[Shadow of the Lamb] Miracles

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Hey, all. I'm writing a new game hot on the heels of GenCon. It's called "Shadow of the Lamb" and is about the first three centuries of Christianity, and, hey, I bet that's not your bag. Cool.

Anyway, I'm mainly discussing it over at the Anvilwerks Community, but this was interesting enough to cross-post, I think.

--------------

In a game about the early Christian church, one of the most controversial subjects that's going to come up is the idea of miracles. Miracles present a real dilemna to me as a designer. I don't want *Shadow of the Lamb* to be thought of as "that fantasy-Christ game." If I push a no-miracles/no-magical stance, though, I alienate believers that think miracles really did happen: I take a stance on this issue, and the game is intended to take no stance at all, and let you decide what happened, at least in the context of your game world.

So, hrm. What to do?

My current plans are to steal a system I wrote for an unpublished game called *Believer.* This game was originally about modern magic and became a game about cult leaders. The central premise was this: magic is what you get others to believe. If you really can successfully convince a room of people that you're levitating, *you're levitating,* which is a cool idea. (As a side note, it really reinforced the idea of the solitary wizard. Drop some LSD - lower your skepticism to zero - and alone, you can fly to the moon.) The cult leader aspect is obvious: player characters immediately surrounded themselves with people who believed anything they said.

How might this work in *Shadow of the Lamb?*

Like in *The Shadow of Yesterday,* you have innate abilities, things that protect you from harm. (In *TSOY*, those are Endure, React, and Resist.) In *SotL*, you'll have a Skepticism ability. That'll probably be renamed.

Basically, you'll make an ability check using an appropriate ability. Let's say you want to make a blind man see. You've got two followers with you, who believe in what you preach. (Instead of Keys, *SotL* has Tenets. When you have an appropriate Tenet to what you're trying to believe in, you can take a penalty die to Skepticism.) You place your hands on the man's face, and make, in this case, a Counsel ability check. He resists with Skepticism, as do your followers, *as do you*. If everyone fails compared to you, they believe that the blind man can see. He can.

If others later question this, let them. They may believe the blind man's a liar or whatever. It's ok - he can see.

Making water spring from a rock in the midst of a group is much harder, obviously. You're rolling Orate versus a group's Skepticism ability. How would this work? There'd be a group Skeptic rating, which would get rolled once. If there's a named NPC among them, they roll, too. So let's say there's someone who disagrees with you among the crowd. You roll Orate. You might have penalty dice for the ostentatiousness of what you're trying to do. The crowd rolls Skepticism, and you do, and so does Timothy, your nemesis. Let's say you succeed versus yourself and the crowd, but Timothy wins. The crowd might proclaim, "A miracle," but Timothy might say, "A trick!" and point out that the spring is a geyser that always pours forth at this time. Or maybe nothing springs up at all. It'll be up to the group.

In all cases, the actual truth of "did a miracle happen?" is not ever quantified. The truth of who believes it happened is.

And so, I end up having to take a stance, which sucks, but it's a stance I personally believe in and I started to make explicit in *TSOY*.

**If enough people believe in something, that makes it real.** It doesn't make it true, or make it exist. It gives the concept power, though, and that's real.

So, I should end with a question. I don't know what. How about: what do you think about this? Think it'll work in a game, or will it cause major problems? Is it somehow offensive in a way I'm not seeing?

*Credit where credit is due:* "Believer" was inspired by an article called "The Observer Effect" from our friends at *Fudge Factor* magazine.

[Sean]

Hi Clinton,

For some reason your post reminded me of Par Lagerkvist's novel Barabbas. The way that that novel deals with the miraculous nature or otherwise of the crucifixion is interesting. Based on what I know of you through your posts & games I think you might like that book though.

I guess with respect to a game the point would be maybe that miracles are things that happen that are out of the ordinary and don't have a clear naturalistic explanation. The person who sees them as a miracle is happy not to have an explanation and takes the event 'at face value', as it were, as something running counter to de rerum natura; the person who doesn't assumes 'there must be an explanation somewhere' although they may well be unable to give it.

So there the miraculous events that happen are facts, but they aren't Exalted Solar type super anime ninja facts. You wouldn't get the Red Sea parting in this kind of setup for miracles. You might get a healer letting a blind man see by washing his face, though. "It's a miracle!" "No, he must have just had dirt in his eyes or something." "Dirt? He's been blind for ten years!" "Well, maybe the healer mixed something into the water.." Etc. Both sides demonstrating their faith.

So in that case the constraint on introducing miraculous acts is that they're ones which could be 'read' either way. The guy gets his sight back or comes back from the dead, oh yes, but always in a way that makes it possible to believe it's just some sort of coincidence. Then the struggle between faith and skepticism is a struggle over interpretations of the same event.

