Heroes of Light.

[tec-goblin]

If Malocchio did become a Dark Lord, I wonder what his curse would be? Would be a little weak to have it he same as what his mother had.

Well, for a creature such Malocchio, being darklord is a gruesome curse by itself: being forever bound in the domain!

[tec-goblin]

And then, Malocchio is the darklord. A choice which will probably create more suffering for the domain. I would call a powers check immediately should anything like this happens - the character ought to have researched the consequences of his actions. And so... no more blessed, no more last stand!

What kind of research would tell the PC:
--That Mallochio will become the next DL? It's not set in stone. As yet, Mallochio's reality wrinkle would prevent him from becoming a DL. Barring him, there might be someone else who's earned it (Matton?) or the surrounding domains may simply annex Invidia.
--That Invidia will suffer more with Mallochio as DL? He'll gain a curse, and since the paladin doesn't know at the outset what the curse will be, how can he be so sure that Mallochio's reign of terror will even continue? Even assuming that it does, how does the paladin--or anyone for that matter--know that things will be worse?

Let's look at one hypothetical fallout from Gabby's demise:
The resistance against Mallochio loses its figurehead, but a distraught Matton manages to stir up even more support against Mallochio by casting Gabby as a martyr. The resistance fighters move into Barovia because a more powerful Mallochio is better able to track them down. The more powerful Mallochio also draws the attention of Borca and the rest of the League of Four, who begin supporting the resistance movement to undermine him. I see a lot of potential for good there, as well as for evil.

If you are going to expect a high-level paladin to account for the long-range effects of all his actions, he won't be able to do anything. If a Vistani told you that one of the people you were about to rescue would one day build a golem, would you not rescue the person, or turn your back? Which alternative would you demand a powers check for?

Well, IMO, an infuriated Malocchio (because he doesn't want to be a darklord) could be extremely dangerous. Killing a female who, for years, hasn't really harmed anyone in order to place some unknown, probably worst (and probably demonic Malochio) force in power, just because she appeared to you as the result of using one of your abilities seems quite dangerous to me. A paladin, IMO, HAS to know what exactly is he facing and what will his actions cause. After all, killing people when you have the option to redeem them is a reason for a power checks for fighters in 3.5 ravenloft. Why not for paladins too?

I also consider this short term effect of the paladin's actions. If he kills Gabrielle, someone, 95% worst would take her place (and I tell this because I think Gabrielle is one of the less evil darklords around) immediately. It's the same as throwing a fireball in the house of one evil cleric, without having checked beforehand if any non-evil servants live in there too. IMC killing without having made at least a minor research on what you kill and on the results of your actions awards a power check (and, that's why it's a difficult world for paladins - but not impossible. I had a player who remained a paladin until the end of my previous campaign.

[Brother_Martyn]

It shouldn't be too hard for the paladin to find out who the current darklord is, Van Richten all but spells it out in one of his works (can't remember which one off hand, fiends I think). Having discovered this the burning question becomes whether or not the blessed paladin still decides to use his last stand....

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Forgive the interjection of someone who doesn't own the book, but IMHO this sounds like an extension of something the DP's have allowed from the beginning--the DL's sense of paladins in their domains.

Last Stand simply escalates the "mental itch" to catastrophic levels, where the DL is forced to take action.

An interesting take on the magical mechanics. If the ability were worded that way, I'd probably be less turned off by it. But as it stands it implies some sort of ritual of conjuring to a certain place. It seemed most like the mystic cage ritual, except that the DL doesn't just "poof" arrive there, unless he wants to, and can teleport.

[Gemathustra]

Well, IMO, an infuriated Malocchio (because he doesn't want to be a darklord) could be extremely dangerous. Killing a female who, for years, hasn't really harmed anyone in order to place some unknown, probably worst (and probably demonic Malochio) force in power, just because she appeared to you as the result of using one of your abilities seems quite dangerous to me. A paladin, IMO, HAS to know what exactly is he facing and what will his actions cause. After all, killing people when you have the option to redeem them is a reason for a power checks for fighters in 3.5 ravenloft. Why not for paladins too?

I also consider this short term effect of the paladin's actions. If he kills Gabrielle, someone, 95% worst would take her place (and I tell this because I think Gabrielle is one of the less evil darklords around) immediately. It's the same as throwing a fireball in the house of one evil cleric, without having checked beforehand if any non-evil servants live in there too. IMC killing without having made at least a minor research on what you kill and on the results of your actions awards a power check (and, that's why it's a difficult world for paladins - but not impossible. I had a player who remained a paladin until the end of my previous campaign.

Forgive my mind from boggling, but, how is Gabrielle Adderre not really evil?
I mean, here is a woman who literally threw her mother to the wolves (a werewolf, but who's splitting hairs?), and whose favorite hobby is to toy with and destroy the happiness of anyone around her. The only reasons why she hates her son Mallocchio is because a) he drove her (temporarily) insane, b) he tries to kill her everyso often, and c) he's going to slaughter all of the Vistani before she can.
While, yes, I'm well aware of how much a bastard Mallocchio is, but, to say that killing Gabrielle, and thus giving Mallocchio the opportunity to fully seize power in Individia is like saying a doctor is a murderer because he misdiagnosed a patient with yaws as having leishmanniasis.

