True enough. Altogether more common. A variance in belief rather than no belief at all. Way out of normal parameters and doctrine but far from a rejection of the divine. Just a rejection of the divine as prescribed by the church.
Having said more common than atheism, which I believe to have been almost non-existant, gnosticism is still pretty rare in medieval europe.
um ... pretend I made as much sense as Richard's post, right after yours 
that's what I was trying to say.
I see that. Thanks all. We have the session on Sunday. We are still debating what to do here.
Yesterday we were discussing at dinnertime (Laura is my flatmate) that maybe Severin could hold the weird belief that you have "favored servants of God". That is, God is almighty and supreme, but delegates power to other figures on Earth. And here there are competing saints and divine servants. Every supernatural being is a divine servant (knowing it or not) and you have your "Angel Overlord" and "Enemy Angels", like in real mundane politics. So, you can have the Church lands be hostile to hermetic magic because its angels are "enemy angels for you". On the other hand Odin and Freyr might be your "Angel overlords". Yes, they are part of the Divine Host as well, only that they do not say so openly. God is still supreme, and what other religions call "gods" are just powerful angels. You "angel overlords" give you advantages and gifts for your adoration, while the enemy ones are generally hostile to you, but might grant you your desires from time to time if you recognize their authority (read: miracle). Your angel overlord might get angry at that, though.
Given that in Man (where we play) you can actually meet Mannann and Arawn (really powerful faeries with godlike power) that kind of doctrine seems to hold. God is one and unique, but in lower celestial echelons you have quite a mess of different angels competing for your attention. Much like in the realms of Mythic Europe.
That doctrine would have been thought in a covenant with a heavy population of norses in the 9th century. Does it hold under any cursory analysis?
We just invented a massive heresy, I guess
Cheers,
Xavi
Hi,
It works for me!
Anyway,
Ken
no point inventing a trivial heresy!
Not really, such discussions and many more outrageous did take place within the church itself(i wont guarantee "at this time and place" though).
Certainly.
You could add the belief that all gods are merely avatars of God rather than angels. That would still not go beyond existing beliefs but would be fringe and relatively easily accused of heresy.
I think we might need to sacrifice some ointment to God, he'll need it after that burn.
I always prefer working in the pagan roots of Judaism, myself.
Actually in the Isle of Mann this would very likely be where the Church is at around this time too. You have to remember that when the Catholic Church first went into an area to start conversion, that they tended to use dates of worship, create figures that were similar to figures in the local religion, etc, in order to make Christianity more familiar to the locals. Also you tended to have what are called the syncratic faiths, ones that mix the faith of the area with that of Christianity. These are of course heretical but they are there none the less.
I tend to play a more nuanced version of the game. I tend to say that the law of the divine is true, but that the application of the divine is different. The realms are an outgrowth of the groups faith, not the other way around. Of course I understand why Atlas and all the other game makers didn't print it this way, but it is how it is in my world. If any of you are familiar with Mage by White Wolf, I make much more like their explanation of paradigms. Odin's altars can have a "Divine" aura because his believers believe that he is a good God. Thus the expression of the god on earth becomes a divine aura and that is that. Of course once those in the area start to declassify Odin as god and move to the Christian God then the aura fades unless a Christian site is put over it, which tends to happen, why because the aura is already there why not use it!
I do realize that this understand of the game mechanic might offend some but my troupe thinks that it is one that is very consistent with the rules and actually works better with the true middle period of Europe as well as if you start moving magi into Arab and Hindu lands...
So overall I would see things this way for your character. He should attempt to debate the local canonist on the very matter of magic. He should attempt to prove that magic is not a sin, if done for the good. He could even attempt to debate his syncratic faith elements, these of course in Rome would be considered a Heresy to be stamped out, but the parish priest in your area might start seeing things your way. This could create a great story. Of course if you fail, you might need to move on to greener pastures, or maybe you will be converted! Who knows.... great story none the less.
This is hilariously true 
I'd say they can help justify it, but by themselves they are not enough. Remember, Pagan is a (major) story flaw. If you take it, you are saying: stories will revolve around this issue being a big problem for the character. The way you are telling it, the character is not out to convert other people to his ideas. He can just avoid voicing his heretical/pagan opinions when around devout mundanes (the Order does not even frown upon paganism). So it's no big deal - not enough to qualify for a Major Story Flaw.
I think a lot of the major stoy flaws are a bit limp when applied to covenfolk. They live outside and in between temporal and spiritual norms anyway.
Of course, when you head out into the big bad world and don't attend mass... well then people are going to notice and going to quickly start wondering why... and they already think magi are wierd anyway. Wierd unbelievers now thats pretty close to the incarnation of satan himself ... in a pointy hat.
I would not feel very comfortable about this 'flaw' if the saga is set in a communty and indeed land... where paganism is the norm. Maybe minor... but it certainly doesnt affect you as much as perhaps it should as a major.
More like a social handicap than a major flaw. We already figured that out. 
Even if this will surely emerge as a story from time to time as well. After all Severtin is the leading character in this saga so far.
Cheers,
Xavi
Hi,
Yes. The key to using such story and personality flaws in any saga is that they must place the character beyond the norm. A character who is a little bit ambitious does not get to take Ambitious; he's got to be AMBITIOUS. A character who is Pagan doesn't get to take Pagan if he can go to Mass, celebrate Christian holidays or generally fit in; he's gotta be PAGAN: If the saga is set in an urban environment, good Christians either know that he is pagan, or he is continually having big problems as he tries to hide it. If the saga is set in a covenant where magi generally don't care whether a magus is pagan, this character is the exception that proves the rule, because he is so extreme or because of some other problem.
Pagan isn't limp when it comes to covenfolk if the SG gets to tell the character, "Ok, the covenfolk are looking forward to your celebration of the equinox.... do you have your human sacrifice yet?" Or, "You seem to have a lot of messages from Roberto the Redcap this month, specifically, five declarations of Wizard's War from various Tremere magi who feel that you remind them too much of the Diedne." Or, "You quickly discover that the reason the covenfolk have stopped serving you is that last Sunday, a visiting friar preached against you at the local church. You have it on good authority that the baron remains on good terms with the magi, but will probably only allow the magi to remain for the next fifty years if you are expelled, never to return, unless you submit to baptism and live an exemplary Christian life."
It's a major flaw, and ought to be just as problematic as, say, Difficult Longevity Ritual or Twilight-Prone.
And it can be.
It is easy to point fingers at players who load up on flaws of this kind and say they are trying to optimize, but the real problem lies with GMs, who usually ignore flaws of this kind because they don't fit neatly into the generic stories they want to tell, which are almost never about the characters. That is, specific characters add distinct atmosphere to a story that would work perfectly fine with some other group of magi.
This problem is hardly unique to Ars Magica, and I've been guilty of this too, without even ignorance as a justification.
considers
Yet another optional rule:
Personality Flaws, Story Flaws and Confidence:
Personality and Story Flaws continue to affect roleplaying as usual, but also have mechanical effects.
All people have personality, but some people are more flavorful than others. These characters have Personality and Story Flaws. A character without Personality or Story Flaws, or a virtue such as Ferocity, lacks a sufficient distinctiveness of self to have or use Confidence in any way. A character can possess these Flaws yet lack Confidence.
A player may use a point of Confidence to modify one roll that represents an action taken by his character. Thus, it can apply to either the Lab Total or the Extra-Ordinary Results when experimenting in the lab, but not to aging; it can apply to Defense and Attack but not Soak or Damage. If the roll pertains to an activity that takes a month or longer, the character cannot gain Confidence points either during that activity or for a period afterward equal to the duration of the activity; events that normally grant Confidence points occur as usual but the Confidence is not gained, which can leave a character extremely vulnerable. Confidence points are gained through roleplay and acheivement, in the usual way, and also as described below.
Confidence is always used after a roll, and allows the player to either add 3 to the Total or, if the roll to be affected is botch dice, to remove one botched die. Under normal conditions, only one Confidence point can be used on a single roll.
Personality and Story Flaws allow a player to use Confidence even more effectively, but also allows the GM to use these Flaws against the player. For each trait, a character either has or lacks control over it; at the beginning of a saga, the character lacks control over each trait.
When a character has control over a Minor trait, he may spend a point of Confidence to use it one time to act especially well in accordance with that trait as deemed appropriate by the GM and then loses control over that trait. Also, when a character has control over a trait the GM must offer a point of Confidence in order to use it against him; the player can refuse the exchange. When a character lacks control over a trait, the GM may turn that trait against him one time and then the character regains control over the trait; the player can spend a point of Confidence to prevent the GM from using the trait against his character for the duration of the scene.
Regardless of whether a character is in control, the player may offer the GM to use that trait against his character and if the GM agrees, the character gains one point of Confidence. Similarly, in an especially appropriate circumstance, the GM ought to consider awarding an immediate use of a trait in lieu of a Confidence point.
Traits gained because of Major Flaws work similarly, except that the player cannot spend Confidence to avert a negative consequence of that trait and cannot refuse an offer of Confidence in exchange for accepting a negative effect. Note that a character who has a Major Flaw but cannot gain Confidence Points is extremely vulnerable: He must accept negative consequences yet receives no Confidence in exchange.
Virtues such as Strong-Willed and Flaws such as Weak-Willed do not affect traits in any way. A character who is Lecherous might also be Strong-Willed, but the same willpower that might help him resist his lechery is the willpower that fuels his determination to be lecherous no matter what!
Traits are not intrinsically either positive or negative. A character who is Lazy, for example, might suffer in one scene because he cannot be bothered to put forth the effort he needs to get things done, yet might benefit in another, because he cannot be bothered to do something his player doesn't want him to do or be distracted from something his player wants him to do. Similarly, a player whose character is Jewish might say in one scene "I can do this because Jews tend to be better educated" yet find himself failing to bargain well in another because "They'd rather deal with a Christian, whose oaths they can trust."
