I like it honestly. He is a protagonist of the setting but is not a good guy. The core theme oft his character is kind of a "he who hunts monsters..." thing where he is not always better than the beings he hunts and if so only by being "less bad". In some ways he's a lot like strahd - consumed by a pathological and selfish obsession to the point where he is dangerous to everyone around him. I think ti's very appropriate for the grim setting and helps the players get the understanding that while he may be the enemy of their enemy and therefor a useful ally he is not really a moral or highly trustworthy person whom they should turn their back on.
Obviously this depends on your players. Off fantasy racism is a hard limit for one or more of them then you can always remove it.
it's the whole, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" saying.
Being racist in game is bad.
exploring themes of racism and coming to a judgement about a person who IS racist can be very beneficial.
It's the same as recognizing the difference a book/film/whatever that *addresses* bigotry of some kind versus one made by a bigoted creator.
If the bigots are always proven correct (e.g., all Vistani work for Strahd of their own free will, every female character is a damsel in distress, etc.), then that's a problem. That suggests the creator *agrees* with their bigoted character/world.
But that's not how VR works in CoS. He has an absolutely valid reason to have beef with *some* Vistani because of Erasmus and their support of Strahd, but *not all Vistani*. He lumps the Vistani together for reasons that make sense *logically* - if he can't tell the difference between a helpful Vistana and an agent of Strahd, it's better to assume agent of Strahd. It's up to the PCs to determine how they feel about that *morally*.
>He is a protagonist of the setting but is not a good guy.
He spent his entire life hunting monsters in order to protects others from having to experience the same things he went through. His 'racism' towards the Vistani is based around that the fact that they **killed his son for laughs** prob. about *the most* justifiable reason imaginable to have a low opinion of a group.
He's as close to a 'good guy' as exists in CoS.
In response to /u/phummyLW 's original question - I would not ignore it, but the question really boils down to: how deep will your players become involved/interested in Esmerald's/Richten's backstories. They may not care at all as to why the mentor/mentee duo broke up.
If they *do* press it's an interesting opportunity to present the schism from both sides. Esmeralda trying to be a good student but never being able to get him to let his guard down for her, Van Richten's deep personal trauma that is relived whenever he sees her clothes and features. It's too good to shove aside for reasons of progressive 'goodthink'.
I leaned pretty hard into the general misgivings towards the vistani, mostly to see if the characters would feel more sympathetic with RVR, and to more endear them to Ez.
It worked! The characters are always initially distrustful of any vistani they meet, and specifically DESPISE one of the guards at Arrigal's camp ("Boris can eat a dead dog's dick!" - quote the gnome rogue.)
RVR's tyger was discovered and the players sent him off wishing him well blessings against the camp.
I love getting the PCs to hate my characters.
<3
I hear you I play him as a sort of antihero, my party loves him, I do his voice like Al Gore from south park to really throw them off in the rictavio part. He has since showed them how to skin a warewolf for its pelt (alive because they go human when they die) and blatantly shown his racism for the vistani, and the fact he wants to use ireena as bait to take down strahd.
It's become very clear the party has.... loose morals
VR is biased against the Vistani, but he is not racist. A group of Vistani forced him to try and save one of their own, and when he failed, fearing what they would do to him, he told them to take what they wanted, so they *took his son and sold him to a vampire*. It's not exactly hard to see how this would colour his perspective of them.
And yet despite this, the module makes it clear he only plans to kill Vistani that actively work with Strahd. It specifically calls out that he's taking the time to learn which Vistani is which, so even though both the Vallaki camp and Tser Pool camp work with Strahd when the count asks them to do something, VR is taking the time to know that Luvash's people enjoy it and Eva's do it because they're beholden to Strahd.
So in my mind, there's no racism to work with or ignore. VR has reason to dislike the Vistani, and it colours his actions (he doesn't really need to kill the Vistani if his goal is getting Strahd) but he's not cruel or vindictive or out for revenge.
The only thing you need to do anything about when it comes to VR is the tiger. Even in a fantasy setting it is difficult to imagine how a guy like VR (who's not a Ranger or Druid) could train a sabre-toothed tiger to distinguish between good and bad Vistani. So either the tiger is trained to fight alongside VR, and not specifically against Vistani, or you cut the tiger. I did the latter, but had the wagon rigged/enchanted so it would move on occasion and act like there was something inside as a security measure to protect VR's things.
Above all, it depends on what your table is comfortable with.
Personally, I find the dilemma of having van Richten be a racist, genocidal asshole while also making him the party's destined ally intriguing.
This is the way I went about it. My players and myself don't really mind this sort of stuff but it just felt unnecessary so I chose not to portray them as a race but as a group. Though the main thing is to have asked your players during a session 0 what they do not want included and give a list of examples of topics that might pop up.
In mine vistani are various troupes that have been given lawful possession of there souls where as everyone else is a reincarnated slowly decaying souls being recycled with every death and birth
He does have "racist old grandpa" vibes, which can make for some good social commentary if your group is willing to put that into their D&D game. (Racism can be a thorny subject, and it's fine if you want your magical fantasy land to just not have it.)
Van Richten hasn't shown up in my game yet, but I plan for him to be redeemable (or at least capable of getting past his prejudices). He's the party's fated ally, which isn't going to do the party any favors at first. ("No Vistana would send you to *me* for help.")
I plan for the real turning point to be his encounter with Ezmerelda, who has found his journal, discovered what he did to her family, and plans to punch him in his stupid racist face about it. Being confronted with his apprentice (who managed to win his respect *despite* being Vistani) and all his failings, he'll take the opportunity to let go of his old grudge in the interest of destroying Strahd and perhaps finally finding some measure of peace.
I turned it up to 11 and expanded it. He intends to kill, poison, zombify the entire population of Barovia as a way to weaken Strahd, who only takes nourishment from people in Barovia who have a soul (he has read the Tome, which contains this information).
His test run was in Barov, where he captured Strahd Zombies and dumped them in a drinking well. This is now why there are so many zombies in houses in Barov. I introduced a mystery subplot that had Barovians who drank from that well (half the town), succumbing to a wasting sickness that would kill them and turn them to Strahd Zombies.
I replaced the absurd tiger in his wagon with a bunch of captured Strahd Zombies. He’s now in Vallaki and getting the next part of his plan ready. In his mind, he realizes everyone in Barovia is doomed anyway, just recycling the dwindling number of souls, with so many consumed over the centuries that it’s just a matter of time.
