Jump to content

Question of cultures


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

It was stated that different edition of the game are compatible, yet it seems that BoKaL completely replace various Cymri cultural modifiers (from 4th edition corebook) with regional modifiers.

What with all this cultural and religious variations from region books?

The core rules are pretty much compatible, but there are some differences even between them, like the Double Feint maneuver being in 4th edition but removed in the 5th. Details as the starting skill values and cultural modifiers, even the whole chargen process (going from 15-yr old + then yearly training to a 21-yr old with some miscellaneous picks and blocks of skills), does change between 4th and 5th edition. There would hardly be a need for a new edition if NOTHING changed, now would there? (Indeed, having started with 4th edition, I was somewhat unimpressed at the time with the 5.0 edition with all its editing mistakes.)

Basically, BoK&L is the updated version of the Lands and People's chapter of 4th edition. And Greg wanted to have more variability, I guess. In particular since 5th edition started from Uther's kingship, a couple of generations before 4th edition at the Arthurian Golden Age. Logres was less culturally unified under Uther, whereas under Arthur, by 531, Chivalry is in full bloom, and Logres is inspired by their great king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you live in the area, you will start to acclimatize to it. You can argue that those who migrate to the area will keep their old culture, but their first generation offspring will either be a mix of the two (parents teaching the old ways to them and everyone else teaching the new. HOUSERULE), or the new culture entirely. One can argue that if it is an enclave of that culture, sure, they can keep the old ways alive for a while, but for ease of the gm's sanity and to keep things relatively simple, you can simply use the new culture. As always, YPMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

The thing is, new regional modifiers (mostly) correspond to old Cymri variations, yet it stated that now they apply to any culture living in region. Tat quite a big difference...

As Hzark10 said, once you are raised as a part of a society, you tend to pick up some of their values. If you are a Roman vassal knight sworn to the Count of Salisbury, you have a heck of a lot more in common with your Cymric neighbors, than with a Roman knight from Rome, or even one from London. If your children are pages at the Court of Salisbury, and squires to Cymric Knights of Salisbury, why would they suddenly pick up traits from some Roman civitas they have never been part of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It understandable, and, in fact, interesting addition to the game. What made me worried was thought, if such changes was made for Cymri modifier, how legal would be cultural variations from other old books?

Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr", combining cultural, religious and regional modifiers. (this combo seems interesting from both roleplaying and min-maxing standpoint πŸ˜ƒ)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

It understandable, and, in fact, interesting addition to the game. What made me worried was thought, if such changes was made for Cymri modifier, how legal would be cultural variations from other old books?

Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr", combining cultural, religious and regional modifiers. (this combo seems interesting from both roleplaying and min-maxing standpoint πŸ˜ƒ)

I think the regional modifiers replace the older cultural modifiers. So if you are a Jute growing up in a county in Logres, you pick up the regional modifiers from that county, not whatever the Jutes would get back in their home country. As the GM, I might accept an argument (especially given the religion you are proposing) that your particular family clings to the 'Old Ways' and hence the trait boni would be for the Jutes (LoG?). But no double-dipping.

Religious trait bonuses of course would depend on the religion.

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Regional Modifier apply to ALL cultures in the Region.

So, to summarize BoK&L, your character has a culture they come from. That is where they get their Religion and their religious bonuses, their Passions, their beginning skills values, Cultural Attribute Modifiers, and their Meta-Skill. Where they LIVE, gives them Regional Trait Modifiers, Directed Traits, and Homeland Passions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Yup, i just checked it, regional modifiers are directly after cultural/religius, and wording are as Hzark10 said. (beside, modifiers for aforementioned cultures and regions aren't identical. In fact, aquitanian's partly cancel each other outπŸ˜ƒ )

I did say 'older cultural modifiers', meaning back in 4e and LoG.

That being said... I would likely house-rule this. If you are born of Byzantine parents, but raised in Logres amongst your Cymric peers, fostered to a Cymric nobleman and squiring to a Cymric knight, swearing allegiance to Arthur as your King, etc... Why would you have Loyalty ([Byzantine] Emperor) or Loyalty (Unit Leader)?

But to each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Morien points out, there should be a story-wise reason for you knight to have the characteristics, traits, passions, and skills that he has. BoK&L was meant to be used for all periods of KAP. Your Byzantine knight would have loyalty to the Emperor because he has just come from there. If you grew up in Logres, you would have Arthur as your main king, not an emperor who you have never seen, halfway across the world. Be smart and consistent in your character generation. That is why, in my games, I houserule that only you have the backgrounds of non-Cymric knights, but if you marry a Cymric Lady (or vice-versa), your offspring has a modified set, and their children are treated as full-blooded Cymri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, there are cities with residents having roman culture, both in new edition (several generation after fall of empire) and older one (another generation later)*. Yet, according toΒ BoK&L, they too affected by Logres modifier.

*There are examples of such things in real history too, like Sorbs in Germany. While they certainly was influenced by their germanic surrounding, they maintained their identity, language and traditions for over a millennium (not hyperbole).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and using BoK&L, they get the Roman culture and the Berrocs get Saxon culture, and the Jagents can have Picts. Greg was more than willing to make exceptions to history to make the game more fun or fit his vision of the history he wanted. Book of Sires has parts where he wrote things as a result. The GM is always able to tweak their game (YPMV) to suit the story they are telling. If you want to have areas where the culture is different, then by all means, have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

BTW, i wanted to ask, are Berrocs are exclusively literally saxon, or can they have subtypes from "saxons!" book?🧐 aforementioned jutes as example.

I think they are Saxon-Saxon. Angles appear only later. Jutes are strongly associated with Hengist and Horsa in Saxons!, as well as the double-kingship, which Berrocingas didn't seem to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another question about Berroc, in BoS it stated they are stayed loyal to Vortigern until his defeat. But what if berocc grandfather get 19-20 in 451 (shifting to neutral) and then 19 in 453, turning dissident?

And, is it possibly, when exodus to Brittany start, for grandfather to sent his family (including PK father) there, and stay behind, supporting Vortimer rebelion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

And another question about Berroc, in BoS it stated they are stayed loyal to Vortigern until his defeat. But what if berocc grandfather get 19-20 in 451 (shifting to neutral) and then 19 in 453, turning dissident?

And, is it possibly, when exodus to Brittany start, for grandfather to sent his family (including PK father) there, and stay behind, supporting Vortimer rebelion?

Honestly, an oversight when I was adding the Berroc modifiers & their storyline in: Berrocings stick with their oaths until 468, so it would be out of place for them to turn dissidents already in 453, when even most of the Britons don't really care, either (the Cantii rebellion in 456 is mostly a local affair).

However, it could be art by accident, just very unlikely, as Hzark10 pointed out. Personally, if a player does roll that for a family background, I'd rule that they'd better move out of Berroc, since they would be breaking their oath (a big no-no amongst the Berrocings), not just for not fighting for the King of Logres, but actively against him. Good opportunity to relocate the family first to Brittany (as you pointed out) and then to Salisbury after the March?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question, LoG claim that chivalry is inherent property of KAP world, and that anybody with appropriate traits would benefit from chivalry bonus, even if they never heard about such concept. Thus i wonder, to whom it would apply - only knight and equivalents (tegns/tanes and the like), all professional combatants, or militia too?

(one of the point of aforementioned culture/religion/region combo was that their starting modifiers make everybody in community chivalrous, minus personal deviations...πŸ˜ŠπŸ˜…)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go by KAP 5.2, it seems this has been overruled.

You get the +3 Armor of Honor for being a Chivalric Knight, and the requirements have an oath that you have to take. This would seem to preclude 'unknowing' Chivalric warriors, and perhaps even exclude non-knights.

There is also a precedent, I think, that non-combatant ladies get the Gentlewoman, but not the Chivalric Knight, and female knights get only the Chivalric Knight bonus, even if they also would qualify for the Gentlewoman. One or the other.

