From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Nov 10 20:35:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09677 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:35:23 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id UAA00711 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:02:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:02:40 -0600 Message-Id: <199911110202.UAA00711@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 #1404 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, November 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1404 In this digest: Re: IN>Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism IN> [ADMIN] Overquoting; don't do it Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Seven Deadlies Re: IN> Djinn Princess Beth: An image IN> Vessels and Words. IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> Vessels and Words. Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Vessels IN> Write-Ups Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host IN>Malakim Oaths Re: IN> Djinn Princess Beth: An image Re: IN>Malakim Oaths Re: IN> Vessels and Words. Re: IN>Malakim Oaths ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:57:51 EST From: "dinah jones" Subject: Re: IN>Cry Havoc! ok, i'm starting to see the point. maybe he is a little bit leadership challenged... at least he still looks good in those leather pants. >From: "trina mccowan" >To: dinah_7@hotmail.com >Subject: azreal >Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:52:35 PST > > >To quote the book "Laurence is too idealistic as a planner" >So Laurence doesn't allow for mistake and errors, he keeps thinking that >everyone >has his capabilities, does,t think of other possible consequences etc... > >Michael watches when something that Laurence didn't expect happens, and >just >stamds there >dumfounded (who would have thought that that Tether had a large and >powerful >army of >Calabim just waiting for something like this to happen), and then deploys a >taskforce to >clean up the mess. > >Remember Laurence tolerates *NO* subordination so would not listen to the >happless Servitors >protests of >"But I'm only a newly fledged Mercurian, He's the Djinn Seneschal of one of >the >largest >and most powerful Demonic Thethers in th" > >"Dah!!( Larry interupts) are you being insolent? Do you assume to know >more >than I? >Get in there and take the bastard out." > >"But" > >"Zip it, www.shhh.com.org etc" > >Azrael >"RAGE!" > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:12:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! At 10:55 AM -0500 11/10/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >I don't think there is an official leader of the Council in canon -- I tend >to have Dominic and/or Yves handle that function in my games. Speaker of the House? I admit, I probably see Dominic as doing the admistrativesque things like, "Is everyone quite done? Good. Ahem. This now forms the 1,00,045,892nd special session of the Seraphim Council. Present are [long list of names and Words]. Absent are [shorter list]. On the agenda is [list, including New Business]. Unless there are objections, we will start with..." While Yves is the one who tends to murmur something cryptic, and a lot of people instantly fall into line... And the rest of Council meetings is a squabble. O:> But that's by no means canon. Just how I've tended to envision it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:26:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism At 1:06 PM -0500 11/10/99, John Karakash wrote: >Unless you want to >get into a rambling, pointless argument about >how to prove a negative (i.e. I am non-prejudice), >which doesn't belong on this list and I wouldn't >respond to anyways. =) Besides, that sort of >digression brings down the Wrath of Archbeth... Demon Princess Beth, actually... My Wrath is usually dealt out by nicely deluded Habbalah. And quite right -- let's not go into that digression. (GOT ME, everyone?) - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:22:24 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! At 4:12 PM -0500 11/10/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 10:55 AM -0500 11/10/99, Walter Milliken wrote: > > >I don't think there is an official leader of the Council in canon -- I tend > >to have Dominic and/or Yves handle that function in my games. > >Speaker of the House? I admit, I probably see Dominic as doing the >admistrativesque things like, "Is everyone quite done? Good. Ahem. This >now forms the 1,00,045,892nd special session of the Seraphim Council. >Present are [long list of names and Words]. Absent are [shorter list]. >On the agenda is [list, including New Business]. Unless there are >objections, we will start with..." > >While Yves is the one who tends to murmur something cryptic, and a lot >of people instantly fall into line... > >And the rest of Council meetings is a squabble. O:> Once a year, Marc steps in as "Meeting Facilitator," shows some Powerpoint presentations and leads the Best of the Best in coming up with a new Mission and Vision Statement. They continue this practice mostly because he brings doughnuts and it's always good filler for "The Daily Show with Bruiel the Mercurian" the next night. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:35:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Gant Subject: Re: IN> God is Love On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ben Aldred wrote: > >How about "Eli, Demon Prince of the World". > > > I think the proper term for this would be the Demon Prince of Hedonism. in > my opinion this represents the mindset you are portraying. Maybe, but that's not *quite* what I'm getting at. By "the World", I mean preoccupation with matters of the World and the flesh, instead of with spiritual things (dropping into Christian-speak). The denial that *anything* exists beyond mortal life. I'm not sure how much sense I'm making. I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm not sure if I'm expressing it correctly. Time to dig out those theology books on my shelf, I guess... Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:40:50 -0600 From: Santiago Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism > > > Communism isn't about Trade, it's about control. > > > > That's a bit biased. Communism (AFAIK) certainly does have economic aspects > > to it. It's based on supply side economics, as opposed to demand side. (I'm > > sure Neel can say more about this than I can.) If people trade labor for > > hard cash OR for social services, that's still trade. > > I am NOT denying communism has economic aspects. >Every society has economic aspects (including anarchy). But >the foundation of communism is "You work where we tell you, >when we tell you. We'll take everything you produce and give you >what we think you'll need." You can't control a society without >controlling its economics. No, that's not the foundation of Communism at all. The so-called Communist countries of the world were pretty much all totalitarian states which implemented very few of the ideals of Communism. The last big one left, China, is a lot more capitalist than communist these days--it just has plenty of human rights abuses. True Communism, as envisioned by Marx, has no centralized control; it's social Anarchy, where each contributes to the common pool as best they can, and takes only what they need. It is the complete absorption of the individual into the collective, it is the becoming a single piece of a greater organism, it is the Borg. - -- Santiago ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:17:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Overquoting; don't do it It has come to my attention that, unlike the days when I first got onto the Net, apparently ISPs are not educating their users on proper quoting. Since over-quoting is not only annoying, but makes email take longer to download, wastes bandwidth, wastes memory, and wastes space in the digest version of this list, I will therefore attempt to educate everyone right here where they can see it. If you don't read and follow this, I will be send you very snitty private email, then very snitty public comments, and then u-n-s-u-b-s-c-r-i-b-e habitual offenders without warning them. [*] Two rules of thumb: #1: ONLY QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO. #2: IF YOUR MATERIAL IS LESS THAN *AT LEAST* ONE THIRD OF THE ENTIRE MESSAGE, YOU'RE QUOTING TOO MUCH. To show that you have snipped material, you may use the traditional or [snip], or my personal favorite [...]. If there is a great deal of text, then summarize it. For instance, if you replied to this message and didn't want to quote all of it, you would say, "[Beth's rules about not overquoting snipped]" and then your reply. If there are questions about this, ask me. And the first (or second, or third, etc.) person to quote all this and put in a "witty" one-liner like "Yeah" or "Me too" will be u-n-s-u-b-s-c-r-i-b-e-d. Because that's what happened the last time I posted something like this and it's not funny. - --Beth, Demon Princess of List Admin [* I also u-n-s-u-b anyone who bounces email, for any reason. If you have a temporary network problem, email me when it gets fixed and you can r-e-s-u-b.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:38:56 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism This is my two cents on how angels and demons regard economic and political systems. First, there's the observation that a celestial's definition of the good life is not the same as a human being's. A celestial's primary interest is in the disposition of human souls after their deaths. Fundamentally, they don't care about material conditions on Earth except instrumentally -- does this or that economic system increase or decrease the chance that people will act in righteous or unrighteous ways? It's easy to see this is so on an individual level: If Dan the Demon thinks that Horace the Human is likely to forget about his duties and pursue frivolous pleasures if he were wealthy, he will do his level best to make Dan rich. Conversely, if Ann the Angel thinks that Horace is more likely to take an interest in the well-being of his fellow humans when he doesn't have to worry so much about making the rent payments, she'll work to ensure that he gets a good job or wins the lottery. But it's *also* true that if Ann thinks that Horace would discover his true measure only if faced with horrendous adversity, she is quite capable of tossing him in a war-torn famine zone. (So would Dan, if he thought that this would teach Horace to prey on his fellow man.) On a larger scale, angels and demons will want social institutions that encourage good or evil behavior. A demon's ideal human society is one that make lying, betrayal, theft, and callousness towards others the most effective way of life, whereas as an angel would want create a society where honesty, trust and charity and respect are encouraged. There are some cases where deciding who favors what is easy: demons probably approve strongly of totalitarian regimes where corruption, string-pulling, and tyrannical and abusive authorities are the rule. If evil has strong material benefits and everyone else seems to be doing