From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 26 17:42:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA14201; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:40:45 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA20257 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:44:05 -0600 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:44:05 -0600 Message-Id: <199702262344.RAA20257@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 #43 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 Wednesday, February 26 1997 Volume 01 : Number 043 In this digest: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Nergal IN> Cheese Products Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Cheese Products IN> Character sheets Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality IN> A Question of Cool IN> [Off-Topic] Gilligan IN> Ad Hominem = Bad (was A Question of Cool) Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> Character sheets Re: IN> First post Re: IN> First post Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Coolness ;) Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> First Questions IN> More Malakite Oaths... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:24:35 -0500 From: "Scott L. Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality At 01:06 PM 2/25/97 -0500, HarlinHirs@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-02-24 20:29:07 EST, you write: > ><< > Comments and critique are, of course, deeply loved. > > yours, > -J > >> > >I'm not too sure about pre-Fall politics, but we do know for a fact that >Beleth and Blandine were lovers before Beleth chose to follow Lucifer, and >both are explicitly referred to as female... And as to Novalis, well... > >This does leave me wishing for balance, though. Perhaps an Angel of >Homophilia (assuming that's not the name of some obscure medical condition) >and a Demon of Homoeroticism? Or something... > Actually, what I objected to was the complete demonization of Homosexuality and Bisexuality. If it's really about committing 'unatural acts' lets go whole hog :) How about a Demon of Sodomy? With the fallen Sitri under him (as it were). I mean, the Demon of Unnatrual Acts may have been the one tha convinced the Gregori to mate with humans. That'd have gotten him a Princedom for sure. And, on the other side, there SHOULDbe some angels representing that sort of thing, they just wouldnt be all that promenent, Like an Angel of Brotherly Love under Laurence. And an angel of Sisterly love under Novalis. Not very important Angels, especially since the fall of Sitri and his compatriot, and Dominic's opinions, but there none the less. >Damn, I wish Eli'd come back... I think most people would agree. Blade Who is calmer now :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:24:41 -0500 From: "Scott L. Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality >3. The problem with Sitri, from the Divine perspective, was not that he >encouraged homosexual love, but that he refused to *discourage* homosexual >acts. I can see Dominic taking this position, but on a fully Divine scale, I wouldnt say that homosexual acts would be necessarily evil. It has been stated several times on here that while In Nomine is based on the JCI paradigm, it isnt limited to it. I had gotten the idea that Sitri had fallen because he focused ONLY on the lustful side, not because he didnt opposed sexual expression of the love. Blade ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:24:44 -0500 From: "Scott L. Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Nergal >today, the Demon of Processed Cheese Food, in service to Haagenti Oh, I have to interject here, Proceesed Cheese Food is a manifestation of the Divine! ;) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:46:11 +0000 From: "Robert Wolff" Subject: IN> Cheese Products > Oh, I have to interject here, Proceesed Cheese Food is a manifestation of > the Divine! ;) > Ohhhh.... you know Velveeta, then, a.k.a. "The Cheese that Cannot Die"? Yuk! ;-) Sincerely, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:07:50 -0600 From: jimmie@io.com Subject: Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer Deathdog wrote: >>>Evil is not cool. >> >>On the contrary, Evil can be _very_ cool - it's all a matter of >>perspective ;) > >No, evil is not cool. It looks cool sometimes, just like your friends >looked cool >smoking when you were a kid. Your perception of things is not Truth. Maybe Evil is very cool, but who ever said cool was Good? };) -TheRaven, Demon of Procrastination, Shedim of Fate ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:53:57 -0500 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality >In a message dated 97-02-26 09:21:46 EST, someone wrote (Durn, I gotta get >back off AOL): > ><< > >Free love, absolutely. But, as the Patron of Flowers and Fertility, I think > >that her darkest secret might be a hang-up about gender roles. Stamen and > >pistil, men and women. > > And Gabriel's a pyromaniac. An Archangel's Word is NOT the absolute > definition of their existence. Novalis is charged more with peace than > fertility, and knowingly abandoning someone charged with a similar > duty would be to betray her word. > >> > >Additionally, don't most flowers have BOTH stamen and pistil? If you carry >this to its logical extreme, Novalis would find any sexual activity that >didn't involve bees distasteful... > >Paul. >.- bees? that would /hurt/... - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:15:03 -0700 (MST) From: Mark Cogan Subject: Re: IN> Cheese Products On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Robert Wolff wrote: > > > Oh, I have to interject here, Proceesed Cheese Food is a manifestation of > > the Divine! ;) > > > Ohhhh.... you know Velveeta, then, a.k.a. "The Cheese that Cannot > Die"? Yuk! ;-) And he *is* the Kumquat Haagendasz! Steak for dinner sometime soon! Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:48:52 +0000 From: "J. S. Cardella" Subject: IN> Character sheets The official character sheets are up on the web. http://www.io.com/sjgames/in-nomine/new.html This is the What's New page, with a link to the in_char_sheet.gif ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joel Cardella "Chinese food IS my life" http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:30:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality At 2:09 PM -0500 2/26/97, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy (who may remember me from the SJG conference at Arisia; I was >the one in the black and the fluffy shirt) said: (I probably did, until you reminded me! I got braindead from panels real fast...) >"If anything, Eli himself might be the one who would be slightly >concerned over an angel with a Word that does not promote genetic >reproduction." > >As far as I can see it, he was. But only slightly -- after all, sexuality >does seem to be under his aegis, and that's sexuality of all kinds. True -- since you also get goodstuff for comforting crying kids and having families getting along, I would presume that a family that raised kids and cared for them would be fine, no matter what gender the parents were (or even if they were the parents of the kids). >"That's why consensual sex generates Essence for his servitors, and >you get a bonus to call him if you have *unused* contraceptives." > >...like that. :) It was an interesting riff. >And about Novalis...you're right. Fertility is not strictly her word. Then >again, neither are "growth and nurturing", which are also associated with >her. She's done a great deal of work in making flowers a key musical phrase >in the symphony: you give them as a sign of reconciliation, you see them at >all popular ceremonies (weddings, funerals) and so on. So, I associated her >connection of Growing Things with a sense of fertility in the Demeter sort of >way. Fertility in that sense, aye -- but I'm not sure I could see her being uptight about mammalian fertility. That's more Jordi, these days. Crops, now, and "popultion growth" in the abstract -- Novalis might like that. But she's at a further remove from sexuality. IMAO, of course. O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:35:45 -0500 From: John Maurer Subject: IN> A Question of Cool At 10:19 AM 2/26/97 -0500, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >"So you say. Don't you find it the least bit curious that all the people >you mentioned as cool were unrepentent scoundrals?" I have noticed a strange trend in your posts Jason to be rigidly moralistic. You have been this way on the Angel of Homosexuality. I don't think Novalis's 'deep dark secret' is that she is a homophobe, I think it may be yours. Now you are getting into this entire 'evil is cool' argument. Are you some sort of secret agent for Dominic or something? >"The "cool" image has >most commonly been pinned on the worst of society who happen to have >panache." See there you go again.... << The below is from some other guy>> >Well, panache helps -- "cool" requires competence *and* detachment. But it's >possible to be cool and not be evil. It's just easier, by its nature for evil >to be cool. I am not certain that is true. This is the same argument that says that all Paladins have to be overbearing, naieve, and often foolish. I would say that often the 'good' folk are just as cool as the evil ones. FBI agents are cool (aren't they?) The president is pretty cool (Although he might be evil...) Firemen and lifeguards are cool. >Lucifer is Cool, Dominic is not. > >Nonsense. Dominic is *very* cool. He's The Man. Laurence, on the other hand, >is not cool. Badmouthing your superior may be a quick trip to dissonance-ville IQJason.. Maybe you don't work for Dominic afterall, or you're gutsy. :) Laurence is most CERTAINLY cool. And let those who disagree get stabbed by sharp pointy things. He's the fresh young face that everyone in the upper echelon is talking about. All those other Archangels are old and crusty. >"Novalis is an exception in that she's cool, but she is also into >that free love thing and from all of the postings, drug culture." > >Novalis' coolness is overrated. Behind that hippie exterior is something more >shrewd: remember, she's managed to make her word into a symbol of Peace and >Love. Not bad for a handful of shrubbery. :) I never saw Novalis as sinister until I read this. Suddenly she is frightening. Also I notice IQJason is now bashing drugs. Should I name the ammount of people I know who are dying of AIDS and whom Marijuana makes their lives bearbable? How about the friend who had a cyst on his eye and the Doctor used COCAINE as a local anesthetic! I think IQJason must live in that quiet part of heaven that everyone else has to tiptoe arround lest the people inside learn that other people made it in as well... Speaks-Without-Breathing "I often find myself rooting for the Apoclypse" -- John Maurer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:35:14 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: IN> [Off-Topic] Gilligan . I know, forwards are Evil. But this is only semi-off-topic. >The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island theory is quite simple. >Each of the seven characters on the island represents each of the >seven deadly sins. Now, this theory seems to fit upon initial >inspection, there are technical difficulties when you get down to THE >MAN himself, Gilligan. > >Run with me on this one... > >Most obvious is the Professor, who fits PRIDE to a T. Any man who can >make a ham radio out of some wire and two coconuts has to be pretty >cocky. (His character was later revised and given a series of his >own, called MacGuyver".) > >For the sin of ENVY we need look no further than Maryann, who may have >worn those skimpy little tops, but could never achieve Ginger's >glamour. (As an interesting and completely irrelevant side note, a >nationwide survey of college students a few years ago revealed that >the professor and Maryann were voted the most likely couple to have >'done it' on the island.) > >And who could doubt for a moment that Ginger is LUSTincarnate? Sure, >the kids were supposed to think she was ACTING, but we all know what >being deprived episode after episode was doing to her. You know and I >know that glazed look wasn't boredom, my friends. > >What kind of person takes a trunk full of money on a three-hour >cruise? Mr Howell gets my vote for GREED. > >We are now left with three characters and three Deadly Sins. We have >Gilligan, the Skipper and Mrs Howell to whom we must match GLUTTONY, >SLOTH and ANGER. As you can see, there is a Gilligan problem here. > >Certainly we can further eliminate Mrs Howell from this equation by >connecting her with SLOTH. She did jack shit during her many years >on the island and everybody knows it. > >This leaves ANGER and GLUTTONY, either of which the Skipper had no >shortage. He was, after all, a big guy with the tendency to hit >Gilligan with his hat at least once an episode. After much >consideration, I have decided that he can easily do double-duty, >covering the two remaining Deadly Sins. > >So here we have the Seven Deadly Sins trapped in an endlessly >recurring Hell of hope followed by denial and despair, forced to live >with each other in our TVs until the last re-run ends. And who is >their captor? What keeps them trapped there? > >Gilligan. > >Gilligan is SATAN. Think about it. > > Submitted by: Bruce Guthrie @ nmaa.org -- fish, with apologies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:41:11 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: IN> Ad Hominem = Bad (was A Question of Cool) On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, John Maurer wrote: > I have noticed a strange trend in your posts Jason to be rigidly moralistic. ... > See there you go again.... ... > Also I notice IQJason is now bashing drugs. ... > I think IQJason must live in that quiet part of heaven that everyone > else has to tiptoe arround lest the people inside learn that other > people made it in as well... Ad hominem attacks are verboten, a no-no, Bad Netiquette. Although I agree with you that Laurence is cool. -- fish. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:35:37 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool Belial preserve me...I think I'm being flamed. "I have noticed a strange trend in your posts Jason to be rigidly moralistic." Really? I hadn't thought so until now. I've tried to assign points of view to various archangels that they might possess, but I don't think that I've ever expressed my own morality at all. "You have been this way on the Angel of Homosexuality. I don't think Novalis's 'deep dark secret' is that she is a homophobe, I think it may be yours." I'll thank you to refrain from ad hominem attacks. My life and my loves are no ones business but my own. Now, a lesson in proper quoting: >>"The "cool" image has >>most commonly been pinned on the worst of society who happen to have >>panache." >See there you go again.... No. That's John Dye. He's another poster here. ><< The below is from some other guy>> >>Well, panache helps -- "cool" requires competence *and* detachment. But it's >>possible to be cool and not be evil. It's just easier, by its nature for evil >>to be cool. No. That's from me. If you're going to fire up your flamethrower, at least take care to aim it properly. Now, back to the post. "I am not certain that is true. This is the same argument that says that all Paladins have to be overbearing, naieve, and often foolish. " Paladin is a calling and an occupation. "Cool" is a posture. "I would say that often the 'good' folk are just as cool as the evil ones. FBI agents are cool (aren't they?)" Competent? Check. Detached? Check. So, yes. I'd say that FBI agents are often cool. "The president is pretty cool (Although he might be evil...)" I will not enter into a discussion on Bill Clinton's competence. However, from what I've seen, he's not at all detached from his positions. Hence, not "cool". "Firemen and lifeguards are cool." Often, yes. ">>Lucifer is Cool, Dominic is not. > >Nonsense. Dominic is *very* cool. He's The Man. Laurence, on the other hand, >is not cool." The first line is John's allegation, the second is my rebuttal. "Badmouthing your superior may be a quick trip to dissonance-ville IQJason.. Maybe you don't work for Dominic afterall, or you're gutsy. :)" *sigh* I was suggesting that Dominic was cool. Granted, I've got my own opinions on him, too. He's a lot deeper than some might think. "Laurence is most CERTAINLY cool. And let those who disagree get stabbed by sharp pointy things." Having an itchy-trigger finger isn't cool. That's why Mr. Wolf from _Pulp_Fiction_ is cool and Tim Roth's character isn't. >"Novalis is an exception in that she's cool, but she is also into >that free love thing and from all of the postings, drug culture." Again, John C. Dye. Perhaps my method of quoting is faulty. I've been putting other peoples statements in "" quotation marks. Did this not come across? Anyway, my rebuttal was: >Novalis' coolness is overrated. Behind that hippie exterior is something more >shrewd: remember, she's managed to make her word into a symbol of Peace and >Love. Not bad for a handful of shrubbery. :) "I never saw Novalis as sinister until I read this. Suddenly she is frightening." Well, that was kind of the point. :) Anyone with that positive a PR rep can't be all good. :) " Also I notice IQJason is now bashing drugs." Show me any post that I've written where I've done so. "Should I name the ammount of people I know who are dying of AIDS and whom Marijuana makes their lives bearbable? How about the friend who had a cyst on his eye and the Doctor used COCAINE as a local anesthetic! " No. There's no need. "I think IQJason must live in that quiet part of heaven that everyone else has to tiptoe arround lest the people inside learn that other people made it in as well..." Ad hominem, again. John, you've insulted me based on other people's work. And, based on your reactions to that work, you've insulted someone that, although I may disagree with his opinions now and again, I have reason to respect. If AOL had a killfile, I'd be sorely tempted to drop you in it. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:56:20 -0800 From: "Joe Fulgham" Subject: Re: IN> Character sheets > The official character sheets are up on the web. > > http://www.io.com/sjgames/in-nomine/new.html > > This is the What's New page, with a link to the in_char_sheet.gif The quality is... well... pretty poor. Would it be possible to post a copy of the original file? AI/EPS/Corel... Actually, an Adobe Acrobat version would probably be the best, as all people would need would be the Acrobat reader and they could view/print it at their printer's resolution instead of "barely-legible bitmap" resolution. - --------------------------------------------------------- Joe Fulgham |"Expecting the world to treat you puck@holycow.com | fairly because you are a good www.holycow.com | person is a little like expecting PGP Key available | the bull not to attack you because Puck Undernet #mtg | you are a vegetarian. -Dennis Wholey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:03:59 -0800 From: "Joe Fulgham" Subject: Re: IN> First post > > Enough self-promotion... I'll get working on a front page for the > > net.books, and put something up by tomorrow. Probably use > > http://www.holycow.com/in-nomine/ so keep your eyes peeled. > > Good idea. BTW, Line Editor, and the powers that be, thus guy, Joe > Fulgham is an ACTOR. Yep. Get him to help with the LARP rules. Yep. Heh. I don't have any LARP experience (outside of acting) except for the time a friend and I made fun of the Vampire players at a con by hanging out and growling at them. We convinced some that we were werewolves and they should be afraid. Don't think that accounts for much though :P - --------------------------------------------------------- Joe Fulgham |"Expecting the world to treat you puck@holycow.com | fairly because you are a good www.holycow.com | person is a little like expecting PGP Key available | the bull not to attack you because Puck Undernet #mtg | you are a vegetarian. -Dennis Wholey ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 97 16:26:03 -0600 From: "Deathdog" Subject: Re: IN> First post >> Good idea. BTW, Line Editor, and the powers that be, thus guy, Joe >> Fulgham is an ACTOR. Yep. Get him to help with the LARP rules. Yep. > > Heh. I don't have any LARP experience (outside of acting) except for the >time a friend and I made fun of the Vampire players at a con by hanging out >and growling at them. We convinced some that we were werewolves and >they >should be afraid. Don't think that accounts for much though :P10 I take this to mean someone is working on LARP rules? Personally, I can't stand LARP's due to the fact that most mechanics are so watered down you don't knowhat the hell is going on. Maybe you'll get it right. I sure hope so. - ---- Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:19:46 -0500 From: John Maurer Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 04:35 PM 2/26/97 -0500, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >Belial preserve me...I think I'm being flamed. Only a little flame. Mostly I wanted to comment on the incredible narrow-mindedness that seemed to be fostered either by or arround you. I tend to believe in a more open-door policy on heaven. "My Father's house has many rooms" and all. >Really? I hadn't thought so until now. I've tried to assign points of view to >various archangels that they might possess, but I don't think that I've ever >expressed my own morality at all. The points of view you have assigned to angels have tended to be narrow minded and somewhat bigoted. When an archangel has an open view of things you give them "dark secrets" of closed-mindedness. I think