D&D 5E SKT: The Uthgardt and Modern Sensibilities

[MechaTarrasque]

I feel that a good and interesting game or story, should have moments of conflict like this. No, it isn't particularly heroic, and yes, it is very questionable morally. Without these kind of conflicts for the characters to deal with, you can lose out on development of those characters.

That isn't to say that I can't draw similar conclusions or parallels as have been mentioned here. I just think that if you PC everything, and make the characters objectively always good and always heroic, it can make for a bland story. If that is the audience and the game that you want however, more power to you.

I tend to agree. Unless the party is going full murderhobo, I think it is important to give the party members the opportunity to make moral decisions/statements--that shouldn't be the exclusive domain of the DM (of course, the DM can have the rest of the universe disagree with a PC's moral decision, but that is a different issue). The only exception to this is if a party member is trying to troll (or habitually go into full lecture mode on) the rest of the party.

In the real world, I am pretty sure every single human being is descended from somebody who killed a Neanderthal and stole his/her stuff. In the D&D world, the Neanderthal or somebody even older is still around and unhappy about that.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I feel that a good and interesting game or story, should have moments of conflict like this.

I think so too. The most memorable scenarios I've played are ones with a trade-off. Do I save the world at the cost of my life, or another life? Do I stop the Giant conflict by desecrating sacred Uthgardt? (that's just a guess of whats going on here I don't actually have SKT)

 

[Istbor]

I tend to agree. Unless the party is going full murderhobo, I think it is important to give the party members the opportunity to make moral decisions/statements--that shouldn't be the exclusive domain of the DM (of course, the DM can have the rest of the universe disagree with a PC's moral decision, but that is a different issue). The only exception to this is if a party member is trying to troll (or habitually go into full lecture mode on) the rest of the party.

In the real world, I am pretty sure every single human being is descended from somebody who killed a Neanderthal and stole his/her stuff. In the D&D world, the Neanderthal or somebody even older is still around and unhappy about that.

Yeah, agreed. I don't want to use my game or campaign as a soap box. I also don't think that my players would want that, from myself, or another player. Perhaps there are games out there like that, but for me, D&D is about telling interesting stories with a group of people/friends, and having fun while doing so.

 

[hastur_nz]

I feel that a good and interesting game or story, should have moments of conflict like this. No, it isn't particularly heroic, and yes, it is very questionable morally. Without these kind of conflicts for the characters to deal with, you can lose out on development of those characters.

That isn't to say that I can't draw similar conclusions or parallels as have been mentioned here. I just think that if you PC everything, and make the characters objectively always good and always heroic, it can make for a bland story. If that is the audience and the game that you want however, more power to you.

I wholeheartedly agree. As a DM, I think it's great to occasionally throw something grey at the players, and leave it to them to work out what's best - it's often where the best role-play and character development comes to the fore. Some players will relish the opportunity more than others, so you have to be mindful of what gaming aspects your players like, but a lot of different player styles lend themselves to a dealing with a bit of moral ambiguity, and deciding which means they will try and justify. So the DM's primary responsibility, is simply to try and focus on what kinds of player responses you might encounter, and what the potential outcomes / responses might be - having clear motives for your antagonists / NPCs should be your primary focus.

So for example the Oracle/Giants need the relics - pure and simple. "Civilisation" i.e. the various humans etc of the Northern Cities, want to stop the depredations of the Giants, and getting the relics is going to help achieve that - a few broken eggs is the price one has to pay. The Uthgardt want to protect the mounds and their sacred relics, but I believe the relics and mounds all pre-date the Uthgardt, so really the Uthgardt are just the current-state owners, and the history of the North, and the Uthgardt, is that possession is 9/10 of the law, so if someone were to come along and take the relics, it's not much different than a bunch of Uthgardt raiders ravaging a local town and claiming its livestock etc. After all, the Uthgardt roam around the place, they are semi-nomadic, they tend to only gather at their mounds each Autumn. If someone pillages their mound, maybe even while they are away, yeah they will get angry and might go to some lengths to get the items back, but that's what makes for a fun story.

So by all means, leverage your personal distaste for the "white folk" beating up on the "noble savage", to help your players understand that this is a grey moral ground they are treading, and it's up to them to decide what's best. Embrace that, and leave it up to your players to navigate the outcomes. Just be prepared for whatever directions come about.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I talked to my one player who I thought might be sensitive to this sort of thing and he said he could see my point but that it was just a game. So maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here.

When Scarlett Johansson was cast in that Ghost in the Shell movie, people got mad because the character was meant to be Asian, even though it's a fictional story. Same with that movie that Emma Stone is in where she's playing a half-Chinese person. People called that "white-washing".

I feel like the Uthgardt could potentially fall into that same category. Yes, you could argue that they're more like the Gauls or the Huns or whatever, but the sacred sites and the tribal names ("Sky Pony", "Blue Bear", etc) scream "Native American" to me. If they had names like "Fanged Moon" or "Jagged Claw" maybe it wouldn't be so discomfiting. That said ...

I think this is also part of it, although it's not because they're burial mounds per se. It's because they're still active sites. They're not ruins left behind by a vanished culture. Archaeologists don't generally raid sites that people are still using.

That said, I think I will leave it, and we'll play one out and see how it goes. If it feels wrong, we'll work something else out.

They are barbarian raiders, so the party is stealing (if you want to use that word) from thieves. I stop caring about the cultural implications when the people in question stole the items being recovered.

As for swapping them out with Orcs, sorry but that is silly, if you are uncomfortable with tomb raiding then whose tomb it is should not matter what so ever.

 

[Parmandur]

The Uthgardt are RuneQuest refugees, originally, recycled for a FR product. I have played enough King of Dragon Pass to know that the right answer is to raid their temple, and steal as many cattle and thralls as possible.