From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 21 16:37:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA21096 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:37:25 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id QAA17967 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:00:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:00:01 -0600 Message-Id: <199812212200.QAA17967@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 #1065 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 1065 In this digest: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Celestial Interventions IN> Orphans Re: IN> Uriel's crusade IN> Eli's Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy > Umm... Em, you just did yourself what you accuse the writers of The Marches of > doing. Yeah, but my incorrect ravings are totally, 100% free and they aren't canon. That's the main difference. Had I written it for professional purposes, it would have been right. I was debating adding that in because I wasn't totally sure. Over email, well, my 85% hit ratio isn't bad. - - Em Current Quote: The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars. _Foucault's Pendulum_, Umberto Eco ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:51:25 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Interventions Richard Gant wrote: > On a related note, I have a question about interventions. What > happens to an Outcast angel who rolls a divine intervention? Is > it beneficial or dangerous? I would say it depends completely on the character of the Outcast. An Intervention roll is an invitation to the GM to improvise. If the Outcast is basically trying to Do Good, a 111 is good for him. He can take a big step toward reconciling with his Archangel, or toward getting a new one, or toward achieving whatever worthy goal he went Outcast to pursue, etc. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:55:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Orphans I don't have the Angelic Roleplaying Guide, where this is probably answered, so: I know there are Uriel's orphans, the Tsayadim. Are there other orphans? Angels of Knowledge with no Raphael to report to? Angels of Laughter who no longer report to Kobal now that he fell from Laughter to Mockery? Angels of Light who no longer report to Lucifer, but perhaps keep his Cathedral dusted off, waiting for the end of the War, when a new Archangel of Light might be appointed? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:59:31 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's crusade > > What if most of the pantheons worshipped by the post-crusade mortals were > already extinct and only passed down through echoes, whispered folklore, or > demons who were quick to jump into the gap that was left? This is a > gameworld in which heaven and hell exist. Of course most idols could > genuinely be just lumps of stone. Of course people are capable of inventing > religions based on old folklore and imagery without 'creating' ethereals.. > Ethereals are just parasites. Where the belief and potential for essence > sacrifice exists, they will be drawn like flies to a dungheap. They're even > worse than demons in that particular respect.... > > Yep. What if _every_ _single_ ethereal 'god' that arose after the purges was > a lie? Maybe a few slipped through the gaps, but surely the ones who had > survival instinct would be more cautious than to poke their noses out. Then > imagine that frustration at seeing either some younger ethereal, or a demon > actually taking _your_ place... > This, like many others, are great theories, and I certainly buy it. The problem that stands in the way of this being a plausible argument is canon and text from the Marches. "The mortals of old looked on the world with wonder and fear. Not understanding the mysteries of God's creation, unable to hear the music of the Symphony, they sought meaning in the natural events that happened around them. Those feelings manifested in the Marches as living beings... ethereal spirits who embodied human emotions and the things that stirred them in mortal hearts and minds. The spirits fed and grew strong on the Essence that human imagination offered, and many mortals came to worship them as gods, a role they quickly accepted." The problem is that there are several places in the text which clearly states that ethereals are created from human worship. So unless some part of the mechanics of the universe profoundly changed after Uriel's ascention which violates the above paragraph on page 75 of the Marches, belief will still create new Gods and essence will come with them. Only by changing the universe will ever god which existed afterwards be a lie, or unless it is clearly stated somewhere else, which it is not. I'm not disagreeing with the Crusade or it's reasons for it [and I can think up several very good reasons for it as well] but canon is a major roadblock to repairing the way the Marches are approached. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:14:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: IN> Eli's Limbo Heresy Sorry this is late. I've been out of town. Why did Eli leave heaven? Eventually, someone had to get curious, and a Mercurian of Revelations got lucky when he spotted the man himself at, of all things, the World Limbo Championships in Havana. Now the reports are all around Heaven and Earth, with Eli quoted as saying: "Yeah. Limbo's cool because, like, you have to get as close to the ground as you can without touching. It's a metaphor. You can't understand what it is to be high up until you've compared it to the very depths. But you musn't ever, ever, touch the ground, 'cause that's really bad. You're a smart boy. Go figure." Now, thousands of angels, especially Eli's former servitors, are deliberately committing dissonant acts in order to be Outcast, with the intention of redeeming once they have pushed themselves to the limits of Falling. Dominic has formally declared Eli a Heretic, and ordered his destruction. Michael wants to get his hands on him to 'convince' him to recant his heresy before too many angels are lost to Hell. But no-one can quite find him. Meanwhile, requests in Hell for vessels with unusually flexible backs have skyrocketed. The Princes have given up trying to process and debrief all the new recruits - Baal has been putting them in sealed rooms in groups of twenty and employing the last one not soul-killed. Asmodeus, as always, is suspicious because he isn't in control. Kobal wants to know whether this is some kind of joke and, if so, why he wasn't informed. Lilith was last seen with a white telephone under one ear and a black telephone under the other, claiming that she knows *exactly* where Eli is, but that the price for the information hasn't yet been decided. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 11:20:08 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > Nick Jost wrote on 18 December 1998 22:59 > >> At 09:58 AM 12/18/98 -0400, you wrote: > >You might be confusing reality with IN. In the game Uriel has a pretty > good > >hunch that God is the only thing worthy of any adoration. It (gender > neutral) > >then removes the oposition who does not deserve this. > > > (Assuming God is what God seems to be) God does not need adoration or > worship the only thing that is important is that people live "good" lives & > it is quite possible to follow a non-montheistic religion and still live a > good life. > > > Also what did creatures like unicorns and fairies do to deseve > slaying/banishment? > > Ramesh Again this is a game. Uriel in the game removed the etheral because they where unpure in that they claimed to be other than they were. It has nothing to do with adoration or worship. It has to do with Uriel's word. And since when in IN did unicorns and fairies become different in Uriel's viewpoint than any other etheral? What is the difference to Uriel? Hmmm? - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy > > If one is going off of Uriel's ascention through Papal decree, then this > > is confusing. The Papal state was not established until 751 AD, six years > > later. > > I don't think that Uriel's recall was due to Papal decree. I don't think > Uriel would have cared much. It probably just sounded like a good date to > use. My memory is tickling in the back of my head, and something tells me that this date for canon was generated from a Papal degree about the Archangels and Sainthood. Pushing my finger into the much that is history, I discover that the Papacy didn't really mean much until Charlemange. It wasn't at Rome, and there was quite a bit of controversy over how much power the Pope actually had. It took a Holy Roman Emperor to make it a powerhouse over a major religion and the world. [Pope Stephen, yes? Or Pepin. Someone will correct me.] So the chosen date makes even less sense then before. > > So how Uriel killed a bunch of Gods who were receiving steady worship in a > > suddenly explosive spread of the population of worshippers after he was > > very much gone is a mystery. Again, it seems to be a case of Uriel and > > his hordes being able to see into the future, and essence going to > > destroyed Gods unspent. The problem is the worshippers, and the fact that > > there were so many of them. > > The Tsayadim were (and are) still out there. Invoking my Word of > Apologia, I will state that it was the Tsayadim that were able to kill the > Norse gods. Uriel gets the credit due to mental laziness on the part of > the narrator, and the fact that it was his Servitors who did it. I rebuke the Apologia with the Sword of Having The Book In Front Of Me. :) Page 78, 1st column, "Then the Archangel of Purity ascended at God's command and has not been heard from since. Uriel's Crusade was ended and the remaining spirits were left to their own devices." It says that most of the servitors went to Laurence, a few went to others, and only a small handful continued with the Crusade. The problem is, would the Tsayadim, whose number was vastly reduced in canon, without a leader or a base, be able to continue on the Crusade full bore? I suppose that it can be imagined if this is the official Fix, although it certainly is a heck of a stretch, considering that both Beleth and Blandine are _also_ protecting the Ethereals now. The problem is that this paragraph and the box on p 92 about the Guardians of the Marches tends to contradict Tsayadim canon. > Invoking my Word again, the Crusade was still continuing. (See above.) It > didn't fare as well against the the American gods, because the Tsayadim > were not recieving as much support from Heaven as they had been > previously. Furthermore, the ranks of the Tsayadim were beginning to > split (as the Cult of Purity formed), reducing their effectiveness > further. They still tired, but they just couldn't do it as well. Again, see above. And the quoted paragraph in the original email, which clearly had the servitors of Purity doing a real number on the American gods, quotes as "the most heavily persecuted of pagan gods". And remember, my Cult of Purity, no matter how many campaigns it seems to creep into, is NOT canon, and will never be canon. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 11:23:58 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > Richard Gant wrote on 18 December 1998 > >On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > >> I guess you're probably right that the only way Uriel could concieve of > >> dealing with the problem he saw was the Crusade, but I just can't > condone > >> such genocide except as the final resort to a horrendously problematic > >> situation and maybe Uriel saw it as a horrendously problematic situation > >> but I don't think he tried other methods. > > > >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. > > Ramesh Ramesh...in general this is a nice list. Free from abuse. You're walking the line. This is a *GAME*. In game terms it could be justified because: 1.) The etherals, though it is CDaU, are lying. There claiming a special knowledge that belongs to God. 2.) They influence earthly affairs in an un angelic way. To the angelic mindset that's as good as being infernal. 3.) Etherals that packed and left were for the most part ignored. 4.) This is a war with them, the etherals, as powerful agents of an opposing non-conforming side. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:43:31 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy Aaiiee!!! My Word is crumbling already! :) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > I don't think that Uriel's recall was due to Papal decree. I don't think > > Uriel would have cared much. It probably just sounded like a good date to > > use. > > My memory is tickling in the back of my head, and something tells me that > this date for canon was generated from a Papal degree about the Archangels > and Sainthood. Pushing my finger into the much that is history, I > discover that the Papacy didn't really mean much until Charlemange. It > wasn't at Rome, and there was quite a bit of controversy over how much > power the Pope actually had. It took a Holy Roman Emperor to make it a > powerhouse over a major religion and the world. [Pope Stephen, yes? Or > Pepin. Someone will correct me.] So the chosen date makes even less sense > then before. Pope Gregory the Great, IIRC. He's the one that really started pushing the doctrine of Papal supremacy, during the 8th century. It took some time after that before it really sunk in, though. I think my point is that even though the authors were influenced by the Catholic church in this date, it really isn't important in terms of the game. The Pope didn't recall Uriel. > > The Tsayadim were (and are) still out there. Invoking my Word of > > Apologia, I will state that it was the Tsayadim that were able to kill the > > Norse gods. Uriel gets the credit due to mental laziness on the part of > > the narrator, and the fact that it was his Servitors who did it. > > I rebuke the Apologia with the Sword of Having The Book In Front Of Me. :) > > Page 78, 1st column, "Then the Archangel of Purity ascended at God's > command and has not been heard from since. Uriel's Crusade was ended and > the remaining spirits were left to their own devices." > > It says that most of the servitors went to Laurence, a few went to others, > and only a small handful continued with the Crusade. The problem is, > would the Tsayadim, whose number was vastly reduced in canon, without a > leader or a base, be able to continue on the Crusade full bore? I suppose > that it can be imagined if this is the official Fix, although it certainly > is a heck of a stretch, considering that both Beleth and Blandine are > _also_ protecting the Ethereals now. Ooof. Dissonance. Must invoke further apologia. :) Maybe the Tsayadim were primarily the Wordbound who served Uriel? that would make them very powerful. Ok, ok, I know. That's just lame. Seriously, I'd forgotten that it was just a handful of Servitors of Purity who became the Tsayadim. I spend so much time ignoring canon, that I sometimes forget what it is. > > Invoking my Word again, the Crusade was still continuing. (See above.) It > > didn't fare as well against the the American gods, because the Tsayadim > > were not recieving as much support from Heaven as they had been > > previously. Furthermore, the ranks of the Tsayadim were beginning to > > split (as the Cult of Purity formed), reducing their effectiveness > > further. They still tired, but they just couldn't do it as well. > > Again, see above. And the quoted paragraph in the original email, which > clearly had the servitors of Purity doing a real number on the American > gods, quotes as "the most heavily persecuted of pagan gods". Ouch. More dissonance. Maybe I shouldn't have petitioned for that Word. :) Actually, I agree. Perhaps it's time to "chainsaw revise" these dates. They can be defended, but it is a weak defense at best. > And remember, my Cult of Purity, no matter how many campaigns it seems to > creep into, is NOT canon, and will never be canon. But it's so cool! 