PLAYTESTER==You hear invisible angels singing with you, and the wound closes. Its still red, and dented, and Rickard is pale, but he will live. The music has stopped.
OOC: Limited Damage Repair 1@3 (Mag)
TOM DAY:Tom thanks the Lord and then prays, "Lord, in this world where magic is more prominent, I have the opportunity to learn more of thy ways; and this might seem like a stupid question, but I have always been leery of vain repetitions, but I feel that practice might help me improve the ability to wield Thy granted power to help my fellow man. May I have thy permission to pray for practice only instead of direct aid to myself or another?"
PT----OOC: I'm going to take this one to MJ the game designer. Its a useful question he may have answered before, and if not, its good to provoke thought and besides, I could use the help.
----OOC: I'm going to take this one to MJ the game designer. Its a useful question he may have answered before, and if not, its good to provoke thought and besides, I could use the help.
TOM DAY[Private to Playtester: OOC: Yeah, its a bit of a conundrum for me as well. There was a School of the Prophets, and the implication of Old vs New testament pretty clearly implies a 'level of mana' mechanic in a world makes it just fine to be more inclined to pray for or expect easily seen physical miracles vs 'plausible deniability' stuff. Even praying over and over again for success on something to achieve a desired result seems scripturally (to me) solid....but praying over and over again just for practice? If that's not vain repetitions what is? Any yet at the same time, God is not a wimp, and with the set up in Multiverser, if my skill at performing a miracle is increased by practicing it, I can't see how that would be vain repetitions.]
ERIC: So MJ, any thoughts?
Personally, I never liked the notion that you could have "skill" at praying anyway. I understand the idea of it being in a game mechanic, but it's like saying that Mother Teresa has her prayers answered more often than a baby Christian. We all know that one isn't true.
There have got to be ways of practicing a prayer without repeatedly performing it. Personally, if my player had a problem with repetition, I would leave it to him to discover alternate methods of practice (and, subsequently, be lenient in my rulings).
I could see getting marks for teaching a prayer, too.
It's a tough question overall, and I might be wandering around the answer for a bit.
I notice that the first time Elijah called fire from heaven, he put a lot of effort into the thing; the second and third times, he just did it with a passing phrase. Now, the fact that he "changed the ritual" is a bit of a problem for Multiverser, but as we've seen it's not entirely insurmountable (we've had a few skills designed around something akin to "appropriate words concerning fire falling from heaven on a specified target"). It also is not much practice--just as Moses calling water from the rock twice that is mentioned doesn't seem like much practice. On the other hand, we don't know that either of them did not use their respective repeated skills on occasions not mentioned.
If I were talking about "practicing" a "spell", there are a lot of ways that could be done, and not all of them involve actually performing the spell. I think Scott once observed that a spell might involve a particular hand movement (think Harry Potter's wand training, in which the correct movement of the wand combines with the proper verbal incantation to produce the desired effects). I could practice the hand movement. I could also practice the incantation, that is, if the incantation involves specific unusual words that might trip my tongue, I could practice them much as I practice tongue twisters.
I am reminded that when I was thirteen one of my peers, a Roman Catholic, could pray In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Amen Bless us oh Lord and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from Your bounty through Christ our Lord Amen In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Amen complete with proper hand motions (genuflect, fold, genuflect) in under five seconds before meals. He obviously had practiced.
I can see where someone meditating on God's gift/grace/power granted through a particular kind of prayer could be construed as "practice" by a referee who wanted to extend that. I would be hesitant to do so myself, though, because I don't really want my players to become that good that fast at such things. Still, depending on the nature of the prayer, I might. On the other hand, in most scenarios there is probably the equivalent of a hospital--even if it's not more than a casualties area where the wounded are sent to die--and given my general definition of "practice" I would have no problem with a character walking into such an area and saying that he is going to practice his healing prayer by praying for each wounded individual in turn, not looking to see whether or not it worked in any particular case, but simply letting God heal whomever He chooses. As referee I would then respond by stating that whatever number of persons roughly represents the percentage of patients that match his chance of success were clearly benefited, and others were not, and since he doesn't know any of them individually it doesn't matter which ones were and which ones were not. Some of those who were are grateful to him (and some who weren't are still grateful to him, and some who were are grateful to the doctors and give him no credit at all). Some of the healings were dramatic and immediate, others were gradual, and he learned something from all of it.
That's how I would suggest "practicing" healing prayers.
Of course, there are others that are a lot more difficult. If someone wanted to "practice" parting a body of water--well, Elijah and Elisha both did so several times (actually, I think Elijah did so a few times and Elisha then used his example to do so once), so you could settle next to a river not too far from a bridge and every day cross the river "either by parting the water or by crossing the bridge if that fails", thus getting in practice. Or you could several times a week "practice" by reviewing the accounts of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha parting various bodies of water and meditating on your own experience having done so, reviewing what you said and did as compared with what they said and did, going over it in your mind in a prayerful state that seeks God's wisdom on how best to use this skill in the future. That, too, would be "practice" in an appropriate way.
I am hoping that from that morass an answer has emerged....
--M. J. Young
There's something regarding prayer that I doubt is covered in Multiverser. I don't pray. Not in the traditional sense. The Bible says to "Pray without ceasing." So does that mean that you constantly pray? What I think it means is that you just have faith that God will provide you with what you need. I think that the concept of "Prayers before bed" and "Prayers before meals" are for the most part ritualistic and repetitive. I used to say a prayer for my family and friends (including MJ) every night. After a while, I realized I was just praying the same thing over and over and over. As in MJ's example of the Catholic who did his prayer in 5 seconds. It's ritual, and unneeded. God already knows what I need, and I simply believe and have faith that He will provide it. Now if there is something of special importance that requires me to pray, I do pray about it. But as far as the ritual of praying, I just let God take care of my needs. I just have faith that God will provide for me.
They say that God might not come when you call Him, but He is never late when He comes. I just have faith in that statement.
I think that there are a number of ways to approach God in prayer, and that each technique has its values and its deficits.
This is one thing I wanted to see more with Lauren, other ways of praying, but then one realizes that Lauren (from MJ's novel, natch) has her own style and it works for her so she's hardly like to change it.
I do think the technique John is describing sounds reasonable and its an interesting way to deal with 'vain repetitions'.
I speak from the depths of my ignorance too, so keep that in mind.
The thing that really irks me is how people say "Gays automatically go to Hell" or "People born in India that never heard of Jesus Christ automatically go to Hell" or "You have to pray like this 15 times a day or you automatically go to Hell". What I would like for them to show me is where does it say their name as the person who decides that? I'm sure there are some people (probably a lot of Catholics) that would say that my completely faith-based approach to prayer is a sin, and that I am going to Hell. Where does it have your name written as the person who decides that?
A1Nut +1. (Your example of people born in India is particularly appropriate - Why would people wind up in Hell who have never heard of Hell? Seems like kindof a ripoff for people who practiced a religion faithfully all their lives...)
John,
I was afraid I might open up that barrel of worms. I'm talking about something more limited....
A Christian prays and
1. He quotes Scripture and acts in faith on it.
2. He goes through the seven steps or so laid out in one of Jesus's prayers (not that I recall the details)....its something like A. Confess your sins. B. Praise God. C. Worship God. D. Make your request....
3. Stay in a continual attitude of trust as described by JohnAlNut.
4. He has a set array of prayers for certain circumstances, but he makes an effort to be honest with them and so avoid the 'vain' part of 'vain repetitions'.
5. As number #4, but he learns symbolic things that are artistic and insightful depictions of very complicated truths. He uses these symbols to help train his mind in the right way even if he does not wholly understand the effect.
I am not familar with this technique, but it seems to me that Christianity suffers from an overemphasis on the necessity of originality (as does the whole culture). Which is better? The hand-scrawled picture of a tree, or a beautifully illuminated hand copy of the Book of Kells? I suspect the answer is, it depends.
5. And I suspect that there are other prayer techniques you could use. When I've prayed for help to find things, I used none of these techniques, I simply asked for help in finding an object and usually prayed in Jesus' Name.
As to the question you posed, let me ask you something...Can we understand the meaning of the Bible?
Which is better? The hand-scrawled picture of a tree, or a beautifully illuminated hand copy of the Book of Kells? I suspect the answer is, it depends.
In the movie The Bucket List, Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are both dying of cancer. They make a list of the things they want to do before they "Kick the Bucket". One of the things that Jack Nicholson puts on his list is "Kiss the most beautiful girl in the world." He accomplishes this by kissing his granddaughter for the first time. I don't know, it just seemed related somehow.
As to the question you posed, let me ask you something...Can we understand the meaning of the Bible?
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! We can't know the meaning. There are so many Bible-based religions that say if you're not a member of that religion, you're going to Hell. Since there are more than one of these, that must mean that everyone goes to Hell. (sarcastic laughter) YEAH RIGHT!!!! The Bible is open to interpretation. If it weren't, there would only be one faith based on it. I interpret it my way, and that way works for me.
Facts are stubborn things, John. My theory is I'm not going to stub my toe in the dark, the reality may be another thing.
You can't run away from the hard work of trying to understand by simply throwing up your hands.
You can't run away from the hard work of trying to understand by simply throwing up your hands.
I think you're misunderstanding me Eric. I'm saying that I don't have to understand. God understands. God knows what my heart is like. God knows what I think and what I believe. I don't have to understand God, because God understands ME. It's like when someone tells me that they don't believe in God. I tell them "That's OK. God believes in you."
A lot of this thread has moved away from anything that is really meaningful or appropriate for game purposes. I have answers to many of the questions raised which satisfy me--but I do not wish to derail a meaningful discussion about in-game prayer with real-world theological issues. Anyone who wants to address any of these questions can start another thread.
As to "repetitive prayers", these are not without value. I come from a strongly non-liturgical tradition, and always looked askance at liturgy, particularly as it was used in "high church" settings. The problem I perceived was that people (like my aforementioned friend) could rattle off prayers without giving any thought to what they were saying. Thus in some of my time spent in "mid church" settings, whenever I had a hand in designing worship services, I made a point of bringing in meaningful statements within the liturgy that would not be familiar, so that participants would have to pay attention to what they were saying.
Then I read an essay by C. S. Lewis that was completely counterintuitive to me. He asserted that it was important for the liturgy used in public worship to be uniform and familiar, to the point that you could recite it without thought. He did not wish to be thinking about whatever it was he was going to say next, or whatever it was he just said; he wanted to be thinking about the person to whom he was saying these things. That was what mattered in worship, he suggested, that we have our minds on God, and not on what we are saying and doing. Thus the less we have to think about the motions, the more we can focus on the divine.
I am still "low church" in that regard; but I understand "high church" a lot better. I also understand repetitive prayers--the use of liturgy in that way is akin to singing songs you know so well that you have your mind elsewhere while singing them, akin to the use of "tongues" to worship God, all three ways for the person to have his mind on God while his mouth is worshipping without requiring his attention.
There is a lesson of importunity in scripture. Jesus says seek, ask, knock--but the tense there is linear, keep on seeking, keep on asking, keep on knocking.
I think, too, there is a difference between praying without ceasing and simply believing that God will take care of everything. Paul's admonition suggests a conscious awareness of the presence of God, even if it does not require a constant verbalization.
That, though, is not something that can easily be put in game terms. Either people are praying constantly or they are not; but when they wish to petition for specific results, they must do so specifically. As referee, I am not going to ask whether your character has been constantly focusing his mind on his deity and the blessings that flow therefrom; if I did, I would expect that the clever player would always say yes, and how could I challenge this assertion? Lauren Hastings pours of scripture, meditates on what she has memorized, uses it--as Eric observed, she continues to use what worked for her, and had no reason to change it. (I will note that through her influence her priest friend began using the liturgy in the same way, reciting the prayer for eternal rest against the undead and the ceremony of anointing with oil for the healing of the wounded. Even within the technique, there is some variety.) Lauren also prays, here and there, conversationally, looking for insight from God without actually asking for something specific, as part of her thought processes.
