Ravenloft Campaigns: What’s the meta-point?

[A G Thing]

Ravenloft adventures, are meant to be run like any other campaign in some respects... You play to the scene you wish to craft... Strahd can still have a great roleplay and IWaVamp type encounter, while also, having action break out that is enough to satisfy what ever level of violence is required...

Heck... When running a campaign you can set up multiple encounters and possible outcomes as well. If your campaign must by your DM's reconning begin and end in Barovia with Strahd then you may do such... It is the not impossible to scale the encounter to any character and a Darklord should always be at some reasonable level of power to be intimidating to 1st - 5th level characters in 4th edition...

 

[Irda Ranger]

Wow, really great discussion. Let's see if I can gather together a consensus on the proper theme for an RL Campaign ...

Discovery/Secrecy: Moniker, wolfkook and gonzoron all touched on the thought that the nature of Ravenloft is something that should start "hidden" and then be discovered through the course of play. Although that's certainly one way to run things, I'm not sure it's the best way. I absolutely agree that there needs to be some sort of mystery in any RPG - perhaps how the Mists operate and what the goals of the various BBEGs in the quest are; but I think it's important to be up front with your players about certain aspects of the challenges they face. For instance, would you just surprise your players with "You just saw a ghoul eat one of the villager's livers while he was still writhing. Take a sanity point!" without first explaining that you're playing in a game where guarding your sanity is an important consideration? I don't think so.

I think the better way to go is to make it clear at the campaign's start that there are things that go bump in the night and each PC knows personally (or at least second-hand) someone who has gone insane from seeing things That Should Not Be Seen. When the quest starts the players have no idea which particular things they'll encounter though, or what their plans are - but the potential to encounter them should be understood.
____________________________


Hope/Powerlessness/Masque of the Red Death: Remalthis raised a very important critique of the 2E and 3E Domains of Dread settings, one which I share. The impression I got from the Domains of Dread sourcebooks was absolutely that "the Dark Powers always win." Only Azalan even tried to take them on (though not for noble reasons), and he failed miserably. He smashed the world to pieces like a china dinner plate and still failed.

Further, the Darklords who were aware of their status and powers were (within their Domains) close to omnipresent and omnipotent. They had too much power to allow for adventuring (see the article I linked to about, re. Anarchy). There needs to be a "space" that the PCs can say "This is ours; within this boundary, we win." Otherwise, what's the point of adventuring if the Darklords can just take back all your progress on a whim?

The Red Death does sound like a better model for "the Mists" than the one presented in Domains of Dread. I'll have to look into getting a copy.

Dimitri Mazieres, gonzoron: You can make the argument, but the fact that you have to make an argument (rather than just point to a few concrete examples where good has won in Ravenloft (however briefly)) pretty much makes my and Remalthis' point. Without getting lost in the minutia of "canon" Ravenloft theology, let's just agree that there needs to be hope, and to have that there need to be examples where Good actually wins. There may not be hope for ushering in a Golden Age, or defeating the Dark Powers for all time, but there's got to be hope that "On this day, in this place, we're going to make things better."
____________________________


DarkKestral, I think you're getting a bit lost in the trees. Step back from the particulars of any Domain and Darklord, and (more importantly) step out of the Darklord's perspective and assume the PC's perspective. Now look for the meta-story that applies to all of them. What themes unite all the possible adventures in Ravenloft?

Luckily for us, several posters have already taken a stab at that ...

the core story is how people - perhaps with shadowy pasts and shaky holds on their sanity - can nonetheless triumph in the darkness simply by being the smallest of lights but refusing to be extinguished.

Its about making a miserable world a little less miserable ... hunting the various evils, destroying them as thoroughly as possible. Maybe not permanently, but buying the people a period of peace at the very least until the creators of the Demi Plane bring in a replacement Domain Lord, if and when they managed to actually destroy one.

mortal men and women standing up against impossible odds and doing all they can to beat back the darkness. ... it wasn't always (or even often) about killing the badguy or destroying the domain; it was about foiling the villain's plans, saving a town from damnation, or protecting one of those rare shards of innocence that still existed despite the darkness. ... fighting the good fight simply because it was the right thing to do. ... make a difference in the lives of a few people and die a hero's death before you became ... the monsters you battled.

making your own little corner of the demiplane (even if it was just one small village) a little bit brighter and more bearable by pushing out the darkness.

the struggle against apparent overwhelming odds. ... achieving something. Maybe not totally vanquishing the enemy, but at least halting it, and sparing as many souls as possible.