[Bluebomber4evr]

I'm with Gemathustra on this one. Deliberately ruining people's lives and thriving on their misery makes Gabrielle pretty despicable. She earned her place as the darklord of Invidia.

[Igor the Henchman]

As all darklords, Gabrielle is a wicked and cruel individual. She is, however, one of the less nasty ones, IMO (and that still means fairly nasty). Recent books say that now that she's known a little hapiness herself, she is less interested in destroying love than before (though she remains a ruthless vilain nonetheless). What's more, she is the only force powerful enough to hold Malocchio's power from becoming total. And it should be mentioned that, aside from the Bakholis episode, I don't remember one case she has directly done any physical harm to anyone. In fact, her often indirect measures is what distinguishes her from other lords. Destroy her, and you hand the reins to Malocchio. I do agree that you can't kill her without a minimum of research and get away without a powers check. Its sorta like killing people on sight when they register as evil on your magic radar. Obviously not chevalresque.

[Jasper]

Acctuly if you think about it handfull of darklords have very few evil acts that can be directly tied to thier hands-

Strahd- Other then the initial wedding massacre and possably tieing him to Titania's (I can never remeber how to spell her name) repeated deaths he hasn't done anything massively evil.

Harkon- Basic evil wolfwere evil...yes, but above and beyond evil...no.

Three hags- Did they EVER do anything?

Dr. M/Adam- Nothing...a few grave robberies and a few mercy killing but thats it.

Barron - A score of dead brided by where is the I'm here and I'm evil action.

[Mortepierre]

Strahd- Other then the initial wedding massacre and possably tieing him to Titania's (I can never remeber how to spell her name) repeated deaths he hasn't done anything massively evil.

You mean like ordering the slaughter of dozens of ex-Gundarakites when his soldiers conquered them?

Three hags- Did they EVER do anything?

What they did to a certain tree in SW Tepest was pretty evil to me, especially in regard to the consequences...

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Three hags- Did they EVER do anything?

They do lure people in so they can eat them, that counts as something nasty if you ask me even if it is part of their nature as Hags.

Back to Gaby though, to summarise her acts over the years, I am willing to have a go.

1. She abandoned her mother and had her eaten by werewolves.

2. She murdered someone in cold blood, even if he was a werewolf dark lord.

3. She shattered the hopes, dreams and happiness of dozens of couples, inadvertantly creating a serial killer in doing so.

4. She gave birth to the Dukkar, even if he did turn on her.

5. She has played her to largest sources of aid against each other to keep their support.

Though she doesn't seem to have done all that much, she has done all this in a shorter span than Strahd has accomplished all of what he has done (he has had centuries afterall). True, Strahd slaughtered a good bunch of Gundarakites, but that is something any general from his period would have done, you set an example to the conquered lands to show them what will happen if they resist you any further.

[Gemathustra]

You know, I wouldn't put it past her to have Lupita murdered, and pin the blame on Mallocchio, thus, making her a martyr, and using this to drive both Ardonk and Matton to totally destroy her fiend-spawn son.
Despite the fact that Lupita is the one (and only) thing that has brought any meaningful happiness ever into her life.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Three hags- Did they EVER do anything?

They do lure people in so they can eat them, that counts as something nasty if you ask me even if it is part of their nature as Hags.

Except that they didn't start out as hags. They're once-human women who killed and ate people because it provided them a few laughs and an easy living to do so; they *became* hags because they engaged in these evil practices, not vice versa.

[tec-goblin]

Forgive my mind from boggling, but, how is Gabrielle Adderre not really evil?
I mean, here is a woman who literally threw her mother to the wolves (a werewolf, but who's splitting hairs?),

That's a very old story - the girl has psychological problems.

and whose favorite hobby is to toy with and destroy the happiness of anyone around her.

Well, that' s so common around us. If you think that she loves her child and she is affectionate about the wolfwere, then you have a typical somewhat evil human. Not the example of pure darkness most darklords are.

[Mortepierre]

That's a very old story - the girl has psychological problems.

Well, that' s so common around us. If you think that she loves her child and she is affectionate about the wolfwere, then you have a typical somewhat evil human. Not the example of pure darkness most darklords are.

Thank you for providing us with a perfect example of what a human charmed by Gabrielle would say to defend her actions

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Except that they didn't start out as hags. They're once-human women who killed and ate people because it provided them a few laughs and an easy living to do so; they *became* hags because they engaged in these evil practices, not vice versa.

All Hags in Ravenloft start out as human, or those carrying the genetic seed that would have them become hags later in life. I could see the Three Hags of Tepest being the same. VRG to Witches explains this pretty well.

However, whether this rings true for the Three Hags is uncertain, but I think it would be pretty nice (and more complete to the setting) if it was, even if they are from another world.