From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 3 17:28:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA11154 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:28:00 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA25670 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:31:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:31:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199803032231.QAA25670@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #657 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, March 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 657 In this digest: IN> Book Report: Fallen Angels Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Mammon and Haagenti IN> Re: IN- Geometry Re: IN> Judaism IN> Re: IN- Cats IN> [Fluff] David? Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats RE: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats IN> Cats Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> [Fluff] David? Re: IN> [Fluff] David? Re: IN> Re: IN- Cats Re: IN> Judaism IN> Gluttony, Greed and a malakim of Eli Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Cats IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #652 Re: IN> [Fluff] David? Re: IN> Geometry Re: IN> Geometry Re: IN> Perspective Re: IN> Re: IN- Cats Re: IN> Cats IN> Kyrio of Eli attunement Re: IN> people who run In Nomine - FNORD Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Cats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 21:39:52 -0500 From: bruce dykes Subject: IN> Book Report: Fallen Angels Browsing through the bargain section of my local Barnes & Noble, I found this little gem: Fallen Angels, The Soldiers of Satan's Realm, by Bernard J. Bamberger, ISBN 1-56619-850-X ($7.95). This is a 250pg examination of the historical material behind the myth of Stan and the rebellion, starting from Hebraic scripture and geographically related myths, through the early writings of the Christian church, some of the Quran, the Rabbinical writings of the Talmud, Midrash, and Aggada, various Cabala and mystical sources, later Christian theology, and a brief discussiom of the devil in modern discourse. This is all bolstered by an 8pg bibliography and 30 pages of citations. I haven't yet checked for any of these sources on the web, however, a good amount of them should be available. Overall, this is a very good overview of how to place Lucifer/Satan in your campaign with an appropriate theological backdrop. The only problem with it, is that the author is arguing against the existence of the devil as the source of evil in the world, which is more than fine for a real-world theological discussion, but quite out of place in the IN universe. Still, the book holds great value as a reference resource, and a source of adventure seeds. At only $8, it's certainly well below the average price of most game supplements, and while some readers of this list may be well studied in the sources covered, it provides a good, brief guide to the materials for readers less familiar with them, and with a slant suitable for an IN campaign. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:26:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Judaism On 02 Mar, Julian Breen wrote: > As IN has patrons for Christianity and Islam - and the status of these > faiths has been given some discussion - is there likely to be any such > similar treatment for Judaism? I would rather hope so, at the same rather fuzzy level that Christianity and Islam are treated. Judaism really ought to have a patron -- mind you, so should Buddism and very likely other religions that I'm not familiar enough with to name -- to put it on the same "we don't actually know" footing as the religions that sprang from it. Indeed, given the history of Israel, Judaism practically *requires* a protector in the IN universe. Now, what word should an (arch)angelic patron of Judaism have? - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:24:31 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: Re: IN> Mammon and Haagenti >From: Julian Breen >Ah my friend, but a Word's power lies in its overall importance to the >Symphony. This does not *necessarily* equate to prolific numbers of >adherants. > >Take for example the Word of Firearms and the Word of Nuclear Warheads. > >Words are strengthened in different ways, and whereas Lord Haagenti's >is indeed, best served by the masses, Lord Mammon's is best served by >the elitist few. No, it is not, which Kronos has tried to explain to the poor bastard a number of times. The important thing isn't how much effect a Word has on the physical world -- it's how much of an effect it has on the souls of the humans. The ruthlessness Greed causes in the Greedy and the envy Greed inspires in others is some help to that, but few are damned nowadays because of envy of Bill Gates. Many are damned by resenting Americans getting fat while Ethiopians starve. Nuclear Warheads are important because they inspire fear, not because they can wipe out the population of the Earth. Armageddon will do that anyway, and Vapula has twelve different weapons that could too. But every nightmare caused by the Cuban Missile Crisis fueled Beleth. Firearms were less important because people feared them less, although that might be changing if Vapula can't get *some* nukes into the