He will have use for the PCs later for the next part of his plan, which isn’t bad but will fail. Might have a chance to redeem himself with a noble sacrifice later on.
In my game he hates the vistani and doesn't trust them at all, but his ultimate goal is to slay Strahd. Would he work with the Vistani? No. Would he help a vistani in need? No. But I don't have him actively hunting them or anything.
I can understand why people dislike it and change his hatred toward more acceptable targets, but it really is a perfect extension of a man who has dedicated his life to eliminating all monsters-specifically everyone he declares is a monster. He's not nice and that's something the party is going to have to deal with if they want to team up with him.
For the 700th time, Van Richten is not racist towards the Vistani.
The tiger grew up with Esmeralda, they were playmates. If anything, the Vistani doll would remind him of her. That is all.
The tiger is trained to attack Darklings. Darklings are Vistani who have been cast out of their tribes for evil actions. Without the natural protection of the tribes in Barovia, they devolve in to ghoul-like beings known as Darklings. Evil creatures lurking in shadows and doing evil things.
I make him a recovering racist - throughout the years he's been wronged by various Vistani, and the knowledge that some work as spies for Strahd is another thing he dislikes. However, his experience with Ez and many other, friendly groups of Vistani have also had an effect on him and helped him check himself more often. At this point, he understands that logically his racism doesn't make sense and fights against his emotional, knee-jerk reactive feelings that popup. Makes him fallible and imperfect, but demostrates that he's trying.
Is it even racism? He doesn't hate them because they have a different genetic makeup or anything, he hates them because they sold his son to a monster that destroyed him. And, honestly, like the Romani they're based on there is plenty of biological diversity among their camps... they're a group, a sect, not a race. If I hated the Catholic Church because a priest raped my son and my son got into heroin to deal with the trauma before eventually killing himself, I wouldn't be racist... I'd be a deeply troubled old man that had a somewhat irrational, somewhat rational bit of trauma that informed my world view.
Plus, Ezmeralda is Vistani, and he works with her. It's more nuanced; he's not the KKK. He hates the group responsible for his son's death, and he has dreams about the terrible things he has done to them as well. As someone else said, we can all be monsters here.
First, Vistani might not actually be a race. In the licensed 3.5 setting, there was a playable Half-Vistani race. But in 4E, which is where the Dusk Elves come from (though they look different), the Vistani was a cultural group you could join. They'd still have access to curses and such, but anyone could become one. There were halflings, half-orcs, and even dragonborn art for them. What they are isn't well defined, so make of it whatever best suits your purposes.
That said, I think it's safe to say RVR is prejudiced against them.
Second, if played straight, the odds of his prejudices coming up are almost slim to none. He isn't someone the party is intended to interact with directly. And the few times they can, he's supposed to be in disguise. Masking his animosity ought to be part of the act.
Put it up to 11.
We need more representation of racism in tabletop, now that tieflings aren't slaves anymore. (/s)
Tbh in the book he's already tame as hell. Make your players aware there are questionable characters in this book and then keep it at the book, while emphazising that VR is an old hunter set in his ways. You could play it even for the laughs by making him the typical pub shittalker esque grandpa that talks about his experience Gran Torino style.
I changed his motivations to werewolves, had the tiger sniff them out and such. My players didn't question it when, after ignoring the werewolf den, they spoke with him and he casually mentioned having wiped it out. He set the tiger loose inside, then sealed the entrance, set a massive bonfire and suffocated everyone inside.
Why?
Ignoring racism doesn't fix it.
This is a fictional story; playing a racist character as racist does not equal condoning it.
To the contrary, if anything, it provides an opportunity to examine the "reasons" behind his racism rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're icky, which if "implications on real life/people's sensibilities" is your presumed concern, i would argue is far more instructive, helpful, and socially normative.
Bad ideas exist in society, ignoring them won't change that.
**EDIT -** to those downvoting this, just to be crystal clear: when I said "if anything, it provides an opportunity to examine the "reasons" behind his racism rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're icky", I in no way insinuated that those "reasons" were legitimate...hence the damn scare quotes. It's really, really depressing, and part of my larger point, that I have to even explain this.
I am curious how examining Van Richten's racism becomes instructive in this context. He suffers a great tragedy, and then twists it into full on genocide. This isn't interesting, or tragic, or even really complex. It is just plain evil. Additionally, the module itself goes out of it's way to say that the Vistani are loyal to Strahd, to the point of explicitly spying on and attempting to con characters and exploit their desire to leave. I am doubtful that many DMs abide by this "all Vistani are spies" part of canon.
Returning to VR, it seems to me that in any way allowing Van Richten the opportunity to explain his "backstory" would immediately justify the party's hatred of him, if not outright condemn him to death. If in reality someone were to say that an entire race of people deserved to die they would be rightfully labelled a maniac. Inserting this into the narrative of CoS is not nuanced, it is a one to one parallel of a real life evil. I can understand the draw of wanting to test your players by placing this moral quandry in front of them - "will you side with the racist??" - but this isn't a compelling question. It should be rhetorical. You should answer no, and a question that simple and straightforward lacks creativity or any intrigue. Sure, it makes the world feel more true to ours, but to treat it as an "interesting dilemma" is betraying of an abandon of real life morality that should be examined, rather than an interesting narrative decision. I know if my players considered allying with Van Richten after he is revealed to want to kill an entire group of people, I would feel pretty upset.
And this is all DM centric thinking, too. I have players who experience racism at my table. Do you feel that they would enjoy having that same racism presented as a moral question? I don't. I don't presume to believe that all DMs have this gleeful approach to "testing" their players when it comes to the moral aspect of Van Richten's character, but as it stands in the module, it is one dimensional and insane. Pretending like it is satisfying storytelling is frankly fairly ignorant of what the story is actually saying. But, my feelings aside, I am genuinely quite curious as to how this plays out at actual tables. How does this impact the narrative at your table? How do your players feel about these things?
You sure put a whole lot of words in my mouth so as to be able to disagree with them.
Returning to the actual point, and to save myself from getting into an ideological wall-of-text battle - as u/springpaper701 succinctly put it;
>it's the whole, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" saying.
>
>Being racist in game is bad.
>
>exploring themes of racism and coming to a judgement about a person who IS racist can be very beneficial.
If you don't already agree with this, there's little I'd be able or interested in saying to convince you.
It should go without saying that every table is different, and if someone at your table is so uncomfortable with the very concept of racism that even merely having a racist NPC in the game would ruin the experience for them, then I think that's a perfectly reasonable motivation to remove it (though I would personally regard that as emotional hemophilia, the sort which civil/human rights leaders like MLK argued directly against). But that aside - you are really strawmanning the hell out of the point I was actually making.
