Barf Forth Apocalyptica
the swamp provides => AW:Dark Age => Topic started by: plausiblefabulist on March 05, 2014, 06:08:01 AM
-
I think the treatment of Bloodless Xristos is really interesting, and I'm wrestling with it. Various distinct differences between the game's treatment and historical Christianity jump out, and seem worth mentioning.
Most strikingly, there is no Papal Rome. There is no Bishop of Xristos who is a claimant to the throne of the Empire of Eagles, transmuted from a worldly to a celestial reign. It's not clear that the Empire of Eagles ever converted en masse to the religion of Xristos, and persecuted followers of the Gods of the Empire of Eagles with its imperial might. It's not clear that there was ever (and it's sort of implied that there wasn't ever) a fusion of the imperial values of hierarchy, control, and expansion with the monastic and utopian values of the followers of Xristos. One would not expect, from the short description here, monasteries of Bloodless Xristos functioning as an intact network of trade and information, directed from an imperial center, in a hierarchy of control. One would not expect priests reporting to bishops reporting to monsignors reporting to cardinals. There seems to be disagreement among followers of Xristos, but no ecumenical councils banning heretics.
Secondly, Xristos seems to have sprung from nowhere -- neither from the Old Gods, nor from the Gods of the Empire of Eagles, but also not from any rebellious province with its own pre-existing monotheism. Xristos begins life by creating the world -- as opposed to being initially a man, claimed as a king of a specific people, elevated to Godhood, and then awkwardly merged with a pre-existing world-creator God who already had a name. There is therefore not the embarrassment of a competing, older group, using the same books, offering the same narrative of world-creation, but scorning Xristos as a fanciful addition to the canon. The followers of Xristos are spared the misfortune of having to condemn these folks -- who would, if they existed, be found in all walks of life, but among other things as wealthy owners of villas, claiming the right to legal proceedings under the Law of the Empire of Eagles and owning slaves who are followers of Xristos -- as quasi-demonic outcasts eternally cursed for having spurned their Redeemer. The followers of Xristos need not petition kings and lords, demanding that these embarrassing predecessors be deprived of their slaves and holdings, forbidden from preaching, dispersed and banished.
There were also, as far as we know, no massively popular Mystery Religions competing with the familial and human gods of the Empire of Eagles; the legionnaires of the Eagles, unlike those of Rome, were not swayed en masse by the cults of Isis or Mithra.
So Xristos gets to be the only holistic, ineffable, mystical god, without having to appropriate anything from anyone, or claim to fulfill any particularistic prophecies of rebellious provinces. He is Logos, world-creator, without any awkward familial relationship to a pre-existing father-god who might be Himself, somehow. His followers never merged with empire, have no single Holy Father commanding them, no hierarchy, and no elder-sibling competitors to persecute
So if the followers of Xristos gain dominion over the land -- if, over the course of the next few hundred years, they come to almost fully displace the Old Gods and the Gods of the Empire of Eagles -- there doesn't seem to be that much to worry about, does there?. They are unlikely to wage war on heretics (since they are so benignly multifarous) or elder siblings(since they don't have any), or engage in pogroms and crusades. They really do hold peace, healing, mercy, penitence, and humility to be the greatest virtues... in deeds as well as words. I guess we should be rooting for them, then.
Lucky Xristos!
As a first approximation of the English or Danish Dark Ages, erasing the Pope and the Jews does not cause tremendous historical problems. (It's much more of a distortion if dealing with, say, Merovignian France, or southern Germany.)
Still, it's an interesting choice. Xristos and his followers are sort of what Christianity -- especially a low-church Protestant Christianity -- would like to imagine that it was in the Dark Ages. As opposed to what it actually was. It's an idealized version.
Which is a political choice. One which, as a Jew, I'm a little uncomfortable with. That may be my baggage, of course.
-
This is really great. Thank you!
As I develop and flesh out text about religion, I might ask you to read it before I make it public. Look out.
-Vincent
-
Sounds good to me!
-
As a follow up to this, I read an article a little while ago about what genetic testing had revealed about the history of Ashkenazi (northern/central/eastern european) Jews. Much to everyone's surprise, it turns out Ashkenazi Jews are 95% Middle Eastern on Y-chromosomal DNA, and 50% Middle Eastern on mitochondrial DNA. That is (at least by inference), most of, say, my Dad's male ancestors go back to Roman Judea, while only about half of his female ancestors do.
And apparently this is because some time around 600 AD, all the little barons and potentates and lords along the Rhine river were, in confidential moments, telling each other "hey listen -- you gotta get yourself a Jew!"
This is because practically no one around was literate, and competent in administration, except for a) monks and priests who reported to Rome, and b) nobles who were potentially competing sources of power. Whereas if you imported a Jew from the large Jewish community across the alps in Rome, you'd have someone who was numerate and literate and could not possibly become a political rival, indeed, who depended on you for protection.
Which led to, apparently, a large group of sort of Jewish accountant-adventurers, if you will, capable of running the estates and administrations of various minor lords, and willing to hang out with a bunch of guys wearing furs, carrying round shields and drinking mead out of horns... spreading northwards up the Rhine and marrying local (pagan or Christian) girls, only later followed by their brothers and sisters and parents and cousins and rabbis, who would build synagogues and mikvehs and whatnot (and hastily convert the wives, I guess).
"I'm not from around here. I know things you don't, and I will put them at your disposal. I serve neither the Old Gods, nor those of the Eagles. And Bloodless Xristos? Ha! Don't get me started about Bloodless Xristos..."
I think it sounds like an interesting playbook.
-
Huh! You're right, it does.
-Vincent
-
possible names for that playbook:
The Follower of the Ineffable Name
The Fringe-Robed
The Xristos-Killer
The Wandering Scribe
The Talisman-Bearer ( => this would be your Dark Ages' neighbors fascination with tefillin)
The Keeper of Records
The Book-Bearer
-
That Class sounds like the coolest Class, so yes.
-
I for one did not read Bloodless Xristos as an idealised version. Sure the problems are missing, but so are a lot of other things. I came away seeing his followers as newcomers and troublemakers, upsetting an already strained situation, adding a third, even less woman-friendly system of inheritance and probably as often aggressive as they are accepting of others. It says "it's a matter of opinion" but it never says the worshippers always see it that way.
I would say the description invites you to take this extremely simplified vision of Christianity and fill in the history and flaws of it in various contradicting ways, even within the same campaign.
That out the way I really like these ideas. In a world defined by its limitations, somebody who breaks them in various mundane ways sounds fun. Sure, he's not as visually impressive as a dragon summoner, but in a sense he's doing the same thing, albeit in a radically different way. The same playbook could make an excellent all-purpose sceptic or natural philosopher too.
If this hypothetical guy doesn't follow any of the known and described religions, I wonder who he prays to? The father of Xristos is the obvious answer, but maybe he's Mr. Rational and gets some kind of Sharp or Cool equivalent, believing he's supposed to study and puzzle it out for himself? It seems to me that would fit the theme if his god just didn't work that way.
-
about the Bloodless Xristos religion being free of this, that and that of traditional real-world christianity - I do not think so. Sure, you can play it that way... or not.
Omission in *W traditionally was "use it. or not. fill in the blanks". The same as we have no idea, what was the Empire of Eagles - besides having specific laws of passing birthright, we do not know anything about the Empire
Most notably, is it finished, or just retreated for a while
Same with Xristos. Maybe he is closer to our version of christianity. or buddhism. or something else.
-
Guns_n_Droids: I certainly agree that you can fill in the blanks as you like. But AW:DA has a different relationship to history -- especially since it's actually supplying a setting.
There are no institutions, persons, places, or events -- except the psychic maelstrom and the apocalypse itself, both of which are explicitly stripped of details -- in AW. AW explicitly avoids detailing the way the apocalypse went down -- a far cry from, say, explaining the exact genealogical rules of the Empire of Eagles. (The only human social institution the AW rules arguably mandate is barter, which functions among other things as a kind of exchange rate between the different playbooks' skills; but other than where it arbitrates balance between the playbooks and touches on basic sustenance, it's kept as generic as possible).
AW takes place, nominally, in the future (it might be the future of some other past). When we imagine AW's world we generally start with the now, strip away every institution and norm we can point to, and imagine what arises then.
AW:DA supplies a set of human social institutions, events, and norms which are altered dream-images of real history.
This opens up a very different set of esthetic possibilities and choices. Omissions in AW:DA are choices, in a way omissions in AW are not. AW doesn't mention mention any religion, except whatever the hell the Hocus makes up. AW:DA explictily offers us (parallel world-) Christianity, polytheistic Roman civic religion, and Celtic/Teutonic paganism. It describes how each functions. It leaves out (any parallel-world versions of) Mithra, Isis, the Jews, the Pope...
Those are choices. I'm not saying they're bad choices; including all of the above would probably make the text messy and unwieldy. Choices are awesome. Still: omissions aren't just blanks. They are elisions.
AW:DA has taken on the project of offering a portrayal of real-world Christianity. That's an awesome project and I am excited to see Vincent tackle it. But it means omission functions differently. You can obviously hack AW:DA any way you want. But in fact you begin with something, a portrait of Dark Ages Christianity. I'm commenting on what that portrait includes, and what it excludes.
In this sense AW:DA is much closer to DitV, which has things to say about Mormons, Native Americans, non-Mormon settlers, and the American West, than it is to AW, which is, in some ways, in a space beyond/after/outside of history. (Which isn't to say AW doesn't comment on our history -- it does, wonderfully so; it comments on it by asserting one thing about it: that it ends. It positions "how did we lose all we have today" in the middle of the game's fruitful void, by steadfastly refusing to comment on how the apocalypse happened...)
-
The rationalist/skeptic is an interesting take on The Book-Bearer, and I like the idea of extending it to encompass that.
One would have to think carefully about the backstory of the rationalist/skeptic if it's not to be an anachronistic projection of current attitudes... certainly there was plenty of scope for skepticism about the reality of the gods in classical antiquity, and it was quite in vogue in various periods of Roman life, so the skeptic version of the Book-Bearer might simply be an inheritor of classical learning, sticking out like a sore thumb in the Dark Age.
On the other hand, the "you can't possibly become a political rival, nor a pawn of the Church, so let me entrust you with the books" thing may not work out quite as well for the skeptic. A Roman skeptic can easily sacrifice to Jupiter with tongue firmly in cheek or even with a high-minded sense that honoring the old ways is virtuous even if the backstory is poppycock, and doing that wouldn't pose any social obstacle to political advancement under the Law of Eagles. It's not quite like having an entire community that simply refuses to honor the mainstream rituals and is therefore suspect in the eyes of almost everyone. This could work for a rationalist-skeptic, but it'd have to be a rationalist-skeptic of a particular sort.
I feel like both Oaths and the Pray move might end up modified, for either kinds of Book-Bearer. One of the problems with both Jews (including Christians) and atheists in classical antiquity was that it was difficult to make formal deals with them -- in a society that runs on oaths, where the oaths are backed up by divine vengeance, someone who refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the powers you're swearing on poses a legal, as well as moral, problem. Maybe the Book-Bearer has no Oaths - they are forbidden to, or unwilling to, swear by any gods -- so they have Promises or Contracts instead? Pray is also interesting -- for the rationalist as for the Jew, "the gates of heaven are closed" and we have only the writings of the ancients and our own faculties of interpretation and observation to rely on. It's not like Dark Age Jews don't pray -- they pray all the time, fulfilling ritual obligations -- but prayer as "let's see what the gods say I should do next" is problematized by the Talmudic proscription on looking to Heaven for answers ("lo bashamayim hi")....
-
AW:DA has taken on the project of offering a portrayal of real-world Christianity.
Hmm. I actually don't like that if that is the case. I mean it is neat and all and an aspect that I'd explore. But at the same time why can't Xristos be like R'hllor in a Song of Ice and Fire? Why does it have to be Christian God by another name?
For that matter why does the Empire of Eagles have to be Rome? Why can't it be the Ming Dynasty. Or something else completely fictional, like say the Andals from A Song of Ice and Fire?
I like the more defined setting. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally cool with that. But defining it so that it has to be the Christian God. Or Rome by another name. Meh. No thanks.
-
When I said a rational sceptic I didn't exactly mean as an alternative to a Jew, since as you point out the two ideas are quite compatible. He's a rational and scholarly guy, he doesn't buy in to the religions of the lands in which the game is set, he probably doesn't get guidance directly from gods in the way other characters do and his race, culture, lifestyle or origin somehow prevent him from holding titles.
I think he should definitely be able to pray (as the move) in extremis, but that would constitute a crisis of faith and possibly carry mechanical consequences. I'd think he should get a move beginning "when you turn to your books for facts or wisdom..." or words to that effect. I don't know what other stuff he'd get.
-
AW:DA has taken on the project of offering a portrayal of real-world Christianity.
Hmm. I actually don't like that if that is the case. I mean it is neat and all and an aspect that I'd explore. But at the same time why can't Xristos be like R'hllor in a Song of Ice and Fire? Why does it have to be Christian God by another name?
For that matter why does the Empire of Eagles have to be Rome? Why can't it be the Ming Dynasty. Or something else completely fictional, like say the Andals from A Song of Ice and Fire?
I like the more defined setting. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally cool with that. But defining it so that it has to be the Christian God. Or Rome by another name. Meh. No thanks.
I don't really mean "it has to be [Rome, Christ, etc] by another name in your game". I mean, it's a riff on Rome and Christ and Dark Ages Northern Europe. It'll need some serious hacking -- to the ranks, the geneaologies, trolls & monsters, religions, playbooks, "our amber, silver, timber, and furs go south and east, by sea, by river, or overland; spices, cotton, high-quality iron, and finished luxury goods come north and west to us", etc -- to become a riff on the Ming Dynasty. Don't get me wrong, plenty would work great for the Ming Dynasty -- basic moves, fates, much about the playbooks -- and I want to see that hack! It sounds terrific. Dragon Herald awakens a dragon: "make its hunger for knowledge and its divine wisdom vast and patient. Mere isolated acts of kindness and sharing the wealth of a single village's harvest won't distract or satisfy it. It craves bringing everything into harmony with the Celestial Kingdom..." go for it!
But it's always worth inquiring what the text of the game that we are given is saying, as it is. A storygame like this is a double artifact. It's a generative ruleset for creating umpteen fictions. It's also an artifact which offers a fiction, in its own right. An esthetic and ethical critique of that fiction is interesting. To say "but you don't have to play it that way if you don't like it" is changing the topic.
You don't need to have Mormons and Indians and the West in your game of Dogs in the Vineyard. But Dogs in the Vineyard is still a game about (a riff on) Mormons and Indians and the West.
-
But it's always worth inquiring what the text of the game that we are given is saying, as it is. A storygame like this is a double artifact. It's a generative ruleset for creating umpteen fictions. It's also an artifact which offers a fiction, in its own right. An esthetic and ethical critique of that fiction is interesting. To say "but you don't have to play it that way if you don't like it" is changing the topic.
OK. They I'd wait for mr.Lumpley to confirm or deny what I think. I agree, it's totally worth inquiring
-
OK. They I'd wait for mr.Lumpley to confirm or deny what I think. I agree, it's totally worth inquiring
Yep this!
I mean, it's a riff on Rome and Christ and Dark Ages Northern Europe.
Since you replied I'll answer back. :)
What I'm saying is: I wouldn't like "Christianity: The Role-Playing Game". At least not as much as just “Dark Ages: The Role-Playing Game”.
Don't misunderstand me though. I've played Burning Wheel “Northern Crusades in Lithuania“. It was a blast and Christianity certainly featured very heavily in it. It was a main theme, if not the main theme.
Yet I've also played Burning Wheel “The Anarchy in England” and Christianity was more background material and the noble’s squabbles were the real meat and theme. Christianity was used in political struggles, not the focus.
So again I’ll state my main point: history is not only about Christianity. So "Christianity: The Role-Playing Game" is limiting the game in scope. Even a game based on the real world. Which is fine. But there was a lot more going on during the Dark Ages as well.
So leaving Bloodless X as a more generic figure just coming to prominence is neat (for me). We the players get to decide how this new religion is shaking things up. So once again I’ll point to A Song of Ice and Fire - a fairly based-on-the-real-world, without actually being the real-world, series. Christianity was a definite influence on Martin making The Seven. And R'hllor is a new religion shaking things up. But it is not the theme of the books. There is other stuff going on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire). I’d say more important things even!
Whereas making Bloodless X exactly the Christian God by another name is something I’m less interested in. And I’ve played Ars Magica and other historically based games, and I love them. But I’d just be less interested in “this religion is Christianity and has to be Christianity” like it couldn‘t just be “The Seven or R'hllor in A Song of Ice and Fire“.
So is the game "Christianity: The Role-Playing Game"? In the same way that Dogs in the Vineyard is about Mormonism? Is Christianity the main theme? Because I'd be less interested in that game. Not uninterested, just much less.
EDIT: it might be worth mentioning that I have read Vincent's G+ post about AW:DA Christianity. Just a single playbook is a far different beast than making the game about Christianity. Because plausiblefabulist, what you wrote makes the game about Christianity, not just a single playbook that resembles a Christian-like religion. Like The Seven or R'hllor.
-
Honestly the way it felt when we played it the Bloodless Xristos seemed more like an outside faceless force, most of us were either skeptics, old gods followers or followers of the Empires of Eagles' gods so take that as a drop in the bucket. I just think it would be interesting to treat it as not necessarily a force you can't play as but a strange and powerful rising thing. The thing that supposedly tamed and killed the dragons. They seem almost better shrouded in mystery.
-
Sorry, didn't mean to imply at all that the game should be about Christianity. I like it as a mysterious, largely undefined, and certainly *transmuted* force in the background. The amount of text we have on it is fine. I too would be less interested if he were called "Christ" rather than "Bloodless Xristos". The X and the "bloodless" pun are creative contributions, opening room for plenty of new riffs by the players.
I'm talking about the creative choices made in those three paragraphs. I would apply the same attention to any three-paragraph detail in the text; I'm perfectly capable of waxing rhapsodic about lumpley's treatment of genealogies, or buttonholes. (That seems quite common on this forum, right? There are several pages of discussion on the exact handling of the Outlaw Heir's supporters, which is like half a page of text).
So, right, everything you guys are saying: Xristos should be vague. It's not the focus. It works great as an external threat. It is there for players to riff on and each table's definition will end up different. Right, right, right. All of that is orthogonal to the discussion of: what are these three paragraphs saying? How is that similiar to or different to its source text in real history? Given that is varies from real history (awesome, it should), how, and what, collectively, is the esthetic effect of these choices in sum? Which way does that particular choice (just like any other choice made in any other three paragraphs) point the game?
-
I find that the Bloodless Xristos is less of a take on Christianity, and more as a look at all Abrahamic faiths as if they were one gigantic collection of sub-faiths.
Plus, the descriptions of Xristos himself do not seem to reference Christ except in name. Rather, they set him as either the sole god or the head of a pantheon, more akin to the trinity's Father than anything else.
Plus, with no reference regarding sacrifice in a mortal form, or any other concrete aspects that generally make Christianity distinct, Bloodless Xristos can be used just as easily for a Jewish or Muslim analog within the setting. Or even something more unique than that (I definitely see how these three religious factions could also be analogs of the Old Ways, Faith of the Seven, and Lord of Light from the Song of Ice and Fire).
-
For the record: Oh no. No no no. For the game, I'm eager to go back to a notional pre-Nicene, pre-unified doctrine Christianity, where (eg) whether Christ was God or just a dude or what was still up in the air, to be resolved by arguments that would then lead to bloodshed. But no WAY I'd expect anybody to then identify Judaism with that. Yikes.
-Vincent
-
Well, proto-Christianity was basically just a sect of Judaism. Their tenets didn't deviate too much for the first few years of presence, other than to eliminate the reliance on Rabbis and older traditions. As time went on, they adopted baptism, many of the classical tenets of altruism, and expanded the holy texts with books of their own.
Maybe it's my fault for implying I meant old-world Judaism (which was largely extinct by that time period, having been replaced by a new orthodoxy that only sort-of held onto those classic beliefs), but I was talking more of the "liberal" Judaism that existed in the 1st century and helped give rise to Christianity as we know it today.
But if that's not what you were implying, does your setting basically assume no Jewish analog gave birth to the Bloodless Xristos faith?
-
It doesn't, no. The few paragraphs in the current document just don't go into it.
-Vincent
-
Whew. I'm glad to hear that Bloodless Xristos will be somewhat ambiguous. I didn't want to see extremely obvious 100% Christian stuff, like a Jewish analog with a fantasy name for example. That is something I want to see the players add if they want to!
Oh, and no need to apologize plausiblefabulist, although I appreciate it! And I apologize if I offended. I was just pretty darn worried that the game that was announced, and I was like crap-my-pants excited for, was going to end up being not what I thought it was going to be. (Your post on Christianity was a couple days after I saw Vincent's post on Google+ and lumpley and because of who you are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rosenbaum), and Vincent's response I was like uh-oh!)
-
The Fringe-Robed
If this playbook doesn't come with the game, I'm going to write it.
-
Hmm, okay, Irminsul, so I have to admit my feelings are slightly hurt.
Here's the deal. I'm totally excited about the game too. I am psyched about it just the way it is. I'd play it the way it is, and happily. I'm enthusiastic about all the myriad ways people will hack it.
lumpley asked for feedback (and set up this forum), so I'm giving feedback, noting what the text-as-it-stands makes me think of, and riffing off that.
The game currently contains:
a) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of pre-Nicene-council Christianity
b) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of Teutonic/Celtic paganism
c) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of Roman civic religion.
I do not think the game (as it ships, unhacked) desperately needs a fictional analog of Judaism. I do not think the game desperately needs a fictional analog of Isis or Mithra mystery religions, despite how popular they were among the Roman legions. Nor of Zoroastrianism, or non-Christian Gnostic trends, or whatever. Those would be cool too. But three fictional-analog religions is also fine. I did have some fun thinking about what a Dark Ages Jewish playbook would look like. I think it's an interesting archetype that fits interestingly with the basic axes of the game and might bring in some additional fictional meat. But if it doesn't ship with the game I could always hack my own (or wait for nerdwerds to do it). No biggie.
However, I admit to being slightly upset that "a Jewish analog with a fantasy name" would ruin the game for you... a game which contains a Christian analog with a fantasy name, an Odin/wicca analog with a fantasy name, and a Palatine-Hill-Roman-Gods analog with a fantasy name. Um. And, specifically (if I read you correctly), because the Followers of the Ineffable Name would somehow be about, and define, Christianity, in a way that Bloodless Xristos by itself would not. That is: a pagan analog is about pagansim; a Christian analog is about Christianity; a Jewish analog is about... Christianity.
I don't mind not making the cut, but I'm not crazy about being explicitly disinvited.
Please tell me that's not what you were saying.
(My feelings were actually more hurt when I started this post, as I was misreading "who you are" as having something to do with arguing for the inclusion of Judaism; I apologize for this misreading. A paragraph or two in I'm now assuming "who you are" = "someone who is very, very slightly famous in a very mildly related field and therefore having possibly unearned influence over the development of a game I'm really excited about"? Which I guess is fair, though I very much doubt Vincent is unduly swayed by my short-story-writing prowess?)
-
Oh, my. No, no, no. Bad me.
Yes, I was making a reference to your fame and that potentially influencing Baker’s decisions.
And I was in no way making anti-Semitist rhetoric. That one specific thing would not specifically ruin the game for me. At all. I’m dumb. I should have known better than to even use the “J” word. And I never ever will again. My bad. I’m an idiot. Not at all what I meant. At all. And now I feel like a complete jackass. Even though that isn’t what I meant at all, it was just one example amongst a thousand I could have chosen, but really should not have, and I can see it was taken poorly now. And I should have seen that coming. And that makes me feel shitty.
I should have said, “I don’t want to see Pintoos Piloot or the messiah Gesuus or any other obvious reference to Christianity spelled out in the game book. I‘d like it to stay ambiguous so the players of any individual game can decide how much real-world Judaism they want to add in themselves. Or if they want to go A Song of Ice and Fire with it instead they should be able to. So if that means 100% in their game if Christian-based that‘s cool. I‘m sure I‘m going to play at least a few times using the real dark ages myself. But I wouldn‘t want to be limited to only playing the game that way and miss out on playing a mostly fantasy religion as seen in A Song of Ice and Fire”.
I really hope that clears it up. Because I feel really shitty right now for being misunderstood in the way I was.
-
No worries, Irminsul! This is what makes the Internet hard -- it's difficult to judge intention and nuance with this much bandwidth. You are forgiven! I just wanted to clarify, because it's better for me to ask, than to wonder.
Anyway, I did not think you were consciously engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric at all... more just doing that thing we all do where we consider marginal things in the light of how they reflect on dominant things, rather than taking the marginal things seriously for what they are in and of themselves. I make that kind of mistake all the time myself.
Please do not avoid using the J-word! :-D It is far better to make mistakes (or be misinterpreted) and have them pointed out, than to shy away from charged things. Rolling 7-9's is where we learn. :-)
-
For the record, there will be a fictional analog of Judaism, and yes, the worship of the Bloodless Xristos comes from it, influenced in its childhood by a couple of lines of fictional-analog-Roman thought (including fictional-analog-Mithraism).
It's not a game about the origins of Christianity, so I'm not going to go into much detail, but I hope to throw in a provocative and satisfying detail or three.
I didn't mention it at all in those three original paragraphs, but I never intended otherwise.
There will also be fictional-analog Jews living in my fictional analog Dark Age Europe, just as there were in the real ones. That's an oversight I will DEFINITELY correct.
-Vincent
-
I think I’ve said what I wanted to say: oh please Vincent keep the religions ambiguous! But it looks like I’m not going to get that.
Firstly because the group being able to choose whether one’s game is 100% the real-world Judeo-Christian religion, or whether it is something more resembling A Song of Ice and Fire, or something in between, I think, is a good thing. If nothing else it opens up various play options.
Second because of what we accidentally/unintentionally demonstrated just now. And which proved to be one of the, if not the most, uncomfortable experience of my entire life.
Unless the game is 100% about taking on real-world religions through the fictional medium of a game (like, say, Dogs in the Vineyard), and wants to explicitly tackle those issues. Because even printing in the book things like Pintoos Piloot or the messiah Gesuus, makes the game about that. In a real-world way. Even if it wasn’t supposed to be about that.
The game can’t just do more than ambiguously reference it, not even an analog of real-world religions, in my opinion (ambiguous is fine). Why? Because of what I already said, but also because religion (and politics) are very easy to take incorrectly and/or misunderstand people in ways that are entirely unhealthy. Hot-button sensitive topic. And because they are such emotionally charged issues they can’t help but be thrust to the forefront of the issues. Even in a fictional game. Even if the game wasn’t originally supposed to be about religion, it will be about religion.
I feel like the group can make the game about tackling issues of religion. I’ve done the same in games, in a safe environment. But I don’t think that this game is about that. And putting analogs of real-world religions makes it about tackling those issues. Even if it would be unintentional. As we just demonstrated.
So to use your words: cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined fictional analog [of real-world religions] is fine as long as “analog” is replaced with ambiguous. Obviously my opinion. Because the difference as I see it is one of “analog = basically the same with a few differences like adding in fictional names of real-world religious things” versus “ambiguous = can be taken one way, but also could be taken another way“.
EDIT: and I would say that any references to A Song of Ice and Fire or any other fictional world should be removed. Just say it is the Dark Ages with different analogous names for real-world things if that is what it is! (That might come off like I'm mad. I'm not. At all. I just think it is a bad thing to mislead people by saying "hey you can play a game analogous to A Song of Ice and Fire or something more closesly analogous to the real-world" and then not deliver both of those options).
-
Don't worry. If "Bloodless Xristos" is ambiguous enough for you, everything I write will be.
-Vincent
-
Don't worry. If "Bloodless Xristos" is ambiguous enough for you, everything I write will be.
-Vincent
Cool. So far, without an additions, it is ambiguous enough. Not that I wouldn't play AW: DA if you just flat-out stated it is the dark ages, because I would.
--
And just because I thought of a couple examples that amused me about the differences, as I see them, with analog vs. ambiguous:
A dragon is an analog of a lizard. Sure it flies and breathes fire. But ultimately it looks like a lizard. Scales, head, legs, etc.. But with a few fictional additions.
A platypus is an ambiguous animal. What is it?!? A duck because it lays eggs and has a bill? A beaver because its a mammal and has the fur and the tail? And then add in the poisonous spur. It seems ambiguous to me rather than analogous of a specific animal.
-
Oh, I hope we keep the ambiguity. The ambiguity is part of the reason I assumed that Bloodless Xristos broadly covered all Abrahamic religions, and I like that fact! I want my playgroup to be able to define the religions for their setting themselves, rather than the books; that's why I love the original Apocalypse World, and that should be no less true for this one.
Also, please don't be afraid to potentially insert new possible faiths and such. There's no need just to stick to real ones. Other than the big ones, the rest should be easily removed if unliked, and it might be interesting to see some things that never were.
Then again, that might force you to write more playbooks, so I suppose its up to you (or perhaps expansion playbook material?)
-
Don't worry. If "Bloodless Xristos" is ambiguous enough for you, everything I write will be.
-Vincent
I feel I should add that the simple sentence at the end of the paragraphs on Bloodless Xristos makes it ambiguous:
"it is a matter of interpretation and opinion".
Pretty much sums it up. It is up to interpretation and opinion.
If that sentence were to be lost in editing I'd say the game should make it clear it is a dark ages analog and is not meant to be played as an an analog of A Song of Ice and Fire. Which is totally fine, and as I've said before I'd still totally play the heck out of it. I love me some historical fiction RPG action (more than playing in pre-made fantasy worlds).
But that should be made clear that that is what the game actually is.
-
Irminsul, it's time to stop worrying and wait and see!
-Vincent
-
This has been quite an interesting thread to read!
I don't want to add to it, but I'll say a few things:
* I think Benjamin's contributions here are very valuable, and I'm glad Vincent feels that way.
* The whole issue of inventing religions which don't correspond to real-life religions (and potentially look like mockeries of them!) is a serious challenge. It reminds me of some conversations we had over at Story Games perhaps a year ago (or two?) about how we can create alien races and societies that don't seem like stereotypes of human races or cultures. Not an obvious task, to say the least! There seem to me to be some common issues in those two discussions.
Drawing lines which connect the game to real-world history also gives us interesting material for player, however (like some kind of "outsider" playbook roughly modeled on historical Jews brought to Dark Ages Europe).
* If we are to create a "Wandering Jew" kind of playbook, it might be interesting to draw on Arabic knowledge, science (e.g the Library of Alexandria) and philosophy for inspiration. An outsider how not only is foreign and doesn't bow to the local gods, but perhaps also knows things, ancient things, which are at once more advanced than the local culture but also suggest a lineage of wisdom going into a past that has been forgotten (by everyone who lives *here*, anyway - this comes from a faraway place!).
So: a philosopher, a scholar, an "exotic" character with access to arcane knowledge (whether it's scientific, philosophical, or mystical in nature).
* Benjamin: I will now go seek out some of your work! I'm looking forward to reading some.
-
Drawing lines which connect the game to real-world history also gives us interesting material for player, however (like some kind of "outsider" playbook roughly modeled on historical Jews brought to Dark Ages Europe).
* If we are to create a "Wandering Jew" kind of playbook, it might be interesting to draw on Arabic knowledge, science (e.g the Library of Alexandria) and philosophy for inspiration. An outsider how not only is foreign and doesn't bow to the local gods, but perhaps also knows things, ancient things, which are at once more advanced than the local culture but also suggest a lineage of wisdom going into a past that has been forgotten (by everyone who lives *here*, anyway - this comes from a faraway place!).
That doesn't necessarily have to be Arabic in nature though - Jews in the early medieval period filled the same role (and like Benjamin, I'd rather they not be excluded when other religions are included, and again, it would be a bit weird to have Christianity, Pagan Celtic gods, Roman gods and some form of Islam, and exclude Jews). After all, in the period we're talking about (pre-Nicene), Judaism was a rival to christianity, not just in proselytisation, but in scholarly debates and the like. There was even a Turkic Khanate (the Khazars) who converted to Judaism after one such debate.
When Jews were often barred from landowning, they took the vocations open to them, which is why so many were involved in mercantilism or medicine / scholarly professions that weren't under the church's purview. Then of course there were places like the (albeit later medieval period) university of Salamanca, which not only embraced Jewish and Muslim scholars, but also women scholars.
-
So plausiblefabulist and I already hashed this out via email.
But since you, Antinomian Tendencies replied I'll take another stab at it.
I'm not talking about excluding ANYONE. I'm talking about not putting ANY real-world religion in AT ALL. Which means by that definition it would actually be IMPOSSIBLE to EXLUDE a real-world religion.
Because really, by your definition the game should include EVERY religion present during the early Middle Ages. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. And there are a bunch YOU are excluding too then.
Do I get to be all huffy that MY religion would be ignored??????