I think that these statements all are circling around a core concept that would appeal to many gamers. wolfkook took an admirable stab at boiling it down to its core concept, but let me try for something a bit pithier:

Explore the world; Discover Madness and oppose its plans; Hold on to your sanity; Make this Place, and this Time, a little better.

Well?

 

[Remathilis]

Discovery/Secrecy

My problem is not that my PC is ignorant of the way the land works, but that I'm not. Its the metagame of the DP and such that get in the way. The Dark Powers are, for all intents and purposes, DM fiat personified. Used correctly, it keeps the game/tone/mood correct and avoid's "gotcha" moments. However, it can be used (and has been in several TSR-era products) to enforce a rigorous status quo. (Irda's Azalin analogy is apt. Van Richen is another. If you are good or evil, noble or wicked, in the end the DP's win).

Hope/Powerlessness/Masque of the Red Death

Spot On! The goal isn't to stop the Dark Powers by reaching level 20/30 and fighting them, but the Dark Powers (and extension, Dark Lords) need something resembling a weakness to exploit. Too many Ravenloft conventions (sealing domains, domain lord omnipotence, the powers themselves) give evil no discernible weakness beyond hubris, which gets to be an old idea after a while. There needs to be someway that, the village they liberated from the werewolf last week, isn't overrun by zombies the next week because Strahd got upset a group of heroes ruined his werewolf alliance.

 

[gonzoron]

the nature of Ravenloft is something that should start "hidden" and then be discovered through the course of play. Although that's certainly one way to run things, I'm not sure it's the best way. I absolutely agree that there needs to be some sort of mystery in any RPG - perhaps how the Mists operate and what the goals of the various BBEGs in the quest are; but I think it's important to be up front with your players about certain aspects of the challenges they face.

Oh absolutely! But we all know the difference between players and characters, don't we? For a good, long-term Ravenloft campaign, you need players that are on board, and they need to know the genre they'll be playing in. (This is why I disagree with Moniker's plan of tricking the player's into Ravenloft. If Ravenloft didn't have it's PC-meat grinder reputation, that wouldn't be necessary.) I tell my players up front that Ravenloft is a place where evil seems to be in charge, and being a hero is a struggle. But their characters don't know that.

I think the better way to go is to make it clear at the campaign's start that there are things that go bump in the night and each PC knows personally (or at least second-hand) someone who has gone insane from seeing things That Should Not Be Seen.

Yes and no. For one, I think the potential for insanity has been a bit overstated. Not everyone in the demiplane is a raving looney. And though I like the "everyman thrust into hero" motif, you don't have to go that way either. You could have a campaign where all the PCs are members of a secret society like the Guardians or the Van Richten Society, or what have you, trained in monster-hunting and ready to go. I've seen successful Ravenloft campaigns based on Falkovnian special forces groups, University-backed Archaeology Expeditions, etc.

The impression I got from the Domains of Dread sourcebooks was absolutely that "the Dark Powers always win." Only Azalan even tried to take them on (though not for noble reasons), and he failed miserably. He smashed the world to pieces like a china dinner plate and still failed.

Again, "the Dark Powers always win" is akin to saying "Gravity always wins." They aren't there to be fought.

Further, the Darklords who were aware of their status and powers were (within their Domains) close to omnipresent and omnipotent. They had too much power to allow for adventuring (see the article I linked to about, re. Anarchy). There needs to be a "space" that the PCs can say "This is ours; within this boundary, we win." Otherwise, what's the point of adventuring if the Darklords can just take back all your progress on a whim?

I would say there are many such places. Until they get to a certain level, PCs are beneath the notice of such darklords. Strahd doesn't care if the PCs wipeout a werewolf infestation in Krezk. He might even thank them personally. Misroi is arguably one of the most powerful darklords, but he doesn't take any interest in the events of Night of the Walking Dead.

The Red Death does sound like a better model for "the Mists" than the one presented in Domains of Dread. I'll have to look into getting a copy.

I didn't address this before, but I think you'll be disappointed. the Red Death meddles even more with "his world" than the dark powers do. At least you can cast a magic missile in Ravenloft without making a powers check.