it, then it's hard for even well-meaning people to stay clean. Contrariwise, angels probably approve in general of stable codes of law and transparency in government and business. Even if a person's initial motive is fear of being caught, over time they can form habits of honesty and honor. But in other cases it's quite tricky: let's take the example of anti- poverty legislation in a modern industrialized state. Either angels or demons could conceivably support it or oppose it. For example, a demon might believe that people would become less inclined towards charity towards the poor, because they could rationalize away their lack of personal charity through the assumption that the government will take care of the poor. But an angel might believe that the existence of the law will shape people's beliefs about how the poor ought to be treated. Throw in questions about whether or not the law will actually work, and how it will affect the future development of the society, and it all becomes even murkier. Basically, I think you can make any argument you like and have it sound plausible. Example: David supports anarchism, because it advocates getting rid of hierarchical relationships based on the threat of force in favor of mutual trust and fraternal bonds. As Kropotkin pointed out, the state is not the same thing as society. (Noam Chomsky, Soldier of Stone -- or of the Game? :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:18:04 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Martin Subject: Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Wade Trupke wrote: > A few comments: > > >DISSONANCE > >- ---------- > > > >Servitors of Cancer receive one point of dissonance every two weeks as > >their personal symphonies change and twist under their Prince's Word. > >This honks off Asmodeus no end, but then, Dominic > >didn't like him much when we was an Archangel either. > > Wouldn't this make his servitors rather short-lived? I think something > like "go a week without creating something new, or replacing > something old" would be more practical. Actually, the whole writeup came from that Dissonance condition. When Eli was an Archangel, *nothing* you did was dissonant... now that he's a Prince, *everything* you do, essentially, is dissonant. That was the feeling I was trying to capture. Then came the "Dissonance time-bomb" effect, then the word of Cancer, then "New and Improved!" > This doesn't feel right. Dark Eli's about > unchecked creation, but this is just destruction. > I think his old Transubstantiation attunement > makes more sense. Point taken. But it should be made darker somehow -- perhaps it can only transmute things that have been refined in some way, into inferior (but more complex) forms. You could turn distilled water into an equivalent amount of rotgut whiskey, for instance. > I really have a problem with Nybbas as his enemy. > Frankly, I think Nybbas would love this guy. "New > and impoved!" is practically a battle cry among > the servants of Media, especially if they don't > mean it. Good point. Make Nybbas Associated on both sides, and Haagenti hates his guts. (He's not making things anymore that are *really* fit to eat.) -- Michael Martin Be kind of random and beautifully senseless. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Martin Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ben Glickler wrote: > Maybe the Word of Capitalism (my choice for a Fallen Marc, since he'd ignore > all other forms of economics and go with the one Hell would like the most) > was held by a Demon who has since redeemed. > > Aha! And the Word of Communism was held by a servitor of David who Fell in > the early 20th century... How about "Exploitation" for Marc? "The world is trade, the giving and taking of everyday life. Make sure that you always take more than you give." -- Michael Martin Be kind of random and beautifully senseless. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:55:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Seven Deadlies This all strongly reminds me of Larry Wall's three chief virtues of programmers: laziness, impatience and hubris. Laziness makes you go to great lengths to reduce the amount of work that you have to do, by writing tools that you can use again later and so not have to rewrite them, and by documenting work so that you don't have to work it out all over again. Impatience makes you save time by getting the computer to do more of the work for you. Hubris makes you write programs that you want other people to see. We'd probably call them by other names normally, but these three concepts undoubtedly have virtuous effects -- at least they do on my code! - -- 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: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:33:47 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Djinn Princess Beth: An image In a message dated 11/10/99 1:30:25 PM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: >At 1:06 PM -0500 11/10/99, John Karakash wrote: > >>Unless you want to >>get into a rambling, pointless argument about >>how to prove a negative (i.e. I am non-prejudice), >>which doesn't belong on this list and I wouldn't >>respond to anyways. =) Besides, that sort of >>digression brings down the Wrath of Archbeth... > >Demon Princess Beth, actually... My Wrath is usually dealt out by >nicely deluded Habbalah. > >And quite right -- let's not go into that digression. (GOT ME, everyone?) > > > >--Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking >http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html > Great. Now I've got this image of Beth as a ten foot tall persian with 'just out of the bath' fur and pterodactyl wings. And glowing red eyes. Thanks a lot. Mark (The Demon Princess of Nitpicking is a Djinn, after all...) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:41:13 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: IN> Vessels and Words. Can a Celestial take an ITEM as a vessel? I have a player who asked if he can be a car as one of his vessels. Also, what's a good Word that mixes Driving (or Cars, in an aggresive, fast, stunt sense) and Destiny (or Judgement, pick either)? Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:51:25 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Gather round, children, and hear my (non-canonical) tale. But this is MY take on how and why Laurence was appointed General of the Host. Remember that GOD appointed Laurence as General of the Host. I propose the following theory which seems to be too easily dismissed by those who focus on Laurence's youth and inexperience: Laurence is a BETTER General of the Host than Michael would have been. That's why, when Uriel was recalled, GOD replaced him with Laurence, rather than asking Michael to return to his original post. (Michael stepped down originally because he was pissed at Dominic, but can there any doubt that he would have took up the mantle of General of the Host again if GOD had asked him to?) How can this be? How could the youthful, inexperienced Malakite who has to keep calling on Michael for help be a better General? Oh, back in the day, Michael was the best, no doubt abut it. He was (and is) the greatest warrior in all of creation, and while demons may tremble at the thought of facing Malakim, the Archangel of War STILL scares them more than any Malakite (even David or Laurence) can. And back in the day, when the War was hot and no one worried as much about disturbances, and probably both sides thought that Armageddon would come sooner rather than later, it was a no compromises, no excuses, no ifs-ands-or-buts, stomp the Symphony, kick-ass and take names, bad muthah killer Archangel that the Host needed to lead them. They were demoralized by the Fall, and then a few thousand years later, just when they thought they'd gotten over it, here came their Fallen brethren, boiling out of Hell and trying to ruin God's green Earth. They didn't need long-range planning and subtle strategems, they needed someone to grab his axe and say "GET THEM!" So Michael was out there on the front lines, leading by example. He was proud and he was glorious, and angels followed him because he was Michael, "who is like God." And they were proud, and they took heart, and demons trembled and realized that maybe this Rebellion hadn't been such a good idea after all.... And by being who and what he was, Michael almost single-handedly put Heaven on a War footing. Think about how difficult and traumatic it is for a nation to move from a peacetime to a wartime economy and society. Now think about how difficult this must have been for Heaven, where previously, they had known only purity, Truth, God's love, and peace. How could ANGELS have been turned toward the purpose of War? The Malakim were the first step, and maybe a little "boost" that God provided, but someone had to get the rest of the Host into the right spirit, and somehow do it without completely demoralizing them, and causing even more traumatic angst, which might have caused even more angels to Fall. Only Michael could have done it. He was Heaven's champion. But meanwhile, Lucifer was planning. HE knew Michael was the biggest, baddest mo' fo' in the universe. But Michael could only be in one place at a time (give or take a couple of dozen -- Superiors do have the power of multiple manifestations). Sure, anywhere that Michael was, the demons were going to lose that battle. But how many battles could Michael fight personally? So Lucifer pursued an aggressive strategy of quantity over quality. He never expected to beat Heaven at their own game. That was a sucker's bet. Baal might think he can outmatch Michael, but Lucifer knows better. But Hell can overwhelm Heaven with numbers. Well, one day Michael was tried by Dominic for Pride, and found guilty, but acquitted. Now, it's popular to accuse Dominic of being everything from a Heavenly Nazi to a Balseraph, but maybe Dominic was not only right about Michael, but he also picked the right time to bring him up on charges. Despite his acquittal, Michael stepped down. Maybe it was just petty resentment ("Fine! See how well you do without me!"), but I doubt it. I think it was a combination of feeling that his image had been too badly tarnished by the accusations for him to continue to be an effective leader, and realizing that the War was changing, and could no longer be fought in the same old way. Michael was too proud to come out and say "I'm no longer the best angel for the job." So he used the trial as an excuse, and muttering about hyenas and petty politics, he returned to doing what he did best -- kicking ass and taking names. Because he knew that Heaven would do just FINE without him in charge, because he knows that GOD is in charge, and isn't going to let Lucifer win just because an Archangel has an (apparent) temper tantrum and quits. Uriel replaced Michael, a good move at the time. Michael had ALWAYS been the General of the Host (at least as long as there had been a General of the Host, anyway), and probably many angels thought it was inconceivable that anyone else COULD be General of the Host. This was another blow to the Host's morale. Uriel, being the first Malakite, was a sensible choice, and probably the ONLY choice that the rest of Heaven (especially the Malakim) would have considered an acceptable alternative to Michael. And when God had to replace Uriel, he chose Laurence. Laurence isn't the greatest fighter in Heaven; that honor remains Michael's. And he may or may not be the very best strategist in Heaven. But he IS a better strategist than Michael. Because Michael thinks in terms of stomping demons and executing the Word of GOD. Yes, he can think long term, he's probably a fair strategist, but he can't deal with the War for hearts and souls. Michael knows on some level that God has said humans are important, but in his heart, his whole reason for being is the Final Battle, Armageddon, when he's going to trounce Lucifer and his horde for once and for all. Everything until that Day is just a warm-up. Michael is the Archangel of War. He's the Archangel of Kicking Demons' Asses And Proving Lucifer Is Wrong. Laurence also wants to kick demons' asses. Even more badly than Michael, he WANTS to be down there carving up the horde, because he's a Malakite. But he understands the importance of humanity. He is noble and pure of heart, which makes him an idealist with impossibly high standards, but that's what humanity NEEDS to ultimately win the War. Because (and pay attention kids, this is the part that Michael Doesn't Get): HEAVEN CAN'T WIN THE WAR! Only humanity can win the War. The War is about whether or not mankind is going to achieve its Destiny or its Fate. Do humans deserve Heaven or Hell? What does the number of angels killed in the Final Battle vs. the number of demons killed have to do with that? NOTHING. Armageddon will just be the coup de grace, one way or the other. It will be the final battle, when angels and demons have both done their work, saved or corrupted mankind as best they can, and all that's left is to bring down the curtain. So Michael wants to be out there trouncing demons, but Laurence understands that every individual human soul is a battleground in the War. It would be so much easier, and so much more enjoyable for Laurence, to measure victory by celestial casualty ratios, but he knows that Heaven can wipe out every last diabolical, but still lose the War if humanity is damned with the demons. And by the same token, even if the Horde storms the gates of Heaven and kills all the angels, it won't do them any good if humanity is saved. Mankind and all the surviving angels will ascend to the Higher Heavens; Lucifer and his demons can claim the abandoned, empty corporeal plane, where they will remain, without God, without hope, forever. Laurence thinks in those terms. So while his plans may not always bring about a military victory, ultimately they will bring about a moral victory. Laurence is the best General of the Host because he is the MOST idealistic angel in Heaven, the one with the most incorruptible morals, the one with the highest standards. He's the yardstick against which Salvation is measured. He will not enact a plan that lowers Heaven's standards, whereas Michael will let the ends justify the means. Michael might win more battles, but Laurence won't lose souls in the process. It can be very frustrating to the rest of the Host, because they see demons proliferating, and diabolical corruption everywhere. But what they DON'T see is how much worse it might be if Michael had been in charge. If Michael was still General of the Host, the Earth would very likely be a wasteland. Michael would settle for nothing less than endless warfare against the Foe. Everywhere that oppressors rule, everywhere that demons have a foothold, he would stir up armed resistance. There would be great and glorious battles, and maybe a lot of oppressive empires would never have come into being, but then, maybe a lot of CIVILIZATIONS would never have come into being. The whole point of Free Will would have been missed, and we'd never see what humanity MIGHT achieve on its own. And that's why Laurence is the General of the Host. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:03:07 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism >>>Not exactly. In a capitalist society, people are free to be selfish or non-selfish, or even exercise very long-term self interests at the expense of immediate selfishness.<<< Well, yes, but people are free to be selfish or non-selfish in ANY society. Capitalism is an economic/social model, it doesn't turn everyone living under it into Capitalists, anymore than everyone living under communism adopts a 100% communist mindset. But capitalism IS inherently selfish. There is nothing selfless about it. People can USE capitalism to generate wealth which they then choose to use for selfless purposes, but charity and other acts of selflessness aren't part of the pure capitalist model. They are extraneous to it. Angels can promote charity within a capitalist society, but they can do the same in a communist society. Demons can encourage capitalists to do nothing that doesn't contribute to their own wealth and benefit in a capitalist society -- it's quite possible to have a capitalist society that is purely selfish. A communist society (IF it's actually communist) has a certain level of "imposed selflessness." Individuals following the system may not be selfless (which is why it always breaks down in the real world), but communism IS, *as a model*, more selfless than capitalism. >>>Scientific/technical advances under capitalism are about the bottom line AND trying to guess what the market _might_ want or need. Communism doesn't care about that at all. Strictly speaking, communist societies don't have to advance at all when in a vacuum.