Coincidental Rain Magic

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

-Essex
56 answers Last reply
More about coincidental rain magic
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Essex wrote:

    > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

    More serious answer:

    Yes, because rain with no clouds does happen. Nobody watching would
    assume magic; they might be bewildered for a bit, but they'd not
    actually disbelieve.

    The focus doesn't even enter into it. If the focus were "I dance naked
    in a field in a circle of lamb's blood while praying for rain and
    shaking my oak staff at the sky," it'd still be a coincidence.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Essex" <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message news:<romzc.1329$ri.108168@dfw-read.news.verio.net>...
    > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >
    > -Essex

    Hell yes he could. Though I'd have to say his paradigm would probably
    need to be something like "Suburban Shaman" or someone devoted to
    urban legends and the like.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Essex"

    > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a
    cloud
    > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a
    period
    > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always
    rains
    > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

    It depends.

    ....

    Are there sprinklers in the ground?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Shane Graves wrote:

    > It depends.

    > ...

    > Are there sprinklers in the ground?

    Actual discussion of Mage is now impossible. Any attempt results simply
    in references to running gags.

    The new WoD is just in time, it seems.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls"
    > Shane Graves wrote:

    > > It depends.

    > > ...

    > > Are there sprinklers in the ground?

    > Actual discussion of Mage is now impossible. Any attempt results simply >
    in references to running gags.

    > The new WoD is just in time, it seems.

    Fine. I'll give the real answer.

    1. It depends on where he is. For example, in LA, chances of it raining
    are slim. If you're in AZ, the chances of it raining as slimmer. If you're
    in CT, sure.

    2. If the mage has a paradigm that would allow something like that, sure.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Shane Graves wrote:
    > "Stephenls"
    >
    >>Shane Graves wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>It depends.
    >
    >
    >>>...
    >
    >
    >>>Are there sprinklers in the ground?
    >
    >
    >>Actual discussion of Mage is now impossible. Any attempt results simply >
    >
    > in references to running gags.
    >
    >
    >>The new WoD is just in time, it seems.
    >
    >
    > Fine. I'll give the real answer.
    >
    > 1. It depends on where he is. For example, in LA, chances of it raining
    > are slim. If you're in AZ, the chances of it raining as slimmer. If you're
    > in CT, sure.
    >
    On a side note I do customer service work for LA Times and it rains a
    lot more often there than you'd think....

    smg
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > Essex wrote:

    > > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >
    > More serious answer:
    >
    > Yes, because rain with no clouds does happen. Nobody watching would
    > assume magic; they might be bewildered for a bit, but they'd not
    > actually disbelieve.

    It depends. A light rain, I could see happening. A torrential
    and continuing downpour with a blue sky visible above does more
    than push credulity. Like fire appearing out of nowhere, there
    is a point where bewilderment is enough for Paradox. No one is
    going to assume magic is at work for anything, these days.


    > The focus doesn't even enter into it. If the focus were "I dance naked
    > in a field in a circle of lamb's blood while praying for rain and
    > shaking my oak staff at the sky," it'd still be a coincidence.

    Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    would be vulgar coincidental.

    YMMV.


    Vis Sierra
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Vis Sierra wrote:

    > It depends. A light rain, I could see happening. A torrential
    > and continuing downpour with a blue sky visible above does more
    > than push credulity. Like fire appearing out of nowhere, there
    > is a point where bewilderment is enough for Paradox. No one is
    > going to assume magic is at work for anything, these days.

    True. The magnitude of the effect does affect coincidentality/vulgarity.

    > Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    > they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    > may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    > medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    > potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    > would be vulgar coincidental.

    > YMMV.

    I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental things
    vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things coincidental.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Essex wrote:

    > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >
    > -Essex
    >
    >

    Yes.

    William
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephen G."
    > Shane Graves wrote:

    > > 1. It depends on where he is. For example, in LA, chances of it
    raining
    > > are slim. If you're in AZ, the chances of it raining as slimmer. If
    you're
    > > in CT, sure.

    > On a side note I do customer service work for LA Times and it rains a
    > lot more often there than you'd think....

    I live in Ventura and frequently commute to LA.