You can make the argument, but the fact that you have to make an argument (rather than just point to a few concrete examples where good has won in Ravenloft (however briefly))

Well, let's see:
- heroes chained Malocchio in Invidia, preventing him from destroying the demiplane by freeing the darklords
- Van Richten (and his heirs, the Weathermay-Foxgrove Twins) have destroyed dozens of Ghosts, Vampires, Golems, Werebeasts, etc, etc...
- Gondegal and the Knights of the Shadows have kept Ebonbane imprisoned in his manor.
- Hermos led the Carnival out from the thumb of the Puppetmaster to freedom under the protection of Isolde
- Heroes killed darklords Radaga and Daglan Daegon.
- With the help of Dr. Dominiani, heroes killed Darklord Duke Gundar.
- The Tapestry of Dark Souls was destroyed by the Guardians.
- An Emordenung repented her evil ways and became the Bastion of the Chruch of Ezra in Mordent.
- Worship of (Lathander) Morninglord flourished in Barovia.

and that's just to name a few canon examples off the top of my head.

let's just agree that there needs to be hope, and to have that there need to be examples where Good actually wins. There may not be hope for ushering in a Golden Age, or defeating the Dark Powers for all time, but there's got to be hope that "On this day, in this place, we're going to make things better."

And I say there is that hope, without reaching too far. Basically every module written for Ravenloft assumes some sort of triumph in the end, whether it be killing a darklord, or simply saving some people in trouble.

Explore the world; Discover Madness and oppose its plans; Hold on to your sanity; Make this Place, and this Time, a little better.

Sounds good to me. (though I'd replace Madness with "Darkness". Not every RL adventure deals with Madness.)

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't address this before, but I think you'll be disappointed. the Red Death meddles even more with "his world" than the dark powers do. At least you can cast a magic missile in Ravenloft without making a powers check

To be fair, that's mostly to keep the setting reminiscent of 1890's Victorian Earth and keep magic rare, powerful, and mysterious in the setting, its not intrinsic to the nature of Red Death itself.

I'm sure a D&D/fantasy version of Red Death would reflect a more liberal use of magic and tolerance of the supernatural than MotRD does.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I tell my players up front that Ravenloft is a place where evil seems to be in charge, and being a hero is a struggle.

Yeah, but the problem arises when the PC's come to believe it's "All struggle, no cake." There needs to be some cake (see below).

Yes and no. For one, I think the potential for insanity has been a bit overstated. Not everyone in the demiplane is a raving looney.

I use terms "Insanity" and "Madness" to generally capture the mindsets of the people who succumb to the horror of living in Ravenloft. I prefer to use terms like that to "Evil", which is a term that can get thrown around too loosely.

If you consider a Ravenloft version of Gepetto who keeps trying to recreate his dead son, but instead keeps creating monstrously twisted Pinocchio-like puppets that eat people, you could certainly describe his actions as "insane" (even if sympatheticly because of his motives).

I would say there are many such places. Until they get to a certain level, PCs are beneath the notice of such darklords. Strahd doesn't care if the PCs wipeout a werewolf infestation in Krezk. He might even thank them personally. Misroi is arguably one of the most powerful darklords, but he doesn't take any interest in the events of Night of the Walking Dead.

Yeah, but they could care. And it only takes one example of a Darklord coming in a retconning all their advances to really harsh the mellow. I'd definitely tone the Darklords down if I ran a Ravenloft campaign today.

Well, let's see:
- heroes chained Malocchio in Invidia, preventing him from destroying the demiplane by freeing the darklords
- Van Richten (and his heirs, the Weathermay-Foxgrove Twins) have destroyed dozens of Ghosts, Vampires, Golems, Werebeasts, etc, etc...
- Gondegal and the Knights of the Shadows have kept Ebonbane imprisoned in his manor.
- Hermos led the Carnival out from the thumb of the Puppetmaster to freedom under the protection of Isolde
- Heroes killed darklords Radaga and Daglan Daegon.
- With the help of Dr. Dominiani, heroes killed Darklord Duke Gundar.
- The Tapestry of Dark Souls was destroyed by the Guardians.
- An Emordenung repented her evil ways and became the Bastion of the Chruch of Ezra in Mordent.
- Worship of (Lathander) Morninglord flourished in Barovia.

and that's just to name a few canon examples off the top of my head.

