From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 17 09:29:49 1999 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 JAA05220 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:29:49 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA13838 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:28:34 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:28:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199903171528.JAA13838@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 #1160 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, March 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1160 In this digest: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa IN> First Celestial Census Addendum Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) Re: IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Fluff) IN> The voices made me do it... Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> More Lilim questions Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> Celestial disguise Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) IN> Re: Defection tendencies Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Corporeal forces IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> More Lilim questions Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> Celestial disguise ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:10:48 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Mark wrote on 16 March 1999 >I have to do this: In the same way I have to disagree even though it means I get dissonance. :-) >Actually, the Dissonance would have gone away with Ramesh's second post on the >subject, where he said that it was intended as sarcasm. But since then two >Balseraphs and a Djinn (Princess, mind you, but her word *is* Nitpicking) have >been using it as a chew toy. IIRC If a Seraph lies and then confesses their lie, IIRC the dissonance is only removed if the people they lie to forgive the lie. (APG still can't find it, I remember checking to see if the dissonance would be removed though - God that's sad) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:54:59 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Okay, I understand about Free Lilim buying (5 for Band attunements, 10 for Servitor attunements) I also say since Free Lilim can bargain with Princes for Rites, they should be able to buy them at character generation, perhaps for 3 points a pop. What say? Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:22:44 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages >Therefore when one uses sarcasm to for instance say "not that servitors of >the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness", what >the speaker believes they are saying is "and it is well known that >servitors of the Wind steal and break the Law" which matches their belief >of the nature of reality. Not if it -is- true, but that it -must- be true, right? Uh-huh. . . I hear Valefor is looking for a few more Balseraphs too. >I hope that made sense. Perfectly. Fate awaits you. >"No, Really!" >Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind Definitely a Balseraph around here -somewhere-. Time to get my flaming sword. . . Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:24:01 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages At 9:00 PM -0500 3/16/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Ahh but If I argue for long enough people may think my lack of dissonance >is due to a state of the universe not knowing (because there is no GM) >whether I should have dissonance of not rather than some *other* >explanation. :-) > Man... that's... an *amazing* rationalization of a belief.... [Whistling blinks and looks out the window. Pointing. "Look! That was Ramesh! Falling past the window! Downwards!"] - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:52:24 -0300 From: Daniel Kerr Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa >They're also good tracking tools, and don't need to be invoked. >Celestial Song of Affinity is wonderful. "Okay, I hooked him when >I was in service to Lust. Now we can track him." How a gea is used to track someone? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:50:40 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa >How a gea is used to track someone? How can a Geas be used to Track somone you say? Celestial Song of Affinity. It's in LIBER RELIQUARUM (Book of Artifacts) and LIBER CANTICORUM (Songbook). With it, a Lilim can track people with whom they have an active Geas on. (Or was it also with those they have hooks in? I'll have to dig it up. . .) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:55:11 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa In a message dated 3/16/99 9:52:33 PM Central Standard Time, shadowstar@centuryinter.net writes: > How can a Geas be used to Track somone you say? Celestial Song of > Affinity. It's in LIBER RELIQUARUM (Book of Artifacts) and LIBER > CANTICORUM (Songbook). With it, a Lilim can track people with whom they > have an active Geas on. (Or was it also with those they have hooks in? > I'll have to dig it up. . .) > It was hooks. The Song lets the singer locate anything they have created. The Lilim can use it to track anyone they have Geas-hooks in. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:03:42 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: IN> First Celestial Census Addendum As per the request of our resident Djinn Princess, anyone who posts his/her entry to the list instead of private email gets left out of the final tally. And gets spanked by a cranky DP. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:08:22 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Oh yeah, And the -correct- Pural form of Geas is Geases. Geasa is used as a slang term by characters if I'm -not- mistaken. It's all part of your friendly neighborhood IN NOMINE styleguide. (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/stylesheet.html) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:06:14 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) *drool* http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/servitorum/img/cover_lg.jpg I like. . . *evil grin* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:26:01 -0800 (PST) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) At 10:06 PM 3/16/99 -0600, you wrote: >*drool* > > http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/servitorum/img/cover_lg.jpg > > I like. . . *evil grin* Nice, but it'lll get you some weird looks when your reading it on the bus stop. :) Email Address change:Please update to the following: nexus@uky.campuscwix.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:37:04 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > Okay, I understand about Free Lilim buying (5 for Band attunements, 10 for > Servitor attunements) > I also say since Free Lilim can bargain with Princes for Rites, they should be > able to buy them at character generation, perhaps for 3 points a pop. What > say? Not according to the rules, but 3 points/Rite is probably the right ratio; Mummies can purchase a single Rite for 3 CP. If the GM permits it, I'd say it's a wise move for a Free Lilim; Essence is a commodity that may let you obtain geasa and avoid having to take some of your own. I would also say that Lilith would refuse to give out Rites (especially her two standard Rites) to anyone unwilling to take her Dissonance. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 04:47:32 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Fluff) Whistling in the Dark wrote on 17 March 1999 >Man... that's... an *amazing* rationalization of a belief.... > >[Whistling blinks and looks out the window. Pointing. "Look! That was >Ramesh! Falling past the window! Downwards!"] Hey It's cool everyone. I was just trying to invoke Janus by Falling through the air for 10 seconds. No really! :-) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd!" "As far from God as Heaven is wide. As far from God as angels can fly." - Garbage - Heaven is Wide ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:58:00 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: IN> The voices made me do it... Okay, I gave in and finally "wrote myself up" in In Nomine. Well, not really, but it's kind of extrapolated from myself. Or something... if I'm not making sense, maybe just go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty/nomine and click on the link down near the bottom that makes about as much sense as this does. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:02:59 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Bartley > >I would also say that Lilith would refuse to give out Rites (especially >her two standard Rites) to anyone unwilling to take her Dissonance. > Should the same not apply to other superiors also? jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:08:17 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken > I can't talk >too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next >Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. > Ugh. Don't do it, man. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:10:26 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim questions - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy >>Okay, my question becomes: Can a free Lilim acquire attunements at >>character creation? If so, how and at what cost? > >The GM accepts the player's story for how she did this, and the Lilim >pays the required character points. She can only get Band Attunements >for Lilim and Servitor Attunements (and not Asmodeus' -- that's only >for *his* Lilim/Servitors, I believe the main book says). > As a GM, be very very wary of Andrealphas' and Haagenti's lilim attunements. They're very powerful (so it's probably best to be aware of that before you let a PC have them...) jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:11:47 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken > >It started from a hint in the main book that Jean is somehow soft on Lilith, References? jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:43:04 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise - -----Original Message----- From: David Edelstein To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Date: 17 March 1999 01:42 Subject: IN> Celestial disguise >>>>The Song of Concealment can let a Celestial disguise their Celestial >Form, however it can be detected using the Seraphim Res. and something >else >which I shouldn't really say because it could be a spoiler. So the >Balserpah could disguise themselves, but I don't think they would make it >past the Seraphim Council.<<< > >Not a chance. You're facing the entire Seraphim Council, including >Archangels. And that Song only lasts for a few minutes... > Maybe if you convinced one of the Archangels to personally help you pull the stunt off :) jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:03:24 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Okay possibly sometimes but often rhetorical question are statements: "Is > the Pope Catholic?" Nope. _Is_ the Pope Catholic? The general answer would be yes. Catholicism is generally true of popes. Then again, I knew an Elizabeth Pope in grade school. She was Jewish. However you put it, a rhetorical question is still just that - a question. "Is the Pope Catholic?" implies that it's to be followed by the exchange "Well, yes." "There's your answer.". It carries the implication that the answer "yes" is so obvious as to not even merit the question to begin with. But someone who's never heard the expression "Is the Pope Catholic?" will wonder whether you've gone batty, or just want to change the subject, or something along those lines. > Given the phrase stated just before it and the phrasing of the sarcastic > phrase it should have been obvious, and to be honest I would be very > surprised if most people on this list do not appreciate the fact that > Windies are creatures of entropy, motion and are associated with (T)theft, > so the idea that someone wouldn't realise the statement was sarcasm is a > little far-fetched in (my mind, but maybe I assume too much). To someone who's a regular reader of this list, your sarcasm was probably taken as just that. To someone unfamiliar with the Windies, you would have just given them the impression that the Windies are extremely stable, law-abiding people. That, my friend, is the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what your _intended_ audience is; it matters what your _possible_ audience is. And if you speak an untruth in a fashion in which someone listening might misunderstand you to be speaking truth, you gain dissonance. > Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind > "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) - -EDG This is why I'm a Mercurian. Absolute Truth is so silly. - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:54:55 PST From: "Hydrax 59" Subject: IN> Re: Defection tendencies >My choice for most likely to Redeem are Impudites. They are already >friendly and it's such a short step from pretending to care about the >humans you use to getting involved in their lives and really caring. Friendly? My friend have you been hanging out with Bals recently? Impudite's aren't friendly, they just act like that. Why should they concern themselves with the meat bags after all, except as a source of lunch. Basically, they see humans as tools. Haven't you ever met one peson who is massively manipulative and uses people for their ends with no thought for their feelings? try using that as a template for an impudite (except nastier - impudites don't even have the common bond of humanity to begin with) Think trying to get a wolf to consider deer wonderful people. >As for Chor most likely to Fall I say Seraphim, because they have >standards which are very difficult to maintain on the Corporeal Realm. >Lying for the right reason is SO EASY and a big temptation. Many Seraphim >might slip. And remember, the first Angel to Fall was a Seraph. But a seraph knows the Truth. and he can see what happens to his fallen bretheren. Personally, my most favourite to fall would have to be elohim. After all they only have their own (subjective) opinion of what is acting subjectively as a guide. and once they start slipping, well, it feels so much better this way, doesn't it? and I mean, you are helping them, even if they can't realise it. And pain has always been a very good way to get people to repent hasn't it, when your orders were to inflict it. so why shouldn't you take things in your own hands, because it's obviously what God wanted you to do. And the self justification makes it so much faster. My choice for the least likely to redeem would have to be Calabim. They enjoy their job, and do you really care what the punching bag at the gym feels? To a Calabim, the world is their punching bag. "Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative" Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:39:27 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Kevin Walsh wrote: > And as for the specific case, Lilith is bound to a demonic Word. This > doesn't prevent her from acting unselfishly, but that's no more than to > say that any random demon can also act unselfishly. It isn't Redemption, > because the soul is still shaped to a Hellish pattern. But is her soul shaped to a Hellish pattern? She is, after all, -not- a demon. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:03:51 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Eeyore wrote: > Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > > No bending rules of grammar -- bad. No cookie. Strunk, the Angel of > > Editorial Revision, and White, the Angel of Concise Explanation, will have > > to intervene. And they're not nice to cross. > > It's the sarcasm that bends rules of grammar. Sarcams doesn't bend the rules of grammar - it uses the assumption that when people say things to you they are trying to communicate in a way that makes sense, which makes you try to interpret statements that seem to say the opposite of what you expect to hear as acually meaning what you expect to hear. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:24:57 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 16 March 1999 > > >At 4:18 AM +0000 3/16/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > > >> How many Seraphs have fallen due to the Word of Nitpicking? > > > >Many, because the essence of a Seraph is Truth, and the further they > >slip from that, into idiom or slang, the more likely they are to > >discover they have carelessly said something that is not -- but should > >be . . . > > Okay, this is the main point of contention as I see it: > Many people here seem to be under the belief that all language follow > certain rules (of grammar and the like) perfectly 100% of the time. I > would agree this is true for languages like computer languages, > propositional calculus or even possibly the Celestial Tongue (at least the > Heavenly tongue) but the difference in my opinion is that those languages > were designed. [IMO very accurate description of language snipped] I also think this is the main problem, and I have said so in the past, though perhaps not quite as clearly. Language doesn't exist oustide of people the way gravity or matter does (in the commonly accepted world-view). It's completely -internal- - each and every one of us has his/her own language inside his/her head. There is no "English" outside our respective heads that you can compare your language with to see if it's correct or not. There are grammar books, but they reflect one person's internal grammar, not some mythical "absolute grammar". Well, unless you accept Plato's idea of the World of Ideas, of course, a notion that I find patently silly. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:31:44 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? > In a very non-canon future (non-canon even for our own campaign, though it > may happen...), this happens, but it's not something she actually wanted. > Instead, it's an outcome of the "Third Avatar" plot I mentioned before, > with some careful manipulation by Jean behind the scenes. I can't talk > too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next > Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. Don't take this the wrong way, but here's a slight comment on professionality: I don't want to see personal homegrown games woven into professionally printed books for mass consumption. I really don't want to see your game in canon. Basically, like Holy War and Fiat, no one except for the people intimitely involved in the game cares on whit about it. And frankly, it's what tanked the first cycle, all this "my story, my storyline, my way of doing things, my NPCs which are OH so cool". It's amazingly unprofessional. And unfair. It clearly shows that the designers of the second cycle have no interest in what the majority is looking for in a gaming supplement, but only in their own private games. So let's not do it, and nip it in the bud before it even starts. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:38:49 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa > (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/stylesheet.html) Which is actually quasi up to date. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:39:37 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Corporeal forces At 5:39 PM +0000 3/16/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >IMO, new demons are created with Corporeal Forces so that you don't get >the spectacle of 7-Force scum with the same number of Ethereal and >Celestial Forces as those Knights who have been on heavy Earth duty. The >other reason for giving Corporeal Forces to major Celestials (as opposed >to relievers/demonlings), so that they're ready to be assigned to Earth, >is a lot more real for angels, given Heaven's lower Celestial population. > >But generally, there isn't much use (arguably Etheral Forces are more >valuable on Earth anyway), and I'm not enthused by the idea of any >angel/demon with more Corporeal than Celestial Forces. When I was still working on my "Ah, Hell" campaign, I eventually came to the decision to keep each and every skill that's based on Strength and Agility on the Corporeal Plane based on those same characteristics on the Ethereal and Celestial planes, with the exceptions of Fighting and Dogde. So if you want to run fast, swim, climb, perform acrobatics, escape from from your bonds, or move silently, you'll need Corporeal Forces to do it well. IMHO, Baal's Earth Servitors should be among the most well-rounded of Demons. Sure, you can kind of get away with being high on Celestial Forces in Gehenna. but it you're maxed out on that, you'll get waxed when some kid kicks you in the shin... But that's just my opinion. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Tasha, Balseraph Knight of Factions, the Alternate Angel of Political Correctness. | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:09:02 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> Re: Janus >Therefore when one uses sarcasm to for instance say "not that servitors of >the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness", what >the speaker believes they are saying is "and it is well known that >servitors of the Wind steal and break the Law" which matches their belief >of the nature of reality. But -- angels of Wind *don't* steal; they deprive others of property, yes, but not for ill-use. They take away and move around property, health, friends, social status, and any other unreliable thing that a person might rely on for self-definition, but they have no personal use for the stuff. All the things they take away are (to the angel of the Wind) worthless vanity; it's literally so much dust in the wind. It's easy to envision an angel of the wind taking a man's fortune and then as it walks away dropping the title to the property in the gutter, just because it doesn't feel like holding the paper any longer. Yes, this is often scary and terrifying behavior -- but the whole *idea* of property is more than a little ludicrous to the angels of the wind; in the long run the life and even the whole Earth will pass away, and only the soul will abide; and even the soul will one day be in either God's power or Satan's. There is nothing that can truly be called our own, and it's better that humans learn this sooner, while they still have a chance to repent and change, than make that awful not-as-surprising-as-it-should-be discovery upon death. I suspect that Dominic probably has a very similar view, which is why when his Triads investigate their definition of 'crime' is going to look very very odd to a human being. Setting in motion the collapse and destruction of a great and civilized empire might not even a rate a question for the Triad, but they will launch a persistent and dogged investigation if the wind-angel of Wind took a piece of candy from a store and ate it. This is because in the first case the angel did nothing more than remind man that it is not possible to attain Paradise without God. But in the second there is the very, very dangerous possibility that the angel decided the candy was *his*, and that way lies Hell. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:32:52 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >I also think this is the main problem, and I have said so in the past, >though perhaps not quite as clearly. Language doesn't exist oustide of >people the way gravity or matter does (in the commonly accepted >world-view). It's completely -internal- - each and every one of us has >his/her own language inside his/her head. There is no "English" outside >our respective heads that you can compare your language with to see if >it's correct or not. There are grammar books, but they reflect one >person's internal grammar, not some mythical "absolute grammar". > >Well, unless you accept Plato's idea of the World of Ideas, of course, a >notion that I find patently silly. :) > Actually, quite untrue. Linguistic drift does occur, with time and the continual violation of a given rule of grammar. It is a process that either takes a large amount of time, as a given idiomatic way of saying something becomes so commonplace that the rules have to reflect the change, or it is a rapid process as the rules of grammar get bent slightly trying to express a concept that is entirely new and cannot be said easily under the old rules. There aren't many cases of the second process given above. English is actually very conducive to expressing new concepts, in a way many languages aren't. You can create any word you like and throw it into a simple sentence and it will come out a simple sentence. (This flexibility of terminology can lead to some very unfortunate ad campaigns I used to work for Kinko's. I cringed when they made their catchphrase "the new way to office." Office is a perfectly good noun that has no place as a verb. However, *grammatically* there is nothing wrong with making office a verb. Which doesn't change the fact that "the new way to office" is a sentence fragment, but I digress.) Anyone who thinks that "there's no such thing as grammar" has never learned the joys of being rejected for publication. There *are* very specific rules which must be followed for correct sentence construction. The more "professional" your use of language, the more you're expected to know them. And contrary to popular belief, there aren't that *many* of them. _The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and White is a Style Sheet, not a grammar text, but it manages to concisely lay out the rules of grammar in an easy form in under 90 pages so that anyone can use and learn them. Those rules form the foundation that more sophisticated Style Sheets (The MLA method, the Chicago method) can build upon, and then project-specific style sheets (the GURPS style sheet, the In Nomine style sheet) can cap off when you're dealing with specific audiences. And yes, if you submit something to our gracious Line Editor and you don't follow the In Nomine style sheet, she'll be annoyed at the very least and far less likely to publish you. But if you don't follow the rules of grammar laid out in _The Elements of Style,_ she's not likely to *finish* your work, since you're clearly incapable of professional work. (I could be wrong. Some editors enjoy reading grammatically incorrect proposals. I had a friend who edited Science Fiction magazines that used to send back proposals covered in red ink and graded, often with the comment 'this is why you had to go to that brick building for all of those years' at the end.) Yes, language is an artificial creation. However, it is a creation where the appropriate rules are agreed upon. (And you and I didn't get to vote on them, unfortunately.) The grammar books you mention are *not* one person's internal grammar, but attempts at codifying the correct grammar in use by society. The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated *viciously* among scholars, all in an effort to get every last rule correct. In precise speech and all rhetoric, those rules are the channel markers that make it possible for opinion and fact to be rendered in a way anyone in the audience can understand. Without those rules, it would quickly become very hard to understand what anyone else was saying. I've always felt that the Tower of Babel project was *really* sabotaged by God sending down eight different editions of the _Harbrace Handbook_ to the project managers, who suddenly couldn't create effective interdepartmental correspondence. Some people care very much about grammar, and cringe when the argument above is laid out. However, it seems to me that *Seraphim* will care to a degree unheard of outside of certain Nuns teaching in Lower Middle Class neighborhoods. There is a Way To Speak. They speak it. It is a true thing. Indeed, if there's one area where I'll bet the Seraphim point to humanity and say "see -- they can't even take care of *themselves,*" it would be when they're talking to someone who can't even be bothered to speak grammatically. This is the Choir closest to the Divine. Language is the foundation of their entire universe. They aspire to be bound to Words. They use that language correctly and expect the same from you. (I am very tired this morning, and therefore I expect I've comma-spliced and torn apart half those selfsame rules. The djinn princess of nitpicking will have a field day with this post.