D&D General Reading Ravenloft the setting

[tetrasodium]

How does Curse of Strahd handle it? I was gifted CoS but have not read most of it, I read the tarokka parts for a 5e gothic campaign I was running but held off on the rest to play the module as a player. In the game I was in (currently on hiatus) our vengeance paladin's warhorse always came back as undead after it was killed once. I don't know if that was the DM's invention or inline with the advice for ravenlofting it up.

the 5e CoS.... doesn't & winds up feeling very faerunized barely even mentionin the Dark Powers & making it look like Strahd is the god of Ravenloft or something. If a player actually knows anything about ravenloft & plays CoSunder a gm who is going solely from the 5e CoS book there is going to be a lot of sadness

 

[Remathilis]

How does Curse of Strahd handle it? I was gifted CoS but have not read most of it, I read the tarokka parts for a 5e gothic campaign I was running but held off on the rest to play the module as a player. In the game I was in (currently on hiatus) our vengeance paladin's warhorse always came back as loyally undead after it was killed once. I don't know if that was the DM's invention or inline with the advice for ravenlofting it up.

As an adventure, it discusses only a few key magic changes:

• You can't leave Barovia via magical means.
• Being raised from the dead gives you a madness as you see what the demiplane truly is on the other side.
• Spells have often harmless thematic effects, like familiars being the undead type or mage hand being a skeletal shrouded hand.

And that's it. Nothing on summons, divination, or necromancy being different. No crippled spells or class features. No Powers checks just for BEING a certain class.

And to be honest, when I ran CoS, I didn't miss them. Using the fear/horror and madness rules from the DMG and AL's Dark Gifts rules were enough to keep some fear and tension during CoS. It wasn't grimdark, but it worked. I suspect the new book will keep to the same format. Which for me is fine; by the 3.5 era nearly every class spell and rule had been Ravenloftized to the point you couldn't keep them all straight in your head anyway...

 

[Faolyn]

I'm kind of assuming that warlock patrons are actually trapped in Ravenloft along with the PCs, while in other settings, they're as likely to be on another plane of existence. Azalin, for instance, would be a Pact of the Undead patron, or whatever it's called. Not the only Undead patron out there, but one of them. In my current RL game (a heavily mutated CoS, since none of the players have any desire to go anywhere near Strahd's castle), I have two warlocks: one a Feylock, whose patron is in the Shadow Rift; and a hexblade, whose patron is, unknowingly to him, Ebonbane.

So when it comes to punishing individuals for "dabbling in darkness," I kind of assume that, because the patron is actually there, it acts as sort of a shield. Meaning the Dark Powers kind of view the warlock's evil deeds as being an offshoot of the patron's evil deeds. Which isn't to say that the warlock is immune to dark powers checks. It just means that the checks are specifically made for the warlock's own actions.

Since I'm explaining this badly... say a Patron wants warlock to perform evil deed X. The DPs aren't going to force a roll for completing X. It will, however, force rolls for evil actions the warlock takes in while preparing to perform X. Does this make any sense? I dunno.


As for the Gazetteer plots, I always found it interesting they gave S the "less sexy" version of Van Richten's plight of a child turned into an undead. Only instead of becoming a vampire who is aware of their new and horrific existence and begging to be freed from it, they're now a disgusting ghoul who ran off.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm kind of assuming that warlock patrons are actually trapped in Ravenloft along with the PCs, while in other settings, they're as likely to be on another plane of existence. Azalin, for instance, would be a Pact of the Undead patron, or whatever it's called. Not the only Undead patron out there, but one of them. In my current RL game (a heavily mutated CoS, since none of the players have any desire to go anywhere near Strahd's castle), I have two warlocks: one a Feylock, whose patron is in the Shadow Rift; and a hexblade, whose patron is, unknowingly to him, Ebonbane.

So when it comes to punishing individuals for "dabbling in darkness," I kind of assume that, because the patron is actually there, it acts as sort of a shield. Meaning the Dark Powers kind of view the warlock's evil deeds as being an offshoot of the patron's evil deeds. Which isn't to say that the warlock is immune to dark powers checks. It just means that the checks are specifically made for the warlock's own actions.

Since I'm explaining this badly... say a Patron wants warlock to perform evil deed X. The DPs aren't going to force a roll for completing X. It will, however, force rolls for evil actions the warlock takes in while preparing to perform X. Does this make any sense? I dunno.


