I can see that, however, I consider part of why they are considered fictions in our world, is they clearly are fantastical stories that likely have a degree of exaggeration in the telling. In a world with literal magic, they are not as likely to be brushed off as exaggerations.
I consider due to the underlying considerations of what makes Mythic Europe Mythic Europe, not medieval Europe, Camelot is likely true.
To somewhat contradict myself, saying that, apart from the core events of the Order, the 12 founders with Bonisagus and Trianoma, Creation of Ex-Miscellia, the Schism War, the sundering, I consider the developers treat most other history as very flexible, including elements like Camelot, the Greek legends being actually true, etc.
And like all games, any part of the world can be edited at the whim of the SG, even the order history.
Well, the Greek legends really are ancient and no one knows where exactly they sprang from, and they can be tied in a little bit with the origins of the magical traditions that later became the Order of Hermes. "Camelot," on the other hand, wasn't actually an important setting in Arthurian stories until later in the 13th Century. So broadly speaking, I see Mythic Europe is the world as medieval people believed it to be, but with so many people having all sorts of contradictory beliefs, not to mention the possibility of fact getting mixed up with fiction, rumour and speculation, not everything they believed can possibly be true. I suppose you could decide that Geoffrey of Monmouth et al had more sources for their stories than they actually did, but I think it's just as valid to assume that in this respect at least, Mythic Europe is no different from actual Europe.
I am sure you can make an interesting setting and saga based on that premise, if you have enough time for the research.
However, you will have to include an awful lot of your own fiction to get a complete setting out of sparse historical facts and contemporary myth. If you have little time for the research, as most of us have, you have to make up more.
I understand why you reject Sauron and Tinker Bell, who are written in a modern frame of mind. I reject them not because they are factually wrong, but because the feel is wrong. It is a different genre of storytelling.
Geoffrey OTOH wrote in a style which matches Mythic Europe better than anything I could create myself. It may be wrong, but it is still less wrong than the alternative.
Therefore I have the Sheriff of Nottingham in my saga in the 11th century. No, it is not Guy of Gisbourne, he was later, but even if he was later, he makes a good trope. Just like Merlin.
Considering how many variants of the Robin Hood stories there are, I am sure Guy of Gisbourne was Sheriff in some story somewhere.
In most of the stories where he appears, he and the Sheriff are separate characters though.
Maybe not. Maybe I have the name from a grossly simplified adaptation. Maybe, as Erik suggested, there are less simplified variations too. Certainly, it does not matter to the point I was making.
Shame so many folks are willing to toss out such rich legends ...and the opportunity they present to let players engage with characters and ideas they know and love ...just to prove how knowledgeable they are about "real" medieval folk lore.
They're not legends. People like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Cretien de Troyes were likely writing their Arthurian stories when older magi in a typical 13th Century-set saga were apprentices. If I were running Unknown Armies I wouldn't write any of the characters from the Harry Potter series into it, and I wouldn't have Merlin or the post 12th Century version of King Arthur in an Ars Magica saga either for pretty much the same reason. I might have the stories pop up in various ways, but not the actual characters. Sorry if such purism offends you.
I am not offended by your having more time and knowledge to make a purer Mythic Europe than I have.
I am OTOH offended by the implication that such purism should set the standard for what Ars Magica is and ought to be, because it would make it unplayable for most of its fans, and spiral it further down into oblivion.
So, maybe you want to clarify? Just how far will you take the purism?
I'm not sure what you might have read into my remarks but you seem to be awfully miffed about something I don't think I've ever said or implied, and wasn't addressed at you in any case. I'm just outlining what I think might have been quite a likely scenario, i.e. that magi would know the Arthurian stories were mostly 12th and 13th Century inventions, as an alternative to just adding them chapter and verse to a saga. It seems though, from the comment I was actually replying to, that's perceived as being a big-headed know-it-all.
Indeed, and I agree with that poster that it is a not unreasonable interpretation of what you have written. However, I do not want to take the worst possible interpretation for granted; that's why I try to clarify the different readings.
If we agree that your purism is luxury reserved for those who have more time and knowledge than most, rather than a norm that should apply to everyone, then we have no disagreement.
I go by what it says in Ars Magica 5th Edition p.220-221 about researching settings. Depending on the storyguide(s), players and stories, a no-research saga could be absolutely brilliant and a high-research saga could be absymal. The norm that applies to everyone, I think, is that these approaches and all the other approaches in between are all equally valid, whereas the other poster appears to disparage anyone who leans more in the high-research direction. I used the term "purism" a bit sarcastically, by the way. If my players feel deprived of opportunities to banter with Tim the Enchanter or go to Avalon and wake up King Arthur I expect they'll let me know.
When it comes to research, researching the published Ars Magica books makes it very clear that Merlin and King Arthur were very real in the canonocal Mythic Europe.
If you don't want them to be part of the background in your saga, well - that's your choice.
If you want to imply that Arthur and Merlin shouldn't be real in a high-research setting - well, they belong in such a setting to just the same extent as the Order of Hermes.
Personally I would enjoy the frisson of players meeting older magi and supernatural entities for whom Roland, Oliver, Arthur, and Merlin were actual acquaintances and not legends. And all of them would agree that Lancelot was that Frenchman's Gary Stu ...
We are not 12th and 13th century wizards though, we are 21st century people playing a game, so the Harry Potter reference is a false analogy.
I'm not a historian, however, I think many people, and I assume many historians, are quite aware of the challenges around the credibility of the written record. History is generally written by the winners, and not only that, but the wealthy, literate winners.
The stories compiled by the Brothers Grimm, for example. Most would accept those stories have an oral tradition that goes back centuries. There is no reason to discard the concept that Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to compile tales that had been told for centuries.
I dispute the assertion that they were very real in Mythic Europe. It looks more like the Arthurian stories have been skirted around a bit - Merlin is arguably the name that just about everyone associates with wizards, yet I don't recall any mention of him at all in any core rulebook, and characters created for Ars Magica like Damhan-Allaidh are much more integral to the setting and the history of the Order. True, there are magi in Houses Ex Miscellenea and Merinita who are allegedly descended from Merlin but that is all left very vague. One might think that if such a monumental figure were so canonical in Ars Magica then Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rhein-Hagen would have made him a master of one of the Founders at the very least.
I do rather want to imply that Arthur and Merlin wouldn't be real in a medium or high-research setting, as even not very much research would reveal that there were numerous Arthurian stories going around, rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. Fine if you do want them turning up in sagas, but which versions?
