Invincible Darklords...

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Easan never had that choice.

How can you be so certain? His backstory specifically states that he was relieved of his condition by the monks of Vechor prior to becoming a DL. These monks were destroyed in a mysterious cataclysmic event, and Easan wound up as DL of a place named after his destroyed sanctuary. Are you totally certain that Easan didn't do anything during that reprieve to deserve DL-hood? I don't see how you can be.

I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that Easan--while perfectly lucid--caused the cataclysm that destroyed the old Vechor, especially when the alternative is to make him an exception to the rules of DL-hood.

[Tobias Blackburn]

Essan decided to experiment on people on his own. He was the one that decided that removing the demon from himself was worth the sacrifices of innocent souls. There is nothing that suggests the demon had a hand in that. In his lucid moments he could have killed himself. He succumbed to madness and the evil within, and that is why he is a darklord.

Now he is a darklord and is still trying to remove the demon from his soul, only to have the very nature of his goal has been stolen from him. He likely still has moments where he realizes the depths to which he has fallen, and this is when he decides that he must experiment even more. The madness rolls back in and he forgets the exact goal once again.

We're eventually going to have to expand on Essan. Picture him as a man warring over his soul. When the war continues, he is mad and meanders throughout his experiments without a real understanding of the goal. When the demon is dominant, he lashes out at his subjects and messes with the notes he has created thus far. When Essan himself is dominant he is cruel and demanding, believing that removing the demon is worth the suffering he causes and devising even more extreme attempts to cause the split.

Essan is mad, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be a darklord. But if we take the view that he embraced a different kind of evil than the one in his soul suggested and it is the struggle between these two that causes his madness, it might make more sense. In many ways he is not much different from Tristan Hirgaard, but I believe that, if not for his madness, he would be a much more evil ruler than he currently is.

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Addressing the initial topic, I treat "invincible DL's" like ghosts with unlimited rejuvenation: you can still beat them if you dig deep into their backstory and find the weak spots. To me, DL rejuvenation isn't a way to cheat PC's out of killing DL's, it's a way to encourage them to fight with more than just their weapons.

As an example, IMC a PC led a fight against Godefroy wherein the PC discovered through painstaking research that Godefroy had a weakness in his desire for a good "public face." Specifically, Godefroy would be humiliated if his crime of murder were ever exposed in a public venue, but as long as the legal records held that his wife and daughter died in an accident, his reputation was safe.

It wasn't enough for people to know, though; it had to be made a matter of legal and public record that he was a murderer. That required, in effect, that Godefroy be brought to trial before a judge, evidence and testimony entered, and he be found guilty of murder. Needless to say, this was a huge undertaking, and in the end it cost several people their lives and several more were changed forever, but when Godefroy was finally destroyed and the House on Gryphon Hill collapsed into ruin, the PC's felt they had done something truly good.

If I were a DM running either Easan or Diamabel in a high-level game, I'd flesh out the DL's backstory and create some exacting set of conditions under which these DL's could be destroyed for good. The same also goes for Mordenheim and Adam, Harkon and many other DL's that seem effectively immortal this way. Sure, the PC's could kill Harkon by destroying every dire wolf in Kartakass, but I'd prefer they get into the DL's history for that kind of endeavor.

[Brandi]

If the DPs are going to turn a tool into a darklord....

*cough*Ebonbane*cough*

[ScS of the Fraternity]

Ah, the only Darklord even worse than Essan. [Except for Vecna, and ect...]

Just to clarify my argument, I do agree that what Essan did while sane qualfies him as a Darklord (first he was a warmonger, then a mad lombotomist...) but that his current state of unbridled nuttiness should have discounted him as a Darklord. He no longer suffers, has no regrets, therefore is inappropriate.


Going back to the main points, I like that Ghost-like philosophy to darklords but I don't think it applies well to everyone.
Lucas for example, fits into the invincible category. yet there's no real thing in his life that should quench his hunger for power. There's no ONE thing in his past that really haunts him.
Unlike, say Strahd, who holds onto immortality only for the hope of possessing Tatyana. In theory, if Tatyana's reincarnation could slay Strahd, that would probably be the rejection he needs to finally loose his love, and his reason to exist.

