Darklords, knowing (as some of them do) that there's always someone to take evil's place and often that goal is simply beyond them. The real heroism in that situation is still going out and doing what you can to help the people you're able to, even knowing that you can't beat the evil forever and your likely reward for this is going to be a horrible, inglorious demise.
That being said, I also think that if any Darklord is going to redeem, it has to come from within, as any redemption must. Strahd is likely never going to own up to the fact that he was so very, very wrong, especially not after several centuries. Azalin is also likely never going to admit that he was wrong to use his wife, kill his son, become a lich, and be a general jerk-off about everything for as long as he has.
Look at the most likely to redeem. Gabrielle Aderre may have found a way around her mother's curse with Matton (not being a man, he may not count), but most of her moderation of behavior has come from her experiences. While PCs may help that process along, the likely result of her redeeming is just going to be an instant transfer of power to Maloccio and perhaps an interesting new curse for the brat. Now trying to help the poor ethnic Gundarakites and Vistani in the middle of this mess, now that's heroic.
- Yulian
"There are some defeats more triumphant than victories." - Michel de Montaigne
It is very true that the dark lords are punished, cursed etc. However, despite this, i wouldnt say that their suffering was constant or that it was fabulously effective. They are still creatures of tremendous power and they still enjoy that power, though it may be somewhat imperfect to them.
There are a good few dark lords who are rich, powerful and often rulers of countries etc. Be they priests, military men or noble types, they have positions of authority that grant them a lot of perks and entertainments. Those ones do have a fairly wild time of it, despite their limitations or issues and they get a lot of kicks from generally throwing their weight around and being pandered to. Its not all bad for them, by any means.
Take Vlad Drakov as an example. His main issue is that he is a military man who wants to crush and rule other nations, by martial means. This doesnt work well, if at all, in Ravenloft, especially considering the neighbours he has to put up with. This, certainly, torments him greatly. However, he still gets a lot of enjoyment from day to day with his Falconry and with impaling people on spikes while eating and listening to fine music. He lords over his land in a practical sense and would be a lot more miserable should he not be able to do so. He is punished yes, but his position is still a large sight better than that of an average peasant. He isnt blind, he hasnt been cursed with terrible clumsiness and he hasnt had his legs cut off by the dark powers. They have thus not cursed him to the point where he no longer wants to rule his land or be a great leader of men.
I think the Dark Powers know better than push Drakov's punishment that far. Torment a Darklord too much and you'll deprive him from his will to rebel against his fate. I remember from one of John Mangrum's comments about the "seven rules of hell", one of the rules was that a tormented soul must have hope and ressources to fight against his torment. Look at lord Soth - there's a Darklord who completely lost the will to fight his destiny. In the end, he became an apathetic self-pitying dummy, so the Dark Powers handed the reigns of Sithicus to someone else. For most Darklords, the greatest suffering comes from their own attempts to free themselves from their curse - and failing miserably.
Take that Vlad Drakov example and look at it from another angle. Yes, Drakov has at his disposal the power few men can hope to get. He can order executions, lead armies, eat the best foods, listen to the best music, and see his subordinates struggle among themselves for his favor. But does Drakov really enjoy any of this power? I would say no. For despite all his new-gained ressources, Drakov is condemned to see himself as a complete and utter failure. If he ever craved to lead armies, it was to see other nations fall before his might. If he ever wanted praise, it was for being a great warrior and conqueror. If he ever wanted riches, those had to be a result of his own accomplishments, not a little tap in the cheek from some "higher forces". He has launched assaults on all his surrounding lands and met with the most humiliating of failures. Military-wise, these assaults only made him look like a fool. The surrounding lands, weak countries ruled by soft aristocrats, would look like easy pickings... yet Drakov humiliated himself time and again trying to bring them under his foot. Drakov is a man who cannot bear the thought of defeat. In his mind, people of all the surrounding lands mock him. And his own people, even his close lieutenants, must all mock him privately. For a man obessed respect of those around him (and Drakov is indeed obsessed with it), this situation is, litterally, hell.
Unlike most of us, who see our lives as a path ridden with hopes and opportunities, the Darklods are locked in a static cage. All their hopes are blocked, maybe forever. This is a terrifying prospect, which explains why many darklords take such pains to inflict suffering to the populace of their domains. Think of it: only happiless, frustrated people pass their time lashing at those around them. A man's frustration can be measured quite accurately by the amount of anger and violence he inflicts on his entourage. Drakov's example again comes to mind.
Good to see that this thread has evolved into a great topic.I agree with most of it and Keg's.Redemption stories and inner struggles have always appealed to me.Just make sure it isn't an easy or everyday thing to do.Soth's story in SotBR was great and that's why my pcs were involved in it but the antithesis must be emphasized too.In my story,in Circle of Darkness,G'Henna, Yagno was behind the turmoil in his land,the creation of the heresis,the release of the demon and the triumphant victory and declaration of a 'new day" with the Provider prevailing from now on,resulting in people's joy,cheers and new faith in him.Fun to see the players reaction when he stepped back altar walking with his priests and softly saying "Good..They actually bought it.."
He seemed close to redemption and in the end it was pretty obvious (adding to despair) that most will never be redeemed.
Strahd's..something else.He IS the world.Any such stories around him must be planned carefully,mysteriously and in the end of the campaign when the players have evolved from mere-commoners-who-know-nothing to heroes,great sages,etc.It would take decades,even a lifetime in the world to fully acquire the taste of such an event
Take that Vlad Drakov example and look at it from another angle. Yes, Drakov has at his disposal the power few men can hope to get. He can order executions, lead armies, eat the best foods, listen to the best music, and see his subordinates struggle among themselves for his favor. But does Drakov really enjoy any of this power? I would say no. For despite all his new-gained ressources, Drakov is condemned to see himself as a complete and utter failure. If he ever craved to lead armies, it was to see other nations fall before his might. If he ever wanted praise, it was for being a great warrior and conqueror. If he ever wanted riches, those had to be a result of his own accomplishments, not a little tap in the cheek from some "higher forces". He has launched assaults on all his surrounding lands and met with the most humiliating of failures. Military-wise, these assaults only made him look like a fool. The surrounding lands, weak countries ruled by soft aristocrats, would look like easy pickings... yet Drakov humiliated himself time and again trying to bring them under his foot. Drakov is a man who cannot bear the thought of defeat. In his mind, people of all the surrounding lands mock him. And his own people, even his close lieutenants, must all mock him privately. For a man obessed respect of those around him (and Drakov is indeed obsessed with it), this situation is, litterally, hell.QUOTE]
Isn't that what's all about in the end? The phantasms of what a man truly wishes are simply given as a mockery to torment them.But as Black Sabbath say,
"The closer you get to the meaning,the sooner you know that you're dreaming..It goes on and on and on..It's Heaven And Hell.."
(sorry if i'm way out,feel weird today.. :embarrass )
So, if you're writing a "darklord destruction" plot, I'd suggest you worry less about what should happen to the realm itself -- that's entirely a question of "What best serves your purposes as DM?" -- and focus on making the DL's fall as (melo)dramatic, ironic, and above all as laden with poetic justice as you possibly can. Kill Strahd by simply doing him damage (even damage from a freakin' nuclear weapon) and it'll never stick; bring him face to face with, say, a *forgiving* ghost of Sergei von Zarovich, selflessly apologizing for how he'd been blind to Strahd's pain all those centuries ago, and chances are that the Barovian darklord -- no longer able to deny the worth of his murdered brother's love -- will crumble to dust, emotionally as much as physically.
From what I understand, Lord Soth did exactly that.
There wasn't anything remotely redemptive in Soth's actions at the end of Spectre of the Black Rose. His leaving Ravenloft was due to the growing conflict between his gods-given curse, and his Dark Powers-given curse.
Of course, if you're talking about Soth in Dragons of a Vanished Moon, then you are correct. However, that was also the largest OOC moment for Soth (IMO, at least) we'd ever seen. Maybe circumstances justified it, but I personally don't think so; I see it as the crowning moment to Weis & Hickman throwing a hissy fit about someone else playing in their sandbox.
In a straight out fight, many higher level groups could easily "kill" most of the dark lords........but probably not permanently as has been noted.
My plan was to play through all of the modules, and if the players managed to kill Strahd for instance, I would just never put them in a position to fight him again......leave things a little ambiguous as to whether they had permanently killed him of not.
The mists should only take the PCs where the Dark Powers (DM) wants them to go.........a campain should not be run for the sole point of killing of DLs.
If you need something to challengs a high level group, there is always those two Patriarch vampires or the 1 or 2 Demi-liches Van Richten mentioned...
And even without Vecna, the burning peaks cluster should present a challenge.
Maybe the campain should evolve into trying to discover the secerts of the Dark Powers themselves.....especially for Epic characters.
The Dark Lords are just the little guys.....prisoners being punished for their sins......An epic campain should involve shaking the very foundations of the demi-plane.........