Confusion on TAINT

[NathanRMaher]

I'm still a bit confused on what the RLPhb means under it's druid weakness (pg. 47) when it suggests that when within 20 miles of a sinkhole (virtually anywhere in Ravenloft) a Druid has a % chance of taint and a % chance to Envoke an Evil act. Just how has everyone interpretted this thus far?

Also... what is TAINT? I understand it's linked with the Sinkhole's TAINT but how does that influence a PC?

[Tobias Blackburn]

It's descibed in the Ravenloft DMG.

Taint it the emotional content of the sinkhole, the one emotion that drove the act that created the sinkhole. For example, a man that hacked up a cheating wife with an axe will create a sinkhole with the Anger taint (and possibly fear).

[alhoon]

Anger and also Jealously I would say.

On Topic: I would suggest you don't follow that rule Nathan. It takes the decision for the character's acts out of his/her hands. I don't like that rule.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

No kidding. Most of the modifications to classes from the 3.5 RLPHB have the same problem. I don't hold it entirely against the writers of the revised class-rules -- I get the impression they were trying to balance out how the 3.0 Powers check rules are stacked against spellcasters, as it's the non-casting classes that got shafted worst -- but depriving players of the freedom to choose their PCs' actions and behaviors (including their actions' consequences, if a legitimate Powers check is warranted) is just plain wrong. This isn't supposed to be Call Of Cthulhu, where PCs are on an ever-steepening slope into madness and corruption regardless of what they do; keeping yourself on the side of the angels in Ravenloft is plenty hard, as it is.

Besides, why should druids be singled out for toxic side-effects of their environment, and clerics not? Several of the Ravenloft "deities" are just the Dark Powers in drag anyway, so by that logic, their clerics would be just as susceptible to the corruption of the forces they revere as the druids. Plus, having druids' bond to nature provoke them to evil acts is contrary to that key Gothic premise: Nature is neither a friend nor an enemy, it's just totally callous and indifferent.

[Brandi]

I'm still a bit confused on what the RLPhb means under it's druid weakness (pg. 47) when it suggests that when within 20 miles of a sinkhole (virtually anywhere in Ravenloft) a Druid has a % chance of taint and a % chance to Envoke an Evil act. Just how has everyone interpretted this thus far?

It's a big fat Murphy's rule. IIRC I once posted on how there would be no non-evil druids in Forlorn if you played that rule out.

[Undead Cabbage]

-- but depriving players of the freedom to choose their PCs' actions and behaviors (including their actions' consequences, if a legitimate Powers check is warranted) is just plain wrong.

Not to mention, it would be an absolute pain to do. I can't imagine how you'd tell a player what his character is doing without totally ruining the effect of the game. A game mechanic should only ever enhance game play, not take away from it. You might very well do an alternate interpretation of the rule, but as the rule stands I can't see practical use to it.

Ravenloft is all about choices. None of the Darklords are so because someone else forced them to be: it was their own choice to give into sin. Forcing players to do something against their will and then punishing them for it defeats the purpose behind powers checks.

[Jester of the FoS]

I like the use of Taint, especially as druids are tied to the land. They feel the strongest of these emotions, feel the pain and suffering that has permeated the very ground.

The act of evil needs a much lighter touch to work. Much like the taint the druids are flooded with strong emotions to defend the land, revenge its tainting and corruption. They are pushed by their own subconcious to do evil acts. It shouldn't be automatic though...

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I like the use of Taint, especially as druids are tied to the land. They feel the strongest of these emotions, feel the pain and suffering that has permeated the very ground.

That should call for a Horror check, if they get close enough to a sinkhole of evil to feel the land's pain. It definitely shouldn't be grounds for a Powers check ... heck, if anything, you'd think that sensing such ambient pain would discourage them from doing evil and thus making it hurt even worse!

[NathanRMaher]

I kinda agree with the whole idea that robbing a player of their free-will is more or less an excuse to encourage evil acts. But of course, on the other hand, there are players who totally refuse to allow their character to become one of the fallen heroes. I guess it all comes down to how good the roleplaying group of people you have. What makes a character a classic is the players ability to make sacrifices in order to improve the storyline/character of their character.

I love the idea behind "Taint" but maybe I could do something where it makes Druids suffer a penalty to Will saves versus events which may trigger a particular action that resembles the Taint. For Greed, if the Druid comes into a situation where she must choose between friends and treasure, the DM makes the player roll a saving throw DC 15 (with modifiers off the horror check chart) to be able to choose between the item, or her fellows. That is one idea of course...

[alhoon]

But of course, on the other hand, there are players who totally refuse to allow their character to become one of the fallen heroes.

If they don't want the char to become one of the fallen heroes, why should they be forced to play a fallen hero?
If their char is a good, kindly druid that helps his friends and people around him even at personal cost and uses his connection to nature to embetter other lives or protect what should be protected why should he be forced to turn evil bit by bit?


PS that comes from a player that playes fallen heroes some times, and a DM that considers alignment inviolatable! I prohibit spells, effects and magic items (like the helm) that cause involuntary alignment change. IMC, not even greater deities can change a person's alignment without convincing that person that his previous ways were wrong.

[Ail]

But of course, on the other hand, there are players who totally refuse to allow their character to become one of the fallen heroes.

If they don't want the char to become one of the fallen heroes, why should they be forced to play a fallen hero?
If their char is a good, kindly druid that helps his friends and people around him even at personal cost and uses his connection to nature to embetter other lives or protect what should be protected why should he be forced to turn evil bit by bit?


PS that comes from a player that playes fallen heroes some times, and a DM that considers alignment inviolatable! I prohibit spells, effects and magic items (like the helm) that cause involuntary alignment change. IMC, not even greater deities can change a person's alignment without convincing that person that his previous ways were wrong.

That is actually quite like a lot of lore we see in films and books that goes like "the devil can only tempt and damn those that accept and believe in him." Or something along those lines.

It is a view I sympathise with.

Ail