That being said, I personally extend the Chivalric to all warriors, regardless of origins and status, and rather than the oath, my house-ruled tiered bonus system keeps them walking the walk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2022 at 4:24 PM, Morien said:

I'd rule that they'd better move out of Berroc, since they would be breaking their oath (a big no-no amongst the Berrocings), not just for not fighting for the King of Logres, but actively against him.

Rereading BoS, i actually started to wonder about this... In 466 there is separate modifiers for Non-Berroc Loyalist and Berroc Loyalist (which imply there are not loyal ones too, there at least 3 chances for them to turn neutral, however small...), and later +15 ensure result "Skirmished with Saxons as they tried to flee across your territory", instead of fighting against Aurelius. In 467 Berrocs has -10, which means, IIUK, they have 8 out of 20 chanse to get "Saw little or no combat. Stayed Neutral and at home". And if they won't fight Aurelius in this year, they wouldn't in 468 ("Loyalist who was not at Carlion last year -10").

And earlier, they don't have separate modifiers abow standard Loyalist, and only in 1 of 2 battles against Vortimer this modifier is enough to ensure 100% participation. And even earlier, in 450 "Even the Berroc Saxons can trade worried glances, but they will honor their oaths and remain Loyalists".

It seems they wasn't all that happy with Vortigern style of kingship...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

Rereading BoS, i actually started to wonder about this... In 466 there is separate modifiers for Non-Berroc Loyalist and Berroc Loyalist (which imply there are not loyal ones too, there at least 3 chances for them to turn neutral, however small...), and later +15 ensure result "Skirmished with Saxons as they tried to flee across your territory", instead of fighting against Aurelius. In 467 Berrocs has -10, which means, IIUK, they have 8 out of 20 chanse to get "Saw little or no combat. Stayed Neutral and at home". And if they won't fight Aurelius in this year, they wouldn't in 468 ("Loyalist who was not at Carlion last year -10").

And earlier, they don't have separate modifiers abow standard Loyalist, and only in 1 of 2 battles against Vortimer this modifier is enough to ensure 100% participation. And even earlier, in 450 "Even the Berroc Saxons can trade worried glances, but they will honor their oaths and remain Loyalists".

It seems they wasn't all that happy with Vortigern style of kingship...

Remember that ALL modifiers apply in 467. So Berroc Loyalists would get -10 for Loyalist and -10 for Berroc for a total of -20. So they will be at Carlion for sure.

The split between Non-Berroc Loyalists and Berroc Loyalists in 463 was to make it a bit easier to tell at a glance what the modifier was, rather than have Loyalist -5 and Berroc +15, for Berroc Loyalists to get +10. As for 466, remember that The March did not go through Berroc. So if a Berroc father got stuck in garrison in Berroc, obviously he didn't get the chance to fight against Aurelius. This doesn't mean that he is an Oath-breaker or a Neutral. He is still a Loyalist, just that his duties kept him from the battlefield. Same is true for Ebbsfleet.

I know what the design intent was, since I wrote those modifiers for the Berrocings. Just because they didn't get to go to battle 100% of the time doesn't mean that they forsake their Oath. Maybe they got assigned to guard the homeland. Maybe they were sick/injured. My point is that the Berrocings were conceived to stay loyal to the King of Logres, since that was the Oath they took, providing a stark contrast to Hengest's 'Bad' Saxons.

Now it is possible that I missed some modifiers (the earlier 451 and 453, for example), giving the Berrocings a small chance to deviate from their envisioned role. YPWV.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 12:44 PM, Oleksandr said:

Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr", combining cultural, religious and regional modifiers. (this combo seems interesting from both roleplaying and min-maxing standpoint πŸ˜ƒ)

Another stupid idea i had was a group/clan of gewissi for players to rival with - with Cymri stats, Angles culture (using rules for hybrids), wotanistic version of "Odinism: Aegir", and probably living in Cornwall, working as mercenaries there. Probably sound too cartoony, yet, sadly, not unrealistic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...