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Just to clarify my argument, I do agree that what Essan did while sane qualfies him as a Darklord (first he was a warmonger, then a mad lombotomist...) but that his current state of unbridled nuttiness should have discounted him as a Darklord. He no longer suffers, has no regrets, therefore is inappropriate.

And to clarify my point, I think the italicized portion above is unsupported by the text. Can you provide quotes to that effect?

I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but I'd like to hear it from the books.

Going back to the main points, I like that Ghost-like philosophy to darklords but I don't think it applies well to everyone.
Lucas for example, fits into the invincible category. yet there's no real thing in his life that should quench his hunger for power. There's no ONE thing in his past that really haunts him.

That's why, as I said before, I'd make one. Lucas' backstory is threadbare to say the least, so what's the big deal with fleshing it out, as long as it remains true to what's already been written?

For example, when I decided that Reckonings was to be set in Saragoss, I reread the writeup on the DL and the domain and found them wanting. A pirate who had slaughtered ships full of people slaughters three ships in a single day? It's unusual, but it seems like there was just some invisible bodycount-meter that rolled over to DL-hood, and that's unacceptable.

So I fleshed out that story. Three ships in a single encounter is unusual, unless they were a merchant ship and two armed escorts, but then why did Draga attack such a heavily guarded target, and (more's the point) how did he defeat them? I decided that he attacked the lone merchant ship only to discover it was a trap after the other two swung in from hidden positions. The trap was perfect, except that Draga was warned at the last minute by a turncoat--betrayal's always good for some drama points.

I then turned to the part of the DL that I liked--his utter and absolute hatred of his own lycanthropy--and decided to play that up: what if the turncoat wasn't evil, but was someone who genuinely loved Draga and was trying to save him from lycanthropy? What if he rejected a cure because he realized that he needed his affliction as much as he hated it? This theme became the guiding element of my version of Saragoss: everything was interdependent and hating it.

Thus (IMC) the IoT account wasn't incorrect, merely incomplete. It failed to mention that one of the DL's victims that day had a very special relationship with him and tried to cure his lycanthropy.

[DeepShadow of FoS]

I don't have the books with me, but here are some elements that I'd use when designing a culminating confrontation with Lukas:

--His kids. Whats' the deal with Akriel and Casamir? Obviously there's something there that cuts deep in the old bard, so I'd be looking for something to do with his children. According to FoG, all greater wolfweres are Harkon's kids, so what was it about Akriel and Casamir that made him take such an interest in them?

--His Meistersinger position. It may not be much, but it's all that Kartakass can give him, and he covets it.

--His dream. To unite the naturally solitary wolfweres into a stable community. What exactly was that plan, and how far did he get? What methods did he use/plan to use? As an aside, it appears Matton Blanchard may be accomplishing some of Harkon's dream, as Blanchard has been recruiting wolfweres from Kartakass to fight in Invidia.

--His wolfsong. Where did he learn it, and how?

--His time in Barovia. Lukas didn't become a DL right away, but arrived in Barovia and was chased out by Strahd. What happened between these two, and what else did Lucas do in Barovia that might have expedited his DL-ship?

Those are just for starters.

[Nathan of the FoS]

WRT Harkon Lukas' curse:

IMC I rearranged Kartakass somewhat to explain why Harkon is a darklord and how it's reflected in the domain.

I made the backwoods wolfweres deeply dedicated to their ancestral religion and moral code. Respecting and caring for true wolves is a keystone of this religion, and so is devotion to the Old Wolf--Harkon Lukas in his lupine form. But they don't know that Harkon Lukas is the Old Wolf; the backwoods wolfweres fear and despise Harkon Lukas in his human form because he's perverting their old ways and mixing their culture with human culture.

Harkon Lukas is always trying to win wolfweres from their backwoods ways and draw them into human culture, where they can be his servants; but when they do so, the first thing that goes is their devotion to the old ways and to the Old Wolf, and the second thing that goes is their cultural cohesion to each other. Now Harkon Lukas's "servants" are just as cruel, self-centered, and ambitious as he is, and they're always destroying each other and turning against Harkon--meaning that he requires a continual influx of "backwoods" wolfweres into the ranks to keep his retinue populated.

