From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 21 09:21:09 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 JAA24989 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:21:09 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA03213 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:55:44 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:55:44 -0600 Message-Id: <199812211455.IAA03213@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 #1063 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 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1063 In this digest: Re: IN> Ceridwen IN> Re: Ceridwen, Faeries, etc Re: IN> Word Conflict IN> Font IN> Ethereal ponderings... Re: IN> Word Conflict Re: IN> Font Re: IN> Ethereals [none] Re: IN> Ethereal ponderings... Re: IN> Word Conflict Re: IN> Ethereals IN> Re: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade IN> Marc's Name IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Marc's Name Re: IN> Ethereals Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Malakim in their place IN> Marc's name Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 09:46:58 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Ceridwen Uncle Wolf: Nice additions to Ceridwen. I like your suggestions a lot. At 03:27 AM 12/20/98 -0600, you wrote: >About Boriel... Elohim? Or Kyriotate? I think Elohim would be best, for a dispassionate reservation. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:52:47 +0000 From: Sandra Palmer Subject: IN> Re: Ceridwen, Faeries, etc OK, I'm about to be hideously pedantic, annoying, and generally snipe historically. Blame it on reading the Ars Magica list. I liked the Archangel Ceridwen, but Ceridwen was almost certainly never an actual, worshipped, goddess. She first appears in "Hanes Taliesin," which, although it's only extant in a sixteenth-century text, seems from the language to have been composed in the ninth century, where she's a mother and sorceror who brews a cauldron intended to pass the gift of inspiration to her son. Accidentally, it goes to her servant Taliesin instead. She doesn't appear in any other early literature, and her name, which means "crooked women", suggests she was created for this story alone. Now, during the period of the Gogynfeirdd ("fairly early poets" - aren't the Welsh great?) between around 1080 and 1350, Ceridwen, like many other figures from early stories, was elevated into being a goddess of inspiration. The Gogynfeirdd did a lot of this - Gwyn ap Nudd, for instance, who was originally one of King Arthur's warriors, and was transformed in their stories into the king of the underworld. An awful lot of what we think of as 'genuine' pre-Christian material was actually invented by later writers, with the Gogynfeirdd being the best example of this. For example, the account of Odin's sacrifice to himself in the "Havermal" is post-Christian, and probably strongly influenced by the story of the Crucifixion. The Three Norns in Norse mythology were almost certainly the Three Fates of Greek myth, borrowed and with no native equivalent. This all has interesting implications for the Ethereals. Many of them may have in fact come into being after their religions had died out, or perhaps found themselves in conflict with earlier forms of themself. There might be a very twisted game in this, with lots of alternative gods running around. For anybody interested in historical paganism, I strongly recommend Ronald Hutton's "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; their Nature and Legacy." (1991, Blackwell) For a work of great poetic inspiration on the subject, which is complete balls historically but beautifully written and a rich source of ideas, read Robert Graves' "The White Goddess." James. writing via my mother's e-mail, which is why I appear to be called "Sandra" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:27:45 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Word Conflict In a message dated 12/20/98 10:29:27 AM Central Standard Time, ngm1@st- andrews.ac.uk writes: > Given that Gabriel has basically been driven mad by her Word conflict with > Belial, and that it seems to be caused by an Archangle and Demon Prince > sharing a Word, would it not make sense for Lucifer to promote say the > Demon Prince of the Sword (or have the Demon Prince of War since I see > Michael as more of a threat really). > > There are some reasons against this - Baal would kind of object to a Demon > Prince of War, the newly appointed person would be a massive target etc. > But I can see Lucifer appointing someone to those Words, making them a > Demon Prince in name only and then keeping them in the Lower Hells of > something - their mere existence in the Symphony in the form of the pain > they would give to the Archangels being an important enough role in the > War. Bit cheating of him to do it yes - but I can't honestly see him > being that concerned with that :) I don't know. I think the seeds of Gabriel's madness were already there, stemming from the anger of Dominic putting her on trial, and the Word conflict between her and Belial simply aggravated it. As for War, I don't think having an opposite number in that case would cause any trouble at all, seeing as having an enemy or opposite number is pretty much required as part of that Word. The problem Gabriel has with Belial is that he is promoting a very different aspect of Fire. The pure destruction aspect, while her version is the purifying, holy flame. A Demon Prince of War might glorify a slightly different nuance than Michael, but not enough to create any serious symphonic feedback, if you catch my drift. Besides, we already have a Prince of the War. And having a Prince of War right next to a Prince of the War would just get a little silly. :) Besides if there were word conflict, between Michael's War and Hell's War, I don't see either party driven mad. Conflict is what these guys are for after all. It would just sort of spur them on. It seems to fuel Belial's engine. If he feels the conflict from Gabriel's fire, he's lovin' it! Just my thoughts, Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:56:02 +0100 From: Thomas Bergerhausen Subject: IN> Font Where can I get the typical In Nomine Font? thbfx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:23:39 -0500 From: The Anthonys Subject: IN> Ethereal ponderings... Sandra Palmer wrote: > The Three Norns in Norse mythology were > almost certainly the Three Fates of Greek myth, borrowed and with no native > equivalent. Actually, I'd doubt this very much; after all, aside from the idea of three goddess-types who are somewhat omnivisent (I think I just made that word up) and generally not screwed around with, they have remarkably little in common. The Norns were generally shown as all old or all young, while the Fates varied in age (Clotho was youngest, followed by Lachesis and Atropos); the Norns represented Past, Present, and Future, while the Fates represented Birth, Age, and Death; and so on. The similarity probably stems from a common Indo-European root, which also probably gives rise to the Hindu trinity and, possibly, the Christian trinity as well. Three is, after all, a very, very common mystic number. This, however, supports the theory you present - with Ethereals running into former or alternate versions of themselves, or even their "root" Ethereals. Additionally, with this outlook, it might not even be that unthinkable to find a few alternate Gods running around in the Ether... - -EDG who's at home, incredibly depressed, and wanting like anything to go Celestial and get the hell out of here ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:29:27 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Word Conflict On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Warsinger wrote: > > Given that Gabriel has basically been driven mad by her Word conflict with > Belial, and that it seems to be caused by an Archangle and Demon Prince > sharing a Word, would it not make sense for Lucifer to promote say the > Demon Prince of the Sword (or have the Demon Prince of War since I see > Michael as more of a threat really). Naw, because if just having a Word conflict would drive you insane, BELIAL would be insane as well. Sure, he's a rampaging force of destruction, but he's not mad. Gabriel is...well, unstable. This word conflict just made it worse. Laurence is quite stable. He would just shrug and figure it into his new strategies. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:32:43 -0500 (EST) From: Eslin Subject: Re: IN> Font On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Thomas Bergerhausen wrote: > Where can I get the typical In Nomine Font? Yet again: This question is answered in the In Nomine FAQ, at http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/faq/ - its name is SKREETCH CAPS and it was bought by SJG through Precision Type Inc., of Commack, NY. It is *not* public domain. Check the FAQ for details. - eslin@buffnet.net / chephirah@fiat.justitia ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:36:50 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals "Ramesh Satkurunath" wrote: > >I was looking though the Marches again and I realised that the Hindu Gods >are not mentioned at all in it at all - I assume that the Gods in Hinduism >would be Ethereals since it is _far_ from being a montheistic religion. >Was this because they were all killed or do they still exist? If they they >still do exist wouldn't some amongst their number be some of the most >powerful (Hinduism being amongst the 6 major religions)? If you can be >bothered to satirise Christianity and be prepared to make comments on >Neopaganism, why can't you satirise my (ex-)religion, not good enough for >you or something? :-) Well, there's a difference between satirization and mangling due to ignorance. You need to know something about the foibles of your victim before you can do a decent job of mocking, since the best jabs are the ones that are dead-on. The whole notion of ethereal gods owes more to Neil Gaiman and _Sandman_ than it does to anything approximating any real set of religious practices ever. In fact, I think that every single religion ever mentioned in the books has been mangled due to ignorance. Christianity only comes off looking slightly better than the rest because the French writers of INS/MV were intimately familiar with the Catholicism they mocked, and some of the background was carried forward into the SJG version. (For example, St. Laurence of Brindisi was a saint who was famed for his piety and martial prowess. See any resemblance to our clueless knight-errant..?) To summarize: Given the level of religious knowledge displayed in the books to date, I think it's safe to conclude that IN Hinduism would be laughably bad rather than funny. For this reason, I'm glad it got skipped in _The Marches_. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:58:39 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: [none] Beth Ranted... >At 6:19 AM -0800 12/17/98, Martin Arnold wrote: >>HAVE YOU NO FAITH IN MY APPRECIATION TO ASSUME THAT I WONT BUY THIS >>BOOK ANYWAY? CAN YOU NOT GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER? >Because I *ALREADY* dealt with *all* that fragging stuff once, and >Usually distincted. Word-bound to the Tether. Kindly read page 59 of Ermm... isn't that "distinguished"? >Also, in case you didn't actually *look*, there are *exerpts* at the Ermmm... isn't that "excerpts"?? Man, Martin must have REALLY annoyed Beth... two errors in the one post! Surtur Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:09:46 -0500 (EST) From: anthoch@earlham.edu Subject: Re: IN> Ethereal ponderings... Eek. It seems I forgot to set my posting preferences before I posted. ;) This did in fact come from me; I'm home for break at the moment, and the only Internet-capable computer I have any real access to is my family's, so the address is theirs. *sigh* Oh well. It's as good a way as any to get around some of the kill-files I seem to be on, anyway. ;) - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean feelin' kinda dumb. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:05:58 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Word Conflict Warsinger wrote at 20 December 1998 16:39 > >Given that Gabriel has basically been driven mad by her Word conflict with >Belial, and that it seems to be caused by an Archangle and Demon Prince >sharing a Word, would it not make sense for Lucifer to promote say the >Demon Prince of the Sword (or have the Demon Prince of War since I see >Michael as more of a threat really). > >There are some reasons against this - Baal would kind of object to a Demon >Prince of War, the newly appointed person would be a massive target etc. >But I can see Lucifer appointing someone to those Words, making them a >Demon Prince in name only and then keeping them in the Lower Hells of >something - their mere existence in the Symphony in the form of the pain >they would give to the Archangels being an important enough role in the >War. Bit cheating of him to do it yes - but I can't honestly see him >being that concerned with that :) > >I'm sure there are some problems with this theory - the weakest bit being >the idea of appointing someone to be a Prince in name only - but what do >you think? > Cunning Idea! But (I'm not sure on this bit) the opposing demon would only cause pyschological trauma if the Demon had a great grip on the Word, thus perverting the angels view of the symphony (because their word has changed). And Lucifer does not was hundreds of mad DP's about it makes it too likely that one faction will ally and attempt to take Lucifer down. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:09:45 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals Greg Jensen wrote on 20 December 1998 >At 12:43 PM 12/20/98 -0000, you wrote: >>I was looking though the Marches again and I realised that the Hindu Gods >>are not mentioned at all in it at all - I assume that the Gods in Hinduism >>would be Ethereals since it is _far_ from being a montheistic religion. >>Was this because they were all killed or do they still exist? If they they >>still do exist wouldn't some amongst their number be some of the most >>powerful (Hinduism being amongst the 6 major religions)? If you can be >>bothered to satirise Christianity and be prepared to make comments on >>Neopaganism, why can't you satirise my (ex-)religion, not good enough for >>you or something :-) ? > >Good point. I think Hinduism can still fit in with Heaven, however, if you >consider that Brahma=God, and all other gods are just aspects of Brahma. >Of course, you have to also consider that reincarnation and Heaven don't >always mix. You could always call Heaven Nirvana, I suppose. Having abandoned all religion I can't say I'm an expert on Hinduism, but as IIRC there were 3 main Gods Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu which were not aspects of each other and all of the other Gods were aspects of these 3 - there may or may not be a creator God I know way too little. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:18:57 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: IN> Re: At 04:58 PM 12/20/98 PST, you wrote: >Beth Ranted... >>Usually distincted. Word-bound to the Tether. Kindly read page 59 of > >Ermm... isn't that "distinguished"? > >Surtur >Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism. In this case, I suspected it IS 'distincted' has in 'possessed of a distinction'. It isn't the kind of job you give someone who hasn't already impressed you greatly, I suspect. Laurence would certainly. How do you keep a whole mob of War servitors who want to user your tether as a staging point for berserker raids on Las Vegas under control? You say 'No.' And then you jump up and down, happy that you are a Master of the Armies of God. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:10:47 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > If God have Essence to humanity to achieve their Destiny, why do Celestials > and Ethereals naturally regerate Essence? Angels and Demons have Fates and Destinies, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Ethereals have them as well. And this isn't necessarily the _only_ purpose God has for giving out Essence. > I suppose you could argue that humans use their Essence on what they most > care about, but if God gave humans a little more control over it they could > channel their efforts more easily, so why didn't God? For whatever reason, God decreed that humans have Free Will and one part of this is that they are not, at least the vast bulk of them, supposed to know about the Celestial realm. Similarly, they don't understand Essence. For whatever ineffable reason, God has determined that humans are supposed to muddle through and make the right choices without this knowledge. In fact, by making it such that mundane humans only use their Essence on those things that matter most to them, it is made to emphasize the choices that they have made. > 1 Once you've given a gift to someone it is no longer yours. The Essence > being _given_ to the Ethereals Gods was the human's property, not God's. And Uriel did not punish mundanes who gave away their Essence freely. He punished the Ethereals who improperly took it. > 2 The Impudite analogy is something most Celestials would agree on. But > the Ethereal Gods and their followers wouldn't. > I think the above quote quite adequetely describes how not all Ethereal > Gods used > mankind for their wicked ends. And canon does not describe whether the Ethereals that Uriel had to get most forceful with were the helpful or the wicked ones. But again, from the Angel of Purity's perspective, even the helpful Ethereals are misleading their worshippers. They might help humans towards their Destiny by accident, but that isn't their goal, whereas if the humans look to God, they will find guidance to the best end possible for them. This would be particularly the case since it seems from literature that angels were somewhat less reticent about appearing openly during that era than they are now. (There's an interesting story possibility in determining why this change was made.) > "Uriel saw the Symphony as a manifestation of his own Word, a place where > complete purity of thought, word and deed should prevail." - This sounds > like a severe case of hubris Not necessarily hubris. To some extent, this is an inevitable product of the Word of Purity. And, though again God doesn't make his motives very clear, it certainly seems that Uriel crossed the bounds of how far he should go. But to some extent, all Worded angels see the Symphony as a manifestation of their Word; Michael believes that everyone should be involved in fighting the War; Jordi believes everyone should understand their animal nature and return to the wild, and so on. Angels that have more uncompromising Words, of whom Uriel is one, are always going to be a bit prone to going too far; the upside is that they tend to be very effective at getting things done. This is oneof Dominic's dilemnas as well. > After the ethereals had left the corporeal realm, there was no valid reason > (if there was on to begin with) for Uriel to continue the Crusade. The > only reason for continuing was to satisfy Uriel's Bloodlust. Again, what isn't said is whether there was good reason to believe the Ethereals had truly given up. It may well have been a tactical withdrawal, and it was best to get the fight done with now rather than have to come back and do it all over. And, the quote from the book gives another reason that the continuation may have been justified; just because the Ethereals are back in their own realm does not necessarily mean that they are done preying on humans. Were they not still in the Near Marches where they could cause havoc, Blandine likely would have had less to complain about. So, whether he was right or wrong, Uriel's concerns were not simply bloodlust. If the basic thrust of your original question is, "Did Uriel's Crusade go too far and reach a point where it was no longer the right thing to do?" I think the answer, even in published game materials, is, "Yes." If the point is rather that Uriel was paranoid and out of bounds from the get-go, the answer, at least within the game system, is, "No." The Pagan Gods were a problem on several levels and Uriel is the one who stepped forward to do something about it. He was at least somewhat justified in his attitude that those who are not with us are against us; Factions, after all, isan Infernal Word. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:22:22 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Marc's Name Marc = "Follower of Mars; the Warrior" Erm, how does this fit Marc's nature? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:23:42 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Uriel's Crusade Before we continue, Ramesh, PLEASE learn to copy & paste. It is not necessary to repost the entire text of the message you are responding to. >>>In what sense were Ethereal Gods enemies of God? God in IN very rarely hands commandments out from on high on what humans can and can't do.