in_nomine-digest Friday, October 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2815 In this digest: Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) IN> Faith IN> Firemen Questions (about cheerleaders) Re: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) Re: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) Re: IN> On Khalid RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) IN> On Khalid IN> Renegade Archangels- Plot Seed RE: IN> An appropriate punishment? Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) Re: IN> Firemen Questions (about cheerleaders) IN> New Poster IN> Only single choir/brand Sup? Re: IN> Faith/DP of Fanatiscm Re: IN> New Poster Re: IN> Faith/DP of Fanatiscm Re: IN> Firemen Questions IN> The Demon of Sloths IN> Candi, Demon of Blonde ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:20:02 -0400 From: Matthew Gerber Subject: Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) On 10/10/02 9:13 PM, "Kish" wrote: > You don't have to believe in scientific principles, as such. Nor are > you supposed to. You're just supposed to believe that they're what fits > the best available evidence. Ideally, the "scientific principles require faith" argument *shouldn't* hold any water. Ideally. In practice, scientists do turn into advocates way, way too often. The arguments that ensue tend to look depressingly like heated religious debates. (I'd really love to listen in on Jean and Khalid having coffee sometime. If for no other reason than to talk about their mutual connection to coffee.) > Faith, by Matthew's definition as I understand it, means active belief > in the absence of evidence. No room for, "I believe the best available > evidence indicates that God created the world"--either you believe God > created the world, period, or you don't have faith. Science, at least > ideally, should be able to change and adapt painlessly. Faith can't. > If it was proven tomorrow that species didn't evolve, it might hurt > people (including scientists) who have personal investments in evolution > but it wouldn't hurt science. If it was proven tomorrow that the > Christian God does not exist, Christianity would be mortally wounded. You make an excellent point, and one I'd like to expand on a little. First, be careful not to compare a specific point of faith with the generality of science. In the situation you hypothesize, it is true that the Christian faithful, including me, would be left with major parts of our worldviews disrupted and wondering where to go from there. But the idea of searching for sensibly applicable truth and sensibly derivable hope beyond raw facts currently known could survive such a thing without a problem: the concept of faith in and of itself would be undamaged. Correspondingly, if it was proven tomorrow that the class of computable problems solvable in ordinary polynomial time was equivalent to the class solvable in nondeterministic polynomial time, most theories of modern cryptography would break down, and cryptographic scientists and computer security workers, including me, would be left with major parts of our practical mathematical knowledge disrupted and wondering where to go from there. But obviously, science per se would be just fine. (Obscure idea seed for the computer geek crowd. Does P=NP in Heaven? What about in Hell? How much does it matter? Has someone done this one already?) There *are* a couple of points where the analogy breaks down somewhat, the first being what I'm pretty sure was your central point. (Or I could be wrong. I keep flunking my first-year telepathy class.) Faith, generally being spiritual, tends to cover stuff that goes a lot closer to the emotional core than science for most people. If I find out that P=NP, I'm going to be saying "oh, bloody felching *heck*" for a good long time, but the fundamental ways in which I live my life and interact with other people aren't going to be altered. If a central "theory" of Christianity were categorically proven untrue, I would obviously be far more disrupted. This means that there is usually a risk to faith that is not usually there with science: if an article of my faith is proven false, then I must either blind myself to the truth or accept the fact that something I have based my identity on has turned out to be worthless. Again (and as you also point out) this distinction is often blurred when scientists become advocates, but the distinction *should* be there. Now, I think this risk doesn't really exist, or I wouldn't really have faith in the first place; this is what I meant when I said that fear of scientific inquiry proceeds from a lack of faith. But the risk exists as an empirical possibility. (There are some interesting games to play here. Hard to find a specific one that wouldn't be *blindingly* offensive to a lot of people, though. Maybe a character who's just arrived in Heaven or Hell and found out the more or less inarguable truth about an Ethereal religion?) The thing is, that risk doesn't really do anything to invalidate faith as a thought process. In the end, it is a matter of degree, and the final problem comes down to be the same thing: if the theories I (work/live) by are wrong, then I get to deal with that the hard way. The second place where the analogy breaks down is really more a thought experiment than anything else. There's a (highly theoretical) way to break faith in general, at least as most people apply