From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 28 12:32:31 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 MAA14314 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:32:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA17145 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:41 -0500 Message-Id: <200007281730.MAA17145@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 #1741 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 1741 In this digest: Re: IN> Question... Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract IN> removal Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:34:43 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Question... In a message dated 7/28/00 8:35:06 AM Central Daylight Time, earlw@mc.com writes: << - The angel can now use any combination of hosts and vessels, while simultaneously using its native resonnance. - The angel can either use *a* vessel *or* multiple hosts, while simultaneously using its native resonnance. - The angel can use a single vessel and its native resonnance, or throw a switch and temporarily lose its native resonnance and the ability to use vessels, while gaining the ability to use multiple hosts. In short, it's a sort of "were-kyrio." >> I like this. I just hate the idea that an angel of Destiny has to work for centuries to get an ability that is inferior to what the Balseraphs of Fate get automatically! Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:43:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:47:10 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >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. Yeah, but all you _need_ are the torrid nights. You know how it goes with those two: first, they start verbally duelling in Council meetings. Then, Michael runs some troops on manuevers through the Glade. So, of course Novalis arranges for Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" to get more airplay: the resulting headache from the minor Word-fluctuation causes Mike to push combat archery at SCA events, pissing off Novalis so much that she starts sending _all_ of her newly-Redeemed Bright Lilim and former Lusties on personal liason to Laurence (because "Mike said that you needed more help", who gets so aggravated with dewy-eyed angels following him around and trying to feel his muscles without him noticing that he takes it out on Mike, and so on, and so on, until one of the other has had enough and goes over to yell at the other one... ... and the next thing you know, there's pieces of armor and tie-dyed silk everywhere and everyone (including the trees) have unobtrusively gotten up and walked away from the music of the spheres being generated over there. You know, I can see this perpetuated in minitature, all over Heaven... Oh, yeah: I can't see Dominic/Novalis at all, I'm afraid: Dom's too busy trying to track down Eli. the bast**d skipped out on his child support payments. :) Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Tune In Next Week __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:45:58 -0400 From: "Peter Bernesby" Subject: IN> removal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFF891.C70B0DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please take me off the list or tell me how I can. Thank you, Peter Bernesby=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFF891.C70B0DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please take me off the list or tell me = how I=20 can.
 
Thank you,
 
Peter Bernesby =
- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFF891.C70B0DC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:55:18 GMT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >>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. There is nothing 'subjective' about showing that given the situation as it currently exists, the other guy is in a position to do grave harm to that which you are trying to protect -- and has already spent 22,000 years proving that his intent is to do so. There is nothing subjective about having a gun aimed at your head by a guy who's already tried pulling the trigger on your three hundred times previously -- it's an objective fact, and a very obvious one. >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 nowhere in this is it stated "And this means that there is absolutely no need anywhere for angels who use violence to bust demon heads." In a war zone, it's been known to see an enlisted medic being excorted to a woman's house to help her deliver her baby -- by two guys with M-16s. >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. I hate to drag in the real world, but Gandhi's followers did more violence in his name than the average revolution. >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. This, BTW, is one of the reasons I see Michael and her actually capable of having affection for each other. Neither of them ever gives up. They respect that. >Reconciling that to the necessity of War puts the entire Ethos of >Flowers in the position of having been wrong for millions of years. What we disagree on is what Flowers is, precisely. IMO, Flowers will eventually have to weep sadly and realize that even after it's saved everybody it can, it still hasn't saved them all. But at least she tried. The *sole* thing I had Flowers doing was realizing that God had given Michael his Word fully as much as he'd given her Hers... thus stating clearly that both Words were necessary and must exist. And acting accordingly. >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. The very first Word God granted was War. God presumably knows what he's doing. >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. If the Seraphim Council had granted the word of War, you'd have a point. But God did, as well. I mean, what were God's instructions way back when? "Michael, your brother Lucifer is wrong and is harming Heaven by his actions and refusal to admit he was wrong. Go talk to him until he sees the light again, however long it takes. And whatever you do, don't match his violence with violence." Or was it "Michael, your brother Lucifer has rebelled against me. Take this axe and smack him over the head with it repeatedly. Then pick his ass up and kick it down the volcano. And don't let him back up until he admits he was wrong, and boot him and his servants in the head until they do." IIRC, I think it was the latter... >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? The latter, of course. But if she sees her boy about to kill someone else and the policeman aiming his gun at them, does she attack the policeman and let her boy life... and shoot the innocent bystander? Or does she weep, knowing that she fought as best she could but didn't win? The tragedy here is, Flowers has been given a word that cannot ever know total success until and unless free will is stripped from all celestialkind. Michael at least can hope that eventually, one day, every single last demon will be dead. But Novalis *cannot* redeem every single last demon... because for as long as free will exists, the possibility to make the wrong choice does as well. >> 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. By *any* means necessary. If he realizes that working with Flowers will help him win the War faster than without it, then he'll do it -- even if 98% of the cooperation all has to come from his end. As you point out, Michael will do whatever works. He is the ultimate pragmatist, as Novalis is the ultimate idealist. If it gets the War over faster to cooperate with the idealist, he'll do so. >>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. A bit exclusionary in the thinking, don't we? By the exact same token, if that means that putting up with some of Flowers' little foibles and working more closely with her and hers, then c'est la vie some more. Divided effort is wasted effort. > >> (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. Again, a difference in interpretation. The mission *is* the goal. How you get there isn't your mission, it's your *method*. >>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." Pre-cisely. Now all that remains is to show her that that last recourse is already upon them. Which it may well be. >>"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." "Can you make this actually work without the demons being gone, first? Funny thing is, I've noticed that you're as equally stalemated as I am on your fronts, even in situations where my people *weren't* there to quote, muck things up for you, end quote." "Errr..." "Thought so. The whole point of this meeting is to break that stalemate that you hate by realizing that neither of us are going to get this done alone. So, what's more important -- maintaining the theoretical purity of your ideals, or actually seeing them achieved *somehow* in the real world?" >>"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." "Analogy time? OK, here's mine -- you'll *get* your garden. It's just that your garden needs a fence to keep the vandals from trying to get in and wreck it. It takes years for a plant to grow, and seconds for a single hostile to rip it up and render it all for naught. Unless you've got a gate on that garden, with somebody to keep it shut." >>"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." "Semantics, shemantics. I don't care how you want to phrase it, just so long as it gets *done*." >>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. Hrm... problem is, there's this guy called God who has prophesied that Armageddon will eventually happen someday. Yes, even in In Nomine. (Gabriel's Seven Little Thingies...) Looks like Novy's wrong and Michael's right. >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. Michael knows whatever God tells him to. As soon as somebody makes him realize that God made more than one Word, and that ergo it is the will of God that both Words work together, he'll go with it. Michael obeys. >>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. IIRC, Michael was not formally invested as the Archangel of War until after the Fall. Michael became War *because* he had cast down Lucifer. Before then, he was Competition. >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. Why yes, they do tend to assume that you're playing in a bright, high-contrast campaign. Which is how I run In Nomine. My interpretations don't work if you want another type of game, admitted. >>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. Unstable peaces? Both Michael's *and* Novalis's words allow for the possiblity of stable and lasting peace. If it's possible, then eventually they'll find it. If neither of them gives up looking. (And once Michael *or* Novalis actually get started on something, they don't give up. The problem with default IN canon is that neither of them have really gotten started on it.) >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. If Michael was destroyed, Armageddon's already started. If Novalis was destroyed, Armageddon's starting tomorrow. IOW, not likely to happen in the average IN campaign... >Is there something innately wrong with two Archangels with completely >different worldviews actually acting consistent with those worldviews in >respect to each other? Yes. You're postulating a Heaven where the basic conflicts in philosophy are irreconcilable forever, as opposed to one where they merely haven't found reconciliation *yet*. Kind of brings new meaning to the phrase "United under God", doesn't it? - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:00:17 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick At 9:29 AM -0700 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >> >>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? Are you asking me? Or Novalis? I'll say it again -- our point of divergance is you've decided who's actually right in the conflict: the Michaelite/War faction. And so your game will reflect that tone. It becomes the right answer, and there is a certain inevitability that Novalis will see the light. In *my* Campaign, the War Faction/Peace Faction debate is *strong* and ongoing, and the answer of who's right is Ineffable. Do I think you need the Angels of War (and the Sword and Stone and the Wind and Fire) to win the War? Yes. Do I think you need the Angels of Flowers (and Trade and Creation and Destiny and Dreams) to win the War? Yes. What proportion should they be in, and which side is the side that should be taking the lead *in* the War? That Truth is Ineffable. Michael is certain because he's Michael. Dominic is certain because he's Dominic. Novalis is certain because she's Novalis. Rinse, repeat. But who actually is *right* isn't know. And can't be known, until the War is over. >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... I think it's a mistake making assumptions about God's intentions. Remember, the Angel with the most direct line to God and God's intentions, to our knowledge, is Yves. And Michael *doesn't* trust Yves. >The way I interpret In Nomine canon -- if there really was no place >for violence in winning the War, No one claimed that. Well, except Novalis. But I'm not saying she's right, either. >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? Nope. But it seemed you did, despite your being quoted on it. A Military Solution isn't the path of Redemption. It's the path of Victory. >The point is this -- Redemption is not always possible. How do you *know?* I play IN as Redemption *always* being possible, just like it is *always* possible to Fall. (Perhaps not into Demonic form, in the case of Malakim, but the possibility still exists.) > 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. There is no greater ending of Free Will than driving a sword through the brain of the exerciser of it. > >This is where *Novalis* falls down. You bet. Absolutely. Amen. That doesn't make Michael right. It just means Novalis may not be any *more* right than he is. >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. And if every Archangel were like Michael there'd be no Earth or Humanity left to fight for. It's a balance. >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. Oh, piddle. The Will of God is Ineffable. And Novalis is *not* the Archangel of Violence is Never Necessary. But she *is* the advocate that Violence is never, *ever* the first response to a situation. It is *always* the utter last resort. *Period.* >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. See above RE God. And Michael can see a place for peace. Absolutely he can. But that doesn't change the diametric opposition of Novalis and Michael on how the War should be fought, unless you specifically change it for your game. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:23:20 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: Re: IN> Telling off Superiors in their Bailiwick - -----Original Message----- From: Charles Glasgow To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:36 AM 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? I agree with Chuck here. Sun Tzu's Art of War holds that it's a good tactic to recruit enemy officers after a battle. You get their skills and experience on your side, you gain a reputation as a merciful general, and you get inside information on what the other side's been up to. Recruiting defectors is a tactic that's been honored in all wars for centuries. So you can bet Michael promotes the idea of accepting Demons planning to redeem. To quote former CIA director Allen Dulles: "I'd tip my hat to the Devil himself, if it would give me a clearer picture of the conditions in Hell." - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:25:29 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 13:00:17 -0400 > >At 9:29 AM -0700 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: [snip] >>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? > >Are you asking me? Or Novalis? > >I'll say it again -- our point of divergance is you've decided who's >actually right in the conflict: the Michaelite/War faction. And so >your game will reflect that tone. It becomes the right answer, and >there is a certain inevitability that Novalis will see the light. > >In *my* Campaign, the War Faction/Peace Faction debate is *strong* >and ongoing, and the answer of who's right is Ineffable. Ineffable is something best used in as small a dose as possible. If people feel like *none* of the Big Questions either have answers or *can* have answers, then that leads to people feeling like nothing they do can make a difference. Whenever possible, I try to substitute "There is an answer, but nobody's found it *yet*" for "There is no answer possible." And every now and then, people actually find an Answer. >Do I think you need the Angels of War (and the Sword and Stone and >the Wind and Fire) to win the War? Yes. > >Do I think you need the Angels of Flowers (and Trade and Creation and >Destiny and Dreams) to win the War? Yes. > >What proportion should they be in, and which side is the side that >should be taking the lead *in* the War? That Truth is Ineffable. >Michael is certain because he's Michael. Dominic is certain because >he's Dominic. Novalis is certain because she's Novalis. Rinse, repeat. > >But who actually is *right* isn't know. And can't be known, until the War >is over. > >>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... > >I think it's a mistake making assumptions about God's intentions. >Remember, the Angel with the most direct line to God and God's >intentions, to our knowledge, is Yves. And Michael *doesn't* trust >Yves. To *our* knowledge. Remember, *Michael* does not believe Yves is God. Michael believes that Yves is an unknown. And Michael used to talk to God on his own right. "Don't tell me he's God. I know God, I was friends with God, and you sir are no God!" If the Voice of God suddenly boomed out of the Higher Heavens -- "Michael, when Yves speaks, he is officially speaking for Me." -- Michael's disagreement with Yves would be over in three nanoseconds. But it's not. >>The way I interpret In Nomine canon -- if there really was no place >>for violence in winning the War, > >No one claimed that. > >Well, except Novalis. But I'm not saying she's right, either. If she were right, there'd be no War in the first place. There'd instead be The Angels Trying To Talk The Demons Out Of It While The Demons Ruled The Roost. >>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? > >Nope. But it seemed you did, despite your being quoted on it. A >Military Solution isn't the path of Redemption. It's the path of >Victory. > >>The point is this -- Redemption is not always possible. > >How do you *know?* You misunderstand. Any possible individual demon -- even Lucifer, although the odds are lowest in his case by far -- may redeem. What is *not* possible is that *all* demons will redeem. So long as that free will thingy out is there, it is statistically inevitable that at least one of those SOBs is gonna choose to be bad. Which one that is may vary. >I play IN as Redemption *always* being possible, just like it is >*always* possible to Fall. (Perhaps not into Demonic form, in the >case of Malakim, but the possibility still exists.) >> 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. >There is no greater ending of Free Will than driving a sword through >the brain of the exerciser of it. "When you choose an action, you choose all the consequences of that action." - -- Lois McMaster Bujold And one of the consequences of choosing to go to War is accepting in advance the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- that somebody may ram a sword through your head. And the demons started the War. Ergo, it is by their own free will that they end up with a sword in their head. They chose to take the risks. Free will is not free of consequences. >>This is where *Novalis* falls down. > >You bet. Absolutely. Amen. > >That doesn't make Michael right. It just means Novalis may not be any >*more* right than he is. Funny thing is, you seem focused on the idea that Michael wishes to win the War only by violence. And in my vision, he's not. Michael will win the war with Whatever. It. Takes. If it takes "giving peace a chance" to win the War, then he will. He's not "the one who fights", he's "the one who wins". *Baal* is "the one who fights". >>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. > >And if every Archangel were like Michael there'd be no Earth or >Humanity left to fight for. But Michael does not want every Archangel to be like him. As far as he's concerned, only one of him is necessary. If anybody wants to walk along the path with him, he'll welcome them as comrades-in-arms. But if nobody else does... fine, no problem, I'm a big boy, I can haul the load alone. >It's a balance. > >>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. > >Oh, piddle. > >The Will of God is Ineffable. Not *always*. If God didn't want a Universe, he wouldn't have made it. By the same logic, if God didn't want War, he wouldn't have made it. > >And Novalis is *not* the Archangel of Violence is Never Necessary. >But she *is* the advocate that Violence is never, *ever* the first >response to a situation. It is *always* the utter last resort. >*Period.* I've never denied this. Problem is, "the last resort" is *now*. >>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. > >See above RE God. >And Michael can see a place for peace. Absolutely he can. >But that doesn't change the diametric opposition of Novalis and >Michael on how the War should be fought, unless you specifically >change it for your game. I just don't get it. I have not had Michael stop being Michael, or Novalis stop being Novalis. What I've had is them stop wasting time working at cross-purposes, and instead *admit* to each other that there are things that each of them does best, and that leaving each other free to do those things (and helping each other whenever those things overlap, however rarely or commonly that may be) is the most efficient use of their time and the best way to serve God. - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:30:08 PDT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >From: Jennifer Campbell >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 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT) > >Me, too. > >I've always thought that these two would be good in a >Much Ado About Nothing sort of plot. . . > >After we've got Mr. Prissypants and Sleeping Beauty >together, they could enlist all their servitors to >share the happiness with two good friends. :-) > >Or would that be too MUCH love for one story? Naaah. IMO, it'd take Divine Intervention for Mike and Novy to stop seeing each other through their own preconceptions and instead see each other as they truly are (well, Novalis already sees Michael a bit more truly than Michael currently sees Novalis, but then again she is the more empathetic one)... ... just what did you think I had them chucking on those Resonance rolls they made on each other, anyway? Sixes? *LOL* - -- Chuckg "1-1-1" ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1741 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.