As for the Gazetteer plots, I always found it interesting they gave S the "less sexy" version of Van Richten's plight of a child turned into an undead. Only instead of becoming a vampire who is aware of their new and horrific existence and begging to be freed from it, they're now a disgusting ghoul who ran off.

there are other options....

There's always something that might be willing to answer... sometimes.

 

[Alzrius]

As for the Gazetteer plots, I always found it interesting they gave S the "less sexy" version of Van Richten's plight of a child turned into an undead. Only instead of becoming a vampire who is aware of their new and horrific existence and begging to be freed from it, they're now a disgusting ghoul who ran off.

I seem to recall something to the effect of S finding her daughter after she'd become a ghoul, and cajoling her to perform reconnaissance in Necropolis before she'd release her from undeath; sort of "I know you're suffering, and I promise I'll lay you to rest, but since you're already undead how about doing these errands for me first?" Her daughter, disgusted at S's selfishness, fled into Necropolis and refused to come out.

 

[M.L. Martin]

As for the Gazetteer plots, I always found it interesting they gave S the "less sexy" version of Van Richten's plight of a child turned into an undead. Only instead of becoming a vampire who is aware of their new and horrific existence and begging to be freed from it, they're now a disgusting ghoul who ran off.

The high concept for S was the 'anti-van Richten', according to comments from the Kargatane.

 

[humble minion]

So when it comes to punishing individuals for "dabbling in darkness," I kind of assume that, because the patron is actually there, it acts as sort of a shield. Meaning the Dark Powers kind of view the warlock's evil deeds as being an offshoot of the patron's evil deeds. Which isn't to say that the warlock is immune to dark powers checks. It just means that the checks are specifically made for the warlock's own actions.

Since I'm explaining this badly... say a Patron wants warlock to perform evil deed X. The DPs aren't going to force a roll for completing X. It will, however, force rolls for evil actions the warlock takes in while preparing to perform X. Does this make any sense? I dunno.

I get what you're saying, and it certainly one way they could take it.

Historically, Ravenloft has always had the concept of some abilities and creatures being inherently corruptive. If you cast (for instance) chill touch to kill the goblin that's about to massacre the helpless orphans, you still had to take that Powers check because chill touch is necromancy and necromancy corrupts, always. It's not just about whether the deed itself is evil, it's about the means you use to perform the deed. (And I know the means-vs-ends debate is one we could have endlessly, but Ravenloft's back catalogue is pretty clear on the question)

That's where i have the questions about the stance 5e is going to take. A fiend pact warlock, for instance - this is someone who has knowingly made a deal with a fiend in exchange for power. That's certainly a failed powers check already, and probably a short road to Fiendish Transposition and a horrible fate if you stick to how Van Richten's Guide to Fiends and subsequent material treated the matter. If 5e Ravenloft parallels that even relatively closely, there's going to be a LOT subclasses out there that you can only play if you pretty much accept from the start that your PC is doomed.

But also, the in-world fact that so much magic is corrupting actually contributes to the feel and culture of the setting. Superstition, intolerance, witch hunts, the scythes-and-pitchforks mob - they're all absolutely classic tropes of gothic horror. In a world where magic very frequently corrupts its users, it makes perfect sense that these attitudes of anti-magical prejudice have evolved, and it also means that these attitudes can actually be defensible from time to time and be held by otherwise reasonable, sympathetic people. If magic is merely an impersonal amoral force, then you're left in the situation where you're playing a large percentage of the population as bigoted jerks.

Of course, rarity of magic is also a contributor to these attitudes making sense in context. Reading the Gazetteers, other than in specifically wizard-ruled domains one thing that is noticeable is the dearth of, and often prejudice against, casters in general and arcane casters in particular. Common magic gets demystified a bit, rare magic is scary. I think that this magic-light world that RL has often (especially in 3e) been illustrated as, is part of the concerted attempt they're making to bring the setting closer to more classic 1800s-era gothic tropes and away from heroic medieval fantasy. The proliferation of firearms is another example of this. But 5e magic is a lot more widespread across classes than it has been previous editions, so it'll be interesting to see what WotC do about this.

 

[Remathilis]

That's where i have the questions about the stance 5e is going to take. A fiend pact warlock, for instance - this is someone who has knowingly made a deal with a fiend in exchange for power. That's certainly a failed powers check already, and probably a short road to Fiendish Transposition and a horrible fate if you stick to how Van Richten's Guide to Fiends and subsequent material treated the matter. If 5e Ravenloft parallels that even relatively closely, there's going to be a LOT subclasses out there that you can only play if you pretty much accept from the start that your PC is doomed.

