Picts as characters?

[FailedSpotCheck]

I would also like to make a comment that I think that folks should really not allow any kind of personal information about barbarism be viewed here. We are talking about what happens in a role-playing game. I don't feel that it is advantageous to relay personal information about what we or anyone we may have known has done to another human being either in wartime or peacetime.
I sincerely apologize if I may have offended anyone by my comments regarding either cannibalism or the taking of human body parts as "trophies". It was not my intention to degrade any particular culture in any fashion, nor to make light of anything anyone else might have gone through.
Nor is it my intention now to personally attack anyone at this time.
While I am certainly not a moderator on this or any forum, (I ain't smart enuff) I feel like we should moderate ourselves when it comes to these things.
I feel that we should keep any personal things personal.

I hear ya! (And the ears I collect hear ya too!)
Seriously...
There's nothing wrong with trying to tie in RL experience (direct or indirect) into RPG--it just makes it more real for the storytelling.






Vegetarians taste terrible.

 

[ricardo440]

I am starting a game where they begin shipwrecked on the pictish shore. Now the players were either pirates or slaves but either way they are now faced with the threat of hordes of angry picts and so must band together.

Any picts in the group could easily be accommodated as another slave who is in a different tribe to the one that rules the area. So just as dead if the picts get him.

I don't think anyone will play a pict, but in case they want to...

 

[Strom]

Ok so the general consensus by all the upper class guys here is that anything goes as far as races go.
Anything? Picts, Darfar, whatever?

I'm no upper class! Mid-level at best. :lol:

 

[Darkspawn]

Ok so the general consensus by all the upper class guys here is that anything goes as far as races go.
Anything? Picts, Darfar, whatever?

I'm no upper class! Mid-level at best. :lol:

Well, since I just started in Mongoose's forums, you're upper class to me. Meeza justa peon.

 

[Darkspawn]

I would also like to make a comment that I think that folks should really not allow any kind of personal information about barbarism be viewed here. We are talking about what happens in a role-playing game. I don't feel that it is advantageous to relay personal information about what we or anyone we may have known has done to another human being either in wartime or peacetime.
I sincerely apologize if I may have offended anyone by my comments regarding either cannibalism or the taking of human body parts as "trophies". It was not my intention to degrade any particular culture in any fashion, nor to make light of anything anyone else might have gone through.
Nor is it my intention now to personally attack anyone at this time.
While I am certainly not a moderator on this or any forum, (I ain't smart enuff) I feel like we should moderate ourselves when it comes to these things.
I feel that we should keep any personal things personal.

I hear ya! (And the ears I collect hear ya too!)
Seriously...
There's nothing wrong with trying to tie in RL experience (direct or indirect) into RPG--it just makes it more real for the storytelling.

Ok, so all you rapists and throat-cutters let loose. We need to hear it straight from the Devil's mouth.







Vegetarians taste terrible.

 

[Oly]

Ok so the general consensus by all the upper class guys here is that anything goes as far as races go.
Anything? Picts, Darfar, whatever?

Well I don't know if I count as "upper class" but my opinion is that anything goes.

The rulebook makes clear that Hyborians regard Cimmerians as one of the most barbaric races, likewise that the Cimmerians despise Hyborian civilisation. That doesn't sound ideal for a PC, but then you've got Conan.

Even cannibals can be fine. Why should their fellow PCs fear being nibbled anymore than a vegetarian PC might fear their meat eating friends will eat their horse one night.

In the end anyone can make a PC that will break a group. A barbarian who refuses to respect the "rules" of an adventuring group, a cannibal that will just east anything and anyone or an Aquilonian who kills on sight the Pict PC because he claims his people hate them so.

PCs can and should step away from the stereotypes of their culture and need to be moderated so that they can work in a group, all while keeping the flavour of their culture.

That's the challenge and good gamers will be up to it.

 

[Darkspawn]

Ok so the general consensus by all the upper class guys here is that anything goes as far as races go.
Anything? Picts, Darfar, whatever?

Well I don't know if I count as "upper class" but my opinion is that anything goes.

