New for KAP: The Book of Sires

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Morien said:

 

I could go even a step back* and simply say that the Romans simply use Emperor interchangeably with High King. Simply out of cultural snobbery. 'High King' is, after all, more of a Celtic title. So even while Constantin's bloodline wouldn't officially claim the title of a Western Roman Emperor, their Roman subjects would refer to them as 'Emperor Aurelius' rather than 'High King Aurelius'. Of course, in Uther's time, he is not the High King, which would make a small dilemma with this reasoning. Unless the Roman city folk just decide to continue buttering Uther up by referring to him with the higher title.

 

Yeah, that was what I was alluding to. Emperor, High King, Pendragon, Riothamus and probably even Vortigern all basically mean the same thing: a sovereign ruler who is "greater" than a King. The Romans are probably partial to Emperor (actually Imperator) because it is the Roman title and thus a greater title than merely High King, as the Empire of Rome is so much greater than anyplace else, blah blah. At least in their eyes. Plus Roman culture has a strong dislike for the title of King, equating it with Tyrant. Meanwhile most Cymri prefer to use a title in their own native tongues. I suspect Pendragon might have come about because the old title, Vortigern, title had a lot of bad memories associated with it.

In game terms it doesn't matter much except for the fact that these various cultures under Arthur all probably consider their own culture to be superior to everyone else's.  

[sirlarkins]

20 hours ago, Username said:

It was the PDF from Chaosium. To Chaosium, I took a screenshot and can send it if it would be helpful. On the errata, will it be an updated PDF or just a release of fixes? I'd personally prefer an updated PDF.

It will be an updated PDF. If you've already purchased the book, you can simply download the new version.

[Username]

5 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

It will be an updated PDF. If you've already purchased the book, you can simply download the new version.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it. Also, off topic, but I enjoyed your Pendragon podcast back when I first started playing Pendragon like a little over a year ago.

[creativehum]

14 hours ago, Morien said:

OK, let me try to clarify...

First, thank you for the reply.

I understand your points now. 

I believe I see several matters differently than you do. And our views might never meet. But I do understand your point of view.

I do want to address one thing.

You wrote:

14 hours ago, Morien said:

The 'problem' is that BotK&L is using Culture labels, such as Roman in two different things: the family heritage of the character (i.e. the Statistic modifiers), which is what the Culture is in the basic rulebook, and the societal culture (i.e. Passions). I can see why it is doing this, but frankly, the information on p. 50 should have been up front, IMHO.

This seems to suggest that the core rules don't do exactly this (that is, use to Culture of a character to determine both a character's Statistic Modifiers and the character's Passions.) Your posts seems to suggest that the core rules tie culture to the Statistic Modifier, and it is only BoKL that additionally ties Culture to Passions. 

But this is not the case.

On page 94 of KAP 5.2 we find this:

Quote

Initial Passions

Four specific Passions are common to all starting characters, so they already appear on the character sheet, while blanks are provided for further Passions. These Passions are obligatory because every Cymric character (the default character background) has them. They are the unwritten laws of your culture.

Culture in the core rules has always been determined both Statistic Modifiers and Passions. It has been this way in every edition of King Arthur Pendragon.

The sidebar in BoKL is there for those cases when the Statistic Modifiers are up in the air because of parents from two different cultures. But the Passions are established by the Culture around the child as determined by the child's homeland and are never in doubt. (And 50% of the time in most these cases (for example, a Cyrmric Knight marries a Saxon woman and sires a child in Salisbury) the Statistic Modifier and the Passions of the child will match up to the same culture so this whole issue becomes moot.)

But Homeland, and thus Culture, have always determined Passions. The sidebar on p. 50 is there to be pulled out as needed to determine Statistic Modifiers in special cases. It should not be seen as establishing the baseline for determining Culture through the parents' heritage. 

At least that is how I see it. And that might be very different than how you see it!

