D&D Campaign Theme Question

[DarthArminius]

Hypothetical Scenario : The GM and players want a Viking themed campaign. So, if there are like, six players, five players choose vikings of various classes, would it make sense for the last player to choose a Celtic themed hero, based on the fact that his clan/tribe is a neighbor to a Viking settlement?

[Alcore]

Celtic and Viking are closely related… Themicly at least. In fact vikings “at rest” are often quite similar to normal celtics. Beyond druids I am struggling to understand the difference; if the vikings are not doing viking things they are likely doing celtic things.

[Berenger]

Short answer: If the "celtic" tribe has a friendly or at least neutral relationship to the "vikings", why not?

Slightly less short answer: More context is needed. In particular, what a "viking" is in your campaign. In real life, it was a temporary occupation. In your setting, it seems to be an ethnic group. The implications for including a foreigner are different in each case.

[Yora]

Celts still play a role in the cultural world of vikings. A pretty big one, actually.

For viking themed fantasy, it wouldn't disrupt the style to have Celtic themed people living close by. Not any more than Slavs or Finns. It's not asking the other players to meaningfully adjust their vision for a campaign theme.

[Pauly]

I have a low threshold for “look at me I’m special” characters. It’s like agreeing to go to an Italian restaurant then ordering a moussaka because Greek food is close to Italian and moussaka and lasagne are pretty close.

Theoretically it’s possible to be a Native American brought back to Europe, someone brought back as a captive from England, a trader from Turkey, a wandering slav from Rus, a Lapp elk herder, a Byzantine noble interested in the origin of the Varangian guard. So why have any “viking” heroes in the viking party in the viking setting at all?

My objections
1) Being the 6th character to choose means the player is taking advantage of the fact that the first 5 players played the game in the agreed manner.
2) It’s taking advantage of the GM and forces them not to apply appropriate disadvantages to the player (eg not a native speaker of the campaign language, unable to read or write viking) or to the party (negative social reactions for having an outsider in the group)
3) there is no advantage to the party for the character to be an outsider. A Celt isn’t going to bring new skills that vikings can’t access and properly should be limited from accessing ‘viking only’ skills such as long boat handling, open water navigation, knowledge of viking history/sagas.

Is there any reason for the character to be a Celt other than “look at me I’m speshul”? If no, I would hard disallow it. It’s unfair to the other players who built their characters within the agreed upon limits.

[oudeis]

Have him play as a freed thrall. If you can find 'The Grey God Passes' by Robert E. Howard, you'll both understand and he may even thank you.

[Cygnia]

Someone watched a certain YouTube video today...:smalltongue:

(it's a good video)

[DarthArminius]

Someone watched a certain YouTube video today...:smalltongue:

(it's a good video)

OH yeh, I love Seth Skorkowsky

[False God]

I generally find this sort of "We agreed to play X, so I brought Y to the table." behavior disruptive without pre-game consultation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there any reason for the character to be a Celt other than “look at me I’m speshul”? If no, I would hard disallow it. It’s unfair to the other players who built their characters within the agreed upon limits. That's a fair point, and I'll be interested to see the responses that you get.

[DarthArminius]

That's a fair point, and I'll be interested to see the responses that you get.


If this sort of thing happened, which is it hasn't, I'd drop the idea if the GM and/or players were opposed. I think the Celtic character could easily fit in with a Viking theme. Depending on historical context. Maybe the Vikings are fresh neighbors with the Celtic tribe after years of war.


Others have brought up good points.
I was recently in an "all Tabaxi" themed game - and someone wanted to do something different.
Which, fine. I get it. Maybe Tabaxi isn't your thing - and you don't connect.
But it does do what others stated - they're the one who will repeatedly stick out from the rest.
Which sometimes, may not be bad if it fits closely to the rest of theme.

A prime example is - based off what you said - is something like Eaters of the Dead / The 13th Warrior.

All Viking theme - with a Middle Eastern individual with them.

And I love 13th Warrior, personally.

The difference, if there's going to be RP, could make for cool dialogue and interaction.

However, if it's "just to be different" - then, I'd question it.

It ain't to be different.

[Jay R]

Depends on the play. If the person plays a Celtic character in a Viking culture well, so exploring the culture is an interesting part of the role-play, and in a way in which the party meshes well, then great!

If the player plays it in a disruptive way that prevents immersion into the culture, or prevents the party from working well together, then it's the problem.

But the problem is not a Celtic character. The problem is a disruptive player. Don't let somebody disguise their OOC disruption by pretending it's caused by IC actions.