Wow, ok. That's exactly what I was looking for. And the impression I got from the Boxed Set/DoD hardcover was that most of these things simply weren't possible. I guess these are from the novels and adventures? I didn't read many of those. But thanks; really. This is the kind of stuff I would want adventurers to be able to do.

Sounds good to me. (though I'd replace Madness with "Darkness". Not every RL adventure deals with Madness.)

See above, re. Insanity. One of the reasons I like the term "Madness" is because it can apply to motives which aren't necessarily "Dark", but when taken to some extreme induce Horror. Consider Vlad the Impaler; his motive was to defend Wallachia against Ottoman expansion. That's not a Dark motive, but he was certainly Mad in his methods.

Darkness certainly works too. I just prefer Madness.

 

[gonzoron]

To be fair, that's mostly to keep the setting reminiscent of 1890's Victorian Earth and keep magic rare, powerful, and mysterious in the setting, its not intrinsic to the nature of Red Death itself.

Yes, that's true. But there we have the true nature of the Red Death showing itself. It's just as much a plot device as the Dark Powers are, meant only to provide an in-game justification for why the game world fits the genre. (BTW, Author William W. Connors confirmed in an interview that their intent was the the Red Death was a rogue Dark Power expelled from Ravenloft.) I just have trouble seeing how a world where the PCs are weaker and the BBEGs are stronger (not limited to a domain, for one thing) feels less hopeless than Ravenloft. The Red Death is responsible for creating all the supernatural evil on Gothic Earth, but The Dark Powers are responsible for creating EVERYTHING in Ravenloft (aside from outlanders), both the good and the bad. Van Richten and Tara Kolyana are as much their creation as Dominic D'Honaire and Jacqueline Montarri are.

The Dark Powers are, for all intents and purposes, DM fiat personified. .... There needs to be someway that, the village they liberated from the werewolf last week, isn't overrun by zombies the next week because Strahd got upset a group of heroes ruined his werewolf alliance.

Good points, but DMs have mismanaged their power in every setting ever made. That the Dark Powers give them an excuse is not the issue, a bad DM needs no excuse, and every setting has something powerful to blame for DM fiat. The example you give is just as likely for Strahd von Greyhawkovich, the vampire necromancer BBEG as it is for Strahd von Zarovich, the darklord. Darklordship really doesn't give them all that much more power than your average BBEG. They can close the borders, and they get a few special abilities no worse than the average template. The really lucky ones get a way to cheat death, but most of those have an escape clause that smart and strong enough PCs can exploit to finish them off. And is anyone really surprised in any setting when the BBEG they thought was dead comes back for an encore?

I use terms "Insanity" and "Madness" to generally capture the mindsets of the people who succumb to the horror of living in Ravenloft. I prefer to use terms like that to "Evil", which is a term that can get thrown around too loosely.

Fair enough as your own interpretion, though Insanity can sometimes seem like a cop-out motive. Blaming mental illness for one's own choices is a dangerous step toward moral relativism that can conflict with the Gothic tradition. (And like it or not, Evil is a tangible thing in the D&D game.)

If you consider a Ravenloft version of Gepetto ....you could certainly describe his actions as "insane" (even if sympatheticly because of his motives).

Yes, but can the same be said of Harkon Lukas, for example, who keeps an Inn full of secret passages for his and his wolfwere friends to dine on patrons? Or Azalin, who chose undeath and filicide rather than let his son rule in a way he saw as too soft? Not every RL villian is insane, IMHO. To call them so makes them all "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Yeah, but they could care. And it only takes one example of a Darklord coming in a retconning all their advances to really harsh the mellow. I'd definitely tone the Darklords down if I ran a Ravenloft campaign today.

The thing is that Darklords, as a general rule, are characters with their own motivations and schemes. Strahd has only a few rules for his people: theft from the state is treason, don't harm the vistani, and don't enter my castle. Then there are the unwritten rules: don't get in the way of my feeding, and don't even think about getting between me and the latest Tatyana reincarnation. Though he could interfere in anything else, he has no reason or desire to. And even when he puts his mind to something, he's clearly not onmipotent, or the Gundarakite rebellion would'be been squashed instantly. Likewise with Azalin, if you're not directly impeding his current scheme or trying to disrupt his rule, he doesn't care. Of the two, Azalin has more power over his domain, but doesn't even have the drive for revenge that Strahd does. If you thwart a plan of Strahd, you'd best lay low in Barovia until he drops the border and get out post-haste. But Az cares only for the present. Just because you thwarted him once doesn't mean he can't make use of you next time. These are but two examples, but with the exception of the one-note nothing-but-a-darklord domains (I'Cath, Aggarath, and the like), there's plenty of stuff going on in any given domain that doesn't involve the DL in the slightest.

