Forging Neo-Folklore

[roguerouge]

I'm writing a paper called "Forging Neo-Folklore through Role-Playing
Games" for an academic conference on contemporary paganism. I ran
across the web site today and I wondered if you would be willing to
talk to me about your campaigns.

Who I am: I teach at Emerson College, and one of my courses is a Buffy
seminar ("Deconstructing TV's Buffy). I have written on the series at
www.slayageonline.com (issues 19, 22, and 23). I've gamed for years,
but never in this system. I've asked this question on the yahoo group
devoted to the game system. (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/
btvsrpg-eden/) Please let me know if there's anything else you want to
know.

The idea behind the paper is to look at how one way to examine how
influential media representation can be is by studying what its most
devoted consumers actually do with the material they know so well.
This paper will examine how role-playing game players craft their own
creative folklore out of the fictional folklore of Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, for example.

Our creative practices bring up several important questions.

· How do we represent witches, Wicca, pagans, and the occult?
· What does our creative folklore retain and alter from the canonical
folklore of the series, itself based in part on actual folklore and
fiction narratives based on folklore? How important is the media frame
in guiding the imaginative play fostered by this series?
· What do we fan-authors want witches and pagans to be when we build
our own worlds?
· Who wants to play the part of a witch and why?
· How faithfully are pagan belief systems represented within this sub-
genre of fan fiction?
· What happens to an oral tradition when it's filtered through a
fantasy literature tradition, a TV series' narrative, and a game
system, only to be translated back into an oral tradition and then
displayed in a digital medium?

Any information you or your group have to offer will be deeply
appreciated, and credited fully.

Best wishes and thank you for your time,


Prof. David Kociemba
Emerson College
VMA Department

[gleichman]

Great, a form letter. Semi-targeted perhaps, but a form letter none
the less. Far from the best way to get serious answers.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by roguerouge
I'm writing a paper called "Forging Neo-Folklore through Role-Playing
Games" for an academic conference on contemporary paganism. I ran
across the web site today and I wondered if you would be willing to
talk to me about your campaigns.

Your post has ended up on a Usenet newsgroup, which is quite different
from a web site; are you sure this is what you intended?

Are you interested in people who are specifically playing Buffy-themed
games? If so, I think you need a more specialized forum:
rec.games.frp.advocacy discusses roleplaying games in general, and I'm
not sure we have any Buffy campaigns at all.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[roguerouge]

Gee, I'm sorry. One of the people I was interviewing on this subject
recommended that I post this to this group because this was a
knowledgeable group on gaming topics. I'm sorry if my post offended
people.

But yes, I did intend for it to be here and yes, I am interested in
what people have to say about the issue of the representation of
paganism in role playing games. Should I just direct this to rpol dot
net and enworld and other such sites and leave you to your
conversations? I was unaware that I was tresspassing in some way.

David

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by roguerouge
I'm writing a paper called "Forging Neo-Folklore through Role-Playing
Games" for an academic conference on contemporary paganism. I ran
across the web site today and I wondered if you would be willing to
talk to me about your campaigns.

Your post has ended up on a Usenet newsgroup, which is quite different
from a web site; are you sure this is what you intended?
Are you interested in people who are specifically playing Buffy-themed
rec.games.frp.advocacy discusses roleplaying games in general, and I'm
not sure we have any Buffy campaigns at all.

[Simon Smith]

Post by roguerouge
Gee, I'm sorry. One of the people I was interviewing on this subject
recommended that I post this to this group because this was a
knowledgeable group on gaming topics. I'm sorry if my post offended
people.
But yes, I did intend for it to be here and yes, I am interested in
what people have to say about the issue of the representation of
paganism in role playing games. Should I just direct this to rpol dot
net and enworld and other such sites and leave you to your
conversations? I was unaware that I was tresspassing in some way.
David

Calling a Usenet newsgroup a web site is one faux pas. Oh, and top-posting
is a second. Correct both of those and you'll be much more welcome. Rather
than using a web interface, I'd also suggest getting suitable newsreader
software, and learning about usenet 'netiquette'. The newsgroup
news.announce.newusers has a good collection of potted summaries of what to
do (or not) and why. There's a good variety of free newsreader software
available depending on your OS platform.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by roguerouge
I'm writing a paper called "Forging Neo-Folklore through Role-Playing
Games" for an academic conference on contemporary paganism. I ran
across the web site today and I wondered if you would be willing to
talk to me about your campaigns.

