The Tomb of Myth

[nightwyrm]

This thread seems like wearing rose-tinged glasses reminiscing about the good old days to me.

There's nothing stopping your DM from drawing from mythic traditions and putting stuff into his game setting. But a game system that wants to be able to cater to multiple settings has to incorporate certain genericness. A game created specifically for an ancient Egypt setting would allow you to run a game in ancient Egypt very well, but you probably won't be able to run a vikings game very well.

As for cartoony superpowers and stupid, shallow things in modern fantasy...mythic heroes are often defined by their ridiculous, badass powers and weapons. Cu Chulainn had his magic spear Gae Bolg and when he gets angry, he transforms into the Hulk and kills everything around him. Achilles had DR infinity everywhere except on his heel. Heracles had str stat greater than the gods. Gilgamesh was 2/3 god, not half, not 1/4, two thirds....he's more impossible than a 3e PC with too many half-x templates stacked on.

My favourite is Perseus who was the original D&D adventurer. He got sent on a quest to kill Medusa but he wasn't strong enough so he equiped himself with some phat loot like a magic sword, helmet of invisibility, and sandals of flying. Using his shield as a mirror, he cut off Medusa's head and bagged more phat loot. When he met monsters/people he didn't like, he pulled out the head as an improvised wand of flesh to stone and petrified people. He saved the princess, married her and went off to rule a kingdom somewhere.

That's only heroic myth. You get into creation myths and some of it reads like the writer was on a crazy acid trip. The gods rape and commit incest regularly (and those were the good gods). They cheat and lie and get pissed off at mortal for random reasons. Some myths were more hardcore than modern porn. Don't go putting stuff on a pedestal simply because they're old.

 

[Wayside]

I have no idea what this post is about, but I have a vague feeling it's an anti-4e screed.

It's just part of his "things were better back when . . ." series. From what I gather, the gist in this case is basically "I don't know the history of X, therefore it has none."

 

[RFisher]

No, I was bemoaning the loss of myth as a basis for game and character and adventure development.

I don’t think you need to bemoan it. I think there are still places & games where it is still very much alive and well.

Though it isn’t all that recent, the first example that pops to mine is the “Seven part soul” article in Pyramid from a few years ago.

 

[arscott]

Also, anyone who suggests that cartoons and superheroes aren't mythology needs to get smacked in the face with a Joseph Campbell book or something.

 

[Yair]

I was bemoaning the loss of myth as a basis for game and character and adventure development.

Come join Ars Magica. You want it, you really want it...

I'm very attracted to classical legends and myth, and to the rich intellectual depth of real-world cosmological and philosophical (and hence, magical) thought. Which is why I love the Ars Magica game, whose focus is precisely to weave all of these in.

I find that D&D has its own mythology, but it's shallower, it doesn't strike as deep a chord in me. I realize this is "my fault", that you can play D&D and weave powerful myth in yourself. But I much rather use a system and setting that is built up to allow this from the start. I find D&D myth superficial, and that infusing it with interesting myth is difficult. Whereas an Eladrin may feystep away in 4e, a character with Strong Fearie Blood (Sidhe) in Ars Magica would have faerie-eyes allowing him to see into the world of faerie hidden behind the mundane world everyone else sees; while a wizard in 4e might seek to purchase residium, a wizard in Ars Magica will seek to purchase the white hare born on the first year's eve, to make use of the magical power of this auspicious date. Ars Magica is built with the myth woven in, which is a huge advantage. It's built into the setting and supplements, too, which is important to lazy people like me.

That said, there is nothing wrong with invented fantasy. When done right, it's great. I really like stock tropes that have no substantial real-myth roots, like the 'kingdom ruled by a lich and his undead armies' or 'demons from beyond that invade our world'. There is a lot of great things about invented fantasy too. The best of all worlds is combining both.

Yair

 

[Umbran]

Neither do I. I'm saying fantasy and fantasy games completely devoid of history, myth, a past, tend to become that way over time.

But games that have that history, myth, and past tend to become aobut the cartoony superpowers anyway. For the myths to be of value, the characters and their adventures have to eventually interface with said myths, and that usually means playing on the same field as the mythic characters.

If you have to arm-wrestle Hercules, you're going to have to have superpowers to do it.

Honestly - character growth and advancement is one of the major draws of a game. If you play a game long enough, they will grow to be far beyond mortal men. So, no matter what the campaign background, you have to deal with the issue.

 

[Jack7]

"The opposite of every great idea is another great idea."
- Niels Bohr

While the literal truth of the above statement can be debated, not every purposeful attempt to escape the past will lead to a shallow future. Different does not necessarily mean invalid or inferior.

