From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jun 4 02:41:26 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 CAA12674 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:41:26 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA26193 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:29:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:29:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199706040529.AAA26193@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 #195 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, June 4 1997 Volume 01 : Number 195 In this digest: Re: IN> Beginning Bright Lilim Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions RE: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #190 Re: IN> the Mouth of Madness Re: IN> Lilim are Evil! (What, all of them?) [No Free Will digressions] RE: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #192 Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) IN> Re: Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... Re: IN> Cosmology ad infinitum Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... IN> Jadis errata -- dissonance and anger Re: IN> Missing Lilim? Free Will debate (Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?)) Re: IN> Cosmology ad infinitum Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #192 IN> Free Will ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:16:48 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Beginning Bright Lilim At 8:49 PM -0600 5/30/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: >> >HAD served (because the Attunements, if I remember right, don't go away - >> >once you're Attuned, you get to stay that way forever), >> (No, they go away -- p. 60, the box on Redemption.) > Whoops...even worse than that, actually, it's right there on p. >149 with the rest of the Lilim stuff that a Bright Lilim keeps "only the >abilities that are basic to the Lilim." Sorry about that. Though there's nothing saying that an Archangel couldn't give her a "Choir" attunement -- either one of the existing ones, or a "Bright Lilim" attunement... (Got several of those, as mentioned...) >(Though, on the note of it, I do consider it significant enough to mention >again that I don't think Bright Lilim undergo "Redemption," per se, in the >same way other Bands do...Redemption entails a fundamental change of >Resonance. A Bright Lilim is still basically a Lilim who happens to be >making the effort to do her favors for the other side.) I'd suspect that their intrinsic nature, now having an angelic Heart, would change enough that the celestial form would probably alter at least a *little*.... Habbalah, for example, still seem to have the emotion-sensing ability -- and *they* change their celestial form rather radically! >> If she'd gone Bright by the time they saw her, then >> they wouldn't need or want to kill her... > So there, I don't know that they'd be able to tell straight away. >(Granted, Dominic could just say, "You want to work for us?" and check his >Resonance on the answer...) Seraphim can be so useful sometimes. The rest of the time, they're seriously annoying... >We've been toying with the idea today of a >Bright Lilim attaining the rank among the Archangels...{The Archangel of >Just Rewards, perhaps?} May I interest you in my GURPS Illuminati University (aka GURPS IOU) conversion... http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/IOUInNom.html - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:11:59 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions > >of other surviving paganisms, e.g. Shinto and the surviving native > >religions of the Americas, Africa, and Australia. I see four options: > > >1) These are the kind of creature that Uriel went gunning for, now > >generally found in the Marches, apparently Ethereal in nature. > > I had thought that too... But I rather assumed that the ones banished were > the pantheons of *dead* religions. One would assume that the pantheons of > currently popular religions still held some real power in the Celestial > realms... > > [Earl Wajenberg] > >2) These are garbled memories of Celestials. > > A possibility, but that rather trivializes several of the world's major > religions... > ahem...5)they are Etherealities like 1) based on garbled memories of Celestials 2). the Cellies are themselves responsible for spawning the Ethereal Pantheons. Agni and Logh are garbled recollections of Gabriel, Mars and Ares are mis-recollections of Michael, etc..... tom, in a moment of fitful insane satori. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:01:30 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: RE: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... >Ways that Kyrios can really annoy people: > > Take control of a body, buy a ticket to Tahiti, and when you arrive burn >his passport and leave :) Physically, he's no worse for wear... > > Run your host into the ladies' (or gents' as appropriate) restroom shouting >"I am Cornholio!", or any other inane rambling you can devise. Exit, and >watch as the ex-host comes to grips with his new-found friends. > Personally, I like these two as ways of discomforting Soldiers of Hell and those infolved in their plots. However, remember that doing these things *just* for personal amusement is going to get you, at best, a talking to by your Superior. Even Eli would pin your ears back for terrorizing innocent people this way. > Or, if you have the forces to handle it, you could really destroy a few >relationships by careful manipulation of your hosts "Roger! What are you >doing in bed with that woman/man/duck/coffee percolator (only Kyrios of >jean)??". Talk you way out of THAT one, mundane! > This one, especially, would tick off Eli. -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:35:03 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #190 At 12:32 PM -0500 6/1/97, RogueLdr wrote: >> >>BTW - has anyone else noticed that nobody actually seems to be creating Lilim >>that are not either "bright" or "grey"? From reading the list alone, you >>would assume that there wasn't a single Lilim left in Hell, they all seem to >>have defected to Heaven or Earth. Maybe it's like trying to create a Malakim >>who *isn't* a prat, and can't be done? Hey, there's always K.K.! *She's* evil, has a blast, and is now on my character sheet pages... Austin Loomis' adaptation of Jadis, Princess of Winter, is also there. (And of *course* they aren't in Hell! They're much more useful assigned to Earth! Humans have such *wimpy* Wills, most of them, and it's so *easy* to stick them with even a Geas/1, just *casually*! "He needs $20 for a CD? Fine, reach into the purse, hand him a $20, and ask him to show me to the place I want to go." Demons, with high Wills for their Resonances, are much harder to get a Geas on, so there's no point to a Lilim staying in Hell.) >[...] But you're right about the Lilim- we do seem to have an >unnaturally high concentration of them. Lilim are cool and look good in leather and lace. At 11:49 PM -0500 6/1/97, Donald G Bixler wrote: > My wife posted a Lilim of Gluttony a few weeks back, "Aunt >Marti". Of course, she's the only Lilim working for Hell I remember on >the list. For that matter, I haven't seen any male Lilim... Male Lilim don't look as cool in leather and lace. Quite. I'll have to do some guy Lils... (Though there ought to be one on the character pages -- I think he's Bright, though.) >> Where have all the Lilim gone? > >Oops da Ogre, You're not cleared for that. Fnord. At 12:00 PM -0500 6/1/97, Austin George Loomis wrote: >>Where have all the Lilim gone? >> >Gone to Heaven, every one. > >Austin George "Oh, when will they ever learn?" Austin Loomis is *SICK*.... ("How can I keeeep...from filking?") At 5:22 PM -0600 6/1/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: >[...] > Lilim are great. Their Resonance is something incredibly useful, >and they only get Dissonance from someone resisting it. On the related >note, the Dissonance you get while Serving Lilith is something ANY gamer >would do anyway. When's the last time a player said, "Oh, I've been >captured? Sucks. Well, I give up."?!? Sometimes "playing dead" or biding your time can be useful -- and sometimes it's hopeless... :-p Depends on if you can wait and regain some essence, or wait till you get to the station to call for a lawyer (), or not. Lilim in tight spots will probably talk really fast... > Refusing to accept orders >theoretically MIGHT be a problem, except all you have to do is freely >negotiate that you will... Hopefully getting some additional bennies out of it later, if you're good... >and `having' to try to escape imprisonment isn't >remotely as restrictive as the Ofanim compulsion to keep actually moving. Now there's an evil thing to do -- lock the Gray Renegade (serving Freedom, theoretically) and the Ofanite in together and watch the fun... (I must be in a sadistic mood right now...) >Then again, I've got my hippie Malakim of War, Sunray, who can hardly help >it if demons just assume that because he's wearing a tie-dye, he can't hit >first..} And they say *demons* are evil. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:01:38 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Re: IN> the Mouth of Madness >>I was thinking more along the lines of the adventurers finding a cult that >>is getting very close to waking/creating one of them. > >I wonder if we could get some kind of unofficial Call of Cthulhu stuff for IN, >have angels/demons trying to remove a common threat, maybe combining in the >face of a greater peril than their opposite number. And sudenly, a third >party enters the fray... > I think that most of the "rules" will have to be GM improvosation. How are Celestials supposed to deal with beings that don't necessarily exist entirely within the Symphony? >>>I wonder if the Old Ones feed off the Essence of their worshippers/slaves >like >>>Impudites feed off people? >>> >>Maybe they can only do it once their Etherial Forces are gone (helplessly >>insane). > >Does this mean that the Old Ones can then siphon out all Essence from their >victims, effectively removing all life from them (anyone seen In The Mouth of >Madness? Sam Neill looks like he's been sucked dry by the end of the film). > I suppose that different entities gain Essence differently. Some stories depict physical corruption and others mental corruption. Many contain both. Sometimes the physical corruption isn't degeneration but a transformation (possibly to a form that better channels Essense for the entiey). -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:21:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim are Evil! (What, all of them?) [No Free Will digressions] At 11:40 PM -0400 5/29/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Nope. She wants them to be free of _non-voluntary_ restraints. <<< > >Like, say, laws against killing people who annoy you, or parking in >handicapped parking spaces. Yup. Or handicapped people taking their wheel-chair mounted bazookas and blowing away people parked in handicapped parking spaces. But just think, she's not in favor of the IRS! On the other other hand, if you *choose* to abide by certain restrictions, that's your *choice*. If you choose to be a ravening nuisance, then other people can choose to remove you from the gene pool. Sorta like the Net, really... Consensual Anarchy. (I don't say she's *good*! Never, ever... But she's not a sadist like 99.9% of the other demon Princes seem to be. This makes her more interesting in many ways -- less predictable. You make a deal with Lilith, and you could find yourself up against the wall, or maybe it would actually be something that you can cope with. You make a deal with some other Demon Prince, and you know you're going to get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.) >>>>Nope. It is designed to _enforce_ a relatively fair deal.<<< > >Nope, it is designed to enforce whatever deal the Lilim makes, whether it's >fair or not. It's "fair enough" -- it's service for service, and it has to be equvilant in the mind of the GM. It's better than an Impudite Charm and leech maneuver, I'd say! At 11:31 AM -0400 5/30/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Sacrifice your very existance for no gain (Lilith's likely fate if she'd >tried to stay neutral)? More dubious...<<< > >I dunno, Uriel conducted one purge 1200 years ago, but most of the gods >that survived that seem to be surviving quite well. If you call ekeing out an existance in the Far Marches or serving Beleth "surviving quite well".... >Survival may well be Lilith's rationalization for siding with Hell, but I >don't buy it as being exclusive of her also being spiteful, self-centered, >and basically evil. Self-centered and selfish, yes. If Selfish = Evil, then yes. Spiteful is more debatable, and she *doesn't* have that streak of cruelty and sadism that's apparent in just about every one of the others. She is certainly Evil in the eyes of angels, being selfish to the exclusion of others (unless it suits her whim, no doubt), but in the eyes of humanity? >>>>This makes her a more evil entity than Janus, who advocates change >and chaos and swiping things for "completely unselfish reasons"?<<< > >Yes. Janus makes value judgments; his angels steal from the *wicked*. And if you want to summon him, you get invocation modifiers for stealing newspapers, defacing public street signs, re-routing "detour" signs (I call *that* evil, myself...), or blowing up a car. Janus isn't evil? Cherubim of Wind *enthral* their devotee, who acts as a servant for the duration... This isn't a violation of Free Will? >>>> And no, it DOESN'T mean they care about anyone else's freedom! But >neither does it mean that one *can't*. I'm *HARDLY* arguing that *all* >Lilim are really good!!<<< > >I am not arguing that one can't. I'm arguing that very, very few Lilim are >good, and Lilith certainly is not even ambiguously close to being good. Did I say that *many* Lilim are "good"? No way. But the *concept* of a "good" one is fascinating enough that it gets talked about. And I still think Lilith is more a force of nature than anything else. So *very* uncaring, with Rites and Invocation modifiers that are so *easily* twisted to "good" purposes by a determined player. >>>>Error: p. 30 clearly states that Renegades start the game with >Discord, unable to summon their Prince or use Rites.