The rulebook makes clear that Hyborians regard Cimmerians as one of the most barbaric races, likewise that the Cimmerians despise Hyborian civilisation. That doesn't sound ideal for a PC, but then you've got Conan.

Even cannibals can be fine. Why should their fellow PCs fear being nibbled anymore than a vegetarian PC might fear their meat eating friends will eat their horse one night.

In the end anyone can make a PC that will break a group. A barbarian who refuses to respect the "rules" of an adventuring group, a cannibal that will just east anything and anyone or an Aquilonian who kills on sight the Pict PC because he claims his people hate them so.

PCs can and should step away from the stereotypes of their culture and need to be moderated so that they can work in a group, all while keeping the flavour of their culture.

That's the challenge and good gamers will be up to it.

Ok, then as a good gamer then you could project yourself into any role, then. Right?
Project yourself into this role:
You are a law abiding business man who has his place of business in a very tall building in New York. You are in charge of security in a large international airport in a city about 500 miles away.
One of your security people calls you and says that a man name Ahmad bin Omad is trying to pass security with a box cutter knife and a small explosive in his carry on luggage. Ahmad is a good friend of yours and he claims he is coming to see you and he needs that equipment to expedite the visit.
Are you going to tell the security guy to let him on the plane? Sure you would. Because Ahmad; while being a devout and fanatic Muslim and hates Christians and the United States; would never hurt you. Would he?
Using your logic, you should allow him on the plane. And you would have a very explosive meeting with him very soon. You and about 3,000 fellow New Yorkers.

Give me a break about the horse eating. Horses are slaughtered all the time for their meat as part of a culture, humans are not.
If a party were faced with the choice of eating a horse and starving to death, I am sure of what they would choose. Humans have done the same thing to other humans but have suffered great abhorrence from their fellow human beings once they returned to civilization. There is a big difference in eating a horse and eating a fellow human being. Isn't there?

There is inherent in all of us an atavistic fear about another human killing and eating us. The killing part is a fear, but not as great of a fear as the eating part. We all fear that the disapperance of our flesh will mean that we are gone forever. It's a silly fear, because the flesh turns to dust eventually anyway, but it's still a fear. I don't want to end up in a Darfar's belly so he can poop me out in the morning. Putting myself into a role of being a Hyborian I would have no problem with being friends with a Cimmerian. As a rule, he would not stab me in the back or cut my throat one night so I could wind up as a steaming mass of poo the next morning. If I pushed him and started a fight with him I might get my head hacked off but that would have been my fault for pushing him. I could do nothing to a Darfar and still wind up as poo in the morning. Or whenever the Darfar takes his constitutional.
A Darfar would definitely "keep the flavour of his culture". A Brythonian a day keeps the witch doctor away.

 

[Oly]

Ok, then as a good gamer then you could project yourself into any role, then. Right?.

OK I'm a bit baffled by this.....

I really can't see where your "role" is coming from.

All I was saying is that in a gaming group there's a kind of social contract where players will make PCs that can work together to whatever extent is required for the game, in most cases to the extent that they can "adventure" together.

Thus cannibals won't eat their fellow party members and Aquilonians won't kill the Pict PC on sight.

There might be conflict and struggle within the group but in the end it's for the players to not make characters that will cause the group to self-destruct.

Having one character saying "I'm going to do something really nasty and serious to Y's PC" (e.g eat him or kill him in his sleep one night) and justify it with "it's in character" is just a nasty and anti-social thing to do.

Of course there are extremes where things just don't make sense but usually there's some way of working things out. Unlikely alliances often make great stories.

 

[Darkspawn]

Ok, then as a good gamer then you could project yourself into any role, then. Right?.

OK I'm a bit baffled by this.....

I really can't see where your "role" is coming from.

All I was saying is that in a gaming group there's a kind of social contract where players will make PCs that can work together to whatever extent is required for the game, in most cases to the extent that they can "adventure" together.

Thus cannibals won't eat their fellow party members and Aquilonians won't kill the Pict PC on sight.

There might be conflict and struggle within the group but in the end it's for the players to not make characters that will cause the group to self-destruct.

Having one character saying "I'm going to do something really nasty and serious to Y's PC" (e.g eat him or kill him in his sleep one night) and justify it with "it's in character" is just a nasty and anti-social thing to do.

Of course there are extremes where things just don't make sense but usually there's some way of working things out. Unlikely alliances often make great stories.

I am baffled by your bafflement. You'll have to explain why you don't see where my "role" is coming from. I am simply asking you to put yourself into a role. Would you allow your Muslim friend on a plane with what he has in his possesion even though you know what culture he grew up in and what he could do? Or would you trust him? Would you allow a Darfar to keep watch at night knowing what culture he grew up in and what he could do to you?
Would Legolas or Gimli adventure with an orc? I think Gimli would have a KOS attitude with orcs after what they did to his cousin Balin.

 

[Oly]

Would you allow a Darfar to keep watch at night knowing what culture he grew up in and what he could do to you?

OK I see where you're coming from now.

If I had a Darfari PC then I would expect them not to be munching on their friends during the night. I'd also expect to see some distrust in the group but not to the extent where it broke the party.

It does become more awkward when a character already has an established back story that explains why he'd have such a deep seated hatred of a race/group, such as Gimli and the Orcs. However if they were all new PCs then that would be different and can be avoided.

Suppose my Aquilonian player had said his backstory was that all his family were massacred by Picts and that he was sworn through a blood oath to kill every Pict that he can. Then given as how someone else had said they wanted to play a Pict I'd ask him to tone that back a bit. Maybe it was only a certain tribe, maybe the Pict had also suffered at the hands of that tribe too. Stories start to spill out from that.....

In the first session of my game I had each character awake on the beach with some memories of the ship wreck they'd been through. I asked each one to narrate how one of the other PCs saved them at some point. Thus the group were bound and I'd taken some steps of my own to overcome any difficulties that race or nation would cause in the group.

 

[Darkspawn]

Would you allow a Darfar to keep watch at night knowing what culture he grew up in and what he could do to you?

OK I see where you're coming from now.

If I had a Darfari PC then I would expect them not to be munching on their friends during the night. I'd also expect to see some distrust in the group but not to the extent where it broke the party.

It does become more awkward when a character already has an established back story that explains why he'd have such a deep seated hatred of a race/group, such as Gimli and the Orcs. However if they were all new PCs then that would be different and can be avoided.

Suppose my Aquilonian player had said his backstory was that all his family were massacred by Picts and that he was sworn through a blood oath to kill every Pict that he can. Then given as how someone else had said they wanted to play a Pict I'd ask him to tone that back a bit. Maybe it was only a certain tribe, maybe the Pict had also suffered at the hands of that tribe too. Stories start to spill out from that.....

In the first session of my game I had each character awake on the beach with some memories of the ship wreck they'd been through. I asked each one to narrate how one of the other PCs saved them at some point. Thus the group were bound and I'd taken some steps of my own to overcome any difficulties that race or nation would cause in the group.

You and your group sound like you roleplay in a different way than the group I play with. None of the people I play with could really come up with a story that would make them depend on the other player characters that much. It's kind of a survival technique because while we have a core group that has stayed together for about 6 years we have had some real losers come and go.
Even I prefer to keep as much as possible secret about my character. I prefer to let knowledge of my character to come out in bits and drabs rather than all together. And we hardly ever do any secretive stuff between the GM and individual players. I do it more than the other guys that GM in our group, but I know that one person who only plays and never GMs hates the secret sessions. I love them, as long as they only take a few minutes. It's roleplaying, not everybody is going to know everything about each other's characters at all times.
The story about the Aquilonian and the Pict having a mutual hatred could possibly work. It would make an interesting story if it did. Maybe enough to write a book about it, or a short story. Putting myself in the Aquilonian's boots; I still don't see myself trusting a Darfar. Maybe it's just me. I will put it to my players and I believe they will all come to the same consensus. I'll let you know what my little group says about it. They will probably say ok on the Pict but nichts on the Darfar.

 

[Darkspawn]

Would you allow a Darfar to keep watch at night knowing what culture he grew up in and what he could do to you?