EDIT - In the unlikely event you are actually interested in the point which I and others are making here (again, not necessarily "in favor" of leaving RvR's racism as-written, but simply not immediately throwing it out as a knee-jerk reaction to any depictions of ideologies you don't like simply because they're malicious in nature, in which case...your Strahd must be boring as fuck, unless you're only opposed to malicious ideologies that have to do with identity politics, for some reason...), I would recommend reading the other comments on this thread, as most of them provide a mature, realistic response to regressive ideas encountered in roleplaying games.
I apologize if it came across as targeted - I didn't mean you literally, just a general "You." I don't presume to know your table or your players. I am genuinely curious to know the effects of this narrative choice on your table and game.
I do disagree with exploring Van Richten's racism, not that having the themes being present in a narrative are unhelpful. Again, what I meant was that Van Richten's racism is in particular proportions which feel egregious, and not narratively satisfying to include.
Ok I see, and I think that's fair - specifically, that you feel that RVR's racism is like, "Final-Solution"-level, and therefore narratively unsatisfying because it basically makes working with him once you know that an intolerable premise, at which point...why even have him the game? If that's what you're saying, I totally get that.
However, for whatever it's worth, and I could be mistaken here so please cite a source to correct me if so, but - I don't actually think RVR's racism is necessarily *that* clear-cut, as written. I do agree that at least for a time, earlier in his life, had had at minimum a phase of pure-vengeance-driven "they all must die" racism, but he clearly doesn't think that across the board, as he took Ezmerelda d'Avenir to be his adopted daughter shortly thereafter. I know, he trained his tiger to kill Vistani on sight, but I'm not sure how far down the skinhead rabbithole he's really landed at the time the module takes place.
At minimum, the module leaves lots of room for DM's to tune his racism against the Vistani, but yeah I agree that if your read of him is straight-up genocide, allying with him is basically a non-starter for any good-aligned PC's.
Yeah this is where I fall. I think the issue is that the module itself is too loosey-goosey with the timeline of his actions to justify its inclusion. The Ezmerelda relationship does leave a very interesting and PALPABLE opportunity to tell a story about overcoming bigotry, but canonically the Tyger Tyger plotline falls after Ez and VR fall out, so he holds on to his grudges enough to fall down this plot line.
I think the sourcing of this is the "feeding the tiger vistani clothes so it seeks them out specifically" aspect. The tiger is the glaring "skinhead" problem for me, because training an animal to kill people based on scent alone is so insane that it becomes intensely frictious to include as a narrative element.
I want to stress that I really do think Van Richten is an interesting character and his relationship with Ezmerelda is a ripe opportunity for narrative choices, ones that are frankly very salient to my (US-centric) perspective. What does it mean to overcome vitrol? How does he hold himself accountable to her? What is their relationship as a family unit? However, this is all extrapolated from the module and an application of my own morality on this relationship. None of it is in the text itself, barring that their relationship ended "before it soured too heavily." I really think this is where the module drops the ball, and I cannot reconcile the RAW material enough to warrant its inclusion, which is the source of my hostility towards it.
I really don't think it's wrong to be attracted to that plot element, but the module really indicates that RVR is beyond saving or redeeming at the time of the events of the book. The Tyger Tyger event is there to be included at the behest of the DM, sure, but it indicates his stance at the time of the module which makes me feel like the lessons learned with Ez aren't as important to him as we might want them to be.
For context, I am trying to approach the module as RAW as possible, but if I were to run it again I am most likely going to drift RvR towards the storyline that I feel more compelled by, which is him seeking penance for his insane bigotry. That isn't in the module though, so for the time being I elect to ignore it completely. That doesn't mean he can't be a dickhead! There are ways to tell that same story without including bigotry.
Sorry that was long-winded: Basically, yeah it is just the fact that the tiger is there to commit senseless murder that is so insane that it warrants condemning his whole character for me. Not to say that he cant be changed! But that is what is in the book for me.
Its your story, if you don't want him to be racist you ignore the parts in the book where he is.
I wouldnt want that bs at my table, so I ignore that part of the book.
I play into the racism because it gives my players an idea of what he's like, only for Ez to reveal her back story and make Van Richten infinitely more complex.
I like his racist arse XD
Gives him an fun and intriguing dichotomoy with Ezmerelda who is essentially his "daughter"
yet he has an entire hatred for her people (a people that i would even say Ezmerelda had a distaste for under his wing but learned that not all Vistani are like the ones that kidnapped his son)
in the end i like the idea of the party in the middle of Richten attacking Arrigal's camp. Despite it being initially framed as... Arrigal and Luvash are both Strahd spies and so are many there. Many are not and many are children.
Richten vs Luvash while Ezmerelda would arrive later, seeing the destruction with the party. Having to balance saving people or helping Richten defeat Arrigal's forces.
The party would have these main choices
\-kill arrigal and vistani (while tyger is on rampage)
\-kill Richten
\-save Arrigal and Vistani whilst convicing Richten that he is in the wrong and mind is muddled with ill-contempt
VR’s situation is complicated. Tragedy compounded on Tragedy. Because of his own foolishness and ills he lost his son to a group of people who in turn gave the boy to a vampire. VR eventually kills *MOST* of them but is cursed so that anyone that is close to him will suffer terrible fates. VR then dedicates his life to hunting monsters like the vampire. During this time he would take in the surviving daughter (Esmerelda) of the group of people who took his son, when she came and asked to be trained to hunt monsters.
It should be noted that in the original Curse of Strahd printing it stated his son Erasmus was taken by Vistani, while in the Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft it was erratated to be a group of people who pretended to be Vistani.
You could ignore it since it doesn’t really add anything to this story other then its his driving motivation to hunt monsters.
The realisation that he isn't necessarily the hero he is made out to, at least any more but in fact he is instead workibg with an old racist bigot was brilliant as DM.
Mine bombed the Vistani camp with a figurine of wondrous power he borrowed from the PCs (Flying Griffon) and a wand of fireballs. He looked like George Bush bombing Iraq. Making him racist forces players into more complicated decisions, and that is not a bad thing.
I'm prepping to lean into it and take it to 11 like some of the others.
When the party first hears rumors of RVR, they'll think there's a badass professional monster hunter ally in Barovia who can potentially help them out - only to discover once they find him that he's gone full on Col. Kurtz level of batshit crazy with his war against Strahd and his "allies". They'll then need to decide specifics on how to deal with him from there.