Edited February 1, 2019 by creativehum

[Hzark10]

Think about the idea of fostering pages to other knights. This is/was supposedly a common practice.  Sure, for the first 7 years you are raised by your parents, then sent to another knight/lord when you become pages.  Not everyone, but some.  They are there for a number of years, up to 7, then you are squired to a knight, which could be an entirely different person.  With whom do you learn the most from?  Think of your own childhood and growing up. Who influenced you most?

YPMV is the key here.  I imagine many of us will have different views on this.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Hzark10 said:

Think about the idea of fostering pages to other knights. This is/was supposedly a common practice.

Yes, it was felt that people would be too soft on their own children- it would be like joining the army today and having your father as your drill instructor. 

[Morien]

13 hours ago, creativehum said:

I believe I see several matters differently than you do. And our views might never meet. But I do understand your point of view.

My point is that the Genetic Culture (i.e. the Stat modifiers that you inherit from your parents) have nothing to do with the Societal Culture, and vice versa. It is unfortunate that the former is called Culture too, since it confuses the issue.

My issue was with your statement that a child of Roman parents would suddenly switch Cymric (with +3 CON) if he was raised in Salisbury. Now if we are talking about the Societal Culture, I agree with you. But he would still retain the +1 DEX and +2 APP of his Roman parents.

Mind you, if he was born of Pictish Heathen parents, I would allow him to pick Religion as Heathen as well, rather than force Christianity or (Celtic) Paganism. But then again, I generally let the players pick whatever religion they want (within reason).

[creativehum]

3 hours ago, Morien said:

My issue was with your statement that a child of Roman parents would suddenly switch Cymric (with +3 CON) if he was raised in Salisbury. Now if we are talking about the Societal Culture, I agree with you. But he would still retain the +1 DEX and +2 APP of his Roman parents.

Mystery solved!

I knew there was a hitch in our conversation that I couldn't see.

And this comes to (I believe) one of those places where we see things differently. 

For me the Statistic Modifiers from Culture are a side-issue that I don't think much about. (And that's my fault. In the conversation above, for a hot minute I honestly forgot about the influence of culture on Statistics.) For me, the focus of Culture are Traits and Passions, as driven by Homeland, and then the Cultures within that homeland. That's the stuff I'm interested in and excites me. But you are right... Statistic Modifier's will be passed down from either Mother or Father. 

For me, no matter what the Statistical Modifier from a parent, however, a character's Passions are what identify him with a Culture. His culture informs what what he cares about, what he would die for.

If I have a Pictish Champion who joins Arthur's court, marries a Salisbury woman, and sends his son to Sarum to train to be a page,, I don't care if he inherited his father's –3 SIZ, +3 DEX,–3 APP Statistic Modifiers, I am happily writing "Cymric" in the Culture box. By the time he has worked his way up to being a knight he is Cymric by my lights.

But, again, that is my focus. I don't presume it will be the focus of everyone.

As for religion, a child is given the religion, the sidebar on p. 50 of BoKL says the child will have "the Traits will be for whatever religion he is raised into..." So that is up to the Player to sort out, as he also controls the parents.

Of course, there are all sorts of permutations and campaign specific situations in which the rules in BoKL might break down. For example, a Roman couple moves to Salisbury and the Player declares he will raise his Knight's children in the traditions of Roman Culture for the matter of Passions. Okay.. if everyone at the table is game for it, it happens.

After all, the book is only an aid and structure for introducing PC Knights from different homelands.Once we get to specific desires of particular Players, or details of story and the campaign, the structure of BoKL can be ignored to make sure people get what they want. If Roman couples moving to Salisbury happens regularly in a campaign, the book might not prove as much support for other campaigns. 

But for me, as a tool to aid play, BoKL will work great. There are plenty of edge cases and beyond edge cases that will most likely never appear in a game of mine (a Roman couple moving to Salisbury might happen, but probably not!). 

Edited February 1, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

 

If I have a Pictish Champion who joins Arthur's court, marries a Salisbury woman, and sends his son to Sarum to train to be a page,, I don't care if he inherited his father's –3 SIZ, +3 DEX,–3 APP Statistic Modifiers, I am happily writing "Cymric" in the Culture box. By the time he has worked his way up to being a knight he is Cymric by my lights.

