From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 28 11:26:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA19747 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:26:30 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA26377 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:37:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:37:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199707281437.JAA26377@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #264 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, July 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 264 In this digest: Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Playing Dead IN> On Death and the Free Man IN>Looking for Demons.... IN> A small "Immortals" tangent IN> Redeeming Shedim IN> Non-Omnipotent God IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations Re: IN>Looking for Demons.... Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent Re: IN>Looking for Demons.... Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Aquinas, Omnipotence, and the Impossible Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations Re: IN> Aquinas, Omnipotence, and the Impossible Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God IN> Re: Non-omnipotent God re IN> Making a living Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:07:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God > >>>Actually, I think the reason for God being just a powerful Ethereal > is less PC and more plot based. If you base In Nomine on most > Christian thought, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Which causes > Or.... He IS "everything else". Thus, it's hard to argue whether or not God > is going to "win in the end." No matter who wins the War, He's still going I'm somewhat partial to this interpretation (and I think it would work nicely with the addendum someone just put up about how the Demons are essentially God's Dissonance...). > >>>b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a > powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new > source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it > Yeah, but then it means all you need to do is have another Ethereal Spirit > discover that same source of power. Myself, I take this from the other direction; the old Gods were CELESTIAL Spirits. Places like Olympus were Celestial planes in their own right. Then, as God began gaining more power, Uriel and the Heavenly Host went out and kind of jump-started things by successfully invading and trashing these other places, expanding Heaven, killing off a lot and forcing the rest to retreat to the Marches. Many of the mythical creatures Uriel destroyed were also more to the Celestial than Ethereal, though fewer of these. (I actually like to think that Unicorns were actually creatures of Purity, and were simply recalled with Uriel - Lawrence may still have some in his cavalry.) Note that in my view, reality isn't defined so much by belief as it is by Essence, in the hands of those that can use it...which is largely why followers and souls are important. (It's also why God is currently basing himself on at least three major religions...the others tended to limit themselves to one, which made it very difficult to `hold' multiple cultures...) Yes, this means that the Gods hanging out in the Marches ARE still Celestial powers in their own right, with limited ability to muck about and empower Servitors...it also means Uriel's crusade wasn't exactly easy, and, in my view, makes it much more impressive. {On the other hand, I know there's not much Canon support for it, and I gather there's going to be less as time goes on...but it's the view I like, so there you are.} >To me, this takes a great deal away from In Nomine's epic feel. It's no > longer an ultimate War between the two bipolar powers of the universe, > it's a war between the two entities who happen to have the biggest guns I will say this is one reason I prefer the above; it maintains a lot of the epic levels of it while adding a third dimension. It draws away a bit of the absolute Good vs Evil, but not as much as the "God's just Ethereal" theme does...there still very well may BE Good and Evil sides to the issue (and Uriel may have been recalled because he was taking out too many of the good, even if it was strenghtening God personally; as was noted in _Murder Mysteries_, the problem with making such a tool is that sometimes they work TOO well..) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:26:44 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 4:22 PM -0700 7/26/97, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >> > > Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. >> > >> > Are you sure? Perhaps God says says idolatry's wrong because it is. >> >> Please, let's not get into a discussion about this as it solves nothing. >> It's a circular argument: >> "Why is idolatry wrong?" >> "Because God says so." > >That step isn't there in his arguement, I think. His arguement is >that morality exists, and God agrees with it, not that God defines >morality. Nono, now let's not get carried away. I'm not arguing anything, I merely put forth the possability. But you're right as far as the content of my message. The question is: are moral things moral because God says they are, or does god say they're moral because they possess inherent morality? All I said however, was "are you sure?" and then put forth an alternative. I think the idea of this mailing list devolving into an argument about the nature and origin of god is probably a bad idea. It might be inevitable, but I still think it's probably a bad idea. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:23:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Playing Dead > Since an Celestial doesn't have to breath and has high resistance to > enviornmental factors like heat and cold, How easy is it for a Celestial to > fake death? Actually, Celestial vessels _do_ have to breathe. Oops da Ogre, who doesn't remember where that fact is mentioned, though ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:43:39 -0400 (EDT) From: JMiller579@aol.com Subject: IN> On Death and the Free Man Dear In Nomine Guys, Under Saminga's Servitor Attunement:Vampiric Kiss, it says the demon can drain Hits from a willing victim, what exactly constitues a willing victim? A helpful Mr. Bixler says that it would most likely be any person who is willingly being intimate with the demon, and I tend to agree with this but I wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Thanx for the time. Javan. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:09:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: IN>Looking for Demons.... I am looking for Demon PCs to serve as antagonists for a PBEM campaign to be starting (hopefully) in the near future. Any Band and Prince is acceptable. The only real requirement is to make a balanced starting character with no Discords. Undead and other types are acceptable as well. What sick person put an "S" in lisp? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:05:35 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent >>>Right now, I am trying to pull together something like an Angel book for White Wolf<<< Somewhere around, there is a set of netrules for Angels & Demons in the WoD, like the WoD Highlander netrules. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/Innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:05:29 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Redeeming Shedim >>>Certainly you would keep your band attunements, but your servitor attunements? I don't doubt you...but can you cite a page number for that rule? Thanks.<<< I will once it's published. (You can already infer it from the basic rules....what Outcasts and Renegades lose is specifically listed, and they are "built like any other character" with the aforementioned exceptions. If they weren't meant to have Attunements, it would have been mentioned.) >>>Or is it? My other question remains unanswered- namely, would Lilith be willing to cut a deal with a Shedim? It says the Lilim can't stand the Shedim, so it's probably a safe bet that Lilith can't either.<<< Lilith will deal with *anyone* who has something to offer. If she doesn't like you, she just charges more. >>>If redemption is out, and Lilith is out, then where? Better make that will roll to shatter your heart, your very existance is riding on it.<<< Yup. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/Innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:05:32 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Non-Omnipotent God >>>Well, your arguement has a few holes (the Church had little military power - what it had was the influence to get a countries military power moving),<<< I know-- that's what I meant. The Church itself didn't have any armies (well, not very big ones), but by taking a strong role in the Church, Michael had a great influence on how the military forces of Europe would be deployed. >>>I dislike this one - it redefines God to the point where the mere concept of God is pointless.<<< I don't know about pointless. It certainly redefines Him so He can't be quantified in game terms. >>>I don't really like epics - they fill up with entirely too much symbolism, for one. I have trouble seeing an epic battle between good and evil taking the form presented in any of the stories I have seen it in, from the Belgariad to In Nomine.<<< Different tastes.....I agree that few epics are realistic, but then, if you want realistic, why play a game about angels and demons? - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/Innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:05:27 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations >>>God is fated to win? The demon's are fated to loose? And so the story isn't epic? I can readily see where you would get this impression, I fretted with it myself, but in the end I disagree. First off, this game is an epic generator. My problem is that when demon's form small bands of mischief makers the loose ends stretch to infinity. In my first set of adventures two bands of demon's had a turf war with the angels on the sidelines...loose ends still abound.<<< Or it might be that you need to redefine your concept of "winning". The War is not and never was about whether Heaven or Hell has more military power. If Armageddon happened right now, Heaven would probably win. BUT, Earth would be a smoking wreck, and the story of mankind would be over. And an awful lot of souls would be lost to Hell (and oblivion). What's hanging in the balance is the fate of humanity. Lucifer wants to corrupt God's little pet project beyond salvation, thus foiling Him and proving that Lucifer was right. God (or Heaven, at least) wants to elevate mankind to a level where Lucifer and his demons become irrelevant (thus proving God was right), but this has to be accomplished through mankind's exercise of free will, or else the whole experiment was pointless. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/Innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 20:31:11 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Meares Subject: Re: IN>Looking for Demons.... I'm interested. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:38:36 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Right now, I am trying to pull together something like an Angel > book for > White Wolf<<< > > Somewhere around, there is a set of netrules for Angels & Demons in > the > WoD, like the WoD Highlander netrules. There is a description of sorts in Dark Ages Companion - but it's sooo unconvincingly...! Actually, it a description of Hell and Demons... It doesn't appeal me, anyway. In Mage's The Book of Worlds, there's an entry on Gabriel... He's an Incarna in their opinion... The entry is: "A stern and forceful archangel, Gabriel embodies the anger of God and His displease with sinners. Although most art depicts him as a white man with blond hair and fiery blue eyes (a guise he sometimes affects), his immortal form towers nearly a thousand feet into the sky, with wings that span the horizon and eyes dark as storm clouds. His skin shimmers blue-black in the lightning which surrounds his body, and the skies deepen into twilight. Gabriel's voice is a thousand thunderclaps, and everyone who even *thinks* of questioning him (let alone fight him) is immediately silenced by his grandeur." Wow, kinda pissed off, isn't he? Maybe it's because of what Dominic has done to him... :-) The entry ends with that lovely little thought: "If this is only a *servant* of God, what must God Him/Her/Itself be like...?" For us all to think (and it's politically correct too!)... Andre > > > -David > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/Innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:49:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN>Looking for Demons.... At 08:31 PM 7/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >I'm interested. > > What type of character interests you? What sick person put an "S" in lisp? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 02:52:15 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>This, of course, brings up the question: can God gain Dissonance? And if >>so, who's gonna call him on it? ;) > >If he does, he probably just sends himself to bed without dinner. Heck, >maybe he's still up in his room and that's why noone has heard from him >directly. =) And wouldn't God have a rather hard time finding a Superior to remove his Dissonance? Then again, he could probably be his own Superior: God - Omnipotent Servitor of God Could create a nasty feedback loop if the Demon of Beaurocracy ever got him with a "Refer this to your Supervisor" form. :) "Um, just a moment, I'll have to just consult with myself on this... Oh damn, I'm in a meeting. I'll call you back." Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:12:40 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Aquinas, Omnipotence, and the Impossible Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >Ummm - Thomas Aquinas wasn't very coherent, was he. > >"He can't the impossible, but he still is omnipotent..." > I think St. Thomas probably meant the *logically* impossible. And I tend to agree with him. We're not talking here about physical impossibilities like creating matter from nothing or giving life to the dead, but about things like making a square circle or causing 2+2 to equal seven. The first group are "impossible" in that no one we know has enough power to accomplish them, but there is still nothing inherently contradictory in saying that such a thing *might* be done, given enough power. An omnipotent being presumably has the required level of power to accomplish any physical impossibility we can name. The impossibility of the second group is not a matter of physical power, but of semantics. A square is defined by a certain set of criteria, a circle by another, and those two sets of criteria are mutually contradictory. By *definition* a square cannot also be a circle. (Oh, one could change the *words*, of course, but I'm referring to the concepts represented by the words.) Similarly, when we take the number of things signified by "two" and add the same number of things again, we are going to get four things, not seven. (Loaves-and-fishes miracles don't count here, since you're no longer really just adding two and two, but creating extra things from somewhere.) See also my earlier post on the absurdity of asking whether God can make a rock He can't lift (and the equivalent question of what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object). Phrases like "square circle" are tricky, because we can *say* them, and it sounds like they *should* mean something. Similarly, we can ask the question about the irresistible force and the immovable object, and it sounds reasonable enough. But we're not really saying anything coherent in these cases. A "square