From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 28 17:25:24 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 RAA08953 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:25:23 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id RAA01168 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200007282221.RAA01168@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 #1742 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 1742 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band IN> War/Defence Re: IN> War/Defence Re: IN> War/Defence Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract IN> Novalis and Michael and why Armageddon may not happen Re: IN> War/Defence Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors IN> Hardcore Words Re: IN> Hardcore Words Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors IN> Anti-Malakim Re: IN> Stylesheet Clarification RE: IN> Question... Re: IN> Anti-Malakim Re: IN> Anti-Malakim Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> IN/Rocky Horro [Was: Wrong Band] Re: IN> Anti-Malakim Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:33:28 -0700 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band \> >I know. But I just watched it again, and I'm *almost* as bad about Princess > >Bride quotes as I am about Rocky Horror references... > > > > > > > >Ki > > > *snicker* So is there a 'Dr. Frank N. Furter' etherial spirit in your > campaign? *Don't* give her ideas! The Other David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:37:38 -0700 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: IN> War/Defence > 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. > Damage control can naturally follow. I think you need to re-examine your definition of "War". Most (probably all) scholars military science will state that defence and offence are intregal portions of the overall subject "War". The Other David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:12:04 PDT From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> War/Defence >From: "David Rodemaker" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: IN> War/Defence >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:37:38 -0700 > > > 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. > > Damage control can naturally follow. > >I think you need to re-examine your definition of "War". Most (probably >all) scholars military science will state that defence and offence are >intregal portions of the overall subject "War". Yup. All offense and no defense -- you killed all the enemy but lost your own nation in the process -- is known as a "Pyrrhic victory", aka "winning the battle but losing the war." And that's one of the top items on the list of "*Don't* Dos" for aspiring strategists and tacticians. See "Byzantine Empire, Justinian's Campaign To Reunite The West". He 'won' the war... but bankrupted and destroyed his empire in the process. Baal probalby applauded. (Belial *definitely* applauded.) Michael most likely called him an idiot. - -- Chuckg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:22:12 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> War/Defence David Rodemaker wrote: > I think you need to re-examine your definition of "War". Most (probably all) > scholars military science will state that defence and offence are intregal > portions of the overall subject "War". Yup. Plus spying, assassination, how to handle conquered territories, how best to avoid conflict. I agree that if Michael is true to his Word, he has to consider ALL options. But what if he's slipping and has grown too used to battle? - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:48:28 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Please snip what isn't directly involved in your response!! Pretty please?!! Tom - -- Strange blood, howl again, for now we know to well - Better a friend on paths unknown, than to be alone in hell! "Strange Blood" A Wolfrider's Reflection, by various artists ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:50:04 -0700 From: tcp@zoomnet.net Subject: IN> Novalis and Michael and why Armageddon may not happen Okay this debate now requires my .02 Novalis: Novalis is a woman who loves demons, ethereals, grigori, and the happy peaceful Jesus/Muhammed/Buddah/Etc. She personally is a walking New Testament saying that the world is a better place for peace and beuty and love instead of hatred, violence, and anger. "God is love, we're part of God...ergo..." she quotes Socrates the Saint. However she loves HUMANS and ANGELS as much as she loves demons and that means that when her two loves conflict she chooses whichever version is more loving....meaning she sides with the group that is right. If Novalis had her way she'd be talking with the demons and they wouldn't be doing anyone any harm....however they do do harm and thus they have to be stopped...soul death is the biggest problem though she's not too keen on pain either. Michael: Michael is the perfect Angel. He's the most intelligent, most powerful, most strong, and most faithful. The fact he's usually waist deep in guts, blood, and cinders often obscures his more humanitarian pursuits. Unlike Laurence who excludes Novalis and Eli Michael is fully aware of everyone's contribution to the War and doesn't deride them for it (though his opinion of the "Bureaucrat" and the "Internal Affairs" division of his army isn't high right now) he's right now very focused and wants the War to end but it will end as God wants it which will presumably be armageddon and with quite a number of demons damned forever. In the meantime he fights to disrupt demonic operations...he'd attack Hell and destroy it if he could as a pre-emptive strike but if he had proof Hell had stopped fighting the war...eventually he would too. It would be peace, however he understands that's not likely. Why Armageddon is not certain: This is what scares Baal, Asmodeus, and Kronos (also Michael, David, and even Yves I think) humanity (and angels possibly) have free will. Unlike the angels and demons who don't