it. Go back to the assumption that faith covers the spiritual realm, which it generally does; faith attempting to cover the laws of the physical realm at other than the prophetic level has almost always proven to be a really, really bad idea. At this point, if you hypothesize a closure of the universe to the physical realm, and prove it--i.e., obtain incontrovertible evidence that life after death, spiritual entities, etc., are all a bunch of garbage--then you will very effectively break the concept of faith in most of its effective areas. (So what happens if someone manages to prove that what's at the top of Jacob's Ladder is... Nothing? Not Limbo, not Space, just sheer, absolute nonexistence. Purely Nothing there. I have a feeling this idea gets really Dark really fast, and my brain just doesn't feel like going there right now, but it could be an interesting place to look at from a very long distance and poke with a stick...) To break the concept of science correspondingly, you have to hypothesize that experiments are not generally reproducible, and this hypothesis has the little problem of being demonstrably wrong. Quantum mechanics makes all of this a little squishy, but doesn't break it in any way that makes it unusable. (Trying to put the thought experiment for *this* one together is likely to result either in migraine or in Lewis Carroll. Quite possibly both. The fact that Maurice Lane may read this suddenly worries me badly. It should, quite possibly, worry you too.) Anyway, you captured the general idea of my distinction--but the problem is, it's a bit finer. Proof is a better term than evidence; something like the following: Science is believing something is true because it has been proven. Faith is believing something is true despite the fact that it has not been proven. The reason I insist on the distinction between proof and evidence is that evidence is too slippery a word. There is a *great* deal of evidence I can quote for the Christian world view, and, in fact, it is the best available evidence I have been able to find in its domain; if I attempted to present it as a scientific demonstration of the existence of the Christian God at the University at which I work, I would, rightly, be laughed out of the classroom. Science is always a more precise tool when you can use it: scientists must deal with uncertainty from the Heisenberg principle on up, but with proper work, the uncertainty can be made very, very small. Matters of faith can't be proven by definition: if they're proven, they're demonstrable, and become matters of science. (This raises the question of whether, after a War ending in a way that showed the Celestials and Humanity exactly what was what--q.v. "And I Feel Fine"--Khalid would just fall over and dissipate. My thought would be probably not, since "spiritual truth" and "faith" are concepts bound tightly enough in just about everyone's perception that even if they're not strictly the same thing, there's probably a lot of the former in Khalid's word, so he'd just take over the new branch of then-science that made singing noises while Jean kept the branch that made sparks.) I really need to start on that Archangel. Maybe this weekend. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:15:55 -0600 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) << Ideally, the "scientific principles require faith" argument *shouldn't* hold any water. Ideally. In practice, scientists do turn into advocates way, way too often. The arguments that ensue tend to look depressingly like heated religious debates. >> Very true, but IMO not the whole story. I think that there is also a distinction between faith and science in terms of motive for belief. This may sound like flamebait, but I really don't mean to badmouth religion here, just to make what I see as a valid point. The motive of science is to discern truth. (Technology is the study of _applying_ truth, and I feel that many "scientists" are really technologists, but that's beside the point.) The methodology by which science comes up with it's postulates (ideally) reflect this, being both objective and validated through induction. The motive of faith is different. The vast majority* of the faithful believe what they believe for some reason other then the desire to believe truth. Faith fills a kind of emotional need in the human psyche, at least so I would speculate. If we want to use loaded language, we can, and from either side; faith is either the "opiate of the Masses" or the only thing which can fill "a God-shaped hole in the soul." But the basic concept is the same; the motive for faith is an emotional need. Don't believe me? Try this thought-experiment. There are lots and lots of people who believe that the Bible is quite literally true. There are lots and lots of people who believe that God's actions in the Bible paint him as an evil figure. These are two entirely compatible premises, so logically we should have a demographically significant number of malthe- ists. We don't. Why? Because maltheism doesn't fulfill the basic emotional need that a loving, paternal all-good God does. This even goes a step further. Take a Bible literalist, and have them experience something that makes them believe premise B. 99% of the time, they stop believing in Bible literalism immediately; IOW, as soon as the belief ceases to fulfill the emotional needs faith originates from, people stop believing