Adapting a Character Concept from One Culture to Another

[Gemini Lupus]

I'm going to start this as an advice thread, but hope it will turn into a discussion thread.

I have a player who is deeply in love with the different cultures and ideologies of India. This in itself is wonderful as I believe the Indians have beautiful cultures and are a fascinating people. The issue, which is really a non-issue, is that she wants her characters to be based on these cultures and the setting that my campaign is in is based on Romano-Celtic Britain and Medieval Ireland. She wants to play a Sikh and I am trying to figure out how to adapt her character concept into one that is not so foreign to the kingdom they are in. I want to stay true to the concept and ideology, but want to reflavor it so that it is more Celtic, but I may concede to having her character be from a different continent so that she can play her character in its true form.

So, how do you handle a player who wants to play characters that don't quite fit into the setting? How would you adapt this concept to create a Celtic-Sikh?

This is really the first time I'm coming across this, as most of my players have wanted to play more traditional Western European inspired characters and I strive for verisimilitude in my setting.

[Flashy]

Have her be from abroad?

This seems like an easy fix, unless it's really really critical that she be from the Britain themed area.

EDIT: I think my question is mainly why it matters that she be refluffed to be Celtic? I'm not clear why her being foreign would be disruptive.

[Slipperychicken]

What if you just ask her to save the concept for a future game, and try to find ways to incorporate Indian stuff when designing your next game?


Of course, you could make something so it's a little bit more plausible for a Fantasy-India people to appear in Fantasy-British Isles. Maybe she got zapped by a wizard and appeared in Stonehenge or something. Or maybe her character wanted to find out where all that spice was going, so she followed the silk road all the way to Britain.

[ngilop]

Im not understanding how wanting to be a Sikh is 'wrong' in your campaign world. a Sikh is recognized by the 5 K's; Kesh( the most noticeable), kanga, kirpan, kachehra, and kara.

It is a religion not a character concept. So for me not being able to adapt a religion into a game albeit modified seem just lazy.

you would have to fajiggle Sikhism to make it fit better in the D&D game, but im pretty sure the Ks and the base philosophy is all your player is looking at, so that's should be easy as heck to incorporate into your game.


again Sikhism is a religion not a character concept like *the grizzled lone wolf veteran*

so its really not so much about this character wanting to be a character concpwt that you don't want, as much as you are asking for how to fit the Sikh religion into your roman-era of sorts D&D world.

[TheThan]

Let her play the character as she wants (within fair reason). However everyone ( NPCs and PCs) in game should treat her as a barbarian, an outsider, a stranger, uncivilized. Heck I’d even go so far as to set it up that she doesn’t speak the same language and has to spend skill points (or their equivalent) to learn how to communicate with the locals. Make it as much as a pain as you possibly can for the character.

That’s the price to pay for playing something completely out of the scope of the DM’s campaign setting.

[Figgin of Chaos]

Player Characters can be outliers. And the real world, it's entirely probable that people traveled from India to Western Europe during the time period you're thinking of. I guarantee your campaign will be more interesting if you let the player play an Indian-inspired character than one with the Indian part toned down.

[Urpriest]

You could probably fit in a good deal of Sikh ideology and aesthetics into a Celtic religious order. Imagine a Celtic warrior sworn to never cut their hair or defile their body and to always travel armed so as to fight injustice and defend the weak. They might even tie their hair in a cloth, to keep it out of the way in battle. That all seems perfectly consistent with a Celtic legendary hero-type, while also meshing well with Sikhism.

[LokiRagnarok]

Let her play the character as she wants (within fair reason). However everyone ( NPCs and PCs) in game should treat her as a barbarian, an outsider, a stranger, uncivilized. Heck I’d even go so far as to set it up that she doesn’t speak the same language and has to spend skill points (or their equivalent) to learn how to communicate with the locals. Make it as much as a pain as you possibly can for the character.

