I just have a general question regarding this hot topic within our beloved game: just how prevalent is magic in the source material for this game (excepting "fantasy" modern versions of it).

Are there any instances of magic use in Mallory or the Vulgate? I'm not even sure Merlin does anything truly magically, even though his heritage would preclude him being practiced in the Dark Arts by his medieval authors. In other words, he's more an advisor/wise man than a true sorcerer, yes?

It will be interesting to note just how much magic factors into the source material; clearly "magic" (pagan or otherwise), exists for the contemporary audiences, but I'm not sure how much it is *actually* mentioned in these stories. Does anyone have any ideas?

For my next campaign, I'm thinking I must just cut out all extent examples of this, excepting miraculous deeds by God ... thus, no fantastical monsters, no "spells of glamour", no goblins or faeries ... and make it a much more gritter, realistic campaign ...

What do you guys think?

Mallory certainly has magic in the book, beyond Merlin and excaliber (And its far more valuable Sheath) there are the ladys of the lake. There is the love potion of Tristram and Isolde. The red cloak given to Arthur from Morgan.
I find at least in Mallory Magic serves as a backdrop.

merlin does seem to have teleport or something!!!!!!!!! ;D he is valways popping up in the middle of the forest in disguise when u left him afoot not one day ago! (hey....how did he get ahead of me?). also he transports the entire armies of Ban and Bors over the sea and hides them in the woods way faster than they should have arrived!!!!!!! magic? hmmmm? u be the judge! ;)

It has been awhile since I've read any canon material (Mallory or otherwise), but I don't remember this stuff!



Mallory certainly has magic in the book, beyond Merlin and excaliber (And its far more valuable Sheath) there are the ladys of the lake. There is the love potion of Tristram and Isolde. The red cloak given to Arthur from Morgan.
I find at least in Mallory Magic serves as a backdrop.



The love potion could be merely really good wine, for instance. Does he specifically say "love potion", or that the cloak bursts into flames?

I think removing all magic is a bad idea.

Cause you might as well just do the 100 years wars etc.

The Arthurian age is magical Merlin, Excalibur, lady in the lake, Avalon; a lot of the quests have a magical flavor. I think removing it completely might take away too much of what makes it, like a pizza with no cheese.

If you fancy that sort of thing you should read Enemy of God (which still has a vague hint of magic) and Here Lies Arthur. But the important thing is though Merlin couldn?t do magic, his tricks convinced everyone he could. So in effect no there isn't any magic but people still believe there is..if you know what I mean.

Also Merlin?s main powers seem to be Glamour, Travel and his most powerful prophecy, he can see the future except his own.

Cheers,

BigSteveUK

This reminds me -- for some strange reason -- of a post I saw on another forum. The person was considering running an RPG using the mechanics of Pendragon in the Lord of the Rings setting.

First of all, that would be a blast! The more I think about it, the more I realize that Arthurian literature and LotR share a lot in common.

They both have deep, rich characters (which would make the Traits/Passions system? Check).

They both have epic battles as well as small-sided encounters (Check).

They both have a hint of magic, although LotR maybe a bit more. (This I guess is where this tangent sprung from ;D)

More to the point, I agree with bigsteveuk:

I think removing all magic is a bad idea.

Cause you might as well just do the 100 years wars etc.

What makes the Arthurian saga so compelling is the presence of magical and spiritual mystery. The Sword in the Stone, Merlin, the Grail Quest... these events define the setting.

A quote from Stafford, from KAP page 141:

A great part of the literary tension of the Grail legend stems from the conflict between the material and spiritual -- between the actual and the ideal
The "Grail legend" is arguably the most defining chapter for the series, when heroism, friendship, and kindgoms are tested.

Food for thought. I rambled more than a drunk man... ;D

Yea, I wasn't thinking of removing all "magic". The Grail Quest definitively stays, as does Excalibur. But, that's kinda my point as well: nobody except a couple of knights ever see the Grail, and Excalibur is just a sword with a history ... one could argue there isn't anything magical about the Sword in the Stone (game mechanic-wise), other than it can't be pulled except by one man. I'm sure people believed it was magical, and it actually was magical to them, but really, was it really? Does it need to be something extra other than that stone pulling requirement? In other words, spirituality stays, but something like "shape-changing" doesn't.

I was more thinking about removing the actual mechanics of magic, and its trappings (faeries, magic stones, etc.) from the game, if that makes sense, and just using it for descriptive purposes. Obviously, there will be miraculous healings, but that's from God, not "magic". By the same turn, people will talk of faeries, and certainly believe they exist, but no one ever actually sees one ... so my players will never actually encounter one on an adventure (nor the requisite dragon; rather, it'll be a crocodile instead when they are down in Egypt for instance - they can say it was a dragon, and everyone will believe them, but the characters don't know any better!). And, of course I'm going to keep Merlin, obviously, but he's just a bard - his power will be more with oratory skills and convincing others he has control over the elements and "glamour", but without actual real "magic" behind it all. Morgan le Fay will just be a wicked woman, who also convinces others of her "powers", which even she might believe are real (like they did back then), but which really boils down to just relying on seducing others to do her bidding.

