From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 18 22:57:23 2001 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 WAA31154 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:57:22 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id XAA31725 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:05:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:05:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200104190405.XAA31725@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 #2166 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, April 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2166 In this digest: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion -- Vessels and DR... IN> The Corporation of G.O.D Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> Celestial "matter" Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council (Was: Angelic orders) IN> Massively OT: (is "Hi, my name is Chuckg...") ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:34:25 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 7:27 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > >Recall, ascension... as I understand it, he's in the Higher Heavens now, so >either he got there via the ladder or he got there some other way. To my recollection, he vanished. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:39:30 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 08:32 PM 4/18/2001 -0400, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >If I created a Campaign based upon the Ultimate MacGuffin, incarnated as >The Ring, I'd base in on the group trying to prevent it from being >released. If they failed, the followup would be based on them trying to >recontain it. Now, as I'm an epic, mythic sort of GM, I'd likely let the >PCs discover a means of possibly -- possibly -- destroying it, and giving >them the option of going Outcast/Renegade and disobeying their orders to >try this method, going through unimaginable hardship and pain, and >ultimately succeed -- with perhaps some grand, epic reward -- like the >reconstituting of the Forces into the Angels who died during the >Rebellion, say. And then using that as the basis of the *next* campaign hook. I like this as an idea. It is a variant on the visitor from the past/trapped in the ice way of getting people from a previous time to the present one. What WOULD it be like? The Metatron back again? Would destroyed angels from the Rebellion possibly repent when they saw what had become of their struggle? Neat. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:52:11 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." OK. *ONE* last manifesto. And then I go to the library. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" To: Cc: "Charles Glasgow" Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:32 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > >No, and thanks for jumping to the worst conclusion first.. > > You're guilty of the same thing, here. Nope. > Moe didn't post a plot seed. He posted a Relic. He didn't list > conditions or Campaign Notes. He said, in effect, "The Superiors > couldn't destroy it, so they trapped it." Exactly. Right here is where it all went wrong. > It is possible they tried to send it away, and God wasn't taking > packages. Or it's possible that it was judged heretical to try. I > don't know, and it's not relevant to the relic. The heck it's not relevant. The existence of a possible solution isn't just relevant, it's *required*. Whenever a problem is presented, it must have a solution. Even if the solution is "Invoke your Superior at once", that's still *a* solution (if not necessarily one that gives you the biggest ego stroke). And if the trip on the way to Somebody Bigger is harrowing and heroic enough, then it's still a worthy adventure where you feel much sense of accomplishment after it is over. But if the problem has no solution, period, then that's no fun. That's just a DM hose job. It's "Paranoia". Paranoia is only fun if you originally signed up to play Paranoia, as opposed to playing In Nomine. Please note that when you're supposed to be playing the immortal caretakers of the Universe, it's not really accomplishing anything to merely stall for time. On Tolkien's world, the Ring *had* to have a method of being permanently destroyed... because Sauron was immortal, and so long as the Ring endured the Shadow could only be beaten temporarily. Eventually, through sheer grinding persistence, Sauron would have won. If Tolkien had never created a Mount Doom to throw the sucker into, if the LOTR saga had merely consisted of the entire Quest being to some hole they could bury the ring in for a few centuries, then it would not have been anywhere near as good. Not when you realized that hey, Isildur's "victory" didn't really last, and this was just another of the same. If the scenario is defined so that God is the only person who has the ability to actually provide closure to the mess in question, and God tosses the problem back in your face, then God *is* being written as either a sadist or a moron. Handing a problem down that is ultimately incapable of solution is simply not fair. And that's what I was saying. Any problem that is within the Host's ability to solve alone, they bloody well will have to solve without help from God. Any problem that *isn't* possible for them to solve, no matter how hard they try... .... well, my first post had that particular 'Lensman" quote in it for a reason. - ------- "Kinnison slumped down in relief. He had not known what to expect. He would not have been surprised if the Arisian had pinned his ears back; he certainly did not expect either the compliment or the clear-cut answer. He knew that Mentor would give him no help whatever in any problem that he could possibly solve alone; he was just beginning to realize that the Arisian *would* aid him in matters which were absolutely, intrinsically, beyond his reach." - ------- _Second Stage Lensman_, E.E. "Doc" Smith, p. 100, Pyramid paperback edition, 1965 If a problem is potentially solvable by anybody other than God, then it's their problem. Hence the entire history of the War. But if a problem is solvable *only* by God, then it *is* his problem, and he bloody well ought to get on with it then. And if he doesn't, because he wants to see you try and fail (because *only* He could ever hope to succeed), then he's railroading you and you bloody well *ought* to be pissed. *Deserve* to be pissed. Are *right* to be pissed. So, if the solution is to get the ring into the Holy Grail, that's all right then. Go find the Grail, that's the adventure. If the solution is to get the ring into the hands of your Superior, all right too. Go get past all the obstacles between you and him right now that are trying to steal the Ring from you, that's the adventure. If the Ring could be destroyed simply by dancing three circles widdershins around it and whistling "The World Turned Upside Down", then that's an adventure too, if a silly one. What? You could destroy the Ring in an instant if you had it, but the Ring's on somebody else's finger? OK, beating him down and then destroying the Ring... that's the adventure. But if there's *no* possible way to ever actually deal with the thing? If it will keep coming back regardless of *any*-thing you do? If there simply is No Solution, Ever? Heck, at that point you might as well have your character sit down and take a Flaming Sword to his wrists. 'Cause the DM just wrote you a relic/adventure seed/whatever where it's impossible to ever actually see victory achieved, whether by you or anybody else you could ever hope to see. Intrinsically insoluble problems are not fair. Please don't write them. Or expect your players to put up with them. Fortunately, none of you are doing that. *Now*. But *originally*, the scenario in question *was*. There. We fixed it now. That's all right then. But saying that it didn't need any fixing in the first place and I shouldn't have said that it did... errrr, no. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:00:40 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Charles Glasgow wrote: > Forces bound into set and sentient form (i.e., people) can ascend the > Ladder. The Ring is made out of Forces bound into a set and sentient > form... it's a *living* artifact, remember, which means it's a *celestial*. > A Superior-level Celestial, AAMOF... as described, that thing is effectively > the Living Artifact of the Prince/Archangel(?) of Control. > > At least one Superior-level celestial has ascended the ladder in canon. Actually, he was _pulled_ up the ladder. The fact that God "invited" an Archangel to the Higher Heavens doesn't mean they can all ascend there at will. Nor push artifacts up there. In your universe, you're welcome to posit this as a solution to the Ring problem, but you seem to be arguing that it's canonically illogical for a GM to decide that won't work, when in fact it seems very unlikely that any GM would consider using the Higher Heavens as a cosmic garbage disposal to be a good solution to the problem. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:12:09 -0400 From: "Rolland Therrien" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - -----Original Message----- From: Whistling in the Dark To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Cc: Charles Glasgow Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:41 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." >At 6:47 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >> >>> You quit when one of your ideas doesn't work? >> >>No, and thanks for jumping to the worst conclusion first.. > >You're guilty of the same thing, here. > >Moe didn't post a plot seed. He posted a Relic. He didn't list >conditions or Campaign Notes. He said, in effect, "The Superiors >couldn't destroy it, so they trapped it." Problem is, the One Ring ISN'T an Artifact/Relic, is IS a Plot Device. Look at Lord of the Ring: Did the ring do anything except further the plot, which was "Get it to Mount Doom as fast as possible"? None of the ring-carriers could use it, or else they were sure to get corrupted. Even if we transfer the One Ring into IN terms, it's a lethal device, as it will constantly try to corrupt it's carrier to bring it back to it's maker, in this case Lucifer. If you're a Human, you're going to meet your Fate just be hand-delivering it yourself. If you're an Angel, you'll fall to deliver it. If you're a Demon, you're gonna get brownie points. *g* And then we have to consider the Superiors. Being more potent then mere Celestial/Mortals, they have the potential to be like Galadrielle (sp?), and might be tempted to take the Ring and BECOME the new Dark Lord, no matter who takes the Ring. Any Archangel might feel the tug of that Dark Ring tempting him/her into becoming the Next Lord of Hell, with only the likes of Laurence and David (possibly) resisting it indefinetly, and the Demon Princes? ...Lucifer might prefer it if Saminga didn't get his hands on that thing. Hell, Lucifer might've made the Ring just for the express purpose of becoming More then Superior himself, and thus the Lord of Hell. What else could he have possibly done with the Forces claimed at Metatron's death? - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:34:39 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion -- Vessels and DR... >(And yes, I am listening; I need to run more games of my own, darnit... >I need to get s'more people interested in my Friday Afternoon proposed >game.) *perk* Friday afternoons? Not... *hopehope*... online, by any chance...? William ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:59:12 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Corporation of G.O.D G.O.D. Incorporated (Globalized.Observation. and Disinformation) By. Charles Phipps Nybbas really is an evil old goat and Andrephalus isn't much better (in fact quite worse). You know about their plot to create a world wide religeon of self indulgence but have you ever wondered really HOW they are going about it? Through the anonymously private owned corporation G.O.D. of course which unknown to Laurence is probably his most dire enemy for keeping Christianity pure and Khalid for similar reasons on Muslims. Global Observation (in this case it is a double meaning including religeous observation as well as spying) and Disinformation is a front for numerous banking, movie, television, brokerage, newspaper, organizations and serves a much larger audience through the companies they interact with. With offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Hell the corporation openly operates with its mortal soldiers vastly unaware of their present service and only some managers, most of the vice vice presidents, all of the partners, and the mysterious board actually aware of the Corporation's purpose and who are Hellsworn/Pagan soldiers. The corporation's goal is quite simply the creation of an organized "universal religeon" which will appeal quite literally to everyone and be everything at once to everybody without giving any meaningful spiritual truths but promoting glamourous glitz, missionary work, and sexual appetite-a fairly tall order. Still the organization considers itself up to the challenge and all the mortals foolishly believe as usual that they will inherit the world once this work is completed. The company's first branch is Disinformation which is responsible for targetting the major world religeons of the world and destroying them for the obvious reasons of threats. The company through it's media supplies feeds numerous false reports about incidents all over the world and does very little actual real world reporting but when real events of perverted religeon occur they also make it to front pages. Another point is that Disinformation also is quite literally responsible for televangilism as we know it because numerous studios (perhaps even the majority) are owned by Disinformation which they use to promote fear, bigotry, and senseless apcolyptical dross which leans toward shunning and feeling superior for being saved rather than attempting to reach out, accept, or love one's fellow man. The disinformation branch by Nybbas and Andrephalus's orders are responsible also for making sure sexuality is always at the top of their agendas and focus heavily on the "evils of it" (hint what was God's first command to man) and persecute which they hope to demonize religeon through matyrdom. Finally they write a large number of the "outraged morality" letters which sound silly in every issue of People or Time and try and flood offices. The company's second branch is Observation which focuses on reporting work and spreading the "message" of Nybbas and Andrephalus. While the New age is in effect a seeking for spirituality the company mass-produces much of what gives the people a bad name with elegant sounding worship which is broad enough to not create ethereals but leaned toward selfish indulgence and liberated sexuality that any essence spent in "religeous observation" goes to Nybbas or Andrephalus. Oddly they also print up a great deal of "Hardline Christian" work which suggest one of two bodies that: A if one is saved one can do anything one wants and be forgiven and B be so incredibly strict the religeous will despair. Finally Observation also has a branch which is taking one of Heaven's goals to create a society of one religeon with all truths combined and lay the groundwork for it which will be "There is no such thing as evil or good and all humans are basically a-okay" with encouraging the idea through the Intenet that membership in this religeon requires one to watch it's "stars" (who will be alternating celebrity prophets) and a relaxation of social taboos because "Love" (Eros not Deified of course) is the greatest good. The company is especially proud of this because it will drastically undercut Heaven while getting their support til the very end while dealing near death blows to the more militant princes. Finally Globalized is effect simply there to make sure Nybbas and Andrephalus have enough funds to keep this observation running. As insane as it may sound the above two branches are so anti-ethical in every operation to the majority of human beings (even if everyone at some point is taken in at one point by one which is how they run it) that both waste untold billions of dollars every year with prices only going up. While the TV stations, radio, magazines (mostly pornography), videos (ditto) newspapers make up a small ammount of this they also spend alot of time making "quick scores" which include investing heavily in oil in the Middle East just around the 1920s which gave them much of their power and allowed them to break alot of the moral authority of the nobility present, computer corporations which allow them to write off their own needs for the above two branches, and most recently the dot-com which is part of G.O.D's current biggest problem...the demand for money has gotten so high they deliberately are luring massive ammounts of investors where they promptly pump all their money into fictional product costs before diverting it the first two branches and declare the prodject bankrupt. The Board of G.O.D perhaps is not the most stable to run the corporation too as it includes the goddess Aphrodite, a business Savy Satyr, a Balseraph Baron of Lust, a Free Lilim currently in service to the Media, A Impudite Count of the Media, and the CEO whose band is unknown but is believed to be a Duke of Andrephalus AND Nybbas placed in charge for his envisioning the new religeon and passing it along to his princes. Adventure Hooks * A servitor of Lightning have hacked into the Vapula-tech inner files of the G.O.D corporation and was put in trauma by one of the Calabites working as bodygaurds. Now his soldiers have divided up the encrypted works and split up with demons on their tail so the Archangel of Lightning wants them back pronto. If the files are recovered it and decoded all of Heaven will descend it's resources under Laurence's command to dismantle the organization. Can you say Monkeywrench time? * An Impudite Vice president of Globalized is hoping for a Barony but his books are complete fiction and the G.O.D corporation is about to come crashing down if he doesn't come up with the 100 billion dollars he needs and soon. Offering the PCs jobs with the Company and extensive benifits they need to do some amazingly quick thinking to figure out a way to get the money (Rob fort knox and kidnap Bill Gates are reasonable suggestions), the risks are minimal (as demons go), also because their patron if unable to be saved can always just be turned over to Nybbas or Andrephalus for a reward. Hey you ARE a demon after all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:09:54 EDT From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." I'd say that this happened almost immediately after the Fall. The Host saw that this ring was bad, really bad and arranged for it to be sent up to God. It later appeared on the Corporeal realm. Clearly, God didn't want it and didn't feel that it belonged in the Higher Heavens. No Archangel has seen fit to argue with him. Strangely enough, the Ring's reappearance seems to coincide with Lucifer's discovery of Kronos. Nah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? Move along citizen, there's nothing to see. Fnord. At least, this is how I'd deal with it. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:11:54 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 7:52 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >OK. *ONE* last manifesto. And then I go to the library. I don't know why I bother, but.... >Intrinsically insoluble problems are not fair. Please don't write them. >Or expect your players to put up with them. > >Fortunately, none of you are doing that. *Now*. > >But *originally*, the scenario in question *was*. No. Because, once again, it was not a Scenario. It was a McGuffin. A relic. A bit of myth. He did his job. My job, as Gamemaster, is to take that bit of yeast and use it to make the bread rise. To decide how to solve the problem. If I can't, I don't use it. >There. We fixed it now. That's all right then. But saying that it didn't >need any fixing in the first place and I shouldn't have said that it did... >errrr, no. I can accept that you saw that as a flaw in the description. I didn't, personally, and certainly don't think the relic description needed a way of destroying The Ring, but I can still accept you thinking that. And, had you posted a response that said "this isn't tenable -- it's too powerful, and there's no way to destroy it. I don't like it," I doubt there'd have been much more than some discussion on ways to make the relic tenable in a scenario if we decided to develop it *into* a scenario. You didn't say that. You said, and I quote, "And the reason they didn't just chuck it up Jacob's Ladder was *because*...?" Several people responded -- including the Canon Authority -- with various reasons why it might not be allowed to go up the Ladder. You responded with your, as usual rather dogmatic, reasons that it *could* be allowed up the Ladder, and your as usual, dogmatic to the point of Balseraphic, contention that all other viewpoints on God's actions in this matter were wrong. To the point of telling the Line Editor that you'd accuse her of being a bad gamemaster and walk out of her game if she tried them. It was *after* this point that your argument became "the Relic is too powerful -- if there is a way to destroy it and it's laid out ahead of time, it's all right, but otherwise it's wrong." As this argument was laid out after you had expended all of your debating capital on this issue insisting that your interpretation of God, Jacob's Ladder, the Higher Heavens, Uriel's recall and Divine Intervention itself, it is understandable that you didn't have that capital remaining when you made this new argument, and attempted to posit it as the whole reason for your arguing in the first place. That other people *then* disagreed -- saying, in effect, that they didn't feel the description was flawed -- wasn't the potentially fun discussion it could have been if this is how we started. It was exasperated. Your response was, again, that your viewpoint was the only valid one. "But saying that it didn't need any fixing in the first place and I shouldn't have said that it did... errrr, no." Dogma, once again. All easy enough to let go... if we haven't done this over and over and over and over. You treat your interpretation of something -- a rule, a concept, the background material -- as the only possible interpretation. Heck, you debated the mechanics of GURPS IN Soul Combat with the *writer* of the book, and didn't give in until she got actual confirmation from the Line Editor -- and then gave in with a terse "duly noted." I'm to the point where if the conversation turns to Michael and you chime in, I stop following the thread -- I know your view of Michael is not subject to debate, and doesn't match mine closely enough to make actually chiming in any fun. One of the other participants in this thread seems to have made it clear he's simply not ever going to acknowledge you again. Which is really why I'm being long winded here, and doing it for the last time myself. Because I don't think you mean to be mean, or to make things actively bad for other people. But you do. Consistantly. You make discussing things on this list less fun, because you don't show respect for other peoples' viewpoints. You see them as attacks against the truth, when they're other valid points of view. I can cite other things -- quoting a novel you like as proof of your point, then dismissing someone else doing the same and dismissing the novel *they* liked as exerable, when you made it clear you hadn't read the novel, because you didn't like the first novel in the place, and being harsh about it comes to mind immediately -- but it's more of the same, and it's not fun to do. I honestly hope this helps. I hope you read it and it helps you understand what makes other people so frustrated, so fast with your arguments. And I hope you don't take it as a personal attack, but as an honest desire to see the discourse on the list be fun for everyone, including you. If not... well, I apologize. Either way, it's my last word on any of this. My apologies to the room, and I return you to your regularly scheduled programming. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:40:22 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." >> Moe didn't post a plot seed. He posted a Relic. He didn't list >> conditions or Campaign Notes. He said, in effect, "The Superiors >> couldn't destroy it, so they trapped it." > >Exactly. Right here is where it all went wrong. > >> It is possible they tried to send it away, and God wasn't taking >> packages. Or it's possible that it was judged heretical to try. I >> don't know, and it's not relevant to the relic. > >The heck it's not relevant. The existence of a possible solution isn't just >relevant, it's *required*. This is where our notions of the game (and, quite possibly, our worldviews) diverge. >If the scenario is defined so that God is the only person who has the >ability to actually provide closure to the mess in question, and God tosses >the problem back in your face, then God *is* being written as either a >sadist or a moron. Handing a problem down that is ultimately incapable of >solution is simply not fair. And that's what I was saying. Lucifer doesn't exist in your In Nomine campaign? How quaint. Because he's certainly an Insoluble Problem, at least at the PC's level and at the level of all the combined Archangels, for the foreseeable future. Same with the Ring. Now, the Ring isn't as actively malevolent as Lucifer, so it's a different take on the whole thing. And *un*like Lucifer, there's at least a temporary solution. Contain the thing. And if it gets out of containment? Fine. Deal with the current Megalomaniac and bring it back. Certainly not a Universe-breaker. And who knows? Humans are coming up with neat ideas every day. Maybe Jean's going to look at something they came up with, say, "Oh, Duh," haul up the Ring, and make it go poof. We don't know, and it's certainly not something to despair over. Demons do that. They take a look at a problem they can't immediately solve, figure God's a jerk or whatever appellation they care to apply, and then act out their psychological problems on humans. >Heck, at that point you might as well have your character sit down and take >a Flaming Sword to his wrists. 'Cause the DM just wrote you a >relic/adventure seed/whatever where it's impossible to ever actually see >victory achieved, whether by you or anybody else you could ever hope to see. There are *canon* examples of this kind of thing. There's a Destiny adventure seed in S3 in which (maybe) the best ending you can really hope for is to give a Remnant a clear conscience before his unavoidable death. >Intrinsically insoluble problems are not fair. Please don't write them. >Or expect your players to put up with them. To use a pop culture reference, it's the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Sometimes they happen, and it's interesting to see how players (we or they) deal with it. >-- >Chuckg And one final comment, re: your contention that any such Insoluble Problem implies a sadistic or moronic God. Your math is wrong. (Bet you didn't even think you'd done any...) A finite probability of a thing's occurrence does not mean that it will occur, even over eternity, because there's no reason the probability has to be constant. A probability may decrease at such a rate as to cause the expected time until the event's occurrence to be infinite. To be specific, the number of years until a thing occurs is the integral (from zero to infinity) of the time variable t, times the value of the probability density function at time t, with respect to t. I.e., E(t) = Int(0, Infinity)[t * rho(t)] dt, where rho(t) is defined by "the probability that an event will occur in the time interval between a and b" = Int(a, b)[rho(t)]dt. So, if the probability density function of someone's finding and making off with the Ring is, say, 1/((t+1)^2), where t is in years, then the probability that someone makes off with the Ring before a year from now is actually pretty good; fifty-fifty, in fact. But if you can hold out for that year, the probability of someone making off with it sometime next year is just one out of six. Maybe people are forgetting about it, or deciding it's not worth the trouble. Maybe your protection methods are getting better because you're constantly striving to improve yourself, or maybe Armageddon came last year and now no one exists who will ever -- and you're sure of that -- want the Ring. In any case, the probability of someone using it is getting less and less. (Moe's writeup makes the scenario even better, since apparently it's been found only once or twice in thousands of years.) Over all of eternity -- from time 0, the present, to forever and onward -- you can calculate how long you're likely to be able to hold on to the thing. Lo and behold, even with this simple probability density function, the expected time before someone will reach the Ring is... infinite. In all likelihood, no one will *ever* reach the Ring. No one's saying the Symphony is that simple to calculate. But it *can* be firmly and unequivocally said that your logic is wrong. Immortal beings *can* win by achieving a sufficiently firm containment of evil. It's not as glorious as a permanent and perfectly incontrovertible victory by the destruction of your foe, but it *is* a worthwhile end to strive for, if that's the best your efforts can achieve. William (I teach math. I *so* love my job.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:14:05 -0700 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Celestial "matter" > Currently, there is no mechanism given for these. > > My prefered not-yet-canon description of them is "Essence constructs." Snip > (Yes, this would imply celestial-only weapons being used in celestial > combat by apparently unarmed celestials. Life's tough, get your own > celestial longsword, and don't assume an unarmed Michaelite is ever > really unarmed.) Am i the only one wondering what an (apparently) unarmed Malakite of Eli would come up with, in celestial form? Two cherries and a small piece of string, perhaps? - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:34:24 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council (Was: Angelic orders) >Earth - David >Water - Oannes (pity he's dead) >Air - Janus >Fire - Gabriel 'Zactly. I was using characteristics of their elements to describe the progression within the group. Personally, I think there Needs to be a major adventure published for IN describing the raising of a new Archangel of Water. Never needs to enter the core storyline, but "restoring balance to the Elements" is a theme with real possibilities for exploration of the elemental archetypes and outlooks. It's a modern-day setting of an adventure with a primeval flavor to it -- before there was *life*, there were the Elements. Be assured I am free of suck-up when I suggest that Zarahiel, recently-bound Angel of Ice, would make a *neat* candidate(among others, of course -- old Word-Bound under Oannes, demons who want to get the Word sans friction for a while and have suddenly accelerated their plotting). I'd throw in a gratuitous blurb for Mare Imbrium too, except a number of the personalities currently developed are talking cetaceans unsuitable for canon. ;^) >>The Conflicters >> >>Laurence -- the internal struggle for self-discipline >>Marc -- the external conflict of interests >>Michael -- the eternal fight for righteousness >> >>(on occasion, Zadkiel -- the defense of those in need) > >/very/ interesting . . . I see the Purity aspect as reflected in Laurence >here. Not too sure about Marc, though. And, Michael in the eternal fight >for righteousness?? I suppose so, though he has slipped into Pride before >and probably still now. I see Michael in terms of struggle againts those >things attempting to extinguish us, and Marc having to do with the struggle >find agreement with others. > >Or perhaps Zadkiel is more representative of the struggle against those who >would snuff us out, and Michael as the struggle to defend those things which >cannot defend themselves (the helpless, ideas/ideals). Yeah, Marc was a quandary. His Word *does* have something to do with conflict, but I wasn't able to pin it down as well as I might have liked. There's a lot of unity in his Word too. Almost the only reason I didn't switch him and Zadkiel is because I didn't want a minor Archangel above a major one (and her Word is a bit more passive than the others, which are very active in their realms of interest). >> The mind reaching for the Divine will encounter conflict. At the >>fourth rung stand those who understand the various phases (in the case of >>Zadkiel, the application) of conflict on this journey. Its internal >>structure is the necessary order of battle -- first master yourself, then >>learn to face others, and the highest mastery is the fight for the right. > >Assuming that one has not reached a post-modern belief structure in which >you realize that "right" is subjective and cannot be a universal or constant >(and seeing at how much Michel and Dominique are at odd, desite the fact >both are Seraph Archangels and presumably score CD6 or higher most of the >time . . . ) You've just named two Archangels who see Truth as very universal, and in particular consider themselves Right nigh on constantly.... ;^) I'd like to think they're both Right, and they're just feeling the elephant. CDaU, of course -- these are the fun questions that make the game. >>The Celestial > >(I humbly suggest renaming this The Journey) As you like. It's totaly personal preference. >>Eli -- the beginnings of all things >>Litheroy -- the past and present Revelation of the future >>Dominic -- the inevitable judgment and consequence >>Yves -- the final Destiny of all things > >Eli - the beginning of the journey >Litheroy - the discovery of the path >Dominic - the walking of the path >Yves - the final destination of the journey A good interpretation in the Journey metaphor. Perhaps Dominic - the decision at the forks in the road? >> The highest grouping, concerned with matters spiritual instead of >>earthbound. Its internal structure is the flow of Time. > >thus Krono's obession with Time and its flow. I thought about doing a Demonic grouping, but besides the fact that they're all so self-centered that a greater unity for them seems out of character to me, I hesitated to dive into the warped notion of the Symphony that such symbolism would require. >I like. Comments on my comments? Here presented. >-Perry William ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:56:10 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: IN> Massively OT: (is "Hi, my name is Chuckg...") - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:11 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." [snip] > It was *after* this point that your argument became "the Relic is too > powerful -- if there is a way to destroy it and it's laid out ahead > of time, it's all right, but otherwise it's wrong." As this argument > was laid out after you had expended all of your debating capital I find the notion of 'debating capital' to be not only fallacious, but ludicrous. If something is accurate, it is accurate. If something isn't accurate, it's not accurate. Who said it or under what circumstances shouldn't interfere with the realization of that. > on this issue insisting that your interpretation of God, Jacob's Ladder, > the Higher Heavens, Uriel's recall and Divine Intervention itself, it > is understandable that you didn't have that capital remaining when > you made this new argument, and attempted to posit it as the whole > reason for your arguing in the first place. That other people *then* > disagreed -- saying, in effect, that they didn't feel the description > was flawed -- wasn't the potentially fun discussion it could have > been if this is how we started. It was exasperated. I hate to jump to the worst possible interp again, but what you seem to be saying here is that it doesn't matter whether or not I was right, because I hadn't been glib enough, charming enough, or sweet enough, and therefore had timed out the attention span of my audience. Yes. Admitted. I Have No Style. Conceded. I only have, or do my absolute best to give you, Substance. That *should* be enough. > Your response was, again, that your viewpoint was the only valid one. > "But saying that it didn't need any fixing in the first place and I > shouldn't have said that it did... errrr, no." Dogma, once again. Truth. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Forgive my 'dogmatism' for saying that. > All easy enough to let go... if we haven't done this over and over > and over and over. You treat your interpretation of something -- a > rule, a concept, the background material -- as the only possible > interpretation. Honestly, the principle here is so pellucidly clear to me that it's intuitive bordering on ingrained. I honestly feel puzzled that I have to articulate it. Of *course* I start out thinking I have the correct interpretation. If I didn't think I was right and somebody else was wrong, I wouldn't be contradicting them in the first place. What I usually get back, however, is something on the order of "Multiple interpretations are valid." And sometimes they are. *But sometimes they aren't*. Take the example of somebody else's recent interpretation that the Ring basically shouldn't be treated like a Legion-level or above threat. Seeing as how it's explicitly stated that the Ring *was* a Legion-level threat -- was the driving force Legion itself, no less! -- am I "dogmatic" for insisting that that interpretation can't possibly be right? > Heck, you debated the mechanics of GURPS IN Soul > Combat with the *writer* of the book, and didn't give in until she > got actual confirmation from the Line Editor Look more closeyl, please. I admitted that canon was what she said it was... and then continued attempting to persuade her to change it. We were not arguing about what the rule was, we were arguing about what it *should be*. If I had been present for the G:IN playtest, I'd have said it then. As is, my remarks were in the same vein -- "Hey, I think this rule would work better another way than the way it currently is, here's why." Contrary to implication, at no time in that affair did I deny what *was*. What we were arguing about was what *should be*... which is a different proposition. However, when Dr. Kromm weighed in and handed down his decision, I gave up -- she'd heard it, he'd heard it, he'd decided against me. One key factual root of my argument... i.e., that figured characteristics like Will suffered temporary minuses if their base IQ suffered minuses... was decided by the Line Editor to not work that way. With that basic postulate knocked out, my argument ceased to be valid. So I acknowledged it with all good grace and moved on. Honestly, I find it mind-boggling that I can be accused of always possessing obstinancy beyond reason using the very same example that shows that I *don't* always possess such. Were I truly the monomaniac I am implied to be here, the Soul hits argument would still be raging. >-- and then gave in with a terse "duly noted." It said it all -- duly noted. He's ruled, and the ruling isn't in my favor. What the heck else is required -- "I abase myself, Your Supremacy?" Perhaps I could have been more effusive in my concession, but I didn't see any real need. Mrph. I get complaints about my loquacity, and then I get complaints about my brevity. I get complaints about my obstinancy, then I get complaints about my concessions. Would you all kindly care to /make up your minds/? >I'm to the point where if the conversation turns to Michael and you chime in, I stop following > the thread -- I know your view of Michael is not subject to debate, and doesn't match > mine closely enough to make actually chiming in any fun. *blinks yet again* And, doing this, you yet criticized me re: dogmatism? > One of the other participants in this thread seems to have > made it clear he's simply not ever going to acknowledge you again. Again, I find it odd that the person being accused of inflexible closed-mindedness beyond reason is the person who *least* often avails himself of the tactic of simply refusing to listen to people ever again if they find said people excessively contradictory. > Which is really why I'm being long winded here, and doing it for the > last time myself. Because I don't think you mean to be mean, or to > make things actively bad for other people. > > But you do. Consistantly. You make discussing things on this list > less fun, because you don't show respect for other peoples' > viewpoints. I show their viewpoints precisely as much respect as they show mine. *Respect does not equal agreement*. I have never, not once, not in living memory, ever said that somebody should stop posting in contradiction to me because I was sick of hearing his contrary viewpoint and didn't want to hear it again until and unless it started conceding points to mine. OTOH, I *receive* such complaints all the time. Like right now. People are refusing to ever speak to me again *because I won't either agree or stop talking*. How the heck am I supposed to 'learn flexibility' with *this* as the example? >You see them as attacks against the truth, when they're > other valid points of view. That's because validity doesn't come free just by talking. > I can cite other things -- quoting a novel you like as proof of your > point, No. I was quoting a novel I like as an example of a basic principle that is so self-evident it honestly doesn't *need* proof -- i.e., that if a fictional scenario posits a problem unsolvable by you, and unsolvable by any entity you can possibly contact, and the one entity that *could* possibly solve it has been either removed from all possible contact from you and/or will never agree to help you even if you could do the impossible and make contact, then the person who created that fictional scenario has placed his protagonist in a no-win situation. And that no-win situations are both unfair and greatly unsatisfying to the protagonist. Is any of the above *capable* of being challenged? If so, where? Last I checked, "No-win scenario" had a definition that *wasn't* purely a matter of opinion or had all interpretations of it equally valid, anymore than the definition of "circle" did. > then dismissing someone else doing the same I might point out something else you overlooked -- i.e., that while I explained (and quoted) precisely what my fictional reference was trying to show, *the other gentleman in question did not*. He merely claimed that an answer existed in that book *without* bothering to tell me what the answer was... and when I communicated back that I had neither read the book nor had any intention to, I got back no further explication. If I had said that "The answer to your question was in _Second Stage Lensman_" and nothing more, would you have considered that any kind of useful citation? Especially if you didn't own the book, and didn't like "Doc" Smith's writing? Heck no. Absolutely zero meaningful information transfer there whatsoever... I have no real idea of what his point even *is* there, because he hasn't bothered to actually say it. Comparing and contrasting our two cites isn't possible, because only one of us actually made a cite. > and dismissing the novel *they* liked as exerable, And IMO it is. That *is* a matter purely of personal taste, and as such all opinions are equally valid. However, the subject originally under contention was *not* a matter purely of personal taste. >when you made it clear you hadn't > read the novel, because you didn't like the first novel in the place, > and being harsh about it comes to mind immediately -- but it's more > of the same, and it's not fun to do. Then why did you just do it? I don't like the dodge of "Well, I could talk about [fill-in-the-blank], but I won't because that would be mean just like you" -- when the [fill-in-the-blank] *was* actually talking about it, and doing so at a bit of length too. > I honestly hope this helps. Didn't help a bit. So far, all I see is that *you* are guilty of several things of which you are castigating *me* for, and got several other things wrong because your conclusions were drawn from either incomplete or accurate data. > I hope you read it and it helps you > understand what makes other people so frustrated, so fast with your > arguments. And I hope you don't take it as a personal attack, Actually, I don't take it as a personal attack. I do, however, take it as something that's just plain wrong. And that's not dogmatism, that's analysis. > but as an honest desire to see the discourse on the list be fun for > everyone, including you. And I don't have fun in All Interpretations Are Equally Valid Land. I simply don't. I never have. I never will. It violates most if not all of the precepts through which I construct my entire mental universe, both for real-world living and for fictional gaming. While there is such a thing as personal taste -- i.e., the emotional state of mind produced by a given thing's interaction with an individual -- and while matters of taste *are* purely subjective opinions individual to all, and equally valid, I believe that not everything falls into this category. I believe that Questions have Answers. That there are such things as situations where not all interpretations are equally valid -- where the # of valid interpretations is either one or a very small integer, while the # of invalid ones approaches infinity. I also believe that I have, at least some (if definitely not all) of the time, to actually find the Answer. Correctly. At that point, it takes more to make me admit that I'm wrong than a 'Well, one person's interpretation should be as good as anothers and you're being and no fun for going that way'. It takes something definitive. When definitive evidence showing me wrong arises, then I back down. Until then, no. Forgive the overly dramatic capitals, but one of the benefits of already having proven that you have absolutely no style or grace is that you have no further need to care about appearances, only substance. And so long as I am alive, I will continue to Think in addition to Feel. To believe that at least *some* of the time, Truth isn't entirely relative and can still be the same thing even if different people look at it. And that it is perfectly fair to ask people to Show in addition to Tell. *Somebody* has to. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2166 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.