That’s the price to pay for playing something completely out of the scope of the DM’s campaign setting.
...
Wait what. I had no problem with your post up until the last paragraph about your motivation.
Let's punish my player for asking if she can play a character she would enjoy to play. How dare she break my beautiful creation of my world!

[Altair_the_Vexed]

The big question for resolving this:

Does she want to play a "foreigner", or is her concept that her character is part of the setting's normal culture?

If she wants to be foreign, then let her play the character exactly as she proposed - create a far off land where her character comes from, and remember that the Roman Empire moved people around a lot, and can easily be coloured with a little Alexandrian Empire to ensure the Indian subcontinent flavour is acceptable.

If she wants to be native to your setting, then set up a tribe/sect of Celts that follow the principles of Sikhism. Instead of the various Punjabi words used in Sikhism, find their English translations, and use those instead.
(Basically, what Urpriest said, up there ^.)

[Tengu_temp]

Let her play the character as she wants (within fair reason). However everyone ( NPCs and PCs) in game should treat her as a barbarian, an outsider, a stranger, uncivilized. Heck I’d even go so far as to set it up that she doesn’t speak the same language and has to spend skill points (or their equivalent) to learn how to communicate with the locals. Make it as much as a pain as you possibly can for the character.

That’s the price to pay for playing something completely out of the scope of the DM’s campaign setting.

http://www.timsackett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bad-advice.jpg

If I was the player and the DM did something like this to me, I'd be ****ing pissed off. "Pretend that you're okay with it, and then throw lots and lots of unforeseen obstacles in the player's way" is a really bad and passive-aggressive way of handling such things. Either agree with the character concept and try to make it work, ban it and explain why, or honestly explain to the player the difficulties their character will face.

[TheThan]

Actually it comes down to this question:

“Do you want to play this RPG or not?”

It’s pretty simple really, but maybe I should elaborate a little.

When a player submits a character to the DM, it’s his obligation to conform to the game world the DM has crafted. He worked much longer than the player did building that world, what right does the player has to dictate to the person who created the very world that he wants to play in? (likewise a Dm ought ask to see what sort of games his potential players are interested in as well, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with the player’s character)

Imagine if I told Lucas or Roddenberry or Tolkien that they made their world(s) wrong and they need to add something I happen to like. Not only would they ignore my brilliant suggestion, but I’d come off a total tool, which gives them even less incentive to listen to me.

If he’s not interested in the world, he has the option of simply not playing. Coming clean and explaining that he’s not interested in the Dm’s world is the simply and most honest way of doing that. It shouldn’t ruin a friendship. I’ve personally done that, and I haven’t ruined the friendship I’ve had with that friend.

Now when this player is insistent on playing something that does not conform to the Dm’s game world, he has every right to Veto or allow it as he sees fit. I prefer to apply restrictions as it inflicts punishment for not playing well with others (particularly the DM) unless we’re dealing with something that absolutely cannot work (which I’ve had to do before).

Besides its realistic. If I travel to say India, I will be totally out of my league, I don’t know the lay of the land, the languages, the local customs, the people nothing. I’m a foreigner in that land and life will be difficult for a while, maybe always (depending on the culture).

[LibraryOgre]

If I was the player and the DM did something like this to me, I'd be ****ing pissed off. "Pretend that you're okay with it, and then throw lots and lots of unforeseen obstacles in the player's way" is a really bad and passive-aggressive way of handling such things. Either agree with the character concept and try to make it work, ban it and explain why, or honestly explain to the player the difficulties their character will face.

Disagree with you, Tengu. "I want to play something outside of the game world you have prepared." This means more work for the GM. Now, there can be more to the conversation... Altair gives a good example of how that conversation goes. But if you have a character who is obviously foreign in the setting, then they're going to get some problems from it, especially until they make their own name.

Yes, you should honestly explain to the player the difficulties their character will face... but the player should also have the expectation "I'm playing a foreigner, I will get treated as a foreigner."

It's somewhat like wanting to play a drow in standard FR... while a Sikh isn't going to be straight out viewed as an enemy and monster, foreigner can cause some real problems with cultural disconnects.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Actually it comes down to this question:

“Do you want to play this RPG or not?”

It’s pretty simple really, but maybe I should elaborate a little.

When a player submits a character to the DM, it’s his obligation to conform to the game world the DM has crafted. He worked much longer than the player did building that world, what right does the player has to dictate to the person who created the very world that he wants to play in? (likewise a Dm ought ask to see what sort of games his potential players are interested in as well, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with the player’s character)

Imagine if I told Lucas or Roddenberry or Tolkien that they made their world(s) wrong and they need to add something I happen to like. Not only would they ignore my brilliant suggestion, but I’d come off a total tool, which gives them even less incentive to listen to me.

If he’s not interested in the world, he has the option of simply not playing. Coming clean and explaining that he’s not interested in the Dm’s world is the simply and most honest way of doing that. It shouldn’t ruin a friendship. I’ve personally done that, and I haven’t ruined the friendship I’ve had with that friend.

Now when this player is insistent on playing something that does not conform to the Dm’s game world, he has every right to Veto or allow it as he sees fit. I prefer to apply restrictions as it inflicts punishment for not playing well with others (particularly the DM) unless we’re dealing with something that absolutely cannot work (which I’ve had to do before).

I utterly disagree with this!

Roleplaying games are about having fun together, not about the GM lording it over the players and showing off. If you want to show off your awesome creation and aren't willing to allow others to contribute, write some freaking fiction.

Yes, the GM's setting acts as the background for the game, and yes, players should think about how to fit their characters concepts into this world - but that's not to say that the GM should veto anything they think doesn't fit!
Adapt player backstory or concept to fit your setting - work with your players, it's better for everyone.


Besides its realistic. If I travel to say India, I will be totally out of my league, I don’t know the lay of the land, the languages, the local customs, the people nothing. I’m a foreigner in that land and life will be difficult for a while, maybe always (depending on the culture).

1. If you adopt / adapt a culture into your setting, then there's no need for the character to be foreign.
2. If you travel to / from India by Roman / Medieval methods, your cultural integration will be gradual. I'm reading about the historical Silk Road at the moment - there was plenty of cultural exchange between Asia and Europe, most traders were polyglots or they were failures, and you worked with the locals' customs or again, you failed.
3. Maybe being a foreigner is what the OP's player wants. It makes for interesting play.

Again - working with your players enriches the game. Vetoing stuff that is outside your grand vision - and likening that vision to great cult fiction creators - smack of arrogance.

---

EDIT: some additional thoughts - examples of adding player content into my setting.

I created a fantasy setting, based on crusades era Eurasia - two conflicting monotheistic cultures, neither much worse than the other, but both treating each other as vile pagans.

One player wanted to be a strict worshipper of a god he'd made up. That didn't fit with my monotheisitc setting - but we decided to make his god a zealous cult within the state religion.
That opened the door to other cults, and the setting has grown to have various saints and cults under the monotheistic faith - and developed an Inquisition to keep these all in line. Without that original idea, I might have missed out on adding those interesting aspects.

Another player wanted to play a "French dwarf". I didn't have a "France" in my setting - but decided, that as the main state was a sort of Britain-parallel, then it would make sense for a neighbouring nation to be a France-parallel. I had wanted them to be Vikings, previously - but now they were French... after a bit of research, I settled on Norman: the halfway house between French and Viking.
Making the neighbours Norman changed their style and flavour a bit - there was still the fierce seafaring traditions, but it was smoothed over and the cliché of hairy Vikings was avoided quite nicely. Again, the setting was enhanced by the player's concept.

