False Histories

[Band2]

What do people here think of using the false histories of domains as part of the background for villains?
In this case I am thinking of such long lived creatures as ancient dead, ghosts, and vampires.
For any example, how about these.
One is a ghost. The ghost is the spirit of a man who was tortured and killed by the Terg when they invaded.
Another is a chieftain/ high priest/ leader of Terg who was killed during the invasion. He was buried in a large tomb in the mountains and was forgotten. Later he rose as an ancient dead.
Now if both of these NPCs were set in Barovia their back-story is part of the history of the realm. But what if they were set in Borca, where the Terg invasion is only false history, since Borca was only created by Camille. How do people here feel about using the false history this way?
Or do you prefer the Sachmet/Nova Vassa type way. Where Sachmet has her own backstory from a different world and was pulled into Nova Vassa when it formed by random chance.
What preferences do you have? Or do you use both?

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Some of each is best, IMO, whichever works for a particular villain. Personally, if I were planning to use an NPC (undead or otherwise) as a long-term personality IMC, I'd prefer to give them a valid history -- born in Ravenloft, Mist-napped from another world, lost their memories to Darkon and only think they've been there for centuries, etc -- instead of saying they just popped into existence, along with their domain. If the NPC is only a one-shot encounter, OTOH, I've got no problem with placing their origins in "false history", as they won't be on stage for long.

FWIW, while I strongly disagree with the argument that people created by the Mists to populate a new domain aren't "real" and hence, don't need to be treated with respect -- if Mordenheim created a perfectly-human clone in his lab, would it be hunky-dory to abuse and torture them? -- I've tended to portray such "first generation" Mist-products as a bit ... well, passive and boring. They have all of the same feelings and rights and souls as anybody else, but the Mists don't imbue them with much imagination or the drive to accomplish great things. Characters from such domains who go on to achieve greatness (be it for good like Van Richten, or for ill like the native-born darklords) are generally either immigrants, IMC, or "second generation" or later descendents of the domain's founding residents.


Note that Borca (including the former Dorvinia) could well be a unique case of partial false history, in that any documented events in that region prior to 351 are probably an exact match for Barovia's valid (barring Strahd's revisionism) historical records. If you'd prefer for your Terg-era undead to have a valid origin in Borcan history, just rule that the Borcan history-books only deviate from reality during the Vacancy, and that the Mists patterned Borca's geography and so forth on Material Plane Borjia, even stocking Ravenloft's version with Mist-napped undead plucked from that country and transplanted to the Core.

[mistshadow2k4]

One of S&S's biggest mistakes, IMHO, was making out that Lamordia had a false history. Even if you do have false histories, Lamordia shouldn't, no more than Barovia or Mordent should. The monster was created in a land called Lamordia, and the three years between his creation and him becoming a DL were spent in a land called Lamordia, so why isn't RL's Lamordia the same Lamordia? It was supposed to be that way for Barovia and Mordent, that they were pulled into RL. (Other domains were supposedly pulled in along with their DLs too, such as Har'Akir.)

I never really took to the idea that there were such a thing as "false histories" at all. Richemulot stands out like a sore thumb in that it has no history before appearing in RL. So what makes everyone so sure that the past histories of other domains are false?

So if you don't have false histories, what do you have? A mystery. And what's wrong with that?

Perhaps the histories of various lands are duplicates of lands somewhere else; as I suggested before, Dementlieu could be a duplicate of the land d'Honaire's ancestors came from (as clearly the French "High Mordentish" language and names were from conquerors or immigrants). Borca and Dorvinia could have been duplicates, as was indicated. In other cases, the DPs could have simply created a duplicate of a land they knew of that they thought was suitable for the DL in question (e.g., Timothy and Arkandale).

Why bother to create a new land and people when you can just copy others? (Yes, that would mean that the original natives of a new domain are clones, but note that doesn't make them any less real or alive.) And in a way, that's what we do, isn't it? Dementlieu and Richemulot are very French, Mordent and Paridon are British, Barovia is central European, and so on.

The whole false histories thing was a big cop-out, I think (there is no history to this world -- sorry, we didn't feel like bothering with that). Trust me on this, don't take the easy way out and your game will be better for it. Take the easy way out to get around questions and your setting loses it's sense of life and players no longer take it seriously. And sometimes, it could make play more interesting is the history of a land is real, especially if you managed to escape or were just drawn in (maybe RL maintains a connection to the land the domain is a copy of...).

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I'm not sure I'd go quite so far as to call "false histories" a cop-out. Yes, it's true that the product-writers didn't script backgrounds for the worlds-of-origin for many outlander darklords. But really, would doing so have won them much approval from fans? Or would people have griped that they "wasted space" they could've filled with information on Ravenloft, as opposed to spin-off settings that only a tiny minority of DMs would ever use?

That being said, the term "false history" does have its flaws, as it shouldn't be interpreted as "WW's designers say this can't be true". It's a term that S invented in-character, after all -- a term, which she applies equally to domains whose history is real, if I'm not mistaken -- to describe historical periods which cannot be verified from source-material in other domains. OOC, we know that "false history" generally dates to periods before Ravenloft added the domain in question to its collection; in-character, S only knows she can't find tangible proof of the past, other than what the domain itself has to offer. That means that even if history as Lamordians recount it were 100% true, S would still call it "false history", because no records of such events existed in Ravenloft prior to Lamordia's emergence! "False", in fact, is an unfortunate misnomer -- it's just handy shorthand for "unverifiable/speculative/your guess is good as mine!" -- but the basic concept (i.e. that locals think they know their realms' pre-Ravenloft histories) is tons better than the 2E products' casual "locals don't care/don't want to guess/are too stupid to notice".

Maybe the domains' histories are transposed from other worlds', either the darklords' homelands or others. Maybe the "false histories" are born of the darklords' personal hang-ups and imaginations -- FWIW, my bet for how the history of G'Henna would've read, had the Gaz series lasted that long, is that it's Yagno's warped vision of ancient Borjian mythology about Hell -- or from the collective dreads and fears of their populations (like Sithican elves' morbid notion that their homeworld no longer exists). Maybe the DPs just use their handy "Random Historical Event Table" to roll them up! But most likely, it's a combination of factors that dictate a realm's "false history", and those factors likely differ from one domain to the next.

As for why Lamordia has a "false history", I suspect that it's a special case, in that if it had retained its old history -- which, presumably, involved political and economic interactions with neighboring nations from Mordenheim's homeworld -- there'd be no way to account for its sudden transferal to the Land of Mists, that wouldn't overthrow the natives' conceit that supernatural phenomena don't exist. Presumably, their former world was a mundane, Mist-free one; if the Lamordian mindset didn't have room for a nation disappearing from one world and appearing in another (and one which the Material Plane Lamordians likely wouldn't believe in!), then the experience of finding themselves in Ravenloft, itself, would have disrupted their way of thinking. Rather than overthrow the rationalistic world-view which Lamordia was intended to embody, the Dark Powers constructed a "false history" which told the Lamordians they'd always lived in a world of Mists, that nothing inexplicable had taken place, and that everything about their "clockwork universe" was and is as it should be.

[Band2]

Some of each is best, IMO, whichever works for a particular villain. Personally, if I were planning to use an NPC (undead or otherwise) as a long-term personality IMC, I'd prefer to give them a valid history -- born in Ravenloft, Mist-napped from another world, lost their memories to Darkon and only think they've been there for centuries, etc -- instead of saying they just popped into existence, along with their domain. If the NPC is only a one-shot encounter, OTOH, I've got no problem with placing their origins in "false history", as they won't be on stage for long..

Rotipher, I would agree with you. It seems to me to be prefered that the villains have a valid history. But I started thinking about who the PCs could learn the villain's history. Take for example Sachmet in Nova Vaasa. If you are playing the original adventure, there is no way for the characters to research her history to gain insight as to who she was. Since it was the first time she appeared in Nova Vaasa there would be no records of her. I am not trying to take anything away from the adventure. But sachmet has a detailed history which the characters probably will never learn.
I only bring this up, because of one of the aspects I think in adventures for ghosts/ ancient dead, even vampires, is the history behind the creature. It just seems to me that the only way to have a long lived villain and include a way for the characters to research the villain's history is to use the false histories of the lands.

Note that Borca (including the former Dorvinia) could well be a unique case of partial false history, in that any documented events in that region prior to 351 are probably an exact match for Barovia's valid (barring Strahd's revisionism) historical records. If you'd prefer for your Terg-era undead to have a valid origin in Borcan history, just rule that the Borcan history-books only deviate from reality during the Vacancy, and that the Mists patterned Borca's geography and so forth on Material Plane Borjia, even stocking Ravenloft's version with Mist-napped undead plucked from that country and transplanted to the Core.