circle" would have to be *both* a plane figure with four equal sides meeting in right angles, *and* a collection of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given center point. Presuming Euclidean geometry, there is *nothing* that meets both of these definitions simultaneously. Such a thing cannot exist without changing one of the definitions. In the case of the force/object question, we implicitly assume that a force *defined* as irresistible and an object *defined* as immovable exist in the same reality and can be pitted against one another. But if we have a *really* irresistible force, then by definition there *is no* immovable object, and vice versa. Since no amount of raw power can make a logical impossibility possible, I side with St. Thomas in saying that it is no insult to God's omnipotence to say He cannot do the logically impossible. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:48:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations In a message dated 97-07-27 20:57:45 EDT, you write: << >>>God is fated to win? The demon's are fated to loose? And so the story isn't epic? I can readily see where you would get this impression, I fretted with it myself, but in the end I disagree. First off, this game is an epic generator. My problem is that when demon's form small bands of mischief makers the loose ends stretch to infinity. In my first set of adventures two bands of demon's had a turf war with the angels on the sidelines...loose ends still abound.<<< Or it might be that you need to redefine your concept of "winning". The War is not and never was about whether Heaven or Hell has more military power. If Armageddon happened right now, Heaven would probably win. BUT, Earth would be a smoking wreck, and the story of mankind would be over. And an awful lot of souls would be lost to Hell (and oblivion). >> I'm in absolute agreement on this last paragraph...sorry if I ever gave any other impression. The fate of humanity is very important to both sides! But your point seems to underscore my point. If you view my demonic turf war scenario in purely military terms then angelic victory was a foregone conclusion. The demons are committing fratricide, and the angels are smiling ruefully and preparing to mop up afterward. The tension, the worry, was for the sake of the poor mortals who were also affected. In terms of drama, I don't think it really matters if Lucifer and his demon's are doomed. The dramatic question is how humanity will fare. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 03:04:36 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations > I must say I find your 'war god' idea intrigueing and amusing! It > would be so very appropriate for a war god to turn to an more > pacifistic, loving outlook. Outlook A - Dark> He didn't. "The Lord thy God is a jealous God..." He hasn't changed his resonance any - he still gains essence for conflict, of any type - even a little for the War itself (despite it being outside the symphony). He has hidden it, because Lucifer was right, and Yaweh doesn't want his angels to defect. The problem is, Lucifer is probably bad news, as well. Crap on both sides, and a razorblade down the middle to walk... Outlook B - Lighter> He is still a tough guy, but he's good, basically. He, like Dominic, has had some tough choices to make - he allowed Uriel's purging of the Ethereal to a point. The petty conflicts with multiple enemies was dividing Heavens forces from the war, and many of the spirits were pillaging souls like Hell was/is. He's loosing, because while he may be tough, Hell is ruthless. The tide may turn, and the day may come when He will be able to tell humanity (and his Host) the truth, but until now he must lie. Actually, I like this better, because the line between the two is hard to see. So players can *really* wonder if they are on the right side. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 03:08:28 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Aquinas, Omnipotence, and the Impossible > >Ummm - Thomas Aquinas wasn't very coherent, was he. > > > >"He can't the impossible, but he still is omnipotent..." > > I think St. Thomas probably meant the *logically* impossible. > > And I tend to agree with him. > > We're not talking here about physical impossibilities like creating matter > from nothing or giving life to the dead, but about things like making a > square circle or causing 2+2 to equal seven. Okay - he can't contradict himself. Makes sense. > Stacy Stroud > sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net > > Stacy Stroud > sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net Just wanted to point out your multiple signatures, so you could fix them. Assuming that is not the way you intended them. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 03:04:36 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God > >>>Well, your arguement has a few holes (the Church had little military > power - what it had was the influence to get a countries military power > moving),<<< > > I know-- that's what I meant. The Church itself didn't have any armies > (well, not very big ones), but by taking a strong role in the Church, > Michael had a great influence on how the military forces of Europe would be > deployed. Sorry, just picking nits... > >>>I dislike this one - it redefines God to the point where the mere > concept of God is pointless.