[Kalmageddon]

Disagree with you, Tengu. "I want to play something outside of the game world you have prepared." This means more work for the GM. Now, there can be more to the conversation... Altair gives a good example of how that conversation goes. But if you have a character who is obviously foreign in the setting, then they're going to get some problems from it, especially until they make their own name.

Yes, you should honestly explain to the player the difficulties their character will face... but the player should also have the expectation "I'm playing a foreigner, I will get treated as a foreigner."

It's somewhat like wanting to play a drow in standard FR... while a Sikh isn't going to be straight out viewed as an enemy and monster, foreigner can cause some real problems with cultural disconnects.

I agree.
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the idea of roleplaying the consequences of being a foreigner.
First of all, it gives an excuse to the character to not know anything about the setting, which is expecially useful when said setting is a homebrew from the GM that obviously the players don't know very well. You can ask questions on anything without having to worry about the "your character would already know that" factor and it could give an excuse to the GM to flash things out even more, something which is usually appreciated when you went through the trouble of creating a setting on your own.
If the GM is not being a **** about it, it can also provide some interesting conflicts, potentially spicing things up.
The only thing that should be remembered is that if the GM agrees to the character, he shouldn't go out of his way to turn the concept into an handicap that hampers the character constantly. It should be played fairly, after all, while certain NPCs can react badly to a foreigner, others might be fascinated by it.

[Tengu_temp]

If there are consequences for playing a character outside of the setting you have in mind, then the player should know in advance. Telling them "oh sure, you can play this character, it's perfectly fine" and then dumping a pile of unforeseen consequences of them out of the blue for daring to go against your brilliant vision (gasp! How dare they!) is just being a sneaky d*ck.

Be honest with your players. Do I have to repeat myself? Either tell them "we'll try to work this character concept into the setting even though it doesn't fit perfectly", or "sorry, this doesn't work for this game I have in mind", or "yes, you can play this character as a foreigner, but everyone will treat them as a strange outsider". But you have to be honest, and you have to be open to compromise and willing to discuss things with the player, and be willing to change your mind. There are some DMs who flaunt their inflexibility as a virtue, as if somehow that made them stronger - but they couldn't be more wrong.

[Gemini Lupus]

Wow, an awful lot of feedback. A few comments: I always want my players to play what they want to play, though I like to be a part of the character creation. Now, having this Sikh character be a foreigner is an option and I'm not going to penalize her any for that for two reasons: 1: it's not my style to do that kind of thing. 2: she's a new player so I want her to have the most fun possible and not turn another good role player away from the hobby. What I really want is some ways that the character can be adapted to fit the setting IF she chooses to do so.

After further research, it honestly would not be difficult to adapt this character to the setting, as Sikh philosophy is not so different from Celtic philosophy. Most of what needs to be changed is the ascetics of the character.

Also, I have thoroughly enjoyed some of the stories shared about experiences with players wanting characters that don't quite fit the setting.

[TheThan]

I utterly disagree with this!

Roleplaying games are about having fun together, not about the GM lording it over the players and showing off. If you want to show off your awesome creation and aren't willing to allow others to contribute, write some freaking fiction.

Yes, the GM's setting acts as the background for the game, and yes, players should think about how to fit their characters concepts into this world - but that's not to say that the GM should veto anything they think doesn't fit!
Adapt player backstory or concept to fit your setting - work with your players, it's better for everyone.



1. If you adopt / adapt a culture into your setting, then there's no need for the character to be foreign.
2. If you travel to / from India by Roman / Medieval methods, your cultural integration will be gradual. I'm reading about the historical Silk Road at the moment - there was plenty of cultural exchange between Asia and Europe, most traders were polyglots or they were failures, and you worked with the locals' customs or again, you failed.
3. Maybe being a foreigner is what the OP's player wants. It makes for interesting play.

Again - working with your players enriches the game. Vetoing stuff that is outside your grand vision - and likening that vision to great cult fiction creators - smack of arrogance.



In a way you’re reinforcing my point.
The player in question does not want to work with the Dm (who’s also a player by the way) on this and is Demanding that the DM bend like a willow to allow his character concept even though it completely does not fit into the game that he has created, or that the player wishes to play in.

The Dm has the right to completely veto that character for any reason, but by applying some penalties (mostly role-playing ones) for going against the nature of the game and not playing well with the others, he actually is bending quite a bit to allow that player to play his concept.

I’ve never said to hide the consequences from the player, the dm should tell the player what to expect, if they’re ok with it, then there shouldn’t be any problems. If they are, then that player could always roll up a different character, or not play. I also never said anything about not treating that character fairly, that’s part of the Dm’s role.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

In a way you’re reinforcing my point.
The player in question does not want to work with the Dm (who’s also a player by the way) on this and is Demanding that the DM bend like a willow to allow his character concept even though it completely does not fit into the game that he has created, or that the player wishes to play in.

Citation needed!

As far as I can see, the OP does not say that - I see no "does not want to work with the Dm", nor any "Demanding".

The OP is asking us how we might go about adapting cultures to settings.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by TheThan
That’s the price to pay for playing something completely out of the scope of the DM’s campaign setting.

I have to say this line comes across as thoroughly punitive, which I don't think is necessary and certainly not the OP's approach.

That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask a character from far outside the game region to spend a couple skill points on learning the local language. I've done something similar in my last long campaign and it led to some great roleplaying.

Thing is, I didn't present it as punitive--just a reasonable extrapolation of rules and situations. No one took it the wrong way and it worked out fine.


Originally Posted by TheThan
When a player submits a character to the DM, it’s his obligation to conform to the game world the DM has crafted.

You sure like your players submissive.

I don't see how playing a character outside the game region is somehow apocalyptic to the campaign. I see this as evidence of an engaged and creative player, not some supposed challenge to the DM's ironclad authority.


Originally Posted by TheThan
The player in question does not want to work with the Dm (who’s also a player by the way) on this and is Demanding that the DM bend like a willow to allow his character concept even though it completely does not fit into the game that he has created….

Oh, come on. There's absolutely no evidence that the player is "demanding" anything, and certainly not that the player is unwilling to work with the DM. All I'm seeing is a player with a character concept she really loves, and a DM who's making a thoughtful effort to incorporate her idea into the existing cultures of his game region. Gemini Lupus has some solid expertise with Celtic culture and history, and it speaks well of him that he's willing to work with his player to bring in something from far beyond those cultural borders.

I don't see a problem here. This looks like a promising beginning to a really cool campaign.
.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon
If it is intended to be a true-to-history setting, it may be worth pointing out that Sikhism didn't really exist prior to the 15th century AD, so misses Celtic times by over a thousand years.

Good point, although "forgotten clan of proto-Sikhs" would probably do in a pinch.

:smalltongue:



I was thinking about this last night. The Roman world was extensive, and people moved around a lot. The Romans had trading ties with ports on the western coast of India, so it's plausible that an Indian adventurer could follow the trade routes across the Arabian Sea and over to the Mediterranean. It would be an epic journey in itself.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of someone physically crossing over from India, rather than a Celt with strangely Sikhish leanings. That latter approach feels like a timid compromise, and I would find it very disappointing. Allowing the character to be a traveler from an antique land (so to speak) would open up a realm of opportunity for backstory and roleplaying, especially from the Sikh's much broader perspective on the world.


Originally Posted by Ashtagon
…but remember everyone will see the character as a foreigner.

Very much so, and this will be the corollary for such a far-faring character. But she'll be accustomed to it, and again this will be fertile opportunity for some really fun roleplaying.

Just don't let it become The Last Legion, is all.

:smallbiggrin:

[Kalmageddon]

If she wants to have her Sikh (or pseudo-Sikh) character treated as an unremarkable part of the local culture, that would, in my opinion, be problematic. And no, Celts would not tie their hair in cloth prior to battle; Celtic warriors were in fact very particular about having their hair dressed properly (as in hairdressers; think wash and blow dry, with combing and whatever else the technology would allow), especially prior to battle.

