Archetypical Classes for the Races of Hyperborea

[blackadder23]

One thing I find refreshing about AS&SH compared to standard D&D is the de-emphasis of character race, at least in a mechanical sense. Character race can be very important to roleplaying or social interaction within the game, but it doesn’t modify or limit the characters in any mechanical sense (save height and weight, although I would classify those as roleplaying concerns 90% of the time anyway). In particular, there are no restrictions, benefits, or penalties associated with class selection for the various races. This is as it should be, in my opinion, and I wouldn’t want to change this. I believe there should be room for Amazon necromancers, Ixian paladins, and Eskimaux cataphracts, at least in most campaigns. But purely as an intellectual exercise I started thinking about the “archetypical” class for each of the races. Not necessarily the most common class – I think that would be normal men followed by fighters for almost all races – but rather the class most closely associated with that race in the mind of the average inhabitant of Hyperborea. The class for which that race is either renowned or dreaded, in other words. A quick glance at the races and classes yielded the following thoughts:

Amazon – Fighter
Atlantean – Magician
Esquimaux – Shaman
Hyperborean – Warlock
Ixian – Necromancer
Kelt – Druid
Kimmerian – Cataphract
Kimmeri-Kelt – Barbarian
Pict – Witch
Half-Blood Pict – Scout
Viking – Berserker

One thing I like about that list is each race is associated with a different class. So in the public mind the greatest fighters would be Amazons, the greatest necromancers would be Ixians, the greatest druids would be Kelts, the greatest scouts would be half-blood Picts, and so forth.

Does anybody have any other thoughts on the subject?

EDIT: Changed Atlantean to 'magician' as Jeff suggested.

[Cthulhu Colin]

I've put together something similar for my forthcoming article on the Hyperborean cultures, but rather than listing a single class, it lists all of those most commonly found in the given culture (along with any notes on how those classes fit within said culture). For example, the Kelts are commonly Fighters, Barbarians (those obsessed with the great heroic feats of antiquity, such as the Salmon Leap), Berserkers (those given to the terrible warp-frenzy known as Riastradh in which their bodies deform, twist, and distend), Druids, etc.

[blackadder23]

That's a good idea. I look forward to seeing that.

[Deleted]

It reminds me of the 3e mechanic of 'favored classes'. It's a clever idea.

[mabon5127]

Mar 18, 2013 11:41:00 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

One thing I find refreshing about AS&SH compared to standard D&D is the de-emphasis of character race, at least in a mechanical sense. Character race can be very important to roleplaying or social interaction within the game, but it doesn’t modify or limit the characters in any mechanical sense (save height and weight, although I would classify those as roleplaying concerns 90% of the time anyway). In particular, there are no restrictions, benefits, or penalties associated with class selection for the various races. This is as it should be, in my opinion, and I wouldn’t want to change this. I believe there should be room for Amazon necromancers, Ixian paladins, and Eskimaux cataphracts, at least in most campaigns. But purely as an intellectual exercise I started thinking about the “archetypical” class for each of the races. Not necessarily the most common class – I think that would be normal men followed by fighters for almost all races – but rather the class most closely associated with that race in the mind of the average inhabitant of Hyperborea. The class for which that race is either renowned or dreaded, in other words. A quick glance at the races and classes yielded the following thoughts:

Amazon – Fighter
Atlantean – This is a tough one. Nothing really comes to mind based on the description in the rules, although I would say pirate if such a class existed.
Esquimaux – Shaman
Hyperborean – Warlock
Ixian – Necromancer
Kelt – Druid
Kimmerian – Cataphract
Kimmeri-Kelt – Barbarian
Pict – Witch
Half-Blood Pict – Scout
Viking – Berserker

One thing I like about that list is each race is associated with a different class. So in the public mind the greatest fighters would be Amazons, the greatest necromancers would be Ixians, the greatest druids would be Kelts, the greatest scouts would be half-blood Picts, and so forth. Atlanteans are a glaring omission from the list. Maybe the most renowned thieves could be Atlantean, since no other race really springs to mind for that dubious honor? Pirates are a sort of thief, after all, and it fits well with Atlanteans being a desperate race.

Does anybody have any other thoughts on the subject?

Atlanteans would seem to scream out technomancer. Doing magic with devices. They would also seem to be fitted for a hydromancer. Neither of which is very helpful as they don't currently exist.

Morgan

[Ghul]

IMC, I have a lot of Atlantean magicians (relative to their small population); the technologies of their past largely a "lost science".

[mabon5127]

Mar 19, 2013 6:02:08 GMT -6 Ghul said:

IMC, I have a lot of Atlantean magicians (relative to their small population); the technologies of their past largely a "lost science".

Yes but that "Praetorian" guard of Atlanteans in Zirconium suits and light metal airships used only in last ditch defense of the realm is pretty tempting!!

Morgan

[blackadder23]

Mar 19, 2013 6:02:08 GMT -6 Ghul said:

IMC, I have a lot of Atlantean magicians (relative to their small population); the technologies of their past largely a "lost science".

That sounds reasonable enough: Atlanteans might have a reputation as magicians because their ancestors were among the greatest sorcerers of all time. No one needs to know that modern Atlanteans are mostly fishermen (who are turning into fish themselves!) ;D

And of course, at least some Atlanteans really are magicians...

[blackadder23]

So now I've started thinking about the typical, or common, classes for each race. Not to restrict class selection in any way, but rather to help develop character background. I see the list in my campaign as being along these lines:

Amazon: Fighter, Magician, Cleric, Priest
Atlantean: Fighter, Magician, Cleric, Thief, Warlock, Witch, Monk, Priest, Assassin
Esquimaux: Barbarian, Witch, Shaman, Scout
Hyperborean: Fighter, Magician, Cleric, Thief, Cataphract, Warlock, Witch, Monk, Priest, Assassin
Ixian: Thief, Necromancer, Witch, Assassin
Kelt: Fighter, Thief, Witch, Druid, Bard
Kimmerian: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Cataphract, Witch
Kimmeri-Kelt: Barbarian, Berserker, Shaman, Scout
Pict: Fighter, Thief, Warlock, Witch, Shaman, Assassin
Half-Blood Pict: Barbarian, Berserker, Witch, Shaman, Scout
Viking: Cleric, Thief, Barbarian, Berserker, Witch, Bard, Scout

Obviously there are some patterns here. I see a society as either producing fighters or barbarians/berserkers - never both. Each society similarly has only one type of religious personnel (either cleric/priest, druid, or shaman). Some societies (such as lawful Amazons and many barbarians) won't tolerate thieves or assassins. I see true magicians as the province of only the most "sophisticated" societies; less civilized folk usually produce witches or shamans instead. Likewise assassins are the product of sophisticated societies. Scouts are the product of barbaric societies. And so forth.

What does that mean for my players? In mechanical terms, nothing. Any race can play any class with no penalty (or bonus, for that matter). But classes outside what I consider the "norm" for that race will require a bit of background to explain it. For example, Amazon society doesn't normally produce berserkers. An Amazon berserker may have gone feral, or may have been driven mad by the Boreas, or could be the product of an isolated population of Amazons that exists in barbarism ("Island of Prehistoric Women"). Similarly, Keltic society doesn't tolerate assassins, but a Keltic assassin could have gone to Khromarium as a young adult and learned the trade there. The idea is not to restrict choice, but to encourage creative character development if the player goes beyond obvious choices like "Viking berserker" or "Keltic druid". I also want to give each race some unique flavor without punishing class selection, and restricting many classes to exceptional individuals of each race (i.e., PC's) seems like a good way to do this.

[Ghul]

There actually is such an Amazon / Ixian island, called "Anlates" in the gazetteer, where the islanders live as savage beasts, but whether they are feral barbarians or the sufferers of madness and disease is left to the discretion of the referee.

As far as your Keltic example goes, there are allusions to Keltic "neighborhoods" in Khromarium; this opens the possibility to the assassin example as you note.

So, anyway, I like what you've done, but also I strongly agree with the opening of your second paragraph when you say "What does that mean for my players? In mechanical terms, nothing. Any race can play any class with no penalty (or bonus, for that matter)."

Any number of exceptions are possible. Picture druids working as missionaries working to convert a tribe of half-blood Picts to their religion as opposed to shamanism/totemism/ancestral worship. Anything is possible, but it's also advantageous (especially for NPC development) to have archetypes.

[blackadder23]

I agree with what you say, and if someone said, "I'm a Half-Blood Pict druid because of exposure to Keltic missionaries as a child," I would definitely accept that as an explanation. Or practically any explanation will do ("I was orphaned in a battle with Kelts and they raised me as their own" for example). What I really want to avoid is a situation where I say, "Amazons have something akin to druids, and Atlanteans have something akin to druids, and Esquimaux have something akin to druids, and..." in order to accomodate various race and class combinations. To me it just sucks all the flavor out of the druid class to make it something generic that exists in some form in every culture in Hyperborea (and the same applies to assassins and shamans and barbarians and the like).

