From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 14 15:36:00 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 PAA26009 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:36:00 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA18201 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:59:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:59:23 -0600 Message-Id: <199812142059.OAA18201@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 #1052 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, December 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1052 In this digest: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #1051 IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #1051 IN> Absolute Morality IN> Lilim and Malakim IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim IN> Sorcery Question Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Sorcery Question Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Sorcery Question Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Hellborn Habbalites Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Absolute Morality RE: IN> Absolute Morality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:09:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #1051 Message text written by INTERNET:in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Look, I love IN because of it's satirical qualities, and I do agree that we can't ascribe a general moral sense to the entire human race without being wrong at some point, but I will say that something exists of that type. < ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:09:30 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #1051 Message text written by INTERNET:in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Look, I love IN because of it's satirical qualities, and I do agree that we can't ascribe a general moral sense to the entire human race without being wrong at some point, but I will say that something exists of that type. < ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:13:10 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Absolute Morality >Look, I love IN because of it's satirical qualities, and I do agree that we can't ascribe a general moral sense to the entire human race without being wrong at some point, but I will say that something exists of that type.< Well, that would be your opinion, and an incorrect one (in my opinion, and that of many philosophers and most scientists). Absolute morality implies morality coming from some source external to humanity. In In Nomine, such a morality may (probably does) exist. In real life...well, obviously certain religions believe such things exist, but there's no factual evidence for it. Universal taboos are (a) rarely as universal as proponents claim, and (b) not proof of absolute morality, just proof that certain things are so obviously detrimental that just about everyone comes to the same conclusion about it. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:20:09 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim and Malakim >>>Wanton destruction of the Native Americans was not considered a moral lapse until the American society developed a sense of equality to everyone of a light-ish skin tone<<< That's not entirely true. It was not _universally_ considered a moral lapse, and for a long time it was not considered a moral lapse by the majority, but contrary to modern versions of history, every white person in America didn't agree that slaughtering the Indians and taking their land was a fine thing to do until sometime this century. My point being that societies don't generally lack or develop a "sense" of things all at once. If you have a society that does not have distinct ownership laws or traditions, that _doesn't_ mean that anyone is free to grab anything in anyone else's current possession. >>>A culture without any sense of marriage or monogamy would logically not have a moral issue with adultery - but sociologists would not say that the culture does not have an inherent moral issue with adultery. You follow?<<< No. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:20:00 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim and Malakim >>>Wanton destruction of the Native Americans was not considered a moral lapse until the American society developed a sense of equality to everyone of a light-ish skin tone<<< That's not entirely true. It was not _universally_ considered a moral lapse, and for a long time it was not considered a moral lapse by the majority, but contrary to modern versions of history, every white person in America didn't agree that slaughtering the Indians and taking their land was a fine thing to do until sometime this century. My point being that societies don't generally lack or develop a "sense" of things all at once. If you have a society that does not have distinct ownership laws or traditions, that _doesn't_ mean that anyone is free to grab anything in anyone else's current possession. >>>A culture without any sense of marriage or monogamy would logically not have a moral issue with adultery - but sociologists would not say that the culture does not have an inherent moral issue with adultery. You follow?<<< No. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:27:18 -0500 (EST) From: EEEAMEEH Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim > >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. > > I agree, Kyriotates are more involved with humans and humanity than most > angels. There's more to being human than appearance. BTW, does anybody > else think of Quantum Leap when thinking about kyriotates? Does this mean I have to post my Samuel, Kyriotate of Destiny thing? how about Alberto, Mercurian of Creation in service to Destiny (assisted by Ziggy, Kyriotate of Jean and Gooshie, Soldier of God (service to Jean) How about Verbena the Elohim or even Tina ... am I taking this too far? Starsurfer, Seraphim of Creation in service to Destiny, Angel of Words ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:23:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Sorcery Question >>>As per the Marches & the stuff on Limbo, you can make a Vessel if you have enough Essence.<<< Actually, those are both special cases, rather than a general rule. Usually, you _cannot_ make a vessel simply by having enough Essence -- creating vessels is a power limited to Superiors. However, ethereals and beings in Limbo are exceptions. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:25:01 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On the acceptability of thievery: Please note that, for a depressingly wide range of human history and culture, moral laws have largely not applied to foreigners; abusing them just "didn't count." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:41:56 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > Absolute morality implies morality coming from some source external to > humanity. In In Nomine, such a morality may (probably does) exist. In real > life...well, obviously certain religions believe such things exist, but > there's no factual evidence for it. Universal taboos are (a) rarely as > universal as proponents claim, and (b) not proof of absolute morality, just > proof that certain things are so obviously detrimental that just about > everyone comes to the same conclusion about it. I'll see your Hume and raise you a Thomas Nagel. The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. We can put a checkmark in that box. Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. Another check. There needs to be an expression of God's Law and a system of execution. We have an Archangel of Judgment. Check. It's starting to look suspiciously like there is going to be an inherent system of absolute morality in the In Nomine universe. I seriously doubt that this was done on purpose, but when you write heaven without having been well read in philosophy first, the trap is going to be tripped and down the rabbit hole everyone goes - so much for Canon Doubt and Uncertaintly. The argument against Absolute Morality in the universe is the first and foremost: we don't know God exists, we don't know Heaven and Hell exists, we don't know if any of our actions have any implication at all, so there is no way that we can say our ethical system has any real impact in the global scale at all. But in the game we _do_ know that all these things are, in fact, true. Good people who were very good are rewarded by going to Heaven, bad people who were very bad are punished by being sent to Hell, and this is inherently written into the fabric of the universe. There is a body of Heavenly Law [even if it is not yet codeified] and it is executed through the use of an agent. All this hinges on God knowing what He was doing when He made the universe, of course. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:46:29 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > Absolute morality implies morality coming from some source external to > humanity. In In Nomine, such a morality may (probably does) exist. In real > life...well, obviously certain religions believe such things exist, but > there's no factual evidence for it. Universal taboos are (a) rarely as > universal as proponents claim, and (b) not proof of absolute morality, just > proof that certain things are so obviously detrimental that just about > everyone comes to the same conclusion about it. Hmmm... most athiests I know do actually believe in some sort of morality. Usually it's something along the lines of "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness," or, in a more modern wording, "fundamental human rights." I don't think that they claim that it is a universal absolute morality, but they believe in it enough to dissaprove of cultures that violate basic human rights, and think that they warrant censure. This is in one sense be a "religious" belief: we think that our belief in fundamental human rights is just and correct, and hence everybody should subscribe to it. However many of the atheists who believe all of this don't believe that it comes from _any_ source external to humanity. Moving away from the real world and to the very different place that is the world of IN, there is very much an absolute morality. If you take the point of view presented by the headlines on the back of the IPG and the APG (angels="good guys", demons="bad guys"), then the Symphony represents the absolute morality. Without ascribing any actual moral judgements or strictures to this, those who are in tune with the Symphony are moral beings, i.e., the angels. The demons, on the other hand, are evil, and in this case precisely because they have relative morality rather than absolte morality: they each create their own personal Symphony to suit themselves. (I'm not trying to comment on the real world here, but rather on one interpretation of the Symphony of IN.) - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:14:25 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Sorcery Question Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > > Boy, all these questions. Not hard to guess I'm working on > characters for the Servitorium, hmm? > > So with Sorcery, you can only summon a spirit/demonling/demon with a > Vessel, right? So what