Suppose my Aquilonian player had said his backstory was that all his family were massacred by Picts and that he was sworn through a blood oath to kill every Pict that he can. Then given as how someone else had said they wanted to play a Pict I'd ask him to tone that back a bit. Maybe it was only a certain tribe, maybe the Pict had also suffered at the hands of that tribe too. Stories start to spill out from that.....

I don't mean to be insulting or nitpicking, but why ask him to tone that story back a bit? Especially if maybe the player had taken time to write up a page or two of background story. A really detailed story. He spent his whole weekend on it or something. And then he hands you this nice spreadsheet-written paper and then you say "Ah, no this won't do because Jerry over there wants to play a Pict."
I know I am embellishing your story about the players and their involvement, but I would think you would ask Jerry to take something else.
And I have known GMs that have asked their players to come up with a history like that and then given an experience point bonus when they have.
The group I am with is too communistic to do something like that. Over-achievers don't get rewarded. Either we all get an experience point bonus or nobody does.

 

[Oly]

I don't mean to be insulting or nitpicking, but why ask him to tone that story back a bit? Especially if maybe the player had taken time to write up a page or two of background story. A really detailed story. He spent his whole weekend on it or something. And then he hands you this nice spreadsheet-written paper and then you say "Ah, no this won't do because Jerry over there wants to play a Pict."
I know I am embellishing your story about the players and their involvement, but I would think you would ask Jerry to take something else.

Yes I would say "this won't do", all backgrounds, character concepts and other such things have to be passed by me as the GM. That's to make sure that it won't break the group, campaign or world.

Why should one player be able to make a character that will break someone else's? What kind of player when made aware of that wouldn't do some work to help the group out?

In the above example all it will take is a bit of tweaking and some communication between the Pict and the Aquilonian and something can be worked out that will suit everybody. If the Aquilonian adopts a "screw Jerry, I want my background as it is" attitude then I'd question if I wanted to game with them. Thankfully I've never encountered that.

Likewise if they came up with a backstory that said "I'm a loner, I don't work with or trust anyone, I will kill anyone that comes close to me" then I'd just say a flat out "no".

Typically I would have the players knowing that A's playing an Aquilonian, B's got a Zingaran and C's going for a Pict before such effort goes into making a back story.

It's all about compromise and working together so that everyone gets something out of it.

And I have known GMs that have asked their players to come up with a history like that and then given an experience point bonus when they have.
The group I am with is too communistic to do something like that. Over-achievers don't get rewarded. Either we all get an experience point bonus or nobody does.

I've done that in the past too, I often give out XP's (or some such bonus) to players that somehow contribute to the game world out of session. That can be backgrounds, diaries, solo narrated cut scenes, maps etc. etc.

However I did notice a problem where two players were incredibly productive and would churn out game materials and one wouldn't. In the end I had to back away from it a little bit. Those two players were just so much more familiar with the game world than the other one and it just wasn't balanced. It didn't stop though, I just found ways to make sure that everyone could chip something in while keeping the rewards for those that added something in to the mix.

 

[Oly]

None of the people I play with could really come up with a story that would make them depend on the other player characters that much.

It's not so much making characters dependant on each other but just hammering home that whatever differences I expect them to have deep down there is a certain level of trust in the group and that they can work together.

Putting myself in the Aquilonian's boots; I still don't see myself trusting a Darfar.

What if that Darfari had saved your life when he could have let you die in order to secure himself some much needed breakfast? What if in turn you'd saved him from some horrible death? He might have pledged that you were as his brother and that together you would find and kill the man responsible for both of your sufferings. There might still be awkwardness and a certain distrust but they could work together.

Of course there doesn't have to be but if one person does want an Aquilonian and another a Darfari there's no reason why both can't work together to make it plausible, interesting and a source of drama.