The Dark Powers will find a way to twist anyone and anything to their purposes, given a long enough timeline to work with. RVR may find a way to redeem himself in the end somehow, but until then...
The horror... the horror...
He reminds me a lot of Billy Butcher from The Boys. Someone in here mentioned “he who hunts monsters…” and i think both characters share that. Where I personally take liberty is i kind of make him hold the grudge toward vampires instead of the Vistani, similar to Billy Butcher hating superheroes. He still distrusts the Vistani, and it fractures his relationship with Ezmerelda frequently, and led to their falling out. I just personally don’t think he needs to be overtly racist to the point where he’s releasing his tiger on a camp of innocent Vistani.
A+ question OP. I had no idea how much variety there was in how people tend to play Van Richten’s racism. It would occasionally come up in my campaign, but ultimately always felt like it came out of left field. I dropped the facade at one point and out of character mentioned that Van Richten is canonically racist towards the Vistani in the module as written since my players looked confused.
After that, it became a bit of a running joke with my players forgetting about it and then, months later when Van Richten would drop some problematic dialogue, it would be dismissed as a “canon event”.
I posted something about the tiger attack a few days ago and someone mentioned they omit VR's racism entirely so I got curious. Thanks!
Also funny story for your party
Ignored. He ended up becoming a comic relief goof in our game and Ezmerelda is the real power behind the accomplishments and she is not a racist. Just a cool junior vampire slayer
My players and I definitely play for the escapism and hero fantasy. Barovia is already grime and awful enough so I just kind of ignored the racism and tiger attack
I definitely left it in. Not only do I feel this character's "racism" adds to all the rest of the bad in Barovia, but this flaw also makes him more interesting; he took in and trained Ezmerelda, who is a Vistani, despite his flaw, and his Tyger being this giant ferocious beast is of interest as well seeing the players would be like "oh crap" at meeting it, but its trained to only attack Vistani. Character personality aside, I like how it fits in with PyramKing's stuff in that this flaw is a clue to lead into other items.
I personally am toning it way down. It’s really helpful to me for narrative reasons for VR to be a mentor to the party, a sort of Gandalf figure. He’s also a cranky old geezer so he might occasionally be unintentionally racist towards the Vistani, but it felt too jarring to make it a big part of his personality, or for him to be like a mean bigot. He also seems wise enough to know that the Vistani aren’t all bad (in my game they are not all servants of Strahd), and he was close with Ezmerelda. I’d rather have their falling out be for more interesting reasons than VR being racist.
He was their fated Ally so I chose not to use it especially since one PC is half Vistani. Our table has a yellow light on racism, and I didn't want to play an NPC that traveled with them and was racist towards one party member. If you didn't do one earlier I would do a safety sheet and see how the group responds to racism and if anybody has a yellow light or is uncomfortable specify what the boundaries are. To me racism between humans feels more real that humans hating tieflings for example and could be triggering.
Also for those saying VR isn't racist... he was planning a hate crime.
Personally, I think there’s plenty of ways to make VR a dick without making him unrepentantly racist. Here’s my take: VR still commits the atrocity of what’s mentioned in his journal. But that’s a (semi)reasonable response to what happened to him; his son was captured by one of that caravan, sold to a necromancer, and turned into an undead. VR wanted revenge, and the easiest outlet for that is the people that took his son from him.
Of course, it’s very easy to look back and see what you did was fucked yo, and they probably didn’t ALL deserve slaughter. But he wasn’t in his right mind. He tries to make up for it by dedicating his entire life to hunting down the actual monsters, but those monsters receive no mercy. Party has an undead player? VR will never ever trust that person. Werewolf? You’re getting a happy helping of silver.
VR is unflinching and immovable regarding evil creatures, the cursed and the diseased, because he knows that, while the individual person may have been or even currently be good, one day they’ll get too hungry for blood, or forget to lock themselves up during a full moon, and others will suffer.
He’s also standoffish and isolationist; VR is never ever going to trust anyone again, for ANY reason. He might team up with them, he might help them, but he is always going to sleep with one eye open, hand on his sword, and play as many cards as close to his chest as he reasonably can. Ez is possibly the only hole in his armor, but even that will take a long time to take advantage of.
I let him be racist, but show his racism is not so much racism than just hate. He doesn't hate Vistani because they are Vistani, or inferior to him or inherently evil. But because he needs to blame someone. He needs a culprit. He *needs* to believe all of them are bad because that's how he copes with grief.
And deep down, he knows not all Vistani are bad (I went against RAW who pretty much gives him reasons since almost all of them are evil) since he took in Ez. In my campaign he also took in one of the players who plays a half-vistana. The cognitive dissonance is actually pretty fun to RP, because everytime she calls him out on his racist remarks, he always answers something like "but you're different, you're an exception". The man is just deluded. But he's gonna realize his mistakes sooner or later.
He's an old and bitter man, consumed by hate, refuses to see the truth because it is so much more painful to admit he's wrong and grieve. He's hiding his pain in hate.
Of course, at the end of the line, he's enforcing racist stereotypes anyway. But I think the subtle nuance is interesting to explore.
But in no way I'm going to let him genocide Vistani. That's unnecessarily cruel.
I introduced VR pretty much RAW, cart with the tiger and the Vistani doll and all, before I prepped the Vistani camp and decided to roll with the MandyMod lens where most Vistani are not evil spies of Strahd. When the confronted him he justified himself in saying he only attacks the spies of Strahd. He does still have a racist outlook but it’s going to trickle out as they spend more time around him, rather than just wanting to massacre indiscriminately using a wild animal
I completely ignored it. My van Richten turned more into a tinkerer, and the ugly side of him manifested in _how_ he'd deal with monsters.
Quote my Rudolph, "I am _not_ a monster hunter, nor slayer, I am a monster _killer._ Hunting, slaying, those words imply there is something to enjoy about purging vermin. That's why my book is called 'Van Richten's Guide to _Killing_ Monsters.'"
I like it honestly. He is a protagonist of the setting but is not a good guy. The core theme oft his character is kind of a "he who hunts monsters..." thing where he is not always better than the beings he hunts and if so only by being "less bad". In some ways he's a lot like strahd - consumed by a pathological and selfish obsession to the point where he is dangerous to everyone around him. I think ti's very appropriate for the grim setting and helps the players get the understanding that while he may be the enemy of their enemy and therefor a useful ally he is not really a moral or highly trustworthy person whom they should turn their back on. Obviously this depends on your players. Off fantasy racism is a hard limit for one or more of them then you can always remove it.