Wow, ok. That's exactly what I was looking for. And the impression I got from the Boxed Set/DoD hardcover was that most of these things simply weren't possible. I guess these are from the novels and adventures? I didn't read many of those. But thanks; really. This is the kind of stuff I would want adventurers to be able to do.

Yes, mostly. (The Evil Eye module, The Van Richten's Guide series of sourcebooks, Champions of the Mists sourcebook/Shadowborn novel/Book of Shadows netbook*, Carnival of Fear novel/Carnival sourcebook, Feast of Goblyns module, Feast of Goblyns module/Red Box campaign setting, Tapestry of Dark Souls novel, Book of Secrets netbook*/Gazetteer III sourcebook, and Vampire of the Mists novel, respectively) Though most of those were summarized in Domains of Dread, at least in the timeline chapter. This is exactly the kind of stuff that adventurers do do. Maybe the 2e campaign settings didn't make it clear enough, but it's definitely clear from the other books, and the 3e books especially.

30 Ravenloft modules were published under 2e, and 7 collections of mini-adventures, with 70 mini-adventures between them, plus 5 adventure sketches in the 3e Dark Tales and Distrubing Legends, and 9 adventures in Dungeon Magazine. Of those 114 adventures, only about 25 or so involve direct conflict with a darklord. And as far as I remember, every one of them contains some sort of triumph at the end for the PCs.


* Lest anyone wonder why I'm quoting netbooks as canon, it's because these particular articles were written by the eventual authors of the 3e canon books and enough elements of them were incorporated into canon that most fans consider them at least semi-canonical.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, that's true. But there we have the true nature of the Red Death showing itself. It's just as much a plot device as the Dark Powers are, meant only to provide an in-game justification for why the game world fits the genre. (BTW, Author William W. Connors confirmed in an interview that their intent was the the Red Death was a rogue Dark Power expelled from Ravenloft.) I just have trouble seeing how a world where the PCs are weaker and the BBEGs are stronger (not limited to a domain, for one thing) feels less hopeless than Ravenloft. The Red Death is responsible for creating all the supernatural evil on Gothic Earth, but The Dark Powers are responsible for creating EVERYTHING in Ravenloft (aside from outlanders), both the good and the bad. Van Richten and Tara Kolyana are as much their creation as Dominic D'Honaire and Jacqueline Montarri are.

That is the key, IMHO.

If I run a MotRD game where the PCs go to Transylvania and kill Count Dracula, Transylvania doesn't stop existing. It doesn't shift to another part of the core (or become an island in the Pacific Ocean) nor does a new Darklord immediately spring up to take his place. In fact, you could argue the Qabal could hold Transylvania for a number of years and begin to reduce the stain of evil from it. (of course, we all know Dracula comes back from the dead, but...)

In Ravenloft proper, What becomes of a domain once its darklord is destroyed? If the PCs manage to kill Strahd, what happens to Barovia? Could the PCs try to hold Barovia and make it a better place? If not the domain, how about establishing a safe-haven in the domain? In ANY domain?

The point in subtle, but its there. Gothic Earth still conforms to Earth standards; there are no magically appearing seas every just accepts, portions of Africa don't go missing one day, trade isn't interrupted because Lord Drakov is having a hissy-fit and closing his borders, and the racial, cultural, and technological advancements (let alone weirdness like moon changing from domain to domain ) of the world don't radically shift by walking from Spain to Turkey. Too much of Ravenloft is cliche stitched together without rhyme or reason creating a world that doesn't FEEL natural, even to a native. Its a collection of pieces, not a harmonious whole.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If I run a MotRD game where the PCs go to Transylvania and kill Count Dracula, Transylvania doesn't stop existing.

<snip>

Too much of Ravenloft is cliche stitched together without rhyme or reason creating a world that doesn't FEEL natural, even to a native. Its a collection of pieces, not a harmonious whole.

