From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Nov 7 00:57:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA30700 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:57:35 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id AAA07126 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:57:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:57:03 -0600 Message-Id: <200011070657.AAA07126@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 #1911 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 Tuesday, November 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1911 In this digest: IN> The Jordi View Re: IN> About Politics in IN... IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 IN> Hell is bad. Mindless bureaucracy is worse. IN> Crashing the Council Meetings Re: IN> The Jordi View IN> Why Haagenti is the most dangerous Prince alive Re: IN> I need guns. Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) IN> Domestication in Heaven IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1910 IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1910 Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:58:12 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> The Jordi View >No, Jordi hates *artifice.* Artificial concepts. Uninstinctual >non-survival uses, where the irrelevancies and vagarancies of human >concern come before the natural predator/prety relationship. Okay. 1) Artificial: no such animal (pardon the pun). if humans are animals then anything we create is natural. Besides, Jordi gets on well with Eli - this would be impossible if Jordi hated artificing. 2) Uninstinctual: All learned behaviours are uninstinctual. If Jordi had a problem with this he would oppose all creatures which teach their young skills. 3)irrelevancies and vagarancies[?] - I'll talk about this in a minute. > >>Not under his control: not now, no - but we were before he made the >>'wipe-out' decision. >What makes you think that? Humanity was set aside from the beginning. Michael thought so, but it was news to Jordi! >Jordi just didn't much mind until he decided they were overbalancing. No, don't think so. IIRC the description was humans had some Celestial traits but lacked the morality which should go with these traits. This upset lots of angels, Jordi most of all. >>Unnecessary damage - So do lots of other animals. Sorry, this 'kill only >>what you need' idea is human. One of the reasons that OZ is going downhill >>is that both foxes and pigs have acquired a taste for delicacies, and will >>restrict themselves to eating the tastiest bits of the animals they kill. >How do you think foxes and pigs got there? Humanity, transporting >them for economic needs (foxes because they wanted to hunt them for >fur, pigs for farming). Having been transplanted out of their native >binomes into one not adapted to them, they have cycled out of >control. The same with rabbits. Humanity and their irrational, >unnatural practices screwing with the order again. This is all wrong. (Nothing personal, I'm sure I'd stuff up a description of the American ecology even worse). Where to begin? Well, the trivial stuff is that foxes were brought out to kill the rabbits, cats were already here, and pigs had made it across the Torres Strait unassisted. (The reason they're such a problem is that we don't have enough dingoes. Dingoes kill rabbits, foxes & cats but leave the bilbies etc alone. Unfortunately, dingoes will kill any imported species so the farmers hate them. Any Angel of Jordi in OZ should have a dingo vessel.) As I said, trivial. More seriously: irrational, unneccessary practices? I can't see Jordi complaining that we are irrational. It doesn't fit. What does he care for rationality? Unneccessary? Maybe, but still inevitable. Other species do piggyback their way around the world. The 'flu travels between OZ and China via wild ducks whether humans travel or not. And this is natural. Remember that having multiple continents is comparatively recent; for most of animal history there was only one. What do you think would have happened if humans had never existed? The different ecologies would develop independently and then - when continents start colliding again the different ecologies interact. It would have been a lot further in the future, but that would make it worse, not better. >>killing out of hunger - I'd say that killing out of hunger is the problem! >>We're very Haagentian. >Eh? This makes no sense. Want more! >We don't hunt whales for food, primarily. Not these days, at least. >Perfume, yes. Food, no. Granted. Still, Jordi's opinions have been formed over thousands, maybe millions of years. He would note this weeks craze (after all, he'd live in the now) but I doubt it would change his long term opinions. >>the need to eat now - so he hates squirrels? Many species store for the >>future, it's a good survival strategy. >I wasn't aware we considered nut gathering a predator/prey relationship. tempting as it is to demand equal rights for nuts, I concede the point...and instead point out that wolves will (in winter) deliberately leave a kill in the snow so that they have something to come back to if they are unsuccessful on later hunts. >And Jordi would have no problem with a human being going out and >shooting a deer, dressing said deer and storing the meat for the >winter. But shooting a perfectly good deer to mount its head on your >wall, sell the skin for leather and abandon the meat in the woods >(which happens all the time) gets in his craw. Granted. He would probably assume that human was rabid, and arrange to have them 'put down'. (And now I'm using vetinary terminology! Where's the point in roleplaying if I can't switch to an alien mindset! Arrgh!) >> Also, most species hunt food to >>bring back to their young etc. Seen through the lens of the Word of Animals >>this is precisely what the whalers where doing. > >Whaling hasn't really been about food for centuries. When it was at >its height, it was about oil. About the need to light the night. An >unnatural lighting of the night, no less, allowing economic work to >continue late into the evening. That was the driving need to hunt >whales toward extinction. 