From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 15 17:17:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17963 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:17:48 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA18153 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:50:20 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:50:20 -0600 Message-Id: <199812152250.QAA18153@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1055 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 Tuesday, December 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1055 In this digest: Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Uriel Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Uriel IN> Habbalah Re: IN> Re: The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Habbalah IN> Re: Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Elohim and Personalities Re: IN> Elohim and Personalities Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Elohim Re: IN> Elohim Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel IN> Re: IN -- Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Dominic and Michael Re: IN> Absolute Morality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:44:31 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 02:10:24PM -0600, Eeyore wrote: > > The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. > > We can put a checkmark in that box. > > It's not just that God needs to exist, but also needs to have several > characteristics that the monotheistic religions stress, but aren't necessarily > supported by IN canon. Indeed. IRL, I have difficulty reconciling the descriptions of God in what I know of the Bible with the product of modern Christian Theology, which defines 'God is Good' as a tautology. I have no problem with saying "The Universal Principle of Goodness is Good", but I disagree with the belief that the Christian God is good, or indeed exists in the first place. > > Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually > > displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. > > Another check. > > Except, of course, that in canon, we don't really know why a soul goes to one > place, the other or neither. In general terms, we do. And it seems from certain descriptions > of Destinies and Fates that the rules for one individual simply aren't the same > as for another. Well, of course not. Individuals are individuals. Given that each of them will have different moral standards, it isn't fair to judge them all by the same moral standards. After all, it's not as if God told them what to do, and allowances have to be made for mistakes. As for the problem of various Choirs having different dissonance conditions, the reason is obvious: Angels can't be perfect, because they weren't made perfect. There are only two beings in existence I deem capable of abiding by the dissonance conditions of all Choirs, and I work on the basis that that particular pair _are_ bound by them. Angels in general are aligned to specific aspects of goodness, and expected to abide by a large subset of God's laws. I suppose you'll put this back in as part of Absolute Lite, but > it makes the whole argument pretty unconvincing. For me, Destinies and Fates get > chalked up into the Hey, Life Isn't Fair category, which argues against absolute > Law. > Absolute Law isn't necessarily Indiscriminate Law. Given the general massiveness of the universe, it would make sense for the complexity of the law to be equally massive. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:48:27 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Uriel On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, David.Evans wrote: > That's one way of putting it. I disagree wholeheartedly, since I think > that was Uriel getting a God-sized slapping. The void may be pure > indeed, but it is also, unfortuneately, still a void... The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:44:02 +0000 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Elizabeth Bartley sic scripsit: > > The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence > and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. > That depends entirely on what God does to Uriel when he arrives there... Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:04:59 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > > it wasn't God who was on trial. > > Just remove that 'not', and you have an excellent new heresy. And let me stress exactly how much we need more new and excellent heresies. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:10:00 -0600 From: Don Durham Subject: Re: IN> Uriel At 10:48 AM 12/15/98 -0600, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, David.Evans wrote: > >> That's one way of putting it. I disagree wholeheartedly, since I think >> that was Uriel getting a God-sized slapping. The void may be pure >> indeed, but it is also, unfortuneately, still a void... > >The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence >and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. > Sounds like a case of promoting him to where he couldn't do any more damage. A standard ploy of corporate America. Don Durham arthurd@io.com Looking to buy/sell/trade a Gurps Book? Check out: http://www.io.com/~arthurd/gurps_files/oop ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, David.Evans wrote: > > The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence > > and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. > > That depends entirely on what God does to Uriel when he arrives there... I must have missed this. What did Uriel do that deserved punishment? Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:24:20 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Habbalah The short answer: Other Habbalah think they serve God. Vapula thinks he is God. No wonder he's the happiest Habbalite in Hell -- nothing in the main write up suggests that he either has delusions of obedience to the divine will, or thinks that he and his word exists mainly to punish people. He just likes messing about with fun[1] experiments to see what will happen. You could change it to put a more punisher-slant on things, but I didn't get that from the main book. [1][Fun being a subjective measure which includes any amount of 'destruction of the planet' and 'taking over the known universe' projects, as well as any other mad science, as appropriate] I don't much care for how Elohim/ Habbalah are portrayed anyway. They seem to be getting narrower and narrower, and more and more stereotyped. I remember a discussion on whether Elohim had personalities (I'd still say that they don't in any significant way - such personality as one of those angels will have is totally determined by what objectives it has been given by its superior. So the word they are serving and their specific duties, coloured by their role and past experiences, will totally determine how they will respond to any situation. ie. Any other elohim with that background would probably act in the same way. This is NOT personality.) The Habbalah seem to be going the same way. Now they all seem to have to want to serve God, and punish humanity. Personally, I think there are plenty of viable character concepts who swing either one way or the other, or are just simple sadists or control freaks. If a fellow Habbalite is doing a competent job of punishing, are the other Habbalah really going to care about its personal mission statement (if there is one)? I really don't much like having a character's personality (or lack of) completely defined for me when I pick a class^D^D^D^D^Dband... FWIW, the most interesting bands and choirs are the ones which lend themselves to a wide variety of archetypes (I wonder if the NPC book will show this off nicely... I fully expect to see the Elohim & Habbalah defined by their MO and history, and other types defined by personality -- please prove me wrong :) ). jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:30:20 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Re: The Limbo Heresy Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Eli must be found before that time. Nothing can stand in the way of seizing > the throne of God. Nothing. I like this one. It's currently running as my favorite of what has been a very interesting set of ideas. I picture it having a sort of Raiders of the Lost Ark ending, wherein the PCs succeed only to learn that God is perfectly capable of taking care of His own toys. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:23:08 -0600 From: "James Bearse" Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy ... and will we be seeing Hakael's write up in the Liber Servitorum contest? S.Wombat, Esq. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:22:07 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:24:20PM +0000, Hart, Joanna wrote: > I don't much care for how Elohim/ Habbalah are portrayed anyway. They seem > to be getting narrower and narrower, and more and more stereotyped. > More stereotyped? I remember the main book writeup implying that Elohim all did Spock impersonations. > I remember a discussion on whether Elohim had personalities (I'd still say > that they don't in any significant way - such personality as one of those > angels will have is totally determined by what objectives it has been given > by its superior. So the word they are serving and their specific duties, > coloured by their role and past experiences, will totally determine how they > will respond to any situation. ie. Any other elohim with that background > would probably act in the same way. This is NOT personality.) > You can say that about any angel or demon. No Elohite is going to have the same background as another, anyway. And since they aren't infallible, individual interpretation will have a big impact on how they approach the same situation. Besides, it isn't necessarily dissonant for an Elohite to come to disagree with its Superior, though it's walking a thin line. > The Habbalah seem to be going the same way. Now they all seem to have to > want to serve God, and punish humanity. Personally, I think there are plenty > of viable character concepts who swing either one way or the other, or are > just simple sadists or control freaks. Certainly I agree that the portrayal in the IPG was too narrow, and left little scope for doctrinal differences. If a fellow Habbalite is doing a > competent job of punishing, are the other Habbalah really going to care > about its personal mission statement (if there is one)? > Maybe. It depends on the individual, but certain mission statements will get them into severe trouble (like the opinion of Carmine that Fallen Elohim are traitors who should be dismembered painfully, no matter how useful they are). Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:29:36 -0800 From: "James Garrett" Subject: IN> Re: Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) Angel of Constructive Criticism? Nay, I name you Demon of Sophistry >For there to be Absolute Morality, first there must be absolute Truth >(ie. "God exists" or "Killing defenseless children is wrong"). When people talk of "Absolute Truth," I believe, more times than not, they are referring to something along the lines of a proven Grand Unification Theory, not merely a statement that is absolutely true. > >Here's my proof for Absolute Truth: >"Absolute Truth must exist, since if Absolute Truth did not exist, its >non-existence would be an Absolute Truth. That is, the statement 'There >is Absolute Truth' proves itself. It's existence is axiomatic. It is the >fundamental absolute truth. This fallacy, in logic, is known as "begging the question"--a statement cannot be used to prove itself. Again, the above paragraph mixes Grand Unification Absolute Truth with a mere statement being absolutely true. >It may also be the ONLY absolute truth, but >if there is one, it is certainly possible that there are others." There can be only one Grand Unification Absolute Truth(if it exists); if there were others, then it wouldn't be absolute. On the other hand, there may be more than one mere statement that is absolutely true. And then the Ofinite of Yves working for Jean pops in: Unless, of course, you have been studying Quantum Theory; you would sometimes have one Absolute Truth, sometimes many, and sometimes none--all at the same time. And then the Ofinite of Yves working for Jean pops out. > >A consequence of the existence of Absolute Truth is the existence of >Absolute Untruth: >"The statement 'There is no Absolute Truth' proves the existence of >Absolute Untruth, since it can never be true" A binary opposition! At this the Derrida, Angel of Post Structuralism, a Hab of the Media, appears and promptly begins to Deconstruct the above statement: Western Civilization tends to privilege Absolute Truth over Absolute Untruth in the Absolute Truth/Absolute Untruth binary opposition, much like male/female and good/evil. However, if you privy Absolute Untruth you can see that these concept are just a bunch of arbitrary signifiers and their obverse signifieds. Besides, as Post Structuralists, we don't believe that anything is absolute, much less the Truth! > >If you wanted to adapt this to In Nomine, God is the first statement >("There is Absolute Truth"), Lucifer is the second ("There is no >Absolute Truth"). Agreed--God is indeed the Absolute Truth of In Nomine; Lucifer's lie is that there is no absolute truth. > >Yves describes God as "discovering parts of himself". Perhaps this is >the discovery of other absolute truths. I would see the Upper Heavens as >containing all the absolute truths, which is why they are out of reach >of the diabolicals (since they are absolute truths, they cannot ever be >disproven). I would agree if stated in this way: God is Absolute Truth. God is still discovering parts of himself. The discovered parts of God(the known parts Absolute Truth) can be viewed in the Upper Heavens--undiscovered God(the unknown parts of Absolute Truth) cannot be viewed. James, Basereph of Nybbas, Demon of Truth Adevertising ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:40:01 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > Absolute Law isn't necessarily Indiscriminate Law. Given the general > massiveness of the universe, it would make sense for the complexity of the > law to be equally massive. There is, in fact, Absolute Law in the Universe, but it includes such exciting things as the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Electromagnetism, and Newtonian Motion [which does indeed break at Relativistic speeds.] PI is pretty much PI no matter where you go, Euler's Constant is still Constant, and the number 1 still comes before the number 2, and I'll still babble incoherently without much point. These are pretty much irredeemable truths until some jerky with a fancy linear accelerator goes out and breaks them in a systematic and justifiable fashion - which has the habit of really bugging people who spout off about absolute laws. The physical laws are the physical laws, for all purposes we can call them "absolutes" and say that they are indeed part of God's Cosmic Law for the universe. The problem comes in when discussing morality on the same unchanging level as the fact that my refrigerator is adding to the demise of the known universe. It's extremely difficult, because morality is subjective to the known standards of the society in which they were invented. And then the problem comes from being subjective vs. being objective: is it possible to invent an objective Absolute Moral Law in the universe and prove that it does indeed exist without bringing in your cultural subjective views? This is a well-debated point, and I wish I would have paid attention in class during it. There is a soft morality and that it is subject to cultural bias. It would require God to enact a known set of Laws on the universe with a set of checks and balances which exists outside of cultural bias and hits every known being who lives within the universe. The question then, is not "are the laws being carried through by a body of legislature" but "is there a system in which God's Absolute Laws of Morality are enforced from without with no cultural bias." In the IN universe, this is easy. "Sure," sayth Em, as she opens her sourcebook to the page with Yves. Outside of all cultural norms and morals, subject only to the unknown laws of the universe, is Fate and Destiny, which is the ultimate judge without a lawgiver if an act is Good [Drives toward Destiny] or Bad [Drives toward Fate]. Much like there is cosmic law which dictates that my car will start when I turn the key if there is gas and an electric shock, there is a cosmic law which is outside of all subjective and cultural bias that says if an act I commit is "Good" or "Bad". It certainly doesn't have to