What have WE gotten wrong?

[Manofevil]

Some time ago, it occurred to me that we, the fan community, may have gotten some details wrong about certain parts of RavenLoft.
It happened when we were discussing the idea of a central prison in Falkovnia. A poster said that he didn't like the idea of Falkovnian soldiers being able to summarily execute people if they chose. I pointed out that this was supposed to be a capital crime under the historical Vlad the Impaler, whom Drakov is supposed to be modeled after and that a soldier who did this could expect impalement himself. It occurred to me that if most of us think summary executions are the norm in Falkovnia, (and I don't seem to recall seeing that in canon) then we, the fan community, have developed what amounts to a serious misconception about an important detail of RavenLoft.
The point of this thread is this:
What other misconceptions do you think we've developed in the course of our gaming?

[Tobias Blackburn]

The Falkovnian summary executions aren't a misconception. It comes from 2e, when in the first Death adventure, being out after curfew was enough to result in a summary execution.

Why wouldn't the soldiers be able to execute someone on the spot. They find someone out after curfew, that's a sign that they're ploting something. They find a blade on someone, that's a direct threat to the King Fuher's peace. You don't try them, since you caught them in the act and you know what you saw. As a representitive of the law, you have every right to put down spies and assassins in the more painful way possibly in order to teach others the lesson.

A higher ranking officer might decide otherwise, which is their right, but for the average soldier there's going to be a lot of peer pressure to deal with things swiftly and harshly. Drakov don't want no pansies after all.

[Manofevil]

The Falkovnian summary executions aren't a misconception. It comes from 2e, when in the first Death adventure, being out after curfew was enough to result in a summary execution.

Why wouldn't the soldiers be able to execute someone on the spot. They find someone out after curfew, that's a sign that they're ploting something. They find a blade on someone, that's a direct threat to the King Fuher's peace. You don't try them, since you caught them in the act and you know what you saw. As a representitive of the law, you have every right to put down spies and assassins in the more painful way possibly in order to teach others the lesson.

A higher ranking officer might decide otherwise, which is their right, but for the average soldier there's going to be a lot of peer pressure to deal with things swiftly and harshly. Drakov don't want no pansies after all.

I never knew this. Hmm. this is actually a deviation from the historical model. The original impaler was supposed to be as hard as underlings as he was on anyone else. He'd ORDER his men to do terrible things like impalement, and those who flinched would suffer the condemned's fate, but those who would act WITHOUT orders might one day rebel against him as they had against his father and betray him. I think this definitely makes Drakov more efficient but less psychotic than his historical counterpart. I have to say, I'm disappointed. I will always find the historical impaler far more disturbing and fearsome than the RavenLoft one. Still you've exposed MY misconception. What else have we, the fans, gotten wrong in the past?

[ScS of the Fraternity]

One might think of this as the point where Drakov differs from Dracul.
Drakov is supposed to be a composite, not of just Vladd the Impaler, but also of other historical sadistic tyrants. There are some serious shades of Hitler in him, as well as Ivan the Terrible.

One might say that Drakov further on the sadist side of the spectrum, where as Vladd is more on the tyrant side of the scale. Drakov doesn't mind a little lawlessness, as long as it means bloodshed. So long as everyone does what he says when he says it, his minions are free to beat, rape, and murder at will . Of course, if after the mayhem, it turns out that Drakov would rather it not have happened - he'll order his own men's executions.

In response to the title, there's not much that WW "got wrong". To do that, you would have to violate the spirit of the setting.

Champions of Darkness, for example, is a product that was definitly "wrong". And even then, it was only some specific sections (Sherrif von Stinksabit, Janders alignment, barovia's cold war)

But, besides that one book, they didn't get much "wrong".

[Algaris]

Actually the title of the thread is: What have WE gotten wrong?

Some time ago, it occurred to me that we, the fan community, may have gotten some details wrong about certain parts of RavenLoft.