 

[kintire]

One of your security people calls you and says that a man name Ahmad bin Omad is trying to pass security with a box cutter knife and a small explosive in his carry on luggage. Ahmad is a good friend of yours and he claims he is coming to see you and he needs that equipment to expedite the visit.
Are you going to tell the security guy to let him on the plane? Sure you would. Because Ahmad; while being a devout and fanatic Muslim and hates Christians and the United States; would never hurt you. Would he?
Using your logic, you should allow him on the plane. And you would have a very explosive meeting with him very soon. You and about 3,000 fellow New Yorkers.

I think you want to be very careful with this sort of analogy. Hatred of christians and the united states is not a result of culture or race. Its perfectly reasonable to take each person as they come; adventurers are an adaptable lot. However, in the above example you would be a fool to let him on the plane because of his personal opinions, NOT his culture. Obviously you wouldn't want to include a Darfari who was an active and enthusiastic worshipper of Yog and hated all non believers, but there is no reason to believe ALL Darfari are like that, any more than all Picts necessarily take the teeth out of every one of the enemies they encounter.

Its a matter of party compatibility, not a case of "all X's should be banned because elements of their culture are barbaric"

 

[Darkspawn]

One of your security people calls you and says that a man name Ahmad bin Omad is trying to pass security with a box cutter knife and a small explosive in his carry on luggage. Ahmad is a good friend of yours and he claims he is coming to see you and he needs that equipment to expedite the visit.
Are you going to tell the security guy to let him on the plane? Sure you would. Because Ahmad; while being a devout and fanatic Muslim and hates Christians and the United States; would never hurt you. Would he?
Using your logic, you should allow him on the plane. And you would have a very explosive meeting with him very soon. You and about 3,000 fellow New Yorkers.

I think you want to be very careful with this sort of analogy. Hatred of christians and the united states is not a result of culture or race. Its perfectly reasonable to take each person as they come; adventurers are an adaptable lot. However, in the above example you would be a fool to let him on the plane because of his personal opinions, NOT his culture. Obviously you wouldn't want to include a Darfari who was an active and enthusiastic worshipper of Yog and hated all non believers, but there is no reason to believe ALL Darfari are like that, any more than all Picts necessarily take the teeth out of every one of the enemies they encounter.

Its a matter of party compatibility, not a case of "all X's should be banned because elements of their culture are barbaric"

How do you define "element"? Element sounds like maybe a powerful minority, maybe like a powerful priesthood dedicated to Yog within the race. But the book doesn't indicate a powerful minority. It indicates a very wide majority. You might say "element" but the book says "most".

"Culture: The Darfaris file their teeth (whether as ornament or to aid in their cannibalsim is unknown). They are savage bandits and murderers for the most part, with their entire society being driven by an obsession with an evil religion." (Conan the RPG page 33 of the old book)

You can treat it differently, but I treat the teeth filing as something the Darfar do from as soon as the kids have teeth. Even the baby teeth are filed and they are fed human flesh. It's gross to me to think about; but in my game world it's how it's done. In other words; in my campaign Darfar are trained from birth to eat human flesh.
It doesn't say that in the book, but I think it has a good feel to it. It seems to fit their nasty religion.

"Religion: Most Darfaris belong to a highly unpleasant cannibal cult." (Conan the RPG page 33 of the old book)

Hmm, that makes the race rate as a ban for me. If the Darfar character had good intentions and refrained from cannibalism, most people familiar with Darfar would not wait to hear the group say "Wait he's with us. He's a GOOD Darfar." The familiar folks would fill him with arrows.

As a GM, make all the exclusions and inclusions you wish. The race is not banned or it would not have been included as a player race.
But I won't allow any, no matter how many excuses anyone cares to make.
Conan isn't a touchy-feely game. Most first reactions from NPC's are going to be based on dress, race and personal appearance.
You want to make exceptions to that, great. Everybody's Conan will be different from the next person's.

I won't even address the comment about being careful with my analogy. You have your opinion, my analogy had mine.

 

[Darkspawn]

None of the people I play with could really come up with a story that would make them depend on the other player characters that much.

It's not so much making characters dependant on each other but just hammering home that whatever differences I expect them to have deep down there is a certain level of trust in the group and that they can work together.

Putting myself in the Aquilonian's boots; I still don't see myself trusting a Darfar.

