From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Dec 17 17:06:11 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 RAA19332 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:06:10 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA23314 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:26:44 -0600 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:26:44 -0600 Message-Id: <199812172226.QAA23314@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 #1059 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 1059 In this digest: Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Re: IN> Creating Archangels IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1053 Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) IN> Re: Neopaganism Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Acronymns Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Creating Archangels Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1053 RE: IN> Creating Archangels IN> A little something about Demon Princes IN> A plot seed... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:03:50 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > Uriel a hero, hah!, might as well call Alfred Eichman a hero. So. For supporting his Word, Uriel is a Nazi? Explain, please. I don't see it. > Uriel was the very example of how wrong a malakim can get, purity turned > to fanaticism. The Malakim are the Virtues. They exist to enforce the will of God. Unlike other Choirs, they do not compromise with evil. Not unless they wish to accept dissonance and discord. Uriel is the archetype of the Malakim, not the worst of the Malakim; he saw evil, and was forced to take action. He could not condone the actions of the Ethereals, he could not tolerate the actions of the Ethereals, and he could not compromise with them. What evil had the Ethereal gods done? They had commited the same evil Lucifer had committed: they set themselves in opposition to God. What evil had their Etherial servitors done? They had folowed the pretenders to the throne of God. Just as Uriel was required to take action during the War in Heaven, he was required to take action against the Ethereals. > 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. I doubt Lucifer laughed. Nobody was distracted from fighting Hell during the Crusade. War, Stone, and Fire did not take a primary role in the Crusade, so there were still front-line troops opposing Hell. Destiny, Creation, and Judgement did not take a primary role, so there were still angels opposing the more subtle plans of Hell. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:23:42 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Chad and Erin wrote: > 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... Or evolution, which is, IMO, more probable. Plus the fact that insane people can still create things - look at all those whacky painters, for example. ;) I can't see how the game requires God (in the game) to be infallible and good. The angels, with some very few exceptions, will certainly think so, but that doesn't make it true. 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: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:37:05 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > 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. Ha! Cool. I like it. Very evil. :) But if He was outcast, who cast Him out? Are there other, equally powerful beings in the Upper Heavens? Hmmm... the Upper Heavens were closed right after the Fall, right? So that may be the reason. Perhaps the division among the angels caused His heart to shatter... perhaps He thought that dying on the cross would somehow Redeem all the demons, by taking their sins upon Himself. He wasn't talking about the sins of humanity, but of angeldom. Hmmm... I like this better and better. ;) > 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. Not necessarily. Remember that they haven't visited the Upper Heavens since the Fall - they may not know what has happened... 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: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:45:51 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Eslin wrote: >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > >> > Just blame it on Nybbas, it's easy to blame it on TV.> >> >> 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? :) I'll echo the sentiment, and suggest a media reference that everyone interested in neopaganism and In Nomine should read: Michael Marano's _Dawn Song_. You know how there's a subthread of neopagans who worship Lilith as a fairly fuzzy feminist goddess, and how Judaism (to the extent that it acknowledges Lilith exists at all) regards her as an evil spirit of child-death and the mother of demons? Now consider the magnitude of metaphysical mistake a neopagan Lilith-worshipper in a Judaic universe is making.... I'll say no more, and reiterate: read _Dawn Song_ now. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:43:41 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner 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. > > 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?) > I think they'll just wait a week, and all the belief systems will change with a new episode of Charmed or a new release from Llewellyn Press. The Archangels would likely be trying something, at least a hope that the serious side of the movement would start moving away from wishy-washy feel good warm fuzzies and down to the serious business of being an actual religion. Some of it certainly is - the hard core Gardernerians or Alexandrians, which I can see endorsed by Novalis [and maybe Blandine - maybe, it's a push] as her answer to Gabriel and Islam and Dominic/Laurence and Christianity, but there are too many "go as you please, we don't care" people who are too interested [to paraphrase Moorcock in Behold the Man] "...not searching for a soul or a meaning of life, [you're] just looking for comfort." The NeoPagan movement which includes Wicca but _not just_ Wicca is almost totally unorganized, and is a pretty good channel right to the Ethereals, Infernals, and anyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon of pentacle wearing teeangers who has watched THE CRAFT one too many times and wants to know how to levitate. For every really true, good Wiccan who is worshipping nature and in line with Novalis, there are ten more who want to learn how to make poppets and make the cute boy at school go out with them. Anything that uses, or pushes the use of magick in any way, shape, or form for personal use falls immediately under the suspicion of giving into the Infernal, or of Ethereal manipulation at the very least. There is little or no way that any of the Archangels are going to support the expediture of essence to allow a human being to impose their will, collectively or in solitaire, on the Symphony to effect a change that will work on a personal level for the caster without being a Soldier of Heaven or another such being [ie songs]. *************************************************** * DISCLAIMER: Some of my closest friends are Wiccan, and I'm just a little more active then I really would like to be in the Wiccan community now a days. I'm in no way putting down actual religion or belief. I stand by the three categories I put the _entire_ movement under, and where the different bits fall. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:48:59 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Earl Wajenberg wrote: [snipped] Wow -- I liked this an awful lot; it was a nice Christmas present to the list. :) Are you going to put it up on the web somewhere? - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:45:54 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) > (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 :) ) But can we administer hugs and feed you chocolate mousse instead? :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:59:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Wow -- I liked this an awful lot; it was a nice Christmas present to > the list. :) Are you going to put it up on the web somewhere? Thank you, and thanks to the others who wrote they liked it. I don't have a web page, but I'm kinda hoping it'll make it into the In Nomine Collection... Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:21:11 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Creating Archangels Elizabeth McCoy wrote: Archangel Beth wrote: >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... God isn't an ethereal god; it simply isn't consistent with what's known about how ethereals work. At the time of the purity crusade, in 745 AD, a single archangel and his host -- i.e., Uriel -- was strong enough to take on and wipe out ALL of the ethereals combined, without help from anyone else. Now, in 745 AD, the Abrahamic religions did not have anything approaching even a plurality of the world's religious believers. The power of an ethereal pantheon is dependent on the amount of worship it receives, so if God were an ethereal, he wouldn't even be the most powerful one around. And if God Himself weren't the most powerful ethereal around, how much less true would this be for one of His servants? So the fact that Uriel -was- strong enough to toast the ethereals is proof that God isn't one himself. This doesn't mean that He's not something else, like an evil Demiurge or the blind god Azathoth, but God's not an ethereal. >(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!) So tell him he's never seen what a dinosaur or mammoth looked like; no reference to God there, and you can infer what you want to know from the answer. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:19:57 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1053 This makes me UNhappy! "Plug, plug: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/Tethers" I asked a serioud question and i get fobbed off wityh this kind of crap (yes i said it - i make no apologies!) HAVE YOU NO FAITH IN MY APPRECIATION TO ASSUME THAT I WONT BUY THIS BOOK ANYWAY? CAN YOU NOT GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER? If anyone esle can i woulkd be very grateful, i originlally asked about suggested Force ratings for seneschals/NPC's in general by type (distinction ranks, wordbound, etc.) Nothing has been given so far as i can see PLEAS DO NOT GIVE ME THE HARD SELL - THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IM ASKING ABOUT. This has happened before as well...only one person (privatley) gave me a styraight answer. You guys do yoursekves a disservice by acting in this manner, fair enough you wanna make money, but that's not what this list is about. if i can get answers here then this list is a waste of time. Please tell me im wrong yours most angrily, Martin (on the verge of Falling) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:58:31 +1030 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Eslin wrote: > >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > > > >> > Just blame it on Nybbas, it's easy to blame it on TV.