posesssion of a lunatic dictator. Making the humans miserable is a fine thing. Delivering them to Hell to help feed me and Haagenti is the best thing. >You do Prince Mammon the disservice of associating his Word purely with >Avarice. >What about Greed for Power? Ask the Illuminated Ones (If you can find >them). Mammon shows absolutely no desire to encompass any form of "greed" except for avarice. Lawyers are only important to him because of their intimate involvment in financial transactions. While some of the attunements he grants can be twisted to serve other purposes, that is saying nothing more than that Calabim can use their resonance to further the cause of Heaven if they so wish. And, anyway, what about Lust for Power? In fact, both Lust and Greed for Power are poor human expressions of the true motive that encompasses both -- Gluttony for Power. Again, it's not my fault the humans have such a poor language. >Which brings me to my final point. As much as Gluttony may 'claim' that >it has progressed past simple overindulgence in foodstuffs, I beg to >cite the very invocational rituals of the Excessive One as evidence to >the contrary... |-) Mmmm hmmm. The claim that Haagenti's Word has not trancended simple food gluttony is disproven by the very Rite that he has granted me as a Calabim. Haagenti's Gluttony is a superset that includes food Gluttony - -- proving a selected set related to Haagenti is all food Gluttony simply proves that food Gluttony is a subset of that superset. One case that does not fist the food Gluttony subset proves that Haagenti's Gluttony is more than food Gluttony. At least, that's what I glean from that paperback edition of Aristotle's Logic I just supressed. Can't have those humans reading *useful* paperback books. Could you wait one moment while I authorize the next sixteen "Star Trek: Voyager" paperbacks? Thanks. >... A roomful of lawyers? Now _that's style_ Ok, I'm back. Style is fine. Mammon's style might be very useful when he is begging Haagenti for a postition in the power structure of Gluttony. I should make a note of that -- he'd probably make a good Count of Financing Paperback Books, no? Steven Ehrbar, Duke of Paperback Books, Calabim of Haagenti. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:08:07 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Geometry >circumference of the cylinder times its height. I am aware that starting >sentences with the word "because" is generally considered to be bad >grammar. Also remember that prepositions are something you shouldn't end a sentence with :-) SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 02:16:39 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: Re: IN> Judaism >From: Steve Jessop > >The Revelation was almost certainly not written by the same person as the >Gospel of St. John. The translators of the New American Bible (a modern English translation made for the Roman Catholic Church authorized by the National Conference of Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference) agrees. To quote: Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The other things the translators have to say is that, while there were probably three or more writers for the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation, they were probably all members of the same "school" of Johannine Christianity, which tended toward discussion of abstract theological matters. >I believe that the Revelation was included in the >Bible on the grounds of its supposed authorship, which was later brought >into grave doubt. Well, the NAB mentions six Church Fathers that thought it was John's work, and five who didn't. And current interpretations mark none of the Gospels as being written by Apostles largely because of date problems and textual inconsistencies with such authorship. >That neatly explains the inconsistencies in message, There's a lot of fire and brimstone in the Gospels, too. A change in focus is not a change in message. >and apparent grasp of reality... Well, it was Apocalyptic literature, which was supposed to be ornantely symbolic. And, you're implicitly assuming that the author didn't have a divinely inspired vision which could only be expresssed in bizzare imagery. Which is okay, although I believe you'll find out differently some day. Steven Ehrbar, a Catholic when he isn't serving Haagenti :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:21:56 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Cats >Of course I realize it's much more fun to give them human moral qualities >in In Nomine, but that's just to make Jordi's Servitors more interesting. To try and bring this back on-topic, do animals in In Nomine have souls? If not, why does Jordi believe them to be equal in value to humans? If so, why are animal souls not mentioned anywhere? (of course, celestials can take animal vessels... hm...) If this has been covered before, please ignore it. SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:29:22 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> [Fluff] David? I read somewhere that in the US, the name David is an almost exclusively Jewish name, whereas here in Australia it is a reasonably common name, regardless of faith. I was wondering if that is true? It was written in a reasonably old book of baby names. SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:49:02 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats >>PS I don't think I could handle one of my pets being a demon. I would >>mean that they have been corrupting me since early childhood. *cringe* > >I figure that they are somewhat similar to Lilim. You do what they want >when they want it and they will let you pet them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ buy you things >Gee, kinda like women.... Gee, kinda like men ;-P jo, angel of poetic justice ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:07:32 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: RE: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: This was a great article, Jo, just something I had to comment on: > Dissonance: > 'I am the cat who walks by himself and all places are alike to me' > > Miw take dissonance if they allow themselves to become dependent on any > mortal or other being, but can work off this dissonance by doing something > definitive to prove their independence to said mortal. > This is probably why cats remind me of Djinn: "I don't care a whit about you: I will sit in the corner licking my paws when you call my name. I NEED YOU!!! FEED ME!!! LOVE ME!!! Ah!!! Hmmm... I don't care a whit..." :) > ;) > > > jo, Angel of grey furry angels! > Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 05:06:25 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Cats >>>That is clearly not true. Many kinds of animal behaviour can be demonstrated to correspond to human behaviour.<<< They can be demonstrated to *resemble* human behavior. And of course, much of human behavior is instinctual -- probably more than we would like to admit. I agree that the gap between humans and animals is only one of degree; give cats another million years or so, and maybe they'll start showing signs of true sentience too. Or maybe not, as long as it's not a survival trait for them. >>>Similarly for cruelty: Webster defines it basically as 'willingness to cause pain'. So anything can be cruel, especially predators.<<< I think implicit in that definition is "willingness to *knowingly* cause pain. Neither cats nor sharks reflect upon the pain they are causing -- they don't inflict pain thinking "Hurting other creatures is fun." If anything, a cat thinks "Making other creatures twitch and squeak before I eat them is fun," while I doubt a shark thinks much of anything. >>>Animals do not tend to take 'pleasure' solely from causing pain, but usually do not care if it occurs as a side effect.<<< That's the point; it's not even a consideration to them, because they aren't *capable* of caring about it. Cruelty requires motive. >>>However, humans are the only animals known to make moral judgments. So if we define 'human qualities' to mean 'those properties not possessed by animals',<<< Obviously, "human qualities" would be all qualities possessed by humans. However, I was speaking more of sentient qualities than human qualities; I use human as shorthand since humans are the only sentient animals we know of. (Yeah, I know it's fashionable to theorize that dolphins and whales are sentient "in their own way" too, but the evidence suggests that while they are highly intelligent animals, they're still several evolutionary steps below real sentience.) >>> then we can have a (small) class of human qualities, and we cannot assign them to animals. But playfulness, cruelty, and (non-moral) judgement will not be included.<<< Playfulness, no. Cruelty, yes. Judgment in the sense of making a conscious distinction, yes. >>>It cannot be psychologically demonstrated that humans do have free will, or that animals don't.<<< It cannot be _proven_ ... of course it's hard to administer meaningful psychological tests on animals. But the evidence weighs against animals having free will, at least to anything like the degree we do. >>> As for philosophical means: arguments which try to distinguish between humans and animals tend to start out with 'animals can't think', and go from there.<<< Simplistic arguments, perhaps. Of course animals think, but how do you define thinking? >>> This is why many scientists fight so hard against evidence that chimpanzees can learn human sign language _and syntax_. <<< Any scientists who "fight against" evidence that clearly exists are letting personal convictions interfere with their scientific reasoning. Which happens, of course, but I don't think chimpanzees learning a limited degree of syntax constitutes the same thing as self-awareness. And being a linguist, I'd like to see the studies on the syntax that chimpanzees have supposedly learned. Anyway, I'd concede more in the case of chimpanzees and possibly dolphins than cats. Chimpanzees and dolphins show signs of potentially developing sentience, cats are a looong way from it, however adorable they may be and however much it may please cat owners to assign personalities and human thought processes to their pets. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:16:36 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > Well, it was Apocalyptic literature, which was supposed to be ornantely > symbolic. And, you're implicitly assuming that the author didn't have a > divinely inspired vision which could only be expresssed in bizzare imagery. > Which is okay, although I believe you'll find out differently some day. *cough*Ezekiel*cough* - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:27:12 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> [Fluff] David? David Streeter wrote: > > I read somewhere that in the US, the name David is an almost exclusively > Jewish name, whereas here in Australia it is a reasonably common name, > regardless of faith. > > I was wondering if that is true? It was written in a reasonably old book > of baby names. At one time this was true, but at this point I don't believe it. How old is that book by the way? I imagine with info like that it would be written in the early 1900s maybe as late as 1940 0r 50. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:30:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [Fluff] David? David Streeter wrote: > I read somewhere that in the US, the name David is an almost > exclusively Jewish name, whereas here in Australia it is a > reasonably common name, regardless of faith. > > I was wondering if that is true? It was written in a reasonably > old book of baby names. The guy sitting in the office next to me, Dave O'Brien, would probably be surprised to hear this. It is no longer true, if it ever was. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:37:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Cats David Streeter wrote: > To try and bring this back on-topic, do animals in In Nomine have > souls? If not, why does Jordi believe them to be equal in value > to humans? If so, why are animal souls not mentioned anywhere? Yes, they have souls. In the IN description of Heaven, Jordi's Savannah is "home to all animal spirits who have reached this high level of consciousness." Others presumably reincarnate or dissipate, like humans. Whether humans can reincarnate as animals or vice versa has not been discussed, so far as I know. By the way, this is Biblical. The Bible routinely refers to animals as having (or more usually, being) souls, with the same language used for humans. The first place animals are mentioned, in Genesis 1, they are referred to as "nephesh," souls. The idea of a qualitative superiority of human souls over animal ones derives from Greek philosophy, which connected immortality with rationality and took rationality to be the exclusive property of humans (and of course superhuman spirits). But I don't think souls is the issue. There's no reason to suppose Gabriel thinks fire has a soul, or Novalis thinks plants have souls, but they value those things because they are their respective Words. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:41:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Judaism Rhodri James wrote: > Now, what word should an (arch)angelic patron of Judaism have? Well, the name "Israel" means "God-fighter," which dovetails nicely with the traditional role of Michael as the patron of Judaism, mentioned earlier. This is found in the Bible in the book of Daniel: "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise." -- Daniel 12:1. See also Daniel 10:13, 21. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:44:11 From: "CA Smith" Subject: IN> Gluttony, Greed and a malakim of Eli Jules Writes >>> Gluttony and Greed!; "I want lots 'cause I like it, even though I'm bursting!" "I want lots because, well, then *you* can't have it" Result? Jules sharpens chopsticks and serves another Word. Starting on Greed, cause it's just plain more ANNOYING!<<< NoNoNoNo Jules, you then reveal to your greedy and gluttonous freinds that you are infact a Malakim of Eli, and Batter them to death with the one limp noodle that they have left you. I have been reading some of the older digests lately, and rather than what I would like to be This is what I think I am... Balseraph of Ralph (DP of Apethy) "So you want to know if I've done my homework Sir" PS Can any Angel of Eli take the Kryo attunement, as far as I can see it doesn't relie on his Resonance? "Sodomy non sapiens," said Albert under his breath. "What does that mean?" "Means I'm buggered if I know." - -- Mort and Albert are facing a problem (Terry Pratchett, Mort) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:48:10 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Judaism tom timberlake wrote: > Besides, one popular piece of folklore may call John "the > Disciple of Love", but he was also depicted in folklore as > having been one of the "Sons of Thunder", along with his brother > James, both having a rather volcanic temper, more akin to Thor > than Barney. It is more than folklore that gave James and John the names "Sons of Thunder." Jesus called them that. He also nicknamed his disciple Simon as "Peter" ("Rock" ("Rocky"?)). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:13:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cats David Edelstein wrote: >>>It cannot be psychologically demonstrated that humans do have free will, or that animals don't.<<< > > It cannot be _proven_ ... of course it's hard to administer > meaningful psychological tests on animals. But the evidence > weighs against animals having free will, at least to anything > like the degree we do. What is the evidence one way or the other? I didn't think current psychology was much interested in such questions. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:18:09 From: "CA Smith" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #652 On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Pee Kitty wrote: >On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > >> >> Can someone explain to me what is going on here? >> >> Under the skill medicine, it has the following chart (pg 76): >> >> Skill Level Treatment Time Hits Healed >> 1 1 minute == to patient's ST >> 2 1 day 2x patient's ST >> 3-4 1 week 3x patient's ST >> 5-6 1 minute 2x patient's ST >> >> I know this has been gone over before, but this chart makes absolutely no >> sense whatsoever. Well, it sort of does, in a very very vague sort of >> way, but whoever thought this up was on something good and is still not >> sharing. > >Here's the reasoning behind it, AFAICT. You start off knowing first aid, >which can be done quickly with minor results. Then you learn how to >actually take care of a person and really help them recover. At higher >levels, you can take care of a patient long-term, where real recover can >begin. And if you're really good, then you can do as much for a person >with your basic first aid as most doctors can do over an entire day of >helping the person. > >The chart is still rather silly...why bother taking care of someone for a >day to heal 2x ST when you can do the same in two minutes anyways? > To get around this have a base time of 1 application per week, with a choice at which level you want to heal at (so long as it's below your own). This means that a person can choose to do a less effective,quick job or a more affective, long job. At L1 if some one is seriously hurt in a car accident the character can do simple stuff in a minute but that is it, he cannot come back a minute later and continue to heal with the same things (CPA can only do so much regardless of the time spent doing it). Chris, Balseraph of Ralph "Sodomy non sapiens," said Albert under his breath. "What does that mean?" "Means I'm buggered if I know." - -- Mort and Albert are facing a problem (Terry Pratchett, Mort) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:10:29 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> [Fluff] David? > > I was wondering if that is true? It was written in a reasonably old book > > of baby names. > > At one time this was true, but at this point I don't believe it. How > old is that book by the way? I imagine with info like that it would be > written in the early 1900s maybe as late as 1940 0r 50. Quite untrue. I've known many Davids here in the US, some Jewish, more not. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:22:10 -0400 (EDT) From: gibsonc@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Geometry In my game there is a "thing" the group will find. Its Huge!! and buried deep underground. Its shape is that of a discus I haven't come up with exact size, which is why I needed the formula. The thing appears to be an alien craft the landed my centuries ago. It has the marking of angelic language on the outside and should make them want to explore it. What it is: here's the dark, the "craft" is a prison. Its origin is from the time of the fall. one of the angels to fall Remiroel, the angel of art, was in the Fall. The angel of art was upposed to inspire men and women with beauty and passions. He was to watch over imgination and inspire dreams. Many angel felt he was too dangerous to let loose but were too close to him to kill him, so they with Eli's help created this tomb, in order to imprison him. The writings on the outside are wardings, that keep him from going celestial and escaping or from going to the marches from inside. Once they open the door, he'll read their minds and haunt them, before trying to kill them and escaping. Like it Javan the geometry man ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:44:39 -0500 From: Sean Michael Whipkey Subject: Re: IN> Geometry At 14:22 -0400 3/3/98, gibsonc@nku.edu wrote: >ago. It has the marking of angelic language on the outside and should make >them want to explore it. Ooo, cool idea! I may have to grab that from you...:) SeanMike - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:14:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Perspective At 10:01 PM +0900 3/2/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >At 09:52 AM 2/03/98 -0500, you wrote: >> Elizabeth, Lilim Servitor of Lust 'Scuse, but aren't you sort of, well, excuse the profanity, but "preaching to the choir"? (Or is this some other Elizabeth who wanted to be a Daughter of Lilith for over a decade now...?) - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:23:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Cats At 11:21 PM -0800 3/2/98, David Streeter wrote: >To try and bring this back on-topic, do animals in In Nomine have souls? >If not, why does Jordi believe them to be equal in value to humans? If >so, why are animal souls not mentioned anywhere? p. HH76: Jordi's Savannah: "The Savannah is inhabited by the spirits of every kind of animal, living or extinct." So animals would seem to have souls. (Just not entirely sentient ones?) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:41:19 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cats At 5:06 AM -0500 3/3/98, David Edelstein wrote: [...] >>>>It cannot be psychologically demonstrated that humans do have free will, >or that animals don't.