    Trust me. It rains a HELL of a lot less than it does in many other places
    in this country. ^_^
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    In the borning days of the third millennium, Essex wrote:
    >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

    No, because the corollary to Murphy's Law says you cannot make it rain by
    washing your car. Besides, you need to be really careful with weather magic.
    Some of our local Wiccans cast a spell once to keep it from raining during one
    of their big meeting things. We had a 1.5 year drought.

    (personal belief: coincidence, but spooky nonetheless)

    --
    Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

    Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
    them from enjoying it.
    --Father Joe Breighner
    Country Roads
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > Vis Sierra wrote:

    > > Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    > > they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    > > may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    > > medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    > > potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    > > would be vulgar coincidental.
    >
    > > YMMV.
    >
    > I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental things
    > vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things coincidental.

    Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
    If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
    must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
    use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
    technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
    same without going vulgar.


    Anyway, my point was that foci that play don't play a role in the
    creation of effects, according to static reality, would generally
    play no part in whether an effect is coincidental or vulgar.

    It's hard to explain this without circular logic, but here goes:

    If you wave a dead chicken in a circle to get a computer to work,
    static reality doesn't recognize an association between the focus
    and the effect. As a result, the focus has no effect whatsoever
    in determining whether the effect is coincidental or vulgar.

    If you strap on a jet-pack and take off, there is a connection
    between focus and effect that can be accepted /or rejected/ by
    static reality. If it's a realistic jet-pack, the effect is a
    coincidental one. The jet-pack is acting as a medium, bridging
    the impossible and possible.

    If you build a liquid-metal HIT Mark, there's a connect between
    the focus and the effect that is recognizable /but rejected by/
    static reality. The HIT Mark VI suffers Paradox/Unbelief as a
    result.


    The point of this way of looking at foci is that you can split
    the question in two: does the focus seem to play a causal part
    in the effect, and is that cause credible?

    If the focus is not inherent to the effect, according to static
    reality, it's not a factor. The question is whether the effect
    is incredible, not whether the carwash causing it is incredible.

    If the focus is inherent, having an apparent causal relationship
    to the effect, you can judge whether there is enough support for
    it in static reality to explain the effect. The question here is
    whether such a small jet-pack is incredible, because it is seen
    as the cause.

    It's just a way to break it down to help analyze the problem in
    two (smaller, clearer) steps instead of one.


    Vis Sierra
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2j7be7Fr6dloU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Vis Sierra wrote:
    >
    > > It depends. A light rain, I could see happening. A torrential
    > > and continuing downpour with a blue sky visible above does more
    > > than push credulity. Like fire appearing out of nowhere, there
    > > is a point where bewilderment is enough for Paradox. No one is
    > > going to assume magic is at work for anything, these days.
    >
    > True. The magnitude of the effect does affect coincidentality/vulgarity.
    >
    > > Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    > > they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    > > may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    > > medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    > > potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    > > would be vulgar coincidental.
    >
    > > YMMV.
    >
    > I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental things
    > vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things coincidental.

    The classic "my focus for Rip the Man-Body is jamming my athame into your
    eyeball" bit, eh? ;)

    - David Prokopetz.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:

    > The classic "my focus for Rip the Man-Body is jamming my athame into your
    > eyeball" bit, eh? ;)

    Yeah, that's about it.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Shane Graves wrote:
    > Trust me. It rains a HELL of a lot less than it does in many other places
    > in this country. ^_^

    I was trying to make a Shaq-free-throw joke with this line, but I can't. Oh
    well.

    --
    J. H. Frank
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Vis Sierra wrote:

    > Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
    > If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
    > must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
    > use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
    > technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
    > same without going vulgar.

    <snip>

    I'd go a different way.

    Look at the effect by itself. If the mage were to perform that effect
    with no foci whatsoever, would it be vulgar or coincidental?

    "Now it rains" is coincidental. "That guy has a heart attack" is
    coincidental. "The cancer goes into recession and vanishes" is
    coincidental."

    "Fireball" is vulgar. "Flight" is vulgar.

    If the effect is in Group 1, then foci can't make it vulgar. (Well,
    maybe in weird circumstances, but nothing I can think of off the top of
    my head.)