There were a lot of classes in regular AD&D that were doomed even if played correctly. Specifically, Literally the Arcanist class from Domains of Dread required a powers check equal 5x your level WHEN YOU GAINED A LEVEL. That was greatly expanded in the 3.5 RL PHB where fighters similarly made Powers Checks for leveling because "they engaged in violence routinely". Similarly, a wizard made powers checks not only for learning necromancy, but also evocation (since evocation magic was where all the big boom spells are) but due to how 3e categorized spells, Tensers Floating Disc and Light (LIGHT!) also forced a Powers check to learn. Barbarians made a powers check whenever they raged as another example. While I didn't play using the 3e rules, I can certainly say the fact that they opted to cripple every class in some way like this was a major turn-off from ever trying.

That said, I'm pretty sure WotC is going to moved away from "Forced Morality" systems in in favor of the Dark Gifts system, which is probably going to replace the idea of a Powers Check without the punitive element attached to it. The simple fact that the three races in the book are all monstrous and one of the two subclasses is an undead-pact warlock tells me they aren't going for the "corruption is guaranteed just by picking a PC option" setup.

 

[Faolyn]

That's where i have the questions about the stance 5e is going to take. A fiend pact warlock, for instance - this is someone who has knowingly made a deal with a fiend in exchange for power. That's certainly a failed powers check already, and probably a short road to Fiendish Transposition and a horrible fate if you stick to how Van Richten's Guide to Fiends and subsequent material treated the matter. If 5e Ravenloft parallels that even relatively closely, there's going to be a LOT subclasses out there that you can only play if you pretty much accept from the start that your PC is doomed.

I definitely see this. Personally, I wouldn't have this become a Fiendish Transportation though, at least not in the way VRGtF had it. Or rather, I'd say that if you manage to contact a fiend from another plane, you're likely to be Transported (other options: destroyed instantly through the sheer power or simply ignored). If you manage to contact one that's already in Ravenloft (Inijara, the Gentleman Caller, Drigor, the Black Duke, etc.), you might become a warlock (other options: murdered by the fiend or simply ignored).

Optionally, you offer a living sacrifice to the fiend, who then Transports through the sacrifice, and then grants you warlock powers.

I would also say, using this as a guide, that even minor fiends can make warlocks, because they get a boost from the Dark Powers, although the DPs would probably "encourage" them to engage in Power Rituals to tie themselves more closely to the land first.

I'll see if they come up with a more interesting idea in the actual book; if they do, I might adopt that instead.

If magic is merely an impersonal amoral force, then you're left in the situation where you're playing a large percentage of the population as bigoted jerks.

To be fair, a large percentage of the population are supposed to be bigoted jerks. I have no idea why my printing of CoS listed the average townsfolk as Lawful Good). While WotC is almost certainly going to throw out the Outcast Rating rule, even back in 2e, before that was used, the idea was that most of the peasants were even more ignorant and superstitious than peasants in any regular setting and feared everything.

But anyway, it's not like the average person is going to know if magic is evil or amoral. After all, the only way to test it is with spells like detect evil and good, which is just more magic, or by seeing if the spellcaster floats or drowns.

But 5e magic is a lot more widespread across classes than it has been previous editions, so it'll be interesting to see what WotC do about this.

Agreed. One option is to simply tell the players that if they want to play a magical character they can, but that character was very likely ostracized for it in the past or otherwise always had to hide their magic (unless they came from a Domain where magic was tolerated or appreciated), and they should take that into account when they come up with their backstory.

Of course, not every domain is anti-magic. Barovia, Borca, places like that, sure, except in certain areas. Other domains are more accepting. Darkon has magical universities, IIRC, and I can't imagine at least some magic, especially illusions, aren't welcomed in places like Kartakass and Dementlieu.

 

[Faolyn]

That said, I'm pretty sure WotC is going to moved away from "Forced Morality" systems in in favor of the Dark Gifts system, which is probably going to replace the idea of a Powers Check without the punitive element attached to it. The simple fact that the three races in the book are all monstrous and one of the two subclasses is an undead-pact warlock tells me they aren't going for the "corruption is guaranteed just by picking a PC option" setup.

Yeah, but those three races aren't necessarily going to look monstrous, which is where the problem is.

But I agree--they're not likely going to force Powers Checks for players, at least not for things like leveling up. The Dark Gifts kind of remind me of the Terror Tracks, or whatever they were called: those ten-step roads that took you from normal person to monster, depending on what sort of evil you committed.