Hi Forums,
So I've recently been noodling around the Idea for a campaign world that is basically a fantasy version of the Mediterranean world during the Hellenic Period (500-200BC). The campaign would be kind of a sand-box, the players could go slaying ancient mythological creatures, be pirates, get involved in wars, and such.
Standard player races would not be available, instead players would choose from the civilizations that were active in the Mediterranean at that time, plus Atlantis (fantasy yey!). The list I've come up with so far are Greeks (Sparta & Athens), Phoenician (incl. Carthaginian), Persian (incl. Anatolian), Egyptians, Atlantean, Barbarian (Gaul?). Each Civ would have it's own racial traits and religions based loosely on history (ie. Greek clerics would choose domains based in the Greek pantheon of gods, Egyptian clerics on a different pantheon.)
What I'd like to do is to restrict each race to certain class choices that are thematic to their history (ie. every starting race would have 4-5 options), in addition to exclusive access to one class. For example, only Persians would have the option to be Djinni Binders (summoners), only Gauls could be Druids, only Atlanteans could be Wizards, etc.
So a few questions I guess:
(1) Does this idea sound fun (would you want to play in this game?)
(2) I'm sure that there are many people out there that are more knowledgeable that I when it comes to this Period, do you think that my list of Civs is appropriate
(3) With the exception of the 3 that I mentioned I haven't come up with the "thematically exclusive" class for Greeks, Egyptians, and Phoenicians?
(4) Any general thoughts / feedback?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1. I have played in campaigns with this concept. Large scale combat and court intrigues with a heavy influence of the Gods upon mortals.
2. Nubians (North Africa)
3. Nubians (Rangers, Witches), Greeks (Oracles/Bards), Egyptians (Alchemists, Death Domain Clerics), Phoenicians (Swashbuckler Rogue, Sorcerer w/ Aquan Bloodline, or Aquatic Druid) and add Barbarian to Gauls
4. I played in 3 campaigns with this basis. Have the Gods manipulate the group. Come to them in visions or when they separate. Cool items that tie into a particular god are great ideas. Each God could have abilities that only work if players make sacrifices to the god. Clerics, oracles, paladins in particular have to make sacrifices (wine, food, possessions, etc) to the gods in exchange for power.
I really like the idea, Crispy... it will be a rocking fun time period to mess with.
Your list of civilizations is fine. Other ideas for contemporary civilizations --
The Thracians - thought to be descended from Ares. Warlike, bloodthirsty, powerful fighters, disorganized, untrustworthy. If they ever got their act together they likely could defeat any other nation. But they are the barbarians barbarian.
The Sarmatians - plainsmen the Greeks thought they were descended from Greeks captured by Amazons... used wagons hauling yurts. Lots of female warriors. (Well, at least 20% of female bodies in graves that have been dug up were found in male armor... they aren't sure that meant they fought, though.) Said to be ruled by women.
Cimmerians - there were some back then. Nomadic horsemen, though, not frozen mountain barbarians like Conan. (Conan is cool.)
Teotihuacan - Not the Aztec, these predated them, but their civilization started around 200 BC in the Mexico basin, and by 100 AD their city of 200,000 inhabitants may been the largest on the planet, or one thereof. Huge pyramids. You could have it as a distant growing power across the big water that the Phoenicians or Atlanteans have contact with. Maybe they try to colonize Europe... now that would be a reversal....
Kush - south of Egypt, they vied for power along the Nile continuously with their northern neighbors, and they conquered each other at times.
Warring States - China had broken down into a host of warring kingdoms by this time. Another distant land that you could trade with.
Personally I would focus on creating new archetypes for each civilization, or new classes, rather than restricting core and base classes to specific civilizations. Egyptians can't have mages because that is an Atlantean thing? I would hesitate to add restrictions rather than add new options.
Something like a new Sun Mage for the Egyptians with unique powers, and such, and only they have that, while Atlanteans have the Techno Mage, for a bit of steampunk. Maybe they have firearms, and their fighters have an archetype for that, etc. The Kush could be great summoners, the Teotihuacan elementalists, etc.
Hi Guys,
Thanks for your responses and ideas.
Thomas -
I love your idea of having the gods meddle with the adventuring party has a very 'Odysseus' feel to it.
Tribuchet -
I hear what you're saying about not being too restrictive with the classes, this may have just my hamfisted way of encouraging the players to choose varied backgrounds (leading to some interesting role-playing opportunities if say, the Persians were to attack Greece or something like that). I'll have to marinate on this a bit more...
As for the race suggestions, thank you very much! I had sort of lumped the Nubians in with the Egyptians (and to some extent the Carthaginians) in my mind but I think you're right to suggest that they deserve to stand alone.
Re: expanding options to Civs beyond the Mediterranean, I'd like to keep the game more or less bounded geographically(not to mention that's a lot of lore your's truly needs to get familiar with).
Thanks again for your feedback, I found it very helpful!
3. Nubians (Rangers, Witches), Greeks (Oracles/Bards), Egyptians (Alchemists, Death Domain Clerics), Phoenicians (Swashbuckler Rogue, Sorcerer w/ Aquan Bloodline, or Aquatic Druid) and add Barbarian to Gauls
Instead of restricting classes to the races, why not give them options for choosing them as favored classes?
Instead of restricting classes to the races, why not give them options for choosing them as favored classes?
3. Nubians (Rangers, Witches), Greeks (Oracles/Bards), Egyptians (Alchemists, Death Domain Clerics), Phoenicians (Swashbuckler Rogue, Sorcerer w/ Aquan Bloodline, or Aquatic Druid) and add Barbarian to Gauls
Hi Spyder,
Thanks for your response.
I am thinking back to 3e and IIRC favored class was a benefit related to multi-classing. As MCing has been more or less discouraged in PF do you have any thought on what the kind of benefit is reasonable?
Just off the top of my head I was thinking maybe one additional hp or skill point / level... I dunno...
Instead of restricting classes to the races, why not give them options for choosing them as favored classes?
3. Nubians (Rangers, Witches), Greeks (Oracles/Bards), Egyptians (Alchemists, Death Domain Clerics), Phoenicians (Swashbuckler Rogue, Sorcerer w/ Aquan Bloodline, or Aquatic Druid) and add Barbarian to Gauls
Hi Spyder,
Thanks for your response.
I am thinking back to 3e and IIRC favored class was a benefit related to multi-classing. As MCing has been more or less discouraged in PF do you have any thought on what the kind of benefit is reasonable?
Just off the top of my head I was thinking maybe one additional hp or skill point / level... I dunno...
Sorry I think I messed that post up. I meant like instead of the usual extra 1hp or skill point, give them something else to choose for different classes like in the APG.
I don't think you should use different attributes for different groups of humans. The ability to put the bonus feat, attribute points, and skills into anything you want lets you write up the individuals of each area exactly the way you want.
That said, if you start doing stuff like, "Athenians get a +2 WIS bonus because of their love of democracy and philosophy, while Nubians get +10' to their base move or +2 strength" is pretty freaking offensive.
If those are the rules you want, you can find them in the Conan RPG.
Hi Crane,
I don't think it was ever suggested to give different attributes based on race.
That being said I am not sure why it would be patently offensive to provide racial bonuses based (loosely) on the strengths of the civilization in question.
Thanks for the Conan tip though, I will definitely check it out
Instead of racial bonuses, use traits based on the society.
+1
This keeps things from getting too stereotypical (or racist, at worst-- -2 to Int? who would get that?), I think.
Hi Forums,
...
Standard player races would not be available, instead players would choose from the civilizations that were active in the Mediterranean at that time, plus Atlantis (fantasy yey!). The list I've come up with so far are Greeks (Sparta & Athens), Phoenician (incl. Carthaginian), Persian (incl. Anatolian), Egyptians, Atlantean, Barbarian (Gaul?). Each Civ would have it's own racial traits and religions based loosely on history
...
Sorry to be a bit defensive but no-where has ANYONE suggested changing attributes based on racial lines.
Not sure why this thread has gotten derailed in that direction
Hi Forums,
...
Standard player races would not be available, instead players would choose from the civilizations that were active in the Mediterranean at that time, plus Atlantis (fantasy yey!). The list I've come up with so far are Greeks (Sparta & Athens), Phoenician (incl. Carthaginian), Persian (incl. Anatolian), Egyptians, Atlantean, Barbarian (Gaul?). Each Civ would have it's own racial traits and religions based loosely on history
...
Sorry to be a bit defensive but no-where has ANYONE suggested changing attributes based on racial lines.
Not sure why this thread has gotten derailed in that direction
That's cool. Some games and supplements have gone that way... So the racial traits are more properly regional traits, then?
PS. Alot (most) of Testament and Trojan War from Green Ronin is OGL. Good stuff.
Set the favored class bumps to reflect each culture's flavor. A friend's game has Raptors as a race and the only way to get Fly as a skill is to be a Raptor (or other naturally flying race). Elves have a wealth of options in her game, but you have to focus on them to really gain benefits (Elf fighters can leap about like actors from Chinese martial arts movies!). She's a Poison Elves fan.
If its 500-200 BC you could even have an option for the Cavalier..Macedonian Companion Cavalry.
and yes I'd play in a game like that..my wargames army is Alexandrean Macedonian.
...my wargames army is Alexandrean Macedonian.
FoG?
OMG Poison Elves, I haven't seen that comic in YEARS.
