From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Jul 20 03:46:33 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 DAA23269 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 03:46:33 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA06937 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 02:20:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 02:20:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199707200720.CAA06937@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 #252 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 Sunday, July 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 252 In this digest: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Word Silliness Re:IN> In Nomine on the brain Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Seraph resonance (Was: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Lilim in the Hospital (Was: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again....) IN> Seraphic resonance IN> Please add me to your mailing list Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:47:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Paul F. Strack" Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... I know I'm jumping into the middle of the population debate, but I have a suggestion to offer. Most of the population suggestions have been along the lines of 1 angel per 100,000 people, or 1 angel per 10,000, etc. There are in fact two obvious ways to evenly distribute angels: by population and geographically. If angels are evenly distributed geographically, there are likely just as many angels in a small town as there are in a big city. There are advantages to both methods of distribution. In some ways, humans are the most important element of God's creation on Earth, so concentrating angels near people would be a good idea. On the other hand, distributing angels evenly over geographical areas maximizes your chance of hearing Disturbances, no matter where they occur. They also enable angels to keep track of the parts of creation that *don't* involve humans. I think actual Celestial distribution lies somewhere between these two extremes. Angels are spread out as evenly as possible over the area of the earth, but with clumps near large centers of human population. The barren wastelands have the fewest angels and the cities the most, but there are more angels in the waste than would be indicated by population considerations, and there are more angels in the cities than would be indicated by geographical considerations. That way, a town with a population of 10,000 or so can have a half a dozen angels because it is a useful juncture geographically, but a city of 1,000,000 could still have less than 600 angels in it. I also think demons distrubute themselves similarly - taking into account both population and area - but do so for different reasons. Demons are much less concerned with the non-human aspects of creation. It is human souls that are their meat and drink. Demons tend to cluster in cities because that is where the most human souls are. On the other hand, a good number of demons also go out into the wilderness, mostly because there are fewer Celestials out there. That way the Disturbances caused by their evil schemes will be much less likely to be noticed. Anyway, maybe this can move the debate in new directions. Paul Strack | Madness takes its toll. pfstrack@math.unc.edu | Please have exact change. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ World of Darkness Page - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/wod.html In Nomine Page: INC2 - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/innom/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:05:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > >too realistic, but I'm not going to allow that hollow bust to be used as > >even a weapon/1 any more than I'd allow the MoE to pick up a sheet of paper > >and use it to give paper-cuts/1. > I favor the GM fiat, "You Perceive that that object is useless as a weapon" > in those situations. I wouldn't allow it either. I think the rules assume Alright, I'll jump in.. I tend to see the MoE Attunement as, in part, an empowerment thing, and not just a Perception thing...in that sense, not entirely unlike Novalis's Malakim being able to, limitedly, animate plants. Given that a Battle Axe only gets +4 Power, I find it hard to believe that ANYTHING you might pick up in your basic business office has any HOPE of naturally being a +6...yet, to a Malakim of Creation, there's a 1 in 6 chance they'll find something that is. So as GM, you either suddenly cut their Attunement in half ("Nice check digit there, Max, but I'm afraid I pre-determined that everything in this room is papier-mache; highest Power is a -2. Nyah."), or, as I do, presume that Eli's warriors get a little boost from the Symphony...In particular, keep in mind that they serve CREATION. It's not unreasonable, given that, that they kind of `bolster' the object in question. It's still important to note that there has to BE something to pick up; an empty white room is a rare, `safe' place to corner one of these guys. Just do it alone and don't bring anything with you... (Hehe...co-ed naked Malakim of Eli wrestling? Could be a very popular T-shirt phrase in certain circles..) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:54:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I > guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative > reaction against "Judgment". Heh...a knee-jerk negative reaction to knee-jerk negative reactions? > A lot of In Nomine GMs seem to be using Dominic as an indiscriminate > Heavenly bad guy. "Oh oh, Servitors of Judgment, that means we're all gonna > get hauled in if we say 'boo'..." Just to start off on the more abstract note, one of the reasons I LIKE to be `down on Dom' is because, personally, I don't like the idea that the Angels are necessarily all nice people doing good deeds. A lot of my impression on this does come from the Bright Dream story...Nicole's treatment of her Servant and Tariel's of his subject are bad enough, and then there's what a snot Gabriel was...*shrug* I just prefer the idea that there are nice Angels and there are mean Angels, and there are mean Demons and, yes, even nice Demons. Dominic just happens to be one of the easiest Archangels to be down on; I also tend to hold David, Gabriel, and Janus in the kind of light one would tend to put demons, while people like Jean, Jordi, and Laurence certainly aren't always the sorts of people you'd want to WORK for...in other words, I do it not so much as a knee-jerk reaction against the concept of Judgment, as because I don't WANT the Host to be perfect - and the Inquisition is such a good model, it would be a shame to waste. > It seems that several other notes about Dominic, such as the fact that his > Servitors (and thus by implication, Dominic) may not inflict a punishment > greater than the crime, or stand by while the innocent are punished By whose opinion? If you know someone is a thief, what punishment is `appropriate'? A fine? Thirty days in jail? Twenty lashes with a cane? Hands cut off so they don't do it again? Or, to pull from _Witches Abroad_, head cut off so they don't THINK about stealing again? All of these actually have a decent case, and none of them particularly care whether you stole a gun so you could get into a gang, or a loaf of bread so you can feed your daughter. One major point - he is *NOT* the Archangel of Justice. He is the Archangel of Judgement, which is a far harsher term. > apples? If no one stands in judgment over the Host, who's going to tell an > angel that he's not following God's plan? Would you want a police Well, there's one other quibble against Dominic - he tells people who is and isn't following God's plan, but he doesn't KNOW God's plan any better than the rest of them...and has several times run counter to Yves, who is suggested as more likely than anyone TO know it. However, I will note that while I consider Dominic one of the most frightening of the Archangels, many of his Servitors are just fine. They're not held to his (in my view of him) fanatacism any more than all of Gabriel's Servitors are necessarily insane. > judgment on an angel, he has to feel the weight of that responsibility. He > certainly knows that if he goes around consigning Servitors to damnation > for every transgression, he will lose all respect and moral authority in > the eyes of the Host. I'm not sure about that...oh, I don't think he's petty or malevolant. I DO think he's filled with righteous purpose, however, and while I'd say his duties weighed heavily upon him at first, I'm afraid I tend to have the impression that he's rather gotten used to them... Of course, he doesn't consign Angels to Damnation; that's what he's there to prevent. Nonexistance, in the truly extreme cases...most of which entail having reached damnation all by yourself...with lesser punishments leading up to that. (For the Earthbound, I think a lot of it comes to being grounded to Trauma to think about what you've been doing. "Go to your Heart this instant, young man!" ) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 13:10:53 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Word Silliness >>> I keep having this thought... See, when you share a Word, there's a principle attached. I keep thinking of it as in "The Dark Crystal" -- mystics and skeksis. In In Nomine, it would be that you can't hurt the other person with your Word. You're linked through the Symphony. When something happens to the other half of your Word, you are also affected (in a congruent, if not exactly equal manner.)<<< Very interesting....this might apply to Gabriel and Belial, but not Dominic and Asmodeus. They may perform similar roles in Heaven and Hell, respectively, but they do *not* share a Word. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 97 10:59:32 PDT From: Christopher Paul Subject: Re:IN> In Nomine on the brain Saw the following California license plate driving around Los Angeles: HAD HALO ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 13:54:03 +0500 From: "James Rand" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > For me, it would be "Mercurian of Creation" (Note: Eli and Dom have > certainly had *their* disagreements. ;-) ) I'm a Seraph of Judgement, myself. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:49:56 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>I presumed, and as with all things I could be wrong, that, since it was earlier established that the Universe (and by that I think we can also read: God) is not necessarily Christian, that therefore what Dominic was supporting was the advancement of the Christian church.<<< Exactly. It's not the religion Dominic supports so much as the institution. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:49:59 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Dominic is scary. And he's not a *nice* guy, either. He's a tough, stern, authoritarian, rigid fellow who has a nasty job. And did I mention that he's scary? He's fair, but he's fair by *his* rules...<<< No disagreement there. >>>Get into character of anyone who's sympathetic to Eli, Gaby, Michael, or anyone else who's not fond of ol' Dom, and one doesn't like him...<<< Of course. But Dominic's job isn't to be liked. >>>Being "fair" when you're not using the same rules for "fairness" can be a problem:<<< See my other response, about objective vs. subjective morality. Dominic goes by the former, some other Archangels go by the latter. Yes, this CAN be a problem. >>>"What do you mean I'm heretical?? I just said that I thought devil's food cake was great stuff, really yummy!"<<< Now, that's amusing, but do you really think that would set of a Servitor of Judgment? (Maybe a very young, very stupid one -- and when he brings this case before Dominic, Dom is NOT going to be amused....) >>>"Being seduced by the pleasures of the corporeal realm is what lead the Grigori to be excommunicated. You must recant your heretical love of physical things." [etc.]<<< And here, I think the Servitor of Judgment would have a valid point! If an angel is becoming too enamoured of physical things, he IS starting on a downward path. The fact that Servitors of Judgment intervened might well prevent that angel from gaining dissonance and eventually Falling. Of course, at the time, that angel is going to be resentful and feel unfairly picked on, but in the long run, they may have saved his soul. >>>Ahem. So it's easy to see the Lord High Judge himself as a "baddie." It's a bit one-sided, but it's easy. But if you're really in the clear... then the servitors of Judgment are really just nuisances.<<< Exactly. They keep people honest. They're like cops.... you don't want them anywhere around when you're in a hurry on the freeway, but as soon as you need 'em.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:50:14 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Ummmm... I assume that you mean an angel of Creation? Well, I hate to tell you this, but they *are* angels. They're not perfect (some have more than their fair share of Dissonance and Discord), but I don't see very many of them *backstabbing* anybody--particularly someone on their Side without chalking up yet *more* Dissonance.<<< Oh, they probably wouldn't deliberately betray someone. But they could very easily act irresponsibly and leave the other angels holding the bag. Same result. >>>And don't think for a minute that an over-zealous angel of Judgment wouldn't do the same thing...<<< An overzealous angel of anybody can cause trouble. >>>No, Dom is *not* justified. I suggest you read that section again. p. 118: "...for Islam, she recited the Qu'ran to Mohammed at Yves' instruction...Although she was only following orders, Dominic (who, along with Laurence, supports Christianity in particular) declared her heretical and tried to have her exiled from Heaven. Yves and Michael defended her, but she stormed away angrily and has yet to return. That was over a millennium ago."<<< Two points I'd like to make: 1) Possibly (this is just a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me), Dominic was not so much coming down on Gabriel personally, as trying to make an example out of her so as to crush the new religion (which he disagreed with at the time) before it gained more support in Heaven. Basically, he was playing politics, as all Archangels do. No, not very nice, but justifiable if you take a the impersonal attitude that the greater good is sometimes served by making a harsh example of one individual. 2) He *tried* to have her exiled, but there was never a formal hearing. Gabriel left, and has never returned to face her accusers. It may well be that had she stayed for Dominic's proceedings, he would have found her innocent and let the matter end there. (Which brings up another possibility - -- perhaps he initiated the proceedings before he *knew* Yves was behind the whole thing. Once he found out, he might have dropped it, but by then Gabriel had already stormed away, and started giving him further cause to worry about her behavior.) >>>Dominic considers himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the Host, and yet he is clearly biased toward *one* form of thought.