To divert (however briefly) from the argument above, enthralled as I am by the verbal fencing (I especially enjoyed the French aside in the last post),
Thus encouraged, I shall carry on. I am always worried at the point at which only a couple of people are banging on about something that everyone else is fed up with it!
I think 'winning' as a player comes from following your character's innate morality (or lack thereof), not via survival or aggrandisment. Conan frequently puts himself in mortal danger when he could easily just cut and run and while he does seek personal aggrandisment, he's actually quite quick to forego both worldly wealth and many of the varied positions of power he attains (until he gains the Aquilonian throne). He 'wins' by being Conan and steadfastly following his Barbaric Code of Honour (and yes, that involves burning and killing as well as rescuing damsels and giving them fortunes in jewels/restoring their thrones/etc).
I entirely agree, but to be fair to Old Bear, I believe he is arguing not so much about Conan as about the world in general, and has in fact attempted to rule out Conan as an example since he is a special case.
Obviously it helps to survive as a pc but mere survival should not be one's raison d'etre as a pc in most cases I think. One should either have a purpose or (better) a 'code' (not necessarily one of the 'codes of honour' from the game, merely an attitude towards the world that one applies to all ones dealings).
Now I see no real objection to playing completely amoral mercenary pcs should one wish, I just don't think that way of playing will actually enhance a 'dark and gritty' feel.
Again I agree. Part of the impact of a "Dark" world is how it affects those who are struggling to maintain some "lightness" in it. If nobody is, I think the effect is reduced. To lift a concept from Vampire, struggling to maintain your humanity against the tug of the world.
Axerules:
Hervé: ça ne sert à rien. Il VEUT avoir raison, même au prix de tous les mensonges.
You talk about me reading selectivly. I have asked you this over and over, and you've always ducked it. So tell me: Yes, I want to be right. Doesn't everyone? Don't you? Why is my effort to establish that I'm right ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL from your effort to establish that you are?
"Weight" is a poor excuse for your selective reading.
Selective reading? Throughout this thread you have been saying that Conan was amoral. Well, technically I include here your constant efforts to claim I'm a disingenious fanatic for daring to claim he wasn't. Once, two weeks ago, you qualified that by saying that he wasn't TOTALLY amoral, as he did have a kind of pack leader mentality. I didn't, and don't, think that makes much difference. You've argued ever since as if it doesn't.
And after checking my posts in this topic, I've seen that I've used the words "I think", "I believe" or "it seems to me" more than once. Not so much in the passage quoted above, but I was merely approving someone else's take and nuancing it.
More than once? In a five page thread? be still my heart. Lets have a look shall we:
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.
Hmm.. we have a "seems pretty obvious". I'd interpret that as a definite statement, but it does have that "seems" word in. Incidentally, I'd agree with this comment, and it undermines any view of Conan as amoral. An amoral person does NOT have to care about the fate of all Aquilonians, and would see no reason why he should. Unless it affected his chances of staying king, of course, which in this situation it didn't.
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?
Not a qualifier to be seen. And that last sentence looks more than a little sarcastic. It has a :roll: smiley and everything. Tsk: isn't sarcasm only something that disingenious liars do?
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.
A token "I don't think", in aparagraph of assertions. Still, check one.
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.
A bit assertive? with bolding and everything...
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".
We have an IMHO! cool. I don't see it as actually meaning anything. Sentence still looks pretty assertive to me!
for brevity I'll use selected highlights here. Doubtless I will be accused of selective quoting, but it IS a longish thread!
Quite a selective reading of the stories, 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.
Flatly wrong? Not "wrong IMHO"?
I don't think your Robin Hood (whatever legend/movie is your reference) could be nicknamed "the Throat-slitter".
Again, the token "I don't think" doesn't weaken this much!
So burning cities/settlements is NOT amoral? Your Robin Hood would do it?
Conan seems to have some honor, but was certainly not as nice as you say before he became a king.
Ohh, Sarcasm AND a firm statement! the horror!
Red Nails is (among other things) great because Valeria is Novalyne. And BtBR is as good because Balthus is REH and Slaher is Patch.
IYHO, I suppose? you forgot to put it in...
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.
Very humble, that opinion!
As you (IMO wrongly) reaffirmed it. "Conan does have a consistent character development through the works."
REH knew that Conan would become a king, period.
And one last IMO for the record. I say "last", because this is the point where you started kicking off about the fact I wouldn't agree with what you were saying and, ironically, blaming me for being inflexible! Once you had gone down that route, its unreasonable to take your style as normal.
Still, we have a couple of IMHOs and similar, and a whole load of firm assertions which don't look very tenative opinionlike to me, nor do they look any different from my versions!
Continue to argue with your made-up opponent. It's another rethoric trick.
It's the STRAWMAN tactic.