    If the effect is in Group 2, foci might be able to make it coincidental.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > Vis Sierra wrote:

    > > Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
    > > If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
    > > must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
    > > use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
    > > technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
    > > same without going vulgar.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I'd go a different way.
    >
    > Look at the effect by itself. If the mage were to perform that effect
    > with no foci whatsoever, would it be vulgar or coincidental?
    >
    > "Now it rains" is coincidental. "That guy has a heart attack" is
    > coincidental. "The cancer goes into recession and vanishes" is
    > coincidental."
    >
    > "Fireball" is vulgar. "Flight" is vulgar.
    >
    > If the effect is in Group 1, then foci can't make it vulgar. (Well,
    > maybe in weird circumstances, but nothing I can think of off the top of
    > my head.)
    >
    > If the effect is in Group 2, foci might be able to make it coincidental.

    That works if you've got a good idea of whether it's coincidental
    or vulgar to begin with. Asking first whether there was a causal
    connection between the mage/foci and an effect may help determine
    /how/ you should ask whether a thing is vulgar.

    Getting back to Essex's question, what I suggest is you first
    look for a causal connection between washing your car and the
    rain. If don't you find one, you can simplify the question.

    Essex started with (paraphrased) "Is it vulgar that washing my
    car causes it to rain out of a clear blue sky?" Ask whether
    washing a car has a causal relationship to rain, according to
    static reality. The answer is no, so you can simplify the
    question: "Is it vulgar for it to rain out of a clear blue sky?"

    Under your model, you look at whether rain out of a clear blue
    sky is too abnormal first, making causality irrelevant unless
    you find it's vulgar; in that case (Group 2) the foci might be
    able to make it coincidental. You're able to do this because
    you already have an answer that rain is coincidental. You have
    more experience with Mage, I expect, and can easily phrase the
    question correctly (that is, in such a way that you can see the
    answer).

    You're ultimately left with the same call of whether rain out of
    a clear blue sky's impossible. I think asking first whether the
    foci appear to be a factor can help Storytellers who don't have
    the experience phrase the question of what appears to be happen-
    ing. It doesn't look like washing the car caused it to rain; it
    just plain looks like it's raining.


    Vis Sierra
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Shane Graves wrote:
    > "Stephen G."
    >
    >>Shane Graves wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>1. It depends on where he is. For example, in LA, chances of it
    >
    > raining
    >
    >>>are slim. If you're in AZ, the chances of it raining as slimmer. If
    >
    > you're
    >
    >>>in CT, sure.
    >
    >
    >>On a side note I do customer service work for LA Times and it rains a
    >>lot more often there than you'd think....
    >
    >
    > I live in Ventura and frequently commute to LA.
    >
    > Trust me. It rains a HELL of a lot less than it does in many other places
    > in this country. ^_^
    >
    >
    Well, not in the country, the desert gets less rain than L.A.
    I was just referring to the fact that once every few weeks or so we hear
    about rain in LA because we get a LOT of complaints regarding wet
    papers. Funny, we live in Wisconsin and do customer service for LA
    Times....
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nick wrote:

    > "Essex" <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message news:<romzc.1329$ri.108168@dfw-read.news.verio.net>...
    >
    >>Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >>in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >>of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >>after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >>
    >>-Essex
    What about picnics? It always rains when you wanna have a picnic....
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:

    >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

    The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Nick"
    > "Essex"

    > > Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a
    cloud
    > > in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a
    period
    > > of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always
    rains
    > > after you was your car as the coincidental effect?

    > Hell yes he could. Though I'd have to say his paradigm would probably
    > need to be something like "Suburban Shaman" or someone devoted to
    > urban legends and the like.

    Or a member of the Ghost-Wheel Society with a great sense of humor.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:17:36 -0400, Brian Merchant
    <remove.cheebie2001@comcast.example.net> wrote:

    >In the borning days of the third millennium, Essex wrote:
    >>Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >>in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >>of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >>after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >
    >No, because the corollary to Murphy's Law says you cannot make it rain by
    >washing your car. Besides, you need to be really careful with weather magic.
    >Some of our local Wiccans cast a spell once to keep it from raining during one
    >of their big meeting things. We had a 1.5 year drought.
    >
    >(personal belief: coincidence, but spooky nonetheless)

    A judge once ordered it to stop raining for some stupid reason.
    6 years of drought later he rescinded his judicial order and
    the drought ended.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:

    > A judge once ordered it to stop raining for some stupid reason.
    > 6 years of drought later he rescinded his judicial order and
    > the drought ended.