<<< Precisely....Dominic takes the stance (shared by many Earthly theologians ) that there IS an objective morality.... as opposed to the philosophy more popular in the West right now that everything is relative. Since most people in the U.S. have been brought up on cultural relativity and subjective morality, of course Dominic seems like a narrow-minded hard-ass. But that doesn't make him evil.....or wrong. (And before you accuse me of being a fundamentalist or anything, I tend to lean towards cultural relativity and subjective morality myself, but only to a point. I'm arguing Dominic's case from a logical viewpoint.) >>>I don't consider this fair(or just) at all, in the same way that I think trying someone for "Witchcraft" isn't fair or just. (What? You're not a Christian? BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!! )<<< I doubt Dominic would try someone just for being a witch. He *would* investigate anyone claiming to perform witchcraft...in an In Nomine universe, it's reasonable to assume that some witches ARE getting support from the dark side, or from Ethereal spirits that are no more friendly towards Heaven. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:06:25 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>This is the problem I have with Dominic. He claims to support Christianity, yet--if you ask me--neither he *nor* Laurence seem to act much like Christians.<<< According to whose definition of Christianity? :) I do get your point, but you're making the assumption that since their motivations displease you, this makes them villains. >>>He doesn't? It certainly seems that way. Witness his treatment of Gabriel *before* she left in a huff. As several people have pointed out, he tried her for heresy, when she was only doing her job.<<< First of all, where does it even suggest that he got *pleasure* out of this, that he's persecuting Gabriel just because he dislikes her personally? Secondly, although it was the Mohammedan thing that sparked it (and I do agree there's a bit of an implausibility in the background explanation, where Dominic takes Gabriel to task for doing something on Yves' orders, but doesn't question Yves over it), Dominic's problem with Gabriel is a lot deeper th ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:09:05 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Seraph resonance (Was: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic) On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:55:17 +0100, Sam Kington wrote: >Actually, this is something that has been bugging me for some time. Get >a 6 check digit (not hard for a fairly hard Seraph) and you know the >absolute Truth about anything, provided you have someone to say a >statement on that subject to you. So, kidnap some random human scum... IMHO, this discussion has missed two important points about the Seraphic resonance. First, you can't take a check digit of 6; ask, "Tell me everything that ever was and will be;" and get omniscience. The resonance only tells you the Truth about whatever small part of the symphony that individual has seen. If you ask some random person, "Is OJ guilty?" the Symphonic Truth is that he doesn't know; sorry, you'll have to ask OJ himself. The resonance tells you the truth of falsity of what you hear, it does not grant omniscience. Second... >"Repeat after me: 'Eli is on the Celestial plane'" >"Er, Eli is on the Celestial plane" >[Resonance: No] Nope. Second: Celestials are not in the Symphony. That's why they disturb it. You'll either get [Resonance: No, he doesn't know where Eli is] or [Resonance: not part of the Symphony]. If you're really lucky and he knows Eli, you could--with appropriate questioning--detect Eli's effects on the Symphony. But you won't get anything directly about Eli, because he isn't part of the Symphony. The good news is that this is a limited celestial detector. >As a prospective GM, ... I don't really relish the prospect >of a player asking some poor sap "Does God know this is going on?", >getting a 6 and finding out one of the key elements of the campaign. [Resonance: The sap doesn't know what God knows.] >So I won't use these rules. Instead, I'll rule that you only get to know >the Truth if the person being questioned knows it himself - which >certainly makes sense for these important, quasi-metaphysical questions. I agree with this, but... >For more mundane stuff - eg "Who painted this car in that horrendous >purple colour?" - you might want to let them know; alternatively, a 6 >lets them find someone who *does*. This has the added advantage of >adding extra style to Seraphs: > >"Who carried out the paint job on this car?" >"Er, er, I don't know, Sir, begging your forgiveness Sir, oh my God >please don't >kill me." >"No, no, it's true, you do not know. But, thanks to you, I know who >does. His name is Joe, he is a mechanic in the garage on Woodlands Road... Disagree. All the CD 6 resonance would give you would be that the absolute Symphonic Truth is that he doesn't know. If he hasn't heard that part of the Symphony, he can't tell you about it, no matter how high you roll. >Comments, suggestions? I don't think you can get anything that the person doesn't know or even has truly forgotten. What you can do is know the truth when he's lying--even to himself; or at high CDs you can tell when what he believes is the truth isn't actually the truth. The exact knowledge you can get is still limited by the knowledge he has; you can only get the Symphonic Truths he himself has witnessed. I don't think you can get anything from a celestial, except a hollow sound from your resonance if you get a CD at Symphonic Truth levels. You can detect their effects on the Symphony, though. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:43:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Matthew M. Colville wrote: > At 11:24 PM -0700 7/18/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: > > Psh. What good's a Bible going to do you? Get a Bartlett's > Quotations. No GM should be without one. > Mmmm. Bartlett's.... taste good with butter and cream sauce. > And, since I've got one, I can tell you it's Matthew 7:1 And it's > "Judge not, that ye be not judged." > Thanks. I knew SOMEONE would correct me. (That's what I get for quoting Scripture from memory. Bad dog! Bad dog! Heel!) > > A better quote, which I will admit to knowing about as a result of > Alan Moore's Watchmen, is "Whoever fights > monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. > And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks also into you." > -Nietzsche. A very similar sentiment. > Yes, I've heard that one. Wasn't "The Abyss Looks Also Into You" the title of an issue of Watchmen? There were only twelve of them, so it shouldn't be hard to find out.... > > > >According to the rulebook, Dominic supports Christianity--which I > > >interpret to mean that he would like to see the universe (indeed, the > > >other angels) become Christian. That means that he would interpret > > >everything in terms of "Christian"/"non-Christian", with nothing in > the > > >middle. > > > I presumed, and as with all things I could be wrong, that, since it > was earlier established that the Universe (and by that I think we can > also read: God) is not necessarily Christian, that > therefore what Dominic was supporting was the advancement of the > Christian church. > I actually assumed the *other* way. That what he was supporting Christianity. Period. I quoted the rulebook description of Gabriel on this, and it says that Dominic "...along with Laurence, supports Christianity in particular." And because she recited the Qu'ran to Mohammed (thus creating Islam) at Yves' instruction, he declared her heretical. Certainly sounds like a personal bias to me. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:34:56 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Lilim in the Hospital (Was: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again....) >Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:37:54 -0600 (MDT) >From: Kingsley Lintz >Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... > >> That's fine, but with a limited number of Earthly servitors, a >> Superior's best strategy is to concentrate on only those activities that >> affect large numbers of people. Following that notion out to its > Depends on the project at hand and the Superior in >question....there's the significant advantage to small towns that they're >less likely to have Opposition, whichever side you're on. (For example, >that Lilim of Kronos proposed some time ago who hung out in a hospital - >in a major city, she'd probably be picked out and chopped to bits pretty >quickly, because hospitals are generally likely to have a high >concentration of Angelics. One in a smaller town, however, may not, and >you never know WHERE someone with a powerful Fate might turn up...) Well, I don't hink I ever claimed it was a Big City hospital to begin with. You're right, though, she does in general work better in a town with a low celestail population. Granted, I did write up the lilim pretty quickly, and I've had quite some time to think about her since then. I think a Lilim like Nadine might be able to operatie for a significant amount of time in the hospital, doing what she was doing. Provided she didn't succumb to the temptaion of spending Essence, and provided noone takes a really close look at her records (I probably should have given her a Role/6), nearly all the ways I can think of to tell that she is a celestial only tell that she is a Celestial, and not which side she works for. True, one you do realize that, she probably bears watching. If she's extemely patient, though, maybe, maybe she'll be overlooked. She'll defianately have to religously avoid things like consorting with other local Demons and summoning Kronos. Main risks I see coming from Ofanites of Judgement and uninformed Lilim of Fate. Also, Trading off the Geasa no longer seems that good of a Career move to me. I'm not sure who gets the Dissonance when a subject resists a traded-off Geas, but I suspect strongly it's the Lilim who created it. Which would mean that the Lilim could rack up dissonance at the most innoportune times because some stupid Shedite got hold of one of her traded off Geas/2's and tried to make some guy kill his wife. In retrospect, I probably wouldn have her trading off that many of the Geasa at all, and further, would have gotten rid of the Fated Future attunement I gave her. Useful, but Noisy, and Nadine works a lot better in "Stealth Mode." I don't think that the Celestail Population is sufficent in most places to have more than one or two Full-Time Angels in any random Hospital, save in those cities with Angelic Tethers. I seem most Hospitals as being checked on by Angels periodically, mainly to look for jumps in the Death rate, and things like that. Without calling the Geasa up, Nadine's likely to be overlooked by an overworked Angel looking for obvious problems. Besides, I just like the idea of an Ofanite of Judgement wandering into town and saying, "Hm. That kid has a powerful Geas. And so does that street vendor. And Him. And Her. And Him. And Him. And--What the Hell's going on here?" Anyway, I've gone off on my Random Tangent of the Day. I now return you to your regularly scheduled Mailing list. = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Monty, Lilim Captain of Media, the Demon of Game Shows. ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 16:41:56 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Seraphic resonance >>>Yes, but it can't be possible that anyone, even an angel, can determine objective truth just by asking someone else, and detecting the truth of thier answer.<<< It is possible, according to the rules. See page 94. >>>Remember, a lie is (according to the OED) "an intentionally false statement." All you could possably do, even if you're a Seraph, is determine if the person believes he is telling the truth or not.<<< Incorrect. See page 94. >>>Don't believe me? Try this thought experiment. A Seraph goes and gets a buddy and asks him if Jesus was God Incarnate. The Seraph's buddy, who doesn't know, says "Yes." Now, if the Seraph were able to unerringly determine if this were true or false he would now know if Jesus was god incarnate, even though the person he was talking to didn't know.<<< This is a case where the rules should be ignored. Or rather, amended. Technically you're correct, asking someone "Was Jesus the Son of God?" should give a Seraph the *real* answer on a CD of 6, regardless of what the person he asks says. I'd say that this falls under the category of "Mysteries God does not wish to be revealed in such a cavalier manner", however, and come up with some other interesting revelation. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:16:42 +0000 From: Carl Judisch Subject: IN> Please add me to your mailing list - --------------9799ED54082218E0B8257A5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to take this opportunity to compliment you on your extraordinary role-playing game In Nomine, it is a truely exeptional work. I would also like my name to be added to your mailing list for new products and information related to this game. My EMail address is: cjudisch@sprynet.com My Realworld address is: Carl Judisch 2180 Pine Creek Blvd Apt#204 Vero Beach, Fl 32966-1386 Thank you for your time Carl Judisch P.S.: Isn't this game going to send the Religious Right into a frenzy? - --------------9799ED54082218E0B8257A5C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  I would like to take this opportunity to compliment you on your extraordinary role-playing game In Nomine, it is a truely exeptional work. I would also like my name to be added to your mailing list for new products and information related to this game.
 My EMail address is: cjudisch@sprynet.com
 My Realworld address is:
   Carl Judisch
   2180 Pine Creek Blvd Apt#204
   Vero Beach, Fl 32966-1386

 Thank you for your time
 Carl Judisch

P.S.: Isn't this game going to send the Religious Right into a frenzy? - --------------9799ED54082218E0B8257A5C-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:06:26 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 12:43 PM -0700 7/19/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: >> A better quote, which I will admit to knowing about as a result of >> Alan Moore's Watchmen, is "Whoever fights >> monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. >> And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks also into you." >> -Nietzsche. A very similar sentiment. >> >Yes, I've heard that one. Wasn't "The Abyss Looks Also Into You" the >title of an issue of Watchmen? There were only twelve of them, so it >shouldn't be hard to find out.... It was "The Abyss Gazes Also," which was a small bit from the same quote, but a different, less accurate, more poetic translation. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." The important difference being that Nietzsche didn't say "Battle not with monsters," he said "be careful when you do so." An important difference. . .but the Watchmen quote sounds cooler. Hell, everything in the Watchmen is cooler. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 01:12:33 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >>> I think that this is closer to what they intended in the rules and brings >>> it closer to a couple of old martial arts movies I've seen. >> >> Jackie Chan, Malak of Eli! > >Scarier still, Saotome Ranma, Malakite of Eli. He's already got a spare >vessel.... At the mention of manga, I had a horrible vision of a Malakite and a Calabite going at it just like A-Ko and B-Ko (lobbing tanks around, etc). Would a tank qualify as a Large Weapon? :P ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 01:37:10 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy David Edelstein said: >>As harsh as he may be, Dominic is also *fair*. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, Dominic does not pursue angels for the sheer pleasure of pulling their wings off. He does not *enjoy* convicting members of the Host.<< I would never call dominic "fair", but I would call him "consistent". He will pursue a heretic equally vigourously whether they are a Reliever or an Archangel. As to enjoying his job... you never know WHAT's gong on underneath that cowl :::) >>A lot of In Nomine GMs seem to be using Dominic as an indiscriminate Heavenly bad guy. "Oh oh, Servitors of Judgment, that means we're all gonna get hauled in if we say 'boo'..."<< I'm guilty of that one too... heavenly "Vince and Jules" types (but without the bad Mother F*cker wallet obviously). Its down to personal taste, I dislike Dominic, but I'm even harder on Lilim. It's probably unavoidable that players and GMs prejudices come into play, even subconsciously. >>It seems that several other notes about Dominic, such as the fact that his Servitors (and thus by implication, Dominic) may not inflict a punishment greater than the crime, or stand by while the innocent are punished unfairly, are being commonly overlooked.<< If you are playing to the intended spirit of Judgement, these should be an integral part of the PC, otherwise they are treading the Dark Road to the lift on the Far Left. >>In other words, Servitors of Dominic could just as easily be defense lawyers as prosecutors. A Servitor of Dominic could even defend someone he knows to be guilty! He would not be trying to get the person off, of course - -- but he'd ensure that all the defendant's Constitutional rights (or the equivalent, based on the venue) were observed, and he'd work hard to prevent the defendant from receiving a more severe punishment than he deserves (doing hard time for shoplifting, for instance.)<< Possible, but I think Dom is more likely to go for bringing in the criminals, rather than wasting Angels on this (unless the crim really deserved it). This is where there is an bizarre split in my personality: I do not like the idea of Dominic in IN, but I am in favour of capital punishment, an eye for an eye, and juvenile imprisonment. I still haven't figured out why, but I think that for most crimes, a bullet is better than a cell (but that should be discussed in other forums). Threads on this list would indicate that with the numbers of Servitors active for each AA on Earth, Dominic could not really afford to waste his Servitors on defending the people his is supposed to punish. >>I think of Dominic's Inquisitors (and remember that not all angels of Judgment are assigned the task of policing the Host, some have other responsibilities....like defending the innocent) as the IAD (Internal Affairs Division) for the Host. Just as many cops despise IAD officers and consider them to be "buddy-f***ers", many angels probably have animosity towards angels of Judgment....yet without them, who would root out the bad apples? If no one stands in judgment over the Host, who's going to tell an angel that he's not following God's plan? Would you want a police department with no internal monitoring, no external oversight committee? Since it's been proven that angels are quite fallible, it makes no more sense to let angels -- with a much greater responsibility -- go without any kind of policing either.<< This sounds so twee, but "Who watches the Watchmen?" Sorry, had to say it. (snipped Gabriel stuff) >>Dominic is unyielding, uncompromising, and sometimes completely arbitrary. However, he is still an *angel*. He does not act with malevolent intent or out of personal self-interest, as Asmodeus does. He wants the best for Heaven and Earth, as much as any other Archangel, he just has a very different idea of how that should be accomplished. For him, it means not tolerating the slightest amount of corruption.<< In that case, being arbitrary in Judgement would do more damage than good. That is unless you are doing the heavenly equivalent of random drug testing. Dominic should always be portrayed as strict, methodical, (plodding?) and overall consistent. He must be the yardstick used to measure all others. Remember, Dominic IS Justice. Kurt Djinn of Saminga After all, you have to be cruel to be kind, and I LIKE being kind to my friends }:) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 22:31:44 +0500 From: "James Rand" Subject: Re: IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > At the mention of manga, I had a horrible vision of a Malakite and a Calabite > going at it just like A-Ko and B-Ko (lobbing tanks around, etc). > > Would a tank qualify as a Large Weapon? :P In A-Ko's case, a tank falls under Throwing. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 01:46:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Ummmm... I assume that you mean an angel of Creation? Well, I hate to > tell you this, but they *are* angels. They're not perfect (some have more > than their fair share of Dissonance and Discord), but I don't see very many > of them *backstabbing* anybody--particularly someone on their Side > without chalking up yet *more* Dissonance.<<< > > Oh, they probably wouldn't deliberately betray someone. But they could very > easily act irresponsibly and leave the other angels holding the bag. Same > result. > Okay... *that* I'll agree with. In your earlier post, however, you made it sound like the said angel would have done it *deliberately*. > >>>And don't think for a minute that an over-zealous angel of Judgment > wouldn't do the same thing...<<< > > An overzealous angel of anybody can cause trouble. > > >>>No, Dom is *not* justified. I suggest you read that section again. p. > 118: "...for Islam, she recited the Qu'ran to Mohammed at Yves' > instruction...Although she was only following orders, Dominic (who, along > with Laurence, supports Christianity in particular) declared her heretical > and tried to have her exiled from Heaven. Yves and Michael defended her, > but she stormed away angrily and has yet to return. That was over a > millennium ago."<<< > > Two points I'd like to make: > > 1) Possibly (this is just a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me), Dominic > was not so much coming down on Gabriel personally, as trying to make an > example out of her so as to crush the new religion (which he disagreed with > at the time) before it gained more support in Heaven. Basically, he was > playing politics, as all Archangels do. No, not very nice, but justifiable > if you take a the impersonal attitude that the greater good is sometimes > served by making a harsh example of one individual. > *Still* doesn't make it fair... or just. > 2) He *tried* to have her exiled, but there was never a formal hearing. > Gabriel left, and has never returned to face her accusers. It may well be > that had she stayed for Dominic's proceedings, he would have found her > innocent and let the matter end there. (Which brings up another possibility > -- perhaps he initiated the proceedings before he *knew* Yves was behind > the whole thing. Once he found out, he might have dropped it, but by then > Gabriel had already stormed away, and started giving him further cause to > worry about her behavior.) > Okay, these two I would agree with, and would make me like--errr, understand--Dominic a lot more. With this last one, I can just see Dominic trying his best to do the right thing, and it falling apart around him. It makes *him* almost as tragic a character as Gabriel. I would imagine that Yves' and Michael's defense came too little, too late. The damage was probably already done. Gabriel stormed off, and Dominic (if he can ever admit regret) perhaps wanted to make things right again. I can imagine him almost sad about this, but shrugging his shoulders, rolling up his sleeves, and getting back to the work at hand. > >>>Dominic considers himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner > of the Host, and yet he is clearly biased toward *one* form of thought.<<< > > Precisely....Dominic takes the stance (shared by many Earthly theologians > ) that there IS an objective morality.... as opposed to the philosophy > more popular in the West right now that everything is relative. Since most > people in the U.S. have been brought up on cultural relativity and > subjective morality, of course Dominic seems like a narrow-minded hard-ass. > But that doesn't make him evil.....or wrong. > Of course not. I've known people like that... my father for example. Funny thing is: he's a cop. Perhaps those kinds of jobs breed that mentality. > (And before you accuse me of being a fundamentalist or anything, I tend to > lean towards cultural relativity and subjective morality myself, but only > to a point. I'm arguing Dominic's case from a logical viewpoint.) > I'm having fun arguing....errr, discussing.... about it. It's the most fun I've had arg... (darnit, there I go again :-) )... discussing an rpg in a *long* time. :-) > >>>I don't consider this fair(or just) at all, in the same way that I think > trying someone for "Witchcraft" isn't fair or just. (What? You're not a > Christian? BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!! )<<< > > I doubt Dominic would try someone just for being a witch. He *would* > investigate anyone claiming to perform witchcraft...in an In Nomine > universe, it's reasonable to assume that some witches ARE getting support > from the dark side, or from Ethereal spirits that are no more friendly > towards Heaven. > Well, he would try someone for witchcraft if he's like some Christians *I* know. Heck, if he's like *those* Christians, he would put them on trial for playing roleplaying games, too. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #252 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.