From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 8 11:53:43 1998 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 LAA17534 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:53:43 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA21962 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:22:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:22:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199812081722.LAA21962@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1043 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 Tuesday, December 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1043 In this digest: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Santa Claus Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 22:10:29 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/7/98 9:44:04 PM Central Standard Time, > anthoch@earlham.edu writes: > > > Mm. Interesting factoid, that I'd forgotten but that Perry and Ben (in > > the room at the moment) reminded me of - Blandine and Beleth were once > > lovers. If Dominic didn't condemn that, I don't think he's going to > > condemn homosexuality in general. :) > Celestials are genderless, remember? > Brian Ooo. Another Brian. Anyway, they may be genderless, but I think some 'associate' with a specific gender. Laurence, for example... *does not make the obvious joke* is very male, it's what he associates with. Blandine and Beleth associate with female. Gabby used to do male, now she's female. Eli... Apparently does male, but I doubt he'd limit himself like that... I wonder if he's gotten pregnant yet... *shakes head to clear mind* Right. Michael is is extremely masculine, but I wouldn't put it past him to appear female if he thought it would help the War. Celestials may be genderless, but they do associate with certain genders. - -- Brian A.H. "I am Don Arturo de Los Angeles. I am the greatest reader of all time. I have read over a million books in my lifetime, and their pages flow through my mind like summer days..." Phoenix Clan Purifier*Gaijin*Shugenja*ABC Geeky Shugenja Man*Totoroan L5R(1.1) PX+ S(LA) G++ R Y+ C+ E+ M-- T-- D++ K U+++ L5R(R1.3) GP++ (PR+++ CC++) RP+ GT:! P+ PX/LN+ S++ G+++ R Y+ C++ CG++ U+++ J---- ABC(1.0) PX/ABC++(ic, anyways. =)) S(LA) Y+ A++ D++ BO/OC!N!++++(nosebleed) P+++ U++ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:13:02 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Perestroika wrote: > > Mm. Interesting factoid, that I'd forgotten but that Perry and Ben (in > the room at the moment) reminded me of - Blandine and Beleth were once > lovers. If Dominic didn't condemn that, I don't think he's going to > condemn homosexuality in general. :) > But angels don't actually have a gender. They were lovers in the 'perfect heavenly love' sense. It probably has a physical side, as well as an ethereal and a celestial part, but human love is only a reflection of this at best. Jason buck naked now in the eyes of the lord ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 07:20:12 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, B.H. wrote: > BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > Celestials are genderless, remember? > > Anyway, they may be genderless, but I think some 'associate' with a > specific gender. Laurence, for example... *does not make the obvious > joke* is very male, it's what he associates with. Blandine and Beleth > associate with female. Gabby used to do male, now she's female. > Eli... Apparently does male, but I doubt he'd limit himself like > that... I wonder if he's gotten pregnant yet... > > *shakes head to clear mind* > > Right. Michael is is extremely masculine, but I wouldn't put it past > him to appear female if he thought it would help the War. Celestials > may be genderless, but they do associate with certain genders. I'm not so sure. -We- associate them with certain genders, but then we have extreme difficulty with thinking about people -without- associating a gender to them. A person's gender is one of the most basic aspects of them, in the minds of almost all humans. BTW, Dommie him/herself apparently has no preference, according to the basic write-up, though the male pronoun is used in the description. :P Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:53:22 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Greetings! On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, [iso-8859-1] Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote: > > For obvious reasons, I think you could class in as "horror". > > I've seen the Sandman Graphic novels classed as Horror aswell, even though > I dont think its entirely appropriate. Actually, I always though of In > Nomine as a bit Neil Gaimanish, even though I couldnt fit the Endless into > the Setting. VERY Gaiman-ish... :) Mayber "supernatural fantasy" is a better monicker. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:54:30 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Greetings! On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > It is a SuperHero game. It's not exactly a Marvel Heros, or Batman or > Spiderman or anything like that, but there are still people who are bigger > and badder then any human being fighting back and forth with superpowers. Using this definition, most RPGs could be classed as a "SuperHero" game. :) Laterish! Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 07:18:26 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 19:16 07/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>>However, I think that part of Dominic's role in the game is to have >strict beliefs that are not shared by the 'flakier' archangels (including, >in this case, Michael :-) So he may well rule that all sorts of funny >things >are wrong, possibly including drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, >heretical thinking, the Spice Girls, or for all I know sausages.<<< > >Naturally, but exactly what he rules is wrong depends in large part on your >take on the game. In a satirical IN campaign, Dominic declaring sausages >sinful could be highly amusing. Argh. Shades of the Euro-sausage! jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:36:05 -0800 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality >BTW, Dommie him/herself apparently has no preference, according to the >basic write-up, though the male pronoun is used in the description. :P Indeed. See, for example, the various appearances of Dominique in Emily Dresner's game logs. :) - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:51:01 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules Okay, seeing as how Elizabeth was nice enough to point you all to the INcyclopedia-I've renamed the INdex for those who don't use it regularly-I decided this was a fine time to push through and finish getting the data from the Final Trumpet up and going; those of you who don't already have the page bookmarked can find it at http://www.serv.net/incyclopedia. Please note that the update won't actually happen until tomorrow morning sometimes, for technical reasons, but heck, most of you won't read this at midnight anyway. I've also put together a page (http://www.serv.net/incyclopedia/ls.html) that is just Wordbounds, minus deadsters, minus the list that Elizabeth said not even to try. It still includes a lot of people who already have good stats-it contains all the Archangels and Demon Princes, for God's sake-but it _does_ include every character you _can_ do. If anyone can think of another way that I can make the INcyclopedia more useful to this contest, please tell me. Love to hear. steve -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy [mailto:emccoy@nh.ultranet.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:55 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Cc: emccoy@nh.ultranet.com Subject: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules Liber Servitorum Contest Rules As you might guess, the Liber Servitorum is going to have a lot of characters in it. Enough that I'm hoping to run a contest... However, contests have rules. These Rules Must Be Followed Exactly. Anyone who doesn't follow them _will have their submission rejected_, and will probably NOT be notified. I anticipate being very busy. (And for every brilliant submission that didn't follow the rules, there will be five equally-brilliant ones that did. Guess which ones I'm going to read?) #1: All Submissions *MUST* Have Correct Headers. I want each submission to say: LIBER SUBMISSION: [character name and/or number] in its subject. I'm going to be running a filter program to put all these in a particular email folder, and if the Subject is wrong, then the submission will be lost in all my *other* email. #1A: Send them to "arcangel@io.com" or "emccoy@nh.ultranet.com." Any submissions sent to the list will _NOT_ be considered for the Liber Servitorum. Watch that "To" field in your email. #1B: 1 character per email. If there's more than that, then I won't look at any of them. #2: All Submissions Must Be Correct English. If the submission isn't close enough to good English for me to read easily to start with, I won't read it. (If you get who/whom mixed up, or have 1-2 honest typos, no biggie; anything more egregious than that, and I go on to the next one.) If English is obviously not your first language, get someone else to help you with it before submitting it to me. No, I'm too busy to help for this contest. Sorry. #2A: you will probably find it helpful read the SJ Games writers' guidelines. Yes, they're currently for GURPS and Pyramid. Read them anyway. http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/writers/ You may also find http://www.sjgames.com/general/author/ to contain useful information. #2B: The correct headers are arcane things, but find them anyway. Those are listed at the site too. Bold is indicated by bold and italics are italics. (It's like HTML, but without trailing /.) #2C: ALL SUBMISSIONS MUST BE ASCII TEXT. No smart-quotes. *NO ATTACHMENTS*. Attachments go into a different folder and I have to go find them. The character must be in the body of the message. #2D: No libel or slander. Sorry, you can't make Bill Gates a demon. Or a Soldier. Or a mummy. You could make him an angel, but I don't really want famous humans to be "non-human," frankly. #2E: No obscenity. There are a hundred more immaginative ways to have someone curse than using the seven-dirty-words; imagination is good, right? #3: All Submissions Must Use Correct IN Terminology. If I see "a Shedim" or "Calabites" or "Lilims," I'm not going to be pleased. Likewise, no using "dissonance" for "disturbance," etc. (And though I use "Geasa" in my own games, the canon is "Geases" for the plural noun, or geas/geasing for the verb.) http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/stylesheet.html This is one of my pet peeves; if I'm tired, I'll stop reading anything that doesn't keep the plurals straight. #3A: Characters Must Conform To Canon. Yes, there are a lot of interesting characters out there that bend canon in a good cause. But I don't want to see them submitted for this book. #4: All Submissions Must Be No More Than 625 Words. Total. This is going to include a short vignette (maybe), the character stats (yes, those count as words), and descriptive text. If I want you to make a submission longer, I'll ask. First, I want to know if you can write that tightly. If you can't, then I don't read it. #4A: put your Word-count in front of the rest of the character, above the character itself. #5: No More Than 10 Submissions. That's right, I'll look at up to 10 of your submissions, but no more. (If I need more from you, I'll ask.) #5A: I repeat: 1 character per email. #5B: I repeat again: LIBER SUBMISSION: [character name and/or number] in the subject line of your email. #6: Make It A Wonderful Character. This is the trickiest -- the character has to be one that I like, and that The Guy Who Runs Steve Jackson Games likes. (Why is this rule number 6? Because no matter how wonderful the submission is, if it doesn't follow the rules above, I won't look at it. Pity, that.) #6A: You have 10 submissions for a reason -- I want to see a typical Seraph of Stone as much as I want to see the Bright Lilim of Judgment you're using as an NPC somewhere. In fact, I want to see the more "typical" characters *MORE*, and I want them to be *interesting*. (I fully expect to get at least 15 Brights, of which 5 will be serving Laurence, Dominic and David. Two will be Creation in service to Judgment. Prove me wrong, please.) #7: You Must Agree To The Following Nasty (but necessary) Conditions: #7A: All submissions become the property of Steve Jackson Games, to edit as they wish, change as they wish, use as they wish in future books, etc., _whether they are accepted for the book or not_. Even if a submission is accepted, it may be edited. (Don't submit your favorite fictional character unless you can deal with this; Maya won't be submitting Caliah, for instance, and I won't be submitting Betharan or Tebah.) _Especially_ if it's accepted, a character may get used in, say, someone else's vignette somewhere down the line. #7B: You will not attempt to sue or harass Steve Jackson Games or anyone else connected with the Liber Servitorum (e.g., me) if your submission is altered. (I anticipate re-writing _at least_ half of the vignettes; prove me wrong, please.) Ditto if it is not accepted -- _even if a similar submission is!