I guess it depends upon what exactly Bohr (one of my favorite scientists by the way) meant by great, and by opposite. An idea can be great, and still be wrong, and an idea can imply opposition to another idea in theory, and yet still be compatible in function. That's why I said I have no argument against innovation. But then again not every innovation is an improvement, and certainly no innovation is ever perfect.

It's just part of his "things were better back when . . ." series. From what I gather, the gist in this case is basically "I don't know the history of X, therefore it has none."

History was exactly what I was discussing, or one of the things I was discussing. And inherent in your response is the implied attitude of, "because things are as they are now they neither warrant nor deserve improvement." That I am saying only the past is good. I am in fact saying the opposite, that I am not afraid of what was good about the past, merely because the present is as it is.

Sometimes the best kind of improvement is to overcome the limitations of the past, and sometimes the best kind of improvement is to return to achievements of the past. But no system, no state, no condition, at any point in time is so perfect or so flawless that it should not or cannot be open to critique and improvement.

Also, anyone who suggests that cartoons and superheroes aren't mythology needs to get smacked in the face with a Joseph Campbell book or something.

True enough, but then again you're not suggesting every cartoon and every super power is mythic are you? Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon and sometimes a super power is just silly. The Hero with a Thousand Faces does not mean that every face in a thousand is heroic. Indeed very few are heroic. The Hero is the extraordinary individual. People do not make myth about the candlestick maker (though he may be a fine and very good fellow), or even the politician (though he may be extremely powerful), they make myth abut he hero. So therefore it is important to know the difference between the good man, the powerful man, and the heroic man (though ideally a man may be all three, and probably should be).

Come join Ars Magica. You want it, you really want it...

You're not the first to suggest that to me. I'm going to look into it.

Whereas an Eladrin may feystep away in 4e, a character with Strong Fearie Blood (Sidhe) in Ars Magica would have faerie-eyes allowing him to see into the world of faerie hidden behind the mundane world everyone else sees; while a wizard in 4e might seek to purchase residium, a wizard in Ars Magica will seek to purchase the white hare born on the first year's eve, to make use of the magical power of this auspicious date. Ars Magica is built with the myth woven in, which is a huge advantage. It's built into the setting and supplements, too,...

I hear ya.

That said, there is nothing wrong with invented fantasy. When done right, it's great. I really like stock tropes that have no substantial real-myth roots, like the 'kingdom ruled by a lich and his undead armies' or 'demons from beyond that invade our world'. There is a lot of great things about invented fantasy too. The best of all worlds is combining both.

I concur.

For the myths to be of value, the characters and their adventures have to eventually interface with said myths, and that usually means playing on the same field as the mythic characters.

If you have to arm-wrestle Hercules, you're going to have to have superpowers to do it.

Honestly - character growth and advancement is one of the major draws of a game. If you play a game long enough, they will grow to be far beyond mortal men. So, no matter what the campaign background, you have to deal with the issue.

I think you've put your finger in something really important here. I could answer in any number of involved and complicated ways, but I think the best response is to say that of course one has to have power. You have to have power to make things happen in the world, in a game world, or in the real world. If you are powerless then you are powerless to change things. But myth (not in all cases, for some myths are cautionary tales about what not to become) is for the most part not about power, but about using power to purpose. Applying power to some end far exceeding yourself.

That's one of the reasons myth slumbers in so many games these days. Everyone has power, few have purpose.

 

[nightwyrm]

I think you've put your finger in something really important here. I could answer in any number of involved and complicated ways, but I think the best response is to say that of course one has to have power. You have to have power to make things happen in the world, in a game world, or in the real world. If you are powerless then you are powerless to change things. But myth (not in all cases, for some myths are cautionary tales about what not to become) is for the most part not about power, but about using power to purpose. Applying power to some end far exceeding yourself.

That's one of the reasons myth slumbers in so many games these days. Everyone has power, few have purpose.

See, this is where I think you're putting on rose-tinged glasses. Most mythic heroes don't do their legendary stuff because of some noble, cosmic PURPOSE. They go kill monsters to prove themselves worth of inheriting a kingdom, go on fetch quests to impress some hot chick or her father, or performed impossible tasks just to prove that they're badest badasses around.

Jason went for the golden fleece to win his kingdom. Theseus slayed the minotaur for much the same reason. The Trojan war was fought over a woman. Heracles did his 12 labours to atone for killing his wife and kids in his madness. Beowulf killed Grendel and his mother because they were attacking his friend's castle. Gilgamesh just wanted to be immortal. They never did their things just to get some precious "character development."

