From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Feb 27 16:35:19 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 PAA16430; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:06:28 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA00118 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:09:23 -0600 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:09:23 -0600 Message-Id: <199702272109.PAA00118@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 #45 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 Thursday, February 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 045 In this digest: IN> The use of souls IN> Angelic Attributions of "Demonic" Words Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil Re: IN> A Question of Cool IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> The use of souls Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil IN> A Question of Dominic Re: IN> A Question of Cool IN> Motivaions for Evil IN> Why evil? IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil Re: IN> Discerning Metaphysics Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil IN> Biblio source ... Re: IN> A Question of Cool IN> A Question of Cool IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #44 Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> A Question of Cool IN> Re: Re: List Management Re: IN> Eli Impersonators Re: IN> Lilim Hearts Re: IN> Eli Impersonators Re: IN> Re: Re: List Management ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 14:33 CET From: Marco Lambert Subject: IN> The use of souls [Snip] > >- Tempting humans to evil weighs the scale towards their going to Hell, and >the more sould in hell...hmmm, what is the REAL advantage of that? They >don't become demons, do they? [Snip] I for myself like the view of an IMHO very good french Comic called Succubus, also available in german. In this very satyric view of demons there are two uses of souls. 1. Demons can eat souls and gain so more personal raw power. For IN: regenerates lost Essence and even get a higher maximum essence level. 2. Souls are the currency of hell. In this comic the succubus goes to a diabolic shopping mal and buys a cool car, a nice little palace, some snacks and even some telepathic powers. You also get bodyparts from dead saints and bigger horns and teeth for the more monstrous demons. Even if the presentation seems a little strange, you can translate this all to gaining attunements, relics, servants even a little barony in hell. I personally like this view of the usefullness of souls. Finaly all comes down to a lot of power and perhaps some part of gaining style and amusement. Any more ideas ? Bye and tschuess, Marco. ________________________________________________________________ Marco Lambert (Dipl.-Phys.) * Universitaet Kaiserslautern * Email:lambert@rhrk.uni-kl.de Fachbereich Elektrotechnik * Tel.:(+49) 631/205-3354 Lehrstuhl fuer Mikroelektronik * Fax.:(+49) 631/205-3616 Postfach 3049 * D-67653 Kaiserslautern * Geb.: 12 Raum:262 Germany * ________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:05:35 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: IN> Angelic Attributions of "Demonic" Words With new E-Z-2-Attribute Quoting (tm): Don Fnordlioni writes: "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)? " Well, No-Fault Divorce actually sounds more like Lilith's territory: the goal there is freedom from marriage, not the punishing war that a Malphas-style divorce is. Public television might be Marc, as it's (ideally) communication subsidized by those who want it, as opposed to advertisers. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:07:36 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, William Reed wrote: > As it fell to me to be the GM for our IN game, I am trying to figure out > just what motivates the Diabolicals. I refuse to believe in doing eveil > simply and exclusively for the sake of evil, as it tends to leave me with > 2 dimensional characters as adversaries. When I run other RPGs I always Well, demons in In Nomine aren't doing 'evil for its own sake' as much as just anything that gets them *personally* what they want. In it's selfishness and selflessness rather than an even more abstract 'good' and 'evil' that are the driving forces behind the two camps. So I'm sure that a demon doesn't necessarily use 'evil' as his own rationale for acting -- he just looks at what's in it for him and works from there. > - Tempting humans to evil weighs the scale towards their going to Hell, and > the more sould in hell...hmmm, what is the REAL advantage of that? They > don't become demons, do they? No, but their Forces are still existant, and can be used to power the infernal engines of Hell, or split up and used to create new demons. > His most effective way of doing this is to turn as many away from God as > possible. My only problem with this one is, why hasn't God just smitten > him, if it's a personal thing? One possible answer is that God believes in Free Will, the ability to choose whether or not celestial beings fall or are redeemed. Clearly he allows his angels to fall. > Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? IMHO, personal power. YMMV. -- fish, Malakite of Power Gaming and Rules Lawyering | fish flowers (i don't exist!) ><> |\ |\ \ / | | | |\ | > \/ |/| | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu, eidolon@io.com | |< /\ |/| | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | | \ / \ | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:25:01 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool John Maurer writes: "The points of view you have assigned to angels have tended to be narrow minded and somewhat bigoted." To which I reply: There are many instances where holy books support things that strike me as 'narrow-minded and bigoted'. I tried to ascribe opinions to them that reflect the Divine sensibility, not a modern one. John, again: "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." And I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at *all*. When all is said and done, these are fictional characters. Ascribing the motivations of fictional characters to their authors is specious at best. To trot out an old canard, was Shakespeare an anti-Semite for writing "The Merchant of Venice"? John: "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." John, what's *my* sexual orientation? You don't know, because I haven't told you. And I haven't told you because, frankly, I don't think it's relevant. But I could be anywhere along the Kinsey scale, as far as you know. John: "Perhaps I have over-geeked here." Is there such a thing as over-geeking? :) John: "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." This is, of course, one of the sillier problems with an alignment system: trying to fit the beliefs and philosophies of every member of the human race into one of nine boxes. John: "Oh what a tangled web we weave." The tail end of this phrase that you omitted is "...when first we practice to deceive." If you think me to have attempted to deceive you with my style of attribution, I apologize for that. AOL 3.0 for the Mac is impossibly slow, so I use 2.7, which doesn't quote. I add them in the old fashioned way. John: "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." Feeding off each other? Granted, we've shared ideas and discussion, but you make it sound like parasitism. John: " I seem to believe you said that 'I don't like the idea of an angel named after a drug'." That was DeltaS -- another poster to whom I've replied. But, we've established the cause of that confusion. And, now that we've cleared this up, I'm sorry about the "killfile" comment. But I still don't appreciate having the opinions of my characters ascribed to me. It implies that I am incapable of writing or roleplaying characters that are not thinly-veiled reflections of myself. And I, for one, reject that. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:32:23 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: IN> A Question of Cool Moriah writes that: "Jason should not be the subject of a post. You may freely dissect and rebut all of Jason's ideas, but please leave Jason out of it." *sniff* Now I'll never get to satisfy that Vanity discord. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:28:37 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> The use of souls On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Marco Lambert wrote: > I personally like this view of the usefullness of souls. > Finaly all comes down to a lot of power and perhaps some part > of gaining style and amusement. Well, in my opinion, the souls themselves are only marginally useful -- occasionally the Forces are stripped off for specific purposes, and the Essence generation is neccisary to keep Hell and Heaven running, but that's not the primary reason Lucifer does what he does. Lucifer hurts humans (and is thus, evil) because by doing so, he hurts God (If you'd really like to hear the reasons why he wants to hurt God, I may post it. I was wondering this myself a couple weeks ago, and Delta and I chatted about it). In this sort of paradigm, demon PCs should be more interested in fucking over mortals, rather than fucking over angels, given the oppurtunity, and angels should be more concerned with the welfare of the mortals around them. Of course, this isn't always the case -- and thus, conflict ensues. | Don Fnordlioni | donfnord@pitt.edu | http://www.pitt.edu/~donfnord | Please use PGP encryption when writing Finger donfnord@pitt.edu for key ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:58:57 -0500 From: John Maurer Subject: Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil At 07:37 AM 2/27/97 -0500, William Reed wrote: >Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? There was a scene in one of the "Faust" movies (I forget which, but the scene stuck) where Faust is speaking to the Devil. He asks he Devil why he was cast out of heaven. The Devil says: "I'll show you." Then he gets a chair and sits in it. "Worship me," the devil says. Faust obligingly begins to worship the devil. "Sing to me about how great I am," says the devil. Faust does so. This type of thing goes on for a while, then the devil asks Faust, "So how do you feel?" Faust considers for a moment and says, "Not so good. I'm getting tired of doing nothing but talking about how great you are." "THATS WHAT I SAID!" replied the Devil. A possibility of motivation for the Devils may be freedom. One could argue that while serving God there is a feeling engendered of "The Great Plan" and that everything is happening according to some foreordained pattern. The Diabolicals have rejected this pattern. Perhaps they want the pattern to be something else. Perhaps they reject the notion of patterns entirely (Sort of an existential free will taken to extremes). But Freedom may be a good motivator for Diabolicals. "I often find myself rooting for the Apoclypse" -- John Maurer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:06:34 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: IN> A Question of Dominic Kestrel picks on the Archangel of Judgment: "Worse, of course, is saying he works for that uptight dink Dominic." "Also, if Dominic and Laurence are so cool, why did they persecute Gabriel rather than Yves over that whole Islam thing?" Okay...for those who adored my take on Novalis, here's my view of Why Dominic is So Uptight: Dominic was once an angel's angel, a cop on the Divine beat who loved his duty: keeping the angels safe from harm. However, when Lucifer and his crew fell, he took each and every fall as a personal betrayal. In his eyes, they all lied to him...and we know how Seraphim feel about lies. His duty became a mission: to see that no angel falls again, even if he has to discorporate him personally to ensure it. Of course, this does not always work out as planned. (Oh, and in case you're wondering -- Casting Out is, to him, the equivalent of the Scared Straight program. It's to show a celestial how horrible it is to be without the power of the Symphony behind you, in hopes that you'll learn your lesson and come back for redemption and cleansing.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:50:50 +0000 From: "J. S. Cardella" Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool > "Jason should not be the subject of a post. You may freely dissect > and rebut all of Jason's ideas, but please leave Jason out of it." I dunno. If I were serving Vapula r Saminga, I'd want to dissect Jason! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joel Cardella "Chinese food IS my life" http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:54:12 +0000 From: "J. S. Cardella" Subject: IN> Motivaions for Evil Q: What motivates evil? A: Words. Words equal power, and everyone wants more power. Q: Who grants demonic Words? A: Lucifer. Q: Is Lucifer evil? A: Is God all that good? I mean, look at all the crap happening in the world. Is that a trademark of good to let those things go unpunished? All IMHO, of course. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joel Cardella "Chinese food IS my life" http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:59:28 -0500 From: dankmyka@wfu.edu Subject: IN> Why evil? >- Tempting humans to evil weighs the scale towards their going to Hell, and >the more sould in hell...hmmm, what is the REAL advantage of that? They >don't become demons, do they? Essence. It's mentioned in the rulebook that souls in Hell are milked for Essence by the Demon Princes. >- Lucifer wants to be worshipped by more people than God. The more >worshippers, the more powerful the Celestial is. Power is Lucifer's >Ultimate Goal. Well, by most accounts, he did want to dethrone God... -Loki - -- dankmyka@wfu.edu minimalist .sig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:12:43 GMT From: zarlor@acm.org (Lenny Zimmermann) Subject: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Bill Reed wrote: >What is ultimately to be gained? How does >"doing evil" stack the oddds in favor of the diabolicals winning the War? >Some of my ideas, though admitedly not fully though out are: > >- - Tempting humans to evil weighs the scale towards their going to Hell, and >the more sould in hell...hmmm, what is the REAL advantage of that? They >don't become demons, do they? Apparently the do not become demons, but in some way souls would seem to equal a kind of power. Perhaps in the upper echelons of the Celestials, the number of souls controlled, or perhaps even consumed, equal an increase in Celestial Forces. Perhaps part of Lucifer's goal is to gain more strength than God. >- - The Ultimate goal of the War is control of the Earth. When all the >humans are gone, the Side with the most souls gets the Prize. One possible way of looking at it. Or perhaps it would be better to say it is a PART of the picture? >- - Lucifer wants to be worshipped by more people than God. The more >worshippers, the more powerful the Celestial is. Power is Lucifer's >Ultimate Goal. See the first comment above. I tend to think this is a good part of what this "war" is about, or at least how the mechanics of it fall into place. The only problem with the "worship" part is that, although the "good" religions have a strong hold among humanity, those religions devoted specifically to the worship of Lucifer or demonic entities are very small. There are probably far more people who are agnostic or atheist. In such a case Lucifer would consider these either as people who at least detract from God's power, even if they don't add to his, but I would think Lucifer would do far more to gain active worshippers if that is how he got power. >- - Lucifer believes that he was not credited for the work he did in the >Creation. This was the "arguement" that led to the original Fall. Now >he's out to destroy that which he was denied credit for, and to hurt God. >His most effective way of doing this is to turn as many away from God as >possible. My only problem with this one is, why hasn't God just smitten >him, if it's a personal thing? Because that is not part of God's "Plan"? >Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? I think the biggest clue we have, at least in game terms, is that Lucifer and his Diabolicals are all doing nothing more than promoting selfishness. This may not be a "war" about power at all, it could be more akin to a fight between a teenage boy and his father. The teenager wants "freedom" and has to prove his independence, while the father dearly loves the child and tries his best to protect him as he sees fit, but in the long run determines that he has to let him go his own way. Maybe that "free will" concept is just as strong in the Celestial realm as it is here. Perhaps there is no great "Plan" at all, but it is how the Celestials make sense of THEIR world. No matter how you look at it always remember that when you have created something in your game world and your players question it, even if you agree with them in concept, what is done is done and you can always fall back on "It is all part of a much greater Plan that none of us can understand". Then see if you can work the "screw-up" in as an advantage to your side at some later point. (OK, so I didn't really answer any questions, but what do want from a game so rooted in theological debate. ;-)) Lenny Zimmermann zarlor@acm.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:05:54 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil When I'm gming a game, I like to have a 'world view', or some type of 'cannon' where I know what the 'actual' reality of the gaming world is, when the players/characters may not. So, I'll throw out some ideas that I've had in the back of my mind, pertaining to the questions that William asked. I have lots of idea about how the universe may be. These are all just ideas, not fully thought out. Food for thought. On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, William Reed wrote: > - Tempting humans to evil weighs the scale towards their going to Hell, and > the more sould in hell...hmmm, what is the REAL advantage of that? They > don't become demons, do they? nope. they don't become demons. But what if it's some kinda weird numbers game. What if Lucifer is playing some kinda bizarre game with god, just trying to 'best' him. Lucifer was thrown out because of his pride, so perhaps his pride keeps him in this game... > - The Ultimate goal of the War is control of the Earth. When all the > humans are gone, the Side with the most souls gets the Prize. Well, perhaps not a prize, exactly, but perhaps satisfaction. Wouldn't that be enough? I mean, if you are an omipotent being like god, and really can do anything you want, make any reality, what is left for you? I propose that he created humans, and gave them free will because he was bored! And he wanted to be worshiped.. but the angels love was not good enough because they *had* to love him that is how they were created. He wanted something to love him that didn't have to. Hence, human beings. Now Lucifer knows this. And he would just love to one up the big guy. > - Lucifer wants to be worshipped by more people than God. The more > worshippers, the more powerful the Celestial is. Power is Lucifer's > Ultimate Goal. Now this, also is an interesting idea. Perhaps a 'god's' power is directly proportional to the number of worshipers he has. If this is in fact the case, then Lucifer, perhaps, can become a god in his own right, OR perhaps he already is. The current reigning 'god' he's a smart one. He started off with one religion, perhaps the Jewish religion, perhaps Zoroasterism, doesn't matter, and built on that... Christianity, Islam... who knows what is next, this is a GREAT marketing ploy, to get folks of different religions all worshiping you. It's a fantastic idea. ;) And his angels do his bidding. > - Lucifer believes that he was not credited for the work he did in the > Creation. This was the "arguement" that led to the original Fall. Now > he's out to destroy that which he was denied credit for, and to hurt God. > His most effective way of doing this is to turn as many away from God as > possible. My only problem with this one is, why hasn't God just smitten > him, if it's a personal thing? That's easy. It would be 'cheating'. God could certainly strike him down, but that would defeat the purpose of the 'game'. Or can he? I'm sure he'd like Lucifer to think he can.. but.. has Lucifer's own power grown so great because of the number of soul's he's collected, or the number of folks what 'worship' what he stands for that God no longer can. Does Lucifer know this? Does he have a clue? > Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? It's a game. Perhaps. And everyone wants to win. Just like irl. ;) -DeltaS The Angel of Posturing, Cheribum of Janus. Rite: Soul of the Poseur ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 11:25 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Discerning Metaphysics [Moriah:] >>Walter Milliken: >>Obviously, then, one way to find out exactly what you're dealing with is >>to somehow force it to go celestial. > > Good luck trying that. ;) Sounds like a good excuse for a unique relic -- I bet a lot of people would like to get their hands on such a thing.... Adventure seed, anyone? >>This implies that Outcasts probably ought to have a "tainted" angelic >>celestial form that reflects the fact that they've sort of partically >>Fallen. Renegades are another case, depending on whether they're just >>running away from their former Prince, or actually on the road to >>Redemption. > > That 'taint' is called Dissonance. An actual break in the Symphony is >Discord. Changing Sides can metaphorically be referred to as changing >chords, key, mode, or you start playing a whole new theme -- for angels, you >hook up with a new band, sort of like Paul McCartney and Wings*. Yes, except it seems to me that we're actually talking about *three* states of being for a celestial, not just two. You've basically got "OK" (normal angel), "Outcast" (not Fallen, but not attached to Heaven anymore either), and "Fallen" (normal demon). Since celestial form reflects the first and last states, it seemed to me that there ought to be a half-way form for Outcasts. It's true that an Outcast has Discord, but not all that many Discords affect celestial form. I suppose you could make the argument that a Fallen angel gets his new form when he gets his new heart, and likewise for Redeemed. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:22:22 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John Maurer wrote: > "THATS WHAT I SAID!" replied the Devil. > > A possibility of motivation for the Devils may be freedom. One could argue > that while serving God there is a feeling engendered of "The Great Plan" and > that everything is happening according to some foreordained pattern. The > Diabolicals have rejected this pattern. You know, I kinda think that cause God wanted his little 'ego' boost, and decided that he wanted something to love him of it's own free will and invented humans.. well, they needed an alternate choice. So God allowed Lucifer to rebel. If no one rebelled, there was no game, cause the humans had free wil, but no other choice. DeltaS - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:18:01 -0500 From: Viktor Haag Subject: IN> Biblio source ... Not mentioned in the IN bibliography, but a book well worth reading is Garry Kilworth's Angel. Pair of detectives must track down and collar maniacal arsonist torching half of San Francisco. Dismayed when they discover that maniacal arsonist is really a rogue Angel, and is busy torching half the world in its quest to destroy rogue demons. Good, quick read. - ---- Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc. Communications Specialist viktor@peergroup.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:23:29 -0500 From: John Maurer Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 09:25 AM 2/27/97 -0500, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >There are many instances where holy books support things that strike me as >'narrow-minded and bigoted'. I tried to ascribe opinions to them that reflect >the Divine sensibility, not a modern one. Yes, but there are also many parts of scripture that support loving and forgiveness. There have been interpretations of David, one of the greatest Kings of Israel as Gay. At the very least he loved Jonathan "with love more than that of man to woman" or something on that order. My aramaic is rusty. I feel there is a general notion, especially from non-Christians, that God is a big meanie in the sky who squishes people like bugs when they offend him. This notion is portrayed a lot in the Old Testament and I can see many angels hold this view (Michael, Lawrence, Dominic). But there are a lot of love peace and granola passages in the bible as well. They mostly show up in the New Testament and I like to think a lot of angels hold this view as well (Eli and Novalis are our best examples, Jeordi?) >And I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at *all*. When all is said >and done, these are fictional characters. Ascribing the motivations of >fictional characters to their authors is specious at best. To trot out an old >canard, was Shakespeare an anti-Semite for writing "The Merchant of Venice"? I don't agree. I think in order for an author to accurately portray an emotion, he has to at least have experience with that emotion. I think when an author is fixated on an emotion or shows a clear lack of understanding of an emotion that it bleeds through all his characters in some degree. Look at Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, or Jack Chalker. There are some obvious biases that can be attributed to author bias. As to Shakespear, I don't have the facts to answer, but one of my Prof's in a Law and Religion class suggested that Shakespeare made the Jewish character in that play as sympathetic as he could given the time. That the solliquiy "If I am cut, do I not bleed (etc.)" was scandalously close to sympathising with the Jews at the time of the writing. I have no idea one way or another, but I thought it was interesting. >John: >"Oh what a tangled web we weave." > >The tail end of this phrase that you omitted is "...when first we practice to >deceive." If you think me to have attempted to deceive you with my style of >attribution, I apologize for that. AOL 3.0 for the Mac is impossibly slow, so >I use 2.7, which doesn't quote. I add them in the old fashioned way. I did not think you were attempting to deceive me. I DID think you were somehow being sloppy, but apparently it is the fault of your mail program. Using AOL is its own punishment I think. :) >And, now that we've cleared this up, I'm sorry about the "killfile" comment. >But I still don't appreciate having the opinions of my characters ascribed to >me. It implies that I am incapable of writing or roleplaying characters that >are not thinly-veiled reflections of myself. And I, for one, reject that. Not necessarily thinly veiled reflections, but I think there is reflection. Example: I noticed after a while that all of my NPC's were reasonable. They could be sat down and talked into almost anything given time. This is because I (think I) am inherently reasonable and always willing to listen to the other side. My attempts to make characters unreasonable has not been a smashing success. On the other hand, I am really good at manipulating or hiding my true intentions (part of the territory of being an attorney). Most of my villians do this to an extreme I would find distasteful in a real person. John "I often find myself rooting for the Apoclypse" -- John Maurer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: IN> A Question of Cool John Maurer: "I feel there is a general notion, especially from non-Christians, that God is a big meanie in the sky who squishes people like bugs when they offend him. This notion is portrayed a lot in the Old Testament and I can see many angels hold this view (Michael, Lawrence, Dominic). But there are a lot of love peace and granola passages in the bible as well. They mostly show up in the New Testament and I like to think a lot of angels hold this view as well (Eli and Novalis are our best examples, Jeordi?)" I agree wholeheartedly. Different archangels have varying views on the symphony. You'll notice, though, that the angels with the "peace and love" view are the ones who are least trusted by the hierarchy and, mostly by choice, least involved with the politics of Heaven. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:24:33 -0800 From: Aaron Harmon Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #44 Moriah said: >>Lilim who are 'free' don't have a heart . Then if they are "killed" on the corporeal plane, where do they show up. I believe it was said (I don't have a page number) that if a celestial is killed corporeally(sp?) he shows up near his heart, and begin contemplating his death. So where do free lilim show up? TIA Aaron, Angel of not comprehending the rules by himself. Sevitor of Ernest (as in P Worrell), Archangel of cluelessness Special rite: Duh? Wha? Huh? ____________________________________________________________ Aaron M. Harmon aaron@longsword.com http://www.longsword.com ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:35:23 -0500 From: dankmyka@wfu.edu Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool >I agree wholeheartedly. Different archangels have varying views on the >symphony. You'll notice, though, that the angels with the "peace and love" >view are the ones who are least trusted by the hierarchy and, mostly by >choice, least involved with the politics of Heaven. Well, least trusted by the hardnoses, that is. You'll notice there's a web of connections between the 'apolitical', in the form of a sort of mutual support network. Of course, I may be biased -- the IN campaign I'm going to run is going to focus on certain actions of the 'peace and love' angels that must needs not be discovered by the hardnoses, especially Dominic. (Hi, Blade.) -Loki - -- dankmyka@wfu.edu minimalist .sig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:13:45 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John Maurer wrote: > I don't agree. I think in order for an author to accurately portray an > emotion, he has to at least have experience with that emotion. I think when > an author is fixated on an emotion or shows a clear lack of understanding of > an emotion that it bleeds through all his characters in some degree. So, then, you're saying that Shakespear, for instance was a Bigot, when he wrote Othello? I mean, lots of characters treated him poorly because he was black. Of course, he portrayed Othello's side as well. Hmmm. ;) I think that a good author certainly must explore an emotion, in order to 'experience' it. That's why I roleplay. And I'd venture a guess that it's why lots of you rp too. I don't have to BE a bigot to play a member of the KKK. I don't have to BE gay to play a lesbian. I don't have to BE a man to play one. You see? That's the entire point of RP to me. It's not the only point, it's just my point. :) > Not necessarily thinly veiled reflections, but I think there is reflection. > Example: I noticed after a while that all of my NPC's were reasonable. They > could be sat down and talked into almost anything given time. This is > because I (think I) am inherently reasonable and always willing to listen to > the other side. My attempts to make characters unreasonable has not been a > smashing success. On the other hand, I am really good at manipulating or > hiding my true intentions (part of the territory of being an attorney). > Most of my villians do this to an extreme I would find distasteful in a real > person. Well there ya go. That's *role* playing. It *is* hard to roleplay an idea, or philosophy that differs radically from your own. And I often find myself coming back to the same 'kind' of character, that I enjoy most. However, that doesn't mean that I can't play one that is entirely different from the way that I am. Sometimes it's difficult, but it's very rewarding. -DeltaS The Angel of Posturing, Cheribum of Janus. Rite: Soul of the Poseur ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:38:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Re: Re: List Management At 8:09 PM -0500 2/26/97, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: >>Walter Milliken: >> >>>Moriah: >>> It is added automagically. Now, if we can get people to stop adding the >>>RE: to the subject line... we all know that a subject line tells us what >>the message is in REgards to. >> >>Well, *people* don't usually add it -- it's considered proper netiquette >>in email reply subject headers, and most mailreaders add it >>automatically when the user does a reply operation. I suspect editing >>it out is painful in a lot of mailreaders.... [...] > As part of Internet mail, the subject line prefix is 'Subject:', so, the >person initiating a piece of email will have 'Subject: This Subject' in the >header of the email. Replies should have the same header, namely, 'Subject: >This Subject' and *not* 'Subject: Re: This Subject'. ICK! But then I'm reading along and I see something without a "re" and I think it's a new thread, but find out I need to go find the original... :-p Fortunately, I have my mail-system date-sort as well, so I can usually find the top of a thread. > This makes sorting email by title totally impractical. Eudora manages it quite nicely. Get a real email program, Moriah. O;> I could try to get rid of "Re:", but that means I'd have to edit it by hand every single blasted time. And I don't even manage to remember to add myself to the CC list on my PBEMs. And I don't want to shut it off for all things anyway -- I *like* "Re"s! Elizabeth, gray Lilim of Thread Attributions; special rite: provoking religious computer arguements (Mac vs. PC, Windows vs DOS vs MacOS...) (+3 Essence if I can get Hitler mentioned in a computer flamewar!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:40:01 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Eli Impersonators At 8:53 PM -0600 2/26/97, Andrew Getting wrote: >At 04:33 PM 2/26/97 -0600, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >>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. > >206 has a lovely picture of an index, Oops, try again ;> 203, I think he means. And aside from having pseudo-dreadlocks and a greed coat, I don't think the horned, winged demon looks like Eli. His coat isn't even the same style... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:48:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Hearts At 8:09 PM -0500 2/26/97, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: >>Aaron Harmon: >>So would a lilim have her heart in the same manner as a servitor of Eli? > > Lilim serving a Superior would have a Superior-forged heart in some >Principality of Hell. > > Lilim who are 'free' don't have a heart . They could, if a Superior >or Lilith were willing, trade a favor in order to have that Superior create >and keep a heart for her. Creating hearts is a heavy Essence expense on the >part of a Superior, and they don't do it lightly. This would be 6 levels of >Geas for sure. And another 6 levels of Geas in payment to have the Superior >'liberate' her heart and let her put it where she wants. Who wants a Heart kept by some superior? That just means they can *find* you when they want you. Ickies. I mean, you've finally worked off that last debt (or at least the last biggie), and you're off on your own, and don't have to phone home, and you can mallcrawl all you want, and you've got your own apartment and *everything* -- and *wham*! There's Asmodeus's thugs on your doorstep saying things like, "But didn' you *like* it in Hell? You like de eart' bedder? Our boss, he is wonderin' if perhaps you are losin' de faith, if you are slackin' off now. But we know bedder, right? You're just workin' on some great plan dat will further Lucifer's will, right?" So what do we free grrls *want* a Heart for? Though it does make it hard to figure out where we're supposed to appear if something inconvenient happens to our vessels... :-( So where *do* free Lilim appear if their vessels get toasted? emccoy@nh.ultranet.com, Uppity Wynch http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html "rumoured to contain hoards of plunder, and many young wenches" Mike [falsetto]: "We're tired of these degrading patriachical slurs! From now on we demand to be called 'wynchys.'" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:11:58 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Eli Impersonators > >206 has a lovely picture of an index, Oops, try again ;> Well, I was at work at the time and didn't have the book to look, so I was trying to remember the page number. Close enough. ;'P > 203, I think he means. And aside from having pseudo-dreadlocks and > a greed coat, I don't think the horned, winged demon looks like Eli. > His coat isn't even the same style... *shrug* He looked like Eli to me... > --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net > GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ Oops da Ogre, occasional victim of the poor vision discord mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:19:49 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> Re: Re: List Management On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Eudora manages it quite nicely. Get a real email program, Moriah. > O;> Ahem. ;) Well I wouldn't call Eudora a "real" email program. > I could try to get rid of "Re:", but that means I'd have to edit it > by hand every single blasted time. And I don't even manage to remember > to add myself to the CC list on my PBEMs. And I don't want to shut it > off for all things anyway -- I *like* "Re"s! Me too please. > Elizabeth, gray Lilim of Thread Attributions; special rite: provoking > religious computer arguements (Mac vs. PC, Windows vs DOS vs MacOS...) > (+3 Essence if I can get Hitler mentioned in a computer flamewar!) Ewww! your rite worked! I flamed your mailer! Cool! -DeltaS The Angel of Posturing, Cheribum of Janus. Rite: Soul of the Poseur ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #45 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.