I should Probably preface this with the admission that this whole chapter is pointless because A PC becoming a Darklord is probably the ultimate in derailing a campaign, so the DM gets screwed almost as bad as the player unless either it was planned for all along, in which case you can't trust it's progression to die rolls, or Mister Cavern is really F-ing committed to making the campaign a Sandbox.
First oddity is that for rules meant to represent a character's internal psychology or spiritual whatever-the-fuck the surrounding text falls remarkably strong on the side of rigidity over DM Fiat (they recommend changing the odds by “1 or 2 percentage points” for cases which strike you as extreme, and even that is written in the same vein as the 2nd ed. DM guide's suggestion to give modifiers of “up to plus or minus 4” for arbitrary bullshit reasons). Which, when you recall that the rest of the book encourages arbitrary dickishness even more strongly then usual for the period, in a period when TSR still insisted that arbitrary dickishness was a desirable trait, might be considered a little disorienting.
The flip side of that is that the very first thing they tell you is that the whole chapter only applies PCs because “Randomness has no place in the life of non-player characters.” while also assuring that you that “If the DM wants the players to witness the effects of a failed powers check in a Non-player character, thats fine” but the dice don't make that decision. Which is, honestly, a step-down from the original red box Ravenloft boxset which only advised that “only PCs and significant NPCs are subject to powers checks.” which at least had the advantage of explaining why failed Powers Checks aren't something you see walkng down the street every day.
the Mechanics of getting crapped on
The Mechanical breakdown of the powers check system is that you cross reference the crimes, which don't have too many surprises. And the Victms, which are fairly puzzling.
I'll start with the victims, because a big chunk of the crimes don't count if you do them to the bad guys.
The first thing s that “Evil NPCs or Monsters” which is One: ambiguous as to whether it means (evil NPCs)+Monsters or Evil(NPCs+Monsters), because unlike the list of Sins, the moral categories have no attached text to explain them. Since Monster aren't mentioned in the other categories I am led to assume the first, so If you can convince the DM that a good creature is a “monster”( they give no definition for the term) then feel free to beat it into submission and steal it's belongings, apparently.
The second problem is that they apparently couldn't decide whether to stick to D&Ds standard shaky claim of objective morality or some kind of relational thing... which (to give them too much credit perhaps) makes sense, because the checks are (inconsistently) implied to represent how interesting you are to the Dark Powers, rather than how objectively evil you are. Which I suppose also explains why harming non-evil monsters, if we agree there is such a thing, has no more consequences then harming evil “characters”
The second category is “Neutral NPCs or Strangers”, So I guess innocent bystanders, nameless window dressing, anybody with no lines. Next comes “Good Npcs, and Friends”, which already introduces a conflict that isn't ever acknowledged, of when do you use alignment, and when do you use relation? Or are they assuming that PCs will have no friends? Or will only make friends with good Npcs? no evil and NO NEUTRAL ALLOWED. Do you just use whichever gives the player crappier odds on the check?
The final category is where shit goes right off the goddamn rails. It includes “Innocents” which is an actual thing in the Ravenloft rules. Or at least would be later in the setting's history, because I can find neither jack nor shit in the book right now, so maybe I should retract my earlier claim that the capital I meant something. In addition to “Innocents” the category also includes “Family” which I guess means that if you have serial killers in the family you're obligated to not stop them? And “PCs” which I suppose just means that someone had a game ruined PC vs PC conflicts shortly before written the chart.
Religous offenses and other wastes of ink
There's also a sub heading for religious offenses following a similar schema. “Evil Faith”s are open season, no penalties here; but Neutral faiths, Good Faiths, and your Own Faith (which occupies the Pcs,Family, and Innocents slot) have dark powers checks for Desecration of holy things, and for breaking tenents, Oaths, and Vows, and all three of those are their own category; which is where we find more weirdness.
First off, the text implies that only the tenents of your own faith can cause a powers check. Raises the question of why the table has separate entries with different odds for this in the Neutral and Good columns. The text also says that “these transgressions are generally minor and don't require a check unless done repeatedly or maliciously” which is extra wrong, because the chart ranks breaking a tenent of you own faith at a 5, which puts it between “premeditated murder of a a Good NPC or Friend” (6) and “torturing evil NPCs for information”(4).
Apparently the difference between an oath and a vow is that Oaths are sworn “under the auspices of the church” while Vows are “Promises made under the auspices of The Power.” immediately after saying that, they redefine Breaking a Vow as doing something “which flies in the face of the faith” (which seems more like it would be covered by the Tenets.) or something which violates a duty “not just to the church and it's agents” but to the deity directly. The big problem I have is, under what circumstances are you expected to be swearing oaths or vows to a church or deity other than your own? Those columns seem like just wasted ink.
Crimes and [strike]punishment[/strike] more crime
Nothing really outstanding here, Assault, Murder, Theft, Torture... but some of the distinctions are headscratchers.