<<< > >This is for demonic PCs starting the game as Renegades. So what about a demonic PC who starts the game as a Free Lilim who's had a bad enough experience on her last Geas that she's trying to avoid other demons? Absent the *immediate* hunt for her from the Servitors of the Game, it's an interesting look at moral/ethical choices, and motivations. Same for a "Gray Habbalah" (who's swapped his "I am on a Mission to Test the Weak" delusion for one like, "I'm more effective for good with my emotion projection ability, and I don't want to damp my emotions anymore, anyway") -- though that one's going to be at least a little dissonant from eating an Emptiness backlash, and probably have the hounds of hell after him. The balance of sanity vs. insanity, the tension of whether the renegade is going to "see the light" during the game, or be mishandled/have bad luck and slip back into pure selfishness... That's why a "gray" demon is interesting to me. I think the point of a "gray renegade" (esp. Lilim, who need not have Hearts or a Superior who will wonder where they've gotten off to) is to have a demon who isn't being *driven* to Redemption for the ultimately selfish reason of: "If I don't, I'm gonna get toasted, and I want to survive." Yeah, we could play humans, but that's not as much fun -- humans hafta eat and sleep and stuff, and have jobs maybe. At 10:38 AM -0400 6/1/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Potentially, but as you note - if Vapula's inventions have >positive effects, it's only as a hook. Lilith, as even you have argued, >at her worst just doesn't care.<<< > >Actually, I'm arguing that at her BEST she doesn't care. At her worst, >she's petty and spiteful, trying to make humanity suffer because of >lingering resentment over being subjugated by Adam (or just getting back at >God by preying on His favorite creations). Actually, I think that's a GM decision, currently -- I'm not sure there's anything in the In Nomine canon that depicts her as *spiteful* or out to do evil (besides being selfish). She *can* lie, but she always keeps her end of a bargain ("unlike the other Princes"), and it's "normally beneath her dignity to lie to a being as lowly as a beginning PC". She has no permanent Servitors, "deeming that too much like slavery." She has been known to get involved when her children, the Lilim, are "victimized or treated as disposable." (Though the rest of the time, its a case of "benign neglect," like works with houseplants...) Even when she accepted the dark pact with Lucifer, she "insisted that independence means far more to her than power over others." *YOU* may think of her as spiteful, but there is nothing in the *text* that suggests she is anything *worse* than uncaring. (And some things that *could* suggest she is *better*, in her own skewed Word-enhancing way.) As individual GMs, you can make her the B!tch-Queen of Hell with a serious case of PMS about humanity, while I turn her into someone who made a bad choice long ago and is looking for a way out of her bargain covertly, or Kingsley () makes her an uncaring and elemental force as unpredictable as Gabriel. The text supports *none* of these options over any other. Which is why she is ambigious in our minds -- her selfishness is less than the other Princes', perhaps, since she doesn't seem to desire power over others. She merely refuses to accept power over *her* as much as she can. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 17:11:56 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: RE: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #192 Ok, as far as "free will" goes and as far as omnipotence goes, we must keep in mind that these are purely human terms, concepts limited by the scope of the human mind. We don't even know if these concept are "perfect" or not because we don't have anything to compare them with except other limited human concepts. We don't *know* that God is Omnipotent, or omniscient. See, that's what I'm all about, we don't *know* anything. Well, so far as God is concerned, he could be dead for all I know. I'd rather think not, anyways. Perry Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:41:58 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:46:00 EST, "PERRY M. LLOYD" wrote: >3 > Ah, so we're to the point where we're all repeating our previous arguments, are we? Well, 7, bucko! And what do you think about that? Eh? ;) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:42:00 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:48:18 EST, "PERRY M. LLOYD" wrote: >I agree, whole heartedly! Ah ha! Fooled ya, didn't I!!!! Not at all: it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. ;) >*sigh* And since we'll never know, let's ponder it some more... > >[Sarcasm! Sarcasm!!] Actually, we *may* find out, but likely only after we die. Were the Heaven's Gate disciples complete fools or extremely devoted theologians? Perhaps they know the answer, but we don't--not certainly... And isn't SJ Games glad they didn't refer to their bodies as Vessels! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:21:26 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Re: At 12:55 PM -0400 6/3/97, campbellp@nku.edu wrote: > In the book, it says roles cost (3?) points per level, then on another >page it says they cost level x status divided by two. What gives? Time for the FAQ to come around, I see... Use the earlier cost, p. 43, I believe. Or check http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine and go to the Errata link... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:00:07 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... > On the related note, taking a body in bad shape to begin with, >while having the obvious drawback that you're going into a body in bad >shape to begin with (heh), can help with this, since you just compare >start and end points..anywhere it goes in between doesn't make a >difference. > As long as the host still has all of it's limbs, it shouldn't be a problem since the host uses the Kys Corporial Forces and hit points. However, I've gotten the impression that the body take the damage simultaniously. So if a body with only 2 hit points left is take over by a Ky with 48 hit points. If the Ky takes 6 points of damage (an ignorable trifle for the Ky) then if the Ky leaves without healing itself, the host will end up with negative hit points. Bad news for the Ky. However, if the Ky had a high Song of Corporeal Healing and heals up the host first then he doesn't have to be as careful as normal when he leaves. > So befuddlement isn't a problem. Though as a GM, I'd say that if >a Kyrio is REGULARLY taking their hosts out and leaving them in precarious >positions, I'd say that violates the spirit of their Resonance and becomes >Dissonant after a time or two. > Yep. It's good form for a Ky to perform the guys job (or leave a really good excuse) if it has to be in a host for an extended length of time. -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 08:11:08 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Cosmology ad infinitum Walter Milliken wrote: > On the other hand, if mass numbers of humanity thinking about something > creates Ethereal beings, then there are a number of more probable > Ethereal "gods" of significant power: > > - E.T. > - Darth Vader > - Mr. Spock > - James Bond > - Kermit the Frog > - Freddy Kruger (I think it is -- the guy from all those horror flicks) But none of these paltry pseudo-deities can stand before the might of... ELVIS THE KING!!! I mean, if worship can make you a god, the guy still has a whole lotta followers... he's a hunka hunka burnin' Etherial power. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Just like a car crash Just like a knife My favorite weapon is the look in your eyes MINISTRY, "Stigmata" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:30:28 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions At 1:17 PM -0500 6/3/97, Charybdis GreyDragon wrote: >[Earl Wajenberg] >>2) These are garbled memories of Celestials. > > A possibility, but that rather trivializes several of the world's major >religions... Only if you look at it from the "these are angels, so Christianity is The Right Belief" angle -- if you look at it as, "these are non-human entities who have influenced *many* religions, and there are seeds of Truth inherent in anything they've touched," you might be able to play to "and there's more Truth in *this* brand than in the mass-market religion" concepts. Which could be very interesting... After all, some Archangels favor one brand of religion over others, so obviously there is no One True Religion (in IN). Just because we've only seen some of these mentioned specifically doesn't mean you can't make "Archangel So&So, whose word is [X] and who is the patron of [Y Religion]" for your own game. Or adapt one of the existing ones to be that patron... [...] > I mean, if one takes the Hindu (and the Wiccan for that matter) concept >that all gods are ONE god, then there is no real problem... save that the >Celestials all become pieces of God..... And then there would be the >questions of why God would banish part of Himself... Don't mind me.. I >tend to think in circles... Without an adversary, how can you play a game? Even God might get bored.... (Just playing "advocate" for something or other...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:41:48 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?) On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:43:21 -0500 (CDT), Scott Johnson wrote: >> Then that would mean that a human is only free to choose the one >> deterministic choice, known but (supposedly) not controlled by God. > >Look at it this way - imagine there's someone who knows you *really* well. >Maybe a spouse you've lived with for fifty years, maybe a truly brilliant >psychologist with a nearly intuitive understanding of your mind, maybe >someone else. That analogy doesn't really work because the wife or psychologist doesn't create or affect the universe I live in to any significant degree. To the extent that God controls the conditions I live in, He controls me; He may also control me directly. If the end result of that control is that I can follow one and only one course into the future, then I cannot be said to have free will since I will have no choices. This is inherent in the definition of free will, videlicet: "[T]he power asserted of moral beings of willing or choosing within certain limitations or with respect to certain matters without the restraint of physical or *divinely*imposed* necessity or outside causal law..." --Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) [*emphasis*added*] So, it is inherent in God giving us free will (if he has done so) that we have a true choice of what moral course