Hi all,
new to the boards, new to Sorcerer and Sorcerer & Sword, bought them two days ago, and I literally devoured them. Excellent material!
I have been searching for a good RPG which would support playing in the Conan setting (IMO d20 Conan is not a good system for playing in this kind of setting), and I guess I have found it in S&S.
I have a campaign running with d20 Conan, but I would gladly "move it" to Sorcerer. The problem is, only one of the players could be considered a sorcerer; the other two are not much into sorcery at all (in d20 Conan, they are a thief and a nomad, respectively). Now, how would you assign Lore for these two character types? Would you consider them Lore 0, or perhaps Lore 1 (Naive), just to contemplate the fact that they are main characters, and might some day access some ritual? Perhaps not strictly related to Demons, but much like the thief who destroys the magical wards of the tomb of Nathok, or Conan in Beyond the Thunder River (though Conan tracing a sort of Warding spell might be considered strictly sorcery).
Thanks,
Antonio
Hello,
If you examine the thief and nomad characters in Howard's fiction, you will find that they use Lore quite often. It's usually defensive, or involves some kind of weird item or substance rather than a Bound demon, but it's there. Taurus, certainly the classic example of the professional thief in Howard's fiction, does exactly this in Tower of the Elephant.
It may help to consider situations in which knowledge, or at least familiarity with demonic and scary stuff, is a better defense than simply fighting it. Despite a lot of he-man rhetoric, Conan often encounters things for which his sword or wits are inadequate. He deals with them by using rituals or interactions which can only be called sorcerous - see Beyond the Black River for his Containment of the swamp devil, or his authority over the vampire in Hour of the Dragon (usually titled Conan the Conqueror).
Try to throw away the idea of "fighter vs. magic-user." In classical sword-and-sorcery, heroes always have at least one foot in the sorcerous zone. It doesn't mean they throw spells or own demons - it means they know about them and can handle them in their own terms.
Best, Ron
Mr. Edwards,
thanks for the detailed answer and the precious suggestions.
I am definitely willing to do a "paradigm shift" and throw away the idea of "fighter vs. magic-user". I am quite frankly tired of the needless complexity of games which shape a setting based on rules. To me, rules must be a medium, not the end.
Thanks again for the answers, and for all the excellent food for thought in Sorcerer and Sorcerer & Sword.
Dont' be afraid to treat any kind of traditional or tribal myth/prayer/rite as a form of Lore.
Odysseus, in the Odyssey, makes a physical journey to the mouth of hell and with a few traditional rites he is able to summon up the prophet Tiresias. He never went to sorceror's school, never wears a pointy hat, etc.
Each of the Heroes in the Iliad is watched over by a god who provides favours in return for services, exemplary actions, etc. Many are possessed by their Daimon or by a passion that allows them to do extraordinary things at costs to their general humanity.
Achiles' and his wrath is one such hero.
And again, he never inscribes glyph decorated circles or sacrifices puppies to the horned one.
Now the sorceror game is about those who make conscious decisions to treat with inhuman powers so you have to have a bit of Prometheus or Faust in your characters.
But bust that paradigm, bust it into a thousand tiny shards.
Hey, Ron. Thanks for giving some comments about this – I also have been thinking about using
S&S to run a Conan-setting game and I'm hoping that this thread will provide a good jump-start in this endeavor.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 19, 2008, 09:22:32 AMIf you examine the thief and nomad characters in Howard's fiction, you will find that they use Lore quite often. It's usually defensive, or involves some kind of weird item or substance rather than a Bound demon, but it's there. Taurus, certainly the classic example of the professional thief in Howard's fiction, does exactly this in Tower of the Elephant.
I'm still a bit uncertain about this. I mean, I think I get the basic concept that Taurus can be a "sorcerer" even if not a spell-caster, but as a GM how do I handle this? From your example, I'm guessing that Taurus might use Lore to detect a trap or avoid it. Am I thinking correctly?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 19, 2008, 09:22:32 AMIt may help to consider situations in which knowledge, or at least familiarity with demonic and scary stuff, is a better defense than simply fighting it. Despite a lot of he-man rhetoric, Conan often encounters things for which his sword or wits are inadequate. He deals with them by using rituals or interactions which can only be called sorcerous - see Beyond the Black River for his Containment of the swamp devil, or his authority over the vampire in Hour of the Dragon (usually titled Conan the Conqueror).