Ok, see your point. Borca may not be the best example. What about a vampire in Kartakass who was part of the "Invidian" Invasion?

[DeepShadow of FoS]

One of S&S's biggest mistakes, IMHO, was making out that Lamordia had a false history. Even if you do have false histories, Lamordia shouldn't, no more than Barovia or Mordent should. The monster was created in a land called Lamordia, and the three years between his creation and him becoming a DL were spent in a land called Lamordia, so why isn't RL's Lamordia the same Lamordia? It was supposed to be that way for Barovia and Mordent, that they were pulled into RL. (Other domains were supposedly pulled in along with their DLs too, such as Har'Akir.)

Actually, Barovia was copied, not pulled in, as we see in the final GC module, and IIRC the BB says that only Mordenheim's mansion was pulled into RL.

I never really took to the idea that there were such a thing as "false histories" at all. Richemulot stands out like a sore thumb in that it has no history before appearing in RL. So what makes everyone so sure that the past histories of other domains are false?

The fact that there was no domain before a DL. You may rule differently, but false history has been around since the black box.

The whole false histories thing was a big cop-out, I think (there is no history to this world -- sorry, we didn't feel like bothering with that).

Since when does false history equal no history? The false histories of many domains were incredibly detailed, and add a great depth and dimenson to RL. Darkon and Falkovnia come to mind, but there are others.

Trust me on this, don't take the easy way out and your game will be better for it. Take the easy way out to get around questions and your setting loses it's sense of life and players no longer take it seriously. And sometimes, it could make play more interesting is the history of a land is real, especially if you managed to escape or were just drawn in (maybe RL maintains a connection to the land the domain is a copy of...).

By "the easy way out," you seem to mean that using false histories...which increases the workload...I don't get it...

[mistshadow2k4]

Actually, Barovia was copied, not pulled in, as we see in the final GC module

Never played that, don't have it.

and IIRC the BB says that only Mordenheim's mansion was pulled into RL.

I have the black box but I don't remember that.

The fact that there was no domain before a DL. You may rule differently, but false history has been around since the black box.

There was no domain before a DL, but that doesn't mean the domains themselves have no histories before they were in RL. And false history was SUGGESTED in the black box, it was not a fact.

Since when does false history equal no history? The false histories of many domains were incredibly detailed, and add a great depth and dimenson to RL. Darkon and Falkovnia come to mind, but there are others.

You need to play in other game worlds. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, the FOrgotten Realms all have much more detailed histories than RL's domains -- even the most detailed domains, like Barovia and Darkon. Most had absolutely no history until the Gaz series, and a lot of that isn't very detailed.

By "the easy way out," you seem to mean that using false histories...which increases the workload...I don't get it...

Exactly. A world with such a vague history is fairly dull. You can do better.

[Desertrising]

I really am having fun looking at both sides of this argument and think that false or real history dosn't matter so much as what the people of the land believe. If people believe thier history it would take a massive undertaking to convince them otherwise, and really when all is said and done is it worth it?

As far as the question of having very old undead who are spawned from a "false" history goes. I think this idea has a lot of potential. It is not beyond the ability of the DP to allow or make this happen, and I think it would add a great dimension to play with.

My two cents anyway.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Take for example Sachmet in Nova Vaasa. If you are playing the original adventure, there is no way for the characters to research her history to gain insight as to who she was. Since it was the first time she appeared in Nova Vaasa there would be no records of her. I am not trying to take anything away from the adventure. But sachmet has a detailed history which the characters probably will never learn.

That's where a little creativity in passing information comes in. PCs could learn Sachmet's history from seeing pictograms on the walls of her crypt, for example. Use of 'cut scenes' which are flashbacks to Sachmet's past might also work; if you don't care to use cut scenes without an in-game rationale, you might let a PC find a bracelet that Sachmet left behind, that gives psychic visions from her long-ago mortal life.

Ok, see your point. Borca may not be the best example. What about a vampire in Kartakass who was part of the "Invidian" Invasion?