to steer, that God has chosen to delegate a small portion of his omnipotence to us. If He is truly omnipotent, you cannot protest that He is incapable of doing this! He will know, in His omniscience, the exact probabilities of us taking each any possible course of action; He may, in His omnipotence, revoke that free will constraining us to a single course of action; BUT if He does, then He is responsible for His constraint to that single course of action, not us. You can't be responsible for something without the ability to do it AND not do it. Some have suggested we wind this discussion down, and I see little room for meaningful discussion on this line, at least: My understanding of free will is in accordance with Webster's--the previous quote is from that mammoth dictionary we have all seen on its pedestal in the library since childhood, BTW. Barring divine revelation, I will not be moved from Webster's position. So, unless Archangel Beth has something to add... :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:01:11 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... >On the matter of precarious positions, *I* would define a precarious >position any place other than where the body, sorry, the mind, "fell >unconscious" i.e. was forced into the ethereal realm. Sorry, but walking >up in a strange place after suddenly slipping into a dream sounds >pretty bad. Perhaps there is something in the resonance of the Kyriotate >which smooths out the mind of the host after they leave it. Can't imagine >how it would done with the mind of the person left without memory, perhaps >they're left to smoothe it out themselves. The mind can do amazing things >in order to maintain integrity. Of course, some of those things include >what we term mental illness... > >"Wow! How did I end up in England? Oh, yeah, must've been UFO's..." > I think that you're not seeing the way Kys operate. Why take a specific host to England when there are plenty of people heading there already? So they don't remember the plane ride; big deal; that's fairly easy to self justify. So I would say that stranding people in strange cities frequently or habitually getting people fired for skipping out of work would eventually cause dissonance. Remember that disrupting peoples lives just to perform a task that you wish to accomplish when a little extra effort could prevent the disruption is a *selfish* act. -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:00:50 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... >> Would that be simply opposing Will rolls or would they duke it out Celestially? >> The thing is that if it was just a Will roll, there'd be nothing to keep the >> loser from hanging around and trying again (and again,...). The winner > All told, I think it would have to be the Will rolls, because one >of them is continually in the host and therefor protected from direct >Celestial attack... I figured that but I was considering the possiblity that they might be able to fight celestially since they are in "direct contact" in or at the interface of the host. Thus it wouldn't be "true" Celestial Combat and the only participants would be those who are in or trying to be in the host. > But there are a couple things to consider. A loser is going to >have to wait a while before trying "again and again" (what is it? One >hour per the check die, I think, before a failed roll can try again?) If >they're WINNING, they'll keep bouncing each other in and out, but as soon >as one flubs it, that's going to be over..particularly since if it's the >Sheddim, he's going to have to go get a new host to tide him over. Seems like a good reason to know the Song of Celestial Light just for it's "bugger off" potential. > The other thing that should keep them from just going at it >forever is, of course, each other, and potentially friends. (Who, noting >your next question...I believe Celestial combat can be joined in by >multiple combatants...) > I was thinking of a special case for Celestial combat. -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:01:20 -0700 (MST) From: shadocat@primenet.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Re: IN> Still more Kyriotate/Shedim questions... >Why do you think that Shedim are so nasty? Kyrios are the most >morally/ethically dubious Choir of all, save for those of >Destiny, who at least can act "normally" when it matters... > >So when they Fall, they get nasty. > >(Yes, about the only really ethical thing that a Kyrio can do >is possess animals, and people who would be sleeping anyway and >only for as long as they'd be sleeping. Rough life.) > Well, to come to the defense of the Kys.... That's not necessarily true. Taking someone over breifly does not necessarily disrupt their life. Take the case of Joe Random driving down the road who suddenly finds himself outside a nightclub an hour later. He is likely to just shake his head and wonder why he ended up here and resolve to stop daydreaming while he drives. On the other hand, a driver who is drunk, may find himself in a small town in the desert three days later and learn a valuable lesson about driving drunk. It is also possible to have a number of humans who know what you are and willingly donate their bodies for the cause. They may end up in strage place but if they don't currently have a job and they're well fed when they wake up, there's very little unexpected disruption in their lives. Even those *with* jobs can be willing hosts without disrupting their lives too much. For example: a police detective. He knows that a Ky possess him occasionally so he carries one of those pocket tape recorders. If he needs to buy milk or interview someone he "leaves a note to himself" and if the Ky did something that needs explaining or if he discovered something the detective would find usefull, it "leaves a note to himself." This is especially helpful when the Ky has a high Perception or other attribute/skill that is usefull in the host's job. Other fun and usefull tricks: Mr. 939. When he has a clue or tip for the police, he hops into a host near a phone and calls it in giving 939 as his name. The fact that the voice is always different and the calls come from people who don't remember making the calls, kinda spooks the police (hey, gotta have *some* fun) but lends creadibility after the first few are right on the money. It's also fun to leave 939 notes in the station itself (if you *really* want to mess with their minds). -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:58:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Austin George Loomis Subject: IN> Jadis errata -- dissonance and anger In the listing of Jadis' dissonance conditions, I wrote: >Jadis' Servitors gain dissonance if they allow their emotions, especially >sympathy, to sway colder judgment. Please add the following to your copies. "The exception is anger. A Servitor of Winter who finds himself in the grip of anger must make a Will roll, as if he had the Discord of Angry/ Ethereal Forces, to avoid giving in to it. If he *fails* the roll and succumbs to a towering rage, he gains *no* dissonance from the emotion; if he *succeeds* in swallowing his wrath, the dissonance is *doubled.*" Thank you. Austin George "We apologize for any convenience this may cause" Loomis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:37:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Bowman Subject: Re: IN> Missing Lilim? On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Walter Milliken wrote: > The other trend I'm noticing, in my game at least, is everyone wants to > play a "weird" character. No one is really taking "straight" angels. > The closest thing I have to a "normal" PC in my group right now is an > Ofanite of Litheroy. Since Lilim are easy "weird" characters, they draw > a lot of attention. Most of our characters have been "normal." In our two campaigns so far we've had: 2 Seraphs of Yves, an Elhohite of Jean, an Elohite of Dominic, a 2 Mercurians of David, a Calabite of Novalis, a Soldier of Novalis, a Calabite of Jean, a Kyriotate of Jordi and a Malakite of Michael. Michael Bowman bvmi@odin.cc.pdx.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:05:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Free Will debate (Re: IN> Lillim are Evil! (What, all of them?)) At 9:41 PM +0000 6/3/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:43:21 -0500 (CDT), Scott Johnson >wrote: >[...] You can't be responsible for >something without the ability to do it AND not do it. > >Some have suggested we wind this discussion down, and I see little >room for meaningful discussion on this line, [...] Barring divine >revelation, I will not be moved from Webster's position. So, unless >Archangel Beth has something to add... :) Hey, don't look at me -- that's the tack I take with Lilim Geasa, sort of... (And in personal life.) And, if you must continue it, um, well... What about under a different title, eh? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:02:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cosmology ad infinitum At 8:11 AM +1000 6/4/97, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: > >> On the other hand, if mass numbers of humanity thinking about something >> creates Ethereal beings, then there are a number of more probable >> Ethereal "gods" of significant power: >> >> - E.T. >> - Darth Vader >> - Mr. Spock >> - James Bond >> - Kermit the Frog >> - Freddy Kruger (I think it is -- the guy from all those horror flicks) > > But none of these paltry pseudo-deities can stand before the might >of... > ELVIS THE KING!!! > > I mean, if worship can make you a god, the guy still has a whole lotta >followers... he's a hunka hunka burnin' Etherial power. No *wonder* Elvis keeps being sighted by people in the Corporeal realm!!! The First Church of Elvis -- what Uriel would be frothing over if he weren't Out Of Touch... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:19:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Johnson Subject: Re: IN> But what about OTHER active religions On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, James Rand wrote: > This is all very interesting, but is anyone actually using it in > their games? Has anyone run a game that uses a cosmology similar to > the Sandman comics, where God is God and he is the Supreme Being and > monotheism is correct, but the gods of the various other pantheons > still run their own realms and interact with the celestial and > occasionally mortal realms? Would anyone be interested in seeing In > Nomine rules for servitors of the old gods? Actually, I'm not only interested, I'm actually starting such a writeup myself, for the Shinto kami and related spirits. It's only a rough beginning right now, but I'm considering posting it to the list when it's done. (I was also vaguely considering submitting it to _Pyramid_, but there's plenty of complications involved there. Most notably, I have no ideas whether it'll be compatible with the official rules for Etherial spirits that will eventually be published...) Basically, I'm working up a history of what happened to the kami when Uriel came around, what they've been doing since then, and what the types of kami and kami Superiors are currently. There's some similarities to the Angels and Demons (most notably, there's one type of kami quite similar to Cherubim and Djinn), but plenty of differences as well. (You can still play kami with the same rules as angels or demons, though.) - -- Scott Johnson | zagyg@io.com | This space intentionally left blank. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 00:01:56 -0300 From: "André Rodrigues Ribeiro" Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #192 PERRY M. LLOYD wrote: > We don't *know* that God is Omnipotent, or omniscient. See, that's > what > I'm all about, we don't *know* anything. Would you like to know more about God?? (Just ask me! - kidding...:-)) I'm reading an incredible book about it - Jack Miles' "God - A biography." It's an analysis of God as a literary character; his ambitions, wishes, thoughts and personality. It's sometimes hard to read (it's a huge piece of work - about 500 pages), but I think it's worth it. Just to give you a taste of the book, it reads just in the beginning: "It's strange to say that, but God is no saint." Yes, this book is cool! Andre Ribeiro ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:48:40 -0300 From: "André Rodrigues Ribeiro" Subject: IN> Free Will > >> Then that would mean that a human is only free to choose the one > >> deterministic choice, known but (supposedly) not controlled by > God. > So, it is inherent in God giving us free will (if he has done so) > that > we have a true choice of what moral course to steer, that God has > chosen to delegate a small portion of his omnipotence to us. Hi all! I'm really new to this list, and I know I'm supposed to stay quiet just looking around for a few days...but I just couldn't help it - the theme of free will always caught my attention as it's done now. And I feel comfortable speaking of it, because I've studied it in college. No, I didn't study Theology - I study Physics. And there's something in quantum physics, proposed by a genius of the beginning of the century (Paul Dirac), that answers "Yes and no." to the question "We've got free will, haven't we?" See, It's really hard to fully explain - but I'll try: We are used to cope with three dimensions: Height, Length and Width. Einstein came with a fourth one: Time. But we can't cope with time altogether - we just sense it one second at a time. That's because we *live* inside the Fourth Dimension - kinda when you're on a looong road and can't see it altogether: you're in the Length Realm and you have to walk all the way 'till the end to know how it is. We do the same with Time. Still with me? So, imagine that someone who is one dimension further (the fifth, for us humans), has full access to our fourth dimension - Time. He/She/It(/God?) *would* perceive it altogether - just as we see an image one pixel at a time, but God would see the complete picture. In this case, God could see (and, therefore, know) all that happened in the past and all that will happen in the future - past, present and future wouldn't have a meaning for him. And if he made the picture, yes, he made our future. But does that means we have no free will?? Absolutely!! We *still* live in the fourth dimension and we can't perceive the full picture. So, we got to keep on living. It's all written - but we can't read. Only God can (and whoever lives in the fifth dimension...). Well, that's one vision - and that's mine. I think it explains things like oracles and prophets - they just could read What Was Written sometimes - and finishes with the free will discussion: We do choose what we'll do, but God (and whoever can read WWW) already knows what choice we'll make. That's it. I know this is a fading discussion, but I just wanted to give my opinion. And I promise my future entries will be a lot less boring...:-) Andre Ribeiro ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #195 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.