'Unnatural lighting'? humanity's primary tool has always been fire. > Once we had low cost alternatives, modern >whaling was driven by inertia, largely. Granted; however it is worth noting that a number of whaling firms did wind themselves up, rather than waiting to be forced. >>killed to burn oil, use their bones, render their meat - again stuff that >>other animals will do. Predators will bring back bones for their cubs to >>teeth on; >Well, no. They bring back bones for their cubs to eat -- sucking >marrow from them. Teething became an instinctive reaction to a >situation already in use, and animals evolved in that direction. And humans have evolved to take advantage of other aspects of our prey, in much the same fashion. >If you don't see the difference between that and carving whalebones >into supports for bras, and how Jordi might see one as natural and >the other as a horrific waste, there's little I can say that will >change your mind. Don't give up so easily! I will here assume the Burden Of Proof. Why is it the same? Okay, it's not. What it is the same as is a bower bird decorating its' nest. A use of resources to attract a mate. But stones aren't creatures! Of course not - bower birds aren't predators. But predators don't decorate nests! Of course not - given that their survival skills are combat, beating the crap out of eat other is a far more efficient way of proving their worth. Similarly in herd animals males will fight each other - if one of their tasks is driving off predators. Humans, however - fighting proves what? We can toast any other species on the planet. Fighting skills aren't important. The ability to loot the planet is. So we have a vicious cycle of 'need bigger car, house, VCR, diamond ring' that results in us stripping the planet for things we don't need, but feel we must be percieved as having. Most of heaven would argue that we need to abandon this outlook. The thought occurs that Jordi think we should just follow it through and go - - "well if the guys with the biggest car gets the girls*, what I should do is kill everyone with a big car" which would also save the planet and might actually result in my getting a girlfriend - though sadly only a ditz. >> * yes, I know this only applies to the bimbo brigade. Given that intelligence tends to create individuality, a society wide view will only show the dumbest members of society. >>killed for convenience - again, so do other animals. A rival in the animals >>turf? A beastie that smells 'wrong'? A wandering target? All get killed. >None of those are convenient. Turf battles are part of the natural >hunting patterns and mating patterns of predators. Beasties that >smell wrong could be a danger to home and young. A wandering target >isn't likely to get killed save for food. Even animals who play with >their food won't actually kill them until they've got a reason to -- >it's why cats are so cruel to mice. They won't kill until they're >ready to eat or provide food to their family (including their owners, >sometimes, when they think said owners can't hunt to save their >lives). Otherwise, they're driven to keep their skills sharp, but >tend not to strike the killing stroke. No, they won't enter a fight unnecessarily for fear of injury. Very different. Your sum up on cats is correct, barring one point - they don't let the mouse go! It will die. > >> Economics. - also known as Specialisation. > >Huh? > >Let me rephrase. > >*What?* > >No, Economics isn't specialization. In its Heavenly form, it's a >function of Trade, where goods and services are bartered to the >benefit of all. In its Hellish form, it's a means of hoarding >resources out of Greed, to the benefit of none. But Economics >transcends survival and enters the realm of the conceptual, and that >makes it unnatural. An ant colony has many functioning, specialized >pieces to survive overall. Economics is the province of leaders - concerned for the survival of their nation (herd). > >Humanity, on the other hand, has Karaoke Bars. The survival function >gets blunted, somewhat. If Jordi wanted to wipe out humanity solely to destroy karaoke Bars, I'd say more power to him! But what would Eli say? > >>Are ants wrong to kill another insect and bring it back for other >>ants to use? If not why are humans? > > From Jordi's point of view, because they're moving beyond the >Survival need and into selfish, irrational, unnatural wants and >desires. The ants don't take anything they won't use to keep the >colony healthy. Humans shoot animals for *sport,* or to fill the >driving hunger to put coats on the backs of rich women who don't need >to keep warm, rugs on the floors or rich men, or 'real genuine ivory >keys' on humanity's pianos. > >And that is just plain wrong. > > From his point of view. ? His? Hopefully from yours. Definitely from mine. But hunting for sport is practice; practice you don't need (which is why I consider it wrong) but which Jordi thinks that we do need! For the rest, I think I answered that early in this reply. >Myself? I'm a Heinlein freak, and I agree with him. A person who >loves a Beaver dam built for Beaver purposes but hates a human dam >built for human purposes has some self-hatred to work through. But >this isn't about me, it's about Jordi. A nice point, which if you are quoting should probably go into Jordi's write-up. But Jordi's hatred of humans must START somewhere. I have no problems with him hating human things if he already hates humanity (although if he does he's heading for a Fall) but where does it start? And the answer just struck me. Humans determine his Word. Every time a human says 'humans are different to[other] animals, he grows weaker. Nothing deep and meaningful, just we hurt him so he bites. The way any other animal would. Thanks Eric - --James ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:59:27 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> About Politics in IN... A little bit of both really. A love-hate relationship I'd say. Nybbas loves them all to. The political campaigns, the candidates slandering each other, the media turning it into a circus, the lies, the deceit. Hey, it's boffo big-time, baby! And Furfur hates them. They're all the Man. If they're a government, they're the Man. If they have something to do with laws, they're the Man. Bring the Man down. Bring him DOWN! Burn, baby, burn! - -Bevan (working on his Kabbalah university essay, and already channeling demon princes). - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ryan Elias To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:19 PM Subject: Re: IN> About Politics in IN... > > Except Malphas. He likes *all* of them. The more the merrier. > > Correction. He hates them all, but the more there are, the happier he is > ^_^ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:08:29 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) >Michael Neal wrote: >> Eric, I agree with almost everything you've said, but this is not why >>cats> are often found playing with their food. The main reason is that >>the method> of killing a mouse (or anything else) is not instinctual >>behavior for a cat;> they have to be taught how to deliver the killing >>blow, usually by their> mother. Cats raised in human society often never >>receive this training> (food tending to come from a bowl), so they don't >>know how to do it. When> they corner a mouse, they keep batting it >>around until it finally dies> because they don't know what else to do. >>So, cats being cruel to their prey> is justone more thing that Jordi will >>blame on the corrupting influence of> humansociety. Interesting - and believable, for three reasons. 1) The mouse is suffering unnecessarily 2) The cat does not reach its' potential (animal Destinies are another can of worms we'll need to resolve!) 3) Humans are intervering with the cat's ability to survive. >David Edelstein wrote: >Really? The explanation I learned was that many predators "play" with >their prey before delivering the killing blow because they need to wear >it down and disable it with minimal risk to themselves. A still-kicking, >thrashing, and fighting prey can easily deliver nasty injuries to its >killer, and hunting animals can't afford to lose an eye, get a broken >leg, or take a gouge across the snout (thus disabling their hunting >equipment). Yes for wolves and so on who are hunting prey who can fight back; but it can't really apply to a cat unless he's going for a 'possum or equivalent. > >Similarly, this is why so many people attacked by sharks are able to >escape (minus a limb); sharks usually take a bite out of you and then >swim around waiting for you to bleed to death. No. The reason humans survive shark attacks is that humans taste horrible. We are so inedible that even sharks won't eat us. They take a bite, go 'yuck' and then spit the morsel out. A shark is incapable of waiting while its' prey bleeds - the blood in the water will trigger a feeding frenzy - which is why many people do die; the shark doesn't really want to eat them but the taste of blood has sent them beserk. - --James ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:13:54 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 >My sociology teacher ironically believes that all animals are >lacking instinct. That what we refer to it is merely learned >behavior or observation. > >I wonder how THIS would effect Jordi's write up. Given that many animals duplicate the behaviour of creatures they have never seen...probably not a lot. It worries me that a subject as important as sociology (and it IS important, we need to understand how we interact) has such problems with the nature/nurture 'question'. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I love the smell of burning Hellsworn in the morning. it smells like payback time. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:23:19 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:14:13 -0800 (PST) >From: Maurice Lane >Subject: Re: IN> Michael's Trials >Interesting one, there. Nice use of exotic locales Thank You! >(we need more, more, more globalism, and I'm just as >guilty, if not more, of ignoring that). :) I've got an idea for Lilith which I was planning to set in the Islands up north. To get globalism, all we need is for non-americans (like myself) to set what we write in our own backyards; we can finish mapping the planet with everyone picking where they like from wherever is left over. > >There's just something about Haagenti that makes me >feel sorry for him. Of course, I look through >everything through Bright-colored glasses, so I feel >sorry for all the poor buggers. > >(pause) > >Except Legion. He wasn't very nice. > > >:) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:24:49 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 > >There's just something about Haagenti that makes me >feel sorry for him. Of course, I look through >everything through Bright-colored glasses, so I feel >sorry for all the poor buggers. Understandable; after all, Haagenti was always a demon, he doesn't know what he's missing. And despite that he's developed courage, loyalty and a primitve sense of humour! He's my favourite. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:29:02 -0800 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1909 >Philippe > >Oh, BTW.. Anyone else have any sugestions on what to do in the following >situation. My players spend their last xp as soon as they get it. And some >just made new chars with no xp collected yet. Then their vessels die. And >they dont have a spare one. What do I do? Just let them rot in heaven? How >do they get a new one? I dont want to let a wordbound give one away on pure >mercy, since they will never learn to save xp for vessels. Suggestions >please! xp for vessels? If they lost the vessel in the course of duty, just replace it. it happens. If not - give them cruddy ones, to remind them that their AA doesn't like waste. Give the Malakite a child, the Mercurian a brusier, the ofanite a plump coach potato. Of opposite gender to their preferred choice. I stared into the Abyss, and the Abyss blinked first......... (with apologies to Nietzche) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:35:44 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> Hell is bad. Mindless bureaucracy is worse. Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:06:01 GMTFrom: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> If Bush and Gore were Celestials, what Choirs or Bands would they be? >I had quite a cute thing going where The Game >organised itself along the lines of the British Civil >Service in the first game I ran. Anyone have any >good ideas for hellish (or heavenly) organisations >that have just a little bit too much in common with >some of the Earthly organisations we just love >to hate? Never having been to England (tried to sneak over there when I was in France a while back, but they hadn't finished the Chunnel yet), I cannot say whether or not the Game and the B.C.S. have links. However, there is one group that all Americans know... and fear. No, _not_ the IRS. The IRS can often be amusing, assuming that you're not the one under the knife. :) Department of Artifact Registration What, you think that you can just grab a relic and go running around with it? Not a chance, buddy. Those things are _dangerous_ in the wrong hands. You have to show that you know how to operate one. First off, you gotta take those classes before you fledge. Fun classes, especially since AV equipment and movies are usually the first item on the budget to get cut, even on the celestial planes. But you _will_ have to sit still and listen to (scratchy) soundtracks and watch (blurry) filmstrips, all of which are about forty years out of date and 'topically' refer to people and things that don't exist anymore. Don't forget those tests, either: #2 pencils, no looking at other people's work, and don't even think about making marks outside the circle... So you passed the stupid test. Whoopie. That just gives you a permit. A limited permit. Now you have to hit up somebody who has a beat-up artifact that he or she won't mind seeing beaten up a little more. Lots of safety regulations, too: they all make sense, more or less, but some of them are more relevant than others. You're always the one who gets the worst artifact, too: your buddies scored the really cool Flaming Swords and QuickCards, but you've got to settle for a raggedy Beard of Senor Nunez. You can also just forget about flying solo. Anyway, after an eternity of embarrassment, you fledge and can get to play with your own relics. Well, not quite. You see, the permit expires when you fledge. You know what that means? Yup, you have to go stand in line for an eternity, toting paperwork with cryptic junk on it in languages that died out 5,000 years ago, just so you can go take the written test _again_. Like you've forgotten it all since the first time. They also make you look into a box and shine bright lights into your eyes. Nobody knows why. Fine, fine, you've gotten this far. You've played around with the artifact (which ain't yours, remember), you've learned how to operate that class of artifacts, heck, even the artifact's owner has lost that odd look of fear whenever you pick it up. Are you ready to get your own? Why, sure... just as soon as you pass the practical test. You won't, the first time: the celestials who run these tests are the sourest bunch of misanthropes you'll ever run across in your existence (makes sense: to you, running over to the DAR is an annoyance. To them, it's an inexplicable career choice. Nobody ever set out to work at the DAR. It just happened somehow). They just love to spread around the joy. Well... finally. You've done it. You've got your relic-using license (as an added bonus, you can now drink. Bars on the celestial plane never accept anything else as proof of age, despite the fact that the law clearly states that other official IDs are acceptable. I mean, it's on the CARD and everything, but can they read? NOOOOOOO...). Time to get your own artifact and play. Well, there's just four problems. 1) This is a _specific_ license. Wanted that shiny new reliquary? Tough luck, pal. That's a whole different set of skills to master. Here. Have a form. 2) You're gonna have to renew the license every two hundred years. It's a pain. They'll do that bright light in the box thing again, too. You _still_ won't know why. 3) Better hope that you don't screw up using that artifact for the next few (50) years, 'cuz they will take your license away... and, of course, there's 4) Now, all you have to do is go get the relic you've bought, in anticipation of this happy day, inspected, registered and stickered. The line's over there, but the DAR is closing in 45 seconds anyway. No, of _course_ we're not open on weekends. Have a nice day.* :) Moe *No, I'm not bitter. ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:14:43 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> Crashing the Council Meetings Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:30:51 -0700From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Bush/Gore Campaign> In Nomine!> >To sort of go off on a tangent how is membership in >the Seraphim council decided? I know that Archangels >are officially voting members, but in a couple of >books vague references are made to the oldest and >wisest Seraphim are allowed to sit on it and vote as >well. >Is there some sort of objective criteria, or is it a >situation in which the Archangelic members vote for >which other angels should sit on it? This is as much >a question about canon as about what people >have gone with for their games.- -- Not to pontificate upon canon (Oh, I slay me), but I'd imagine that it's actually pretty freeform. If you think that you should be sitting on the Council, go ahead. Go, uninvited, into the center of Heavenly power. Go nonchalantly face the stares of every Seraphim that's sitting there, reading the Truth of every fiber of your being. Go casually sit down while every Archangel tracks you like a hawk tracks a possible mouse. Go raise your appendage of choice and ask a being far more powerful than you to explain some particular action. Go do all of this with no hidden fear, insecurities or worry. If you honestly _can_ do all of this... then, by God, it doesn't _matter_ how old you are, or what Choir you are. Mike and Janus will sponsor you on the spot. YMMV. :) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:54:21 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> The Jordi View Iiiiiii'm thinking we're at that agree to disagree point. Though I'll reference Beth's point, which cuts to the heart of it. In IN terms, humanity has been given Sentience and Free Will which the animals have not. This is the core difference between the behavior sets. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:59:25 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> Why Haagenti is the most dangerous Prince alive Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:59:29 -0500From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Why Haagenti is the most dangerous Prince alive >No prince has yet to realize what a ticking time-bomb >Haagenti is.....save Kronos who knows his Fate. The >Archangels also fail to realize this...save >Yves who knows that Lucifer has created the ultimate >weapon in Haagenti which he will unleash soon in a >bloodbath that makes Legion's destruction seem like a >petting zoo (2). >I think this explains alot. Mixed mind on this one. Not that I'm disagreeing with the potential for disaster, mind: Haagenti _is_ starkly dangerous, for the reasons you mentioned. It's just that, well, possibly I'm prejudiced, but he's got _so_ much potential, if he can just make it over to the Other Side... :) Moe Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Still my favorite Heretical Writeup. Fancy that. ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:20:09 GMT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> I need guns. >Lots and lots of guns. Big guns, bazookas, really big >guns, guns with autofire, lasers, blasters, plasma >shooters, needlers, sonic weapons, those neat things >that turn ordinary water into razor-sharp icicles, >flamethrowers, sixteen types of gas and chemical >agents, and, of course, some suggestions on nukes. > >I also need hand weapons. Monomolecular string, >neural agonizers, neutronium, durasteel chainsaws, >force swords, sonic blades, vibroblades, and, of >course, some suggestions on nukes. > >While I'm on the subject, I need armor. REAL armor, >not the wimpy stuff that they've got in the books. >Powered exoskeletons, battlesuits, Faraday suits, >force shields, stasis shields, reaction shields, >radiation shields, and of course, some suggestions on >nukes. > >I need it all in IN terms... and I need it all >(amusingly) prone to blow up, short circuit, reverse >polarity, break, fold, spindle, mutilate, explode, >_im_plode, eviscerate, and, of course, go up in a >mushroom cloud. My marginal skill at adapting >SJG_O_RPGS to IN just ain't up to this one. Dude, you need GURPS In Nomine. check out: http://www.meta-earth.com/nomine/ethereal/weapons.html http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/weapons.html http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/Explosives.html - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/llloyd.geo "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 23:54:26 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) James Walker wrote: > Yes for wolves and so on who are hunting prey who can fight back; but it> can't really apply to a cat unless he's going for a 'possum or equivalent. We're talking about instincts; no, a mouse probably doesn't have much chance of inflicting damage on a cat, but a rat or a bird might. So predators evolve a similar response to all their prey. > No. The reason humans survive shark attacks is that humans taste horrible.> We are so inedible that even sharks won't eat us. They take a bite, go> 'yuck' and then spit the morsel out. You know, several people have said this, and it's certainly an interesting theory, but how do we KNOW what humans taste like to sharks? I mean, did someone do a taste test? ObIN: I can just see some demons of Dark Humor applying to Tartarus for a research grant to study that question. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:49:02 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) At 11:54 PM -0600 11/6/00, David Edelstein wrote: > >ObIN: I can just see some demons of Dark Humor applying to Tartarus for >a research grant to study that question. ;) Not to mention a joint Vapula/Haagentian project to breed a tastier human. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:18:56 -0700 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Domestication in Heaven >Subject: Re: IN> Domestication in Heaven > >From: "James Walker" >Subject: IN> Domestication in Heaven > >> Wild sheep? Pardon? > >humans didn't invent sheep. i'd always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that there >were still wild varieties of sheep kicking around much in the same way that >there are wild cattles, horses and dogs Actually we did invent sheep. They were bred from a separate, now extinct species. > >>However domesticated animals are far more >> common. > >yeah, but my point was once they're dead they're in jordi's realm, and at >that point they become off limits to those pesky humans At that point they are in Heaven, and can do want they want. Large numbers of pets would head city-wards to find their human 'pack-mates', others would travel to Christophers' house, (I just had a mental image of an ostrich trying to build a nest in one of the trees in the groves, someone stop me), the occasional warhorse would find the groves to their liking, and so on. As an example of what can be done, I made Simpson's Donkey (duffy) a Saint serving both Jordi & Laurence who guards the upper end of one of Jordi's Tethers and gives people rides to and from the Tether. >> I know a number of women who would assume that they were in Hell if they >> didn't need a hair salon. >i would have imagined that if you wanted to change your hairstyle (if such a >thing were relevant) in heaven it would be more a matter of concentration >than coiffuring. And they would consider that Hell. Somethings you WANT done by others. Do you really think learning to care for other people was an arbritrary test? >>Also, there is a coffee shop in Heaven, described >> in YAH. >> Heaven without food - wash your mouth out. Okay, so you don't NEED food, >> but so what. [shudder]. > >yeah, but all these things are in heaven to simulate the enjoyable >experience of eating nice food/drinking nice drink/hanging out with people >you like. it's not because you need to eat oir drink. the food isn't made >from "real" products. that's all corporeal stuff. Why? Heaven is supposed to be the 'real world' and earth a copy, not the other way around. >do you think jordi lets >people kill celestial animals so that they can eat celestial meat? No. >so why >would he let them shear them to make celestial wool? Okay, take a step back. these animals have fulfilled their Destinies, have centuries of experience, can communicate with angels and each other (remember, no Force limits on the Blessed. Six Force animals with Songs will exist. Even those who are still under six Forces will be communicating with Jordi's angels thanks to his Choir Attunements.) These animals are capable of making up their own minds about what happens. More capable than you or I. They will be shorn if they wish to be - and only if they wish to be. Once Marc explains trade to them, they'll see all sorts of advantages to being shorn. >> And yes, there would be toilets, in the Halls of Creation if nowhere else. >> Most new ideas strike while on the bog, so Eli's throne room would be truly >> impressive. >where would it *go*? the mind boggles... Do you really want to know? Relax, Novalis' Gardens could use the fertilizer! > >> Agreed - that line was me being silly. >well, i assumed this whole debate was fairly far along the slide rule of >silliness :) Just a bit :-) Still we do need to work out what Heaven is like, so it's a useful sort of silliness! >> On Silly, a truly bizarre thought struck me. [snip] to parents >> who (having worked themselves to death bringing up their children) on >> arriving in Heaven get given a selection of lingerie and reminded that >they >> don't need contraceptives up here... > >bwuh? people don't have kids in heaven, surely. that'd be too Weird. part of >my assumptions about animals not breeding/growing wool/dieing in heaven. did >i miss something? Yeah - the practical advantages of not having children! [Strange thought strikes]. Umm, some people want to have children and don't get a chance. Some children die very young/are miscarried/aborted. "Welcome to the lonely hearts family matching service. We seek to match parents and children to create happy families who can enjoy Heaven together. Our services include both adoption and supernatural births. One of our operators will be with you shortly..." I stared into the Abyss, and the Abyss blinked first......... (with apologies to Nietzche) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:23:12 -0700 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1910 >From: "Charles Glasgow" >Subject: Re: IN> Domestication in Heaven >> If you can create energy out of nothing at will, it's not much of a >stretch >> to go on to violating conservation of mass too. So I guess that 'stuff' >in >> Heaven is just free for the making out of thin air, if you know how -- >wave, >> wave, *bamf*. > >that's pretty much how i imagined it. it doesn't seem very *neavenly* for >people to be digging plants up or shaving animals (unless they particularly >enjoyed it). far too earthly for something that's meant to be after this >life Liam, you're a Gnostic. No matter. I suspect Charles is right, although it does raise the question - - can anyone do this? And to what sort of level? Obviously you can't create something that you cannot imagine, but do you need to know how to make a sword to be able to create one? Or to merely have seen one/ understood the concept? I stared into the Abyss, and the Abyss blinked first......... (with apologies to Nietzche) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:37:38 -0700 From: James Walker Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1910 >In Nomine animals aren't _sentient_, and don't necessarily have that >good a concept of "right and wrong." Uh-huh. Even the ones with Ethereal Forces? Also, if animals have no concept of right or wrong, how do they achieve Heaven? > While the "apple" is only >symbolic in In Nomine, it's still _symbolic._ Humans have the ability >to think ahead, and choose. And humans choose... to selfishly hunt >animals to extinction. To re-arrange the landscape to suit themselves >when they should have THOUGHT about it. (No, gypsy moths do _not_ >spin silk. No, that type of sparrow does _not_ eat gypsy moths!) > >Jordi would not blame an animal for being what it is -- they are innocents. >They know no better. They don't really have a concept of "right and >wrong." The cat has no awareness that a mouse has any more existance >than a piece of string. Following you above statements, the mouse DOESN'T have any more existence than a piece of string. If they are not sentient, cruelty to animals is impossible, just as cruelty to rocks is impossible. As Pascal believed, to the regret of many a dog. >Humans... Humans hurt others and they're intelligent. Sentient. Equipped >with free will. They know better. And they do it anyway. > >That's what's wrong with humans. From Jordi's perspective. Humans have >enough of a clue, they _should_ be stewards of the Earth. And what >happens? Extinctions that shouldn't have happened, razing rain forests, >pollution, Spice Girls... > I like the argument. So would Laurence. But Jordi? There are several references where Jordi makes it quite clear that humans AREN'T special, that humans are just another animal. So he can't judge humans be a different standard. Higher on the same standard, maybe to reflect more ethereal forces, but still on the same standard. "What is Man but an animal?" - somewhere is Ecclesiastes. I stared into the Abyss, and the Abyss blinked first......... (with apologies to Nietzche) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:56:02 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Animals playing with their food (having already eaten their toys) David Edelstein wrote: >> No. The reason humans survive shark attacks is that humans taste horrible. We are so inedible that even sharks won't eat >>us. They take a bite, go 'yuck' and then spit the morsel out. > > You know, several people have said this, and it's certainly an > interesting theory, but how do we KNOW what humans taste like to sharks? > I mean, did someone do a taste test? Well, I am not a marine biologist, and I cannot cite my source, so take this with a grain of salt (no pun intended), but... To a shark, it is not the taste of a human that causes rejection. Its lack of Fat. Sharks normal die consist primarily of high fat critters (seals, fatty fish, etc.). When they bite into something (someone) they are able to get a pretty good idea of how much fat is in that critter, and therefore decide if it would be worth the effort. Its chemical and instinctive, of course, and I wish I could remember the original source of this information. I live close enough to the Monterey Bay Aquarium that I may have heard it there, but I am thinking that it was an animal planet show (or some such). so, do not take my word for it, cause I could easily be wrong. And it's not like we can ask the sharks... > ObIN: I can just see some demons of Dark Humor applying to Tartarus for > a research grant to study that question. ;) > > -David ObIN: is the Animal Planet Network under the control of Nybas, or Jordi? And just who owns Steve Irwin (the crocodile hunter) (aside from Terry, of course). - -Daiv ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1911 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.