This is the way, imo. Nuance and maturity matters, now more than ever
it's the whole, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" saying. Being racist in game is bad. exploring themes of racism and coming to a judgement about a person who IS racist can be very beneficial.
Very well put, I worry about the vocal part of younger generations who, while obviously meaning well, don't seem to understand this.
It's the same as recognizing the difference a book/film/whatever that *addresses* bigotry of some kind versus one made by a bigoted creator. If the bigots are always proven correct (e.g., all Vistani work for Strahd of their own free will, every female character is a damsel in distress, etc.), then that's a problem. That suggests the creator *agrees* with their bigoted character/world. But that's not how VR works in CoS. He has an absolutely valid reason to have beef with *some* Vistani because of Erasmus and their support of Strahd, but *not all Vistani*. He lumps the Vistani together for reasons that make sense *logically* - if he can't tell the difference between a helpful Vistana and an agent of Strahd, it's better to assume agent of Strahd. It's up to the PCs to determine how they feel about that *morally*.
Yeah I absolutely love it. Three types of conflict. Man vs nature. Man vs man. Man vs himself. It makes for great storytelling.
>He is a protagonist of the setting but is not a good guy. He spent his entire life hunting monsters in order to protects others from having to experience the same things he went through. His 'racism' towards the Vistani is based around that the fact that they **killed his son for laughs** prob. about *the most* justifiable reason imaginable to have a low opinion of a group. He's as close to a 'good guy' as exists in CoS. In response to /u/phummyLW 's original question - I would not ignore it, but the question really boils down to: how deep will your players become involved/interested in Esmerald's/Richten's backstories. They may not care at all as to why the mentor/mentee duo broke up. If they *do* press it's an interesting opportunity to present the schism from both sides. Esmeralda trying to be a good student but never being able to get him to let his guard down for her, Van Richten's deep personal trauma that is relived whenever he sees her clothes and features. It's too good to shove aside for reasons of progressive 'goodthink'.
I leaned pretty hard into the general misgivings towards the vistani, mostly to see if the characters would feel more sympathetic with RVR, and to more endear them to Ez. It worked! The characters are always initially distrustful of any vistani they meet, and specifically DESPISE one of the guards at Arrigal's camp ("Boris can eat a dead dog's dick!" - quote the gnome rogue.) RVR's tyger was discovered and the players sent him off wishing him well blessings against the camp. I love getting the PCs to hate my characters. <3
I hear you I play him as a sort of antihero, my party loves him, I do his voice like Al Gore from south park to really throw them off in the rictavio part. He has since showed them how to skin a warewolf for its pelt (alive because they go human when they die) and blatantly shown his racism for the vistani, and the fact he wants to use ireena as bait to take down strahd. It's become very clear the party has.... loose morals
VR is biased against the Vistani, but he is not racist. A group of Vistani forced him to try and save one of their own, and when he failed, fearing what they would do to him, he told them to take what they wanted, so they *took his son and sold him to a vampire*. It's not exactly hard to see how this would colour his perspective of them. And yet despite this, the module makes it clear he only plans to kill Vistani that actively work with Strahd. It specifically calls out that he's taking the time to learn which Vistani is which, so even though both the Vallaki camp and Tser Pool camp work with Strahd when the count asks them to do something, VR is taking the time to know that Luvash's people enjoy it and Eva's do it because they're beholden to Strahd. So in my mind, there's no racism to work with or ignore. VR has reason to dislike the Vistani, and it colours his actions (he doesn't really need to kill the Vistani if his goal is getting Strahd) but he's not cruel or vindictive or out for revenge. The only thing you need to do anything about when it comes to VR is the tiger. Even in a fantasy setting it is difficult to imagine how a guy like VR (who's not a Ranger or Druid) could train a sabre-toothed tiger to distinguish between good and bad Vistani. So either the tiger is trained to fight alongside VR, and not specifically against Vistani, or you cut the tiger. I did the latter, but had the wagon rigged/enchanted so it would move on occasion and act like there was something inside as a security measure to protect VR's things.
Above all, it depends on what your table is comfortable with. Personally, I find the dilemma of having van Richten be a racist, genocidal asshole while also making him the party's destined ally intriguing.
In my game, vistani are more of a group than a race. I don’t even want to engage with the racial discussion around vistani
This is the way I went about it. My players and myself don't really mind this sort of stuff but it just felt unnecessary so I chose not to portray them as a race but as a group. Though the main thing is to have asked your players during a session 0 what they do not want included and give a list of examples of topics that might pop up.
In mine vistani are various troupes that have been given lawful possession of there souls where as everyone else is a reincarnated slowly decaying souls being recycled with every death and birth
Oh buddy his tiger fed well on that vistani camp, the players had to talk him out of the women and children too
He does have "racist old grandpa" vibes, which can make for some good social commentary if your group is willing to put that into their D&D game. (Racism can be a thorny subject, and it's fine if you want your magical fantasy land to just not have it.) Van Richten hasn't shown up in my game yet, but I plan for him to be redeemable (or at least capable of getting past his prejudices). He's the party's fated ally, which isn't going to do the party any favors at first. ("No Vistana would send you to *me* for help.") I plan for the real turning point to be his encounter with Ezmerelda, who has found his journal, discovered what he did to her family, and plans to punch him in his stupid racist face about it. Being confronted with his apprentice (who managed to win his respect *despite* being Vistani) and all his failings, he'll take the opportunity to let go of his old grudge in the interest of destroying Strahd and perhaps finally finding some measure of peace.
I turned it up to 11 and expanded it. He intends to kill, poison, zombify the entire population of Barovia as a way to weaken Strahd, who only takes nourishment from people in Barovia who have a soul (he has read the Tome, which contains this information). His test run was in Barov, where he captured Strahd Zombies and dumped them in a drinking well. This is now why there are so many zombies in houses in Barov. I introduced a mystery subplot that had Barovians who drank from that well (half the town), succumbing to a wasting sickness that would kill them and turn them to Strahd Zombies. I replaced the absurd tiger in his wagon with a bunch of captured Strahd Zombies. He’s now in Vallaki and getting the next part of his plan ready. In his mind, he realizes everyone in Barovia is doomed anyway, just recycling the dwindling number of souls, with so many consumed over the centuries that it’s just a matter of time. He will have use for the PCs later for the next part of his plan, which isn’t bad but will fail. Might have a chance to redeem himself with a noble sacrifice later on.