> > >> > >> 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? :) > > I'll echo the sentiment, and suggest a media reference that everyone > interested in neopaganism and In Nomine should read: Michael Marano's > _Dawn Song_. > > You know how there's a subthread of neopagans who worship Lilith as > a fairly fuzzy feminist goddess, and how Judaism (to the extent that > it acknowledges Lilith exists at all) regards her as an evil spirit of > child-death and the mother of demons? Now consider the magnitude of > metaphysical mistake a neopagan Lilith-worshipper in a Judaic universe > is making.... > > I'll say no more, and reiterate: read _Dawn Song_ now. > > Neo-paganism and the Media have nothing to do with each other, and need I say > that in In Nomine there is the thread that the current 'God' was just a > Usurper, then where does that put Nybbas, and no I wont back off! Im sick of > people picking on pagans, i think you all have better things to do. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:32:11 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry > Thank you, and thanks to the others who wrote they liked it. > I don't have a web page, but I'm kinda hoping it'll make it > into the In Nomine Collection... It will, not to worry. :) I'm simply _extremely_ swamped with work right now and will be until after the New Year. - - Em Current Quote: Hitherby adds, to Sephar, "It is the way of the wild. Cats eat mice; wolves eat deer; muffins eat croissants." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 01:03:28 +1030 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Of course Im a pro-Blandine, pro-Jordi, pro-Lilith freedom basher, my personal motto is 'Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither' Washington wrote that, as justification of the American revolution. As far as Im concerned Uriel opposed freedom, the freedom of the ethereals, the freedom of Man to worship them, and thats why I likened him to a Nazi. But thats my opinion :), and as Ambassador of the Far Marches the opinon where I come from is quite prevalent. Keep the dang Malakim out! Simon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:51:48 -0500 From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) At 12:58 AM 12/16/98 +1030, you wrote: > > >> >> Neo-paganism and the Media have nothing to do with each other, and need I say >> that in In Nomine there is the thread that the current 'God' was just a >> Usurper, then where does that put Nybbas, and no I wont back off! Im sick of >> people picking on pagans, i think you all have better things to do. > >Simon > > But its is permissable to "pick on" on Christians or others faiths? No, thats maybe being to argumenative. But I've seen ideas presented on this list that would be highly insulting to member to various faiths, if taken seriously, and no one blink. Its fashionable to target them but looking at it from another perspective, If I was a christian, I might take offense at Angels being presented as engaging in sex, drug use, etc, etc and thats part of the base universe. Its just a game, no one is picking on anyone else's faith, just trying to present some interesting ways to look at it in game. Oh! Its all hot and sticky. Is this blood? Nice.... Lillith-Darkstalkers 3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:40:01 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism In a message dated 12/16/98 9:07:09 PM, hailes@senet.com.au writes: > 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 anyway. And since they concentrate more on archetypes and less on >actual worship I doubt you could link them directly to the Ethereals > >Simon > In my experience, it *really* depends on whose version of Neopaganism you're involved in. There are a number of versions where the influence of Dreams (in In Nomine terms, Blandine) seems to be strong, but some of my friends who are pagan seem to be under the influence of Andrephalus' word. Also, I've run into Dianic Wiccans (and I won't get into what an abomination that name is...) who seem to believe that I'd be a better person without my genitalia (Factions, anyone?). And then, as Em pointed out, there are the Crowley-influenced 'Neopagans' who strike the "An it harm none," portion from the "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." This doesn't even go into the "DAR Pagans," who respect me mainly because my great-grandmother practiced the Craft. As to the Archetype vs. specific Ethereal deity (going strictly back to In Nomine...), as far as Rites are concerned, if the Rite is performed, the Essence goes to the Ethereal, no matter what kind of image the worshiper had in mind... Mark (Just my two cents worth...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:21:07 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism > In my experience, it *really* depends on whose version of Neopaganism you're > involved in. There are a number of versions where the influence of Dreams (in > In Nomine terms, Blandine) seems to be strong, but some of my friends who are > pagan seem to be under the influence of Andrephalus' word. Also, I've run into > Dianic Wiccans (and I won't get into what an abomination that name is...) who > seem to believe that I'd be a better person without my genitalia (Factions, > anyone?). And then, as Em pointed out, there are the Crowley-influenced > 'Neopagans' who strike the "An it harm none," portion from the "An it harm > none, do as thou wilt." This doesn't even go into the "DAR Pagans," who > respect me mainly because my great-grandmother practiced the Craft. > > As to the Archetype vs. specific Ethereal deity (going strictly back to In > Nomine...), as far as Rites are concerned, if the Rite is performed, the > Essence goes to the Ethereal, no matter what kind of image the worshiper had > in mind... Exactly. NeoPaganism