in_nomine-digest Thursday, November 21 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2869 In this digest: Re: IN> The Third Fall. IN> Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Demon (Re: Bright Lilim) Re: IN> Mortals Re: IN> The Demon of Pet Rocks Re: IN> Resonance Abuse RE: IN> Rude Cherubim RE: IN> Rude Cherubim Re: IN> Malakim and lack of Trauma (Was: Some quick thoughts...) RE: IN> Rude Cherubim Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect Re: IN> Resonance Abuse RE: IN> Rude Cherubim RE: IN> Rude Cherubim Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect RE: IN> Resonance Abuse Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect Re: IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death Re: IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death Re: IN> Snuff Films (RE: Releiver Nicknames) RE: IN> Rude Cherubim Re: IN> Snuff Films (RE: Releiver Nicknames) Re: IN> Some quick thoughts on unarmed combat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:06:56 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> The Third Fall. - --- Rampaging Crypto-Man wrote: > Who do you think was the Third Fall -- the > first angel to Fall after these two events? Good question -- but we know who the First Redemption was and which AA did it. I forget the demon-turned angel's name, but Blandine did the easy part. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." -- Albert Einstein

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:28:42 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Demon (Re: Bright Lilim) At 12:04 AM +0100 11/20/02, Rens Houben wrote: >(On that note, how would you say David stands with regard to servitors >carefully and at length taunt opponents until they land the first blow? >Especially considering his "Use no coward's weapons" oath -- this does >seem like moral cowardice, since the idea was to make them damn >themselves, not give them an extra push to speed up the process... Hmmmm... I suspect it depends on if the taunting was of a demon, or just a human. Mind, I can see a Stonie slowly advancing and cornering some hapless demon, even unto leaning up against the wall to stare it in the face.... And if the demon just babbles "I'm not attacking, I'm not attacking, really I'm not attacking..." Well, maybe that's a really frustrated Stonie. O:> >> I don't know if it ever made it into canon, but I have had the thought >> that Brights _tend_ to get Needs which are more, well, Needs and not >> Wants. [...] >*flipflipflipflip* according to Sup3 Destiny Gifters get to know whether >fulfilling a detected Need will lead the mortal to his Destiny or Fate (but >not why). Right. I'm thinking the IPG here... It might never have managed to get in anywhere. (Though there is a mention in FotM about Brights losing the selfish desire to bind others to their will.) - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:22:01 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Mortals At 5:34 PM -0500 11/19/02, Christopher Anthony wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy said: > >> (My guesses? 5 fingers... > >Does this mean that [...] most natural Soldiers are polydactylous? *snicker* It would be an interesting assumption to take... No, what I meant was that humans like multiples of 5. Five fingers per hand, and all that. >> and it makes the "max of 5 per Realm, total >> 15" more rational. House rules encouraged. O:> ) > >I'm not sure I see this. [...] (15 does make sense; it's an even >multiple of 5 - and thrice five, even, which makes it well and goodly >mystic.) Exactly -- thrice 5, and 5 is a number that humans like. It's easy to go 5, max 15, and remember it. It feels better. O:> That's my guess, anyway. - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:38:17 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Pet Rocks From: "james walker" > > Scaz, Demon of Pet Rocks > Djinn of Dark Humor Nicely done, sir. I especially liked the motivations you gave him. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:56:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Resonance Abuse At 7:02 PM -0500 11/19/02, Josh Moger wrote: >~Helped a person find their place in respect to the universe.~ > >Now that either means that they're a human counselor or they're a demon that >just got an angel to Fall Or an angel who got a demon to redeem! (Or a psycho who just murdered someone...) At 6:10 PM -0600 11/19/02, Wade Lahoda wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "BC Petery" >> Make him roll each and every one. [...] > > The problem is GMing this. If you only give him a couple of "sample" >readings of what he gets, the Demon will stick out like a sore thumb, 9 >times out of 10. If you try to give him 30 different resonance >readings...you'll spend the entire game making the stuff up.