it is a reasonable assumption that your own view is leaking through. >"You have been this way on the Angel of Homosexuality. I don't think >Novalis's 'deep dark secret' is that she is a homophobe, I think it may be >yours." > >I'll thank you to refrain from ad hominem attacks. My life and my loves are >no ones business but my own. Perhaps it is ad hominem, but not all ad hominem attacks are unjustified. If my argument is that your views of the archangels are wrong because you come from a position of narrow-mindedness, am I prevented from saying it because it is ad hominem? In any event, I am sorry to have attacked you directly rather than your ideas. I hope you were made no more uncomfortable than any homosexual or bisexual listeners of your statements. >Now, a lesson in proper quoting: >>>"The "cool" image has >>>most commonly been pinned on the worst of society who happen to have >>>panache." > >>See there you go again.... > >No. That's John Dye. He's another poster here. My apologies, there has been somewhat of a lack of attribution. > Now, back to the post. > >"I am not certain that is true. This is the same argument that says that all >Paladins have to be overbearing, naieve, and often foolish. " > >Paladin is a calling and an occupation. "Cool" is a posture. Perhaps I have over-geeked here. In AD&D terms (am I dating myself here?) a Paladin must be Lawful-Good. There is a common misperception that lawful-good means stupid and prideful (or uncool). I have seen people play very cool paladins and remain good. >"The president is pretty cool (Although he might be evil...)" > >I will not enter into a discussion on Bill Clinton's competence. However, >from what I've seen, he's not at all detached from his positions. Hence, not >"cool". Well, In general I still think just being president is cool. Particular presidents may be more or less so. >>"Novalis is an exception in that she's cool, but she is also into >>that free love thing and from all of the postings, drug culture." > >Again, John C. Dye. Perhaps my method of quoting is faulty. I've been putting >other peoples statements in "" quotation marks. Did this not come across? >Anyway, my rebuttal was: Sorry again. It didn't come across. Maybe John C. Dye is the agent of Dominic and he has somehow shifted my gaze towards you. Oh what a tangled web we weave. On the other hand perhaps both of you are feeding off one another, at least some of the statments I have found objectionable come from you both. Typically on the internet you leave in the "XXX@yyy.com said" near other people's quotes. That helps attributions stay straight. >Well, that was kind of the point. :) Anyone with that positive a PR rep can't >be all good. :) I like this semi-sinister take on Novalis. I will have to work with it. >" Also I notice IQJason is now bashing drugs." > >Show me any post that I've written where I've done so. Have I wrongly attributed Jason Dye to you again? Gah. I seem to believe you said that "I don't like the idea of an angel named after a drug". I'll rummage through my "in nomine" folder and trash bin and see what I can find. >John, you've insulted me based on other people's work. And, based on your >reactions to that work, you've insulted someone that, although I may disagree >with his opinions now and again, I have reason to respect. If AOL had a >killfile, I'd be sorely tempted to drop you in it. Some of the work was yours. For that which I mis-attributed you, I apologize. The way you handled attributions was not a way I recognized while reading. For your work that I criticized (less than an insult I think) I still stand firm. John "I often find myself rooting for the Apoclypse" -- John Maurer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:03:21 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Scott L. Hamilton wrote: > I had gotten the idea that Sitri had fallen because he focused > ONLY on the lustful side, not because he didnt opposed sexual expression > of the love. Okay, I haven't been following this thread very much, because the politics of homosexuality don't interest me, but skimming the above made me think of something. This Sitri guy is a demon, and his word, Homosexuality, presumably, falls under the jurisdiction of Andre*mumble* (can't pronounce words that long). I'm hoping it's not the intent of the game system to limit Words to strictly demonic or angelic connotations, simply due to their heirarchies. Examples: can you have the Angels of Public Television, No Fault Divorce, or Doctor-Assisted Suicide (these seem to come under Nybbas, Malfas, and Saminga, respectfully)? Howabout the Demons of Welfare, Accidental Pregnancies, and Hurricanes (which are the realms of Marc, Eli, and Janus)? Of course, I presume yes -- eventually, such a Word-bound Celestial might be able to parlay their Word into better words for their side -- the Demon Prince of Trade, the Archangel of the Media, etc... | Don Fnordlioni | donfnord@pitt.edu | http://www.pitt.edu/~donfnord | Please use PGP encryption when writing Finger donfnord@pitt.edu for key ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:33:19 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality > Actually, what I objected to was the complete demonization of Homosexuality > and Bisexuality. If it's really about committing 'unatural acts' lets go > whole hog :) It wouldn't be the complete demonization of homosexuality and bisexuality. The idea was that they were just angels doing their job when Larry, Mikey, and Dom decided that they were offensive and had them kicked out. I can assure you, as a bisexual, that I would not have supported his work on Sirti, nor written Salmaci, if I considered the treatment of the subject to be skewed in that manner. > How about a Demon of Sodomy? With the fallen Sitri under him (as it were). I > mean, the Demon of Unnatrual Acts may have been the one tha convinced the > Gregori to mate with humans. That'd have gotten him a Princedom for sure. That may just be how Andre got his job in the first place, although I had the impression that the whole Grigori problem was pre-Fall, since there are no demonic Grigori mentioned in the rulebook and in the story of Lucifer, Nergal mentions that Lucy handled the negotiations with the Nephallim when the demons were setting up Hell. > And, on the other side, there SHOULDbe some angels representing that sort of > thing, they just wouldnt be all that promenent, Like an Angel of Brotherly > Love under Laurence. And an angel of Sisterly love under Novalis. Not very > important Angels, especially since the fall of Sitri and his compatriot, and > Dominic's opinions, but there none the less. There could be. There was nothing posted saying that there wasn't. However, that aspect would probably be played down due to the politics in Heaven and the Big "C" Three would watch them like hawks. > Blade > Who is calmer now :) Oops da Ogre, who still thinks that the picture of the demon in the back (p 206, I think) looks a hell of a lot like Eli. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:54:12 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool > At 04:35 PM 2/26/97 -0500, IQJason@aol.com wrote: > >"You have been this way on the Angel of Homosexuality. I don't think > >Novalis's 'deep dark secret' is that she is a homophobe, I think it may be > >yours." > > > >I'll thank you to refrain from ad hominem attacks. My life and my loves are > >no ones business but my own. > > Perhaps it is ad hominem, but not all ad hominem attacks are unjustified. > If my argument is that your views of the archangels are wrong because you > come from a position of narrow-mindedness, am I prevented from saying it > because it is ad hominem? No, but Jason discussed Novalis' opinions about Sirti with my prior to it being sent to the net. The reason that he gave Novalis a hangup over it was because she didn't seem to have any serious flaws as written. The only thing that stands out is her willingness to trust someone too much, and that's more of a traditional angel virtue than flaw. > In any event, I am sorry to have attacked you directly rather than your > ideas. I hope you were made no more uncomfortable than any homosexual or > bisexual listeners of your statements. I'm pretty sure he was made more uncomfortable than me... > >No. That's John Dye. He's another poster here. > > My apologies, there has been somewhat of a lack of attribution. I noticed that as well. Jason's unusual quoting style seemed to confuse you with regard to his comments versus John Dye's. > >Well, that was kind of the point. :) Anyone with that positive a PR rep can't > >be all good. :) > > I like this semi-sinister take on Novalis. I will have to work with it. And that was (along with the whole fertility aspect) why he gave Novalis the hangup over Sirti. I feel that if he was as homophobic as you feel he is, he would have had a stronger reaction to some of my comments in private email about Sirti prior to it being sent to the list. I do think that the "unnatural acts" comment was poorly done, but I honestly think that it was not meant as malicious in any manner > John Oops da Ogre mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 17:40:15 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Who's Who In Hell: Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality At 01:57 PM 2/26/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 HarlinHirs@aol.com wrote: > >> And Gabriel's a pyromaniac. An Archangel's Word is NOT the absolute >> definition of their existence. Novalis is charged more with peace than >> fertility, and knowingly abandoning someone charged with a similar >> duty would be to betray her word. > >I honestly thought that an Angel/Demon's word certainly IS the absolute >definition of their existence. I thought that they were, or became a >personification of their word. I honestly thought that was the whole >idea. Nope. They are charged with furthering their Word, and they draw power from it. While they do seem a personification of their Words, celestials can and do deviate from it (you don't think Novalis became an Archangel by making gardens, do you?). Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 17:40:18 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Coolness ;) At 09:40 AM 2/26/97 EST, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >So you say. Don't you find it the least bit curious that all the people >you mentioned as cool were unrepentent scoundrals? The "cool" image has >most commonly been pinned on the worst of society who happen to have >panche. Superman is not cool, Batman is. Batman's not exactly the worst of his society. In IN terms, he'd make a damned fine Malakite. >Lucifer is cool, Dominic is not. That's because Lucifer's not a hypocrite. Dominic ferrets out Angelic Heresy, but works alongside Asmodeus as well. >Novalis is an exception in that she's cool, but she is also into >that free love thing and from all of the postings, drug culture. There's a difference in motivations here. I'm pretty sure Novalis has no compunctions about cracking down on dealers in the 'hood, but I doubt she would bat an infinite eyelash at someone rolling a joint for personal use. >Cool stuff: Leather jackets, drug culture, alternative lifestyles, >promiscuity, motorcycles, rebellion, anarchy > >Uncool stuff: Disipline, monogamy (no, it's not a wood), luxury cars, >contemplation of consequences. > >While not everything on this list is "bad", most have definative >connotations in today's culture. So I'm not sure I can agree with you. >That "bad boy" mystic is almost intrinsicly bound to cool. Hmm. Last time -I- checked, most SOs didn't like it when you slept around. Likewise, rebellion is an important facet of society; change can't happen without people who want it. And drugs are most definitely NOT cool. I've known a few ex-addicts in my time, and they'd rather kill themselves than go back. Heads are, by definition, uncool. As for the "bad boy" mystique, it traces back to James Dean... Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 17:40:20 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality At 09:55 AM 2/26/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Andrew Getting wrote: > >> Can be. Gabriel and Dominic are the only Angels listed that can change >> genders, while none of the other Angels or any Demon has been listed >> with such a power (you'd think Andrealphus would be into it). > >Hrm. This is disturbing. Moria, can you clarify please? There is a big >difference between 'Gabriel and Dominic are the only Angels listed that >can change genders', and 'Gabriel and Dominic are the only Angels who DO >change genders'. > >I just thought it was only mentioned for Gabriel and Dominic cause they >tended to flipflop. I hate to think that they are the only ones who are >thought of in a different light. Add Jordi to that list. Damned Kryiotates ;> Well, Gabriel's pretty used to her gender now, actually, but it doesn't make sense for some of the Archangels to do it. Novalis, for instance, is most markedly a maternal figure, and Eli's not really in a position to change gender anymore. David seems too stoic. Janus probably forgets. Yves is indeciferable. You get the idea. It can really go both ways; the text isn't clear. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 17:40:16 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> First Questions At 03:18 PM 2/26/97 CET, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Hello everybody, > >At first to the IN staff: >very good work. I knew the german >version of the game, but yours is IMHO >better. There are some differences, for example >your game is more serious, but that is o.k. for me. > >Here are my questions, if they are already discussed >just drop me a line where to find the answers. > >1. Songs: >Are there more to come ? >I miss something to control humans or at least try >to make posthypnotic commands or stuff like that, >usually from the parapsychology departement. More than likely, though the control you suggest is somewhat approximated by the Charm songs. >2. New Bands of demons: >I miss a little bit my "favorit" demons >the incubi and succubi. What would they be like ? >Or are this just human descriptions for some of >the servitors of Andrealphus ? Lilim of Andrealphus fit the bill pretty well. >3. Missing demon princes: >In the german issue are for example >demon princes for Cold, Ocean and Illness/Plagues. >will they be introduced in the following material ? Some of those don't fit very well as Demon Princes (i.e. Cold could be a subset of Pain, Ocean of Despoiling and/or Pollution under Technology), but there are going to be more Princes and Archangels. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:38:24 +0000 From: rob@v-wave.com (JODI SHOOK) Subject: IN> More Malakite Oaths... Suggested Malakim Oaths: I still get the impression that Malakites do generate a _ sort_ of dissonance whenever they go against their true nature (i.e. act in an `anti-resonance' rashion). Thus, Malakites would undertake even more stringent personal codes of conduct in an attempt to prove their absolute dedication to the War. I tend to use them as role-playing cues, and methods by which to bring about more dimension to a character that may be in danger of becoming "just another Fighter". Think of Samurai, who spent their spare time drilling, learning new skills, arranging flowers, writing poetry, etc. as part of their personal code: this was their way of proving their devotion to their vocation. The following are some additional Malakite oaths/codes/promises. 1. Battle a Diabolical at least once per year/month/week to prove one's honourable devotion to the cause. 2. Learn and improve one's combat skills at least once per year/month/week (thus, it is an honourable promise to devote at least a certain amount of Character points to one's combat abilities, even if one is aleady nearly unstoppable!)... promise to learn and perfect your craft. 3. Swear not to ever aid anybody who serves an archangel whom your Master is hostile to. This means you can't help them even if it is for the good of everybody. You just won't do it. (re: pg. 109) 4. Thou shalt not suffer a (blank) to live. Promise to destroy, on sight or upon proof of guilt, anybody who is diametrically opposed to your archangel's word, or anybody (including Celestials) who impede you in the service of your archangel. eg. Michael's malakites might swear to destroy, personally, any Celestial who serves Dominic and has proven themselves over-zealous in the persecution of Michael. Thus, you might get in trouble for doing it later, but honour demands that you prove your devotion to the cause by killing such a detriment to the War. (re: pg. 109) Archangel-specific Oaths: Since a Malakite's code of conduct is based upon "his personal principles of right and wrong" (pg. 100), then I figured a malakite's code of conduct would also somehow reflect the word they have chosen to associate with. The following, therefore, are suggested codes/oaths for malakites in service to specific archangels. (NOTE: Some of these over-lap. Feel free to mix and match. The suggestions are made specifically to reflect the interests of a particular arch-angel, but that doesn't mean you can't share an oath with a malakite of a different Master...) Blandine. 1. Spend at least 1 night per year/month/week "patrolling" the Marches, searching for a chance to battle evil in these realms, and protecting the dreams of honourable mortals from Diabolical incursion. David 1. Use no weapon other than a hammer, or bare hands. 2. Swear to train X number of humans in self-defense every year/month/week 3. Spend a number of hours every year/month/week training a group to work together for mutual self-protection (security force, street-gang, etc.) Dominic 1. Destroy, immediately upon detection, any Celestials with more than 3 points of Dissonance. (judge/jury/executioner all rolled in one...) 2. Seek out and report any Celestials with more than 1 point of Dissonance at least once per year/month/week. Thus, they must use their attunement as watchdogs/bloodhounds, and actively SEEK such Celestials instead of just reporting them when they find them. Eli 1. Spend a number of hours per year/month/week creating and perfecting a new style of martial arts, armed combat, or ranged combat. 2. Create/Write/publish poetry (or war-songs, or paintings) at least once a year/month/week. Similar to a Samurai attempting to understand his martial nature through the creative act of writing. Gabriel 1. Punish at least one cruel person every year/month/week. One must ACT upon one's convictions, or one is not living an honourable existence! Janus 1. Utterly destroy any evil place/building they come across. These malakites will not rest until the stain of evil has been wiped clean by some form of cleansing. Thus, merely destroying the Diabolicals who lived in a building isn't enough: one should also destroy the building, so that true Change can occur through re-building! Jean 1. Increase one's skill at Chemistry/Electronics/Engineering at least once every year/month/week. Jordi 1. Perform at least one act of eco-terrorism per year/month/week. 2. Spend a number of hours every year/month/week working for an ecological protection service. 3. Spend a number of hours every year/month/week on patrol in a specific endangered land. 4. Shall not suffer an animal abuser to go unpunished (although not necessarily unkilled...) Laurence 1. spend a number of hours every year/month/week training and drilling a combat team (Military, Security, street-gang, ...football team?) 2. Involve themselves in a righteous battle/war at least once a year/month/week. They will seek out and join in a mortal conflict to prove that they are _DOING_ something with their time. They will donate any profits they make from such an activity to a charity, such as war orphans. Marc 1. Make a certain amount of money every year/month/week off arms sales, etc. You must be actively promoting your word, or you aren't doing anything worthwhile. Since these guys value money as the ultimate judge of how successful you are, then the more money you make off war, the better you are working! Michael 1. Involve themselves in single combat at least once a year/week/month. 2. Refuse any assistance in single combat, even if they are losing. One shouldn't win if one can't win honourably, and through the force of one's OWN convictions! 3. Refuse any help, ever, in any combat. You fight alone. Always. Novalis 1. Spend a certain number of hours per year/month/week gardening 2. Improve one's gardening/horticulture/flower-arranging skill every year/month/week. Certain Samurai were the most amazing flower-arrangers... Yves 1. Create/Write/publish poetry at least once a year/month/week. Similar to a Samurai attempting to understand his martial nature through the creative act of writing. 2. Read/write/collect/salvage books or articles on weapons, warfare, etc. Ideally, then, this Malakite spends his "spare time" learning about war, honour, personal combat, and so on. These guys have practially memorized "The Art of War" and "The Sword". 3. Give lectures on war, honour, personal combat, history of warfare, etc. Thus, these malakites become Civil War Buffs (hey... how exactly does one become a `buff'....), university lectureres, etc. You must therefore be spending a certain number of character points on perfecting your knowledge areas. Could get quite expensive, but that's the price of honour. *************************************** Well, that's it. I think that Malakites can be EXTREMELY interesting, but only if you actively work at making them so. Otherwise, there is the danger that they all become generic, bland, fighter-clones. Sincerely, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #43 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.