believe in it there is a distinct possiblity that Makatiel was right...Legion too. Destroying humanity ultimately WILL end the war...and also it's POSSIBLE. This basically means Armageddon would be cancelled and that demons would get off the hook or....lose all their essence and dry up and wither. This on the reverse end says that if humanity wanted to give up war, violence, and evil...and they did it. God would bless them and Flowers would at last know peace. Armageddon is called off because God wants it to be. Jesus/whatever messianic figure you want will walk down instead of as a last resort..just to say "Hello, Good job" Now Michael wouldn't mind Armageddon getting cancelled truth be told, he'll grugingly admit it. However he prefers not to acknowledge the possibility because it scares him so bloody much in the potential for abuse of this. My .02 - -Charlemagne - ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:58:41 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> War/Defence - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Karakash" To: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 1:22 PM Subject: Re: IN> War/Defence > > > David Rodemaker wrote: > > I think you need to re-examine your definition of "War". Most (probably all) > > scholars military science will state that defence and offence are intregal > > portions of the overall subject "War". > > Yup. Plus spying, assassination, how to handle conquered > territories, how best to avoid conflict. > I agree that if Michael is true to his Word, he has to > consider ALL options. But what if he's slipping and has grown > too used to battle? Well... he definitely hasn't forgotten about espionage, military intelligence, or sneak-and-peek, not if Superiors 1 is any indicator. As for "how best to avoid conflict" -- in Michael's mind, the War's already been declared. That step is past, the next step is winning it. As for "how to handle consquered territories" -- in his current writeup, it does appear that he's neglecting that a bit. 'Tis why I had him coming to the realization "OK, I *get* them out, she *keeps* them out. Saves me from having to always repeat the same work over and over in the same place. Definite plus for our side. And it's not like we have to actually *change* our styles to do this... I just let her do what she does best and she lets me do the same. And we both take a little extra care not to step on each other's plans. IOW, try to keep it quiet when in the Secured Zones, you guys." - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:14:49 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors In a message dated 7/28/00 8:10:14 AM, earlw@mc.com writes: >We see the Malakite-form standing, sword drawn, in a darkened >hallway outside Pasquale's bedroom. Before him, all fluffed out >in panic, is the housecat. Next panel, the cat has regained >some composure, and the angel is back in little-boy form, saying, >"*You* don't startle *me*, *I* won't startle *you*!" > >Earl > My favorite 'battle-form' angel quote is "I wish your mother wouldn't wear her glow-in-the-dark Greatful Dead t-shirt to go to the bathroom!" Mark (I've always wondered about Pasquale and his dream-mobile vs. In Nomine...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:23:14 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band In a message dated 7/28/00 7:56:38 AM, pisces_blue@yahoo.com writes: >--- MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >> *snicker* So is there a 'Dr. Frank N. Furter' >> etherial spirit in your >> campaign? > >The question is, do you have to actually -wear- the >fishnets to invoke him? Heee heee hee. . . > >*jumping to the left* > >Jenni Yes. *And* the feather boa. (The bustier can be just slung rakishly over one shoulder, if you've got the body for that...) Think about it though... It's midnight, and a ritual is about to ensue. All that *essence*! All that *worship*! Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:33:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > (I've always wondered about Pasquale and his dream-mobile vs. In > Nomine...) Well, the angel and the dream-ship *do* interact, at least. In one strip, the angel rescues Pasquale from a nightmare when his dream-ship fails to take off. Pasquale snaps out of the dream to find the angel in his bedroom, up to its elbows in the dream-ship works, explaining, "I run an all-night towing service. Go catch some milk and cookies while I fix this." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:39:27 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:14 PM Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors > > In a message dated 7/28/00 8:10:14 AM, earlw@mc.com writes: > > >We see the Malakite-form standing, sword drawn, in a darkened > >hallway outside Pasquale's bedroom. Before him, all fluffed out > >in panic, is the housecat. Next panel, the cat has regained > >some composure, and the angel is back in little-boy form, saying, > >"*You* don't startle *me*, *I* won't startle *you*!" > > > >Earl > > > My favorite 'battle-form' angel quote is "I wish your mother wouldn't wear > her glow-in-the-dark Greatful Dead t-shirt to go to the bathroom!" Then there's the one where he walked around in 'battle-form' mode sulking for practically the entire strip, because Pasquale's mother had bought a silly-looking little plastic angel to hang from the rearview mirror... - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:48:51 -0700 From: tcp@zoomnet.net Subject: IN> Hardcore Words Yes Stock-trading belongs to Mammon and Dieting to Gluttony but here's a question what if one of Fufur's Lilim decides to petition Lucifer for the word of HARDCORE dieting? Or one of his Balseraphs (assuming he can persuade furfur he's not a weenie) persuades him to petition Lucifer for the word of Hardcore Stock-trading? Theoretically this is quite a lot of words to work with....and the possibilities are probably very disturbing to Hell... Mammon: Hold on what do you mean Lucifer awarded his servitor the word of Hardcore Greed? I *AM* HARDCORE GREED! I AM ALL GREED! Haagenti: That's just what I said.... Kobal: Hahahahhahahahah Asmodeus: Hardcore humor was just awarded yesterday... Kobal: Haha...hold on....WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK *DARK* HUMOR IS? Asmoedus: Apparently not Hardcore. This shapes up intriguingly. - -Charlemagne - ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:00:31 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: Re: IN> Hardcore Words - -----Original Message----- From: tcp@zoomnet.net To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:55 PM Subject: IN> Hardcore Words > >Yes Stock-trading belongs to Mammon and Dieting to Gluttony but >here's a question what if one of Fufur's Lilim decides to petition >Lucifer for the word of HARDCORE dieting? Or one of his Balseraphs >(assuming he can persuade furfur he's not a weenie) persuades >him to petition Lucifer for the word of Hardcore Stock-trading? >Theoretically this is quite a lot of words to work with....and >the possibilities are probably very disturbing to Hell... > >Mammon: Hold on what do you mean Lucifer awarded his servitor >the word of Hardcore Greed? I *AM* HARDCORE GREED! I AM ALL GREED! > >Haagenti: That's just what I said.... > >Kobal: Hahahahhahahahah > >Asmodeus: Hardcore humor was just awarded yesterday... > >Kobal: Haha...hold on....WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK *DARK* HUMOR >IS? > >Asmoedus: Apparently not Hardcore. > >This shapes up intriguingly. Especially if we use the "Kobal as Joker" analogy. In the comics and cartoons, The Joker is known to get INCREDIBLY ticked off if you rip him off in anyway. Now, apply that reaction to the Demon Prince who, until some time ago, was set up as Yves's foil in war between Fate and Destiny... If Furfur keeps moving in on everyone's grounds like that, you can expect Kobal to do something very awful to Furfur, just for laughs... - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:19:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Campbell Subject: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band All that perfect shade of red lipstick! I'm In! I'm IN! Bustiered Jenni (It's true, it's true. Ask Mr. Bluejeans.) - --- MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >All that *essence*! All that *worship*! ===== "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - -William Clayton ICQ UIN: 14514495 AIM: Pepper2540 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:24:07 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> Playing Minor Superiors David Edelstein wrote: > > >and Yves watches out for mankind's destiny. > > > > No, Yves watches out for -individual- destinies, > > And that of mankind. In fact, IIRC (from H&H, I believe), Yves is more concerned with the overall destiny of humanity, composed of the millions of small destinies, sorta like the Everyman (not politically correcticized because I think Everyperson sounds silly) theory of history, whereas Kronos concentrates on the darkest individual fates with the longest reaching consequences (like the Great Man theory of history) often to the exclusion of those with more mundane Fates. Cheers, Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:35:04 -0700 From: tcp@zoomnet.net Subject: IN> Anti-Malakim Okay weird question but the power is out at my house and I am bored here at my college. How would you do Anti-Malakim? (Fallen Malakim or a version of Malakim created by Lucifer loyal to Hell and Hell alone)? Basically? 1:) What would their personalities be like? 2:) Their resonances? 3:) What would Heaven/Hell's reaction be to this creation of nastiness? And the like. So far the main inspirations for such a creature are Damien Thorne from Omen IV (though the way he romanced the crowd was as a Balseraph) in strict terms of loyalty to Hell and love of it... And well...no one else comes to mind. - ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:00:25 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Stylesheet Clarification At 7:54 PM -0700 7/27/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >OK, I'm working on a Cherub Word-bound Creationer >who's IST War: I want her to have Vassal of War, >which might be a little unlikely, but she _is_ a >Word-bound. > >How the heck do you indicate that and still stay cool >with the stylesheet? I looked, but unless I'm missing >something, the final version would come out as "Cherub >Vassal of War IST War" ... which could have a lot of >people going, "Well, duh." :) Eeeg, sick stylesheet mangling. I'd probably write it, MumbleCabbage, Cherub of Creation in service to War, Angel of Cabbage, Vassel of War. but that's without peering at the stylesheet to see if there is a closer match. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:18:17 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> Question... At 3:06 AM -0400 7/28/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >At 2:50 AM -0400 7/28/00, Tim Groth wrote: >>I can sort of understand the lying argument for why the Balseraph >>attunement is better, but from a game balance point of view a Master >>distinction shouldn't be worse. Also why should Kronos know more about the >>Symphony than Yves, I'm sure Yves can keep a vessel attached when adding >>the Kyriotate resonance. > >I agree. what he said. (Unless Karakash cites something to the contrary, in which case he & i discuss it. O:>) i have been holding off posting since a canon post should not be all lowecase, but alas, the Impudite Princess of Cute hath claimed at _least_ one hand for about the last 3 days. *sigh* > there are ways to attach a vessel to a Kyriotate. see Michael's... >One is the Balseraph attunement, showing how it works that way. and remember, kronos is dark mirror to yves. >The Kyriotate Archangel, Jordi, has access to other >resonances, but doesn't seem (in the writeup, at least) to have >vessels, though I don't doubt he could. APG sez he discovered the making of 'em, even. (don't ask _me_ why...) > The implication is clear -- >access to other Resonances and Dissonance conditions do *not* change >the core nature of the Angel, and that includes the ability to have a >vessel. yah. note that a BalKyrio is no more horrific to see than a normal Bal, and Balakim, alas, are not immune to Trauma. (they REALLY don't Fall off the floor, though!) i would say, therefor, that the kyriotate inability to have a vessel is part of kyrio nature, more than resonance. (Why can't they have their vessel and hosts too? Simple -- possessing their vessel takes all their Forces. Of _course_ they can't be possessing anything else at the same time.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:20:54 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Anti-Malakim In a message dated 7/28/00 3:35:41 PM Central Daylight Time, tcp@zoomnet.net writes: << How would you do Anti-Malakim? (Fallen Malakim or a version of Malakim created by Lucifer loyal to Hell and Hell alone)? >> Please don't say Anti-Malakim! :) It reminds me of my old D&D days, where the wonderfully talented roleplayers would play home-brewed "Anti-Paladins" and CALL them that! Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:31:48 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Anti-Malakim At 5:20 PM -0400 7/28/00, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 7/28/00 3:35:41 PM Central Daylight Time, tcp@zoomnet.net >writes: > ><< How would you do Anti-Malakim? (Fallen Malakim or a version of > Malakim created by Lucifer loyal to Hell and Hell alone)? >> Actually.... I've been playing with a potential online campaign idea on such a thing. It's called The Shattered Ones, and has more than one twist in it.... (Though 'anti-Malakim' wouldn't be quite the right phrasing.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:28:27 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract At 4:55 PM +0000 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>> >>>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. If, after 22,000 years, the other guy hasn't managed to do grave harm to that which you are trying to do so, it can't be objectively shown he is capable of it. Rather the opposite. It becomes an excellent reason to try other methods as well. >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. Yup. The guy's gun sucks, the guy's aim sucks, and while you can't assume he's harmless he sure isn't a major danger, except maybe to himself. >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." You keep putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed that. You're the one claiming one of the two is right. Is it so hard to believe Novalis is idealistic -- to the point of martyrdom? >>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. That some of his followers strayed from Gandhi's path doesn't invalidate Gandhi's path, or the idealism it portrays. >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. See, I agree with this, completely. So why are you saying Novalis would give up? Or that *both* would? They have a mutual Hostility in their writeups -- a respectful one, but it's there. They Do Not Agree. Your moment of epiphany either has to have both of them moving away from their core ethos to the center, or (more of what you're saying) has to have Novalis come to her senses. The presumption here is that Novalis's way is wrong. >>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. Um... no. Not by a long shot. In fact, Novalis had her Word (though not her Superior's rank) long before Michael did. Michael was given his Word *after* the Fall. Fire predated War too. So did a *lot* of Word-bound. Like Laughter. And Love. And Light. And I believe Knowledge. >If the Seraphim Council had granted the word of War, you'd have a >point. But God did, as well. Did He? Or did Yves? That, I don't know. I just know.... >I mean, what were God's instructions way back when? That God didn't give either set of these instructions. The Metatron was killed by Lucifer first, and God's Voice among the Celestials was stilled. Yves did a lot of passing on of instructions afterward, but I don't know of a definite Voice of God appearance before his exoneration of Michael in the Trial -- which still caused Michael to leave his post as Commander of God's Armies. Michael saw the fighting start, knew Lucifer had killed the Metatron, and made his decision to *fight.* >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? I doubt she'd attack the Policeman. But I'm *sure* she'd scream to the boy to drop his gun, to give up, to turn back before it's too late. And if he didn't and the Policeman shot, she'd weep terribly. But right until the bullet had to be fired she would be trying, desperately, to get her boy back. >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. What if Lucifer Redeems? And what if, without that supreme self-deception on the part of the First Balseraph, demonic resonances, Words and Tethers disappear? What if the Princes are all Redeemed (or, admittedly, destroyed), and the rank and file of Hell must turn to another. What if the War is another experiment on the part of God and Lucifer, and the day that experiment ends, the Demons are redeemed en mass? What if there's a *miracle?* What if Free Will is an illusion? I think it's desperately limiting to assume that because humanity can't conceive of every last Demon choosing to Redeem, it's therefore impossible. And I don't think it changes the idealism of Novalis. It may, as you say, make it tragic -- but in a way that makes it all the more Selfless and noble. >>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. Agreed. >>>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? It's not my viewpoint. I'm not saying which one is right. >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. Right. We're officially circular, and I've gotten enough essence out of this argument. If you want their love affair, do it. It seems contrived to me, but heck. >"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." "A tree is patient, and a Gardner uses patience. Learning the methods of letting things grow, of seperating the beetles and weeds. Life endures, and rises, and grows. In the last several millenia, humanity has grown and flourished, and if they can still be barbaric and violent against each other, in the name of Selfishness, they can also come together and grow and build things. They can win their Cold War without nuclear weapons, but instead by bringing down the Wall that seperates them. If you don't see the human race reaching their hand up to the light, ever so slowly, then I'm sorry. But they're still there, and they're still reaching. If you'd put down the axe and spend time with them, you would see. "The demons, on the other hand, now have a numeric advantage. The direct method seems to have its problems." >"Semantics, shemantics. I don't care how you want to phrase it, >just so long as it gets *done*." And there, at its core, is why Novalis and Michael don't see eye to eye. >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. If we look at Final Trumpet as proof of this, then I have to point out the bit at the end suggesting that Marc and Lilith could be the Champions of Heaven and Hell instead of Michael and Baal, and that the Final Battle might not in fact be a battle, but a negotiation. Neener. >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. He was *what?* Give me a page reference for Michael's earlier Word, please. >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. I play Bright, High Contrast. I don't agree with your assumptions. In fact, your assumptions seem Mid Contrast to me, not Bright. If the point is the fighting, then the Demons may well could be right -- it is a struggle against oppression. Run your game as you wish, but *please* don't assume that if others don't, they're not thinking out of the box. This is a game with the potential for great interpretation. >>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*. That point I'll give you. However, I don't think a moment's resonating would begin to be enough to cause them to abandon those opposing viewpoints. >Kind of brings new meaning to the phrase "United under God", doesn't it? Depends on if the Symphony's Destiny is to fight Armaggedon and have the angels win, instead of having the people of the Symphony, Celestial, Corporeal and Ethereal, come together in Selflessness over Selfishness collectively. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:01:15 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Question: Given that there appears to be an incredible amount of interest in writing romance novels involving various Archangels, why are folks limiting their selections to combinations of those who currently favor masculine vessels with those who currently favor feminine vessels? Remember, folks - angels have no gender, and, even if they did, why limit their escapades to monogamous heterosexuality? Lessee... So let's add into the Laurence/Blandine/Beleth story a situation where Dominic is secretly pining for Laurence, to whom he transferred his affection when Uriel was taken into the higher heavens and Dominic was left to toil below. Then let's discover that the *real* reason Michael is so angry at Yves is that they were lovers, once, and Yves *still* wouldn't explain the whole Gabriel/Islam thing. While we're at it, Khalid truly burns with a deep, abiding love for Gabriel (peace be upon him) - which, of course, adds an even deeper undercurrent to his devotion to the Archangel of Fire. Of course, Gabriel and Janus have had their whirlwind romances from time to time, and then there's that old on-again-off-again thing that keeps happening with Marc and Jean... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:06:20 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band >*snicker* So is there a 'Dr. Frank N. Furter' etherial spirit in your >campaign? Only when I'm joking around, and not actually during play... My current campaign world is rapidly moving forward through a series of fairly short vignettes to bring the date up to the next time our gaming group flips back from the current fantasy game to In Nomine (David and I trade of GMing every six months or so, and just run one-shots between times). I'm not quite sure where I'd *put* Dr. Frank N. Furter in my IN/Cyberpunk-lite/Illuminati/Steve Perry world... Of course, I *could* always make him an apparition created by the group mind at various Rocky Horror showings... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:07:56 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Wrong Band >The question is, do you have to actually -wear- the >fishnets to invoke him? Heee heee hee. . . >*jumping to the left* > *snicker* So is there a 'Dr. Frank N. Furter' > etherial spirit in your > campaign? You guys are gonna *make* me find a place to fit him in, aren't you... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: sw@haven.eyrie.org Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract > Question: > > Given that there appears to be an incredible amount of interest in writing > romance novels involving various Archangels, why are folks limiting their > selections to combinations of those who currently favor masculine vessels > with those who currently favor feminine vessels? ...urk. > Lessee... So let's add into the Laurence/Blandine/Beleth story a situation > where Dominic is secretly pining for Laurence, to whom he transferred his > affection when Uriel was taken into the higher heavens and Dominic was left > to toil below. *BOOM* "Oh, great. His head exploded again. Get the brain-vac..." - --JT, curled up in the corner making "wibble" noises. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:16:08 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> IN/Rocky Horro [Was: Wrong Band] >The question is, do you have to actually -wear- the >fishnets to invoke him? Heee heee hee. . . > >*jumping to the left* > >Jenni >Yes. *And* the feather boa. (The bustier can be just slung rakishly over one >shoulder, if you've got the body for that...) >Think about it though... It's midnight, and a ritual is about to ensue. All >that *essence*! All that *worship*! I'm now going to have to create an entire pantheon from the movie, it would seem. Hm. I suspect I can conjure up a servitor of Nybbas to shelter 'em... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:41:25 -0700 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> Anti-Malakim > How would you do Anti-Malakim? (Fallen Malakim or a version of Hey David (The Other Other David)... Post your web-page with the Link... An absolutely smashing concept for what you're talking about. My thought for a campaign was to have one of these dark Malakim who would usher in the GOO's and bring about a far different Armageddon than everyone was expected... (ala the game of the same name...) The Other David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:20:39 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 4:28 PM Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract > At 4:55 PM +0000 7/28/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >>> > >>>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. > > If, after 22,000 years, the other guy hasn't managed to do grave harm > to that which you are trying to do so, it can't be objectively shown > he is capable of it. Say *WHAT*? The amount of harm that Lucifer's forces have managed to do the Earth in the meantime is *immense*. Only the constant vigilance of the Host on *all* fronts has kept it from being worse. >Rather the opposite. It becomes an excellent reason to try other methods as well. I'm sorry, this makes no sense. "We're stalemated as is right now on both fronts, so we should drop one?" Assuming that there are two fronts to the War -- Subtle and Head-Busting -- right now, the Host is stalemated on both. They drop all effort into either one and put it only into one, how they left themselves wide-open other one will eat their lunch before they can clean up. > >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. > > Yup. The guy's gun sucks, the guy's aim sucks, and while you can't > assume he's harmless he sure isn't a major danger, except maybe to > himself. Faulty logic. The only reason he's been missing before is because you've been actively concentrating on firing back at him and ducking what he throws. If, all of a sudden, you stopped fighting and turned away to do something else and gave him a free standing shot at the back of your head... > >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." > > You keep putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed that. You keep claiming that Novalis could be 100% right. If Novy were 100% right, there'd be no fighting. > You're the one claiming one of the two is right. And so are you. > Is it so hard to believe Novalis is idealistic -- to the point of martyrdom? Martyrdom for herself? Quite possibly. Martyrdom for *other people*? Only if she Falls. The road to Hell is paved with what? > >>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. > > That some of his followers strayed from Gandhi's path doesn't > invalidate Gandhi's path, or the idealism it portrays. It does, however, rack up another point for the idea that while Gandhi's path might be a beautiful dream, it don't work in real life. > >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. > > See, I agree with this, completely. So why are you saying Novalis > would give up? Or that *both* would? They have a mutual Hostility in > their writeups -- a respectful one, but it's there. They Do Not Agree. Excuse me? > Your moment of epiphany either has to have both of them moving away > from their core ethos to the center, or (more of what you're saying) > has to have Novalis come to her senses. The presumption here is that > Novalis's way is wrong. And now you be puttin' words in my mouth. *I* had them realize that *neither* of them is right All The Time. Sometimes, she is right. Sometimes, he is right. My vision of them has them acknowledging this and working together to maximize the # of times that Heaven *overall* is right -- i.e., to have Michael in charge when Michael is right and Novalis steering the tactics when Novalis's is right. Obviously, this cannot be done if Mike and Novy aren't talkign to each other on a regular basis. They still argue. They argue all the time. Each and every new situation is a case-by-case basis, with War and Flowers both beating their brains on it at the *same* planning table to figure out which approach would work better this time. And this is antithetical to neither of their Words. Michael would view it simply as another form of strategy session -- we're still doing what works, we're just exploring a slightly wider field of options as to what works. And Novalis would view it as a whole series of new chances to persuade Michael not to be violent... at least not this time. I mean, what's a better net gain for them both? To go on in their default writeups where they barely communicate at all, and therefore continually miss opportunities as one of them trips over a problem that the other one would have been best suited to solve? Or to pool their opportunities and go "This one's for War, this one's for Flowers, this one's a matter of debate..." Of course, this presupposes that they wouldn't lose more time in pointless arguing than they'd make up in lack of working accidentally at cross-purposes. But they *are* supposed to be several times more intelligent than us, and emotionally mature as well. > >>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. > > Um... no. > > Not by a long shot. > > In fact, Novalis had her Word (though not her Superior's rank) long > before Michael did. Michael was given his Word *after* the Fall. Fire > predated War too. So did a *lot* of Word-bound. Like Laughter. And > Love. And Light. And I believe Knowledge. Point. But counterpoint -- as soon as the Fall happened, God created a Word for War. This is a clear statement from Above -- "War is now necessary." > >If the Seraphim Council had granted the word of War, you'd have a > >point. But God did, as well. > > Did He? There are only two things that can grant a word to an angel -- God, and the Seraphim Council. IIRC, Michael's Word predates the Seraphim Council. Q.E.D. > Or did Yves? Yves cannot single-handedly grant a Word unless you subscribe to the interpretation that Yves *is* God, the whole shebang -- which brings us back to square one. > That, I don't know. I just know.... > > >I mean, what were God's instructions way back when? > > That God didn't give either set of these instructions. The Metatron > was killed by Lucifer first, and God's Voice among the Celestials was > stilled. Yves did a lot of passing on of instructions afterward, but > I don't know of a definite Voice of God appearance before his > exoneration of Michael in the Trial -- which still caused Michael to > leave his post as Commander of God's Armies. > > Michael saw the fighting start, knew Lucifer had killed the Metatron, > and made his decision to *fight.