Well, I'm mostly reduced to that, because its been a good while since my actual opponent came forward with any arguments. I have presented a series of arguments, backed by quotes, which you have replied to by ignoring, ducking, misrepresenting or claiming I'm JUST WRONG. You haven't even tried an answer for a while. Present one, and I'll deal with it! I'll provide a sample of some of the ones you missed:
Someone willing to burn a town to the ground is not amoral, because those horrible slavers deserved it ?
FYI, Conan himself kept a slave at least once and a majority of the nations of the Hyborian Age do not forbid slavery either.
Let's use your own words: "not amoral...ever" is "obvious rubbish".
Someone willing to burn a town to the ground because the people in it had done the same to other people, and thus had no right to complain is not amoral. Amoral means "without any morality" it doesn't mean "morally wrong". Conan is making a moral choice here: he is just getting it wrong. He gets it right later in his career, a point made by Howard himself in Scarlet Citadel.
The difference being that I do not satisfy myself -as you do- only with MY comprehension of the yarns; I have also read some letters by REH and a certain amount of scholarship written by others.
You have read letters by REH. I've read some too. But the letters from REH represent a snapshot of his thinking at one time, and as can be seen from several plot elements that don't make it into the final version, its at an early stage of drafting. I am choosing to take the final stories, which represent months of work and mature consideration, as the basis of understanding what REH meant, and the letters as illuminating how they were written. but not as authority over them.
As for scholarship written by others: I've read some, although not that one. But I am very sceptical of this kind of work. Taking an author's work and deconstructing it is a risky business. C S Lewis has some good stuff on this. He had the advantage of people doing this kind of thing on his own works while he was still alive, and the stuff they came up with was very hit and miss: mostly miss.
Well, obviously there IS a communication problem in the discussion about Conan's morality. You forgot/ignored/misunderstood (make your choice) REH's own words on his character. Or is my English so poor that I can't figure out what "bastard" means?
You can be a bastard without being amoral. It is YOU who are ignoring REH's own words... and in the stories no less. Conan makes decisions to do things because he thinks they are right. That means he is not amoral.
And actually, that's not MHO. That's semantics. Someone who makes moral decisions is, by definition not amoral. Even if he gets several of them very badly wrong.
Yes Style, he said it to Novalyne Price.
Also, in a letter to his friend Tevis Clyde Smith, circa December of 1932:Quote:
"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.
As I pointed out, this is not the way the scene in Black Colossus final version plays out at all. And as Demetrio has pointed out, Vale of Lost Women puts Conan firmly opposed to rape.
There are a few more, But that'll do to start with.
Oh and one more thing: you have frequently said that I've lied about what you've said, and the aside above you imply it again. I think I'm going to call you on that. When did I do this? with quotes please. And in return, how about your misquotes of me? There have been many, but I'll use just one example: The point about Conan's Piratical days.
Comments from me:
They are not "apologetic words", whatever that means. They are explanations as to how and why Conan committed evil acts without being a black-hearted villain (tm).
Amoral means "without any morality" it doesn't mean "morally wrong". Conan is making a moral choice here: he is just getting it wrong.
So, I make clear comments on these acts. They are evil, and the choice to do them was morally wrong. What is the Axerules version of my point?
"the people in it"? EVERY SINGLE woman, child, servant, etc... in town deserved Conan's wrath? Really? Because their Hyrkanian husbands/fathers/masters/etc... were -like most of the people of the Hyborian Age- slavers?
And even worse: every settlement populated by Black people in the Hyborian Age deserved to be plundered by Bêlit and Amra because of the piratical ways of some specific Southern Island tribes?
Because they're all Blacks?
A summary clearly implying that I approve of them! With gratutious accusation of racism at the end, unsupported by anything I wrote.
So, Axerules, any explanation for 1) why you completely misquoted my point to make me look bad, and 2) How you get away with then calling me a liar?
Oh and Herve;
If you reread my posts you'll se that most of them express a personal opinion, and by no way way an "absolute" or "revealed" Truth as you like to call it. I often use the words as "personally" or "for me" or "in my opinion" to tone down things a bit
Oh really? Yes, you drop those things into your posts, but they are just window dressing that mean nothing. You are firmly convinced you're right:
Exactly what I've said before: most of the D20 defenders are D20 players BEFORE being Conan players. Hence the lack of objectivity when reviewing the rules.
I want to play Conan games, not conan flavored D&D games. I hadn't anything against d20 rules when I started to run the game. My experience with them just showed it didn't fit our gaming group's vision of hyborian gaming. These rules were designed for power playing and munchkinisation, never for RP...
You just have a different posting style to me. And a much lower tolerence for people who disagree
After producing this post, the possibility has struck me that Demetrio's remark that he was enjoying the verbal fencing may have been sarcasm. If so, let me know, and I'll stop!
