in_nomine-digest Monday, December 30 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2918 In this digest: Re: IN> 2 questions IN> anger management - the "Beleth Method" IN> question about choirs and their words Re: IN> question about choirs and their words Re: IN> question about choirs and their words Re:IN> question about choirs and their words IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for IN> Malakite oath "priority" Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for Re: IN> A New Year's Story Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" Re: IN> A New Year's Story Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" Re: IN> 2 questions Re: IN> anger management - the "Beleth Method" Re: IN> question about choirs and their words Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" IN> If there's a way to make this new demon's life any more miserable... Re: IN> Evecon report Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:24:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> 2 questions At 8:16 AM -0800 12/29/02, Jennifer Shih wrote: >1. Which book has detailed information on the >offspring of celestial/human matings? Corporeal Player's Guide. >The hardcover >briefly mentions the Children of the Grigori and the >Nephallim, but neither describes them well nor gives >sample game stats. The CotG also make an appearance in GURPS IN. The information on them is probably the scantiest, really, for various reasons (books that were planned and then... are still planned, if you see what I mean) >Also, Nephallim and Children of the >Grigori are the results of Grigori/human matings; what >about the other Choirs/Bands? Nephallim can happen for any celestial-human mating (though only the Grigori don't need the Celestial Song of Fruition to have kids); likewise, "CotG" halfbreeds can also happen, in the sense that the offspring aren't twisted and are probably going to wind up being Symphonically aware at some point. >2. Can Lilith shuffle Geas hooks as well as actual >Geasae? Probably. This is likely in Fall of the Malakim, or it _might_ be in the sample text from there (www.sjgames.com/in-nomine and then navigate to the FotM page...). (I gotta get my books down here. Not that it would help much with the toddler on my lap. O:/ ) At 11:30 AM -0500 12/29/02, Christopher Anthony wrote: >I think this is actually what is meant by "shuffling Geases". I >would, in fact, question Lilith's ability to move active Geases more >than I would her ability to move inactive hooks. Er, no. Terminology: Geas hook = Lilim has done a favor, but not called in the Geas; the target will be able to make a Will roll to resist. Geas token = The Geas-holder's gem-like "token"/link to the Geased person. A token appears for a hook and for a regular Geas. Geas (active) = The favor has been called in and not resisted, or a self-sworn Geas has been activated. _These_ are not (probably) transferable or removable (again, probably; the GM is encouraged to hang plot hooks if needed). The being who activated the Geas can _probably_ cancel it, though! Geas (inactive) = This is a Geas which has been agreed to (or self-geased in the case of Lilim), but has not been called in. The subject will _not_ get a Will roll to resist. Lilith is the only being who has been known to trade Geas-tokens for inactive Geases around. These are the kinds of Geases which Superiors can (at great risk to the subject) remove. Lilith only deals in Geases when you bargain with her -- i.e., you promise her a favor, and either she activates it right then (you have an active Geas upon you) or hangs onto it (inactive Geas) and might invoke it later or trade it around. Geas hooks, which might be resisted, are beneath her. Hooks do not show up as Discord except to Superiors. Geases, active or inactive, show up as Discord to anyone who sees your celestial form. Geas hooks cannot be removed -- they're not "solid" enough -- except maybe (probably?) by Lilith herself. (Who is almost certain to charge for the service, natch.) Lilith _might_ shuffle a Geas hook around -- or might not. In my campaigns, she can, but rarely finds it worth the effort to acquire the token for a mere hook (she doesn't find it trivial; they're not very tangible for her either? They're still beneath her?). But she might find it useful to be able to keep tabs on someone, via Song of Celestial Affinity. - -- - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:44:25 +1100 From: "james walker" Subject: IN> anger management - the "Beleth Method" There's big money, running courses on controlling anger. When those courses are run by Impudites of Nightmares, things get even more interesting. In "The Beleth Method" participants are taught their excessive anger is simply an evolutionary hangover. Rather than fighting the anger, it's better to release the anger in a series of guided visualisations; the human mind is still designed for the prehistoric world, so just as it cannot realise that anger isn't appropriate, it will not realise that a proper visualisation isn't real. The important thing is to replace any guilty feelings over imagining the deaths or worse of one's enemies with a glorious feeling of triumph; this allows you to regain your peace of mind, which in turn allows you to act in a positive, caring fashion - even when dealing with the people you hate. Participants typically have two objections - the first is that this seems, well, a bit petty. The Impudites explain that, yes, it does seem that way - but some people find our other bodily functions embarrassing as well, and this causes all sorts of problems. Why not accept our anger? So long as no one is actually hurt, it doesn't matter. The other objection is that a visualisation isn't very satisfying. The Impudites smile, and suggest that the participants try one... Once everyone is comfortable, and have agreed on someone that everyone hates - - typically a famous figure - a hypnotic visualisation is reinforced by the Ethereal Song of Projection, and the group enters a dreamscape and beats the living $@$# out of some deserving victim. Over the week long course, the participants can hope to brain a score of famous but obnoxious individuals. of course, the participants will want to try this without being led; the Impudites suggest one attempt each night. They explain that the secret to making the visualisation "so believable" is to use a series of specific images which have fundamental meanings to humans at a very primitive, instinctive level. The Impudites are teaching their clients the basics of Lucid Dreaming, and if the visualisation they teach is followed properly, the human will be able to enter a specific Domain deep in Beleth's realm. The Domain contains an artifact which allows mundanes to use the Corporeal Song of Dreams(using the mundanes essence); the Impudites' clients swiftly learn how to enter the Dreamscapes of those they are furious with and take vengeance; with even the basic knowledge they have of Lucid Dreaming they're more than a match for their victims. For game purposes, doing the week long course gives a mortal a level of Lucid Dreaming with the "Beleth method" specialisation; the specialisation bonus is gained while for finding the Domain, causing nightmares & ethereal combat. The Impudites advice against tampering with the 'sequence' pointing out that the process deals with the darker aspects of the human psyche; a mistake could cause nightmares or even make the anger worse. They do encourage creative cruelty to the 'victims', pointing out that if the 'visualisation' causes the client to feel pity for their target, then the client is 'truly healed of their anger'. It's not The Road Less Travelled, but as courses go, The Beleth Method is doing well, and tens of thousands of people now release their anger in ethereal combat with those they hate. The slaughter is savage; with no disturbance to alert angels, the course participants can gleefully 'kill' an opponent each night - millions of humans now have new Disadvantages courtesy of a midnight visit; how long before these mundanes are the most numerous beings hunting The Marches? Naturally, the Impudites are especially happy - humans who kill each other in their dreams, don't need to kill each other in the Corporeal! Of course, The Beleth Method is only called that by demons. Among humans the name is - well, that's for the PCs to find out, isn't it? Cheers, James. (Who is thinking about fledging as an Impudite of Nightmares). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:25:35 -0800 (PST) From: rob scwalen Subject: IN> question about choirs and their words Would a mercurian be most likely to hold the words of music and performance art. As well as would a Djinn most likely hold the word of alcoholism? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:45:32 -0800 From: " Cameron McCurry" Subject: Re: IN> question about choirs and their words On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:25:35 -0800 (PST) rob scwalen said unto us: >>Would a mercurian be most likely to hold the words of music and performance art. Well, the Angel of Music is a Seraph, so I would say no to the first. >>As well as would a Djinn most likely hold the word of alcoholism? That would make the most sense as alcoholism could be seen as an obsession, but a Habbalah would be a logical choice as well. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:52:06 -0800 From: Harukami Subject: Re: IN> question about choirs and their words >>>As well as would a Djinn most likely hold the word of alcoholism? > >That would make the most sense as alcoholism could be seen as an obsession, >but a Habbalah would be a logical choice as well. According to Sups 4, Fleurity *had* been in the running for the Word of Alcohol, but left it alone during Prohibition, letting someone in Gluttony snap it up - probably another Habbalite, IMO, as they *do* tend to think alike about Punishment, but I agree a Djinn would make sense too. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:54:55 GMT From: Christopher Pipinou Subject: Re:IN> question about choirs and their words rob scwalen writes: > Would a mercurian be most likely to hold the words of > music and performance art. As well as would a Djinn > most likely hold the word of alcoholism? Well, Music is already held by Israfel, who if memory serves is a Seraph - after all, it is only the Most Holy who sing the Trisagion. Performance Art... I could make a case for several different choirs, including Kyrios. (*ponders* I'll have to cook that one up later.) As for Alcoholism... hmm. Djinn, possibly; alternatively, a Shedite (Times are tough. You need a drink. A drink will make it all better...), a Balseraph Bartender, an Impudite... Most any Word could be held by any choir/band - and that's what leads to fascinating interplay when a Word is being fought over. What will the new interpretation of the Word be? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:18:03 -0800 (PST) From: rob scwalen Subject: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for Would the Demon of Alcoholism most likely be a servitor of Drugs or Gluttony? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:13:26 -0800 From: "Joey's mail" Subject: IN> Malakite oath "priority" A while back I created a Malakite who had an oath to "always show someone the error of their ways before resorting to violence" (guess which Archangel HE served?). I thought that this might supercede his oath to never suffer an evil to live, as he had both Novalis's orders PLUS that oath barring him from being violent, even towards demons, until he had no other choice. I then read Cameron's New Year's Story (very good, by the way) and that got me thinking...can Malakim actually have one oath take priority over another? Blatantly contradictory oaths like "Never suffer an evil to live" and "Never kill a demon," are, of course, not possible, but in the case of my above Malakite of Flowers, would that actually work? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:21:56 -0800 From: Kish Subject: Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for rob scwalen wrote: > > Would the Demon of Alcoholism most likely be a > servitor of Drugs or Gluttony? Gluttony. This is a source of some tension between Haagenti and Fleurity--the Demon of Alcoholism serves Gluttony not because Alcoholism has more to do with Gluttony than with Drugs, but because Haagenti is a major Prince and Fleurity is a minor one--and Haagenti says so. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:33:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A New Year's Story At 1:36 AM -0500 12/29/02, Cameron McCurry wrote: >http://home.earthlink.net/~cmccurry/newyear.html Awwwwww. O:> (And if she ever stops meeting him, the next last- ditch-before-soul-killing tactic is to kidnap her and plonk her down in a Tether with him and an oh-so-sympathetic-and-patient Elohite of Lightning...) (Mmm, plot seeds. PCs have to kidnap a demon, as gently as possible...) - -- - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:09:32 -0500 From: Robb Kidd Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" Joey's mail wrote: > ... can Malakim actually have one oath take priority over another? > Blatantly contradictory oaths like "Never suffer an evil to live" and "Never > kill a demon," are, of course, not possible, but in the case of my above > Malakite of Flowers, would that actually work? You've assigned priority through the wording of the oath. (And you left out the "choice part" of the required oath.) To wit: - - "[I will] always show someone the error of their ways before resorting to violence." - - "I will never suffer an evil to live, if it is my choice." The first oath means that said Malakite does not have a choice in the second. He must suffer an evil to live while showing it the error of its ways. I suppose one could argue that in the act of making such an oath restricting action against an evil, the Malakite is choosing to suffer an evil to live. If the oath was required by a Superior, though, there is no quesiton; it is not the Malakite's choice. Even your example contradictory oaths are not, technically, contradictory. Said Malakite has sworn not to kill demons, therefore it is not his choice to suffer them to live. What superior would allow such an oath or, for that matter, what Malakite would swear it is an exercise left to the reader. (A very short exercise with a brief, one-word answer.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:21:41 -0500 From: Cameron McCurry Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" > but in the case of my above Malakite of Flowers, would that actually work? I don't see why it wouldn't. Novalis' Malakim are used by her as an absolute last resort. I picture them as being very capable of dishing out bloody violence while keeping an ear strained and an eye open for any opportunity to stop from killing. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:25:01 -0500 From: Cameron McCurry Subject: Re: IN> A New Year's Story > Awwwwww. O:> I have done good. -:-) > (And if she ever stops meeting him, the next > last-ditch-before-soul-killing tactic is to kidnap her and plonk her down > in a Tether with him and an oh-so-sympathetic-and-patient Elohite of > Lightning...) *toink* Hmmm...a possible sequel. Hopefully it won't take me as long to sit down and write that out. > (Mmm, plot seeds. PCs have to kidnap a demon, as gently as possible...) The looks on their faces alone would be priceless... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:42:28 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" At 4:13 PM -0800 12/30/02, Joey's mail wrote: >A while back I created a Malakite who had an oath to "always show someone >the error of their ways before resorting to violence"[...] >can Malakim actually have one oath take priority over another? Yes and no. Malakim (typically) _choose_ to follow their oaths, to create those oaths in the first place. When those oaths conflict, they're in a hard spot -- dissonant if you do and dissonant if you don't. (This is why Archangels _can_ remove Oaths that silly young fledges swear, if they're too, well, silly. The Malakite would never WANT that, but sometimes it must be done for the angel's own good -- and to keep it from becoming a blue smear of Discord on the floor.) Now, when a Malakte's Archangel says "suffer that evil to live," with whatever qualifiers deemed appropriate, the Malakite can. Therefore, Malakim of Novalis are definitely given direct instructions -- their dissonance conditions, even! -- which let them try non-violent first. Likewise, it's "suffer EVIL to live" -- not "suffer a demon to live" -- that's the problem. Malakim of Destiny (and others, but Destiny and Flowers are best known for it, probably) are perfectly able to spend fairly long durations working on redeeming a demon. That slays evil _and_ you get an angel out of it into the bargain. So, sure, your Malakite of Flowers is viable. BUT! If his other oath causes a demon to _get away_, unredeemed and out there committing evil, there is a very strong chance that he will become dissonant for it. He allowed evil. It's not that he didn't _slay_ the demon first off -- but he didn't manage to _contain_ it, to prevent it from doing evil while he was working on it. (Another thing that Malakim of Flowers probably do is crusade against social evils...) - -- - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:48:43 -0600 From: "Gregg Forge" Subject: Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for > Would the Demon of Alcoholism most likely be a >servitor of Drugs or Gluttony? > The word of Alcohol belongs to Haagenti, and thus Gluttony; the state of being addicted to Alcohol, correspondingly, would belong to Haagenti, because the state induced by the substance is within the province of the ord Holder (and, of course, his Superior). The Demon of PCP would, thusly, either include, or have beneath them, the word of PCP Repeat Customers. Mind, I think the Demon of Alcohol is a Lilim, but that's me. Kamika-Z, speculating. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:54:11 -0600 From: "Gregg Forge" Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" >A while back I created a Malakite who had an oath to "always show >someone the error of their ways before resorting to violence" (guess which >Archangel HE served?). I thought that this might supercede his oath to >never suffer an evil to live, as he had both >Novalis's orders PLUS that oath barring him from being violent, even >towards demons, until he had no other choice. I then read Cameron's New >Year's Story (very good, by the way) and that got me thinking... >can Malakim actually have one oath take priority over another? I think so. David's oath of suffering no Cowards' Weapons takes supercedance over suffering an evil to live; he would not snipe a demon from afar just because he knew it was a demon. Mind, he might use the Celestial Song of Motion to put himself within an arm's reach, and let the Demon hit him 'by accident', but he'd still work within the parameters of both oaths. >Blatantly contradictory oaths like "Never suffer an evil to live" and >"Never kill a demon," are, of course, not possible, but in the case of my >above Malakite of Flowers, would that actually work? Admirably and laudibly, if not a bit tricky. Namely, it means that he's going to have to be working DOUBLETIME to make sure that he shows them the error of their ways (which reduces them from a state of evil to potential redemption), and still making sure to astutely determine such knowledge will stem the evil within, leading to the need to perhaps hunker down and do the unpleasant and not-quite-dissonant-but-distasteful. Kamika-Z, who would find such a Malakite more respectable than most. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:05:23 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> 2 questions - --- Jennifer Shih wrote: > 1. Which book has detailed information on the > offspring of celestial/human matings? The CPG is the best so far. > 2. Can Lilith shuffle Geas hooks as well as actual > Geasae? I'd be inclined to think so. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Bones! You've got to save Ensign Pillsburry!."

"There's nothing I can do -- he's _bread_, Jim." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:08:05 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> anger management - the "Beleth Method" Now this is freakin' scary. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Bones! You've got to save Ensign Pillsburry!."

"There's nothing I can do -- he's _bread_, Jim." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:11:58 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> question about choirs and their words - --- rob scwalen wrote: > Would a mercurian be most likely to hold the words of > music and performance art. Depends. Different Ensembles focus Words differently. A Mercurian of Performance Art would emphasize the effects on people (especially how the performance made them feel). A Seraph would concentrate on expressing truths. > As well as would a Djinn > most likely hold the word of alcoholism? Again, depends on focus. The Djinn Demon of Alcoholism would be most concerned with getting humans to use alcohol as a stagnating form of self-medication. A Habbalah with that Word would want alcoholics to suffer, as dependence on the drug proves that they are weak. A Balseraph would encourage alcoholics to remain in denial ("I can quit any time!" "I'm perfectly safe to drive!"). You get the idea. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Bones! You've got to save Ensign Pillsburry!."

"There's nothing I can do -- he's _bread_, Jim." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:13:28 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> who the demon of Alcoholism would work for - --- rob scwalen wrote: > Would the Demon of Alcoholism most likely be a > servitor of Drugs or Gluttony? Both Princes would want that one; whichever one gets it determines the focus. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Bones! You've got to save Ensign Pillsburry!."

"There's nothing I can do -- he's _bread_, Jim." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 02:05:25 +0100 From: shadur@systemec.nl (Rens Houben) Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" In other news for Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:42:28PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy has been seen typing: > Now, when a Malakte's Archangel says "suffer that evil to live," with > whatever qualifiers deemed appropriate, the Malakite can. > Therefore, Malakim of Novalis are definitely given direct instructions -- > their dissonance conditions, even! -- which let them try non-violent > first. There's another question that I've pondered... Dissonance, in the case of angels, is (at least supposedly -- we'll leave tied-up Windies out of this hypothetical situation) a matter of personal choice. It's even specified as such in G:IN, and I'm willing to bet it's specified as such in the original edition. So, with that in mind, is "on pain of dissonance" stringent enough to trigger the "choice" clause, if dissonance is supposed to be the result of a choice? > --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor - -Shad - -- Rens Houben | opinions are mine Resident linux guru and sysadmin | if my employers have one Systemec Internet Services. |they'll tell you themselves PGP public key at http://swordbreaker.systemec.nl/shadur.key.asc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:08:18 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> If there's a way to make this new demon's life any more miserable... ...it's not for lack of trying on my part. As always, hope you enjoy. Feedback welcome: I'm playing with the interpretation of the Discord, and I wanna know if it works. :) Dubbiel Renegade Habbalite of Fate Corporeal Forces: 5 Strength: 11 Agility: 9 Ethereal Forces: 4 Intelligence: 8 Precision: 8 Celestial Forces: 5 Will: 12 Perception: 8 Vessel: human male/4, Charisma +1 Skills: Climbing/1, Dodge/6, Emote/3, Fighting/4, Knowledge (AK: Home Area/4, Christian Theology/2, Fate/3, The Game/3), Language/3 (Spanish), Large Weapon/6 (Sword), Lying/2, Move Silently/3, Ranged Weapon/5 (Shotgun), Survival/3 (Urban) Songs: Attraction (Corporeal/4), Blood (Celestial/3), Entropy (Ethereal/3), Essence (Corporeal/2, Celestial/2), Healing (Corporeal/2), Motion (Ethereal/2, Celestial/6), Nimbus (Corporeal/5, Ethereal/4, Celestial/3), Numinous Corpus/6 (Wings), Shields (All/2), Succor (Corporeal/3), Thunder/6, Tongues (Ethereal/2) Attunements: Habbalite of Fate, Impudite of Fate, Bad Company, Fated Future, File Extraction Discord: Merciful/3 Role: Bum/6, Status/2 (Long story, so read it below) Artifacts: Sword: Corporeal Artifact/4 with the Summonable Feature; Cup (Reliquary/2) OK, so possibly he isn't an angel, after all. But Dubbiel isn't convinced that he's a demon, either. Right now, he's not sure just what he is. There's nothing wrong with his memory, though. The Habbalite quite clearly remembers what the original Plan was. It wasn't the greatest Plan in the world, maybe, but it had potential, dammit. Why hold your light under a bushel when you could set yourself as a minor god... err, 'Messenger of Christ'... somewhere nice and out of the way? If the humans were going to be pitifully weak, one might as well get some benefit out of it. The setup itself was quite simple, actually. Obviously, Dubbiel wasn't about to get permission to pull this off without some fairly onerous (if not eventually fatal) restrictions built in, so he'd have to go Renegade. Easy enough to contemplate - the Habbalite is often wistful of the days when he was sure that he was an angel doing Christ's work - but a little trickier to pull off. First he had to know his enemy (that'd be the Game and his former coworkers, mind you), then he had to set up a good cover identity without anybody knowing about it, plus the necessary course of study to pick up all of the tricks that he'd need, and then of course there was the issue of losing his dossier... it took him a while, but eventually it was all set up. All that remained was to break his Heart and run. He wasn't expecting to end up with the Discord that he got, though. Of course, it could have been worse: he might have ended up being Selfless. That would have sucked. It wasn't until he started the Plan anyway that Dubbiel started to realize just how badly things were going to go. Being Merciful isn't just a reluctance to kill innocents: if you happen to be very intelligent (like Dubbiel) and fully versed in the likely consequences of your actions (like most Servitors of Fate) and good at judging emotions (like most Habbalah) - you end up with some severe psychological issues. In short, he's begun to develop the working approximation of a conscience, and he doesn't like the sensation at all, at all. Not that Dubbiel's a Redemption candidate, either: he still wants to be set up somewhere where he can indulge his every whim and desire (even if he's got nicer whims and less dark desires these days), and the Habbalite is pretty sure that becoming