And that's what mythic heroes were. They did great things for small, personal reasons and sometimes end up dragging everyone around them down into it. They were out for glory, fame and fortune and just happened to do crazy awesome stuff. They were the original hack and slash D&D adventurers. At best, they were interested in saving their kingdoms. At worse, they're no better than wandering mercenaries. Grand "save the world" quests are actually more a staple of modern fantasy rather than ancient myths.

Maybe you should read some of the myths you're so nostalgic about.

 

[nightwyrm]

On a deeper level, regarding Joseph Campbell and his hero stuff. A lot of heroic myths are allegories about growing up and taking your place in the world. Heroes go on long journeys to prove themselves able to overcome their father's legacy and succeed his mantle. But they're personal stories, not grand crusades and I don't think a game is really suited to working out a player's growing up issues.

Joseph Campbell's book uses hero just to mean the story's protagonist, which is pretty much how how mythic traditions uses the word hero. In a sense, his book is Protagonists of a Thousand Faces and discusses the common themes underlying the "hero's journey" in stories from different cultures.

 

[Jack7]

Maybe you should read some of the myths you're so nostalgic about.

Joseph Campbell argues against your very point. I've seen and heard him speak against it many, many times.

Growing up as an individual, and taking your place as a leader and hero among your people are not diametrically opposed achievements, they are complimentary ends.

By growing up as an individual you become suited to take your place as a hero and leader.

Growing up is the testing method of becoming heroic and finally understanding that the world is not about how it may serve you, but how you may serve it. Of course you cannot lead until you grow up, you would be unfit if you always remained a self-absorbed child. You've confused method with purpose. By killing the minotaur you save everyone else who would have sacrificed to it in the future had you not intervened. By killing Grendel you save your companions and the Scyldings from the scourge of the murderous beast, and by killing the dragon you save your people from it as well. Arthur takes the sword not to be just the King but to redeem the land. To create Camelot, that is, his kingdom is not just for himself, but to promote justice. He doesn't just ride around on a charger getting drunk and killing monsters cause that's fun. He has a realm to remake.

Roland saves the rearguard, not for his own sake. He could have deserted long before. Parsifal saves the Grail King (Amfortas) so that others may prosper, despite the danger to himself and his own inexperience. Prometheus gives fire to man out of concern for man and suffers the consequences. Herakles commits his labors not for glory but to atone for sin. (You have to believe you are capable of doing wrong and owe a penance for that sin to bother with atonement. If you're just out for yourself then you needn't bother. Herakles had no motive of "who is powerful enough to make me atone for my wrong? I'm the biggest badass around. Who will force me?" He withdrew to the wilderness in anguish. He didn't undertake the labors for personal glory. He did it for atonement. Because he believed he had obligations beyond himself. That is to say power does not make you heroic, heroism makes you powerful.) The glory is not the purpose of the endeavor, it is the result. Not the cause, but the consequence. The heroes of myth are not just hack and slash D&D types (though D&D types also don't have to be just hack and slash type mercenaries - that's exactly what I've been saying, that they don't have to be so limited) they are heroes for other reasons. Achieving things for yourself and fulfilling your obligations to others are not contradictory aims. The hero faces the supreme ordeal, gains a reward or loses one (Gilgamesh lost both his quest for immortality and his best friend), becomes transformed and returns to improve his society or culture. The mature man understands the symbiotic relationship between what the individual should achieve for benefit of himself, and what he must achieve for the benefit of others.

I studied under Joseph Campbell. Attended his lectures. The idea that growing up or gaining a kingdom is the purpose of the hero is to totally misunderstand heroism and the myth of the hero. The myth of the hero is not formed by assuming power - rather assuming power and proving yourself merely makes you potentially worthy to become heroic. It does not automatically make you heroic. It is just a stage of development. The anamorphosis of maturing is a process, not an objective. The hero grows up so that he may have a purpose. Growing up though is not his purpose, it's his challenge. And only his first one, though it may also be seminal in some way. Heroes have adventures to test them, to train them, to mature them. To make them worthy. They are not just personal stories. They are stories about individuals who exceeded themselves. Average people have "personal stories." Heroes have myths. You don't read of the myth of Joe the carwasher on 51st street. You read the myth of Gawain of the Table and the Green Knight. To Campbell the hero was an archetype on a universal mission.

This is exactly what I mean about the Tomb of Myth. Myth has become over time so enwrapped in a burial shroud of "crazy, awesome stuff," that there is nothing but a shriveled mummy of itself remaining underneath. There has come to be a confusion in the mind of many that equates the corpse of heroism with the spirit of heroism.

As Campbell would say, "The mask of God is not the face of God."