[dyjoots]

As bizarre as it is, I have seen people try to rationalize the Red Sea parting not as a false story that didn't actually happen, but as a seasonal tide thing that happened stronger than normal.  To someone who doesn't believe the miracle, any excuse will suffice, and to someone who does believe in a miracle, the smallest coincidences will become them.

[motherlessgoose]

I wanted to quote from _Ante-Nice Fathers, Vol. X_:

Chapter XXV.-The Phoenix an Emblem of Our Resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

This was written at least several hundred years AD.  What is interesting about it is that they talk about this mythical creature from an almost scientific viewpoint.  One would suppose in several hundred AD that the scientific viewpoint was a little more advanced or the same as that of the biblical times.  The mention of "open day" implies many people have seen this.  And supposedly there was a register of dates when the phoenix showed up. 

I guess the point I am trying to state here is that the faith factor or gullibility (however you want to name the term) of ancient peoples was much, much greater than in current times, even when scientific viewpoints were first beginning to come into being.

[quozl]

I'm confused.  You said this was a game about the early believers spreading the word.  Why would they be performing miracles?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I'm confused.  You said this was a game about the early believers spreading the word.  Why would they be performing miracles?

It's a pretty big piece of the Christian faith that miracles happen, especially in the time of Jesus and for a while afterwards. Stuff like - crap, can't remember his name right now, but it was in the second century - being thrown in a pit of wild animals and taming them, or being set aflame and not burning.

(which, by the way, I wasn't insinuating you didn't know or are wrong or something. Please continue to have this conversation. If you've a compelling reason they wouldn't be performing miracles, I'd love to hear it.)

[quozl]

Please continue to have this conversation. If you've a compelling reason they wouldn't be performing miracles, I'd love to hear it.

I'm just wondering what your game is really about?  What's your premise?  Is it "men with power can get people to do what they want so how far will they go"?  If so, you'll want to include miracles.   If not, why would you want to include them? (Note: that's not a rhetorical question; I really want an answer.)

[Adam Cerling]

Hey, all. I'm writing a new game hot on the heels of GenCon. It's called "Shadow of the Lamb" and is about the first three centuries of Christianity, and, hey, I bet that's not your bag. Cool.

You've got my attention. I just picked up TSoY at GenCon, the morning after attending the Christian Gamers Guild worship service.

Regarding "Skepticism" -- I recommend either calling it "Unbelief" or "Doubt." Both words have long been featured in modern English translations of the New Testament. I'm particularly fond of this verse:

"'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

Adam

[Eero Tuovinen]

Clinton: based on what you write here, it seems to me you're fumbling a bit. Your solution to the problem of miracles/no miracles is not a solution at all; instead of leaving it up to the players you're just claiming that the game happens in a consensus reality, like WW's Mage. That's not allowing of Christian miracles, it's very much a denial of them. Because if the miracle happening or not happening depends on the belief of the witnesses... what if the sole witness is not Christian at all, but a pagan? Or the miracle leaves permanent results others can perceive? That makes no sense at all. Worse than that, it means that anybody who believes in Christ's miracles in that setting is by definition horribly wrong. God doesn't do miracles, human perception does. Which is not a Christian concept.

A better solution for your needs could perhaps be the one utilized in Dogs in the Vineyard: make the rules neutral as to whether unnatural things happen or not, and let the players interpret them as they will. A man is set on fire but lives? Could be a miracle. Lions refuse to eat this man? Could be a miracle. No need for the rules to say whether it is or not.

[dyjoots]

Clinton: based on what you write here, it seems to me you're fumbling a bit. Your solution to the problem of miracles/no miracles is not a solution at all; instead of leaving it up to the players you're just claiming that the game happens in a consensus reality, like WW's Mage. That's not allowing of Christian miracles, it's very much a denial of them. Because if the miracle happening or not happening depends on the belief of the witnesses... what if the sole witness is not Christian at all, but a pagan? Or the miracle leaves permanent results others can perceive? That makes no sense at all. Worse than that, it means that anybody who believes in Christ's miracles in that setting is by definition horribly wrong. God doesn't do miracles, human perception does. Which is not a Christian concept.

I don't feel that way at all.  It's not belief that causes the events.  The events happen, and then are interpreted as miracle or as coincidence/trickery/whatever based on your beliefs.  The roll isn't to determine if the"miracle" is actually a miracle or not.  It's to determine how many people believe it is truly a miracle, including you and your own sect.

I like it because it explicitly doesn't make a comment on the reality of miracles; there is nothing in the concept that states objectively that an event was a miracle.  In that way, people who believe in miracles are not hurt, as they can believe that any of the events were miracles, if possibly unrecognized, and people who don't believe in miracles are not hurt, because they can believe that any of the events were not miracles.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I don't see it Chris, but that might be what Clinton means. But don't you need two conflicts then? One to resolve whether you get what you want, one to see if you believe the outcome is because of a miracle? Complicated. (Because you have to still find out whether the blind man can see, right? Or are you thinking that the actual outcome doesn't matter?)

