He doesn't have to have written it to have internal knowledge. You are correct that it technically does not say it was in the FR; but it also does not say it was in Greyhawk, either. It does reference FR, not any other setting. In a Ravenloft specific article, why reference FR specifically, like that?
Because that was in 1994 and the FR was the primary D&D setting at the time? And I never said Ravenloft is in Greyhawk. Ravenloft isn't tied to any particular other setting (it did temporarily acquire Lord Soth as a darklord, but that hardly means it was a part of Dragonlance).
Ravenloft; the entire overall demi-plane of domains; has bits and pieces of it from all over the multi-verse. It would likely have one or more portions of it that come from Oerth; Toril; Krynn; Mystara; now, even possibly Ebberon and Exandria; and any other setting you can name. The Mysts touch everywhere and can bring anyone who deserves to be trapped there to Ravenloft along with a bit of the world that is around them at the time.
Does it particularly matter which world Barovia was from; whether or not it was from Toril?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The awesome thing about Dungeon & Dragons is that Wizards of the Coast doesn't dictate anything. They control absolutely nothing. At. All.
So if I want Barovia to exist in Candyland, then it does. If I want it to exist within Middle Earth, suddenly it's in Middle Earth. Your table is yours. And no one can tell you any different.
The expectation is that you play the game according to the rules.
Not Dungeons & Dragons. You don't have to follow the rules in the book, if they don't suit your table's play style.
It says so right in the Player's Handbook.
I actually said that, but for some reason you only read up to "according to the rules".
It's pretty clear that Barovia being from the Realms would be a pretty huge retcon. For both settings. There's no Tergs in Toril and no von Zarovich family. It adds nothing to either setting.
But it's low down on the changes I dislike from the new version.
Such as how Strahd was a conquering tyrant before he became a vampire. In the original setting, he was a liberator freeing his land from the occupying Tergs. He wasn't a good guy, but he wasn't a monster. He was just a hard soldier. He didn't become evil until he made a pact with Death, and sealed that with the murder of his brother. Nu-Loft Strahd was capital-e Evil before becoming a vampire and didn't have a tragic fall. He killed an order of noble knights, butchered a silver dragon, and worse. That goes against a fundamental idea of the Dark Powers and the darklords as these fallen figures that had a choice and chose evil. Instead, it makes Strahd this cartoonish villain that was just born evil with Iago-esque "motiveless malignity." He no longer has a motive or reason for being evil, he was just inherently nasty.
The setting had moved away from Weekends in Hell early on and focused more and more on natives, really starting with Islands of Terror in 1992. 1997's Domains of Dread even had rules for native PCs. 5e's book jetisens that and doubles down on the Weekend in Hell. Every domain is shallow and heavily focused on the darklord, often with reduced settlements and locations. They're cut down to a shadow of their former selves, with the only activty remaining being killing the darklord and getting out. Especially as it's not a living world anymore, but lands that are on the verge of collapse. They're starving or freezing or overrun with zombies. The lands aren't even connected into the Core. There's no shared history or trade.
The tone of the setting just doesn't work anymore either. It was this gothic horror setting where you fought against the horrors of the land to save its people. But also turns it up to 11 by emphasising that domains reset and darklords reincarnate, so nothing the PCs do really matters. They just have to survive and get out, and saving people is pointless as every inhabitant is trapped in a cycle of death-and-rebirth. And even if they CAN kill the darklord permanently the domain will just be sucked into void of Klorr and erased from existence. The setting is this bleak grimdark nihilistic world and not the more heroic gothic horror with the bright pinpricks of light in the darkness.
And that's without getting to all the needless changes. Now, obviously some changes needed to be made. A greater gender balance was necassary, as were female darklords whose curse or evil deeds weren't related to seduction or looks. And more diversity was needed as well. The Weathermay-Foxgrove twins becoming people of colour is fine. Great to see them as the iconic characters they deserved to be. No notes. But given all the other changes, the gender flips and revisions didn't always seem necassary. Given Dementlieu was completely rewritten and reduced to a single city why keep the lord as a d’Honaire? And nothing is the same in Falkovnia except the name and the map. Why not just make those wholly new domains? Were they trying to retain a trademark or something?
The whole book felt like a book by people who didn't really like the old Ravenloft. For people who didn't care about the old Ravenloft. It really looked like someone read the wikipedia summery of the black border Realm of Terror boxed set and said "yup, this is it. Let's redo this from scratch."
Well, actually Strahd became evil after one too many military campaigns.
The Shadowfell is a fine place for it. That change makes sense, as it being a demiplane in the Deep Ethereal was always weird. The Plane of Shadow works so much better. And, really, that's just a descriptor. It doesn't affect anything in the setting. It's still it's own location seperate from the mortal world.
Well, actually Strahd became evil after one too many military campaigns.
One of the big things the setting focused on was Acts of Ultimate Darkness. The final sin that damned darklords.
Strahd was hardened and possibily merciless. But he wasn't evil originally. He'd just spent a lifetime freeing his people. He could have rejected temptation and wished his brother well and just been an okay person. Not good and noble but "alright."
Then in the update he became this colonialist figure that murdered an entire knighthood and made pacts before he even met Tatyana.
Well, actually Strahd became evil after one too many military campaigns.
One of the big things the setting focused on was Acts of Ultimate Darkness. The final sin that damned darklords.
Strahd was hardened and possibily merciless. But he wasn't evil originally. He'd just spent a lifetime freeing his people. He could have rejected temptation and wished his brother well and just been an okay person. Not good and noble but "alright."
Then in the update he became this colonialist figure that murdered an entire knighthood and made pacts before he even met Tatyana.
My own vision is Strahd was victim of some wicked supernatural conspirancy, where the innocent Tatyana was used as bait to atrack him toward the "dark side". But this shouldn't mean Strahd's fault was lesser.
And I imagine the demiplane suffered some event like a second great conjuction, maybe by Vecna's fault, causing the "shatering" of the core.
And if I want my Ravenloft game has got crossovers with Innistrad and Duskmourn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because that was in 1994 and the FR was the primary D&D setting at the time? And I never said Ravenloft is in Greyhawk. Ravenloft isn't tied to any particular other setting (it did temporarily acquire Lord Soth as a darklord, but that hardly means it was a part of Dragonlance).
Ravenloft; the entire overall demi-plane of domains; has bits and pieces of it from all over the multi-verse. It would likely have one or more portions of it that come from Oerth; Toril; Krynn; Mystara; now, even possibly Ebberon and Exandria; and any other setting you can name. The Mysts touch everywhere and can bring anyone who deserves to be trapped there to Ravenloft along with a bit of the world that is around them at the time.
Does it particularly matter which world Barovia was from; whether or not it was from Toril?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I actually said that, but for some reason you only read up to "according to the rules".
Well, actually Strahd became evil after one too many military campaigns.
I honestly think that Ravenloft just fell into the Shadowfell after the Spellplague.
The Shadowfell is a fine place for it. That change makes sense, as it being a demiplane in the Deep Ethereal was always weird. The Plane of Shadow works so much better.
And, really, that's just a descriptor. It doesn't affect anything in the setting. It's still it's own location seperate from the mortal world.
One of the big things the setting focused on was Acts of Ultimate Darkness. The final sin that damned darklords.
Strahd was hardened and possibily merciless. But he wasn't evil originally. He'd just spent a lifetime freeing his people. He could have rejected temptation and wished his brother well and just been an okay person. Not good and noble but "alright."
Then in the update he became this colonialist figure that murdered an entire knighthood and made pacts before he even met Tatyana.
I know.
My own vision is Strahd was victim of some wicked supernatural conspirancy, where the innocent Tatyana was used as bait to atrack him toward the "dark side". But this shouldn't mean Strahd's fault was lesser.
And I imagine the demiplane suffered some event like a second great conjuction, maybe by Vecna's fault, causing the "shatering" of the core.
And if I want my Ravenloft game has got crossovers with Innistrad and Duskmourn.