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 19:46:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Streeter wrote: > "Absolute Truth must exist, since if Absolute Truth did not exist, its > non-existence would be an Absolute Truth. That is, the statement 'There > is Absolute Truth' proves itself. The flaw in your argument is essentially that you have treated existence as a logical property which can be possessed by some abstract concept. In logic it is a Bad Thing to define a particular object with existence as a part of its definition. Your argument is equivalent to the Ontological argument, a proof of the existence of God. The reason it looks convincing is basically that you never properly define what 'Absolute Truth' means in terms to which basic logical operations can be applied. In logical terms, you have attempted to phrase the statement "This statement is true in all axiom schemes." Believe me, that's not allowed. Steve. - ------ Appendix: the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. 1. Definition: God is the greatest being that could possibly exist. 2. Axiom: A being which exists is greater than a being which is a figment of my imagination. 3. Conclusion: The greatest being that could possibly exist does in fact exist, and is not simply a figment of my imagination. 4. Conclusion: God exists. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:15:47 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy > Aaiiee!!! My Word is crumbling already! :) Sorry. Have a cookie. It has chips! > Pope Gregory the Great, IIRC. He's the one that really started pushing > the doctrine of Papal supremacy, during the 8th century. It took some > time after that before it really sunk in, though. > > I think my point is that even though the authors were influenced by the > Catholic church in this date, it really isn't important in terms of the > game. The Pope didn't recall Uriel. Well, it was SOME Pope, somewhere. I'm sure he's important to somebody. :) No, the Pope didn't and the game didn't. My argument is that the game's stance that this is the date for the Ascention which is written in stone is a poorly conceived date and this is the only reason why it was fixed there instead of further along in the future, which would take Casca's fix and allow the In Nomine Historical Machine function. I'm having trouble coming up with any other reasoning, other then pure random chance. > Ooof. Dissonance. Must invoke further apologia. :) > > Maybe the Tsayadim were primarily the Wordbound who served Uriel? that > would make them very powerful. > > Ok, ok, I know. That's just lame. Maybe. I dunno. It's like, here was this whole army who was wiping out people left and right, but we really didn't need those guys [including the Angel of the Sword and all his lieutenants], we just needed George and Steve, the greatest Purity servitors in the World! Besides, everyone else just sat back and ate donuts while these guys did all the work in the first place. > Seriously, I'd forgotten that it was just a handful of Servitors of Purity > who became the Tsayadim. I spend so much time ignoring canon, that I > sometimes forget what it is. It was this conversation which prompted me to go back and read this section of the Marches. I suddenly remembered why it was left untouched on my bookshelf. I had thought it was the truly bad Sorcery rules, but _NO_, it was this. > Actually, I agree. Perhaps it's time to "chainsaw revise" these dates. > They can be defended, but it is a weak defense at best. Huzzah! Another convert! > > And remember, my Cult of Purity, no matter how many campaigns it seems to > > creep into, is NOT canon, and will never be canon. > > But it's so cool! Thank ya. You can't see it, but I'm doing a happy dance. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:28:47 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Emily Dresner wrote: > The problem is that there are several places in the text which clearly > states that ethereals are created from human worship. So unless some part > of the mechanics of the universe profoundly changed after Uriel's > ascention which violates the above paragraph on page 75 of the Marches, > belief will still create new Gods and essence will come with them. Only > by changing the universe will ever god which existed afterwards be a lie, > or unless it is clearly stated somewhere else, which it is not. Then how about this? Uriel had time to knock off the Meso-American gods before he was recalled (that the writers called "Aztec" even if those specific ones weren't around yet). Then, even though there were only a few Tsayadim around, by being vigilant they were able to take out the gods that came into being due to human worship while they were still young and weak. And, while I don't want to get dragged into the debate over whether Hinduism is actually Trinitarianism, these gods are still around because Uriel didn't have time to deal with them and his orphans don't have the strength to do so themselves. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:29:55 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > It says that most of the servitors went to Laurence, a few went to others, > and only a small handful continued with the Crusade. The problem is, > would the Tsayadim, whose number was vastly reduced in canon, without a > leader or a base, be able to continue on the Crusade full bore? I suppose I don't think so. It would be rather like a company of US troops staying behind to fight in Vietnam when the rest of the country pulled out. A small force, with no support structure, fighting an entrenched enemy? It would be limited to guerrilla warfare, which harasses more than anything else. > And remember, my Cult of Purity, no matter how many campaigns it seems to > creep into, is NOT canon, and will never be canon. But it's so cool that it -should- be. ;) - -- 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, 21 Dec 1998 21:28:54 +0100 From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Re: the existance of the Ethereal gods and their relationship to God: Has anyone else out there in IN-land read P.C. Hodgell's book _God Stalk_? That book has a nice explanation for the existance of multiple gods even though the main characters have been taught that her God (a.k.a. The Three-faced God, with standard creator-preserver- destroyer aspects) is the only one that exists. There, it's not only the belief of the worshippers that create the gods, they are also "lesser shadows" of the Three-faced God. Nice book (and it's sequels are very good too, if insanely hard to find (now if only _Seeker's Mask_ and _Blood And Ivory_ could arrive)). The books are: _God Stalk_, _Dark of the Moon_, _Seeker's Mask_, and _Blood and Ivory_. There is a web page[1] that details the stories of Jamethiel Priests- Bane much better than I do, too. /cd [1]: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~casrsjc/kencyr.htm - -- "At that point, it didn't matter to Jame if this was a god, a hallucination, or the local form of street sanitation; she was out of the alley the way she had come before the creature had turned the far corner." -- _God Stalk_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:41:57 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > What happened to the rest of this sentence? > My brain cut out. I'm dead serious. It happens. Every once in a > while I'm talking and I just sit there and go, "What the hell was I > talking about?" Let's see if I can finish my thought. :) Perhaps you should get an uninterruptable power source for your brain? > "He wasn't so much a Christian, as much as a man who knew the value of > unity, and knew that if he reduced the racial hatred under his rule, his > country would be prosperous. Which it was." > Better? Yes, and pretty much what I figured you were saying, but I wanted to be sure. > Now, if you have it start at that time, or maybe a few hundred years > earlier, and coax on through the 12th century, you can catch 90% of the > religions on the planet instead of about 45% of them, get the Crusades, > and the start of the Spanish Inquisition. It fixes dozens of problems > with history and the canon, and makes things work a little better. > So my compromise is where my Witchcraft and Demonology of Ireland book > starts, which are documented Inquisition cases - 1117AD, and catches > everyone right with their pants down. Hmm.. interesting. Hadn't thought of attributing the Spanish Inquisition to Uriel. Must ponder this. > Nope, you're right, you're logical, and I totally buy this with the shift Woo-hoo! I survived Dresner Scrutiny! ;) > in year. I would also put his beachhead right square on Constantinople, > since although Paul preached Christianity from Rome and was crucified > there, Justinian made that city the spiritual original heart of the new > religion until the Popes started excommunicating each other. Makes sense. I just like centering everything on Israel for obvious reasons. > The thing is, even a little bit of looking around the net for historical > accuracy on Christianity would have brought any sane person to this exact > same pattern of attack for Uriel. I'm going to take this as a compliment. :) > > Engage in wholesale Chainsaw Revisionism? ;) > Oh, hell yes. Of all the "lack of research" gripes, this section of the > Marches tops the list, swiftly followed by the history section of the APG. > It needs to be wholesale chucked and rewritten. Sounds like you're volunteering. ;) - -- 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, 21 Dec 1998 15:43:24 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's crusade Yes, I've read the first two of the Kencyrath books and very much enjoyed them. The Kencyrath, the race to which the heroine belongs, are a race of Soldiers of God, in IN terms. They are composed of three separate clans, describable as formidable, spooky, and damned spooky. They are on a Mission from God to save a sequence of parallel worlds from being eaten by Satan or someone very much like him. Last I saw, they were not having much success, but that's how epics always go. Thank you for the URL. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:49:00 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's crusade > Then how about this? Uriel had time to knock off the Meso-American gods before he > was recalled (that the writers called "Aztec" even if those specific ones weren't > around yet). Then, even though there were only a few Tsayadim around, by being > vigilant they were able to take out the gods that came into being due to human > worship while they were still young and weak. And, while I don't want to get > dragged into the debate over whether Hinduism is actually Trinitarianism, these > gods are still around because Uriel didn't have time to deal with them and his > orphans don't have the strength to do so themselves. This argument falls through as the sections goes on to mention very specific Aztec Gods and constructs by name without reference to any of the other Meso-American Gods, especially the realm of Mictlan, which is specific to Aztec faith. Furthermore, the writeup seems to mix the Aztecs and the Mayas, Cortez and his landing, and modern NeoPaganism. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:14:37 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy > Perhaps you should get an uninterruptable power source for your brain? I should! It's so true. > Hmm.. interesting. Hadn't thought of attributing the Spanish Inquisition > to Uriel. Must ponder this. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. > > > Engage in wholesale Chainsaw Revisionism? ;) > > Oh, hell yes. Of all the "lack of research" gripes, this section of the > > Marches tops the list, swiftly followed by the history section of the APG. > > It needs to be wholesale chucked and rewritten. > > Sounds like you're volunteering. ;) Maybe. Not that I would mind sitting down and writing the Crusade, or at least the Ethereal bits so they made sense and had some sort of cohesion with reality. Somehow I seriously doubt that I would be the one doing the rewriting even if it got rewritten, for various sundry reasons. It would mean that it would have to be historically correct, and we can't have that. It would buck the trend! :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 13:25:56 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > At 01:32 PM 12/18/98 PST, you wrote: > > >You might be confusing reality with IN. In the game Uriel has a pretty good > >hunch that God is the only thing worthy of any adoration. It (gender > neutral) > >then removes the oposition who does not deserve this. > > > >What does minority have to do with anything? Remember the angels have > "special > >knowledge". They can't be treated like us. > > Then why do no two angels seem to agree about their hunches about God? I'm > sure Novalis and Eli would have disagreed with Uriel about what God really > wanted. Asmodeus probably would have agreed with Uriel. > > I think the whole point of IN actually was that angels and demons actually > can be treated much like us. > > Greg Jensen > http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm They may differ on how they view God personally, but not that he exists and is God. That is a very important difference and lends the Crusade, IN URIEL'S VIEW, some weight. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 13:31:46 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade > At 12:32 AM 12/20/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>>>Also what did creatures like unicorns and fairies do to deseve > >slaying/banishment?<<< > > > >Well, if you know your mythology, you know that in the original "fairy > >tales," fairies and unicorns weren't cute Disney animations that walked > >around spreading warm fuzzies to children. They were actually Not Nice > >creatures, at least from a human perspective, and they certainly weren't on > >the side of the angels. > > Of course, according to many Biblical passages, it could be argued that the > angels certainly weren't nice all the time either. They seemed pretty > frightening, only showing up to utterly destroy a town or two. > > That they were, in IN, frightening I don't think was ever argued, was it? And no they didn't just destroy towns......However, this doesn't change the idea that some are turning "unicorns and fairies" into paragon's of virtue and Uriel into a mindless monster who slaughtered poor inocents. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 13:36:00 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade > 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. The > only way (I can see) you could really say that Ethereal Gods acted against > God the awareness of the Symphony is to help drag God to his Fate by > dragging their followers to their Fates. > Dave had an excelent post and I can't believe you missed the jist of it. Uriel's word means purity. He therefore is forced, by his nature, to encourage purity by any means. The Etherals claimed to create the universe and be gods. To Uriel, a seraph, that was lying unpure hogwash. He had been grumpy against them for years and then took them to task. > 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. > They don't have all of the answers but they are FAR more aware of the real situation than us. They also have far greater stores of knowledge to draw on. They are like us in the sense that they don't know everything. And that's where the simularities stop. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:47:52 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade - Historical Accuracy On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > Perhaps you should get an uninterruptable power source for your brain? > I should! It's so true. Sounds like a Lightning attunement. > > Hmm.. interesting. Hadn't thought of attributing the Spanish Inquisition > > to Uriel. Must ponder this. > No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. *ahem* At least I had the restraint not to say this. ;) > > Sounds like you're volunteering. ;) > Maybe. Not that I would mind sitting down and writing the Crusade, > or at least the Ethereal bits so they made sense and had some sort > of cohesion with reality. Somehow I seriously doubt that I would be > the one doing the rewriting even if it got rewritten, for various sundry > reasons. It would mean that it would have to be historically correct, > and we can't have that. It would buck the trend! :) Not for SJ; I meant, write it on e-paper. So that those of us who want a more historically accurate setting can do so without, y'know, having to pay for 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, 21 Dec 98 13:57:17 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade > Intreresting idea, but I have a few questions about it: > If God have Essence to humanity to achieve their Destiny, why do Celestials > and Ethereals naturally regerate 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? > I'm confused. Humans generate essence too. What are you asking? > 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. But not the etherals if they were taking it....right? > 2 The Impudite analogy is something most Celestials would agree on. But > the Ethereal Gods and their followers wouldn't. Some Ethereal Gods were > little more than "Impudites operating on a larger scale" but to Quote from > The Marches - p76: > (Note the following quotes do not include all of the text from the book > this is for 3 reasons: 1 I couldn't be bothered, 2 I'm trying to make a > point and so I would try to stress some points over others [I make no > pretences of that], 3 it would take too long to download. So _please_ > reread > the Marches -The Ethereal Realm - History and make your own opinions) > > "The spirits taught humans Songs and gave them Soul links, and created > rituals of worship that allowed humans to generate more Eseence for the > spiritd, increasing their power and allowing them to bestow gifts on their > loyal followers. > > Some spirits became patrons protectors and teachers of their human > followers, who told myths and legends about their exploits. These spirits > were kind and and caring towards mortals; others found humans entertaining > ... chess pieces, toys or carousing comanions ..." > "... Other spirits objected to the "strip mining" tactics of their fellows > and worked to protect humans. Conflicts between these two camps are > recorded in myth as the battles of the gods for the spirits of humanity, > pale echoes of the true War for the Symphony that was happening behind the > scenes." > And not all of the etherals where hunted down and killed right? They still claimed to be things they weren't right? What are you attempting to prove? > I think the above quote quite adequetely describes how not all Ethereal > Gods used > mankind for their wicked ends. > > "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 > And? You could easily play that Uriel is being smacked around in your campaign. This still doesn't make the etheral's cute and cuddly. > "The spirits were driven back into the depths of the Marches. Those who > stood and fought it in the corporeal realm were slain by Uriel's angels. > Thus perished the dragons and Most of the Lords of the Faerie. They loved > the Earth too much to leave it, and they died mortal deaths. > But Uriel was not satisfied. The hunters followed the spirits even into > the depths of Blandine's realm, brining the Crusade into the dreams of > humanity." > 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. So maybee it was too far, might have been why he was pulled up, yes? What was objected to in the begining of this was that somehow Uriel was oppressing minority religions. He wasn't. That he was commiting genocide. He didn't. > > Ramesh - Elohite of Flowers?? - -- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1065 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.