There is a rule for mixed parentage in K&L ((and K&L gives him a 50-50 chance of being "Cymric"),  but generally sons inherent abilities (traits, passions, etc.) from their father, not from their mother (look at the family characteristic), so by most people lights, he'd probably be Pictish.

 

Quote

ll, the book is only an aid and structure for introducing PC Knights from different homelands.Once we get to specific desires of particular Players, or details of story and the campaign, the structure of BoKL can be ignored to make sure people get what they want.

Uh, why? I don't feel under any obligation to make sure that people get what they want. Giving them what they want will usually ruin the game for them. My players want all sorts of things: better stats, better equipment, land, wealth, titles, magical items, lots of glory, easier adventures. If I gave them what they wanted they would stop having fun and get bored. 

I'm more concerned with giving them what they need. Getting what they want is their problem. That's why they play the game and go on adventures.

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Atgxtg

[creativehum]

On 2/1/2019 at 9:22 AM, Atgxtg said:

There is a rule for mixed parentage in K&L ((and K&L gives him a 50-50 chance of being "Cymric"),  but generally sons inherent abilities (traits, passions, etc.) from their father, not from their mother (look at the family characteristic), so by most people lights, he'd probably be Pictish.

You and Morien are reading that box on p. 50 as declaring that the "Culture" of child is determined by that 50-50 roll. And that is fine. Not only am I not concerned with how you run your game, I couldn't stop you if I did care. 

But that is not what the text says in that box.

The text says only that the 50-50 roll determines which Cultural Characteristics the child inherits. Not determines Culture as a whole... only the Statics Modifier. 

In the same box the text states: "Passions will be from the place he grows up in." According to the rules at hand, then, his Passions are determined by the Culture around him, not his father. Thus, that 50-50 roll does not not determine culture.

This is, as far as I can tell, Morien's point. The definition of "Culture" begins to fray in certain circumstances. For some reason this isn't a problem for me: I define "Culture" as culture (not genetics) and declare the quality of a Knight's Passions as Culture. I'm not saying I'm RIGHT about this. Simply stating that's how I see it, simply and plainly, without any consternation at all.

Of course, if you want the father to determine Passions despite the boxed text on p. 50 go for it. 

Again, different people will see these matters differently. You and Morien focus Culture on inherited physical qualities. And that is great if it works for you. I simply don't see it that way.

As far as Traits go, my Pictish Knight might retain his Heathen ways, but realize his son might do better if raised in his wife's faith. This is all story/campaign stuff that has to be found at table. But being open to it being flexible is vital for unexpected stories and turns through generations to occur.

As for the Pict Half-Breed -- I love what you have brought up: that other people would consider him Pictish even if he had all the same Passions thy did. This is great grist for the story-mill.  The fact that he is raised in Cymric Culture, sees himself as Cymric, and wants to be accepted as Cymric while others deny him this could be a great source for him pushing himself really hard in his Passions to outdo others to prove himself -- which can only lead to more trouble and danger. This would be great stuff.

As for this: 

On 2/1/2019 at 9:22 AM, Atgxtg said:

Uh, why?

Because Morien has made it clear that he wants his Players to have choices beyond those laid out in the book. And I'm not going to be some guy to tell him he's wrong to do that. I mean, what would that gain me? If he is comfortable with it, and sees the logic of it in this specific instance in the setting that this knight is different from others, what could it matter?

I myself would probably be as stringent as you. But we are not all people, and all people enjoy and need different things. And so I bothered to make that specific point in that post so Morien knew I had appreciated his concerns on being flexible. Not because I would do it that way -- but because I can understand why he would.

Edited August 23, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

18 minutes ago, creativehum said:

You and Morien are reading that box on p. 50 as declaring that the "Culture" of child is is determined by that 50-50 roll. And that is fine. Not only am I not concerned with how you run your game, I couldn't stop you if I did care. 