People talk of a more "Dark Age" campaign, and I'm thinking more along those lines, but more ... um, "realistic", if that could be said. Like a "what if?" campaign, or a "more historical" campaign ...

But, does the canon support this artistic license, as it were ... ? That's what I want to know. This is more along the lines of Greg's idea that magic is a plot device ... but to the extreme.



What makes the Arthurian saga so compelling is the presence of magical and spiritual mystery. The Sword in the Stone, Merlin, the Grail Quest... these events define the setting.

A quote from Stafford, from KAP page 141:

A great part of the literary tension of the Grail legend stems from the conflict between the material and spiritual -- between the actual and the ideal
The "Grail legend" is arguably the most defining chapter for the series, when heroism, friendship, and kindgoms are tested.

I think what it comes down to is you know your group. If they would enjoy something like this, it would most certainly work.

You also kind of highlight a point I made badly, your crocodile.

The peasants say it's a dragon, the knight?s quest to kill a dragon, the knights fight and kill a dragon. Apart from the you, your players (but not the knights they play) everyone believes it to be dragon. So for all intents and purposes it is a Dragon.
But again a dirty, grimy hard setting would certainly work if that?s what you want.

Myself and my group play it for the magical side, they want the mystery, the deep lush green woods containing secrets, magical standing stones. I very much relate this to the ITN Robin of Sherwood series, we magic was just there. None of us want the in the face magic of d&d but we like it's subtle undertones, this force that it always out of touch.

P.S LOTR could work, especillay as relationships breakdown between Gondor and Rhohan and then they Unite again, having Grima and Saruman appear would be most amusing.

Well, they are new to RPGs (except for one player), so I think they'll just go with whatever it becomes.

However, I was more wondering if the canon material supports this idea, and that our Pendragon game has added this aspect to it because of the popularity of fantasy trappings in the modern iterations of this genre.

Except for the Sword, Merlin, and the major canon characters, and their ties to "magic", I can't remember if Lancelot ever fights a goblin, or a dragon, for instance, or encounters "magic" within the setting. Certainly the work of God exists, that's a must for this genre, but ... paganism? The "Other Side"? Bad faeries?

I'm just musing if these are later additions to this genre ... or what? I'm not a huge scholar on this subject, but I am interested in doing something different for my Pendragon campaign this time 'round with a new group of players. Anyone have any examples for the necessity of keeping faeries and their ilk in this game?



I think what it comes down to is you know your group. If they would enjoy something like this, it would most certainly work.

I can't remember if Lancelot ever fights a goblin, or a dragon, for instance, or encounters "magic" within the setting.
Mallory has Lancelot slaying giants (Book VI: Chapter 11) and fighting with a dragon in a tomb (Book XI: Chapter 1)

Once you take away the magic or the fantasy in any Arthurian enterprise, I'm reminded of the one of the many criticisms of the recent King Arthur film, in that since the magic was absent from the story, all that was left was hairy men hacking away at each other.
Magic is intrinsic to the Arthurian myth and the legends have their basis in much older pagan themes from Celtic and other pre-Christian cultures.

Aha! So it *has* been too long since I've read Mallory, and that stuff *is* in there. Thanks, that's what I was looking for!

Hmmm. So magic has to stay in some form. Still, I do want to de-emphasis Paganism and religious strife ... hmmm. Back to the drawing board for me!

Once you take away the magic or the fantasy in any Arthurian enterprise, I'm reminded of the one of the many criticisms of the recent King Arthur film, in that since the magic was absent from the story, all that was left was hairy men hacking away at each other.


Hadn't seen it that way, but that observation's spot on!

Still, I do want to de-emphasis Paganism and religious strife ... hmmm.

Ah, what appeals to me a lot about Pendragon is the respect the designer pays equally both to Christianity and paganism in the game. I personally am more interested in the pre-Christian religions but the clash and mixture of the faiths creates a very vibrant environment for roleplaying.

Yes, what I am now thinking about is more along the lines of is not so much paganism vs. Christianity, but the ideas behind these which lead to a resurgence in "bucking the establishment" (Christianity; patriarchy).

For example: the Courts of Love will forshadow feminism and equal rights. Hmmm .... yea, I think I can work that in. How to mesh the supernatural with that though ... maybe I'll have to read the Da Vinci Code for a little anachronistic inspiration ...

The Book of King Arthur: Part 3 ? The Winning of a Queen

King Arthur has a magic cap that turns him into a young lad and he becomes a gardners boy.


'So that morning, a little before the prime, Merlin came unto the King where he was and gave him a little cap. And the cap was of such a sort that when the King set it upon his head he assumed, upon the instant, the appearance of a rude and rustic fellow from the country-side.'

