From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Oct 3 12:59:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13051 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:59:24 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA16722 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:30:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:30:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199710031730.MAA16722@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 #381 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 Friday, October 3 1997 Volume 01 : Number 381 In this digest: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo faq/errata ( was: Re: IN> d666 patches) IN> My theory on Revelations. Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Re: IN> My theory on Revelations. Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #377 Re: IN> Vessel death and 'A Bright/Dark Dream' IN> How I See Demons Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons IN> demon morality Re: IN> On playing demons Re: IN> How I See Demons Re: IN> How I See Demons - Sidenote IN> Short Jean Thoughts Re: IN> How I See Demons Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:53:41 -0400 From: "Jens H. Kruuse" Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Anyway, these logos are supposed to be symbols the Choirs use themselves, > perhaps as a tasteful pin or pendant for recognition purposes, or to mark > property, or to warn others -- we're not sure of all the gameworld uses, > We have six designs that rock. We're stuck on one, though -- Mercurians, > Friends of Man. We need some ideas for a simple figure or logo that just > jumps up and says, "Mercurians." And we need it soon. Today would be nice. > > I know that this is a words-only medium, but if you can't describe it in > words, it's probably too complicated for us, anyway. How about a picture of a nice little doggie? You know, "Man's best friend" and all that. :-) That reminds me of a couple of Celestials I'm working on. A pair of opposites that have a hard time because of the shared word. Catmeuw, Angel of Pets, Kyriotate of Novalis - -------------------------------------------- Catmeuw, usually called "Cat" by friends and foes alike, tries to console humans who are in need of companionship but are unable - or unwilling - to find human companionship. She promotes the idea of caring for and loving animals in a mutually beneficial way. The pet gets a nice life while the human gets a loyal friend who insists on comfort and stability. Having a pet can also relieve some of the stress a person feels and will in some cases lessen another loss, such the inability to bring children into the world. She believes that having a pet will bring out the best in a lot of people and open up new avenues of contact with other people through mutual interest in eg. Labradors, or by forcing them to meet others. ("I found your cat in my backyard and fed him some milk. He is a trusty little fella, isn't he? Doesn't he give you a lot of trouble?") Cat hates Dagobark but has her hands full trying to defuse his creation of egoistic owners as well as preventing him from making /her/ people turn selfish and uncaring towards humanity. Dagobark, Demon of Pets, Habbalah of Malphas - -------------------------------------------- (Anyone thinking "Andrealphus" should be ashamed of himself!) Everybody knows them. The people who are so utterly focused on turning their pets into an image of their personal ambitions, or who so adore their little pets that they spend thousands of dollars on toys and other stuff whilst completely ignoring the needs of other humans such as a beggar on the street. An then there are those who abuse their pets by declawing them, beating them or otherwise trying to change their nature. Dagobart loves 'em - they are /his/ kind of people. Dagobart wants the pet owners to be so focused on their animals so as to ignore or snub the rest of humanity. He madly in love with those purplehaired old ladies who put their little yapping dogs on silk cushions and feed them choicy bits of sirloin. Most of his successes come from screwing with the emotions of the people Cat's been helping. He knows that the threshold between tender loving care and obsession is very low and he is perfectly equipped to handle the tripping. - --- Please let me know what you think, Jens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:21:55 -0700 (PDT) From: lugaid@seanet.com Subject: faq/errata ( was: Re: IN> d666 patches) On 1997-10-02 in_nomine-l@lists.io.com said to lugaid@seanet.com >> a) where is the faq? >Argh! I can't remember the exact URL. Look for it under >http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine >> b) where is the errata? >See above. and what about those poor unfortunates (such as myself) who do not have a functional web browser? i already tried to get these by anon ftp, but they are not available there... Slan agus Beannachtai, Lugaid MacRobert Who but I is both the tree and the lightning that strikes it? Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:39:04 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> My theory on Revelations. WEll, I've had this theory for quite some time, but not wanting to spoil any suprises I waited till Rev 4 was officially anounced. And now it has been, so, on to my theory. In Rev 1, we have Furfur gaining Princehood of Hardcore...truely a violent Word. In Rev 2, we have some discussion of Uriel and the Pure Malakim of his. In Rev 3, well...I really don't know. As someone stated previously there may be talk of Uriel in the Higher Heavens. In Rev 4, I believe Furfur gets what no other DP has yet had. A Fallen Malakim as a Servitor. He is such a violent guy, they would be perfect for him. In Rev 5, my guess is that Uriel decends to make the Malakim Pure once again. These are just guesses that i've been broiling over shortly after Night Music was released. Since I really don't know too much about Rev 5, other than the Sups it was gonna detail further, my theory for that book may be way off, but this is my best guess. What do ya think? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:55:24 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? At 17:28 -0400 10/2/97, Walter Milliken wrote: > >I would think you could have some to loan/rent to people who didn't have >them. Isn't that what those laser-tag places do? > Well, I work for a paintball place around here, but I don't know about laser tag (and I won't go into the derogatory names we have for *that* ). We rent the equipment for a few dollars extra to people who don't have it. Usually, if they really get into the game, they go out and buy the gear. That way they can customize, practice in their off time, etc. I think that having loanable/rentable equipment for a LARP would be a darn handy nice thing to do. SeanMike paintball@virginia.edu - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:07:17 -0400 From: "Chuck Ryan" Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Casca wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > > We're doing logos for all seven major Angelic Choirs; they'll get > their > > first use as graphic elements in the Angelic Player's Guide, but > that's > > just the beginning -- we have all sorts of plans for the future, > including > > t-shirts, jewelry, patches, etc. And we'll be doing the same thing > for the > > Demon Bands, too. > > Cool. I can put them on my jacket next to my Vampire Clan pins. ;) > > > We have six designs that rock. We're stuck on one, though -- > Mercurians, > > Friends of Man. We need some ideas for a simple figure or logo that > just > > jumps up and says, "Mercurians." And we need it soon. Today would be > nice. > > A perfect sphere, representative of the earth to which they descend. > It > is bathed in the light of the dawn, giving all of creation a golden > tint. > Upon this earth are two points, symbolic of Man and Woman, with a > space > dividing them -- equally symbolic of the gender gap. Below them is an > arcing line, representative of the Serpent which caused the temptation > > and created the schism between man and woman. Thus, it is the job of > the > Mercurians to bring the two back together depite the machinations of > the > evil one. > > -- Casca (wondering if anyone will get the joke) > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) > > ooh add a third small dot above and centered between the two you have > colores bright red to represent the pit of hell ( the ultimite price > if they fail ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:52:18 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) At 16:59 -0500 10/2/97, Donald G Bixler wrote: > >Nope, but it's dissonant to actually care for any humans. It was mostly >a joke, anyways. I guess it didn't go very well. > Ah...oh well...the joys of e-mail sometimes.:) >Just killing, whereas Mercurians can't be violent except to demons. >That seems to cover chairs and walls as well as hitting a human. Yeah...I just reread that section. They take dissonance when they allow violent passion to overcome them, unless it's directed at demons. A lot more limiting then I had thought. Impudites, though, for the most part, only take dissonance for actually KILLING a human, which I guess means S&M is still available, though it might disturb the Symphony.:) >Oops da Ogre, "Toga! Toga! Toga!" Uh oh, the pep band is having a toga party on Saturday...heh heh heh.:) (Too bad the SO will be in. Sigh.) I was going to ask a question about band attunements - you can buy 'em for 5 points if they're not your band, right? However, you can buy 'em from another prince too, if they're for your band, right (i.e., an Impudite of Andre buying the Impudite of Vapula attunement)? I saw that in Night Music so I'm guessing it's legit. Is it still 5 points? Oh well. <> Back to work.:) SeanMike aka SnM to his friends - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:14:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) > Why, break out the whips, cuffs, and whipped cream of course. (Not to > mention the chocolate pudding. Mmmm. Chocolate pudding with whipped > cream.) What? No costumes? ;'} > ObAside: Upon spotting the "Trouble with Andre" Subject: line, how > many here were reminded of the Shakespeare's Sister song with the > same title? Actually, that's what I was thinking of when I put it there... > cd > Calabite of Furfur currently on loan to Haagenti. Oops da Ogre, Soldier of Cthulhu "Hey Yves, read _this_ book!" mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:39:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> My theory on Revelations. >WEll, I've had this theory for quite some time, but not wanting to spoil any >suprises I waited till Rev 4 was officially anounced. And now it has been, >so, on to my theory. I must have missed that. Which book? Librum Reliquarium is the only other supplement I know of at te moment. >In Rev 4, I believe Furfur gets what no other DP has yet had. A Fallen >Malakim as a Servitor. He is such a violent guy, they would be perfect for him. That is sick, sick, sick, and wrong. I love it! "Party Time!!" >In Rev 5, my guess is that Uriel decends to make the Malakim Pure once again. And the odd alliances of beings to try and kick his butt back to whence it came would be amusing. Pardon me, Lord Vapula, but Odin and a servant of Jordi would like to talk to you. Umm, okay. But have them wait a moment while I grab the Djinn brute squad. How may I help you two? Well, we would like to borrow one of your planetbusters for a period of time. What? There's no way I'm giving one of those to you. They're a mess to clean up after and I'd hate to have it accidentally hit my principality. Well, you see, Uriel's retu... Tyrniel! Bring me item #131-76b666 now! Make that two of them! >What do ya think? If it's true, I wanna see Uriel get payed back with interest... Oops da Ogre, Nuke! Nuke! Nuke! Nuke! mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:51:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) > Ah...oh well...the joys of e-mail sometimes.:) Yup. > Yeah...I just reread that section. They take dissonance when they allow > violent passion to overcome them, unless it's directed at demons. A lot > more limiting then I had thought. Exactly, they have to be very careful with themselves- no punching the wall in frustration. > Impudites, though, for the most part, only take dissonance for actually > KILLING a human, which I guess means S&M is still available, though it > might disturb the Symphony.:) That's why you stretch it out over an extended period of time, preferably someplace secluded... };'} > Uh oh, the pep band is having a toga party on Saturday...heh heh heh.:) > (Too bad the SO will be in. Sigh.) Thinks about the people that have been in pep bands he's participated in. *smirk* That could be an amusing scene. > I was going to ask a question about band attunements - you can buy 'em for > 5 points if they're not your band, right? However, you can buy 'em from > another prince too, if they're for your band, right (i.e., an Impudite of > Andre buying the Impudite of Vapula attunement)? I saw that in Night Music > so I'm guessing it's legit. Is it still 5 points? Actually, as long as the attunement doesn't require a band's resonance that you don't have, you can get it. Of course, you'd better have a very explanation and it's likely to make your Superior a little wary of you, but an impudite of death could theoretically have Consume and the balseraph of war attunements. And I don't think that the cost has been raised point-wise, just taken out in your boss' trust... ;'} > <> Evil thoughts here! Getchur evil thoght heeere! > Back to work.:) > > SeanMike > aka SnM to his friends Oops da Ogre, humming the Masochism Tango mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:57:53 -600 From: "John L Veazey" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #377 Scratch that last post of mine. I wasn't paying attention to the thread as much as I should have. Vz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:56:10 -600 From: "John L Veazey" Subject: Re: IN> Vessel death and 'A Bright/Dark Dream' Here's the simple solution about the death of his vessel. Vessels are "alternate forms" not separate bodies (pg49) If he has another vessel or another body to transfer to "right then" he escapes trama. Transfer requires an Possession. Shifting vessels requires an Essence. (pg67) If he doesn't have another vessel, he goes to his heart & goes through trauma (NO CHOICE, unless he's a Malakim)(pg67) If his vessel is still alive, he can transfer to another host or shift vessels and heal the old one later. John L Veazey Thought I'd try to put an end to this thread. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:54:19 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> How I See Demons >>>Well, sometimes the line between what is your opinion and what is your opinion as an influential member of the IN developing team is hard to determine.<<< Everything I say is my opinion -- nothing I say is canon. Only Archangel Beth and John Karakash (on this list) can officially announce canon. As for the rest.....maybe I still am not getting my point across (or maybe I just wrote it too late at night...reading over my message, it came across as a little more muddled than I intended), or maybe you and I just happen to disagree in our visions of In Nomine. Even if the latter, this shouldn't upset you. Surely you don't think every member of the creative team is going to agree with how YOU personally would like to see In Nomine develop? Many members of the creaive team disagree....that's the point of there being a team, no one person's vision is going to become the official In Nomine guiding light. (Except Steve Jackson's....) I see demons as bad guys, which does not mean every single demon must be villainous, or every angel must be the sort of person I would want to have dinner with. (You made a false comparison, btw...I said *Shedim* give me the heebie-jeebies, and you retorted that you'd rather deal with an Impudite than a Malakite. Well heck, if I had a guilty conscience, so would I.) I don't mind the lines blurring, at least in the perceptions of the participants, but no, I really don't want angels and demons becoming indistinguishable. What's the point? Also note that the official In Nomine universe is, as far as I can tell, deliberately being written so as not to close off possibilities that individual GMs might want want to pursue. In other words, if you want to say it's really the demons who are the good guys and angels who are the bad guys, you should still be able to use our material. Even the stuff I wrote. :) Why don't you reserve judgment until you actually see it, rather than assuming that because I would happen to run an In Nomine game differently than you would, anything I write for In Nomine will be useless to you? I am not trying to hammer the official In Nomine universe to conform to my personal vision. I am certainly not trying to make everyone conform to my ideas of morality and how to play certain kinds of characters. Heck, I think you'll *like* what I wrote. But then, I am the Demon Prince of Arrogance. Or was that Sarcasm? Or Contrariness. I get confused sometimes... - -David, still a Prince of a guy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:07:36 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons > >>>Would you object to a killing spree in the same way? If not, why is a > rape spree so much worse? For that matter, what is wrong with fictional > badness of *any* form?<<< > > > *Getting off* on fictional badness is what bothers me. > O.K.. Why does *that* bother you? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:18:23 -0400 From: "Chuck Ryan" Subject: IN> demon morality Ok I've been a little behind on reading the list but i guess I have to do some work but the talks about playing demons has prompted me to to add MHO anybody who caught my post on the what if satan was justified knows how I feel but I think the thought has become more developed by now here's one for anyone with a dictionary handy, what is the technical definition of evil the nearest I could come up with is any anything acting against an established moral code well that's rather subjective. christian follow that theft is evil as it violates one of the ten commandments, the basic tenant of christian morality. while the American indians did not believe in the concept of ownership and therefore could not be stealing. at the same time murder is considered evil but killing can be justified ( check out the commandments again ) greed is a sin but so is pride " has anybody seen Uriel lately" pride in your religion is still pride ok here's the kicker demons can at least in there eyes be evil as they have a completely different morality and the intire problem comes down to motivation it has already bean said that the major difference between angels and demons is that angels are selfish ok selfish people are only interested in them selves and why would a selfish creature with a severe superiority complex( at least toward humans ) want to torment humanity I mean why bother " who the HELL cares what those * ugly bags of mostly water * do anyway. unless it directly affects you the demon. Ok as said selfish suck-o demon you are looking out for #1 and that means in order to live long enough to accomplish your own goals and to do that you need protection. enter the DP's as word bound beings there power base increases with the residence of there word so they have a direct motivation to increase it's importance in the symphony. and for the simple price of protection and the promise of potential power you can have all the servants you need to make that happen. ok so lets look at this none of the words that the demons posses are in and of themselves evil Andre does not directly harm a person by encouraging his lustful behavior and gluttony is just taking something to extreme levels hey were I con from calling someone HARD CORE is considered a complement I think while it would be out of character for a demon to up and decide to reform a racist without a dame good reason to even bother it is cool to have a demon do the right thing for love or depending on his bent the wrong think for the same reason love has as many selfless as selfish acts I will what for you forever if I have to vs. you cant leave me I love you wham! CHUCK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:37:56 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons > > > And that is the *huge* problem with picturing demons as anything other > > than blacker than pitch. They are collaborating with a scheme whereby > > humans are sent to Hell to be tortured for all eternity. *Nothing* they > Uh. Well, that'd make all the angels just as black, and JHVH even blacker > since he wrote the scheme that the demons collaborate with. > There is a real problem with the compatibility of YHWH's power and goodness and the infinite horror of Hell. But at least the Angels are trying to keep humanity from going there. Now if you want a *third* faction that rebels against God on the grounds that he is mean but doesn't serve Hell either on the grounds that *Hell* is mean too, *that* would be an interesting game! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:34:57 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: Re: IN> How I See Demons > > > Good villains should be interesting, not card-board cutouts. As has been > pointed out before, only Shedim are commonly demons of the blood-bathing > "evil for the sake of evil" variety, and even they CAN be much more > interesting and complex than that. Hopefully the DPG will help make that > possible. Although it should also be possible to play someone driven by hate. It is a real emotion that does motivate people in the real world. > > And Donald is correct, an all-angels game consisting of "let's get a bunch > of Malakim together and kick some demon butt" would be just as boring as an > all-demon game of "let's go on an EVIL SPREE! Bwwwwaahahahahaha!" I *think* I agree with you, but only if I earlier misunderstood what you meant by an "evil spree". A game that consists of nothing but kicking ass is dull. A game filled with nothing but mindless random acts of nastiness is dull too. But a game involving carefully laid plans to make humanity miserable, or involving cunning strategies to foil attempts to make humanity happy, could be very interesting indeed. > > The key point is, I see demons as VILLAINS. Bad guys. Not necessarily pure > evil. Not necessarily evil at all. Some of them believe they are actually > on the right side and don't consider themselves evil. Some are self-deluded > (the Habbalah being the prime example). Some simply rationalize what they > do. Some are trapped, some don't know any better, some have been deceived, > MANY are tragic figures. And a few are even sympathetic. I'm all for making some demons trapped, tragic and sympathetic. We may have different definitions of evil, however. I don't see someone as not evil just because they think they are doing the right thing. It seems to me that the very *worst* people are all people who think they are doing the right thing. > > But they are the bad guys. I like moral uncertainty, I like shades of gray, I'm rooting for you. > I think it's cool if everyone on both sides of the War has occasional > doubts as to whether they're on the RIGHT side. I'm cheering and waving pom-poms. This goes a long way towards keeping In Nomine from being Supers with gimix. > That's why I liked > Kingsley's suggestion of Malakim as demons (so much I'll even forgive that > little covert pot-shot he took at me. ;)) But I think it should be clear to > the *players* that the demons ARE on the wrong side. NOT necessarily the > losing side! But the side that will make the world a really nasty, > unpleasant place, the side that no right-thinking human should ever WANT to > win. What I DON'T want is for the angels and the demons to be > indistinguishable. And this is what I see as the primary difference between > In Nomine and the WoD. Yeah! Say it loud and say it proud! > I swear, this isn't meant as another shot at WW, There is no good reason to take it as such. I *love* the WoD. But that doesn't mean that I want it endlessly repeated with no variation. My In Nomine is a lot like the WoD in terms of being a dark old place, but it differs in just the way you are stressing here. I think Vampire rocks, but if I *want* Vampire, I can *play* Vampire. I don't need it *twice*. > it's honestly how I see the WoD; there aren't really any good guys or bad > guys, just some characters who are slightly less bad than others. > > In In Nomine, angels and demons are *different*. They aren't just one big > race of celestials wearing two different colors of uniforms. They are > different in concrete, definable ways, not just in terms of their powers > and their appearance, but in terms of their methods, goals, psychology and > indeed, their intrinsic natures. Amen. They are in many ways direct opposites. And all of them are directly concerned with humanity in a way in which WoD denizens are not, being more interested in themselves. I'm not against introspection in In Nomine, but its the overwhelming concern for others that makes the game distinct. Even demons slake their own selfishness by concerning themselves directly in other people's lives. > > Somebody else (I forget who-- four digests in one day, sheesh!) pointed out > that in In Nomine, demons can pretty much walk over humans and instigate > whatever atrocities they like, balked only if an angel happens to be > nearby. Frankly, this is a problem that bothers me too. I have a REAL > problem with Shedim. (I'm telling you, I would shudder constantly if I > believed I lived in a world where things like that REALLY existed!) I see > In Nomine as an opportunity to *contrast* good and evil, light and > darkness. If In Nomine has a unifying theme, that would appear to be it. > Often that contrast may be-- ironically-- sharpened when the two > sides *blur* the lines, and the angels act like psycho-killers and the > demons seem to be just hard-working joes trying to make their way in a > world full of killer angels. Sure! This sort of thing is exactly what inspires one to *think* about what is right and what is wrong. If all the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats, you don't ever need to consider just what makes the good guys good and the bad guys bad. > But ultimately, there IS a difference between > the two sides, and it's when the participants start to lose sight of that > fact that angels Fall or demons go Renegade, and either get destroyed or > start on that arduous path to Redemption. Actually, I would have thought that Redemption is most likely when a demon is *considering* the vital differences between teh two sides. > > Besides the World of Darkness, In Nomine has also been compared to a > superhero RPG, with angels and demons as dressed-up heroes and villains. > This is actually a comparison I like better, though I don't like the > simplistic four-color comic book morality one often associates with > superhero games. The other huge danger for In Nomine, and the one that I fear it is just as likely to fall into. Moral nihilism yawns out on our left, moral over-simplification yawns out on our right. Only the middle road will keep the game distinct. IMHO. > > I probably mispoke when I said I don't want to encourage demons as player > characters. What I was trying to say was that I didn't want to encourage > EVIL player characters. Most demons are evil. But some aren't....which > doesn't mean they are good either. The ones whose motives are more complex > than that are the ones who make better player characters. The ones who are > just plain evil...well, how much psychological drama is there in that? You can be evil and still have other concerns that pull at you, just as you can be good and have other concerns that pull at you. Why does a dedicatedly evil demon have to be less 3-D than a dedicatedly good angel? > If > you just want a game of strategy and tactics, trying to do bad things while > outmaneuvering the angels trying to stop you, there is nothing to separate > In Nomine from a dozen other games where you can play bad guys. That *is* true. It is for exactly this reason that I make the demons in my game *more* evil. Rather than being selfish, they have a tendency to hatred that often makes them as selfless as any angel. I like the sense of contrast. If Heaven is fundamentally about love (for all hits faults), then I want Hell to be fundamentally about hate. But, of course, this is not the way the cannon runs. > In Nomine > deals with real contrasts, real moral polarity....the characters usually > ARE going to be colored in various shades of gray, but I believe it is > important that there IS white and black at either end. Amen! It is the white and the black that makes the exploration of the shades of gray important! > > Now, if you want to make the characters have nasty doubts about which color > is at which end.... > Sure! As long as they *care* about the answer, I'm happy. Greg. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:20:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> How I See Demons - Sidenote > Also note that the official In Nomine universe is, as far as I can tell, > deliberately being written so as not to close off possibilities that > individual GMs might want want to pursue. In other words, if you want to > say it's really the demons who are the good guys and angels who are the bad > guys, you should still be able to use our material. Even the stuff I wrote. > :) I'll admit it, I've ignored most of the flamewar thus far, but this touches on my only real worry about In Nomine - that there's going to be such this set universe that is "Canon" that GM interpretation goes away. I love GMing this game, it's a riot and a half. But I will drop it like a hat and never play again if it becomes "You must use what we have published, and BTW, go buy a new book so you are current with Canon." That's cool for some people, and I collect stuff because I'm secretly a raccoon in my off hours. In my game, I have some really blurry lines between what is good and what is evil, and I have to talk my players down afterwards because they get so wound up in the moral quandries. I call that a success and that's what I ENJOY. *shrug* But I'm also a freak. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:31:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Short Jean Thoughts >[Walter] >> [Myself] >>Otherwise, Jean already knows how to make any gadget than *can* be made, >>(In GURPS terms, he's TL infinity) which requires all sorts of dodgy >>explanations about why he doesn't just nuke Hell. >It's also possible that the theories say that he *can't* build something >to nuke Hell. Or that anything that could would also have lots of >undesirable side effects (like blowing away the Earth in the process). >Just because you know how to make a planetbuster bomb doesn't mean you >want to use it.... I was trying for brevity - probably a bad idea. (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!) Clarification: "Nuke Hell" was using "nuke" in the colloquial sense of "whup ass". If Jean is massively ahead of Vapula in Technology, the edge involved should make demons pretty ineffective. Consider how Demons would have done in the Middle ages if the Angels had Monowire swords and durasteel armour, or even modern toys made subtle. "Dodgy Explanations" includes "Can't blow up hell because we need them/it would destroy us" (cool, but non-canon, and makes Armageddon boring), "Such a thing is simply impossible to build" (You still have a massive edge), "Control of the Symphony is stronger than technology" (It isn't really under current rules.), "Can't use Hi-Tech cuz it messes up the Symphony," etc. I can think up dozens of reasons why Jean can't nuke Hell, but none are as campaign friendly, IMO, as "Jean and Vapula are about the same TL." Some more points: IN relies somewhat on some sort of Balance of Power. If you give the Angels a massive edge in technology, you weaken that. I prefer the paradigm "Celestial Tech is only a little better than Mundane tech (+1TL at most) except where magic (Songs, etc.) are involved. (Living) Human reasearchers tend to make the really cool breakthroughs to boot. This re-enforces the "Humans are creative" idea while simultaneously preventing too much sci-fi stuff from the Jean/Vap crowd. Better? Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:10:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> How I See Demons > As for the rest.....maybe I still am not getting my point across (or maybe > I just wrote it too late at night...reading over my message, it came across > as a little more muddled than I intended), or maybe you and I just happen > to disagree in our visions of In Nomine. Even if the latter, this shouldn't > upset you. Surely you don't think every member of the creative team is > going to agree with how YOU personally would like to see In Nomine develop? > Many members of the creaive team disagree....that's the point of there > being a team, no one person's vision is going to become the official In > Nomine guiding light. (Except Steve Jackson's....) Of course I don't think that everyone should have my opinions. That is an unreasonable expectation and would make life rather boring to boot. It seemed to me that you were saying that the DPG was going to be more for GMs to make NPC demons than to help players play as infernals. I don't want to have infernal games lost as an option in IN games and was getting worried by this comment and the lack of support for the infernal setting among the comments of the Superiors present on this list. We don't have anything else to gauge the minds of the development team by, since naturally none of the rest of us fans get to listen in on the discussions of the developers. > I see demons as bad guys, which does not mean every single demon must be > villainous, or every angel must be the sort of person I would want to have > dinner with. (You made a false comparison, btw...I said *Shedim* give me > the heebie-jeebies, and you retorted that you'd rather deal with an > Impudite than a Malakite. Well heck, if I had a guilty conscience, so would > I.) I don't mind the lines blurring, at least in the perceptions of the > participants, but no, I really don't want angels and demons becoming > indistinguishable. What's the point? I merely stated that I'd rather not have _any_ of the IN celestials running around in the real world. The Impudite and Malakim comment was merely a statement that if some of them did exist in the real world, there are very few angels I'd rather have exist instead of most demons. That's my opinion. Perhaps I should have been more direct in the point I was making, but it was late and I was tired. At least I am clarifying what I meant now. I honestly was not trying to do a bait and switch with the matter, but did not word myself well. I make errors, but I try to make amends for them. The implication that I have a guilty concscience, however, is silly and unneeded. I have no problems with my conscience, although I doubt that there would be any Malakim whose code of honor would match my own. (If only because I wouldn't try to kill someone who didn't meet my standards of morals.) As far as trying to make angels and demons indistinguishable, no I am not asking for that. I just don't think that the angels are necessarily on the right side of that line. > Also note that the official In Nomine universe is, as far as I can tell, > deliberately being written so as not to close off possibilities that > individual GMs might want want to pursue. In other words, if you want to > say it's really the demons who are the good guys and angels who are the bad > guys, you should still be able to use our material. Even the stuff I wrote. > :) Wonderful. That's all that I want- to make sure that demons aren't written out of being an acceptable choice in the IN supplements. I'd, of course, also have some preferences for the direction of the supplements, but that doesn't matter. I'm just a fan and not privy to the plans of the Superiors. Here's hoping that I'm pleasantly surprised by your (plural you, referring to the Superiors who set the direction of the IN line, even you David. ;'} ) ideas. > Why don't you reserve judgment until you actually see it, rather than > assuming that because I would happen to run an In Nomine game differently > than you would, anything I write for In Nomine will be useless to you? I am > not trying to hammer the official In Nomine universe to conform to my > personal vision. I am certainly not trying to make everyone conform to my > ideas of morality and how to play certain kinds of characters. I didn't say that I hated the supplement already or anything similarly silly. I said that if the supplement was going to be a GM tool for demons instead of a player's, that the title should at least be changed. I never said or implied that it would be useless to me if you wrote it. I was asking if the DPG was really going to be more of a GM supplement than a player one, since if only by the title, it should be focussed on the players. I was also concerned that the option of demonic campaigns was being marginalized or in danger of being dropped from the In Nomine supplements. The latter does not seem to be the case, so I am more than happy to say sorry for the snapping and hope that we can get on to more profitable use of bandwidth. > Heck, I think you'll *like* what I wrote. But then, I am the Demon Prince > of Arrogance. Or was that Sarcasm? Or Contrariness. I get confused > sometimes... Or perversity. I don't think that we ever came to a concensus on just which one. > -David, still a Prince of a guy Donald G. Bixler, just gets a little nervous when none of the development team seems to support the demonic option mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:49:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmodeus Subject: Re: IN> The Trouble with Andre (was Re: IN> Demon Playing) According to Donald G Bixler: > > Yeah...I just reread that section. They take dissonance when they allow > > violent passion to overcome them, unless it's directed at demons. A lot > > more limiting then I had thought. > > Exactly, they have to be very careful with themselves- no punching the > wall in frustration. > That's why if you're gonna play a Mercurian, Dominic's the way to go! Then you get frustrated and just find some random scumbag who deserves it - beat the snot out of him, and you feel better.... The one problem is making SURE that they deserve it. I doubt Dommie would be too happy with me if I clocked a jaywalker to blow off steam! Dan Ozdowski Mercurian of Dominic/Calabite of Belial - what a pair! - -- Remember: The light at the end of the tunnel COULD be an oncoming dragon. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #381 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.