From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 28 11:32:31 2000 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 LAA00349 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:32:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA12883 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:29:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:29:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200007281629.LAA12883@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 #1740 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 Friday, July 28 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1740 In this digest: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract IN> The Return of the Demons of Nitpicking -- Kill them before they spawn Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:15:24 -0400 From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." Subject: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick >>"Michael, dear, I know you're interested in strategy and all... I found this >>book you might like to read..." >> >>"Sun Tzu? I own the first edition." >> >>*Novalis points at one particular passage* >> >>"Errrrr... are you trying to tell me something?" >> >>*She looks at him sideways* You know, the notion of Flowers telling War how to fight a war strikes me as fundamentally flawed. I would think that telling any archangel how to handle their word takes enormous chutzpah or stupidity. Michael *IS* war. He knows every aspect flawlessly and you aren't likely to be giving him any new ideas. I see this a lot with Dominic. A lot of people think if they say "Hey, you're not doing your job right." that he will break down in tears and suddenly become merciful and loving or the like. IMC Dominic would simply look at the angel in question, give a Kosh-like "Impudent." and proceed to ignore the angel for the next 500 years. Do I just see superiors as too perfect? Do people make as campaign issues flawed or even stupid superiors (with regards to their word). I'd be really nervous in an In Nomine Campaign where Michael came to my character and said "Novalis just had a great idea about the war." Do superiors say "oops" a lot in other people' s campaigns? Speaks ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:22:55 PDT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >From: Whistling in the Dark >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >CC: >Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:47:10 -0400 > >At 7:16 AM -0500 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >> >>(Along with an increase in overall operating efficency for the Host, as >>War >>and Flowers suddenly start *complementing* each other's efforts instead of >>working at cross-purposes...) > >Cross-pollination? > >Now, the problem with *all* of this remains the same -- Novalis is >the ultimate pacifist. Really? It's *not* nice to fool with Mother Nature. Push her far enough, it's going to hurt. Remember that her dissonance condition isn't "No violence", it's "No *unnecessary* violence." And is a criterion that changes depending on the individual situation. >If she ever, *ever* accepts that the "active response" to an issue is >anything other than a horribly regrettable situation forced on you by the >other side not seeing reason, it represents a failure of her entire ethos. The point is, it can be objectively shown to Novalis -- *after* she starts listening to you, that is -- that the current situation is such that standing there and doing *nothing but* trying to reason with the diabolicals will render a significantly greater amount of net harm to the Earth, as while you may be reaching twice as many Redemption candidates you are also seeing *twenty* times as much Diabolical corruption flourishing all over the place as they run riot. In short, the *entire War* is a "horribly regrettable situation forced on Heaven by the other side not seeing reason". That's Truth, isn't it? Which still means she's the least aggressive Superior in the Host, of course - -- but it also means that she's not going to try and get the more aggressive ones to stop. Hold themselves back some when necessary, but not stop. >Moe's Malakite Scenario is one possibility. Her Falling because of it is >another. But I think her simply not putting herself into such a situation >is the most likely. >Similarly, Michael is the Archangel of *War.* Not defense. His entire core >being demands that regardless of the hearts and minds of >humanity, if all the demons are *dead* then Heaven *wins,* period. I'm going to quote Michael's opinion of humanity from his Superiors 1 writeup: "Humanity: They are part of the universe, and God has set us to protect them from the snares and corruptions of Lucifer. It's as simple as that. Eveyr soul who goes down into Hell is one lost to God, and eveyr soul who struggles to become greater is one who will know the presence of God in a way that the angels may never know. I won't patronize them by assuming they can't e strong -- part of my task is to *inspire* them to reach for the heights And defend them when they try." Contrary to popular belief, Michael will *not* consider losing the majority (or even a significant minority) of humanity to Hell as "acceptable losses" in return for skinning every last Diabolical alive. Michael is War, true. But God has told Michael that the *objective* of this War is to save humanity from the demons. Ergo, that's what he's going to do. God says, Michael obeys. Of course, Michael's *methods* for doing this will be mostly focused on busting demon skulls before the owners of said skulls can get a chance to get their claws in a human -- it's what he does best, and he's sticking to what he knows. But that doesn't mean he should be actively contemptuous of people who are handling their own separate job, when said job is a necessary part of the overall picture. Michael's first priority is, was, and always will be achieving his assigned mission. But we've got to remember exactly what that mission *is*. (For that matter, in some writeups its like *he's* forgotten exactly what that mission is. But not in mine) >Damage control can naturally follow. > >If War and Flowers begin complimenting each other, I can believe that >Efficiency among the Host will increase. I also think Heaven is >doomed. The only way they can compliment each other's functions is to >reconcile to those functions. Hardly. I can easily see Michael learning to see Flowers as a *part* of War -- they're the follow-on team, the support staff, and the psychological warfare experts. "You keep saying that happy people don't invite demons to move back in with them, right?" "Exactly." "So here's how it goes. My people kick the demons out of somewhere. Then your people come in, fix the stuff they broke, and hold the ground. If your people can keep the humans living there 'bright' enough to not *want* to invite the demons back in, then that frees up most of my people to go somewhere else and repeat step one." "Most?" "Well, you're going to need a *few* Warriors to watch your peoples' backs..." "Ah. So your job is going to be..." "Giving your peace people room to work in free of Diabolical interference. I take the beachhead, you build something on it, then we branch out from there." Michael might also be able to see Novalis' "Give them a chance to redeem first" as having at least partial merit -- *if* it's presented to him as just another way of fighting. "Ohhhh... *psychological* warfare! Got it, that makes perfect sense. Of course, you don't always have *time* to work it that way -- it's pretty slow and not suited to all circumstances -- but by all means, in situations where it can work, I'll give your guys a chance to make it work. Just make sure to call us *promptly* if the situation turns acute or immediately sour, OK?" >If you take away both Peace and War, you're left with a Department of >Defense that has no mandate. Novalis isn't Peace, she's Flowers. >Put another way... Novalis is kind of the ultimate New Testement >Angel -- she embodies the Christian principles of forgiveness, >absolution, peace and brotherhood that are Jesus's hallmark. Michael >is kind of the ultimate Old Testement Angel -- do things Right or God will >come down and get absolutely Biblical on your Ass. Have the two of them >reconcile those positions, and you don't get either the Old >*or* New Testements. >I just don't see it. Oh, I can see Novalis and Michael having the >occasional torrid night -- Michael is an Alpha Male primal masculine >image and Novalis is a primal feminine Earth Mother image -- but >actually changing their operations to reflect each other's nature and >compromise? Nuh-uh. The thing is, it doesn't even require much compromising. They barely have to change *at all*. They merely have to admit that Creation is big enough for the both of them, and contains two different kinds of problems to solve. Michael and Novalis can find common ground in that they both want *the exact same thing* -- the War to be over, the innocents to be safe, and the diabolicals to be not hurting anyone. Where they disagree is the best way to get there. Where their epiphany lies is in the realization that they both have 'the best way to get there' -- neither all-out violence *or* total pacifism will win the War against Hell, because Hell is fighting on multiple fronts. ("No one single strategy", remember? Lucifer's policy?) One front requires the axe, and the other requires the flowers. Right now, both of them (indeed, practically *all* of Heaven's Word-Bound) has lost sight of the idea that God created multiples Words for a reason. If God had intended only One Way To Win The War, he'd have created only one Word. But I'm sure they could remind each other that it's not that way... if they actually talked to each other for a while. (I also don't see Michael beating the hell out of recruits to take his anger out on anything. A *good* warrior does not deliberately harm the helpless... and given both his Superior position to them and his power level, his own relievers and trainees *are* 'helpless'. OTOH, if Michael gets in a bad mood, pity any Diabolical within 500 miles... it's not 'picking on the helpless' to go thrash *enemy* units, even ones vastly smaller than you... - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:38:29 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract > >It's *not* nice to fool with Mother Nature. Push her far enough, it's >going to hurt. > But Novalis isn't Mother Nature, she's the Archangel of _Flowers_. I think if you want "nature red in tooth and claw" you should be looking to Jordi ... jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:45:11 PDT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick >From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >CC: >Subject: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:15:24 -0400 > > > >>"Michael, dear, I know you're interested in strategy and all... I found >this book you might like to read..." > >> > >>"Sun Tzu? I own the first edition." > >> > >>*Novalis points at one particular passage* > >> > >>"Errrrr... are you trying to tell me something?" > >> > >>*She looks at him sideways* > >You know, the notion of Flowers telling War how to fight a war strikes me >as fundamentally flawed. Flowers' whole philosophy is that you can win the War vs. Hell without having to get physically violent about it. (Personally, I think she's wrong - -- while it can and does work on individual demons, trying to apply it to the entire War at a whole will get you nothing except spitted on the business end of Baal's sword.) I see her *majorly* grooving on that particular passage, however. It resonates precisely with what she believes. >I would think that telling any archangel how to handle >their word takes enormous chutzpah or stupidity. Michael *IS* war. He >knows every aspect flawlessly and you aren't likely to be giving him any >new ideas. Maybe I wrote it wrong, but the vignette didn't have him going "You are right and I am wrong" -- "I'll see what I can do" means "I'll see about applying this principle under the circumstances which it would actually work... which is a lot less often than you think." >I see this a lot with Dominic. A lot of people think if they say "Hey, >you're not doing your job right." that he will break down in tears and >suddenly become merciful and loving or the like. IMC Dominic would simply >look at the angel in question, give a Kosh-like "Impudent." and proceed to >ignore the angel for the next 500 years. *Unless* he heard the Truth In The Symphony that they were right, and he was wrong. (Seraph resonance check digit of 6... then again, I rule that Superiors *always* get check digits of 6.) Let us also not forget that Michael's Superiors 1 writeup includes clear and specific mention that he acknowledges the possibility that he can be wrong. It's not that Michael will never admit that he's wrong... he'll just never admit it without an argument first. Michael believes that the worth of an idea cannot Truly be found without testing the idea to destruction first. But he *doesn't* think that he's always right. - ----------- MICHAEL'S WORD War encompasses Struggle, Strifle, Battle. All of life is a struggle against other beings, as competition is the only way to validate yourself -- to establish your truth. Important to a Seraph, truth; with every battle, Michael proves his Truth again on the body of his opponent. He fights to prove it, and the proof is in the fighting. His Word extends to Earth, where he encourages humans into the strife which causes growth and excellence, the War where one becomes stronger and more courageous. By this argument, he must contest with the other Archangels on matters of disagreement. It is his Word, and he lives it. If their position were the Truth, they would win. If he wins, then clearly his Word is the Truth, is stronger, and is proven. If they *should* win, then their position and viewpoint evidently held some merit which he had not previously realized. The only being with whom he will not strive, with whom there can be no battle, is God, Michael obeys. - --------- Superiors 1, pg. 109 Does this make him tactless? Heck yeah. Does this make him blunt? As a club? Does this make him a royal pain to speak with at times? Yup. But does this make him inflexibly closed-minded? Nope. Michael will argue with anything you bring him that he doesn't agree with... but he *will* listen to you. If Novalis walked up to him and tried to tell him about War, he'd go "Yeah? Prove it." And then the debate would begin, and as with all of Michael's debates it'd be hard, blunt, and to the point. But if she *could* actually prove it -- then he'd listen. And go "OK, you were right, I was wrong." Michael will *not* deny the Truth when it smacks him upside the head... by both his Choir nature *and* his Word, he can't. >Do I just see superiors as too perfect? Do people make as campaign issues >flawed or even stupid superiors (with regards to their word). I'd be >really nervous in an In Nomine Campaign where Michael came to my character >and said "Novalis just had a great idea about the war." Admittedly, if Michael ever said that in the Seraphim Council, David would look at him as if he'd gone nuts, Laurence would have a heart attack, Dominic would start wondering if Eli had spiked his drink with acid, and everybody else would be going "I didn't *hear* Gabriel blow her Horn..." ... but if Novalis *actually did* have a great idea about the War, I see Michael -- once it was finally proven to him that she did -- just up and saying it and moving on like it was no big deal. She was right and able to prove it. Ergo, she's right. Michael's not gonna waste time whining about having lost... if he lost an argument, he deserved to lose. Whining about having lost is not Warrior-like. Face up to it like a man. Get on with the mission. (Of course, it would take some major-league effort for Novalis to be *able* to win an argument with Michael, especially in his own specialty! -- but if it ever did happen, I don't see him being anywhere near as unable to deal with it as you'd think. Even if he would spend the next century doggedly restudying everything even vaguely related to the particular point of logic he'd lost on, going "No way am I *EVER* gonna be caught out on that particular blind side again!") The only Superior I see as absolutely totally unable to ever admit that he was wrong is David -- which is the nature of Stone, to be inflexible as all get-out. Fortunately for all concerned, David is a Malakite. >Do superiors say "oops" a lot in other people' s campaigns? Well, Laurence has said it at least twice in the last millennium... and he's one of the *less* flexible. But it doesn't happen often -- at least not as mortals measure "often", anyway. - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:51:12 GMT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >From: "Jo Hart" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:38:29 GMT > > > >> >>It's *not* nice to fool with Mother Nature. Push her far enough, it's >>going to hurt. >> > > >But Novalis isn't Mother Nature, she's the Archangel of _Flowers_. "Feed me, Seymour!" >I think if you want "nature red in tooth and claw" you should be looking to >Jordi True enough. But even Novalis's writeup acknowledges that she can and will accept violence -- if there is absolutely no other option. She's the most forgiving entity in the entire Symphony, but only God is *infinitely* merciful. I mean, here's her official writeup/opinion of Michael: - -------- Sometimes I think the parts of him that could actually relax, or imagine a world at peace... well, they're all burned out. He's been fighting too long, been War so much that he's lost the chance to be anything else. I feel sorry for him. He's wonderful at what he does, but when you look in his eyes you can see that he's gone past expressing himself in anything but force, however much he cares. He needs to let go, and I'm not sure that he can anymore. - --------- Nowhere in this do I get the impression that Novalis is going "I wish he'd stop hitting people. Violence isn't the solution." What she's saying is "I wish he'd stop hitting people *all the time*. Violence isn't the *only* solution". - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:17:55 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Return of the Demons of Nitpicking -- Kill them before they spawn Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Seraph. Seriously, man. "-im" is a plural. Ignore Lilith's spawn for a second. > (Canon. One N. Canon. It's a religious and academic term. A Cannon is > a military weapon.) I'm seeing an increase in people correcting inconsequential typos and crap on this list, and it's as annoying now as it was the last time I blew up at the culprits (and learned that many people felt similarly). If you're writing _professionally_ for In Nomine (or even submitting something for the INC or a netbook or something and _asking_ for feedback re: styleguide conformity), it is legitimate to correct "Cherubs" and "Seraphs" and "Malakim/Calabim" used as a singular. Likewise, one would expect an editor to catch typos like "cannon" for "canon." Otherwise, KNOCK IT OFF! This is an informal mailing list, most people posting are not professional writers, and even those who are occasionally make typos or write something without regard to rigid conformity to the IN styleguide. It is neither NECESSARY nor DESIRABLE nor even POLITE to relentlessly nitpick typos. Nobody is going to earn an In Nomine Merit Badge for correcting posts to the list, and it just makes the people who do it look like snooty pricks who get off on harrassing newbies or the unwashed non-styleguide-following heathen masses by showing off their knowledge of correct IN formatting. It's certainly not a good way to make In Nomine fans look like a group you'd want to join. (And I'm sorry to target you on this, Eric, because you're usually not like this, but when I see *you* doing it, I know the cancer is spreading and needs to be stopped.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:05:33 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract At 8:22 AM -0700 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >> >>Now, the problem with *all* of this remains the same -- Novalis is >>the ultimate pacifist. > >Really? Really. >It's *not* nice to fool with Mother Nature. Push her far enough, >it's going to hurt. > >Remember that her dissonance condition isn't "No violence", it's "No >*unnecessary* violence." And is a criterion that changes depending >on the individual situation. Right. Learning to "compromise with War" is fundementally at odds with "changing the criteria with the individual situation." Novalis *will* show her thorns if pressed, but *will* *always* *try* *peace* *first.* It's right in her Main Book writeup. She has already 'compromised with War' as much as she possibly can, by not protesting every offensive action the War Faction puts forward until she's blue in the face. >>If she ever, *ever* accepts that the "active response" to an issue >>is anything other than a horribly regrettable situation forced on >>you by the other side not seeing reason, it represents a failure of >>her entire ethos. > >The point is, it can be objectively shown to Novalis -- *after* she >starts listening to you, that is -- that the current situation is >such that standing there and doing *nothing but* trying to reason >with the diabolicals will render a significantly greater amount of >net harm to the Earth, as while you may be reaching twice as many >Redemption candidates you are also seeing *twenty* times as much >Diabolical corruption flourishing all over the place as they run >riot. No it can't, because it's not objectively true. It's a subjective opinion. Novalis's central thesis is "if you make humanity happy, content and safe, if you foster peace and prosperity among them, the War will be over in an instant, and the Demons will have no choice but to sue for peace." And, like you said, it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature. Novalis is *very* capable of seeing the big picture, and weeping for those who fall because you're taking the true path to peace, not the easy path to conquest. She weeps for them every day. But she walks the hard path anyhow. The true one, to her eyes. The path of Ghandi and King. The path that says that compassion is stronger than cruelty. That forgiveness is stronger than revenge. The path that says that a growing tree can split apart a concrete pillbox with enough time, and enough water and enough sun. Reconciling that to the necessity of War puts the entire Ethos of Flowers in the position of having been wrong for millions of years. And frankly, Novalis isn't going to do that. Novalis *can't* do that. >In short, the *entire War* is a "horribly regrettable situation >forced on Heaven by the other side not seeing reason". That's >Truth, isn't it? Maybe. Or else, the entire War is an entire race of Celestials, bruised and traumatized and horrified -- and sometimes thinking they're doing the right thing -- turning away from the love and understanding that Heaven can give them. And Heaven must... *must* do everything in their power to bring their lost children home, to raise them back into the light, to save them from themselves. Does a mother, when her children leave for the streets, becoming angry and violent, throw her hands in the air and say "well, there's nothing to be done for them. Lock the door, Billy, and let the police throw them in jail for the rest of their lives. Lord knows *I* tried?" Or does she leave the light on for them, and hope with all her heart that they will come home, and call them or write them or even walk down to see them whether its dangerous for her or not, and do everything she can to convince them that they're destroying their lives doing this, and they should come home? > But God has told Michael that the *objective* of this War is to >save humanity from the demons. Ergo, that's what he's going to do. >God says, Michael obeys. This is true, and stipulated. >Of course, Michael's *methods* for doing this will be mostly focused >on busting demon skulls before the owners of said skulls can get a >chance to get their claws in a human -- it's what he does best, and >he's sticking to what he knows. But that doesn't mean he should be >actively contemptuous of people who are handling their own separate >job, when said job is a necessary part of the overall picture. Perhaps he shouldn't. But he often *is.* Note, however, that he's *not* as contemptuous of Novalis as Laurence is. He *does* recognize her place in the scheme of things, and she recognizes *his* place. It's the idea of the two attempting to reconcile their positions, and have their organizations work together supporting each other's agenda that I flat out reject. War is War. Flowers is Flowers. Novalis will *never* stop working for a peaceful solution. Michael will *never* stop fighting to win the War by *any* means necessary. >Michael's first priority is, was, and always will be achieving his >assigned mission. But we've got to remember exactly what that >mission *is*. To win the War. Michael's mission is to win the War. Period. Yes, he knows Humanity is the key to that. But that doesn't change the fact that he's fighting to *win,* and if that means there's a few bloodbaths along the way, c'est la vie. > (For that matter, in some writeups its like *he's* forgotten >exactly what that mission is. But not in mine) He knows his mission. Novalis knows her mission. They're not the same mission, even if they have the same ultimate goal. >I can easily see Michael learning to see Flowers as a *part* of War >-- they're the follow-on team, the support staff, and the >psychological warfare experts. I'm sure that's how Michael sees Flowers. It's just, *Novalis* doesn't. Novalis sees War as "those folks who sadly you sometimes have to call in because there is no other choice, but really they're a last recourse." >"You keep saying that happy people don't invite demons to move back >in with them, right?" > >"Exactly." > >"So here's how it goes. My people kick the demons out of somewhere. >Then your people come in, fix the stuff they broke, and hold the >ground. If your people can keep the humans living there 'bright' >enough to not *want* to invite the demons back in, then that frees >up most of my people to go somewhere else and repeat step one." "Well, won't that be hard when your angels have burnt their homes to the ground, destroyed their fields and terrorized their children fighting the forces of Hell in their homes, their neighborhoods and towns? Happy people don't see their way of life destroyed in the name of 'kicking the demons out of somewhere.' Instead, those people learn fear, and despair. They fall into Nightmares, and Factions, and begin to see the world as the War. They become demonic, so that by the time your warriors are done, the people are ready to invite a *flight* of demons back into their hearts. Isn't it better to work with those people in the first place, build with them, improve their lot and cause *them* to kick the demons out by giving them no fertile ground to grow their selfishness in? Or is that too long a process for you, dear. I'm sure we could enjoy another thousand years of your little stalemate instead." >"Ah. So your job is going to be..." > >"Giving your peace people room to work in free of Diabolical >interference. I take the beachhead, you build something on it, then >we branch out from there." "But I don't want a beachhead, or a fortress. I want a garden. I want things to grow, and people to grow *with* them. You're thinking of David again, Michael. He's down the Hall, take a right and climb down to the caverns." >"Ohhhh... *psychological* warfare! Got it, that makes perfect >sense. Of course, you don't always have *time* to work it that way >-- it's pretty slow and not suited to all circumstances -- but by >all means, in situations where it can work, I'll give your guys a >chance to make it work. Just make sure to call us *promptly* if the >situation turns acute or immediately sour, OK?" "Mm. We'll take that under advisement, dear. Only, we see it as 'trying to solve the problems that have the people turning to selfishness in the first place.' It's really not warfare at all." >Novalis isn't Peace, she's Flowers. As an expression of Peace. >The thing is, it doesn't even require much compromising. > >They barely have to change *at all*. They merely have to admit >that Creation is big enough for the both of them, and contains two >different kinds of problems to solve. In order to directly compliment each other, one or both has to change their absolutely central position on the single most significant issue that is possible in the entire Symphony. And they're not likely to do that. >Michael and Novalis can find common ground in that they both want >*the exact same thing* -- the War to be over, the innocents to be >safe, and the diabolicals to be not hurting anyone. Where they >disagree is the best way to get there. In that Michael specifically wants to accelerate to Armageddon and decimate the forces of Hell, and Novalis wants to help humanity evolve to the point where Armageddon is unnecessary. Same goal, *totally* different missions. Irreconcilable missions, in fact. You can't both have and not have a Final Battle. >Where their epiphany lies is in the realization that they both have >'the best way to get there' -- neither all-out violence *or* total >pacifism will win the War against Hell, because Hell is fighting on >multiple fronts. This is absolutely correct, and true. Over there? That's Marc. Next to him is Yves. They're the reconcilers. The compromisers. The ones who guide the passions of the others. Michael *knows* the way to win. Novalis *knows* the way to win. And both know the other's just plain wrong. >Right now, both of them (indeed, practically *all* of Heaven's >Word-Bound) has lost sight of the idea that God created multiples >Words for a reason. >If God had intended only One Way To Win The War, he'd have created >only one Word. This presumes that God created Word-bound to fight the War. This presumes that God has an interest in fighting the War. This presumes that God and Lucifer aren't in cahoots to *create* the War. These are all pretty broad assumptions. >But I'm sure they could remind each other that it's not that way... >if they actually talked to each other for a while. I'm sure that with communication the two of them could learn to come to some unstable peaces in some venues on some issues. I'm also *positive* the two of them won't reconcile their organizations, *or* fall madly in love with each other over it. I'm *also* positive that if one of the two were destroyed, the other would mourn for a very long time. But also feel slightly vindicated. Is there something innately wrong with two Archangels with completely different worldviews actually acting consistent with those worldviews in respect to each other? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:12:02 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick At 8:45 AM -0700 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >(Personally, I think she's wrong -- while it can and does work on >individual demons, trying to apply it to the entire War at a whole >will get you nothing except spitted on the business end of Baal's >sword.) See, this is where you and I diverge. I don't see Novalis *or* Michael as wrong. I see the question as undecided. If you postulate that Michael is right, then of course Novalis must turn to his way in the end. But In Nomine *doesn't* postulate Michael is right. In fact, most of the writeups seem to suggest that the Peace Faction has a little closer to 'right' on their side. But it's too grey to call. Novalis and Michael embody one of the central conflicts of Heaven -- and in your campaign, you can decide who's right and who's wrong. Still... if you turn all of Humanity to selflessness, the Essence, Tethers and Diabolical Words of the Demons wither away to nothing, and the Demons wither away with them... whereas if you turn Humanity towards fear and selfishness, Hell grows stronger.... > >But does this make him inflexibly closed-minded? Nope. Michael >will argue with anything you bring him that he doesn't agree with... >but he *will* listen to you. > >If Novalis walked up to him and tried to tell him about War, he'd go >"Yeah? Prove it." Which is when Novalis points to the redeemed Angels, including some Hellborn, and the Angelic success in San Francisco. See, there's *proof* on both sides of the argument. >(Of course, it would take some major-league effort for Novalis to be >*able* to win an argument with Michael, especially in his own >specialty! -- but if it ever did happen, I don't see him being >anywhere near as unable to deal with it as you'd think. The problem is, you seem to think that it *wouldn't* be a major league effort to convince Novalis in an argument -- especially in *her* own specialty. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:12:50 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract At 3:51 PM +0000 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>> >>>It's *not* nice to fool with Mother Nature. Push her far enough, >>>it's going to hurt. >>> >> >> >>But Novalis isn't Mother Nature, she's the Archangel of _Flowers_. > >"Feed me, Seymour!" Oh yeah -- quote Nybbas. That'll convince her. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:23:48 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors Kris Overstreet wrote: > >Blandine protects dreams, > > But not -necessarily- the dreamers. Yes, the dreamers too. As per her expanded writeup, much of her duties involve protecting dreamers. > > David protects > >communities, > > Only those which meet his requirements. David has no use or pity for the weak. Not exactly true. David encourages the strong to protect the weak, and encourages the weak to become stronger. > > Marc insures prosperity amongst > >mankind, > > Nope. He promotes fair trade, but doesn't guarantee good fortune in business. He doesn't guarantee it, but his _purpose_ in encouraging fair trade is to increase prosperity. > > Michael protects them in war, > > Nope. Michael's and Laurence's goals are for humanity in general, not any > humans specifically. Not true -- Michael is very much an individualist, and even Laurence recognizes the occasional important of individual humans. > >Novalis handles healing and> >nuturing, > > One right. Both right. > >and Yves watches out for mankind's destiny. > > No, Yves watches out for -individual- destinies, And that of mankind. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:08 PDT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick >From: Whistling in the Dark >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >CC: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:12:02 -0400 > >At 8:45 AM -0700 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>(Personally, I think she's wrong -- while it can and does work on >>individual demons, trying to apply it to the entire War at a whole >>will get you nothing except spitted on the business end of Baal's >>sword.) > >See, this is where you and I diverge. > >I don't see Novalis *or* Michael as wrong. I see the question as undecided. > >If you postulate that Michael is right, then of course Novalis must >turn to his way in the end. But In Nomine *doesn't* postulate Michael is >right. In fact, most of the writeups seem to suggest that the Peace Faction >has a little closer to 'right' on their side. But it's too grey to call. > >Novalis and Michael embody one of the central conflicts of Heaven -- >and in your campaign, you can decide who's right and who's wrong. > >Still... if you turn all of Humanity to selflessness, the Essence, >Tethers and Diabolical Words of the Demons wither away to nothing, >and the Demons wither away with them... whereas if you turn Humanity >towards fear and selfishness, Hell grows stronger.... And if the moon were made out of green cheese, shipping it to Earth would cure famine. The point being, is it possible to turn Humanity to selflessness without having a militant arm along to keep the demons out of your way while you do it? God evidently thought not, seeing as how he made sure that his most powerful angel was granted the word of War, and how he created all those 'Malakim' thingy... The way I interpret In Nomine canon -- if there really was no place for violence in winning the War, Michael would have been made the Angel of Peace, and the most powerful angel on Heaven's side would be busy whuppin' the demons best efforts by smothering them to death with love. Meanwhile, the Menumim would me more numerous than the Malakim... for that matter, there wouldn't be any Malakim. >>But does this make him inflexibly closed-minded? Nope. Michael >>will argue with anything you bring him that he doesn't agree with... but >>he *will* listen to you. >> >>If Novalis walked up to him and tried to tell him about War, he'd go >>"Yeah? Prove it." > >Which is when Novalis points to the redeemed Angels, including some >Hellborn, and the Angelic success in San Francisco. > >See, there's *proof* on both sides of the argument. Did you miss the part about where I had Michael acknowledge -- indeed, even his default Superiors 1 writeup acknowledges -- that Redemption is better than death for demons? That it produces more net gain for Heaven? The point is this -- Redemption is not always possible. Sometimes, the demon just don't wanna... for as long as free will exists, at least one person will use it to make the wrong choice. If the possibility of the wrong choice did not exist, it wouldn't be free will. And sometimes, waiting to find out whether or not the demon wants to will result in a net gain for Hell, as even the 'plus' that would have been produced by Redeeming the demon still won't outweigh the definite 'minuses' that will be racked up if action isn't taken to stop the Diabolical plot currently in progress *right now*. This is where *Novalis* falls down. As I said -- she has her place and I respect her greatly for it, but if *every* Archangel in Heaven was just like her then the demons would be mounting their skulls on pikes. >>(Of course, it would take some major-league effort for Novalis to be >>*able* to win an argument with Michael, especially in his own >>specialty! -- but if it ever did happen, I don't see him being >>anywhere near as unable to deal with it as you'd think. >The problem is, you seem to think that it *wouldn't* be a major >league effort to convince Novalis in an argument -- especially in >*her* own specialty. Actually, the problem between us is our differing opinions of what we think Novalis's argument should be. Novalis *cannot* be the Archangel Of Violence Is Never Necessary unless Novalis is being written as willing to deny the Will of God -- because if God hadn't intended demon skulls to get busted at least *some* of the time, he'd never have granted the Word of War. By the same token, Michael cannot be the Archangel Of Skull-Busting Is The Only Tactic That Any Angel Anywhere Will Ever Need To Use, or else *he'd* be denying the will of God... seeing as how God saw fit to create the Word of Flowers. - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1740 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.