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:56:49 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: Janus On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > But -- angels of Wind *don't* steal; From IN p. 121, Invocation Modifiers for Janus: "+1 Steal a newspaper" :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:12:57 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 2:25 PM +0100 3/16/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >> At 4:18 AM +0000 3/16/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Elizabeth McCoy > > > >> >>Unless they *say* it's sarcasm before or immediately after, they > >> >>can't do it, and even then, they're going to be wincing to have the > >> >>vile, fetid taste of false words on their tongue. And they *certainly* > >> >>can't do it in text without enclosing it in tags. > >> > > >> >But it's obvious from the context. > >> > >> Not necessarily. It's false. It's words which don't mean what they > >> sound like. It's bad enough that humans use words that don't mean > >> what they sound like, but it's at a *MINIMUM* borderline-dissonant > >> for a Seraph to do it. > > > >The problem is that words that mean one thing to one person doesn't have > >to mean the same thing to another person. If the Seraph says "That futon > >is blue" and someone listening to him thinks he's talking about the > >painting on the wall that's obviously not blue, does he take dissonance? > >What if the Seraph actually thinks "futon" means "painting", because > >someone's tricked him? > > As soon as he realizes that he said a not-truth, he'll go neurotic. > If he realizes that he was misunderstood, he'll go frantic trying to > correct the misunderstanding. He's a creature of *TRUTH*, not > semantics. And if someone -fakes- misunderstanding? Will he take dissonance, or just become a nervous wreck? > >> Besides, you did it in text, and didn't include sarcasm-tags, > >> and it wasn't immediately obvious. Take the dissonance like > >> a snake! > > > >I hope you don't mean that sarcams and irony wasn't possible to use before > >the event of SGML-tags? :) > > In text? Bingo! (Or some other construction: "Thus, I write with > sarcasm: Servitors of the Wind are always lawful and sedate. Ha, ha.") > And even then, it crawls at the brain... I was talking more generally - irony and sarcasm was quite common in writing before the advent of HTML. Besides, I think one could argue that sarcasm isn't really sarcasm if you say it is. :) > Okay, let's go back to Edelstein's rather nice, half-remembered-by-me > description of dissonance. [description snipped for the sake of brevity] > Sarcasm is saying not-truth and counting on others to realize the > tone of voice carries the "reverse these words" information. Just as saying something in a normal tone of voice is counting on others to realize that you do mean what you say, and that the words you say mean to them what you expect them to. Using sarcasm is just a level higher - it expects the listener to have an awareness of how language is supposed to work. There's no magic difference between sarcasm and "normal" language, IMO. > But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to > Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing > small babies?" I think judging things this way is putting too much weight on the syntax and not enough on pragmatics. Questions can be used as statements, just as statements can be used as questions. Context, expectations and the conventions of language use play a much bigger part than the presence or absence of a question mark, I think. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:17:03 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim questions >As a GM, be very very wary of Andrealphas' and Haagenti's lilim attunements. >They're very powerful (so it's probably best to be aware of that before you >let a PC have them...) Yes, I agree. That's why you make -certain- your Principle Antagonist Lilim has both of 'em. *evil grin* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:36:29 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Jo Hart wrote on 17 March 1999 05:07 >-----Original Message----- >From: Elizabeth Bartley > >> >>I would also say that Lilith would refuse to give out Rites (especially >>her two standard Rites) to anyone unwilling to take her Dissonance. >> > > >Should the same not apply to other superiors also? No, I believe Nicole had a rite from Novalis and she didn't have her dissonance conditions (to my knowledge) as ever Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:40:14 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Jo Hart wrote on 17 March 1999 05:17 >-----Original Message----- >From: Walter Milliken > >> >>It started from a hint in the main book that Jean is somehow soft on >Lilith, > > > >References? > The description of Lilith (IN, p150) "Many Archangels would still like to destroy her, though not all - Jean in particular." When I read it 1st time I assumed it was a mistake and it meant Marc. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:47:19 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise - -----Original Message----- From: Jo Hart To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 17 March 1999 06:46 Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Edelstein >To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com >Date: 17 March 1999 01:42 >Subject: IN> Celestial disguise > > >>>>>The Song of Concealment can let a Celestial disguise their Celestial >>Form, however it can be detected using the Seraphim Res. and something >>else >>which I shouldn't really say because it could be a spoiler. So the >>Balserpah could disguise themselves, but I don't think they would make it >>past the Seraphim Council.<<< >> >>Not a chance. You're facing the entire Seraphim Council, including >>Archangels. And that Song only lasts for a few minutes... >> > >Maybe if you convinced one of the Archangels to personally help you pull the >stunt off :) > Nah, that's ridiculous.... Maybe if you *were* an "Archangel" . . . Janus, anybody? (He possibly does have the song, and if he is Valefor he certainly does). But of course the very idea of thinking an AA could possibly be a demon is heretical, and if Janus who you heard it from . . . well I wouldn't want to encourage you to *lie* but just don't be too specific. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1160 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.