From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Dec 17 00:56:18 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 AAA25214 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:56:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA03372 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:40:22 -0600 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:40:22 -0600 Message-Id: <199812170640.AAA03372@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 #1058 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 Thursday, December 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1058 In this digest: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 3 of 3 Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 3 of 3 Re: IN> Habbalah Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) IN> Re: Bethlehem Inquiry Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Acronymns Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Re: IN> Acronymns Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Sorcery Question Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Elohim IN> Creating Archangels (Re: Absolute Morality) IN> Geases and the Hither Heavens (Re: Uriel) Re: IN> Acronymns Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) RE: IN> Creating Archangels (Re: Absolute Morality) Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Acronymns IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:27:09 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 3 of 3 Inquisitor: Please state your name, choir, and word. Witness: I am Christopher, Cherub of Protection, Angel of Children. Inquisitor: That ... is true, but... Witness: I have only recently taken the name "Christopher." Inquisitor: Meaning "messiah carrier." Then you believe the assertion? Witness: I do. Inquisitor: Please describe your involvement in this case. Witness: Zadkiel has told me to protect the messiah child personally. Inquisitor: Did she say why? Witness: She said Gabriel and Yves had asked both asked her to see to it. Inquisitor: At what point did you become involved? Witness: Immediately after the conception. Inquisitor: Did you observe anything unusual about the pregnancy? Witness: No. I had heard the claims about the ... paternity of the child, so I made what inquiries I could. No demons of Lust were known to be working in the area-- Inquisitor: Hardly conclusive; humans need little inspiration for most acts of lust. Witness: As you say. But I also had various Malakim resonnate Miriam -- the mother. They found no stain upon her honor. Inquisitor: I see. When did-- Witness: None. At all. Inquisitor: ... Oh. Well. Thank you. When did she realize she was pregnant? Witness: She suspected immediately after Gabriel's announcement. She was sure within the month, of course. She went directly to her fiance, Joseph, and told him the entire story. He was very upset. Inquisitor: Did he believe she was lying? Witness: That was, I believe, part of what upset him. I believe he thought she was a little mad. Perhaps he thought she had been raped or seduced. and was covering up the pain or shame with a mad memory. But she didn't act mad, you see. He wanted to break off the engagement, but he also wanted to make sure nothing bad happened to her. Conceiving out of wedlock is quite a disgrace, in that culture, you see. I decided it was in the child's best interest for him to marry her, though, and raise the child as his own, so I spoke to him about it, in a dream. Inquisitor: Yes, we will be interviewing your escort from Blandine later. Witness: There were no great dangers after that, until after the birth. They had to go to Bethlehem in order to continue his claim to some family property in a census the Romans were doing, but that was not too late in the pregnancy. The census had the town packed, so they set up temporary housekeeping in the stable of the inn. The birth itself went without difficulty. A few weeks later, they moved out of the stable, into rooms on the family property. And some weeks after that -- I can give you dates if you want -- these Magi arrived from Jerusalem. That's when I met Ithniel. It told me of the events at Herod's court, and I realized Herod would be hunting for the child. So I went to the Marches again and warned the Magi to go back to Persia without returning to Jerusalem. Then I warned Joseph to get out of town. Inquisitor: He took his family to Egypt? Witness: Yes, to the Jewish community in Alexandria. I took the liberty, at one point, of assuming a vessel and helping them across a stream in the delta region there. They are there now. Inquisitor: And the child--? Witness: Is now four years old. Inquisitor: Is he in any way remarkable? Witness: He has never had a serious illness or injury; I have seen to that. He is quite intelligent and intense. And also ... very nice. Empathetic. But he seems quite human. What did you expect? Inquisitor: That's the problem. We don't know what to expect. - --- Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:42:09 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > They aren't necessarily going to get away with it. It seems to me that you > > go to Hell is you get close enough to your Destiny, and likewise with > > Hell. > > I'm not sure I agree here, but I'm close enough to take it as an arguable point. Actually, I think it has to be this way. In published material, the