    Got a reference for this?
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls squarked:
    > Vis Sierra wrote:
    >> Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    >> they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    >> may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    >> medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    >> potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    >> would be vulgar coincidental.
    >
    >> YMMV.
    >
    > I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental
    > things vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things
    > coincidental.
    I have two responses. One is the gut reaction that no magic truly fits the
    paradigm, but that the focus of an effect may also serve as the coincidence.
    This is not to say that the focus makes the effect coincidental, but that it
    serves a second purpose. A jetpack, for instance, could be a coincidence
    for a flight effect of a House Flambeau Hermetic, but when used correctly
    by, say, an Etherite would also be the focus.

    The second response develops from this, which is that if an effect fits the
    local paradigm (both in effect and cause - i.e. focus) then not only will it
    be coincidental, it may not even be magic. Maybe that is stretching it a
    little :o. But then, is that not what the ascension war is about?
    --
    Picks-at-Flies
    A flamewarrior, making a valiant stand against the Evil Scooby Gang.
    http://www.werepenguin.net
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:04:42 +0100, "Picks-at-Flies"
    <aidan@nospam.werepenguin.co.uk> wrote:

    >Stephenls squarked:
    >> Vis Sierra wrote:
    >>> Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
    >>> they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
    >>> may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
    >>> medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
    >>> potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
    >>> would be vulgar coincidental.
    >>
    >>> YMMV.
    >>
    >> I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental
    >> things vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things
    >> coincidental.
    >I have two responses. One is the gut reaction that no magic truly fits the
    >paradigm, but that the focus of an effect may also serve as the coincidence.
    >This is not to say that the focus makes the effect coincidental, but that it
    >serves a second purpose. A jetpack, for instance, could be a coincidence
    >for a flight effect of a House Flambeau Hermetic, but when used correctly
    >by, say, an Etherite would also be the focus.
    >
    >The second response develops from this, which is that if an effect fits the
    >local paradigm (both in effect and cause - i.e. focus) then not only will it
    >be coincidental, it may not even be magic.

    But it will be if you make the focus work better than it really would.

    For example, those jet packs have about 30 seconds of fuel in them.
    Making them work for 2 minutes would be coincidental, but still magic.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls"
    > Vis Sierra wrote:

    > > Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
    > > If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
    > > must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
    > > use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
    > > technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
    > > same without going vulgar.

    > <snip>

    > I'd go a different way.

    > Look at the effect by itself. If the mage were to perform that effect
    > with no foci whatsoever, would it be vulgar or coincidental?

    > "Now it rains" is coincidental. "That guy has a heart attack" is
    > coincidental. "The cancer goes into recession and vanishes" is
    > coincidental."

    > "Fireball" is vulgar. "Flight" is vulgar.

    > If the effect is in Group 1, then foci can't make it vulgar. (Well,
    > maybe in weird circumstances, but nothing I can think of off the top of
    > my head.)

    To me, if it's just TOO coincidental (and not "Oh how funny...THAT couldn't
    happen again" coincidental; more like "We have the entire group from Guiness
    book AND Ripley's here and we STILL can't believe that you announced the
    person who was going to kill you was going to die by having a pack of rabid
    howler monkeys scurry out of the woods and spray super-Ebola juice in his
    eyes as he raised his gun to the back of your head...right after you played
    your mystical oboe and chanted in Latin backwards. Because this happened
    three days in a row.") I say "Uh...nice try OJ...Consensus is not the
    American judicial system".

    Otherwise, yeah.

    > If the effect is in Group 2, foci might be able to make it coincidental.

    Sometimes. Depends on how lax the local paradigm is. If you're in
    America's #1 producer of asphalt, you're pretty SOL though.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:14:52 -0700, Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca>
    wrote:

    >David Johnston wrote:
    >
    >> A judge once ordered it to stop raining for some stupid reason.
    >> 6 years of drought later he rescinded his judicial order and
    >> the drought ended.
    >
    >Got a reference for this?
    >--

    It was in Court Jesters, or the sequel to Court Jesters. I can't
    pin it down closer than that.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Shane Graves" <lobsterhut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:vPyzc.5413$Wr.4182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Stephenls"
    > > Vis Sierra wrote:
    >
    > > > Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
    > > > If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
    > > > must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
    > > > use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
    > > > technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
    > > > same without going vulgar.
    >
    > > <snip>
    >
    > > I'd go a different way.
    >
    > > Look at the effect by itself. If the mage were to perform that effect
    > > with no foci whatsoever, would it be vulgar or coincidental?
    >
    > > "Now it rains" is coincidental. "That guy has a heart attack" is
    > > coincidental. "The cancer goes into recession and vanishes" is
    > > coincidental."
    >
    > > "Fireball" is vulgar. "Flight" is vulgar.
    >
    > > If the effect is in Group 1, then foci can't make it vulgar. (Well,
    > > maybe in weird circumstances, but nothing I can think of off the top of
    > > my head.)
    >
    > To me, if it's just TOO coincidental (and not "Oh how funny...THAT
    couldn't
    > happen again" coincidental; more like "We have the entire group from
    Guiness
    > book AND Ripley's here and we STILL can't believe that you announced the
    > person who was going to kill you was going to die by having a pack of
    rabid
    > howler monkeys scurry out of the woods and spray super-Ebola juice in his
    > eyes as he raised his gun to the back of your head...right after you
    played
    > your mystical oboe and chanted in Latin backwards. Because this happened
    > three days in a row.") I say "Uh...nice try OJ...Consensus is not the
    > American judicial system".

    <snip>

    You could always mandate that such an effect be broken down into multiple
    sub-coincidences and invoke the Domino Effect, rather than using vulgarity
    as a bludgeon.

    - David Prokopetz.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Shane Graves wrote:
    > "Stephen G."
    >
    >>Shane Graves wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Stephen G."
    >
    >
    >>>>On a side note I do customer service work for LA Times and it rains a
    >>>>lot more often there than you'd think....
    >
    >
    >>>I live in Ventura and frequently commute to LA.
    >
    >
    >>>Trust me. It rains a HELL of a lot less than it does in many other
    >
    > places
    >
    >>>in this country. ^_^
    >
    >
    >>Well, not in the country, the desert gets less rain than L.A.
    >>I was just referring to the fact that once every few weeks or so we hear >
    >
    > about rain in LA because we get a LOT of complaints regarding wet
    >
    >>papers.
    >
    >
    > I'd be most of that is from sprinklers, to tell the truth.
    >
    > Like, when it rains, it rains a lot more than it should. But there are long
    > periods in the middle where nothing happens at all. And by "long periods" I
    > mean "from February to October".
    >
    > Again, I lived in CT. The weather changed hourly. Now I live in
    > California, and I couldn't even tell you the name of any local weatherman or
    > what station the Weather Channel is on, because I never bother looking.
    >
    > "Oh look. It's the same as yesterday." Repeat for weeks on end. ^_^
    >
    >
    >>Funny, we live in Wisconsin and do customer service for LA
    >>Times....
    >
    >
    > That would explain why I had to call four times to get my subscription
    > canceled. ^_~
    >
    >
    Actually we're pretty good about it. The problem comes when people get
    impatient and don't wanna talk to the correct department, or when the
    stop is on the account and the carrier is too stupid to stop sending it.
    I cancel 20 or more accounts a day when I'm working that department.
    The worst thing is our solicitors. If they were located at our call
    center we'd kill them just as quickly as anyone in LA. lol
    We DO get a lot of sprinkler complaints, but we usually ask about why
    the paper was wet.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    >
    > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    > <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    >
    > >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >
    > The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.

    Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    reality. The principle is part of the mage's paradigm.
    Note that a mage with a different paradigm could easily use a
    different principle or theory - the specific excuse is irrelevant.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephen Williams wrote:

    > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    > way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > reality. The principle is part of the mage's paradigm.

    Whether a mage knows that he's actively bending reality or not has no
    bearing on coincidentality or vulgarity. Paradox doesn't care.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephen Williams wrote:
    > David Johnston wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    >><mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >>>in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >>>of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >>>after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >>
    >>The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    >
    >
    > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    > way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > reality. The principle is part of the mage's paradigm.
    > Note that a mage with a different paradigm could easily use a
    > different principle or theory - the specific excuse is irrelevant.

    The mage knowing is irrelevant. The Mage's consensus of one says that
    what he is doing is not just normal, it's fundamentally right. It's just
    the rest of the world doesn't agree with him.

    William
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:19:16 -0400, Stephen Williams
    <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    >David Johnston wrote:
    >>
    >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    >> <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    >> >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    >> >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    >> >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    >>
    >> The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    >
    > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    >way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    >reality.

    The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:

    > The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    > dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.

    I think Mr. Williams is arguing that a mage who goes against his own
    paradigm is automatically vulgar, such as a mage using "washing the car"
    to make it rain when they have a paradigm that doesn't allow washing the
    car to make it rain.

    To which I reply, no. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting
    vulgar magic. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting magic at
    /all/.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    >
    > I think Mr. Williams is arguing that a mage who goes against his own
    > paradigm is automatically vulgar, such as a mage using "washing the car"
    > to make it rain when they have a paradigm that doesn't allow washing the
    > car to make it rain.
    >
    > To which I reply, no. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting
    > vulgar magic. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting magic at
    > /all/.

    I absolutely demand to play a mage with the "*everyone* knows X will happen if
    you do Y" paradigm. Perhaps you could include Murphy's Law, as well.

    --
    Christopher Adams
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?

    You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
    But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
    - Bill
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Christopher Adams wrote:

    > Stephenls wrote:
    >
    >>I think Mr. Williams is arguing that a mage who goes against his own
    >>paradigm is automatically vulgar, such as a mage using "washing the car"
    >>to make it rain when they have a paradigm that doesn't allow washing the
    >>car to make it rain.
    >>
    >>To which I reply, no. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting
    >>vulgar magic. A mage going against his paradigm is not casting magic at
    >>/all/.
    >
    >
    > I absolutely demand to play a mage with the "*everyone* knows X will happen if
    > you do Y" paradigm. Perhaps you could include Murphy's Law, as well.
    >

    You know, that's the first character concept I've ever heard for which I
    would _encorage_ the Sleepwalker flaw (as oppose to beating the player
    vicously on the head with the rulebook).

    William
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:19:16 -0400, Stephen Williams
    > <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    >
    > >David Johnston wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    > >> <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without a cloud
    > >> >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a period
    > >> >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it always rains
    > >> >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    > >>
    > >> The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    > >
    > > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    > >way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > >reality.
    >
    > The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    > dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.

    I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    it's vulgar.
    I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    news:40D410B6.BEDDA969@sympatico.ca...
    > David Johnston wrote:
    > >
    > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:19:16 -0400, Stephen Williams
    > > <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    > >
    > > >David Johnston wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    > > >> <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without
    a cloud
    > > >> >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a
    period
    > > >> >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it
    always rains
    > > >> >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    > > >>
    > > >> The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    > > >
    > > > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to
    my
    > > >way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > > >reality.
    > >
    > > The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    > > dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.
    >
    > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    > it's vulgar.
    > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.

    Not a point of debate, per se, but it seems that for this to become relevant
    in the first place, a mage would have to violate his own paradigm - I'm
    curious to know how you deal with that sort of thing in your games (most GMs
    just say "nothing happens").

    - David Prokopetz.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephen Williams wrote:

    > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    > it's vulgar.
    > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.

    What's the purpose of the Sleepwalker merit, then, if no mage believes
    they're doing magic?
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    > Stephen Williams wrote:
    >
    >> I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    >> particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    >> believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    >> possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    >> it's vulgar.
    >> I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    >> this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    >> I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    >> differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
    >
    >
    > What's the purpose of the Sleepwalker merit, then, if no mage believes
    > they're doing magic?

    To see if the Mage knows they are doing _anything_. Just because they
    don't believe what they are doing to be breaking reality doesn't mean
    they believe they aren't doing magic. A sleepwalker believes that only
    the concensual reality exists. A normal mage understands that there is
    more to reality than people believe.

    William
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    > news:40D410B6.BEDDA969@sympatico.ca...
    > > David Johnston wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:19:16 -0400, Stephen Williams
    > > > <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >David Johnston wrote:
    > > > >>
    > > > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    > > > >> <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    > > > >>
    > > > >> >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day without
    > a cloud
    > > > >> >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car over a
    > period
    > > > >> >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it
    > always rains
    > > > >> >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    > > > >>
    > > > >> The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    > > > >
    > > > > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to
    > my
    > > > >way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > > > >reality.
    > > >
    > > > The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    > > > dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.
    > >
    > > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    > > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    > > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    > > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    > > it's vulgar.
    > > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    > > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    > > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    > > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
    >
    > Not a point of debate, per se, but it seems that for this to become relevant
    > in the first place, a mage would have to violate his own paradigm - I'm
    > curious to know how you deal with that sort of thing in your games (most GMs
    > just say "nothing happens").

    A Mage's paradigm dictates what things he believes are possible by
    reality as he knows it. If he does something allowed by his paradigm,
    he doesn't realize he's bending reality because he believes that thing
    is possible. How is that violating his paradigm? That's upholding his
    paradigm.
    Perhaps we have a wire crossed here, because I don't understand where
    you're getting that this violates his paradigm.
    If he does something which violates the *Consensus* paradigm, then
    it's a vulgar effect. If not, it's coincidental. And I do agree with
    the general statement that a Mage cannot violate his own paradigm
    (except perhaps in some extenuating circumstances which I am at a loss
    to think up an example of.)
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    >
    > Stephen Williams wrote:
    >
    > > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    > > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    > > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    > > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    > > it's vulgar.
    > > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    > > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    > > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    > > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
    >
    > What's the purpose of the Sleepwalker merit, then, if no mage believes
    > they're doing magic?

    A mage knows he is doing magic. The semantic point I'm trying to make
    is that a Mage believes that *magic* is *possible* according to his
    paradigm. He understands perfectly well that the majority of the world
    believes that such and such is impossible but *he* believes that they
    are mistaken.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephen Williams wrote:

    > A mage knows he is doing magic. The semantic point I'm trying to make
    > is that a Mage believes that *magic* is *possible* according to his
    > paradigm. He understands perfectly well that the majority of the world
    > believes that such and such is impossible but *he* believes that they
    > are mistaken.

    So your problem doesn't actually have anything to do with the discussion
    at hand -- it has to do with you disliking our use of the term "bending
    reality?"
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    news:40D51A20.B7852A1F@sympatico.ca...
    > David Prokopetz wrote:
    > >
    > > "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    > > news:40D410B6.BEDDA969@sympatico.ca...
    > > > David Johnston wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:19:16 -0400, Stephen Williams
    > > > > <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >David Johnston wrote:
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:46:30 -0400, "Essex"
    > > > > >> <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> >Could a mage coincidentally cause it to rain on a sunny day
    without
    > > a cloud
    > > > > >> >in the sky by slowly and carefully washing and waxing his car
    over a
    > > period
    > > > > >> >of hours (a ritual) and using the well known principle that it
    > > always rains
    > > > > >> >after you was your car as the coincidental effect?
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses,
    to
    > > my
    > > > > >way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively
    bending
    > > > > >reality.
    > > > >
    > > > > The mage knows he is actively bending reality when he does his rain
    > > > > dance or washes his car to make it rain. That is not the issue.
    > > >
    > > > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    > > > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    > > > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    > > > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    > > > it's vulgar.
    > > > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply
    to
    > > > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the
    way
    > > > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    > > > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
    > >
    > > Not a point of debate, per se, but it seems that for this to become
    relevant
    > > in the first place, a mage would have to violate his own paradigm - I'm
    > > curious to know how you deal with that sort of thing in your games (most
    GMs
    > > just say "nothing happens").
    >
    > A Mage's paradigm dictates what things he believes are possible by
    > reality as he knows it. If he does something allowed by his paradigm,
    > he doesn't realize he's bending reality because he believes that thing
    > is possible. How is that violating his paradigm? That's upholding his
    > paradigm.
    > Perhaps we have a wire crossed here, because I don't understand where
    > you're getting that this violates his paradigm.

    From what you said right here:

    "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    news:40D20AD4.3CD2DABC@sympatico.ca...
    > David Johnston wrote:
    > >
    > > The "principle" is unnecessary. It can always rain.
    >
    > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    > way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > reality.

    There's the key phrase: "the mage would know he was actively bending
    reality." Since you later stated that "if [a mage] does something allowed
    by his paradigm, he doesn't realize he's bending reality", a mage who is
    "know he [is] actively bending reality" must ipso facto be violating his
    paradigm.

    Isn't logic *fun*? ;)

    - David Prokopetz.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:01:20 -0400, Stephen Williams
    <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    >
    > A Mage's paradigm dictates what things he believes are possible by
    >reality as he knows it. If he does something allowed by his paradigm,
    >he doesn't realize he's bending reality because he believes that thing
    >is possible.

    That would of course require him to be unaware that vulgar magic even
    exists.

    How is that violating his paradigm? That's upholding his
    >paradigm.
    > Perhaps we have a wire crossed here, because I don't understand where
    >you're getting that this violates his paradigm.
    > If he does something which violates the *Consensus* paradigm, then
    >it's a vulgar effect. If not, it's coincidental.

    But the subject was whether making things rain by washing your car
    is coincidental because it is well "known" that washing your car
    makes it rain. To which my answer is of course, it is coincidental
    for it to rain...period.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:08:49 -0400, Stephen Williams
    <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    >Stephenls wrote:
    >>
    >> Stephen Williams wrote:
    >>
    >> > I did say "to my way of thinking." To my way of thinking, if a
    >> > particular effect is possible by the mage's paradigm then he doesn't
    >> > believe he's bending reality. That's just possible. If it's also
    >> > possible by the Consensus paradigm, then it's coincidental, otherwise
    >> > it's vulgar.
    >> > I've had this debate one too many times, so if you see fit to reply to
    >> > this post, don't expect me to carry on the discussion. This is the way
    >> > I run Mage. Period. If you don't like it, by all means run Mage
    >> > differently. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
    >>
    >> What's the purpose of the Sleepwalker merit, then, if no mage believes
    >> they're doing magic?
    >
    > A mage knows he is doing magic. The semantic point I'm trying to make
    >is that a Mage believes that *magic* is *possible* according to his
    >paradigm.

    Of course it's possible. He does it all the time. "
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:01:20 -0400, Stephen Williams
    > <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > A Mage's paradigm dictates what things he believes are possible by
    > >reality as he knows it. If he does something allowed by his paradigm,
    > >he doesn't realize he's bending reality because he believes that thing
    > >is possible.
    >
    > That would of course require him to be unaware that vulgar magic even
    > exists.

    If that's a problem for you, I can understand why you'd want to run
    the game differently. The way I see it, nothing is vulgar to the Mage
    himself (except maybe other paradigms), the difference between vulgar
    and coincidental relies entirely on the Consensus.


    > But the subject was whether making things rain by washing your car
    > is coincidental because it is well "known" that washing your car
    > makes it rain. To which my answer is of course, it is coincidental
    > for it to rain...period.

    And this answer is perfectly valid. I don't recall ever challenging
    your answer. I only added my own.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:

    > > Yes but without it the effect would be vulgar without witnesses, to my
    > > way of thinking, since then the mage would know he was actively bending
    > > reality.
    >
    > There's the key phrase: "the mage would know he was actively bending
    > reality." Since you later stated that "if [a mage] does something allowed
    > by his paradigm, he doesn't realize he's bending reality", a mage who is
    > "know he [is] actively bending reality" must ipso facto be violating his
    > paradigm.

    Oh, I see. Obviously I misspoke, but I think you know what I meant.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    >
    > Stephen Williams wrote:
    >
    > > A mage knows he is doing magic. The semantic point I'm trying to make
    > > is that a Mage believes that *magic* is *possible* according to his
    > > paradigm. He understands perfectly well that the majority of the world
    > > believes that such and such is impossible but *he* believes that they
    > > are mistaken.
    >
    > So your problem doesn't actually have anything to do with the discussion
    > at hand -- it has to do with you disliking our use of the term "bending
    > reality?"

    I don't have a problem with anything anyone has said. I gave my own
    answer to the question. That is all.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games