covers a _huge_ movement, and dozens of different groups with different aims in mind, with different goals. There is no single one running thread through the entire group, and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. This is everyone who is the priestess of several initiate levels in a strict Gardnerian coven who follows the Wiccan Rede unto their death to the OTO member who is trying to gobble up more Bad Books [tm] in the hope for more power to the Astartu who chooses to believe in Norse Mythos to the solitary who tells everyone that he/she/it follows the "Egyptian Pantheon". It strikes me as a movement in which everyone has their hand in the pot: Archangels, Demon Princes, and everyone in between. - - Em Current Quote: The latest Weekly World News has a great article in it about the proper etiquette to use around Jesus when He comes back next year. It's okay to call Him "Master" or "Rabbi" or even just "Jesus" cos he's the laid-back kind of Messiah, but you shouldn't lie prostrate in front of him, because it slows Him down and keeps other people from getting to Him. "You shouldn't try to hog Jesus." (actual quote) - Susan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:15:08 -0700 From: Gryph Clarke Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) I'm a pagan...something of a Wiccan eclectic. And I'm about as touchy as they come where it comes to folks walking on my religion, since I take it quite seriously. However, In Nomine isn't a game about my religion. It's about angels, demons, Heaven, Hell and God, none of which technically fit into paganism (unless you ask Silver Ravenwolf, but that's another story entirely). Neopaganism and the media have a LOT to do with each other. Look at Charmed, The Craft, the psychic networks everywhere...Nybbas has been batting the serious pagans around like a tennis ball. It was a perfectly valid, non-insulting statement. I wasn't insulted. I didn't feel picked on. What does hurt pagans are people who are too quick to jump to the offensive about the religion. It makes us come off as fanatics and drooling fanboys, instead of serious folks who are secure enough in our beliefs to question our faith. If you look at it, Christianity has taken some serious hits from In Nomine. Female angels (Gabriel is female?), angels involved in homosexual activity (Archangels, no less).... I'd say they're being downright nice to paganism. They could have tossed the traditional pagan gods out entirely, but they kept them. I don't necessarily agree with how the pagans have been classified, but I don't have to. I can do something entirely different in my campaign, and in fact, I do. (Of course, I also run a Kult/In Nomine amalgamation a good portion of the time, so that's no surprise.) No one's flinging insults. They're just fitting the non-Christian into the Christian. And once again...if you think the media and paganism have nothing to do with each other, I invite you to call me. It's only $4.95 for the first minute, and $2.95 for each additional minute. - - Gryph At 12:58 AM 12/16/98 +1030, Simon wrote: >> Neo-paganism and the Media have nothing to do with each other, and need I say >> that in In Nomine there is the thread that the current 'God' was just a >> Usurper, then where does that put Nybbas, and no I wont back off! Im sick of >> people picking on pagans, i think you all have better things to do. > >Simon > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:17:29 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Sensitivity (Re: Neopaganism) In a message dated 12/17/98 8:37:14 AM, hailes@senet.com.au writes: > Neo-paganism and the Media have nothing to do with each other, Charmed (WB TV) Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Fox - Miss Calendar and Willow) Llewellin Press (An entire media conglomerate) Crystal sales on QVC The Craft (movie) Several recent (highly biased) segments on the History and Learning Channels Shirley McLain (spelling?) (This is perhaps a stretch) Ramtha, Inc. and the 'Channeling' movement All of which can be lumped under the heading of Neopaganism and the Media. Of course, the question is who is using whom? Oh great. Plot seed time: What if Nybbas is actually under the control of Ethereals, rather than the other way around? They're actually playing him and Beleth for fools, and will eventually turn on them once the Tsayadim are removed. >Simon Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:28:12 -0800 From: darkelf Subject: IN> Re: 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 > Well, the pagan reconstructionists out there who actively research the Old Ways might indeed have a connection to the Ethereal gods...even if their methods aren't 100% what the ancients did, it's closer than the make-up-your-spirituality version some neopagans use. Wicca as I learned it has a creator-goddess -- which to some celestial minds might put it directly into the Infernal camp, since it's challenging the notion of God as Creator... darkelf - -- - ------------------------------------------------ Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. -- Yoda Fall down seven times. Get up eight. -- adapted Japanese saying ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:44:32 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On 17 December 1998 Richard Gant wrote >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > >> Uriel a hero, hah!, might as well call Alfred Eichman a hero. > >So. For supporting his Word, Uriel is a Nazi? Explain, please. I don't >see it. > >> Uriel was the very example of how wrong a malakim can get, purity turned >> to fanaticism. > >The