But that is not what the text says in that box.

The text says only that the 50-50 roll determines which Cultural Characteristics the child inherits. Not determines Culture as a whole... only the Statics Modifier. 

True, but traits, passions, and skills are not culture either. What the text box does state is that the character has parents of different cultures. Nothing actually states anywhere what the culture of the character would be. I'd probably say it was mixed (Pict/Cymric). But his children (or grandchildren) would probably be able to cement the family culture one way or the other. That's probably where most of the "Roman"  character came about in KAP. 

18 minutes ago, creativehum said:

As far as Traits go, my Pictish Knight might retain his Heathen ways, but realize his son might do better if raised in his wife's faith. This is all story/campaign stuff that has to be found at table. But being open to it being flexible is vital for unexpected stories and turns through generations to occur.

Certainly. I can see such a character following his mother's religion. It's uncommon, but could happen under the right circumstances (probably for political reasons, such as the Pict married a heiress in a predominately Christian county). 

18 minutes ago, creativehum said:

As for the Pict Half-Breed -- I love what you have brought up: that other people would consider him Pictish even if he had all the same Passions thy did. This is great grist for the story-mill.  The fact that he is raised in Cymric Culture, sees himself as Cymric, and wants to be accepted as Cymric while others deny him this could be a great source for him pushing himself really hard in his Passions to outdo others to prove himself -- which can only lead to more trouble and danger. This would be great stuff.

And to make it worse, the Picts would probably consider him a Cymri. in the bad old days before racial equality was even a concept, such a character could have troubles. A lot of that would depend on when/where/who, and much of the rest would depend on his actions. A half-Pict with 10,000 Glory known for his Loyalty (Lord) and Loyalty (Pendragon) passions is probably going to be accepted more easily that some naked, tattooed guy who ambushes knights on the road. 

18 minutes ago, creativehum said:

As for this: 

Because Morien has made it clear that he wants his Players to have choices beyond those laid out in the book.

Oh, okay. I thought you meant that we were somehow bound to cater to the players wishes. If a GM wants to run something a certain way, that's a whole different kettle of fish. 

BTW, a Roman knight moving to Salisbury isn't all that unlikely. All it takes is for a Roman knight without land, such as a second son, to marry a heiress from Salisbury. A knight from Sarum (Roman) who became a household knight of the Earl would be a prime candidate for such a thing. 

[creativehum]

25 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

BTW, a Roman knight moving to Salisbury isn't all that unlikely. All it takes is for a Roman knight without land, such as a second son, to marry a heiress from Salisbury. A knight from Sarum (Roman) who became a household knight of the Earl would be a prime candidate for such a thing. 

I have never thought it was exceptional, and never said otherwise. Your example is a completely normal situation and the kind of thing BoKL was designed to handle.

if you go back to my posts you will see I am referring to Morien's example of a Roman COUPLE moving to Salisbury as being exceptional. 

Yes, it could happen. But how often is a game of KAP going to be driving down that road? The moment you start with that as a premise you are probably choosing to set up some extraordinary circumstances with some specific cultural conflicts in mind. No book of tables will help you with all that. You'll need to sort out how you want cultural tensions to get set up for that specific situation. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by creativehum

[creativehum]

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Nothing actually states anywhere what the culture of the character would be. I'd probably say it was mixed (Pict/Cymric). But his children (or grandchildren) would probably be able to cement the family culture one way or the other.

Right. A lot of this is "soft" when it comes to rules and can only be determined by playing it out at the table, with everyone creating the effects and fallout of cultures meeting like this in each specific instance.

Again, a few dozen pages of tables can only do so much. At some point we are on our own at a table to say, "Okay... this is what this means, this is how this is going to play out."

[Atgxtg]

17 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I have never thought it was exceptional, and never said otherwise. I would expect it.

if you go back to my posts you will see I am referring to Morien's example of a Roman COUPLE moving to Salisbury as being exceptional. 

