Dark and Gritty tips

[Old Bear]

Winning in Hyboria is about survival and personal aggrandisemnt, not saving the village from orcs. If you are saving a tauran village from the Picts it's because you are white, they are white and you hate Picts. On the other hand, if you are Picts...

While possibly true in a dark game, its phrased as a generalisation, and as a generalisation it is absolutely false. Conan is a long way from a saint, but the thing that lifts him above the other formidable people he meets is exactly that he saves the village from Orcs. Read Scarlet Citadel for the best example.

Conan isn't Hyboria. And nobody gets to play him anyway. And as for his saving things, there's plenty of examples of Conan's career as a pirate and buccanneer that certainly don't suggest he's overly moral.

 

[kintire]

Conan isn't Hyboria. And nobody gets to play him anyway.

He is the exemplar hero, and the protagonist of the books. he also becomes King of the most powerful nation in the world. That is enough to get him included in any blanket statements about winning in Hyboria!

there's plenty of examples of Conan's career as a pirate and buccanneer that certainly don't suggest he's overly moral.

He certainly isn't the classic white hatted hero, and he certainly has a very chequered past. However, when the chips are down and, say, the greatest treasure of the Hyborian Age is falling one way, an innocent girl is falling the other and he only has time to grab one, its Muriela that gets rescued, and the Teeth of Gwahlur that go splash.

The Hyborian Age doesn't have people going round wearing robes colour coded to their alignment, but that doesn't mean there is no moral aspect to the tales. There is a very strong moral aspect to the tales: in fact its a central plank of many of them. Conan isn't always firmly on the right side, but he ends up there.

Of course, the right side doesn't necessarily win. In fact, it loses more often than not. You can certainly tell a tale in Hyboria with the PCs firmly adopting the winning side and joining the faceless mass of brutes of which the world has no shortage. But that isn't the only way, and it certainly isn't what "winning is all about".

 

[Old Bear]

The very fact that Conan is so unusual means you CANNOT cite him as an example of success. Not every player will become a king. Aiming to become a king is, however, the very epitome of self-agrandisement.

As for saving women, that's because he's Hyboria's number 1 shagger. It seems he values bonking above gold, so his choice is understandable. He's also a lightly racist slaver, if one scratches at the surface of Howard's background. Not exactly appealing characteristics for the modern treehugger.

 

[Demetrio]

Conan could have taken the easy (and far more sexually interesting doubtless) way in Slithering Shadow but he chose to stick with the frankly irritating Natala rather than hook up with the far more intriguing Thalis.

'He will cut your throat,' answered Natala with conviction, knowing Conan better than Thalis did.

He's no paladin but he does have a sense of honour. And look at The Vale of Lost Women - he doesn't ravish Livia despite her bargain.

And he's not the only Hyborian with morals... Amalric in Drums of Tombalku shows the same kind of nobility.

Is Hyboria a dark world with plenty of moral corruption? Yes. Are the majority of its inhabitants amoral/immoral? Well maybe. But not all of them are by any means. And in fact the likes of Trocero, Balthus and so on seem to be fundementally pretty decent men.

 

[kintire]

The very fact that Conan is so unusual means you CANNOT cite him as an example of success. Not every player will become a king. Aiming to become a king is, however, the very epitome of self-agrandisement.

Have you actually read Scarlet citadel? Howard points exactly that out... and comments that Conan has become a better man than even he himself believed

As for saving women, that's because he's Hyboria's number 1 shagger. It seems he values bonking above gold, so his choice is understandable.

With the greatest possible respect, that is utter rubbish. Conan could buy half the girls of Hyboria with a tenth of the teeth of Gwahlur... and as Demetrio points out this isn't the only time he makes such a choice.

He's also a lightly racist slaver, if one scratches at the surface of Howard's background.

mmhmm.

Fired to desperation by that word, the most dread to all galleymen, the sailors charged on to the bridge from both ends. But with a lion-like bound Conan left the bridge and hit like a cat on his feet on the runway between the benches.

"Death to the masters!" he thundered, and his ax rose and fell crashingly full on a shackle-chain, severing it like matchwood. In an instant a shrieking slave was free, splintering his oar for a bludgeon. Men were racing frantically along the bridge above, and all hell and bedlam broke loose on the Venturer. Conan's ax rose and fell without pause, and with every stroke a frothing, screaming black giant broke free, mad with hate and the fury of freedom and vengeance.

Sailors leaping down into the waist to grapple or smite at the naked white giant hewing like one possessed at the shackles, found themselves dragged down by hands of slaves yet unfreed, while others, their broken chains whipping and snapping about their limbs, came up out of the waist like a blind, black torrent, screaming like fiends, smiting with broken oars and pieces of iron, tearing and rending with talons and teeth. In the midst of the melee the slaves in the pen broke down the walls and came surging up on the decks, and with fifty blacks freed of their benches Conan abandoned his iron-hewing and bounded up on the bridge to add his notched ax to the bludgeons of his partizans.

Then it was massacre. The Argosseans were strong, sturdy, fearless like all their race, trained in the brutal school of the sea. But they could not stand against these maddened giants, led by the tigerish barbarian. Blows and abuse and hellish suffering were avenged in one red gust of fury that raged like a typhoon from one end of the ship to the other, and when it had blown itself out, but one white man lived aboard the Venturer, and that was the blood-stained giant about whom the chanting blacks thronged to cast themselves prostrate on the bloody deck and beat their heads against the boards in an ecstasy of hero-worship.

Conan, his mighty chest heaving and glistening with sweat, the red ax gripped in his blood-smeared hand, glared about him as the first of men might have glared in some primordial dawn, and shook back his black mane. In that moment he was not king of Aquilonia; he was again lord of the black corsairs, who had hacked his way to lordship through flame and blood.

"Amra! Amra!" chanted the delirious blacks, those who were left to chant. "The Lion has returned! Now will the Stygians howl like dogs in the night, and the black dogs of Kush will howl! Now will villages burst in flames and ships founder! Aie, there will be wailing of women and the thunder of the spears!"

"Cease this yammering, dogs!" Conan roared in a voice that drowned the clap of the sail in the wind. "Ten of you go below and free the oarsmen who are yet chained. The rest of you man the sweeps and bend to oars and halyards. Crom's devils, don't you see we've drifted inshore during the fight? Do you want to run aground and be retaken by the Argosseans? Throw these carcasses overboard. Jump to it, you rogues, or I'll notch your hides for you!"

With shouts and laughter and wild singing they leaped to do his commands. The corpses, white and black, were hurled overboard, where triangular fins were already cutting the water.

Conan stood on the poop, frowning down at the black men who watched him expectantly. His heavy brown arms were folded, his black hair, grown long in his wanderings, blew in the wind. A wilder and more barbaric figure never trod the bridge of a ship, and in this ferocious corsair few of the courtiers of Aquilonia would have recognized their king.

"There's food in the hold!" he roared. "Weapons in plenty for you, for this ship carried blades and harness to the Shemites who dwell along the coast. There are enough of us to work ship, aye, and to fight! You rowed in chains for the Argossean dogs: will you row as free men for Amra?"

"Aye!" they roared. "We are thy children! Lead us where you will!"

"Then fall to and clean out that waist," he commanded. "Free men don't labor in such fifth.

Not exactly appealing characteristics for the modern treehugger.

your resort to the false dilemma fallacy is noted. Conan is, of course, neither a 21st century New man nor a total amoral swine... these being not your only options!

 

[Demetrio]

To my mind, the darkness in Howard's stories comes less from Conan himself(though he has his darker side) and more from the fact that bad things happen to innocents and the fact that powerful men can indulge in brutality on a whim with little threat of retribution. Unless of course Conan is in the vicinity... or Amalric of course.

Conan seldom prevents some nastiness occuring because he's not present - the whipping of the girl in The Black Stranger, the whipping of Natala in The Slithering Shadow . But he simply does not indulge in unwarranted cruelty himself. In fact Conan frequently feels pity for the weak and helps the helpless, often at financial cost to himself and no stated benefit. (Tower of the Elephant, The Black Stranger).

