From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Dec 16 03:55:40 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 DAA31286 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:55:39 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id DAA23703 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:25:28 -0600 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:25:28 -0600 Message-Id: <199812160925.DAA23703@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 #1056 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 Wednesday, December 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1056 In this digest: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) IN> re: Absolute Truth Re: IN> Uriel RE: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Uriel IN> Sorcery Question IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Habbalah RE: IN> Uriel IN> Re: IN -- Absolute Morality RE: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:50:20 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Matthew Stein wrote on 14 December 1998 >How about this an explanation of absolute morality within the IN >system and how it applies to Heaven and Hell. For humans, there is an >absolute morality that is applied upon a relatively abstract notion of >good versus bad, etc (cf. the proof of this a couple days ago). For >Celestials, however, another rule applies. As portions of the >Symphony, Angels are only supposed to cruise along one side; they have >a Destiny that they must live up to. It is immoral to break with their >Destiny, that immorality is reflected by Falling to Hell. For Demons, >as twisted versions of their Angelic counterparts, their Destiny is >equally twisted into a Fate, which they are required to live up to. If >their break their morals, then they "Fall to Heaven" (or in a common >term, get redeemed). > >Part of the question is entirely semantics. I'm willing to posit that >we see Falling as a worse punishment than Redemption because we are >socialized to believe that it's good to turn "back to the light" >(Redemption) and it's bad to turn away from the light (Falling), when >in fact they are flip sides of the same thing. Demons are, rather >clearly explained, as twisted versions of Angels, Princes are twisted >counterparts of Archangels, Bands are twisted equivalents of Choirs. >Thus, why not take the next logical step and stay that Demonic Morals >are the twisted counterparts of Angelic Morals. > >So if Angelic Morals include "this is moral, if you do it, you get >your Destiny; if not, you Fall," then Demonic Morals (or to fit within >the current semantic discussion, Immorals) would state "this is >immoral, if you do it, you get your Fate; if not, you Redeem" - which >is thought to be a pretty bad thing. I mean, you forsake the >protection of your Prince, you have everyone trying to kill you ... >it's harder to be a Demon Redeeming himself than an Angel Falling. (I >think you can invert the words and it will still make sense; Angels >could be "Redeemed" and Demons could Fall....) You call that Absolute Morality? If that isn`t relative morality what is? Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:56:32 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > 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. Now that makes sense, especially since iirc Uriel was mostly evicting the Ethereals from Earth until many of them took shelter with Beleth, whereupon he went berserk and killed anyone within reach except a few religions that acknowleged a creator god not part of their pantheon. It's the equivalent of "it's not really your *fault* you lose your temper when the other kids deliberately tease you into it, but I can't let you do that so you can't play with them anymore." Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:57:43 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > 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. IIRC, one of books specifically said that Dominic was not concerned with Michael Falling; he was concerned with Michael setting an example that would lead others to Fall. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:46:18 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism In a message dated 12/15/98 11:40:55 AM, aldrebe@earlham.edu writes: >Just wondering 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 > I almost managed to resist this one. *sigh* Oh well, here goes. Note: This is all IMC and therefore IMHO. (Not INRI....) The current version of Wicca scares the remaining Ethereals of the old Celtic religion(s). The essence generated by modern neopagans goes to modern versions of the old gods, not to the originals. Lugh and Taranis actually get more mileage out of resembling Asterix and Obelix than they do out of anything coming from the modern Wiccans. Brigit has more essence from her 'St. Bride' persona than from her 'Mother Goddess' persona, and so on. However, new ethereals are being supported by the neopagan movement. So, if you're in the Marches one night, and are mugged by a guy with a deer's head and a pack of hounds, don't worry too much, the Tsayadim are on their way... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:20:09 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Emily Dresner wrote >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. 1 Who says the "Laws of Physics" are how the world really works? The theories are just that theories. They are ways of thinking about how the universe works, the concepts of energy, mass, charge, time, space, colour charge, spin - may not be (I'm not saying they aren't) how the universe really works we only use them because the results they give tend to fit what we see (and when they don't we come up with another theory). 2 If there are "Laws of Physics" who says they are constant why should the future behave like the past? Why should every region of space behave like like every other? Why should a stone drop from your hand when you let go of it? Hume saw no reason why! 3 Mathematics isn't really part of the Universe it exists outside it., the "Laws of Mathematics" would be true in any universe. A Logical (Mathematical) truth is one that is that is "True in all possible universes" (i.e. "a^2 +b^2 = c^2") rather than a factual truth which depends on events at that moment (i.e. "It is raining"). "So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" Albert Einstein - Geometry & Experience (apparently) Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:28:59 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) - -----Original Message----- From: David.Evans Date: 15 December 1998 16:04 Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) >> 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. It may also be the ONLY absolute truth, but >> if there is one, it is certainly possible that there are others." > >I think that Goedel's Theorem kicks in about here. I can't remember what >it states exactly, but the gist of it is that "No Theory can proven >absolutely if in order to prove it, it uses mechanics taken from within >the self-same system that is there to proven or disproven." _As_far_as_I_can_remeber_ Godel's theorem states that within a given system there exists a number (at least one) statements which can't be proven. Just because a statement can't be proved to be true that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:38:05 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> re: Absolute Truth >Angel of Constructive Criticism? Nay, I name you Demon of Sophistry I'm an ANGEL, dammit!! :-) >This fallacy, in logic, is known as "begging the question"--a statement >cannot >be used to prove itself. Hm. When starting that message, I told myself "remember to put in a bit saying that this is only a suggestion for the basis of an IN campaign, not something I'm trying to convince people of". Of course, I forgot. >Again, the above paragraph mixes Grand Unification >Absolute Truth with a mere statement being absolutely true. My point was that first you have to know that such a grand unification absolute truth exists. In In Nomine terms, it is the Symphony vs personal symphonies. Personal Symphonies are malleable, and often exclusive. I was trying to say that one model of the IN universe is the whole "The is universal truth" vs. "There is no universal truth" argument. My point was to say that you could say that God started of as the "absolute truth" that there *is* "absolute truth". Absolute truths apply to everyone (read: Selfless). Lucifer started of as the "absolute truth" that there is Untruth. Truths that aren't absolute only apply to individuals (read: Selfish). >>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. The way I am using the term "Absolute Truth" is different to yours. I was saying that in my IN campaign model, the upper heavens are your "Grand Unification Absolute Truth", which in turn is a collection of my "Absolute Truths", or, as you put it, "Statements which are absolutely true". >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. Yeah, but Angels and Demons screw with "real" physics all the time. That is, they aren't beholden to these "universal laws". In fact, they might even be part of The War!! (he said, constructively suggesting that others keep on topic, rather than try to espouse their own particular OOC world view) >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! I'd expect this sort of thing from a perverse spawn of evil! :-) >Agreed--God is indeed the Absolute Truth of In Nomine; Lucifer's lie is >that >there is no absolute truth. >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. I think we agree. I'm glad you put my criticisms to good use. You'll be a stronger person for it. SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:06:58 -0500 From: Chad and Erin Subject: Re: IN> Uriel At 11:10 AM 12/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >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. > I doubt Uriel would appreciate being compared to a mindless manager out of a dilbert comic strip. Uriel was a hero to be commended for doing something no other angel would undertake, the cleansing of the Symphony. The other angels should have been ashamed of themselves for not thinking of it sooner. No, I believe Uriel's recall to upper levels of Heaven was a gift, a reward for executing the Will of God. He was also spared the agony of politics. Could you ask for more than that? - -w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:10:49 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Uriel Oh, yeah? Then why didn't God let him _finish_? -----Original Message----- From: Chad and Erin [mailto:chaderin@erinet.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:07 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Uriel At 11:10 AM 12/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >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. > I doubt Uriel would appreciate being compared to a mindless manager out of a dilbert comic strip. Uriel was a hero to be commended for doing something no other angel would undertake, the cleansing of the Symphony. The other angels should have been ashamed of themselves for not thinking of it sooner. No, I believe Uriel's recall to upper levels of Heaven was a gift, a reward for executing the Will of God. He was also spared the agony of politics. Could you ask for more than that? - -w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:34:53 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > 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. OK, I understand why you pointed it out now. I don't want anyone to take the next question the wrong way, last thing I need is to touch of a flame fest, but why should we care, at least in regards to this discussion? It's known they're wrong, the oldest beings can remember God, including the oldest demons. Now, it's important to understand the motivations of your NPC's and players, but that doesn't effect whether their wrong or not. > Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the > Symphony equates to Goodness. Interesting question. The best answer I can give right now is, yes, by tautology. The conciousness of the Symphony is God. God is good. Therefore... Not the most rigourous of proofs, but one you have to accept if you're using the framework of this game. A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to become a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's potential, unless something from outside interferes. Enter Shedim, stage left... > 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 than 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). But he hasn't done anything about it. I read someone, I believe it was Lewis but wouldn't want to bet the rent on that, who's premise was that evil wasn't a thing of and by itself, but simply the absence of good. To choose evil is to isolate oneself from good, and hence from God. Reference previous commentary on the nature of the Symphony and correlate with the fact that demons have no connection with the Symohony. Therefore, for an angel to become a demon is to choose not to hear. And the option is there. True, Marcus is a miserable wretch, but he isn't making any moves to change his circumstance and so I feel no pity for him. - - Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:44:49 -0800 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel > The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence > and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. Who says he wasn't recalled even further? As in, uncreated/re-absorbed? Now there's a fun rumor to toss at your players... - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:23:27 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Uriel 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. This is why all the archangels IMC agree that Uriel's recall to the High Heavens was a reward. It's when you ask "What was she rewarded for?" that things get confused. Blandine would say that Uriel repented of her sins to God, after seeing the destruction she had wrought and the discord she had brought to Heaven. God accepted her repentance and called her into His presence. And it certainly appears to be true that God will accept even the worst sinner, provided that s/he honestly and truly repents his or her rebellion against Him. Dominic and Jean would argue, OTOH, that Uriel was rewarding for finishing her mission to eliminate the (infernally-inspired) attempts by the ethereals to blur the distinctions between the ethereal and corporeal realms. Once this was done, the purity of the realms was ensured, and to be sure there has never been another large-scale incursion into Earth by either the infernals or ethereals since her Crusade. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:29:13 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Sorcery Question >>>Actually I would say that anyone with enough essence could make a vessel, but that lower level celestials simply don't have enough essence.<<< You can say that in your campaign, but that's not correct in canon. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:35:19 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Absolute Morality >>>On the other hand, I know many people who hold the belief that rape and murder is wrong, and is still wrong even when applied in a culture that condones it. This belief is universal not in that everybody thinks it is wrong, but rather in that one individual thinks it is wrong for everybody. This individual need not think that it is wrong for everybody because of some outside definition of morality, however; he can be an athiest, and _still_ believe that rape and murder are universally wrong.<<< I'm an atheist and I believe that rape and murder are universally wrong. (Of course one has to then qualify that statement by defining exactly what constitutes rape and what constitutes murder, and my definitions won't be the same as everyone else's, but you get the idea.) You're right, though, we're using different definitions of universal. I'm not arguing cultural relativity here, I'm arguing that morality is a human mental construct, and since human mental constructs aren't hardwired into our DNA, morality cannot be something universally present and consistent in all human beings. Therefore, it's not universal. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:44:32 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah Jo Hart wrote: > >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)? IMC, wise demons never assign more than a single Habbalah to a team, since it's highly likely that the set of delusions each Habbalah has are violently incompatible with every other Habbalah's. IOW, they are individuals, with sharp and unique personalities. Here's a sampling of Habbalah from my game. There's one Gnostic Habbalah who believes that Lucifer is an Aeon and God the Demiurge, and that her "punishments" are /really/ the rewards due those enlightened -- they just /look/ like suffering to the unenlightened, because they still believe the Demiurge's lie. Only the worthy even deserve her touch; she does not act indiscriminately. There's one who believes that Christ was God who died on the cross, and that every being in Creation, from the lowliest human to the mightiest archangels and demon princes, deserve to suffer because they let Him suffer, and did not come to His aid when He needed it. There's another one, who's basically anti-Gnostic. He believes that spirit and spiritual judgements are worthless -- God created the world, and pronounced it good, thus proving the superiority of matter to spirit. He inflicts every form of strong physical sensation, from orgasm to torture, on those who cross his path; he makes no effort to distinguish between pleasure and pain, since that's an intellectual judgement, which is forbidden by God. Another one believes her soldier (who is as evil as they come) is the promised Messiah, and she gets her morality from observing his behavior. Of course, she also manipulates it, but that's okay -- she's obviously an angel sent to guide him. Put these four in a room together, and odds are there'll be a big explosion. :) None of them has standards even remotely matching any of the others', and all of them are interesting and colorful. Personally, I like using Habbalah, because they let me toss off theological quandries without regard for consistency, logic, or even basic good taste. After a Habbalah has shown up, you can be sure that all of the players will remember that this is a game with heavy religious elements. - -- Neel Krishnswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:51:56 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: RE: IN> Uriel On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: > > Uriel was a hero to be commended for doing something no other angel > > would undertake, the cleansing of the Symphony. The other angels > > should have been ashamed of themselves for not thinking of it sooner. > > > > No, I believe Uriel's recall to upper levels of Heaven was a gift, a > > reward for executing the Will of God. He was also spared the agony of > > politics. Could you ask for more than that? > > Oh, yeah? Then why didn't God let him _finish_? IMC, I have a few answers to that (I had to come up with them, since I brought him back). The first reason that God didn't let Uriel finish was that Uriel was running the risk of becoming too zealous. He hadn't stepped over the line (or punishment would have been handed down instead), but he was getting close. The long war had ground on to the point that Uriel was losing sight of the purpose of the Crusade: to punish the Ethereals that had defied God by claiming to be the Creator, and to punish the Ethereals that supported those would-be gods. Had it continued, he could easily have begun the complete extermination of the Ethereals. The second reason was to prevent a second war in Heaven. The Crusade, necessary as it was, was dividing the Archangels. If God had commanded that the Crusade continue, then some of the Archangels may have risen in rebellion. If He had commanded that it stop, the same may have happened. If He had punished Uriel, then Laurence may have led the Servitors of Purity against Heaven. So, He stopped it by removing the driving force behind the Crusade; by the time everything was sorted out, a lot of the hostility had faded. The third reason is very much campaign specific. IMC, humans have the potential to become Gods in their own right. This is the reason they are referred to as children, and the reason that any mortal who reaches Heaven may ascend into the higher Heavens. The Ethereal Marches are a realm where mortals may subconsciously learn to create worlds and life. If the Crusade had continued, the war could easily have destroyed the Marches, crippling the potential for mortals to learn. 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 22:52:31 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Re: IN -- Absolute Morality >>>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.<<< (A) My software glitched, as software sometimes does, and sent out three copies, once with my reply attached, while I was cursing at all the red "HMI Timeouts" I was getting every time I tried to do an e-mail pass. (B) I did it on purpose! I have nothing better to do with my time than deliberately create multiple copies of a message and post them to e-mail lists, just to see how many people will waste more bandwidth commenting on it. Bwahahahaha! Pick the answer you like better. :) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:24:54 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Uriel > Oh, yeah? Then why didn't God let him _finish_? The second reason was to prevent a second war in Heaven. The Crusade, necessary as it was, was dividing the Archangels. If God had commanded that the Crusade continue, then some of the Archangels may have risen in rebellion. If He had commanded that it stop, the same may have happened. If He had punished Uriel, then Laurence may have led the Servitors of Purity against Heaven. So, He stopped it by removing the driving force behind the Crusade; by the time everything was sorted out, a lot of the hostility had faded. Not a bad answer, actually-God took Uriel out of the picture to avoid making a martyr out of him and turning His Own Archangels against him. This sounds like something God would do when he realized that the only other outcome involved a Second Fall. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 98 00:01 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality >3 Mathematics isn't really part of the Universe it exists outside it., the >"Laws of Mathematics" would be true in any universe. A Logical >(Mathematical) truth is one that is that is "True in all possible >universes" (i.e. "a^2 +b^2 = c^2") rather than a factual truth which >depends on events at that moment (i.e. "It is raining"). Actually, mathematical truths are highly variable, depending on what universe you're in. If what you were alluding to is the Pythagorean Theorem (since there's no particular reason why a^2+b^2=c^2 otherwise), it's not even true in our universe, as I recall -- it only applies to Euclidean spaces, which our relativity-based universe is not. It's not even true on the surface of a sphere -- only on an absolute plain. It's perfectly possible to invent mathematical universes where ordinary mathematical "truths" aren't true. For example, A*B does not always equal B*A (try it with matrices...). But mathematical truths are *definitely* true fort he universes that are defined by them being true. I.e., it's a tautology.