it. Because of this, it is my opinion that faith is not in itself a rational discipline, as the motivation that most people have for believing the tenets of faith is not a motive that is in the spirit of genuine rational inquiry. Now, there are some people who make a very sincere effort to believe thing which are both emotionally fulfilling in the sense of faith, and logically rigourous as rational truths; Thomas Aquinas being the poster boy for this manner of thinking. But with the modern state of scientific understanding, it becomes very difficult to believe all the tenets of one of the major world religions from a genuinely rationalistic motive, unless you either take the "it's all just metaphor" tack that essentially boils Christianity down to Bible- flavoured generic theism or seriously exercize your Habba- logic muscles. IOW, it doesn't matter how good a logical argument you present to support a belief; if your motive for believing is not rational, the belief itself isn't rational (in the sense of being in the spirit of objective search for truth) either, no matter how sound the justi- fications are. Consider this analogy: there is a teenage science student who is a fervent believer in the theory of evolution and has read many books on the topic. As such, he can present a whole plethora of solid arguments in evolution's favour. However, the ultimate motive he has for believing in evolution is that his science teacher has really big breasts, and he hopes to dazzle her with his Junior-High intellect. I think we can all agree that his belief isn't rational, no matter the quality of arguments he puts forth to support it. Now, how this relates to Khalid. I think that Khalid's *personality*, as written, does not jibe with being an Elohite at all, but that's not what we're discussing here. Can an Elohite hold the Word of Faith well? I think it's possible, but difficult, like a Malakite with potentially contradictory oaths. The catechism of an Elohite Archangel of Faith would likely be a very abstracted theism, not the catechism of one of the Big Religions. There's just too much irrational beliefs in those, IMO. Now admittedly, liberal Islam is about the most rationally sound of the major religions on Earth, and certainly above Judaism and Christianity, so Khally made the right choice there. But the central crux is still there: the EAoF must always believe both rationally and faithfully, like Aquinas, and even with generic theism that's difficult. With Islam, it stretches into the nearly impossible. Interesting issues, perhaps, but I do think Khalid would work better as a Malakite, Bright Lilim or Grigori. I do look forward to Matthew's writeup, though. And lest I be labeled as a hypocrite, I will note that I do have a writeup of Backwards Elohite Khalid of my own, that will go up with the rest of my heresy at some vague, undetermined future date. That's not because I retract the above, it's because I pretty severely glitched both the Elohite definition of objectivity and Khalid's religious perspective in my setting. - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:49:00 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> Faith > (Someday, I really, really need to get around to writing up my variant > Elohite Archangel of Faith.) Good. And make him avoid dogma and tenets. That always bothered me about Khalid. Not very objective. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:49:01 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> Firemen Questions (about cheerleaders) >> From: BC Petery >> We don't need a bunch of flamin' cheerleaders. > > Just so I understand--no praising others for their good work? No. No praising others for flaming. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:32:10 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" > > No. Nobody was answering the question I asked, they were repeating my > question as a statement and saying that it was an answer. Wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) - --- Kish wrote: > You don't have to believe in scientific principles, as > such. Nor are > you supposed to. You're just supposed to believe that > they're what fits the best available evidence. Quite so! Alas, many people go beyond that objective knowledge into the realm of scientific dogma. That's one of the reasons why new ideas in science often face such resistance even if the evidence supports them (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, for example). > Faith, by Matthew's definition as I understand it, means > active belief > in the absence of evidence. No room for, "I believe the > best available > evidence indicates that God created the world"--either > you believe God > created the world, period, or you don't have faith. That about covers it, yes. > Science, at least > ideally, should be able to change and adapt painlessly. You're right -- that's the ideal situation. Where humans are involved, ideal situations are often difficult to come by. > Faith can't. Not so. Faith requires a certain amount of flexibility - -- if not, it's impossible to achieve deeper levels of spiritual understanding. Faith even needs the possibility of doubt, but that's a balancing act. Lean too far to one side and you fall into unbelief. Lean too far the other way and you get dogma (which is not faith in that dogma can continue to believe in the face of disproof). This, IMO, was Khalid's problem. He wasn't managing the balancing act very well. Whether he would have tipped over into dogma or unbelief is an open question, but his proposed Word as a DP (Fanaticism) implies the former. > If it was proven tomorrow that species didn't evolve, it > might hurt > people (including scientists) who have personal > investments in evolution > but it wouldn't hurt science. If it was proven tomorrow > that the > Christian God does not exist, Christianity would be > mortally wounded. Definitely true. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:38:17 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" > > > Does the ship you serve on not have a backup power plant, in case > > the main one fails? > > Why, yes it does. Then you should understand why redundency is not a sign of needless pessimism, but rather sign of a good planner, no? > If you want to continue to play smart ass word games, I've got a couple of > hours on watch here, so go right ahead. It wasn't a word game on my part, but rather an attempt to draw a parallel for you between Yves' choice of which angels to assign to Gabriel, and the planning that goes into building a ship for the navy. In neither case are you expecting to fail; rather, the idea is to protect against the chance that one unit assigned to the job will need to be replaced. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 05:44:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) - --- Matthew Gerber wrote: > Science is believing something is true because > it has been > proven. Faith is believing something is true despite the > fact that it has not been proven. Much better than I put it. Thanks, Matt. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:47:29 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> On Khalid From: "Rolland Therrien" > > I'm still sketchy about some details, but is that a good assesment of how to > handle Khalid? Looks good. Nicely done, sir. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) - --- Julian Mensch wrote: > Very true, but IMO not the whole story. I think that > there is also a distinction between faith and science > in terms of motive for belief. This may sound like > flamebait, but I really don't mean to badmouth religion > here, just to make what I see as a valid point. Contrary to popular belief, you can discuss religion with some people. Say on. > The motive of science is to discern truth. I have to fall back on Indiana Jones here. Remember that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where he describes archaeology as the search for _facts_, and refers those who are looking for _truth_ to the philosophy class? That's an important distinction. Facts are reducible, demonstrable and provable. Truth is a lot more slippery. Proper scientific inquiry concerns itself with facts. It's when scientists begin to mistake their subject matter for truth that they start to act like freaky fundies. All my opinion, of course, but I suspect that other peoples' experience can corroborate this. (Technology > The motive of faith is different. The vast majority* of > the faithful believe what they believe for some reason > other then the desire to believe truth. The faithful believe specifically to find truth. Believing facts isn't really part of that. This is one of the problems of faith; many confuse believing independently of facts with a requirement to not believe the facts. > Faith fills a kind > of emotional need in the human psyche, at least so I > would speculate. Among other things, yes. For myself, it also provides a framework for personal discipline, especially as relates to matters of character. One of the reasons you don't see me making flamey outbursts when somebody posts something that offends me. > Because of this, it is my opinion that faith is not in > itself a rational discipline, as the motivation that most > people have for believing the tenets of faith is not a > motive that is in the spirit of genuine rational inquiry. Suprisingly enough, I agree with this statement. > Interesting issues, perhaps, but I do think Khalid > would > work better as a Malakite, Bright Lilim or Grigori. As do I. I lean toward Malakite, myself. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:18:18 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> On Khalid If Khalid has met God, face to lightbulb as it were, there is no need for him to question the existence of God. Khalid's problem was that Laurence was appointed Commander of the Host over him, something that made Khalid leave Heaven rather than accepting the situation gracefully. If Khalid had been objective about the situation he would have realized Laurence's and Uriel's appointment was not because they were the best for the job, it was because they the AAs with the most time on their hands. >;> Think about it. Purity and Honor. These guys are _not_ busy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:18:19 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> Renegade Archangels- Plot Seed > Done! So, comments, questions, additions, complaints? Neat-o! Even if the whole thing is just BalProp, and Vapula is only conducting a brief experiment on the Corporeal Plane (or trying to get his head together so that he may safely return to Hell), there are still people who are going to believe each and every one of these scenarios. Folks raiding Tartarus for abandoned goodies can find themselves the subjects of experiments (read: death traps). Where _did_ I put my old Gamma World books? You finally uncover Vapula's whereabouts, but when you get there you find he's gone back to Hell. And Fleurity never left; he was on a week long bender with Andrealphus. Asmodeus will look like an idiot. (Which is a good enough reason to do anything.