What if that Darfari had saved your life when he could have let you die in order to secure himself some much needed breakfast? What if in turn you'd saved him from some horrible death? He might have pledged that you were as his brother and that together you would find and kill the man responsible for both of your sufferings. There might still be awkwardness and a certain distrust but they could work together.

Of course there doesn't have to be but if one person does want an Aquilonian and another a Darfari there's no reason why both can't work together to make it plausible, interesting and a source of drama.

I see what you are saying and empathize with most of it. My only problem is that I don't see most civilized people getting around the first interaction with the Darfar. If they even knew what a Darfar was.

Now, if you are saying that when the characters all first meet that race knowledge isn't exchanged then I could see it working. It might lead to some questions within the group (Hey, has anybody found out why old Herman over there has sharp teethies?" "Don't worry about it Fred, he says it helps him eat his porridge better.")

But if all they know about said Herman was that he was a black man from the southern countries, then it could work.

But what if Herman announces to the group; after you get everybody together and they are comfortable with the beginning of the story; "Hey everybody, I'm a Darfar and I've gone 233 days without eating anybody."

I would think that much uncomfortableness would ensue.

But everybody keeps saying that the characters within their world are adventurers. As adventurers they should have certain amount of knowledge of the world and the races within it before play begins. That is why all the player races are in the front of the book. So the party should know by his appearance that the character is a Darfar, so there goes the idea of not passing race knowledge.

 

[Darkspawn]

Sweet! I've graduated to a Weasel!

But it sounds like most people here already have that opinion of me.

 

[kintire]

It is trivally true that any character conception will not fit into all parties, and its perfectly true that a practicing cannibal yoggite Darfari will not fit into many. There will be an element of Darfari society, however small a minority it may be, which does not regularly practice the religion however; especially since "Darfar" seems to be a region, not a centralised state.

In any case, none of this has any relevance to the Picts, who are not cannibals and will fit into most parties fine.

 

[Darkspawn]

It is trivally true that any character conception will not fit into all parties, and its perfectly true that a practicing cannibal yoggite Darfari will not fit into many. There will be an element of Darfari society, however small a minority it may be, which does not regularly practice the religion however; especially since "Darfar" seems to be a region, not a centralised state.

In any case, none of this has any relevance to the Picts, who are not cannibals and will fit into most parties fine.

I've already stated my opinion regarding Picts in parties at length. Simply put, Picts will not fit into most civilized based parties fine. It will all depend on the party make up.
To use an example, the US military used Indian scouts (Aminds were pretty much the Pict analogy from REH) quite often in the 1800's. But the scouts were just that, scouting. They were usually away from the main column. For example: Indian scouts were with GA Custer at the Battle (heh, more like massacre) of Little Big Horn. But after they told him about the large amount of hostiles that were down in that big huge village he called them women and released them from service. Only one scout died with Custer and he was a half-breed with a white name.

If you dress up a Pict like a civilized race wearing armor and tunic and everything else, most of the npc's will think the Pict is a Zingaran or something. If he dresses up like a Pict with the feathered headdress and everything, most nps'c will call for the city guard.

The reverse is true for the northern races. An Aquilonian will have much trouble probably in Zimbabwea while your Darfar will stand and grin with his big sharp teeth when the Zimbabwean constabulary starts to hassle your Aquilonian.

It has been stated much in literature that Cimmerians are barbians but sometimes have a greater sense of compassion than the civilized races. Cimmerians don't allow their people to beg in the streets. Conan stated a lot of times that Cimmerians never treated their less fortunate like the "civilized" people did.

It was REH's way of stating that sometimes civilized people behaved more barbaric than the "barbarians". Which was true, in the 1920's and 30's when he was writing his stories. I like to think that as a society, we have become better. You can still read about the occasional rapist and axe murderer in the news, but I would like to think that we are progressing.

But as witnessed in the Katrina aftermath, a large portion of the population took advantage of the lawlessness and did a lot of unnecessary looting, pillaging, and raping. So maybe Howard was right in a way. Force a big disaster on us and maybe we all return to our savage roots.