From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat May 15 05:45:35 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 FAA04789 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 05:45:34 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id FAA29236 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 15 May 1999 05:46:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 05:46:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199905151046.FAA29236@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 #1224 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 Saturday, May 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1224 In this digest: Re: IN> Pre-Colombus America IN Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey IN> [DV] Dark Victory Prologue: Rematch IN> Which books to buy first Re: IN> [DV] Dark Victory Prologue: Rematch Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:13:59 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Pre-Colombus America IN what about the War and how it dealt with the Native Americans before the introduction of Europe? I sure would like to see how the celestials interact with Native American myth. and it'll be fun to have canon show that I was right when I called Coyote (the Trickster god) a Balseraph of Dark Humor. Dennis H. Groome V -- "Amo Nympham" Web Developer, AN Consulting nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11340261 http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9651 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" - -Stabbing Westward, ACF - -----Original Message----- From: Neel Krishnaswami To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 4:16 PM Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >>At 11:18 AM -0400 5/13/99, Jason Schneiderman wrote: >>>The latest edition of the Daily Illuminator says that the results of the In >>>Nomine players poll have been tabulated. Any chance of posting the results >>>to the list? After all, I'd like to know what the final breakdown was...and >>>maybe get a jump on the chance to query the wish-list. :) >> >>Well, if people _want_ the full results -- I don't see why not. They're >>anon. [...] And yes, I was startled too. > >This list is *weird*; I always thought that historicals sold poorly. > >>Name Yes Maybe No No Response >>Pre-Columbus North America 298 259 53 43 > >I am not sure what the point of an angels-and-demons game is, in >a setting where none of the inhabitants know anything about >Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The *only* way I can make this work >in my head is to turn this into In Nomine Mormon Myth. > >Of course, put that way it's a premise offensive enough to be worth >doing. :) > > > >-- >Neel Krishnaswami >neelk@cswv.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) wrote: >> >>> >Name Yes Maybe No No Response >>> >Pre-Columbus North America 298 259 53 43 >>> >>>I am not sure what the point of an angels-and-demons game is, in >>>a setting where none of the inhabitants know anything about >>>Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The *only* way I can make this work >>>in my head is to turn this into In Nomine Mormon Myth. >>> >>>I view it as an excellent way to play In Nomine, from the point of view of >>Ethereal Deities. Yes, Uriel's crusade "purged" the Marches. Funny how the >>Native American's didn't loose their religion till the Europeans came over >>and destroyed them . . . > >Actually, I thought it was established that angels and demons did not depend >on Judaism/Christianity/Moslem to be present to work in a given area. This is true in the game-world, but consider what the premise of the game is: the Sunday school teachers were right; there really are angels and demons out there doing battle for the souls of men. This premise gets its juice from the players having access to the real story about angels and demons, as contrasted with all the expectations and mythology and cultural baggage surrounding the celestials. Without this social baggage to play off of, IN becomes just another superhero game, with super-human beings doing good/evil for no particular reason. Now, there's nothing wrong with superheros (I like comics, I buy comics), but frankly other games can do superheros better than IN can. (IMO, YMMV, et cetera ad nauseum) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 99 19:47:25 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: IN> [DV] Dark Victory Prologue: Rematch Michael wept as Laurence was torn away, buried in a pile of lesser demons, each slashing and gnawing and spearing the once-proud Malakite's celestial form. A wing flew out, then an arm, and then the screams, those horrible screams, died away, and the wing and arm faded, resolved back into their component Forces and returned to the Symphony. Michael wept, but kept on fighting, razor-tipped wings slashing through the demons, broadaxe gripped in his arms, serpentine tail lashing one demon while crushing two others in its coils... yet his might was but a fraction of its former glory, thanks to Baal and Asmodeus and a hundred demon Barons and Dukes and lesser Princes, each felled by either Michael or Laurence... but not before each had exacted its toll on the spirit. Pain flashed through his soul as some demon's lucky shot cut away his tail, bringing the Seraph down to the ground. The hosts of Hell pressed in for the kill, ready to send him to join Laurence in the void. *WAIT.* The voice was familiar- oh, far too familiar for Michael. Slowly, painfully, he pushed himself upright, balancing on the stump left of his tail, focusing his eyes on the Balseraph working its way through the diabolic horde. Dark, blood red covered the hide of the Liar, black feathers covering its multitude of wings, scales glittering with light and rippling with shadows as it unwound its coils and arose to its full height. But those eyes, those awful eyes, those eyes glowed with a light so brilliant that even in the days before the Fall Michael did not like to look into them. In this crippled state, he had to bow his head to escape the pain, the agony of seeing those once-pure eyes, that once-pure light, staring down on his fragmented self. "Lucifer." *ON EARTH, AND IN HEAVEN, MY HOSTS ARE VICTORIOUS.* "Not... while one loyal angel stands..." *I'M WORKING ON THAT. ONE ANGEL AT A TIME. LET US BEGIN WITH YOU.* Lucifer's form shifted, and Michael beheld a human form- much larger than any human spirit, but human in shape and clothing, down to a small tiepin with a hexagram inscribed on its head. The eyes no longer shone- the glamour hid their truth- but the amused glimmer reflected there, the smirk on the Balseraph's lips, pained Michael almost as much to see. Two giant hands grasped Michael's spirit, and in a twinkling both stood on the highest lip of Gabriel's volcano. Below them, far below and a universe away, Sheol gleamed with new fire, tearing itself apart, while behind them the Heavenly volcano's eruptions faded into discontented rumblings and flickers of light against the gathering clouds. "Remember this place, Michael? We made this this way. When we fought before, you were at your peak, and I was weakened from my challenge of God. Even then we were terrible creatures, weren't we, brother?" "Shut up... and kill me... already..." "Ah, but I wish to teach you a lesson, Michael, one last life lesson before I end your existence... one which you, of all people, ought to have learned by now..." Lucifer raised Michael up above his head, ignoring the thrashing wings, the writhing body, and shouted, "When you threw me down from this spot, you DIDN'T finish the job!!" And Michael fell, not in the spiritual sense, but in the physical one, hurtling down through existence, out of Heaven and bypassing the Marches, crashing into Sheol's flaming maw. Fire ran through his soul, across his form, digging into a thousand wounds great and small. And then the great Balseraph was atop him, uncloaked again, and Michael's head was forced up to face those brilliant eyes. *THIS TIME, IT -IS- FINISHED.* Michael did not cry out, did not beg, did not make any sound. But Michael did not emerge from the Pit. ****** A group of demons ransacking Gabriel's cathederal saw him rise up over the rim of Heaven, smashing its walls down without a thought as it crossed into the once-holy realm. Lucifer did not look the least bit happy. He'd felt it, even as he sundered the last two Forces one from the other, crushed both in his coils until both had been absorbed into himself. At the instant of Michael's destruction, something had been torn, broken away from the rest of the Symphony. Even without a direct connection, he knew what it was... God had retreated. Jacob's Ladder was broken. He'd won. Quite frankly, Lucifer felt very dissapointed about it all. He'd so anticipated crushing Michael, his most mortal enemy, out of existence. Instead, as he destroyed him, Lucifer had thought not of the Fall and his humiliation, but the early days, when as angels each talked to Yves and each other, trying to puzzle out God's plan for them. He remembered playful and whimsical discussions (as whimsical as Seraphs ever get, anyway) about the young universe, before Earth or Man came into the picture. Killing Michael, for some reason, did not seem... satisfying. Moreover, he'd gleefully anticipated marching his forces up into the highest Heavens, conquering the Light for his own, and shoving his victory into God's face. Now he was denied that too... strange, Lucifer thought, I should be grateful that He decided not to interfere, but... Around him, as he strode through Heaven, small battles continued, pockets of resistance holding out after the main defense had broken. Lucifer glanced around at each, at the Library, in the Gardens, near the Caves. With a flicker of a thought he was in human form, standing before another humanoid figure. "Kronos," he said quietly, "pass this order to all forces. "The day is ours. Victory is complete. And I want prisoners. Alive. Willing or not. Understood?" Kronos, to be honest, didn't, but he left his dark Master and began passing the orders down, while Lucifer sat upon a bit of rubble and brooded. I should have made him live, he thought, should have forced him to live, witnessed my rule over Heaven and Earth... Did I actually give in to... mercy? No, no, it was anger. Yes, definitely anger. If I'd been calmer, I'd have made it a lot more.... Lucifer shook his head. Something within him, for some reason, rebelled against anything but what had happened... a quick, clean, final end. It was a most un-diabolic thought, and Lucifer gave in to it, the better to put it aside. Raising an imaginary glass, he thought, Well fought, Michael, but in the end I was the stronger. If there is existence for our kind beyond this, may you live better in it. Lucifer picked himself up, looked around, and with a smile decided to stroll over to the Library. Maybe the Eldest was still holding out there. It should be fun to torture some truth out of him. The impulse he put behind him, willed himself to forget it, forgot it. As he did so, he forgot one other minor fact: one un-diabolic thought tends to lead to another... --- Redneck Kris Overstreet's email has changed... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/milkmaid.html - The Magnificent Milkmaid ... but his sig hasn't -- redneck@detnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:15:10 PDT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Which books to buy first This is a good question. I'm currently building my IN library after more than a year of using the local GM as a source for everything but the core book. So far, I have the Angelic Player's Guide (for which I have mixed reviews) and Heaven and Hell. I think the Infernal Player's Guide is next (I need more information on demons and on redemption). The excerpts online from the Liber Castellorum are gorgeously written and it's definitely high on the list. Janet Anderson _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 23:19:54 -0500 (CDT) From: GraveyardGreg@webtv.net Subject: Re: IN> [DV] Dark Victory Prologue: Rematch YES! It's about time we had some Dark Victory, and what better way to do it than with a prologue? :) Good work, Red! Graveyard Greg Gaming Outpost News Reporter http://www.gamingoutpost.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 09:12:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) On Fri, 14 May 1999, Sean McCarthy wrote: > Our spies report that on 04:57 PM 5/14/99 +0200, Anders Gabrielsson said: > >On Fri, 14 May 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > > >So one day this bearded guy strolls out of the Marches and knocks on the > >Pearly Gates... > > At which point Marc leans over and shouts, "I don't think he'll be too > keen! We've already got one, you see!"... So the bearded guy looks around, and sees all the other bearded guys sitting around outside the Pearly Gates - he sees the Catholic Jesus, the Orthodox Jesus, the Presbyterian Jesus, all kinds of Jesii - all of them just loitering, looking rather depressed. "Welcome to the club, kid" one of them says. 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: Sat, 15 May 1999 00:45:52 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: Anders Gabrielsson >On Fri, 14 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > > > > > He went on to talk about evidence and how Christianity didn't really > > >have > > > > much. He rejected my arguements that (a) it's sprung a world-wide > > >religion > > > > (not so much in the East, of course) and that (b) many people >*have* > > >felt > > > > moved by the Holy Spirit. > > > > > >Well, a) is quite problematic, IMO, since there are several >contradictory, > > >world-wide religions. Feeling moved by the Holy Spirit also doesn't get > > >close to being evidence for Christianity, God, or even the Holy Spirit > > >itself - people have felt moved by the spirit of Napoleon Bonaparte, >which > > >hardly makes a (hypthetical, I hope) religion based around him true. > > > > Ha ha ha, touche. :) However, when a large group of people feel moved >by > > something which they all call the Holy Spirit, that gives that thing >which > > they call the Holy Spirit more validity. > >Validity in what sense? If you mean credibility, then yes, of course. If >you mean valid as in being actually true, then no, of course not. However, AFAIK perception = reality (credit to Ben Aldred), therefore truth is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore credibility (believablity/reliability) and validity (well-grounded in principles or evidence/having legal force) both arise from cultural norms. Example: Henry is shot by a gun, however no one he talks to believes that guns exist. They attribute his wound (and misfortune) to an evil spirit. In time, Henry may begin to believe what he is being told. Thus, as his perception of what happened changes, what happened changes. He wasn't shot by a gun he may tell you, he was harmed by an evil spirit. Thus one person who believes something others don't is mad. Many men and you have a culture of a sort, perhaps subculture, ask a sociologist, I merely do social psychology. :) What >people believe to be true and what is actually true can be (usually are, >if you're cynical) two very different things. Of course, assuming that there is any objective "truth" (like the Symphony, ahem) > > If American culture were to reject a major scientific theory, it would >less > > believed and therefore by given less validity. It's all what the >culture, > > or sub-culture, believes to be true. Truth is relative, AFAIK. > >Which has nothing to do with actual, capital-T Truth. Claiming that the >Holy Spirit actually exists is an assertion about reality, not about what >people believe about reality. That something is widely believed doesn't >make it more or less True. Little-t truth, on the other hand, is all about >what people believe. Ah, objective versus subjective truth. My game reality has that, Truth and truth. Perhaps I shall write up my house rules then. > > > > > So, in conclusion, people will only believe what they want to >believe. > > >I > > > > find the human mind so pathetically maladapt at useful change. Even >in > > >the > > > > face of a Holy Presence, those who are not willing to believe will >see > > > > nothing. > > > > > >Well, how do you define "useful change"? > > > > A change which engables the organism to become more fuctional, better >able > > to reproduce and rear its offspring to do the same. > >Well, IMO those who believe themselves to be facing a Holy Presence are >not very well adapted, but YMM (and obviously does) V. :) YMM? Your Mellifluous Magnificence? Why, thank you. Research indicates that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live longer and happier lives. Of course, those *are* statistics. And, IMHO, it is better to live a spiritually fulfilling life than a spiritually dead one. > > Those of us who don't believe in > > >holy presences will say that people who are willing to believe will see > > >something even if there is nothing there. *shrugs* > > > > I disagree. Haven't you ever gone to a place that someone else has >found to > > be truly beautiful and wonderous and found yourself wondering what they > > found to be so incredible about the place? > > > > "It's only a church." > > "It's only a desert." > > "It's only a bunch of trees." > >I'm afraid I have no idea what you're getting at here, or what it has to >do with what I said. A place, or person, or object, or time may be felt to one person as being charged with intense beauty or horror. To another, it is mundane, lacking such zeal. To those not believing in spirtual presences (those who block out such undesirable challenges to their concept of reality), no spiritual presence is felt. It is only to those who have opened themselves up who will feel it. For example, say you don a pair of ear-plugs. You may not hear the person talking behind you and may even deny that such a person even exists, unless that person were to tap them on the shoulder. To the spiritually null, to the person who doesn't listen to their instincts but would rather hear only what they themselves have to consciously think, the situation is much the same. The eyes cannot see, the senses cannot feel. It is beyond them and so they will deny that such a thing even exists with such statements as "Those of us who don't believe in holy presences will say that people who are willing to believe will see something even if there is nothing there." The untrained eye cannot see the tracks the deer has left in the mud, nor the expression of pain in the eyes of their loved one as she says "yes" again, against her will. >I think the human mind is incredibly well adapted to believing what it >finds nice or comfortable, whether that means belief or unbelief in God, >the Holy Spirit, the Buddha, animistic spirits, the Age of Aquarius, Eris, >the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Believing what's comfortable, >what makes your life easier, is much, much easier than believing what's >uncomfortable or problematic. People just have very different views of >what it is that's comfortable. Exactly. That is what blinds one to the Truth, blinds everyone including myself to the Truth. It keeps us sane. By keeping our view narrow we can focus only one what we (think we) need to. Unfortunately these blinders also serve to sever us from our instincts, gut feelings, and intuition. > > Is this off topic? Well, In Nomine deals with religious topics and >while > > this may not reflect game *mechanics* the feelings of Holy/Unholy >presence > > (IMHO) should certainly be part of game *atmosphere*. > >How it is in the game is definitely on-topic. How it works (if it does;) >in the Real World (TM) is off-topic, IMO. In all of my games, I try and reflect the real world. Without this tether to the real world, the game becomes meaningless. It is difficult to role-play in a world which is wholly unlike our own. I try to bring reality into my games in order to breathe life into them. Without it, the players have nothing to grasp to. In Nomine is a game which deals with belief and spirituality, therefore I try and bring this realm or reality as I understand it to the game. > > >Trying to bring this back on the topic of this list: what kind of > > >reactions would percieving the celestial forms of different Choirs >inspire > > >in humans? Kyriotates would definitely be scary, as would Seraphim, > > >Ofanim, Malakim and quite possibly Cherubim. The only ones that look > > >"nice" are Mercurians - Elohim look a bit like Greys, I suppose... >could > > >be scary or not, depending on if you believe you've been abducted or >not. > > >:) > > > > Oh, that would suck. > > > > Elohite: "I'm an angel." [takes celestial form] > > Abductee: "AHHHHHHHH!!!" [paralyzed in fear] > >Heh. In a game I played in (one of the very few IN games I've played, sad >to say) we were supposed to convince a scientist who had been led astray >by a Shedite possessing his wife that he should turn back to the straight >and narrow, in essence making him a Soldier. They were holding some kind >of ceremony that was going to seal his Fate, so to speak, and our plan was >for me, the Mercurian, to show up in celestial form and give him the big >Talk about how he had been tricked and so on. I did, and the Shedite also >went celestial... so my friends the Seraph and the Bright Lilim barged in >to help me fight him. That poor scientist was scared out of his wits. :) I don't blame him. Depending how "hard science" he is, he might not even believe in angels and demons in the first place; second, Shedim are just plain scary!!! - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "No hablo Frenchie." - Jess Stanley as Collin, speaking to a french person while in France _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 00:51:59 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Neel spake: > >redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) wrote: > > > >Actually, I thought it was established that angels and demons did not >depend > >on Judaism/Christianity/Moslem to be present to work in a given area. > >This is true in the game-world, but consider what the premise of the >game is: the Sunday school teachers were right; there really are >angels and demons out there doing battle for the souls of men. > >This premise gets its juice from the players having access to the real >story about angels and demons, as contrasted with all the expectations >and mythology and cultural baggage surrounding the celestials. Without >this social baggage to play off of, IN becomes just another superhero >game, with super-human beings doing good/evil for no particular >reason. Without Judeo/Christian/Islamic baggage, why have the AAs called Angels? Let alone have names like Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Christopher . . . Why call them angels or demons at all? >Now, there's nothing wrong with superheros (I like comics, I buy >comics), but frankly other games can do superheros better than IN >can. (IMO, YMMV, et cetera ad nauseum) Hear hear - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 00:52:58 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Neel spake: > >redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) wrote: > > > >Actually, I thought it was established that angels and demons did not >depend > >on Judaism/Christianity/Moslem to be present to work in a given area. > >This is true in the game-world, but consider what the premise of the >game is: the Sunday school teachers were right; there really are >angels and demons out there doing battle for the souls of men. > >This premise gets its juice from the players having access to the real >story about angels and demons, as contrasted with all the expectations >and mythology and cultural baggage surrounding the celestials. Without >this social baggage to play off of, IN becomes just another superhero >game, with super-human beings doing good/evil for no particular >reason. Without Judeo/Christian/Islamic baggage, why have the AAs called Angels? Let alone have names like Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Christopher . . . Why call them angels or demons at all? >Now, there's nothing wrong with superheros (I like comics, I buy >comics), but frankly other games can do superheros better than IN >can. (IMO, YMMV, et cetera ad nauseum) Hear hear - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 11:20:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) On Sat, 15 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >From: Anders Gabrielsson > >On Fri, 14 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > > > >Validity in what sense? If you mean credibility, then yes, of course. If > >you mean valid as in being actually true, then no, of course not. > > However, AFAIK perception = reality (credit to Ben Aldred), therefore truth > is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore credibility > (believablity/reliability) and validity (well-grounded in principles or > evidence/having legal force) both arise from cultural norms. That would be an extremely solipsist viewpoint, I think. You have to make the distinction between internal reality (how you see the world) and external reality (that thing outside your mind). Whether you believe in external reality or not is of course dependant upon your internal reality, but most of us think it exists (which is not to say it does). Unfortunately, most people also believe external reality conforms with their internal reality. > Example: Henry is shot by a gun, however no one he talks to believes that > guns exist. They attribute his wound (and misfortune) to an evil spirit. > In time, Henry may begin to believe what he is being told. Thus, as his > perception of what happened changes, what happened changes. He wasn't shot > by a gun he may tell you, he was harmed by an evil spirit. But the Truth is that he was shot by a gun, right? Whether he believes it or not, that's what happened. > Thus one person who believes something others don't is mad. Many men and > you have a culture of a sort, perhaps subculture, ask a sociologist, I > merely do social psychology. :) Same here. :) Actually, you don't have to mad because you believe something others don't. It's if you believe something that's strongly at odds with what others believe that you are mad. For example, if I believe that Bill Clinton loves peanuts I'm not mad, even if nobody else believes that, simply because such a belief isn't very important. If it turned out that Bill Clinton's loving peanuts or not were of world-wide importance and I was the only one in the "loves peanuts"-camp, then I would be mad. > What > >people believe to be true and what is actually true can be (usually are, > >if you're cynical) two very different things. > > Of course, assuming that there is any objective "truth" (like the Symphony, > ahem) Of course. In the game there is an objective Truth. I also believe there is one in reality, but that's not important here, I think. :) > Ah, objective versus subjective truth. My game reality has that, Truth and > truth. Perhaps I shall write up my house rules then. It's already there, mostly evident in the Seraph resonance. > >Well, IMO those who believe themselves to be facing a Holy Presence are > >not very well adapted, but YMM (and obviously does) V. :) > > YMM? Your Mellifluous Magnificence? Why, thank you. Actually, Your Mileage May Vary, i.e., you might have a different opinion. Research indicates > that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live longer and happier lives. > Of course, those *are* statistics. At the price of deluding themselves, yes. Also, how much time do they spend in church compared to how much longer they live? ;) And, IMHO, it is better to live a > spiritually fulfilling life than a spiritually dead one. Spiritually fulfilling life =/= buying into one of the major (or minor) religions, IMO. > A place, or person, or object, or time may be felt to one person as being > charged with intense beauty or horror. To another, it is mundane, lacking > such zeal. Sure, though I think this has more to do with aesthetics than spirituality. That some people find a place to be "charged" doesn't mean there really is "something there". > To those not believing in spirtual presences (those who block out such > undesirable challenges to their concept of reality), no spiritual presence > is felt. It is only to those who have opened themselves up who will feel > it. Or, to show the other viewpoint, it's only those who delude themselves into believing there is anything beyond what we can see and touch who are able to allow their minds to trick them into believing there is a spiritual presence there. I'm not sure if it's conscious or not from your side, but you keep stating these things as if they were True, which is debatable, and I find that mildly offensive. You should remember that the world isn't divided into the two groups "fellow believers" and "the deluded, soon-to-be-converted multitudes". ;) > For example, say you don a pair of ear-plugs. You may not hear the person > talking behind you and may even deny that such a person even exists, unless > that person were to tap them on the shoulder. > > To the spiritually null, to the person who doesn't listen to their instincts > but would rather hear only what they themselves have to consciously think, > the situation is much the same. The eyes cannot see, the senses cannot > feel. It is beyond them and so they will deny that such a thing even exists > with such statements as > > "Those of us who don't believe in holy presences will say that people who > are willing to believe will see something even if there is nothing there." > > The untrained eye cannot see the tracks the deer has left in the mud, nor > the expression of pain in the eyes of their loved one as she says "yes" > again, against her will. *shrugs* That's your opinion. My opinion is that the human mind is mallable (sp?) enough to delude itself into believing there are things "out there" that actually don't exist. Calling someone "spiritually null" because they don't share your personal view of the world is more than mildly offensive, IMO. Comparing it to being emotionally unsensitive is definitely offensive, and hints of the commonly held fallacy that atheism equals immorality and egoism. Anyway, being "spiritually null" isn't a bad thing if there is nothing spiritual to be null in relation too, right? > >I think the human mind is incredibly well adapted to believing what it > >finds nice or comfortable, whether that means belief or unbelief in God, > >the Holy Spirit, the Buddha, animistic spirits, the Age of Aquarius, Eris, > >the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Believing what's comfortable, > >what makes your life easier, is much, much easier than believing what's > >uncomfortable or problematic. People just have very different views of > >what it is that's comfortable. > > Exactly. That is what blinds one to the Truth, blinds everyone including > myself to the Truth. It keeps us sane. By keeping our view narrow we can > focus only one what we (think we) need to. > > Unfortunately these blinders also serve to sever us from our instincts, gut > feelings, and intuition. Now we get into the interesting discussion on how you can know that you're blinded to a Truth you can't know is there or not, but I don't think it's appropriate for this list. :) > > > Is this off topic? Well, In Nomine deals with religious topics and > >while > > > this may not reflect game *mechanics* the feelings of Holy/Unholy > >presence > > > (IMHO) should certainly be part of game *atmosphere*. > > > >How it is in the game is definitely on-topic. How it works (if it does;) > >in the Real World (TM) is off-topic, IMO. > > In all of my games, I try and reflect the real world. Without this tether > to the real world, the game becomes meaningless. It is difficult to > role-play in a world which is wholly unlike our own. > > I try to bring reality into my games in order to breathe life into them. > Without it, the players have nothing to grasp to. In Nomine is a game which > deals with belief and spirituality, therefore I try and bring this realm or > reality as I understand it to the game. If I did IN the way I see the real world there wouldn't be much point in using the game, since I don't believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons, Destiny, Fate, or an afterlife, which pretty much kills off all of the interesting subjects. :) 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: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:45:46 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: Anders Gabrielsson > > >Validity in what sense? If you mean credibility, then yes, of course. >If > > >you mean valid as in being actually true, then no, of course not. > > > > However, AFAIK perception = reality (credit to Ben Aldred), therefore >truth > > is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore credibility > > (believablity/reliability) and validity (well-grounded in principles or > > evidence/having legal force) both arise from cultural norms. > >That would be an extremely solipsist viewpoint, I think. solipism 1. the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states 2. the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self I agree that what I am saying agrees with the first definition of solipism, but it is wholly contrary to the second definition. Understanding of one's experiences comes heavily from shared explanations and understanding of reality. You have to make >the distinction between internal reality (how you see the world) and >external reality (that thing outside your mind). Whether you believe in >external reality or not is of course dependant upon your internal reality, >but most of us think it exists (which is not to say it does). By external I assume you mean "objective", that which exists without the self necessarily being aware of it. >Unfortunately, most people also believe external reality conforms with >their internal reality. I would say that it is actually a fortunate thing! How unfortunate it would be for humankind to NOT believe that external reality conformed to their understanding of it! It is also a good thing, IMHO that people are able to maintain an internal reality which can be quite different from external reality. In some this manifests as optimism, in others negativity, others appear to be insane, others ... are just weird. This inner stability allows us to function. The problems crop up when people need to change their interpretation/understanding of reality in order to flourish and they fail to do so, and end up shooting themselves in the foot. :) > > Example: Henry is shot by a gun, however no one he talks to believes >that > > guns exist. They attribute his wound (and misfortune) to an evil >spirit. > > In time, Henry may begin to believe what he is being told. Thus, as his > > perception of what happened changes, what happened changes. He wasn't >shot > > by a gun he may tell you, he was harmed by an evil spirit. > >But the Truth is that he was shot by a gun, right? Whether he believes it >or not, that's what happened. The Truth according to whom? The Truth just is, what we choose to label the componants (sp?) of the Truth is subjective. A gun to one, a Colt .45 to another, a boomstick to another, a unholy weapon to another. The object may remain the same, but the name can change. And, unless we have a Seraph around who rolls CD 6 often, we don't have a single being who could witness the event without a subjective understanding of it (the Elohite, without access to the Truth as the Seraph is, is trapped in the eternal paradox: seeking pure objectivity without the tools to be purely objective). The mind is not a camera, it doesn't just record; in order to store the memory it must make sense of the sensory information it is receiving (so far as I can tell). > > Thus one person who believes something others don't is mad. Many men >and > > you have a culture of a sort, perhaps subculture, ask a sociologist, I > > merely do social psychology. :) > >Same here. :) >Actually, you don't have to mad because you believe something others >don't. It's if you believe something that's strongly at odds with what >others believe that you are mad. Aye. For example, if I believe that Bill >Clinton loves peanuts I'm not mad, even if nobody else believes that, >simply because such a belief isn't very important. If it turned out that >Bill Clinton's loving peanuts or not were of world-wide importance and I >was the only one in the "loves peanuts"-camp, then I would be mad. And society would thus wish to push you out of its sight, you would be the fly in the ointment so to speak. How lonely it must be to be a Balseraph with strange beliefs . . . > > What > > >people believe to be true and what is actually true can be (usually >are, > > >if you're cynical) two very different things. > > > > Of course, assuming that there is any objective "truth" (like the >Symphony, > > ahem) > >Of course. In the game there is an objective Truth. I also believe there >is one in reality, but that's not important here, I think. :) In the *canonical* version of the game there is objective Truth. :) > > Ah, objective versus subjective truth. My game reality has that, Truth >and > > truth. Perhaps I shall write up my house rules then. > >It's already there, mostly evident in the Seraph resonance. Not my bent on it. Oh, no. > > >Well, IMO those who believe themselves to be facing a Holy Presence are > > >not very well adapted, but YMM (and obviously does) V. :) > > > > YMM? Your Mellifluous Magnificence? Why, thank you. > >Actually, Your Mileage May Vary, i.e., you might have a different opinion. Ah. >Research indicates > > that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live longer and happier >lives. > > Of course, those *are* statistics. > > At the price of deluding themselves, yes. Also, how >much time do they spend in church compared to how much longer they live? >;) Delusion? Science is also delusion, mon ami. The beautiful thing about science is that it cannot ever prove anything, merely fail to disprove! "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein And what do you mean, devil's adovate? Without religion, how there be any devil! "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist." - The Usual Suspects >And, IMHO, it is better to live a > > spiritually fulfilling life than a spiritually dead one. > >Spiritually fulfilling life =/= buying into one of the major (or minor) >religions, IMO. There is a difference in being religious and being spiritual, though I did make the two seem awefully similar up above. I agree, spiritually fulfilling does not necessitate religion, and I attribute the benefits of religion to any group with a shared cause or belief, in fact mereoy that act of being part of a group of individuals is tremendously healthy. > > A place, or person, or object, or time may be felt to one person as >being > > charged with intense beauty or horror. To another, it is mundane, >lacking > > such zeal. > >Sure, though I think this has more to do with aesthetics than >spirituality. That some people find a place to be "charged" doesn't mean >there really is "something there". Which neither you or I could know as we are not Seraphim. Have you never been "in the zone", where everything just begins to click? As though you're not really thinking, but reacting, moving with something that feels greater than yourself, or is perhaps yourself moving finally as one whole complete being? > > To those not believing in spirtual presences (those who block out such > > undesirable challenges to their concept of reality), no spiritual >presence > > is felt. It is only to those who have opened themselves up who will >feel > > it. > >Or, to show the other viewpoint, it's only those who delude themselves >into believing there is anything beyond what we can see and touch who are >able to allow their minds to trick them into believing there is a >spiritual presence there. See and touch? People have visions and have touched the untouchable, they have *felt* the presence of ghosts, angels, and ghastly things, felt them as real as your keyboard beneath your finger tips. Are they mad or merely of a different opinion? I find it quite objectively possible that there are things out there which not everyone is able to perceive. >I'm not sure if it's conscious or not from your side, but you keep stating >these things as if they were True, which is debatable, and I find that >mildly offensive. You should remember that the world isn't divided into >the two groups "fellow believers" and "the deluded, soon-to-be-converted >multitudes". ;) I speak truth with a little T. :P And, yes, it is divided into those that agree with me and those that don't. Simple boolean expression. So there. Of course I believe myself to know the truth, if I didn't what kind of spineless toad-eating bastard would I be? > > For example, say you don a pair of ear-plugs. You may not hear the >person > > talking behind you and may even deny that such a person even exists, >unless > > that person were to tap them on the shoulder. > > > > To the spiritually null, to the person who doesn't listen to their >instincts > > but would rather hear only what they themselves have to consciously >think, > > the situation is much the same. The eyes cannot see, the senses cannot > > feel. It is beyond them and so they will deny that such a thing even >exists > > with such statements as > > > > "Those of us who don't believe in holy presences will say that people >who > > are willing to believe will see something even if there is nothing >there." > > > > The untrained eye cannot see the tracks the deer has left in the mud, >nor > > the expression of pain in the eyes of their loved one as she says "yes" > > again, against her will. > >*shrugs* That's your opinion. My opinion is that the human mind is >mallable (sp?) enough to delude itself into believing there are things >"out there" that actually don't exist. And I agree with you. The human mind *is* malleable enough to delude itself into believing that there are things out there that don't exist. Doesn't mean that there *aren't* a few things out there that do. Sometime the paranoid *is* correct in believing that there are people out there to get him . . . >Calling someone "spiritually null" because they don't share your personal >view of the world is more than mildly offensive, IMO. I apologize, that was theremore more than mildly out of line, but it does seem to have kept you in the line of though. Comparing it to >being emotionally unsensitive is definitely offensive, and hints of the >commonly held fallacy that atheism equals immorality and egoism. Immorality does not at all equal atheism, if it did then this world would be in a whole lot of trouble. Egoism? Don't see why it would . . . too many religious people are ful of themselves. >Anyway, being "spiritually null" isn't a bad thing if there is nothing >spiritual to be null in relation too, right? Ha ha ha . . . too true. It would be like being asfcally null. > > >I think the human mind is incredibly well adapted to believing what it > > >finds nice or comfortable, whether that means belief or unbelief in >God, > > >the Holy Spirit, the Buddha, animistic spirits, the Age of Aquarius, >Eris, > > >the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Believing what's >comfortable, > > >what makes your life easier, is much, much easier than believing what's > > >uncomfortable or problematic. People just have very different views of > > >what it is that's comfortable. > > > > Exactly. That is what blinds one to the Truth, blinds everyone >including > > myself to the Truth. It keeps us sane. By keeping our view narrow we >can > > focus only one what we (think we) need to. > > > > Unfortunately these blinders also serve to sever us from our instincts, >gut > > feelings, and intuition. > >Now we get into the interesting discussion on how you can know that you're >blinded to a Truth you can't know is there or not, but I don't think it's >appropriate for this list. :) Actually, that would bring me up to my non-canonical rules for In Nomine, interestingly enough . . . but that should be in a different post. > > > > Is this off topic? Well, In Nomine deals with religious topics and > > >while > > > > this may not reflect game *mechanics* the feelings of Holy/Unholy > > >presence > > > > (IMHO) should certainly be part of game *atmosphere*. > > > > > >How it is in the game is definitely on-topic. How it works (if it >does;) > > >in the Real World (TM) is off-topic, IMO. > > > > In all of my games, I try and reflect the real world. Without this >tether > > to the real world, the game becomes meaningless. It is difficult to > > role-play in a world which is wholly unlike our own. > > > > I try to bring reality into my games in order to breathe life into them. > > Without it, the players have nothing to grasp to. In Nomine is a game >which > > deals with belief and spirituality, therefore I try and bring this realm >or > > reality as I understand it to the game. > >If I did IN the way I see the real world there wouldn't be much point in >using the game, since I don't believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, >Demons, Destiny, Fate, or an afterlife, which pretty much kills off all of >the interesting subjects. :) Nonsense! You can have programs of mass hypnosis, drug treatments, or something like "The Matrix" to explain everything in In Nomine in terms of "that which has no soul" Who knows? Maybe everyone's been locked inside a computer and while we have no souls, we are on backup somewhere . . . Demons and Angels are programs written by the "Mainframe", ethereal spirits are programs written by the unconscious processes of the human minds stored in the Mainframe . . . woah. What a neat thought. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1224 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.