Yes, you did indeed. Sorry.

Quote

Yes, it could happen. But how often is a game of KAP going to be driving down that road? The moment you start with that as a premise you are probably choosing to set up some extraordinary circumstances with some specific cultural conflicts in mind.

Probably only when a character gets land from Salisbury, especially if the land he gets is greater than what he had elsewhere (or if he were landless). I could actually see this happen a few times, especially during the anarchy when a lot of the (Romans) cities get conquered by Saxons.

It actually happened with a Roman character in a campaign. He was a backup character, who had fought alongside the PKs (from Salsibury) and saved their lives with Chirugery (both were at negative hit points). When the Saxons took his city, the PKs took him in and he eventually distingusihed himself in from of the Earl, got landed and settled in. He stated Roman though, as did his children. He probably would have considered it a betrayal if his children turned their backs on their Roman heritage. 

 

Quote

No book of tables will help you with all that. You'll need to sort out how you want cultural tensions to get some up for that specific situation. 

Tables can help quite a bit. So can common sense. As for cultural tensions, that depends on if there are any. Since knights from Sarum are Roman (and that might include the Earl) I don;'t think there would be cultural problems with Roman characters. I think the problems would be with Picts, Saxons and other cultures with a history of attacking Britain.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Atgxtg

[creativehum]

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Tables can help quite a bit.

Yes. That's why we use them. I would never suggest otherewise and did not suggest otherwise.

Speaking of tables... in BoKL this is how Sarun is listed on p. 22

Sarum (City) [Salisbury], Cymric/British Chr.

Not a big deal. But it is why I used it in my example.

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It actually happened with a Roman character in a campaign. He was a backup character, who had fought alongside the PKs (from Salsibury) and saved their lives with Chirugery (both were at negative hit points). When the Saxons took his city, the PKs took him in and he eventually distingusihed himself in from of the Earl, got landed and settled in. He stated Roman though, as did his children. He probably would have considered it a betrayal if his children turned their backs on their Roman heritage. 

This is great stuff. And the kind of thing I am talking about. The BoKL can get us started. And then we run with it as story and circumstances grow.

Edited February 1, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

12 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Right. A lot of this is "soft" when it comes to rules and can only be determined by playing it out at the table, with everyone creating the effects and fallout of cultures meeting like this in each specific instance.

Partially. A lot of it is also logical cause and effect, with people being prejudiced and reacting to stereotypes. Most people i\will probably made decisons about such characters before they even interact with them, and disproving those preconceptions will be an uphill battle. 

12 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Again, a few dozen pages of tables can only do so much. At some point we are on our own at a table to say, "Okay... this is what this means, this is how this is going to play out."

Yes and no. Yes there are times when a GM has to make a judgment call about something in the game, but no, this doesn't seem to be one of those times. Most of this stuff would work out a certain way based on the setting and interactions between the cultures.  It's not really something that the GM should need to work out for himself.

For instance, the chargen for characters from Salisbury tends to give characters a Hate (Saxons) passion. So logically, a GM should realize that Saxon characters are going to have problems being accepted in Salisbury. It's not really open for interpretation. If a GM wants to say that people in Salisbury just accept a Saxon character because that is how he wants to play it out, well he is deviating from what was intended. That's not to say he can't do so, but it does mean  he is making a choice to divert. He wasn't left on his own, he chose to go it alone. 

Now that's okay, but it a situation of the GM's making. For example, for years I've been thinking of one day letting a PK actually succeed at drawing the sword from the stone. It will turn out that the PK was actually Arthur, raised in secret, with no knowledge of his true parentage.  I can even find a vague point in Boy King and the GPC to even make it mechanically possible to do so. I'm perfectly free to do that some day,and I  just might, but if I do so it will be entirely my decision to deviate from the time line. 

[Atgxtg]

13 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Yes. That's why we use them. I would never suggest otherewise and did not suggest otherwise.

Speaking of tables... in BoKL this is how Sarun is listed on p. 22

Sarum (City) [Salisbury], Cymric/British Chr.

