Coincidental Rain Magic

G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

nick

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
994
0
18,980
0
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

william

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
474
0
18,780
0
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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. ^_^
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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....
 
G

Guest

Guest
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....
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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 :eek:. 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
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY