From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 7 21:15:27 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 VAA06773 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:15:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id VAA16917 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:12:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:12:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199904080212.VAA16917@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 #1193 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, April 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1193 In this digest: Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) IN> Subjectivity and Objectivity (Re: Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim)) Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) Re: IN> Elohim and free will Re: IN> Use of humans Re: IN> Use of humans IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel Re: IN> Elohim and free will IN> 'Zine project friku friku! Re: IN> Subjectivity and Objectivity (Re: Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim)) Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel IN> Grigori canon? Re: IN> Grigori canon? Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality IN> Humans and attunements IN> [Request] Info about early Christian heresies..? Re: IN> Seraphim of Novalis Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 11:58:00 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will just a slightly related question. Can elohim have fun? If they can is doing something more fun possibly objectively better? Ben Elohite of Flowers serving Stone wondering if he can enjoy himself or not ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:59:25 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 04:29:11AM -0700, Hydrax 59 wrote: > On second thoughts, why become a Habblite? After all, if the > Elohite's motives aren't selfish, if could objectively conclude that > the rebellion was right. I can't, partly because I don't believe anyone other than a Seraph can actually be objective. Seraphim know bits of the Truth, which is as objective as you can get. Other angels have a narrower base of truth from which to operate, with a correspondingly less true viewpoint. (And Kyriotates don't possess any objective information, if you discount the APG.) Since Elohim don't _know_ the right course of action, or even the facts necessary in order to take action, they have to take shortcuts, and make educated guesses all of the time, every day of their lives. This is necessarily a subjective process. And there are powerful forces acting on the Elohim, biasing them in a certain direction. (I see the glories of Heaven, and binding to Words, in particular the latter, as sources of bias rather than truth.) I don't believe Elohim are objective, because I don't believe they can be. The word objectivity should never even have been mentioned in connection with them. What Elohim are, or should be, is righteous. Not righteous in that they must go out and smite evil all the time (although that might indeed be the righteous thing to do), but righteous in that they seek to do what is right rather than what is convenient, or what benefits them. And because of that, they can seem cold, and ruthless, and manipulative. Because they have no option. Because there is no better way. (Note that I think Galadedrid Damodred in the Wheel of Time makes a perfect Elohite of the Sword.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I shall stomp upon all who oppose me. The stomping shall be swift. The stomping shall be painful. And I shall show no mercy In all of my stomping. Amen." - Jeff Tidball philosophises. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:15:20 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will Ben Aldred wrote: > just a slightly related question. Can elohim have fun? If they > can is doing something more fun possibly objectively better? Sure. An Elohite mustn't let itself be swayed by emotion, but if there's nothing objectively wrong with having fun, then it can go have it. It might even be that going to have fun is what it *ought* to be doing. An Elohite of Christopher, AA of Children, might be called on to play with kids; it's allowed to enjoy the activity. An Elohite of any of the milder AAs might be called on to cheer someone up, and the best way might be to have fun with them. Suppose an Elohite ought to cheer up a despondent Seraph, either to head off dissonance or in the general name of good-fellowship. A Seraph will *know* if you're just *pretending* to have fun... David Edelstein has cited the character Tess, from the TV show "Touched by an Angel," as a good example of an Elohite. She is completely unswerving on following through on her best judgement (which is apparently often augmented by divine inspiration; love them 111s). But she expresses her feelings freely, loves to sing (being played by Della Reese), gives affectionate nicknames to her subordinates, and apparently occasionally enjoys being exasperated by a small pet dog (or maybe soul thereof). But she's still completely unswerving. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:27:19 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will >just a slightly related question. Can elohim have fun? If they can is >doing something more fun possibly objectively better? > >Ben Elohite of Flowers serving Stone wondering if he can enjoy himself or >not We have the capacity to enjoy life. Therefore, there is some value to life's enjoyment. We have certain paths we must follow, determined without regard to emotion or personal bias but instead by a weighing of all possible options and viewpoints to the best of our ability. Once we are walking that path, however, there is nothing preventing us from enjoying ourselves en route, so long as said enjoyment does not distract our journey. If we must wait forty eight hours for a package to arrive, and are at ends in a city, we may certainly enjoy the sights, the sounds, the people, so long as we are waiting for that package at the drop point in the forty-eighth hour. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:51:07 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? >> Bradley Paranial, Mecurian of War, who for some reason always pictures >> Dominc with as Tim Curry. And thinks that Seraphim and Balseraphs could be >> made into rather adorable plush dolls. (Celestal Forms anyway, On my God, >> I think I gave Nybbas a new idea.) > >Superior Beanies! Read Fiat Justitia and get your Superior Beanies! > >http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html > >(Speaking of Fiat Justica, is it still ongoing? The site hasn't been >updated in a while and I miss my Fiat Justitia fix.) It has been on hold for a month or so, owing to several of the players being overtaken by RL stuff. It's trying to get restarted, and I hope there will soon be logs up soon. - --- 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, 07 Apr 1999 13:50:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will Favorite Elohite passtimes: People-watching Listening to formal debates Reading books or watching shows, then reading the reviews Writing reviews Reading Ann Landers and Dear Abby Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:56:47 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will At 11:58 AM -0400 4/7/99, Ben Aldred wrote: >just a slightly related question. Can elohim have fun? Yep. They can have fun doing what is objectively necessary, and they can have fun if it's objectively neither better nor worse for them to have fun. E.g., if there's no reason *not* to wear silk boxers, they can do so and even spend a certain amount of time (that could not be better spent elsewhere) seeking out just the *right* kind. Some Elohim, particularly those of Creation, find that sometimes seduction is an optimal form of manipulation -- of humans, demons, etc. Creationers also have a 1-hour Rite... And they can certainly enjoy themselves while they do so. O;> >If they can is >doing something more fun possibly objectively better? Sometimes it is, though Elohim are very careful to make sure that this is really the case and not wish-fufillment bias. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:48:25 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) >On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 04:29:11AM -0700, Hydrax 59 wrote: >I can't, partly because I don't believe anyone other than a Seraph can >actually be objective. Seraphim know bits of the Truth, which is as >objective as you can get. Other angels have a narrower base of truth from >which to operate, with a correspondingly less true viewpoint. (And >Kyriotates don't possess any objective information, if you discount the >APG.) > >Since Elohim don't _know_ the right course of action, or even the facts >necessary in order to take action, they have to take shortcuts, and make >educated guesses all of the time, every day of their lives. This is >necessarily a subjective process. And there are powerful forces acting on >the Elohim, biasing them in a certain direction. (I see the glories of >Heaven, and binding to Words, in particular the latter, as sources of bias >rather than truth.) Subjectivity and Objectivity are not the same thing as operating from the Known versus operating from Assumption, at all. A Seraph isn't objective because he can allow his passions to be fueled in any direction he wishes, so long as it upholds the Truth. And the Truth *is* subjective. If it weren't, then Dominic and Michael would never have had any problem with one another -- obviously, as Seraphim, they both would know the Truth of his Vainglory/not-Vainglory and that would be that. Michael is not Fallen, and neither is Dominic (as far as we know). Therefore, they both are operating from very different Subjective Truths. This is what allows a Seraph to Fall, as the innate Subjectivity of Truth ultimately becomes so personal that a Seraph begins to believe he has the truth and the universe doesn't. Elohim are Objective. This does not mean they Know the Facts. This means they gather