<<< > > I don't know about pointless. It certainly redefines Him so He can't be > quantified in game terms. If God is everything, and omnipotent to boot, and yet does not simply rearrange things to his Will, than: a) He does not care about the outcome of everything, and is pointless to the outcome, or b) He is not willing to interfere, and is pointless to the outcome, or, c) He is not aware of what is happening, and is pointless to the outcome. In all three cases, it is hard to see a reason why God would even have created the angels. And if he is unwilling to interfere because it is an experiment, then why does he allow angels or devils to interfere? Or, if the devils exist to tempt humans, ala Job, then why the angels. In any case, a fully omnipotent God (save maybe one that is toying with the universe) would not, IMO, result in the world we have in In Nomine. > >>>I don't really like epics - they fill up with entirely too much > symbolism, for one. I have trouble seeing an epic battle between > good and evil taking the form presented in any of the stories I have > seen it in, from the Belgariad to In Nomine.<<< > > Different tastes.....I agree that few epics are realistic, but > then, if you want realistic, why play a game about angels and > demons? I'm not looking for realistic - trust me, if I was, I would be playing more GURPS. I am looking for something that doesn't seem contrived. Belgariad, despite being a wonderful story, never made me wonder if the main characters would win. And playing a similar story is going to hit the same snags. But yes, different tastes. I dislike symbolism having any real power, which it often does in a epic story. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 03:04:36 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God > > >>>b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a > > powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new > > source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it > > Yeah, but then it means all you need to do is have another Ethereal Spirit > > discover that same source of power. > > Myself, I take this from the other direction; the old Gods were > CELESTIAL Spirits. Places like Olympus were Celestial planes in > their own right. Then, as God began gaining more power, Uriel and > the Heavenly Host went out and kind of jump-started things by > successfully invading and trashing these other places, expanding > Heaven, killing off a lot and forcing the rest to retreat the > Marches. Essentially, that is my view, as well. I am calling them Ethereal spirits because thats the way the list knows them. But there is no inherent differences between Heaven, Hell, and any other bulwarks in the Ethereal realm. > Many of the mythical creatures Uriel destroyed were also > more to the Celestial than Ethereal, though fewer of these. (I > actually like to think that Unicorns were actually creatures of > Purity, and were simply recalled with Uriel - Lawrence may still > have some in his cavalry.) Nice idea, that. I may use it yet. > Note that in my view, reality isn't defined so much by belief as > it is by Essence, in the hands of those that can use it...which is > largely why followers and souls are important. Yes. > (It's also why God is currently basing himself on at least three > major religions...the others tended to limit themselves to one, > which made it very difficult to `hold' multiple cultures...) I don't think that the others limited themselves out of choice, but rather out of lack of resources. > Yes, this means that the Gods hanging out in the Marches ARE still > Celestial powers in their own right, with limited ability to muck > about and empower Servitors... Yes. > {On the other hand, I know there's not much Canon support for it, > and I gather there's going to be less as time goes on...but it's > the view I like, so there you are.} I like it too; it is almost the same as mine. Care to work on this a little more together? >> To me, this takes a great deal away from In Nomine's epic feel. >> It's no longer an ultimate War between the two bipolar powers of >> the universe, it's a war between the two entities who happen to >> have the biggest guns > I will say this is one reason I prefer the above; it maintains a > lot of the epic levels of it while adding a third dimension. It > draws away a bit of the absolute Good vs Evil, but not as much as > the "God's just Ethereal" theme does...there still very well may BE > Good and Evil sides to the issue (and Uriel may have en recalled > because he was taking out too many of the good, even if it was > strenghtening God personally; as was noted in _Murder Mysteries_, > the problem with making such a tool is that sometimes they work TOO > well..) Sounds good - personally, I like God's stance as the good guy a little less set. Keep the angelic players wondering if they are really doing the right thing. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 08:06:51 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: IN> Re: Non-omnipotent God nathaniel eliot: " > He set up the angels and demons to take care of the whole housekeeping > aspect of making sure human souls end up in Heaven or Hell and are > reincarnated properly, and prevent the world from going too far towards > Good or Bad - checks and balances, if you like. He's unaware that the > War is going on - whenever he visits Heaven (which is very rarely) the > Archangels and Demon Princes pretend nothing is going on. Or maybe he knows, but is of the opinion that angels are the ones that should be doing things, not him. The Fall did not suprise him, but was not of his planning; however, the only steps he takes against it are to sic angels on the demons. " Maybe God has a similar agenda to David, and he is testing the world in order to toughen everyone involved in the War. In this case Satan's Fall may have been preplanned to provide the right conditions to spark the War. Although whether this is to assist Celestials or Humans to evolve is unclear (hand me a pen and paper and I'll work it out - damn these paper-free offices). Following is some stuff which may offend Christians and Americans (I hope not, but if so my apologies, but it is stuff which has sprung up in the way I see the IN world). From reading some of the AA descriptions I am convinced that in the Celestial war God is Evil (although Lucifer doesn't really as good, I'd call him brutal, and nearly as evil, but a better alternative). After all Lucifer doesn't claim to be "Good". Picture God with the face of (that FBI cross-dresser [I'm Australian, I shouldn't have to remember merkin names]). Satan makes a very attractive Fidel Castro. OK, so the analogy doesn't hold up perfectly, but you get my drift: Big hulking bullyboy attempts to squash anybody who doesn't conform to his ideals of how the world should be. Lucifer stands for all of the people (and Celestials) who want to decide their own fate, without being watched over by the likes of Dominic and Laurence (straight laced, by-the-book, (possibly homophobic) dullards [OK, AA Beth may have a thing for Laurence, but he's about as exciting as a daytime talk show]). Lucifer has a reflection of these two in Asmodeus, but he doesn't dress himself up in such righteous terminology as "Judgement". He just goes out and kicks the sh!t out of demons who go against their bosses (who by and large are fairly autonomous, Satan just likes to knock any contenders down a peg). Every system needs some standards after all. Of course, calling God Evil does not imply that all of his angels are evil. Novalis is probably as far from evil as you get, but put someone like Dominic in charge and everyone would be put to death to protect themselves ("This is for your own good. After all, if we kill you, then you can't commit any acts of heresy, can you?"). Alot of people probably have a problem with me seeing God as implicitly more evil than Satan when some of his Servitors are Death, War, and the media (spit), but I think that it is in the way that these two manifest themselves through their primary Superiors actions that is more important. God has a restrictive, conformist attitude, but Lucifer has a "go on, do whatever but just don't f*ck with me or you'll know about it" style to him. Plus he has the DP of Lust on his side :) (anyone got any good leering smileys?) Alot of how the Big Two are perceived would come through in personal GMing styles and whether you are playing an Angelic or Demonic campaign (it's hard to run an angelic game when God is no better than those he is fighting against). Although I suspect it may all boil down to whether you prefer to be ruled by Darwin's Law (the big Red dude) or "Do what I say, not do what I do" (the grumpy old beard in a dress). And whoever does win, I can't see it affecting Humans much either way. The track record of institutional religion does nothing to support the fact that all will be sweetness and light once heaven triumphs, and if the Hordes of Hell are victorious, the world will just become a little more fun and violent. Points for Hell: no chance of another Inquisition (and the Catholic church as an institution [I'm not attacking Catholics personally]), TV, Drugs, Lust, Heavy Metal (and we all know those Bible bashing loonies have been calling it Satanic since AC/DC and JP) and we can probably credit them with alcohol too (the sixth food group). Points for heaven: the world would be a safer place for animals (who deserve it much more than people anyway), no Lilim, (can't think of any others). Any others spring to mind?? Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:00:38 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: re IN> Making a living Dear Kingsly, Nathaniel, Walt and List >I wrote >> Is it reasonable to have a Superior say "For this mission I give you this >> Holy Gun to slay the Demon and this briefcase of unmarked nonsequential >> $20's to cover expenses." >Kingsly Lint replied > Maybe for a specific, very important mission, they might toss in >cash...MOST of the Superiors (Marc as an obvious exception) I don't see >even thinking about expenses, however. (After all, what DO they need to >spend it on? Travel, perhaps...if they don't have the Song of Motion. >And even there, I think most Superiors are likely to temporarily shanghai >the nearest Ofanite to the cause than to suggest Greyhound...) I can see a couple of hitches with this. First Superiors don;t have roles either, why should they supply their servitors with one? Superiors know a lot about stuff, even if they chose not to use it, like Jordi with any technology