Destinies and Fates given are usually very short and focus on only one idea, such as saying that Adolf Hitler's Destiny was to be a painter in Vienna. For game purposes, it almost has to be this way, or the GM would have a nightmare trying to sort them out as servitors of Destiny and Fate use their attunements. But I have trouble thinking of them as really being this concise. Hitler's actual Destiny surely involved a lot more than being a painter. Presumably, he would have had to be at least minimally pleasant to those around him. He probably shouldn't have written tracts that were violently anti-Semitic. And on and on. If this is not the case, then I come down even stronger against the idea of an Absolute Morality (though I'm thinking that this debate is tangled to a fair degree in semantics rather than actual differences). If Destinies and Fates actually are quite broad, and they truly represent the best that a given individual _could_ have been, then almost no one achieves this. Certainly not the roughly 1/3 of humanity that I've seen given for the portion that achieves one or the other. There are just too many criteria. So it has to be a matter of getting close enough to the ideal to count. (I suppose if one makes sufficient allowances for context , this number can be expanded, but then a strict reading of the phrase, "All things considered," should always result in one finishing the sentence, "it went exactly as you would have expected.) J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:11:48 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Uriel At 14:19 16/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: >> >> >> Surely geases on humans vanish when the human dies? > > Nope. As long as the soul exists, the Geas exists. >It's possible that some force in the higher Heavens removes >such things, but how to prove such a conjecture? ;) Because any lilim with a geas on a mortal would know if the geas vanished? That's easily proven (in game, at least). jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:40:00 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 3 of 3 The first and third one have been great so far... But I don't seem to have gotten part 2 of 3... Actually, this looks like it could be made into much more than 3- it's great. - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:23:29 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah Earl Wajenberg writes: > >I gather from your example Habbalah that your rule for them >seems to be, "Habbalah gotta punish, and gotta rationalize >it as deserved. Individual rationalizations are left as >an exercize to the player or GM." Would that be right, or >close to it? I find that a very plausible approach to >Habbalah psychology. The rules of thumb that I follow when creating a Habbalah are that it should act to promote evil, that it should nonetheless believe that it is an angel, and that its beliefs should include a weird and heretical variation on standard theology. Many (but not all) Habbalah consequently believe that their victims deserve to suffer, but there are exceptions. At least a few Habbalah IMC believe that they are doing undeserved evil to their victims, but that they are compelled by the will of an evil and cruel God. (It's an easy way to rationalize wild emotional surges....) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:34:30 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) At 1:54 AM +0100 12/15/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> The first Habbalah who Fell knew they had not Fallen. Did not Malakim >> arise from the purity of passions? They are no longer their weak >> chrysilis form. They understand that their *Every Whim* is Divinely >> inspired. And that they must punish the unworthy, those who must not >> be allowed to drag Heaven down with them. > >...which still, IMO, doesn't explain how newly created Habbalah, who know >they've been created by a DP, think they are the only true angels. Or why >they choose to work with demons. Why would a Prince refuse to allow this nature-delusion ("MY EVERY WHIM IS DIVINELY INSPIRED!") to take effect (that it *does* take effect so consistantly implies it's the path of least resistance), especially when refusing them their comfy delusion will make their survival expectations much lower than otherwise? >Another question: Vapula is a DP Habbalite. Why does he create demons >instead of only more Habbalah? Everyone needs cannon-fodder! Fun experiments! Besides, every time he tries to make a Strong Seraph, it breaks. Oh, well, better luck next time. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:56:22 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: IN> Re: Bethlehem Inquiry I love it! Even better than mine, which was essentially a pun story of the highest order. Jason onwards ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:43:47 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 16 December 1998 05:28 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 > What I should have said is "a^2+b^2=c^2 is true provided these assumptions:" (I haven't read the Elements so I don't know how to define Euclidean space), and the truth of a particular conjecture depends entirely on the system you are in. However most people in everyday speak don't bother stating all the assumption they are using because they assume to some degree that the person knows what they are talking about, in a formal proof these things would be stated. And I think there are some things which apply to all systems apparently Russel & Whitehead, started with 3 axioms: 1 The Law of excluded middle (a given statement is either true or false, never both or some degree of one and some degree of another - which incidently I'm not to sure on) 2 If p -->q (If p suggests q) then ~q --> ~q (then q suggest p) i.e. If that object is a swan suggests that that object is white (Yes this isn't entirely true but just accept it for the explanation) The If that object is not white it can't be a swan. 3 And one other which I can't quite remember Using those they wrote Principia Mathmatica (The priciples of Mathmatics :-) ) Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:46:16 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Acronymns What do the following acronyms mean: IIRC BTW YWWH IOW (in one word???) Ramesh (the newbie) ramesh.sat@telinco.co.uk: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:47:50 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 16 December 1998 05:33 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! Right on! But just a sec, how can I unite with a figment of my imagination? >>> 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 Thanks Walter that's what I whould have said. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:51:34 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry V. cool! Pity it'sonly 3 parts though. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:21:56 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Acronymns Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > IIRC: If I Remember/Recall Correctly > BTW: By The Way > YWWH: Seems to have been used as an abbreviation for "Yahweh", or something similar. I had it confused with YMMV for a moment or three - which, by the way, stands for "Your Mileage May Vary". > IOW: In Other Words - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:30:47 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Thomas J. Ladegard wrote on 16 December 1998 >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> 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. What's Marcus going to do he's trapped! He can't run away from his *duties* - he will be found. He can't reach out to an angel (or any one for that matter) for help - he already tried that and got eternally damned. When he fell he did choose to isolate himself from good - but now he can't simply open himself to the Light of the Symphony, he needs help to get out of situation. He has shown at least some sign of wanting to change but no-one is there to help him. Demonic society does seem to try and keep it's numbers advantage by making sure no-one can leave. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:02:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sorcery Question At 11:47 PM -0500 12/14/98, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/14/98 8:32:11 AM Central Standard Time, >AmadanSJG@compuserve.com writes: > >> >>>As per the Marches & the stuff on Limbo, you can make a Vessel if you >> have enough Essence.<<< >> >> >> Actually, those are both special cases, rather than a general rule. >> Usually, you _cannot_ make a vessel simply by having enough Essence -- >> creating vessels is a power limited to Superiors. However, ethereals and >> beings in Limbo are exceptions. > Actually I would say that anyone with enough essence could make a vessel, but >that lower level celestials simply don't have enough essence. In Your Campaign, but canon? Nope. Only ethereals and in Limbo. No vessel trading in canon, either. > Okay, my question is: How do you improve the level of an existing vessel? Do >you need the intervention of a Superior? Yes, canonically. (Or maybe an ethereal god...) - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:23:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism At 2:24 PM -0500 12/15/98, Ben Aldred wrote: >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 In the IN universe, I'd think that *most* neopaganism stuff is ethereal actions (or human actions which the ethereals are encouraging as much as they can!). Novalis and Jordi *might* be poking in a few slants about Mother Nature and the Wilderness, but if they were actively supporting things that sent Essence to the ethereal gods, Dominic would have the patented Judgment Cow. Why, yes, that *is* a potential plot seed. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:58:12 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Neel Krishnaswami wrote On 16 December 1998 >>From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" >> >>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! > >Here we get to the heart of it -- In Nomine's cosmology makes NO SENSE >AT ALL if you approach it using any philosophical system developed in the >past 200 years. > >You need to go at it with the philosophical widget set the church >fathers and Kabbalists used -- Neoplatonism! In a Neoplatonist >worldview, reason and evidence aren't what you use to dig up the >truth -- reason is fallible, you see. So you need to use your >intuition to directly apprehend the truth, and the ultimate truth >is God. > Sheesh, being the argumentitive git I am I'm now going to have to argue with myself (oh no you're not :-) ). What I was trying to say was not that the philosophy of science