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 98 00:09 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality >why should we care, at least in regards to this discussion? It's known they're >wrong, the oldest beings can remember God, including the oldest demons. Now, >it's important to understand the motivations of your NPC's and players, but >that doesn't effect whether their wrong or not. Well, if God is omnipotent, he can change memories to remember remembering him from the Beginning. Or he could have created them with eons of memories in place. Solipsists unite! >> Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the >> Symphony equates to Goodness. > >Interesting question. The best answer I can give right now is, yes, by >tautology. The conciousness of the Symphony is God. God is good. >Therefore... Not the most rigourous of proofs, but one you have to accept if >you're using the framework of this game. No, I don't think so -- one of the open questions in the game, as I see it, is: "Is God good? Or is he just some hopped-up ethereal playing with his human toys? Or even if he *is* the creator of all things, does this necessarily mean he's good? Or just powerful? And is he even *sane*...?" As I see it, these are the kind of questions Lucifer asked, and demons still ask. "OK, so he's omnipotent. But does that make him *infallible*? Sure doesn't look that way.... I mean, he let Lucifer rebel. So either he's not too bright, or he's a schemer just like everyone else, and he's fooled the Host into following his orders like good little sheep...." - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 98 00:20 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Uriel >> The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence >> and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. > >Who says he wasn't recalled even further? As in, uncreated/re-absorbed? > >Now there's a fun rumor to toss at your players... Not to mention a common demonic theory about what happens to human souls who go to the higher Heavens.... I.e., God gets *all* the souls himself, unlike the Demon Princes, who have to share. Talk about a racket! - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:36:22 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Walter Milliken wrote: > > >> The problem is Uriel was recalled to the Higher Heavens and God's Presence > >> and that *shouldn't* be a punishment. > > > >Who says he wasn't recalled even further? As in, uncreated/re-absorbed? > > > >Now there's a fun rumor to toss at your players... > > Not to mention a common demonic theory about what happens to human souls > who go to the higher Heavens.... I.e., God gets *all* the souls > himself, unlike the Demon Princes, who have to share. Talk about a > racket! > > ---Walter Quick counter-theory, probably especially pushed by Novvy- the souls in the upper heavens get most of God all to THEMSELVES, not the other way around... ^_^ - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:07:16 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > > > 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. > > IIRC, one of books specifically said that Dominic was not concerned with > Michael Falling; he was concerned with Michael setting an example that > would lead others to Fall. It's in Dominic's expanded write-up in H&H. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:13:02 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the > > Symphony equates to Goodness. > > Interesting question. The best answer I can give right now is, yes, by > tautology. The conciousness of the Symphony is God. God is good. > Therefore... Not the most rigourous of proofs, but one you have to accept if > you're using the framework of this game. You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony is God (which is CDaU, I think) and that God is good, which isn't necessarily true. > A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this > isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things > wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. > Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to become > a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And > similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's > potential, unless something from outside interferes. But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done worse things? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:22:27 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > _As_far_as_I_can_remeber_ Godel's theorem states that within a given system > there exists a number (at least one) statements which can't be proven. > Just because a statement can't be proved to be true that doesn't mean it > isn't true. Gödel's Theorem as paraphrased in plain English in "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter (a book that should be on - -everyone's- reading list - this means you!): Alll consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions. Now we'll just have to map our statements about Absolute Truth on number theory and we're home free. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1056 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.