Your post has ended up on a Usenet newsgroup, which is quite different
from a web site; are you sure this is what you intended?

He was posting via Google, which explains why he thought it was a website.

[roguerouge]

So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

[Irina Rempt]

Post by roguerouge
So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

Irrelevant to my game. If there was anyone in the world I (and presumably
you) live in who actually worshipped the gods of the world the campaign
is set in, it would presumably be paganism, but as it is there's nothing
that this-world paganism (or any other religion) and that-world's
religions have in common except universally human patterns and
structures.

In other words, I don't use this-world paganism (as a whole) as a source
for the campaign, though I may unconsciously borrow some thought
patterns.

Irina

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by roguerouge
So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but the historical
fantasy/alternate history-setting that I've created (that is, I've
stolen huge amounts of stuff from real history, then introduced a few
"nova", explicit changes in what is and isn't possible, which has then
caused events to follow a difference course than in our timeline), Ärth,
features the struggle between paganism and the "Abrahamic" religions
as one of the major sources of conflict. In particular, the conversion
of Denmark (which on Ärth was only partial, resulting in a split nation
with an Eastern part that's still pagan under Sven Forkbeard) is a huge
issue, with some very powerful characters trying to find a way to
successfully un-convert Denmark and then teach the Christians a lesson
(so that they'll never dare send any new missionaries), and other very
powerful characters wishing to convert all of Scandinavia, either as a
vehicle for personal power (Olav Tryggveson is, in the Ärth timeline,
the king of West-Denmark and quite intent on winning more land), or out
of a pious desire to spread the faith.

Just to increase the variety in the setting (and because I, and
presumably also many players, like Druids), I've also had Ireland be
only partially converted, and Britain not converted at all (starting all
the way back with Arthur pushing the Germanic invaders back into te sea,
in the middle of the first millenium, and becoming a much celebrated
High King of the Britons), which means that there's plenty of Celtic
paganism.

My choice of going with real-world religions, in a fantasy genre
campaign, was inspired by an old freeware RPG rules system, called Quest
FRP v2.1. Newer versions have removed the real-world religions (due to
criticism from some people who have not used the system and probably
never intended to use it, including Brian Gleichman), so you'll have to
use the archive.org WayBack-Machine:

< http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://admin.engr.wisc.edu >

This page seems to still have the HTML versions of the rule books
(I've got PDF, RTF and HTML versions on my harddrive, as well as
hyperlinked HTML versions for offline usage which I could not get
permission to distribute, back in 1999 when I had made them):
<
http://web.archive.org/web/19990502050624/admin.engr.wisc.edu/quest/online.htm
< http://tinyurl.com/2bwm72 >

In particular, you'll want to look at the Handbook (i.e. the Player's
Book) chapter on the Cleric skill class, to see how Quest FRP tries to
simulate the supernatural effects of real-world religions, both
Abrahamic, pagan and Eastern:
<
http://web.archive.org/web/20020115031117/admin.engr.wisc.edu/quest/CLERIC/Cleric_c.htm
< http://tinyurl.com/yv23sb >

Once I had become sufficiently fascinated with the idea of using
real-world religions in a fantasy genre RPG campaign, the decision of
making it alternate history was an easy one, since it makes much more
sense than trying to arbitrarily have real-world religions in a world
that is a different planet with a different history (although see the
recently published GURPS Banestorm for one way to do that).


Increasingly, during the Ärth campaign I ran in 2000, I became
dissatisfied with Quest FRP v2.1. I had only minor issues with the magic
system (many of which I fixed, e.g. the lack of any opportunities for
characters to become particularly good at specific types of magic), what
annoyed me were the many clear "type 1"-elements in the system, which
conflicted rather noisily with my strong preference for "type 2" RPG
rules systems.

The solution I ended up deciding on, was to create a rules system of my
own, stealing all the good stuff from Quest FRP v2.1 (including much of
the the real-world religion material), and building everything else myself.


Does this answer your question?

[gleichman]

Post by roguerouge
So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

In my games for the eras of the meta-timeline where real world counter-parts
of such things do appear, they are basically Useful Fools in unknowing
service to various dark powers.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by roguerouge
So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

Hm. I don't think I can meaningfully answer that without breaking
"paganism" up a lot.

World mythology is source material for everything my group does with
gaming, in all settings; we don't distinguish between Christian
and non-Christian mythology, and don't particularly distinguish
between real-world mythology and fictional mythology (e.g. Cthulhu).
The mythology is sometimes treated as factual in the gameworld
and sometimes as mythological in the gameworld--it depends on the
setting.

Modern paganism as a religion occasionally appears in the settings
where it's appropriate (modern and post-modern), but we shy away
from it a bit because we are practicioners, and it comes close to the
line on our general rule "Don't put elements into your game that
are big, important, and potentially difficult in your life."
(Similarly, my household is struggling to adopt a child and we
avoid storylines that touch on this in any way. Gaming is supposed to
reduce stress, not add to it!)

There's also some element of window-dressing: if I need to know
what the high priest's weather-magic ritual looks like, certainly
one of the things I draw on is ritual I've participated in, even
though I wouldn't use any of it exactly. Neo-pagan art is
dripping with stuff that works well in fantasy games, and I'm just
as willing to steal that as to steal anything else.

I don't think I've ever borrowed content from Buffy directly;
Buffy mainly seems to recycle things that were already awfully
well-worn in pop culture. I may have stolen some plotting tricks:
I admire the pacing of some of the episodes a lot. Most of our
gaming-related Buffy discussions have been about how the show
balances characters of rather different power levels. (Can't
say I've figured that one out yet.)

I hope this helps.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Keran]

Post by roguerouge
So... do people regard paganism (in its various incarnations) as facts
to be woven into the campaign, as established belief systems to be
woven into the campaign, as shared stories to be woven into the
campaign, as myths to be woven into the campaign, as window-dressing,
or as something else?

The dominant religion in my present campaign area was inspired partly
by Wicca, partly by Zoroastrianism, partly by a passing acquaintance
with religious-philosophical blends like Taoism and neo-Platonism, and
partly by a desire not to have a strand in the culture likely to
encourage disrespect and downcutting of women.

The dominant religion has three main figures: the God, the Goddess,
and the Destroyer. The God and the Goddess together are the powers of
life and creation; the Destroyer is the power of death and corruption.
Service to the Destroyer is bad.

Exactly what people think they are vary. Uneducated people are likely
to naively treat them as real supernatural personoages, as discrete
entities. Views among the more educated vary. They may be viewed
either as real supernatural personages, as principles of the universe
symbolized as gods, or as some indeterminate blending of the two. A
character could go very far into skepticism without leaving the bounds
of the religion, therefore. The people who are viewed as
non-practitioners of this religion are likely to be foreigners.

There are neighboring lands with religions that resemble more classic
paganism, in that they have pantheons with multiple gods and
goddesses; and on the other side of the mountains in Kath-An, there is
a religion/philosophy which similarly lends itself to either belief in
distinct spiritual entities or to regarding the entities as
philosophical principles. There is a power, Heaven, which is a power
of order and orderly cycles; and then there is chaos -- rarely viewed
as an entity, but rather as the tendency of the system to break apart,
to dissolve itself cataclysmically back into the undifferentiated,
often symbolised as a dark, barren, wave-tossed sea. Some people
heaven with gods and goddesses and the underworld with demons, but the
underlying idea of a struggle between a creative ordering
power/principle and a principle or power of destruction and
dissolution remains to inform the stories told about them. This was
inspired partly by some Eastern concepts -- the Mongols' Eternal Blue
Heaven, particularly -- and partly by an explanation of the underlying
ideas in Egyptian religion. I don't know if the explanation is
accurate, but it was worth swiping.

I guess I'd say I regard most of the religions as belief systems,
stories, and myths; and the two major ones that lend themselves to
philosophical construction are 'facts' in the sense that their
philosophical branches are differing ways to conceptualize real
phenomena.

Keran

[psychohist]

David Kociemba asks about incorporation of neopagan ideas into
roleplaying games, and posts, in part:

This paper will examine how role-playing game players
craft their own creative folklore out of the fictional
folklore of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for example.

I confess to being confused about what Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to
do with anything, though I admit to not having watched it at all. The
gamers that I know do not pay much attention to mass media, and are
unlikely to incorporate "media representation" into their games.

With respect to neopaganism and paganism, I think you have to consider
that the term "pagan" covers a very broad ground. The "neo" in
neopaganism means "new", of course; it's a modern religion, only a few
decades old. For games with medieval or pseudomedieval settings, such
as my own, it's too modern to serve as direct source material.

It does have roots in certain historical traditions and religions of
northwest Europe. On the other hand, it's unrelated to other
historical pagan religions like that of the ancient greek gods of Mt.
Olympus. It's not clear to me how much of this you're asking about.

For what it's worth, my own campaign does have some elements drawn
from northwest European pagan folklore, though they are not central.
Mostly I took a few ideas that interested me and used them, but I've
never really had much chance to flesh out what's behind them or to
research original material very closely. If I did, my version of
druidic religion would probably end up diverging strongly from actual
historical analogues, since the economy in my campaign is much less
agrarian than that of the people who put up Stonehenge.

I find myself unsure as to whether any of this relates to your point
at all. For the people I know, neopaganism - the modern religion - is
a player world thing, not a game world thing. For example, my wife is
a witch and we were married in a Neopagan ceremony. I suppose if I
were running a modern campaign - such as a superhero campaign - I'd
treat neopaganism just as I'd treat Christianity or Hinduism or any
other religion. I personally don't tend to care for modern campaigns,
though.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
I confess to being confused about what Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to
do with anything, though I admit to not having watched it at all. The
gamers that I know do not pay much attention to mass media, and are
unlikely to incorporate "media representation" into their games.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a number of characters who were
"witches'. Seems they've became quite the heroes for certain groups as
it represent a degree of mainstream acceptance.

I find it amusing myself. None of them came to a good end (unless
living to the end of the series counts), their magic was generally
easily twisted and even corrupting in its effect. And they were
witches in name perhaps, but seemed to carry none of the modern
religious trappings.

In general, I think the question applies to those who are or have
played the RPG based upon the series. I don't think that includes
anyone here, and even of those- I imagine it would be an even smaller
subset that decided to run anywhere with pagan themes.

[roguerouge]

Post by gleichman
Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a number of characters who were
"witches'. Seems they've became quite the heroes for certain groups as
it represent a degree of mainstream acceptance.
I find it amusing myself. None of them came to a good end (unless
living to the end of the series counts), their magic was generally
easily twisted and even corrupting in its effect. And they were
witches in name perhaps, but seemed to carry none of the modern
religious trappings.

That's a rather strange understanding of what empowerment is. That's
like arguing that Ripley or Darth Vader (or your PCs) are disempowered
because they die at the end of fascinating narrative arcs.

The goal of fiction, whether it be in a series or in a game, is to
create fully-rounded characters, fictions who become more than
fictional. A character's power is based not on the narrative acts that
they accomplish. It's based in the pleasure that they provide us. So
when a culture recognizes that a minority group can be the source of
archetypes that are enormously pleasurable to millions, that's a real
recognition of existence, of basic human worth. And when that minority
group can join the side of the heroes, however embattled, that's a
step past that.

David

[Simon Smith]

Post by roguerouge

Post by gleichman
Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a number of characters who were
"witches'. Seems they've became quite the heroes for certain groups as
it represent a degree of mainstream acceptance.
I find it amusing myself. None of them came to a good end (unless
living to the end of the series counts), their magic was generally
easily twisted and even corrupting in its effect. And they were
witches in name perhaps, but seemed to carry none of the modern
religious trappings.

That's a rather strange understanding of what empowerment is. That's
like arguing that Ripley or Darth Vader (or your PCs) are disempowered
because they die at the end of fascinating narrative arcs.

It's not such a surprising viewpoint to take when considered from the
perspective of RPGs. In RPGs, 'the narrative acts that [characters]
accomplish' are - mostly - under the control of those playing them. They can
thus outweigh the pleasure that can be gained from merely witnessing those
activities and being unable to influence them. And even if the amount of
enjoyment is the same in both cases, its source differs.

It's similar to the way that an author's pleasure in writing a book is
different from a reader's enjoyment of reading it. Everyone on this group is
an 'author', so our perspective is different from that of the mainstream.

Post by roguerouge
The goal of fiction, whether it be in a series or in a game, is to
create fully-rounded characters, fictions who become more than
fictional.

'Fictions that are more than fictional'? Seems a bit contradictory. Creating
'characters whose fortunes one cares about' (or at least, 'is interested
in') is perhaps a closer description.

Post by roguerouge
A character's power is based not on the narrative acts that
they accomplish. It's based in the pleasure that they provide us. So
when a culture recognizes that a minority group can be the source of
archetypes that are enormously pleasurable to millions, that's a real
recognition of existence, of basic human worth. And when that minority
group can join the side of the heroes, however embattled, that's a
step past that.

[gleichman]

Post by roguerouge
That's a rather strange understanding of what empowerment is. That's
like arguing that Ripley or Darth Vader (or your PCs) are disempowered
because they die at the end of fascinating narrative arcs.

Simon Smith nails this rather well with his answer IMO. It's likely
that there is a difference given our viewpoints.

Your follow on examples are also interesting ones as I consider both
arcs to be failed ones although for different reasons.

But beyond that, I also think that you have picked your own definition
of empowerment, not one of success or even really interest (for very
few were interested in BtVS in the way you are)- but simply one of
acceptance. Fiction as an supposed mirror of the mainstream mindset.
That's a very narrow view, and as a result of interest to a similar
narrow slice of people viewing. It is also not likely an accurate one.

Post by roguerouge
The goal of fiction, whether it be in a series or in a game, is to
create fully-rounded characters

I would disagree with this as well. Such a thing may or may not be a
goal. And further, I think it was a failure the more BtVS 'aged'.

[Brandon Blackmoor]

The gamers that I know do not pay much attention
to mass media, and are unlikely to incorporate
"media representation" into their games.

I confess I am a little surprised that such gamers exist, although I
suppose with a large enough sample population, nearly anything is possible.

[Brandon Blackmoor]

Post by roguerouge
The idea behind the paper is to look at how
one way to examine how influential media representation
can be is by studying what its most devoted consumers
actually do with the material they know so well.

That's like examining the influence of the modern fantasy novel by
asking people about Sword of Shanarra and Eragon. Buffy is a pop-culture
synthesis of victorian penny-dreadfuls and their post-Universal Studios
representation in the 20th century. The Buffy TV series is an end
result, not a cause.

I enjoyed the show, but I wouldn't devote a paper to it.

[roguerouge]

Post by Brandon Blackmoor

Post by roguerouge
The idea behind the paper is to look at how
one way to examine how influential media representation
can be is by studying what its most devoted consumers
actually do with the material they know so well.

That's like examining the influence of the modern fantasy novel by
asking people about Sword of Shanarra and Eragon. Buffy is a pop-culture
synthesis of victorian penny-dreadfuls and their post-Universal Studios
representation in the 20th century. The Buffy TV series is an end
result, not a cause.
I enjoyed the show, but I wouldn't devote a paper to it.
--
bblackmoor

Of course, end results do have a way of becoming causal agents later
on down the line. After all, as you know, those penny dreadfuls came
from somewhere too. (Not that I'm particularly interested in comparing
the series to the sources that you do.)

Rather than swamp the list, if you'd like to see an introduction to
why I think the series is more complex than that, take a look at this
link:

http://www.slayageonline.com/essays/slayage19/Kociemba.htm

Best wishes,

David

[roguerouge]

Post by Brandon Blackmoor

Post by roguerouge
The idea behind the paper is to look at how
one way to examine how influential media representation
can be is by studying what its most devoted consumers
actually do with the material they know so well.