an Elohite will put the kibosh on that fairly quickly. So, the Plan is still in effect: he's still going to get his pampering, except that Dubbiel will actually have to actually do things to earn it. That can be managed and worked around. Maybe. The Habbalite is having a bit of a problem keeping a properly low profile: you would think that a respectable Habbalite could walk past a brat dying of pneumonia without twitching a muscle, but it's the damn crying. You can't kill it, and you can't resonate it into being quiet for long, so it's just better to heal it so that it'll shut up. Do that a couple of times, and word gets around: good for business, but Dubbiel wasn't planning to be the Hobo King, or any crap like that. Just try to get out of a hundred different Role-relationships when any one of them might be tangled up with the continued preservation of a human life, though. Just try, and see where it gets you. Pretty soon he'll start to make waves that will be Officially Noticed, by either Side. That's not necessarily good news - for anybody, really (but especially the poor buggers tasked to go get him). You see, Dubbiel may not be an angel, and he's certainly no proper demon, but there is still one thing that he most definitely is. Scary. ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 09/18/02 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:24:20 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Evecon report At 17:48 -0800 12/28/2002, Maurice Lane wrote: >...I just ran an IN game. Aside from my girlfriend >and one other, none of the other four had ever played >IN before. This was also my first ever GMing a >convention game. > >The game ended with six Superiors being summoned over >a six-pack of Diet Coke. Michael, Laurence, Novalis, >Valefor, Haagenti and Belial. Granted, the six pack >was the MacGuffin, but six? SIX? This seems to be par for the course for con IN games, as far as my experience goes. You can figure at least half the PCs will try to summon their Superiors, at least some time during the game. >Oh, yeah, there were also mimes. Well, that explains why the Superiors felt it necessary to show up.... >PS There's gonna be a game at Arisia, right? Right? That's a notion. I've requested one of the larger rooms, so if we don't do any "official" games (and we didn't propose to do so), we can at least think about doing an informal in-room game. But who's going to GM...? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:02:32 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakite oath "priority" At 2:05 AM +0100 12/31/02, Rens Houben wrote: >In other news for Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:42:28PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy has been seen typing: > >> Now, when a Malakite's Archangel says "suffer that evil to live," with >> whatever qualifiers deemed appropriate, the Malakite can. > >> Therefore, Malakim of Novalis are definitely given direct instructions -- >> their dissonance conditions, even! -- which let them try non-violent >> first. [...] >So, with that in mind, is "on pain of dissonance" stringent enough to >trigger the "choice" clause, if dissonance is supposed to be the result >of a choice? Basically, if something is a dissonance condition, you can assume that their Archangel has pointed out that Thou Shalt Not Do THIS. I mean, technically, the blackwing has the _choice_ of doing its Archangel's bidding, so even "My Boss said I have to let you live" is a choice that allows a demon to continue existing. (With this logic, only wearing a Will Shackle/6 or similar restraint would keep a Malakite safe from dissonance!) However, that makes Malakim rather unplayable in any sort of "gray" setting. (GMs are free to use this -- though simply declaring that Archangels _NEVER_ instruct Malakim to leave any demon alone would do the same thing, really.) So it's presumed that a Malakite's master (his or her Archangel) can trigger the "if it's my choice" bit and instruct the Virtue that he or she is the Superior's "hand" and it is NOT their choice that leaves that demon standing, but the Superior's. Which winds up with the presumption that a dissonance condition tends to be a clear indication of the parameters within which the Malakite is presumed to be working. Of course, in Novalis' case, you just have to try a non-violent resolution _first_ -- if that doesn't work, then slit the silly demon's throat. In Stone's case, David's a Malakite himself and understands how strong the urge to smite can be. Laurence, natch, only instructs delays in demon-killing for times when to attack would be suicide (and thus permit the evil to live) or allow a greater evil to escape. If a Malakite is explicitly created with the Superior choosing the other Oaths, mind, those _could_ be ruled to trigger the "if it's my choice" loophole! Still, it's unlikely that any Archangel _would_ create a Malakite with contradictory oaths. Hopefully, this babble makes some sense. - -- - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2918 ********************************