These are absolutely two things I would "fix" if I get the opportunity to run a 4E Ravenloft campaign. The first problem especially really drove home the point that "Ravenloft exists because the Darklords exist; you're just along for the ride." There were (apparently) opportunities for the PCs to take faux ownership of their little corners, but then you'd be in the odd situation of saying "Don't kill Strahd! Our village will be destroyed!".

The second problem just kept breaking me out of immersion. "What the hell, what do you mean there are now three moons? Oh, right, Dragonlance." Too confusing. Especially since not all of my players are familiar with all those worlds.

In my "perfect" Ravenloft CS there would be no explicit and exclusive Domains, just political borders. There would also be a much more organic and granular "deepening Darkness" within the badguys, where a "merely" corrupt and cruel Burhger in Barovia might be a Rank 1 Darklord while the "true" Darklords detailed in the CS are different from him in scale but not kind. In 4E parlance it would be a template making a creature Elite.

Also, the world would exist independently of the Darklords, so killing one is always a net benefit. In other words, some "house blend" of Ravenloft and MotRD.
___________________________


That being said, it'd still be Ravenloft. The Dark Powers reward Evil with Power (even if there's a Price, Power is Power) so the scales are always tilted against the good guys. Plus, lots of Undead.

 

[Remathilis]

These are absolutely two things I would "fix" if I get the opportunity to run a 4E Ravenloft campaign. The first problem especially really drove home the point that "Ravenloft exists because the Darklords exist; you're just along for the ride." There were (apparently) opportunities for the PCs to take faux ownership of their little corners, but then you'd be in the odd situation of saying "Don't kill Strahd! Our village will be destroyed!".

The second problem just kept breaking me out of immersion. "What the hell, what do you mean there are now three moons? Oh, right, Dragonlance." Too confusing. Especially since not all of my players are familiar with all those worlds.

In my "perfect" Ravenloft CS there would be no explicit and exclusive Domains, just political borders. There would also be a much more organic and granular "deepening Darkness" within the badguys, where a "merely" corrupt and cruel Burhger in Barovia might be a Rank 1 Darklord while the "true" Darklords detailed in the CS are different from him in scale but not kind. In 4E parlance it would be a template making a creature Elite.

Also, the world would exist independently of the Darklords, so killing one is always a net benefit. In other words, some "house blend" of Ravenloft and MotRD.
___________________________


That being said, it'd still be Ravenloft. The Dark Powers reward Evil with Power (even if there's a Price, Power is Power) so the scales are always tilted against the good guys. Plus, lots of Undead.

You just described my dream Ravenloft.

There are only a few more elements I'd touch to make it perfect. (My concerns are for the Core, since its the closest to a real setting. Islands of Terror should be were anything goes...)

1.) Either accept demi-humans across the core or remove them utterly. Being feared in one domain and accepted in another gets tedious, and at this stage in the game I can't believe anyone living in a "fantasy" world (even a gothic fantasy) would really fear elves, dwarves and halflings. If natives can accept the Shadow Rift or the Mists, they can accept a halfling.

2.) Standardize technology. Either you have fire-arms or you don't. Either armor is ok (Falkovia) or its not (Mordent). If you want to make weird out-of-time places (like the Burning Cluster) make them islands, but make the core relatively equal.

3.) Create a common or trade tongue. Barovians can't talk with their neighboring lands, making trade impossible. Every other world accepts a common tongue for game ease, Ravenloft should to.

4.) Similarly, there should be a bit more variety for "deities". Ravenloft doesn't have many good faiths (Ezra is neutral, Morninglord is Barovian, any others?)and faith is one thing in Gothic adventurers that could be played up greater, but Ravenloft has been afraid to touch. Here, Ravenloft could learn a lot from Eberron; make the gods remote (and thus priests are un-tied to deity alignment) and make a central "Church" (Ezra) and perhaps a small collection of pantheon deities (god of sun, war, death, etc) and then numerous small "cults" that fill the need for specific religions that domains need.

5.) Lastly, (and this is something Arthaus started by necessity) remove as many other-world references as possible. Dump Sithicus, the Red Wizard, the Island that speaks real-world Italian, and any other "Clearly we came from another world" references as possible. Some are needlessly tacked on anyway (does it matter Grongediel comes from Faerun or Drakov from Ansalon?)

In short, it should appear in always that, if there was no dark powers or dark lords, Ravenloft would exist as a normal D&D world. Its the presence of the Dark Powers that twist the world, not create it.