Like Theft Comes in three flavors, Major theft, Minor theft, and Grave-Robbing. Now the distinction between major and minor theft is pure utilitarianism, to be major the loss must qualify as a “significant hardship for the victim”, any other theft is minor. Which makes you wonder why it's power check worthy at all. But the real oddity is Grave-Robbing; which covers both actual places of burial, and “looting fallen bodies.” So that's a pretty big impediment to the whole “murder Hobo” lifestyle, or at least it would if penalty weren't waived for Evil and Monsters. What I found bizarre about Grave-Robbing is that it has the exact same odds as Major Theft against the Neutral and Innocent Categories, but has a 1 percentage point difference against the “good NPCs or Friends” category. I Cannot begin to guess what the intention was here, or what it was supposed to accomplish.
SURPRISE SCREW JOB: since Fellow PCs are treated as Innocent according to the chart, the standard divying up the dead guy's gear is a 7% Powers Check for everyone in the party.
Going back to the issue of wasted ink, there are Major and Minor Betrayals; Major being things that cause “personal harm or death” and incidently are one of the few crimes that provoke a Check when the victim is evil. So once again, if you have a preexisting relationship with the badguys, you shouldn't be the one to stop them. I also have to question what constitutes a betrayal against a Stranger, which is totally on the chart.
Other distinctions within category are Grievous assault, and brutal Murder, which are probably the best use of the whole Powers Check concept. As these only come into play when you do things that aren't strictly part of the Combat rules, they are purely role play, or Magic Tea Party. To qualify as Grievous assault you have to cause somekind of permanent maiming, the likes of which I've no idea how to cause in the midst of a By-The-Book combat. Similarly Brutal Murder requires you go out of your way to be cruel, which really only makes sense if we pretend that being Chopped with a sword is sets the bar pretty high for unpleasantness.
Protip: There is Powers Check for premeditated Murder of an evil NPC, but there is explicitly no Check for Threatening or Extorting, or assaulting them unprovoked. So there's nothing stopping you from provoking them with unreasonable demands or, baring that, just ambushing them, and then if they retaliate instead of retreating you can “self-defense” them to death.
Other observation; the “Premeditated” is actually pretty redundant, because the section titled
When to Call for a Powers check make clear, in text
highlighted in italics that
A Powers check is made only when a deliberate and calculated act of evil is committed
, they also use murder specifically as an example of an act that is “rightly classed as evil”, but which doesn't always merit a Powers Check. Specific list of exceptions is given, encompassing “Murder in the heat of passion, Self-defense or in pursuit of a greater good.” or deaths caused by negligence (not really murder at that point, but good to know.)
The thing is that that caveat invalidates a big chunk of potential violations, probably for the exact reason that these actions would make for a lot of Non-evil darklords.
Also GAMEPLAY-STORY SEGREGATION ALERT: many of the Canon Darklords had their fall in acts that according to that list shouldn't even merit a check, muchless the “Act of Ultimate Darkness” required to make the final jump into darklordship. Of course, none of the canon darklords have anything in their backstory to imply they failed 5 earlier checks before taking the plunge, so... Like I said in the beginning, pointless.
You know, when I started this I expected to be defending all this at some point, but honestly the best I can say here is that my impression was always that Ravenloft players were some of the earliest to adopt the whole “screw the rules to keep the story on track” idea, at least as something the players should cooperate with instead of something the DM should do without getting caught. And I think the story disrupting potential of this chapter is probably to thank/blame for that.
LAST MINUTE ADDITIONS:
k wrote: then any heinous lie to an evil monster like one that sends it into an ambush is a 1% or 2% chance
Even if we accept your premise that things that explicitly don't require a check are "really" a check with a 0% chance and thus open to modification, what lie do you tell the monster that qualifies as "Unusual cruelty"?
k wrote:then there is another check for the premeditated murder (2-4%)
... hmmm.... I don't think I can challenge this one, that is a problem.
and in the process of attacking it is another 2-4%
I'm sorry, I don't see where this one is coming from.
and if you use any spells that mighty be considered torture (like most DnD spells) there are more checks.
Ok, this is just a blatant assault on the english language, Torture requires that the monster is already being held captive. So I can't grant you that even if we delve into a realistic look at the flavor text of spells for how insanely painful they should be.
I won't even go into the checks for taking any loot off its body that might belong to good-aligned relatives by right of inheritance,
well I would argue that looting the freshly fallen has it's own category, it's grave robbing against the deceased, which at least implies that it doesn't qualify as another form of theft. But you're right, this is an abuse that I can see happening.
I suppose as long as I'm not defending this one I should also admit that even the graverobbing defense might not cover things the monster stole. so you have the unfortunate requirment of finding the robbed peasants, or their next of kin, to return every thing, lest you be penalized for stealing from these third parties
or the checks you might face if you are a follower of a good-aligned god with ideas about killing or theft.
Ok you can't blame Ravenloft for that one, because if that's a violation, then it's a punishable infraction for clerics in any campaign setting.
After all, when you climb Mt. Kon Foo Sing to fight Grand Master Hung Lo and prove that your "Squirrel Chases the Jam-Coated Tiger" style is better than his "Dead Cockroach Flails Legs" style, you unleash a bunch of your SCtJCT moves, not wait for him to launch DCFL attacks and then just sit there and parry all day. And you certainly don't, having been kicked about, then say "Well you served me shitty tea before our battle" and go home.