Not a big deal. But it is why I used it in my example.

See how helpful the table was!  

13 minutes ago, creativehum said:

This is great stuff. And the kind of thing I am talking about. The BoKL can get us started. And then we run with it as story and circumstances grow.

Yeah, but that really didn't affect chargen. He was Roman and his family stayed that way. I think we are straying into nature vs. nurture here. As statistics in KAP are physical characteristics, it logically makes sense that genetics would play a bigger role than society or religion. Saxons aren't bigger because they think bigger than Cymri. Nor do Romans think themselves into a higher APP score. 

Now you can make a case for things like diet, personal hygene and such all paying a factor in attributes, but they would take generations to has such an effect as we see in the culture in KAP. 

[Hzark10]

26 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

For instance, the chargen for characters from Salisbury tends to give characters a Hate (Saxons) passion. So logically, a GM should realize that Saxon characters are going to have problems being accepted in Salisbury. It's not really open for interpretation. If a GM wants to say that people in Salisbury just accept a Saxon character because that is how he wants to play it out, well he is deviating from what was intended. That's not to say he can't do so, but it does mean  he is making a choice to divert. He wasn't left on his own, he chose to go it alone. 

Exactly why Greg allowed Berrocing Saxons to be created.  They came over a generation (or so) before Hengest. They stayed loyal to the crown of Britain, fought numerous battles to prove it and are said to tattor the cross of Christ on their forehead (or cheeks, I forget which off the top of my head). So, these would be not susceptible to Hate Saxons.  In Book of Sires, that is clearly spelled out. The Hate (Saxons) is now denoted as Hate (Non-Berroc) Saxons.

It also can be used to explain why a Saxon could have poisoned King Aurelius as all he would have to do is tattoo himself.

 

[creativehum]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

A lot of it is also logical cause and effect...

Agreed. I never suggested anything otherwise. You are phrasing this as if you are correcting something... but that is strange, since I never typed anything contrary to this point of view.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

For instance, the chargen for characters from Salisbury tends to give characters a Hate (Saxons) passion. So logically, a GM should realize that Saxon characters are going to have problems being accepted in Salisbury. It's not really open for interpretation. If a GM wants to say that people in Salisbury just accept a Saxon character because that is how he wants to play it out, well he is deviating from what was intended. That's not to say he can't do so, but it does mean  he is making a choice to divert. He wasn't left on his own, he chose to go it alone. 

Again... I have no idea why you typed this in the context of some sort of reply to what I wrote. I never said anything about contradicting the facts given in the setting in any of my posts.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think we are straying into nature vs. nurture here. As statistics in KAP are physical characteristics, it logically makes sense that genetics would play a bigger role than society or religion. Saxons aren't bigger because they think bigger than Cymri. Nor do Romans think themselves into a higher APP score. 

 Now you can make a case for things like diet, personal hygene and such all paying a factor in attributes, but they would take generations to has such an effect as we see in the culture in KAP. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Not once did I talk about anything to do with some sort of nonsensical shifting of Staristcs through wishful thinking, let alone  I have no idea why you think I'd blithely consider shifting Statistics because a PC moved to a new Homeland.

As always when we interact there comes a time when I can only you assume you are skimming over my words, deciding what I wrote independent of anything I actually wrote, and correcting me on point s I never typed. 

That time has arrived in this thread.

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Exactly why Greg allowed Berrocing Saxons to be created.  They came over a generation (or so) before Hengest. They stayed loyal to the crown of Britain, fought numerous battles to prove it and are said to tattor the cross of Christ on their forehead (or cheeks, I forget which off the top of my head). So, these would be not susceptible to Hate Saxons.  In Book of Sires, that is clearly spelled out. The Hate (Saxons) is now denoted as Hate (Non-Berroc) Saxons.

That's a bit of a change, but I can understand it, since the Berroc Saxons have been there for generations and have proven their loyalty. It would be different though for a new group of Saxons. 