The Book of King Arthur: Part 3 ? The Winning of a Queen

King Arthur has a magic cap that turns him into a young lad and he becomes a gardners boy.


'So that morning, a little before the prime, Merlin came unto the King where he was and gave him a little cap. And the cap was of such a sort that when the King set it upon his head he assumed, upon the instant, the appearance of a rude and rustic fellow from the country-side.'


I think that was Howard Pyle's invention; at least, I haven't found that story anywhere else.

I can understand your desire for a grittier, more realistic setting Dao.

You could just have straight real world action: the knight and his weapons, wars and politics, kings and nations. People may talk about and believe in the Christian god or the pagan gods ? but from an objective point of view the divine and supernatural are never seen or directly felt. Nothing magical ever happens. The story is squarely centered on mortal conflicts. Maybe you even will not want to include any legendary monsters.

For me, the game takes a classical Homeric path allowing the existence of magic but never letting it overwhelm the mortal action. The supernatural and the divine exist and occasionally manipulate the affairs of men, though in a subtle way. There are monsters but they are rare and important, never commonplace. Ordinary mortal deeds drive the action, not magical solutions. The supernatural elements are present, it's just that they don?t take precedence over the core of the story, the deeds of the knights themselves.

I think that is what the designer (I'll have to start calling him by name but I find it kinda awkward. One of these days on the forum he's gonna pop up and start telling me to call him Mr Stafford or Greg!) was really aiming for and I find it interesting to compare that with his other RPG's.

Yes, exactly what I was thinking. So I was thinking more along the lines of The Tudors TV series (you seen it? It might only just be up here in Canada, even though its a British-Canadian co-production). Add in a dash of modern sensibilities, but don't forget its a costume drama sorta deal. Basically, a good ol' fashion Royal drama - think Henry VIII ... and kinda ditch the fantasy side of this game to the sidelines.

I think the politics and war side of this game needs some fresh attention ... (already done the "classic" Pendragon enough times already); the GPC kinda screams this take, so I'm going to use it in full!



I can understand your desire for a grittier, more realistic setting Dao.

You could just have straight real world action: the knight and his weapons, wars and politics, kings and nations. People may talk about and believe in the Christian god or the pagan gods ? but from an objective point of view the divine and supernatural are never seen or directly felt. Nothing magical ever happens. The story is squarely centered on mortal conflicts. Maybe you even will not want to include any legendary monsters.

For me, the game takes a classical Homeric path allowing the existence of magic but never letting it overwhelm the mortal action.

Ah, The Tudors. We Brits have always loved our costume dramas, especially when they have oodles of sex and violence! Kinda like Pendragon! :)

The Savage Mountains supplement has a great scenario called The Cambrian War, which has you fighting against Gomeret and Powys I think. I have'nt got that far into the timeline of the GPC to see if it's incorporated into that mighty tome.
It's more 'realistic' than other scenarios and does not contain any magical elements that I can recall. It concentrates on politics and war. If it's not part of the GPC, I'll definitely include it during that time period.

Chronica Feudalis comes to mind too. I'm intrigued by the fact that it goes for a realistic medieval setting.

The Tudors has politics in it? ;D Violence, yes. You never let a king get tired of you. ;)

The Savage Mountains supplement has a great scenario called The Cambrian War, which has you fighting against Gomeret and Powys I think. I have'nt got that far into the timeline of the GPC to see if it's incorporated into that mighty tome.
It's more 'realistic' than other scenarios and does not contain any magical elements that I can recall. It concentrates on politics and war. If it's not part of the GPC, I'll definitely include it during that time period.

The Cambrian War is not included in GPC; that's a shame, because its my favourite "adventure" book from this game (along with Blood & Lust).

What I need to do now is find a way to make my new campaign more Tudor-y. Y'know, the "politics" Percarde was wondering about ... :D I've got to figure out a reason to keep Margawse and Morgan more front and center ... hmmm ....

With the people I usually get to game with, politics is easier to do than the romantic, ideal knight. Yes, they have all bought into the Hollywood, everyone has inner demons and the troubled hero myth. Dark is second nature to them. Excalibur is Arthur to them, not Camelot. LOL

For a political Arthur campaign, most of the fantasy and idealism would have to be toned down or deleted. Merlin might not be the wizard/druid of myth but more like Cardinal Wolsey. Arthur is in the same position as Henry VIII. He needs to produce an heir to succeed him. Is Camelot just a fa?ade? Just to keep the peasants happy and loyal? Is the Duchess of Salisbury raising her son to believe that he may be king after Arthur? Since he has the blood of Macsen Wledig? Or does he just want to be the power behind the throne? The Kingmaker?

Will Alisande, daughter of Arthur and Guinevere, grow out of her sickly ways? Has this resulted in a future queen too timid to rule the nation?

I think I could do politics. ;D

The trick will be to mesh that and the romantic ideal. I have a feeling my players will more embrace the dark modernistic style politics you describe, Percarde.

[sigh] What's a GM to do? :)