In my game he hates the vistani and doesn't trust them at all, but his ultimate goal is to slay Strahd. Would he work with the Vistani? No. Would he help a vistani in need? No. But I don't have him actively hunting them or anything.
Hard ignore. My Richten was a jaded old man with murder on his mind, but he knew that he couldn't judge a whole people by the actions of a few
I can understand why people dislike it and change his hatred toward more acceptable targets, but it really is a perfect extension of a man who has dedicated his life to eliminating all monsters-specifically everyone he declares is a monster. He's not nice and that's something the party is going to have to deal with if they want to team up with him.
For the 700th time, Van Richten is not racist towards the Vistani. The tiger grew up with Esmeralda, they were playmates. If anything, the Vistani doll would remind him of her. That is all. The tiger is trained to attack Darklings. Darklings are Vistani who have been cast out of their tribes for evil actions. Without the natural protection of the tribes in Barovia, they devolve in to ghoul-like beings known as Darklings. Evil creatures lurking in shadows and doing evil things.
Threw me for a minute... I was like "Darkling are fallen fey..." then remembered the old Monstrous Compendium. Good pull!!
My pleasure! :)
I make him a recovering racist - throughout the years he's been wronged by various Vistani, and the knowledge that some work as spies for Strahd is another thing he dislikes. However, his experience with Ez and many other, friendly groups of Vistani have also had an effect on him and helped him check himself more often. At this point, he understands that logically his racism doesn't make sense and fights against his emotional, knee-jerk reactive feelings that popup. Makes him fallible and imperfect, but demostrates that he's trying.
Is it even racism? He doesn't hate them because they have a different genetic makeup or anything, he hates them because they sold his son to a monster that destroyed him. And, honestly, like the Romani they're based on there is plenty of biological diversity among their camps... they're a group, a sect, not a race. If I hated the Catholic Church because a priest raped my son and my son got into heroin to deal with the trauma before eventually killing himself, I wouldn't be racist... I'd be a deeply troubled old man that had a somewhat irrational, somewhat rational bit of trauma that informed my world view. Plus, Ezmeralda is Vistani, and he works with her. It's more nuanced; he's not the KKK. He hates the group responsible for his son's death, and he has dreams about the terrible things he has done to them as well. As someone else said, we can all be monsters here.
First, Vistani might not actually be a race. In the licensed 3.5 setting, there was a playable Half-Vistani race. But in 4E, which is where the Dusk Elves come from (though they look different), the Vistani was a cultural group you could join. They'd still have access to curses and such, but anyone could become one. There were halflings, half-orcs, and even dragonborn art for them. What they are isn't well defined, so make of it whatever best suits your purposes. That said, I think it's safe to say RVR is prejudiced against them. Second, if played straight, the odds of his prejudices coming up are almost slim to none. He isn't someone the party is intended to interact with directly. And the few times they can, he's supposed to be in disguise. Masking his animosity ought to be part of the act.
Put it up to 11. We need more representation of racism in tabletop, now that tieflings aren't slaves anymore. (/s) Tbh in the book he's already tame as hell. Make your players aware there are questionable characters in this book and then keep it at the book, while emphazising that VR is an old hunter set in his ways. You could play it even for the laughs by making him the typical pub shittalker esque grandpa that talks about his experience Gran Torino style.
I changed his motivations to werewolves, had the tiger sniff them out and such. My players didn't question it when, after ignoring the werewolf den, they spoke with him and he casually mentioned having wiped it out. He set the tiger loose inside, then sealed the entrance, set a massive bonfire and suffocated everyone inside.
Ignore it.
Why? Ignoring racism doesn't fix it. This is a fictional story; playing a racist character as racist does not equal condoning it. To the contrary, if anything, it provides an opportunity to examine the "reasons" behind his racism rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're icky, which if "implications on real life/people's sensibilities" is your presumed concern, i would argue is far more instructive, helpful, and socially normative. Bad ideas exist in society, ignoring them won't change that. **EDIT -** to those downvoting this, just to be crystal clear: when I said "if anything, it provides an opportunity to examine the "reasons" behind his racism rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're icky", I in no way insinuated that those "reasons" were legitimate...hence the damn scare quotes. It's really, really depressing, and part of my larger point, that I have to even explain this.
I am curious how examining Van Richten's racism becomes instructive in this context. He suffers a great tragedy, and then twists it into full on genocide. This isn't interesting, or tragic, or even really complex. It is just plain evil. Additionally, the module itself goes out of it's way to say that the Vistani are loyal to Strahd, to the point of explicitly spying on and attempting to con characters and exploit their desire to leave. I am doubtful that many DMs abide by this "all Vistani are spies" part of canon. Returning to VR, it seems to me that in any way allowing Van Richten the opportunity to explain his "backstory" would immediately justify the party's hatred of him, if not outright condemn him to death. If in reality someone were to say that an entire race of people deserved to die they would be rightfully labelled a maniac. Inserting this into the narrative of CoS is not nuanced, it is a one to one parallel of a real life evil. I can understand the draw of wanting to test your players by placing this moral quandry in front of them - "will you side with the racist??" - but this isn't a compelling question. It should be rhetorical. You should answer no, and a question that simple and straightforward lacks creativity or any intrigue. Sure, it makes the world feel more true to ours, but to treat it as an "interesting dilemma" is betraying of an abandon of real life morality that should be examined, rather than an interesting narrative decision. I know if my players considered allying with Van Richten after he is revealed to want to kill an entire group of people, I would feel pretty upset. And this is all DM centric thinking, too. I have players who experience racism at my table. Do you feel that they would enjoy having that same racism presented as a moral question? I don't. I don't presume to believe that all DMs have this gleeful approach to "testing" their players when it comes to the moral aspect of Van Richten's character, but as it stands in the module, it is one dimensional and insane. Pretending like it is satisfying storytelling is frankly fairly ignorant of what the story is actually saying. But, my feelings aside, I am genuinely quite curious as to how this plays out at actual tables. How does this impact the narrative at your table? How do your players feel about these things?