be major or commit in a large, observable way such as a murder or large acts of charity, but an act will contribute, and this is God's Law. No one says it has to be written anywhere other then into the fabric of the universe. Oddly, in a strange way, this makes God's Law absolute to each person on an individual level instead of on a global scale. _You_ have the laws of morals and ethics which you need to adhere to, and you must not "sin" or you will be forced on your way to Hell. If you end up in the middle, well, you don't get the prize and you don't get the punishment, so too bad. In this way, there will never be any actual codified laws of God's Absolute Law, because while the law is indeed globally absolute, it is subject to each person on their own terms. Think of each person as a unique mathematics equasion which takes unique input. Mathematics and the proofs it lies on does not change when the equasion changes, just the result of the equasion when different values are pumped through it. Or think of each person - voila! - like a strand of DNA down in the nucleus of their cells. The proteins are still proteins, the enzymes are still enzymes, the process of chemical reactions works the same for everyone but everyone is different! Amazing. :) And that's how the laws of the universe should work - at least to my programming addled brain. [And maybe someday I'll learn how to spell.] - - Em Current Quote: Dana_ giggles. "I think that DON'T LICK JESUS should be added to the etiquette rules for dealing with the second coming." Hitherby coughs. Hitherby doesn't want to know about Jesus' second coming if licking has anything to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:44:49 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Elohim and Personalities > I remember a discussion on whether Elohim had personalities (I'd still say > that they don't in any significant way - such personality as one of those > angels will have is totally determined by what objectives it has been given > by its superior. So the word they are serving and their specific duties, > coloured by their role and past experiences, will totally determine how they > will respond to any situation. ie. Any other elohim with that background > would probably act in the same way. This is NOT personality.) I would disagree... two completely rational, logical people can come to completely divergent conclusions about the best way to attain a given goal. They can also have different modes of relating to others, processing information, etc. while remaining objective and rational. What's more, a large part of what builds the personality of anybody is their background. Remember, it's not dissonant for Elohim to smile or scream; they just can't let such behavior color their decisions. The typical Elohim probably is bland and outwardly personality-less, but they don't _have_ to be that way. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:01:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and Personalities Robert Knop wrote: > Remember, it's not dissonant for Elohim to smile or scream; they just > can't let such behavior color their decisions. The typical Elohim > probably is bland and outwardly personality-less, but they don't > _have_ to be that way. Right. I rather like the Elohim. They can have emotions, they just can't be swayed by them without eating dissonance. In terms of the Myers-Briggs personality typing system, they are NTs, or (as their popularizer Kiersey puts it) Rationals, or Phlegmatics in the old system of humours. An Elohite comes to a decision about the Right Thing to Do. It may then do it sternly or regretfully or cheerully or timorously, but she's going to do it. It may also exercise as much creativity as they can and choose to muster, in doing that Right Thing. And, in so far as an angel may have free time, it can then do whatever it pleases, with as much emotion as it pleases, in that free time. In fact, it sometimes seems to me that the Elohim are the choir with their dissonance conditions mostly tightly tied to their consciences. Ophanim suffer if they aren't zealous, and seraphim if they aren't truthful, but seraphs can be slugs and ophanim can be deceitful, and either can be wrathful or envious, etc., and not collect dissonance. Mercurians can do anything as long as they aren't violent. Elohim, so far as I understand it, just plain get dissonance for following their emotions instead of their good judgement. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:39:42 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Emily Dresner wrote: > > > Absolute Law isn't necessarily Indiscriminate Law. Given the general > > massiveness of the universe, it would make sense for the complexity of the > > law to be equally massive. > > There is, in fact, Absolute Law in the Universe, but it includes such > exciting things as the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of > Electromagnetism, and Newtonian Motion [which does indeed break at > Relativistic speeds.] PI is pretty much PI no matter where you go, > Euler's Constant is still Constant, and the number 1 still comes before > the number 2, and I'll still babble incoherently without much point. > These are pretty much irredeemable truths until some jerky with a fancy > linear accelerator goes out and breaks them in a systematic and > justifiable fashion - which has the habit of really bugging people who > spout off about absolute laws. > Not really. Most of the 'laws' of physics are just general guidelines- and are broken a lot on the microcosmic/quantum scale. Furthermore, one does NOT necessarily come before two. That is an arbitrary statement, created by human beings. It doesn't have to work that way- semantically or numerically. > The physical laws are the physical laws, for all purposes we can call them > "absolutes" and say that they are indeed part of God's Cosmic Law for the > universe. The problem comes in when discussing morality on the same > unchanging level as the fact that my refrigerator is adding to the demise > of the known universe. It's extremely difficult, because morality is > subjective to the known standards of the society in which they were > invented. And then the problem comes from being subjective vs. being > objective: is it possible to invent an objective Absolute Moral Law in the > universe and prove that it does indeed exist without bringing in your > cultural subjective views? This is a well-debated point, and I wish I > would have paid attention in class during it. > > There is a soft morality and that it is subject to cultural bias. It > would require God to enact a known set of Laws on the universe with a set > of checks and balances which exists outside of cultural bias and hits > every known being who lives within the universe. The question then, is > not "are the laws being carried through by a body of legislature" but "is > there a system in which God's Absolute Laws of Morality are enforced from > without with no cultural bias." > > In the IN universe, this is easy. "Sure," sayth Em, as she opens her > sourcebook to the page with Yves. Outside of all cultural norms and > morals, subject only to the unknown laws of the universe, is Fate and > Destiny, which is the ultimate judge without a lawgiver if an act is > Good [Drives toward Destiny] or Bad [Drives toward Fate]. Much like there > is cosmic law which dictates that my car will start when I turn the key if > there is gas and an electric shock, there is a cosmic law which is outside > of all subjective and cultural bias that says if an act I commit is "Good" > or "Bad". It certainly doesn't have to be major or commit in a large, > observable way such as a murder or large acts of charity, but an act will > contribute, and this is God's Law. No one says it has to be written > anywhere other then into the fabric of the universe. > > Oddly, in a strange way, this makes God's Law absolute to each person on > an individual level instead of on a global scale. _You_ have the laws of > morals and ethics which you need to adhere to, and you must not "sin" or > you will be forced on your way to Hell. If you end up in the middle, > well, you don't get the prize and you don't get the punishment, so too > bad. In this way, there will never be any actual codified laws of God's > Absolute Law, because while the law is indeed globally absolute, it is > subject to each person on their own terms. Think of each person as a > unique mathematics equasion which takes unique input. Mathematics and the > proofs it lies on does not change when the equasion changes, just the > result of the equasion when different values are pumped through it. Or > think of each person - voila! - like a strand of DNA down in the nucleus > of their cells. The proteins are still proteins, the enzymes are still > enzymes, the process of chemical reactions works the same for everyone but > everyone is different! Amazing. :) > > And that's how the laws of the universe should work - at least to my > programming addled brain. > > [And maybe someday I'll learn how to spell.] > > - Em > > Current Quote: > > Dana_ giggles. "I think that DON'T LICK JESUS should be added to the > etiquette rules for dealing with the second coming." > Hitherby coughs. > Hitherby doesn't want to know about Jesus' second coming if licking has > anything to do with it. - -- Brian A.H. "I am Don Arturo de Los Angeles. I am the greatest reader of all time. I have read over a million books in my lifetime, and their pages flow through my mind like summer days..." Phoenix Clan Purifier*Gaijin*Shugenja*ABC Geeky Shugenja Man*Totoroan L5R(1.1) PX+ S(LA) G++ R Y+ C+ E+ M-- T-- D++ K U+++ L5R(R1.3) GP++ (PR+++ CC++) RP+ GT:! P+ PX/LN+ S++ G+++ R Y+ C++ CG++ U+++ J---- ABC(1.0) PX/ABC++(ic, anyways. =)) S(LA) Y+ A++ D++ BO/OC!N!++++(nosebleed) P+++ U++ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:24:19 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: IN> Neopaganism Just wondring how neopaganism(wicca and so forth) fits into the overall In Nomine universe. Is the resurgence of these neopagan religions the result of some ethereals at work or is it perhaps an alternate interpretation put forth by some archangel like novalis or something like that. Just wondering what people think Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:53:46 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, James Bearse wrote: > ... and will we be seeing Hakael's write up in the Liber Servitorum > contest? Either that, or here on the list. I just have to decide if he has Fallen or not... Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:21:04 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > Not really. Most of the 'laws' of physics are just general > guidelines- and are broken a lot on the microcosmic/quantum scale. > Furthermore, one does NOT necessarily come before two. That is an > arbitrary statement, created by human beings. It doesn't have to work > that way- semantically or numerically. Minor edit - I don't think that the game system cares one whit about quantum physics. That comes under the heading of "people with linear accelerators and too much time." The fact that one can create a certain sort of particle with huge amounts of energy not found in nature when, hit by gamma radiation, changes its spin and may or may not move backwards in time does not affect the fact that I left my shoes by the door yesterday when I came home, and therefore they will be there in the morning when I am looking for them. [This rule, on the other hand, does not apply to car keys.] Heat radiated from my processor in the chassis of my Sun SPARC 10 here on the floor will continue to radiate heat out in the middle of space in another galaxy. And one certainly does come before two! I'm not going to stop speaking English just because I'm in the Andromeda Galaxy. :) Human semantics don't change just because they're displaced in space. Although if I woke up and I found myself in the Andromeda Galaxy, I'd be passively worried. - - Em Current Quote: Dana_ giggles. "I think that DON'T LICK JESUS should be added to the etiquette rules for dealing with the second coming." Hitherby coughs. Hitherby doesn't want to know about Jesus' second coming if licking has anything to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:28:02 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Elohim I understand that Elohim can express their emotions but can't act on them. But where do you draw the line? Earl said: >In fact, it sometimes seems to me that the Elohim are the choir >with their dissonance conditions mostly tightly tied to their >consciences. What about Cherubim they can't betray their Superior, friends, *ideals* or himself. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:46:26 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Elohim Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Earl said: > >In fact, it sometimes seems to me that the Elohim are the choir > >with their dissonance conditions mostly tightly tied to their > >consciences. > What about Cherubim they can't betray their Superior, friends, > *ideals* or himself. Okay, point taken. Just watch out for the occasional cherub with low ideals; they might act fairly cruddy toward strangers. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:32:30 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > The fact that one can create a certain > sort of particle with huge amounts of energy not found in nature when, hit > by gamma radiation, changes its spin and may or may not move backwards in > time does not affect the fact that I left my shoes by the door yesterday > when I came home, and therefore they will be there in the morning when I > am looking for them. It may well, however, affect the fact that you exist in the first place! - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:58:36 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > It may well, however, affect the fact that you exist in the first place! And I may not. There's a good possibility that I am merely a figment of my own imagination and all the email is generated by an AI based bot somewhere in North Dakota. - - Em Current Quote: `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked. `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.' `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice. `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.' - Alice in Wonderland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:27:13 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality In reply to: > > By overturning Dominic's ruling, God allowed Michael to break God's Law - I disagree with this. By aquitting Michael, God overturned Dominic's INTERPRETATION of God's law. No one ever said Dominic was infallible (although he'd probably like to think it). God never said that Michael couldn't be prideful and collect trophies. Dominic saw what happened when Lucifer became too full of pride and rebelled, leading to the Fall, and assumed Michael was the same. Michael knows his place. He's full of pride, but loves God and doesn't think that he's better than God. Dominic's interpretation was wrong in God's eyes, so He said so. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:38 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence > and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. It's a kind of 'pseudo' punishment, IMO. It's the equivalent of a parent saying, "You're not allowed to play with the other children any more, come inside," because they realise that the child hasn't technically done anything they were told not to. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:22:40 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Re: IN -- Absolute Morality >Message text written by INTERNET:in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >>Look, I love IN because of it's satirical qualities, and I do agree >that we can't ascribe a general moral sense to the entire human race >without being wrong at some point, but I will say that something >exists of that type. >< Why was this posted twice by itself (three times if you count the original post) and then once more when David actually got around to replying to it? Just wondering why my bandwidth (not to mention time) was being wasted. Krowe Malakim of Destiny, Angel of Redemption Lord of XAOZ "What good fortune for those in power, that people do not think." -- Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945 "Love is a dirty trick played upon us to achieve the continuation of the species." -- novelist W.Somerset Maugham, 1874-1965 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:24:45 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Uriel I'm not sure Uriel's recall was punishment so much as damage control. He'd already cut a massive swath through the Marches and was having a very bad effect on the solidarity of Lower Heaven -- never very great to begin with. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:42:40 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Michael Okay, I have to quote this. I found it in Clausewitz the other day (who is being very hard going, I note.) I'm not saying it's necessarily _true_, but I suspect that Michael would to some extent agree with it. Of all the noble feelings which fill the human heart in the exciting tumult of battle, none, we must admit, are so powerful and constant as the soul's thirst for honour and renown, which the German language treats so unfairly and tends to depreciate by the unworthy associations in the words *Ehrgeiz* (greed of honour) and *Ruhmsucht* (hankering after glory). No doubt it is just in war that the abuse of these proud aspirations of the soul must bring upon the human race the most shocking outrages, but by their origin they are certainly to be counted among the noblest feelings which belong to human nature, and in war they are the vivifying principle which gives the enormous body a spirit. Although other feelings may be more general in their influence, and many of them - such as love of country, fanaticism, revenge, enthusiasm of every kind - may seem to stand higher, the thirst for honour and renown still remains indispensable. (_On War_, Clausewitz) I think this one is interesting, too. For Baal as well. And for the difference between Michael and Laurence. Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of war. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application. The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side. This is the way in which the matter must be viewed, and it is to no purpose, it is even against one's own interest, to turn away from the consideration of the real nature of the affair because the horror of its elements excites repugnance. (_On War_, Clausewitz) Just to amuse people. - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:46:01 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality I know this discussion has moved on a bit but I've been a bit busy. On 14 December 1998 Ramesh Satkurunath (That's me) wrote: >On 14 December 1998 Emily Dresner wrote > > >>The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. >>We can put a checkmark in that box. > >(slightly) Debatable remember God doesn't exist in the way you or I do >(read: Solitaire in the beginning of IPG) B.H.'s comment: >Then again, wasn't that Lucifer doing the talking? Y'know, the first >Balseraph? Lucifer did say that but that was in In The Beginning IPG - I was talking referring to Solitaire - the story where Tariel falls. Tom's comment: >I don't believe it was Lucifer, it was that woman who worked for the demon. But >why does everyone use the stories in the sourcebooks as canon? They are not told >from the pseudo-omniscient point of view of information for the GM. The speaker >could be wrong, lying, misinformed, etc. Sure stories should be questioned. In fact even if the Soldier of Hell (assuming that's what she is, hell it could have been Lucifer) isn't lying or wrong she is _most_definitely_biased_. However what she bases her argument on is in the expanded write-up of Yves, the reason why I pointed to Solitaire is that it gives you a view of how some demons interpret those facts which the write-up of Yves doesn't provide. Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the Symphony equates to Goodness. >>Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually >>displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. >>Another check. > >NO, NO, NO! >1 Not all angels are what a rational human would call good and not all >demons are what the same person would call evil (IPG and APG). >2 The factions in Heaven and Hell have disputes about what is good and what >is evil I don't think I explained this right at all. I understand that the phrase "a rational human" is a complete throw-away phrase, but I used it because in my opinion humans aren't as biased as many Celestials being abstractions of ideals and being bound to abstract notions don't view the Symphony with much objectivity (except possibly Elohim [I'm not sure not them], Yves or Kronos). The way I see it that the intrinsic difference between angels and demons is having a connection to the Symphony. Because angels can percieve the true beauty of the Symphony (though their somewhat clouded perceptions) they love it, for many they care less about themselves thatn the Symphony - as AGP & IPG put it this makes them selfless. Demons OTOH are alone, they don't have that connection to the Symphony that angels do, they don't even have some of the connections that we do like empathy. Most demons are quite pathetic creatures who in order to prevent their own suffering must inflict suffering on others, those who don't simply get crushed under foot. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying all of Hell is excuseable when I look at Magog I see pure EVIL which deserves/deserved(/should have been) removed from the Symphony once and for all. But the more I read about Marcus Impudite Servitor of Death (Yeah I'm relying on stories again but it's a good way to show part of the Demonic pysche) the less I see a cold, cunning Machiavellian manipulator and the more I see a lonely, bitter wretch wo's more a circumstance that someone who freely chose their path of descent and revels in it like Magog, (sure Marcus fel but we all make mistakes). Ramesh ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1055 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.