Harkon Lukas is, to the backwoods wolfweres, the worst kind of traitor--someone who uses the wolves as tools, who thinks nothing of killing off a few wolves in his service to achieve a trivial end. But they love and venerate the Old Wolf--the wolf who could, of course, never build a human empire. To the "humanized" wolfwere, the Old Wolf is a figure of scorn, and the human Harkon Lukas is, at most, a leader of convenience, and at worst a weakling who should be deposed. (He's certainly weaker than his offspring, the greater wolfweres.)


I liked this because it explains several key points:

Why are Harkon Lukas' offspring so often stronger (in game terms) than he is? Because the Dark Powers only give him tools (because to Harkon Lukas, everyone around him is only a means to an end) who are unwilling to serve his ends, whether because they despise what he stands for or because he's too weak to control them.

Why can Harkon Lukas transmigrate to the body of a wolf? Because, to him, the wolves are tools, and not particularly useful ones. In a sense, it's the ultimate expression of his contempt for wolves.

What made Harkon Lukas a darklord? He killed and kills his "people", who should have a claim on him for protection (for example, the wolves of Barovia), because he despises them utterly; and he despises them utterly because they can't give him what he wants--empire and dominion over humans.

That's my three or four cents, anyway.

[Undead Cabbage]

Definately a cool interpreation on Harkon, Nathan. You're right, he does use other beings as a means to his ends.

Another thing to keep in mind about his curse is his temper. Harkon was made a Darklord also for his need to go beserk on things, be they human or Wolf. Harkon's sword plays a necessary role in his curse as well. Ironic that by running away from his battle with Strahd, he was granted a sword that would deny him from retreating from a battle ever again.

I've always kind of wondered whether Harkon could potentially be obsessed with humanity. I'd say it's fairly implied that as a wolf he was mistreated for his lack of power. Humanity presents a playing field where Harkon can obtain what he wants by his true strengths, his wits and his power of personality. In a nation such as Cormyr (where Harkon is originally from), Harkon might have even have built himself a decent amount of power. I'm also willing to bet that knowledge of this fact agonizes him every day.

In some ways, Harkon is a negative image of Alfred Timothy. Of course, my interpretation of Alfred is that he is actually an inflicted lycanthrope (a detail that only his father knows). Although Harkon still takes the cake over Alfred any day, especially with that monocle and hat.

[Gemathustra]

I like Vechor and Easan, if only because he's A) a genuinely mad scientist, and B) I can easily insert my weirder monsters into Vechor (and possibly have them escape from there) without having to jump through hoops about inserting weird and terrible monsters into a gothic horror setting.

[Hashmalum]

In the case of Easan, his part-fiend nature means that you could easily give him a fiendish phylactery if you want to allow him to be permanently killed. I don't have any suggestions on what it might look like, though. Alternatively, you could allow the players to reconstruct the Apparatus and use it to split his elven half from his demonic half and then kill the former.

[Gemathustra]

In the case of Easan, his part-fiend nature means that you could easily give him a fiendish phylactery if you want to allow him to be permanently killed. I don't have any suggestions on what it might look like, though. Alternatively, you could allow the players to reconstruct the Apparatus and use it to split his elven half from his demonic half and then kill the former.

I would think it would be more appropriate to kill the latter.

[Spiteful Crow]

In the case of Easan, his part-fiend nature means that you could easily give him a fiendish phylactery if you want to allow him to be permanently killed. I don't have any suggestions on what it might look like, though. Alternatively, you could allow the players to reconstruct the Apparatus and use it to split his elven half from his demonic half and then kill the former.

I would think it would be more appropriate to kill the latter.

Awwww... but I'd rather kill the latter for starting the whole mess in the first place. Best to kill them both just to make sure.

[Steve Miller]

Easan the elf never did any evil acts.

He didn't? How do we know what was motivating him to drive his kingdom to war against Iuz? Who caused the "strange cataclysm" that wiped out the clerics trying to help him?

Is Vechor, a land where Easan is worshipped as a god, a reflectionof Easan's mind, or the demon's?

I don't think you can write Easan off as innocent. (At least not as the severely abbreviated version of his background appeared in DoD.)

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Okay, we've got perma-death seeds for Easan and Harkon, but what other Darklords merit such elaborate methods? Here's my short list for people to discuss:

Adam
Tristen ApBlanc
Malken
Alfred Timothy
Godefroy (other than my suggestion)

and of course...
Diamabel