That's why, in my view, amoral or immoral pcs fit with the setting but moral moral (if rough and violent) pcs are perhaps a better choice. Because their 'good deeds' stand in stark contrast to the unpleasantries of the villains. If your pcs would have raped Belesa and then sold her and Tina into slavery then they are contributing to the general bleak, dark tone and that's fine (I mean it's horrible, but it is after all only make-believe). But such 'expected' acts won't make them stand out. Giving Belesa a handful of rubies and setting her and the child free on a safe shore - now that's abnormal and memorable. And dark needs some light to twist it into ghastly shadows.

Who remembers a bunch of corrupt scum who blend into the rest of the corrupt scum, and are totally interchangeable with any other venal, spineless villain? Dark Conan is about facing the fact that the world is a dark and deadly place, and spitting that fact in the face

I now see Kintire said basically the same thing higher up the thread...

 

[Style]

"Conan was the damnedest bastard there ever was." - Robert E. Howard

 

[Axerules]

Yes Style, he said it to Novalyne Price.

Also, in a letter to his friend Tevis Clyde Smith, circa December of 1932:

"My heroes grow more bastardly as the years pass. One of my latest sales concluded with a sexual intercourse instead of the usual slaughter. My sword-wielder grabbed the princess – already considerably stripped by the villing [sic] – and smacked her down on the altar of the forgotten gods, while battle and massacre roared outside, and through the dusk the remains of the villing, nailed to the wall by the hero, regarded the pastime sardonically. I don’t know how the readers will like it. I’ll bet some of them will. The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”

Bold mine. REH refers to Black Colossus.

Patrice Louinet thinks that Conan's kingship had some "Arthurian" overtones in THotD. It seems pretty obvious that the Cimmerian changed somewhat when he had to worry about the fate of all Aquilonians and not only his own life to care about.

 

[Demetrio]

But Conan acts in a decidedly un bastard like way considerably before attaining his kingship. Other than Ymir's daughter, I can't think of a single rape and there are many instances of 'chivalrous' actions (please note inverted commas). Howard, I suspect, was merely 'bigging up' Conan's nastiness to his pal.

 

[Axerules]

To make his character more "acceptable", Conan's most villainous acts are not in the stories but are only alluded to/hinted by the author: it's a technique.
The Cimmerian was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer", as well as a pirate. He once earned the nickname of "Conan the throat-slitter".
Let's take one example: his words at the end of Devil in Iron. "I'll burn Khawarizm for a torch to light your way to my tent."
Do we actually SEE Conan burning a city? No. Do you think he fulfilled his promise? The reader that I am believe he did.
BTW, do we SEE Conan looting villages with Bêlit when they terrorized the people of the Black Coast? Do we SEE the Cimmerian pillaging caravans when he's a Kozaki chief?
Meanwhile, are we supposed to believe that he did manage to be successful (or at least, to last) in those criminal endeavours without ever harming innocent people? Seriously? :roll:

I could provide several other examples: REH made it pretty clear that Conan was a bad-a$$ and a criminal during a significant part of his life, certainly not a nice guy (though he had a kind of rough code of honor). REH also choose to not include his 'worst' moments in the stories, while constantly referring to his amoral deeds. It's a trick which can lead us to have sympathy for him. I don't think we could have such kind of feelings if we had "seen" him doing those evil acts during the yarns.

 

[Axerules]

"Amra! Amra!" chanted the delirious blacks, those who were left to chant. "The Lion has returned! Now will the Stygians howl like dogs in the night, and the black dogs of Kush will howl! Now will villages burst in flames and ships founder! Aie, there will be wailing of women and the thunder of the spears!"

I kept this quote to prove my point.
We know that Amra burnt villages and was a widow-maker. REH deliberately avoided to show those murders and plunders.

Conan is, of course, neither a 21st century New man nor a total amoral swine...

True, but you're (slightly) stretching his 'goodness' too much, IMHO. I would define Conan during his pre-king period as as "a criminal with a certain kind of honor".

 

[Demetrio]

I don't doubt that Conan's acts in his various 'war chief' guises caused the deaths of innocents. But there's plenty of explicit evidence in Howard's writings that he had a conscience and that he was more inclined to protect the innocent/defenceless than exploit them. Of course as a pirate he attacked merchant ships and so forth. Nobody's claiming he's whiter than white (I hope).

REH deliberately avoided to show those murders and plunders.

Yeah, but he showed others. Like the murder of the man who was teasing Conan in Tower of the Elephant. There's a wealth of difference between Conan's rough and ready approach to violence and the malevolent cruelty and sexual depravity of most of Howard's villains. Conan only resorts to cruelty as 'payment in kind' as far as I can see. Like when he crucified Constantius.

a criminal with a certain kind of honor

You mean like Robin Hood?

But actually, that's it really. It's because he has a code of honour and he lives by it that he's not the amoral swine that some folk like to picture him as, apparently.

 

[Axerules]

I don't doubt that Conan's acts in his various 'war chief' guises caused the deaths of innocents. But there's plenty of explicit evidence in Howard's writings that he had a conscience and that he was more inclined to protect the innocent/defenceless than exploit them. Of course as a pirate he attacked merchant ships and so forth. Nobody's claiming he's whiter than white (I hope).

Quite a selective reading of the stories, Demetrio.
The Cimmerian and Bêlit did not only attack "merchant ships", they also plundered and burnt settlements.
"the black villages shuddered" QotBC "Now will villages burst in flames" THotD
Not really Robin Hood-like, don't you think so?

Conan only resorts to cruelty as 'payment in kind' as far as I can see.

It's flatly wrong. It's true only for some comics or prose pastiches. In one REH story, Conan accepted to work as an assassin.

You mean like Robin Hood?

No. I mean like some movie yakuzas or mobsters.
I don't think your Robin Hood (whatever legend/movie is your reference) could be nicknamed "the Throat-slitter".

But actually, that's it really. It's because he has a code of honour and he lives by it that he's not the amoral swine that some folk like to picture him as, apparently.

So burning cities/settlements is NOT amoral? Your Robin Hood would do it? :roll:
Conan seems to have some honor, but was certainly not as nice as you say before he became a king.

 

[kintire]

Conan was a tribesman at the start of the books, and develops through it. He has a code of honour throughout: but initially it applies mainly to those he considers his tribe, and not to people he doesn't feel any connection to. By the time of scarlet citadel he has expanded his horizons, and I think his rule probably is Arthurian. The original Arthur, not the hollywood version. If it comes to that, his early years are not dissimilar to Robin Hood, who was after all a bandit!

And even in his early years, he wasn't completely amoral. He agreed to assassinate Nabonidus, but Nabonidus was a scum, and he knew it. Khorshemish was a city of Turan, an empire built on brutal conquest and slavery. The cities he plundered as a pirate were in Argos, Zingara and the Black kingdoms: all nations which sponsored their own pirates and profited from their raids.

Most of the people who suffered in these raids would have been innocent, or only indirectly guilty of course. Conan was not a white hatted one dimensional Good Guy by a long shot. But he wasn't an amoral villain either, at any point in his career.

 

[Demetrio]

It's flatly wrong. It's true only for some comics or prose pastiches. In one REH story, Conan accepted to work as an assassin.

I've never read any of the comics. And not too many pastiches. Why should assassination be necessarily cruel?

If you regard Conan in the same moral light as you do his antagonists, I think you've read a bit selectively yourself...

He has a code of honour throughout: but ... it applies mainly to those he considers his tribe, and not to people he doesn't feel any connection to.

Yes. you play straight with Conan and he plays straight with you is a good rule of thumb. And even if you do twist the deal, so long as you are not doing so malevolently, you'll probably be okay too.

Most of the people who suffered in these raids would have been innocent, or only indirectly guilty of course. Conan was not a white hatted one dimensional Good Guy by a long shot. But he wasn't an amoral villain either, at any point in his career.

Quite.

 

[Hervé]

I tend to agree to Axerules views. For me Conan is a real bad ass and as REH himself stated "My heroes grow more bastardly as the years pass.
We must not forget that the novels were not written in chronologial order and that in first Conan novel written by REH, The Phoenix in the Sword, Conan was already king.