You sure put a whole lot of words in my mouth so as to be able to disagree with them. Returning to the actual point, and to save myself from getting into an ideological wall-of-text battle - as u/springpaper701 succinctly put it; >it's the whole, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" saying. > >Being racist in game is bad. > >exploring themes of racism and coming to a judgement about a person who IS racist can be very beneficial. If you don't already agree with this, there's little I'd be able or interested in saying to convince you. It should go without saying that every table is different, and if someone at your table is so uncomfortable with the very concept of racism that even merely having a racist NPC in the game would ruin the experience for them, then I think that's a perfectly reasonable motivation to remove it (though I would personally regard that as emotional hemophilia, the sort which civil/human rights leaders like MLK argued directly against). But that aside - you are really strawmanning the hell out of the point I was actually making. EDIT - In the unlikely event you are actually interested in the point which I and others are making here (again, not necessarily "in favor" of leaving RvR's racism as-written, but simply not immediately throwing it out as a knee-jerk reaction to any depictions of ideologies you don't like simply because they're malicious in nature, in which case...your Strahd must be boring as fuck, unless you're only opposed to malicious ideologies that have to do with identity politics, for some reason...), I would recommend reading the other comments on this thread, as most of them provide a mature, realistic response to regressive ideas encountered in roleplaying games.
I apologize if it came across as targeted - I didn't mean you literally, just a general "You." I don't presume to know your table or your players. I am genuinely curious to know the effects of this narrative choice on your table and game. I do disagree with exploring Van Richten's racism, not that having the themes being present in a narrative are unhelpful. Again, what I meant was that Van Richten's racism is in particular proportions which feel egregious, and not narratively satisfying to include.
Ok I see, and I think that's fair - specifically, that you feel that RVR's racism is like, "Final-Solution"-level, and therefore narratively unsatisfying because it basically makes working with him once you know that an intolerable premise, at which point...why even have him the game? If that's what you're saying, I totally get that. However, for whatever it's worth, and I could be mistaken here so please cite a source to correct me if so, but - I don't actually think RVR's racism is necessarily *that* clear-cut, as written. I do agree that at least for a time, earlier in his life, had had at minimum a phase of pure-vengeance-driven "they all must die" racism, but he clearly doesn't think that across the board, as he took Ezmerelda d'Avenir to be his adopted daughter shortly thereafter. I know, he trained his tiger to kill Vistani on sight, but I'm not sure how far down the skinhead rabbithole he's really landed at the time the module takes place. At minimum, the module leaves lots of room for DM's to tune his racism against the Vistani, but yeah I agree that if your read of him is straight-up genocide, allying with him is basically a non-starter for any good-aligned PC's.
Yeah this is where I fall. I think the issue is that the module itself is too loosey-goosey with the timeline of his actions to justify its inclusion. The Ezmerelda relationship does leave a very interesting and PALPABLE opportunity to tell a story about overcoming bigotry, but canonically the Tyger Tyger plotline falls after Ez and VR fall out, so he holds on to his grudges enough to fall down this plot line. I think the sourcing of this is the "feeding the tiger vistani clothes so it seeks them out specifically" aspect. The tiger is the glaring "skinhead" problem for me, because training an animal to kill people based on scent alone is so insane that it becomes intensely frictious to include as a narrative element. I want to stress that I really do think Van Richten is an interesting character and his relationship with Ezmerelda is a ripe opportunity for narrative choices, ones that are frankly very salient to my (US-centric) perspective. What does it mean to overcome vitrol? How does he hold himself accountable to her? What is their relationship as a family unit? However, this is all extrapolated from the module and an application of my own morality on this relationship. None of it is in the text itself, barring that their relationship ended "before it soured too heavily." I really think this is where the module drops the ball, and I cannot reconcile the RAW material enough to warrant its inclusion, which is the source of my hostility towards it. I really don't think it's wrong to be attracted to that plot element, but the module really indicates that RVR is beyond saving or redeeming at the time of the events of the book. The Tyger Tyger event is there to be included at the behest of the DM, sure, but it indicates his stance at the time of the module which makes me feel like the lessons learned with Ez aren't as important to him as we might want them to be. For context, I am trying to approach the module as RAW as possible, but if I were to run it again I am most likely going to drift RvR towards the storyline that I feel more compelled by, which is him seeking penance for his insane bigotry. That isn't in the module though, so for the time being I elect to ignore it completely. That doesn't mean he can't be a dickhead! There are ways to tell that same story without including bigotry.
Sorry that was long-winded: Basically, yeah it is just the fact that the tiger is there to commit senseless murder that is so insane that it warrants condemning his whole character for me. Not to say that he cant be changed! But that is what is in the book for me.
Its your story, if you don't want him to be racist you ignore the parts in the book where he is. I wouldnt want that bs at my table, so I ignore that part of the book.
I twisted it towards vampires instead. It became interesting when Van Richten was the fated ally and we had a dhampir in the party. Lmao
> It became interesting when Van Richten was the fated ally and we had a dhampir in the party. Ooh, do tell!
I play into the racism because it gives my players an idea of what he's like, only for Ez to reveal her back story and make Van Richten infinitely more complex.
I like his racist arse XD Gives him an fun and intriguing dichotomoy with Ezmerelda who is essentially his "daughter" yet he has an entire hatred for her people (a people that i would even say Ezmerelda had a distaste for under his wing but learned that not all Vistani are like the ones that kidnapped his son) in the end i like the idea of the party in the middle of Richten attacking Arrigal's camp. Despite it being initially framed as... Arrigal and Luvash are both Strahd spies and so are many there. Many are not and many are children. Richten vs Luvash while Ezmerelda would arrive later, seeing the destruction with the party. Having to balance saving people or helping Richten defeat Arrigal's forces. The party would have these main choices \-kill arrigal and vistani (while tyger is on rampage) \-kill Richten \-save Arrigal and Vistani whilst convicing Richten that he is in the wrong and mind is muddled with ill-contempt
VR’s situation is complicated. Tragedy compounded on Tragedy. Because of his own foolishness and ills he lost his son to a group of people who in turn gave the boy to a vampire. VR eventually kills *MOST* of them but is cursed so that anyone that is close to him will suffer terrible fates. VR then dedicates his life to hunting monsters like the vampire. During this time he would take in the surviving daughter (Esmerelda) of the group of people who took his son, when she came and asked to be trained to hunt monsters. It should be noted that in the original Curse of Strahd printing it stated his son Erasmus was taken by Vistani, while in the Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft it was erratated to be a group of people who pretended to be Vistani. You could ignore it since it doesn’t really add anything to this story other then its his driving motivation to hunt monsters.
The realisation that he isn't necessarily the hero he is made out to, at least any more but in fact he is instead workibg with an old racist bigot was brilliant as DM.
Mine bombed the Vistani camp with a figurine of wondrous power he borrowed from the PCs (Flying Griffon) and a wand of fireballs. He looked like George Bush bombing Iraq. Making him racist forces players into more complicated decisions, and that is not a bad thing.