Malakim are the Virtues. They exist to enforce the will of God. >Unlike other Choirs, they do not compromise with evil. Not unless they >wish to accept dissonance and discord. Uriel is the archetype of the >Malakim, not the worst of the Malakim; he saw evil, and was forced to >take action. He could not condone the actions of the Ethereals, he could >not tolerate the actions of the Ethereals, and he could not compromise >with them. This is very dodgy ground but here I go: Purity to me has a very dogmatic ring about it (everyone will conform to these exact specifications [am I the only person to see this]). IMO no-one except Yves has a direction connection to God so each angel acts through their personal connection to the Symphony. Uriel's connection was highly coloured by his Word and because of this he wanted to *cleanse* the Symphony of that which was not created by God. Ever see that episode of B5 where Franklin helps an old friend investigate the nature of some biological machines his friend found from a long dead civiliasion - the basis of the episode was that the long dead race were once in a great war with another race, in order to win the war they created a biological machine which would destoy anything that was not of their race, unfortunately the specifications of the race were programmed in by zealots and because of this not one member of the race was *pure* enough to meet these specifications and so they're war machines killed everyone. I wonder if Uriel might have one day gone down this path were he no called to the Higher Heavens. BTW if the Malakim enforce the will of God, how come 2 Malakim can have _completely_ different non-constant Oaths, wouldn`t it be truer to say that Malakim exist to enforce their sense of honour upon others. Maybe the Wordbound angel of Purity could not comprimise, but maybe that was exactly what was needed the AAs and Gods could have worked together to fight evil. >What evil had the Ethereal gods done? They had commited the same evil >Lucifer had committed: they set themselves in opposition to God. What >evil had their Etherial servitors done? They had folowed the pretenders >to the throne of God. Just as Uriel was required to take action during >the War in Heaven, he was required to take action against the Ethereals. IIRC the Ethereal Gods are the creations of man & they never turned away from God because they were created that way. Why should it matter whether a human believes in the true one God, surely if they leading a good life is all that matters and there is evidence that (some of ) the Gods were good and encourage good concepts in the same way AAs do - Maat's Feather (p 99 LR). By the way isn't it strange that the main reason why Dominic was after Maat was because it offended his vanity - it almost makes Dominic sound less than fully impartial. >> 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. > >I doubt Lucifer laughed. Nobody was distracted from fighting Hell during >the Crusade. War, Stone, and Fire did not take a primary role in the >Crusade, so there were still front-line troops opposing Hell. Destiny, >Creation, and Judgement did not take a primary role, so there were still >angels opposing the more subtle plans of Hell. > The Morningstar may not have laughed whilst Uriel wasted his time hunting Gods and creatures of Myth, but when all the ethereals were handed over to Beleth to become his pawns I think he smiled. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:11:54 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Acronymns Thanks to every one who replied to my call for help it was most kind: Thanks especially to Elizabeth McCoy who ended my wonderings on What TSR meant: >TSR = TSR Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:44:23 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality w (???) said: (The first bit quotes someone else I don't know who) >>>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... > Firstly how (in game) do you know that God creates and Lucifer perverts - Probably because all the angels told you so - now should you believe something just because someone tells you it is so? (Grammar note: does a rhetorical question need a question mark? :-) ) IMO lots great dark games are based on not knowing who to trust, uncertainty being brought to everything you believed and searching for the real Truth that "they" are hiding from you. In IN a group of once fervent angels could find definitive proof that the AAs are lying and that there is no God/God is not what God (it's easier to say God than say he/she/it) was said to be. So these angels either search for the Truth/expose the scandal either by working internally (for some reason I'm reminded of the X-files) or externally - going renegage (Yes I know it's usually only applied to demons but it fits better) and searching for help in the Far Marches/or whatever. One ammendment that would need to be made for such a game is that with a check digit of 5 or 6 a Seraph doesn't find the actual Truth they find the Truth according to God's doctrine. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 98 15:06 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Creating Archangels >God isn't an ethereal god; it simply isn't consistent with what's >known about how ethereals work. > >At the time of the purity crusade, in 745 AD, a single archangel and >his host -- i.e., Uriel -- was strong enough to take on and wipe out >ALL of the ethereals combined, without help from anyone else. > >Now, in 745 AD, the Abrahamic religions did not have anything approaching >even a plurality of the world's religious believers. The power of an ethereal >pantheon is dependent on the amount of worship it receives, so if God >were an ethereal, he wouldn't even be the most powerful one around. And >if God Himself weren't the most powerful ethereal around, how much less >true would this be for one of His servants? > >So the fact that Uriel -was- strong enough to toast the ethereals is >proof that God isn't one himself. This doesn't mean that He's not something >else, like an evil Demiurge or the blind god Azathoth, but God's not an >ethereal. All this says is that if God *is* an ethereal, he's one that learned some trick that makes him *much* more powerful than the typical ethereal. It may have been the power to Word-bind lesser beings, or the ability to merge himself with the Symphony, or some other gimmick. It's not just the strength of his worshippers -- it's something qualitatively different. This is why I specifically said "hopped-up ethereal". But that doesn't mean he didn't *start* as an ordinary ethereal. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 98 15:17 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1053 >Nothing has been given so far as i can see You obviously missed my post on the subject, somehow. I did answer your question. (To summarize the summary, Seneschals are 13+ Forces, there's no hard and fast rule beyond that, though bigger Tethers will likely have stronger Seneschals. Notre Dame has an 18-Force Seneschal, as I recall.) >Please tell me im wrong You are wrong. In general, questions asked *politely* on this list will be answered, either by other fans, or by the various semi-official and official people here. Ranting will not improve your chances of getting more information, sorry. You may not get an answer in as much detail as you want, but few people are going to take the time to write a serious dissertation about someone's question. (OK, Em excepted... and maybe David... or me, if I have a strong interest in exploring the matter.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:09:53 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Creating Archangels >All this says is that if God *is* an ethereal, he's one that learned >some trick that makes him *much* more powerful than the typical >ethereal. It may have been the power to Word-bind lesser beings, or the >ability to merge himself with the Symphony, or some other gimmick. It's >not just the strength of his worshippers -- it's something qualitatively >different. This is why I specifically said "hopped-up ethereal". > >But that doesn't mean he didn't *start* as an ordinary ethereal. Knowledge of someone's truename gives you power over them and so God submerged His name so no one knows it? That'd be a pretty nifty trick, and relatively in tune with Biblical sources. God never identifies himself, and the Torah never refers to God as anything other than Lord (Adonai) or God (El). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:13:20 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: IN> A little something about Demon Princes Okay, so I last weekend managed to get hold of a copy of the French original - - In Nomine Satanis / Magna Veritas - and a few sourcebooks to go with it. My translation skills are shaky, but I can hammer out some sort of context for large chunks of it. And I just thought this paragraph might amuse... "The heart of Hell is the High Council that meets every night from 9pm till midnight, and which all the Demon Princes attend. If the day's agenda isn't very busy, the Princes eat, chat, and play all sorts of games (from Vache qui Tache (translator's note - I suspect this is on the order of Snakes and Ladders) to GURPS, Advanced Squad Leader, and Trivial Pursuit." This stuff is _very_ different from the SJG IN. Has its moments, though... - --- 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: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:18:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> A plot seed... This plot seed starts with a little Song... Song of Amplification One of the Lost Songs of [the Watchers/Raphael/you name it], this incredibly powerful Song allows other songs to be performed at -- literally -- a fraction of the Essence cost. It has only one form: Celestial. When properly performed, the _next_ Song performed (which must be in mind when Singing Amplification) has all Essence put into it effectively multiplied by (Amplification's check digit x 2). (One must still spend at least one real Essence, but the effective Essence can be used for either the Song or to enhance the skill roll to perform it. However, this "virtual Essence" does _not_ make additional disturbance (spend 1 real Essence, make a 1 point disturbance) . . . AND the Song of Amplification costs no Essence itself! Cost to Perform: 0 Disturbance: 0 (!!!) Needless to say, this is a McGuffin Song, and any GM who lets the PCs get it should have his/her/its head examined for Shedim. This Song is, you see, the plot seed. Someone has been seen doing horribly powerful things, with very little disturbance. For best effect, it should be someone believed to be mortal, who shouldn't be able to use it. Then you make sure the PCs find out. Then you set them loose. If you're *really* lucky, you can make the person with this Song *really* obnoxious, but not quite obnoxious enough for the PCs to want to toast them entirely out of hand. Then you get them trying talk the NPC into teaching them this incredibly munchkin Song. The NPC will, needless to say, take all conceivable advantage of this. Have fun. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1059 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.