Café de Nuit

Malken's always seemed rather inactive, but I suspect that's mostly due to the official products' reluctance to discuss drugs, prostitution, blood sports and so forth in sufficiently explicit terms. If TSR's writers hadn't felt obliged to maintain a PG-13 rating with its products, I think we'd have seen Malken as a much stonger driving force for evil, both within his homeland and (via far-reaching criminal enterprises) in many neighboring domains.

As for Othmar, I think he's actually more useful if he remains a non-darklord villain. If he was one, the DPs would see to it that his ambitions and desires would be stymied in some way. Instead, he's at liberty to go where he needs to and do what he pleases, which makes his ambitions a genuine threat to weaker nations like Tepest, Liffe, or Graben Island. He's a militant like Drakov, but a Drakov who's not locked in a box.

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Malken's always seemed rather inactive, but I suspect that's mostly due to the official products' reluctance to discuss drugs, prostitution, blood sports and so forth in sufficiently explicit terms.

There are three problems with discussing such "mature" material. The first is finding someone who actually knows what they're talking about. The second is finding someone who's comfortable discussing such. And the third is finding someone who's both. We've got plenty of the second, but very few of the third.

This problem isn't just with Malken, either. Almost every darklord has some sort of potential that just isn't exploited because it crosses the line into so-called "mature content." As an older gamer I kind of want the moral ambiguity, the deeper issues, and the more explicit details of what makes this person worth imprisonment. We all know Strahd's story, but is that it? Or is there more that we aren't hearing? These people and things did something truly horrific to be imprisoned as they were. Give us the details of their crimes and deeds or they don't come across as evil as they really are.

High Priest Mikhal wrote: There are three problems with discussing such "mature" material. The first is finding someone who actually knows what they're talking about. The second is finding someone who's comfortable discussing such. And the third is finding someone who's both. We've got plenty of the second, but very few of the third.

This problem isn't just with Malken, either. Almost every darklord has some sort of potential that just isn't exploited because it crosses the line into so-called "mature content." As an older gamer I kind of want the moral ambiguity, the deeper issues, and the more explicit details of what makes this person worth imprisonment. We all know Strahd's story, but is that it? Or is there more that we aren't hearing? These people and things did something truly horrific to be imprisoned as they were. Give us the details of their crimes and deeds or they don't come across as evil as they really are.

There's a real risk of pushing that thing too far, though; I feel that the most successful darklords (and the entire point of the gothic villain) is someone you can empathize with, despite all the horrible things they've done. As my former GM used to say, anyone who's had a dumb crush can relate to Strahd, especially in the aftermath of Sergei's murder, when he kept repeating "You were supposed to have been a priest!" You got the real sense it wasn't so easy to go through with as he thought it would be. When you start pushing the envelope into areas that make people truly uncomfortable, you start getting Darklords that people don't like as much - take Drakov, who's horrific crimes are pretty well detailed: rapes thinly disguised as the right of "First Night", uncaring leadership, oppression, sexism, racism, slavery, torture, brutal executions every night for his dinner entertainment... all to show that a man with a sword can be worse than any supernatural monster the night can throw at you, but consequently Drakov comes off as less sympathetic than Hitler (at least Hitler fixed the bloody economy). And some people have problems with that.

I think that's the problem with some of the other darklords, as well. Who's going to relate to the three hags? I haven't felt the urge to cook random people for no reason and eat them. Von Kharkhov lacks sympathy because no one here (that I know of) is a vampire panther man pining for the humanity he never had (whereas Adam's crisis comes from never fitting in, something most teenagers can relate to).

Isabella wrote:take Drakov, who's horrific crimes are pretty well detailed: rapes thinly disguised as the right of "First Night", uncaring leadership, oppression, sexism, racism, slavery, torture, brutal executions every night for his dinner entertainment... all to show that a man with a sword can be worse than any supernatural monster the night can throw at you, but consequently Drakov comes off as less sympathetic than Hitler (at least Hitler fixed the bloody economy). And some people have problems with that.