all possible different interpretations of a given thing that they can, and rationally and dispassionately examine those interpretations, coming to a rational, objective conclusion. This is why acting on their emotions leads to them Falling -- it is a denial of all that they are. Yes, they operate from Assumptions which might be wrong or might need to be revised later... but they do so naturally. This is objectivity, from the same standpoint as a reporter of the old school trying to verify and reverify the facts he learns and reporting those facts, without bias towards one viewpoint or another. It is a popular Nybbas-oriented truism of the day that "there is no such thing as objective reporting," but that's innately false -- an excuse for yellow journalism. Objective reporting is the attempt to provide balance and report the facts and conclusions after rigorous examination of all sides, allowing the reader to make his own mind up. Elohim aren't omniscient, but they choose their paths without emotional bias. They are, in other words, objective. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:25:33 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Subjectivity and Objectivity (Re: Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim)) At 1:48 PM -0400 4/7/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Subjectivity and Objectivity are not the same thing as operating from >the Known versus operating from Assumption, at all. A Seraph isn't >objective because he can allow his passions to be fueled in any >direction he wishes, so long as it upholds the Truth. And the Truth >*is* subjective. Indeed, it's pretty clear in the writeup of the Seraphim resonance that *opinion* can *have* no Symphonic Truth. All a Seraph can glean of opinion is that it is honestly felt, or not. And a Seraph can act upon his opinions... >This is what allows a Seraph to Fall, as the innate Subjectivity of >Truth ultimately becomes so personal that a Seraph begins to believe >he has the truth and the universe doesn't. (This is true... I thought this was true... It *MUST BE TRUE*. I will *MAKE* it True! I don't lie! My every word is TRUTH! YOU WILL BELIEVE ME.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:22:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim) On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 04:29:11AM -0700, Hydrax 59 wrote: > >I can't, partly because I don't believe anyone other than a Seraph can > >actually be objective. Seraphim know bits of the Truth, which is as > >objective as you can get. Other angels have a narrower base of truth from > >which to operate, with a correspondingly less true viewpoint. (And > >Kyriotates don't possess any objective information, if you discount the > >APG.) > > > >Since Elohim don't _know_ the right course of action, or even the facts > >necessary in order to take action, they have to take shortcuts, and make > >educated guesses all of the time, every day of their lives. This is > >necessarily a subjective process. And there are powerful forces acting on > >the Elohim, biasing them in a certain direction. (I see the glories of > >Heaven, and binding to Words, in particular the latter, as sources of bias > >rather than truth.) > > Subjectivity and Objectivity are not the same thing as operating from > the Known versus operating from Assumption, at all. A Seraph isn't > objective because he can allow his passions to be fueled in any > direction he wishes, so long as it upholds the Truth. And the Truth > *is* subjective. If it weren't, then Dominic and Michael would never > have had any problem with one another -- obviously, as Seraphim, they > both would know the Truth of his Vainglory/not-Vainglory and that > would be that. Michael is not Fallen, and neither is Dominic (as far > as we know). Therefore, they both are operating from very different > Subjective Truths. Uhm, no. The Truth is by definition objective. The case of Heaven vs. Michael doesn't work because of that (perhaps clunky) thing from the Revelations cycle that makes it hard to discern the Truth when other Superiors are involved. The capital T Truth is the -real- Truth, the World As It Truly Is. Nothing subjective about it in any way. > Elohim aren't omniscient, but they choose their paths without > emotional bias. They are, in other words, objective. This I agree with. 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, 7 Apr 1999 14:23:38 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will >Favorite Elohite passtimes: > >People-watching >Listening to formal debates >Reading books or watching shows, then reading the reviews >Writing reviews >Reading Ann Landers and Dear Abby Trainspotting Windowshopping Watching street performers Watching the crowds watching street performers Reading British mystery novels Chess - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:34:09 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Use of humans Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >At 12:01 AM -0400 4/7/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >> In GURPS IN, there's another advantage to making >>Soldiers -- they regenerate Essence a *lot* faster than celestials, though >>they have a lot less to work with at one time. > >I know we discussed that when it first came up... there was a certain >amount of resistance to the idea. However, I wonder if that might >not be a good idea in IN proper as well. Somehow, it implies that >mankind (while still living) has a value to the most selfish of >demons, beyond metaphysics. IMC, damned souls continued to generate Essence, and demons got a percentage of that Essence for each human they damned. This game them a quantifiable incentive to damn human beings. (This is also why demons of the Game regenerated two Essence each day; the Game was in charge of distribution of souls to the Princes, and took an additional cut as management fees.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:52:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Use of humans Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > IMC, damned souls continued to generate Essence, and demons got a > percentage of that Essence for each human they damned. This game > them a quantifiable incentive to damn human beings. Compare with the passage I recently quoted from "The Screwtape Letters," in which Screwtape promises Wormwood that, if he can only damn his "patient," the patient will be "a brim-full living chalice of despair and horror and astonishment which you can raise to your lips as often as you please." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:01:50 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel A bit ago, Neel posted an amusing idea for keeping an angel in check, but not killing them: Essence-draining manacles and a lot of concrete. In my campaign, I take a different tack, so this wouldn't work (not that there is anything WRONG with the idea, just that it wouldn't fly around here). I thought the ramifications were interesting enough that others might want to discuss them. First, any angel can reach the ethereal plance with just a Will roll and some sleep. They show up on Blandine's side of the Marches and can send word from there. Of course that word is D'oh! ;) Second, I think any celestial can voluntarily renounce their vessel. In other words, it dies and they go straight to Trauma. Going Celestial normally takes essence so it wouldn't work for our Concrete Angel. If the situation was dire enough, there's always that option. Now, why wouldn't BBoCA take option two? Well, vessels are expensive, so to speak, and most angels/demons can put up with being imprisoned for awhile. Option one is more problematicaly, but one can always posit some method of keeping the angel awake. Random electric shocks every few seconds perhaps? Personally, I wouldn't allow this since celestial sleep is not mortal sleep, but hey, it's an idea! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | 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, 07 Apr 1999 15:09:56 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Elohim and free will Ben Aldred wrote: > > just a slightly related question. Can elohim have fun? If they can is > doing something more fun possibly objectively better? Sure, they can have fun! Let's use the college-student analogy: Bobiel goes out dancing and partying (mostly skips 'adult beverages' as this could influence his behavior). Has a great time. Come 1AM, though, he knows that if he doesn't study, he'll fail the Big Exam. An Elohite Bobiel abandons the fun and goes to study. A teetering Bobiel continues to party, makes it back to the dorm barely in time to cram enough in to squeak by on the test. The Fallen Bobiel has a ton of fun, convinces a lot of others not to study either, and then kicks theirs asses for being so stupid. ;) > > Ben Elohite of Flowers serving Stone wondering if he can enjoy himself or > not - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | 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, 7 Apr 1999 15:31:44 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> 'Zine project friku friku! Over on the Pyramid list, we've been kicking around ideas about 'zines and the like for IN (or possibly for Dark Games in general). Rather than clog up that board or this list on the parameters for such a 'zine (which we're calling INsanity as a working title, very subject to change) we've made up a mailing list to hammer out ideas, portion out work, dance the magic dance etc. for it. To join, send a subscription request to: insanity-subscribe@roulette.annotations.com The "roulette" part of that name will be going the way of New Coke in a few weeks, but for the moment it's there and it's happy. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:43:41 -0500 (CDT) From: paranial@creighton.edu Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity and Objectivity (Re: Re: Why can't Malakim Fall? (or why I hate Elohim)) On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 1:48 PM -0400 4/7/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > (This is true... I thought this was true... It *MUST BE TRUE*. I > will *MAKE* it True! I don't lie! My every word is TRUTH! YOU WILL > BELIEVE ME.) > > And suddenly the Sepah's Vessel is destroyrd in a Blaze of Hellfire and he he is sucked down into the Pit. Bradley Paranial, Mecurian of War, Slayer of Snuggles, Demon of Cuteness ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:45:06 -0500 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel > Now, why wouldn't BBoCA take option two? Well, vessels >are expensive, so to speak, and most angels/demons can put up >with being imprisoned for awhile. In Fall of the Malikim, didnt David's hit squad wander about with an imprisoned agent of the Game, carefully broken into a suitcase? That would tend to suggest that demons, at least, cant give up their vessels at will. >| John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:58:15 -0700 From: "McCarthy, Douglas J" Subject: IN> Grigori canon? Hi - I'm kind of a new GM to In Nomine (although I'm an old GM for a lot of other games) and I'm about to ask a bunch of rather newbieish questions. I've poked around the sjgames.com IN web site a lot, but there are still a few questions I have, so here goes. Is there any canonical writeup of what the Grigori abilities (resonances, etc.) are? I found the (extremely well-written) non-canonical version by Kirt Dankmyer, but didn't see any canonical writeups. If there isn't any now, will there be in the future? - -- Doug McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight... douglas.j.mccarthy@intel.com and artificial sky. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:13:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Grigori canon? At 12:58 PM -0700 4/7/99, McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: >Is there any canonical writeup of what the Grigori abilities (resonances, >etc.) are? Not yet. > If there isn't any now, will there be in the future? Yes, I belive so, unless something Awful happens. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:12:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel At 2:45 PM -0500 4/7/99, Seth Buntain wrote: >> Now, why wouldn't BBoCA take option two? Well, vessels >>are expensive, so to speak, and most angels/demons can put up >>with being imprisoned for awhile. > >In Fall of the Malikim, didnt David's hit squad wander about with an >imprisoned agent of the Game, carefully broken into a suitcase? That would >tend to suggest that demons, at least, cant give up their vessels at will. Canonically, but I don't think Karakash was speaking of canon on that part. The Will-roll to sleep, now -- *that* would be something to worry about. (But what Gamester is going to report to his boss with such a tale of *failure*? Especially when he's sure that in just a few more days, his boss will drop in and ... have a talk with the Malakim.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:43:28 -0700 From: "McCarthy, Douglas J" Subject: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality I have been trying to think of a delicate way to frame this question, but I can't, so here's the blunt version. Pretend you are an Elohite of Yves before answering. The reason I'm asking is that my game is set in Santa Cruz, California, one of the biggest Novalis-controlled areas left in the U.S., and this is a question that I know I'm going to have to deal with sooner or later. Yes, I am avoiding actually asking the question. Here it is. Remember, Elohite of Yves. Is homosexuality against God's will? I *really* don't want to start a flame war or anything over this. I just want to find out if there is any canonical answer to this. How about other forms of sex that don't involve one man and one woman who are married to each other? How close are Fundamentalists to expressing God's actual will on this subject? Here is my current draft of how I'd handle it: "Love and sex are inextricably intertwined. Loveless sex is a violation of God's will. Sex between two humans who are truly in love with each other, and have first publicly declared their love through the ceremony of marriage, is concordant with God's will. All other acts of sex are based in lust rather than love, and are not concordant with God's will." In other words, all's fair if the two people involved are married, no matter what their chromosomal distributions are. What do you think? What other view(s) would make more sense from a game standpoint? Remember, I'm not talking real life, I'm talking in terms of the game. - -- Doug McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight... douglas.j.mccarthy@intel.com and artificial sky. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:46:44 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Now, why wouldn't BBoCA take option two? Well, vessels > are expensive, so to speak, and most angels/demons can put up > with being imprisoned for awhile. If this were still being discussed with regards to the BBoCA being a Seraph of Flowers, it might actually *like* the idea bringing some peace to the Infernal. Sure, it would be better (and more pleasant) if they'd left the mouth unsealed, so that the demons could be reasoned with, but where else besides a den of demons is more in need of a peaceful aura? An Elohite of Flowers with the Seraph Attunement might even convince itself that it shouldn't be released at all. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:58:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality At 1:43 PM -0700 4/7/99, McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: >Here it is. Remember, Elohite of Yves. > > Is homosexuality against God's will? Quite basically, this depends on the GM. In some campaigns, yes. In others, no. The thing that is "bad" in either (probably) is raw lust, sex without caring. Now, everyone can go and discuss the various ramifications and opinions to their hearts' content, for I have said all I am likely to say on this. (Well, I might point people at www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles, which has some stuff on the topic...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:58:37 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Actually, this has come up on the list before without causing flame wars. There is no canonical answer. As I recall, the general concensus of the list and/or the folk like John Karakash and Elizabeth McCoy, speaking from personal opinion was: It varies. Different Archangels have different views. Dominic and Laurence probably disapprove of sex outside marriage as part and parcel of their policy of backing the Catholic church. One feels Novalis and Eli are much less worried about the issue. Everyone agrees that loveless, exploitive sex is evil, and of course is the specific domain of Andrealphus. Otherwise, no one was willing to say that any particular deviation from mainstream chastity was grounds for damnation. (Damning individual human souls isn't within even the authority of Archangels.) The general feeling was that celestials are sufficiently un-biological beings that they have a pretty detached attitude about sex. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:59:45 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality At 1:43 PM -0700 4/7/99, McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: > I have been trying to think of a delicate way to frame this >question, but I can't, so here's the blunt version. Pretend you are an >Elohite of Yves before answering. The reason I'm asking is that my game is >set in Santa Cruz, California, one of the biggest Novalis-controlled areas >left in the U.S., and this is a question that I know I'm going to have to >deal with sooner or later. Yes, I am avoiding actually asking the question. >Here it is. Remember, Elohite of Yves. > > Is homosexuality against God's will? Hm.... I would say this falls under the same heading as "is Catholicism the proper religion for humans" in the IN universe. In other words, probably some Archangels have opinions one way, others have others, there are no easy answers. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:58:37 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality Actually, this has come up on the list before without causing flame wars. There is no canonical answer. As I recall, the general concensus of the list and/or the folk like John Karakash and Elizabeth McCoy, speaking from personal opinion was: It varies. Different Archangels have different views. Dominic and Laurence probably disapprove of sex outside marriage as part and parcel of their policy of backing the Catholic church. One feels Novalis and Eli are much less worried about the issue. Everyone agrees that loveless, exploitive sex is evil, and of course is the specific domain of Andrealphus. Otherwise, no one was willing to say that any particular deviation from mainstream chastity was grounds for damnation. (Damning individual human souls isn't within even the authority of Archangels.) The general feeling was that celestials are sufficiently un-biological beings that they have a pretty detached attitude about sex. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:11:36 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Humans and attunements >Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:42:38 -0400 >From: Elizabeth McCoy >@C-HEAD: ATTUNEMENTS > > Attunements can only be granted by Superiors. Humans can be granted >Servitor Attunements and distinctions, but only if they possess 6 >Forces -- otherwise an attunement won't "stick." Marches p54 ...an appropriate Initiation. It may be self initiation - for instance read from a sorcerous book - or a full blown dark ritual with 13 cowled, blackrobed sorcerers chanting your name in assyrian. This initiation servers as the process the sorcerer acquires the necessary attunement (see p.57) for sorcery to work for him. No mention of a superior having to get involved and else where in that write up [p69] there is a plot seed of a character who spontaneously initiates [The call of the dark] Hatiphas can give humans the sorcery attunement as well and she is word bound rather than a superior. Adam Malakite of Philosophical Warfare. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 19:46:52 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> [Request] Info about early Christian heresies..? Hi, I've been reading too much Philip K. Dick and now I have this bug in my hat to run a Dickian IN game -- namely, a game that has the feel of a paranoid-psychotic drug hallucination laced with Gnostic imagery. However, I am not all that up on my knowledge of the mysticism and heresies common among the Jews and Christians of that era, which is clearly vital for a game like this. So -- can any of you people out there recommend good books on the subject? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 20:22:14 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Seraphim of Novalis At 10:42 PM -0400 4/6/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Wouldn't forcing a fight to stop constitute a form of withdrawal >without a direct order, and therefore be dissonant? I'd disagree. Technically, damn near every time an Angel of War gets into a fight without orders, he's "forcing a fight to stop," usually by putting each and every one of the opposing combatants into a position where continuing to fight is no longer an option, or allowing them to decide that fleeing is the better part of valor. In my opinion, It's not a retreat unless you decide, of your own free will, to depart for what you believe is an area of lesser peril when your enemies are still up and both willing to attack and capable of attacking. If you get in a fight with a bunch of street thugs, and keep fighting until they all are dead or unconscious, then leave, that's not a retreat. If, instead, you use your preternatural skill at arms and respect for human life to tie each and every one of them up securely, then leave, that's not a retreat. And if you use your Mystical Powers to immobilize them all, and then leave, I'd still say it's not a retreat. I don't see how the Seraph of Flowers attunement is sufficiently different from the above cases to constitute a retreat by itself. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Florence, Lilim Captain of The War, the Demon of Field Hospitals. | 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, 7 Apr 1999 20:11:06 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Celestial views on human sexuality In a message dated 4/7/99 3:45:46 PM Central Daylight Time, dmccart@intel.com writes: << "Love and sex are inextricably intertwined. Loveless sex is a violation of God's will. Sex between two humans who are truly in love with each other, and have first publicly declared their love through the ceremony of marriage, is concordant with God's will. All other acts of sex are based in lust rather than love, and are not concordant with God's will." >> I don't think gender has anything to do with it. But then I can't see any of the Archangels getting into a hissy fit over whether or not they had a ceremony. With lots of Seraphim and Elohim hanging around they're not about to say, "Well, even though you SAY you love each other and out Seraph confirms it, and our Elohite also can sense your love for each other, you obviously CAN'T love each other because some guy who is legally ordained in the state of California didn't perform a ten-minute ceremony in front of you. You're obviously only lusting. You're both damned." That sounds more like the Game's style. Besides, if that were the case, Eli's angels would be damning someone every time they performed their sex rite. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 22:09:11 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Big Block o' Concrete Angel Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 2:45 PM -0500 4/7/99, Seth Buntain wrote: > >> Now, why wouldn't BBoCA take option two? Well, vessels > >>are expensive, so to speak, and most angels/demons can put up > >>with being imprisoned for awhile. > > > >In Fall of the Malikim, didnt David's hit squad wander about with an > >imprisoned agent of the Game, carefully broken into a suitcase? That would > >tend to suggest that demons, at least, cant give up their vessels at will. > > Canonically, but I don't think Karakash was speaking of canon on that > part. Yah, what she said. ;) Then again, we don't _exactly_ know what happened to those demons in the suitcases, now do we? O:;:) > The Will-roll to sleep, now -- *that* would be something to worry about. > (But what Gamester is going to report to his boss with such a tale > of *failure*? Especially when he's sure that in just a few more days, > his boss will drop in and ... have a talk with the Malakim.) Asmodeus pops in, casually obliterates a few Malakim, looks around, looks around AGAIN, especially at the suitcase, and speaks. "So. And the situation is?" "MUffrrrlf. Mmmrmrrrfffl. Mrmmmmble, fmrfle, mmble. Mrfl!" "I see. And then?" "Nrnrf. Rmrmmmmb. Frimbbrrf. "Hm. And how did you get in _there_." Silence. "I'm waiting." A long pause, then, "Mrmmmffrfffl. Rfm." Asmodeus shakes his head, "Idiot. Even _I_ don't draw to an inside straight." - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1193 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.