From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Dec 10 02:44:17 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 CAA27157 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:44:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA06470 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:16:10 -0600 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:16:10 -0600 Message-Id: <199812100816.CAA06470@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 #1046 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, December 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1046 In this digest: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Concealing the War Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Reincarnation\afterlife Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & M... IN> Archive Search Problem? Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:11:52 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Walter Milliken wrote: > Cute idea, but it's got a major problem, relative to current Tether > canon in the forthcoming L.Castellorum. > > Gabriel's Sun Tether is a relatively small object compared to a > "constellation", in its incarnation as a group of physical stars. And > *which* stars? There are lots of invisible stars in the regions of the > constellations mentioned.... > > If the actual stars were the Tether locus, it would be completely > useless, since most of them are 40+ light years away, and so far, > celestials appear to be limited to movement speeds less than lightspeed. Often, the stars within a constellation are also very far apart from each other. We have no depth perception at those distances, which gives them the illusion of neighborliness. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:04:47 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Anders Gabrielsson writes: >> 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. I can't quote any figures but I tend to agree. Certainly in our culture at least. An interesting documentary that I watched recently claimed that both men and women are equally 'promiscuous', it being in their own best interests to procreate with as many different partners as possible. This ensures the best possible future(s) for their genes. The fact that men _do_ seem more openly promiscuous than women (and I'm only basing this assumption on the fact of being a man myself :) ) is probably down to societal indoctrination and the stigma we attach to those women who 'follow their instincts' also. > Don't hit me if I'm wrong, Hitting you would be Dissonant... ;> > just >point me to some facts - I'd like to see data, no matter which way they >point. > I have a friend studying social science that should be able to help. If I can get hard data for you I'd be happy to send it off list. >> (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. :) With respect, I don't see it as quite the same analogy, unless men's violent natures can be claimed to be detrimental to parenting on the whole. You are also claiming an absolute (by use of the word 'any') which is something that I'm not sure if the original argument was doing (as it wasn't mine anyway, and I no longer have the article). Incidentally, I don't happen to think that Dominic would like either argument, mainly because justice may be denied to those deserving of it somewhere down the line if a sweeping law was passed to enforce them. Each case would have to be judged on its own merits, which strikes me as more of what Judgement is about. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 14:08 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >Doesn't matter. Does a tether location have to be a single, connected >area? I think I left this out of the Tether canon I wrote, but assumed it. I don't think there are any examples of "fragmented Tethers". > If not, just pick, say, the stars of 6th magnitude and better, i.e. >those visible to the naked eye. If it does, pick the smallest sphere which >contains all those visible stars (warning - mathmo at work), with the >rather nifty result that in many cases Earth will then be *inside* the >tether... Actually, I don't think that's going happen -- if I'm visualizing the geometry properly, the nearest the sphere will ever get to Earth is the closest star of the set, plus a little bit for the arc bowing toward Earth in the case of a couple stars at opposite ends of the constellation being at nearly the same distance. You also have the problem that those rather large spheres will overlap - -- a lot. Probably more than half of their volumes. Tethers *rarely* overlap. (The Golden Gate Park Tether pair in San Francisco is one of those rare exceptions.) >Alternatively, make it a mobile tether, like Janus' hurricanes. You are in >the tether if you can see the constellation. I think this is too diffuse. Remember, the Tether locus is defined by an area where a particular Word is so powerful that it "breaks through" into another realm. This doesn't seem likely to happen over such a wide area, from such a weak phenomenon. > It is clearly not possible >for a celestial to tell whether he is in an ethereal tether, This is contrary to Tether canon -- on a good Perception CD, you can tell that you're in a Tether, which side it belongs to, and sometimes what Word. >It wouldn't be completely useless, unless L. Castellorum says that >tethers can only channel essence from people within their actual location. This is fairly common for ethereal Tethers. >It would be just as good an essence-source as any other tether that is >never visited by humans. A Tether of this type wouldn't *form* where there are no humans, normally. Tethers that form without humans in the locus are pretty much limited to powerful natural phenomena. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 19:09:11 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations At 13:49 09/12/98 EST, you wrote: >>First, one could shift the focus from the constellations to >>the planets. If Gabriel hogs the whole Sun, leave it out. >>But how about the Moon, or Jupiter? If there are no Celestials >>to chase them off, Ethereals might be able to stake claims >>on the planets via astrology. > >That's all viable. (Though Jean own Io, Jupiter's innermost large moon, >and the flux tube, according to canon.) And Janus has Jupiter's Red Spot (IIRC). > >Another possibility is some physical location on Earth that was strongly >coupled to astrology -- if you had a rotunda with a wall mural of the >zodiac, the various pictures could become the Tether loci. I think this might be quite fun actually. It could connect to a strange realm in the far marches, and the actual aspect, properties and (even) Lord of that realm woudl be dependent on which astrological sign the sun was in when you went through the tether... jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:56:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Concealing the War At 12:38 AM +0000 12/9/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > What exactly do the hosts of Shedim remember? A very strange dream, where everything made sense at the time. >(Why don’t lots of people remember committing a number >of supernatural acts when their dominator used songs/attunements). Hallucinations, psychotic breakdown, any number of explanations... (They *do* remember, but it doesn't make any sense...) Most Shedim-possession cases rationalize what they did in the "normal" episodes as their own idea. Haven't you ever stood on top of a high place and felt an urge to jump? To tell off your boss? To simply scream at the first person you see? Amplify that, so that it really *does* seem like a good idea at the time... Zadkiel's Kyrios are in even less control, since they don't get a Will roll. They probably regard it as closer to a hallucination. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:00:53 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word At 12:24 AM +0000 12/9/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > Jean's word is Lightning and he is very much >associated with science and I guess the connection >is that Lightning is electricity. Lightning is also the 'bolt of inspiration,' and may well have held that metaphorical power way-back-when. The moment of "Eureka!", the instant where the knowledge comes together and you can *SEE* how it *MUST* work. Not the intuitive feelings that Gabriel covers, or the drive and vision of Creation, but that mostly-intellectual moment when everything comes together in a blinding bolt of realization. >However it is implied he held this responsibility before >the discovery of electricity (APG p6 - Creation - last paragraph >"Jean and Raphael joined Yves in transcribing all knowledge and in >orchestrating the will of God." Yves, Archangel of Destiny, namer of things... Funny how he picked out those two Elohim and said, "Here, come help me do this." You might even think he *knew* something about electricity and lightning and inspiration... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:02:45 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Reincarnation\afterlife At 12:38 AM +0000 12/9/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > In the last paragraph of Heaven and Hell (page 50), it is >suggested that when someone dies they will probably go to heaven >or hell, and are quite unlikely to be re-incarnated. But in In >Nomine - Predestination: Fate and Destiny (page 67) it’s >suggested only people who achieve their Destiny will go >to heaven, and only those who achieve their Fate go to Hell >and most people will be re-incarnated. Which is right? Ramesh It depends on who you ask. (Me, I'd go with the main book...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:10:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation At 1:32 AM +0000 12/9/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: PS sorry about using bold and italics, I just got connected on Saturday so I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing yet. Ramesh Next thing you want to do is learn to manually type a carriage return at the end of every 75 words or so... (I do this myself, since I don't like how the auto-wordwrap makes my stuff work...) [For that matter, drop me a private note; your email program is doing some really ugly formatting.] >> On 08/12/98 Elizabeth McCoy wrote >>>At 10:46 PM +0000 12/7/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote:/Causation/ >>> >>>If causing a disturbance to the symphony is caused by changing the >>>way things were "supposed to be", then why doesn't saving someone's >>>life cause as much disturbance to the symphony as killing someone.  >>> >>Interesting question -- probably has to do with predetermination, >>which there isn't that much of in IN. >The place I got the idea of disturbance being caused by a Celestial >changing the way "things are supposed to be" (rather than due to a >Celestial bending reality to their will which is how most people >seem to interpret it) is from how Nicole descibes it A Bright Dream. >  What do mean there's not must predestination in IN, >Predestination vs Free Will is one of the main things angels >argue about! Isn't i? It certainly is, but if the GM predestines everything, the game isn't very fun to play! (And the lack of disturbance from *saving* someone is something that celestials who don't believe in predestination use to bolster their position. They are refuted by arguements that have to do with the resonances of Michael's and Yves' Cherubim. And the discussion continues.) Who knows, maybe there *is* a sound, but nobody hears it. Except maybe Yves. Or Kronos. >>>Also *what exactly does it mean to cause some thing to happen*? > >>It means to *directly* cause it. Cut the brake lines yourself, push the >>button, etc. If you can sucker a human into doing it, then *any disturbance >>that the act causes is too small for anyone to hear.* >(My emphasis) Is it just me or you suggesting that there is some >imperceptible distubance caused, in the same way that an an >imperceptible disturbance is caused by air molecule bouncing off >Nicole's vessel (which they shouldn't have because the vessel >shouldn't have been there). Fascinating that you should read it that way. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 14:32 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word >>also who hasn't heard of the story of ben franklin and the kite as a prime >>example of scientific discovery. > >Well yes, but I think undertaking dangerous and life-threatening >experiments might swing more towards the infernal side of experimentation. Only if the subject is someone *else*. Potentially sacrificing oneself for the pursuit of knowledge doesn't sound Vapulan to me. And lots of early scientists did things that weren't wise by modern knowledge -- tasting chemicals, playing with strange rocks that fogged photographic film, flying kites in thunderstorms.... Now, injecting *other* people with radioactive substances -- *that's* Vapulan! - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 19:37:53 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word At 14:00 09/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Yves, Archangel of Destiny, namer of things... Funny how he picked >out those two Elohim and said, "Here, come help me do this." You might >even think he *knew* something about electricity and lightning and >inspiration... > He was probably just banking on one of them knowing where the light switch was ;) Or else he knew it was going to be a boring job so dumped it on the elohim (same as everyone else does). jo 'There is a light that never goes out..' ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:54:31 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > It certainly is, but if the GM predestines everything, the game isn't > very fun to play! (And the lack of disturbance from *saving* someone > is something that celestials who don't believe in predestination use > to bolster their position. They are refuted by arguements that have > to do with the resonances of Michael's and Yves' Cherubim. And the > discussion continues.) > Speaking of which, as GM's, how do all of y'all out there handle Michael's Malakim attunement? I mean, if they can hear battle minutes before it happens... How are you supposed to know to warn them? How do you handle it? > Who knows, maybe there *is* a sound, but nobody hears it. Except > maybe Yves. Or Kronos. Not the tree falling in the forest! (Jordi, of course, claims that the animals hear it...) > > >>>Also *what exactly does it mean to cause some thing to happen*? > > > >>It means to *directly* cause it. Cut the brake lines yourself, push the > >>button, etc. If you can sucker a human into doing it, then *any disturbance > >>that the act causes is too small for anyone to hear.* > > >(My emphasis) Is it just me or you suggesting that there is some > >imperceptible distubance caused, in the same way that an an > >imperceptible disturbance is caused by air molecule bouncing off > >Nicole's vessel (which they shouldn't have because the vessel > >shouldn't have been there). > > Fascinating that you should read it that way. > > --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor > GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ... Uh-oh. - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 14:24 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology >Literally, they are simply arrangements of stars in the sky [which are >usually much farther away then 40ly, btw, sayth the backyard astronomer] That's why I said 40+ -- very few visible stars are closer. Arcturus is 40ly, which is where I snagged that number from -- I tend to think of it as the edge of the "local neighborhood", for some reason. Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Tau Ceti, 61 Cygni, and Procyon come to mind as closer, I can't think of any more offhand. None of the close stars that I'm aware of are in the zodiac (though there might be one or two). A lot of them are in the 100-1000 ly range, actually. > The stars in question, furthermore, tend to be binaries >and triplets in arrangement, so the light isn't even coming from a >single star. Actually only about 1/3 are multiple systems, if I remember right. (I happen to be the person who did all the star generation stuff for GURPS Space -- and also a backyard astronomer.) > The constellations are important for locating deep sky >Messier objects with the 10" Schmitt-Cassigran on ice cold winter nights, Nice toy! (C10, I assume?) Personally, I never used the constellations all that much to find stuff (M13 and M57 being easy exceptions) -- I tend to use bright stars to set the setting circles, and then a good sky atlas. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:57:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations At 1:31 AM -0500 12/9/98, Pee Kitty wrote: >(How can such a large tether be possible? It seems to me that In Nomine >is, like the religions it's based on, *extremely* humanocentric. Gabriel >has a tether in "The" Sun, which is far, far more important to humanity >than a thousand normal stars. The Sun is the name of Sol, the Solar System's star... We don't want to deal with other stars in canon, but this may explain why Fire is such a power-Word... >By that logic, a constellation isn't really >that unbelievable as a tether - to the viewpoint of the humans, whose >belief MAKES the tether work, the tether is just a small group of dots in >the sky.) Entertaining! At 6:14 PM +0000 12/9/98, Steve Jessop wrote: >On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >> Cute idea, but it's got a major problem, relative to current Tether >> canon in the forthcoming L.Castellorum. >> Gabriel's Sun Tether is a relatively small object compared to a >> "constellation", in its incarnation as a group of physical stars. And >> *which* stars? There are lots of invisible stars in the regions of the >> constellations mentioned.... > >Doesn't matter. Does a tether location have to be a single, connected >area? Generally, yes. >It is clearly not possible >for a celestial to tell whether he is in an ethereal tether, It is possible, but difficult. Also, some ethereal Tethers open and close according to various patterns. When closed, they'd be pretty much unnoticable, I'd think. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:57:46 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) At 11:00 AM -0800 12/9/98, Greg Jensen wrote: >[...] For most crimes, an eye for an eye sort of punishment seems >to be appropriate: you steal, we steal from you; you hurt, we hurt you; >you kill, you die (although I think I would have difficulty seeing >Dominicans doing this with rape). Either a memory-sharing/transfer Song or Relic, or perhaps a lot of the Celestial Song of Form and the Song of Transferance (the one that lets you put the effects of a performer-only Song onto someone *else*). > How, then, do you punish victimless crimes (if you do)? If it hurts no one else, then is it truly a crime? (If it hurts others in subtle ways, then one must find some way to express this such that the subject can understand.) I would think that all that could be done is to explain how someone is hurting himself. Though self-harm is probably not something Judgment is equipped to deal with, really -- I'd think they'd just pass them along to someone like Gabriel's Mercurians. (Well, when Judgment and Fire were on speaking terms...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:16:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Though self-harm is probably not something Judgment is equipped to > deal with, really -- I'd think they'd just pass them along to someone > like Gabriel's Mercurians. (Well, when Judgment and Fire were on > speaking terms...) I'd second that. As far as meting out punishment goes, self-harm is self-punishment, so what's left for Judgement to do? (Possible answer: Bring the self-harmer to task for the anguish caused to the loved ones who can only stand by, or risk getting sucked into enabling the self-harm.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:22:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology Walter Milliken wrote: > That's why I said 40+ -- very few visible stars are closer. > Arcturus is 40ly, which is where I snagged that number from -- I > tend to think of it as the edge of the "local neighborhood", for > some reason. Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Tau Ceti, 61 Cygni, and > Procyon come to mind as closer, I can't think of any more offhand. Vega is nice and bright, and only 27 ly out. (I wound up learning a lot about Vega because I made the mistake of pointing it out to my two-year-old daughter, who now thinks each bright star is Vega. With it getting mentioned so often, I was spurred to look up its vital stats.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:36:27 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology > That's why I said 40+ -- very few visible stars are closer. Arcturus is > 40ly, which is where I snagged that number from -- I tend to think of it > as the edge of the "local neighborhood", for some reason. Alpha > Centauri, Sirius, Tau Ceti, 61 Cygni, and Procyon come to mind as > closer, I can't think of any more offhand. None of the close stars that > I'm aware of are in the zodiac (though there might be one or two). A > lot of them are in the 100-1000 ly range, actually. There are about 20 stars in the under 40 LY mark, if I remember correctly from a [slightly now out of date] copy of Peterson's Stars and Planets. None of them were bright major stars, or of any major astronomical interest from the deep sky neat fireworks perspective. > > The stars in question, furthermore, tend to be binaries > >and triplets in arrangement, so the light isn't even coming from a > >single star. > > Actually only about 1/3 are multiple systems, if I remember right. (I > happen to be the person who did all the star generation stuff for GURPS > Space -- and also a backyard astronomer.) I believe it's more then that, and that recent data has proven that single star systems are actually not the norm. I would say to go looking around in recent copies of SKY AND TELESCOPE to look up the ratios, I'm fairly sure they have articles. They might have been nice and actually put the articles online, but they live off of subscriptions. > > The constellations are important for locating deep sky > >Messier objects with the 10" Schmitt-Cassigran on ice cold winter nights, > > Nice toy! (C10, I assume?) Personally, I never used the constellations > all that much to find stuff (M13 and M57 being easy exceptions) -- I > tend to use bright stars to set the setting circles, and then a good > sky atlas. > It's a 9 year old Meade LX6 2120 SG with a 10" mirror. It's also currently in storage because I have no place to put it and my parents are moving. The Beast is a bit on the large size. I've gone off of constellations. If I'm looking for the Hercules Cluster, for example, I'll look for Hercules because I know the bright stars there, and work off the Star Atlas from. But I know, say, that Castor and Pollux is in Gemini [speaking of double stars] - that's an example, there's nothing to see here. But then again, I memorized a huge band of Messier objects based on constellation. - - EM Current Quote: "Pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding" - - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:38:27 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word Jo Hart wrote: > Well yes, but I think undertaking dangerous and life-threatening > experiments might swing more towards the infernal side of experimentation. Not necessarily. The distinction I've been making is that Jean's experiments do things _for_ people, and Vapula's do them _to_ people. Then again, I'm biased. ;) - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:02:27 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > Anders Gabrielsson writes: > > >> 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. > > I can't quote any figures but I tend to agree. Certainly in our culture > at least. An interesting documentary that I watched recently claimed > that both men and women are equally 'promiscuous', it being in their own > best interests to procreate with as many different partners as possible. > This ensures the best possible future(s) for their genes. The fact that > men _do_ seem more openly promiscuous than women (and I'm only basing > this assumption on the fact of being a man myself :) ) is probably down > to societal indoctrination and the stigma we attach to those women who > 'follow their instincts' also. This may well be true. The explanation I've read is that it's good for men to be promiscuous because it creates more offspring, and it's not a big investment for a man to have children. For a woman it's good to be promiscuous when she's without a mate, since there will be more men who give her food and other resources she will need to raise her children, since they don't know who the father is. A woman can also benefit from being unfaithful as long as her mate doesn't find out, since this will also increase the amount of resources she gets. All of this is based on the assumptions that men are the main providers of resources, which may have been the case when we were hunter/gatherers, and that women make the biggest investment in children, which is certainly true. > > just > >point me to some facts - I'd like to see data, no matter which way they > >point. > > I have a friend studying social science that should be able to help. If > I can get hard data for you I'd be happy to send it off list. I'd be glad to have them. > >> (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. :) > > With respect, I don't see it as quite the same analogy, unless men's > violent natures can be claimed to be detrimental to parenting on the > whole. You are also claiming an absolute (by use of the word 'any') > which is something that I'm not sure if the original argument was doing > (as it wasn't mine anyway, and I no longer have the article). I'd say that violent men are less suitable as parents than less violent ones, in general, unless they are very good at focusing their voilence on those who aren't part of their family. Even so, they make a bad example. Regarding the absolute, I read the original quote as homosexual promiscuity was used as an argument against gay adoption in general. > Incidentally, I don't happen to think that Dominic would like either > argument, mainly because justice may be denied to those deserving of it > somewhere down the line if a sweeping law was passed to enforce them. > Each case would have to be judged on its own merits, which strikes me as > more of what Judgement is about. I agree wholeheartedly. 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: Wed, 09 Dec 98 16:02 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >>That's all viable. (Though Jean own Io, Jupiter's innermost large moon, >>and the flux tube, according to canon.) > >And Janus has Jupiter's Red Spot (IIRC). It's not as explicitly defined as the Io and Sun Tethers. As I recall, it's mentioned in a throwaway comment attributed to the Seneschal of Hurricanes. I'd certainly consider it a strong possibility, though. Another one would be if there were a Seneschal of Sandstorms -- just the thing for Mars. >>Another possibility is some physical location on Earth that was strongly >>coupled to astrology -- if you had a rotunda with a wall mural of the >>zodiac, the various pictures could become the Tether loci. > >I think this might be quite fun actually. It could connect to a strange >realm in the far marches, and the actual aspect, properties and (even) Lord >of that realm woudl be dependent on which astrological sign the sun was in >when you went through the tether... Sounds a bit like Pier Antony's "Macroscope", if I remember that book right. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:05:42 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word At 15:38 09/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: > >> Well yes, but I think undertaking dangerous and life-threatening >> experiments might swing more towards the infernal side of experimentation. > >Not necessarily. The distinction I've been making is that Jean's >experiments do things _for_ people, and Vapula's do them _to_ people. > I don't think it is always so easy to tell the difference. Those radium experiments that eventually killed the Curies were as useful for developing x-rays as Nuclear weapons. And doing a dangerous experiment after having assessed the risks and the gains is different from doing stupid things like going out in a thunderstorm with a kite. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:58:37 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation In a message dated 12/9/98 12:04:20 PM, lugh@cats.ucsc.edu writes: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> It certainly is, but if the GM predestines everything, the game isn't >> very fun to play! (And the lack of disturbance from *saving* someone >> is something that celestials who don't believe in predestination use >> to bolster their position. They are refuted by arguments that have >> to do with the resonances of Michael's and Yves' Cherubim. And the >> discussion continues.) >> > >Speaking of which, as GM's, how do all of y'all out there handle >Michael's Malakim attunement? I mean, if they can hear battle minutes >before it happens... How are you supposed to know to warn them? How >do you handle it? > In my campaign, the Malak of Michael had essentially the Hear Soundtrack Attunement. He heard the Danse Macabre when people were sneaking about, Ride of the Valkyries when people were rushing towards him, and Bohemian Rhapsody when Eli was near... >Brian A.H. > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:44:51 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) In a message dated 12/9/98 12:04:20 PM, lugh@cats.ucsc.edu writes: >Speaking of which, as GM's, how do all of y'all out there handle >Michael's Malakim attunement? I mean, if they can hear battle minutes >before it happens... How are you supposed to know to warn them? How >do you handle it? I would handle it as giving them the "Danger cometh!" warning as soon as danger is Pretty Near Inevitable, or at the beginning of their advance-warning, whichever is further out, timewise. IOW, if they're talking to someone who is unfriendly, but willing to talk, the Malakite might get a faint *ping* that the situation could turn dangerous. If the Ofanite says something bad and the person is about to draw his weapon and attack, the Malakite gets the "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!" alert at the loudness to correspond to the immediacy, right then and there. Unfortunately for the Malakite, if the Djinn happens to wander by and overhears the Ofanite and is about to draw *his* weapon and attack, the Malakite gets the same warning, pretty much. If the enemy has laid an ambush or plotted to "Attack the Tether at midnight," then the Malakite gets the warning at the appropriate time, and unless he manages to defuse it, it will just get louder and louder the closer he gets to the ambush point (or midnight). I hope that is coherent enough to be useful... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:28:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > I hope that is coherent enough to be useful... What happens if a Malak of War decides to wait until he *isn't* getting the warning, then walk up to someone at random and hit them :-) Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:13:52 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & M... In a message dated 12/9/98 2:53:27 AM Central Standard Time, anders@strindberg.ling.uu.se writes: > (Did I mention I'm very much pro-the- > right-to-get-a-divorce?) I like the idea of getting rid of marriage altogether and replacing it with, say, two year contracts with an option to renew. (Two years may seem a long time to some, but I'm a romantic at heart. ) Brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:38:52 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: IN> Archive Search Problem? I tried to search the archives of this list for my house firearms rules which I wrote ages and ages ago and sent in for comment, but for some reason, the search engine at sjgames won't search any later than May 1998. Is anyone else having this problem? Jason onwards ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:48:37 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) At 03:16 PM 12/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> Though self-harm is probably not something Judgment is equipped to >> deal with, really -- I'd think they'd just pass them along to someone >> like Gabriel's Mercurians. (Well, when Judgment and Fire were on >> speaking terms...) > >I'd second that. As far as meting out punishment goes, self-harm >is self-punishment, so what's left for Judgement to do? (Possible >answer: Bring the self-harmer to task for the anguish caused to >the loved ones who can only stand by, or risk getting sucked into >enabling the self-harm.) How about, through the use of songs or other means, showing the individual the person they could become without the self-destructive behavior, and the reality of who they are now. You could show a drug addict how he looks through other people's eyes, and how much more meaningful his life could be if he went straight. You could show the prostitute what her clients really think of her, and show her what her life could be if she got a more respectable job (without all the dangers of working the streets). This would show them the harm they are doing to themselves, and let them understand the choices they have. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:10:39 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > At 03:16 PM 12/9/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >> Though self-harm is probably not something Judgment is equipped to > >> deal with, really -- I'd think they'd just pass them along to someone > >> like Gabriel's Mercurians. (Well, when Judgment and Fire were on > >> speaking terms...) > > > >I'd second that. As far as meting out punishment goes, self-harm > >is self-punishment, so what's left for Judgement to do? (Possible > >answer: Bring the self-harmer to task for the anguish caused to > >the loved ones who can only stand by, or risk getting sucked into > >enabling the self-harm.) > > How about, through the use of songs or other means, showing the individual > the person they could become without the self-destructive behavior, and the > reality of who they are now. You could show a drug addict how he looks > through other people's eyes, and how much more meaningful his life could be > if he went straight. You could show the prostitute what her clients really > think of her, and show her what her life could be if she got a more > respectable job (without all the dangers of working the streets). This > would show them the harm they are doing to themselves, and let them > understand the choices they have. This is exactly the sort of thing Gabby's Mercs use, I think. Not only this, of course. I think this clearly falls under them rather than Judgement. 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. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1046 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.