Quote from: Shasarak;1116071So is medieval authentic just adventuring in the real world europe in the 1400s?

Well, that's not how it's laid out in Dark Albion or L&D, but it is meant to mimic the feel - with social dynamics, political arrangements, magic and religion.  Maybe Pundy can weigh in on that, it being his use of the term.  I'm not sure what to say, as it seems fairly straightforward to me.  Like, for example, 7th Sea has sorcery and cinematic combat dynamics which makes it very much not "the real world" but it is attempting to mimic the feel of the great age of sailing and swashbuckling adventure.

Quote from: Chris24601;1116019The big issue with using monotheism in fantasy is if spell casting is in any way tied to faithfulness to it then you've got no doubts about who is in the right. There's no Roman/Orthodox split because whichever one is wrong no longer gets spells from their prayers. There's only one of Judaism, Christianity and Islam because one of those has it right and can work spells (or none of those are right and some other religion can prove its right via spells.

D&D's psuedo-polytheism was a simple solution to allow different factions to have divine spells without one definitively being right.

The other solution is you make magic faith agnostic; either like 4E where, once you're imbued with divine spellcasting by a ritual, it can't be revoked... so the heretical corrupt bishop can't be revealed by not being able cast spells anymore -or- there's no divine magic at all so you have to take all religion on faith.

Even in a monotheistic culture there can be other forms of magic, otherwise you wouldn't have things like witches to burn and ghosts to fear.

Divine magic is basically just marketing, of course the caster will claim it came from god, but it could be direct action by god, delegated powers to saints, angels or completely unrelated coming from devils or spirits, or maybe it is just good old science getting credit for miraculous things, like a disease curing elixir made from moldy bread.  


While pundit is referring to monotheism which most take literally as one god, his main point is having a single dominant order in the region.

Schisms and alternate religions can easily co-exist in the world because distance and a lack of mass communications means anything outside of the community doesn't really matter to the vast majority of the population. A well traveled individual may be aware of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, as well as Islam and Hinduism, but most people don't and a wise well traveled individual who wants to keep breathing doesn't discuss the other orders when in lands controlled by another except in the most derogatory way.

If the "local" religious order even makes reference to others, they are controlling the information exchange. When it suits them to be agreeable they may recognize the others as a well meaning but misguided understanding of how things really are. They are wrong but it is ok to trade with them, because they are under our god, the poor fools are just too stupid to understand the truth. When they want the lands of the others, they are dangerous infidels who must be stopped at all cost.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116058I think he is probably better off defining what he means by medieval authentic

Its the same as the TSR historicals, Fantasy Wargaming, and Furry Outlaws/Pirates definition. Real world historical era + magic and monsters. Which to me is not very "authentic" as I dont recall any giant sword wielding snail monsters in the real world. Strange that. :rolleyes:

A better term might be historical fantasy. (Or even Classical Fantasy? hmmm...)

Quote from: Shasarak;1116071So is medieval authentic just adventuring in the real world europe in the 1400s?

With monsters and magic...

Quote from: David Johansen;1115993Yrth has a number of problems from a gaming perspective.  The world is generally too civilized and populated for most D&D style adventures.  There will almost always be someone in authority with sufficient power to bring down unruly PCs.  The world is a kind of bland movie medieval, with magic preventing plagues and making the political situation more stable not less because it performs as technology in the world it's dangerous and powerful but not evil or obscure so no fear of witches either.  It's also a bit bland in a moral sense: it's a world where there isn't really a cosmic force of morality and there's every indication that even demons are basically from another world. Compare goblins and centaur's origins and it starts looking pretty clear that the demons are probably from somewhere in the centaur world because that's where all the hybrid types are from.  I think Fighters of the Purple Rage and Mordag's Little Finger are the best adventures set in Yrth (sorry Harkwood).  In the first a group of escaped gladiators are hiding in the sewers of Megalos and in the second a wizard's staff turns out to be the finger bone of a giant vampire (stack those templates boys).  The first is a dungeon crawl and the second an urban mystery.  I think Yrth needs more development.  Another continent, other worlds, bigger and better maps.  But I do love Yrth.  It throws people some curve balls on their fantasy assumptions.  Goblins are merchants and craftsmen who are accepted in society?  (to be fair Megalos would be Lawful Evil in D&D)  The watch has access to professional wizards in most towns?  The villagers are afraid of monsters but not witches?

In some ways you can do interesting contrasts between the far more popular Old World of Warhammer which also strives for a certain medieval authenticity.  Its teeming, plague ridden cities, diseases and mutillation, insanity.  Yrth is pretty clearly a consequence of Steve Jackson's involvement in the SCA and The Old World is clearly a result of Rick Priestly and company living among the echoes of the actual middle ages.

That doesn't necessarily make Yrth a worse setting, but it's more akin to Traveller's Third Imperium, a big open place to set your adventures that includes most of the elements you might need.

Greyhawk is quite another thing than either.

Excellent summary! The "civilized/population" problem has definitely been one of the bigger hurdles to overcome, outside of urban mysteries and such as you pointed out with that adventure. Some of its more gonzo bits and subversions remind me of Discworld. I totally agree that it could use a bit more development, an area where something like OldHammer excels; though I hadn't thought of Yrth as being structured similarly to Third Imperium, now that you point it out I think that fixes in my mind a better way to approach using it.

Quote from: Aglondir;1115957Banestorm is a book I really want to love, but it comes across as sort-of boring. I was hoping for something more like 7th Sea's Thea (alt-France, alt-Germany, etc.) than Megalos, Tredroy, et.al. But I do like the concept of varying mana zones; something I'd like to use in the next fantasy game I run.

Yeah, it's sort of bizarre in that half of the setting seems to try aping 'realism' as much as it can (an extremely generic Western European Medieval one as David Johansen pointed out) and then you have weird shit like banestorms and etc. that seem ripe for ramping up the crazy factor (but the world seemingly remains much the same at ground level regardless). In some ways it comes across as confused, but considering that's sort of the setting premise I suppose it's likely intentional.

Mana zones and ley lines are super cool and interesting if you can find ways of working them actively into your setting. Especially including stuff like 'holy architecture,' mana nodes/pools and practical ways of manipulating the energy (to provide another layer of strategy, and facilitate Bad Guy Plans (tm).

Quote from: Brendan;1116063Note: I have MW btw, great product!)

Appreciate the compliment.

Quote from: Brendan;1116063IWilderlands always struck me as more in that vein than some attempt to model European history,

That is accurate for the Judges Guild version. However I model my cultures in the Majestic Wilderlands more on history than pulp. Unlike most settings, the high level detail in the Judges Guild Wilderlands is somewhat thin. Leaving room for referees, like myself to implement their own ideas.

Because the expanse afforded by the 18 published maps, I set aside large regions each with own distinct melange of cultures. The main campaign area around the City State of the Invincible Overlord however I portray as medieval. The legacy of Rome is represented by the defunct Ghinorian Empire which emerged far to the south and planted colonies throughout the Wilderlands. Including the City-State itself.

The stand in for the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Mitra. Pre-empire it Mitra was the national goddess of the Ghinorian Empire. The rise of the Ghinorian Empire saw the Church of Mitra change into a universal religion with non-Ghinorian adherent. In fact a recurring source of schisms and heresies is the tension between the ideals of Mitra are for all people and only Ghinorians are the chosen people of Mitra.

So while Mitric theologians will acknowledge the reality of other divine powers, they portray Mitra as the deity people ought to choose in order to have a better life. Thus for the Ghinorian successor states and cultures that have adopted Mitra we see the all good and bad that was associated with the Catholic Church. Including the life of the church being a dominant third tier of society alongside the nobles and peasants.

Having said that, there are regions of my Majestic Wilderlands that have a different feel to them. Some more like what you read in Sword and Sorcery novels. One the reason for the longevity of my setting is that I can start a new campaign in a different region and players can experience a different brand of fantasy.

Quote from: Brendan;1116063and Harn seems earlier placed to me - somewhere in the early medieval dark ages - but what do I know? You're obviously the expert on those, but that's just how they struck me as an "outsider".

Harn is a large island with several kingdoms, and several distinct regions. So it has variety. In general its technology and cultural sophistication is circa 12th century England. However if you go to the north of Harn in Orbaal there are Vikings with an oppressed majority the celtic like Jarins. If you go the east of Harn you get a large medieval kingdom, Kaldor, a small medieval kingdom Chybisa, and another large medieval kingdom with slightly more overt influence from mages, Melderyn. In the west you have an evil kingdom, Rethem. A good kingdom, Kanday. Finally an Italian city-state analogue the Thardic Republic.

Surrounding all this is an extensive wilderness with barbarian and gargun (orcs) tribes. Along with ruins, ancient Earthmaster sties, one kingdom of elves and one kingdom of dwarves.
 

Quote from: Brendan;1116063I fully support alternate views on this, but I think we can all agree that the European middle ages were largely monotheistic in civilized areas.

Yes but there was Roman Catholics versus Eastern Orthodox versus Islam with Judaism interwoven along with pagan outliers persisting into the 14th to 15th century. Not to mention persistent heresies like the Cathar of SW France and the Hussites of Bohemia. Both controlled their respective regions for decades.

Wrapping it up
While I write material for my own enjoyment. In general I focus on expanding things either of use to players or that define the behavior of the NPCs they encounter. What key to making a campaign feel medieval is that the NPCs act like people did in medieval and for the same reasons. The diety doesn't have to be the one god, if the NPCs act if their religon is the one true way for everybody. That they are willing to launch crusades. That it is so dominant that it forms a significant tier of society. That it is important enough that its clergy (which is not synonymous with being a priest) enjoy a unique legal status.

First, thank you Estar / Robert for the long and well thought out reply.  To be clear, I am not a conventional monotheist myself and, as someone of 3/4 European Jewish ancestry, I'm not of the opinion that all of medieval society was of one belief system, or even one religion.  But it was pretty clearly dominated by one religious institution.  I think our points of view here are largely congruent.  I'd like to call attention to two things you said that I think are especially relevant to the larger conversation.

Quote from: estar;1116112Yes but there was Roman Catholics versus Eastern Orthodox versus Islam with Judaism interwoven along with pagan outliers persisting into the 14th to 15th century. Not to mention persistent heresies like the Cathar of SW France and the Hussites of Bohemia. Both controlled their respective regions for decades.

Yes, of course.  And that is true in Dark Albion as well.  There is reference made to a native pre-monotheist Paganism, a kind of barbarian Wotanism, various Chaos and Elf heresies, and alternative faiths in "the one god" found in far-away lands.  But Dark Albion itself is an explicitly monotheistic and religiously centralized society, albeit with outliers.  It sounds like the medieval area of MW is much the same way, although the world around it is more varied.

Quote from: estar;1116112What key to making a campaign feel medieval is that the NPCs act like people did in medieval and for the same reasons. The diety doesn't have to be the one god, if the NPCs act if their religon is the one true way for everybody. That they are willing to launch crusades. That it is so dominant that it forms a significant tier of society. That it is important enough that its clergy (which is not synonymous with being a priest) enjoy a unique legal status.

Again mostly agreed.  I'm not 100% convinced that to mimic the feel of a medieval world it HAS to necessarily be a monotheistic world, but I do find Pundit's argument compelling.  

I recognize that the boundary between mono and henotheism can be fuzzy, and these terms are used by scholars and applied post hoc to religious beliefs and structures that already exist as a direct outgrowth of their unique history and mythology.  If, for example, the Church of Mitra recognizes other deities as legitimate divine powers, but thinks Mitra is the best, and perhaps reserves a special contempt for SOME of the others (ie: Set) but maintains good relations with still others (ie: Thoth) then sure, that's henotheism.  If on the other hand, they think that Mitra is so obviously superior that all other Gods are at best poor imitations and imposters to the throne... well... we're drifting pretty close to monotheism.  That monotheism might not be recognized by everyone else in that world, but within their own belief system - theirs is a monotheistic culture.

Now that I think more about it, I suspect that for a medieval feel to a given fictional society, one majority organized Church that forms the central organizing institution is probably more important than one single God.

Quote from: Omega;1116097Its the same as the TSR historicals, Fantasy Wargaming, and Furry Outlaws/Pirates definition. Real world historical era + magic and monsters. Which to me is not very "authentic" as I dont recall any giant sword wielding snail monsters in the real world. Strange that. :rolleyes:

A better term might be historical fantasy. (Or even Classical Fantasy? hmmm...)

Adding magic and monsters to medieval europe does not seem very authentic.  And if you already have magic in the world then arbitrarily restricting the number of Gods you have seems like an odd hill to die on.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116131Adding magic and monsters to medieval europe does not seem very authentic.  And if you already have magic in the world then arbitrarily restricting the number of Gods you have seems like an odd hill to die on.

But if you go back to the medieval mindset, magic and monsters were very much part of their world - as was monotheism.  It isn't an "arbitrary" restriction, because its grounded in an attempt to model, or at least imitate, a particular kind of society.  

I really don't understand this argument that crops up from time to time that "if you have magic than why not anything goes?" The implication is that if your fictional world deviates in any way from what modern people imagine the "real world" consists of, then it's all just made up bullshit, so who cares?  But fiction, good fiction, has verisimilitude.  It isn't just a grab bag of pop cultural crap.  This is even true for "magic" in fiction.  The magic in good fantasy worlds has an internally consistent logic.   When authors use "magic" as an excuse to break the rules of the world they've constructed it jars.  

It's the close cousin of "if you have elves, why not space alien lizard-cat-robots from the future?"   I'm not saying you CAN'T have space alien lizard-cat-robots in your game, but if you chose to do so, it is very much going to affect the feel and flavor.  If you're trying to play a historical game set in feudal Japan and someone wants to roll up a modern American special forces soldier - complete with fully automatic weapons and explosives, that just happens to find himself in feudal Japan... well... it's not really feudal Japan anymore, is it?  On the other hand, if they find a Oni in a cave in a dark forest, that's not going to throw them out of the genre.  That's explicitly PART of the feudal Japanese aesthetic, whether or not an Oni is more "real" that a US soldier is besides the point.

Quote from: Brendan;1116126Omitted excellent points

Quote from: Brendan;1116126Now that I think more about it, I suspect that for a medieval feel to a given fictional society, one majority organized Church that forms the central organizing institution is probably more important than one single God.

For my Points of Light/Blackmarsh/Wild North settings, the Rome analogue was the Bright Empire. The dominant religion was the United Church, where four deities were revered, Delaquain the Goddess of Justice, Sarrath the God of Order and War, Thoth the God of Knowledge, and Veritas the God of Truth.

The United Church developed during the height of the empire after a century of the four cooperating with one another. The inciting event was a few decades where some brilliant theologians fused ideas from from all four and came up with a combined theology that proved widely popular. Then a time of troubles hit the empire (like our Crisis of the 3rd Century) and emperor embraced the United Church as a means of stability. In the new theology the four deities are considered agents of a universal idea (the Logos) and each teach or embody a different aspect of the Logos.

The Bright Empire fell because it was left weakened by a series of civil wars insitgated by the followers of Delaquain and the followers of Sarrath. Finally collapsing in the Shattering, a major battle where barbarians defeated the Imperial Army.

The followers of Sarrath seized control of one region of the empire and founded the Ochre Empire to embody their version of the old United Church. The followers of Delaquain were not quite as lucky and became just one power among a sea of others that included imperial survivors and barbarian kingdoms.

Eventually centuries a new empire called the Grand Kingdom rose to power. The faith of the Grand Kingdom is dominated by the Church of Veritas much in the same way as the Catholic Church dominated Western Europe. The Church of Thoth is allied with the Church of Veritas where it forms that world's version of monasticism. The Church of Delaquain likewise exists however it is strictly controlled and considered junior to both Veritas and Thoth. The Church of Sarrath is banned and now considered a heresy. As a result the Grand Kingdom and the Ochre Empire are rivals and fought several wars directly and through proxies. The followers of Delaguain are often frontline fodder for the Grand Kingdom in these wars.

Overall the effect I feel is similar to how religious conflicts in medieval europe played out but with a different spin on it without a monotheistic god but there are monotheistic ideas that each espouses that their way is the one true way.

The closest I have ever come to a "just one god" setting in fantasy had exactly that--one god, but he/she/it was utterly inhuman and unknowable. Vastly powerful outsiders (demigod-like archangels, demon princes, etc.) were incarnations of aspects of the one god, and these were effectively what clerics drew their power through. Yes, that does mean that a LG cleric (or paladin) was technically drawing power from the same N deity as a CE cleric (or blackguard) even though one had that power filtered through a celestial and the other a fiend. These beings weren't saints though, since I believe that a key aspect to saints is that they originate as mortals. The setting was interesting as now the archangels and demon princes were effectively siblings arguing over the correct interpretations of their parent's "true" intentions and mortal worshipers were extensions of this struggle. However, a few players viewed the setting as uncomfortable and "something only an atheist would come up with."

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116143The closest I have ever come to a "just one god" setting in fantasy had exactly that--one god, but he/she/it was utterly inhuman and unknowable. Vastly powerful outsiders (demigod-like archangels, demon princes, etc.) were incarnations of aspects of the one god, and these were effectively what clerics drew their power through. Yes, that does mean that a LG cleric (or paladin) was technically drawing power from the same N deity as a CE cleric (or blackguard) even though one had that power filtered through a celestial and the other a fiend. These beings weren't saints though, since I believe that a key aspect to saints is that they originate as mortals. The setting was interesting as now the archangels and demon princes were effectively siblings arguing over the correct interpretations of their parent's "true" intentions and mortal worshipers were extensions of this struggle. However, a few players viewed the setting as uncomfortable and "something only an atheist would come up with."

That's fairly close to my own view in real life, and I'm not an atheist.  That is often referred to as "soft polytheism" and is more or less the exact position held by the Neoplatonist like Plotinus, Proclus and Iamblichus.  Their conception of evil was more complex but the idea of divine aspects of a single unknowable god is correct.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116143The closest I have ever come to a "just one god" setting in fantasy had exactly that--one god, but he/she/it was utterly inhuman and unknowable. Vastly powerful outsiders (demigod-like archangels, demon princes, etc.) were incarnations of aspects of the one god, and these were effectively what clerics drew their power through. Yes, that does mean that a LG cleric (or paladin) was technically drawing power from the same N deity as a CE cleric (or blackguard) even though one had that power filtered through a celestial and the other a fiend. These beings weren't saints though, since I believe that a key aspect to saints is that they originate as mortals. The setting was interesting as now the archangels and demon princes were effectively siblings arguing over the correct interpretations of their parent's "true" intentions and mortal worshipers were extensions of this struggle. However, a few players viewed the setting as uncomfortable and "something only an atheist would come up with."

Good stuff! Soft of has a Fading Suns vibe to it.

Quote from: Brendan;1116134But if you go back to the medieval mindset, magic and monsters were very much part of their world - as was monotheism.  It isn't an "arbitrary" restriction, because its grounded in an attempt to model, or at least imitate, a particular kind of society.  .

This.

"As if the folklore and legends are real" is not an arbitrary restriction.

It's plain to see that a real grasp of how religions actually work and history is sorely lacking in this thread.

Quote from: Brendan;1116134I really don't understand this argument that crops up from time to time that "if you have magic than why not anything goes?" The implication is that if your fictional world deviates in any way from what modern people imagine the "real world" consists of, then it's all just made up bullshit, so who cares?  

This IMHO is a legacy of "D&D fantasy role playing" becoming more and more self-referential over time.

The further away it has gotten from it's literary roots, and as it also seems the less people in the hobby in general read actual histories and the original myths; the connection to verisimilitude within the fantasy genre becomes less and less.