Ideas needed for players meeting some foreign kings (human first, then dwarf)

[NewJeffCT]

I need a bit of advice, and want to get an idea or two just to emphasize that they are visiting places that are different culturally.

The players are at the point in the campaign where they are gaining a reputation, so are in line to meet the king of Meznamish in Svimozhia (Kingdoms of Kalamar setting) next session. Svimozhia is the Africa-like portion of Kalamar with a subtropical to tropical climate and dark-skinned humans as natives. Dwarves are also major players in this kingdom because they control the iron resources and have great economic clout. The players are from a more European like setting in Brandobia to the north.

The king is good-aligned, but I want to do a few minor role-playing types of ideas to emphasize the cultural differences. ("Our delicacy here is chilled monkey brains, how many scoops would you like?" where refusing a scoop might be an insult...) Meznamish is a bit more open-minded culturally and when it comes to religion than the players' native Brandobia.

The group is a human rogue; a human priestess of a nature goddess; an elf paladin/fighter; a halfling psion; and a dwarf fighter. The players are part of a prophecy that the king of Meznamish believes will help him reunite his shattered empire, so will be initially inclined to welcome the PCs warmly.

A session or two down the road, the players will eventually meet the mountain dwarf king in the nearby mountains. (the PC dwarf is a hill dwarf) The dwarf king has been aligned with the humans for centuries and they also desire the old human empire to reunite because the dwarves are sort of on the front lines of hostile territory, and a united human empire is a powerful ally.

Any ideas to emphasize the differences? I'm not looking for something that will cause the king to want to hang the players, but maybe think them a bit odd/strange in return.

 

[Kinneus]

A good way of doing this is to take something that's immoral or even just morally ambiguous in the players' homeland, and make it a celebrated part of the king's culture. Possiblities include:
-Cannibalism (killing and eating people as a method of capital punishment, the 'sacred' eating of deceased family members, a tradition involving eating enemies to gain their power or something)
-Polygamy
-Homosexuality (think Sparta)
-Slavery
-Gender roles (an overtly patriarchal or matriarchal society)
-Burial practices (sky burial can be a bit unnerving)

For example, the PCs might enter the king's court, and the king decides to greet them warmly by offering each a slave. Since the PCs likely view slavery as 'evil', they have to think of a way to politely decline the gift without insulting the king. Hope you put some ranks in Diplomacy, guys!

 

[NewJeffCT]

I was thinking about something along those lines - after the PCs retires to their rooms, a slave will knock on their doors and offer to attend to all of their "personal" needs... of course, the PCs will likely turn them down, only to see a hurt/scared look in the eyes of the slave, who will reveal that if they get turned down, they will be beaten, and then sent to work in dangerous mines in the nearby mountains... the woman in the group will get the offer from a male slave as well.

 

[steenan]

@NewJeffCT
While the idea is a very good way to emphasize cultural differences, I don't think it fits. The OP wants the king to be good aligned - and that means, IMO, not punishing slaves for something that is not their fault.
On the other hand, the refused one may be just percieved as ugly and/or incompetent by other slaves and laughed at...

The cannibalism, listed by Kinneus, seems the best one. While killing people to eat them would be obviously evil, eating ones that are already dead (either honoring dead ancestors or consuming the life force of defeated enemies) is not, while still being strongly disturbing to most. I'd go with it.

 

[NewJeffCT]

@NewJeffCT
While the idea is a very good way to emphasize cultural differences, I don't think it fits. The OP wants the king to be good aligned - and that means, IMO, not punishing slaves for something that is not their fault.
On the other hand, the refused one may be just percieved as ugly and/or incompetent by other slaves and laughed at...

The cannibalism, listed by Kinneus, seems the best one. While killing people to eat them would be obviously evil, eating ones that are already dead (either honoring dead ancestors or consuming the life force of defeated enemies) is not, while still being strongly disturbing to most. I'd go with it.

Thanks - not sure I like the cannibalism idea, but I agree on punishing the slave for something not their fault, so will change that plan.

 

[NewJeffCT]

A good way of doing this is to take something that's immoral or even just morally ambiguous in the players' homeland, and make it a celebrated part of the king's culture. Possiblities include:
-Cannibalism (killing and eating people as a method of capital punishment, the 'sacred' eating of deceased family members, a tradition involving eating enemies to gain their power or something)
-Polygamy
-Homosexuality (think Sparta)
-Slavery
-Gender roles (an overtly patriarchal or matriarchal society)
-Burial practices (sky burial can be a bit unnerving)

For example, the PCs might enter the king's court, and the king decides to greet them warmly by offering each a slave. Since the PCs likely view slavery as 'evil', they have to think of a way to politely decline the gift without insulting the king. Hope you put some ranks in Diplomacy, guys!

gender roles might be interesting, as their homelands are the typical medieval society that is fairly patriarchal... when they met the king there, it was an all male group of advisers. So, could be several women playing key roles here.

 

[Jack7]

My players have both taken slaves as gifts and bought them, to then turn around and free them, sometimes to make a point to their former masters about how everyone should be treated respectfully or that you can free slaves and thereby turn them into voluntary and dedicated servants.

For instance once my party went into Bulgaria where they bought two men (former chieftain sons captured in war) and then freed them and offered to pay them to retain them as servants. Both men agreed if they were allowed total freedom in three years (they didn't really get the "you're now completely freed" idea, they had been raised as Slavs). In any case they eventually became devoted men at arms, and they were often useful in negotiations with the Bulgar court.

Anyways the party were all Christians from Constantinople and their mission was as much religious as political, and slavery was dissolved and absolved in their homeland on religious grounds and so they were trying to convert the Bulgars both into political allies and into religious allies. The Byzantines were strong believers that if nations were religious allies they were far more likely to be political, economic, and military allies. So you might want to consider what I call, "mutual interest overlap."

So the players could take the slaves and then decided to free them, though that would be up to them. But in some respects I would leave it up to the players to debate how they want to handle things. That is, go ahead and do what you think would be natural in that culture and then leave it up to the players to make their own moral decisions about what that means, and how they could address any associated problems.

A few other cultural areas of difference you might want to explore: political (epically assumed political ideas that maybe no one has ever considered an alternative for, like converting enemies into allies rather than just killing them, that is to say, coalition building - maybe that culture wants to be allies with enemies of your player's nation, and hopes to use your guys to float the idea of their old enemies entering into negotiations and now becoming mutual allies to support Meznamish , or greater Svimozhia.) Maybe the kingdom you are visiting doesn't just want their old empire back, but to create a far larger set of strategic alliances to prevent future problems. Maybe they want buffer state allies, or even have territorial expansion in mind. What would all involved nations and peoples stand to gain and lose by such an alliance or set of alliances?

You could also explore both obvious and subtle religious traditions, economic differences, and even technological ones (maybe that kingdom or that of your players has a secret material, like advanced steel or a better weapon design) and medicinal ones. For instance someone becomes sick at dinner. The natives insist they be bled or use some other similar treatment, the players want to use medicine or magic.

And come to think of it, differences in magic, ritual, etc. would make for some interesting differences.

Language and misunderstandings in translation lead to difficulties. Differences in entertainment (storytelling and song), drinking habits (maybe they shun alcohol and/or drugs - maybe they regularly indulge) and so forth.

If the players are also on a mission from others, or if the natives think they represent their own kingdom as obvious or even secret de facto agents, then that could lead to some really interesting encounters. In either direction. In cases like that both sides spend a lot of time feeling each other out, trying to decide what is really going on, and how much they can or cannot trust each other. Small things become amplified and sometimes important things get lost because of assumed expectations.

 

[NewJeffCT]

For instance once my party went into Bulgaria where they bought two men (former chieftain sons captured in war) and then freed them and offered to pay them to retain them as servants. Both men agreed if they were allowed total freedom in three years (they didn't really get the "you're now completely freed" idea, they had been raised as Slavs). In any case they eventually became devoted men at arms, and they were often useful in negotiations with the Bulgar court.

Thanks - some good things to think about.