I think this hits the nail on the head and the reason some people have reacted with hostility to this idea.

It's one thing to ask the GM "hey, could I roleplay something coming from the blank space of your setting? I'd be a foreigner and roleplay it consequently" but it's quite another to ask "Hey, I have this idea, find space for it in your setting because I don't want my character to deal with any foreigner issues".

Both could be doable, but the second one requires the GM to do extra work and potentially twist the whole setting around just to accomodate the player. And, in my experience, this doesn't end badly.
More ofthen than not, it's because the player doesn't care about the setting (this can happen even when the setting is something from a third party BTW) or, even worse, decided he wants to turn the setting into something more to his liking, perhaps even by introducing a whole culture of Mary Sues based around his favourite things.

Like this one time, I was part of a D&D game where the setting was homebrewed by the GM. It was based around the Classical era, bronze age technology basically. One of the players wanted to play a super badass warrior with a katana sword, something that was impossibile with the setting's tech and really grinded with the whole Ancient Greece theme. So he convinced the GM to introduce a whole culture of advanced people who already had steel.
Then, made this culture central to his own backstory and objectives.
And finally, he basically took over the setting when he made his people go to war with the rest of the world.

Now, you might think this is clever, but I assure you nobody but him had fun in that campaign. The GM was inexperienced and unassertive and far too eager to please his players to realize what a mess that guy was doing of his setting.

This is obviously an extreme example, usually such players aren't that disruptive. But they are very prone to building Mary Sues coming from a culture where everything is better (and how could it not be better? It's his favourite irl culture! ^_^), becoming the roleplaying equivalent of showing up to a historical reenactment of medieval europe dressed as a Klingon...

What I'm saying is... Accomodating your players can be done, but it's often risky, expecially if you don't know them much. Personally, I think that if most people in the group agreed to a certain setting and tone, you shouldn't try to push your ideas just because you are obsessed with a concept or a culture in real life. Try something different for once, you might like it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kalmageddon
…it's quite another to ask "Hey, I have this idea, find space for it in your setting because I don't want my character to deal with any foreigner issues".


Originally Posted by Kalmageddon
...usually such players aren't that disruptive. But they are very prone to building Mary Sues coming from a culture where everything is better….


Originally Posted by Kalmageddon
…you shouldn't try to push your ideas just because you are obsessed with a concept or a culture in real life.

Not sure any of this applies to the OP's situation. Again, I don't see any evidence that the player is "obsessed" or pressuring the DM, and certainly not that she's trying to bring anything overpowered to the campaign.

Certainly, in your example, the katana player took advantage of a DM without much self-confidence and warped the campaign accordingly--but there's clearly a very different dynamic with Gemini Lupus and his player.

[Kalmageddon]

Not sure any of this applies to the OP's situation. Again, I don't see any evidence that the player is "obsessed" or pressuring the DM, and certainly not that she's trying to bring anything overpowered to the campaign.

Certainly, in your example, the katana player took advantage of a DM without much self-confidence and warped the campaign accordingly--but there's clearly a very different dynamic with Gemini Lupus and his player.

I know, I was talking about the issue in general. :smallwink:

[TheThan]

You sure like your players submissive.

I don't see how playing a character outside the game region is somehow apocalyptic to the campaign.


Actually I don’t.

Many people consider DnD a social contract. The Dm is expected to work with the players, which is fine, but somehow the players aren’t expected to work with the DM? That’s not fair to the DM (who puts forth much more effort and does much more work on creating the RPG). It also stinks of player entitlement, which is something I don’t believe in.