<<< > >It cannot be _proven_ ... of course it's hard to administer meaningful >psychological tests on animals. But the evidence weighs against animals >having free will, at least to anything like the degree we do. > [...] > Anyway, I'd concede more in the case of chimpanzees >and possibly dolphins than cats. Chimpanzees and dolphins show signs of >potentially developing sentience, cats are a looong way from it, however >adorable they may be and however much it may please cat owners to assign >personalities and human thought processes to their pets. Free Will and Sentience don't necessarily go together. I'll freely admit that the little fur-kids are ruled by instinct much more than humans seem to be. (It got Huntington into trouble enough times -- he wants to be in the house when my paternal unit wanted only outdoor cats. Huntington runs in and hides behind the upright piano. I wiggle string where he can see it, he pops out to pounce, I grab him. Not bright.) But this doesn't mean they don't have some sort of self-awareness, or ability to make decisions based on past experiences and current whim. To put it into Celestial terms -- a Seraph still has Free Will (as much as anything does in any GM's campaign...), even though there are certain aspects to his nature that are hardwired. Same with even a Shedite, and they're probably the most nature-constrained of the Bands. Go back to Huntington... Julicat went into heat in front of him I don't know *how* many times. She even had poor neutered Tas trying to amuse her (he got to the "grab by scruff" stage, and couldn't figure out the rest, poor thing). There the little queen is, treading and flauting her tail in his face, and Huntington just detours around her as if she were a boring rock. Then, for whatever reason, 14-year-old Mama-san comes over, goes into heat, and kittens result. The only thing we could think of was: "He had a thing for older women?" More Huntington -- leave him with strangers, in a strange place, and he's the banshee cat from hell. He won't eat, screams at anyone who comes near him, and generally acts like he's going to take the vet's/ boarding people's hands off. I show up, and he's just so loving and sweet and he'll eat out of my hand, climb on my shoulders, and let me hold him upside down if I feel like it. Love? I have no idea. Trust? Sure looks like it. Even my taking him to the vet and putting him in the fishtank so he can be unconscious for his chemo treatments... he still lets me do it. I think this may count as free will -- unlike his son, Hodgie, who is terrified of all humans, even us, whom he merely tolerates... Huntington clearly distinguishes between me and others, and lets me do things to him he won't let other people do. Sure, he's got hardwiring more than even Malakim ("Suffer not evil to live..."), but outside of those constraints? He has a personality. All of my cats have personalities. (Maybe this is why I have no problem with Choir/Band nature things -- yes, there are constants, but outside of the constants, personality is a very individual thing.) They share traits, they have constraints, but they are no more cookie-cutter than humans. Not sentient, never sentient -- but neither is a newborn baby. Animals are no less *beings* for their eternally young minds. I think I've done my Jordi Rite now.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:45:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Kyrio of Eli attunement At 2:44 PM -0500 3/3/98, CA Smith wrote: >PS Can any Angel of Eli take the Kryo attunement, as far as I can see it >doesn't relie on his Resonance? Seems relatively logical to me, though it does say "on their hosts," rather than "on themselves". Doesn't seem any more imbalancing than a Kyrio of Eli taking any of the other attunements, which are also not based on resonance. They still have to buy the Song, of course, to use the Kyrio attunement. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:05:30 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> people who run In Nomine - FNORD At 06:49 PM 3/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Ever had somebody roll an intervention when summoning their Superior? >>It can get ugly... > >Yup. In a demonic one-shot I ran a group of angels of Novalis got a 111 >when trying to summon her to help them with this strange PC Habbalah they >were dealing with. Instead, the Habbalah was hit by a white light and >instantly Redeemed... Uuugh. Attack of the evil repeat-posts. If anyone sees old posts by me, please ignore them. Somehow my mailer got confused and re-sent all sorts of old mail... -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:34:54 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cats Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Not sentient, never sentient -- but neither is a newborn baby. Sorry, this is one of my hot buttons, or a warmish one at least. Actually, "sentient" means aware, sensitive, or conscious. And a cat or a baby is all those things. I think the word wanted is "sapient," meaning "knowing," any by extension self-aware and aware of all those Big Issues like good and evil, the kind of knowledge we use to justify putting "sapiens" after "Homo" in our species name. I think the use of "sentient" to mean "sapient" traces back to Star Trek. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:53:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cats At 3:34 PM -0500 3/3/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Sorry, this is one of my hot buttons, or a warmish one at least. > >Actually, "sentient" means aware, sensitive, or conscious. And >a cat or a baby is all those things. I think the word wanted is >"sapient," meaning "knowing," any by extension self-aware and >aware of all those Big Issues like good and evil, the kind of >knowledge we use to justify putting "sapiens" after "Homo" in >our species name. > >I think the use of "sentient" to mean "sapient" traces back >to Star Trek. Treknology! Run! Hide! (Sorry, been talking to Em...) I am corrected. Want a job? - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:46:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cats Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > I am corrected. > > Want a job? No, thanks just the same, but isn't it nice to know your cats are sentient? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:11:43 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Cats David wrote: > Any scientists who "fight against" evidence that clearly exists are letting > personal convictions interfere with their scientific reasoning. Which > happens, of course, but I don't think chimpanzees learning a limited degree > of syntax constitutes the same thing as self-awareness. And being a > linguist, I'd like to see the studies on the syntax that chimpanzees have > supposedly learned. Anyway, I'd concede more in the case of chimpanzees > and possibly dolphins than cats. Chimpanzees and dolphins show signs of > potentially developing sentience, cats are a looong way from it, however > adorable they may be and however much it may please cat owners to assign > personalities and human thought processes to their pets. I've read a report (assuming accuracy, it was a reputable source) where Chimpanzees were able to learn (via sign language) a large number of words (in excess of 2-3 hundred, from memory). Within a very short period of time, they were recombining the words from sentences they had been taught to their own sentences to explain what they wanted and why. This project published their results and generated large amounts of interest. However, Scientific pressure (primarily from medical groups) urged the Government of the time to severely cut back the group's funding, primarily because the results being generated to suggest that Chimpanzees were sentient were endangering the other scientists ability to easily procure and use the animals as test subjects. In addition, someone told me (this is heresay) that Chimpanzees and other higher apes had been declared 'sentient' recently by some body, possibly the UN. Don't quote me on that, though. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:15:35 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Cats >Not sentient, never sentient -- but neither is a newborn baby. >Animals are no less *beings* for their eternally young minds. > >I think I've done my Jordi Rite now.... > >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ I often wonder whether a youthful aspect is the only way to survive in a human dominated environment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:22:13 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Cats >>>>Similarly for cruelty: Webster defines it basically as 'willingness to >cause pain'. So anything can be cruel, especially predators.<<< > >I think implicit in that definition is "willingness to *knowingly* cause >pain. Neither cats nor sharks reflect upon the pain they are causing -- >they don't inflict pain thinking "Hurting other creatures is fun." If >anything, a cat thinks "Making other creatures twitch and squeak before I >eat them is fun," while I doubt a shark thinks much of anything. This entire thread is heresay. >>>> This is why many scientists fight so hard against evidence that >chimpanzees can learn human sign language _and >syntax_. <<< > >Any scientists who "fight against" evidence that clearly exists are letting >personal convictions interfere with their scientific reasoning. Which >happens, of course, but I don't think chimpanzees learning a limited degree >of syntax constitutes the same thing as self-awareness. And being a >linguist, I'd like to see the studies on the syntax that chimpanzees have >supposedly learned. Anyway, I'd concede more in the case of chimpanzees >and possibly dolphins than cats. Chimpanzees and dolphins show signs of >potentially developing sentience, cats are a looong way from it, however >adorable they may be and however much it may please cat owners to assign >personalities and human thought processes to their pets. > >-David I would actually think any scientist who fights against evidence with reason 'is' being a scientist. Judgements over the intensity or motivation for that reasoning are highly subjective. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:17:42 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cats At 4:46 PM -0500 3/3/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> I am corrected. >> >> Want a job? > >No, thanks just the same, but isn't it nice to know your cats >are sentient? It's scary. (Of course, I've known for some time now that Huntington is self-aware.) - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #657 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.