From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jun 6 14:33:51 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 OAA31233 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:33:51 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA10937 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:30:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:30:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200006061930.OAA10937@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 #1662 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, June 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1662 In this digest: Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Human to Demon IN> Reviews IN> Celestial Marxism IN> Gorgon/Nephalim Question Re: IN> Oannes? Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid Re: IN> Celestial Marxism Re: IN> Words under Michael Re: IN> Uriel's ultimate fate Re: IN> Next Playtest? IN> Oannes Re: IN> Oannes Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid Re: IN> Oannes Re: IN> Oannes IN> Secret Weapons Re: IN> Oannes Re: IN> Oannes Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Oannes IN> Paul old boy IN> Laurence and Baladine Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine Paul (Was: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...)) Re: IN> Human to Demon (Re: Karl Marx in Heaven/Hell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:06:29 -0500 From: Andrew Hackard Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >This is a very fine line, and IMO, you are crossing it. That's a much better way to phrase it than calling my request "sleazy," David. I still disagree, but you wouldn't have raised my hackles if you'd said it this way in the first place. If it'll make you feel better, I'll never mention the subject of fan reviews on this list again. - -- Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University" andrew@sjgames.com /______\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:08:52 -0500 From: Andrew Hackard Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >(And now, for some IN content. If I were in Andrew's place, I'd be >doing just this - sending copies of IN to major industry names or >reviwers, looking for marketable pullquotes. Pushing that angle here >isn't really as handy, because there aren't many recognizable industry >figures or writers on this list.) Agreed. When we get the reprint copies of the IN rules, I intend to do just that. Sending out copies of the supplements while the core book is OOP seems a little counterproductive to me. - -- Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University" andrew@sjgames.com /______\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:18:23 -0700 From: "Matthew W." Subject: Re: IN> Human to Demon Archangel Beth wrote: >>Humans can't become demons. The best that happens, a Prince rips the Ethereal Forces out of the human and glues them onto a demonling, causing the result of a demon who has some (usually a bit vague and/or damaged) memories of being a human. But the human soul who thus donates the Forces is dead and destroyed and not coming back.<< Actually, I never liked that a human's Ethereal forces couldn't be cleanly stripped from him without any loss of memory or personality. Demon Princes are capable of the subtle manipulations of Forces needed to create celestial beings from nothingness, this should be a piece of cake. Of course, the other reason I don't like that is that it takes away such a wonderful GM's tool from villians, and it makes sense for Hell to operate every once in a while. By taking the mind of a damned human of great skill and prestige, and putting it into a demon, you get a demon with an entire lifetime's experience at evil and the corporeal world. Some of my "best" demons have been "born-again" humans, damned to Hell but reborn for their sins. Otto Skorzeny (Balseraph of Dark Humor), the mastermind of a plot to subvert an entire city. Vlad the Impaler (Shedim of the War), serial killer and Virtuoso of the Songs of Blood. Eric Harris (Calabite of Factions), that one really drove home the realities of Hell. It even included an explanation of the confusion of which Principality has Hitler... None of them. Elohite of Creation, former Habbalah of Fire. Eli taught the insane little man how to paint. - -- = Matthew K. Webb = = MIB #3875 = | Lead GM - In Nomine LARP Austin | | http://members.aol.com/sumitr/index.html | ===================================================== "Koalas look cuddly, but I am lead to understand that they're actually irritable, solitary beasts who do not want belly rubs. What kind of mocking God created creatures with poofy ears and big black noses that don't want belly rubs?" - L. Fitzgerald Sjöberg ===================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Reviews On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Andrew Hackard wrote: > Something else -- if you write a review, try to include one or two "sound > bite" sentences. If they're good enough, and you post the URL here so I can > check it out (hint hint), then those sound bites might end up on the SJ > Games page -- and, if they're *really* good and we do start an advertising > push, we may even include them in the print ads. I don't know that my reviews are good enough, but here are some that I've written in the past: CPG: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2230.html Liber Cast: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2191.html - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:37:11 EDT From: Daedalus3D@aol.com Subject: IN> Celestial Marxism Okay, after some serious thought, I'm going to have to drop everything I said about Marx and side more with Eric. Marx was a smart guy, after all, and, after some tough readjusting, would probably come to terms with his "true" place in the cosmos. Whether he ended up in Heaven or Hell, his philosophy would probably end up heading in one inevitable direction. Obviously, to Marx, Celestials, Ethereals, and the other supernatural powers exploit humanity on a day to day basis. HUmans do all of the "work" that comes with living and struggling on earth, and the Powers That Be reap the rewards in essence. Not only that, but the human condition and the class struggle on earth might not have existed at all except for Celestials, who set up terrestrial heirarchies to resemble those of Heaven and Hell. In this new Celestial Marxism, humans would be the proletariate of the universe and Celestials/Ethereals would be the exploiting classes. In Marx's view, humanity must eventually break free and be able to find its own fate or destiny, through its own choices. Obviously, few angels or demons are going to be willing to pay any attention to this kind of talk. Some might think that it's a good idea, but simply argue that they have to work to counteract the meddling of the opposing side. More arrogant Celestials might not think humanity is capable of doing anything by itself. Clestial marxism might find a strong following among Outcasts and Renegades, however, since many of them have already come to despise the Celestial hierarchy. Even with all this, I think that if Marx ended up in Hell, he wouldn't get much respect, period. I bought and read most of the Corporeal Players' Guide yesterday (great job, David, by the way), and, though Marx couldn't technically become a demon, couldn't you just see Kobal ripping Marx's Ethereal forces off and sticking them to some poor Habbalah. Or better yet, a Lilim, who can spend the rest of eternity preaching about being free from oppression, yet never be free herself. Anyway, to throw some wood on this IN Marxism discussion, what do you think would be the final destination and fate of the other fathers of Communism: Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, and, the other big M, Mao Zedong? Later, Daedalus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:47:35 EDT From: Daedalus3D@aol.com Subject: IN> Gorgon/Nephalim Question In reading through the CPG yesterday, I was fascinated by Gorgons and Nephalim and wondering if David or one of the rest of you could clear up a question I had. Just tell me if what I'm saying is right: Gorgons get 6 potential forces, Nephalim get at least 6 (but possibly more). Gorgons get all the bonuses for being a child of Ethereals (lucid dreaming, possibly born with Ethereal Connection, etc.), Nephalim don't. Nephalim get bonuses for being a child of Celestials (greater possibility of being Blessed, etc.), Gorgons don't. Nephalim never become Bodhisattvas or Saints, Gorgon's still can (?). Both can only use Corpereal Songs unless they get another Connection. Both get character points for their Disadvantages and can get supernatural Discord. Both have a natural affinity for Songs and Sorcery. That's it. I was just a little confused with the wording of "Nephalim have the same traits as Gorgons" when it seemed like there were some things that obviously weren't meant to be the same. Thanks a bunch. Daedalus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:00:00 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> Oannes? > IIRC, it has not yet been stated. (I could be wrong; it could be in > the APG.) For some reason, I'd been thinking of him as Ofanite -- one > of the few who could keep up with Janus, around the time that Janus > got _his_ Word. (That _is_ from the APG history.) That's what I figured - but I don't have my APG handy, and the INcyclopedia doesn't mention a Choir. > (But not pot=holders, which is another in-joke altogether, but rather > funny when one's been awake since 4:30 am.) Even when one's been up since 10:30 AM. :) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:03:37 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid > Note that while _they_ don't do fiction, the INC does -- with a few > teasers, the rest could perhaps go there (once you've tracked EDG > to his lair, or Graveyard Greg, IIRC?) Rar! *stomp stomp* Actually, I already owe Casca one response. ^_^ I'll be getting to that today, unless circumstances prevent it. :( - -EDG Would Oannes's Word cover space too? Hmm... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:15:52 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Marxism At 10:37 AM -0400 6/6/00, Daedalus3D@aol.com wrote: >Okay, after some serious thought, I'm going to have to drop everything I said >about Marx and side more with Eric. Marx was a smart guy, after all, and, >after some tough readjusting, would probably come to terms with his "true" >place in the cosmos. Whether he ended up in Heaven or Hell, his philosophy >would probably end up heading in one inevitable direction. > >Obviously, to Marx, Celestials, Ethereals, and the other supernatural powers >exploit humanity on a day to day basis. HUmans do all of the "work" that >comes with living and struggling on earth, and the Powers That Be reap the >rewards in essence. Not only that, but the human condition and the class >struggle on earth might not have existed at all except for Celestials, who >set up terrestrial heirarchies to resemble those of Heaven and Hell. This is all oddly appealing to me... in fact... > >Clestial marxism might find a strong following among Outcasts and Renegades, >however, since many of them have already come to despise the Celestial >hierarchy. Marx died in 1883. Eli's Walkabout plans started going into place in 1900 or thereabouts. Hmm.... > >Anyway, to throw some wood on this IN Marxism discussion, what do you think >would be the final destination and fate of the other fathers of Communism: >Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, and, the other big M, Mao Zedong? Stalin is burning in Hell, IMC and IMHO. If Communism had a Destiny, as represented by Lenin's ideals and/or Trotsky's (and I don't know that it did, mind you -- there are many schools of thought and I'm not a Communist, so I have no really strong opinion on it), then Stalin represented the Soviet Union turning away from that Destiny and embracing the fate of Totalitarianism, Oligarchy, and oppression of the worker class in the name of liberating it. Engles was as removed from Communism-in-Practice as Marx was, but may or may not have achieved his Destiny or Fate. If not, he'll reincarnate. Lenin it depends on the history you read, and a few decades of Soviet Revisionism changing Lenin to suit the needs of the present makes the reality of Lenin dubious. Trotsky I have a sneaking suspicion was blocked from his Destiny by Servitors of Fate (who may have been part of his murder, or may not), but I doubt he achieved his Fate, either. The Chinese/Vietnamese Communist movements I have no practical knowledge of (at least to discuss this stuff ) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:51:33 -0400 From: neelk@cswcasa.com Subject: Re: IN> Words under Michael Greg Garrison wrote: > > What Words do you guys consider under Michael? I am a player in a > campaign that might soon offer the possiblility of gaining a word, > or working directly under another word related to War. Due to the > nature of my Angel, Ofantite which has an incredilble precision, I > was thinking the Word of precision or the word of pistols or some > such idea. Thanks for any ideas that you put forth. I haven't seen a serious list yet, so here's one, plus some alternate superiors for the word. o Peace (Novalis, David) o Heroism (Blandine, Laurence) o Martyrs (David, Gabriel) o Rhetoric (Marc, Yves) o Revolutions (Janus, Dominic) o Service (Jordi, David) o Daring (Janus, Gabriel) o Sacrifice (David, Jean) o Rescues (Novalis, Laurence) o Tactics (Eli, Laurence) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:07:40 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's ultimate fate At 19:47 -0400 6/5/00, Daniel Gallagher wrote: >Well, when In Nomine was still in playtest, I remember complaining about how >there were too many archangels and how Uriel and Raphael were missing. I >soon receved a reply saying that they weren't sticking to Cathlic cannon and >that I shouldn worry because Uriel would be appear in an upcomming book. I >don't know if this still holds for it was a long time ago but I realy hope >so. I would expect both to be covered in detail if we ever get the "Historical In Nomine" project into production. I think there's a considerable desire to do this on the part of many people involved -- it's a matter of when, which is driven primarily by production and marketing realities. Recently, the "Superiors" books have been the main focus, with other projects being deferred. That seems to be the right priority, as far as I can tell from what people have asked for. Uriel *is* a popular topic, though, so I expect he'll get covered at some point. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jun 2000 12:22:29 -0400 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >>>>> "DM" == Douglas Muir writes: >> At 10:36 AM -0500 6/5/00, David Edelstein wrote: >> You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these requests to >> write "reviews" which are pretty blatantly advertisements for the books. DM> 1) I didn't read it that way, and it looks like no one else did DM> either. I read it that way. I'm still planning on reviewing CPG and LS on rpg.net when/if I get a chance. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:49:08 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Oannes >-EDG > Would Oannes's Word cover space too? Hmm... I don't think so -- I believe he's now canonically "Archangel of Waters"; i.e., he's the fourth of the "elemental" AAs, rather than "Oceans" as originally stated. So I don't think vacuum would really qualify. If anyone covers space, it's probably Gabriel -- a lot of the universe is filled with very thin, high-energy plasma, which sort of fits with Fire. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:59:28 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> Oannes > I don't think so -- I believe he's now canonically "Archangel of Waters"; > i.e., he's the fourth of the "elemental" AAs, rather than "Oceans" as > originally stated. So I don't think vacuum would really qualify. I was thinking along the lines of "separating the waters from the waters", and how I remembered the upper waters as holding the stars and the sky. :) > If anyone covers space, it's probably Gabriel -- a lot of the universe is > filled with very thin, high-energy plasma, which sort of fits with Fire. True. On the other hand, it's very cold out there. ^_^ - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:56:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid > Actually, I already owe Casca one response. ^_^ I'll be getting to that > today, unless circumstances prevent it. :( You guys should contact me re: search engines or scripts or crap like that. But not today. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:56:14 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Oannes Walter Milliken wrote: > If anyone covers space, it's probably Gabriel -- a lot of the > universe is filled with very thin, high-energy plasma, which > sort of fits with Fire. Or you could give it to Jean, since Lightning is plasma, too, and space is filled with various forms of electromagnetic radiation, which sounds like Jean. Or, since space is really part of spacetime, and time is Yves's balliwick, maybe it's under his Word. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:02:54 GMT From: "Erich S. Arendall" Subject: Re: IN> Oannes > > Would Oannes's Word cover space too? Hmm... > >I don't think so -- I believe he's now canonically "Archangel of Waters"; >i.e., he's the fourth of the "elemental" AAs, rather than "Oceans" as >originally stated. So I don't think vacuum would really qualify. > >If anyone covers space, it's probably Gabriel -- a lot of the universe is >filled with very thin, high-energy plasma, which sort of fits with Fire. Of course, if you want to go non-canon, there's always Tamiel, AA of the Deep. You can read all about her on my page: http://www.impudite.com (blatant plug!). I like the idea of Space being split between Gabriel (For the plasma reason Walter stated above), Janus (Solar winds, etc.), and Jean (cause he gets us into space). Infernally, I can't think of anyone in canon who could cover that Word. - -Erich S. Arendall "Shadow Sprite" Demon of Critical Failures at the Worst Possible Time for Players and the Best Time for GMs, Impudite of Kronos - ------------------------- Touched by an Impudite http://www.impudite.com Go Directly to the Blog http://www.impudite.com/abt-blog.asp ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:24:14 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: IN> Secret Weapons What is in Laurence's Doomsday Vault? Nobody knows this but Laurence [aka The Powers That Be]. Here is my speculation, though. It is IMC and IMHO, so feel free to disagree or to improve it as you wish. By some freakish circumstance, the Cherub found himself in Laurence's Doomsday Vault. It took the Cherub a while to realize where he was exactly. But what he saw there was enough to make him cheer out loud, thus attracting the attention of the guards, who called the Commander, since they were obedient Sword-thanes and their orders forbid them to enter the Vault. Laurence arrived, entered, and saw the Cherub, kneeling, looking up, enraptured in thanksgiving to God for what he had seen. "So now you know." The Cherub, struck mute by the sight and the realization of God's Power and Wisdom, could only nod. Laurence let him go his way, and the Cherub never spoke a word of what he had seen. Indeed, the Cherub never spoke or wrote another word, until The Day came. No one ever heard from him of the glass casket. He never spoke the Name which was the only word or sigil or decoration of any sort on the casket. "Metatron". And no one ever heard from him of how the casket was completely empty, with not even a favorite weapon or artifact of The Voice of God laying within it. And never did he speak of the Heart made not of crystal, but of purest Light from the Highest Heaven pulsating on the far side of the casket.... Tom Timberlake, Cadre Cherub of Heaven - -- "We are not always what we seem, and hardly ever what we dream." -Schmendrick Peter S. Beagle's "The Last Unicorn" ps. Wonder who will be more surprised on the Day of Judgement, the Angels or the Demons, when the corpse of Metatron, on which Lucifer built his {Miltonian} Hell gets up, shakes off all the Principalities, Princes, Demons, and Damned Souls, stands with his Feet in Hell and his head somewhere above the firmament of Lower Heaven, and says with The Voice Of God, with absolute finality, "All right, enough is enough." and proceeds to empower the Hosts [you think Michael is powerful now? Sibling, you ain't seen NOTHING yet!!] and cut them loose to kick Hell's a$$, as The Voice cuts through and cuts off all Infernal Songs. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:19:06 -0400 From: "Galen G. Silversmith" Subject: Re: IN> Oannes Return-Path: witkiller@hotmail.com > I like the idea of Space being split between Gabriel (For the plasma reason > Walter stated above), Janus (Solar winds, etc.), and Jean (cause he gets us > into space). > Infernally, I can't think of anyone in canon who could cover that Word. Belial might cover black holes, colliding celestial bodies, the descructive potential of the nuclear reaction in stars Beleth could cover quite a bit of the fear that the vast emptiness of space contains. Lilith could cover the emptiness as well, and the lack of bounds in the vastness. Mariel would have covered a lot of the territory, as well, as might have Vephar. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:38:55 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Oannes >Mariel would have covered a lot of the territory, as well, "99.99999% of the universe is Nothing. It's _so close_ to perfection..." Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:43:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Moe Lane wrote: > Of course, if you just dump Paul completely > (something that I do in my own personal theology), I'm not sure what Paul had to do with it, since the two scriptures quoted were from a Gospel, which no one ascribes to Paul, and from Hebrews, which doesn't claim to be by Paul, and which is now ascribed to Paul only by the most conservative. Casca wrote: > I think I know what Moe is saying here. Feel free to correct me > if I get it wrong. > > Paul was instrumental in the spread of Christianity, no denying > that. He evangelized extensively and travelled throughout the > known world, spreading the Word and helping found churches. > > BUT... he was never a prophet, never an apostle. God only spoke to > Paul once, on the road to Damascus; there are no recorded > instances of this happening again. Similary, I cannot recall Paul > ever healing the sick or casting out demons in the manner of the > apostles. Paul made a very clear claim to be an apostle, on the basis of his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. (Acts (:1-16) And, as a matter of fact, he does do miracles. He strikes a sorceror blind in Acts 13:8-11 and heals a man in Acts 14:8-11. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:22:36 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Oannes At 12:59 -0400 6/6/00, EDG wrote: >> I don't think so -- I believe he's now canonically "Archangel of Waters"; >> i.e., he's the fourth of the "elemental" AAs, rather than "Oceans" as >> originally stated. So I don't think vacuum would really qualify. > >I was thinking along the lines of "separating the waters from the waters", >and how I remembered the upper waters as holding the stars and the sky. :) Ah, yes, I suppose that makes sense, in a poetic sort of way.... >> If anyone covers space, it's probably Gabriel -- a lot of the universe is >> filled with very thin, high-energy plasma, which sort of fits with Fire. > >True. On the other hand, it's very cold out there. ^_^ Depends on how you measure it -- it's about 3K if you measure a blackbody (as long as it's in the shade), but I believe it's probably many 1000s of degrees if you measure the particle energies. It's true there's not much *heat content* out there, though. But Gabriel is *Fire*, not Heat. A fire doesn't necessarily have to have a lot of heat content, though the thing that's burning usually does. Gabriel already has Cape Canaveral as a Tether, I believe, so she's a pretty good fit. And she's certainly rather spacey. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:28:32 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Paul old boy >So I think Moe is saying here that Paul had his heart in the right place, but since he is not recorded as >prophesying, his epistles need not be taken as the Word of God, and anything in them you disagree with you >may chalk up to human misinterpretation of God. One wonders that however the fact remains that even Peter holiest of the holy and head of the Church bowed down to Paul's wisdom in at least one case. One of the main tenants of my Ministry that I'm already preaching is that basically anyone can have an access to the same covenant the Apostles (and other great figures of the world) had to the Almight if one simply opens onself up to the truths and the like. And given Jesus was tempted as well I don't think misinterpretation of the Lord's will wasn't a common problem amongst even the holiest of the holies. In any case it's a common belief amongst hard line Catholics that Paul replaced Judas as the 12th apostle (I disagree with such a strange statement) by having a apostle brought forth from a traitor instead of vice versa. That's probably though what Laurence believes. >If I'm incorrect about -any- of this, please let me know. My .02 - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:40:23 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Laurence and Baladine >Um, right. I think that's what I was saying too. That even Laurence >knows that the bible can be in error. Actually our points differ on one fundamental difference. In RL I believe so but in In Nomine Laurence likely looks at the Bible quite literally as a historical document and guideline for life. However no doubt he interprets it in the most proper sense possible because that's just who he is. Michael and Dominic helps him over the troublesome passages. "So can I court Baladine or not since she was once involved with Beleth?"-Laurence "I think it's more important that you get her to LIKE you first there cowboy"-Michael "It says that marriage is forever...ergo my belief is that you must destroy Beleth's soul in order to invalidate the parameters...hmmm however comparing Jesus's heaven belief I may be changing my mind. This is an intriguing case for angelic sex...certainly God may want us to abstain from it to better further our words and remove all such purposeless desires...." Michael stares at Dominic. "Thanks you got him on a tangent again cowboy" >Who's this "we" kemosabe? O:> (Go on, look at Superiors 1...) Sorry Not-at-all-Tonto . Re: Laurence and Sex >A-yup. Okay going out on a limb here I see Laurence as pining for one Celestial and one Celestial alone but no problem with sharing his energies to create new beings. Likely in his "love" he's never actually considered sex as part of the equation. Then again it may be because she's not interested...or is she...tsk tsk tsk tsk. Trouble there. >Nope. In Heaven -- if one takes the "do sex for procreation only" >(i.e., no birth control) as an Earthly command, then one has to decide how >it _relates_ to a celestial being in Heaven. Well it depends on whether the Catholic Church today has more influenec over him than before. Was Laurence involved in the Vatican II? I'm pretty sure the sex for procreation part has been disaccepted and in turn it is recognized as a loving act as well...though one should not be blind that it's purpose is to create life from the sacred union. >Which is something I'd probably wind up toying all over the place >with in a personal campaign, and saying zilch about in canon. Heh. Hehehehehe. Thanks for discussing it with me. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:48:06 -0700 From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Writing for Pyramid At 08:47 AM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote: >At 3:55 AM -0700 6/6/00, Casca wrote: > >On Mon, 05 June 2000, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >> I just know that if it's very long, I'd far rather that you post > >> a URL, and maybe a short teaser or two, than the whole blessed > >> thing... > > > >If I did post it here, it would be in chunks. > >Moderately well-spaced chunks, though, eh? A whole bunch of little >chunks, close together, is just as bad as one megapost for the >purposes of filling up digests (with what the digest receivers >may or may not be interested in), and causing _more_ digests to >be sent out quickly (they're content based, IIRC, not time based; >i.e., a digest is sent up when the "buffer" has X lines in it), and >making people's mailboxes fill up and (for those with either # of >messeges or amount of K limits)... Bounce right into _MY_ mailbox! > >Rule of thumb: if it's over 10K, it shouldn't be going onto the >list in a way that will cause the above to happen. Because I get >_reeeeeeeal_ snarky when I have umpteen jillion bounce messages >in my mailbox, and if they happened because _one_ person had a >one-project postfest... > >Ya get my drift, or do I hafta send my Habbalah around ta rough >ya up? > > >> Oh, first place to look would be: > >> www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/writers > >> And then the Pyramid link. > > > >It says they don't accept fiction submissions. Crap! Ah well....guess > >I'm posting to the list, then (good for list, bad for my prospective > >writing career). > >Note that while _they_ don't do fiction, the INC does -- with a few >teasers, the rest could perhaps go there (once you've tracked EDG >to his lair, or Graveyard Greg, IIRC?) Two words: Gaming Outpost. Hmmm...maybe the INC and GO can work out something? I'd be willing to do some reprints of articles... Graveyard Greg Managing Editor--Gaming Outpost _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:07:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine Charles Phipps wrote: > Okay going out on a limb here I see Laurence as pining for one > Celestial and one Celestial alone but no problem with sharing > his energies to create new beings. Floating around here is the assumption that creating new celestials is, for a Superior, an experience analogous to sex and not analogous to, say, childbirth or organ donation or playing with Legoes or balancing one's checkbook. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:17:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) > But everyone should read "The Passoer Plot" if they want a good laugh. What an excellent book! It's chock full of conspiracy goodness. How could I have a conspiracy book collection without a copy? Anyone into Even More Goofy Christ Plots should lay hands on the Passover Plot. It's hilarious. (We're going to build a Christ Conspiracy CGI-BIN script whenever God gives me a few extra hours and doesn't do it by poisoning me.) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:23:28 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine At 2:40 PM -0400 6/6/00, Charles Phipps wrote: > >Um, right. I think that's what I was saying too. That even Laurence > >knows that the bible can be in error. > >Actually our points differ on one fundamental difference. In RL I believe so >but in In Nomine Laurence likely looks at the Bible quite literally as a >historical document and guideline for life. Mm. That I disagree with. I think he finds scripture powerful allegory and the foundation of the creeds and sect he subscribes to as a matter of personal faith, but I doubt Laurence considers the Bible infallible historical evidence, in part because he lived through that time himself and will see some errors. But as a doctrine that explains the means of properly living one's life? Absolutely. >However no doubt he interprets it in the most proper sense possible because >that's just who he is. > >Michael and Dominic helps him over the troublesome passages. I think Michael's not the most Biblical of Archangels, actually. I'd see such a conversation going more like this: "Excuse me, Firstborn -- given your depth of experience and your actual communion with the Lord God Himself, in days of old which even we of the Host can barely compre--" "Spit it out, Youngling. I've hardly the time." "Ah... yes. Well... I was reading Acts, and came upon what I think is a particularly knotty passage -- perhaps with your insight and underst--" "Wha...." "Perhaps if you spent nearly as much time on Earth destroying the demonic threat personally as you spend reading human words that seek to unscrew the inscrutible and eff the ineffable, the War would be closer to won, *General.* Suffice it to say, that... *book* contains nothing you can't find writ in bold notes in the Symphony itself. However, arguments about that book *have* strengthened Malphas immeasurably over the centuries, so I shouldn't *completely* dismiss it." "Sorry to have bothered you." "Oh, no bother. I have no higher duty than to advise the General of the Heavenly Host, do I?" >Re: Laurence and Sex > >A-yup. > >Okay going out on a limb here I see Laurence as pining for one Celestial and >one Celestial alone but no problem with sharing his energies to create new >beings. Likely in his "love" he's never actually considered sex as part of >the equation. I can certainly see that. However, I can also see Blandine, if she ever responded to his love, introducing him to such mysteries. "It is, after all, part of my Word -- in a way," she says coyly.... But then, Blandine and Laurence are *very* different. Of course, if they ever managed to come together even Laurence might be surprised at how her very different methods, priorities and viewpoints could be forged to his, as iron and other metals are alloyed into stronger steel. And perhaps together Laurence would learn new lessons and so would Blandine. Or, alterately Blandine would distract Laurence with 'trifles' and naughty little things, and Laurence would find himself completely turned towards sensuality and pleasure, leading to Heaven's total destruction. And finally, someone could get pictures of their first attempts, publish them, and humiliate the couple into never mentioning such things again. > >Nope. In Heaven -- if one takes the "do sex for procreation only" > >(i.e., no birth control) as an Earthly command, then one has to decide how > >it _relates_ to a celestial being in Heaven. > >Well it depends on whether the Catholic Church today has more influenec over >him than before. Was Laurence involved in the Vatican II? I'm pretty sure >the sex for procreation part has been disaccepted and in turn it is >recognized as a loving act as well...though one should not be blind that >it's purpose is to create life from the sacred union. Well, Birth Control is still not recognized. I should think that if Laurence ever did come together with another Celestial and "do the Horizontal Symphonic Disturbace Bongo," as I believe it's called in Angelic, he would only so conjoin in a way that led to Force-intermingling and the creation of an Angel or Reliever. This doesn't preclude his using it as a way of sharing and growing closer, but the logical result of this method is tangible, living evidence of that love and God's Love. So it seems to me. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Paul (Was: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...)) Date: 6 Jun 2000 03:48:22 -0700From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) On Mon, 05 June 2000, "Jo Hart" wrote: >>>eh? Of course, if you just dump Paul completely >>>(something that I do in my own personal theology), >> >> I don't think you can just dump Paul completely if >>you are a hardline by-the-books Christian :) >I think I know what Moe is saying here. Feel free to >correct me if I get it wrong. >Paul was instrumental in the spread of Christianity, >no denying that. >He evangelized extensively and travelled throughout >the known world, spreading the Word and helping found >churches. >BUT... he was never a prophet, never an apostle. God >only spoke to Paul once, on the road to Damascus; >there are no recorded instances of this happening >again. Similary, I cannot recall Paul ever healing >the sick or casting out demons in the manner of the >apostles. >So I think Moe is saying here that Paul had his heart >in the right place, but since he is not recorded as >prophesying, his epistles need not be taken as the >Word of God, and anything in them you disagree with >you may chalk up to human misinterpretation of God. >If I'm incorrect about -any- of this, please let me >know. Well ... actually I just meant that I personally thought that Paul was a mysognistic pain-in-the-butt who had ... issues. But then, I happen to agree with your summation, so what the heck. :) Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Not Allowing New Converts to Overcompensate __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:29:27 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> Human to Demon (Re: Karl Marx in Heaven/Hell) > Humans can't become demons. The best that happens, a Prince rips the > Ethereal Forces out of the human and glues them onto a demonling, > causing the result of a demon who has some (usually a bit vague and/or > damaged) memories of being a human. But the human soul who thus > donates the Forces is dead and destroyed and not coming back. In In Nomine, is consciousness linked to Celestial Forces or Ethereal Forces? Ben ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1662 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.