I never felt like Drakov was to be sympathized or empathized with; he's there to remind us that the worst evils are entirely human.

Strahd was a bad example for me to use in that regard. Perhaps I should have stuck to Malken as one whose crimes need more detail for us to buy him as a darklord.

The worst thing about Malken is that he doesn't fit the Realm.

Jekyll & Hyde is an urban mythology, not the rolling plains and vales of Nova Vaasa.

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:The worst thing about Malken is that he doesn't fit the Realm.

Jekyll & Hyde is an urban mythology, not the rolling plains and vales of Nova Vaasa.

I dunno, I think it fits pretty well. Malken represents the urban decay of Nova Vaasa, which has some of the worst cities in the Core in terms of pollution, violence and degradation (not quite as bad as Falkovnia, perhaps, but worse than anywhere else except Nosus). Tristen represents the agrarian, fuedal culture of the plains--old-fashioned and rigid, but not truly malevolent.

99% of the time I find it's not a matter of a bad fit, but a matter of underdevelopment. There can be no fit--good, bad or otherwise--without detail.

Malken, for example, is woefully underdeveloped. If we knew more about him, we might find that he fits Nova Vaasa perfectly.

Then why not run a contest to see who can best flesh out a darklord? Not just the DL themselves but the effects of their evil and their curse on their domain and how one is a reflection of the other? Just a thought.

That's kinda like my now-defunct Bait This Hook project. I like that kind of thing because I think creativity needs to be constrained in order to do the best work possible.

Maybe we could use this thread to plan the concept a little more.

Who's going to relate to the three hags? I haven't felt the urge to cook random people for no reason and eat them.

You'd be surprised at what I'd have to deal with in the faculty lounge almost every day.

Hannibal Lecter is still a surprisingly popular movie/book villain, and his cannibalism didn't get in the way of that.

HuManBing wrote:Hannibal Lecter is still a surprisingly popular movie/book villain, and his cannibalism didn't get in the way of that.

So the clear solution is to replace the three hags with Anthony Hopkins.

Isabella wrote:

HuManBing wrote:Hannibal Lecter is still a surprisingly popular movie/book villain, and his cannibalism didn't get in the way of that.

So the clear solution is to replace the three hags with Anthony Hopkins.

Well, I didn't want to outright say it. Cosmic axiomatic truths like these are best left for the seeker to discover on their own.

Who's going to relate to the three hags? I haven't felt the urge to cook random people for no reason and eat them.

Yes, the hags are a tough one to empathize with, or even comprehend for that matter. Their problem, IMO, is that they were inspired by fairy-tale witches, whose storybook motives are seldom rational. (Evil queens, yes, evil witches no.) They're cartoonish and over-the-top, because that's what fairy tales are, even in their non-edited-for-children forms.

Now, being fairy-tale monsters just for its own sake works fine for villains like Harkon Lukas, or the shadow fey. They aren't human, so it's entirely plausible that their actions be over-the-top. But the Three Hags were human, or at least were depicted in that way in their Darklords write-up. So their motives look inplausible when they do things Lukas or the fey could get away with.

If we want to salvage them, it might actually help to re-cast the trio as fey creatures, or true VRGtWitches hags. At least that would give them a fish-out-of-water slant, growing up knowing they're "different" from their adoptive family, and resenting every little slight that makes them feel out of place. Cannibalism would become a spiteful expression of that alienation, laced with contempt: "Ha ha, we weren't really like these human morons; they're just animals to us. Look what we can do to show it!"

You'd be surprised at what I'd have to deal with in the faculty lounge almost every day.

Heh heh. No kidding.

BTW, Dion, shouldn't you be "Lurker Maximus Emeritis" now?

I'm going to have to cast my vote for King Croc. He really just doesn't seem compelling as a darklord to me at all. Perhaps someone could flesh him out to be a bit more interesting?