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:24:38 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: RE: IN> An appropriate punishment? I never really sorted that out completely, I was mostly using it as a hook to get a couple characters from the Midwest to Texas, and decided that part of the "Things to do in Austin" would work nicely. As a final thought, I think I'm gonna have to soak this one. My players had no understanding of how actions by celestials on the Symphony cause Disturbance; one player I talked to (who runs just about every other game system under the sun as a GM) was surprised to learn that the disturbance has more to do with Celestials interfering with the affairs of mortals than with the simple act of ruining a piece of equipment. As I'm the only one with the core book, I can't penalize the group for not acting on knowledge they didn't have. Given the other precautions they took, it's reasonable that they would have taken that into account, had they known. Well, now they know. Live and learn, I guess. At 02:04 AM 10/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: >What is Vilson/Vapula up to with the Tokomak anyway? From the text in RevI >its not seeing any active service but derives its status from 'dark >experiments on human subjects to answer some questions for Vapula about the >nature of physical reality'. > >What, they chucked some humies in a tokomak to see what would happen, and >now its gone 'a bit dark' (it doesn't actually say 'tether' anywhere >either)? I can't see the AA of Lightning being opposed to tokomaks in >general, so why are his servitors so keen to see this one shut down (as >comments relating to the loss of destinies apply as much to a closed off >tokomak as to a destroyed one). > >So what's Vap doing with his tokamak now? Hmm I wonder... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:37:47 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) > I really need to start on that Archangel. Maybe this weekend. > > > Matt Oh yes! I look forward to your creation. And a very eloquent post you made. I love post that present new ways of looking at something, different view points or the same view point presented in a new light. Even the dark ideas of nothing being beyond Jaccob's Ladder *shudders* for dark, it was very dark. Good Job! Jeff =) Part of my insanity manifest at JCT, where In Nomine meets science fiction in the far future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jctrinityRPG - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:08:55 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: RE: IN> Faith (from: The Glory of Islam) > Very true, but IMO not the whole story. I think that > there is also a distinction between faith and science > in terms of motive for belief. This may sound like > flamebait, but I really don't mean to badmouth religion > here, just to make what I see as a valid point.< > -- Julian Mensch Very well presented and wonderful analysis. It does cause self-examination--check list of sorts in an OT sort of way. I think I fall in between the cracks as I do believe in the bible, but there are things in it I don't like, however it doesn't invalidate my belief. Its not purely an emotional support as I do find many truths in it, and cling to it far more for the latter than the former. But back to IN: Khalid as an Elohite--that thread is also well thought out, he might not have worked out as any other choir. I've always like the idea of a Kyriotate as the AA of faith, since that choir can embrace so many different points of view. Roughly the same reason I love Moe's Kyriotate Eli, embracing creation as everything. Though Khalid would not have made a good Kyiotate as he, like Laurence, is focused on one point of view. Still great thoughts on why he is the way he is. Jeff =) Part of my insanity manifest at JCT, where In Nomine meets science fiction in the far future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jctrinityRPG - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:18:53 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions (about cheerleaders) > >> From: BC Petery > >> We don't need a bunch of flamin' cheerleaders. > > > > Just so I understand--no praising others for their good work? > > No. No praising others for flaming. Thanks! *phew* Getting a little worried there. *heads back to cheerleading squad* Jeff =) Part of my insanity manifest at JCT, where In Nomine meets science fiction in the far future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jctrinityRPG - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:21:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Randy Finder Subject: IN> New Poster Hello. I just joined the list. I've read quite a bit on the web sites but have never played IN. Randolph Finder - -- Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:30:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Randy Finder Subject: IN> Only single choir/brand Sup? The writeup on Vapula talking to Fleurity about Makatiel and what it is like to be a Superior Habbalah got me to thinking about other Superiors talking to their Superior band mates when I realized that I can't come up with a canon superior bandmate for Jordi. Are there any other Canon Kyriotate Superiors? Who else is lonely (and yes I'm using lonely and a Kyriotate in the same sentence) other than Jordi? For this I'm not counting Lilith (if she isn't along things get really ugly) and Kronos and Yves are *not* bal/ser Also, is there any place online that has as easy reference Eli-Mercurian Saminga-Shedite etc.? Randy Finder - -- Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:47:36 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Faith/DP of Fanatiscm > Not so. Faith requires a certain amount of flexibility > -- if not, it's impossible to achieve deeper levels of > spiritual understanding. Faith even needs the possibility > of doubt, but that's a balancing act.< Well said sir! I didn't think I would have enjoyed this discussion, actually cringed when it was raised up, but no where else have I seen people on both sides of the line intelligently and maturely discuss faith and science. *applause to all of you* > This, IMO, was Khalid's problem. He wasn't managing the > balancing act very well. Whether he would have tipped over > into dogma or unbelief is an open question, but his > proposed Word as a DP (Fanaticism) implies the former.< >

Michael Walton,< Yes, and despite how bright I like IN to be, I did have Khalid fall and become the DP of Fanaticisim. *hides head in shame* Though my decision was more based on the artwork, he looked soooo cool, than a thought out process. There was also the story aspects of I could get more milage out of Khalid as the DP of Fanaticism than I could as the AA of Faith. He fell into the Janus hole, that is 'I see the need for that niche to be covered, but nothing I can see the use of in the game beyond--neat powers.' I guess with Janus couldn't really reconcile the theives for heaven concept and for Khalid, his having a gripe with God's choice of commanders didn't go well with the idea of the AA faith. Though the character is good so I wonder if anyone would have an idea, what better Word should Khalid have been? Jeff =) Part of my insanity manifest at JCT, where In Nomine meets science fiction in the far future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jctrinityRPG - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:04:25 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> New Poster > Hello. I just joined the list. I've read quite a bit on the web sites but > have never played IN. > > Randolph Finder Welcome to the list! You'll find some of the most creative posters I've seen gathered in one place here and I hope you enjoy them as much as, or more so, than I have. Jeff =) Part of my insanity manifest at JCT, where In Nomine meets science fiction in the far future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jctrinityRPG - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:07:25 -0600 From: sirea@softhome.net Subject: Re: IN> Faith/DP of Fanatiscm > Yes, and despite how bright I like IN to be, I did have Khalid fall and become the DP of Fanaticisim. *hides head in shame* Though my decision was more based on the artwork, he looked soooo cool, than a thought out process. There was also the story aspects of I could get more milage out of Khalid as the DP of Fanaticism than I could as the AA of Faith. He fell into the Janus hole, that is 'I see the need for that niche to be covered, but nothing I can see the use of in the game beyond--neat powers.' I guess with Janus couldn't really reconcile the theives for heaven concept and for Khalid, his having a gripe with God's choice of commanders didn't go well with the idea of the AA faith. Though the character is good so I wonder if anyone would have an idea, what better Word should Khalid have been? > Well, for an alternate Word, I personally advocate Nihilism, the opposite of Faith. I have Khalid as DP of Fanaticism in my INverse world though, as Fanaticism can be a potent demonic Word. It can be excessive faith in another, or faith without questioning anything. --- Sirea, Free Cherub IST Destiny, Angel who Wanders, petitioner for the Word of Eternity ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:09:47 +0000 From: glasgowc1@attbi.com Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions > It wasn't a word game on my part, but rather an attempt to draw a parallel > for you between Yves' choice of which angels to assign to Gabriel, and the > planning that goes into building a ship for the navy. In neither case are > you expecting to fail; rather, the idea is to protect against the chance > that one unit assigned to the job will need to be replaced. Which is why, whenever possible, the Marines like to station guard mounts at critical points in pairs. One guy can potentially blink at the wrong moment, fall asleep, or just be looking the wrong way. Two guys can look two ways at once, and keep each other awake and/or going nuts from boredom. PS -- David, you can access the Internet while *on watch*? Whiskey Tango [static], over? - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:53:33 -0400 From: EDG Subject: IN> The Demon of Sloths Special thanks to Sirea. - -EDG Ophectus Djinn of the Game Demon of Sloths Corporeal Forces: 4 Strength: 12 Agility: 4 Ethereal Forces: 4 Intelligence: 2 (10) Precision: 10 Celestial Forces: 5 Will: 10 Perception: 10 Suggested Word-Forces: 2-3 Skills: Climbing/6, Disguise/4, Knowledge (Area (Amazon Basin/6, Baltimore/2, Santa Barbara/2)), Fighting/3, Move Silently/6, Survival (Jungle/6) Songs: Attraction (All/4), Form (Ethereal/6), Shields (Celestial/6) Tongues(Celestial/6) Vessel: Sloth/3, sloth/3, sloth/3 Role: "Rapunzel" (Sloth in Baltimore Aquarium/6/3), (unknown name) sloth in Santa Barbara Zoo/6/2, "Leon" (sloth in Amazon Basin/6/1) Attunements: Djinn of the Game, Humanity, Demon of Sloths Demon of Sloths: When in a sloth vessel, Ophectus can add the vessel's level to his current Role for the purposes of reducing disturbance. Be careful what you ask for. Especially in Helltongue. Helltongue, more so even than its mother tongue, is an incredibly complex language; not only does it have a word (and thus a Word) for just about everything, but its declensions and conjugations are arcane in the extreme. Only a Gamester could hope to figure the whole thing out at once. Unfortunately, this Gamester didn't. Having received an audience with Lucifer for his excellent record in the service of the Asmodean Espionage Corps, Ophectus was ready to ask for a Prince-level Word - that of Sloth. Unfortunately, he got the pluralization a little confused. (An aside should be made here: Ophectus is - even by gremlin standards - colossally stupid. However, he has a pinpoint memory; when assigned to monitor a target, Ophectus can be readily expected to remember not only every word of the conversation but tones, inflections, and the number of pinstripes on the target's suit. If Ophectus were a normal character, his Intelligence would be 6; each CP put into Intelligence raises both of its values. What this means is that the lower value can't rise above 8, while the higher can go to 16. When rolling against Intelligence-based skills, use the lower number; when rolling to remember something, use the higher number.) Ophectus is still a valued member of the AEC, although his targets are typically of a different class since his Word-binding. Where he spied on agents of Creation, Trade, and Faith before, now his primary targets are Servitors of Christopher, Jordi, and Novalis. While he does make regular appearances in his two high-Status Roles (at the Baltimore Aquarium and the Santa Barbara Zoo) - at least four hours a day at each - he is most often to be found in the Amazon Rainforest. There's an interesting project going on down there that's reported to be co-funded by Lightning and Flowers, and Ophectus has been asked to keep an eye on it. Given his Word, and the fact that he spends most of his time on the corporeal plane anyway, it's almost irrelevant to discuss Ophectus's celestial form. On the other hand, it does give some demons a little cognitive dissonance to discover that he's a beetle. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:56:37 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: IN> Candi, Demon of Blonde Candi, Demon of Blonde, Balseraph of Dark Humor who Thinks she's a Balseraph of Lust In Service to the Media (actually IST both Lust and the Media). Forces: Corporeal 5 (Strength 6, Agility 14), Ethereal 2 (Intelligence 1, Precision 7), Celestial 2 (Will 6, Perception 2). Role: Beach Bum/MTV Groupie 6/6 Candi is one of Kobal's pet projects, even though she doesn't know it. What she also doesn't know is that she was pegged for the Word of Blonde all along. In the course of his search for humor, he noticed that Blondes tended to have more fun, had greater sex appeal, were more camera-friendly, and somehow managed to end up in embarrassing situations more frequently than any other hair color subset. And thus was Candi created. Almost immediately, Andrealphus took a shine to her (literally and figuratively) and, seemingly with no objections, Kobal let her enter Andre's service with surprisingly few objections. All was going according to plan. Kobal's grand master plan with Candi got an unexpected boost when Nybbas stepped into the picture. Teaming up with Andre, Nybbas helped make Candi from a bimbo to a cultural icon bimbo. Suddenly, Blonde was IT. Blonde movie stars got better roles (as long as they didn't require acting) and became a Hollywood standard for beauty and sex appeal, culminating in Marilyn Monroe's rise to fame (and famous trysts.) Quickly, Candi was granted her Word of Blonde. And Kobal laughed to himself, for with the elevation of Blonde to Word status, the prevalence of Blondes on the silver screen and television and the growth of hair coloring, so also came the realization of many things Kobal saw all along. An entirely new genre of jokes came into existence (why don't Blondes get coffee breaks?) and Blondes slowly began realizing that people weren't laughing WITH them so much as AT them. Nevertheless, blondes have not lost any of their sex appeal (in fact, they may have gained even more) and they still draw the Media ratings. But Kobal's true victory is that Candi is at once the joke, the punch line and the victim. Currently, Candi is in her 8th year as a sophomore at UCLA. She's studying to be a podiatrist because she loves children, and is quick to point out that she's a virgin because she won't eat meat. She's also sensitive to the plight of "cute little furry animals." (Note: some may question the legality of a 14 agility. It's one of her abilities that endears her to Andrealphus. 'Nuff said.) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2815 ********************************