I think the author of the thread is meaning, what have we, as fans gotten wrong with our assumptions of the setting? Pretty much like our guesses with the Gazetteer meta plot I guess, where we are running all over the place with wild speculation.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

The main one that comes to mind is the "mist at every border" misconception that crops up from time to time.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

FWIW, one of my long-standing pet peeves about fan misconceptions is the persistant assumption that Sergei von Zarovich was some kind of a paladin. He wasn't a paladin, nor was he ever training to become a paladin; up until he met Tatyana, he'd been training as a priest, which in 2E would have meant cleric (as paladins were classified as "warriors"). Both novels in which Sergei appears make it clear that he'd been training for a peacetime position, not as a warrior for the faith (that was Strahd's responsibility). Nor did Sergei ever actually complete his clerical training -- despite what Gaz I may claim in its "Bright Blade" magical item description -- prior to his engagement and murder: had he actually been ordained, he wouldn't have been permited to wed, by the customs of his era's Church of Andral.

A minor point, but like I said, it's a pet peeve. I see it as a legacy of the old 1E-era assumption that if you weren't Lawful Good, you weren't as purely "Good" as Lawful Good folks ... hence, if Sergei was to be a worthy "good guy" contrast for Strahd's Evil, many gamers assumed that he "had" to be a paladin. :-/

[Undead Cabbage]

I never knew this. Hmm. this is actually a deviation from the historical model. The original impaler was supposed to be as hard as underlings as he was on anyone else. He'd ORDER his men to do terrible things like impalement, and those who flinched would suffer the condemned's fate, but those who would act WITHOUT orders might one day rebel against him as they had against his father and betray him. I think this definitely makes Drakov more efficient but less psychotic than his historical counterpart. I have to say, I'm disappointed. Sad I will always find the historical impaler far more disturbing and fearsome than the RavenLoft one. Still you've exposed MY misconception. Embarassed What else have we, the fans, gotten wrong in the past? Question Wink

I'm not a big fan of clumping Vlad drakov as being like Tzepes. Yes, the name, and tendency to impale people, are direct reflections.

Part of Bram Stoker's reasoning behind using Tzepes as the baseline for his arch villian in 'Dracula' was that Tzepes had his own twsited sense of logic. It's arguable that the historical character actually had more in common with Azalin (although I will not argue that azalin is meant to reflect him), and other LE charcters than he did with Vlad Drakov. He was a leader that demanded obedience, and delivered peace. Drakov is a blood thirsty mercenary interested in cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Tzepes used cruelty only as a means of maintaining his perception of an ideal society.

The historical figure did not impale people for the sake of impaling them. He was a bigger fan of impaling a woman's oriffices, if she wasn't loyal to her husband.

If you want some info on how Tzepes was really like, http://www.eskimo.com/~mwirkk/castle/vlad/vladhist.html

This essay may be a bit dry to read, but it seems to be well sourced. A section that REALLY demonstrates the historical figure's twisted logic is the tale involving a merchant.

Impalment is not a technique seen only in Vlad II of Wallacia. For instance, Ivan The Terrible is a prime example of an impaling leader.

[Samael Hands of Stone]

Some time ago, it occurred to me that we, the fan community, may have gotten some details wrong about certain parts of RavenLoft.
It happened when we were discussing the idea of a central prison in Falkovnia. A poster said that he didn't like the idea of Falkovnian soldiers being able to summarily execute people if they chose. I pointed out that this was supposed to be a capital crime under the historical Vlad the Impaler, whom Drakov is supposed to be modeled after and that a soldier who did this could expect impalement himself. It occurred to me that if most of us think summary executions are the norm in Falkovnia, (and I don't seem to recall seeing that in canon) then we, the fan community, have developed what amounts to a serious misconception about an important detail of RavenLoft.
The point of this thread is this:
What other misconceptions do you think we've developed in the course of our gaming?

I don't know that anyone could really have "misconceptions" about Ravenloft as on of the ground rules in every product is the good 'ol "use what you want, how you want it, when you want it, if you want it". Thus there no real misconceptions, only subtle (or great) differences of interpretations of canon text (kinda like the Bible).

There are definite conventions or constants that a visible (or audible/legible?) majority have agreed upon, and so if you think that Vlad Drakov may have some kind of hidden gentle side to him that no one knows about, well, you are the boss.

This is a good topic though, it's made me realize just how differently I think my group and I view Ravenloft from the "average gamer". Our campaign has a much more subtle and low-fantasy-high-gothic. I'm guessing our Azalin would be a different from what the books describe, with a greater emphasis on his Emperor Nero-like characteristics than say, the fact that he's a lich, etc.

[Boccaccio Barbarossa]

Our campaign has a much more subtle and low-fantasy-high-gothic. I'm guessing our Azalin would be a different from what the books describe, with a greater emphasis on his Emperor Nero-like characteristics than say, the fact that he's a lich, etc.

Nero? I would see him much more as a Marcus Aurelius, but darker... and undead, but whatever, Marcus Aurelius (wrote his "Meditations") was an emperor who would have rather been elsewhere, and so he adopts this stoic "we have to care for our obligations" even though he would have much prefered NOT to be emperor. And, of course, he spent all that time fightingg various "barbarians"... and "Romanizing" other peoples... (Romaninzing is a LOT like the Darkonese "claiming" effect... ...)

You know, I think he may in fact have lost a son... I'd have to re-read his history and "Meditations" again to see... but anyways, I can see a similar attitude in Azalin: we must persevere, we cannot admit surrender, etc...

[Samael Hands of Stone]

Our campaign has a much more subtle and low-fantasy-high-gothic. I'm guessing our Azalin would be a different from what the books describe, with a greater emphasis on his Emperor Nero-like characteristics than say, the fact that he's a lich, etc.

Nero? I would see him much more as a Marcus Aurelius, but darker... and undead, but whatever, Marcus Aurelius (wrote his "Meditations") was an emperor who would have rather been elsewhere, and so he adopts this stoic "we have to care for our obligations" even though he would have much prefered NOT to be emperor. And, of course, he spent all that time fightingg various "barbarians"... and "Romanizing" other peoples... (Romaninzing is a LOT like the Darkonese "claiming" effect... ...)

You know, I think he may in fact have lost a son... I'd have to re-read his history and "Meditations" again to see... but anyways, I can see a similar attitude in Azalin: we must persevere, we cannot admit surrender, etc...

I hate you...

[Boccaccio Barbarossa]

I hate you...

Don't hate, man. Don't hate. I like nero too.

[Manofevil]

If you want some info on how Tzepes was really like, http://www.eskimo.com/~mwirkk/castle/vlad/vladhist.html

I knew about all this in the essay. It's the primary reason why I felt that Drakov was the scariest of all the DarkLords and the primary reason why I'm so disappointed at these important differences. The historical model seems so very hands on. I had an image of Drakov as going out among his people and FINDING the ones who did wrong and punishing them (and anyone at all associated with them)and rewarding the victims of the wrongdoing by letting (making) them watch the punishment. Now I have an image of Drakov sitting on his armored ass, behind a desk, impaling anyone they send to him between visits to his brothel. They've literally turned him into a Hitler. I mean, let's face it, Hitler never did anything besides write and give speeches, listen to opera, and plot bad war strategies. He never went out and did his own fighting or killing, and now that's the image I have of DRAKOV! ARGH! HE seems so tame now. The army are the real bad guys. He's just a psycho figurehead. What a loser.

Somebody please tell me this is another misconception.

[Mangrum]

If anything, the general obsession of this community with finding 1-for-1 parallels between RL characters/domains and real life is the most persistent and counterproductive misconception I can name.

[eocine]

I'd tend to agree with that, there is a temptation to try to make places flat copies of real life places that they may be loosely based on, with no allowance for deviation. Regarding Drakov just use what you feel happiest with him doing, in my mind he's an evil sadist, who encourages it in others, and punishes those who won't do the same. Lets not forget the game version was a brutal bugger who used to eat his meals to the strains of people being impaled to death, certainly in every way far beyond what Hitler did (on a personal level I mean before anyone accuses me of downplaying his crimes).