Lauren's spells, though, are less like prayer in most cases, and more like "standing on the promises", expecting God to do what she believes He said He would do. In this, they stretch the sense of "holy magic" a bit, as she does not think of them so much as prayers but as exercises of her faith.
--M. J. Young
Jackson Wellington, my protagonist from the Worldwalker novel, has a moment where he's about to face-off with some ninja. He's already used the strength of Samson in a previous scene to save the life of a daughter of the ninja clan. He now wants to use this strength to get the ninjas to back down.
He prays, and he considers testing his strength by bending a penny in his pocket, but he decides not to because that would be not having enough faith. Instead, he does his action, and hopes it works....it does.
This is kinda like Lauren and 'standing on the promises'.
====
Another case is The Princess of Wands by John Ringo. The heroine is a God-fearing soccer mom who's kind, except when she gets mad. She prays at one point for God to fill her with the warrior spirit of King David.
Thats a slightly different take on things than I'm used to hearing although it too seems reasonable.
======
For some time, I've thought it would be neat to have a short list of Christian approaches to holy magic....and for the pagans this could be useful as well because one suspects that their could be High and Low Temple approaches to the worship of Thor.
Hey MJ, I'm just curious. When you wrote Verse Three Chapter One, did you roll any dice to decide the story, or did you just write it? I could see that. Lauren is trying to levitate up the side of a building. You roll dice to see if it worked, and write the story accordingly.
John, it is both simpler and more complicated than that. Many of the things that happen in the book occurred with other characters in play--sometimes characters on whom those characters were based (although they are more or less conglomerates), sometimes entirely different characters. When the events occurred in play, dice were rolled; when they occurred in the book, it was more by the seat of my pants. I never rolled the dice to see what would happen in the book, but instead tried to keep things close to the probabilities of success such a character would have while fitting events into the story I was telling.
You need to recognize that in order for the book to make sense as a book, there were a couple of things that had to be very different from the way things go in play, even to make it seem like the way things go in play.
- I had to know how it was going to end, to a significant degree, very early in the story, and be working toward that; otherwise, it could not work toward the ending.
- Most gather worlds are very open and most solo worlds are very focused; I needed to create a very focused gather world, one in which the characters would be drawn into working together against a common problem. It was all right to use solo worlds that were not very focused, as long as I could keep coming up with things for the characters to do, but the gather world had to be going somewhere specific, or there would be no climax to the story.
- I had to figure out aspects of what the characters were going to do in that ending so that I could prefigure them. In a real game it would have worked much the other way. For example, Bethany gives Lauren a magic bag containing five magical objects. In real play, I would have put five random objects in that bag, knowing more or less what each did, and let the player figure out what to do with them. In the book, I needed to give Lauren the coin because she needed it to bring down The Pit, but I needed to do it in a way that wouldn't look like that's what I was doing, so I tossed four other objects in the same bag. I actually did not know what they did at that moment (I don't always know what magic objects do when I create them in play, a technique I credit to E. R. Jones), but knew I could "do something" with each of them. While Lauren worked out what the coin was and did, I figured out three others and created the clues for them. I did not actually know what the acorn was or did until after the book went to print, and then I realized that it was the most important object in the bag, that was going to tie all of Lauren's vampire worlds together. (The real play events on which it was based involved different characters but the same passing of the magic bag with five objects to the player character. The other four objects were heads of Barbie Dolls, which was somehow expected given the odd character who gave them. I am still not certain what those doll heads did (I was not the referee) but I needed something to serve the function of filling the bag.)
Probably a more complicated answer than you wanted, but that's the answer.
--M. J. Young