or David with ranged weapons. Also I think that an AA will give you what ever they think you need to complete a mission. Why would they send you out under prepared given the information they had to hand? You can make up your won mind about Demon Princes :) Although this might mean that you got some stuff that wasn't immediatly useful. "Servitor for this mission I give you a roll of used $100 bills, a National Rifle Association letter opener and a jar of peanut butter." "Thanks Eli." >I wrote >> Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST >> facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? >Kingsly replied > Too much mucking about with the Symphony. I expect they >occasionally have to STOP Vapula and Nybbas from setting things like that >up... I can't see too much direct disprution to the Symphony. However you wouldn't want to get too dependant on it cause it might be tracked. Also Marc deosn;t want to take direct control of this sort of financial mechanism because if he controls too much it take the "Trade" out of the transactions. I think that Marc really dislikes monopolists. >I wrote >>Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST >>facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? >Walt replied >I'd expect Marc has, but he's not going to pass that money out to just >anyone. I'd say if you're working for Marc, no problem. Eli's Abracadabra >can make gold or diamond to raise money, too. If you're not friendly with >one of those two, you might need to cut a deal with someone who is if you >need a lot of money. But I think the more fundamental answer is to make it >which ever way serves the story better: have them dig up the money somehow, >or have it given to them. >Nathaniel replied >And it would be a good way to remove the casual concern, without >allowing abuse. After all, Marc will not like unnecessary expenses. I agree, there are ways to make a bit of cash around the place and if we are all working together then there is no reason why we shouldn't all be able to keep the gravey flowing. Of course everyone has to put in his fair share. I can;t see Eli putting up with layabouts and recompnese for time is a fair Trade in anyones language. Thanking you all for your indulgence. Yours Peter Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Whoso loveth God truely must not expect to be loved by Him in return." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:41:46 +0900 From: Dave Conrad Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Sam Kington wrote: > Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > If god > > isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: > > > > a) He lost some power when he created the universe, and everything > > b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a > c) God isn't good. He created the world, granted, but He's now moved on, d) God is omnipotent, but limited his powers when he gave parts of his creation free will. His lack of action stems not from being incapable of action but from a self-imposed and self-inforced code. - -- Dave C. iN*T*x "To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:03:47 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! > >Typos are rare > > *Bad* typos are rare... I've spotted some duplicated words, a double > comma, and at least one tense problem. Throughout the book. But > they don't detract. Hmmm... I caught the duplicated comma. Did you see the word 'res' on the same page? ;) I guess I was too busy devouring the book to catch the rest! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:19:11 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > Secondly, while Dominic may believe the rules should be inflexible, God is > God. He's beyond questioning. He's beyond rules. So if He says "I'm making > an exception", is Dominic going to question Him? I think not. Now maybe, it > will bother Dominic just a little....just like a lot of Archangels seem to > wonder exactly what God has in mind, when He does things that don't make > sense to them. But they all accept that God's will supercedes all their > Words, and He isn't constrained by dissonance restrictions or the Seraphim > Council or anything else. And sometimes, He's just plain ineffable. Also remember that all the AA (and most of DPs) have a vision that far exceeds that of the typical Angel/Demon and whose actions might seem to not make sense. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:00:28 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) On Jul 25, 7:10pm, David Edelstein wrote: > Subject: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) > Agreed, it's a fun game, at least to read, and I mention it here on the > list because as several other people have noticed, it has some interesting > potential parallels with In Nomine. > > I ran an "Immortals" game for a while, but having to Capitalize Every other > Word and Make up new Definitions for Everything just became too irritating. > (White Wolf x10!) If anyone ever converted THAT game to GURPS, I'd give it > another try. I was trying, but I realized it was tantamount to rewriting the entire game. If anyone chooses to try I recommend scrapping _any_ conversion rules and starting fresh, though! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #264 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.