In that case, you'd need to make a judgement call: did the DPs steal the idea for the Invasion from some other world? If so, perhaps they brought the Kartakans and the vampire from that world, revised their memories so they thought they'd always been in Ravenloft, and left them there. Invidians might have been taken from the same world, in the same manner -- in which case, the vampire would recognize them as kin to the long-ago invaders -- or perhaps the DPs simply replaced the name of the real (Material Plane) invaders' homeland with "Invidia", in the Kartakans' memories ... hence, the vampire will remember an Invasion, but it won't recognize the Invidians as the ones responsible! Go with the option that makes the vampire's conduct most useful IYC, and hey, you'll have added some history to your personal vision of the game-setting!

[Rotipher of the FoS]

[You need to play in other game worlds. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, the FOrgotten Realms all have much more detailed histories than RL's domains -- even the most detailed domains, like Barovia and Darkon. Most had absolutely no history until the Gaz series, and a lot of that isn't very detailed.

Remember, Ravenloft has only existed for ~410 years; it's got very little past history, because there's been very little time in which history can take place. Nor was it ever as heavily-supported with products as the Realms or Dragonlance, hence had far fewer opportunities to lay out its background. And Ravenloft, unlike FR and Greyhawk, wasn't a setting that TSR imported from an actual D&D campaign: it didn't have years of complex background ready-made by Gygax or Greenwood, which could then be incorporated into products.

Most of all, Ravenloft is intended to be mysterious. Nailing down the domians' past history too firmly would detract from that, and would tend to erode the larger mystery of the Dark Powers' intentions for the setting. Given a choice between vague history that leaves players plagued with doubt (a vital component of suspense), or concrete facts that rob the DPs, the Vistani, or other Ravenloft icons of their ambiguity, I rather prefer my "history" gap-ridden, contradictory, and perplexing.

[cure]

The leader of the Terg is already an ancient dead. He appears in one of the Book of S_ by the Kargatane. But I recall no details helpful for tracking him down.

[Band2]

[quote="DeepShadow]
Actually, Barovia was copied, not pulled in, as we see in the final GC module, and IIRC the BB says that only Mordenheim's mansion was pulled into RL.
[/quote]

I thought that the Barovia in the final GC adventure was an alternate plane not the original Barovia. After all there is a good king strahd ruling the land.



I think I found an example of what I was asking about. It may not be official, or even intentional, but in the last Quote the Raven (#13) there was the hag Ermintude. Her background states that she is over 200 years old and is from a town in Nova Vaasa. Since Nova Vaasa has not been around in Ravenloft for more than 100 years, that would make her an example of the NPC I was talking about, i.e. her history is part of the false history of the land. It seems to work well.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I thought that the Barovia in the final GC adventure was an alternate plane not the original Barovia. After all there is a good king strahd ruling the land.

In the module, it's described as the original Material Plane Barovia. That doesn't mean a lot of DMs haven't seen fit to rule otherwise in their games, proclaiming that the DPs were yanking Azalin's chain all along and that the villains and heroes merely visited a fake MP-Barovia which the Dark Powers whipped up to taunt the darklords with a false prospect of escape.

The king who ruled MP-Barovia was Barov IV, a distant relative of Strahd whose ancestors were never drawn into Ravenloft. (Presumably he's the descendent of one of King Barov I's younger brothers, i.e. an uncle of Strahd, Sturm and Sergei.) The fact that Barov IV looked exactly like Strahd -- and his wife, exactly like Tatyana -- is one of the reasons so many fans question whether it was really Material Plane Barovia that the adventure took place in. Such coincidences are plausible within Ravenloft, where the DPs engineer that stuff all the time, but on the Material Plane (and a world where indigenous gods like Andral probably have a major bone to pick with the DPs, for mucking with their mortal followers!), they're awfully hard to swallow.

[Jeremy16]

I've been writing up notes for a couple of QTR articles and have bumped up against this problem many times while creating backstories for my NPCs. How can you have an ancient dead, for example, created hundreds of years ago in a domain like Hazlan, which came into existence 50 years ago?

I toyed with the concept of moving some of the more recent domains and their creation back 100 years to allow for more "real history", but that wouldn't fit for everyone.

In the end, I just pretend that each domain's "false history" was real. Or, more to the point, that the characters from that false history are real. That way, you can have an ancient dead from Hazlan whose history stretches back centuries. I didn't want a historical issue (that only I would know about anyway) get in the way of a character's background story.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Just take your cues from Darkon's "false memories", and assume that if an ancient villain from "false history" appears in your game, the DPs took the villain from some other world and re-wrote whatever memories would best fit them into the setting.