I strahd8/15/2023 Strahd even acknowledges that he was forcing himself on her, whether by magic or force of will, as if he sees nothing wrong with what he's doing in trying to manipulate and objectify her**.** I would ask anyone who asserts that I, Strahd is unreliable narration: which parts do you not believe happened as described? What parts is he "twisting"? For example, when Strahd writes that in the chapel garden on the night of Sergei's wedding, when Strahd interrupted Tatyana's grieving to properly hit on her for the first time, that she slowly gave into him, called him "Strahd" instead of "Elder", kissed him back when he kissed her, even pulling his face back to hers when Lieutenant Tatra first came shouting a warning of the massacre that had begun in the castle.ĭo you think that this didn't happen as described? That Strahd actually just chased her through the garden like a creepy finger-waggling lecher and she jumped from the balcony just to escape his rapey clutches? Because in the book, Strahd pretty clearly indicates that he's using his new charm ability for the first time probably without knowing it, and she even breaks free of it again once Tatra distracts him with news of betrayal. I definitely agree that a face-value reading of the book makes him more relatable or understandable and, at times, even sympathetic - but if you do assume the book is 100% accurate as presented, he's still clearly a psychopath. I, Strahd definitely does this, but I don't see in any way how it makes Strahd into "an anti-hero." Quite the contrary, the parts where Strahd paints himself as any sort of victim or the good guy in the story only more plainly show his narcissism and psychopathy. When you understand a villain you also understand what makes them so dangerous, and perhaps also the secret to undermining or defeating them. Think of all the most classic intimidating and compelling villains from whatever IP you like, particularly the ones that share personality traits that Strahd should have - Thanos, Vader, Gustavo Fring, Silco, Homelander, hell even Dracula himself most of all - they're all complex people with relatable or at least understandable pieces of their personality that they've put together into an evil whole. Complex, understandable and even relatable villains have depth, which makes them the most interesting. Personally, I think humanizing Strahd as a villain should be the goal of a DM running this campaign. But much more so by far, I really do it because of my problem with the second point, which is the real subject of this post: One reason I do this is because I personally prefer the more mature, serious tone of the novel to the campy joke-laden one in the module (there would never be a knight called " Sir Klutz Tripalotsky" entombed in the catacombs of the Strahd in the novel). I don't agree with either take, and am wondering if I'm missing something.įor the first point, I simply treat the novel as the truth when dealing with inconsistencies between it and the module. To avoid humanizing Strahd as a villain through a sympathetic reading of his history.To neatly explain inconsistencies between it and the module.This is usually used for two primary reasons: More often than not I see it said on this sub that I, Strahd is unreliable narration full of lies and twisting of the truth. Thank you those of you that engaged with my question. I simply wanted to get more detail on those that have this particular view and why. I'm aware everyone can run the game the way they like, which is exactly what everyone does and I'm already doing. Okay, this has not gone well, as a lot of you are replying with some version of "you do you man", so let me just be clear: My post was not intended to tell anyone how to play their Strahd, or to say that my version was the only valid one.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |