From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 31 16:34:14 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 QAA08178 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:34:13 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA01673 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:32:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:32:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200007312132.QAA01673@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 #1748 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 Monday, July 31 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1748 In this digest: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> Celestial Poisons Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> What's up? IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> Celestial Poisons Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> What's up? IN> Romance: A fresh take on an old affair. Fwd: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) IN> My opinion of Novalis and violence... Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) RE: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites A ttract) Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:12:47 -0500 From: Christopher Gerkey Subject: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > From: Charles Glasgow [mailto:cglasgow@hotmail.com] > > What if Michael doesn't get along with her because he knows > > what an incredibly powerful warrior she would be if she > > wasn't so committed to peace? > > Then you are using a non-canonical writeup of Michael that > has him capable of that petty a form of jealousy. You misunderstand. He wouldn't be jealous, he would be very disappointed. "Why aren't you using your God-given abilities in a more effective way? With your help we could *win*." > > As you point out, she's an archangel, a different order of > > being. And she's devoted her existence to defensive and > > healing power. That strikes me as a being that would be > > very hard to kill. > > ... by anything short of a Demon Prince. Or several. I imagine several Demon Princes working in tandem could take out just about any individual Archangel caught unawares (for Oannes it only took one). Given that, why is Novalis still alive? Given that Novalis probably has a "I'm weak, please come kill me" stamp on her forehead in the eyes of most demons, why wasn't she butchered eons ago? She's smart and tough. I wouldn't doubt that she's tougher than Zadkiel, who is supposed to *define* durability. She's just much too modest to crow about it. ^_^ Topher ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:21:38 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract From: "Jo Hart" > > She's a superior. Give her and her word some credit. We do. We also give her writeup some credit when it mentions that, if forced, she will take action. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:27:57 -0500 (CDT) From: edg@pyramid.sjgames.com Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jo Hart wrote: > Look, it's entirely possible that Novalis can direct an achingly warm smile > at a demon prince ... and he'll put down his sword and walk away, weeping. > (Like her seraph attunement, but moreso -- she might be just as good at > getting people to stop fighting at Baal is at getting them to start.) Am I misremembering, or is it canon that Superiors can use any attunement that they can give out? (Or is this just Servitor attunements? Not that it matters much; I don't think Seraphim of Flowers is restricted.) Do Word Forces count for the penalty to Will in the Seraphim of Flowers attunement? - -EDG is Hardcore Peace valid? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:33:45 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Gerkey" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:12 PM Subject: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > > From: Charles Glasgow [mailto:cglasgow@hotmail.com] > > > > What if Michael doesn't get along with her because he knows > > > what an incredibly powerful warrior she would be if she > > > wasn't so committed to peace? > > > > Then you are using a non-canonical writeup of Michael that > > has him capable of that petty a form of jealousy. > > You misunderstand. He wouldn't be jealous, he would be very > disappointed. "Why aren't you using your God-given abilities > in a more effective way? With your help we could *win*." This is supported by the canon writeup of Michael and Novalis -- his opinion of her *is* that she doesn't use her full potential. However, while I am the first person to argue that Novy is no wimp, I am the last person to argue that she's either indestructible *or* totally incapable of violence regardless of provocation. > > > As you point out, she's an archangel, a different order of > > > being. And she's devoted her existence to defensive and > > > healing power. That strikes me as a being that would be > > > very hard to kill. > > > > ... by anything short of a Demon Prince. Or several. > > I imagine several Demon Princes working in tandem could take > out just about any individual Archangel caught unawares > (for Oannes it only took one). Given that, why is Novalis > still alive? Given that Novalis probably has a "I'm weak, > please come kill me" stamp on her forehead in the eyes of > most demons, why wasn't she butchered eons ago? Because she *doesn't*. This is the precise argument that I have been using all along as to why Novalis *can't* be a total pacifist -- because she *will* fight if backed into a corner, and the opposition knows it. IOW, there is *not* such a sign on her forehead. (Then again, there could also be a sign out on her forehead -- "Sure, you can take her. And then tomorrow, Michael, Laurence, David, Gabriel, and Janus will put aside *all* differences, no matter what they are, for the duration it takes to rip your head off your neck and grind your Heart to a paste. Touch Novalis and you will be at center stage for the First Open Invitational Archangel Gang-Stomp. 'Nuff Said.") > She's smart and tough. I wouldn't doubt that she's tougher > than Zadkiel, who is supposed to *define* durability. I thought David was supposed to define durability... :-) > She's just much too modest to crow about it. ^_^ Modest is her middle name, on that much we can agree. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:49:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) At 11:39 AM -0700 7/31/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>From: "Eeyore" >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Charles Glasgow >>You can play your Flowers however you like, but mine (actually a Creationer >>in Service to Flowers, but she has the zeal of a convert) is pretty close >>to a total pacifist. As Rachel sees it, except in those rare circumstances >>when she adopts celestial form, what's the worst that a demon can possibly >>do to her? Put her into trauma. That'd suck, but she'll make it back. > >True, but your *Archangel* does not have the luxury of spending weeks >staring at her Heart over and over again... the organization can go on >without you for a while, but it's a lot harder to deal with without her. Maybe Novalis has a "disorganized" organization. Specifically to manage this... O:> (Canon? I don't _think_ so at the moment, though I think her "disorganization" is at least implicit in some Superior Opinion comments. I'm just tossing ideas there. Subsequent comments, however, are very likely to be canon.) >(Also, any Demon Prince that's going to take on an Archangel at all is darn >sure going to go for the soul-kill, not just the corporeal death. I mean, >if you're going to take on that big a headache in the first place you may as >well *finish* it.) This _does_ presume that the Superior in question _goes_ celestial. If your enemy will not fight on the turf that favors you, well... tough! And that _is_ pretty much canon. Oh, yeah, and most Superiors have the option of running away. >[snip argument based on how Flowers *Servitors* should act -- 'cause >nobody's disputing that. What we're discussing is whether or not our >Archangel Do note that this is not a case where there _MUST_ be consensus. It is perfectly fine to sigh and agree to disagree. Indeed, when a thread goes on THIS BLOODY LONG, I am inclined to make a List Admin nudge that perhaps it _should_ be time to agree to disagree... >>The analogy breaks down. Your equivalent of the British aren't in charge. >>It's the attitude of your *Indians* that's important. > >Eh? Pardon? I think he's saying, "It doesn't matter what the demons do. If the _humans_ who see it turn to selflessness, then We Win, Neener, Neener!" It's not necessarily Force of Arms that will win the War. Humanity plays a role, and if a human can be turned to selflessness by a sacrifice, then Hell has lost that human as a power source, and Lucifer gets another subtle wound as it's proven (in the most contaminated experiement of all) that a human _can_ choose destiny. But I could be wrong about what he's saying. And it's a campaign thing. Humans are important, but only as important as each GM makes them. It's up to the GM to make humanity the most important part in the War, and it's perfectly possible to play IN as "Supers With Wings" if you want and just chuck the Free Will and Humanity aspect of things out the window. >Ergo, >if she is written as incapable of violence even in the last extremis of >self-defense, Which, EVERYONE WHO READS HER MAINBOOK WRITEUP WILL NOTE, is not the case. Nor is it GOING to be the case. Here, everyone involved in this Novalis thing, go read: http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html . Now. Go on, the list will wait. There. That's pretty darn close to what _I_ consider a Flowers Servitor, and I would see Novalis mirrored in that. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:34:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Poisons Elizabeth McCoy wrote, concerning celestial chocolate: > Don't try slipping it into a demon's lasagna, though -- the > intense odor is, to diabolical senses, as vile as Shedite slime! Is there perhaps a resemblance between the odor of celestial chocolate and the Odor of Sanctity that I made up a few months ago as an attribute of some Saints? I am reminded of the following, read somewhere: In the beginning, God created chocolate, and saw that it was good. Then He separated the light from the dark, and saw that it was better. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:37:30 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Hart" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:16 PM Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract > >True, but your *Archangel* does not have the luxury of spending weeks > >staring at her Heart over and over again... > Look, it's entirely possible that Novalis can direct an achingly warm smile > at a demon prince ... and he'll put down his sword and walk away, weeping. > (Like her seraph attunement, but moreso -- she might be just as good at > getting people to stop fighting at Baal is at getting them to start.) Now let's see her do it to several at once. (Especially given that Kronos and Baal are supposed to be tougher than anybody save Michael and Yves.) > She's a superior. Give her and her word some credit. I do. > What if Flowers really is as powerful a Word as War? Power is one thing, area of application is another. Granted that Flowers can be as powerful a Word as War, this still does not mean that Flowers alone can win the War between Heaven and Hell. I always leaned on the philosophy that if one Word could do the job, God would only have made the one Word. All those Words exist because all of them are necessary. > That's how I would see it. And if a human being can be a pacifist, how much more can an archangel? As I said, a human being can be a pacifist even unto the most bitter, ultimate extreme... because they can afford to die for the cause. Novalis can't. There must be *some* point at which she will turn and fight, or else she'd already be dead, Word and attunements included. Either that, or she's lived this long only because of the protection that her fellow Archangels can give her -- which makes her a net liability to Heaven in at least one respect, which is the absolute last thing I wanna do to Novalis. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:42:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> What's up? BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > Here's something I'm curious about. What the hell has Eli been > up to? Does he have a secret plan? Or is he just out having fun? My own general idea is that Eli's off on a Secret Mission from God. We tend to think of Yves and Gabriel as the Archangels with the closest contact to God, but surely Eli at least USED to work hand in hand with the Almighty. There was some theological sense to the list speculations that identified him with Jesus. Anyway, I think Eli's off on a Secret Mission from God, creating things in preparation for Armageddon. These could be militant, such as the giant locusts who punish the wicked (vessels for Gabrielites?), or lion-headed horses ridden by scourging celestial soldiers, or the chain fated to bind Lucifer for a thousand years. Or they could be stuff for the new creation that follows Armageddon, e.g. the Trees of Life, with fruit and leaves that grant immortality and healing, or the whole city of New Jerusalem that is to descend from Heaven to Earth. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:03:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) At 2:56 PM -0500 7/31/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Gerkey" >> What if Novalis can't be mulched? > >Then she's tougher than Legion and Raphael put together. Five Words: Seraph of Flowers Peace Aura. Who thinks Novalis _doesn't_ have it, suitably Superior-boosted? (Would it work against Baal? Why, it just might! That falls into the "GM Decision on ranking Superiors" as found in the GMG...) >Then you are using a non-canonical writeup of Michael that has him capable >of that petty a form of jealousy. Also note, re Michael, that he _still_ calls Dominic "hyena" -- it won't break canon to have him be snarky about things. (Nor would it break the other way. Heh.) Me, I always figured he gets snarky in part because her Peace Aura _does_ mess with him..... O:> Canon? Nah -- just my take. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:48:45 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract >Novalis can't. There must be *some* point at which she will turn and >fight, or else she'd already be dead, Word and attunements included. > Her form of fighting doesn't involve violence. The real war takes place inside human hearts and souls -- even if she was cornered on earth by several demon princes, she could call for help or simply leave -- just as any other archangel could. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:05:25 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Poisons At 4:34 PM -0500 7/31/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote, concerning celestial chocolate: > >> Don't try slipping it into a demon's lasagna, though -- the >> intense odor is, to diabolical senses, as vile as Shedite slime! > >Is there perhaps a resemblance between the odor of celestial >chocolate and the Odor of Sanctity that I made up a few months >ago as an attribute of some Saints? Could be, though the properties of CelChocolate were quasi-established a few months after the IN main book was published... O:> - --Beth, typing w/a baby (iolanthe) on her chest. Vapitalizatoin & spelling difficult, typing w/1 hand & supporting baby w/other. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:53:06 -0700 (PDT) From: sw@haven.eyrie.org Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > >[snip argument based on how Flowers *Servitors* should act -- 'cause > >nobody's disputing that. What we're discussing is whether or not our > >Archangel > > Do note that this is not a case where there _MUST_ be consensus. It > is perfectly fine to sigh and agree to disagree. Indeed, when a thread > goes on THIS BLOODY LONG, I am inclined to make a List Admin nudge that > perhaps it _should_ be time to agree to disagree... Oh, c'mon. This is great entertainment. Just think of the image we're presenting to new listies. Just think of all the servitors of Malphas and Kobal who are sidling around in the corners, snickering. Will no-one think of the poor demons?! - --JT Free Lilim Temping With Factions "How much is it worth to you to have every participant in this discussion tracked down and gently but firmly slapped about the head?" "Oh, c'mon. It'll be fun." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:57:34 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> What's up? BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > Here's something I'm curious about. What the hell has Eli been > up to? Does he have a secret plan? Or is he just out having fun? What I'm thinking that Eli was thinking... - ------ "We're missing something. We're stalemated on both fronts, war *and* peace. And Hell keeps creeping forward every decade. We need a new approach, we need something new, we need something *creative*. But I can't *think* of anything. I don't have the *time*. I'm too busy *administrating*. And even if I had the time, I don't have the *knowledge*. So heck with it, I am *out* of here. I'm going to go walk the mortal realms. I'm going to live with them, live *like* them. I'm going to positively *wallow* in humanity Humanity's the key to the solution, I'm sure of it. And I need to understand them, to *be* them. Even the Mercurians don't understand them well enough... not from the *inside*, although they do a good job from the outside. And the Choir that did understand them from the inside, from deep down in the gut... well, we Outcast 'em all long ago. That's why I'm not telling anybody else -- especially not Dominic, he would *never* understand -- what I'm up to or where I'm going. And that's why I've got to find the last of the Grigori. And find some humanity for myself. Catch you later, guys." - ------ - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:58:57 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: IN> Romance: A fresh take on an old affair. http://www.phargle.com/beleth.html With all this talk of odd romances and the usual Laurence/pickyourchick trysts, I figured I'd resurrect an old reversal. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:11:28 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Admin request of type /\b u n s u b s c r i b e \b/i at line 1 >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:08:11 -0400 >From: Whistling in the Dark >Subject: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) >Cc: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >You know something? I think it's time to u n s u b s c r i b e. > >Not because In Nomine has stopped being a fun game. It hasn't. It's a >good game and a good world, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. > >Not because the people on this list are bad. They're not. There are a >lot of amazingly intelligent, broadly diverse people on this list. >They make a good game, In Nomine, demonstratably superior. > >But still, it's time to say goodnight. Somewhere, somehow, people >started getting dogmatic -- to the point that even saying "but there >may be more than one interpretation" becomes a point of attack. (And, >as has been so eloquently stated, 'annoying.') > >Case in point. Jo's entry: > >At 4:44 PM +0000 7/31/00, Jo Hart wrote: >> >> >>> >>>But her writeup DOES state that she will show her thorns, if pressed too >>>far. >>> >> >> >>I just don't see the big deal in allowing just one of the superiors >>to be a committed pacifist. I don't remember Gandhi calling on his >>followers to take up arms and neither will Novalis, regardless of >>what venus fly traps do. > >This is a textbook case of a reasonable, intelligent person making a >reasonable, intelligent point. In fact, it's a point that >subtextually highlights one of the real strengths of In Nomine -- the >answers aren't simple. There is room for the Militant and for the >Pacifist in In Nomine's Heaven. > >Leading to ChuckG's response: >At 5:16 PM +0000 7/31/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>Because it pastes a very large bullseye on her head? Right >>alongside the blinking neon sign saying "DEMONS, PLEASE TAKE >>ADVANTAGE OF MY GOOD NATURE FOR ALL YOU'RE WORTH"? >> >>As I see it, in In Nomine there is no such thing as "out of the war zone". >>The War spans Heaven, Hell, and all points in between. There is >>"on the front lines" and "further away from the front lines", but >>there is no such things as "outside the War". >> >>And a 100% committed pacifist caught inside a war zone has the life >>expectancy of a hamster on an Interstate highway. > >The problem with the above is it has no room for interpretation, for >multiple viewpoints. It takes an *assumption* about the War between >Heaven and Hell (that being that the military side of the War is the >significant side -- the 'point,' if you will) and states it as a >fact, in relatively high emotional index language. > >Now, my immediate thought was to respond, saying "but you're >interpreting the War that way. The existence of a Pacifist in Heaven >leads to the possibility that the War may be more complex than >missiles and Smiting." And leaving it at that. > >But the moment I started, I worried that I'd either get called for >being dogmatic myself (when my point is decidedly undogmatic), called >a pacifist myself (which I am not, not confusing In Nomine with >reality), or in fact annoying people with my response. > >Which is another way of saying that the fun of the list -- debating >actual honest theological points, discussing the psychology of these >lovable lunatics we call Celestials, kicking around Word theory and >generally having fun with this game (which is the *point* of a game, >after all) has been leeched out of it, for me at least. > >And if it's not fun, whatever is the point? > >I'm not blaming Chuck, per se, and I hope he doesn't interpret this >that way. I'm not blaming anyone. Except, perhaps, myself -- and I >certainly don't claim my own list conduct has been particularly good. > >I'm also not forswearing In Nomine, this list, or anyone on this >list, shaking my fist and ranting "you'll all be sorry when I'm >gone!!!" In point of fact, I doubt anyone will much notice, and they >shouldn't. Nor am I saying I won't magically reappear somewhere along >the line, with this e-mail never being referred to again. Maybe this >is a sabbatical. Or maybe it's not. I don't know. > >But, I didn't feel right just ejecting without explaining why, >thanking everyone for a couple of years worth of real fun and >provoked thought, and saying goodbye. I apologize for the indulgence, >and thank you for reading this far if you have, and wish you all a >good day. >-- >Eric Alfred Burns - > >Habbalite of Belaboring the Point > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:04:08 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ---- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:49 PM Subject: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: how long the thread is going -- yes, we are starting to repeat ourselves at wearying length. Admitted. Of course, it doesn't help that some of the advocates on the other side of the debate (*not* including you) have been so passionately arguing against what they thought I was saying that they haven't addressed what I've been saying. [snip] > >>The analogy breaks down. Your equivalent of the British aren't in charge. > >>It's the attitude of your *Indians* that's important. > > > >Eh? Pardon? > > I think he's saying, "It doesn't matter what the demons do. If the > _humans_ who see it turn to selflessness, then We Win, Neener, Neener!" > It's not necessarily Force of Arms that will win the War. Humanity > plays a role, and if a human can be turned to selflessness by a > sacrifice, then Hell has lost that human as a power source, and > Lucifer gets another subtle wound as it's proven (in the most > contaminated experiement of all) that a human _can_ choose destiny. > > But I could be wrong about what he's saying. Well, true. Of course, the more humans the demons can turn to selfishness, the more Hell wins -- and if nobody were stopping the demons, or stopping them only one-tenth as often, then a whole lot more humans would be successfully turned to selfishness... So again, we arrive back at "Somebody's got to beat them pesky demons off." Somebody's got to do the *other* jobs, too... but somebody's also got to beat them pesky demons off. [snip] > >Ergo, if she is written as incapable of violence even in the last extremis of > >self-defense, > > Which, EVERYONE WHO READS HER MAINBOOK WRITEUP WILL NOTE, is not the > case. In which case, at least two people in this therad have not read her mainbook writeup... or if they have read it, ignored it. > Nor is it GOING to be the case. Here, everyone involved in this > Novalis thing, go read: > http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html . Now. Go on, the > list will wait. There. That's pretty darn close to what _I_ consider > a Flowers Servitor, and I would see Novalis mirrored in that. Funny thing is, that's how I saw Flowers servitors too. Oh, and re: Aura of Peace as to why Novalis doesn't feel the need to get violent -- works for her, doesn't work for the people the demons are ripping up after she leaves. The trouble with Aura of Peace is that it's so *temporary*... - -- chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:16:03 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: IN> My opinion of Novalis and violence... This is one debate that's been raging for days in the Mailing List: Is Novalis a 100% total pacifist, or is she truly capable of using violence when all else fails? My answer: Neither, and both. Let me explain: I think Novalis, by the virtue of her word, is the Celestial equivalent of a Tai Chi Chu'an or Aikido Master. The true masters of those arts are non-aggressive pacifists, and the bulk of their fighting techniques involve redirecting the blows of their enemies, using their foes' own energy to counteract their attacks, thereby weakening them effortlessly. Think Mr Miyagi in the Karate Kid series. Novalis, and the word of Flowers, should fight like that: it's a non aggressive word, that's very defensive; you try to grab a rose, you sting yourself on it's thorns, and back off. You can rip a dandilion out of the ground, but it's roots remain to make a new stem. Given time, plantlife can covert stone to soil, and create life where none exists. That is how Novalis should be portrayed. Even when confronted directly, even when threatened, her fighting should be defensive, absorbing her foe's attacks and redirecting it against him, or diverting his blows while she tires him out. She'll also try reasoning with him, even if only to distract him and confuse him. The "talk them out of the attack" technique might not be extremly effective against the likes of Baal or Saminga, but she might at least rattle Belial of Kobal's cages with a few good verbal strikes. Ex: "You're just doing this to get at Gabriel, aren't you? Do you think she'll just let you go after killing me? I'm just trying to talk you out of making a big mistake..." Of course, the princes she does this to might eventually just shrug, say "Ah, you're not worth it", and then run off... Which, of course, is what Novalis was going for the whole time. That's just my opinion, though. - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:20:57 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >Ergo, > >if she is written as incapable of violence even in the last extremis of > >self-defense, > > Which, EVERYONE WHO READS HER MAINBOOK WRITEUP WILL NOTE, is not the > case. Nor is it GOING to be the case. Here, everyone involved in this > Novalis thing, go read: > http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html . Now. Go on, the > list will wait. There. That's pretty darn close to what _I_ consider > a Flowers Servitor, and I would see Novalis mirrored in that. Total agreement. Novalis loves peace. It's what she does. But remember that no choice is also a choice. You try to convert, to pacify, to cousel, but sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes you don't have the TIME to do what would otherwise be possible. In those cases, you gird your loins, make the best choice for peace as a whole and cry your tears later. "In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace." -Sun Tzu The thing is that peace is a GOAL of Flowers, not the MEANS to that end! I play a Malakite of Flowers who totally confuses people. First as a Malakite that doesn't immediately smite first and ask questions later. Then as a servitor of Flowers who, with grim determination at times, will make sure that someone is very, very dead as necessary. Makes for a fun character! - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:22:17 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Christopher Gerkey wrote: > She's smart and tough. I wouldn't doubt that she's tougher > than Zadkiel, who is supposed to *define* durability. She's > just much too modest to crow about it. ^_^ She has a very powerful Word. Plants are, literally, everywhere. Sure you get a forest fire here or there, but the greenery always comes back. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:33:50 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Charles Glasgow wrote: > Re: how long the thread is going -- yes, we are starting to repeat ourselves > at wearying length. Admitted. Of course, it doesn't help that some of the > advocates on the other side of the debate (*not* including you) have been so > passionately arguing against what they thought I was saying that they > haven't addressed what I've been saying. Actually, while I agree with your position, I think you're the one being the most annoying and dogmatic. It's fine to say "I don't think Novalis would be a total pacifist," but don't tell other people who might like to interpret her that way that they're objectively wrong. This whole thing reminds me of your David Brin/Star Wars/Star Trek rant on the Pyramid boards, and the reason why I mostly ignore your posts during playtests. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:22:30 -0500 From: Christopher Gerkey Subject: RE: IN> Novalis: Tough Old Broad? (Was: IN Romance -- Opposites A ttract) > From: John Karakash [mailto:jkarakash@dg-rtp.dg.com] > > She's smart and tough. I wouldn't doubt that she's tougher > > than Zadkiel, who is supposed to *define* durability. She's > > just much too modest to crow about it. ^_^ > > She has a very powerful Word. Plants are, literally, > everywhere. Sure you get a forest fire here or there, but the > greenery always comes back. Argh. I'm *so* tempted to write a short Belial-tries-to-toast-Novalis "fight scene" now. Topher ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:32:15 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:08:11 -0400 >From: Whistling in the Dark >Subject: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) >Cc: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >You know something? I think it's time to u n s u b s c r i b e. > >Not because In Nomine has stopped being a fun game. It hasn't. It's a >good game and a good world, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. > >Not because the people on this list are bad. They're not. There are a >lot of amazingly intelligent, broadly diverse people on this list. >They make a good game, In Nomine, demonstratably superior. > >But still, it's time to say goodnight. Somewhere, somehow, people >started getting dogmatic -- to the point that even saying "but there >may be more than one interpretation" becomes a point of attack. (And, >as has been so eloquently stated, 'annoying.') >Case in point. Jo's entry: > >At 4:44 PM +0000 7/31/00, Jo Hart wrote: >> >> >>> >>>But her writeup DOES state that she will show her thorns, if pressed too >>>far. >>> >> >> >>I just don't see the big deal in allowing just one of the superiors >>to be a committed pacifist. I don't remember Gandhi calling on his >>followers to take up arms and neither will Novalis, regardless of >>what venus fly traps do. >This is a textbook case of a reasonable, intelligent person making a >reasonable, intelligent point. In fact, it's a point that >subtextually highlights one of the real strengths of In Nomine -- the >answers aren't simple. There is room for the Militant and for the >Pacifist in In Nomine's Heaven. Pity you've unsubscribed, 'cause now you won't get to hear me repeating -- for only the fifth or sixth time -- that not only do I agree with this, but that it's one of the core things I've based my entire argument on. >Leading to ChuckG's response: >At 5:16 PM +0000 7/31/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >>Because it pastes a very large bullseye on her head? Right >>alongside the blinking neon sign saying "DEMONS, PLEASE TAKE >>ADVANTAGE OF MY GOOD NATURE FOR ALL YOU'RE WORTH"? >> >>As I see it, in In Nomine there is no such thing as "out of the war zone". >>The War spans Heaven, Hell, and all points in between. There is >>"on the front lines" and "further away from the front lines", but >>there is no such things as "outside the War". >> >>And a 100% committed pacifist caught inside a war zone has the life >>expectancy of a hamster on an Interstate highway. >The problem with the above is it has no room for interpretation, for >multiple viewpoints. Of course it doesn't. It's a series of assertions of *fact*, not opinion. As with all assertions of fact, it can be either agreed with or disagreed with, proven or disproven -- but it can't be equivocated. Facts *are*. They are either right or they are wrong, but they are never both at once. Something that is capable of being both at once is not a fact by definition. I have often noted on Internet discussions of all types that there seems to be some kind of meme out there that *everything* is just a matter of interpretation. Not so. Not everything is. Some things are definite irregardless of the feelings of either side. And one of those definite things is -- in the presence of an entity ready, able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence, you have only three choices -- fight back, run, or die. This is *not* subject to debate, anymore than "If you jump out of a tenth-story window and can't fly, the impact with the ground is going to break many important pieces of your skeleton." is subject to debate. > It takes an *assumption* about the War between >Heaven and Hell (that being that the military side of the War is the >significant side -- the 'point,' if you will) You find dogmatism annoying. I find people who don't listen annoying. Because, now as always, you are arguing against arguments that I have not made. Here's some quotes from my prior e-mails: - ----- "Where their epiphany lies is in the realization that they both have 'the best way to get there' -- neither all-out violence *or* total pacifism will win the War against Hell, because Hell is fighting on multiple fronts. ("No one single strategy", remember? Lucifer's policy?) One front requires the axe, and the other requires the flowers." - ----- "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." - ----- "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. - ----- "But Michael does not want every Archangel to be like him." - ----- "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 [on the[ other one will eat their lunch before they can clean up." [note -- kindly note that the way this is phrased, it doesn't matter *which* one they drop. They drop the peace front and go all-out on head-busting, they lose. They drop the head-busting front and go all-out on peace, they lose. *Both* are significant.] Etc, etc. If anyone can find *one single sentence* where I say that the conflict side is the *significant* side of the War, e-mail me so I can give you my snail-mail address, so that you can send me the printout, so that I can eat it -- without salt. So you are, yet again, objecting to an argument that I ever made. If that frustrated you enough that you have to leave, then I regret that. I have said, and will say again, that both sides of the War are necessary. I have never said that one was more necessary than the other, only that the Host could not hope to live without either of them. Can we resolve this misunderstanding now? > and states it as a fact, That's because it was one. > in relatively high emotional index language. Irrelevant. >Now, my immediate thought was to respond, saying "but you're >interpreting the War that way. The existence of a Pacifist in Heaven >leads to the possibility that the War may be more complex than >missiles and Smiting." And leaving it at that. *sigh* Again, I have never disputed this for a moment. Why does he consistently refuse to acknowledge that? >But the moment I started, I worried that I'd either get called for >being dogmatic myself (when my point is decidedly undogmatic), called >a pacifist myself (which I am not, not confusing In Nomine with >reality), or in fact annoying people with my response. Well, you have not been called dogmatic, or a pacifist, and you won't be. At least not by me. You are, however, beginning to annoy me, because consistently being misinterpreted and taken out of context does that to me. Now that I have -- for what I estimate to be the *seventh* time -- explicitly stated and *shown* that my opinion on this topic is not quite what you claim that it is, would you consider changing your mind about leaving? >Which is another way of saying that the fun of the list -- debating >actual honest theological points, discussing the psychology of these >lovable lunatics we call Celestials, kicking around Word theory and >generally having fun with this game (which is the *point* of a game, >after all) has been leeched out of it, for me at least. > >And if it's not fun, whatever is the point? > >I'm not blaming Chuck, per se, and I hope he doesn't interpret this >that way. Actually, I'm going Elohite about this -- I'm not taking it personally, I'm just bound and determined to outline exactly where your argument is wrong. 'Cause it is. Especially the parts that are about what I was supposedly saying. [snip] >But, I didn't feel right just ejecting without explaining why, >thanking everyone for a couple of years worth of real fun and >provoked thought, and saying goodbye. I apologize for the indulgence, >and thank you for reading this far if you have, and wish you all a >good day. Sorry to hear that. It is *not* comforting to think that within 48 hours of joining a list, somebody else has left it 'cause he didn't want to hear me talk. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1748 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.