10 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

It also can be used to explain why a Saxon could have poisoned King Aurelius as all he would have to do is tattoo himself.

Yup. It could also be used to explain why the Saxons got the blame too, as anybody with a Hate (Saxons) passion (quite common in the area at the time) would be inclined to believe it, if the Saxons were accused. 

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, creativehum said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Not once did I talk about anything to do with some sort of nonsensical shifting of Staristcs through wishful thinking, let alone  I have no idea why you think I'd blithely consider shifting Statistics because a PC moved to a new Homeland.

It's that you dimssed Statstics, in favor of Passions as the dertemining factor for culture. I cut & pasted the text to try and show you what I mean.

 

 

13 hours ago, creativehum said:

If I have a Pictish Champion who joins Arthur's court, marries a Salisbury woman, and sends his son to Sarum to train to be a page,, I don't care if he inherited his father's –3 SIZ, +3 DEX,–3 APP Statistic Modifiers, I am happily writing "Cymric" in the Culture box. By the time he has worked his way up to being a knight he is Cymric by my lights.

 

That's what you typed, and why I mentioned that statistics. While you might consider such a character Cymric, and write Cymric in the culture box, his statstics are a visible repsentation of his racial and cultural heritage.

13 hours ago, creativehum said:

For me, no matter what the Statistical Modifier from a parent, however, a character's Passions are what identify him with a Culture. His culture informs what what he cares about, what he would die for.

But passions are the same from culture to Culture. Very few Cultures have specific passions tied to them. Cymri, Saxons and Romans all start with the same Passions of Loyalty (lord), Love (Family), Honor and Hospitality, and all at the same values, so how can you use Passions to identify a character's Culture as Cymric, Roman, or Saxon?

So by going with Passions and not caring about Stat mods you are ignoring something that can be traced back to culture for something than generally cannot.  

5 hours ago, creativehum said:

As always when we interact there comes a time when I can only you assume you are skimming over my words, deciding what I wrote independent of anything I actually wrote, and correcting me on point s I never typed. 

Then can you please clarify how you can determine Culture by Passions? 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That's a bit of a change, but I can understand it, since the Berroc Saxons have been there for generations and have proven their loyalty. It would be different though for a new group of Saxons.

To take this back to the Book of Sires, I really hope that people enjoy the way we have presented the Berroc Saxons in the book. I think we lay a very strong case why the Britons exclude the Berroc Saxons from their Hatred of other Saxons.

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Morien said:

To take this back to the Book of Sires, I really hope that people enjoy the way we have presented the Berroc Saxons in the book. I think we lay a very strong case why the Britons exclude the Berroc Saxons from their Hatred of other Saxons.

I'm looking forward to that bit. I'm running my group in the reign of Constantin, and was hoping to make the Berroc the "Good Saxons" who will try to warn the Brits about Hengest, but are ignored by Vortigern.

[Hzark10]

If you have the book, might also look at the Cambria section, year 445 for a possible plot hook. But yes, we hope that the Book of Sires is well received. There are distinct points we raised to help the game give as many options for players as we do.

[Atgxtg]

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

If you have the book,

I don't yet. I forcing myself to wait until my taxes come back next week, as I kinda splurged on something big recently and need to catch up on bills first. But I do plan on getting it soon. Since I plan to run my PKs though Vortingern's and Aurlieus' reigns SIRES will be invaluable just for the official timeline, events, and names for people from that era. I hoping to modify the family background tables I did for 366-409 era (so I could start my PKs in 410) to match up with the ones in SIRES too. 

So for me SIRES will be more than just history and background-my PKs will be living through it. 

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

might also look at the Cambria section, year 445 for a possible plot hook.

Battle of Finnsburg, perhaps? I was thinking that the Saxons from Surrey would be relatives of Finn. 

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

But yes, we hope that the Book of Sires is well received. There are distinct points we raised to help the game give as many options for players as we do.

It sounds good, and there really hasn't been a bad Pendragon supplement-  so I think your hopes will be met. Good Luck.