 

[Demetrio]

Conan's a hard man, there's no doubt of that. But he makes far too may fundementally decent choices to be viewed as amoral. He's certainly one of the most honourable characters in Howard's Conan stories, trumped only (possibly) by the likes of Balthus and Amalric. And it's not like everyone in the stories is amoral or even immoral either so he's not merely 'the best of a bad lot'.

 

[Style]

When I finish reading a book, I will frequently look for criticisms/reviews. Well, I recently finished Almuric, and while searching for a review I found this (which is actually a criticism of a criticism of Almuric):

http://www.thecimmerian.com/?p=753

Beyond giving a solid criticism of Almuric, and Howard's work in general, I felt it provided some insight into the dark mood of Howard's writing.

 

[Axerules]

When you read REH's poetry and correspondance (things that were not meant to be published), you find a lot of misanthropic writings.

Invective

There burns in me no honeyed drop of love,
Nor soft compassion for my brother man;
I would indeed humanity possessed
A single throat a keen-edged knife could span.

 

[Axerules]

The most important thing, I guess, is to understand the context in which REH wrote a story or another and to not find some kind of artificial character development which simply is not there. REH was no slouch, so he was consistent with Conan's 'bio' elements from a yarn to another, but it's not with those informations that will help you to predict how he will act in the 'next' story.

Because it all depends of the author's mood.
Red Nails is (among other things) great because Valeria is Novalyne. And BtBR is as good because Balthus is REH and Slaher is Patch. When REH wanted to exalt a 'manly' sexuality, then he creates Black Colossus with his "bastardly/raping" character who screws the heroine on the altar.

Conan was a tribesman at the start of the books, and develops through it. He has a code of honour throughout: but initially it applies mainly to those he considers his tribe, and not to people he doesn't feel any connection to. By the time of scarlet citadel he has expanded his horizons, and I think his rule probably is Arthurian. The original Arthur, not the hollywood version. If it comes to that, his early years are not dissimilar to Robin Hood, who was after all a bandit!

See Hervé's post. It seems to me (and it's also Patrice Louinet's opinion, IIRC) that the Arthurian/old Celtic kinghood overtones became important at the time REH wrote The Hour of the Dragon. Years after Phoenix.

And even in his early years, he wasn't completely amoral. He agreed to assassinate Nabonidus, but Nabonidus was a scum, and he knew it.

Being apologetic doesn't change Conan's (a)moral choice.

Khorshemish was a city of Turan, an empire built on brutal conquest and slavery.

What?
A Turanian city?
Aren't you confusing "Khorshemish" with "Khawarizm"?

The cities he plundered as a pirate were in Argos, Zingara and the Black kingdoms: all nations which sponsored their own pirates and profited from their raids. Most of the people who suffered in these raids would have been innocent, or only indirectly guilty of course.

This one and the previous quote block are beyond me. IF you don't think that ALL Blacks/Ku$hites/Argosseans/Zingarans "deserved it"....
WHY those apologetic words?
I don't know for others, but I have a hard time with "guilt by association". I guess that this forum is not the best place to talk about it, so I'll stop here.

BTW, where did you find out that Ku$hites were known for being pirates? Southern Islanders, yes, but this habit doesn't extend to all Black kingdoms, if my memory is correct.

Why should assassination be necessarily cruel?

I don't think I used the word "cruel". If you don't believe that accepting to commit a cold-blooded murder is "amoral", it's not worth discussing the character's morality anymore.

Conan was not a white hatted one dimensional Good Guy by a long shot. But he wasn't an amoral villain either, at any point in his career.

Not totally amoral, perhaps, but a true bastard from time to time.
I agree that he wasn't one dimensional.
True, he took care of his retainers and was willing to put his life in danger for them, even be it only for his sex-slave. A strong pack-leader/"Alpha-male"/tribal mentality. And yes, the Cimmerian was always portrayed as someone couragous. Later, when REH writes THotD, he adds Arthurian elements to Conan's kingship.
As the author told it, he was also a mean bastard sometimes...