<<< Uh...neither capitalism nor communism "care" about anything, and no society has to advance at all in a vacuum. You're confusing models with results again. >>>But the foundation of communism is "You work where we tell you, when we tell you. We'll take everything you produce and give you what we think you'll need." You can't control a society without controlling its economics.<<< That's not correct. That's how it's turned out in every case, but that's like saying "Every time we taught humans a new scientific theorum, they used it to make better weapons." The fact that it's happened often enough to make the results predictable doesn't mean that there's a universal law that guarantees this will always be the result, or that you can't try to teach humans to stop using weapons. (Please note, I am very much anti-communist. But for pragmatic reasons, not because I've adopted capitalism as a religion.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:04:12 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> God is Love >Maybe, but that's not *quite* what I'm getting at. By "the World", I mean >preoccupation with matters of the World and the flesh, instead of with >spiritual things (dropping into Christian-speak). The denial that >*anything* exists beyond mortal life. > >I'm not sure how much sense I'm making. I know what I'm trying to say, >but I'm not sure if I'm expressing it correctly. Time to dig out those >theology books on my shelf, I guess... I think you mean Materialism. Hedonists are a specific types of Materialists in several regards, so it would include that as well as encompas what you ment. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:35:27 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Vessels and Words. >Can a Celestial take an ITEM as a vessel? I have a player who asked if he >can be a car as one of his vessels. Hmmm, I don't see why not. However if they wanted to be self operating the vessel would have to be built that way (in other words if they wanted to be in a car vessel that drove itself it would have to be a car that would mechanically be able to run itself). This would be different than a living artifact in that they could abandon it like anyother vessel. Since a vessel's durability is entirely based on corporeal forces and its level it can be surprisingly fragile or strong depending. >Also, what's a good Word that mixes Driving (or Cars, in an aggresive, fast, >stunt sense) and Destiny (or Judgement, pick either)? Well Daring would intersect with it and Destiny, but be much wider. I can't see an intersection with Judgement, the closest thing would be Bounty Hunters, Vigilantes or any other kind of individual who passes Judgement and has the kind of personality that would go with driving in that way. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:45:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Warsinger Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Very interesting, and I can see it working fine as your game - but I wouldn't call it canon for one simple reason. Laurence is not protrayed as that understanding of the War for humanity's mind and soul - that it what Blandine and Novalis do - and there are quotes I could take from the book if I had it with me about how Laurence slights Novalis. Not in reference to her dress or anything - just a lack of use of her power to calm hearts. Warsinger Cute and fluffy....(with claws) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:45:25 PST From: "Du Dawei" Subject: Re: IN> Vessels Why am I still on the list after the listserv confirmed I had un-s-word-ed? Help? My mailbox will explode with this traffic... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:48:37 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: IN> Write-Ups Um I lost my own write up (I have no idea how). Could someone please send me the Andre write up? Thanks Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:06:54 -0600 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host > Gather round, children, and hear my (non-canonical) tale. But this is MY > take on how and why Laurence was appointed General of the Host. WOW!!!!!!!!!! That has to be one of the greatest writeups on how and why Laurence is the General I've ever seen...Maybe it'll work it's way into canon...It certainly would fit well with current canon...Yves comment about Laurence's worth soon being apparent...this sheds a whole new light on Laurence. I absolutely love it, and it's gonna be canon in any game I run(at least where it comes up..). The only gripe I've ever had about Laurence was his expecting perfection from pretty much everybody...this writeup gave a good insight into why that might be necessary. Wow...that sums it up...WOW... Ben Chism Angel of War Stories Demon of Useless Knowledge ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:08:32 -0800 (PST) From: David Barr Subject: IN>Malakim Oaths Okay, so heres a thought. It is Canon, that all Malakim have a minimum of four oaths, two of which are the same for all of them. It is taken for granted that those two are a standard and intrinsic part of the character and makeup of any of the Choir. My question is this; Are those two oaths "built in" to the malakim nature? Like the never falling, and the no trauma aspects of the character? Or are they...issued (lacking a better word) to the malakim at creation. "Heres your wings, heres your tight black pants, heres your halo, and here are your oaths; these two are standard, and two more of your choice, pick carefully." The latter scenario leaves open the possiblity that malakim have a choice in that matter, (free will anyone?) and therefore, there may be some who have non standard oaths. On the other hand, they may be constarined in their free will in this, just as they are constrained in the issue of wether or not they may fall (remember, fallling (Or redeeming, for that matter) is always a choice.). Has this been addressed, in cannon? or on list, for that matter. as I write this, I suspect it may have been (if so,m I throw myself on the infinite wisdom and mercy (such as it is) of our Beloved ArchPrincess Line Editor / List admin, and beg for a quick death (painless is too much to ask (why, yes, I am married, why do you askl?))) though I do not recall for sure. - -Daiv ===== reply to my home address -> daiv@cruzio.com my mother once said that boy is stranger than a three toed barking frog - -Daiv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:38:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Djinn Princess Beth: An image At 6:33 PM -0500 11/10/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >Great. Now I've got this image of Beth as a ten foot tall persian with 'just >out of the bath' fur and pterodactyl wings. And glowing red eyes. Thanks a >lot. > > Mark (The Demon Princess of Nitpicking is a Djinn, after all...) (Yup!) Don't forget the faint beaver-ish front paws (to build the bunker of books that is her den) and the scorpion's tail. Flaming yellow pupils, too. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:42:09 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN>Malakim Oaths perhaps it is just those oaths that keep them from falling. The nature of the never allow a demon to live thing might be the answer. perhaps malakim do fall but they last about a femtosecond due to that oath which destorys them. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:44:19 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Vessels and Words. >>Also, what's a good Word that mixes Driving (or Cars, in an aggresive, fast, >>stunt sense) and Destiny (or Judgement, pick either)? I would say the word would be Blues Brothers. Ben this isn't really bad quoting is it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:58:11 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN>Malakim Oaths >My question is this; Are those two oaths "built in" to the malakim >nature? Like the never falling, and the no trauma aspects of the >character? The two oaths: "Never suffer an evil to live when its your choice" and "Never surrender in a fight, nor allow your self to be captured by the armies of Lucifer" IMO are what make the choir unique. The first one defines them, their personality, the reason they came into being and such wonderful things. The second one, IMO, is what grants them the immunity to falling and perhaps the immunity to Trauma. If you Fall you have surrendered the fight against dissonance and you have been captured by Lucifer. On a fundemental level by swearing that oath they have commited themselves to never let that happen. Trauma can be seen as a form of surroundering, so this oath might also serve as their immunity to that (but more likely it doesn't). What the second standerd oath implies to me is that a Malakite can Fall, if that oath was removed. In the APG it says Oaths can be removed by a Superior, just like it was Discord. Now a demon prince isn't going to be very familiar with Malakim force configurations (though if Valifor stoll Yves big CD of Angel Anatomy maybe they could learn) but with some trial and error they could figure out how to peel off oaths. Of course having a demon prince strip one of their oaths would most likely by dissadant on numerous levels and the Malakite could reswear the oaths and the proccess would keep going until the Prince just gave up. However if a Malakite wanted to Fall, they could go to a nice friendly Prince and have that Prince rip away the pesky oaths and just wait for the dissidence that they'll be acruing from not having the required number of oaths to push them from grace. I don't know why a Malakite would want to Fall or how such a Malakite could survive long to reach a demon prince. Think how suspicious the demon prince and his servitors are going to be about the situation, its too good to be true. But the second standerd oath is directly violated by Falling and trying to Fall, and if a Malakite is created with that oath sworn for them (or more likely they are told to swear that oath when they are granted their choir attunement and made true serviotrs) then it would explain why they suffer Discord instead of Falling. They are trying to Fall, but they simply can't get past that oath (probably because even if a Malakite Fell they'd take their oaths with them) and its starting to mess them up. Which leads to a final thought, Malakim (as is my understanding from the APG) can only swear new oaths to replace no longer valid ones or to ease dissonance. So when their created their probably oathless, and to get the required dissonance they'd have to wait a day. So maybe why all Malakim are so hopped up on keeping clear of dissonance, reporting others of their choir with it and all the other wacky habbits they have regarding it is that they suffered from a little dissonance when first created. That sting, and the terror that comes with it, helps keep them on the strait and narrow. Maybe if Hell managed to kidnap a just created Malakite they could drag it to Hell and get it to Fall (probably after some heavy balserpah lead brainwashing, and assuming Malakim aren't created knowing how to swear oaths to get rid of dissonance). Now that would be a job for Valefor. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1404 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.