From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Nov 10 14:37:42 1999 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 OAA09536 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:37:42 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA08994 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:34:37 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:34:37 -0600 Message-Id: <199911102034.OAA08994@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1403 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 Wednesday, November 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1403 In this digest: Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Ruggedized Calabim Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> God is Love Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> heresy Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Re: IN> Ruggedized Calabim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:55:54 -0800 (PST) From: Wade Trupke Subject: Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! A few comments: >ELI > >Demon Prince of the Cancer > >"The world is growing out of control, choking out >the old with the new." Great word-twist. I like it. >DISSONANCE >- ---------- > >Servitors of Cancer receive one point of >dissonance every two weeks as >their personal symphonies change and twist under >their Prince's Word. >This honks off Asmodeus no end, but then, Dominic >didn't like him much >when we was an Archangel either. Wouldn't this make his servitors rather short-lived? I think something like "go a week without creating something new, or replacing something old" would be more practical. >Calabim > >These Destroyers are the world's worst mechanics, >but they love their >work. They have a +2 to any roll to "improve" >any device. It actually >will be improved, but will have a number of nasty >side effects. Heh heh. I really like this one. Heh. >SERVITOR ATTUNEMENTS >- -------------------- > >Yawning Void > >The demon can utterly annihilate unliving matter >(that is, matter with no >Forces tied to it). Per point of Essence spent, >he can destroy a cubic >inch of metal, a cubic foot of stone, or a cubic >yard of dirt or water. This doesn't feel right. Dark Eli's about unchecked creation, but this is just destruction. I think his old Transubstantiation attunement makes more sense. >RELATIONS >- --------- >Enemy: No one (Asmodeus, Nybbas, and Andrealphus >are enemies of Eli) I really have a problem with Nybbas as his enemy. Frankly, I think Nybbas would love this guy. "New and impoved!" is practically a battle cry among the servants of Media, especially if they don't mean it. Wade (neither new nor improved) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:03:06 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> God is Love > >While working on the Beleth thing it struck me that it might have been > >interesting to have a what if everyone else fell writeup. Written as if > >Dominic fell but Asmodeus didn;t Blandine fell but Beleth didn't Michael > >Fell but Ba'al didn't and so forth. > I've actually been working on this kind of setting (in it Michael is the > one who led the Fall). I'm stuck on Eli's Word however (I've considered > Stagnation, Banality, Emptiness or something to that effect but I haven't None of those words are a dark facet of creation. They are mostly the opposite, or the lack of creation. Why not go with a variation of creation that Goes Too Far -- like Waste, or Overpopulation (a strong word today), or Excess. > been able to decide). I was also not sure about whether or not to keep > Lilith on Hell's side. > > Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:03:45 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism >From: John Karakash >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >> Provable, how? In terms of the bottom line, of course. I can imagine Marc applying free market principles to political philosophies (or religious ones, come to that). All you have to do is check the GDPs of states which run under various types of government. Then see which is more profitable. >One of the prime tenets of communism >is central planning whereas the 'will of the market', >driven by capitalist self interest (not necessarily SELFISHness), >has proven much, much smarter. Capitalism is pretty much based on selfishness. It just happens to justify it by saying that if everyone acts out of self-interest, then this wil result in an efficient distribution of resources (or something similar). > The word of Trade isn't about some bureaucrat (even >a well-meaning one) dictating that factory-X produce 10,000 >baby shoes. It's about 10,000 people individually deciding >they want their babies to have shoes and going out and buying >them. Actually, those two things are not mutually exclusive. If you really could predict what the market wanted/ needed, then why not plan out your production accordingly? > Communism isn't about Trade, it's about control. That's a bit biased. Communism (AFAIK) certainly does have economic aspects to it. It's based on supply side economics, as opposed to demand side. (I'm sure Neel can say more about this than I can.) If people trade labor for hard cash OR for social services, that's still trade. Typical example of 'pure' communism at work would be a kibbutz. Individuals don't get paid, but the kibbutz as a whole assigns resources to members as they need it. So no-one is rich, but no-one starves, and if the kibbutz does well then everyone gets designer jeans. > > So I can see some angels (like David) insisting that Heaven shouldn't > > lower its standards, and shouldn't allow the weak to be thrown to the > > wolves just so a gifted few can become wealthy and comfortable. Whereas > > Marc is more pragmatic, and perhaps quotes Jesus' words: "The poor will > > always be among us." > > I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely >to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will >survive." Marc, on the other hand, sees beyond one wolf >eating one rabbit and follows enlightened self-interest: >poor people cannot buy things, so let's give them opportunities >to become productive citizens. Marc doesn't give things >away... he makes investments. Nah, I think David E. has it on the button here. I'm sure Marc would prefer the poor to become productive members of society, able to trade for the goods they need -- but he's not going to tell anyone else how to spend their money to make it happen. And David (archangel) /is/ in favor of people banding together. Societies forming who will take care of their own, and that sort of thing. Marc is always a bit of an outsider in Heaven because Heaven tends to run on socialist principles (I am my brother's keeper, frex). But then again, the other Archangels don't really understand 'money' as a concept. > Poor is always relative to the surrounding society, >so Jesus isn't wrong. (I'm sure he'd be pleased to know that -- if he ever existed.) >But I have an inherent distrust of >systems that eliminate 'poverty' by eliminating the wealthy. > (Yeah, well. Your bias is obvious.) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:19:35 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! > I tend to see Michael as the tactician because his realm of combat > is the lone champion or the little band of buddies, all very > individualistic. Laurence is painted as more managerial, which feels > more strategic than tactical to me. On the other wingtip, Laurence was, before being promoted, Heaven's Finest Demon Hunter (tm). He must've had some high level of tactical skill. Presumably, his lack as a commander (a very, very small lack, mind you) is rooted not in his tactical abilities, but in his perception of how the guy on the ground works. After all, isn't EVERYONE one of Heaven's Finest Demon Hunters? (tm). No, Laurence, no. > Earl So, yah, he's a whuppin' bootie tactician. Quit badmouthin' mah boy. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:16:43 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! At 7:55 AM -0800 11/10/99, Wade Trupke wrote: >A few comments: > > >DISSONANCE > >- ---------- > > > >Servitors of Cancer receive one point of > >dissonance every two weeks as > >their personal symphonies change and twist under > >their Prince's Word. > >This honks off Asmodeus no end, but then, >Dominic > >didn't like him much > >when we was an Archangel either. > >Wouldn't this make his servitors rather >short-lived? I think something like "go a week >without creating something new, or replacing >something old" would be more practical. I like the idea that it's dissonant to show, practice or encourage restraint. As Haagenti is to consumption, so Dark Eli is to *everything.* Darned if I know how to do a mechanic for it, thought. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:29:28 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Ben Glickler wrote: > On the other wingtip, Laurence was, before being promoted, Heaven's > Finest Demon Hunter (tm). He must've had some high level of tactical > skill. Presumably, his lack as a commander (a very, very small lack, > mind you) is rooted not in his tactical abilities, but in his > perception of how the guy on the ground works. After all, isn't > EVERYONE one of Heaven's Finest Demon Hunters? (tm). > > No, Laurence, no. > > So, yah, he's a whuppin' bootie tactician. Quit badmouthin' mah boy. Maybe we could compromised on a model in which Laurence is a consumate master of tactics for HIMSELF, but not so good at tactics for lesser beings. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:43:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> When Creation goes out of control! I like giving Dark Eli the Word of Excess. Whistling in the Dark wrote: > I like the idea that it's dissonant to show, practice or encourage > restraint. As Haagenti is to consumption, so Dark Eli is to > *everything.* > > Darned if I know how to do a mechanic for it, thought. How about: "At least once a day, a Servitor of Excess must do something that would afflict a human with hangover, indigestion, overdose, sore genitalia, bankrupcy, sleep deprivation, or some similar consequence of overindulgence, to avoid a note od dissonance." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:37:47 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism At 8:03 AM -0800 11/10/99, Jo Hart wrote: > >Capitalism is pretty much based on selfishness. It just happens to >justify it by saying that if everyone acts out of self-interest, >then this wil result in an efficient distribution of resources (or >something similar). I'd think that the conflict between selfishness and enlightened self-interest (which doesn't *have* to be selfish) is another of the factors that has Marc distrusted by others. >> The word of Trade isn't about some bureaucrat (even >>a well-meaning one) dictating that factory-X produce 10,000 >>baby shoes. It's about 10,000 people individually deciding >>they want their babies to have shoes and going out and buying >>them. > >Actually, those two things are not mutually exclusive. If you really >could predict what the market wanted/ needed, then why not plan out >your production accordingly? > > >> Communism isn't about Trade, it's about control. > >That's a bit biased. Communism (AFAIK) certainly does have economic >aspects to it. It's based on supply side economics, as opposed to >demand side. (I'm sure Neel can say more about this than I can.) If >people trade labor for hard cash OR for social services, that's >still trade. Communism is itself a derivation of Socialism. That being said, Communism as espoused by Marx and picked up by Lenin (ie -- "idealistic" Communism) *is* about control but not in a negative way. "The Workers controlling the means of production" is a political shift away from the bourgoise controlling the means and state of production towards the workers themselves controlling production. The practice turned into oligarchy, which is about as "worker controlled" as any other totalitarianism. That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of Socialist principles Marc would be perfectly happy with. Socialism is a kind of pure Trade in a completely different way than Capitalism is. Capitalism is more profitable, but it also depends on what Marc considers profit. >> > So I can see some angels (like David) insisting that Heaven shouldn't >> > lower its standards, and shouldn't allow the weak to be thrown to the >> > wolves just so a gifted few can become wealthy and comfortable. Whereas >> > Marc is more pragmatic, and perhaps quotes Jesus' words: "The poor will >> > always be among us." >> >> I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely >>to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will >>survive." Marc, on the other hand, sees beyond one wolf >>eating one rabbit and follows enlightened self-interest: >>poor people cannot buy things, so let's give them opportunities >>to become productive citizens. Marc doesn't give things >>away... he makes investments. > >Nah, I think David E. has it on the button here. I'm sure Marc would >prefer the poor to become productive members of society, able to >trade for the goods they need -- but he's not going to tell anyone >else how to spend their money to make it happen. > >And David (archangel) /is/ in favor of people banding together. Yes. David may be mister Tough Love, but he's also very much mister Socialism. Marc is an individualist. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:50:58 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! At 9:19 AM -0700 11/10/99, Ben Glickler wrote: > > I tend to see Michael as the tactician because his realm of combat > > is the lone champion or the little band of buddies, all very > > individualistic. Laurence is painted as more managerial, which feels > > more strategic than tactical to me. > >On the other wingtip, Laurence was, before being promoted, Heaven's Finest >Demon Hunter (tm). He must've had some high level of tactical skill. >Presumably, his lack as a commander (a very, very small lack, mind you) is >rooted not in his tactical abilities, but in his perception of how the guy >on the ground works. After all, isn't EVERYONE one of Heaven's Finest Demon >Hunters? (tm). According to Fall of the Malakim, Laurence was also very involved with the strategy and tactics of the Purity Crusade -- coming to note there. Superiors I may revise that -- I don't recall off the top of my head. That being said, I very much see Laurence as the best General they've had. Michael I define as the ultimate Warrior. (Now, of course, I have image of him in bad facepaint.) The individual. The one who never yields and never stops. The Big Bad Mutha. Michael saw the War as a chance to send angels out into glorious battle, slashing apart demons and winning honor and