[Berenger]

To those angry at the sixth player with the "very speshul" character - according to the OP, that guy is hypothetical, so he likely won't answer any questions regarding his motivations. Also, if the only clearly communicated agreement is "we're going to have a viking themed campaign", "every single character is personally a viking from exactly the same ethnic group" strikes me as an unreasonably narrow interpretation of that statement. "Make characters that would fit the tone and setting of your favourite viking show or novel that can meaningfully interact and cooperate with vikings" would be at least as valid, in good faith, and a much more sensible interpretation in my opinion. And yes, that would of course include the former captive from England, the trader from Turkey or the Lapp elk herder.

Also, several of the arguments against such characters feel extremely forced. I mean, "the campaign language" - those faux-viking guys are raiding and trading all over faux-europe and the faux-mediterranean and don't speak a smattering of any of local languages? Why would anybody in a viking culture be expected to read or write at all? How is it possible that natives from other countries acting as guides and dragomans don't bring valuable skills or advantages to a viking crew, even if it is "only" local knowledge? How are those vikings not having established trading partners, in-laws, distant cousins or friends from other cultures and in foreign lands when they and their ancestors spent years of their lives abroad? And the "foreign" tribe in question is literally described as their neighbour, as in "one village over". Unless at least one of the cultures is much more isolationist and xenophobic than its historical counterpart, that guy is probably a distant relative by blood to at least one of the other five.

[DarthArminius]

Cool. So what's the main purpose of this one being Celtic instead of Viking?
I am assuming, the one being Celtic is you? Since you specifically said its not "just to be different."
What (and I am being sincere in my curiousity) - does being Celtic rather than Viking bring?
It'd almost be more interesting (if it's Earth based Vikings) to be {scrub the post, scrub the quote} .

I assumed they were asking for themselves. And based on the response above, I'd say it's for them. So they could technically answer the question, as they don't seem to be asking on behalf of another player who brought this up - but rather an idea the OP was considering.


The idea is to emphasize part of the world's culture/back ground. {scrubbed}

I'm only kind of asking for myself btw. I don't even have a group to rp something like this in yet.

[Alcore]

If this sort of thing happened, which is it hasn't, I'd drop the idea if the GM and/or players were opposed. I think the Celtic character could easily fit in with a Viking theme. Depending on historical context. Maybe the Vikings are fresh neighbors with the Celtic tribe after years of war.



It ain't to be different.

To my haphazard research years ago… first there were celts which established an “empire” (in that they controlled large amounts of Europe) and centuries later there were a people (norse?) who had a culture that sent warriors out who were called Vikings by victims.


The Vikings are their descendants (though some argue the celts, as celts, managed to exist long enough to overlap slightly). Don’t know don’t quite care…


Hypothetically I think it might be to be different. You framed it al EVERYONE chose Viking early in session zero but when character creation rolled around one got cold feet. Regardless of my views on history my primary concern is A) why the change of heart and B) what is YOUR difference between viking and celtic?

[DarthArminius]

Hypothetically I think it might be to be different. You framed it al EVERYONE chose Viking early in session zero but when character creation rolled around one got cold feet. Regardless of my views on history my primary concern is A) why the change of heart and B) what is YOUR difference between viking and celtic?

A) Eh, I was thinking that if this situation occurred, it might be interesting to have a deviation from the rest of the party because to me it's well, interesting. It could still fit the general theme of the setting imho.

B) Norsemen/Viking or "Viking" basically are just a tad north of the Celtic lands. Celts and Norsemen {scrubbed} and have different cultures. I was thinking that having a neighbor to the rest of the PCs would be complimentary to the setting in general. West Europe, basically.

The difference between the Celt and Norsemen being that my character would have slightly different cultural views {scrubbed}.

[Shinizak]

So at the time Celts and Vikings considered themselves so incredibly different that they’d be INSULTED if you considered them related.

The only common threads they had were:
1) the Vikings constant raids on (what would eventually become) the isles of the United Kingdom. And…
2) {scrubbed}.

So I’d use those plot points as starting point. Your character is spurred to action and joins a group of TRUTHFULLY hated nemesis in order to protect their homes from a cult that has been pushing its way into both their lands. Can he (or she) put aside their differences to defeat a common enemy?

That sounds really compelling to me.

[Cygnia]

Take a look at "Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice" if you wanna see a Celt/Pict deal with Norse traditions...

[KorvinStarmast]

If this sort of thing happened, which is it hasn't, I'd drop the idea if the GM and/or players were opposed. I think the Celtic character could easily fit in with a Viking theme. Depending on historical context. Maybe the Vikings are fresh neighbors with the Celtic tribe after years of war. Right, so they have Irish, Welsh, or Scottish last names? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

would it make sense
You need to ask the world builder that question.

[Witty Username]

Are you doing a High fantasy with viking/Scandinavian/Norse iconography, or a Low fantasy set in medieval Europe? In the high fantasy I wouldn't worry much about it, as long as the broad strokes are maintained the setting should be fine. For the low fantasy, I would first ask what vikings our we dealing with, but Celtic allies would make sense on the face of it.

[Jay R]

I would love to have a group so into historical roleplay that this situation could occur, or could be a problem if it did.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Let's stop touching on religions in here, please.

[Pauly]

There are 2 questions at play here.
1) Can you do it?
Short answer is yes. You can justify an awful lot of outsiders into any historical setting that allows for travel and trade. Even a famously isolated island culture like Edo era Japan had Yasuke, the black African samurai.

2) Should you do it?
This is where there is conflict between the selfish (I want a cool character) and the altruistic (does it help the party/game).
To go deeper into the rabbit hole.
- Language/culture. I live in a non-English speaking culture and my wife comes from a different non English speaking country. Miscommunication is a daily occurrence, especially in high stress situations. Thinks like reading a map is a non-trivial difficulty because of cultural differences in how to orient a map and what landmarks to show on the map. You get negative responses not because you don’t understand but because other people assume you won’t understand.
So either there is a real RP disadvantage of having to take repeated INT or WIS checks, or the player has to sink points into making the character fluent in the language and culture. And if you are fluent in the language and culture why be an outsider at all?

- Access to skills. Going to the Viking example. Viking characters will/should have “viking only” skills. Examples include those to do with the construction/sailing of longboats, open water navigation, and knowledge of sagas. Some closer cultures such as Germanic or Celtic won’t add any new skills but be locked out of the “viking only” skills. More distant cultures might justify access to skills unavailable to viking characters. For example American Indians might have better access to tracking, stealth and associated hunting skills. Captured religious scholars will have access to non viking history, culture and science. Eastern Europeans can have access to better horse handling skills. If the character isn’t adding something useful to the party then why have an outsider.

- Consideration of other players. If all the other players are doing X because they’ve agreed to do X and then you do Y you are being selfish. You are assuming none of the other players wanted to play (or consider playing) an outsider. Having an outsider in the group will make many social interactions more difficult, which is a drag to the rest of the party. In some situations your character might be the best fit for an interaction with NPCs, but being an outsider will preclude you character from being able to do it.

- Consideration for the GM. The GM will have to prepare extra material to cater for how NPCs will/may react to the outsider.

Being the one outsider in a party creates problems that have to be overcome. There are certain genres where being the one outsider isn’t too big a deal - alien superheroes in a supers game comes to mind. The closer you get to history/real world the bigger the problems of an outsider become.

[Catullus64]

I well and truly do not see what the problem here is. Having one or two player characters in a party who are outsiders to the 'normal' culture of the setting is extremely common, and I don't think that the player is necessarily being disruptive.

It does make a big difference whether this campaign is Norse themed or Viking themed. People have touched upon this before, but 'viking' is a specific term which means 'Scandinavian-Danish maritime raider.' If your player characters are Norse but not vikings, it will be a very different kettle of fish to have a Celtic character in the party then if they are a party of seaborne thieves and slavers; Celtic peoples, especially Irish Gaels, were very often victims of viking raids.

What I find funny is that this is apparently a bizarro version of my own campaign: set in medieval Ireland, two of three players make Irish Gaelic characters, and one player makes a Norseman. Given what was going on in Ireland in the early medieval period, the presence of a Norseman made perfect sense, and made for great conflicts. (Sadly, said Norseman got eaten by a mound-demon.)

[Martin Greywolf]

Ah yes, the vikings and the celts. People love them, people love buying viking and keltic merch, people know very little about what they actually are.

1) Science of cultures

We can't even say history, technically. History is the study of written records, and celts and vikings didn't leave much of it. Most of what we have is written by Romans and to be taken with a grain of salt.

But we need to go even more basic. What is culture in the academic sense? Well, if you don't have written records, then it's based on material remains. We define these early cultures by their poterry, jewellry and other phgysical bits they left behind. If you think this gets you a lot of very large, monolithic groups that were likely very different in how they lived in their time... you'd be right.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Alice_Schumacher_NHM_Wien_Abb_Salz-Reich_2008_Seite_133_6.jpg

That picture above is what defined the Halstatt celtic culture. Well, one of the things. We can amke some inferences about their way of life or beliefs from what we find, but those are very superficial and prone to change. Celts specifically start at about 600 BC with Halstatt culture and end at about 500 AD on continental Europe and about 700 AD in the British Isles, so having a "celtic" character in a game can mean pretty much anything you'd want.

