Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 119 of 119

Thread: What would you like to see in a KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON Sixth Edition?

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,868
    Quote Originally Posted by aramis View Post
    You're historically wrong about Pelagianism, and about what I wrote. In Britain, Pelagius was not locally condemned until after his death. The first british local council to denounce Pelagianism was after Uther's death. Semi-pelagianism remained a recurrent local heresy well into the 700's.

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism
    «For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them. In Ireland also Pelagius's "Commentary on St. Paul", described in the beginning of this article, was in use long afterwards, as is proved by many Irish quotations from it. »

    This provides a sighting of pelagianism during Arthur's reign, and mention of later inclusions of pelagian theology.

    Augustinianism wasn't declare the sole orthodoxy until 530 (when Pp. Boniface II ratified the 529 council of Orange's refutations of semipelagianism and pelagianism.

    I thought Pelagianism was already declared a heresy in the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)? Orange had to do with semipelagianism. Could some vestiges of pelagianism have survived until Arthur's reign? Sure, I am not contesting that, especially as you have a nice historical reference there. However, note that the Archbishop of Menevia is NOT a Pelasgian here, but condemning them. They are clearly a minority, heretical sect by 519.

    This is in marked contrast with 5th Edition, where Uther himself is a British Christian. I.e. a heretic, if we take British Christianity = Pelagianism. And in GPC, we find out that pretty much all named British characters are British Christians, from Arthur and Guenever downwards! This is not a persecuted, heretical minority!

    Sorry about misreading what you said about being in communion with Rome; I took that to mean the Celtic Christianity, which is a different beast from the Pelagian Heresy. Their differences with Rome were minor. The organization of British Christianity in Book of Uther (and in KAP 5.2) is clearly reminiscent of the Celtic Christianity, and if British Christianity = Celtic Christianity, fine and well. But in this case (unlike in Pelagianism) I don't see a good argument for changing the Religious Traits. And since the difference is mainly an organizational one, I would just prefer having them all simply as Christians. (Yes, I dislike having Arian Christians as a separate religion, too, but at least Visigoths and Ostrogoths were still Arian in our timeframe. Again, I am not sure that saying that Christ was a created man is enough to change the Religious Traits, however much such a statement causes beards to quiver amongst the theologians.)

    Speaking of the Religious Traits, I don't see a good match even with Pelagian Heresy in the British Christianity. I think Greg has mentioned it somewhere that British Christianity Traits were deliberately chosen so that they'd have the easiest time to become Chivalric, rather than any deeper doctrinal consideration. Personally, I would have rather had a more minor difference, like making Roman Christianity Just and Pelagianism Merciful, if I would have had that religion in my campaign in the first place. Which I ended up not doing, going back to 4th edition Christian, i.e. 5th edition Roman Christian traits.

    Anyway, it is clear in KAP 5.2 that "British Christianity" is actually Celtic Christianity with Semi-Pelagian theology, since it says as much. And granted, given that we have widespread Celtic Paganism as well, it is not really all that fruitful to try and impose a historical judgement over it all.
    Last edited by Morien; 03-13-2018 at 10:23 AM.

  2. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Morien View Post
    I thought Pelagianism was already declared a heresy in the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)? Orange had to do with semipelagianism. Could some vestiges of pelagianism have survived until Arthur's reign? Sure, I am not contesting that, especially as you have a nice historical reference there. However, note that the Archbishop of Menevia is NOT a Pelasgian here, but condemning them. They are clearly a minority, heretical sect by 519.

    This is in marked contrast with 5th Edition, where Uther himself is a British Christian. I.e. a heretic, if we take British Christianity = Pelagianism. And in GPC, we find out that pretty much all named British characters are British Christians, from Arthur and Guenever downwards! This is not a persecuted, heretical minority!

    Sorry about misreading what you said about being in communion with Rome; I took that to mean the Celtic Christianity, which is a different beast from the Pelagian Heresy. Their differences with Rome were minor. The organization of British Christianity in Book of Uther (and in KAP 5.2) is clearly reminiscent of the Celtic Christianity, and if British Christianity = Celtic Christianity, fine and well. But in this case (unlike in Pelagianism) I don't see a good argument for changing the Religious Traits. And since the difference is mainly an organizational one, I would just prefer having them all simply as Christians. (Yes, I dislike having Arian Christians as a separate religion, too, but at least Visigoths and Ostrogoths were still Arian in our timeframe. Again, I am not sure that saying that Christ was a created man is enough to change the Religious Traits, however much such a statement causes beards to quiver amongst the theologians.)

    Speaking of the Religious Traits, I don't see a good match even with Pelagian Heresy in the British Christianity. I think Greg has mentioned it somewhere that British Christianity Traits were deliberately chosen so that they'd have the easiest time to become Chivalric, rather than any deeper doctrinal consideration. Personally, I would have rather had a more minor difference, like making Roman Christianity Just and Pelagianism Merciful, if I would have had that religion in my campaign in the first place. Which I ended up not doing, going back to 4th edition Christian, i.e. 5th edition Roman Christian traits.

    Anyway, it is clear in KAP 5.2 that "British Christianity" is actually Celtic Christianity with Semi-Pelagian theology, since it says as much. And granted, given that we have widespread Celtic Paganism as well, it is not really all that fruitful to try and impose a historical judgement over it all.
    I've seen theological references to the Celtic Rite being "the last bastion" of Pelagianism, most specifically in the monasteries, into the 600's. The Cletic Rite, for what it's worth, is the liturgy of which I speak, and it's reconstruction was noted, by the Orthodox priests reconstructing it, as insufficiently orthodox; it was compatible with pelagianism.

    Pelagianism is said to have died in 529... but the popes had not condemned Pelagius nor the heresy named for him until Boniface II in 525; several regional synods had, but they were limited to the local synods participating unless ratified by the Pope or one's Patriarch. In 415, he defended his theology successfully in a regional synod. (The west did not have local patriarchates until mid 2nd millenium AD, and their role is not truly patriarch, but arch bishop with automatic cardinalate vote.) So, Pelagianism was condemned time and again, but kept moving west ahead of the condemnations. The Menavian condemnation was of both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

    Chaste, Energetic, Modest, Pious, and Prudent: those are all consonant with Pelagian theories of grace. Grace was "a vague concept" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism. Pelagian teaching was that salvation was through good deeds, which opened one to God's Grace, enabling one to be worthy of heaven. Roman was, at the time, only barely embracing Ambrosian Faith+Deeds+Orthopraxis... the whole of Christendom (excepting the middle eastern Gnostics) Accepted Pauls writings, requiring modesty, orthodoxis, and chastity.†

    The one major mechanical difference (Roman Virtues: Chaste, Forgiving, Merciful, Modest, Temperate.) is the call to forgive one another instead of active works. whatever the reason Greg picked it, it's a good fit to have the Celtic have the pellagian work ethic and Romans the forgiveness ethic.

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    † in the sense of no sex outside marriage. No one ordained to major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) could marry after 325; in Rome and the west, Subdeacons as well were considered major. Until the 12th C, married men could, however, receive ordination to major orders. Rome always banned sex the night before a liturgy and during all of the fasts. The Christian East (The "Orthodox" still do). Rome instructed, starting in the 6th C, to demand total continence (absence of sex with one's wife) full time, and by 800, encouraged placing them in nunneries. Rome wouldn't ban married men's ordination to major orders until the 12th C, due to a property dispute. The Christian East retains married clergy to this day, both in and outside communion with Rome, and the Roman Church has absorbed most of the national churches save 4: Dalmatian, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan, into the Roman Church; in those three national churches, the traditional rite remains an extraordinary form, and the Roman the dominant. The Anglican Use is a special case - a national expression of the Roman Rite but denied separate rite status. And, Rome has also again allowed the ordination of married men to the diaconate. My father was one such married deacon.
    Aramis
    Sable, estencile argent, upon a point pointed argent, a cattail plant proper.

  3. #113
    In Britain, Pelagianism died (or seriously moved underground) after the expeditions of Bishop Germanus of Auxerre. If it continued to exist anywhere after that, it would have been in Italy, primarily Rome, and Africa... the area that Pelagius actually did most of his preaching and teaching.

    The Celtic Rite only became an issue later, primarily during the time Anglo-Saxons in Britain, and the non-christian Germans in the north of Gaul and Germania were being converted by the Merovingians a couple of centuries later. This latter disagreement seems to have been mainly political in nature, as opposed to theological.

    SDLeary
    Last edited by SDLeary; 03-14-2018 at 07:25 AM.

  4. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by SDLeary View Post
    In Britain, Pelagianism died (or seriously moved underground) after the expeditions of Bishop Germanus of Auxerre. If it continued to exist anywhere after that, it would have been in Italy, primarily Rome, and Africa... the area that Pelagius actually did most of his preaching and teaching.

    The Celtic Rite only became an issue later, primarily during the time Anglo-Saxons in Britain, and the non-christian Germans in the north of Gaul and Germania were being converted by the Merovingians a couple of centuries later. This latter disagreement seems to have been mainly political in nature, as opposed to theological.

    SDLeary
    Given that the bishops of the Welsh Church had to stomp on it in 529... that's firmly into Arthur's realm. A pelagian influenced British church might have abandoned Pelagianism without removing it's effects upon the local beliefs for a good 50 years or more. And that's ignoring the 5 to 50 years to get all the clergy educated in the new paradigm. I forget which theologian said, "No council's effects are known until 50 years later"...
    Aramis
    Sable, estencile argent, upon a point pointed argent, a cattail plant proper.

  5. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by aramis View Post
    Given that the bishops of the Welsh Church had to stomp on it in 529... that's firmly into Arthur's realm. A pelagian influenced British church might have abandoned Pelagianism without removing it's effects upon the local beliefs for a good 50 years or more. And that's ignoring the 5 to 50 years to get all the clergy educated in the new paradigm. I forget which theologian said, "No council's effects are known until 50 years later"...
    Source please? Not a reference that I've ever seen.

    EDIT: are you talking about the Synod of Victory from the Annales Cambriae? While text B does say 529, text A states 569. There is a footnote in both that leads to a reference that claims it was about the Pelagian Heresy, but that is not stated in the main entry in either text. Do you have further first source references?

    SDLeary
    Last edited by SDLeary; 03-15-2018 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Found something

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,868
    Aramis was talking of this one:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Brefi

    Alas, there are no sources in the wikipedia page, and the date is given as 560 instead of 519.

    Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the Synod of Brevi in context of St. David, followed 'shortly afterwards' by a synod at Lucus Victoriae in 569:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm

    And of course Aramis' original link to Catholic Encyclopedia on Pelagius and Pelagianism:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
    "For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them."
    The second synod is no doubt referring to the synod at Lucus Victoriae. The reference work seems to be: Pohle, J. (1911). Pelagius and Pelagianism:
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catho...nd_Pelagianism
    Alas, no references there, either.

    In any case, I don't think this is a fruitful rabbit hole to go down:
    1) British Christianity, as written in KAP 5.2, is stated to be semi-pelagian in theology, and otherwise follows Celtic Christianity (organization, Easter calculations, tonsure...).
    2) Whether or not semi-pelagianism is an anachronism is a bit beside the point in a game that has transported 11th/12th century Norman England social order to late 5th century Britain, and where knights will be going about less than a century later in 16th century Gothic Plate armor, facing firearms and cannons in the field.

    Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.

  7. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Morien View Post
    Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.
    Feh! No can o'worms here!

    For those of us who still utilize the resources of 3e and 4e as bolt ons, differing Virtues/Vices are important! I mean, we have a Mythras write-up floating around out there, so knowing more about possible differences between different traditions and where they might crop up is useful.

    I will admit that my History Guy side is showing quite a bit in those posts though, that is to say an issue with late sources making references not backed up by at least secondary sources.

    In any event, my hope is that 6e moves back a bit towards the more comprehensive approach of 4e. It gives much more flexibility in the way one executes the game, and helps when there are differing interpretations in what sources should be played. At times I like to add more Culhwch & Olwn, more Franks (Lancelot), and other bits of literature which the more closed nature of more recent versions can make a bit problematic (time consuming) at times.