I'm going to go dust off these stories again to check out your examples.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 19, 2008, 09:22:32 AMTry to throw away the idea of "fighter vs. magic-user." In classical sword-and-sorcery, heroes always have at least one foot in the sorcerous zone. It doesn't mean they throw spells or own demons - it means they know about them and can handle them in their own terms.
This does certainly require a shift in the way we think of the game. I guess I'm used to trying to imagine how a character would control a demon and the other examples seem to be trickier for me to come up with at the moment. But I'll stay with it because my brain still seems stuck in the "you are a sorcerer and cast spells, or you're not" and getting the concept of "sorcerers can be non-spellcasters" still makes my brain hurt a little.
Thanks again for the insight!
Here's something that might help: in the canonical fiction, particularly the Conan stories, no one casts spells.
?! What?!
Really, they don't. Characters like Tsotha-Lanti, Pelleas, Nabonidus, Xaltotun, and I could go on and on from the Conan stories alone, rely on any or all of the following:
- gadgets and mirrors, whether elaborate like in a house or more personal like explosive powders
- drugs
- mesmerism (so-called)
- martial arts
- artifacts that utilize unfamiliar energy sources
- knowledge about unnatural Things which permits them to call, cage, command, exploit, or serve them
However, they don't memorize incantations, incant them, and point their fingers to unleash magic. That's not a characteristic feature of the pulp fantasy I discuss in the book. "Wizard" means expert and arcane; "sorcerer" means practitioner of forbidden or un-understandable acts. No one casts spells.
Once you move out of Howard's Conan territory and a little forward into the post-WWII fiction, things are a little looser, but I think it's still fair to say that even in Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, "spells" are hardly the stuff of modern fantasy - I can count them throughout the whole canon of those stories on one hand, and a single spell is so freakily significant as to have a whole story or novel revolve around it. Same goes for Poul Anderson's stories or even Tanith Lee's.
So maybe this isn't about how a character like Taurus or Conan can "be a sorcerer." I think it's more about how no one, including the sorcerers, is a "spell-caster."
Best, Ron
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 23, 2008, 10:47:54 AM
Here's something that might help: in the canonical fiction, particularly the Conan stories, no one casts spells.
?! What?!
Really, they don't. Characters like Tsotha-Lanti, Pelleas, Nabonidus, Xaltotun, and I could go on and on from the Conan stories alone, rely on any or all of the following:
Exactly my thoughts! This is how I figure "spellcasters" should be in Conan; mysterious figures, learned in forbidden and forgotten lore passed down through the ages. Whether "sorcery" allows them to bind demons or know how to wake the Children of Set, all of it reduces to different degrees of Lore, and possibly having demons at their beck and call.
Taurus has this to say about Yara:
QuoteWe'll steal down through the top of the tower and strangle old Yara before he can cast any of his accursed spells on us. At least we'll try; it's the chance of being turned into a spider or a toad, against the wealth and power of the world. All good thieves must know how to take risks.
Now, how Yara actually casts "spells" or his reputed abilities are the result of demonic abilities, is not very relevant to the concept that sorcery may actually be a "force" completely external to the sorcerer.
Another example I could add: why Toth-Amon does not free himself from servitude in "Phoenix on the Sword"? If he was such a mighty spellcaster, he could have killed Ascalante without a second thought. Instead, he needs the Ring of Set. I got thinking about this fact since when I saw the stats for Toth-Amon in Conan rpg, and I thought they were completely inappropriate. Therein Toth-Amon is described as knowing tens of spells, yet by the time of the Phoenix on the Sword, we see that he is a Master of the Black Ring, yet he must bow to an outlaw like Ascalante.
But with S&S, such a character becomes definitely possible, and its finding of the Ring a powerful motivation for his actions: the Ring is the thing which gives him power, not his "spellcasting".
I've noted, rather importantly I think, the reduced occurence of humanity loss in S&S. Does this include the potential for losing humanity when using sorcery?
Even if it doesn't it still opens the door to more frequent use of sacrifices and thus more powerful 'black-hearted' sorcery without fear of losing humanity as long as you are sacrificing your friends. Combine this with rollover victories and a sacrifice at each stage ( contact / summon / bind ) and the potential for accrueing rollover points and a really astounding binding seems much more reachable/possible in this type of setting. But perhaps that is part of the point in this genre?
I'd be curious how anyone else playing in this setting chooses to reflect some of the iconic elements of hyborian age fantasy like 'black lotus' and the like.
Maybe.
Perhaps, also, there's a crucial typo in your post? "as long as you aren't sacrificing your friends"?
I also question the idea that sacrificing or basically being rotten to anyone except a friend is exempt from Humanity checks. That's not quite what I meant by the discussion of Humanity in the book.
When Conan, imprisoned, thinks about the girls in his seraglio being tortured by Tsotha-Lanti and groans aloud in agony, that's a Humanity check. He considers himself responsible for them.
Best, Ron
Ha. Yes, you are correct on the typo.
And I would be curious about a further discussion of S&S style humanity then. My impression was basically the usual view of humanity only really was applied to people that were 'close' or 'friendly' to a character... and that was intentional in order to encourage the 'life is cheap' atmosphere of S&S style games. If you have/had a different vision with that ruling I'd certainly like to hear it?
Hi Vortigern,
(I tried to find your name, but I might have missed it!)
We had a thread about this a while back: Premise in
Sorcerer & Swordhttp://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=2493.msg24380;topicseen#msg24380 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=2493.msg24380;topicseen#msg24380)
Back in 2002, I wrote:
QuoteHumanity is living by your Golden Rule, whatever that Golden Rule is for you. This is why the central tenant is treating friends and family well. But when you break your own code, for friend, family, yourself, or are caught in any kind of no-win choice, a part of you is wounded by breaking your Golden Rule. If you're dealing with lunkhead caninbal mutants out in the hills, fine, mow them down. But what if it turns out they actually live by a code you respect -- and you still have to mow them down to get to the woman you love? This guys could have been your buddies -- but not in this lifetime -- Ouch! And your sense of living by your own code is threatened, and thus Humanity is risked.
And Ron replied:
QuoteHey,
Works for me. This is now my "point to" thread for the Sorc&Sword Premise inquiry.
Best,
Ron
So this might be something to consider as we move forward.
CK
I'm not certain if the 'Golden Rule' explanation of Humanity really makes sense to me, though terming it 'Honor' or something like that might work for a Hyborian Age setting. A lot of the material seems to depict the struggle between corrupt decadence ( seen as the trappings of society ) and simple trueness of barbarism. The point however is that violence isn't as much of an ethical concern in the lit. Conan doesn't think twice about cracking the skull of an enemy. And if you want to have a S&S with a real hyborian feel... the PCs shouldn't stop to consider such either. Ethical concerns perhaps should be more about deciding who to fight, or why... and then don't worry about it once the blood starts to fly.
I would say I think potential for losses having to do with sorcerous sacrifice should perhaps stay, but with some sort of rule allowing one to mitigate the risk via some kind of roleplaying or resource expenditure etc. Otherwise sorcerers that keep pace with the classical role models in the genre will, I would think, rapidly descend into the 'madness' or 'utter depravity' of zero. How to work that however I'm not exactly certain on.
I have some more thoughts on Sword & Sorcery Humanity; it's been a topic of long-term consideration. I'll have to get to them later.
For the moment, and only as piece of the issue, I call attention to Pelleas, my favorite sorcerer in the Conan stories. He's certainly lost some Humanity - in fact, that's displayed in one of the most explicit scenes about this nebulous quality in literature - but he is, also explicitly, "still human" and looks to remain that way.
Damn, I called him my favorite and then Khemsa and Thoth-Amon indignantly clamored for my mental attention. Okay, guys, I'll post about you soon! Geez!
Pulp-fantasy sorcerers keep their sanity by enjoying life, and part of that is choosing sides and caring about the living. Meaning the full range of "to care."
Best, Ron
While I'm looking forward to Ron's additional response, Vort, I want to point out that in my use of "Your Golden Rule" I made no bones about acts of violence, or ethical concerns thereof. The concern was over who you were killing.
I think there's a big difference there.