2) Mixing of cultures

Since the period we're dealing with is roughly Roman to early medieval, there is one uinified, massive network that sees people move from one place to another very regularly.

Yeah, it's the slave trade. It's everywhere and practiced by pretty much everyone until it gets stopped for reasons we can't discuss in the 500-1000 AD period for most of Europe. You saw an incredible amount of slave mobility from one place to another, at first because of Roman empire trade networks, later because of far-reaching vikinging and general movement of cultures and ethnicities - this was the time we called "Migration period", after all.

While Roman and early mediaval slavery wasn't... exactly the most ethical thing around, to put it mildly, it's important to recognize it wasn't the age of colonialism chattel slavery either. A slave in this period didn't have freedom or full rights by any stretch of the imagination, but they still retained some rights and protections under the law and custom of the time.

Now, the slave trade was dictated by market forces, so you rarely saw people moved an incredible distance in one go on purpose, but being sold a few times over, especially to people who travel a lot, could see some poor sap go all the way over Europe, especially if you got to be a galley rower. More than that, slaves could be freed, so being a descendant of a slave wasn't all that uncommon.

3) It kinda doesn't matter

Well, not to us as TTRPG players. Historians and archaeologists hold a very different opinion.

Look, most people who want to play a character like this don't have half a clue about what celts were, and that's fine. You can play a guy with blue tatoos and have fun - but that also means you can't use phrase "I want to play a celtic character" and expect it to mean anything. What do you think celts are like? Why celtic character? Do you know about actual celts or do you just think the tree calendar is cool?

tl;dr If something like this comes up, you will need to ask for specifics, because everyone thinks celtic is something different.

[Jay R]

You can’t tell whether it will be disruptive based on that choice alone. It will make sense if the player chooses to make sense. It will be disruptive if the player chooses to disrupt the game. Really.

GM: We’re going to play a game in which the villain is named Darth Vader.
Player 1: Let’s all have some sort of tie to this Vader guy. I’ll be his estranged teacher who’s been hiding in a cave.
Player 2: I’ll be his long-lost daughter.
Player 3: I’ll be his long-lost son.
Player 2: Cool! We can be twins!
Player 4: I’ll be his mech-droid.
Player 5: I’ll be a protocol droid he built as a child.
Player X: I’ll be a smuggler who’s only in it for the money. I don’t care about Vader, and I’m going to fly away right before the big final battle.

GM: We’re playing a game about musketeers involved in Parisian politics.
1st Player: I’ll be a Parisian musketeer who’s a drunken nobleman who’s hiding his title and his political background.
2nd Player: I’ll play a big, strong Parisian musketeer looking for a mistress to exploit.
3rd Player: I’ll play a Parisian musketeer out to become a priest, currently deeply involved in clandestine politics.
Player X: I’ll play a wannabe Musketeer just come to Paris from my father’s farm, who doesn’t know anything about Paris or politics.

GM: We’re playing a game about Kryptonians whose world was destroyed, trying to re-create it on another planet.
Player 1: Cool! I’ll be the leader, and my name is General Zod.
Other players: Cool! We’ll be your followers.
Player X: I want to play a Kryptonian named Kal-El who was raised on the other world, and wants to protect it from invasion.

In all three cases, Player X isn’t doing what the others are. They all "make sense" in that it's possible for that character to be there. And in all three cases, he could easily mess up the game the others have planned. But in the first two, the story played out well, and the “disruptive” element worked well within the party's goals. Only in the third example did Player X actually disrupt the party’s plans.

[Psyren]

I for one would be perfectly happy with an orthogonal culture alongside the agreed-upon ones so long as it is contemporary with the others. This is the primary justification for Monks in D&D after all.

For example, samurai-themed games like Last Blade and Samurai Shodown are set during the latter part of the Exclusionary (Sakoku) period of feudal japanese history, and I'd expect most of the party in a samurai campaign to fit into a Shogunate system. But even those games included travelers from outside, like Charlotte (noble fencer from 18th century France) and Lee Recca (shaolin monk from 18th-century China.) So long as the rest of the party is cool with it, I would be too. But I wouldn't allow, say, a caveman or a time traveler from the future.

So I could definitely see a celtic character in a viking game, especially if them being celtic-themed increases their affinity for a specific class or subclass.

[icefractal]

Doesn't seem disruptive to me, although it would depend on the campaign specifics. For one thing, the Celtic character could be a viking (https://www.science.org/content/article/viking-was-job-description-not-matter-heredity-massive-ancient-dna-study-shows).

That aside, it seems something like if most players are enlisted soldiers for a kingdom, but one player is a mercenary hired by that kingdom. In certain cases it could be disruptive, but usually it would be fine.