[...] Split the difference? Give him about 5-9 responses which actually could be suspicious... I suspect that the first person who does a random "dis/honorable deeds" computer aid would fill a great many needs... Especially if it's a web-based thing like the Warehouse 23 random boxes, that people can _add_ to. - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:56:08 -0700 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim I'm actually going to argue the reverse, here. Not totally, perhaps, but in spirit at least. Please note that I don't own Superiors 1, but I've heard a lot about it via the list. Further, this applies to a high Contrast, Forwards setting primarily. In the opposite, David could easily taunt people into atta- cking. David took his oath/dissonance because he terrified even himself with his Malakite brutality during the Revolt. He is not, himself, evil. The _point_ of his dissonance is not to annoy his Servitors and more than Novalis' or Dominic's. It's a genuine moral precept on his part: Dominic believes the innocent should never be punished unjustly, Novalis believes in avoiding violence, and David believes in the fundamental wrong- ness of initial aggression. Taunting is _trying_ to start a fight that, presumably, the other party wants to avoid. For David, that's *wrong*. Period. Now of course, the real world does intervene on occasion. Novalis has Malakim, and Dominic's punishment of the Grigori was at best only marginally just. Sometimes a Davidian *needs* to start a fight in the small picture to avoid losing one overall -- the Cherub/threatened attuned case is a good example of his. Perhaps he even trains a few Servitors quietly to do this. But it is *not* SOP for Stone, at least IMC. Among other things, it makes Stone angels seem (even more) like belligerant bullies, which is utterly counter to what (Forwards) Stone is. Taunting is not, by the literal wording of David's dissonance, verboten. But then again, it's _fine_ (dissonance-wise) for a Novalantine to buy the plastic explosives to give to her Tsayadim buddy planning to blow up a Hindu temple. Yet we can all see how utterly anathema that would be to Novy. Same with David and starting something without a really good reason. (And no, "he's a demon" is not, IMC, a good enough reason alone.) Further, I'd have to say that if something needs to be done, do it direct. That's David, after all. If a demon is going to attack an innocent around a Stony, he first (IMC) asks the demon to stop, and tells the demon that _he_ will be starting a fight if he does not. Barring that, and saying the situation blocks out options like shielding the innocent with SoShields or dropping 8+ Essence to try and summon Michael at the listed -10, the Stony walks up and pops the guy. Then he summons David and awaits judgement. And IMC, David would take a point of dissonance removal (presuming that the situation was truly dire, and not just "he was a demon") better then he would take attempts to lawyer around the moral principle that governs his being. It's not dissimilar to the the Novalantine faced with a Hellsworn in a hippie commune firing at random on full auto. Mom _will_ understand, even though according to her dissonance killing a human is *always* 'unnecessary'. Same with David. The reluctance to pick fights is, in my eyes, one of the few sympathetic traits David has. I don't like to dilute it. IMC, of course, and YMMV. - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:55:12 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim - --- Julian Mensch wrote: > Taunting is _trying_ to start a fight that, presumably, > the other party wants to avoid. For David, that's > *wrong*. Agreed. And responding to a taunt with violence violates the spirit of David's Dissonance condition even if the other guy technically started the fight. > If a demon is going to attack an innocent around a > Stony, he first (IMC) asks the demon to stop, and tells > the demon that _he_ will be starting a fight if he does > not. Barring that, and saying the situation blocks out > options like shielding the innocent with SoShields or > dropping 8+ Essence to try and summon Michael at the > listed -10, the Stony walks up and pops the guy. Then > he summons David and awaits judgement. I don't think that judgement is even an issue here. If the demon is doing something aggressive, I don't count defending someone else as a violation of David's Dissonance condition. If a Human is is immediate danger of dying even the verbal warning is probably unnecessary. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." -- Albert Einstein

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:10:29 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and lack of Trauma (Was: Some quick thoughts...) At 4:22 PM +0100 11/20/02, Unni Solaas wrote: >I play a malakite in a campaign, and my biggest fear is to get >vessel-killed, because that's going to cost me at least 10 CP! Get your GM the Game Master's Guide... p. 19. ("A vessel lost in a good cause will usually be replaced for free. Sacrificing one's vessel to prevent a mission failure is not only accepted, but expected. Dying _stupidly_ is another matter.") O:> - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:12:05 +0800 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim > But then again, it's _fine_ > (dissonance-wise) for a Novalantine to buy the plastic > explosives to give to her Tsayadim buddy planning to > blow up a Hindu temple. Novalantines have Tsayadim buddies? But seriously, this is an interesting and perfectly Canon-compatible view -- I just don't agree. By the way, I recommend Superiors 1 very highly; I think it's the best in the series. Janet Anderson ************************************************* Seraph: What do we want to do if he turns out to be an infernal? Malakite: I'm kinda hoping we don't find that out definitively. Leaving a long string of bodies behind us isn't a really good idea. - -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:24:48 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect At 1:56 PM -0500 11/20/02, EDG wrote: >Can a celestial (or, really, anyone who can control Essence expenditure) >deliberately spend Essence without having any particular effect in mind - >specifically to create the special sort of disturbance that Essence >expenditure causes, so as (for example) to simulate the effects of having >used a Song that did not require verbal or somatic components? I'm not >looking for arguments of the "Well, why don't you spend the Essence on X >instead?" variety; I'm looking for Can This Be Done? You know, I don't think there's an answer in canon. So I'm going to say, "GMs decide." And if your GM decides no, then spend it on an Emote skill roll to simulate Song use... (Me, I figure if people wanna waste Essence...) - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:15:38 +0800 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Resonance Abuse > Or an angel who got a demon to redeem! (Or a psycho who just murdered > someone...) In my opinion (and IMC), an angel who got a demon to redeem will have "Got a demon to redeem" in large glowing letters under "Most Honorable Action in a Very Long Time." And the former demon's Most Honorable Action will be "Redeemed." Janet Anderson ************************************************* Seraph: What do we want to do if he turns out to be an infernal? Malakite: I'm kinda hoping we don't find that out definitively. Leaving a long string of bodies behind us isn't a really good idea. - -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:42:42 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim This is a fun topic for me. I own Superiors 1 and have the angelic "support base" for my human PCs being Stone (initially; people are starting to branch out towards angels that more suit them -- Lightning here, Dreams there), so I'm always interested in the various interpretations of David's outlook on violence. In considering this, I like to think of the kind of personality that would be shaped by constantly yielding to the pressure of the Dissonance Condition. People have pointed out before that Dissonance Conditions are practically Pavlovian in their effect: first, the angel doesn't like to contemplate doing it, and second, doing it *hurts*. They happen not to like other people doing it, either, though they can stand it; I wouldn't want to wade into a gunfight, and I'd rather people not get into gunfights, but if one starts I can appreciate the usefulness of a trained gunfighter protecting me. What would David's Dissonance Conditions do to an angel? Well, for starters, it makes it very hard to engage in a charge. - ----- *Angel of Stone rushes into demonic Tether, screaming and waving baseball bat* *Demonic Seneschal looks up from a book* "... Yes?" "Um..." - ----- Eventually, this gets translated into metaphorically avoiding "the first punch"; the angels of Stone would tend to be very reactive in events. Instead, one would plan that attack on the demonic Tether somewhat differently. First, no attack would be planned unless the Tether started having serious effect -- that is, until it had committed itself to rebellion against God. At that point, the angels of Stone, should they decide to stop this, would attack the effects it was having and its ability to create those effects, responding to its action. Should the demons try to respond with violence, then it's on. Let's try that Tether attack again. - ----- *angel infiltrates demonic Tether and begins erasing computer files* "Stop that!" "No. You're using these files to corrupt good people." *Demonic Seneschal hits Angel of Stone, who shakes it off* "You had to go and be violent, didn't you?" *fight begins* - ----- This scene brings up an important part (IMO) of Stone's philosophy. The article Wade posted recently about martial arts talked about the psychological impact of someone who can take his opponent's blow and come back. This would be a necessary component of many Stone strategies -- being able to survive a first blow, regroup, and retaliate. This means not only being able to take a punch (or a bullet); it also means, for example, knowing how to spot a demon with a bomb under his jacket, or having backup copies of your own files off-site in case a demon of Technology ruins your on-site network. "Be Prepared." If David isn't a major supporter of World Scouting I would be deeply shocked. Lastly, there is the possibility that someone doesn't survive the first punch intact. This is where Stone's unity comes in. I would consider (and let me know if this is off-canon) that if someone hits Stone angel A, Stone angel B who happens to be A's partner can well consider the fight to have started, and join in gleefully. Now, this might not be the case for all Words -- the Sword might not consider it honorable to interfere in some one-on-one fights, or War might consider it impolite to barge in unless it looks like he needs help. However, Stone angels place part of their identity in their groups, and this helps them both to be aware of threats to a larger group, and to be able to respond with a united front, including a united front that can "take the first punch," even if that punch results in the disablement of a single member. Finally, let me apply this to the situation in question. If a Stone Cherub knew that a demon were plotting to hurt his Attuned, especially if he knew it via resonance, the demon would already be committed to that act. In general, if a Stone angel can see that someone's planning something -- sweetie, they aren't getting the bazooka out of its case to play baseball with it -- he is not skipping the edge of his Dissonance Condition by trying to respond to the threat he knows about. Redirecting that threat ("Hit me, not him!") or reshaping it ("Wimp. Why don't you try punching me instead of shooting? You're a weakling, that's why.") is, I think, a right and proper way for Stone to do its work. William ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:50:46 -0700 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim > > But then again, it's _fine_ > > (dissonance-wise) for a Novalantine to buy the plastic > > explosives to give to her Tsayadim buddy planning to > > blow up a Hindu temple. > > Novalantines have Tsayadim buddies? Of course they do -- how else can the heal and Redeem them? The only problem is that ideological conversion can swing back on the preacher sometimes; now that I think about it, you could end up with misled Flower- children nearly anywhere... :) > But seriously, this is an interesting and perfectly Canon- > compatible view -- I just don't agree. By the way, I recommend > Superiors 1 very highly; I think it's the best in the series. It's definately "on the list". I have Sup3, and it's rather good, though not on level with the likes of LCant or the three Players' Guides. I've heard good thing about both 1 and 2, and Christmas is coming... >:) - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:42:47 -0800 From: "Joey's mail" Subject: Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect I agree; A Cherub of Wind in my campaign attuned himself to a demon, causing him to become his servant, and he ordered the demon to give him all the essence he could hold and as he put it "bleed the rest out." So yes, you CAN waste essence, i suppose. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Anderson" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:58 AM Subject: Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect > > Can a celestial (or, really, anyone who can control Essence expenditure) > > deliberately spend Essence without having any particular effect in mind - > > specifically to create the special sort of disturbance that Essence > > expenditure causes, so as (for example) to simulate the effects of having > > used a Song that did not require verbal or somatic components? > > I think so, because in A Bright Dream, the Cherub and Servant drive around with the Cherub expending small amounts of Essence to attract demons. ("Here, demon, demon, demon ... ") In my game, a Mercurian of Trade expended a point of Essence in the parking lot of the local Tether of War as a way of announcing his arrival. > > Janet Anderson > > > ************************************************* > Seraph: What do we want to do if he turns out to be an infernal? > > Malakite: I'm kinda hoping we don't find that out definitively. Leaving a long string of bodies behind us isn't a really good idea. > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net > > Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:45:03 +0000 From: "carson young" Subject: Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect Seems to me that you could do practically the same thing by just insisting on rolling for something stupid, (Like a sense roll when nothing's going on) and then just blowing essence to give you a bonus to the roll. I personally would allow a celestial to just spend the essence on nothing if he felt like it. Carson Young, habbalite of GM's > >Can a celestial (or, really, anyone who can control Essence expenditure) >deliberately spend Essence without having any particular effect in mind - >specifically to create the special sort of disturbance that Essence >expenditure causes, so as (for example) to simulate the effects of having >used a Song that did not require verbal or somatic components? I'm not >looking for arguments of the "Well, why don't you spend the Essence on X >instead?" variety; I'm looking for Can This Be Done? > >-EDG _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:53:16 -0700 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Resonance Abuse > And the former demon's Most Honorable Action will be "Redeemed." Now I have this funny image of a Redeemed Gamester, who will forever-after send chills up the spines of Malakim who read him: "Most DIShonorable Act: Redeemed." - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:59:52 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> Essence expenditure with no actual effect >Can a celestial (or, really, anyone who can control Essence expenditure) >deliberately spend Essence without having any particular effect in mind - >specifically to create the special sort of disturbance that Essence >expenditure causes, so as (for example) to simulate the effects of having >used a Song that did not require verbal or somatic components? >-EDG People have talked about "A Bright Dream." Another one that I can think of is the "act of contrition" that celestials can use to get rid of Dissonance - -- they spend 10 Essence while performing some act that reaffirms their nature, and lose a point of Dissonance. The important part here is that there is no particular game effect. This sounds like saying that it's possible at least conceptually. William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:59:07 +1100 From: "james walker" Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death > - --- james walker wrote: >> Leikbir now serve Saminga in a unique role: he brings >> favoured undead into >> the Celestial realm and shows them how to abandon some of >> their Disadvantages. >Michael Walton wrote: > So, he can retroactively turn Vampires into Mummies and > Zombis into Vampires? Yes - and no. Depends on your definitions, really. Zombis are still Zombis - no Celestial Forces. A 6 Force vampire without Discord is effectively a Mummy, true, but most vampires only have 5 Forces. >An ability that powerful would earn > a Distinction from Saminga and make Leikbir one of Death's > most favored Servitors. It also has the potential to upset > game balance -- No, not really. Remember that undead are human, and so can remove Disadvantages themselves, if they've the character points and an in-game justification. That won't happen often with zombis - they simply don't last long enough - but experienced vampires would overcome their Vulnerability: which fits with a lot of the legends of aged vampires. >Zombis' Needs and Vampires' vulnerabilities > are hooks that Hell uses to control them. Hell doesn't really need hooks to control them: zombis are Will-less, while all undead know that their only chance of long term survival is to avoid ticking off Hell (as they need protection from Heaven). Mind you, I was careful to have Leikbir *not* remove vampires' Need(blood), as Saminga would object to reducing their need to kill people. Also, Leikbir is only one demon; there's a practical limit to how many undead he can assist. Only truly favoured undead have a chance of getting his services. Cheers, James. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:31 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death - --- james walker wrote: > > No, not really. Remember that undead are human, and so > can remove > Disadvantages themselves, if they've the character points > and an in-game justification. I'd require a pretty hefty in-game justification for a Vampire or Zombi to be able to remove a mystical prohibition that's inherent to the type. Letting them do it on their own just because they have the XP? Not IMC. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." -- Albert Einstein

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:18:07 -0500 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> The Demon of The Hand of Death > While in the upper locus of an Infernal Tether, Leikbir > may spend 7 essence to draw a human into Hell Is this just for mortals or can it work on the Redeemed? Nasty if it does. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:01:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Randy Finder Subject: Re: IN> Snuff Films (RE: Releiver Nicknames) On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 4:13 PM -0400 11/19/02, Randy Finder wrote: > >On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> > >> > >> While Andre often has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about killing > >> humans, he is still an Impudite, and doesn't like humans to be wasted. > >> In all but the darkest campaigns...[...] > > >While Andre is an Impudite, so is Kobal and Kobal doesn't seem to have any > >problem with uses of Dark Humor that ultimately lead to death... > > Note Kobal's Band Attunement for Impudites -- if it's Funny, humans can > die. He, presumably, is equally benefitted. Agreed... > > > And would > >he really want to leave any part of the human adult movie business > >uncovered? > > This is why demons of Lust hate hate hate HATE it when their Prince > gives them a kiddy vessel, or any other sort of vessel, and send them > to one of THOSE studios. (Andre doesn't mind people _watching._) It's > also why demons at THOSE studios like knowing Corporeal Entropy, so they > can youthen captured angels, etherals, or Samingans... So if you make the movies without killing the humans all the better... I'm sure Christopher *still* isn't a fan of it, simply because people who see themovies may take the final step themselves... Randy > > O:> > > --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor > http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ > > > - -- Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:06:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> Rude Cherubim At 3:56 PM -0700 11/20/02, Julian Mensch wrote: [...] > Same with David and starting something without a >really good reason. (And no, "he's a demon" is not, >IMC, a good enough reason alone.) However, also remember that David's keen on tests. If someone _knows_ better than to take a swing at a Stonie, then "testing" them a little will only make them get stronger... or turned into demon pate. O:> Indeed, it might do well enough as a way of weeding out the stupid, violent demons from the smart or the ones with promise. And even the smart ones can probably be informed, "If you mess with anyone and harm them, I am gonna consider that 'starting something,' Serpent, and then I am gonna use your scaly hide for a throw rug for five different caves. But if you don't harm anyone, then we're cool. Want another beer?" There's probably a line that taunting shouldn't cross, in David's opinion. But where that line is... may depend on if you _know_ someone is going to go out there and hurt humans, or if they're just a human with free will. Likewise, _being_ taunted is something that Davidians should be strong enough to endure... (And after a bit of that, the brighter ones very likely _will_ figure out that they can do it back, and if the target resists, hey, it's forwarding the 'be strong' meme...) YMMV. It's a bit of a gray area, in some ways. Extended "Hey, you wanna piece of me? C'mon, take a swing, you !" and trying to get in someone's face, that's probably gonna go over the top. Looming against a wall, cracking your knuckles, looking like an avalanche about to come down on some infernal head -- hey, if the demon breaks and tries to nail you first, and you're just retaliating... that's the demon's problem. I guess, from my perspective, it's a case of the _style_ of the "provocation to violence." Is it petty or is it restrained menace? Is it jumping around and being insulting, or is it a low, growled, "C'mon, hellspawn. Start something. I dare ya."? Is it shaking a fist in the face, or just magnetizing someone's gun into your fist and bending it into a pretzal? Probably something a GM might want to hash out with a prospective PC -- where the GM draws the line on Servitors of Stone trying to get someone else to start something. - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:30:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Snuff Films (RE: Releiver Nicknames) At 1:01 PM -0400 11/21/02, Randy Finder wrote: >On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> This is why demons of Lust hate hate hate HATE it when their Prince >> gives them a kiddy vessel, or any other sort of vessel, and send them >> to one of THOSE studios. (Andre doesn't mind people _watching._) It's >> also why demons at THOSE studios like knowing Corporeal Entropy, so they >> can youthen captured angels, etherals, or Samingans... >So if you make the movies without killing the humans all the better... Exactly. Mind, if they're already undead, you can probably convince the Prince that it was okay. So mummies, vampires, and zombis are all fair game for Lusties trying to do snuff films, too, probably. >I'm sure Christopher *still* isn't a fan of it, simply because people who >see themovies may take the final step themselves... Oh, definitely. >Randy > >> >> O:> >> >> --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor >> http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ >> >> >> > >-- >Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega As a note, putting on my list admin hat, do you see that up there? That's my .sig, showing the >> that means it was double-quoted. That is mentioned, I believe, in the listrules as something that shows you aren't trimming quoted text enough. Please trim quoted text when you reply to messages. I've already sent a penultimate warning to one person, in private email, about overquoting, and I really hate doing that to people who like the game -- but who persist in being sloppy. - --Beth, List Admin http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/listrules.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:40:01 -0500 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> Some quick thoughts on unarmed combat >> Oy. I'm suddenly wondering how many Malakim who have somehow been slashed >> across the stomach, even if it was done by themselves, have tried to >> strangle their opponents with their own intestines <++++++ I swear I >> remember seeing that in an Asian movie somewhere. > >That sounds like a Malakite of Creation to me. > > Hmm... a former Malakite of Creation IST War... "You want Proficiency in WHAT?!" "You'd be bloody amazed at the things I can do with it." "Well, yes, but we usually like to you do it with your opponent's, not your own." "Well... Hmmm... scalpel of healing, too?" "No." Josh Actually, this was all a weak attempt to justify sending a post to the list to see if there's a technical reason why its so silent today or if the recent rash of fiction and posting just tired the list out. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2869 ********************************