For Magic More Like Folklore/Fairytale/Myth Magic

[Shreyas Sampat]

Mike, my knee-jerk response to that is that shamanic fetish-binding isn't an imposition of the shaman's authority upon the bound spirit; rather, it is a mutually beneficial and consented contract between shaman and spirit. It's the sorcerer's demon-binding that represents Captivity, and that relationship is dramatically different and more dangerous to enter into.

That said, that still raises questions from the sorcerer's perspective - how does he draw power from a being that he has emasculated and rendered helpless?

[Mike Holmes]

Aw, damnit, I wanted John's take, Shreyas. :-)

Yes, that's precisely what I and others argued on the HQ list. As far as demons, I think that the power comes from actually loosening control of them. To get the Djiin to do something you have to let it out of the bottle. Hell is the ultimate confinement, and bringing a demon to our world can't be any more confining no matter what. Right? In fact the fact that they remain potent waiting forever in containment shows that they should grow in power when not contained, no?

Mike

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi,

This great discussion reminds me of this:

What do I mean by myth? Basically a myth is a story that provides an explanation about the universe and your place within it, a story that you invest with meaning. A myth is a tale where ideas are tested — ideas about who you are, how you should act, and how you might begin to understand your place and purpose within the world.

Myth is mirror. Myth is mindscape. Myth is 'good to think'.

Its not so much that myths provide the answers, but they are the tools by which a group agrees to think about the questions they pose. This is why they are so versatile, and why they survive ongoing re-interpretation over time. Myths frame the questions and provide the categories that we use to think about the answers. They predispose us to think in certain ways).

Myths are playful and work on many levels: they don't come pre-digested like prime-time tv. They always leave room for your own response. A myth is sensitive to the numinous and the sacred, but it can also be earthy and even lewd, cutting through taboos and sensitivities that might otherwise keep you from realisation. You need to work at a myth, put in an effort to understand how it applies to you and your situation.

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Doctor Xero]

But, I would also think capturing the unicorn would diminish its "magical" qualities.

My thoughts exactly!

It may be an unconscious/unintentional interactivity between world and faerie creature, but it is
still an interactivity.

Admittedly, there are many different types of folklore, and the schema of Propp, Rank, Campbell,
Johnson, Jewett and Lawrence, etc. all show how the similar structures underly very different
styles and meaning-structures.  You and I are really only working with one type of folklore here
-- I chose this one because I thought it might be more amenable to RPG construction, but I could
be wrong.

I read that you are also a folklorist, like me?  I ask rather than guessing from your writings
because I've noticed a wonderful breadth and depth of learning in most of the posts on this forum,
something for which my previous experiences with other forums had not prepared me! ^_^

shamanic fetish-binding isn't an imposition of the shaman's authority upon the bound spirit

I am not familiar with the game in question, but I think that in real world religion this varies
some from faith practice to faith practice.  For example, in some Slavic and Inuit practices, the
shaman gains power over spirits specifically after his/her spirit has been torn to pieces in the
spirit-realm and then devoured by the spirits -- he/she then has power only over those spirits
which had "digested" some of his/her spiritual essence.  This may be a merging of the shaman
and the spirit, but it may also be an enslaving of the monster who killed the shaman, a
not-uncommon ironic-reversal image in folklore/mythology/religion.

Doctor Xero

[John Kirk]

FWIW, I've been watching John's game deveopment, and one thing that I can say is that he's an expert in the field of folklore.

I'm flattered.  Actually, I consider myself to be a well-read amateur.  I have no degrees or credentials to qualify me as "expert", merely a passion for the subject.

That said, it's interesting, John, that we're having very much this same discussion on the HeroQuest rules group in regards to animist magic, and the viability of the concept of captivity. Notably the idea of fetishes being objects into which spirits are bound. Isn't this a case of captivity?

Not necessarily.  There are many examples of natural spirit "bindings" in folklore.  Dryads are bound to specific trees, Oreades frequent specific grottos, and Vodyany and Rusalka are tied to specific lakes or streams.  There are other binding examples of a more "spooky" nature.  Many phantoms haunt a given castle, forest, or road but are never seen elsewhere.  Further, not all such affiliations are to buildings and areas.  Others are of a more "portable" character.  The Screaming Skulls of Great Britain are essentially ghosts bound to human skulls or bones.  And, there are numerous accounts of haunted chairs, wardrobes, and chests.  Is there reason to suspect these spirits were deliberately enslaved by some mage for nefarious purposes?  Absolutely not.  The spirits are associated with these areas and items because, for whatever reason, they choose to be.

Incidentally, I think how a mage "recruits" spirits is an important discriminator between black and white magic.  Mages that entice, suggest, and encourage spirits into service practice white magic.  Those that forcibly coerce spirits employ black magic.  I would expect a shaman to interact with spirits using the former techniques rather than the latter.

By the way, I am interested in reading the discussion to which you refer, if you could provide a link.

[John Kirk]

Aw, damnit, I wanted John's take, Shreyas. :-)

Ha!  It looks like you got your wish, Mike.  I got home from work, did a "reload" in my browser, and responded to your post.  Imagine my surprise when I found out there was a whole second page of posts after yours that I hadn't noticed!

It seems like the HQ thread already came to some of the same conclusions that I posted, so I'm not sure if I've actually added anything yet.

That said, that still raises questions from the sorcerer's perspective - how does he draw power from a being that he has emasculated and rendered helpless?

I fear that I was not precice enough in my assertion that the magical qualities of a captive unicorn would fade.  I did not intend to imply that the magical characteristics of all captive or bound creatures would diminish.  Only that capturing a unicorn dramatically reduces its "unicorn-ness".  That is, much of what constitutes the myth of unicorns is the impossibility of capturing them.  If you actually trap one, you have, in effect, "killed the pillywiggens".  The same cannot be said of all spirits.

In my mind, a spiritual binding does not equate to imprisonment.  It is more analogous to a legal contract.  That is, the spirit is obligated to obey certain rules as set out by the binding.  As long as those rules don't contradict the quientescence of the creature, it will not diminish it in any way.  Thus, if you bound a pixie into service with the stipulation that it could no longer play practical jokes, it would be diminished.  If you subjugated a dryad into service, taking her away from her native tree and forest, her powers would lessen.  But, if you bound a nixie into service to guard a bridge crossing over her stream, the binding would not enfeeble the faery in the least.

Yes, you have to release a djinn from its lamp to gain its aid.  But, that doesn't mean the djinn is free of the binding when released.  It must still obey the "rules" and provide its master with however many wishes it is obligated to provide.  The lamp is merely the physical focal point of the binding.  In this case, the lamp also serves as a sort of prison, which is why many such spirits do their best to warp the intent of the stated wishes.  I can hardly imagine that a djinn would willingly enter into what can only be described as enslavement.  So, any such binding would be an exercise of the black arts.  Of course, the use of the djinn by Aladdin or other master that just so happens to discover an already existing magic lamp is not viewed critically in folk tales.  Perhaps that just means that, once a binding is put in place, the only practical way to alleviate the "enslavement" situation is to fulfill the terms of the contract, thus setting the spirit free.

I read that you are also a folklorist, like me?

As I said in the previous post, I do not consider myself a true expert, merely an avid enthusiast.  I would welcome your critique and/or input concerning Legendary Quest, if you felt the desire to do so.  Mike Holmes has already provided a great deal of valuable advice on how to mold an RPG to fit a particular genre.  (LQ still has a ways to go to fulfill my vision, but I'm working on it.)  I'm sure some expert analysis of my interpretation of myth and folklore would prove equally enlightening.

[contracycle]

Mike, my knee-jerk response to that is that shamanic fetish-binding isn't an imposition of the shaman's authority upon the bound spirit; rather, it is a mutually beneficial and consented contract between shaman and spirit. It's the sorcerer's demon-binding that represents Captivity, and that relationship is dramatically different and more dangerous to enter into.

