From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Jun 4 15:19:09 2000 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 PAA13487 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:19:09 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA29284 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:18:19 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:18:19 -0500 Message-Id: <200006042018.PAA29284@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 #1657 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 Sunday, June 4 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1657 In this digest: Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> The Prophecy Trilogy Re: IN> Do Angels party? Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors IN> Love amongst Superiors Re: IN> Love and Superiors IN> Love amongst Superiors Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> Long live the Revolution IN> The Revolution in Question Re: IN> The Revolution in Question Re: IN> Lovecraft In Nomine Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. IN> Dictionary Digression (Re: I'll see your Silly Artifact) Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> Lovecraft In Nomine Re: IN> Destiny and Dominic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:27:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:51:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors At 1:33 AM -0400 6/4/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>Far more likely to do the "courtly love" thing, in >>my view (_not_ as LE -- the LE view is whatever it >>says about the matter in Superiors 1, and IIRC it >>does touch on that somewhere), and wear a favor and >>kiss hands and maybe show off just a _touch_ in an >>honorable duel. >Hm.Hm hm hm. >I have this sudden urge to reinterpret Laurence's >Sup1 crossquote with Blandine, you know it? Think >about it -- Blandine is the perfect Lady for a >Knight's Courtly Love. So distant, and so melancholy, >and Lawrence respects her position in "the broadest >beachhead of the war..." And he is so young in >comparison, and as a Malakite can *see* her pure >honor, even when it comes to her Fallen Soulmate.... >And she would represent the perfect Courtly Love for >him in another way -- a part of Courtly Love is the >idea that if the fates would but allow, the pair >could be united in pure bliss. And as an Archangel >who is not in Laurence's Service, Laurence would be >free to wed her, accept her as equal and wife, and >take her as a perfect wife (in the Catholic, as well >as 'biblical' sense). >This isn't to say Blandine would reciprocate, but >that's even *better* for Courtly Love, and it gives >Laurence someone to impress beyond Michael. (epiphany) _Thank_ you, Eric. I have just seen the event that will allow me to hook Beleth and drag her, kicking and screaming, back into the Light of Heaven where she belongs. Final scene of "The Graduate: Celestial Edition", here we come... And who would set this up, I hear you ask? Mike, of course: he _wants_ Beleth back. A seriously-pissed off Larry would have added benefits for the Host, as well (Malakim tend to take out their frustrations on the wicked, real up close and personal, something War thinks that the Sword isn't doing nearly enough of). (/epiphany) Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of I'll Find A Plausable Redemption Scenario For Them All, Just You Wait and See. None Are Safe In Their Selfishness. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:09:03 -0400From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you... >> Universal Lego >I've been waiting to see this turned into an In >Nomine artifact. Have you been reading Serendipity? >^_^ >- -EDG Nope, I just got steeped in the Lego mystique that pervades SJG's web page. What's Serendipity (I remember a children's book by that name, but it was about a female sea monster that went after polluters, so I don't think that was it)? Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of ... heck, I _loved_ that kid's book, let's make it Serendipity. ;) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:07:23 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors >Hm. >Hm hm hm. >I have this sudden urge to reinterpret Laurence's Sup1 crossquote with Blandine, you know it Perfecto! Bravo! Encore! And all that! This fits beautifully in with the versions of Laurence and Blandine that I run. While I don't tend to spend a lot of game time dealing with courting relationships between Superiors, I think this has just become Ki-canon... It fits Laurence *so* perfectly... Of course, this also gives me another reason for Blandine to remain somewhat remote from angelic politics. After all, she wouldn't want to be misinterpreted as possibly *encouraging* to the poor boy commander, and the "remote tower" imagery works so nicely... Regards, Ki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:50:10 -0500 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> The Prophecy Trilogy - ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Phipps To: Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 11:19 PM Subject: IN> The Prophecy Trilogy > >> Arguably the Best of the Series and the most Angelic movie for In Nomine > >> ever made (even moreso than the Orginal I do believe)...I refer to P3 of > >> course. > > The Other David > > How is this the most Angelic? > > Very well incidents of notes for In Nomine players as according to movie. > > **SPOILERS** > All well and good, but how do these make it the most Angelic movie for IN ever made? Esp. in light of the first two? You can list just as many angelic items from the other two movies. Truthfully I think that if we're looking for the most Angelic movie ever made for IN we should probably look at Dogma* as it's closer to the way most campaigns seem to be run. This is not to say that I dispute your points about the angelic items from the movie, I just don't see how they make it the most Angelic movie of all time. The Other David *Or "It's a Wonderful Life" or "Jacob's Ladder" for how normal angels operate on earth. DAR ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:13:08 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Do Angels party? >From: "Charles Phipps" >> >Hehe so I actually could see Dominic hosting a party of some kind....though >privately I see him as a very sentimental fellow....he never goes a day >without seven hours of meditation on his own actions to see if he's "living >right" and his cathedral is lit with a candel for every angel in the choir >(recall Prophecy II with Michael and his chamber of angel candles) and >blows >one out for every angel that falls...hoping someday to relit it....he >personally crushes them when their oblivinated...I think his servitors >never >gather in groups-there work is never done. > In my game, the Judgement angels had 'get togethers' at the Old Bailey (which was one of the most important London tethers); the Seneschal arranged for senior Dominicans to drop in from Heaven to give regular instructional seminars on topics like 'The concept of double jeopardy as it applies to divine judgement.' Attendance was definitely obligatory for any Judgement types known to be in the area. I figure they probably had the occasional formal debate or moot as well. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:27:31 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors >From: "Kiara S. Legner" >> >Re: Marc and Relationships around the office. > > >I dunno...I saw him as Michael Douglas and Wallstreet's Gordon Gekko. > >Again, very different versions of this Superior. > > Mmm. I think Marc is the most eligible Superior in Heaven. He's charming, witty, personable, RICH, and appreciates the finer things in life (read: the more expensive things). I usually portray him as quite aristocratic too, in the best sense of the word. But I always have this nagging feeling that Mercurians are just naturally drawn to humans, like moths to the flame. They can't help it -- celestials are all very well, but it isn't the same. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:09:19 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors >>Mmm. I think Marc is the most eligible Superior in Heaven. He's charming, witty, personable, RICH, and appreciates the finer things in life (read: the more expensive things). I usually portray him as quite aristocratic too, in the best sense of the word. But I always have this nagging feeling that Mercurians are just naturally drawn to humans, like moths to the flame. They can't help it -- celestials are all very well, but it isn't the same.<< Very, very true. Which is one of the reasons I don't see him as so tied up in the concept of commerce that he doesn't have time for other things. He's a Mercurian, which equates to an interest in relationships, and his word is Trade, not commerce. Trade involves relationships between people. Ki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:30:37 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Love amongst Superiors >Among other reasons, procreation with a human would be unthinkable >(it's a _sin_ ! Remember the Grigori!), and what's the point with >a Servitor? You just wind up Force-stripping the poor thing and >having to replace the Forces -- and he can make new angels and >relievers entirely on his own, without memetic taint from some >other being who might have a quirk or two that, while individual, >wouldn't be too bad... but spread throughout his servants?? > I don't see Laurence as nearly as arrogant as Uriel who in many ways I play as a combination of Lord Soth and the Kingpriest of Ishtar from the Dragonlance saga. On the outside (pre-Cataclysm) the Kingpriest was the holiest being in the world...if not the universe. Lord Soth the greatest most valiant knight of them all. Yet on the inisde the Kingpriest of Ishtar believed one credo above all other things.... "Only I am pure and only I know what is right." All other beings were thus variations on bringing the universe in accordance with his personae, his views, and his morality. Laurence I think was possibly the only one of Uriel's servitors who kept the humility and piety of his fellows....indeed as a Malakim one of his oaths (he has 333 in my game) is "Though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death I shall fear no evil...and trust in your hand to guide me." (okay it's two oaths technically but unlike most Malakim he holds in his heart that fanaticism and that while Malakim may never fall-they may lose sight of God's goal in a different way). In my game it's his fondest wish above all others to make peace with Khalid for his sin against Islam...despite his doctrinal difficulties but he doesn't know how to say the words that would make the most difference to the fundamentalist. "I'm Sorry." To end this long sentence-I believe Laurence would not believe taint would occur if he joined with another Superior in love *or* friendship to create a new being....while picky about the beings he would do such and very serious about the responsibility entailed (It will be his fault if it goes wrong) he would likely see it as a greater being than the one from just his mear power. Indeed in my games one of the players is the creation of Laurence and Michael combining both Laurence's views of honor and Michael's fighting skills (Malakim of course-he doesn't know that he's this "pet prodject". As for Servitors....I really couldn't see it with him....he needs to be the adorer not the adored. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:37:18 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors >From: Whistling in the Dark >Think about it -- Blandine is the perfect >Lady for a Knight's Courtly Love. You know, I came _this_ close to actually putting that into S3, using almost exactly the same words -- there was a box on Laurence & Blandine that got cut for space. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:43:20 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Love amongst Superiors >True, all true. But we're postulating actual love here, versus the >marriage proposal given above. Hmmmm... Yeppers. >There's the other option, of course. Not a mortal (I agree there) and >not a Servitor (though many love *him* passionately and completely, >he would never damage that love or their service by stepping down >from his proper role and place). Again I have to agree here. Joan of Arc type heroic Malakim swordswoman may believe with all her heart and soul Laurence is the ideal man (and for her he is) however it is that very idealistic role that prevents Laurence from becomming anything more than her general. It is his duty to be her guiding light and to be mutually in love is to show all flaws before oneself. God shows his pain and suffering to us, we show...well everything to him. Laurence would prefer to remain an ideal I think for the woman in question. Or man, we are talking about beings who are made of energy after all. >But there are peers... and... hmmm.... Now we're getting into it...heheh :-) >Hm hm hm. >I have this sudden urge to reinterpret Laurence's Sup1 crossquote >with Blandine, you know it? Think about it -- Blandine is the perfect >Lady for a Knight's Courtly Love. So distant, and so melancholy, and >Lawrence respects her position in "the broadest beachhead of the >war..." And he is so young in comparison, and as a Malakite can *see* >her pure honor, even when it comes to her Fallen Soulmate.... Ooooooo you just gave me an adventure hook my friend. Thank you very much....I mentioned that sleeping beuty motiff with a knight comming to kiss the lady sleeping in the tower....I was thinking an honorable servitor of Baladine (I wonder if she keeps a teddy bear-sorry off topic wandering mind) however the more I think of it Laurence is exactly who I pictured in this roll. "Evil sorceror ex love torments lovely princess in tower til young handsome knight rescues her"-Heavenly newspaper. >And she would represent the perfect Courtly Love for him in another >way -- a part of Courtly Love is the idea that if the fates would but >allow, the pair could be united in pure bliss. And as an Archangel >who is not in Laurence's Service, Laurence would be free to wed her, >accept her as equal and wife, and take her as a perfect wife (in the >Catholic, as well as 'biblical' sense). Love must be equal-David Eddings And as I said before-Love is showing all flaws and accepting indeed. Here Laurence and Baladine could share both their hatreds, sorrows, losses, and still accept one another for who they are and what they represent. Indeed this is a very important aspect and frankly the idea of it is filled with such emotional impact I'm feeling alittle heady. A marriage in Heaven has to be an extremely rare thing (though political concerns-Laurence leaves that for Dominic-he's such a good little boy) >This isn't to say Blandine would reciprocate, but that's even >*better* for Courtly Love, and it gives Laurence someone to impress >beyond Michael. I'm not sure Baladine would even notice Laurence's attempts to impress her. *However* another interesting point to realize is that of all the Archangels Laurence is also the biggest Dreamer in Heaven quite possibly.... The most idealistic certainly too. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea that Baladine is tricked by Beleth (who comes seeking repentence in her words) into a magical sleep for my adventure hook. The Nightmare Princess launching her final assault on the Heavenly beachhead in the Ethereal Marches. While Michael prepares the counterattack (it's his command after all). Laurence does the unthinkable and gains dissonance by disobeying orders and going directly to Baladine's tower to confront the old Hag directly....risking his Celestial existence in mortal combat with a far older being who even his superior Uriel feared. Now just how to get the players involved..... - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:23:56 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Far more likely to do the "courtly love" thing, in my view (_not_ > as LE -- the LE view is whatever it says about the matter in Superiors > 1, and IIRC it does touch on that somewhere) In Superiors 1, it says that sexual relationships between mortals and angels of the Sword are verboten (and between Saints and angels are very, very frowned upon). - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:29:29 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Long live the Revolution Charles Phipps wrote: > This never sat well with me. In my opinion thus everyone was a nice guy in > Heaven who didn't have a Superior helping him "Fudge" things out by calling > in Favors with Yves. Fine for your campaign, if you turn the brightness level way up. However, since angels don't need to be nice, neither do blessed souls. They need to be *holy*, but holines != niceness. > True I personally agree with you that the person in question has to have the > most closed mind imaginable...don't believe it might not happen though. A > number of folk I know amongst Fundemantalists (it's just a few) could end up > in Heaven and still say Jews, Muslims, and the like are here...in fact > proclaim this was a false vision of heaven sent to torment him from Satan. That would be difficult, since in Heaven it's impossible to lie, and I assume that everyone knows on an instinctive level that they're perceiving the unfiltered Truth. > In retrospect Atheists might be a blessing since In Nomine mortals don't get > any wiser or connected to God once dead. They do become a little wiser and more connected to God -- they're in Heaven, after all! > Marx I'm afraid. I'm not saying he was evil or even a bad man but his > writing carried a extremely angry overtone in the manner of a man who feels > the need to kick a dog to let off steam. Hey, *I* write in a very angry tone at times. Blowing off steam through your writing has nothing to do with whether or not you are personally violent. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:18:25 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Revolution in Question >Or working for Janus against Mammon Janus is a good fellow for Communism as if anyone would have the word of Communism, Revolution, or Socialism (Okay that might be more under Novalis) it would be he. Also it might explain why so many revolutions had trouble establishing proper governments afterwards-the Celestials were already out of town by the time victory was achieved. (a metaphor for common sense went out the door in a flury of finding themselves in the position of the oppressors-something Marx would be horrofied at I think) >Marx was just a man and in his life he did some low things (like most people). >But this doesn't mean anything for his theories. He wanted a better world >where >people were free from the tyranny of Capitalism. So even if you don't >agree with >him I think he had an influence on a lot of people. I believe you. My only problem with communism is the same problem I have for all societal theories....on a very individual level each theory must be able to be chosen and lived to and actualized. Basically any theory that depends on people consistantly choosing a single path in my opinion will fail. Thus "enlightened" capitalism must exist as a beacon to people to self-actualize and help others from it. However on a very real issue that doesn't work with current systems. The same problem I've realized that religeous systems have today in fact-and for the last 50.000 years (approximating). You cannot make a man choose to be good and just, you must teach it to him and make him want it on his own. >I have to admit here that I am a Atheist and a Socialist (Not a Stalinist >however). But for >instance I believe the Russian Revolution was successful and lasted as such for >about six years. One shot was fired during the revolution and but it was when >the landowners and capitalists decided that they didn't like things being >seized >that the civil war began and people died. It can get quite political here >on whether >the revolution was good or successful or why it failed but for In Nomine I >think there's >a few interesting spins; Well Lenin and Trotsky may have managed to get things under their command in a situation which was out of control but the fact remains also that when they were in control-they didn't have the knowledge of the government or skills they needed to govern it. Thus Trotsky hired the orginals back with threats to their families. Politics, Religeon, and in fact all personal reactions I think are ultimately based on some real need by a human being to acomplish something good whether it is for >You could see the revolutionaries and working class influenced by Janus and >David >and maybe even Gabriel against the Tsar and other agents of Mammon and maybe a >few other Princes. With the success then corrupted by Malphas and Asmodeus >(castigating Mammon for his failure). Or the other side could be the >revolutionaries >were influenced Asmodeus, Baal, and Lilith against the stability of the >Tsar. I figure >depending on what you think you could take either spin (I obviously don't >take the latter). I dunno while the Revolution seemed troublesome I see it mainly the works of a man named Vladimir Lenin working to bring about the collaspe of a system that was already teetering on the edge due to the work of OTHER demons. While Lenin's Destiny was probably to become a statesmen after a sucessful career as a cobbler I think his fate somewhat overwhelmed him after his brother's death (likely a soldier of Maphus). I see the fall of the Czar as the work of Asmodeus, Baal, and Kronos certainly but I see actually the Revolutionary fervor that overtook everyone as actually more the work of Lilith working in Conjunction with Valephor and Janus simulateneously (she was double dating). "They stole the Country" If ever though there was a man who actually a demon and not a human being who was important in history then I would say it was Stalin as a Balseraph of Baal however. >"Don't you know those demons are just for individuality and heavens an >authoritarian regime >trying to wipe them out of existence? Not to mention down right prejudicious!" Janus looks up from his doughnuts "Hey I resent that dude!" "Me too!" Novalis. "Huh, where am I?" Eli replies. Meanwhile..... "What by Lucifer's black beard does individuality mean?" Baal asks. "It's something to be destroyed." Asmodeus. "Doesn't exist." Kronos. "" Valephor and Malphus "We live to serve you masters." - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:52:22 -0500 From: Matt Trent Subject: Re: IN> The Revolution in Question Charles Phipps wrote: > > Janus looks up from his doughnuts "Hey I resent that dude!" > > "Me too!" Novalis. > > "Huh, where am I?" Eli replies. > > Meanwhile..... > > "What by Lucifer's black beard does individuality mean?" Baal asks. > > "It's something to be destroyed." Asmodeus. > > "Doesn't exist." Kronos. > > "" Valephor and Malphus "We live to serve you masters." WTF? Who drew those two as obedient boot-lickers? I sure don't see valefor as saying anything like that without his tongue buried deep in his cheek. and Malphus is much to slippery to ever say something that concrete. And yet: "Submit yourself to becoming a sword in the Army of God and we shall achieve final victory!" -- Laurance "Act with good sense. or else." Dominic "Your profit margins seem to be down for the third quarter in a row. Perhaps you need a less strenuous assignment delivering messages for the next 10000 years?" Marc "Are you sure that that's the best why to conduct the experiment? Why don't you just let me take over?" Jean Meanwhile: "Be free." Lilith "Fools who follow other around without question may be funny, but my demons are the ones laughing not being laughed at!" Kobal "The pieces move with such enjoyable unpredictability. Without that the game would soon grow old and boring, but as it is I stand to be entertained for the next 20 million years at least." Asmodeous * Trent * Obviously you and I disagree about Asmo, but such is life. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 2000 12:18:04 -0700 From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Lovecraft In Nomine On Sat, 03 June 2000, "Charles Phipps" wrote: > >I presume you mean Nyarlathotep? > > I love Lovecraft's work to death but his names...and my copy of Call of > Cthulhu nowhere to be found (or my Best of Lovecraft) It's either that or Nyogtha, and since you equated him to Vap I'm pretty sure you mean Nyarlathotep, since he gives humans knowledge of dark, secret things in the hopes humanity will destroy itself. But I don't think that Vapula = Nyarlathotep. No, I think it's one of the other Princes.... - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:32:37 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. At 8:30 AM -0700 6/4/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:09:03 -0400From: "EDG" > >Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and >raise you... > >> Universal Lego > >I've been waiting to see this turned into an In > >Nomine artifact. Have you been reading Serendipity? > >^_^ > > >- -EDG > >Nope, I just got steeped in the Lego mystique that >pervades SJG's web page. What's Serendipity (I >remember a children's book by that name, but it was >about a female sea monster that went after polluters, >so I don't think that was it)? What's Serendipity. What's Serendipity. Good God, man, what *isn't* Serendipity? - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:57:46 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Dictionary Digression (Re: I'll see your Silly Artifact) Quite off-topic, but in the interests of education (translation, my mother was an english teacher)... At 8:30 AM -0700 6/4/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:09:03 -0400From: "EDG" > >> Have you been reading Serendipity? >>^_^ >[...] What's Serendipity (I >remember a children's book by that name, but it was >about a female sea monster that went after polluters, >so I don't think that was it)? Serendipity is finding something you want/need/were looking for once while looking for/doing something entirely different. Or, to go to dictionary.com (which is woefully lacking since it thinks bohunk is an insult when it was a definte term for a cute guy when _I_ was in grade school... but is otherwise apparently reasonable): ser.en.dip.i.ty n. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident. [From the characters in the Persian fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip, who made such discoveries from Persian Sarandp, Sri Lanka, from Arabic Sarandb.] seren.dipi.tous adj. seren.dipi.tous.ly adv. Word History: We are indebted to the English author Horace Walpole for coining the word serendipity. In one of his 3,000 or more letters, on which his literary reputation primarily rests, and specifically in a letter of January 28, 1754, Walpole says that "this discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word." Perhaps the word itself came to him by serendipity. Walpole formed the word on an old name for Sri Lanka, Serendip. He explained that this name was part of the title of "a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip: as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of . . . One of the most remarkable instances of this accidental sagacity (for you must observe that no discovery of a thing you are looking for, comes under this description) was of my Lord Shaftsbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper], who happening to dine at Lord Chancellor Clarendon's [Edward Hyde], found out the marriage of the Duke of York [later James II] and Mrs. Hyde [Anne Hyde, Clarendon's daughter], by the respect with which her mother [Frances Aylesbury Hyde] treated her at table." ObIN: an Angel of Serendipity would be a wonderful Creationer, despite the more obvious ties to Destiny. You see, Destiny would be _looking_ for Good Things. Creation would just stumble over them. "It's very zen." (*) (* This saying is something that the Eli in our campaign says about any time he doesn't want to explain something, whether it's because it would be a long boring explanation that probably couldn't be understood by a Superior anyway -- or because he doesn't _want_ to. It is also something that will get him plucked someday.) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:35:34 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors At 10:37 AM -0700 6/4/00, Jo Hart wrote: >>From: Whistling in the Dark >>Think about it -- Blandine is the perfect >>Lady for a Knight's Courtly Love. > >You know, I came _this_ close to actually putting that into S3, >using almost exactly the same words -- there was a box on Laurence & >Blandine that got cut for space. I am *really* sorry it didn't make it. I think it's a wonderful bit of flavor. I mean, so far we have Archangels who hate or distrust each other, and the occasional friendship or pledge of support. A Courtly Love relationship would shake the dust of the whole thing... - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:48:11 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. > Nope, I just got steeped in the Lego mystique that > pervades SJG's web page. What's Serendipity (I > remember a children's book by that name, but it was > about a female sea monster that went after polluters, > so I don't think that was it)? Serendipity is a work of fiction written by Philip Moyer. It can be found at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/Serendip.html - it doesn't have much IN content, though it does include the Golden Lego. ^_^ ObIN: Philip's also got some neat In Nomine art at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/PMArt-in.html, as well as In Nomine 2070 at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/IN2070/. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:09:08 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors At 1:30 PM -0400 6/4/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >>[...]and [Laurence] can make new angels and >>relievers entirely on his own, without memetic taint from some >>other being who might have a quirk or two that, while individual, >>wouldn't be too bad... but spread throughout his servants?? > > [...] >To end this long sentence-I believe Laurence would not believe taint would >occur if he joined with another Superior in love *or* friendship to create a >new being.... Well, it certainly depends on how you interpret Force-donation -- in our games (non-canon alert), the "flavor" of Forces influences the result. So if he _did_ get it on with Blandine for the purpose of creating a new angel, you'd probably get a dreamy honor-nut. (Galahad, anyone?) Now, this is all well and good, but the other thing to remember about Laurence is that he's a good Christian. For some value of that, since he knows that there is biblical errancy. O:> I'd need to go over the material in Superiors 1 pretty closely, but IIRC, it would seem out of character for him to have, well, affairs. At least, not frequent ones. So he'd be tying himself to _one_ other being, if he got married, and if he then created angels in conjunction with that other, the (back to non-canon) memetic influence (I call it taint) would spread throughout his Servitors, slowly. Not that the other Superior's Word is a _bad_ or _impure_ thing -- it's just not _Sword_. Now, if you assume that he has at least a teensy streak of something a little less fixated on marriage (unlike the original quote I think you had for him), this becomes more of a moot point -- if marriage is for mortals, while celestials should just try to keep to the spirit of honorable/courtly love... Well, that's different. But he'll probably go to confession later. O:> (One can also assume that Superiors can make Servitors conjointly (is that a word?) _without_ it qualifying precisely as what humans would consider "intimate" in a sexual sense. Which definitely does open the door to lots of cross-Word creations, as needed to fit a niche. Though for some reason, if Laurence got married, I think he'd eschew this -- "forsaking all others.") Eeeeeeeenyway, thus be my view on things, canon and not all combined together into a Beth-made stew. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:10:15 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors At 10:37 AM -0700 6/4/00, Jo Hart wrote: >>From: Whistling in the Dark >>Think about it -- Blandine is the perfect >>Lady for a Knight's Courtly Love. > >You know, I came _this_ close to actually putting that into S3, using almost >exactly the same words -- there was a box on Laurence & Blandine that got >cut for space. Mmmmmm... Hang onto that. That could be a cool outtake someday. A rumor, I presume? - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:51:45 +0100 From: "Genevieve Cogman" Subject: Re: IN> Lovecraft In Nomine From: Casca >On Sat, 03 June 2000, "Charles Phipps" wrote: >> I love Lovecraft's work to death but his names...and my copy of Call of >> Cthulhu nowhere to be found (or my Best of Lovecraft) > >It's either that or Nyogtha, and since you equated him to Vap I'm pretty sure you mean Nyarlathotep, since he gives humans knowledge of dark, secret things in the hopes humanity will destroy itself. >But I don't think that Vapula = Nyarlathotep. No, I think it's one of the other Princes.... And if you want a weird viewpoint on this . . . Nyarlathotep is the messenger of the Outer Gods. The word "angelos" means "messenger". Consider the hypothesis that the massed Heavenly Hosts are in fact the groupmind which composes Nyarlathotep. (Not to mention interesting correspondences between Novalis and Shub-Niggurath, Yves and Azathoth, and so on . . .) Perhaps Lucifer knew precisely what he was doing when he led his Rebellion? Genevieve ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 2000 13:17:38 -0700 From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Destiny and Dominic On Sat, 03 June 2000, "Charles Phipps" wrote: > That works. Explains why Yves is so busy.... I see him as the Ultimate Mathematician, trying to solve the Universal Equation. Trying to get all the variables turned into constants, and seeing if the Symphony ultimately equals positive, negative, or zero. > > "You just had to take Route 7# instead of the shorter Route 9# huh!?" Yves > grumbles as his quill breaks.. Nah. He's far too serene for that. I swear, he could give Elohim lessons. > Truth be told I do get it but it's sad to see any Angel put himself through I never meant to imply that you didn't. > what must be daily Hell. True. But it makes Dominic a tragic character. I find tragedy interesting, as long as it doesn't spill over into angst. And Dominic is tragic without being angstful. > Dominic isn't proud I don't think...I can hardly see any Archangel more self > loathing for so very little reason. No, he isn't proud, but he comes across as unbearably arrogant, at least in how I see him. It comes from Right damn near all the time. (Think about it: If you knew the right course of action 99.99% of the time, you'd seem arrogant to anyone who disagreed with you. Especially when you were proven right.) > Though his desire to be perfect is going to destroy him somehow I know. Possibly. I prefer a scenario I crafted for IN Endgame (wherein the Final Battle is fought, all loose ends accounted for, etc. I don't intend to actually run it -- not only would it decisively end the game, but the PCs would spend most of their time watching Big Importnat Things happen outside their control -- but I like knowing how things are going to end, so I can craft a more believeable middle): Judgement Day has come and gone, Hell is vanquished, all souls have been Judged. Dominic records his last verdict on the second-to-last page of the Book of Judgement. When that is done, he sets the quill down, and very slowly turns to the first page of the book, and slowly reads through to the end. He ponders for a moment, then picks up the quill, and on the last page of the book writes: "...and it was Good." And with a sigh of weariness tempered with satisfaction of the knowledge of a job well done, he dissolves his Forces and is absorbed back into the Symphony. > Or he's going to commit Suicide. No Fall...Suicide. See above. Suicide before his job is completed is Failure, and Dominic does not permit himself to fail. > No offense as my Seraph puts it "It was a bad day for everyone D." > > Which is something Dominic I doesn't think gets.... No, I think he gets it all too clearly. > To quote. Thta was me. I was just wondering if Dominic had any trace of > sympathy left in his body...or he was *this* close to despair (the final > sin). Sympathy does not equal tolerance. I honestly feel Dominic personally mourns every angel that Falls, but he does not allow that sympathy to come between him and his Word. > Perhaps the time for Judgement has passed or Dominic at least needs someone > to lighten his load. Maybe an Angel of Compassion. Isn't that what Novalis has been trying to do for the past million years? The thing is, Dominic won't let ANYONE get close. It's his job, his sin, his penance. He can't forgive himself, so how can he let anyone else forgive him? > The real part is in my mind I think Dominic doesn't know either. I disagree. > And he's been faking it since Uriel. I think the results of that trial had an impact on him, yes. I rather suspect he was expecting God to do for Uriel what he did for Michael. - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1657 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.