From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Mar 18 00:24:29 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 AAA25288 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:24:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id AAA24411 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:27:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:27:37 -0600 Message-Id: <199903180627.AAA24411@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 #1163 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, March 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1163 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages IN> Seraphic *Resonance* Re: IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Seraphic *Resonance* Re: IN> Seraphs Re: IN> Seraphic *Resonance* Re: IN> Seraphs Re: IN> Seraphs Re: IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it IN> Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:37:47 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 12:39:27PM +0100, Anders Gabrielsson 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. > Call me crazy if you will, but I assume that being Bound to a Demonic Word is altering your soul in a Hellish manner. It should, IMO, be harder to fix her soul than it would be to fix the soul of a random Free Lilim (assuming equal will and desire to Redeem), because the Hellish imprint is so much greater. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:36:36 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa In a message dated 3/17/99 10:24:14 AM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: >At 11:26 AM -0500 3/17/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 3/16/99 8:07:53 PM, shadowstar@centuryinter.net writes: >> >>>Oh yeah, >>> >>> And the -correct- plural form of Geas is Geases. Geasa is used as a >>>slang term by characters if I'm -not- mistaken. >>> >> >>You are mistaken. (Sorry 'bout that.) > >Actually, you're both right. The official SJ Games usage is >Geases because when it came up, no one could track down a >definitive source for Geasa. Foo. > The mistaken I was talking about was the 'slang term by characters' riff. Just to clarify. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:53:30 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa >From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Admin request of type /^\s*which\s*$/i at line 6 Sheesh. Sometimes this admin stuff can be weird. >From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" >Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa >Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:53:18 -0000 > >Eeyore wrote on 16 March 1999 20:40 > >>Emily Dresner wrote: >> >>>>>Name exactly one really good application of an angelic resonance >>>>>which cannot be achieved through the use of any other angelic resonance. >>>> >>>> Seraph Check Digit 6. >>>> >>>> (Hey, you asked... :) ) >>>>>> Bingo. And not even a song available. (But I don't have the songbook, >>>>>>so something might be in there.) >> >>I'll confess that one thing I didn't like about the Liber Canticorum (and, >>to a more limited extent, the core rules) are the Songs that mimic a >>Band/Choir resonance. It seems to me to be having it both ways. Yes, the >>songs are harder to use (usually) and create Disturbance, but it still makes >>each Band and Choir less special. > >Yeah I agree to some degree, but none of the songs ever really mimic what >it means to be a Choir/Band esp. if using advanced uses or bonuses >choir/bands for Songs or anything that is brought to differenciate >Choir/Bands furthur (Which I think so far has been great). > >Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind >"No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:55:51 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 7:12 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, EDG wrote: > > > > Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe > >> to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or > >> want to be true. They speak what Is True. > > > >Hm. I have always thought that Seraphim gain dissonance by saying things > >they believe to be untrue. Otherwise things get really dangerous for > >them... > > > >"Where's Johnny?" > >"Back at the cabin." *dissonance* "Ouch!" > >"I think we'd better go check on him..." > > Actually, it's, > > "Back at the cabin." > They go and look. No Johnny. Seraph starts babbling, "I thought he > was! I believed he was! Oh God, what did I *say*?" > > They can speak what they believe to be true, but only a (dangerously, > if you listen to Judgment) worldly Seraph won't preface it with > "I believe" or "I think" or "I would like it to be so that". Because > those *are* True. It *is* True that they believe something with some > degree of certainty. > > Jeanite Seraphim are probably best at, "I estimate a 90% chance that > this is the actual case, but I'm not entirely sure and could be > wrong." Ah, good. This is (approximately) how I'd figured things. > And yes, that's a healthy Seraph. Almost makes me want to play one... almost. Not quite, but almost. After all, I sometimes speak like that anyway. :) 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 19:05:21 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages EDG wrote on 17 March 1999 18:30 >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> Ah . . . but angelic is not fixed ask any Windie. > >Um... yes it is. Angelic Tongue is what gets spoken in Heaven; you >don't really have a choice about it. Sorry. I didn't read the mail I commented on I thought it was suggesting angels are static. I think the angelic tongue probably would be static (but I can't know for sure). Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:59:25 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Kevin Walsh wrote on 17 March 1999 18:25 >On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:00:40AM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> If I understand the Seraph dissonance condition correctly then they gain >> dissonance when they lie. To me lying and stating a false statement are >> quite different. To say a false statement one makes a description of >> reality which does not match the actual nature of reality (i.e. one say it >> is raining outside when it isn't). > >I don't think this is a good example. What makes you believe that it is >raining outside? Is it not an implicit claim that you know whether it is >raining? (Of course, it is quite possible that there has been no point in >time during the last several million years that it hasn't been raining >somewhere, and a Windy might rely on that.) You understand the example right? Then it's good enough for me. >>To lie one describes a view of reality >> which does not fit your view of reality - but may or may not fit with the >> actual nature of reality (i.e. you believe it is raining and you state "it >> is dry outside", whether it is raining or not is irrelevant). Moreover the >> understanding other people have of the statement is irrelevant, all that is >> relevant is that the speaker did not believe the statement to be true. >> >This is all true (to an extent), but a Seraph should be cautious about >making statements about tne nature of reality that are not confirmed by a) >the Seraph's resonance, You mean getting a 6 on the check digit? >b) the Seraph's senses, This doesn't always confirms the Truth. >c) the word of someone the >Seraph trusts, and Trust no one! Okay that's an overreaction question you should question everyone though. >d) the Seraph's reason, most likely in that order. You leave this to last? I'd put it first. Resaon above senses, the need for check digit of 6 to confirm Truth makes it too unreliable, and assuming someone who isn't lying to you is correct is a dangerous assumption. But I accept your point that Seraph should try and make sure that the statements they make are not false, but they shouldn't get dissonance unless they lie. >And >of course the Truth is a finicky thing and changes from one point in time >to the next, but it is hardly a completely subjective thing. I have stated that truth can be subjected I haven't stated that it is always subjective, or that it is completely subjective. >(It can, of >course, be argued that people's perceptions of the Truth are also part of >the Truth.) Ain't that the Truth! :-) >> 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. >> >The problem with this line of argument is that it's infinitely extendable. >What if I decide that the word computer really means car-bomb? I can then >truthfully say that there are no computers in the lab I'm typing this >mail in. If you *really* think that the word computer really means car-bomb, and when you say "there are no computers in the lab I'm typing this mail in" you mean "there are no car-bombs in the lab I'm typing this mail in" then you aren't lying. That's part of the problem with languages IRL (and quite possibly in IN), you can't be sure that when someone says something they mean what you think they mean. 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 19:07:39 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 17 March 1999 18:36 > The angelic language does not allow anyone to speak what >Is Not. (Translations of it may use human elements, such as sarcasm >or other constructions; those are only poor translations of the >pure notes of Truth that each word contains.) Each concept is >a single, clear note, devoid of murkiness of meaning. Can you express statements which are false but which you believe to be true? 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 19:18:25 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? - -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Walsh To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 17 March 1999 18:45 Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? >On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 12:39:27PM +0100, Anders Gabrielsson 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. >> >Call me crazy if you will, but I assume that being Bound to a Demonic Word >is altering your soul in a Hellish manner. It should, IMO, be harder to >fix her soul than it would be to fix the soul of a random Free Lilim >(assuming equal will and desire to Redeem), because the Hellish imprint is >so much greater. Surely what makes a Word Demonic is the fact that the Wordbound is a demon, unless it is *evil*, which Freedom isn't. 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 19:15:11 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 17 March 1999 >At 7:12 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, EDG wrote: >> >>> No, it can't. Seraphim resonate to Truth - Absolute Truth. And >>> Absolute Truth is not, in any way, shape, or form, subjective. Absolute >>> Truth is what Is. >> >>Agreed. >> >> Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe >>> to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or >>> want to be true. They speak what Is True. >> >>Hm. I have always thought that Seraphim gain dissonance by saying things >>they believe to be untrue. Otherwise things get really dangerous for >>them... >> >>"Where's Johnny?" >>"Back at the cabin." *dissonance* "Ouch!" >>"I think we'd better go check on him..." > >Actually, it's, > >"Back at the cabin." >They go and look. No Johnny. Seraph starts babbling, "I thought he >was! I believed he was! Oh God, what did I *say*?" Okay. they should get worried about stating a falsehood, but they shouldn't get dissonance unless it was a lie. If it did it opens way to many loopholes. 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 14:26:03 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages >>>>>> "WitD" == Whistling in the Dark writes: > >WitD> The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine >WitD> points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated >WitD> *viciously* among scholars, all in an effort to get every last >WitD> rule correct. In precise speech and all rhetoric, those rules >WitD> are the channel markers that make it possible for opinion and >WitD> fact to be rendered in a way anyone in the audience can >WitD> understand. > >Funny, I would have said that those rules are used to create social >distance between different speech communities and to naturalize the >cultural hegemony of speakers of the standard dialect. > >But then, I _could_ be a servitor of Factions... > Bear in mind I am speaking of Grammar -- the underpinnings of sentence construction, parts of speech, use of punctuation (shun shun shun PUNCT-- sorry, Noggin was on in the apartment last night and I OD'd on old Electric Company episodes) and so forth. In Word Meanings, Idiomatic Differences, etc. etc. etc. I agree completely that meanings can shift. (WitD. It makes me sound like my wits are a Daemon that boots up on startup.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:29:50 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages >On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:00:40AM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> If I understand the Seraph dissonance condition correctly then they gain >> dissonance when they lie. To me lying and stating a false statement are >> quite different. To say a false statement one makes a description of >> reality which does not match the actual nature of reality (i.e. one say it >> is raining outside when it isn't). > >I don't think this is a good example. What makes you believe that it is >raining outside? Is it not an implicit claim that you know whether it is >raining? (Of course, it is quite possible that there has been no point in >time during the last several million years that it hasn't been raining >somewhere, and a Windy might rely on that.) > Anyone a Heinlein fan? We're swiftly reaching the point where we're describing Seraphim as Fair Witnesses from _Stranger in a Strange Land._ Which might not be that far off, actually.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:12:56 +0200 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Re: Janus At 16:09 17/03/99 , you wrote: >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. The destruction of a "great and civilized empire" may bring on untold suffering, and may bring many people to despair. Despair would likely lead to people abandoning belief, and hence the salvation of their souls (if I'm not mistaken, the early church saw despair as a sin precisely for this reason). I'm not at all sure that's something angels would want to promote. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:38:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages At 7:07 PM +0000 3/17/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 17 March 1999 18:36 > >> The angelic language does not allow anyone to speak what >>Is Not. (Translations of it may use human elements, such as sarcasm >>or other constructions; those are only poor translations of the >>pure notes of Truth that each word contains.) Each concept is >>a single, clear note, devoid of murkiness of meaning. > >Can you express statements which are false but which you believe to be >true? Every statement that you are not sure is the absolute TRUTH (which Seraphim can get with a check 6, most of the time) is flavored with the notes of 'I believe this is so' and the degree of certainty. I attempted to illustrate this at one point in a game where a Seraph said that he believed he would be able to cope with something in the future, and his notes were flavored with his *belief* of this -- since the Future Precognitive tense was pretty well restricted to Yves. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:30:33 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Seraphic *Resonance* Okay, we've beaten the Seraph Dissonance condition to death, but it brings up a question about their Resonance. How does that handle ambiguous statements and euphamisms? The specific example I'm thinking of I take from the movie Rustler's Rhapsody, though many mob movies will have the exact same thing, without the comedic explanation. It revolves around the phrase "take care" of someone. In the movie, we have Andy Griffith explaining to his henchmen that when he says, "Take care of him," he means to kill the person in question. (We, of course, then watch the results when he asks his henchmen to take care of his daughter when she faints at bad news.) So let's assume that a Seraph asks if someone if he has properly taken care of someone. He says yes, taking "take care of" to mean "to kill". Obviously, if the Seraph resonates with a CD of 6, then he knows that the person is using the phrase "take care of" in a way that the angel had never considered. But is this the case at any lower CDs? In other words, does the resonance work off of the language used, or the concept that the Seraph meant? And does it make a difference whether the someone in question was deliberately trying to mislead the Seraph with an ambiguous answer or was honestly mistaken about what, exactly, was being asked? Okay, this example is a little silly, but so is the movie it's taken from. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:30:27 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it In a message dated 3/17/99 10:36:29 AM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: >Much as I'm amused to follow the thread, I think it's gotten overly long, >and is probably spamming everyone else. So, private-email time. > > >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ > > (On a winged Kodiak, nonetheless...) Aww... *please*?!?! I was enjoying that.... Mark (Cherub of Destiny) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:35:42 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > EDG where is that particle? Anders where is that same particle? > Oh look you can both give me different answers, and you can both be > correct! To be frank, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. > Why? Because Truth *can* be subjective, I'm not saying all Truths are > subjective some Truths are true "in all possible universes" others are true > only for this person at this time and at this place. No. truth can be subjective. Notice that it's got a lower-case "t". truth is very often subjective. Truth (note the upper-case "T") is not subjective. It is Absolute. It does not change from person to person. > Not all (in fact most) Seraphs do not know what is True they can only state > what they believe to be true. Yes. And if they don't Know that something is True, good Seraphim will preface what they say with "I believe it to be true that..." In the Johnny example, for instance, what the Seraph should - and probably would - have said is, "Assuming that the conditions that existed when I last saw Johnny still hold, Johnny is in the cabin." or "I believe that Johnny is in the cabin." Both of those are accurate. - -EDG - -- 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 21:49:28 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphic *Resonance* On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Eeyore wrote: > So let's assume that a Seraph asks if someone if he has properly taken > care of someone. He says yes, taking "take care of" to mean "to kill". > Obviously, if the Seraph resonates with a CD of 6, then he knows that > the person is using the phrase "take care of" in a way that the angel > had never considered. But is this the case at any lower CDs? In other > words, does the resonance work off of the language used, or the concept > that the Seraph meant? And does it make a difference whether the > someone in question was deliberately trying to mislead the Seraph with > an ambiguous answer or was honestly mistaken about what, exactly, was > being asked? I'd say he needs a six if there is an honest misunderstanding. If the person he resonates is trying to mislead him he'll know on a one, I'd say. 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 15:37:34 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs In a message dated 3/17/99 10:40:09 AM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: >Jeanite Seraphim are probably best at, "I estimate a 90% chance that >this is the actual case, but I'm not entirely sure and could be >wrong." > >And yes, that's a healthy Seraph. > > >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ > > > My son's surgeon told me (God, it's a long story...) "If I were a guessing man, which I'm not, I'd estimate he's currently using about 50% of his bowel. But I'm not a guessing man, so I don't know." This is a man who *groks* Seraphim of Jean. On the earlier note, a truly careful Seraph in my campaign would have said, "Last I saw, Johnny was in the cabin." Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:02:21 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphic *Resonance* > It revolves around the phrase "take care" of >someone. In the movie, we have Andy Griffith explaining to his henchmen >that when he says, "Take care of him," he means to kill the person in >question. (We, of course, then watch the results when he asks his >henchmen to take care of his daughter when she faints at bad news.) > >So let's assume that a Seraph asks if someone if he has properly taken >care of someone. He says yes, taking "take care of" to mean "to kill". [...] My thinking here (assuming for the moment that the Seraph doesn't use the term euphamistically himself) is that we're running into one of those areas where the Seraph just Doesn't Get humanity. Euphamisms likely boggle him. So the question is, does the Seraph's innate difficulty with Euphamism make his resonance trip up? I think that if the mobster *assumes* the Seraph *means* kill, and says yes, the mobster is answering truthfully and the resonance doesn't ping. If the mobster knows the Seraph means "take good care of," and tries to lie by saying "oh, I took care of him all right," it will come across as a lie, because he didn't. >Okay, this example is a little silly, but so is the movie it's taken >from. > >J. Michael Neal Silly is good. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:28:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > On the earlier note, a truly careful Seraph in my campaign would > have said, "Last I saw, Johnny was in the cabin." Could a terse seraph get away with "In the cabin, presumably," or "In the cabin, I think"? Surely seraphim are allowed to be terse? (Hope your son is better.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:44:03 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > > > On the earlier note, a truly careful Seraph in my campaign would > > have said, "Last I saw, Johnny was in the cabin." > > Could a terse seraph get away with "In the cabin, presumably," Not sure about that one. > or "In the cabin, I think"? Absolutely this one, IMO. Provided that he really thinks so, of course. :) 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 17:44:25 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it At 3:30 PM -0500 3/17/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/17/99 10:36:29 AM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: > >>Much as I'm amused to follow the thread, I think it's gotten overly long, >>and is probably spamming everyone else. So, private-email time. >> > (On a winged Kodiak, nonetheless...) > >Aww... *please*?!?! >I was enjoying that.... So ask to be included on the CC list of those who're debating it! Really, it's possible to send to more than one person at a time... O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:27:24 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Re: At 17:09 +0000 3/17/99, Hart, Joanna wrote: I think your first points have already been addressed. >d) Err.. don't do another cycle :) Seriously, a set of linked scenarios in >one book is fine. 5 separate books is almost certainly not. The Cycle decision is SJ's and, to a lesser extent, Elizabeth's. >(And if you are surprised and upset that I might have assumed any of the >above, they are assumptions formed after having read some of the current >material. ) All of which came from entirely different people. Which means we'll probably wind up with an entirely new set of problems.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:26:45 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Lucifer in the Comics On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > In which comics is ( are? Sounds bad either way.) he nice? Well, Lucifer's debatable in Sandman.... He gets sick of playing God's adversary, kicks everybody out of Hell (yes, demons and damned alike; most eventually return when God sends angels to administer the place), locks the gates, gives the key to someone he wants vengeance on (the protagonist, Dream) and goes off to Australia and spends some time as a beach bum; later he opens a nightclub. Reminds me a bit of Lilith as portrayed in In Nomine. My GM is basing Lucifer heavily on that. And, in fact, Lucifer is busy with a plot on how to go Renegade. Leaving Hell weak enough not to take vengeance once he's weakened by no longer being Lord of Hell and simultaneously strong enough not to prompt instant Armageddon is difficult. Then there's the little issue that he needs the intervention of the Holy Grail in order to *stop* being the Lord of Hell.... Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:43:39 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 12:14 -0500 3/17/99, Emily Dresner wrote: >If you're in the business of writing the books and advertising as such, it >is in your best interest not to mention "my game" and "canon" in the same >sentence. Well, I thought the separation it was clear enough, though obviously it wasn't. Writing email doesn't demand as much precision as writing canon does, so sometimes the meaning is blurrier than I'd like. And I'm afraid it's all too easy to mention "my game" and "canon" in the same sentence, though not usually with the same confusion potential.... I don't have the time to carefully read all my messages with an eye to looking for unobvious hot-button triggers -- I'll just have to clear up the confusion if it happens again, and leave it at that. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:02:52 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics At 6:26 PM -0600 3/17/99, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > > My GM is basing Lucifer heavily on that. And, in fact, Lucifer is busy > with a plot on how to go Renegade. Leaving Hell weak enough not to take > vengeance once he's weakened by no longer being Lord of Hell and > simultaneously strong enough not to prompt instant Armageddon is > difficult. Then there's the little issue that he needs the intervention > of the Holy Grail in order to *stop* being the Lord of Hell.... > > Interesting... Lucifer hasn't shown up in my IN projects yet, but I see him as more amused than anything else. Perhaps once he wanted to win the war, but now he's more interested in seeing if the Princes can manage it. When he grants words, it's more out of a sense of Infernal Ennui and the opportunity for entertainment (or to keep his Princes interested in the contest....) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:10:10 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics Just one comment about Lucifer in the comics. Media. You really think that Nybbas is going to let the Lord of Hell be portrayed as anything but a cool, defiant, interesting, and ultimately antiheroic but charmingly fascinating dude? Not that Lucifer himself cares. Probably. Ultimately. Really. One hopes. But then again... - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:57:48 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer in the Comics On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, GR Cogman wrote: > You really think that Nybbas is going to let the Lord of Hell be portrayed > as anything but a cool, defiant, interesting, and ultimately antiheroic but > charmingly fascinating dude? > Not that Lucifer himself cares. Probably. Ultimately. Really. One hopes. But > then again... I'm not making any bets. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:27:13 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >"Where's Johnny?" > >"Back at the cabin." *dissonance* "Ouch!" > >"I think we'd better go check on him..." > > Actually, it's, > > "Back at the cabin." > They go and look. No Johnny. Seraph starts babbling, "I thought he > was! I believed he was! Oh God, what did I *say*?" > > They can speak what they believe to be true, but only a (dangerously, > if you listen to Judgment) worldly Seraph won't preface it with > "I believe" or "I think" or "I would like it to be so that". Because > those *are* True. It *is* True that they believe something with some > degree of certainty. > > Jeanite Seraphim are probably best at, "I estimate a 90% chance that > this is the actual case, but I'm not entirely sure and could be > wrong." > > And yes, that's a healthy Seraph. For a good example of Seraphic behavior, look in Robert Heinlein's book, Stranger in a Strange Land. One of the characters is a 'Fair Witness', trained for truthfulness, memory and accuracy. When asked what color a house was she replied, "It's white on this side." ;) This is going a bit beyond what your typical Seraph would do, but not out of reach of some of them! You can take this further even when dealing with past events... "It was white on the side I looked at." "It appeared to be white on the side I looked at." "I believe it appeared to be white on the side I looked at." Each of these statements is logically different, though they seem to say the same thing. All are the Truth from the Seraph's point of view, with increasing rigor. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:17:12 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! In a message dated 3/17/99 10:00:00 AM Central Standard Time, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: > Of course, the GM has to decide whether some Prince is going to let a > Lilim get away with an indefinite (minor) drain on his personal power, > for a finite period of service... Understood, but also bear in mind that each performance of that rite strengthens that Superior's Word. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:16:34 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) EDG wrote: >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> EDG where is that particle? Anders where is that same particle? >> Oh look you can both give me different answers, and you can both be >> correct! > >To be frank, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Ah . . . okay this one's a bit complex I'll explain privately after checking up on a few things (particle physics isn't my stongest point :-) ). >> Why? Because Truth *can* be subjective, I'm not saying all Truths are >> subjective some Truths are true "in all possible universes" others are true >> only for this person at this time and at this place. > >No. > >truth can be subjective. Notice that it's got a lower-case "t". truth >is very often subjective. Truth (note the upper-case "T") is not >subjective. It is Absolute. It does not change from person to person. Yes. I misspelled, I was a bit tired. Sorry. :-). Truth (capital T) to me is "true in all possible universes" as they say (but sometimes I use it to mean the ideal of truth), truth is simply a "factual truth". >> Not all (in fact most) Seraphs do not know what is True they can only state >> what they believe to be true. > >Yes. And if they don't Know that something is True, good Seraphim will >preface what they say with "I believe it to be true that..." > >In the Johnny example, for instance, what the Seraph should - and >probably would - have said is, "Assuming that the conditions that >existed when I last saw Johnny still hold, Johnny is in the cabin." or >"I believe that Johnny is in the cabin." Both of those are accurate. Yes. But there are times when this is implicit in what you say: If Micheal is explaining his World-view to you he is speaking truth but I don't think he would say "I believe that The world is a war, raging across reality", it kinda loses some of it's poetic value, sure when speaking the angelic tongue it will be obvious that this is his world-view and not neccessarily the Truth (all universes truth), but due to the nature of the corporeal tongue I think Micheal being a pragmatist would favour the more poetic description in a corporeal tongue. Can you imagine Micheal giving a stirring battle speech when every statement was prefixed with "I believe..." or someother description of uncertainty. And I say again Truth (as in the ideal of truth, not truths that are true in all possible universes) goes beyond mere statements. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "In it's purest form truth is not a polite tap on the shouder. It is a howling reproach. What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions." - Ted Koppel ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1163 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.