CK
Quote from: Vortigern on September 04, 2008, 10:44:03 PM
I would say I think potential for losses having to do with sorcerous sacrifice should perhaps stay, but with some sort of rule allowing one to mitigate the risk via some kind of roleplaying or resource expenditure etc. Otherwise sorcerers that keep pace with the classical role models in the genre will, I would think, rapidly descend into the 'madness' or 'utter depravity' of zero. How to work that however I'm not exactly certain on.
I do not think the risk should be mitigated. Humanity 0 in S&S does not mean "madness" (this is reserved for Lore), but certainly could mean depravity of some sort (see Tsotha-Lanti or Zogar Sag).
Sorcerers like Khemsa, Thoth-Amon or Pelias surely have higher humanity scores than the above guys.
I can see your point Antonio.
I have another thing I've been considering and that is just further thought on the use of sleight of hand and gadgetry etc. More the 'lotus' stuff. Once I stumbled across the 'use powers to represent gadgets/substances etc.' the 'how' problem was kind of solved. But now I'm wondering how you establish a baseline of how you decide how many any given sorcerer might have or how they can replinish. Rather than delve into some sort of crafting rules or just leaving it at the discretion of the guy running the game I've been thinking linking it to one's Lore might be a good idea. Perhaps a fixed ratio of lore to the number of substances you know how to make and how many doses you have available to use in any given scene ( or set of scenes ) before you have a chance to replenish. Another option would be with Cover I suppose, if your cover was appropriatte?
Finally getting around to this ...
Anyway, I went to the text and was relieved to see that it found what I thought it said, although perhaps not enough. I also think I see how a certain mis-reading has become common. I struggled with this text because, well, it was a long time ago, and I hadn't written Trollbabe yet. I think it's fair to say that Trollbabe was conceived in the effort it took to write this part of Sorcerer & Sword.
The text in Sorcerer & Sword is based on the observation, not that the sword-and-sorcery hero excludes most of the world from considerations of fellow humanity, but rather that he* tends to glue people to himself all the time, specifically those who happen to be in dangerous situations with him. One sort of hero, like Conan, is a constant confirmer of friendships; another sort, like Elric, is a constant betrayer of friendships. The point is that they both form such friendships at the drop of a hat. I say friendships here, but it's a very broad category. I would even include antagonists in this category, basing that on the death of Thak, which I quote elsewhere in the book.
Best, Ron
* I usually use "he or she" construction, but in this sentence, the multiple pronoun phrases made it cumbersome.
Quote from: Vortigern on September 06, 2008, 11:05:04 PM
I can see your point Antonio.
I have another thing I've been considering and that is just further thought on the use of sleight of hand and gadgetry etc. More the 'lotus' stuff. Once I stumbled across the 'use powers to represent gadgets/substances etc.' the 'how' problem was kind of solved. But now I'm wondering how you establish a baseline of how you decide how many any given sorcerer might have or how they can replinish. Rather than delve into some sort of crafting rules or just leaving it at the discretion of the guy running the game I've been thinking linking it to one's Lore might be a good idea. Perhaps a fixed ratio of lore to the number of substances you know how to make and how many doses you have available to use in any given scene ( or set of scenes ) before you have a chance to replenish. Another option would be with Cover I suppose, if your cover was appropriatte?
This is what I am going to do for my games, depending on the setup of the scenario. The most important thing is, however, that these items are never sold. There are no sorcery shops!
1) True to the Howardian stories, the characters already start equipped with these sorcerous items (think Taurus with his lotus poison in Tower of the Elephant)
2) The characters can try to acquire the item as part of the scenario (think the d20 Conan version of Tower of the Elephant, where the PCs can steal the lotus poison from the Stygian caravan)
3) The characters can try to craft the poison, but they need to acquire the ingredients, which could be an adventure in itself (e.g. travel to the demon-infested swamps of Stygia). To craft a poison, I would use contest of Lore vs. Power of the poison (the more powerful it is, the more difficult is its crafting). If you want to "simulate" the character searching for the ingredients, I would probably still use Lore vs. Power (the more powerful the poison is, the most difficult it is to find the ingredients; think black lotus) with the number of victories being the number of doses which can be crafted.
If the crafting roll fails, perhaps the character poisons himself!
For damaging substances, I would assign a Power of at least 4, and assign them the Special Damage: Lethal category.
One thing I would not do is make these items available for free, or easily produced.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 07, 2008, 11:27:13 PM
Finally getting around to this ...
