Ragnar Lothbrok,

[j!nx]

in many novels such as Bernard Cornwell's Anglo Saxon series Ragnar Lothbrok (Lodbrok,Lolthbrok, ive seen many different spellings) gets brought up a ton including when talking about Viking history in general, now for a while they have been playing a Canadian-Irish drama series called Vikings on the history channel, my question is what is Ragnars alignment, (dnd talking).. what do you think he is as a person(character)

[j!nx]

anybody want to throw there opinion out there?

[McStabbington]

Honestly, I'd say that if it's 3.5, he's probably a CN fighter with possible dips in expert and ranger. He's good with a sword, quite shrewd, but typically is fairly straightforward in the use of the sword-and-board and spends a lot of his time thinking about returning to his life as a farmer, which he seems to have a knack for. He has a modicum of knowledge: nature and a bit of knowledge: religion, but nothing beyond what a fairly intelligent fighter with some cross-class ranks and maybe the points from a one-level dip would have.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Let's see, he's a viking, a people whose activities include mass murder, rape, pillage, ritual cannibalism, torture, slave trading, treachery, infanticide and community level arson. (Neutral) Evil sounds about right.

[lord_khaine]

Let's see, he's a viking, a people whose activities include mass murder, rape, pillage, ritual cannibalism, torture, slave trading, treachery, infanticide and community level arson. (Neutral) Evil sounds about right.

Show me a people who did not do those things back at that time? :smallconfused:

[j!nx]

Let's see, he's a viking, a people whose activities include mass murder, rape, pillage, ritual cannibalism, torture, slave trading, treachery, infanticide and community level arson. (Neutral) Evil sounds about right.

you must of not read any stories and just believe what the stereotypical "Viking" was... he is definitely not NE

[Dienekes]

Show me a people who did not do those things back at that time? :smallconfused:

I don't think that's how D&D alignment works though. And the "historical" Ragnar was a raider and a violent slaver either would probably get him the evil label.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Pretty much. Vikings hit all the stereotypical marks for orcs, and more (I've never heard of orcs using infants as spear-training targets, for instance).

[thorgrim29]

Reading accounts of the Viking age (even taking into account the fact that they were mostly written monks who were freaking out because somebody dared to attack them) it seems to me that there was a purpose behind the atrocities. Even if the warband coming to your town is smaller than your army by far if they're shrouded that sort of aura of invincibility and terror you might be more tempted to give them what they want instead of attacking. Then they don't have to row a heavier ship back to Denmark with 12 less guys. I don't know if that makes it better or worse but that's my feeling.

As for the character.... In the series Ragnar is pretty morally grey (given that as a raider most of what he does that we consider evil is pretty much expected of him). He forgives his enemies, doesn't hold grudges and doesn't commit more atrocities than he has to (unless you attacked his kids, then the gloves are off) and even refrains from a few. On the other hand he lies, betrays, and does a whole lot of questionable stuff above and beyond being the leader of a raiding army.

[Leecros]

part of the problem with examining the Viking Age is that most accounts of it come from either victims of viking raids, or after the age of vikings was over and many of the accounts were skewed to make Vikings out to be terrible and barbaric people. Either because they were a victim of a viking raid, or for religious reasons. The Viking age pretty much ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia and painting pre-christian Scandinavia as a savage and barbaric place fit right into their narrative. There's not really a whole lot of information that comes directly from Viking Histories and the Viking Sagas are more of a pseudo-history than a factual recording.

However, getting far far away from the dangerous religious topics. There are some things that we do know. Vikings did probably do a lot of raiding and pillaging for a few decades. Although it was more for the profit of loot than to rape, murder, and burn towns to the ground. That was more of just a consequence of them raiding for loot. Eventually their reputation grew and they discovered that it was far more efficient to extort and demand tribute under the threat of a raid than actually raiding the village. Ultimately near the end of the Viking Age they took it one step farther. They focused less on demanding tribute to become traders,explorers, and settlers

[j!nx]

part of the problem with examining the Viking Age is that most accounts of it come from either victims of viking raids, or after the age of vikings was over and many of the accounts were skewed to make Vikings out to be terrible and barbaric people. Either because they were a victim of a viking raid, or for religious reasons. The Viking age pretty much ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia and painting pre-christian Scandinavia as a savage and barbaric place fit right into their narrative. There's not really a whole lot of information that comes directly from Viking Histories and the Viking Sagas are more of a pseudo-history than a factual recording.

However, getting far far away from the dangerous religious topics. There are some things that we do know. Vikings did probably do a lot of raiding and pillaging for a few decades. Although it was more for the profit of loot than to rape, murder, and burn towns to the ground. That was more of just a consequence of them raiding for loot. Eventually their reputation grew and they discovered that it was far more efficient to extort and demand tribute under the threat of a raid than actually raiding the village. Ultimately near the end of the Viking Age they took it one step farther. They focused less on demanding tribute to become traders,explorers, and settlers

THANKYOU we have very similar views on this

[Zaydos]

And while it may be pseudo-historical (dude fights a draugr, a troll, another draugr that is also a troll, and 12 berserkers) Grettir's Saga which takes place in the beginning of the 11th century is a good example of how they had been transitioning from raiders to settlers, in that Grettir would have been a great hero had he been born 50 years earlier, but now there just wasn't that much cultural esteem in being a viking and so Grettir was a person out of time (temporal context would put this as a story running about 50 years before the end of the viking age).

[Dienekes]

THANKYOU we have very similar views on this

What he's saying isn't really a matter of views. It's fairly common historical thought on vikings. The only tweak would be to mention that the trade was going on at the same time as the raiding, and some historians think by the very same people in some instances.

But that doesn't matter to the question of Ragnar's alignment. He thought it was ok to go to other people's land and take their belongings, and if they tried to defend themselves it was ok to murder them, and bring back some as slaves. That part has never been in question. And that definitely shoots him down to the deep side of the alignment pool. He thought it was ok to murder people who had done nothing to him first. It makes him a hero to the vikings, but to D&D alignment he's still evil.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Viking age pretty much ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia and painting pre-christian Scandinavia as a savage and barbaric place fit right into their narrative. There's not really a whole lot of information that comes directly from Viking Histories and the Viking Sagas are more of a pseudo-history than a factual recording.

The Viking Age ended because their targets wised up and built effective defenses against them which destroyed the profit margins on raiding. Christian Vikings did a lot of the same stuff as pagan ones. The relationship between conversion and change of life style probably went both ways rather than being a one directional cause.


They focused less on demanding tribute to become traders,explorers, and settlers

They were always traders from the start. Raids just pop up more in history because they're more of an event. Its not about bias against individual peoples, its bias about what chroniclers cared about. When its Christians vs Christians they also focus more on war than trade.


What he's saying isn't really a matter of views. It's fairly common historical thought on vikings. The only tweak would be to mention that the trade was going on at the same time as the raiding, and some historians think by the very same people in some instances.

No point in raiding if you can't sell the stuff you steal.