What happens if a Darklord is redeemed (Turns away from evil)?
I'm guessing there are no 'official answers' for this, so feel free to speculate, just explain your reasoning..
2) I'm not sure this has ever happened, although Soth's experience is probably close. Based on that, I'd presume the Dark Powers would release their hold on the darklord and send him back from whence he came, leaving the realm in the same state as if the darklord had been destroyed.
Anyway..
Lord Soth, after wallowing for years in self-pity, finally faced the fact that his actions (back when he was a mortal on Krynn) had translated into a just punishment for him (in other terms, being transformed into a Death knight).
Once he admitted that, the curse of the Dark Powers had no more hold on him and it was good-bye Ravenloft!
For the complete story of how that happened, read the novel Spectre of the Black Rose.
Ironically, he met his end shortly after returning to Krynn...
In the case of Nathan Timothy, his domain was fundamentally reshaped, and taken over by his son. He still roams the land on his river boat. Still a "fairly evil" guy. So he wasn't redeemed.
In the case of Duke Gundar, his territory was absorbed by Invidia and Barovia during a bloody war.
Richemulot was unchanged by the change of power. Borca wasn't changed by the power-switch either.
In short, the answer to your question, Gadren, is "DM's Discretion."
What happens if a Darklord is destroyed (slain in away so he can't come back)?
What happens if a Darklord is redeemed (Turns away from evil)?
I'm guessing there are no 'official answers' for this, so feel free to speculate, just explain your reasoning..
As mentioned there have been plenty of examples of the first question. The land is either returned to where it was taken from, or the next most evil person in the land (or the person that killed the DL if they're evil) assume lordship, or it is absorbed by neighboring territory.
There are no real examples of redemption. Soth was released because he didn't DO anything and reconciled slightly with his past. Really he was released because he refused to change or rule over his land.
Actually, there have been a number of Darklords that have come and gone. Nathan Timothy simply lost his Darklordship because he wasn't "evil" enough - go figure.
I tend to think of it more like this: Nathan got pretty well resigned to his curse, which made him *uninteresting* to the Dark Powers; they decided to see how things would get shaken up if that scrawny pup of his started running things instead...
I mean raising demons and bedding incubi or fighting to save the world will do nothing but ensure your continued imprisonment but sail about on a boat 24-7 or brood more than a goth V:tM LARPer and you're outta there.
My own take on the Timmothys is that the son makes a much better Darklord than the father. I think the DPs favor those who rail against their fate much more than those who come to some level of reconciliation with their circumstances. Soth walked. Nathan was suplanted (and is probably much happier now though still a "prisoner" of the demi-plane). Bakholis was wacked by Gabby. Gundark was wacked too. This possibly has some application to Azalin who is moving toward reconciling himself with remaining in Darkon (though his desire for revenge upon the dark powers goes in the opposite direction).
-Eric Gorman
This possibly has some application to Azalin who is moving toward reconciling himself with remaining in Darkon (though his desire for revenge upon the dark powers goes in the opposite direction).
-Eric Gorman
I don't know. All of Azalin's major schemes have been geared towards escaping RL. He also dedicates a lot of time to controling Darkon because that is just his nature. But how could a Lich ever forget that he can NEVER learn anything new? At some point in the future he's bound to take action.
Because he attributes his limitations to the active work of these tormentors, he refuses any resignation to "them" and therefore will never accept the limitations for what they are.
Functionally, it may not matter much, but it does give one explanation why Azalin will never learn.
After reading Lord of the Necropolis last night...
(stuff cut)
Because he attributes his limitations to the active work of these tormentors, he refuses any resignation to "them" and therefore will never accept the limitations for what they are.
Functionally, it may not matter much, but it does give one explanation why Azalin will never learn.
A highly noncanonical answer, mind you. Remember, LotN is one of the few books the entire Kargatane didn't seem to think was even remotely canon-worthy. In canon, I'm not sure Azalin does attribute his problems to any particular beings. He does want to escape Ravenloft, since his problems only started when he got there, and he's right. if he did get back to Oerth or wherever, he'd be able to learn new magic again.
- Yulian
"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
FWIW, I always thought that the way he calls the DPs *HIS* tormentors was a nice, succinct statement about Azalin's narcissistic egomania. Yeah, right; the fact they're also tormenting hundreds of thousands of *other people* -- innocents and domain lords, alike -- doesn't even rate a mention, so far as the self-obsessed lich is concerned.....
Azalin continued to refer to his "tormentors" in the R3E/RL PHB and the Gazetteers as well. While developing the line, our attitude regarding published noncanon elements was always to do our best to reconcile them rather than ignore them. Thus, Lord of the Necropolis isn't canon, but elements within it have been drawn into the official continuity.
Now I believe I recall, in Lord of the Necropolis that Azalin was talking about not being able to learn new magic before he had his Domain. Is that bit correct and in canon? I believe he was growing more annoyed at Strahd because he could learn new magic as Azalin taught it to him, but Azalin himself was stuck.
If that's the case, did he just come up with the theory of these "tormentors" through observation and experimentation (which seems quite possible for someone like him)?
- Yulian
"You cannot acquire experience by making experiments. You cannot create experience. You must undergo it." - Albert Camus
Now I believe I recall, in Lord of the Necropolis that Azalin was talking about not being able to learn new magic before he had his Domain. Is that bit correct and in canon?
No, that part is still noncanon, as far as we were concerned (note that Azalin's 3E descriptions specifically state when he received that curse). Depriving Azalin of the ability to learn new magic during his years in Barovia creates contradictions and renders a few elements inexplicable (such as how he learned to summon Ravenloft elementals, invented bone and zombie golems, and created the transplanar portal to Mordent).
Like I said, the parts we wanted to reincorporate, we specifically reincorporated. Parts that still weren't canon were simply left out of the 3E books. At least during our tenure.
Cause for that matter how could Barovia and Darkon share a common border?
I've never read the book, but Barovia and Darkon did have a common border at one time, from 579 BC and onwards, so that section of the book might be from that time.
I treat Strahd II like propaganda.
That's how I viewed the I, Strahd books as well. Unreliable narrators instantly clean up a lot of continuity concerns.
But yes, Darkon and Barovia did temporarily share a border.