I think of it as being similar to Conan's situation. In one sense there were no Cimmerian pirates; the Cimmerians didn't have a seacoast, didn't have shipbuilding skills, and didn't have the social organization to support piracy. Yet in another sense Conan was a Cimmerian pirate. He just served on ships belonging to other cultures. This is how I see something like an Esquimaux cataphract. I'm not going to twist the Esquimaux racial conception as I see it to include mailed leaper camels or armored dogsleds or whatever just to accomodate this one class; given their culture and environment, I think the idea of the Esquimaux fielding armored cavalry is a bit ludicrous. Rather, an Esquimaux can be a cataphract the same way Conan was a pirate: by serving in the armored cavalry of another culture (probably as a mercenary with the Kimmerians or one of the city states).

The main impact of this, as you say, will really be with NPC's. I see Kelts as too organized and not robust enough to class as barbarians, so NPC Keltic warriors encountered will be fighters. NPC Viking warriors, on the other hand, will be barbarians (disorganized and robust). NPC Ixians never become any type of fighter IMC, so threats from them will be magical or stealthy (or they might send mercenary fighters from other cultures). And so forth. It's mainly a tool to help me give flavor to the various cultures and give the players some idea of what to expect. As far as the players are concerned, I encourage them to class their characters against expectations. I think the creativity required to explain how, for example, an Amazon became a necromancer will add quite a bit to the roleplaying aspect of the campaign. ;D

[mabon5127]

It's funny how we can think differently about the same material. One of the first NPCs the characters ran into was an Ixian fighter.

Given that characters have to have fairly exceptional characteristics to become a barbarian or berserker the fighter would be the norm in most cultures with the true subclass appearing in exceptional individuals. Just my opinion.

Morgan

[blackadder23]

Mar 27, 2013 14:31:38 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

Given that characters have to have fairly exceptional characteristics to become a barbarian or berserker the fighter would be the norm in most cultures with the true subclass appearing in exceptional individuals. Just my opinion.

That's a very reasonable opinion , but I look at it the other way around: if someone is fit to be a warrior in what I consider to be a "savage" culture, they must ipso facto have those exceptional characteristics. Of course that means that NPC Vikings and the like will have much higher average physical abilities in my campaign than do "civilized" men (PC's can choose to be runts if they wish) but that all seems perfectly Howardian to me. Let me ask you this: do you think Conan was a physical freak, or a typical Cimmerian? We never see another Cimmerian in the REH stories (I'm ignoring the pastiches because I just had a large meal) but there are indications that Conan is not that extraordinary: one of the guardsmen in "The God in the Bowl" refers to Cimmerians in general scaling sheer cliffs, and several times Conan is taken for a generic "northern barbarian" of no great distinction. I don't think Conan was meant to be a physical freak, but rather just another member of a race toughened to an incredible degree (and smarter than most, his true advantage). I treat the "savage" races in my campaign the same way. Meaning, of course, that the Fields of Vol are crawling with Conans and Red Sonjas. Maybe I should warn my players about that! ;D

[mabon5127]

Ok. Now you have me thinking concerning Conan's ranking among his peers. Not being a REH expert I must simply say I believe that physically Conan is exceptional even within his tough race. I do agree his intelligence is what really sets him apart.

[blackadder23]

Mar 27, 2013 19:39:08 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

Ok. Now you have me thinking concerning Conan's ranking among his peers. Not being a REH expert I must simply say I believe that physically Conan is exceptional even within his tough race. I do agree his intelligence is what really sets him apart.

Well, I don't know if I qualify as an REH "expert" (I've read all of his fiction and letters and essays multiple times, for whatever that's worth) but I basically agree with you. Although it was never stated outright, and we never saw any other Cimmerians (and few other northern barbarians of any kind) for comparison, I think it's entirely reasonable and likely that Conan was an extraordinary physical specimen in his own right and not a "typical" Cimmerian who only seemed that way because we saw him among weaker races of men. However, Howard also does make it fairly clear that the "barbaric" races of the Hyborian Age were in general superior physical specimens to the "civilized" races*. This is especially true of the Picts, the only "barbaric" race we see in detail. In "Beyond the Black River" the Picts are all described as stealthier, quicker, and more ferocious than even the toughest woodsmen that the Aquilonians can muster. Only Conan, a fellow savage by birth, can meet them on equal terms. Another feature of "Beyond the Black River" is that all the Picts are adept at creeping through the woods. They don't consist of a small elite of stealthy barbarians accompanied by a horde of fighters tromping through the woods making noise. In AS&SH terms they all appear to be either barbarians or (as I would probably classify them, since they seem to favor ambush over direct assault) scouts. Or a mix of both.

That's the kind of situation I want to model in my campaign. When my players are on the Savage Boreal Coast, I want them to worry that Half-Blood Pict scouts are always creeping through the woods all around them. When they see a Viking raider, I want them to worry that it's going to unload, not run of the mill fighters, but barbarians and berserkers eager to bury axes in their heads. When they see a delegation of Ixians, I want them to worry that they're almost certainly looking at necromancers and witches on some evil errand. For me, that's pulpy goodness. For me, that trumps naturalism - or realism, or statistics, or someone's idea of what political economy would be in a fantasy world - every time. I'm not trying to bust your chops by any means. You have every right to worry about those things if they appeal to you, and the resulting campaign may be as good as - or better than - anything my approach could yield. But I am what I am, and in my campaigns numbers and "balance" and "realism" are always going to take a back seat to aesthetic effect and even the occasional touch of surrealism**. Luckily AS&SH is a big enough game for both of these approaches, and no doubt many others besides. So everybody wins.

* - The savage races would only have to have an average STR/DEX/CON of 13, versus a civilized average of 11 in those abilities, for all their average and better specimens to qualify as barbarians in game terms. That's really not that outlandish a difference, especially if the savage races are exposing their physically substandard infants and taking steps to toughen the ones who survive. Below average specimens who do survive just aren't allowed to be warriors IMC (they are treated as despised runts fit only for what the civilized races consider "women's work" - unless they're lucky enough to become shamans).

** - For example, in my last AD&D campaign the PC party kept hearing about an NPC party that arrived everywhere they went a few days before they did and left just before the PC party got there. The mysterious NPC party was identical in class and race terms to the PC party, even changing whenever the PC party composition changed, and almost but not quite physically identical to them. This was never explained. ;D

[Ghul]

Well, as far as Ixians go, my own "archetype" list would probably see thief deleted and fighter added. In Ixian society, a cruel and largely LE society (IMC), thieves (unlike in Khromarium and Port Zangerios, where they exist in an open political context) are served the most severe punishments. Hence (IMC) any Ixian thief's operation would be quite underground/behind the scenes. But, of course, make it your own -- this is how I like to play my Ixians (rather Stygian-like). This directly plays into the Spartan presentation of the AS&SH descriptions, affording each referee to interpret to his or her own tastes.

[blackadder23]

Mar 28, 2013 7:44:39 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This directly plays into the Spartan presentation of the AS&SH descriptions, affording each referee to interpret to his or her own tastes.

I definitely agree this is one of the strong points of the rules, and it's fun to see what everyone comes up with. I have no desire to convert everyone, or anyone, to my own (admittedly extreme) interpretation of the races and classes in the game - although I will defend that interpretation in terms of the pulp aesthetic. Long live the difference! ;D

[Ghul]

Absolutely! And for me the aesthetic is an ongoing learning/immersion project; for example, I recently devoured Karl Edward Wagner's "Bloodstone" after strong recommendations and help right here in this forum. It was a brilliant S&S yarn, and I look forward to reading "Dark Crusade" next, but presently I'm finishing off Book 5 of Vance's "Demon Princes" series.

[blackadder23]

After some more pondering I created this list of "typical" classes for each race in my campaign. These are in descending order of how "typical" each class is for each race (so necromancers are most "typical" for Ixians, and assassins are least). Again, this is based on my personal view that each race is either "savage" or "civilized" and that each race only has one widely accepted type of clergy. I put my rationale in each case in parentheses. As I said before, none of this applies to PCs or unusual NPCs, who can be any race and class combination whatsoever.

Amazon: Fighter, Cleric. [Amazon society is very uniform and most females are either well-equipped fighters or equally well-equipped fighting clerics. Most Amazon males are not classed. Thieves and sorcerers are shown either the gate or the edge of a warrior's sword.]
Atlantean: Fighter, Thief, Warlock, Witch, Magician, Assassin, Monk. [Atlantean society revolves around piracy with a slight emphasis on fighters over thieves. Quite a few Atlanteans are sorcerers. Alone among Hyperborean societies, Atlanteans are atheistic - they regard the gods as "mere alien beings" - although there are a few philosopher-monks.]
Esquimaux: Scout, Shaman, Witch. [Esquimaux eschew frontal combat in favor of ambush and sniping. Both shamans and witches impart the wisdom of Kthulhu. Thieves and the like are condemned to death by exposure.]
Hyperborean: Warlock, Magician, Witch, Priest, Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Monk. [Hyperboreans favor both sword and sorcery. Fighters and thieves do exist, but only if they fail to grasp any form of magic. A handful become deeply philosophical monks.]
Ixian: Necromancer, Witch, Priest, Assassin. [Ixians who are not zero level peasants usually become male necromancers, female witches, or demonic priests. A few are assassins specializing in developing horrible new toxins and torturous methods to inflict death. If the Ixians need brute muscle, they employ mercenaries or animate the dead; no NPC Ixian would ever dirty his hands with sword play or agree to arm the peasants. Thieves and unsanctioned sorcerers face a horrible death in Ixian society.]
Kelt: Fighter, Thief, Druid, Bard, Witch. [Kelts like to fight, but appreciate the wisdom of druids and bards. They also have a healthy respect for witchcraft and admire clever thieves.]
Kimmerian: Cataphract, Fighter, Thief, Shaman, Witch. [Most Kimmerian warriors fight mounted, but they also have a fair number of foot fighters. My Kimmerians are modeled on Hollywood Gypsies, so thieves are tolerated if they mostly rob outsiders and many of the women are witches.]
Kimmeri-Kelt: Barbarian, Berserker, Shaman. [My Kimmeri-Kelts are basically all Conan and Red Sonja, except for the ones who are even crazier. Shamans are respected, even though all they really offer is "never ask Krimmr for anything, ever". Kimmeri-Kelts hate sorcery and theft, and adorn their huts with the heads of those who violate these taboos.]
Pict: Fighter, Thief, Shaman, Assassin, Witch. [My model for the Picts is basically "Macbeth with tattoos", so witchcraft and murder are an everyday thing. Taking what you want by brute force is considered best, but theft or a dagger in the back is almost as good. Only a shaman's person is considered sacrosanct.]
Half-Blood Pict: Scout, Shaman. [Half-Blood Picts never engage in truly open warfare, preferring to collect scalps by ambush and treachery. Thieves have their hands cut off and sorcerers are burned to death with heated axe blades.]
Viking: Barbarian, Berserker, Thief, Shaman, Bard, Witch. [Vikings favor human wave assaults by mighty-thewed barbarian warriors supported by foam-mouthed berserkers. Shamans and bards impart the wisdom of the gods. Unlike most of the savage folk, Vikings have a healthy respect for witchcraft and admire bold and clever thieves. Cowardly, non-clever thieves are punished with the blood eagle or worse.]

Like I said before, for the most part I take a very Howardian view of the races in the game - i.e., they are either decadently civilized and filled with thieves, assassins, and sorcerers, or they are savage and filled with violent barbarians. Even if you don't agree with my extreme take on the game races (and you probably won't), I urge you to at least consider which classes are most common for each race in your campaign. Doing so really helped me think through some of the details and implications about the different races, and provoked some ideas (e.g., the Atlanteans being atheistic pirates, and the Kimmerians being Hollywood Gypsies). Give it a try!

[Ghul]

Nicely done, BA23. For my own campaign, I concur with much of what you present here, with some notable exceptions: I think my view of the Ixians is different than yours (which is fine!), and I'm treating Atlanteans as not really having much of a "society" to speak of. Great work!

[blackadder23]

Thanks!

I admit my take on the Ixians is probably extreme. I have reimagined them as an occult aristocracy ruling over a mass of slaves and animated dead. All "true" Ixians are either sorcerers or alchemist-assassins. There are some people of Ixian blood with no magical aptitude, but they are relegated to essentially the same status as foreign slaves (which is one step above the actual, literal zombies) unless they escape and become PCs. I think this provides an excellent incentive not to get recaptured... ;D

[Ghul]

All well and good, BA23.

Regarding the Ixians, for my own part, I am inspired by the Stygians as presented in Hour of the Dragon, and for those necromancers who receive their instruction at the Isle of Ix, I am inspired by Necromancy in Naat.

[mabon5127]

Great stuff BA! I like the classifications though I would see the Kimmeri-Kelts as more of the roving gypsy types as they are generally looked down upon by both pure parents.

They would also be influenced by the Keltic parentage where stealing from your enemies was considered clever and they were much more accommodating of "magical / supernatural" influences

Conan spent part of his career as a thief though he generally stole from other peoples.

I would probably keep him as straight Kimmerian though its impossible to judge his characteristics as stereotypical.

Thanks for the random adventure generator as well. You have lots of great ideas!

Morgan