-
Unless you're also Paul T., I wasn't replying or talking to you. Calm down dude.
-
I'm the guy you have to convince, anyway. Arguing amongst yourselves is guaranteed fruitless.
-Vincent
-
Although this is slightly off-topic, it arises from some conversations in topic so I'll post it here. I would quite love for their to be a playbook that amounts to "I am the Hand of the King/Royal/Noble/Whatever" ruler in all but name of a holding style playbook. Perhaps that could tie in to the various religions, old and new. Or perhaps it could allow for that plus other sorts of things (like in Game of Thrones, the maesters).
There's a lot of space in genre for this type of character, and I think the discussions in this thread definitely raised the possibility to my attention as something that might be a lot of fun.
If you do go with a member of a pre-Xristos religion, you can always look to stuff like the Ionian physicists of the ancient world for precedents - especially since AW:DA isn't a straight historical work, you can play around with the chronology a lot and just pull stuff from lots of places. During my M.A. I actually took coursework on Ancient thinkers (like, before Socrates) - and their literary DNA is actually really conducive to outsider archetypes/grand vizier archetypes. I'd be happy to put forward a couple names to read short bios on if that'll help the creative juices flow.
-
I enjoyed the OP for this thread, and reading the discussion of religion and the various analogues. However, I believe the onus is on the GM to make every aspect of religion as dark as it is idealistic. That is, if his players fail to do so for him. Sure, the Bloodless Xristos is all about a utopian vision, but so are many real-world religions. There's nothing to say that The Bloodless Xristos won't remain a fringe religion, nor that if it gathers enough momentum that it can't become painful and controlling.
The game currently contains:
a) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of pre-Nicene-council Christianity
b) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of Teutonic/Celtic paganism
c) a (cool, funhouse-mirror, reimagined) fictional analog of Roman civic religion.
Why? Why not just represent different aspects/stages of religion?
The Old Gods
Are at first glance a reflection of the earliest religions and cults. Not just Teutonic/Celtic, but with the potential to represent any "tribal" community. It's the stuff you bring with you when you convert. The stuff that penetrates so many religions, even if it wasn't intended. The people who stole holy water to help their crops grow. That makes it the most open to interpretation - any religion/cult/fairy tale could fit into this bubble.
The Gods of the Empire of Eagles
The simple words "Empire of Eagles" bring the Roman Empire to the front of your mind. This makes me think of the old gods as much as the Roman Cults. Remember that in most homes in Rome you were likely to find house gods, and major roads had crossroad shrines... I can't imagine the Roman pantheon without all the little guys sitting in corners waiting for their turn. The greek myths were stories before they were gods, and were a poor mirror for how to live your life. What if this represents the aspects of religion that exist in the home, with stories by the fireplace and little statues on the mantle. What if the old gods represent bigger issues and are worshipped by whole towns at once?
The Bloodless Xristos
If you didn't have the sentence "some worshipers place him within a trinity of deities" I wouldn't even think of christianity. Ok, maybe a little... but there's so much more there that's more interesting to me.
The Bloodless Xristos makes me think of the early christian church far more than organised catholicism. The most defining thing about early christianity was that it said "This is a new God, and yours are now wrong". The Roman Empire not only accepted most cults, but when they conquered a new place they added the new gods to their own set. Assuming an appropriate analogue, the only reason Xristos isn't added to the mess is that believing in him is mutually exclusive to believing in anything else. Meaning this represents trouble making and dissent. Christianity has spent longer as an organised religion than it has as a start-up cult. So treating this as christianity is adding a lot of pre-conceived ideas. What if Xristos is part of a family as large as Zeus', but still says "your old gods are nothing but carved stones". It has the same impact. Also, Christianity was incredibly secretive in it's early days because they were afraid of persecution. Making it more like a mystery cult than like it's dark age derivative.
The thing I like most about the Bloodless Xristos is the name. If your blood is the most important thing in determining your worth, then joining a bloodless faction means joining a rankless faction. It means that a peasant has the potential to own land one day. That's huge politically. Infact, that could easily be the darkness that plausiblefabulist is missing out on - this could be the opportunity for the poor lower classes to become as cruel and opressive as their current leaders.
My point
Because as much as "I like the sound of my own voice", I ought to have one. I love the blurry lines. I recognise the ambiguity, and I'm glad it's there. Instead of breaking history down into the different religions people followed, why not break down the different aspects of religion. Personal understanding meeting individual needs, Organised religion and it's impact on politics, The young punk who wants to shake things up. Also, I think judaism is different enough that it fits - it's about community, and about being an outsider who's not an outsider. It highlights the fact that when people move around, they bring their religion with them so that religion and myth don't evolve linearly.
I wonder what it would look like if you didn't have christianity in mind when you thought about Xristos, and if you didn't have the Roman/Greek Pantheon in mind when you thought about the Empire of Eagles? It's only a subtle difference, but what would change?