<<< If you believe that God is the source of all that is good and right (which the Archangels certainly do), then beings who would have humanity follow a path leading them away from Heaven are thus leading them away from God. Furthermore, some ethereals _are_ actively opposed to God and Heaven, ranging from those who claim God is just a former ethereal spirit himself to those who don't care much about the big theological issues but simply want to be worshipped for their own sake, because they want Essence and ego-boost. Or out of spite, because they hate the angels and will do anything to weaken Heaven's authority. You're right that God Himself rarely hands down edicts in In Nomine; God's will has to be interpreted by Archangels. The fact that the Archangels don't necessarily know what God's will really is makes the game more interesting, but to assume that the Archangels don't even have a better understanding of God's will than we do would make the game _less_ interesting, IMO. >>>Also I think a main point if IN is that Celestials are very much like us. They don't have all the answers, they don't know the REAL truth even Archangels, their views _are_ based on unprovable biases - Words.<<< I wish we could declare a moratorium on quoting the back cover of the rulebook. People tend to use the "They are much like us" line whenever the argument comes up that celestials aren't human. Yes, they are "much like us," but that's not a canonical statement in itself because it has no meaning in itself. It's meant to imply that there are a lot of similarities between celestials and humans. It makes the point that you can roleplay the same moral dilemmas and controversies that face humans while playing angels and demons. On the other hand, they are also much _different_ from us. You can say "they are much like us" and still make the gap between mortal and celestial as large or as small as you like. After all, we can also say chimpanzees are "much like us".... Furthermore, remember that while the average angel or demon may be not so far removed from humans, Archangels and Demon Princes are on another plane entirely. They are NOT much like us. Especially the Archangels, who have vastly expanded angelic perceptions, and can see and comprehend the Symphony on a level that lesser beings can't even imagine. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:54:23 -0500 (EST) From: Eslin Subject: Re: IN> Marc's Name On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Marc = "Follower of Mars; the Warrior" > > Erm, how does this fit Marc's nature? I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that it says it has to. :) Marc could sound something like Marc's Celestial name. Marc could be older than the translation that you use above. (And there might even be a private joke between Marc and Michael involved... or at least on one side. :) ) Also, Marc's a Mercurian; the list of sample Mercurian names - used both in Heaven and on Earth - includes "Echo" and "Lacy". If Lacy reflected a Celestial's nature, somehow I'd associate it more with an Andre-servitor than a Mercurian... ;) In general, I suspect, the name-meaning association is far closer to universal in Seraphim, Elohim, the servitors of Seraph and Elohite Arcangels, and Destiny-servitors. And keep in mind that Archangels' names may have outgrown their original meaning - remembered in Heaven, forgotten on Earth. (What was the word for 'trader' in the Harappa language?) - eslin@buffnet.net / chephirah@fiat.justitia P.S. So 'Chephirah' does mean 'a little lioness' for a Lion-cherub. Did I say I paid attention to myself anywhere? :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:58:44 -0600 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Greg Jensen wrote on 20 December 1998 > >At 12:43 PM 12/20/98 -0000, you wrote: > >>I was looking though the Marches again and I realised that the Hindu Gods > >>are not mentioned at all in it at all - I assume that the Gods in Hinduism > > >>would be Ethereals since it is _far_ from being a montheistic religion. > >>Was this because they were all killed or do they still exist? Actually, if you go about 2 years back on the archive for this list [May or June of 97, IIRC] you will find that Hinduism was discussed. Hinduism was something that not many of us felt up to doing in depth [lack of experience and knowledge], but I remember talking about some Ethereals being misunderstood interpretations of various Celestials, such as Agni=Gabriel or Belial, Eli=Brahma, David=Vishnu, Marc=Ganesh, etc... This also spawned Amber/IN thread. If you look far enough back, I'm sure you will find it. > > > > >Good point. I think Hinduism can still fit in with Heaven, however, if > you > >consider that Brahma=God, and all other gods are just aspects of Brahma. > >Of course, you have to also consider that reincarnation and Heaven don't > >always mix. You could always call Heaven Nirvana, I suppose. > > Having abandoned all religion I can't say I'm an expert on Hinduism, but as > IIRC there were 3 main Gods Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu which were not aspects > of each other and all of the other Gods were aspects of these 3 - there may > or may not be a creator God I know way too little. No, but [IIRC -- it's been about 20 years] there is an Overgod, Brahma or Brahmin or maybe Brahman [like I said, it's been a while] that Brahma, Shiva, & Vishnu _are_ aspects of. And Brahma was the creator, born from the mind of [the Overgod, whatever its name was]. Shiva was the urban renewal authority, responsible for destruction and subsequent rebirth, while Vishnu was the preserver. Or at least that is how I remember it. Tom Timberlake, Cadre Cherub of Heaven ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:56:05 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place Sorry for the late reply on this. My e-mail server went down, and just came back up. Now, on to the meat... On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >I really don't think genocide is the way to describe what Uriel did. > >Remember that he alowed entire pantheons to leave the Corporeal realm > >unscathed (the spirits of the Australian Dreamtime, for instance). Just > >that fact leads me to believe that he did try and continued to try other > >methods to resolve the Crusade; it's just that those methods turned into > >gunboat diplomacy at times. > > > Fine, maybe genocide was possible the wrong word - maybe comparing it to > "racial cleansing" would make my point better. I don't think so. Ethnic cleansing is the systematic extermination of an identifiable group, just for being in that group. (More or less, anyway. It's 3 AM, and I could be thinking more clearly.) Uriel (IMO, anyway) didn't do that. He made war against a specific group of individuals who were in open defiance to God. (The argument that God in In Nomine may not be Creator and Ruler of all is moot. If God is, than Uriel was serving him. If God is not, then Uriel as still created to believe He was, and was acting based on what he knew.) The Ethereals were given the opportunity to obey the will of God, as interpreted by Uriel, and withdraw from the Corporeal realm. Those that complied were allowed to leave unmolested (the Australian Dreamtime spirits, for instance). Those that refused were then considered in open rebellion against God. War was declared, and those that stood and fought were slain. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:17:34 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Eeyore wrote: > Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > I think the above quote quite adequetely describes how not all Ethereal > > Gods used > > mankind for their wicked ends. > > And canon does not describe whether the Ethereals that Uriel had to get most > forceful with were the helpful or the wicked ones. But again, from the Angel > of Purity's perspective, even the helpful Ethereals are misleading their > worshippers. They might help humans towards their Destiny by accident, but > that isn't their goal, whereas if the humans look to God, they will find > guidance to the best end possible for them. Hurm. If humans look to God, they'll look and look and don't get anything back until after they die, in canon. God doesn't take a direct hand in the life of His believers. His angels do it, from time to time, but the Big Guy Himself doesn't do anything. > The Pagan Gods were a problem on > several levels and Uriel is the one who stepped forward to do something about > it. He was at least somewhat justified in his attitude that those who are not > with us are against us; Factions, after all, isan Infernal Word. *boggle* And exterminating the opposition -isn't- the infernal way of handling this kind of problems? If anything, Uriel furthered Malphas' Word by increasing the animosity between Heaven and the Ethereals. "Those who aren't with us are against us" is very much Malphas' rallying cry, IMO. Er, so to speak. :) 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, 21 Dec 1998 09:24:47 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>In what sense were Ethereal Gods enemies of God? God in IN very rarely > hands commandments out from on high on what humans can and can't do.<<< > > If you believe that God is the source of all that is good and right (which > the Archangels certainly do), then beings who would have humanity follow a > path leading them away from Heaven are thus leading them away from God. > Furthermore, some ethereals _are_ actively opposed to God and Heaven, > ranging from those who claim God is just a former ethereal spirit himself > to those who don't care much about the big theological issues but simply > want to be worshipped for their own sake, because they want Essence and > ego-boost. Or out of spite, because they hate the angels and will do > anything to weaken Heaven's authority. Whether the Ethereals were leading their worshippers away from Heaven or not is an open question, I think. A few (very few) souls ended up as Einhärjar, or other equivalents, but most were not affected in that way. I don't think many of the Ethereal-inspired/Ethereal-creating religions were more prone to create selfishness in humanity than Christianity/Judaism/Islam. 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, 21 Dec 1998 03:41:28 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > "Uriel saw the Symphony as a manifestation of his own Word, a place where > complete purity of thought, word and deed should prevail." - This sounds > like a severe case of hubris Or an example of an Superior's Word shaping his view of reality. Michael sees the Symphony as a proving ground composed purely of war and conflict. Malphas sees the Symphony only in terms of things which can be broken into smaller things. Novalis sees the Symphony as a place in which there should only be peace and harmony. Uriel sees the Symphony as a place where there should be "complete purity of thought, word and deed". Who is right? All of them. And none of them. The Symphony encompasses all of the Words in existance, but it is none of them. > After the ethereals had left the corporeal realm, there was no valid reason > (if there was on to begin with) for Uriel to continue the Crusade. The > only reason for continuing was to satisfy Uriel's Bloodlust. Except that they could continue to meddle in the affairs of humanity from their position in the Marches. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:59:51 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > Fine, maybe genocide was possible the wrong word - maybe comparing it to > > "racial cleansing" would make my point better. > > I don't think so. Ethnic cleansing is the systematic extermination of an > identifiable group, just for being in that group. (More or less, anyway. > It's 3 AM, and I could be thinking more clearly.) Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily require extermination - that's what genocide is. Ethnic cleansing means getting rid of those who are members of a certain ethnic group/not members of a certain ethnic group, by any means necessary. The goal is to have an area free of that/those ethnic group(s), as opposed to genocide, where the goal is killing them. > Uriel (IMO, anyway) didn't do that. He made war against a specific group > of individuals who were in open defiance to God. (The argument that God > in In Nomine may not be Creator and Ruler of all is moot. If God is, than > Uriel was serving him. If God is not, then Uriel as still created to > believe He was, and was acting based on what he knew.) The Ethereals were > given the opportunity to obey the will of God, as interpreted by Uriel, > and withdraw from the Corporeal realm. Those that complied were allowed > to leave unmolested (the Australian Dreamtime spirits, for instance). > Those that refused were then considered in open rebellion against God. > War was declared, and those that stood and fought were slain. According to this description what Uriel did was ethnic cleansing. Uriel: Get outta here, you steenkin' Ethies! We don't want you around pawing our mortals! Some Ethereals: Okay, fair enough. (Guys, he's got a darn big flamin' sword. I say we back off.) Uriel: Hey! You over there! Git! Some other Ethereals: Come and get us, wing-boy! SoE: Ouchie ouchie! Uriel: They're getting away! C'mon boys, we'll head them off at the pass! SoE: Uh-oh... Beleth: Hey boys! Wanna come over here an' play instead? I'll protect you from that big, bad bully with the flamin' sword that's cuttin' all you cuties to little bloody chunks of soul-matter. SoE: Yes please, Ma'am. (Quit pushin' back there! I was first in line!) Uriel: See?! See?! What did I tell ya? They were on Lucifer's leash all along! God: I think you and Me should have a little chat, hmmm? Or, biased the other way around: Uriel: You are hereby charged with Theft of Essence and Impurifying the Symphony. Cease and desist, or I'll be forced to use force on your Forces. Some Ethereals: *grumble grumble* Okay, Big Guy. No need gettin' the sword out. (Hey guys, let's lie low for a while, okay? We can always come back later.) Some other Ethereals: No way, wing-boy! This is our turf! Uriel: Very well. Attack! SoE: Ouchie ouchie! Let's pull back and regroup! Uriel: Don't let them escape! The Symphony must be Pure! SoE: Uh-oh... Beleth: (Hmmm... here's a great chance to rise in Lucifer's favor, and yank Blandine's chain to boot.) Hey guys! Wanna serve Hell instead? SoE: Sure thing Ma'am! (Hey, quit pushing!) Uriel: God? Yes, I'm Uriel. A private talk? Well, I'm kinda busy... right away? Promotion? I'll be blessed! 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, 21 Dec 1998 12:42:18 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Marc's name >Marc could sound something like Marc's Celestial name. Marc could >be older than the translation that you use above. (And there might even >be a private joke between Marc and Michael involved... or at least on >one I'd associate the name Mark with Trade through St Mark, who was (and is) the patron saint of Venice -- a city-state which built up a very powerful trading empire in the Med which lasted for over 1000 years. There's an amusing story attached to this: The original saint of Venice was St Theodore, or somesuch, who got beatified after killing a crocodile (OK, it may have been a dragon but it looked like a crocodile in the statue in the Doge's palace), but when the Venecians wanted to assert their independence of Rome, they decided that it would be useful to do something symbolic to push the point home, and acquiring a patron saint who was an evangelist (ie. spread the word independently) was a good way to do it. So.. a couple of Venecians, disguised as merchants, went off to Alexandria, stole the body of St Mark from its sepulchre and brought it back home where it was duly celebrated as the new patron saint. Continuing the 'acquisition' theme, the great bronze horses of St Mark's square were picked up by Doge Enrico Dandalo when he personally led the 4th crusade on Byzantium. jo Everyone should go to Venice at least once in their lives. It is one of the few places on earth guaranteed not to disappoint. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:51:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > Hurm. If humans look to God, they'll look and look and don't get > anything back until after they die, in canon. God doesn't take a > direct hand in the life of His believers. His angels do it, from > time to time, but the Big Guy Himself doesn't do anything. Sure He does -- every time anyone, human or celestial, rolls a 111. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1063 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.