Anyway, I went to the text and was relieved to see that it found what I thought it said, although perhaps not enough. I also think I see how a certain mis-reading has become common. I struggled with this text because, well, it was a long time ago, and I hadn't written Trollbabe yet. I think it's fair to say that Trollbabe was conceived in the effort it took to write this part of Sorcerer & Sword.
The text in Sorcerer & Sword is based on the observation, not that the sword-and-sorcery hero excludes most of the world from considerations of fellow humanity, but rather that he* tends to glue people to himself all the time, specifically those who happen to be in dangerous situations with him. One sort of hero, like Conan, is a constant confirmer of friendships; another sort, like Elric, is a constant betrayer of friendships. The point is that they both form such friendships at the drop of a hat. I say friendships here, but it's a very broad category. I would even include antagonists in this category, basing that on the death of Thak, which I quote elsewhere in the book.
Best, Ron
* I usually use "he or she" construction, but in this sentence, the multiple pronoun phrases made it cumbersome.
Interesting points. I was actually thinking that a good definition for Humanity might be Camaraderie or Affinity. This would certainly include the case of Thak, or even Conan toasting to Balthus' dog, Slasher:
"I drink to his shade, and to the shade of the dog, who knew no fear." He quaffed part of the wine, then emptied the rest upon the floor, with a curious heathen gesture, and smashed the goblet. "The heads of ten Picts shall pay for his, and seven heads for the dog, who was a better warrior than many a man."
Oh, Slasher, totally.
Best, Ron
[/quote]
Interesting points. I was actually thinking that a good definition for Humanity might be Camaraderie or Affinity. This would certainly include the case of Thak, or even Conan toasting to Balthus' dog, Slasher:
"I drink to his shade, and to the shade of the dog, who knew no fear." He quaffed part of the wine, then emptied the rest upon the floor, with a curious heathen gesture, and smashed the goblet. "The heads of ten Picts shall pay for his, and seven heads for the dog, who was a better warrior than many a man."
[/quote]
For anyone looking to define their sorcerers' Lore scores, "curious heathen gestures" might be a good start
Quote from: epweissengruber on September 14, 2008, 11:33:26 AM
For anyone looking to define their sorcerers' Lore scores, "curious heathen gestures" might be a good start
Nice suggestion. In fact, in my next game two characters will not be "sorcerers" in the strict sense, but will be people somewhat knowledgeable about the existence of weirdness and probably steeped in mythology, so that would be quite appropriate.
A bit of thread necromancy :)
I am writing an Hyborian Age setting book for Sorcerer, so I have been reading all the Conan stories by Howard to pick quotes and ideas.
I happened upon this nice bit:
[quote from Hour of the Dragon]"A Nemedian priest loosed black magic again in the streets of Tarantia to slay men who still were loyal to your memory. I myself saw it. Armed men dropped like flies and died in the streets in a manner no man could understand. And the lean priest laughed and said: 'I am only Altaro, only an acolyte of Orastes, who is but an acolyte of him who wears the veil; not mine is the power; the power but works through me.'"[/quote]
Here it seems we see necromancy at work. What's intriguing is the "conferring" of power through a chain which goes from Xaltotun (I suppose) through Orastes to Altaro, and I was wondering whether this could be considered:
1) a general ability of all sorcerers, which perhaps could Pact with each other
2) a "dramatic effect" which happens only in this story.
For 1), I would say through a chain of Lore scores, from higher to lower. So, Orastes makes a Pact with Xaltotun. And Altaro makes a Pact with Orastes. This effect makes it possible for any acolytes to Boost Lore up to the level of their master for a limited time.
For 2), The act of Necromancy to raise him by using the Heart has created a Token which is then used to Boost Lore (perhaps through a chain as above).
So, what is your idea/opinion?
Thanks,
Antonio
Mind you this is conjecture as I haven't read the Sorcerer and Sword book, but as I understand it, in that book it talks about sorcerers becoming demons. Seems to me that you could treat it as Altaro is a demon who was bound by Orastes, when Orastes became a demon he was bound by Xaltotun. That would put it in simpler terms, though it doesn't quite capture the "flavor" of the text. Just thought I'd throw it out there since there don't seem to have been any responses to it yet.