That's like examining the influence of the modern fantasy novel by
asking people about Sword of Shanarra and Eragon. Buffy is a pop-culture
synthesis of victorian penny-dreadfuls and their post-Universal Studios
representation in the 20th century. The Buffy TV series is an end
result, not a cause.
I enjoyed the show, but I wouldn't devote a paper to it.
--
bblackmoor

Actually, thank you all for your responses they've been helpful,
especially as a contrast to some of the ones I've gotten from people
who game in the system from Eden Studios.

As far as further insight into what I'm doing, one respondent wrote
that "roleplaying provides a useful and potentially powerful tool with
which to explore and utilise myths, legends, history and other data
that might otherwise remain 'flat'. At times, such activity produces
unique and wonderful things." I'm interested in seeing how America's
industrialized and digitized folklore producers affect that process.

Best wishes,

David

[Keran]

To go back to some earlier questions:

On 27 Apr 2007 05:22:51 -0700, roguerouge

Post by roguerouge
· How do we represent witches, Wicca, pagans, and the occult?

I'm the one with the God/Goddess/Destroyer religion in the
campaign area, for reference. In the last post I dealt
with religion. In this one I want to deal more with
magic.

I don't represent Wicca at all, naturally, since it doesn't
exist in my fictional world; neither does any other form of
neo-paganism. There are polytheistic religions that are
unambiguously pagan in the sense of having pantheons, of
looking like the religions pushed out by Christianity. One
of these may figure in the next campaign, as the PCs come
into contact with a new foreign power; presently, they've
been in contact with the local God/Goddess/Destroyer
religion/philosophy, and in a less obvious fashion one of
them has had contact with the Heaven/Chaos
religion/philosophy of the west.

The concept 'pagan' does not exist in the campaign area.
While the two major religions on the continent did spread
from particular places -- of course -- neither of them has
the demand for exclusivity of the Abrahamic religions, and
they tended to coexist with local deities and customs,
something like the way (so far as I understand it) Buddhism
and Shinto are not mutually exclusive in Japan. People
talk of foreign religion rather than pagan religion.

Now as for witches and the occult:

1. Magic in my world is primarily fractured physics, and
the modern form of magic in the campaign world reflects
this. However, there are survivals from older times when
people didn't understand the nature of magic as clearly,
and some of these take forms that resemble Western
ceremonial magic in some respects.

2. Aside from ceremonial magic, there are two other major
portraits of magic in Western literature.

One of them is the high sorcery of the Arthurian Romance,
and this is the main source of the portrait of magic in
modern fantasy, with Gandalf transmitting the image of
Merlin into the modern genre. Magic is entirely
respectable, performed by nobles, queens, royal bastards,
kings' counsellors. Morgan le Fay is an enemy, but she is
personally malign, not malign because of her magic. I too
draw more from this image than any other. Magician,
sorceress, enchantress, wizard -- these are the typical
names for the practitioner of high magic.

The other is the image that is most often conveyed by
'witch,' or sometimes by 'warlock', in fiction and folklore:
the magic-wielder as outlaw. The one who has a secret power
others cannot acquire, a power that is malign, forbidden,
intrinsically dangerous. We also have this strand in my
campaign, though we don't use 'witch' or 'warlock' to
describe them.

In our case the problem is not demon-tainting, but
intrinsic danger: the mage-outlaw is the kerezka dvor-an,
the maker of breaches, the one who calls raw chaos into the
ordered world. Raw chaos is immensely powerful, immensely
easy to lose control of, can contaminate the landscape like
radioactivity, and, once it does so, will breed. The best fictional
comparisons I can think of are to Brust's amorphia, produced
by pre-Empire sorcery, and summoning Azathoth. The average
mage cannot successfully call chaos; the most powerful, with
the will and the knowledge, can. And those known or suspected
to be kerezka dvor-an are spoken of with the dread that often
goes into the reaction to the folkloric witch; and there are
those devoted to destroying them.

I haven't watched Buffy. Comments I've heard about it
suggest that the witch/neo-pagan and witch/outlaw images
are combined, both present in the witch character.

Post by roguerouge
· What does our creative folklore retain and alter from the canonical
folklore of the series, itself based in part on actual folklore and
fiction narratives based on folklore? How important is the media frame
in guiding the imaginative play fostered by this series?

I've never written fan-fiction, and my world is original.
Reading some fan-fiction, and discussions about the
production thereof, suggests that it's not entirely off the
mark to consider some parts of it as the female-dominated
version of roleplaying, with a culture of its own. In it,
the canon serves the function that the gamemaster's
editorial control of the setting and the game rules serve
in roleplaying games: the way to pull together expectations
of what can happen in the fiction. (There's a blog with an
interesting entry in which a roleplayer describes the
cultural cross-signals she encountered when setting out to
take part in some group fan-fiction writing, but I don't
remember the particulars well enough to find the link,
alas.)

Post by roguerouge
· What do we fan-authors want witches and pagans to be when we build
our own worlds?

I don't have any particular desire for pagans, except that
I dislike vicious caricatures of real religions. I also
tend to dislike it when the gods are portrayed in such
a manner that they're not religious figures at all --
where they're superpowerful patrons but could never
satisfy or inspire a religious impulse -- or when the GM
or the game system produces an oversimplified
absolutist morality. This often produces a portrait
of the Good that is odious -- the questions that
well-intentioned minds have sincerely disagreed about
are presented as if one half-answer is the whole truth,
which distorts the moral dimension of the world.

Post by roguerouge
· Who wants to play the part of a witch and why?

Nobody's wanting to be a neopagan. I do have a player who
wants to play the mage-outlaw, the kerezka dvor-an. I
think the motive probably has something to do with a desire
for high suspense, an aesthetic appreciation for
high-energy, high-powered magic, and the desire to take the
supreme risk, requiring the supreme mastery, for the
greatest end. But if he reads this perhaps he'll comment
himself.

Post by roguerouge
· How faithfully are pagan belief systems represented within this sub-
genre of fan fiction?

Not, and I'm not producing fan fiction.

Post by roguerouge
· What happens to an oral tradition when it's filtered through a
fantasy literature tradition, a TV series' narrative, and a game
system, only to be translated back into an oral tradition and then
displayed in a digital medium?

I don't know.

Keran

[Russell Wallace]

Post by Keran
I haven't watched Buffy. Comments I've heard about it
suggest that the witch/neo-pagan and witch/outlaw images
are combined, both present in the witch character.

Sort of. There are cases in Buffy of witchcraft doing harm, but the
lesson presented is "witchcraft, like anything else that has power,
needs to be used responsibly", not "witchcraft is bad".

Post by Keran
Nobody's wanting to be a neopagan. I do have a player who
wants to play the mage-outlaw, the kerezka dvor-an. I
think the motive probably has something to do with a desire
for high suspense, an aesthetic appreciation for
high-energy, high-powered magic, and the desire to take the
supreme risk, requiring the supreme mastery, for the
greatest end. But if he reads this perhaps he'll comment
himself.

I think that's a pretty good assessment of my motives, to the extent I
understand them myself :)

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by gleichman
I also
tend to dislike it when the gods are portrayed in such
a manner that they're not religious figures at all --
where they're superpowerful patrons but could never
satisfy or inspire a religious impulse -- or when the GM
or the game system produces an oversimplified
absolutist morality. This often produces a portrait
of the Good that is odious -- the questions that
well-intentioned minds have sincerely disagreed about
are presented as if one half-answer is the whole truth,
which distorts the moral dimension of the world.

That's really well put, Keran. Thanks. I've been trying
to articulate that to myself but haven't been as successful.

This was my disappointment with products like _The Primal
Order_. The person who tried to sell me on it said that it
had to do with religion, but the presentation actually
pretty much denies the religious impulse, reducing the whole
thing to a marketplace of power offered or taken. A sincerely
religious person who found out the truth about his/her
religion would almost have to renounce it, under such a
system.

I think RuneQuest did about the best job with religions that
I've seen in a published product, though the material is
spread over too many books and rather hard to pull together.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I think RuneQuest did about the best job with religions that
I've seen in a published product, though the material is
spread over too many books and rather hard to pull together.

Interesting.

A couple weeks or so John Morrow and I were talking about very thing
in Email. We had a different opinion completely.

We'll not completely, it's not like there is a better example of a
purely RPG work that's any better.

[Russell Wallace]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I think RuneQuest did about the best job with religions that
I've seen in a published product, though the material is
spread over too many books and rather hard to pull together.

I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but looking over all the RPG material I
have read, I think the product line I'd nominate for best handling of
religion is World of Darkness. It has the following virtues:

It doesn't try to dictate The Truth (tm); it explains what various
groups believe - naturally, they don't all agree. I've seen critics call
this "inconsistency"; I claim it's a feature. Since when are the views
of opposing groups supposed to be consistent with each other?

Some of these beliefs (whether or not they involve actual deities) carry
moral weight, they're philosophies you can imagine people actually
trying to live by.

There's a variety of viewpoints represented, including some that are
definitely evil but still coherent; and while White Wolf tend to present
the anti-progressive sides as being right, there's enough slack that one
can play them differently (e.g. I've always had more sympathy for the
Technocracy, and less for the Garou, than the authors - but I've still
happily used them both, and tried to get the moral complexity of the
conflict across).

Last but not least, White Wolf is the only company in the industry whose
products I find worth reading for entertainment, rather than merely to
obtain data for playing a game.

[gleichman]

Post by Russell Wallace
I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but looking over all the RPG material I
have read, I think the product line I'd nominate for best handling of

I find that... I guess I'll just keep the word to myself.

Just goes to show how diverse and even alien members of this group are
to each other.

[psychohist]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

This was my disappointment with products like
_The Primal Order_. The person who tried to
sell me on it said that it had to do with religion,
but the presentation actually pretty much denies
the religious impulse, reducing the whole thing
to a marketplace of power offered or taken.

What do you see as "the religious impulse"?

It strikes me that religion fulfills different needs for different
people, and occupies different niches in different cultures. While
many today, including perhaps you and I, may prefer religions that
focus on a spiritual role, there are those who see it as primarily a
force for secular power. Historically, the crusades had a strong
secular element, and the muslim conquest of Africa and Spain, while
religious in nature, was perhaps more secular than spiritual.

I think many do see religions as things they can ride to power and
influence, rather than methods of reaching spiritual understanding and
fulfillment. Or am I missing your point here?

Warren J. Dew

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by psychohist
I think many do see religions as things they can ride to power and
influence, rather than methods of reaching spiritual understanding and
fulfillment. Or am I missing your point here?

Even as a way to power and influence it seemed awfully shallow,
not up to real-world churches. But yes, I'd like it to see something
numinous or spiritual in the religions, as well as the secular
organization--otherwise it seems to me a waste to make them religions
as opposed to guilds or fraternal orders or mages' colleges.

The attitude you describe is part of a rich setting, but to have
it be the only part really supported by the rules just disappoints
me. And the bargain made is so cut and dried! Power points,
bleargh. At least Mephistopheles wanted one's soul in more than
a bookkeeping sense.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by psychohist
I think many do see religions as things they can ride to power and
influence, rather than methods of reaching spiritual understanding and
fulfillment. Or am I missing your point here?

Even as a way to power and influence it seemed awfully shallow,
not up to real-world churches. But yes, I'd like it to see something
numinous or spiritual in the religions, as well as the secular
organization--otherwise it seems to me a waste to make them religions
as opposed to guilds or fraternal orders or mages' colleges.

If I understand Mary's sense correctly, I tend to agree. It's all
very well recognising the secular power that religion confers on its
leaders, but for it to qualify as religion and not simply politics
there has to be a spiritual element (or so it seems to me).

The leaders themselves may not buy into the spiritual element - they
may be in it purely for the secular power. The rank and file, on the
other hand, must be getting more from it than a set of laws for it to
be considered a religion, surely?

[gleichman]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
At least Mephistopheles wanted one's soul in more than
a bookkeeping sense.

I don't think you're find that greater sense in a game mechanic.
Spirtual matters by nature tend to elude such simple definitions.