is wrong - it makes a lot of sense - it just makes some assumptions which aren't neccessarily true (and could lead to it all being wrong). When Jean/Vapula gives us humans a way to measure the ethereal and Celestial realms the philosophy of science could accept them and integrate them with existing theories - the existence of a soul does negate the possiblity of the atom existing (not that I'm suggesting that atoms do exist or that any scientific theories really relate to the way the universe works, the results they provide just happen to coincide with what they predict [usually]) Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:03:06 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Elohim At 8:28 PM +0000 12/15/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >I understand that Elohim can express their emotions but can't act on them. >But where do you draw the line? In a very carefully considered place. And sometimes they get it wrong. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:53:06 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Creating Archangels (Re: Absolute Morality) At 12:09 AM -0500 12/16/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >>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! And if God is a hopped up Ethereal, he simply created the "Eldest Angels" with the *memories* of being around to create the universe. So they're a little fuzzy -- that's what happens when you've lived that long... ...or never lived through it at all. (Go ahead, tell Michael he was created sometime in pre-history and all his memories are lies. I double-dare ya.) (Mind you, in my campaign, he'd only get whether you *believed* that or not. Blocked at CD 4! It's too close to God for him to get the TRUTH! Buwhahahahaha!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:12:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Geases and the Hither Heavens (Re: Uriel) At 6:38 PM +0000 12/16/98, Jo Hart wrote: >At 10:04 16/12/98 -0600, SStroud wrote: >>IIRC, geasa on human souls gone to the higher Heavens don't vanish > >Surely geases on humans vanish when the human dies? Only if the Forces are recycled -- or perhaps reincarnated... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:31:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Acronymns At 11:46 PM +0000 12/16/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >What do the following acronyms mean: IIRC = If I Recell Correctly BTW = By The Way YWWH = ??? (YHVH/Jehovah?) IOW = In Other Words YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary IMC = In My Campaign/Canon IMO = In My Opinion IMHO = In My Humble/Honest Opinion IMAO = In My Arrogant Opinion On this list... IN = In Nomine LE = Line Editor (currently me) AA = Archangel DP = Demon Prince H&H = Heaven & Hell (a book) FotM = Fall of the Malakim (another book) FT = Final Trumpet (yet another book; relatively rare usage) NM = Night Music (one more book; also relatively rare usage) IPG = Infernal Player's Guide APG = Angelic Player's Guide Songbook = Liber Canticorum Tetherbook/Tethers = Liber Castellorum Relics = Liber Reliquarum LR = Liber Reliquarum Random other Acronyms... CoC = Call of Cthulhu (a game) IOU = Illuminati University, one of the Line Editor's earlier works (with a co-author). GURPS = Generic Universal Role-Playing System. SJG = Steve Jackson Games TFT = The Fantasy Trip (IIRC)... AD&D = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons WotC = Wizards of the Coast V:TM/VTM = Vampire: The Masquerade WW = White Wolf TSR = TSR Hm. That's probably enough for now... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:13:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) At 10:23 AM +0000 12/16/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 07:14:56PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> The first Habbalah who Fell knew they had not Fallen. Did not Malakim >> arise from the purity of passions? > >Did you develop this line of argument independently? Blest and bedamned if I can remember. I *thought* I had, but there's no telling what happens when stray comments drift down to the silt of my undermind and fester there, to resurface when the gasses cause them to bloat, floating upwards... Um. >Personally, I enjoy >the theory that Camael was trying to replicate the creation of the >Malakim. And didn't he succeed? After all, Habbalah don't Fall... Just between thou and I and the rest of the list, Camael may or may not retain his status as First Fallen Elohite, since it implies that there was a whole Choir Lucifer couldn't affect during the Fall. Which *is* potentially possible, if they were busy being objective and dithering and trying to decide what was right to do -- and any of the ones who gave into passion turned into Malakim... >>They are no longer their weak >> chrysilis form. They understand that their *Every Whim* is Divinely >> inspired. And that they must punish the unworthy, those who must not >> be allowed to drag Heaven down with them. >> >As I see it, that particular theory isn't the only Habbalite doctrine, >it's just the most popular, Since I don't think an entirely 128-page book devoted to Habbalah would sell *that* well (or even one about Habbalah and Elohim together), I sorta work with Big Pictures from time to time... >It's convenient for both the individual and the Superior, and they're >indoctrinated in it from the hour they're created. Possibly a properly >socialised new Habbalite wouldn't believe it was an angel, but why bother >experimenting? You'd probably have to end up killing it for disloyalty if >you did. That too! (And all the clipped stuff is, indeed, coolness.