All traits are derived from Flaws and therefore represent slightly more of a challenge than a benefit. Thus, they begin out of control, cost Confidence to use even when under control, and always justify GM introduction of corresponding story effects. Traits also provide Confidence Points and extra power in key situations.
A trait can be used on behalf of a character to improve the use of Confidence in any one of the following ways:
Increasing a Total improves by the trait's score, plus the usual 3 for any use of Confidence. The action must be relevant to the trait, as agreed by the player and the GM.
The number of botches ignored on a single roll equals the trait's score. The action must be relevant to the trait, as agreed by the player and the GM.
When the player and GM agree that a scene during an adventure is particularly relevant to a trait, the player can reroll results he does not like, either until the scene is over or until he has used his trait's score's worth of rerolls. These rerolls can be used on any action for which the player could spend Confidence Points, or on associated botch dice.
The player can use his trait for any scene during an adventure. For the rest of that scene, the player can reroll results he does not like, but no more times than the trait's score. These rerolls can only be used on actions that are relevant to the trait, as agreed by the player and the GM, and on which the player is permitted to spend Confidence.
However, a trait can inhibit a character in the following ways:
One of the character's Totals is decreased by the trait's score. This can only modify actions that the trait ought to decrease, as determined by the GM, for which the player could have spent Confidence, and only after the player has declared that he does not intend to spend Confidence. Note that the die has already been rolled, and that this negative effect will always cause a failure.
When a stress roll has failed but is not a zero, the player must still check for a botch, rolling his trait's score in botch dice. This can only modify actions that the trait ought to modify, as determined by the GM, for which the player could have spent Confidence, and only after the player has declared that he does not intend to spend Confidence. These botch dice are affected normally by virtues, flaws, familiar cords and Confidence.
When the GM decides a scene during an adventure is particularly relevant to a trait, the GM can reroll results he does not want the player to keep, either until the scene is over or until he has used the character's trait's score's worth of rerolls. These rerolls can be used on any action for which the player could spend Confidence Points, or on associated botch dice, but only on rolls the player declines to affect with Confidence.
The GM can use the character's trait for any scene during an adventure. For the rest of that scene, the GM can reroll results he does not want the player to keep, but no more times than the trait's score. These rerolls can only be used on actions that are relevant to the trait, that the player could affect with Confidence but declines to.
A personality or story trait normally has a score of +3 or -3; each Flaw taken grants one trait. A character with the new (well, old but re-purposed) Strong Personality virtue has personality and story traits of either +6 and -6 instead. This virtue replaces Self-Confident, and is the signature virtue of House Tytalus, whose magi learn to cultivate their personal natures.
Anyway,
Ken
You should write that up and submit it to Sub Rosa, its a good idea.
Hi,
But... I've already written it up, and it's here!
Anyway,
Ken
BTW, regarding your sig, you missed the Nigerian girls....
Yup, indeed. However, we do nopt want it to be THAT big an issue. Severin (the official character) does not have this flaw at all. In fact he is extremely light in V&F. We have tinkered a little bit with him to add some added stuff we like (now he has a mmf in ash wood, and a driving goal in building a manx covenant for example, and he will suffer from it 
). The idea to add the paganism element seemed OK since we decided that his original covenant
Finally we ended up tonning it down to a social handicap. In practical terms he has the blatant gift when talking about doctrine with clergy or vitkir. Clergy and vitkir are an important element in our saga, so it is fairly annoying stuff here, even if not covenant-shattering. The meeting with the culdee priest went well enough (no torches and pitchforks were on sight) even if now the clergy of Man are starting to hear the rumor about this new potential source of problems that needs to be brought back to the herd. Being Man, he is not yet a first proprity: plenty of PURE pagans (like the priests of Odin) to be converted before Severin becomes a top priority
Cheers,
Xavi
Hi,
That comes first, of course!
Anyway,
Ken
Remember that taking a story flaw is an implicit contract with your SG that says he gets to drag you in a story (kicking and screaming, preferably) about it (see the Rulebook, p37). That's why it's a flaw. If it is useful to you in the meantime it is a minor flaw, if it is not it is a major flaw, but in all case it should get a story. You will have to rescue your animal companion at some point, or deal with the angry blackmailee, and if you are a pagan a christian priest will come knocking, and so on. It's also why you are limited to one story flaw, because otherwise the troup might never get to play all the stories that go with all the flaws...
I apologise if this is going a bit off-topic, but how often did ordinary people actually attend Mass - or go to church - in the Thirteenth Century? I was under the impression that most folk usually only attended services on religious holidays, and that the practice of going every Sunday came along much later. I am happy to be disabused of this notion, if someone more historically knowledgeable than me can clear this up.
I thinkpretty much everyone goes to mass once a week. Well off people more than that because they dont have to work, and especially devout or spiritual people make use of the myriad of other services throughout the day each day.