From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue May 18 04:03:15 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 EAA20849 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:15 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id EAA19275 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199905180903.EAA19275@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 #1229 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 Tuesday, May 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1229 In this digest: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) ADMIN: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Book binding Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons IN> Loose Canons IN> Atheism in In Nomine IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality IN> The Demon of Atheism IN> Holy presences (going OT) IN> Jesus in In Nomine Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality IN> FUDGE - In Nomine Conversion Update Re: IN> Book binding Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) IN> Remnant Experience? IN> Holy Presences - Imperatives ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:46:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) At 6:14 AM -0400 5/17/99, David Edelstein wrote: >Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >would go in the LS. Hmmph!) The response I got back from playtesters was uniformly _bad_ regarding _all_ the Word-bound. (I lost a Word-bound of my own. *sniff*) I hadn't expected that, but when we wound up with the Wordbound being almost universally hated, and without enough _space_ to give them the sort of background they needed... *sigh* I'm sorta down 'cause the 'People to See' book of Wordbound concept didn't fly in the survey. (Lessee, _2_ pages per character, maybe a 'patron Saint' or two...) Oh, well. Maybe people will change their minds someday. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:41:58 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: ADMIN: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) How about everyone just learn to clip and summarize. I'm as guilty as anyone in private email, but this thread is getting too *unweildy* to follow. I mean, I was interested, but now it's just overboard. There's too many of those little ">" marks. If the thread hasn't died (and it may have, over the weekend), then either kill it, take it to private email, or start summarizing the arguements and making the things _SMALLER_. Thanks. Oh, and the flamewar with David (Edelstein, not the Archangel) can die like NOW. No, I don't care who started it. If it hadn't gotten two or more participants, I'd care. If no one has the moral high ground, I'll whack you all. If it's not dead by the time I finish reading this downloaded batch of email, it needs to be dead after this message gets posted. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:06:13 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 4:22 PM -0400 5/17/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >>>This is true in celestial or ethereal or corporeal form. Note that certain >>>band/choir resonances are now less useful than previously. >> >>Nitpick: celestials don't have an Ethereal Form, afaik. :) >> >The Ethereal form looks either like a celestial's Vessel or their Celestial >form, but it can be modified in appearance with a successful will roll. (I >think that's in The Marches...) There Is No Ethereal Form. (And drat whoever came up with that rule...) There is your _image_ on the ethereal plane, but it's an icon, not a form. If you take mind-hits, your ethereal form probably won't reflect those unless your self-image changes. There _used_ to be an ethereal form, in earlier drafts, but no more. >>>Eighth change: The contrast and brightness knobs are both turned all the >>>way up. >> >>Huh? >> >This is actually from terminology Beth (McCoy) uses. I think I snarfed it from someone else... Don't recall where, anymore, though. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:55:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Book binding At 4:50 PM +0200 5/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >What happened to that special kind of "lay-flat" binding that SJG started >using a couple of years (or so) ago? I've got one or two books with that >binding, and I thought it was really good... did it turn out to be too >expensive or what? Otobinding, IIRC (aka "lay flat binding") is expensive enough that it's only useful on books which are 144 pages or more. Since most IN books are 128 pages... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:58:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine At 3:37 PM -0400 5/17/99, Kelly W. West wrote: >>Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >>into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >>Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >>would go in the LS. Hmmph!) >> >Any chance of the writeups being posted here or on the web? Maybe, but I'd like to hang onto them for a while and not devalue them that way -- I do still rather hope for a book of "Big NPCs" someday. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:17:53 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons In a message dated 5/17/99 2:54:37 PM, edg@gamingoutpost.com writes: >...You wrote: >>I'm not sure I understand this objection. Clarify, please? > >I guess I object to the term "plot device." The way I read that, it would >be less dangerous to be a celestial on the corporeal plane because you >wouldn't make disturbance unless the GM decreed it. Too, making it a GM's >tool just removes another Perception rule. I suppose if you already know >who's a celestial, though, these arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. > Ah ... yes, you still make noise which can be overheard. I'm just a micromanager of a GM, in that I'll know what celestials will be where to 'overhear' any disturbance. For instance, the murder of a human by a celestial is audible within a city-sized area. My opening salvo was the torture-murder of a human for a Nybbasian snuff film (the villain had muffed his perception roll). If you're familiar with Seattle, the murder was near the Pike Place Market, and the disturbance was heard at both the University of Washington and West Seattle. Another thing I've done was a gun battle between a servitor of war and some hellsworn soldiers that ended with Michael driving up from Portland (where one of his vessels was at a sensitive meeting) to see what was going on. It's just that I found the original disturbance rules annoying to have to figure out the math on, so I would just wing it. >>Yes, but do you know how *hard* it is to get a viable Black Mass for Unholy >>Water or Corrupted Host? (I'll give you a hint: the base ingredients are >>one virgin, one defrocked and excommunicated priest, Consecrated Host and >>Wine, Holy Water, a congregation of at least two other people, both Hellsworn, >>and a location in which to hold the orgy.) > >Regardless, it can be done, and angels get damaged by these things. Oh, my, yes. A Kobalite's favorite toy, actually. And the effect is that the vessel sizzles and smokes like sandalwood incense. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:01:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 3:28 PM -0400 5/17/99, EDG wrote: >At 01:37 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >>check digit goes up, what you know goes up: >>CD: >>1 Yep, they're celestial. >>2 They're an angel/demon. >>3-4 Their band/choir is _____. >>5 Their celestial form looks like ______. >>6 Their superior is _____. My nitpick is -- how are 3-4 and 5 different? >>Ninth change: Relievers can carry corporeal materials equal to their forces >>in pounds, invisibly. > >I thought this was already the case. Where are the existing rules for this? They have to use the Songs of Motion to affect the corporeal plane, if they don't have a vessel. I am pretty sure it's in the main book, or at least _implicit_ there. (Back in p. 192 or something, from memory.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:47:20 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 06:01 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>3-4 Their band/choir is _____. > >>5 Their celestial form looks like ______. >My nitpick is -- how are 3-4 and 5 different? 3-4 gives you a general idea of what its celestial form is going to look like. 5 lets you see what it actually _does_ look like (I imagine down to the Geas-bracelets on Lilim). I don't really approve of this either. :) >They have to use the Songs of Motion to affect the corporeal plane, if >they don't have a vessel. I am pretty sure it's in the main book, or >at least _implicit_ there. (Back in p. 192 or something, from memory.) p. 193, actually. Addendum: The implication that Relievers et alia can have Vessels is on p. 191, and the delineation of what can and can't be done in celestial form is on pp. 53-54. All three mini-celestial types may know the Songs of Motion, however, which will aid in moving things on the corporeal plane. :) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:05:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 6:47 PM -0400 5/17/99, EDG wrote: >At 06:01 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >>They have to use the Songs of Motion to affect the corporeal plane, if >>they don't have a vessel. I am pretty sure it's in the main book, or >>at least _implicit_ there. (Back in p. 192 or something, from memory.) > >p. 193, actually. Uh, not in _MY_ copy, lying open in front of me now. My copy has Relievers on p. 192. Undead and Ismael are on p. 193. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:17:07 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 07:05 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >Uh, not in _MY_ copy, lying open in front of me now. >My copy has Relievers on p. 192. Undead and Ismael are on p. 193. I blame it on the fact that I'm sick. Yes, folks, Beth is absolutely right - it's 192. For some bizarre reason that looked like 193 to me, and I didn't even catch on when the previous page was 191. Time for bed... ;) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:22:29 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 7:05 PM -0400 5/17/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 6:47 PM -0400 5/17/99, EDG wrote: > >At 06:01 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > > >>They have to use the Songs of Motion to affect the corporeal plane, if > >>they don't have a vessel. I am pretty sure it's in the main book, or > >>at least _implicit_ there. (Back in p. 192 or something, from memory.) > > > >p. 193, actually. > > > >Uh, not in _MY_ copy, lying open in front of me now. > >My copy has Relievers on p. 192. Undead and Ismael are on p. 193. The Liber Servitorum also has a Reliever with a Vessel in it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:30:52 +0000 From: lsheal01@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons EDG wrote: > Addendum: The implication that Relievers et alia can have Vessels is on p. > 191, and the delineation of what can and can't be done in celestial form is > on pp. 53-54. All three mini-celestial types may know the Songs of Motion, > however, which will aid in moving things on the corporeal plane. :) Of course relievers can have vessels. That's where familiars come from (on the angelic side, anyway). Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:38:43 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons In a message dated 5/17/99 3:21:17 PM, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: >At 3:28 PM -0400 5/17/99, EDG wrote: >>At 01:37 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>>check digit goes up, what you know goes up: >>>CD: >>>1 Yep, they're celestial. >>>2 They're an angel/demon. >>>3-4 Their band/choir is _____. >>>5 Their celestial form looks like ______. >>>6 Their superior is _____. > >My nitpick is -- how are 3-4 and 5 different? > If the celestial form has been seen by the person perceiving it, on a five they will recognize them (that must be Bobiel's new vessel). Also, Cherubs and Djinn in my campaign have vessels that reflect their personality. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:55:40 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Loose Canons >>>This is actually from terminology Beth (McCoy) uses. Contrast is the amount of difference between Good and Evil. Brightness is the quotient of Good in the world as a whole.<<< Good terminology, too. It's going into the GMG. (So is a whole chapter about how Words work, btw.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:55:54 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >>>Weak Atheism, by that definition, sounds a heck of a lot like a variant of agnosticism to me.<<< Here's a simple summary of *my* understanding of the three camps: Strong Atheist: "Because there is no evidence for God, God does not exist." Weak Atheist: "Because there is no evidence for God, I do not believe in God." Agnostic: "Because there is no evidence for God, I have no way of knowing whether or not God exists." Yes, the distinctions can be quite subtle, and I know lots of people who pretty much believe the same thing, but some will call themselves agnostics, and others will call themselves atheists. I used to call myself an agnostic, and now call myself an atheist just because I decided that *for me*, saying I'm agnostic is a copout. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:56:09 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >>>Man, I hate White Wolf philosophizing. Nani? What's that?<<< I don't know, what is "nani"? >>>Are you referring to the idea that everything is relative to the point of view of the individual? What's that got to do with White Wolf?<<< White Wolf's "consensual reality" paradigm, in which reality itself conforms to the beliefs of the masses, is an interesting premise for an RPG. However, it has become alarmingly popular among a lot of gamers, who seem to think that RPG designers are somehow onto a deep philosophy. >>>Valid means correct/right in the eyes of authority, logically sound, or well-grounded in evidence; applied to that which cannot be objected to law, logic, the facts, etc . . . As law, logic and the facts are all subjective because they are labels granted by the human mind, none necessarily conform to the Truth and are therefore objective, rather all are subjective.<<< This is a fun existential game to play, but the speed of light or the boiling point of water does not change based on the labels humans use. There IS an objective reality external to human minds. (Some people may disagree, and that's their right. Personally, I think it's amazingly arrogant to believe that the universe conforms to our expectations.) Subjectivity can distort our perceptions of that external reality, but the fact that we misinterpret something doesn't mean the reality has changed. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:55:50 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Demon of Atheism >>>Any chance of the writeups being posted here or on the web?<<< Well, some of them may appear in a future book. But since I got the impression Elizabeth just didn't like the Demon of Atheism (he is kind of stretching canon a bit....): Tchort Demon of Atheism Balseraph Knight of Factions Corporeal Forces - 3 Strength 8 Agility 4 Ethereal Forces - 4 Intelligence 10 Precision 6 Celestial Forces - 4 Will 10 Perception 6 Vessel: Human/3 (portly, bearded male) Role: Bartholomew Godfrey (activist and stage magician)/4, Status 3 Skills: Emote/4, Knowledge (Atheism/6, Debunking/4, Stage Magic/4, Theology/3), Language (English/4, Russian/3), Savoir-Faire/1 Songs: Charm (Ethereal/3, Celestial/5), Distortion/3, Healing (Corporeal/4, Celestial/1), Light (Corporeal/2, Ethereal/4), Motion (Ethereal/6), Nimbus (Corporeal/1, Ethereal/4), Self (Ethereal/3), Shadows (Corporeal/2, Ethereal/2, Celestial/3), Shields (Celestial/5) Attunements: Balseraph of Factions, Habbalite of Factions, Impudite of Factions, Knight of Deception, Demon of Atheism Special Rites: Cause a pious person to question his faith in God (without using diabolical powers to affect his mind); recruit a new atheist Special Abilities: Tchort has so successfully blocked God out of his personal Symphony that no Divine Intervention ever affects him directly. Whether this is because of the strength of his faith in his own Word, or because God chooses not to touch him, is a matter for theologians, but he is personally immune to '111' rolls (treat them as a normal d666 result for him), and the GM should have Divine Interventions rolled by others manifest in some way that doesn't directly impact Tchort. Though famous throughout Hell, Tchort is quite weak for holding such an important Word. He's not very adept politically, and his crusade isn't very popular. Most demons don't believe God is anything like the deity angels and humans worship, but they do believe He exists, and that He's a rotten bastard out to get them all. Tchort rails against superstition and religion in Hell, and he can neither hold his tongue nor express himself in a non-belligerent manner. Malphas loves the fights Tchort stirs up, but because the Balseraph is so clumsily argumentative, he hasn't risen very far, and in fact has lost Forces in more than one theological "debate." Tchort not only believes that there is no God, but that Heaven and angels are also nonexistent. It's easy enough to disbelieve in a place he can never visit, but angels become a little harder to dismiss when they're trying to carve up his vessel. He is particularly anathema to Servitors of Khalid, the Archangel of Faith. Tchort insists they are either ethereal spirits run amok or demons trying to suppress the truth, and with his resonance and Band attunements, he can be quite a potent threat to angels, especially angels of Faith, if they fail to strike him down before he can open his mouth. Despite his frequent setbacks, Tchort has formed a small infernal cult of atheism, with chapters in several Principalities. Most Princes consider atheism a benign and sometimes useful delusion for their Servitors, and thus don't do much to suppress it. Lucifer has said that Tchort isn't really wrong, after all -- God isn't a real being, as others understand the term. Baal, however, does not tolerate Tchort's followers, as they are trying to ruin the "Holy War" experiment (Heaven and Hell, p. 91). Atheism has been officially forbidden as heresy in Gehanna and Hades. On Earth, Tchort has a Role as a frequent speaker and provocateur at atheist rallies. He is also a stage magician and debunker of all sorts of mysticism, psychic phenomena and miracles, some of them genuine. In this capacity, he is one of Malphas' most effective "Men In Black"; he often leads a clean-up team (mostly composed of other Balseraphs) to cover up botched diabolical interventions that went public, or sometimes to hide angel sightings. Not all demons are pleased with Tchort's discrediting of magic and miracles, since this is a lucrative venue for bilking and deceiving mortals and luring them to the dark side. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:56:00 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >>>Oh, that's right, I was going to point out that people believe in X-rays even though they can't see them or touch them or taste them. Why? Because we can see their effects on reality. Try and convince someone in the 14 century that X-rays exist and they'll laugh at you, maybe burn you for heresy.<<< Nonetheless, x-rays DID exist in the 14th century, regardless of the fact that people didn't believe in them. >>>bah, whatever, poor language usage on my part, I guess I'd never make it as Elohite of Grammar or something.<<< Excuse me, but slandering other people's beliefs and then trying to pass it off as "poor grammar" is incredibly weaselly. What if I said "People who believe in God are ignorant morons?" and then followed up with "Oh, well, I just meant I don't believe in God. Sorry, poor language usage on my part." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:56:04 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Jesus in In Nomine >>>Unless there IS a Jesus in Heaven, he WAS the Son of God, etc. then J.C. would be an AA in 'is own right, as in the original French game.<<< Not necessarily. Standard Christian theology does not portray Jesus as an Archangel. He's something far above the Archangels. You can do all kinds of things with Jesus in your game. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:43:40 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality In a message dated 5/17/99 4:58:04 PM, AmadanSJG@compuserve.com writes: >This is a fun existential game to play, but the speed of light or the >boiling point of water does not change based on the labels humans use. >There IS an objective reality external to human minds. (Some people may >disagree, and that's their right. Personally, I think it's amazingly >arrogant to believe that the universe conforms to our expectations.) >Subjectivity can distort our perceptions of that external reality, but >the fact that we misinterpret something doesn't mean the reality has changed. > >-David > > Umm... I hope you realize that both examples you gave are variable depending on circumstances. Also, why does it matter what the boiling point of water (at STP) or the speed of light (in a hard vacuum) are? Because they are useful reference points for humans to use. I agree with your last sentence, but I think that is not enough to support your full argument. Humanity tests things that affect them. EM radiation is a useful thing, so we have the constant 'c'. Water is the cornerstone of our biological and chemical processes, so 100°C is the boiling point of water. The labels that humans use, the examples that you as a human give, are by definition anthropocentric. There is no way to avoid this. And I don't really think that it's arrogance. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:14:37 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: "Hydrax 59" >Another point was made about George(?) getting shot by a gun and nobody >believing him. I have one word for you:Psychosomatic People who suffer >hideous wounds within their own minds have been known to physically exhibit >these wounds upon themselves. Cases have been >documented. I mean it sounds True, and he's got the wounds to prove it, so >what separates his experiences, his Truth, from the universal Truth? The balseraph in the corner who's figured out that if you resonate hard enough, you can cause people to raise welts on their own skin. Mind over matter. Seriously, it's the limitations of human perception. - -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: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:27:02 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) > > >That people are confused on the subject doesn't make science a >delusion, > > >it makes those people deluded. > > > > Ha ha ha . . . but Science is a pair of rose colored glasses, a lens >through > > which to see and understand the world. If that is what a delusion is as > > well . . . or is a delusion merely a belief about reality which just >doesn't > > jive with reality? Social reality, physical reality, visible to the >naked > > eye reality? > >But people who understand what science claims know that they are wearing >those glasses, which makes all the difference. In theory, yes. In practice? Being able to change the >glasses one sees the world through (changing reality tunnels by a >different terminology) is what makes you able to take other peoples' >points of view and understand what they mean, how they see the world. Yes, and that can be a good thing. (Unless you have to kill those other people, in which case it can be a bad thing.) (The >main difference between this and what a Balseraph does when he convinces >himself of something is that he locks the glasses on and makes himself >forget that they're there.) Poor bastards. > > Oh, that's right, I was going to point out that people believe in X-rays > > even though they can't see them or touch them or taste them. Why? >Because > > we can see their effects on reality. Try and convince someone in the 14 > > century that X-rays exist and they'll laugh at you, maybe burn you for > > heresy. > >You don't see physical objects either, you just try to make sense of the >neural impulses your eyes send to your brain after reacting to the photons >they have sent out (which incidentally includes turning the "image" upside >down). *shrugs* In a sense, yes. But people usually don't stop to thin about that fact. :) Good thing to bring up, though. > > > > To believe every story would be careless, but I would say the same >about > > > > disbelieving every story as well. > > > > > >Not if you disbeliev after thinking about it. Should I believe some > > >unprobably, stupid story just because it would be careless not to? I >don't > > >think so. > > > > I mean *every* story about [item A]. If Sally doesn't believe in [item >A] > > and she never believes any story about [item A] then she may get the > > psycholigical shaft if [item A] suddenly appears in her life. > >She'll definitely be shook up, yes. Then she might review her life ("Oh my >God, I've been wrong all this time!"), rationalize away her experience >("Someone must have drugged my coffee!"), interpret it as something >different ("That wasn't the Holy Spirit! I was abducted by aliens who >induced this hallucination in me!"), or maybe something different. She >will have to find some way to get rid of the conflict, though - people are >really good at that. In a way, that might be what we do all the time - >adjust our view of reality and our experiences to make everything Make >Sense. Cognitive Dissonance, possibly directly related to Dissonance in In Nomine. (Cool, ne?) [Cognitive Dissonace is that nasty sensation you get when you're doing something which is inconsistant with your self-concept.] > > >So your magnificent claim was that you know what you know? Rather > > >pointless, IMO. > > > > Ah, but I hope that by sounding like my point of view is correct, others > > will follow and thus my view of reality will be reinforced and I will >feel > > justified and validated. > > > > Doesn't everyone do that? > >You try to fool people into believing that you know what you're talking >about when you're not sure yourself? I try not to do that. Fool people has such negative connotations. Its more of, a manner of speach which lends itself to being believed (or outright rejected as David demonstrated earlier). Very Balseraph, speak it like its the Truth and the easily persuaded will follow. Of course, woe to the strong willed one who does not follow for stubbornness, 'lest the speaker actually bring Truth. > > > > Everyone's a Balseraph, baby. > > > > > >Bingo! You're finally beginning to reach enlightenment. ;) > > > > I was already there, man, I was waiting for you to catch up (rather, >appear > > to me to have caught up). > >Heh. You certainly haven't expressed yourself in a manner that suggests >it. :) Bah, very well. > > bah, whatever, poor language usage on my part, I guess I'd never make it >as > > Elohite of Grammar or something. > >Which is part of what I'm aspiring to be, so I should get essence for >bitching about it. :) Of Grammar?! To each his own. :) - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Sir, are you classified as human?" "Negative, I am a meat popsicle." - Police Officer and Korben Dallas Fifth Element _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:33:02 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC > > >It gives validity to the phenomenon that people with very strong >religious > > >convictions can experience a mental state variously described as >ecstatic, > > >transcendental, moving, etc. Whether this is something that occurs only >in > > >their brains (self-induced), or is induced by an external power (the >Holy > > >Spirit, loas, take your pick of any number of other religious >explanations) > > >remains extremely subjective. > > > > Of course! As with everything within the realm of human experience. > > Errrrr... no, this is incorrect. If someone pushes you off >of a tall cliff, you will be very OBJECTIVELY dead. Details, details . . . If you claim >(as some psychologists and theologians do) that we are all living >in our own personal fantasy world that only barely touches on >reality and that there is no 'objective' reality, then there's >no use having a conversation, yes? Fiddlesticks, of course there's a use, I might change my mind, after all. > > >The laws of physics are not subjective, however. Either creationism or > > >evolution (or some other explanation) is true, and since they're >mutually > > >contradictory, they can't all be true*. Which means that whichever > > >explanation is true won't become more or less true based on what the > > >general public *believes* to be true. > > > > But the laws of physics have been rewritten over and over again as each >has > > been outdated by new evidence which has required it. If the last theory > > didn't explain all the evidence then it must not have been objectively > > correct. Is light made up of waves or particles or waves of particles? >We > > can't be sure - physics *is* subjective! > > Semantics. The original point remains that belief does >not create reality. Of course!! Belief merely shapes our *interpretation* of reality. Belief is the bastard child of reality. Sometimes >they agree and sometimes they disagree! :) > Scientific theories are called laws as a kind of shorthand, >it is true. But they aren't rewritten as much as refined. Newtonian >physics is a very good OBJECTIVE model of how things work at moderate >speeds. Einstein happened to come up an even better model, also >objective. Rules of thumb, they may be, but they are firmly grounded >in what IS, not just what IS BELIEVED! ;) It what is SENSED. But, yes these theories are rooted in what is sensed, not what is believed already. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "The many truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Ben Kenobi Return of the Jedi _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:40:50 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> FUDGE - In Nomine Conversion Update G'day. Just a quick note for those who obtained a copy of my FUDGE - In Nomine conversion notes. This is a small update based on some feedback I received (more feedback would be good, guys...) for the Disturbance rules. It's small enough to (I hope) just be worth sending to the mailing list. For those uninterested parties (ie most of you), my apologies for sucking up server space. Shan't do it again. For the rest of you: Ignore all the stuff on determining Disturbance over a given space. All that fiddling around with metres is messy, and out of keeping with FUDGE's style. Use this instead. Further away from the source of Disturbance, it becomes harder to 'hear'. Add the following value to the diffuculty of the Perception roll. +0 Point blank (within 1 metre) +1 Within 10 metres +2 Within 50 metres +3 Within 500 metres +4 Within 5 kilometres +5 Within 25 kilometres +5 Within 50 kilometres ... and keeping adding +1 for every doubling of the range. If the difficulty goes beyond Legendary, assume it's no longer audible. (Non-metric types substitute yards & miles - if you must. Metric is _much_ more sensible, though). As always, I crave feedback, so let me hear from you. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs & misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:50:04 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Book binding Our spies report that on 05:55 PM 5/17/99 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy said: >Since most IN books are 128 pages... > > ...it's time to start putting more stuff into them. >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ > Obviously this is humor, but responses on the order of "Would you pay X for an In Nomine book?" need to consider that I actually have bought everything published. New. Even the ones I knew in advance I probably oughtn't have. Have to support your local gaming company, right? Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:38:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) I'm trying to keep things short here, as per AA Beth's request. On Mon, 17 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >But people who understand what science claims know that they are wearing > >those glasses [you know, the ones that tell you how to interpret reality], which makes all the difference. > > In theory, yes. In practice? In practice it's at least not worse than religion, which claims that their glasses are the only ones that exist - everyone else is just plain wrong. [sensory input isn't the same as the physical objects] > Cognitive Dissonance, possibly directly related to Dissonance in In Nomine. > (Cool, ne?) [Cognitive Dissonace is that nasty sensation you get when > you're doing something which is inconsistant with your self-concept.] If anyone wants to know more about cognitive dissonance, I strongly recommend the book "Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance" by Leon Festinger. It doesn't only give a good insight into the theory, but also into the scientific method - how one experiment gives the next, how to isolate the variables you want to study, and so on. > Fool people has such negative connotations. Its more of, a manner of speach > which lends itself to being believed (or outright rejected as David > demonstrated earlier). Very Balseraph, speak it like its the Truth and the > easily persuaded will follow. Of course, woe to the strong willed one who > does not follow for stubbornness, 'lest the speaker actually bring Truth. So, you fool people. I try to be honest when I talk to people - I freely admit (or try to) when I'm not sure about something, I qualify my statements when needed - because I just don't like it when people do things the way you describe it. Seems dishonest to me - "I'm not really sure about this, but if I seem to be they will believe me and reinforce my own beliefs, and that makes me feel good." 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: Tue, 18 May 99 00:18:50 PDT From: "Daniel Sublett" Subject: IN> Remnant Experience? Can a Remnant regain its previous Celestial status by applying earned character points towards Celestial characteristics or Forces? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:03:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> Holy Presences - Imperatives I think I missed responding to one point in Perry's latest mail, but I think it might deserve its own thread in any case, so here we go. :) Perry said something to the effect that it's good to be able to take other's point of view unless you have to kill them, in which case it might be bad. This is something I disagree with very strongly. It is my firm belief, one of the very few I have, that you never, ever have to do anything. Ever. Under any circumstances. Whatever you do, it's -your choice-. You decide what to do - how to act, or to not act at all - nobody else can make that choice for you. They can make your choice an unpleasant one ("Kill this man or we'll kill you", "Burn this village or face a court martial", "Peddle these drugs to the kids in the neighbourhood or we'll kill your family") but the choice is always yours. Always. You may feel that you don't have a choice, because one option has such horrible consequences, but it's still your choice. (This is not to say that there are no circumstances under which I would choose to kill - I would probably kill to save someone I love, for example. But it would be a choice, my choice.) From that point of view, you never -have- to kill someone. It might be nicer for you to kill that person than to refuse doing it, but it's your choice to do it or not. IN tie-in: "making" someone move towards their Fate or Destiny isn't possible - the job of Angels and Demons is to make the choices leading away from the desired end point seem less desirable. The one exception might be Shedim, who can actually force your body to act and make you think it's your own idea, and possibly Lilim, but I'm not sure about them. 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 ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1229 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.