Jester's Review of Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft

[onmyoji]

Christian/Adam and Eve digs aside (biting tongue! Heh), the incest angle assumes that Strahd's obsession with Tatyana is sexually-based.

What if Strahd's obsession isn't sexually-based?

Strahd, human Strahd, was a warlord who got whatever it was that he wanted. So much so that he became so apathetic as to begin obsessing on his mortality/himself. Sergei was, to him, all that he could never have again. Youth, turning back of time, the roads not taken, etc. And Tatyana was, and still is, an extension of Sergei. One might even say externalised Sergei, or, Strahd's dwindling/deflected guilt at being so jealous of Sergei (his own wasted youth; missed opportunities etc), and still (deflected) guilt over his own bloody hands in his brother's death.

In short, Tatyana/Sergei/undoing of wasted years/guiltless conscience is something, the one and only thing, he can never possess. His lust for Tatyana is not sexual; it's in part a lust for Final Rest, though filtered through a multi-faceted lens of Ego, Guilt, Madness, etc.

Tatyana is Strahd's rusted angel. Over the centuries, depending on your personal timeline, Strahd still doesn't see it, or get what she truly represents.

Feeling sympathy for Strahd? You shouldn't. His pact with "Death" (as defined by YOU) says it all about how far this monster will go to get what he wants, and how far he'll go to avoid looking himself square in the mirror...

Just a few surface thoughts. Alternate take. Whatever you want to call it. Not sure if any of makes sense though, outside of my head. ?

That's perfectly fine as a justification, and I'd encourage any DM weirded out by the incest thing to use it. But that said, the impression I got from everything I've ever read on Strahd (including I, Strahd and the decades of vampire lore upon which Strahd was based) was that his lust for Tatyana was primarily of a sexual nature. He does, as you say, seek out youth/the roads not taken/etc., and claiming Tatyana—a symbol of the youth and beauty Strahd has lost—is the way for this old man to reclaim his youth. Or so it has always seemed to me.

Again, DMs can and should be free to explain it as they like, and this is a great explanation. Just not one I've seen evidenced in the lore from my readings.

— onmyoji

[kourkenko]

Well bram stoker himself:

"It represents the temptation we cannot resist: the vampire imposes his will on his victim, and delivers the victim's consciousness from the weight of the guilt of having given in to something she hoped for, but which was considered to be fundamentally wrong. It serves as a projection for repressed and refused impulses."

Everyone can try to justify this his own way but the vampire is a creature that was based on sexual impulse. And, as Bram Stoker himself said, the fundamentally wrong ones... It is incest, period. And it is bad, i can't understand how it pass the cut.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

A relatively minor change, but one I haven't seen voiced, the no orcs in Ravenloft (for whatever reason that was a thing, I have never heard a reason behind it) is out. One of the pictures is of an orc hero that was bitten by a vampire.

There were no orcs because it was to show it was t a high fantasy setting. This was before half orcs were a playable race, so that’s why we got Calibans in 3rd Ed.

[alhoon]

And, as Bram Stoker himself said, the fundamentally wrong ones... It is incest, period. And it is bad, i can't understand how it pass the cut.

Because someone dropped the ball.

[Rock of the Fraternity]

Vampires were a lot simpler when they just represented a fear of the dark, death, and being eaten and exsanguinated by something unnatural...

[Five]

Why is Bram Stoker the authoritative voice of Strahd von Zarovich?

Not sure I follow. Actually, I don't.

Whether I agree with such an assessment, if I choose to base Strahd on a particular folkloric version of vampire, or not, is irrelevant in regards to the question.

Call it curiosity...

[onmyoji]

Why is Bram Stoker the authoritative voice of Strahd von Zarovich?

Not sure I follow. Actually, I don't..

I mean, it's up to individual interpretation above everything. But when there's so many rip-offs of Dracula out there (and many of them do nothing original with the material), I'm not surprised that the default interpretation of vampires is basically that of "fantasy rapist." So much of the vampire lore plays into that (going after younger prey—especially women, "draining them" to the point of weakness, spying on them while prowling the night, etc.), and Strahd really isn't a strong exception to that unless individual DMs declare it so.

It's not so much that Stoker is the authoritative voice for Strahd; it's more that so many people just stole Dracula to fit him into their own creations and failed to make overt positive changes in his behavior and mannerisms when doing so. Further, it should perhaps be underscored that vampires are by definition monsters. They can and should be humanized when the narrative calls for it, but that's not something that's ever canonically been applied to Strahd. (I am pursuing such a humanization in my campaign.)

Further, based on the timeline at http://fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Cou ... n_Zarovich, Strahd is 52 at the massacre and Tatyana is 18. Which doesn't exactly help things. It reads to me like he might as well be an older successful businessman who never had time for love because he devoted himself too much to work, but now he needs to "feel alive again" with the right young woman. Again, that's the way I interpret it. The Tome of Strahd doesn't help much either. Excerpts include:

A rare beauty, who was called “perfection,” “joy,” and “treasure.” Her name was Tatyana and I longed for her to be mine. I loved her with all my heart. I loved her for her youth. I loved her for her joy.
.
She had to understand the pact I made for her! I pursued her.
.
I have often hunted for Tatyana. I have even felt her within my grasp, but she escapes me! She taunts me! She taunts me! What will it take to bend her love to me?

Now of course, this is not explicit in intention—as D&D can't/won't go there in terms of overt sexual intentions—but it definitely lends itself perfectly to the interpretation of Strahd as unhealthily obsessively stalking Tatyana for himself. There's also a clear lack of consent on Tatyana's part, and what's more is that he's barely interacted with her before achieving these urges. Which happens to parallel Dracula pretty well. If it were under healthier circumstances, I'd say "love at first sight" could certainly apply, but at least to me, it's plain that it's "lust at first sight" instead. To me, all the sources are clear on this. Not to mention that the vampire's bite is an obvious symbol of a penetrative act.

Again, that's not to say that individual DMs can't do their own thing with Strahd. They absolutely can and they should. But when this is what the canonical sources heavily suggest, it's not difficult to see why the conception of Strahd pursuing Tatyana in a sexual sense can be a common understanding. Hope that helps.

Whether I agree with such an assessment, if I choose to base Strahd on a particular folkloric version of vampire, or not, is irrelevant in regards to the question.

Agreed. Every DM should do what's best for them and their players. It's completely up to each person.

— onmyoji

[kourkenko]

Why is Bram Stoker the authoritative voice of Strahd von Zarovich?

Not sure I follow. Actually, I don't.

Whether I agree with such an assessment, if I choose to base Strahd on a particular folkloric version of vampire, or not, is irrelevant in regards to the question.

Call it curiosity...

Each have an opinion but let's see... A man who only know war for a majority of his lifetime, encounter a beautiful girl in his late life and fall in love, since this love is lost to him, he become bitter and curse himself to obtain what he want and hunt the reincarnation of his lost love. It is the same backstory for the two characters so... I think the Stoker's definition is right at its place here.

And across mankind history since middle age (because the vampire folklore appear at this period), undead related to the vampire are all tied to a forbidden hunger, it is sadism for the greek vrykolakas, lust for the more traditional one, infidelity for indu and so on. They are tied to an unnatural and unsatisfied hunger, even the Wendigo can be related to them, a powerful undead hungry for the flesh of the living. All of them need mortals to feed on them just for survival, all of them, beside the Twillight vampire which is more tied to a mirror ball from the disco era and spend his immortality in a high school. Kinda lame imo.

If Strahd don't have any lust hunger for Tatyana, what he wants from her ? Her youth ? Her purity ? It is not love but possession, obsession and jealousy; so big he damned himself for this by killing his brothern, his familly, his friends. It is a hunger. So even if you don't want to relate him to any traditionnal vampire or even dracula, you will have to rewritte the character to the core because he is the personnification of it. The old movie nosferatu is also a perfect example of this obsession, the vampire in this movie is so obssessive of the victim he doesn't see the sun rising and die.

In the Arthaus gazeeter, Strahd is almost depressed and panicked because the latest reincarnation is late...

I like this character too but, as all darklords, he represents the worst of mankind.

Edit: i forgot the main purpose of my post

Now tie this hunger from an old (for this time, 45 to 55) man for one of his nephew and it become reaaally disturbing. They dropped the ball with Lyssa this time.

[Rucht Lilavivat]

It’s very interesting.

Just a few years ago, I had the honor of talking with Tracy Hickman about the writing of the original I6 module, which he wrote with his wife, Laura.

Just as a funny little anecdote, he first got the idea for writing I6 when, while playing in an old school D&D game, the party ran into a vampire in a dungeon. He was immediately like, “Wait, what is a vampire doing here?”

And the DM at the time said, “I dunno. The module says he’s here.”

Tracy immediately started thinking about what a vampire would be in a dungeon for, why he’d be there, etc. And thus, the original Ravenloft module was born.

We talked about a lot of things, but he said that first and foremost, Strahd is a monster. He’s not a good guy. He’s not misunderstood. He’s pretty black-hearted. Now, of course, we understand his motivations. We understand his emotions. They thought it would be cool to have a villain whose motivations you could understand.

But in the end, he’s a villain.

That was Hickman’s take. As others have said here, what and who Strahd is ultimately up to each individual DM.