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:59:00 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Creating Archangels (Re: Absolute Morality) >>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! > >And if God is a hopped up Ethereal, he simply created the "Eldest Angels" >with the *memories* of being around to create the universe. So they're >a little fuzzy -- that's what happens when you've lived that long... > >...or never lived through it at all. Without getting into a long philosophical tract, this does make some sense in terms of the religious history of "God" from what we actually know on Earth. Think about it - we don't know God's name (all we know is that it has the consonants yod, hay, vav, hay) and there's more to it than just a religious law set down by Moses; it might have its beginnings with God, himself. When Moses asks God who he is (or for his name, depending on the translation), God responds with a relatively archaic comment: "I am who I am" (written as "I will be who I will be" in the original Hebrew) or as "I am YHVH" (again it depends on the translation). By not taking on a name with his human worshippers, God expands his role - if he has no name, it's harder to place a personality on him, like the Ancient Greeks placed on Zeus, Hera, and their family, or the Egyptians placed on Ra, Osiris, Horus, et al. Without a personality, God appears much more majestic and less "human," thus impressing (and cowering into some fear) his potential worshippers - I mean, if he really was as "Godly" as the impression of "the Lord" is, why did he get so easily annoyed with the Children of Israel and punish them? (Granted, the Torah describes them as a squabbling crowd, but still....) But what if God was an Ethereal who hit on the right answer - that is, remove the personality traces and become simply the Lord. He'll impress the people of Earth with his majesty and his lack of a squabbling family who fight all the time and bring humanity into their problems (Zeus and his women come to mind), thus gaining power. Christianity was the next logical step, and remember, it wasn't until the Roman Empire accepted Christianity that God really came into his own. So if that was true, Uriel's task (here we go again) wasn't quite as odd as the AA of Purity's actions may have made it sound - God may have instructed him to kill the odd Ethereal here or there, not because they posed a threat to God's current power, but because they remembered God pre-monotheism and could pose a threat later, by showing how powerless God was in fact. Of course the AA's wouldn't know, since God created them and probably controls some of their power just a bit, and definitely can control their memories to some extent. So even Yves, who was supposed to be the first, may not really have been made as early as he thought; the same maybe for Lucifer, which could be why he Fell (he figured out God's secret, maybe, and realized that he could supplant God?). Anyway, it's just food for thought. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:17:34 +1030 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism Neo-paganism Is most likely sponsored by Novalis, Blandine and Yves, and by none on the Infernal side, there are no corruptive influences in Wicca and such, IRL neway. And since they concentrate more on archetypes and less on actual worship i doubt you could link them directly to the Ethereals Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:51:46 -0500 From: Chad and Erin Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality >>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*...?" Extend the game to reality. Look at the trees outside your house. Sanity created that. Our planet, it's life...God created it all. Satan cannot create, but can pervert and twist what is already there. (Let's ignore the Duck Billed Platypus for now, I have no idea where that came from) If you cannot take God as infallible and good, then the game kinda loses it's point... >> >>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 It was part of a great plan. A third of the angels were meant to fall. The angels are just pawns in a celestial game, well, game may not be the appropriated term, it seems to simplify it all far too easily. The angels were created with free will, Lucifer Daystar played out his part. What am I implyng by this statement? That possibly, in a wisdom and foresight we cannot imagine, for a reason we cannot fathom, everything is happening the way it was supposed to. You just have to go by faith that there is a reason. >>everyone else, and he's fooled the Host into following his orders like >>good little sheep...." This is what makes In Nomine so great a game, people discussing a role-playing game, and theology at the same time. - -w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:21:38 +1030 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Uriel a hero, hah!, might as well call Alfred Eichman a hero. Uriel was the very example of how wrong a malakim can get, purity turned to fanaticism. Lucifer laughed all the way during the crusade and is probably laughing still, the more Heaven is distracted from the real enemy, the more closer it is to defeat. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:53:24 -0500 From: Chad and Erin Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism At 07:23 PM 12/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 2:24 PM -0500 12/15/98, Ben Aldred wrote: >>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 Just blame it on Nybbas, it's easy to blame it on TV. - -w ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:20:44 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism At 15:17 15/12/98 +1030, you wrote: > > > Neo-paganism Is most likely sponsored by Novalis, Blandine and Yves, and by >none on the Infernal side, there are no corruptive influences in Wicca and >such, IRL neway. Yeah, no factions at all. (Nice write-up, Em :) You reckon most angels would try to break them up on principle, because of being so vulnerable to ethereal/ infernal involvement?) jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:03:28 +1030 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism Chad and Erin wrote: > At 07:23 PM 12/16/98 -0500, you wrote: > >At 2:24 PM -0500 12/15/98, Ben Aldred wrote: > >>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 > > Just blame it on Nybbas, it's easy to blame it on TV. > > -w Hmmm, :I, that was not cool, nor funny, if your going to insult other peoples religious beliefs in such a way then you can go somewhere else, it wont be tolerated here. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:44:41 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Acronymns At 11:46 PM 12/16/98 -0000, you wrote: >What do the following acronyms mean: >IIRC If I Remember Correctly >BTW By The Way >YWWH This was actually the original name of God in the Hebrew language, which had no vowels. Speculation on how it's pronounced (Yahweh, Yahuwah, etc.). It's not an acronym (as far as I know). >IOW (in one word???) Possibly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:35:02 -0500 (EST) From: Eslin Subject: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > > Just blame it on Nybbas, it's easy to blame it on TV. > > > > -w > > Hmmm, :I, that was not cool, nor funny, if your going to insult other peoples > religious beliefs in such a way then you can go somewhere else, it wont be > tolerated here. Ease off, Simon. Consider: In Nomine is a game *based* on playing fast and loose with people's religious beliefs. Neopaganism is not going to be exempt from this any more than Christianity is. And man - with the number of bad movies out there, how can you *not* blame chunks of it on Nybbas in a game context? :) - eslin@buffnet.net / chephirah@fiat.justitia (And, before anyone starts shrieking 'Religious bias!' - yes, I'd be mocking myself right along with the rest of the Neopagans. You can shriek at me for not taking my religion seriously, I guess :) ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:31:06 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy At 3:32 PM -0500 12/14/98, Casca wrote: > > Call it a challenge if you like. The creativity on this list is > wonderfully diverse, and I'd like to see what kind of bizarre and diverse > ideas will result from the title. It's one-thirty AM, and I haven't had the time to think this through properly, but wanted to get it out before reading any of the responses to this thread. ,. It's pretty divergent from the Canon view of the universe, but you can't very well be Heretical within Dogma, can you? God isn't a fundamental entity in the Universe. He's something as far beyond Lucifer as Archangels are beyond Humans, but he's a creature of Finite power all the same. God really did die on a cross at Golgotha nearly two thousand years ago. What's worse; he was Outcast at the time. This plonked him in Limbo when he lost a Vessel. and He's stubbornly refused to leave ever since. The Archangels know this, of course. But rather than reveal this to theCelestial population at large, they kept the secret, while trying to convince the Reasonablymighty to return to his Creation. Dominic an Laurence support Chrtistianity as a way to convince God that his final bit of work on Earth had Merit. Many of the other archangels are more concerned with keeping the secret, so that they don't lose the War from demoralization. Eli's little AWOL performance may be another way to persuade God to return from Limbo..Or it may be part of a secret plot to set himself up as the New Supreme Being. Who knows? Human Souls still go up Jacob's ladder allright, byut the reason they don't come back down is not because of the holy Presence of God, but because the Archangels won't allow them to leave. The biggest hurdle here is Litheroy. Keeping a monumental secret like this one should be cracking him wide open sooner or later, or making it very obvious that something's wrong with the Almighty. It's blasted hard to keep a secret from the Archangel of Revelation, and even harder to make hium keep a Secret. He's either keeping silent on God's command,, or e doesn't know..yet. Ah well. Maybe with a good night's sleep, I'll come up with something better. Maybe not. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Santos, Habbalite Knight of Death, the Demon of Evolution in Action. nofori@pop3.utoledo.edu | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1058 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.