glory. Uriel saw the War as a Crucible, I think. And he saw Heaven as unstoppable. When Heaven had trouble, he had to find the impurities that prevented Heaven from winning. The Purity Crusade was a part of that -- it was as much meant to smelt new iron out of the ore of current Archangel relations as anything else. Uriel was too inflexible to adapt the War, methinks. Laurence sees the War as a campaign, and the armies of God as his Sword -- and all that a Sword means. Michael complains that Laurence sees the enemy as honorable (and Angels as well). But what if that's the point. What if *how* you win is as important as winning. Michael also complains that Laurence doesn't get out in the field and cut apart demons like he used to. But Laurence does -- it's just the point of his Sword is now the front line Angels, not the blade in his hand. It's all perceptual. I'm a Laurence fan. He's got a way to go, but still.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:55:43 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Ruggedized Calabim Walter Milliken wrote: > > The canon ruling is that new Malakim who've experienced no deaths > still don't get Trauma on their first death. The alternative raises too > many messy problems, and makes Malakim less special (and scary). > > This probably should be in the FAQ, if not the errata for the main book. > It may be covered in the APG, though I don't recall seeing it there. > It's certainly how it's handled in GURPS In Nomine. FROM THE FAQ: So I know Malakim don't usually get trauma when their vessels are destroyed, seeing as how they're so used to it....but what about brand-new Malakim? It doesn't say, specifically, in the book that the reason they are immune to trauma is because they suffered it so many times. It just says they are innured to _death_ from having suffered it so often. So, the trauma avoidance is part of their resonance, even for new Malakim. In other words, a new Malakite can be rattled by _death_ if he's never experienced it, but won't be in Trauma. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:01:21 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Michael complains that Laurence > sees the enemy as honorable (and Angels as well). But what if that's > the point. What if *how* you win is as important as winning. I think that, for anyone who has any problem with Michale, THIS is The Problem With Michael. He has a weak grasp on the importance of winning in the RIGHT WAY, else the thing that has won isn't the Good, but only the Strong. "The last temptation is the highest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason." -- St. Thomas a Becket, in "Murder in the Cathedral" by T. S. Eliot Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:06:09 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Jo Hart wrote: > > >From: John Karakash > >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >> Provable, how? > > In terms of the bottom line, of course. I can imagine Marc applying free > market principles to political philosophies (or religious ones, come to > that). Errrr.... that's what I said, yes? My comment was based on a previous comment that mentioned provable... > >One of the prime tenets of communism > >is central planning whereas the 'will of the market', > >driven by capitalist self interest (not necessarily SELFISHness), > >has proven much, much smarter. > > Capitalism is pretty much based on selfishness. It just happens to justify > it by saying that if everyone acts out of self-interest, then this wil > result in an efficient distribution of resources (or something similar). Not exactly. In a capitalist society, people are free to be selfish or non-selfish, or even exercise very long-term self interests at the expense of immediate selfishness. That's what I meant by 'not necessarily'. > > The word of Trade isn't about some bureaucrat (even > >a well-meaning one) dictating that factory-X produce 10,000 > >baby shoes. It's about 10,000 people individually deciding > >they want their babies to have shoes and going out and buying > >them. > > Actually, those two things are not mutually exclusive. If you really could > predict what the market wanted/ needed, then why not plan out your > production accordingly? You're getting into predestination here... =) And solely going by what the market wants/needs precludes innovation. Scientific/technical advances under capitalism are about the bottom line AND trying to guess what the market _might_ want or need. Communism doesn't care about that at all. Strictly speaking, communist societies don't have to advance at all when in a vacuum. > > > Communism isn't about Trade, it's about control. > > That's a bit biased. Communism (AFAIK) certainly does have economic aspects > to it. It's based on supply side economics, as opposed to demand side. (I'm > sure Neel can say more about this than I can.) If people trade labor for > hard cash OR for social services, that's still trade. I am NOT denying communism has economic aspects. Every society has economic aspects (including anarchy). But the foundation of communism is "You work where we tell you, when we tell you. We'll take everything you produce and give you what we think you'll need." You can't control a society without controlling its economics. > > > So I can see some angels (like David) insisting that Heaven shouldn't > > > lower its standards, and shouldn't allow the weak to be thrown to the > > > wolves just so a gifted few can become wealthy and comfortable. Whereas > > > Marc is more pragmatic, and perhaps quotes Jesus' words: "The poor will > > > always be among us." > > > > I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely > >to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will > >survive." Marc, on the other hand, sees beyond one wolf > >eating one rabbit and follows enlightened self-interest: > >poor people cannot buy things, so let's give them opportunities > >to become productive citizens. Marc doesn't give things > >away... he makes investments. > > Nah, I think David E. has it on the button here. I'm sure Marc would prefer > the poor to become productive members of society, able to trade for the > goods they need -- but he's not going to tell anyone else how to spend their > money to make it happen. Not at all! He might say, "Hmmmm... As chairman of MegaBigCorp, you stand to make a lot of money in if you can get enough workers together. There seem to be a lot of unemployed people here. Plus the land is cheap there." Remember that Marc is a Mercurian. Sure, his word is Trade and he embodies it well, but he's going to promote it in such a way that will help humanity. (Plus the fact that, except for Jordi, all the Archangels are trying to help humanity.) He always has his eye on the bottom line. Always. But not at the expense of the people that live on Earth. > And David (archangel) /is/ in favor of people banding together. Societies > forming who will take care of their own, and that sort of thing. Marc is > always a bit of an outsider in Heaven because Heaven tends to run on > socialist principles (I am my brother's keeper, frex). Sure he (David) is (I brain-fried a bit there... I meant that Jordi is the one most likely, followed by David). David tests people, groups, societies. Some make it and some don't. Of course, he actively encourages people to evolve their societies through banding together, but that doesn't mean he will stop the visigoths from ransacking it. The strong groups will survive and the weak will die out. He wants to make sure that the strongest groups are on the good side! > (Yeah, well. Your bias is obvious.) Is it bias to want a pat on the back to a stick upside the head? I've reached my opinions through study and historical/modern evidence. Bias, a word you throw around casually, means "Preference or inclination that inhibits impartiality; prejudice". Unless you want to get into a rambling, pointless argument about how to prove a negative (i.e. I am non-prejudice), which doesn't belong on this list and I wouldn't respond to anyways. =) Besides, that sort of digression brings down the Wrath of Archbeth... - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:00:08 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> God is Love Richard Gant wrote: > >On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Tim Groth wrote: > >> >While working on the Beleth thing it struck me that it might have been >> >interesting to have a what if everyone else fell writeup. Written as if >> >Dominic fell but Asmodeus didn;t Blandine fell but Beleth didn't Michael >> >Fell but Ba'al didn't and so forth. >> I've actually been working on this kind of setting (in it Michael is the >> one who led the Fall). I'm stuck on Eli's Word however (I've considered >> Stagnation, Banality, Emptiness or something to that effect but I haven't >> been able to decide). > > >How about "Eli, Demon Prince of the World". I was thinking of this myself, but on reflection it seems more appropriate for a Fallen Marc. The World has typically been used as shorthand for the temptations offered by secular influence, and that seems closer to Marc than Eli. It's a great demonic Word, though: "If I don't massage the earnings report, I'll wreck my chances of becoming CFO." "Maintaining files on dissident elements is unpleasant, sure, but it's in the interests of national security." "I don't care that it's a bad law; it's popular and I've got an election to win." Very Impudite, imo. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:00:08 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> God is Love Richard Gant wrote: > >On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Tim Groth wrote: > >> >While working on the Beleth thing it struck me that it might have been >> >interesting to have a what if everyone else fell writeup. Written as if >> >Dominic fell but Asmodeus didn;t Blandine fell but Beleth didn't Michael >> >Fell but Ba'al didn't and so forth. >> I've actually been working on this kind of setting (in it Michael is the >> one who led the Fall). I'm stuck on Eli's Word however (I've considered >> Stagnation, Banality, Emptiness or something to that effect but I haven't >> been able to decide). > > >How about "Eli, Demon Prince of the World". I was thinking of this myself, but on reflection it seems more appropriate for a Fallen Marc. The World has typically been used as shorthand for the temptations offered by secular influence, and that seems closer to Marc than Eli. It's a great demonic Word, though: "If I don't massage the earnings report, I'll wreck my chances of becoming CFO." "Maintaining files on dissident elements is unpleasant, sure, but it's in the interests of national security." "I don't care that it's a bad law; it's popular and I've got an election to win." Very Impudite, imo. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:18:51 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism In a message dated 11/10/99 9:29:40 AM Central Standard Time, jkarakash@dg-rtp.dg.com writes: << I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will survive." >> I'm not too sure I agree with that. David is in favor of gangs, organizations and groups. I don't think he'd be in favor of pushing people out in the street to starve. I think he'd encourage a group to welcome another member into the fold. Individually, the person may be weak by himself, but as part of a group he can contribute and become stronger. Notice that David also encourages people to teach martial arts and self-defense, to help the weak become strong. I don't picture David with a law of the junglw attitude. "Get out, you meek bastards! You don't deserve to survive!" The worst he'd do is let a couple of strong groups fight each other, that they may be tempered and made even stronger. A weaker group might be absorbed into a stronger group. Rev. Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:35:56 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism >>>Provable, how? Scientific proof (as opposed to mathematical proof) is strongly on the side of Capitalism.<<< You meant evidence, not proof. ;) >>>Every economic model of human behavior that is expansive enough to include both communism and capitalism (and has accurately matched real-world data) shows capitalism coming out ahead.<<< Right. But IF humans were capable of acting selflessly on a large scale, communism would be more beneficial. That "if" is a condition that I personally believe is impossible in the real world, but in a world with angels and Heaven, I think the angels try to promote selflessness and some might even be idealistic enough to think that someday human society might be made selfless. >>>One of the prime tenets of communism is central planning<<< Kinda like Heaven. >>>whereas the 'will of the market', driven by capitalist self interest<<< Kinda like Hell. Just Hell is more selfish. >>>Communism isn't about Trade, it's about control.<<< Not quite. That's how it always works out, because humans can't implement communism without control. But communism is, fundamentally, about "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." >>>I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will survive."<<< I thought about this, and to a certain extent that's true. But David also promotes communitarian values. He wants everyone to work together and be part of a group. Individuals who act on their own, exercising their might on their own behalf, is not what David wants. He wants everyone pooling their resources so that together, they are greater than the sum of the parts. Yeah, David will also let those who are so weak as to be a negative asset to be cut loose, but David's ideal society WOULD be a communist-like one. >>>Poor is always relative to the surrounding society, so Jesus isn't wrong. But I have an inherent distrust of systems that eliminate 'poverty' by eliminating the wealthy.<<< So do I, but I'm capable of separating my biases from objective and hypothetical reality. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:35:24 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> God is Love Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >How about "Eli, Demon Prince of the World". > > I was thinking of this myself, but on reflection it seems more > appropriate for a Fallen Marc. The World has typically been used as > shorthand for the temptations offered by secular influence, and > that seems closer to Marc than Eli. Yes, the traditional triad of which the world is a member is "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil." "Devil" as a Word hardly works, but Eli's personality is consistent with the Word of the Flesh. Of course, that puts him into direct conflict with Haagenti and Andrealpheus, who are the existing Flesh Coalition. Also, it doesn't have a lot to do with Eli's old Word, for which I still think Excess is the best infernal image. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:50:43 -0500 (EST) From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism On 10 Nov, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/10/99 9:29:40 AM Central Standard Time, > jkarakash@dg-rtp.dg.com writes: > > << I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely > to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will > survive." >> > > I'm not too sure I agree with that. David is in favor of gangs, organizations > and groups. I don't think he'd be in favor of pushing people out in the > street to starve. I think he'd encourage a group to welcome another member > into the fold. Individually, the person may be weak by himself, but as part > of a group he can contribute and become stronger. I agree, and to bring this back on topic (archangels and capitalism), the Angel of Trade Unionism (and thus an opponent of capitalism) must surely be a servitor of Stone: "When the unions' inspiration Through the worker's blood shall run There can be no power greater Anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? For the union makes us strong." Right? - -- Jason F. McBrayer Asturiel, Habbalah of Nightmares, Angel of Weird Fiction ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:42:16 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism >From: John Karakash >> > Is it bias to want a pat on the back to >a stick upside the head? I've reached my opinions >through study and historical/modern evidence. It's bias to refuse to see that something you personally disagree with could have any good side -- which was the impression I was getting quite strongly from what you said.) The problems with 'ultimate' capitalism are in the provision of services which benefit a group of people far more than any one individual. Frex, schooling. You might say that if you have more money then you should be able to send your children to better schools. But the truth is that it benefits all of society (including you) for all children to have a good standard of education. So do you rely on the few altruists to donate money to something which won't benefit them personally? Bear in mind that kids who don't get much eduication may never have a chance to work their way into the capitalist economy. Similarly with health care, and a standing army. Any time the state takes money from you (as taxes) and provides services is basically using a socialist model. I doubt very much that studies prove that if you only educate the rich, it is better for the economy in general. So pure Capitalism is not the answer. Whatever the question was. Unless you are already well off to begin with. (Don't worry, I'll leave it here. But I don't call 'bias' without any reason) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:53:55 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> heresy What I've got writen write now there are no Malakim, hell hs the Malach though. They are seemingly unRedeemable demons, who have sworn to serve Michael and dominate Heaven. Their resonance deals with the demonic mind set of humanity is pitiful, and thus they can 'test' humanity. While under the test the individuals dark impulses are stronger than ever, if they resist the Malach is proved wrong and swallows a note of dissonance. If the individual does not resist their darker urges then they are degraded permently. Sort of an external Shedite (mechanics still under construction). However Lilith isn't in Hell anymore. Michael gave her her Word, she took one look at Hell and wanted out. Lucifer freed her from Hell so she's heavily inclined to aid Heaven over Hell, but she does not reside ineither being a bit of a wanderer. She does have some angels who spread freedom and are sponsored by her. Heaven pretty much monopolizes her Daughters, with a few bad seeds winding up in Hell. But anyway I like the entire flip flop thing and here is the list of Superiors that I like (those with * have been written by me already and those with ** have been picked from the list): Archangels: Andrealphus, Love, Mercurian* Asmodeus, Justice, Cherub*(well half way at least) Baal, Valor, Seraph Beleth, Fear, Cherub** Belial, Fire, Ofanim Haagenti, Gust, Ofanim** Kobal, Laughter, Mercurian Lucifer, Light, Seraph Malphas, Diversity, Kyriotate Nybbas, Communication, Mercurian Saminga, Vitality, Kyriotate Valefor, Wind, Ofanim Vapula, Reason, Elohim Yves, Destiny, Ineffiable Demon Princes: Blandine, Madness, Djinn Christopher,Corruption, Djinn * David, Conformity, Malach Dominic, Discipline, Balseraph Eli, Cancer, Impudite** Gabriel, Ash, Calabite*(almost done) Janus, Entropy, Caalabite Jean, Lightning, Habalah Jordi, Beasts, Shedite Kronos, Fate, Ineffiable Laurence, Violence, Malach Marc, Fraud(?), Mercurian Novalis, Thorns, Djinn* Ori, Death, Sorceror* Unaligned: Lilith, Freedom, Human 2.0 A note about Ori (just a working name in progress that is easy for me to remember)- Very old sorceror, possibly the first. Michael gave him the Word of death through a nifty trick: Ori has a mask which he bound a celestial into, the living artifact is enslaved by Ori a thousand times over. Michael gave the Word of Death to the artifact and thus Ori access it through that. It also lets him create celestials, etc. He doesn't have his own celestial children, but thats ok. He is undead, but at the time he was made a Prince a very unique kind of undead. A variant on a ghost he reattached himself to his old body and was able to move it around. More powerful than most Undead, and not as worried about his body dying, he provides Hell with conventional Undead and his breed, Shades. If anyone is wondering why Yves/Kronos aren't switched its not because I thought it woudl be redundant its because of the way I view them. Yves is God's Destiny, he won't ever Fall. Likewise Kronos is part of God that has embraced his Fate and wishes to drag the rest of God with it. So Kronos has to be in Hell, no redemption is possible. So if Yves Fell he would become part of Kronos, and a new Yves would be in place. IMC (not set with this insanity) Yves and Kronos swap around Forces like crazy as the War progresses. Their was an adventure built around that, but that's not important right now. My only point is, while I liked the write up of a Fallen Yves, IMO it just can't happen. As a final note in the alternate world I'm working on (and am now actively recruiting help for) the War never became too subtle. Sorcery and mystic skills are not unknown to the common person, though not far spreed people know about them. Gabriel is responsible for massive destruction, as are Jean and Laurence. Uriel used to be the Demon Prince of Corruption, however he went on a crusade to dominate the Marches for Hell. It did more harm than good for Hell and Michael has been chating with him since. When Christopher Fell he was given the Word. Laurence was put in charge of marshalling Hell's forces. Most of hell's royalty has been there since the Fall. Timothy, Demon of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:58:07 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism Maybe the Word of Capitalism (my choice for a Fallen Marc, since he'd ignore all other forms of economics and go with the one Hell would like the most) was held by a Demon who has since redeemed. Aha! And the Word of Communism was held by a servitor of David who Fell in the early 20th century... Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:37:23 -0600 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Ruggedized Calabim Azrael wrote: > > INpg101: " Second most, Malakim will never surrender in a fight, nor will they allow > themselves to be captured by the armies of Lucifer. Surrendering to hell would dishonour Heaven. > Death is preferable. Most Malakim are used to corporeal death. They've lived through it hundreseds > of times, and are unaffected by its Trauma" > > So bearing the nature of Traum in mind, Malakim don't get Trauma 'cos they're used to dyin' > and thus don't findit Traumatic. So it isn't because of any special thingee in their make up. > When other than their vows which are the reasons they die so much. > > Azrael > "RAGE!" > ---------- > > >From the FAQ... > > > > > > So I know Malakim don't usually get trauma when their > > vessels are destroyed, seeing as how they're so used to it....but > > what about brand-new Malakim? > > It doesn't say, specifically, in the book that the reason they are > > immune to trauma is because they suffered it so many times. It > > just says they are innured to death from having suffered it so > > often. So, the trauma avoidance is part of their resonance, even > > for new Malakim. Actually, IMO, it is their Oaths, especially the first one, the same golden/silk bonds of titanium that keep them from falling, chained to the Will of Heaven, that allow them to avoid Trauma. Honor and their Oaths require them to get back into the fight ASAP. Trauma is a luxury that the Honor-bound can not afford; Trauma is time that an Evil that managed to kill the Malak is unopposed, running free on Earth. Is it any wonder that Malakim are usually grim and somber? They come back to the Good Fight before they have gotten over the killing of their vessel, the touch of Death on the Undying. The Shadow of Death is still on them. How could they be easy going, light-hearted, and amiable? But, if you think their grimness is bad, pity the poor Evil who runs into a Malak who is still feeling the Touch of Death and looking for someone to take it out on..... take care and be well, Tom Timberlake, Cadre Cherub of Heaven - -- "Strange blood, howl again, for now we know to well Better a friend on paths unknown, than to be alone in Hell!" --"Strange Blood" "A Wolfrider's Reflection", various artist ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1403 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.