Considering the limitations that the DiV approach causes, I'd be tempted to just make the "magic rules" optional. Let the play group hash out whether they want magic or not. Although one should remember that magic is hardly the only effect of miracles. That's pretty much the loophole the DiV rules use: your objectively useful "Faith" trait can be interpreted as miracle-working or just additional zeal, or you can just all agree it's part of the theme of the story that faithful succeed better, and not worry about it.

[motherlessgoose]

One thing...I believe that a lot of Christians would have problems with "playing God" in granting miracles.  The GM would effectively be deciding on granting miracles.  A system somewhere along the lines of D20's divine magic fixes this.

[rafial]

A slight departure from the discussion above, but the game I have played that featured miracles that felt to me most like a miracle should, and not like "another kind of spellcaster", was Miles Christi, a French roleplaying game in which the characters are all very historically accurate Templars.  Miles Christi uses playing cards for resolution, and during regular play, you may, at your option set aside high cards, accepting failure.  Later, once you've built up a pool of these set aside cards, you can bring them out in your moment of need to call for a miracle.  It sets up this really nice cycle of virtuous suffering, and then in extremis, the miracle that sets things aright.

From what I've read so far, I don't think that that view of miracles is what Clinton is intending to explore in this game, but I bring it up to point out that whatever the premise, miracles *must* be more than "okay, I cast heal, spending 5 faith points".

[ejh]

So, Clinton, is this your own Dogs?  Perhaps a personal question.

My reaction to all of this is that a proper early Christian miracle must always be a *sign* of something, and what it is a sign of (at least in the interpretations of those present) must be essential to the rules for it in a game like this.

I wouldn't worry so much about the "supernatural vs trick" distinction, personally. There's *some* of that in the ancient world -- there *were* skeptics -- but both Christians and Pagans, of all flavors, on the whole, believed in supernatural events, signs, wonders, and the like, and interpreted their lives in terms of them.

If what is at issue to everyone present is not "did or didn't something supernatural happen?" but "was that sign, that wonder, a sign of or from Christ, or was it because these people are not, as they claim, Jews named Paul and Silas, but Zeus and Hermes in disguise?" then the rules don't have to concern themselves with it either, or with who believed it was or wasn't supernatural.

8   And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
9   The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
10   Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
11   And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12   And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13   Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14   Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15   And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16   Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Please continue to have this conversation. If you've a compelling reason they wouldn't be performing miracles, I'd love to hear it.

I'm just wondering what your game is really about?  What's your premise?  Is it "men with power can get people to do what they want so how far will they go"?  If so, you'll want to include miracles.   If not, why would you want to include them? (Note: that's not a rhetorical question; I really want an answer.)

The Big Question of the game: "If things had been different - that is, if someone like this was around and preaching in the first few centuries - what could Christianity have become? What have we lost?"

ejh asked if this is my Dogs. Totally, man. I'll open up a little here and tell you part of my deal: I'm a Christian, but I'm not a normal one. I don't believe in the literal-ness of the Bible. I don't believe Christ came to say he was the Son of God and believe up in him or burn. I do believe that people wrote the Bible and people made mistakes and we all get the chance to think about what we believe and how that works and any one who tells you they got it all right doesn't have it right at all.

So, I use this game to explore what Christianity could be. I'm looking to the past, but you know, it has repercussions for today.

Why miracles? The recording of miracles has greatly affected what Christianity has become. Many Christians believe in the power of miracles still today. (Do I? Honestly, that's really complicated.) So, if I throw out miracles, I throw out this whole realm of possibility.

(This part's for Eero specifically, but others too.) I'm really bad at explaining what I mean above. I don't mean that miracles happen because of some consensus reality. Let me see if I can explain:

Let's say I tell you I have a snake in a shoebox. You believe me. I ask you to open the box and you don't because you don't want to be bitten by a snake. I leave the box in a room with you and you tell the next people to come in, "Hey, there's a snake in that box." They sit on the opposite side of the room because they think there's a snake in that box.

Now, what if there's not a snake in the box? Were you not affected? Of course you were - you didn't open it, and others didn't sit near it. The snake may not exist. The snake, however, is real - it has the power to affect people. That's my point with miracles: even if they didn't really happen, they can still be real. (This is my thoughts on the idea of God. So that's where it comes from.)

As for some sort of resolution to say whether the blind man sees - there isn't one besides whether the blind man believes. If a player says, "I'm going to heal this man's sight in the name of Christ," the only resolution is whether the blind man believes in it.