    I also want Magic. Magic has to return.

    SDLeary
    Last edited by SDLeary; 03-15-2018 at 11:27 PM.

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,868
    Quote Originally Posted by SDLeary View Post
    For those of us who still utilize the resources of 3e and 4e as bolt ons, differing Virtues/Vices are important! I mean, we have a Mythras write-up floating around out there, so knowing more about possible differences between different traditions and where they might crop up is useful.
    Sure. We even have one Mithras worshipper PK in our current campaign. But that discussion is probably better had in the Rules section (for Religious traits in general) or even House Rules (added religions in particular), rather than this thread.

    In any event, my hope is that 6e moves back a bit towards the more comprehensive approach of 4e.
    Bit more comprehensive than 5th editions' laser focus on Cymric knights would be nice, yeah. I don't need quite the full international treatment, even in AD 531. But Cymric, Roman and maybe Ganis (given the number of De Ganis knights in Camelot after 518 and especially after the Roman War) and Christianized Saxon knights (after 531) would be nice. I couldn't care less about Picts, Saracens, Ostrogoths/Italians, Visigoths/Spaniards or even Byzantines. Even Franks I would be happy enough to leave alone, although they at least have the excuse of living right across the Channel. But that is just my personal opinion.

    I also want Magic. Magic has to return.
    Well, based on what Greg has said on the upcoming supplements, Book of Magic is in the pipeline. So even if it is not part of the 6th edition core book, it should be an easy enough add-on.

    Personally, I have no need for Magic rules. I use Magic as a plot device, so it does whatever it needs to accomplish to power the plot. Not to mention I tend to run low-magic campaigns; mysterious and spooky stuff might happen, but the PKs have little idea how that was accomplished. Or even leave it up to the interpretation: was that black raven Morgan's familiar or not?

  9. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Morien View Post
    Aramis was talking of this one:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Brefi

    Alas, there are no sources in the wikipedia page, and the date is given as 560 instead of 519.

    Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the Synod of Brevi in context of St. David, followed 'shortly afterwards' by a synod at Lucus Victoriae in 569:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm

    And of course Aramis' original link to Catholic Encyclopedia on Pelagius and Pelagianism:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
    "For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them."
    The second synod is no doubt referring to the synod at Lucus Victoriae. The reference work seems to be: Pohle, J. (1911). Pelagius and Pelagianism:
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catho...nd_Pelagianism
    Alas, no references there, either.

    In any case, I don't think this is a fruitful rabbit hole to go down:
    1) British Christianity, as written in KAP 5.2, is stated to be semi-pelagian in theology, and otherwise follows Celtic Christianity (organization, Easter calculations, tonsure...).
    2) Whether or not semi-pelagianism is an anachronism is a bit beside the point in a game that has transported 11th/12th century Norman England social order to late 5th century Britain, and where knights will be going about less than a century later in 16th century Gothic Plate armor, facing firearms and cannons in the field.

    Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.
    There are two forms in prior editions: Roman and Grail. 4e adds (in Pagan Shore) the Irish flavor of Celtic, brought into 5th as British. So it was nothing new, just a wider application.
    Aramis
    Sable, estencile argent, upon a point pointed argent, a cattail plant proper.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Similar Threads

  1. What KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON publication would you like to see the most?
    By Taliesin in forum The Once and Future Game
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 11-23-2015, 10:43 PM
  2. Any one looking for a King arthur Pendragon Game in Tucson AZ
    By captainhedges in forum Looking for a Game
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2015, 06:26 AM
  3. King Arthur Pendragon RPG-An Alternate Economics System
    By captainhedges in forum House Rules and Rule Variants
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-16-2013, 04:57 PM
  4. Playing King Arthur
    By Gilmere in forum Game Play: Your Campaigns, the GPC, and Story Line Questions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-07-2013, 03:15 AM
  5. King Arthur Pendragon, edition 5.1
    By Caball in forum Nouvelles de Camelot
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 11:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •