From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Oct 8 01:51:54 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 BAA07201 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:51:54 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id BAA04160 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:30:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:30:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199710080630.BAA04160@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 #392 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, October 8 1997 Volume 01 : Number 392 In this digest: IN> On Playing Evil IN> The Cthulhu Mythos in In Nomine Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? Re: IN> Mark's vision of In Nomine Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game Re: IN> Chess Game - Outtake Reel Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> On Playing Evil Re: IN> Chess Game - Outtake Reel IN> The Infernal Trefoil Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) IN> In: Fate/Destiny ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:52:22 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> On Playing Evil >>>> Yes, but there are other ways to relieve stress. Yes, there are. And?<<< And some of them are healthier than others. >>>Why? Slaughter is slaughter - the attraction is not being the good guy. The major difference is that some people feel a need to justify their interest by making their targets evil, so they can be morally justified as they act badass. Playing evil works in the same way, but with less contrivance.<<< No, motive counts. Same reason why a soldier who guns down enemy soldiers is doing his duty and not considered to be a criminal, while someone who guns down people in a McDonald's is a psychopath. In both cases, people died, people who probably weren't "evil" and probably didn't deserve to die, except in the former case they happened to be on the wrong side during a war. The tragedy, from an objective point of view, is the same. But it would be absurd to say the ethical implications for both are the same. >>>I doubt it affects your worldview - I have been playing violent games for about ten years (probably *because* of my fathers desire to the contrary) and had violent daydreams before that. I'm one of the least violent people I know,<<< I didn't say it turns you into a violent person. (I don't consider myself a violent person either.) I said it has an effect. If we assume that how a person turns out is based on a whole multitude of factors, which seems logical, I'd say that for the average person, being "into" hyper-violent fiction probably won't change their behavior overmuch, but there may be quite a few for whom it might tip them over the edge into more violent behavior than they might otherwise display. Please note, I am not advocating banning anything. I just think a lot of the denials we hear today, claiming that the media and pop culture has no effect on the people exposed to it, are a little too facile. >>>> I did not say that media by itself creates a violent society. You did imply it helped, something I am directly disagreeing with.<<< Yes, I did imply it helped. You are free to directly disagree with me. >>>No more than suppressing the urges that create interest in that would. Their sexuality (and ours) is already unhealthy, by those standards - the fact that they deal with it through expression rather than repression and complicated channeling doesn't really enter into it.<<< How do you know this? This notion that freely expressing one's every urge is healthy has always baffled me. I don't believe in suppressing one's desires to the point of denying them entirely, but being able to voluntarily suppress some of our baser urges is a vital component in maintaining a civilized society. >>>There is that - however, feminism *is* occuring over there as well. Violence (which was the other quote) doesn't have as much reason to be hidden, and yet it is also lower.<<< Feminism in a rather different form than here, but yes. I would certainly agree that rape in Japan probably IS a lot more infrequent than here, just not as infrequent as statistics and popular assumptions about Japanese society might suggest. >>>Not being an animal psychologist, I can't say with any authority, but I doubt very few animals think about killing as a necessity, unless it is possibly hunting. Violence to establish your power probably elicits the same urges.<<< That's my point- they DON'T think about it. Killing on an impulse (whether that impulse is a sudden rage or self-defense) is animalistic behavior. Premeditated murder, however, is not, nor is sadism. (Yes, predators hunt, which could be considered "premeditated murder", but they are basically following a genetic program; they hunt instinctively for food. They never decide "This other wolf ticked me off, I'm going to stalk him and kill him when he's alone.") >>>> And "rape" among animals doesn't involve the same dynamic as in > humans. How?<<< Does this really need to be explained to you? Animals mate by instinct, and "rape" can occur when a male feels the instinct to mate but the female does not (mistimed pheremones, usually). But the "rapist" is, in that case, following a hormonal compulsion, not making a conscious choice "I want some and I'm gonna get some". And the female, while she might not enjoy it, isn't going to suffer the emotional damage that humans do. Humans, on the other hand, have complete control over their mating urges. No human rapist ever raped a woman because hormones took over his brain and he had no choice in the matter. >>>The danger is people who cannot distinguish between channeling the urge and simply releasing it, and those people are (thankfully) few and far between.<<< Yes, that is a danger. Another is the danger that certain forms of "channelling" MIGHT be unhealthy, yet some people aren't willing to consider that possibility. I am not making an absolute statement that venting one's frustration with one's boss or an idiot in traffic by blowing up a lot of people in a roleplaying game is bad (I HAVE done the same thing), just suggesting that it might not be quite as antiseptic as some would like to believe. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:32:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Dorothy Bixler Subject: IN> The Cthulhu Mythos in In Nomine On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, cd skogsberg wrote: > The Serpent People (snip) > Yeah! Thanks for sending this along. And now for tonights conspiracy- Something I've been throwing around in the back of my head for a while, where is the Crawling Chaos? Nyarlathotep _has to be somewhere. I can't game without him. And then I started thinking, you know Beleth seems just a little, well, not right (see where this is going :) ). Consider the following: In the mythos: Nyar is the protector of the Dreamlands and has dominion over the Pagan (Earth) Gods. In In Nomine: Beleth protects the Ethereal and is giving shelter to the Pagan Gods. And if you think about it, their personalities match pretty well (bitter as hell). So my conspiracy theory is, sometime after Beleth gained control of her side of the Marches, Nyarlathotep killed her off and assumed her form as one of his 1000 (he went for her because she was the weaker between her and Blandaine). Now that he is in control, he's waiting until Heaven and Hell are too busy fighting each other so he can unleash his power upon the world. What he'll do with this power is anyones guess. Will he take over as Earth's one God, release the Pagan Gods, or just kill us all? Ia! Ia! *Dorothy Michelle Bixler * mudmh10@ecom.ecn.bgu.edu* "Gidget, have you been laying with the Horned One again?" -MST3K's Mike from "The Thing the Couldn't Die" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil > >> I think it's the "getting off on" phrasing. Without modifying > >> circumstances, somebody who evidences pleasure in the concept > >> of hurting others is a little odd. > > > >"Odd" seems an odd choice of words. > > Odd. Not normal. With lack of other referent points, maybe even > dangerous. Someone who evidences pleasure in getting off a > difficult die-roll and achieving the objective... Well, that's > different. Side note, but does anybody else just hate how much dice tend to rule games? I love nothing more than a well laid plan, and hate nothing more than the die rolls that hose it. If it was an enemy that did it, fine, but the *dice*... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? > > Quoth Nathaniel Eliot: > > [Aside: Mentioning underground movements in Hell just gave me an > > interesting campaign seed: Assuming Janus and Valefor are the same > > guy, what if the Prince of Theft has a network of demons charged > > with smuggling damned souls *out* of Hell (they only have to get > > as far as the two angels of Judgment at the gates)? Just a point - I didn't say this...I like it, but I didn't say it. It fits well into the "Heaven ain't always right" feel of In Nomine. A point I *would* like to make is this: Damned souls are in Hell for a *reason*. They are evil - not just kinda bad, but really *evil* - they have met their Fate. Hell is their punishment, and somehow I don't see demons torturing them for resources as being so horrible. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kinney Subject: Re: IN> Mark's vision of In Nomine On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > > Dotti Michelle (Hell Sworn since 1991)- Donald and I can't be > > > the only Pagans around here. > > Nope, I am as well. Not a satanist, just a Pagan. > And I might as well swear in as an atheist (which a *lot* of > Christians I know have treated as even worse than being Pagan). If I'm in a weird place. I'm basically Christian if I *have* to pick one, but I've found *no* organized sect I agree with. Meanwhile, my girlfriend is Wiccan, and I've been researching that, and must admit there's a certain appeal. I also get into science a little, which makes for fun with all sorts of my thoughts. I guess for now, I'm just confused. :-) Yeah, it's off topic, but we're all getting to know each other, right? :-) alberich@iglou.com | Mark Kinney | http://www.iglou.com/nations "Okay, you take 35 points of damage. How much over does that put you on your death check?" -- Me, while running a role-playing game. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:15:29 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil > >>>> I did not say that media by itself creates a violent society. > > You did imply it helped, something I am directly disagreeing with.<<< > > Yes, I did imply it helped. You are free to directly disagree with me. Which, for lack of anything on-topic, is about all I think I will do. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? > On cowardice: > > In C. S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letters," the demon Screwtape remarks > that courage is the form of any virtue seen at the testing point. > A kindness or honesty or whathaveyou that is kind or honest only > so long as it is safe is no virtue at all, but only, at best, an > amiable predisposition that, in the event, gets squashed by selfish > concerns for safety. Screwtape goes on to remark that one reason > God may have made a dangerous world was so that there could be > courage. C.S. Lewis is one of the best Christian authors I have ever read - he knows what he is talking about, he thinks about it logically, and he comes out with satisfying answers. If I believed in a God, Lewis would be the preacher I would listen to... So almost no demons are virtuous. I think that was a given... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil I'm dropping this topic after this post - we aren't going to see eye to eye, and I know from my own reactions to other threads of this sort that we aren't causing any new thoughts from other people. > >>>It's a more direct way of dealing with competition, and on the whole, > more effective. Rape takes the long way around, by trying to get the man's > genetics spread as far as possible. The acceptability is an interesting > point...<<< > > >>>Strictly speaking, humans don't have insticts, except at an early > age. What we have are urges.<<< > > Interesting that you deny humans have instincts while suggesting > an instinct justification for rape. If a man is raping people with > the conscious intent of trying to impregnate as many women as > possible, that may be a "rational" reason why he's doing it, but > it's no more morally acceptable than killing people because you want > their stuff. I was using instincts when I meant urges. The urge to rape is there - - I was not using it as justification, merely pointing out a reason why rape might seem worse than killing. Killing is more deeply ingrained... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:00:04 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game > Well, given the discussion here, and the ambiguities in the canon as I have > it to hand, I could have approached it one of two ways. > > (2) Janus and Valefor are separate beings- in which case they'd be > at each other's throats. Janus in particular could not be trusted > to keep the truce anyway. Not necessarily - I could see them playing ping-pong, talking shop, and trying to convince each other to the other side of the Force... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:00:04 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game I was late in getting this (Netcom has gut problems, I think) and so I'm a little late in replying, but I'll jump on the "Hey, that's a kick-ass story" bandwagon anyway... > But as for 'Truth or Dare' with David, it'd be a short and fairly > lame bit anyway, assuming David doesn't try to kill Andre(a). I see Andre as *fully* in control of his sexuality - it is, after all, the weapon he uses. So he could very well have an interesting part without torquing off this or that AA due to excessive flirting. I could even see him and Eli both flirting with a high brow lady, trying to win nothing more than a kiss... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? > >But since you are arguing that demons are evil, I ask you this - God > >in In Nomine is portrayed as omnipotent, or nearly so. If God is > >not stopping this, does this make Him evil? I think there is a > >better case there than there is for all demons being evil. > > This is an old and tired argument. . . "How can a good God allow > suffering." But one that has never been satisfied, in my mind. Simply because it is old doesn't make it wrong. > It hasn't been original since Job. There are a million answers. > The one typically used is "free will." It appears in IN, God > created the universe like a great watch, then stood back and > watched the springs interact. He is still isn't good. He's selfish, and he's very nearly evil - he knows about suffering, and it is in his power to fix it, yet he does not. Being inscrutable doesn't get him off the hook, and being omniscient gets him on it - if he knew suffering would occur and allowed it to anyway, he is, by our definition, evil. > And thats what I feel on the whole demon thing. I hope this > thread ends soon. It has become repetative. And off the orignal topic entirely, which was (IIRC) "Why playing Demons isn't right." I'm probably putting it in the wrong light, though... Right - I'll drop it. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:36:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil > >A lot of assumptions are being made, then. Most people who know of > >me by description only (roleplays, listens to NIN, Manson, and > >Prodigy, has been known to use drugs) get an entirely wrong image of > >me, as a dangerous, potentially violent person. The associations are > >the same, except that you are taking them in another direction; > >people assume I might be violent or psychopathic because I enjoy > >violent, psychopathic music, you assume I might be because I enjoy > >violent, psychopathic characters. > > > >In both cases (AFAIK - self-analysis is never very accurate), the > >assumption is wrong. I enjoy them because they give me a way to > >express the part of me that is dark and violent; I'm pretty mellow > >and nice in real life. > > > Actually, I from a first glance, I just think you have > poor taste in music. :) Before you knock it entirely, realize that I also listen to Doors, Dave Matthews Band, Collective Soul, and Sheryl Crow. But most people don't notice that from snap judgements. > Anyway, you may be right. I'd have to see what you mean by > violent, psychopathic characters. Honestly, straight violence > doesn't upset me too much (hey, I played Shadowrun for years...). > Violence against relative innocents bothers me, though in the past > I gave it much less thought. However, sick stuff does bother me. > It's been rare enough for me that I couldn't come up with it right > away, but then I thought of an event. Allow me to set up an > anecdote: That is only a subset of people who play evil characters - disliking evil characters in general, or the people who play them, is somewhat predjudiced. The described players don't strike me as very good roleplayers anyway... > I nominate Malakim for the choir most likely to appear in > said comment. Any nominations for band? Straight out violence: Calabite or Djinn, because they are the most baddass. Perversion: Impudite, Shedim, or maybe Balseraph. > (BTW, I actually do like NIN most of the time.) Much better than Manson anyday - I included them mainly because the reaction I get about them is usually more pronounced. Prodigy is good if you are especially into rhythm, and aren't listening for a specific message to any of the songs. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "This is my town. I know where the ketchup is." - Dan Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:22:53 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game >> But as for 'Truth or Dare' with David, it'd be a short and fairly >> lame bit anyway, assuming David doesn't try to kill Andre(a). > >I see Andre as *fully* in control of his sexuality - it is, after >all, the weapon he uses. So he could very well have an interesting >part without torquing off this or that AA due to excessive flirting. >I could even see him and Eli both flirting with a high brow lady, >trying to win nothing more than a kiss... Andre is not the problem here, in both cases. Andre would -love- to use either David -or- Eli- especially Eli- for his own amusement. However, David is a Malakite who would, at the -very- least provocation to release him from his oath to start no fights, take Andre and carve his vessel into bite-sized bits, then tromp up and down on him Celestially. And Eli **DETESTS** Andre's selfishness and would want as little to do with him as possible. Andre is the one relatively peaceful Demon Prince who nobody, but NOBODY, in Heaven really wants to be around. (Check that: I just had a flash image of Dominique in studded leather lashing Andrea with a cat o' nine tails. Sometimes I wonder if my Muse really -is- a Reliever of Eli...) Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "Nah, they can't start the http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | Apocalypse yet- the new Star c/o White Lightning Productions | Wars movies ain't come out http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | yet. Who'd miss that?" Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- Eli, on the War http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:41:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Chess Game - Outtake Reel Redneck, mi amigo, you- are- WARPED!!! God I wish I could be just half as weird as you. Thanks forsending us the cool story and the cool out-take reel. - -Calabim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:47:29 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> What do we mean when we say "evil"? Stacy Stroud wrote: > > Nathaniel Eliot wrote, in response to me: > >But since you are arguing that demons are evil, I ask you this - God > >in In Nomine is portrayed as omnipotent, or nearly so. If God is > >not stopping this, does this make Him evil? I think there is a > >better case there than there is for all demons being evil. > > Hmm. > > *Is* the IN God portrayed as omnipotent? > > We are told so little about Him that we could just as easily say He is > benevolent, but *not* (or at least not strictly) omnipotent. > > I agree that you probably have to have one or the other, though (in the > game *or* in real life). > {massive snippage} > There are probably other portrayals of God that would work, as well. The > point is that the omnipotent-but-evil portrayal is not the only possible > one, especially in the game. (Heck, it's not the only one even in real > life, where portrayals of God tend to be somewhat more detailed than the > vague mention given in the IN rulebook.) Comments? Other ideas? > Sounds like what McLeish {sp?} has his Nick say to Jove [or was it Zeus?] in the Job-based play "JB": If God is God, God is not Good, If God is Good, God is not God. tom t. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:24:01 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil >> Actually, I from a first glance, I just think you have >> poor taste in music. :) > >Before you knock it entirely, realize that I also listen to Doors, >Dave Matthews Band, Collective Soul, and Sheryl Crow. But most >people don't notice that from snap judgements. Actually...hate to admit this, but you're just reenforcing my humorous remark. Mind you, I have imperfect taste in music by several people's standards, so there you go. Time to go have an IN game with Vena Cava as the sole soundtrack...:) > > > >That is only a subset of people who play evil characters - disliking >evil characters in general, or the people who play them, is somewhat >predjudiced. The described players don't strike me as very good >roleplayers anyway... Oh heck, no. They sucked. However, I've met a lot of roleplayers at cons who honestly were at ~their level (of roleplaying, not doing gross stuff). I'm not saying all people playing evil characters are right out...just expressing why I'm leary of evil characters. The times they've turned out well (often very well), the characters were isolated from random innocents. My prejudice against evil chars (specifically, of the "fully evil, goes after innocents" type) does for me what my other snap-judgement prejudices have done in the past - let me avoid really bad scenes. Sometimes it's wrong, much of the time it lets me realize that I'm much better off if I back off now. That kind of thing. So, I'm leary of the guy who describes his CE Drow warlord to me, then notes that he'll be in my upcoming IN game. (Ah...memories of the Robotech game at a con long ago where our mission commander decided to enslave the local population we were liberating. Joy.) > >> I nominate Malakim for the choir most likely to appear in >> said comment. Any nominations for band? > >Straight out violence: Calabite or Djinn, because they are the most >baddass. > >Perversion: Impudite, Shedim, or maybe Balseraph. > >> (BTW, I actually do like NIN most of the time.) > >Much better than Manson anyday - I included them mainly because the >reaction I get about them is usually more pronounced. Prodigy is >good if you are especially into rhythm, and aren't listening for a >specific message to any of the songs. Hmmm. I don't usually listen to lyrics - and I still don't like Prodigy. I think I'd actually like them more if I hadn't seen the video for Firestarter. Oh well. Thankfully, I don't own my own Nybbas box, so MTV is kept far away (thus saving me from the foul influence of the Demon of Jump-Cuts and his companion, the Demon of Shaky Cameras). Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:09:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil > >> > >> > >> It's a gray area, from what I can see. Enjoying the carrying out > >> of a dandy little plot that gets the right NPC toasted (or > >> sometimes PC; ah, the way us AD&D munchkins slaughtered the > >> PC we didn't want to play with!) is one thing. Enjoying the > >> idea of killing someone, periord, starts to edge into a gray > >> area... Enjoying something *too much*, and I think most of us > >> can agree we've got a baby sociopath around. > > > >"Too much" is difficult here. If "too much" means that they start to blur > >fantasy with reality, then yeah. > > Bingo. What else could "too much" mean? It is, by definition, where > someone crosses the line into unacceptable behavior. Its just that the way you put it above seemed to suggest that losing touch with reality was on a continuum with enjoying playing an evil character, that the person who goes out an *does* evil things is like the person who pretends to *only more so*. This, naturally, bothered me. I enjoy playing an evil character but am no more likely to go out and perform attrocities than you are. > > >> I think it's the "getting off on" phrasing. Without modifying > >> circumstances, somebody who evidences pleasure in the concept > >> of hurting others is a little odd. > > > >"Odd" seems an odd choice of words. > > Odd. Not normal. But this is the R.P.G. default. Violence is amazingly common in role-playing games. Most sessions of most people's games will include some fighting. > With lack of other referent points, maybe even > dangerous. You need more than just enjoying the idea. You need the *reality* to appeal to you. Its not like I'm a psychopath with a conscience, wanting to hurt people all the time but held back by my outstanding moral nature. I genuinetly don't want to gun people down in real life. This is compatible with playing Doom until my eyes bleed. > >Even if we just limit our > >conversation to games, *most* games involve hurting people. Even when you > >are playing the *good* guys, it just so happens that foiling the bad > >guys requires kicking various substances out of them. > > Does it? Come now, play more Servitors of Flowers! (I *still* > can't do that IN article I'd like to -- because I don't have > enough experience with combat yet!) I didn't say *I* engage in a lot of game violence (actually, its pretty rare in my games). I didn't say that *you* engage in a lot of game violence... > > I've been in games where most of the action was utterly roleplaying > and problem-solving, and didn't *need* anything getting bashed. ...I just said that violence in R.P.G.s is the norm. Look at the popularity of AD&D. Look at the endless books on guns and engines of destruction that get churned out into R.P.G. stores. Look at the majority of adventures that get published. Look at the equipment lists in just about any game you care to mention and see how much of it it taken up with weaponry. It is you and I who are the odd ones out, not those who play lots of violent games. Greg. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> On Playing Evil > > > > > >>>Why? Slaughter is slaughter - the attraction is not being the good > guy. The major difference is that some people feel a need to justify > their interest by making their targets evil, so they can be morally > justified as they act badass. Playing evil works in the same way, > but with less contrivance.<<< > > No, motive counts. Same reason why a soldier who guns down enemy soldiers > is doing his duty and not considered to be a criminal, while someone who > guns down people in a McDonald's is a psychopath. Motive does indeed count in real life. And it counts when we judge the character morally. But the point, if I understand it, was that *players* tend to involve themselves in games where the fine, upstanding, moral heroes are put in the unfortunate position (oh darn it!) of having to gun down hoards of baddies so that right may prevail. The characters do what they do because it is right. The *player* does what they do because it is fun. Players tend to *like* pretending gunning down hoards of people and playing a hero who has no other ethical choice gives them the chance to do so. > > I didn't say it turns you into a violent person. (I don't consider myself a > violent person either.) I said it has an effect. If we assume that how a > person turns out is based on a whole multitude of factors, which seems > logical, I'd say that for the average person, being "into" hyper-violent > fiction probably won't change their behavior overmuch, but there may be > quite a few for whom it might tip them over the edge into more violent > behavior than they might otherwise display. There may be. When I see research suggesting that there is, I'll stop playing the bad guy. Remember, R.P.G.s *may* predispose one to Satanism. > > Please note, I am not advocating banning anything. Understood and apreciated. > I just think a lot of > the denials we hear today, claiming that the media and pop culture has no > effect on the people exposed to it, are a little too facile. Well, when the research comes in saying that it makes people more violent, I'll read it. > > >>>No more than suppressing the urges that create interest in that > would. Their sexuality (and ours) is already unhealthy, by those > standards - the fact that they deal with it through expression > rather than repression and complicated channeling doesn't really > enter into it.<<< > > How do you know this? This notion that freely expressing one's every urge > is healthy has always baffled me. I don't know about that. But I do think that if someone is sexually happy and is not hurting anyone for sexual reasons, then they are sexually healthy - and I don't care *what* goes on in their head. > I don't believe in suppressing one's > desires to the point of denying them entirely, but being able to > voluntarily suppress some of our baser urges is a vital component in > maintaining a civilized society. We shouldn't act out our baser urges. But if we can truly "vent" them, I see nothing wrong with doing so. > > Yes, that is a danger. Another is the danger that certain forms of > "channelling" MIGHT be unhealthy, yet some people aren't willing to > consider that possibility. I agree that it MIGHT be. But might isn't enough. Gaming might be a front for the international satanist conspiricy as my sister in law believes. Greg. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:32:42 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Chess Game - Outtake Reel >Redneck, mi amigo, you- are- WARPED!!! > >God I wish I could be just half as weird as you. Be careful what you ask Him, he has a playful sense of humor. }:-{D Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "Nah, they can't start the http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | Apocalypse yet- the new Star c/o White Lightning Productions | Wars movies ain't come out http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | yet. Who'd miss that?" Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- Eli, on the War http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:41:37 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: IN> The Infernal Trefoil The Infernal Trefoil The third man sat down at the table. True to their natures, the first two had already ordered food. The new arrival frowned at the sight of pancakes topped by two scoops of warming butter. He looked at his watch. "It’s four in the afternoon." The other man spoke around a mouthful of syrup-coated pancake. "Hey – breakfast is served all day. Pure luxury. I’ll take it while it lasts." Putting his greasy burger down, the last man broke his silence. "This needs more mayonnaise. How’s everything?" "Well…" The man’s voice tapered off as the waitress approached. He didn’t bother to glance at a menu. "Ice cream. Vanilla, or whatever you have if you’re out of that." The waitress nodded, tucked her menu back under her arm and walked away. The man placed his hands on the table and played a brief bit of air piano, scanned the room, then leaned forward. Before he spoke, the pancake-eater swallowed a particularly large chunk and cut in. "Relax. No one knows we’re here. Hell – who even knows about us?" "Sorry. I just had a tense trip." The burger man finished off his cola. "I’m in." "Me too." "…and me. Good to go." Everyone knows Saminga isn’t the brightest fire burning in Hell. In fact, he’s a bit too dense for his own good. He’s missed the obvious point that simply killing people doesn’t advance Hell’s cause much, but he’s also really passed up some major opportunities for death and destruction. Sure, there’s war, but there could be WAR, and Saminga just doesn’t have the wit to plan for it. Fortunately, there are some slightly clever blokes bumping around in Saminga’s middle echelons. Totally devoted to Saminga and his deathwish for humanity, they’ve given some serious thought to doing things in one fell swoop. The Cold War is over, and that slight relaxation in war tensions, though it may make Malphas unhappy, hasn’t really reduced the number of weapons of mass destruction all around the world. Saminga missed the boat all these years, but his motivated servants aren’t. They’re going to do it. The whole world, all at once. So how will they pull it off? These servants of Saminga are mainly Shedim, who have spent years familiarizing themselves with military procedures, using hit-and-miss methods to jump ever closer to those who control nuclear weapons all over the world. Once they all have access, the button will be pushed and their lord Saminga’s plans will be fulfilled. Of course, Saminga could never take this kind of success from his minions, so he’d probably disband their Forces on the spot. They’re only smarter than Saminga; they’re still not all that bright. The three men made their final farewells as they walked out of the restaurant. Suddenly, a young man found himself sitting on cheap vinyl, with a barely-touched club sandwich in front of him. Outside, several pigeons broke from a large bunch gathered on the roof, each one shadowing one of the men. Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:49:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> [FICTION] Chess Game > At 4:00 PM -0500 10/7/97, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >>My fave was, of course: Lilith & Marc playing Monopoly. And deciding > >>it wasn't a good idea. > >Monopoly was never meant for two people anyway. }:-{D > So? O:> (I don't play it with my spouse anymore. He wins.) I strongly suggest replacing the standard dice with a pair of 20-siders...(It's great fun rolling a pair of 20's. You just stay where you are, collect $200, and roll again. Assuming you're not on the other player's Boardwalk-with-a-hotel, anyway, at which point if you roll a pair of 20's you hurl the dice across the room and storm out. Or something more mature, if the game was going alright until then, but come on..by the time your opponent has a hotel on Boardwalk, you've been getting more and more frustrated for at least half an hour. Monopoly and Risk have 2-player versions because Malphas wanted a way to get adoring couples really annoyed with each other...) [Which is also why the Just Visiting area of the Jail in our games is equipped with canopied beds and whipped cream.] And, just to tie this in with In Nomine, has anyone tried a d202020 system? (Er. Then again, I may just want to admit this is off-topic and salvage what I can...) > >Me, my personal fantasy would be meeting Eli in a female vessel... :9 > Oooooo..... Nah, Eli's too predictable. (Hey, does Novalis do the whole incubus/succubus thing and justify it as cross pollination?) [Wahoo! On topic!] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:14:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Archangel Beth came to my rescue with; > >models. As for quarks and honeybees, you've lost me... > According to a recent Discover magazine article, bee-dancing to > communicate "food over there" follows 6-dimensional math models, > and suggests that they have some way of sensing *quarks*, I think > it was. Something quantum... Ah, that was it...thank you. {"She canna take much more, captin. Bzz bzz bzz" Um..dilithium honeycomb?} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:07:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: IN> In: Fate/Destiny Nathaniel Eliot made the following point; > Damned souls are in Hell for a *reason*. They are evil - not just > kinda bad, but really *evil* - they have met their Fate. Hell is But what about the note that Fates (and Destinies, for that matter)...frankly, aren't always that big. Alright, so Hitler had a mega Fate and probably deserves whatever he may be getting...but what about the guy who was just Fated to not clean his cat's litterbox out often enough? Does that really deserve eternal pain? (Shut up, Jordi.) I'll admit - that may be even pettier than Fates reasonably get, but you see the point, I hope; a lot of people are Fated to things that are less than what *I*'d call "*evil*". (Heck, their suggested Fate for Hemmingway was to be a depressed alcoholic. If they didn't suggest that he also met his Destiny, he'd have gone to Hell just for that. It's SAD, but it's not EVIL. For the counter example, if Hitler had just been a mediocre painter, he'd have made Heaven.) Though, since it's come up, I had an idea/plot seed that popped into my head the other night... It's based on the premise that Fate/Destiny combinations KEEP COMING UP until they're fulfilled. That is, when someone dies who hasn't managed that critical `choice', and their Forces recycle into the Symphony...the Fate and Destiny stay attached to those Forces, and when they're reborn, that person has basically the same potentials. Not knowingly, as in the case of a Saint, obviously--it's not the PERSON recycling, just the F/D. Primarily, this gives Celestials on both sides a good reason to - -NOT- get too involved in some of the really major human events. Say, if a human is Destined to save a whole lot of souls, Hell may be better off letting them DO it, so that they'll get it over with and cycle out, rather than saving just a bunch of souls, getting killed, popping back up, saving a few more, getting killed, popping back up... The same, of course, would apply for the Angelic side, and could present a serious moral quandary for a group of players if, say, just for example, Hitler *DIDN'T* meet his Fate. Say, he was Fated to -WIN- the War, and it's going to keep coming up until it happens...so when a group of Angels note someone rising to power in a similar way, they'll have that option of acting against it and knowing it'll be back in another couple generations, or letting it go and risking it seriously messing up the world *NOW*... We've also been thinking about having Fate and Destiny as traits a human can purchase, similar to Roles...particularly given that humans in contact with Celestials are more likely to have stronger ones, I think. Either, of course, would actually cost points, regardless of which side you're on now..(So a Soldier of God with a Destiny/4 and a Fate/6 would have to pay for the Fate just as a Soldier of Hell would...after all, it's certainly not without its advantages, like all those Servitors of Kronos trying to get buddy-buddy...) I'm thinking there should be side effects, too, like your F/D level can add somehow to rolls that the GM considers likely to lead towards it, or somesuch, but...this only just seriously occurred to me about 15 minutes ago, so the mechanics still need tweaking. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #392 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.