Both player and DM need to work together to make the campaign happen (note campaign and setting are two different things). However sometimes one side doesn’t want to compromise. In this case problems happen. Both the Dm and the players can only bend and flex so much before they break. The Dm becomes a pushover DM (or a total hard nose) and the players become self entitled. In my honest opinion, this situation is bad for a group.
In this thread I’ve noticed that when the player is the one that refuses to budge and compromise there’s no issue, but when the DM refuses to compromise or budge then people lash out at him. I wonder why.

I did come off as a bit too harsh, I apologize for that.

Now I’ll explain an anecdote about why I feel so strongly this way.

Once upon a time I developed a setting

This setting had a very strong divine presence in the world. There was a single all encompassing church (well a pantheon of churches really), with a handful of cults spread across the continent. The cosmology of this setting was so:

The gods drew their divine power, their life force from worship. The more people prayed to and worship the gods the more they powerful (and healthier) they were. This means that if people stopped worshiping and praying to a god that god would die.

These gods knew this, so they loaned out a portion of their power to their divine agents, to create more followers and to ensure they kept the followers they already had. That’s where clerics, paladins and the like come into play. Thusly both mankind and the gods benefit from their relationship. The gods live off the prayers and faith of the gods and the people reap the benefits of worship (crops bloom, healthy babies are born, priests heal the sick and injured etc).

This pantheon of gods had perfect knowledge of who was using their power and where they were. They as a whole they jealously guard their power, it’s their very life force an all.

Now I explain all this because I had a potential player that wanted to play an ur-priest. If you don’t know; an ur-priest is a spell caster who steals magic from the gods to fuel his magic. I explained to him that I couldn’t fit an ur-priest in because of how the god’s relationship with the world worked. I said he could play a cleric belonging to one of the little cults I had established in the world. He refused, insisting on playing an Ur-priest. I offered to adjust the fluff of the ur-priest to fit into the setting and he still refused, saying he wanted to play the class straight and not make any adjustments to any aspect of the class, including the fluff. I even explained that allowing the Ur-priest into the setting would break the campaign that I had written out for that setting (which had to do with the gods starting to die) and that if he really did want to play, he should find a suitable alternative, as I’m not going to go back and spend months re-writing my campaign just to accommodate one player.

We were at an impasse, I couldn’t bend enough to fit this player into my setting, and he wouldn’t bend to fit into my setting. A compromise could not be reached. Fortunately the situation resolved itself as both of us found ourselves too busy to do a game. but still that situation has been in my head ever since I started reading this thread.

[Urpriest]

If she wants to have her Sikh (or pseudo-Sikh) character treated as an unremarkable part of the local culture, that would, in my opinion, be problematic. And no, Celts would not tie their hair in cloth prior to battle; Celtic warriors were in fact very particular about having their hair dressed properly (as in hairdressers; think wash and blow dry, with combing and whatever else the technology would allow), especially prior to battle.

I get the impression that Sikhs are pretty devoted to haircare too, what with the carrying combs everywhere. They just wrap it up in a turban afterwards.

Again, the situation really depends on what the player is going for. If it's "I admire the ideals of this culture, what's a way to fit into your setting while playing a character devoted to these ideals?" then adding an order of Sikh-ish Celtic-esque warriors should work fine. If the goal is "I want to be a foreigner from a distant land", then that could be worked out too. If it's "I don't care about Celtic Britain, I just want to play something in 15th century India" then there's a problem.

[Airk]

We were at an impasse, I couldn’t bend enough to fit this player into my setting, and he wouldn’t bend to fit into my setting. A compromise could not be reached. Fortunately the situation resolved itself as both of us found ourselves too busy to do a game. but still that situation has been in my head ever since I started reading this thread.


So, basically, you had one bad experience that was as much you being unyielding as the player (I actually think there could be some very interesting implications for the possibility of a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who somehow had the ability to steal power, but I don't think the player would've liked how it turned out. :P ), and you have projected it onto this thread with some very punitive suggestions. Suffice to say I don't think this this the best way to handle the situation.

