D&D General Ravenloft: Monsters vs Darklords

[LuisCarlos17f]

Living amoung souless nPC is really horrible. Think about that: you have to choose to vote between Neo, Trinity and Morpheus, but it is totally useless because the elections winner always be the agent John Smith.
Maybe the Dark Powers don't create new domain in the way you guess, but maybe they "recover" timelines with a bad ending about to be "deleted" becaue time-travelers saved the day. For example there is an alternate Krynn where the Kingpriest becomes the one deity, and it is a dystopy until a group of heroes avoid it. Then the Dark Powers "catch and recycle" that dystopian or apocalyptic timeline to become a dread domain.

Volo was in Ravenloft for a relatively short time, and the famous Lord Soth was a dark lord for a time, and also Vecna before becoming a deity.

The demiplane can't be only a "hell" because there are innocent people suffering and the evil creatures are allowed to cause more damaged. A true purgatory should be focused toward the redemtion. The Dark Powers seems to want to promote the evil.

Other point is if wicked or nobleheart character are psichologically tortured, those traumas leaves very serious consequences that are not easily treatable. I mean if the psychological stress caused by fault of Dark Powers is too serious, then those victimas become "inoperative", or at least Intellectual performance deteriorates too much. They lose their cunning and make more and more mistakes. If the Dark Powers "burn their toys", then they aren't useful any more.

And maybe there are internal fight within the Dark Powers. Then a faction could help a group of heroes to harm the interests of another group.

Or maybe "innocent people" in Ravenloft are reincarnation of criminals from a previous life, or people with a "spark" of Tharizdum, the elder elemental eye, and then the demiplane is like a nuclear cemetery for radioactive waste. Then some souls can escape when they are suffered enough because that "spark of Tharizdum" has been "purgerd".

Some times some souls can reincarnated out of the demiplaned, and later in again.

 

[Incenjucar]

The point of the idea is for horror and for tables to build on it if they want. I like to use it purely for narrative reasons, and dont' worry about mechanical stuff; however, there's no problem IMO with making mechanical stuff based off of it, and I think it empowers the DM to do so. Saying "What's the point if it does nothing?" is facetious because no world-building detail does anything if you don't engage with it. What's the point of there being water? What's the point of there being a sky? What's the point of there being gravity? These are fictional constructs in a shared narrative to be played with or ignored at your table's leisure.

Water can suffocate you and impede movement and there are skills and feats and abilities based on it, gravity is a constant factor throughout the game. The sky has a major impact on what kinds of environmental events can occur and what monsters can attack.

You're describing a bunch of stuff that has mechanical consequence.

 

[Shardstone]

Water can suffocate you and impede movement and there are skills and feats and abilities based on it, gravity is a constant factor throughout the game. The sky has a major impact on what kinds of environmental events can occur and what monsters can attack.

You're describing a bunch of stuff that has mechanical consequence.

Im not sure how you keep missing my point.

 

[Incenjucar]

Im not sure how you keep missing my point.

I hang out on very acerbic forums you shouldn't give me a setup like that.

Anyways, the game mechanics and lore need to match or else players cannot rely on them. A distinction without a difference is just noise.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

fantasy writers put their own religious views aside to imagine another cosmology.

I would say that far more commonly, the opposite is true. Tolkien has been mentioned, but try C.S. Lewis, Phillip Pullman, Weis and Hickman, George Lucas, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Bram Stoker, Mary Shelley. All very influenced by their beliefs (I'm including being anti-, that's a belief system too).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've just remembered something. In 1st edition AD&D, elves did not have souls. Instead they had something called a "spirit". I forget the metaphysical difference, but mechanically, it meant they were unaffected by Raise Dead. This rule, if not the reasoning behind it, existed late enough for it to find it's way into the original Baldur's Gate CRPG.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would say that far more commonly, the opposite is true. Tolkien has been mentioned, but try C.S. Lewis, Phillip Pullman, Weis and Hickman, George Lucas, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Bram Stoker, Mary Shelley. All very influenced by their beliefs (I'm including being anti-, that's a belief system too).

I think there are a few different things going on here though. Also one of the things that bothered me about Pullman's writing, even though I thought his writing was good (especially his descriptions), was an inability to get outside his own belief system, even for a moment. Sometimes that can make writing feel weak to me. But I think there is writing in a way that reflects your values and religious beliefs. And writing in a way that goes against your values and beliefs. That is a lot harder not to do, and perhaps not even something most writers would or should seek to do. I don't think a writer who deeply believes in freedom, wants to write a novel about how great autocracies are for example. By the same token, I wouldn't expect a devout Christian like Tolkien to turn a character like Sauron into a hero.

But that isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about the other thing that is going on here: writing outside your beliefs about reality, the supernatural, etc. I.e. being raised in one religion but writing a fantasy setting where that religion doesn't even exist or its assumptions about things like the soul are completely different. That is much easier and pretty common in a lot of fantasy. Arguably even Tolkien was doing that. So one could be an atheist but writer a fantasy setting that has gods. One could be a Christian and believe but write a setting where souls reincarnate century after century. Or be a Christian but make a setting featuring a god who isn't the God of the bible.

But this wasn't even really the point, the point was whether people could understand concepts in fantasy that don't match their own religion (the presence of souls in Ravenloft for example). I would argue it is very infantilizing to religious people, especially having been raised in a deeply religious household myself, to suggest something like this they wouldn't grasp (like I said, most people have more exposure to concepts outside their faith than you realize through things like media, but also through being around people of other religions; and the idea of a soul is something that exists, albeit in somewhat different form, across religions). Case in point, Tatianna clearly reincarnates in Ravenloft. That is not part of the Christian lore that underpins vampire legends and film, yet I found that instantly easy to grasp because I have seen plenty of films featuring reincarnation and have become aware of it because it something you are exposed to in the culture

 

[Remathilis]

I've just remembered something. In 1st edition AD&D, elves did not have souls. Instead they had something called a "spirit". I forget the metaphysical difference, but mechanically, it meant they were unaffected by Raise Dead. This rule, if not the reasoning behind it, existed late enough for it to find it's way into the original Baldur's Gate CRPG.

It made it to 2nd edition. I think it was to represent elves fey origins. It was a dumb rule regardless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It made it to 2nd edition. I think it was to represent elves fey origins. It was a dumb rule regardless.

I always liked the idea that elves were different in that way. It was I think a reflection of Tolkien elves and the fact that they were bound to Arda while the souls of Men went beyond the circles of the world.

It wasn't a dumb rule from my point of view.

 

[Remathilis]

I always liked the idea that elves were different in that way. It was I think a reflection of Tolkien elves and the fact that they were bound to Arda while the souls of Men went beyond the circles of the world.

It wasn't a dumb rule from my point of view.

It was dumb because it was a hidden gotcha rule. It's not in the elf racial rules, it's hidden in the raise dead spell description and it reads "elves are kewl, but if you die then you lose your PC forever*." I'm pretty sure most people didn't even know the rule existed and I'm pretty sure it was one of the first rule 0's that DMs made.

On a flavor scale, it's cool. On a practical level, it's right up there with level limits and dwarf magic item failure on the "this is designed to screw your players" list.

I also recall all humanoids in the Complete Book of Humanoids had a similar prohibition because of course they would. Anything to discourage players from actually playing those races

* If you're playing in the kind of game that raise dead was even an option..