Hi Bwang, DM Wellard;
Thanks for the idea,
I like the idea of a Macedonian Cavalier - very flavorful
Re: Skills like fly, I had been considering something similar whereby different Civs would have a choice of 1-2 skills that based on their background could (a) be taken as a class skill, or (b) if it's already a class skill you get a +2 bonus.
Skills wise I was thinking (just off the top of my head):
Phoenicians: Profession (Sailor) & Appraise
Greeks: Perform (Oratory) & Diplomacy
Egyptians: Knowledge (Engineering) & Heal
Barbarians: Survival & Knowledge (Nature)
Persians: Knowledge (Planes) & Ride
Atlanteans: Knowledge (Arcana) & Spellcraft
If you think these are dumb or have any suggestions comments I would love to hear your thoughts.
-Crispy
Instead of racial bonuses, use traits based on the society.+1
This keeps things from getting too stereotypical (or racist, at worst-- -2 to Int? who would get that?), I think.
Spartans?
|
If you are going up to 200 BC, you might want to add the Macedonians as their own race, since they weren't technically considered Greeks. And since I'm a Classics major, I'll go on about the Greeks for a second. Sorry. :)
The problem with the Greek city states is that they are so drastically different. I think your list of skills works great for the Athenians, but if Greek also means Spartan, I would not give them Perform (Oratory) and Diplomacy. After all, the Spartans are famous for saying as few words as possible. Intimidate might be a good choice. I wouldn't give those skills to Macedonians either. I think if you are going to lump all Greeks together mechanically (which is certainly fine for your world) you might not want to differentiate among Greeks flavor-wise.
You haven't said much more about the classes, but I think favored class bonuses are a great idea. In Pathfinder, they are really more meant to discourage MCing because if you stick with your favored class, you get more bonuses. As a player in this game (which I would love, by the way), I would be frustrated to be really restricted in my options. Every culture has magic in their myths, but I can only be a wizard if I'm from Atlantis? What if I want to be Medea--well, I guess she's a witch, but still. I think certain Archetypes for things like Djinni Binder could be great. Also, how are your players going to make their group? I could see how starting out heroes wouldn't have a great mix of races, and then your group would be rather restricted to a few classes.
Just my thoughts
Hi Calandra,
Thank you for your response.
Re: The Greeks - I hear you on Athens vs. Sparta, I was definitely thinking Athens when I picked those skills. For the most part I have been trying to choose 1 skill that is a perform / profession and 1 that is a "hard skill". I like the idea of Intimidate for Spartans, can you suggest a knowledge or profession that would be appropriate?
I'm disinclined to separate out Macedonians and other Hellenic peoples if only to keep things (relatively) simple and cut down on rules bloat.
Re: Classes - I'm still on the fence about this. From a campaign world perspective I really like the idea of Atlantis being the sole place for "classically" trained wizards that jealously guard their power, and that this is what ultimately leads to their downfall. Characters from other civs that wanted to be arcanists could be sorcerers. That being said, If I have a player that has a cool idea for an Egyptian or Greek wizard, I guess they could have just trained in Atlantis. In any case I am generally pretty flexible if players have a cool idea.
Re: Party Composition - my hope is that the party will end up from a diverse set of Civs (one of the reasons I was thinking of imposing class restrictions) primarily because I am planning to have conflicts break out and I think that will make for some interesting role playing opportunities. As for how they all met up, it would depend on the characters my players choose, they could all start as slaves on a galley, or serendipitously visit the same port when plot device X descends, or attend/compete some great civ-spanning event (like the fantasy version of the Olympics).
Depending on how much detail you want, you might break it down even further. The Spartans and Athenians may have both been "Greek" in modern thought, but they were very different cultures and often were at war with each other. This could be portrayed as the Spartans having very few wizards and relegating them to enchanting arms and armor for the fighting elite, perhaps even making the wizards Helots, while Athens might have an arcane academy.
More like no wizards for the Spartans, unless they were women, and even then I'd be doubtful. Even the most sympathetic portrayer's of the Spartans have to admit that they were ridiculously obsessive about their warrior culture.
Warrior Clerics and Battle Oracles seem most appropriate for men, and Clerics, Oracles, and Witches for women.
So after reflecting on your suggestions I think that I might scrap the whole class exclusivity thing. Many people have mentioned that they this would detract from their fun as a player, and really that's why we play these games to begin with.
I do like the idea of having some Archetypes be origin specific. In the interest of not having to create 7 different sets alternate features for every class, I am leaning towards designating 2 favored classes for each Civ and creating unique thematic archetypes.
I'd love to get some feedback on what should be the favored classes for each Civ. Off the top of my head
Gaul FCs: Druid & Barbarian
Greek FCs: Oracle & Fighter
Eqyptian FCs: Cleric & ??
Phoenician FCs: Rogue & ??
Atlantean FCs: Wizard & Sorcerer
Persian FCs: Summoner & Rogue
Love to hear feedback or other ideas
::edited for spelling