_ No, we are not going to steal your ideas and fail to give you credit for them. People come up with the same ideas once in a while. It happens. (Especially if you base it off of something that we can look up in Gustav Davidson's _A Dictionary of Angels_.) #7C: You won't post the character on your web-page until you've seen the Liber Servitorum in print and made sure that it isn't already there. (Or sell it to a gaming magazine like Shadis, either -- submitting a character gives up all your rights to it, and gives them to Steve Jackson Games. Using it as you would a character you still owned the rights to... is theft. Be polite, I don't want to be the meanie. If you don't want to agree to these -- see 7A, above. I'm not sending in *my* favorite characters, because I want them to remain as much mine as possible!) (Despite some of my mildly snide comments on the chat the other evening, only the authors and playtesters will be seeing your material, and stuff I reject out of hand won't be shown around anywhere but the bitbucket.) Now, here's What I Want (and Don't Want): * Interesting, Useful Characters. Each character should have a well-defined personality. Each character should have a defined *game use*. I.e. (and I am endebted to Jo Hart for this concept), each character should have a role to play within the game: victim, sidekick, aggressor, villain, immediate superior/boss, etc. (Note that this is not the same as a Role, and also note that the _PCs_ are going to be the heroes -- don't submit a character that does everything himself and is so utterly perfect that if he's introduced into a game, he'd logically take over the campaign and Solve All Problems. Even "Here Comes The Cavalry" characters need a reason not to join up with the PCs every time they're in trouble.) You don't have to put the character's game-role into the description, but should have it firmly in mind when you're writing the character up. (And if you *did* put in a sentence saying what its game-role is, I wouldn't mind. Put it up with the word-count, and don't count it with the rest.) (I reiterate -- even if the character is 9 Forces and point-balanced, write it as an NPC, not a PC. PCs are either too bland (if painted broadly) or too detailed and weird. NPCs have roles in the universe and are a GM aid.) * No Superiors. (We have plenty of Archangels and Demon Princes. We don't need more.) Likewise, no ethereal gods. * _Few_ Word-bound, and _No New Ones._ There are plenty of Word-bound in the books already: check out the INdex/INcyclopedia for names and locations. (And include all previous page references to that character if you submit him/her/it, so I can find it easily.) Just don't use one who's stated to be dead now. Go to www.sjgames.com/in-nomine, and follow the Resources Link. I have a list of Word-bound at the bottom of this message which I *do not* want to see. Someone else is already working on them. (As a note: non-Superior Word-bound do not have Band/Choir Attunements, and their "Servitor Attunement" tends to be simple and relatively weak. They also get a special Rite. Both their ability and Rite need to be described. No, you can't go over the word-count budget to do so.) (Seneschals can be used, but they're going to count as Word-bound, mostly. (Even the attuned ones.) I will much prefer to see one illustrated in detail who was just a single-line mention in the past (or even not mentioned at all, with just his Tether described). Again, there are already a few of them mentioned, and anyone who has a playtest copy of the Liber Castellorum can come up with _countless_ others.) * Previously mentioned non-Word-bound. If you want to scrape together all the references to a character from an example, whose stats have not already appeared in Pyramid, and make it conform to all those, I may be pleased by that. (I'm trying to cut down on name-proliferation.) * A range of power-levels. Anything from demonling servants to lesser Word-bound, concentrating on the middle ground -- 7-11 Forces or so. I do want to see a few 7 Force demons. 7-9 Force celestials, ideally, will be point-balanced, so that they provide examples of character creation _as well_ as being cool NPCs. * A range of _kinds_ of characters. I don't want to see fifty Fire-Malakim. Even if they're all gems, this is not going to be the Big Book of Fire Malakim! Don't make your 10 submissions identical or interchangeable. * A range of _personalities._ To para-quote Em: Not all Lilim and Impudites are great wonderful people who are going to redeem at the drop of a hat. (Even the _nice_ ones aren't going to do this, 99.9% of the time! Yes, you can be selfishly nice; if it's no skin off your nose, it keeps the surrounding environment more pleasant to live in.) Not all angels are Nice either -- and not all non-Nice ones are headed for a Fall or dissonance! (I want to see the whole spectrum -- nice demons, truly evil nasty demons, enigmatic angels, nasty angels, nice angels, etc.) * Few Linked Characters. If you have two (or more) characters who are linked in some way -- archenemies, partners, parent-child, etc. -- and one is rejected, the other will probably get rejected too. 95% of the characters in the book should be able to stand alone. (This makes it easier to use them in someone else's campaign -- one doesn't have to worry about fitting in more than one NPC at a time.) Now, the categories are: Angels and Demons: these will be the majority of desired characters. I do not want to see any Grigori, celestial Children of the Grigori, or Nephallim/Nephalim. Outcasts and Renegades are okay. There may be as many as 2 Remnants accepted (1 per side). Relievers and Demonlings (inc. Imps & Gremlins): Familiars or otherwise. There will probably be only one reliever and at most 2 demonlings (imp and gremlin) in the final book. Tough competition. Don't duplicate the ones in the APG/IPG. Humans: I have some space for humans. I don't want many mundanes (and any mundanes _have to have a reason why a GM might want them in his game_). I do want Soldiers (both sides), Saints, sorcerers, Undead... Any Zombi, though, will have to be _brilliant_ -- zombis are dead, lacking in will, and rotting. Not very interesting NPCs. Humans must be brilliant. I do not want to see Joe Schmoe the Gas Station Attendant, even if he has the most fascinating fate or destiny; these should be humans (mundane or aware-but-not-Soldiers or otherwise) who will be interacting with the PCs, not just being the living McGuffin. Don't duplicate the undead in _Night Music_. Ethereals: Yes, I have some space for Ethereals. These are going to be tricky -- canon on them isn't as clear as for the others. (And some of the examples -- such as those in _Heaven & Hell_'s scenerio -- have errata. Check All Errata if you're planning to submit an ethereal.) I'm more likely to look favorably on a character which doesn't seem to have potential to make it really hard to retrofit ethereal canon around it. (That's an evil sentence, but it stands.) *NO* ethereal gods/ethereals of Superior class. I don't want to see anything of a higher "power level" than one of the Fair Folk. The format is going to be: Characteristics Vignette Description Art Notes (what the character looks like, roughly; this will be handed to the artist, and doesn't count for the wordcount. Remember that the art will be about [inches] by [inches], and we can't fit in great gory groupshots.) The vignette ***MUST*** concisely illustrate some facet of the character. It must ***NOT*** waste words, be "filler," or just be a chance to show off your great fiction-writing talents. It must be useful to a GM *and* fun to read. The Vignette does not necessarily need to introduce the character. It could come in the middle of the description, or even at the end. It *must* conform to the above. There does not have to be a vignette, and it does not have to be long. If you have a 9-Force, balanced character, I advise a *short* vignette. Say, 3 sentences, if you can manage that. Deadline for characters is: January 10. Format: - -------- General Character format: (Note that there is *no space* between the -Head: or @Normal: and the text that follows it. (Use exactly those capitalizations, too...) Also note that in the IN Stats section, each characteristic is separated by a , not spaces. There should be no spaces there. If your emailer inserts spaces for tabs, tell me. I am using CAPS as a placeholder for a variable value. Do not fill in the NAME of a character in all-caps.) @C-Head:NAME [if Word-bound] @D-Head: Angel/Demon/Seneschal of WORD/TETHER'S NAME @D-Head:CHOIR/BAND TITLE of WORD [If no distinctions, then "Title" is either "Servitor" or absent (if in good standing)] For Renegade and Outcasts, the last D-head reads: @D-Head:Renegade/Outcast CHOIR/BAND TITLE of WORD. For those in service to someone, the last D-Head reads: @D-Head:CHOIR/BAND TITLE of WORD in service to NAME The rest of the character sheet should be in this format: @Normal:Vignette, if any. [Vignette is commonly placed here in Cyclebooks; for the Liber Servitorum, it may be elsewhere in the description.] @IN Stats:Corporeal Forces - # Strength # Agility # Ethereal Forces - # Intelligence # Precision # Celestial Forces - # Will # Perception # @Normal:Vessel(s): Vessel1/# (gender/description [e.g., "female" or "old lady"]), Charisma +/-#, Sex Appeal +# [if any charisma/Sex Appeal]; Vessel2/# (gender/description), Charisma +/-#, Sex Appeal +#; [etc.] Role(s): Role Name1/#, Status/#; Role Name2/#, Status/#; [etc., making sure that if Roles are attached to a vessel, this is obvious.] Skills: [etc.] Songs: [etc.] Attunements: CHOIR/BAND SINGULAR of WORD, [etc], any distinctions Malakite Oaths: [if Malakite; a Malakite will have oaths! If he does not, he needs to.] Discord: [if any; a CALABITE will have Discord! If he does not, he needs to.] Artifacts: [if any] Special Rites: [if any] Special Ability (-ies): [if any; these are where "cute abilities" of the Word-bound should probably go] @Normal:The Rest Of The Description. - -------- When doing a Seneschal, the format is thus: Word Bound Seneschal: @C-Head:NAME @D-Head:Seneschal of TETHER'S NAME @D-Head:CHOIR/BAND TITLE of WORD Attuned Seneschal: @C-Head:NAME @D-Head:CHOIR/BAND TITLE of WORD [stuff] Attunements:[stuff], Seneschal (attuned to TETHER'S NAME) Alain, the talented person who does layout, says, "There should be a period at the end of a stat only if that stat is a sentence. Skills, Songs etc. don't need periods. Special abilities, descriptions of unusual artifacts etc. usually do need a period." - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Characters who have been spoken for already: Arael, the Angel of Birds Jophiel, the Cherub who guards the gates of Eden (Dominic) Mihr, Elohite Angel of Mercy (Dominic) Nathanael, Seraph Angel of Punishment (Gabriel) Pelial, Angel of Righteous Vengeance (Laurence) Raguel, Malakite executioner (Dominic) Raziel, Ofanite Angel of Mysteries (Yves) Sandalphon, the fastest Ofanite in Heaven Seraphiel, Seraph Angel of the Inquisition (Dominic) Azazel, Lucifer's Djinn secrtary Iblis, Baal's Djinn aid-de-camp "I'm Going to Hell," Lilim Demon of Gambling Debts (Mammon) Marau, Impudite seductress (Andrealphus) Mastema, Asmodeus' chief prosecutor (a Balseraph) Moloch, Impudite Demon of Blood Sacrifices (Baal) Murmur, Calabite Duke of the Game who commands all souls in Hades Saleos, Impudite Demon of Fecundity (Andrealphus) Sammael, Calabite Demon of Poison (Fleurity) Tamiel, Djinn Demon of the Deeps (Beleth) Tchort, Balseraph Demon of Atheism Vaphoron, Fallen Mercurian of Purity - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ (I just know I'm going to find something here that I wanted to fix before sending, but that's the ethereal god Murphy for ya.) (Oh, right. What do *you* get. At the moment, all I'm sure of is the fame part. Your name, in the front page. Other bennies to be determined later.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:13:32 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 9:30 AM +0100 12/5/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >Not quite. The janitor et al are selling the work their bodies perform, > >which isn't the same thing. > > Massage? (And I don't mean the euphamistic kind.) Gynocologists? The > cute guy who posed nude for the drawing class? Hairdressers? (And > if you don't think I enjoy the 'getting the hair washed' scalp > massage...) There's a sliding scale, sure. But gynocologists? > Frankly, I could see a society where friendly sex was a performance > art. It's not *this* one, but I could barely grasp at it. Maybe. It might be possible for some people, but not everyone. Sex doesn't > have to be dirty, sex-for-pay doesn't have to be abuse. (Which says > nothing about how it *is* in the current day.) Oh, definitely. I hope I haven't come across as some kind of moralistic reactionary. I'm Swedish, after all. :) > Now, to drag the topic kicking and screaming back to IN -- think about > Creationers. Consensual sex is a Rite, a joy, a sacrament. It's sharing > of pleasure, giving and receiving the gift of your lover. Love made motion. Absolutely. As it should be for us. > Now, why should an artist of the act of sex not get paid for this, > like a masseuse, a dancer, or a painter? (According to Creationers, > at least.) Because of what you said - it's an exchange of gifts. Do you require payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an important discussion with a dear friend? If you do it -solely- for money, with no emotional ties, it's not sex, in a way. And I think it hurts the ones who do it, unless they have a very strong role as something else than 'prostitute'. I'm sure some can do it without being ruined by it, but many are forced into it and are very badly hurt by it. > Now, Dominic (IMC) disapproves of all this sex-stuff because sex can > lead to Lust and Lust leads to Falling, and we all know what he thinks > about angels Falling. That's a reasonable assessment of his position, I think. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:56:20 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules In case anyone hasn't said this yet, I think the INcyclopeadia is absolutely brilliant. I don't even want to think about how much work that must have been... jo (Because the thought of w.o.r.k scares me) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:43:02 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Perestroika wrote: >> What no doubt upsets Heavenly Superiors more is the high level of >> promiscuity found in homosexuals in general - a fact which can >> undoubtedly be attributed to Lust. > >*winces* Ye lost me there, Julian... I think it can be accurately said >that promiscuity is a trait which is commonly ascribed to homosexuals, >and generally falsely so. J. Random Homosexual is probably less >promiscuous than, say, K. Random Prostitute. ;) > Gay men are known to change their partners more frequently than Straight ones do. Homosexual relationships are known to be far less stable than heterosexual ones. The latter could well be a consequence of the former. (The statistics are currently being cited in the UK as an argument against Gay couples planning to adopt children. Daily Mail newspaper, 8th Dec.) On 8th Dec you wrote: >Mm. Interesting factoid, that I'd forgotten but that Perry and Ben (in >the room at the moment) reminded me of - Blandine and Beleth were once >lovers. If Dominic didn't condemn that, I don't think he's going to >condemn homosexuality in general. :) Blandine and Beleth are celestials, sexless, and only choose feminine aspects as their preferred method of dealing with humanity. As I've already said though, Dominic wouldn't have any problem (IMO) with relationships of the same sex if *love* is involved. Lust is a different matter. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:48:47 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus Perestroika: >> The modern day depiction of Santa Clause as jovial, bearded, and red- >> costumed, is due to none other than the Coca Cola company. In 1931, >> artist Haddon Sundblom used a retired salesman as a model to give Santa >> a more human face, as prior to this most illustrators had depicted him >> as largely elfin. > >Actually, it's a major testament to the power of persuasion and the >Coca-Cola Company's advertising department that this myth persists. > Neat. And I don't even drink Coke! :) The Truth is Out There... - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:19:17 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality > Indeed. See, for example, the various appearances of Dominique in Emily > Dresner's game logs. :) *wave hands* Don't do that! You'll poke your eye out! In Holy War, Dominic never appeared as female. Never once. He did appear as a nasty serpent wrapped in thick coarse black robes a few times, mind you. *drip drip* - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:23:46 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > Perestroika wrote: > > >> What no doubt upsets Heavenly Superiors more is the high level of > >> promiscuity found in homosexuals in general - a fact which can > >> undoubtedly be attributed to Lust. > > > >*winces* Ye lost me there, Julian... I think it can be accurately said > >that promiscuity is a trait which is commonly ascribed to homosexuals, > >and generally falsely so. J. Random Homosexual is probably less > >promiscuous than, say, K. Random Prostitute. ;) > > > Gay men are known to change their partners more frequently than Straight > ones do. Homosexual relationships are known to be far less stable than > heterosexual ones. The latter could well be a consequence of the former. One reason for this, which I don't know if it's true or not, is that men are generally more promiscuous than women, which would make the trait more apparent in all-male groups, I think. Don't hit me if I'm wrong, just point me to some facts - I'd like to see data, no matter which way they point. > (The statistics are currently being cited in the UK as an argument > against Gay couples planning to adopt children. Daily Mail newspaper, > 8th Dec.) This is a bad argument, IMO. It's like saying "Men are more violent than women, so any couple with a man in it are not suitable as parents". This is something Dominic wouldn't like, IMO. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 08:47:45 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > Celestials are genderless, remember? I've been getting a lot of these, and since this is the most concise (and the first I got) it's the one I'll respond to. Yes, celestials are technically genderless. However, the Archangels, as well as most celestials I can think of, do have a preference for appearing as a certain sex. For Blandine and Beleth both, this happens to be female. We don't know whether things were always this way. In fact, as far as we know, both preferred male bodies before the Fall, or Blandine female and Beleth male, or vice versa. However, in my interpretation I choose to believe that both have preferred the female side since before the Fall. :) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:05:13 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules The contest rules are now available online at: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/contestrules.html It's mentioned on the main In Nomine home page. - - Em [There's a rider on this that has to do with ibuprofin, handeze gloves, an hour and a half, and a new geas out there in the ether.] Current Quote: Hitherby looks exactly like a butterfly in celestial form, except that she has fewer wings, no antennae, her body is shaped differently, she has no legs, she stuns mortals, she has lots of eyes, she has lots of hands and mouths, and she floats rather than flutters. Hitherby says "But other than that, the resemblance is remarkable." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:16:07 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Perestroika wrote: > Mm. Interesting factoid, that I'd forgotten but that Perry and Ben (in > the room at the moment) reminded me of - Blandine and Beleth were once > lovers. If Dominic didn't condemn that, I don't think he's going to > condemn homosexuality in general. :) Except that Celestials are asexual, so you can't apply the term homosexual *or* heterosexual to them. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:30:14 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > > > Gay men are known to change their partners more frequently than Straight > > ones do. Homosexual relationships are known to be far less stable than > > heterosexual ones. The latter could well be a consequence of the former. > > One reason for this, which I don't know if it's true or not, is that men > are generally more promiscuous than women, which would make the trait more > apparent in all-male groups, I think. Don't hit me if I'm wrong, just > point me to some facts - I'd like to see data, no matter which way they > point. Much like the question of prostitution that spawned this, it's also possible that the instability of homosexual partnerships, and promiscuity within them, is at least in part caused by society's treatment of them as unequal to heterosexual relationships. Both of Mr. Breen's statements could be consequences of this. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:34:53 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality For what it's worth -- possible interest value if nothing more -- the idea of angels having sex didn't bother John Milton, author of "Paradise Lost" and a Puritan or something close to it. According to "A Preface to Paradise Lost" by C. S. Lewis, Milton was very serious about his angelology, and depicted celestials as, in effect, intelligent gases. This idea of an "aeriel body" was a fairly widespread speculation in his era, though he was a little different in supposing angels always had bodies instead of merely assuming them for temporary activities. An aeriel body could move swiftly, shift shape, and expand and contract easily. It could possess the grosser bodies of humans and animals by suffusing into them. Aeriel bodies could also, according to Milton's poem, mingle like two scents in the air, or like two wines mixed in a cup. And this activity is depicted as ecstatically pleasurable. It isn't exactly sex among the angels, but it comes close enough to have caused some readers to squirm, I gather from what Lewis says. (I must admit to having bogged down in "Paradise Lost" myself.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 98 12:19 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim >I'd disagree with this a little. In general, the bands are listed >from least human (Balseraphs) to most human (Impudites), but Shedim >and Lilim don't really fit the mold. Shedim are the most inhuman >monsters around (they HAVE to corrupt) and Lilim have more potential >to be human-like than any other Band (they are the offspring of a >*special* human, after all). The Choirs I agree with, but I think >the bands are more listed in correspondance with the Choirs, so >things get a little muddled. I think I could argue that Shedim are justifiably as close to humans as Kyrios are, for somewhat the same reason -- they tend to experience a lot of "being human", possibly even more so than Kyrios, since they're in direct contact with the host's mind and memories. Lilim are more of an anomaly, of course. >Since their mother is human (sort of) I tend to see Lilim as >potentially the 'most human' demons (see above). In my own campaign, I've been working it this way, but canon suggests (admittedly not very strongly) that they belong opposite the Malakim, so when I'm doing canon stuff, I try to think of them that way. It's possible that their origin is "unnatural" enough to separate them more from humanity than their appearance suggests. But that's decidedly hand-waving.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1043 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.