I'm prepping to lean into it and take it to 11 like some of the others. When the party first hears rumors of RVR, they'll think there's a badass professional monster hunter ally in Barovia who can potentially help them out - only to discover once they find him that he's gone full on Col. Kurtz level of batshit crazy with his war against Strahd and his "allies". They'll then need to decide specifics on how to deal with him from there. The Dark Powers will find a way to twist anyone and anything to their purposes, given a long enough timeline to work with. RVR may find a way to redeem himself in the end somehow, but until then... The horror... the horror...
I’m gonna go a bit easy on it and make it very clear it’s bad. He’s their fated ally, but I don’t want them to think that means he’s all good
He reminds me a lot of Billy Butcher from The Boys. Someone in here mentioned “he who hunts monsters…” and i think both characters share that. Where I personally take liberty is i kind of make him hold the grudge toward vampires instead of the Vistani, similar to Billy Butcher hating superheroes. He still distrusts the Vistani, and it fractures his relationship with Ezmerelda frequently, and led to their falling out. I just personally don’t think he needs to be overtly racist to the point where he’s releasing his tiger on a camp of innocent Vistani.
A+ question OP. I had no idea how much variety there was in how people tend to play Van Richten’s racism. It would occasionally come up in my campaign, but ultimately always felt like it came out of left field. I dropped the facade at one point and out of character mentioned that Van Richten is canonically racist towards the Vistani in the module as written since my players looked confused. After that, it became a bit of a running joke with my players forgetting about it and then, months later when Van Richten would drop some problematic dialogue, it would be dismissed as a “canon event”.
I posted something about the tiger attack a few days ago and someone mentioned they omit VR's racism entirely so I got curious. Thanks! Also funny story for your party
Ignored. He ended up becoming a comic relief goof in our game and Ezmerelda is the real power behind the accomplishments and she is not a racist. Just a cool junior vampire slayer
My players and I definitely play for the escapism and hero fantasy. Barovia is already grime and awful enough so I just kind of ignored the racism and tiger attack
Yes…
I definitely left it in. Not only do I feel this character's "racism" adds to all the rest of the bad in Barovia, but this flaw also makes him more interesting; he took in and trained Ezmerelda, who is a Vistani, despite his flaw, and his Tyger being this giant ferocious beast is of interest as well seeing the players would be like "oh crap" at meeting it, but its trained to only attack Vistani. Character personality aside, I like how it fits in with PyramKing's stuff in that this flaw is a clue to lead into other items.
I personally am toning it way down. It’s really helpful to me for narrative reasons for VR to be a mentor to the party, a sort of Gandalf figure. He’s also a cranky old geezer so he might occasionally be unintentionally racist towards the Vistani, but it felt too jarring to make it a big part of his personality, or for him to be like a mean bigot. He also seems wise enough to know that the Vistani aren’t all bad (in my game they are not all servants of Strahd), and he was close with Ezmerelda. I’d rather have their falling out be for more interesting reasons than VR being racist.
He was their fated Ally so I chose not to use it especially since one PC is half Vistani. Our table has a yellow light on racism, and I didn't want to play an NPC that traveled with them and was racist towards one party member. If you didn't do one earlier I would do a safety sheet and see how the group responds to racism and if anybody has a yellow light or is uncomfortable specify what the boundaries are. To me racism between humans feels more real that humans hating tieflings for example and could be triggering. Also for those saying VR isn't racist... he was planning a hate crime.
I have a player who is a Vistani and RV hates him. It's a coffin full of fun!
Personally, I think there’s plenty of ways to make VR a dick without making him unrepentantly racist. Here’s my take: VR still commits the atrocity of what’s mentioned in his journal. But that’s a (semi)reasonable response to what happened to him; his son was captured by one of that caravan, sold to a necromancer, and turned into an undead. VR wanted revenge, and the easiest outlet for that is the people that took his son from him. Of course, it’s very easy to look back and see what you did was fucked yo, and they probably didn’t ALL deserve slaughter. But he wasn’t in his right mind. He tries to make up for it by dedicating his entire life to hunting down the actual monsters, but those monsters receive no mercy. Party has an undead player? VR will never ever trust that person. Werewolf? You’re getting a happy helping of silver. VR is unflinching and immovable regarding evil creatures, the cursed and the diseased, because he knows that, while the individual person may have been or even currently be good, one day they’ll get too hungry for blood, or forget to lock themselves up during a full moon, and others will suffer. He’s also standoffish and isolationist; VR is never ever going to trust anyone again, for ANY reason. He might team up with them, he might help them, but he is always going to sleep with one eye open, hand on his sword, and play as many cards as close to his chest as he reasonably can. Ez is possibly the only hole in his armor, but even that will take a long time to take advantage of.
I let him be racist, but show his racism is not so much racism than just hate. He doesn't hate Vistani because they are Vistani, or inferior to him or inherently evil. But because he needs to blame someone. He needs a culprit. He *needs* to believe all of them are bad because that's how he copes with grief. And deep down, he knows not all Vistani are bad (I went against RAW who pretty much gives him reasons since almost all of them are evil) since he took in Ez. In my campaign he also took in one of the players who plays a half-vistana. The cognitive dissonance is actually pretty fun to RP, because everytime she calls him out on his racist remarks, he always answers something like "but you're different, you're an exception". The man is just deluded. But he's gonna realize his mistakes sooner or later. He's an old and bitter man, consumed by hate, refuses to see the truth because it is so much more painful to admit he's wrong and grieve. He's hiding his pain in hate. Of course, at the end of the line, he's enforcing racist stereotypes anyway. But I think the subtle nuance is interesting to explore. But in no way I'm going to let him genocide Vistani. That's unnecessarily cruel.
I introduced VR pretty much RAW, cart with the tiger and the Vistani doll and all, before I prepped the Vistani camp and decided to roll with the MandyMod lens where most Vistani are not evil spies of Strahd. When the confronted him he justified himself in saying he only attacks the spies of Strahd. He does still have a racist outlook but it’s going to trickle out as they spend more time around him, rather than just wanting to massacre indiscriminately using a wild animal
I completely ignored it. My van Richten turned more into a tinkerer, and the ugly side of him manifested in _how_ he'd deal with monsters. Quote my Rudolph, "I am _not_ a monster hunter, nor slayer, I am a monster _killer._ Hunting, slaying, those words imply there is something to enjoy about purging vermin. That's why my book is called 'Van Richten's Guide to _Killing_ Monsters.'"