From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Nov 17 14:04:31 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 OAA02133 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:04:30 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA07101 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:02:37 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:02:37 -0600 Message-Id: <200011172002.OAA07101@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 #1925 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 Friday, November 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1925 In this digest: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN> The Astral Plane: an addition to the IN setting Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN> The Astral Plane: an addition to the IN setting Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes IN> Re: The Astral Plane Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN> The Archangel of Time part 1 Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness Re: IN> Re: The Astral Plane Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN> Re: The Astral Plane Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes IN> Magic Re: IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Re: IN> Magic IN> [OT] Wups Re: IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness Re: IN> Magic Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:44:33 -0500 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes > Oh, Lord. There's no way to really respond to this without the risk of > prompting a flamewar, but it does bear pointing out that in a democracy, > taxes are something the people agree to for the public good. In a > representative democracy like ours, they may not agree to every specific > tax, and of course there is always general resentment about paying them, > but taxes are not something arbitrarily imposed by an omnipotent > government. 1. No need for a flame war. I don't plan on calling any names. 2. Regardless of who enacted the taxes, there are some of us who think all taxation should be abolished. We still have no choice in paying those taxes. If we don't pay them, we face being thrown in jail. Taxation isn't voluntary. And if it isn't voluntary, it can't fall under the word of Trade. > You want to claim that taxes can be abusive or excessive, fine, but they > are not inherently evil. Marc could certainly sponsor an Angel of Taxes, > who would of course be working to ensure that they are fair, equitably > distributed, and efficiently collected. Only a tax which is voluntary would fit with the word of Trade. Though I think Jo makes a good point that Tithe might be the Trade equivalent. Giving freely of your income to help others, instead of being forced to do so at the point of a gun. > > -David A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:58:28 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> The Astral Plane: an addition to the IN setting At 11:29 AM -0500 11/17/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >On the Celestial Plane, there's Heaven and, at the other end of >infinity, Hell. And in between? Well, there's not much, but there *is* >a "between" area; it's not like you can look over Heaven's wall and into >Hell. Oh, I *like* this.... Do inhabinants of the Astral have an "Astral Realm" statistic, which (most) Celestials, Ethereals and Mortals don't possess? The implication is all those from the Lower Heaven down are Astral Remnants, if you will, and that there's something more out there.... Perhaps beings with an Astral Attribute possess statistics not normally seen in the other Realms. Just tossing stuff out, we could give Astral Forces statistics in Intuition and Spirit, giving it that Lovecraftian touch. Intuition wouldn't be the human trait so much as a sense of Astral Eddies around a person (sort of Astral Agility), and Spirit could be the Astral Will equivilant, necessary for Astral Combat.... The Archangel of Death, if said Archangel is in the Astral, could have Attunements that are incomprehensible to most Angels, as well as being of limited usefulness (much as Celestial Attunements and Resonances have little or no effect on Remnants). So... say Vapula discovers a machine that can sense the presence of an Astral Force in a being... hey, we can use Kirilan photography for this kind of thing.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:35:25 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes At 11:36 AM -0500 11/17/00, A.Hamilton wrote: >From: "Whistling in the Dark" > > At 8:28 AM -0500 11/17/00, A.Hamilton wrote: > > >Taxes do not fall under that aegis. > > > > Well, no. > >Well, yes. Well... *no.* Taxation isn't innately infernal, even if you don't support taxation. >Government can be a function of Trade. If one had the option of saying "No >thanks on the services, I'll keep my money and buy my own." One does. One may leave the area that's being taxed. It happens all the time. Businesses relocate from an area of disadvantageous taxation to one of advantageous taxation. Except when we're discussing countries where free travel is restricted, one may leave and no longer pay community taxes. If one wants to live in a given community, one lives in that community (county/state/country) under the covenant that all the citizens live under. Where that covenant includes taxes to pay for services, it includes taxes. That doesn't make them infernal. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. >Anytime someone is told, give me money or I'll use force against you that's >not Trade. The trade here is "you may live here, with our advantages, our rights and our services, but subject to our laws, our regulations and our taxation." That is a part of Trade and Trade's Word. You may certainly argue that that intent has been perverted, and that Hell may be behind every surcharge you pay. That's up to you and your gamemaster. But the *concept* isn't infernal. >If the taxes were voluntary, then it would be trade. Mm. We may have very different views of the Word of Trade. If so, we're not likely to come to common ground on this issue any time soon. See, I see the Word of Trade embodying the *spirit* of trade, with an eye to the big picture. Individual transactions aren't the point so much as the whole is. In other words, the Trade involved is a person electing to live under a certain set of laws in a certain area. "I want to live here, in New Hampshire, with these available services, these available emergency services, these perquisites for being a citizen of this town, of New Hampshire itself, and of America. In exchange, I agree to abide by the laws of this town, of New Hampshire, and of America and provide the renumeration set by the applicable legal agencies thereto." There's nothing wrong with deciding the balance of taxation to service is skewed and unfair, and working hard to *change* that covenant. There's also nothing wrong with moving because you don't accept the covenant or its terms. But that doesn't make the concept of the covenant or of the exercise of parts of that covenant *infernal.* Nor does it make every example of those concepts in practice evil. When you're not allowed to leave -- when the covenant is imposed without recourse -- then you're into repression. But that doesn't make taxation *or* the covenant infernal in concept. It means some people (demons or whatever) are taking a concept and applying it in Hellish ways. > > But > > to a certain degree, such resistance is more of a Hellish response -- > > a selfishness before selflessness. "Hey, why should *I* pay taxes for > > fire protection? My house has never burned down!" > >Implying that because someone worked hard for their wealth that they are >being selfish for wanting to keep it and spend it as they wish is rather >impolite. Mm. Sigh. Let's not make this personal, all right? In Nomine is a game with one (1) central tenet underlying everything else. That tenet is "Selflessness versus Selfishness." The needs of the Community versus the Self-Interest of the One. It is somewhat grey which side is good and which side is evil, but it's not at all grey which side is selfless and which side is selfish. "I worked hard for my wealth and I want to spend it as I wish" is self-interested. In In Nomine's dychotomy, that makes it a Hellish response. Whether that makes it good or evil isn't defined by the game. Take a look at "Job: A Comedy of Justice." Job works perfectly well in In Nomine terms set exactly in the books, but Self Interest is clearly the good side. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:47:06 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Astral Plane: an addition to the IN setting Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Oh, I *like* this.... Thank you. > Do inhabinants of the Astral have an "Astral Realm" statistic, > which (most) Celestials, Ethereals and Mortals don't possess? No, the Astral "Plane" is really just part of the Celestial Plane, the part that isn't Heaven or Hell, and I didn't intend to imply "Astral Forces" or any other changes to IN mechanics. Not that that might not be an interesting direction to explore. > Perhaps beings with an Astral Attribute possess statistics not > normally seen in the other Realms. Certainly I intended for Astrals to have new abilities in general, though I'd slot them into the existing mechanics as forms of resonnance, Song, etc. > The Archangel of Death, if said Archangel is in the Astral, could > have Attunements that are incomprehensible to most Angels, as well > as being of limited usefulness. Azrael (so to call it) is certainly handy as a wildcard this way. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:16:59 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes "A.Hamilton" wrote: > 2. Regardless of who enacted the taxes, there are some of us who think all > taxation should be abolished. Noted. However, the fact that some people believe this does not make taxes inherently evil. > Only a tax which is voluntary would fit with the word of Trade. That's your opinion. There have been many similar discussions over the years, which boiled down to one person saying "My personal opinion is that X is evil, therefore X can't possibly be an angelic Word." I rather doubt that Heaven is libertarian. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:10:11 -0500 From: Jonathan Walton Subject: IN> Re: The Astral Plane > This vast emptiness is the Celestial equivalent of intergalactic space > or Outer Mongolia. Oooh. I like it, Earl. Neat way of dealing with the rest of the Celstial Realm. Your little comparison sparked another adventure seed. - ---- Like in Outer Mongolia, some great leader arises to try to unite all those within the Grey Lands into a massive company prepared to mow over anything that they are directed at. Like Genghis Khan, the leader would have to be someone extrodinary by any definition of the world, a being of legend with a massive number of forces and a charisma that's astounding. My vote would be one of the former Dukes of Mariel, Demogorgon, or Uriel (they'd have the nihilism needed to take on all comers). Obviously, a raiding party made up of a rag-tag bunch of Celestial spirits isn't likely to catch the attention of Heaven or Hell right away, so our Neo-Khan would be able to build his empire with relative ease at first. By the time the Powers-That-Be get around to noticing that something is happening . . . the problem may already be out of hand. Can you say "Legion," "Makatiel," or "Demogorgon"? I thought you could. Looks like Heaven & Hell are about to go tag-team again. :) Later. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:08:39 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Oh, good grief. Another libertarian. Must be the cold snap, driving them indoors. OK, let's try to keep this short and friendly. There has never, ever been a government without taxes. Can't happen, any more than you can have a large animal without lungs/gills and a circulatory system. So, if _taxes_ are an inherently Infernal word, then so is _government_. Now, if you want to run a campaign based on libertarian ideas in which this is the case, fine. I suspect that it would be a bit odd in terms of brightness and contrast, but yeah, you could. Canon is silent on the matter, so it's even a permissible interpretation. It's just one that most people on this list are going to consider kinda silly (when Earl, David and I all immediately agree on something, well, it's suggestive). As to putting it under Trade... shrug. I'd agree with Earl's statement that taxes are voluntary in the sense that we vote for them, and so are acceptable to Trade; when they stop being voluntary, well, lots of Words have both Celestial and Infernal aspects. But if you don't like that, fine; I could just as easily see Taxes coming in under three or four other AAs, from Judgment to Destiny. And that's all I have to say on this one. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:24:48 -0500 From: "Krishnaswami, Neel" Subject: Re: IN> The Archangel of Time part 1 Maurice Lane wroteL > > Naah. I'm not fond of the bugger. Besides, if he Redeems, the > War's over. Dude, does the romance of the lost cause mean nothing to you? - -*-*-*- I squatted next to the broken and ruined form of the dragon. It had been left in a bad way after the archangel Michael had shattered it, and our grueling retreat into the Far Marches had done it no good. The closest we had to a bright spot was that a few days ago his vessel had stopped dripping a trail burning ichor, but sadly that was due to running out of ichor rather than the healing process. "Boss," I said. and for a long while, I listened to Baal's painful and labored breathing. I remembered him in the days of his glory, when we marched in the streets behind the angel Lucifer, his darkly glorious visage as he reviewed the armies of Hell. Eventually, my resentment boiled and over, and I told him, "They cheated, boss. Lucifer and Kronos used you as bait, so that the letter of the prophecy in Revelations would be upheld, so the dragon would be broken and they could still repent and walk back into Heaven as if nothing had ever happened." In a whisper, the dragon spoke. "It is I who was wronged, and yet in you there is outrage and in me there is not. I would not bend, so I was broken. It is logical. It is Hellish." Angrily: "Once, you would have not tolerated it." "Once," it said, "...I was not at the gate of death...once...we were not utterly defeated." I looked at him. "We're not beaten yet. I still live, and am under arms." Baal's body shuddered, and his breathing wheezed, and after a moment I realized he was laughing at me. So I spat on my master, and began the long march back to the world. I still lived, and was under arms. The War was not yet over. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:31:41 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Ahem. Please keep me out of it. Douglas Muir wrote: > It's just one that most people on this list are going to consider > kinda silly (when Earl, David and I all immediately agree on > something, well, it's suggestive). That wasn't me. I haven't been paying close attention to this thread, much less contributing, until now (if you call this a contribution). > As to putting it under Trade... shrug. I'd agree with Earl's > statement that taxes are voluntary in the sense that ... Not me, again. We have a case of mistaken attribution here. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:53:07 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness Whistling in the Dark touched on this, but I think the point about selflessness bears further discussion. Our latest drive-by libertarian suggested that the attitude "I earned this money, I should be able to keep it!" is not selfish. Well, yes, it is. In fact, anyone who spends money on luxuries ("luxuries" being defined as anything not necessary to maintaining your continued good health) when there are other people in the world who lack the necessities of life is being selfish. If you are buying In Nomine books and paying for Internet service, when you could be sending that money to feed starving children in Africa (or homeless people in your hometown, or choose any other charity), you're being selfish. Now, obviously, people just aren't wired to be 100% selfless. There are probably only a handful of people in history who'd qualify, since you have to be a saint who spends every waking moment working on behalf of others, never keeping