Pardon my cynicism.  I was once shown a gourd that rattled; it came from Borneo and had been brought back by a missionary.  The gourd was the physical remnant/mainfestation/token of a fetish binding of a particular gruesome nature.

When the shaman needed an interlocutor with the spirit world, they asked for and obtained a baby from the community.  This child was then raised by the shaman in total devotion of said shaman.  When the child was 8 IIRC, they were tied up and heavily abused to the point that they swore undying devotion to the shaman, at which point boiling lead was poured into their throat, killling them in the act of the oath.  This was believed to trap their spirit in the other world in a permanent state of submission, to serve as a vehicle for the shamans power.  The body was then cremated, and the ashes and lead encased in the gourd.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'll pardon your cynicism if you pardon my imprecision and cold-heartedness - I was referring to shamanic fetish-binding in the HeroQuest context, where (to my knowledge) such rituals are deemphasized in favor of developing spirit alliances. Furthermore, I don't feel that your argument in any way diminishes mine: though this contract cannot conclusively be said to be mutually beneficial, it is no less consented and contractual for this; the manner at which the accord was arrived has little impact on it. The crucial distinction I am drawing is one of contract vs. capture.

Alternatively, you can draw a distinction between analogues to symbiosis, parasistism, etc., based on the consequences of a binding on those bound, but I feel this is not only needlessly fine-grained, but not much more illuminating.

Incidentally, John, colour me impressed.

[Doctor Xero]

I have no degrees or credentials to qualify me as "expert", merely a passion for the subject.

< laughter > Isn't that the basis of all learning, as opposed to mere education?  (And I have been around
enough learned people and enough merely educated people to tell the difference!)

In my mind, a spiritual binding does not equate to imprisonment.  It is more analogous to a legal contract.
That is, the spirit is obligated to obey certain rules as set out by the binding.  As long as those rules don't
contradict the quientescence of the creature, it will not diminish it in any way.

In some folklore, this "binding" is not treated as a legal contract, i. e. as a contractual obligation involving
obedience to exterior regulation and entered into consciously.  Instead, the faerie creature is bound because
the binding works off the very ~nature~ of the faerie creature.  For example, a wind spirit might be bound
to a ruby ring specifically because that spirit has an obsessive love of rubies -- allowing the ring-wearer man
to fly is a side effect of the spirit's love of being intermixed with the essence of the ruby, and as long as the
ring-wear makes no effort to take the ruby away from the wind spirit, the spirit is just fine with letting him
fly.  But should he break the ruby and "free" the spirit, the spirit will be Very Angry . . .

In many myths and folklore, spirits have a hunger to find a duty/niche -- any duty or niche! -- to fulfill, and
thus again the spirit is bound not as a legal obligation but because it is part of its nature to be bound.

In other words, they "choose" to be bound for the same reason we "choose" for our cells to undergo mitosis
and not out of any economic or legal transaction (in such folklore).

Thus, the wise woman/wizard is able to bind the creature because she/he recognizes and respects the
intrinsic nature of the faerie creature being bound -- she or he must have psychological savvy first not
bargaining skills.

(Of course, there are also those who ~do~ want a legal or economic transaction, such as the ghosts bribed by
the blood of fresh kills to foretell the future.  And there are of course the necromancers and such who imprison
or enslave or bribe otherworldly beings . . . )

In this case, the lamp also serves as a sort of prison, which is why many such spirits do their best to warp the
intent of the stated wishes.  I can hardly imagine that a djinn would willingly enter into what can only be
described as enslavement.

Sometimes entering voluntary enslavement is an act of penance, especially in some Arabian folklore.  The djinn
of Aladdin's lamp likely granted wishes to wash away some horrible sin he had committed (possibly siding with
the fallen angels in the War in Heaven?) -- to use his divine powers in service to a mere mortal human would
be a definite act of pious humility for a proud djinn and yet also a humble show of acceptance that the Creator
has placed humans above djinn and angel both in the spiritual hierarchy.

In some tales, the legalism of the djinn is not a result of malice but simply within the djinn's nature because
creativity (and therefore following the spirit not letter of the contract) was a gift given to humans only, because
they were in the Creator's image but djinni and angels were not.

I would welcome your critique and/or input concerning Legendary Quest, if you felt the desire to do so.

I'm having a glasses-on-top-of-my-head-while-I-search-futilely-for-them moment : could you point
out where to go to find that?

I hope my input is helping, and I apologize if I am data-dumping a tad.

Doctor Xero

[clehrich]

In this case, the lamp also serves as a sort of prison, which is why many such spirits do their best to warp the intent of the stated wishes.  I can hardly imagine that a djinn would willingly enter into what can only be described as enslavement.

Sometimes entering voluntary enslavement is an act of penance, especially in some Arabian folklore.  The djinn of Aladdin's lamp likely granted wishes to wash away some horrible sin he had committed (possibly siding with the fallen angels in the War in Heaven?) -- to use his divine powers in service to a mere mortal human would be a definite act of pious humility for a proud djinn and yet also a humble show of acceptance that the Creator has placed humans above djinn and angel both in the spiritual hierarchy.

In some tales, the legalism of the djinn is not a result of malice but simply within the djinn's nature because creativity (and therefore following the spirit not letter of the contract) was a gift given to humans only, because they were in the Creator's image but djinni and angels were not.  [emphasis mine]

I really think this is starting to conflate a wide range of interpretive levels, and I worry that it will drag the game (John's, I mean) away from your stated intent of doing folklore/myth-style gaming.

Dr. Xero presents a possible interpretation of the djinn's behavior, in line with at least one major trend of Arabic interpretation, specifically a neo-Platonic Islamic reading; this makes good sense for the Arabian Nights text, historically speaking, and seems plausible enough.  But it seems to me equally likely that what you have here is (1) a piece of folklore about a lamp and whatnot, and (2) a rationalization on the basis of theological and philosophical perspectives (to simplify to only two where there are certainly many more levels at work).

That is, elite culture often approaches peasant folklore of whatever kind by reducing itself to two possibilities: either eliminate the annoyance, or transmute it until it fits accepted categories.  You see this with the benandanti in 16th-17th century Friuli, for example, where the benandanti describe something that cannot be interpreted coherently in terms of accepted theological categories and structures, so the elite culture (Inquisitors, priests, nobility, other educated commentators) have 3 choices: (1) pretend it doesn't exist at all, that is it's all peasant drunken ravings; (2) forcibly remove the annoyance through persecution (which fortunately didn't happen much in that case, but did elsewhere in Europe, especially Germany); or (3) insistently interpret in terms of accepted theological categories until the peasants themselves read benandanti as witches, at which point people stop wanting to be benandanti, eliminating the problem from within.*

But the point here is that if you want your game to seem like folklore, seeking rational cohesion is almost necessarily going to undermine your purposes.  There may be underlying cohesive structures, of course, but these are going to be highly abstract and probably not very helpful in a practical sense of game or story design (see Levi-Strauss's work, especially The Raw and the Cooked and its three sequel volumes, for why this isn't going to help much).

Let go of straightforward logic.  Sure, these things can be made to follow reason, but this will probably impose such logic rather than discern it already at work in the material.

Chris Lehrich

*See Carlo Ginzburg, The Night Battles (1966), trans. John and Anne Tedeschi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1982).

[John Kirk]

In some folklore, this "binding" is not treated as a legal contract, i. e. as a contractual obligation involving obedience to exterior regulation and entered into consciously. Instead, the faerie creature is bound because the binding works off the very ~nature~ of the faerie creature. . .

Yes, I entirely agree.  The "legal contract" analogy was only intended to illustrate the principle.  The point is that there are certain "rules" by which the creature acts.  Where these rules come from, whether by some external agent or simply by the creature's own instinct or choice, is largely irrelevant to the end effect: a spirit behaving in a certain way.

For example, a wind spirit might be bound to a ruby ring specifically because that spirit has an obsessive love of rubies. . .

Oooohhhh.  Neat example.  Is there a specific story in which this appears?

Sometimes entering voluntary enslavement is an act of penance, especially in some Arabian folklore.

I stand corrected.  So, binding a djinn in this fashion might actually be an exercise of white magic after all.

I'm having a glasses-on-top-of-my-head-while-I-search-futilely-for-them moment : could you point out where to go to find that?

My apologies.  You can download Legendary Quest from here.  Since this thread discusses the general use of folklore in RPG magic systems, specific comments and/or recommendations for LQ should probably be directed to the LQ Discussion Forums (accessible via the "Discussion Forums" link on the website).  You'll need to e-mail me directly to get an account on that forum (via the "Contact Us" link on the home page).

Dr. Xero presents a possible interpretation of the djinn's behavior, in line with at least one major trend of Arabic interpretation, specifically a neo-Platonic Islamic reading...But the point here is that if you want your game to seem like folklore, seeking rational cohesion is almost necessarily going to undermine your purposes.

You make a good point, one that I have struggled with in the past.  The problem is that, fundamentally, we are trying to create a system that is both playable (in an RPG sense) and which reflects a body of material defying any easy categorization.  Ultimately, we want a system that is usable by those who are not, themselves, well-versed in folklore, but which nevertheless provides an authentic mythic setting.  To some degree, the two goals are at odds with one another.

One approach, as you say, is to dispense with any pretense at "rational cohesion".  It seems to me that much of the burden on whether the end result had a truly folklorish feel would largely depend on the familiarity of the GM with the folklore the game seeks to emulate.  And, even then, the outcome of certain events would be in question.  In other words, players can have their characters perform actions that must result in some specific outcome, but the results of which are not conclusively provided by the underlying material.

For a simple example, suppose a group of adventurers is wandering through a Celtic woodland, and happens upon an old woman washing bloody clothes in a stream.  "A banshee!", yells the priest of the group.  "I present my holy symbol and turn it!".  Assuming the act of "turning undead" works in a D&D sense, what happens?  Does the banshee run away?  Whether a banshee is classified as a "ghost" or as a "fairy", in my experience, is largely dependent upon whether the classifier is writing a book on fairies or a book on ghost lore.  (See Katharine Briggs' "An Encyclopedia of Fairies" and Peter Haining's "A Dictionary of Ghost Lore" for contrary opinions.)  Folklore provides us no definitive answer, and yet the GM must somehow decide in this specific case whether the banshee flees in terror or not (assuming the woman actually is a banshee and not just some startled woodland crone doing laundry).  Like it or not, when you drop down from abstract discussions of folklore to actual encounters of characters with mythic "reality", concrete decisions have to be made.  If those decisions aren't going to be completely arbitrary, then the game needs some kind of structure, IMO.

Now, that doesn't mean you necessarily take one interpretation and dispense with the other.  In this example, both the ghost/banshee and fairy/banshee viewpoints are valid and both have their place in a game about folklore.  The way I have approached this problem in the past is to write up both possibilities.  Fortunately, folklore almost always oversupplies us with names.  The Banshee is also known as the Bean Si, the Bean Sidhe, the Bean Nighe, the Caointeach, and others.  So, if I thought there was enough merit and variety in detailing two versions of the banshee, I'd simply write her up as an undead ghost under one name and as a fairy under another.  Problem solved.

The same can be said about magic systems.  In my mind, the question isn't "Does a spirit-binding based magic system provide the only valid interpretation of folklorish magic".  Rather it is, "Does a spirit-binding based magic system provide a valid interpretation of folklorish magic".  If the answer is "yes", then this form of magic system should be considered for inclusion.  If there are other valid interpretations, then those should also be considered.  If you need more than one magic system to cover a sufficient breadth of folklore to obtain the desired "feel", then you use more than one magic system.

Legendary Quest currently has three.  What I have discussed, up to this point, is where I'd like to take LQ's mage system and how to imbue a world with a magical "aura".  I haven't even touched on the priest or spiritualist magic systems.  (LQ's "priest" magic deals with "mythic" or "pagan religious" magic while the spiritualist system deals with "psychic powers" and the ancient mystery cults.  Yes, I know the lines between folklore and myth are very fuzzy, but, again, I felt these differing systems were needed to cover the breadth of the material as I interpreted it.)

The trick, in my view, is to find the minimal number of (hopefully simple) systems that covers the maximal amount of folklore and myth.  We should strive to make those systems as compatible with one another as possible, but not constrain ourselves to making them identical.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi John,

Are you familiare with the rules for HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool or Universalis?

I ask because in both of these, the "how" of the supernatural, and to a degree its effects, is determined not wholy by the GM, but by a negotiation between players.  (When I speak of "negotiation," please don't think I nescesarily mean I'm referring to a bidding war of some sort -- althought Universalis is exactly that.)

I bring this up because your system seems driven by the needs of the GM o "figure this stuff out on the fly."  But there are currently systems that allow a bit more interpretation and input between two or more players.  This means that if the Banshee appears, it's not all on the GM's head to nescesarily have it all worked out ahead of time.  (He might though, and then the players need to work from that point.)

I bring this all up because games where elements of description, the "rules" of magic and certain effects are determined by a kind of kibitzing by the group (to one degree or another), offers the "squishier" kind of folkloric magic Chris Lerhic just mentioned.

The strenth of this is is that as the group moves forward, the rules are established as the game progresses.  Like an improv game, where the byword is "Yes, and..." a kind of bedrock for this game's and this world's magic is laid down.  It becomes intuitive for the group, because the group is making it.  It speaks ot the imagination of the group, because the group is constructing it.  It ends up being cohesive -- and perhaps -- poetic, because all the elements on the table end up feeding the definition of magic, effect, color so on...  Because that's what human beings do -- Faced with having to make choices, we build patterns, and the patterns are built off of what has come before.

Now, this is all assuming the group is working in tandem.  But it seems to me the desired folk-talk "feel" demands a shared attentiveness.  This seems the nature of the beast.  Back when tales were told round group, people would offer up details to the storyteller and he would incorporate them into his telling.

This takes it a bit further -- but games such as HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool and Universalis are doing it successfully.  In all these systems, the mechanics aren't about "modelling" how things work, but about how the narrative gets shared between players, how the story gets told, what details from everyone present "stick" or get lost.  (Again, that's a broad brushstroke to apply to four different and fresh systems.  Details vary greatly.)  This point of view of the game system's purpose, again, my help faciitate more a mythic, folk lore feel.

All of these games remove the notion of the GM with all the world's details worked out already, waiting for the players to bump into them.  (Again to one degree or another.  Universalis, at the far end, has no GM at all!)  Thus, instead of the players "discovering" the rules of the world's folk magic from the GM, the group, as the "folk" of the storytelling community,  create the magic together!  I personally believe that such a system will help imbue the game with a terrific sense of folk magic -- because its magic grown orally out of the community -- not coming down from on high.  It is much closer to the literal creative act of creative a "folk" tale.

Now, none of this may be what you're looking for. But by reviewing these rules and giving them a whirl in actual play, there might be a perspective that jostles something and gives you a new angle on your work.

Good luck with your project,

Christopher

[Doctor Xero]

I really think this is starting to conflate a wide range of interpretive levels, and I worry that it will drag the game (John's, I mean) away from your stated intent of doing folklore/myth-style gaming.

You're right.  I could (and have) write hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic, though usually in a less recreational context than gaming, and I'm overcompensating by being too brief.  Mea culpa.

instead of the players "discovering" the rules of the world's folk magic from the GM, the group, as the "folk" of the storytelling community,  create the magic together!

While I don't think this would work for all groups, I think this would work quite well for many groups in re-creating the syncretic aspect of folklore and myth as well as possibly bringing in the feel of folkloric wonder.  (What we call Classical Greek mythology is the syncretism of Homer and Hesiod and various other mythopoets, not the single creation of one individual's revelations.)

I still prefer GM games to GMless games, but I think in this case this element of group-not-game-master storytelling could work quite well.  I shall have to see if it interests my gaming groups.

Doctor Xero

[Christopher Kubasik]

And just in case I wasn't clear, only Universalis is GM-less.  The other three games have GMs.

However, for example, in The Pool, a player rolls dice off of what of his PC's "Traits."  (Traits are a very broadly defined ability, such as Priest, Out to Avenge Father, Witch or whatever.)  If the player succeeds on the roll, he gets a Monologue of Victory, and gets to describe the results of the Victory.

So, in John's example of the Banshee, if the PC is a priest, and the Player attempts to have the priest "turn" the Banshee, and he rolls and succeeds, he gets to describe what happens -- for the priest and the banshee's reaction.  That description becomes part of the "reality" of banshees.  If the roll fails, the GM describes what happens, and now that bit of business can either be: the priest trembles with too much fear and loses faith; the banshee laughs at his cross, or whatever.

As John points out, the interpretations of these beasties are all over the map.  In some types of games, these numerous interpretations are simply in play until defined.  And as the good doctor says, this might help shore up that sense of wonder.

I think this is because it would be "our" banshee, and it makes sense to us in a way it might not make sense to another group; and make sense to us in this series of events we're creating and actively a part of, whereas we might go a completely different route within a different setting or a different tale.

Christopher

[John Kirk]

Are you familiare with the rules for HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool or Universalis?

I am familiar with Sorcerer and Universalis.  I have a copy of HeroQuest on order, but haven't received it yet.  Both Sorcerer and Universalis were mind-blowing.

In actual fact, Sorcerer was the inspiration for my new ideas concerning fetishes and familiars.  I like the way that the game presents the Sorcerer's powers as indirect, effectively making him dependent on his demons and making his magic "organic", in a sense.  This has good possibilities for making a folkloric magic system, although I wouldn't emphasize the tension between the spirit and mage quite so much in a game about folklore.

I actually tried out some of the "coins" ideas of Universalis on LQ, but the results were disappointing to me.  The mechanic ultimately just didn't fit in well with where I want to take LQ.  But, the experiment was quite educational.  Better yet, the game introduced me to Mike Holmes (one of the Universalis co-authors), who has been patiently mentoring me on game design.

...there are currently systems that allow a bit more interpretation and input between two or more players. This means that if the Banshee appears, it's not all on the GM's head to nescesarily have it all worked out ahead of time...I think this is because it would be "our" banshee, and it makes sense to us in a way it might not make sense to another group...whereas we might go a completely different route within a different setting or a different tale.

Ahhh.  Yes.  I think you bring up a point which has been confusing me.  In re-reading Doctor Xero's original post, it seems that this thread is really only looking for a system that feels like folklore, but really isn't about folklore (please correct me if I'm wrong).

If what we want is a system where the players can interact and create stories that have the sense of wonder and magic of fairy tales and myth, but doesn't constrain them to actual historical myths and legends, that is fine.  But, that has nothing to do with LQ, which is where I have been coming from.  LQ is a game about heroes undertaking quests in an authentic legendary setting.  I don't see how you can separate a game about folklore and myth from the actual folk tales and myths.  For my part, I want LQ to be as much an educational experience (about folklore) as it is a gaming experience.

Now, I can certainly appreciate that GM's (and possibly players) need to be able to use their own imaginations and creativity to create their own critters and magical powers.  But, I'm not personally interested in a system that requires it.

So, I would appreciate a little clarification from Doctor Xero as to what kind of system is he is looking for with this thread.