D&D General Oh Please give me some Happy Backgrounds!!

[Piperken]

... but on the other hand I always think: Why would a happy character with an intact social network and support system and a loving family... why would they go on deadly adventures? If they are happy, would they not stay in their happy life with their family, farming and enjoying life?...

Conscription is/was a thing in many nation states/cultures.

"I was born the second son of an itinerant farmer." (welp...) (also very much a thing in many cultures.)

Fairly common to have a positive, stable upbringing, and still find yourself on the road... :3

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I had a girlfriend with BPD. Those were interesting times.

I've just binged Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and let's just say there were a lot of behaviour patterns I recognised.

 

[Retros_x]

Conscription is/was a thing in many nation states/cultures.

That could be an interesting backstory, but I wouldn't default to it. Someone fleeing from conscription would be a typical fish out of water character, being away from his homelands. (In their homeland they would do the opposite of adventuring, staying down and hide). Also as to my knowledge in pre modern times conscription was only in times of war as militia and the standing army was smaller or non existent (for example in medieval europe where many settings derive from).

I don't see how itinerant farmer makes you an adventurer in the D&D sense. Being on the road doesn't mean you dive in dragon lairs, you could just stay your happy life as farmer or merchant. On the road, but not putting yourself more in danger than you need to.

 

[Retros_x]

And of course there are backstories that aren’t exactly happy but also aren’t tragic. Grew up on the street and pickpocketed a knight who took a shine to the young thief and took them in, stuff like that.

These are my personal favorite backstories. I don't like the "happy farmer wants to go on adventure" because I don't like playing naive characters and also I often can't grasp how that happy farmer becomes a warlock just like that for example. Or a druid. There must be something more, some actual quest, some upbringing that led them on that way. A happy farmer doesn't get taken in by a knight, why would they.

But I also don't like the complete tragic and dark backstories, that are way too much. I like stuff like your example - there is nothing to gain in their old life, so they take on the adventurers life. But they are not necessarily traumatized - The traumas happen on the adventure!

 

[Piperken]

That could be an interesting backstory, but I wouldn't default to it. Someone fleeing from conscription would be a typical fish out of water character, being away from his homelands. (In their homeland they would do the opposite of adventuring, staying down and hide). Also as to my knowledge in pre modern times conscription was only in times of war as militia and the standing army was smaller or non existent (for example in medieval europe where many settings derive from).

I don't see how itinerant farmer makes you an adventurer in the D&D sense. Being on the road doesn't mean you dive in dragon lairs, you could just stay your happy life as farmer or merchant. On the road, but not putting yourself more in danger than you need to.

Yeah no one has to default to any of course. I only mentioned conscription because it's been around since antiquity and as an example because someone I know just made a character with that background for a game they're starting to play in.

In their case, their PC didn't attempt to go AWOL. They finished their service, got released, and for whatever reason left up to that player to figure, didn't have a desire to return home. So they undertook adventuring.

The suggestions weren't meant to be the primary reason why someone became an adventurer; much like the suggested backgrounds often given in 5E, that's often left up to the player. They're a kernel much like ideals, bonds, flaws etc.

They were legitimate reasons for why people who had by all accounts a "stable" upbringing (for their times) might not be at home for an extended period of time.

 

[Maxperson]

So... The Clown background. Happy or horrific?

 

[Maxperson]

So ... with that in mind, do I make happy characters? Eh, not really.

Not even your Bard hunters?

 

[Maxperson]

And, really, like all things, there's a spectrum. Life has tragedies. That's just life. So, sure, I can totally get behind that for inspiring a character. But, like all things, it does become something of a cliche when every single PC is an orphan, abused by life, scarred and whatnot, and the character hasn't actually left his or her hometown yet.

The idea upthread of "knives" is an interesting one. And, it speaks to my point - too many knives and it's almost parody.

I rarely do the horrific/tragic background. Often there is some sort of adversity in my character's background to explain why he is an adventurer, but just as often it's something like, "My character grew up admiring his uncle Murdock and his monster hunting M-Team, who were wanted for crimes they didn't commit and went from town to town just ahead of bounty hunters, helping locals rid themselves of monster problems." Adversity and inspiration are the bedrocks of my backgrounds.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

These are my personal favorite backstories. I don't like the "happy farmer wants to go on adventure" because I don't like playing naive characters and also I often can't grasp how that happy farmer becomes a warlock just like that for example. Or a druid. There must be something more, some actual quest, some upbringing that led them on that way. A happy farmer doesn't get taken in by a knight, why would they.

Why wouldn’t they? One day, they helped the knight with something, showed potential, the knight saw something in them, so they offered to squire the young farmer. Who would say no?

But I also don't like the complete tragic and dark backstories, that are way too much. I like stuff like your example - there is nothing to gain in their old life, so they take on the adventurers life. But they are not necessarily traumatized - The traumas happen on the adventure!

Yeah I mean, I actually really like both tragic and happy characters, myself.

But I see no issue with a character who simply wanted to adventure. I don’t see adventuring as dominated by the desperate or those whose lives would otherwise be meaningless or whatever, but simply by people who knew that these places of risk and reward were out there, and felt drawn to them.

People don’t climb mountains and circumnavigate the globe because their life sucked or they lost their family or someone dragged them into adventuring. They just do it because that impulse is a natural human impulse that is stronger in some folks than in others.

Some people naturally are strongly inclined to leave home and chase the horizon, and only do otherwise if anchored by an especially good life and/or very strong obligations. It doesn’t require naïveté at all.

 

[TwoSix]

I've just binged Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and let's just say there were a lot of behaviour patterns I recognised.

I'm sure the situation was a lot more nuanced than that.