anything for yourself that you don't need. In the long run, a certain amount of selfishness is probably necessary for human progress, since it provides motivation for most of our endeavors. However, angels ARE selfless (even if an awful lot of them don't get written that way). This is why there's such a large contingent of angels who just don't GET humanity, and don't LIKE us; in Heaven, no angel would think twice about giving away what he has, if another angel needs it. (Subtle points can be argued as to why Bobiel can't just walk up to Robiel and say "Hey, can I have your Flaming Sword/6?" and expect Robiel to hand it over -- mostly they'll boil down to the difference between "need" and "want," and the fact that for an angel, "need" is based on their perception of what GOD needs, not what an individual angel might 'need'. But if Robiel really does believe that his Flaming Sword/6 would better serve the Lord's purpose in Bobiel's hands than in his own, he WILL hand it over. Or else he's dissonant.) Angels who've been on Earth for a while start to "get" humans better. Usually. And those who serve Words like Trade are probably much better at seeing a small amount of selfishness as a necessary component in human psychology, motivating us to do things that will ultimately benefit humanity as a whole. (Drug companies research new treatments for diseases because they want to make a profit on those treatments, not because they are selflessly dedicated to wiping out disease. However, the end result is that they DO help eliminate diseases and improve the standard of living of humanity as a whole.) Some angels never can accept this; they hold expectations for humanity that are probably unrealistic, believing that Heaven's ultimate goal should be purging humanity of selfishness and teaching humans to act like angels. I think a lot of Dominicans probably fall into this camp, and the reason they have such problems with other angels is that they see ANGELS acting like humans, rather than the other way around. I think a truly selfless angel should make humans VERY uncomfortable, especially humans who like to think of themselves as benevolent. This is probably why we don't see too many selfless angels actually being written (officially or unofficially); it's hard for us humans to wrap our minds around the concept that being selfless DOES mean giving away all your money, and that wanting to keep something for yourself and enjoy the finer things in life IS inherently selfish. (Not evil; selfish.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:40:32 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: The Astral Plane Jonathan Walton wrote: > Like in Outer Mongolia, some great leader arises to try to > unite all those within the Grey Lands into a massive company > prepared to mow over anything that they are directed at. An interesting idea. Heck, the leader could even *be* Ghengis. *I* wouldn't care to say where his soul went. Here's another celebrity for the Astral Plane: the Angel of Karma. Only slightly better attested than the Astral Archspirit, this Word-bound is supposed to control the circumstances of reincarnation. Only, in general, even Superiors aren't supposed to be able to direct the traffic of souls. Some say it's really an Archangel of Karma, and this explains the unique power. Most say it's a high-powered servitor of the Archangel of Death, or of Destiny. Of course, Azrael is not to be found, in general, and Yves is said to have denied having this servitor (but then, you can say the report is false or that Yves, no seraph, lied for some reason). Existent or not, the Angel of Karma actually has a cult among the Doomless, who are naturally concerned with the nature of their next incarnations. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:52:43 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes At 1:31 PM -0500 11/17/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Ahem. Please keep me out of it. Earl and Eric are very similar in appearance. Plus you posted in the same block of time. So, any death threats go to *me.* Earl is innocent -- *innocent,* I tell you! God, the *humanity...* - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:05:46 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes Whistling in the Dark wrote: > So, any death threats go to *me.* Earl is innocent -- *innocent,* I > tell you! God, the *humanity...* "Do you consider yourself an innocent bystander?" "God knows I try to be, sir." - -- Miles Vorkosigan to some hapless superior office. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:15:35 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: The Astral Plane Angel of Karma would be cool. The Angelic In Nomine story in the core-book (I forgot what its called) mentioned that karma exists. This is not followed up in the later books, which is a shame, because it helps to make the angels less "Abrahamic" (of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). That short story mentions that the angels are no more Christian then the world is Christian, which I quite like, and so I like it when stuff in In Nomine is taken from other religions (like reincarnation and bodhistattvas). > > Existent or not, the Angel of Karma actually has a cult among > the Doomless, who are naturally concerned with the nature of > their next incarnations. > > Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:21:10 -0500 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes > >Well, yes. > > Well... *no.* Taxation isn't innately infernal, even if you don't > support taxation. Just to clarify.. My original point was that Taxation would not fall under the Word of Trade because of the coercive elements. > One does. One may leave the area that's being taxed. It happens all > the time. Businesses relocate from an area of disadvantageous > taxation to one of advantageous taxation. Except when we're > discussing countries where free travel is restricted, one may leave > and no longer pay community taxes. Alright, IF there were a country or area with no taxes, AND one could move freely to that country, then yes, I'd agree that in that case Taxes would be a viable word under Trade. But, the IN world is rather much like this one, and that situation does not currently exist. The vast majority of folks really have no choice but to pay the taxes of the land their in. > The trade here is "you may live here, with our advantages, our rights > and our services, but subject to our laws, our regulations and our > taxation." That is a part of Trade and Trade's Word. You may > certainly argue that that intent has been perverted, and that Hell > may be behind every surcharge you pay. That's up to you and your > gamemaster. But the *concept* isn't infernal. Again, I didn't say the concept was Infernal. I said it wouldn't fall under the word of Trade, because in the world as it exists (and IN mirrors our own very closely for the most part), you don't have a choice. As I mentioned in my previous reply, I can certainly see it falling under Stone, or possibly Judgement or others. Just not Trade. > Mm. We may have very different views of the Word of Trade. If so, > we're not likely to come to common ground on this issue any time > soon. See, I see the Word of Trade embodying the *spirit* of > trade, with an eye to the big picture. Individual transactions aren't > the point so much as the whole is. > > In other words, the Trade involved is a person electing to live under > a certain set of laws in a certain area. "I want to live here, in New > Hampshire, with these available services, these available emergency > services, these perquisites for being a citizen of this town, of New > Hampshire itself, and of America. In exchange, I agree to abide by > the laws of this town, of New Hampshire, and of America and provide > the renumeration set by the applicable legal agencies thereto." By that same logic, anyone who lives in an area controled by the mob that has to pay protection money isn't really doing so. They know that doing business there means having to pay the protection money, why don't they just move? Further, do you have an option to purchase those services from someone else? No, not really. And without options, one is without choice. > There's nothing wrong with deciding the balance of taxation to > service is skewed and unfair, and working hard to *change* that > covenant. There's also nothing wrong with moving because you don't > accept the covenant or its terms. But that doesn't make the concept > of the covenant or of the exercise of parts of that covenant > *infernal.* Nor does it make every example of those concepts in practice evil. Again, I was refering to whether it was a good word to fall under the auspices of Trade and stated it seems a far more demonic word in practice then it does angelic. But I acknowledged the possibility of it being angelic, just under a different Word. > Mm. > > Sigh. > > Let's not make this personal, all right? That I agree with. I wasn't taking it as a personal attack. > In Nomine is a game with one (1) central tenet underlying everything > else. That tenet is "Selflessness versus Selfishness." The needs of > the Community versus the Self-Interest of the One. It is somewhat > grey which side is good and which side is evil, but it's not at all > grey which side is selfless and which side is selfish. > > "I worked hard for my wealth and I want to spend it as I wish" is > self-interested. In In Nomine's dychotomy, that makes it a Hellish > response. Whether that makes it good or evil isn't defined by the > game. Take a look at "Job: A Comedy of Justice." Job works perfectly > well in In Nomine terms set exactly in the books, but Self Interest > is clearly the good side. I disagree. Who is more selfish? The man who pays his taxes of 10% of his income because he has to or faces going to jail, or the man who has the attitude state above and gives the same 10% to various charities because he chooses to? I agree that the attitude is self-interested, but that doesn't necessarily make it selfish. > -- > Eric Alfred Burns - A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:19:05 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: IN> Magic How exactly does In Nomine define magic? I've always had a big interest in magic, and the only two things that annoy me about In Nomine is the fact that sorcerers are usually evil, and they say that "magic" does not exist. Those are the two big changes I make to my campaign. I can understand sorcery being thought of as inherently corruptinging, due to the sources that In Nomine is taken from. But where did that "magic" not existing come from? How is magic defined in In Nomine, and what exactly makes it different from sorcery and songs? That is one thing that I can never figure out. Any ideas? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:21:59 GMT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness On selfishness and selflessness >Now, obviously, people just aren't wired to be 100% selfless. There are >probably only a handful of people in history who'd qualify, since you >have to be a saint who spends every waking moment working on behalf of >others, never keeping anything for yourself that you don't need. In the >long run, a certain amount of selfishness is probably necessary for >human progress, since it provides motivation for most of our endeavors. >However, angels ARE selfless (even if an awful lot of them don't get >written that way). This is why there's such a large contingent of angels >who just don't GET humanity, and don't LIKE us; in Heaven, no angel >would think twice about giving away what he has, if another angel needs >it. >Angels who've been on Earth for a while start to "get" humans better. >Usually. And those who serve Words like Trade are probably much better >at seeing a small amount of selfishness as a necessary component in >human psychology, motivating us to do things that will ultimately >benefit humanity as a whole. >Some angels never can accept this; they hold expectations for humanity >that are probably unrealistic, believing that Heaven's ultimate goal >should be purging humanity of selfishness and teaching humans to act >like angels. I think a lot of Dominicans probably fall into this camp, >and the reason they have such problems with other angels is that they >see ANGELS acting like humans, rather than the other way around. >I think a truly selfless angel should make humans VERY uncomfortable, >especially humans who like to think of themselves as benevolent. This is >probably why we don't see too many selfless angels actually being >written (officially or unofficially); it's hard for us humans to wrap >our minds around the concept that being selfless DOES mean giving away >all your money, and that wanting to keep something for yourself and >enjoy the finer things in life IS inherently selfish. (Not evil; >selfish.) > >-David Nicely put, David. Except that I would have to disagree with the very last thing you said. SFAIK, IMC, selfishness /is/ evil. And yes, there are varying degrees. This means that, yes, people get into heaven who have been selfish, and therefore evil. But, their degree of selflessness outweighted their selfishness, so they balance out as "good". PC and NPC angels /also/ possess a certain degree of selfishness/evil, if only because the people roleplaying them are unable to conceive of pure selflessness and all that would entail. Note I that I feel that a truely selfless individual would want the benefit for all, including him/herself; but not to a degree higher than anyone else. Dunno, just my two cents. - -Perry, Kyriotate of Flowers serving Creation (KFC) 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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:30:33 -0500 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edelstein" To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes > "A.Hamilton" wrote: > > 2. Regardless of who enacted the taxes, there are some of us who think all > > taxation should be abolished. > > Noted. However, the fact that some people believe this does not make > taxes inherently evil. This was in reply to the point that we all agreed to taxes of various kinds. I was pointin out that not everyone -does- agree to that. And taxation that doesn't involve the threat of force behind it isn't taxation. It's a tithe, or a charity or a gift. Unless you can show me a government that levied a tax and didn't use the threat of force to collect it. > > Only a tax which is voluntary would fit with the word of Trade. > > That's your opinion. There have been many similar discussions over the > years, which boiled down to one person saying "My personal opinion is > that X is evil, therefore X can't possibly be an angelic Word." Don't have the main book with me at work, but I believe under Marc's description it talks about it being a free choice to enter into the negotiation. Giving and taking freely. I admit it's possible I'm wrong about that. Taxation involves coercion. And again, as I just pointed out, I never said it couldn't be an angelic word. Simply that it fit better under the words of Theft or the Game. > I rather doubt that Heaven is libertarian. ;) I have no doubts about it. Heaven as a whole is NOT libertarian. I'd lay odds that most of it isn't. I see it fitting in just fine with Marc however. :) Which is where this all started. > -David A.Hamilton (amused that he's using the alias of a Federalist to argue against taxes.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:38:37 -0500 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes > Oh, good grief. Another libertarian. Must be the cold snap, driving them > indoors. Nah, it's just we rarely get to take a break from proppring up all the sloughers and leeches. :) > OK, let's try to keep this short and friendly. Sure. :) > There has never, ever been a government without taxes. Can't happen, any > more than you can have a large animal without lungs/gills and a circulatory > system. So, if _taxes_ are an inherently Infernal word, then so is > _government_. Your right. Government -is- an infernal word. (what? what? you thought I'd disagree?) :) Seriously, I didn't say it was exclusively Infernal. I said I didn't see it fitting under the Aegis of Trade. And that a more angelic version of the same concept would be charity or gifts or as Jo suggested, tithes. > Now, if you want to run a campaign based on libertarian ideas in which this > is the case, fine. I suspect that it would be a bit odd in terms of > brightness and contrast, but yeah, you could. Wouldn't want to. I try not to do such a thing. Though I think Trade would definitely be a supporter of the libertarian ideal, doesn't mean I think it's inherently Heavenly. In fact, based on Canon, I think most of the Host would be a little weary of it. Looks awful damn close to being selfish. > As to putting it under Trade... shrug. I'd agree with Earl's statement > that taxes are voluntary in the sense that we vote for them, and so are > acceptable to Trade; when they stop being voluntary, well, lots of Words > have both Celestial and Infernal aspects. I won't drone on about my points on this. They are inother replies to this. > But if you don't like that, fine; I could just as easily see Taxes coming > in under three or four other AAs, from Judgment to Destiny. Again, I've said as much. Just not in my initial message. > And that's all I have to say on this one. > > > Doug M. A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:38:50 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Magic Bevan Thomas wrote: > How exactly does In Nomine define magic? I don't think any real definition is given. But in most RPGs and modern fantasy, magic is supposed to be a sort of technology for doing special effects. In many cases, you have to have The Gift (tm) in some way shape or form in order to do it, but it is still just a technology, a body of technique, usually involving the control of some occult power at large in the world, mana, Essence, ki, chi, whatever. > I can understand sorcery being thought of as inherently > corruptinging, due to the sources that In Nomine is taken from. > But where did that "magic" not existing come from? In so far as "no magic" is not just a matter of labels in IN, I think it means that (1) all the nifty junk about pentacles, holy water, Hermetic rituals, etc. that you're used to in a fantasy game is ruled out, (2) celestials aren't doing "magic" in the sense of technique; they're exercising powers as natural to them as breathing is to you, and mere mortals can't acquire them by learning techniques. This works fine for resonnances, atunements, and distinctions, but of course, insisting that Songs aren't spells *is* largely a matter of labels, the only difference being the stripping of all the traditional paraphernalia of magic, as in (1). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:41:02 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> [OT] Wups >Douglas Muir wrote: > >> It's just one that most people on this list are going to consider >> kinda silly (when Earl, David and I all immediately agree on >> something, well, it's suggestive). > >That wasn't me. I haven't been paying close attention to this >thread, much less contributing, until now (if you call this >a contribution). Sorry, Earl. My bad. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:47:25 -0500 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Selflessness vs. Selfishness Okay, before throwing my two cents in...I'm enjoying this discussion, even if folks disagree with me. Hopefuly it stays out of Belial's territory. The only problem I see with this, is that Marc (according to his write-up) pays himself a salary (in Essence), takes vacations, and enjoys the finer things in life. It's implied he's quite wealthy both in a corporeal sense (money, goods) and in a celestial sense (essence). If what you say is absolutley true, then he should be -giving- that essence to anyone that needs it, instead of trading for it. I agree with your assessment that probably 95% of Heaven doesn't get the idea of self-interested without being selfish. I imagine that Traders make most angels just a touch nervous. With the exception of Marc, I think you dead on target though. > -David A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:51:46 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Magic Okay, then how about sorcery. Sorcery does use a lot of hermetic stuff, pentacles, et al. In fact, they mention that sorcery functions to a certaine extent in concordance with the magicial practices of the place (hermetic for European sorcerers, more shamanstic for Amerindians, etc...). Depending upon how loosely you define magic, yes it could be argued that songs are not magic. However, I find it odd that they say sorcery is not magic. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Earl Wajenberg To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 11:38 AM Subject: Re: IN> Magic > In so far as "no magic" is not just a matter of labels in IN, > I think it means that (1) all the nifty junk about pentacles, > holy water, Hermetic rituals, etc. that you're used to in a > fantasy game is ruled out, (2) celestials aren't doing "magic" > in the sense of technique; they're exercising powers as natural > to them as breathing is to you, and mere mortals can't acquire > them by learning techniques. > > This works fine for resonnances, atunements, and distinctions, but > of course, insisting that Songs aren't spells *is* largely > a matter of labels, the only difference being the stripping > of all the traditional paraphernalia of magic, as in (1). > > Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:19:35 -0800 From: Charles E Smith Subject: Re: IN>The Demon of Taxes I liked! ...But IRS-tia? I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.<<< LOL! I wondered how long it would take for someone to notice that. :P ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1925 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.