* As you point out, God is capable of speaking to his own even without the Metatron, although he does it far more infrequently. OTOH, if God didn't want his angels to fight back against the Fallen, then the first angel who picked up a rock would have heard a huge voice saying "DON'T DO THAT!" Unless, of course, you see the whole shebang as God stirring up the red ants and the black ants to go at it -- and if you'er doing that, you're running a way Darker campaign than any ones I have in mind, and where you set the brightness knob on your world is your choice and where I set in mine is mine.. > >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? > > I doubt she'd attack the Policeman. > > But I'm *sure* she'd scream to the boy to drop his gun, to give up, > to turn back before it's too late. And if he didn't and the Policeman > shot, she'd weep terribly. But right until the bullet had to be fired > she would be trying, desperately, to get her boy back. And nowhere in my writeup is Novalis not doing this. But she's also working with the police at their planning table every day, trying to drum up support for her anti-gang outreach campaigns to be used instead of anti-gang task forcse of roving cops while they simultaneously try to give her the whole list of social and people problems they've tripped over in the course of their patrols that could use a mother's touch instead of a nightstick upside the head... > >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. > > What if Lucifer Redeems? I subscribe to the theory that a lot of his Princes would wave bye-bye to him and then start scrabbling for the seat he left behind. > And what if, without that supreme self-deception on the part of the > First Balseraph, demonic resonances, Words and Tethers disappear? The Second Balseraph picks it up, even if at a lesser level? Hey, if it can be done once, it can be done twice... > What if the Princes are all Redeemed (or, admittedly, destroyed), and > the rank and file of Hell must turn to another. If they're destroyed, then Michael was right -- at least some of the time, you have to bust their skulls. > What if the War is another experiment on the part of God and Lucifer, > and the day that experiment ends, the Demons are redeemed en mass? > > What if there's a *miracle?* I can believe in the possibility a world where all the *surviving* demons Redeemed. I can't believe in one where Hell just suddenly gives up en masse. Read the front part of the Infernal Players Guide -- they *have* to win, because otherwise all of the Hell they've gone through is for absolutely nothing -- and most of them would rather die than admit that. > What if Free Will is an illusion? I believe that IN canon has free will not being an illusion. > I think it's desperately limiting to assume that because humanity > can't conceive of every last Demon choosing to Redeem, it's therefore > impossible. And I don't think it changes the idealism of Novalis. It > may, as you say, make it tragic -- but in a way that makes it all the > more Selfless and noble. There is a fine line between selflessness and patheticness, and I'd rather keep my Novy on the one side of the line. I don't hate Novalis enough to stick her with an entirely impractical set of ideals that can never, ever hope to be realized by anything less than the biggest Divine Intervention imaginable. That's too disappointing. I'd much rather try to keep her as idealistic as it can get -- yet still function *and succeed in* in an imperfect world. [snip] > >>>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? > > It's not my viewpoint. I'm not saying which one is right. Despite these protestations, I think everybody else reading this thread can figure out which side you prefer... > >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. > > Right. We're officially circular, and I've gotten enough essence out > of this argument. If you want their love affair, do it. It seems > contrived to me, but heck. On the contrary, the love affairs is far more likely than the official cooperation. Personal feelings don't give a damn about politics -- ever heard of James Carville and Mary Matalin? (Plus, the "Hill Street Blues" example somebody gave...) So long as they can keep their arguments *friendly* arguments, Novy and Mike could agree on not one single damned thing related to their jobs yet still enjoy the pleasure of each other's company in their off hours. I just realized that I didn't have to limit them to that either. > >"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." > > "A tree is patient, and a Gardner uses patience. Learning the methods > of letting things grow, of seperating the beetles and weeds. Life > endures, and rises, and grows. In the last several millenia, humanity > has grown and flourished, and if they can still be barbaric and > violent against each other, in the name of Selfishness, they can also > come together and grow and build things. They can win their Cold War > without nuclear weapons, but instead by bringing down the Wall that > seperates them. If you don't see the human race reaching their hand > up to the light, ever so slowly, then I'm sorry. But they're still > there, and they're still reaching. If you'd put down the axe and > spend time with them, you would see. "A gardener who plants her seeds in the path of a hurricane without setting up a windbreak is living in a dream world." > "The demons, on the other hand, now have a numeric advantage. The > direct method seems to have its problems." > > >"Semantics, shemantics. I don't care how you want to phrase it, > >just so long as it gets *done*." > > And there, at its core, is why Novalis and Michael don't see eye to eye. Why, because they're too busy quibbling over terminology to admit to themselves that they both want the same thing and can actually help each other (at least a *little*) to get it *without* either of them having to violate their core ethos? This rendition has the Archangels as less mature than the average high school clique, and I'm not turning the brightness knob in my campaign to that setting either. Other people can do what they want. > >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. > > If we look at Final Trumpet as proof of this, then I have to point > out the bit at the end suggesting that Marc and Lilith could be the > Champions of Heaven and Hell instead of Michael and Baal, and that > the Final Battle might not in fact be a battle, but a negotiation. > > Neener. But it *wasn't* the final battle -- 'cause that *wasn't supposed to be Armageddon*, that was a False Armageddon, as the "return to the status quo" agreement that Lilith and Marc negotiated explicitly admitted. 'Somebody deliberately set it off early with a false premise, let's go back to the stalemate and wait for the real one.' 'OK, Lilith'. Neener neener. :-) > >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. > > He was *what?* > > Give me a page reference for Michael's earlier Word, please. Superiors 1, p. 107 "Michael was the first-formed of the Angels, the oldest of beings after Yves; the oldest and the one who has seen the most. He was formed for War, and serves it with all his heart. From the beginning, he engaged in competition with the other angels, for while they all served as they were ordered by God, his was the essence of competition and challenge. From when the Fall split the universe asunder, to now in the present day, he still maintains the principle of War." This is where I think our misunderstanding lies. War *can* find common ground with Flowers -- because War, as Michael's Word has it, *is not all about Battle*. Michael encompasses *all* forms of competition, from violent to non-violent, from friendly to all-out-nuclear-holocaust. Michael's word is "War" -- not "The War", not "Battle", not anything so limited. When two kids run a footrace against each other, that's War. War games, wrestling matches, even *political debates*... all of are War. Some overlap with other words as well, but they are also War. There is nothing in Michael's Word that requires him to shun non-violent solutions to problems. It's just that his current immediate task (defining the last 22,000 years as "immediate") is to act aganist the physical, overt violence of Hell. He is the best suited to carry Heaven's banner in battle, so he hauls it. Michael goes where he's needed. And yes, he really likes a good honest batle, admitted. But he also likes a good friendly argument. Or an arm-wrestling match. Or a drinking contest. It's just that he doesn't have time for friendly pursuits much recently, there's a War on that he never made but that God wants him to win. > >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. > > I play Bright, High Contrast. > > I don't agree with your assumptions. > > In fact, your assumptions seem Mid Contrast to me, not Bright. If the > point is the fighting, then the Demons may well could be right -- it > is a struggle against oppression. Don't put words in *my* mouth. The point is keeping the demons from eating Humanity. The *problem* is is that purely non-violent methods are (to put it *charitably*) massively unlikely in doing so. Ergo, *somebody* in the forces of Heaven must be the fighter, just as surely as somebody must be the caregiver and peacemaker. Better that you should not need warriors at all. But if you must have warriors, then it is an act of *kindness* to have the best, strongest, swiftest, and smartest ones you possibly can -- so that the War ends that much sooner, instead of dragging out even one second longer than it has to. > Run your game as you wish, but *please* don't assume that if others > don't, they're not thinking out of the box. This is a game with the > potential for great interpretation. Yeah, except for mine, which according to you are mostly bogus, right? :-) > >>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*. > > That point I'll give you. > > However, I don't think a moment's resonating would begin to be enough > to cause them to abandon those opposing viewpoints. They never did. Understand this -- *they have never abandoned their viewpoints*. The sole thing they've done is learn that even though the other person is not like them at all, they are still worthy of respect. I have them respecting each other enough to listen to each other attentively whenever the other has something to say. I *don't* have them all suddenly agreeing with each other's philosophy. > >Kind of brings new meaning to the phrase "United under God", doesn't it? > > Depends on if the Symphony's Destiny is to fight Armaggedon and have > the angels win, instead of having the people of the Symphony, > Celestial, Corporeal and Ethereal, come together in Selflessness over > Selfishness collectively. Nope, doesn't matter either way. Irregardless of what the Destiny, if you postulate Archangels that can *never* find common ground and/or ways of living together even though they don't agree, then you are postulating a Heaven that will never be free of factions, of divisiveness, of etc. I don't want one of those. If you do, have at it, but I'll enjoy hearing about it as little as you're apparently enjoying hearing about mine. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1742 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.