I wanna know is, does the summoned critter have > to own its own Vessel, or can the Sorceror create the Vessel for it > using accumulated Essence? Any vessel involved will be one that the spirit/whatever has, not created by the summoner. Summon/1 The 'random' spirit summoned will have a vessel Summon/2 I believe demonlings don't need a vessel to visit earth Summon/3 The 'random' demon will be one that has a vessel Summon/4 No vessel it given, but there are ways to get around in celestial form until they reach the summoner Summon/5 No vessel means the summoning fails (see TM p.59) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:39:08 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > There needs to be an expression of God's Law and a system of execution. > We have an Archangel of Judgment. Check. Not so fast. I'm not sure Dominic has a direct line to God's Law Hotline - Michael's trial might be an argument against it, though I haven't found any definite proof either way in my perusal of the write-up. 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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:59:43 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > Not so fast. I'm not sure Dominic has a direct line to God's Law Hotline - > Michael's trial might be an argument against it, though I haven't found > any definite proof either way in my perusal of the write-up. There's no proof, but I assume _for the common case_. For the common case, the Archangel of Judgment is the direct executor of God's Law. And furthermore, Michael was found guilty yet he was still acquitted. God is the only one who is allowed to violate absolute morality - which He did. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:27:33 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Robert Knop wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > > > Absolute morality implies morality coming from some source external to > > humanity. In In Nomine, such a morality may (probably does) exist. In real > > life...well, obviously certain religions believe such things exist, but > > there's no factual evidence for it. Universal taboos are (a) rarely as > > universal as proponents claim, and (b) not proof of absolute morality, just > > proof that certain things are so obviously detrimental that just about > > everyone comes to the same conclusion about it. > > Hmmm... most athiests I know do actually believe in some sort of morality. > Usually it's something along the lines of "life, liberty, and the persuit of > happiness," or, in a more modern wording, "fundamental human rights." I > don't think that they claim that it is a universal absolute morality, but > they believe in it enough to dissaprove of cultures that violate basic human > rights, and think that they warrant censure. This is in one sense be a > "religious" belief: we think that our belief in fundamental human rights is > just and correct, and hence everybody should subscribe to it. However many > of the atheists who believe all of this don't believe that it comes from > _any_ source external to humanity. There is a distinction to be made here. Believing that the morality you subscribe to is good isn't the same as claiming that it's correct in some absolute sense. I think rape is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean I believe that belief is based on anything but my own reason and emotions. I'll gladly promote censure against rapists on the grounds that it will (supposedly) reduce the number of rapes commited, but not because I think they are breaking a universal law. > Moving away from the real world and to the very different place that is the > world of IN, there is very much an absolute morality. If you take the point > of view presented by the headlines on the back of the IPG and the APG > (angels="good guys", demons="bad guys"), then the Symphony represents the > absolute morality. Without ascribing any actual moral judgements or > strictures to this, those who are in tune with the Symphony are moral > beings, i.e., the angels. The demons, on the other hand, are evil, and in > this case precisely because they have relative morality rather than absolte > morality: they each create their own personal Symphony to suit themselves. > (I'm not trying to comment on the real world here, but rather on one > interpretation of the Symphony of IN.) I think it's possible to argue against this view. If I push a rock from a table, it will fall to the ground (provided I'm in a strong enough field of gravity and all that), but that doesn't mean that falling is bad. It's just the way the world is. The same with a person who steps off a table - he will fall to the ground and may well be hurt, but that doesn't make him evil. (This isn't a very convincing argument, however.) There are other problems with this. If we see Falling as the punishment for breaking the laws of this absolute morality, then angels are moral and demons are not. But what about humans? They can do things that would cause an angel to Fall and still end up in Heaven. Also, one angel can do with impunity what would cause another to plummet like a rock. If we see dissonance as the measure of morality things get even stickier, since this means that a demon that acts against his nature is immoral. 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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:31:02 -0600 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Sorcery Question > Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > > > > Boy, all these questions. Not hard to guess I'm working on > > characters for the Servitorium, hmm? > > > > So with Sorcery, you can only summon a spirit/demonling/demon with a > > Vessel, right? So what I wanna know is, does the summoned critter have > > to own its own Vessel, or can the Sorceror create the Vessel for it > > using accumulated Essence? John Karakash answered: > Any vessel involved will be one that the spirit/whatever > has, not created by the summoner. > > Summon/1 The 'random' spirit summoned will have a vessel > Summon/2 I believe demonlings don't need a vessel to visit earth > Summon/3 The 'random' demon will be one that has a vessel > Summon/4 No vessel it given, but there are ways to get around > in celestial form until they reach the summoner > Summon/5 No vessel means the summoning fails (see TM p.59) And now I am asking: So how do we go about getting golems into the game, if Sorcerors can't create vessels for habitation by summoned spirits? tom timberlake, Cadre Cherub of Heaven ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:33:09 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > > Not so fast. I'm not sure Dominic has a direct line to God's Law Hotline - > > Michael's trial might be an argument against it, though I haven't found > > any definite proof either way in my perusal of the write-up. > > There's no proof, but I assume _for the common case_. For the common > case, the Archangel of Judgment is the direct executor of God's Law. I feel it's a bit iffy to give Dominic this kind of connection to God, but I think it's something each GM has to decide for him/herself. > And furthermore, Michael was found guilty yet he was still acquitted. God > is the only one who is allowed to violate absolute morality - which He > did. By overturning Dominic's ruling, God allowed Michael to break God's Law - it wasn't God who was on trial. If the law doesn't apply to everyone, even excluding God, it's hardly an absolute. 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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:50:25 -0800 From: "Marcus Evenstar" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On 14XII98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >On the acceptability of thievery: Please note that, for a >depressingly wide range of human history and culture, moral >laws have largely not applied to foreigners; abusing them >just "didn't count." For a more detailed accounting of this attitude, I would recommend GURPS: Goblins. ("Y'say you're from Elysian Fields? Another damned froggy!" THWACK!) Marcus "Seattle Native and Proud of it" Evenstar ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:58:08 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality At 09:41 14/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >It's starting to look suspiciously like there is going to be an inherent >system of absolute morality in the In Nomine universe. I seriously doubt >that this was done on purpose, but when you write heaven without having >been well read in philosophy first, the trap is going to be tripped and >down the rabbit hole everyone goes Is God well read in philosophy? Discuss. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:04:26 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality At 11:59 14/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >> Not so fast. I'm not sure Dominic has a direct line to God's Law Hotline - >> Michael's trial might be an argument against it, though I haven't found >> any definite proof either way in my perusal of the write-up. > >There's no proof, but I assume _for the common case_. For the common >case, the Archangel of Judgment is the direct executor of God's Law. *whistle* So you think you need laws before you can have Judgement? jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:32:04 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Jo Hart wrote: > *whistle* So you think you need laws before you can have Judgement? Absolutely, although probably not in the way you're thinking. There can't really be Judgment until you have a set of guidelines for what's to be judged ("Um, okay.. well, you killed this guy.. hey, Bob, what do you think about this?"), and laws really are nothing but a codified set of guidelines for determining "good" and "bad" (i.e., what's to be judged). In other words, pretty much anything loses much of its point without a frame of reference, and Judgment's frame of reference is law. > jo - -EDG, dissonant Mercurian of Jean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:33:15 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Hellborn Habbalites Martin Arnold wrote on 14 December 1998 >2) on a minor note, could someone explain how newly created (ie born in >hell) Habbalah would beleive they work for God, why would Prince create >a being who believes this? Makes sense for those created through >Falling, but...? > >Yes, such thoughts keep me awake at night! ;-) Don't worry that's not strange I was puzzled by that for a while, and if I think about it it can't be stra.... sorry, what was my point again? :-) I think it's an intrinsic part of a Habbalite's nature to believe they punish humanity to do God's will, in the same way it's an intrinsic part of a Cabbalite's nature to destroy things. The way I see it is that Habbalah are seriously mad, and not just in the same way all Celestials are, and they try to justify what their nature tells them to do by using some kind of warped logic which only makes sense to them. So if a DP created a Habbalite attuned to their Word it wouldn't rebel because it thought it was an angel, it would innately feel the importance of the Word and *realise* how God wants them to spread it throughout the Symphony. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:56:07 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On 14 December 1998 Emily Dresner wrote >The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. >We can put a checkmark in that box. (slightly) Debateable remember God doesn't exist in the way you or I do (read: Solitaire in the begining of IPG) >Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually >displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. >Another check. NO, NO, NO! 1 Not all angels are what a rational human would call good and not all demons are what the same person would call evil (IPG and APG). 2 The factions in Heaven and Hell have disputes about what is good and what is evil >There needs to be an expression of God's Law and a system of execution. >We have an Archangel of Judgment. Check. As Anders Gabrielsson said Dominic doesn't neccessarily (in fact I sure he doesn't) have a direct link to the will of God >The argument against Absolute Morality in the universe is the first and >foremost: we don't know God exists, we don't know Heaven and Hell exists, >we don't know if any of our actions have any implication at all, so there >is no way that we can say our ethical system has any real impact in the >global scale at all. But in the game we _do_ know that all these things >are, in fact, true. Good people who were very good are rewarded by going >to Heaven, bad people who were very bad are punished by being sent to >Hell, and this is inherently written into the fabric of the universe. >There is a body of Heavenly Law [even if it is not yet codeified] and it >is executed through the use of an agent. Personally my argument *against* Absolute Morality, is that I don't believe in _anything_ until I've got some decent proof of it's existance (which is why I don't believe in much [note: not believing doesn't equate to disbelieving]). I'll see your philosophy and raise you background knowledge of IN. PS: Who decides Heavenly Law? (I guess it might be the Seraphim Council) Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:41:21 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > >It's starting to look suspiciously like there is going to be an inherent > >system of absolute morality in the In Nomine universe. I seriously doubt > >that this was done on purpose, but when you write heaven without having > >been well read in philosophy first, the trap is going to be tripped and > >down the rabbit hole everyone goes > > Is God well read in philosophy? Discuss. > Woah. There went my brain. *pop* Answer: God does not require knowing any philosophy. He wrote the laws of the universe. It gives mankind something to figure out, and it gives some people more interesting things to minor in then Economics and Math. And here's a parable: So in the beginning God created Man, and Man sat up. He looked around at all God had made, and he said to God, "Wow, God. This is pretty cool. But what purpose does it serve?" And God scratched his chin, and after a moment of thinking He said to Man, "I don't know. That's for you to figure out." - - Em Current Quote: Daimon says, "You know what Hell is? Here's a joke: There were two old ladies at a resturant. One of them complains, 'The food here is terrible.' The second one says, 'Yes, and such small portions.' That's Hell." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:42:10 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > >There's no proof, but I assume _for the common case_. For the common > >case, the Archangel of Judgment is the direct executor of God's Law. > > > *whistle* So you think you need laws before you can have Judgement? > It helps. :) - - Em Current Quote: Daimon says, "You know what Hell is? Here's a joke: There were two old ladies at a resturant. One of them complains, 'The food here is terrible.' The second one says, 'Yes, and such small portions.' That's Hell." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:56:41 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality At 14:32 14/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: > >> *whistle* So you think you need laws before you can have Judgement? > >Absolutely, although probably not in the way you're thinking. There >can't really be Judgment until you have a set of guidelines for what's >to be judged 'And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good.' (Genesis) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:10:19 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Perestroika wrote: > > Jo Hart wrote: > > > *whistle* So you think you need laws before you can have Judgement? > > Absolutely, although probably not in the way you're thinking. There > can't really be Judgment until you have a set of guidelines for what's > to be judged ("Um, okay.. well, you killed this guy.. hey, Bob, what do > you think about this?"), and laws really are nothing but a codified set > of guidelines for determining "good" and "bad" (i.e., what's to be > judged). > > In other words, pretty much anything loses much of its point without a > frame of reference, and Judgment's frame of reference is law. > I don't think it always has to be law. There can be standards without laws. (Then again, I'm a Balseraph, why listen to me...) Of course, you CAN call anything and everything that is an arbitrary standard a law- even when it isn't all the time, just ask any quantum physicist. ^_^ (Pay no attention to the Demon behind the curtain. > > jo > > -EDG, dissonant Mercurian of Jean - -- Berian, Renegade Demon of Imagination. "Um. I'm a Malakite! Or, at least, I will be... damn, another note..." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:10:24 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality You're assuming a good deal in the following statements, beyond the objections Anders made. In the case of his objections, I suspect that you'll go back to the answers you gave in the Free Will discusion a few weeks back. I guess you call it Absolute Lite, and I tend to think of it as not really being absolute. Emily Dresner wrote: > The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. > We can put a checkmark in that box. It's not just that God needs to exist, but also needs to have several characteristics that the monotheistic religions stress, but aren't necessarily supported by IN canon. You underestimate the vagueness of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. A couple of the problems are: Is God unique? The immediate assumption is, "Yes," but I periodically muse on the idea that there are other Gods in other parts of the universe, or other universes. It has mostly remained idle speculation, but the recent discussion of astrology and tethers got me looking at it again. As far as I can tell, IN canon doesn't actually say that there is only one God. Different Gods could certainly produce different Laws. I admit that this objection is very speculative and unlikely to crop up in very many campaigns, but it's still there. Is God unitary? ( I don't mean in the Trinitarian/Unitarian sense.) The extended write-ups of Yves and Kronos suggest not. The impression they leave is that Kronos is a part of God that Fell. This being the case doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an absolute Law, but it very definitely opens up a window for that case. > Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually > displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. > Another check. Except, of course, that in canon, we don't really know why a soul goes to one place, the other or neither. The fog generator gets turned on by our official sources whenever this question comes up. And it seems from certain descriptions of Destinies and Fates that the rules for one individual simply aren't the same as for another. I suppose you'll put this back in as part of Absolute Lite, but it makes the whole argument pretty unconvincing. For me, Destinies and Fates get chalked up into the Hey, Life Isn't Fair category, which argues against absolute Law. > There needs to be an expression of God's Law and a system of execution. > We have an Archangel of Judgment. Check. Not check. This is a place where saying that Dominic almost always gets it right doesn't cut it. For the above statement to actually work as evidence of absolute Law, Dominic must be absolutely, 100%, guaranteed infallible. Otherwise, it's not absolute. And it fails in a way that Absolute Lite won't cover. > It's starting to look suspiciously like there is going to be an inherent > system of absolute morality in the In Nomine universe. I seriously doubt > that this was done on purpose, but when you write heaven without having > been well read in philosophy first, the trap is going to be tripped and > down the rabbit hole everyone goes - so much for Canon Doubt and > Uncertaintly. You underestimate the power of Vagueness. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:12:30 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > On 14 December 1998 Emily Dresner wrote > > >The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. > >We can put a checkmark in that box. > > (slightly) Debateable remember God doesn't exist in the way you or I do > (read: Solitaire in the begining of IPG) > Then again, wasn't that Lucifer doing the talking? Y'know, the first Balseraph? > >Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually > >displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. > >Another check. > > NO, NO, NO! > 1 Not all angels are what a rational human would call good and not all > demons are what the same person would call evil (IPG and APG). > 2 The factions in Heaven and Hell have disputes about what is good and what > is evil > > >There needs to be an expression of God's Law and a system of execution. > >We have an Archangel of Judgment. Check. > > As Anders Gabrielsson said Dominic doesn't neccessarily (in fact I sure he > doesn't) have a direct link to the will of God > > >The argument against Absolute Morality in the universe is the first and > >foremost: we don't know God exists, we don't know Heaven and Hell exists, > >we don't know if any of our actions have any implication at all, so there > >is no way that we can say our ethical system has any real impact in the > >global scale at all. But in the game we _do_ know that all these things > >are, in fact, true. Good people who were very good are rewarded by going > >to Heaven, bad people who were very bad are punished by being sent to > >Hell, and this is inherently written into the fabric of the universe. > >There is a body of Heavenly Law [even if it is not yet codeified] and it > >is executed through the use of an agent. > > Personally my argument *against* Absolute Morality, is that I don't believe > in _anything_ until I've got some decent proof of it's existance (which is > why I don't believe in much [note: not believing doesn't equate to > disbelieving]). > > I'll see your philosophy and raise you background knowledge of IN. > > PS: Who decides Heavenly Law? (I guess it might be the Seraphim Council) > > Ramesh I think Dominic usually makes it up as he goes along... - -- Berian, Renegade Demon of Imagination... "He's one of us. Really. Stop looking at me like that, you'll give me dissonance! Damn, too late..." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:14:13 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Jo Hart wrote: > > At 09:41 14/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > > > >It's starting to look suspiciously like there is going to be an inherent > >system of absolute morality in the In Nomine universe. I seriously doubt > >that this was done on purpose, but when you write heaven without having > >been well read in philosophy first, the trap is going to be tripped and > >down the rabbit hole everyone goes > > Is God well read in philosophy? Discuss. > > jo God is Everything, right? So He has to have been well read in philosophy- every time you read a philosophy book.... - -- Berian, Renegade Balseraph of Imagination "This time, my Lie is conversant with the Truth. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:32:24 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: IN> The Limbo Heresy Once upon a time, I had a really cool idea. It was so cool, in fact, that it threatened to reshape the way folks perceive the IN universe. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to put this uber-idea to paper, so I left a note to myself as a reminder to get back to it later. I found that paper yesterday. Problem is, I have no idea what my cool idea was. All I have is a neat and onimous-sounding title: Limbo Heresy. So then I had the idea, 'What if I give the list a vague but cool name for a story seed, and then see what happens?' I decided to go with it. Call it a challenge if you like. The creativity on this list is wonderfully diverse, and I'd like to see what kind of bizarre and diverse ideas will result from the title. Yes, I plan to submit my own, after I've thought about it some. Assuming someone else doesn't do a better job of it. :) - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:37:34 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality B.H. wrote: > Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > > On 14 December 1998 Emily Dresner wrote > > > > >The requirement for an absolute Law is the absolute existence of God. > > >We can put a checkmark in that box. > > > > (slightly) Debateable remember God doesn't exist in the way you or I do > > (read: Solitaire in the begining of IPG) > > > > Then again, wasn't that Lucifer doing the talking? Y'know, the first > Balseraph? I don't believe it was Lucifer, it was that woman who worked for the demon. But why does everyone use the stories in the sourcebooks as canon? They are not told from the pseudo-omnescient point of view of information for the GM. The speaker could be wrong, lying, misinformed, etc. > > >Another requirement is an absolute system of Good and Evil, usually > > >displayed by Heaven and Hell and the moral basis to get into either. > > >Another check. > > > > NO, NO, NO! > > 1 Not all angels are what a rational human would call good and not all > > demons are what the same person would call evil (IPG and APG). And why would a "rational human"'s opinion have any meaning? - - Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:56:44 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Absolute Morality >There are other problems with this. If we see Falling as the punishment >for breaking the laws of this absolute morality, then angels are moral and >demons are not. But what about humans? They can do things that would cause >an angel to Fall and still end up in Heaven. Also, one angel can do with >impunity what would cause another to plummet like a rock. > >If we see dissonance as the measure of morality things get even stickier, >since this means that a demon that acts against his nature is immoral. How about this an explanation of absolute morality within the IN system and how it applies to Heaven and Hell. For humans, there is an absolute morality that is applied upon a relatively abstract notion of good versus bad, etc (cf. the proof of this a couple days ago). For Celestials, however, another rule applies. As portions of the Symphony, Angels are only supposed to cruise along one side; they have a Destiny that they must live up to. It is immoral to break with their Destiny, that immorality is reflected by Falling to Hell. For Demons, as twisted versions of their Angelic counterparts, their Destiny is equally twisted into a Fate, which they are required to live up to. If their break their morals, then they "Fall to Heaven" (or in a common term, get redeemed). Part of the question is entirely semantics. I'm willing to posit that we see Falling as a worse punishment than Redemption because we are socialized to believe that it's good to turn "back to the light" (Redemption) and it's bad to turn away from the light (Falling), when in fact they are flip sides of the same thing. Demons are, rather clearly explained, as twisted versions of Angels, Princes are twisted counterparts of Archangels, Bands are twisted equivalents of Choirs. Thus, why not take the next logical step and stay that Demonic Morals are the twisted counterparts of Angelic Morals. So if Angelic Morals include "this is moral, if you do it, you get your Destiny; if not, you Fall," then Demonic Morals (or to fit within the current semantic discussion, Immorals) would state "this is immoral, if you do it, you get your Fate; if not, you Redeem" - which is thought to be a pretty bad thing. I mean, you forsake the protection of your Prince, you have everyone trying to kill you ... it's harder to be a Demon Redeeming himself than an Angel Falling. (I think you can invert the words and it will still make sense; Angels could be "Redeemed" and Demons could Fall....) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1052 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.