Yes, the GM is a player. Yes, the players should accommodate the GM in the name of making the game better. But that doesn't mean that everything the GM brings to the table for the first session automatically trumps everything the players bring to the table in the first session. You should be making a game together, not showing up and demanding your players play the game you have prepared.

What is the best way to handle the situation? Find out what the player WANTS. Is it the belief system? Is it the whole deal? Is she okay with being an outsider? There are solutions for all of these, but they all start with conversation, understanding intentions and being flexible.

[TheThan]

Oh I tried to yield. I offered him different options, I even allowed him to play the class with some changes to the fluff. I even explained to him the in game reasons as to why I couldn’t allow the class, And HE REFUSED all of it.

I considered the implications of allowing an as is ur-priest in the setting. That would result in me intentionally targeting his character and eventually out right killing him as the forces thrown at him would escalate too rapidly for him to survive. That was not something I wanted to do, as it would look like I was being petty and signaling him out for retribution.

He was the one that would not budge on the subject; he wouldn’t make a compromise on his character. There were certain things I could not change without re-writing the ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE CAMPAIGN. Once again, something I spent a whole lot of time on. I had three options, cancel the game and re-write it, not allow him to play, or allow him to break my campaign. which would you choose?

The players and the DM must be willing to make compromise and come to an agreement, otherwise no-one will ever be able to actually get together and play. Hence my starting question “do you want to play or not?”.

[Cronocke]

Personally, when coming into a new game with a new GM, particularly if the setting is home-brewed or at least new to me, I love playing the foreigner, or the outsider. It means I have an in-character excuse for not knowing the particulars of the local culture, so if I accidentally perform some faux-pas or otherwise lack setting or game-specific information, it's as much my character being caught unaware as it is me being the new guy.

With that in mind, OP, if your player really wants to play a Sikh (or proto-Sikh), you should probably... just let her do it? I'm sure you could create some offshoot culture locally as previous posters have suggested, but allowing her to play a stranger in a strange land allows for interesting roleplaying opportunities and gives her a handy-dandy little excuse for not knowing the game's rules as well, or the setting's customs.

[veti]

Good point, although "forgotten clan of proto-Sikhs" would probably do in a pinch.

I think you can reasonably point out to her that "Sikh", as a concept, is way anachronistic - it'd be like playing a modern Baptist in a Crusader-themed setting. It would be more appropriate for her to be some kind of Buddhist, in that era. If she's really that into Indian culture, she should be just as happy thinking about its ancient roots rather than just its modern manifestations.


The Roman world was extensive, and people moved around a lot. The Romans had trading ties with ports on the western coast of India, so it's plausible that an Indian adventurer could follow the trade routes across the Arabian Sea and over to the Mediterranean. It would be an epic journey in itself.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of someone physically crossing over from India, rather than a Celt with strangely Sikhish leanings.

I agree with this completely. It's not at all impossible that the character might have made the journey from India for some reason - probably trade-related, but there's other options to taste. It's the "1000 years ahead of time" thing that would be a deal-breaker for me.

[Gemini Lupus]

Again, the situation really depends on what the player is going for. If it's "I admire the ideals of this culture, what's a way to fit into your setting while playing a character devoted to these ideals?" then adding an order of Sikh-ish Celtic-esque warriors should work fine. If the goal is "I want to be a foreigner from a distant land", then that could be worked out too. If it's "I don't care about Celtic Britain, I just want to play something in 15th century India" then there's a problem.

The situation is very much the former, she admires the ideals of Sikhism as well as the dual-wielding fighting style of gatka, which I have flavored as an elven martial art for her.

There has been a lot of great discussion here, with a great variety of opinion on the matter. This can very understandably be a sore subject for people and I don't grudge anyone their feelings, but rather appreciate the insight.

[Palanan]

So, if she posts her character sheet on Mythweavers or the like, I'd love to see what she came up with.

Also, campaign journal. Just sayin'.

:smalltongue: