From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 21 23:26:49 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 XAA22084 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:26:49 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA03247 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:44:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:44:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199707220244.VAA03247@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 #254 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 Monday, July 21 1997 Volume 01 : Number 254 In this digest: Re: IN> Word Silliness Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Items and Age Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Items and Age Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #253 Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Malakim of Creation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:49:53 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Word Silliness At 9:46 -0600 7/18/97, Meera Barry wrote: > Now, mixing Mayfair's _Underground_ with In Nomine is about > as fun, too. I've been seeing these special suites of > Malakim soldiers, under Michael, fighting against Vapula > in the Final Days, worried about Celestial "paste..." Ooooo...that just gives me more evil ideas that I know what to do with! (grin) The genetic superman mods are definitely from Vapula - and it would look like most of the world is being run by various demon princes. The Celestials would probably be in the Underground the most, though they'd definitely be having a hard time of it...and Underground does have the rules for how to make a lasting change in society, though the angels would have to remember that the demons are busy doing the same. However, could you imagine the fun if an angel who hadn't been to Earth since, say, the 1990s, went down in 2021 during the setting of _Underground_? He goes and gets his butt kicked by some human with four arms whose skin can bounce 20mm shells...:) > (Somehow, I can't see servants of Novalis chowing down > at Tastee Ghoul.) Everyone they serve (literally) at Tastee Ghoul volunteered, though, according to the company. Didn't you want your $200 for selling the rights to have your corpse turned into fast food? Of course, I've always imagined most of the servitors of Novalis as vegetarians or vegans. Then again, maybe they refuse to eat plants at all, like the main character's husband (can't remember his darn name) in _Islands in the Net_. "Plants use chemical warfare on each other! How can you eat them?!" SeanMike - -- I'm locked and loaded, and you'll have to pay - Oderus I'm too high to type right now. - Balsac, the Jaws of Death Nothing is more offensive then the truth. - The Heretic Are you a real person or do you just play one on TV? - Oderus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:43:25 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > 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." > > I'm kind of curious about the whole premise of applying the Bible to angels. First, the Bible was sent to people, essentially for social order and redemption. Angels are not in that class really. Second, if The Big Guy is sitting around delegating authority, the question of "who's to judge" goes immediately to the answer "Dominic!" He got his word from somewhere. Who gave out Words before the Serephim Council? > > > > >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 dunno. Considering all the troubles we've had in the region since (and no, I'm not going to start quibbiling about who killed who), he must be prescient. I think there was more to it then that. See below I (John) wrote > Feh, Gabby is a loony (at least as explained in the book). Go into war > with a lunatic at your flank and half the time you'll love them for > being a better target then you and the other half you'll be dead. Dom > is justified and Gabby has the same self control as the average munchkin > player. > Thom wrote 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. Well, since we're throwing quotations around how about this one. "Gabriel is too unstable to manage God's Armies, TOO DISTURBED TO REHABILITATE, and too powerful to destroy." Yves has a soft spot for her. Yes, she quoted the Quran to Mohammed. Yes, she got in trouble for it. Funny Yves didn't do it himself. Heck, I think he keeps Gabby around to do the "sensitive" (i.e. send someone expendable) work for him. That's the only reason she's around. If Dom persecutes Gabby, it is for way more then Islam. > > 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. So, I like choclate chip ice cream. My house has choclate chip ice cream. Prez Bubba likes loopy types running the Treasury department. He gets loopy folks in the Treasury department. Dominic and Laurence like Christianity. Strangely, they arrange matters to favor Christianity. Big Deal. Jordi likes animals. I don't hear you complaining about her personal bias? If she had her way, she'd burn humans back into the 8th millenium B.C. Scarier then a guy who isn't allowed to "overly punish" individuals (sigh, I know it's a vauge term too. Life is like that) Maybe Dominique is a feminist and prefers a more female friendly religion (grin). I had better leave now before the mob descends... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 11:12 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Items and Age [johnk:] >Relics have an Essence pool usable for the Song. By my new >way of thinking, all the Songs in the same Relic share the >same Essence pool (regardless of its status as a reliquary). >That's one of the reasons that having multiple Songs in a Relic >will be cheaper than having them in separate Relics. The rule >that _all_ the Essence in the Relic is used up for any use of >any Song in it will still apply, though. (This won't touch >the Essence in the Reliquary side of a dual artifact unless >it's needed, of course!) Huh? Now I'm confused... how does a relic contain Essence *unless* it's a reliquary? I though normal relics (i.e., not including a reliquary) took all their Essence from the user. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:13:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Adam Canning wrote: "All the word bound angels in In Nomine believe that there is an objective morality. They just disagree as to what it is. Gabriel is as bad as dominic in that respect. Dominic belives in order over all. Gabriel believes in exterminating the cruel. Lawrence believes Honour over comes all. Micheal believes All's Fair in War ..." I get the strong impression that all the archangels, and possibly any Word-bound celestial, would strike a human as obsessive, and most of them would strike a human as paranoid or manic or both. In other words, Gabriel is just the most obviously nuts. Why is Heaven controlled by a load of whackos? (That Hell should be run that way is only fitting.) I suspect it is because they are supposed to balance each other. Conflicts such as the Dominic/ Gabriel one are part of the Scheme of Things (I'd say Symphony, but angels are defined as outside that). Yeah, it's not nice for Gabriel or Dominic, at the moment, but things change, witness the Fall and Uriel. The archangels look nuts because they aren't so much people as personifications -- abstract principles wearing masks. That's sort of what being Word-bound means, I think. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 11:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... [lintking on my comments about low celestial density imply a gravitation to the seats of power:] > The other note to it is that that's very modern assembly-line >style thinking. A lot of the Demon Princes are likely to still be going >for the more old-fashioned craftsmanship approach of thoroughly corrupting >a single person, not that kind of broad population-based effect... I can sort of believe this for some, but I can't buy it for Baal (who's presumably going to do the strategically-sound thing), Kronos (who's supposed to understand things better than most Princes), or Nybbas and Valefor (modern Princes). And even in older times, it would have made a *lot* more sense to corrupt the king, and spread a lot of misery around, than Georges the shoemaker. Remember that celestials are, on the whole, considerably smarter than humans -- I'd assume they'd quickly see where the greatest benefits lay. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 11:42 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... > This is close to how I intend on running my game. That each >person's soul is as important as every other person's. So you are just as >likley to have tens of angels and demons pitting themselves against each >other in order to influence the soul of a 10 year old boy living in >Connetticut as they would be to influence Rupert Murdoch or Bill Clinton. If it's "just as important", than there's the implication that N souls ought to be worth more than 1 soul (assuming equal states in each). This brings me back to my conclusion -- celestials ought to be going for the places with the most leverage: media, government, and other things that affect lots of people at once. Not that they won't still fight over individuals, but given a choice between getting one soul and getting Congress to pass a law that will cause untold human misery, I'd expect demons to go for the latter. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 12:20 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 >> I wonder if there was a little more to it - for example, why was she >> accepting an order from Yves? He could have done that recitation himself, >> after all. > >Yves knew this would irritate Dominic, and therefore got Gabriel to do >it. I can't see Yves doing this -- he seems least likely of all the Archangels to be petty. I see the whole Islam bit as being an example that even Yves makes mistakes -- *he's* not infallible. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 11:58 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... [Paul Strack:] >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 sounds about right to me -- I was looking mostly for a general ballpark number, and hadn't really gotten into the details of the distribution. My main concern was the one I voiced the other day -- that there be enough celestials around that they could afford to be concerned with average individuals, rather than masses of people. >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. That makes good sense. Which means in turn that angels will be spread rather thin in the less-populated areas, and have to mobilize "response teams" when they find a hive of demonic activity. Of course, in cities, anonymity favors demons somewhat, though the echo-effects of Symphonic disturbaces counter that a bit. (I'm finding that it's possible to go a *long* way with clever uses of resonances, though -- you can do a lot without disturbing the Symphony.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 12:16 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 [more on Gabriel/Dominic:] >I wonder if there was a little more to it - for example, why was she >accepting an order from Yves? He could have done that recitation himself, >after all. (Perhaps the notional heresy was in accepting orders from >another archangel in place of God. (I wonder how long it will be before >Dominic has enough evidence to try Yves for heresy ;) :) ). One of Gabriel's jobs was messenger from Heaven (though she's not doing that any more, after the trouble she got into); it's not clear who has authority to ask her to do things, other than God. Presumably she felt Yves had the authority, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:44:15 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > Actually, I would nix the wet-noodle bit from the outset. No rules needed. > Though given enough time, the MoE could so a MacGuyver. > > Hmmm.... MacGuyver as a MoE.... No way! MacGadgetman _never_ makes weapons. I'm almost certain he's a Mercurian of some sort. A Mercurian of Eli possibly? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:50:37 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > > The actual maneuver, which the Malak would recognize immediately > >upon picking up the bust, is to smash it over the guys head, temporarily > >blinding him and then giving him god-almightiest-kick where it will > >do the most damage. ;) Need a new weapon after that, though. > > But that isn't canonical either: "ANYTHING they pick up can be used as a > weapon with a Power equal to the check digit of a successful Perception > roll, for the length of a single COMBAT." (Emphasis added.) Jackie Chan > seems to be a great example of a Malak of Eli, but he doesn't pick a thread > off his coat and start using it as a power 6 weapon. Sorry, that wasn't Canon, just me being silly. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:07:29 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Items and Age > Huh? Now I'm confused... how does a relic contain Essence *unless* it's > a reliquary? I though normal relics (i.e., not including a reliquary) > took all their Essence from the user. Heh. It's my job to read all those Relic thingies. From p.43 "The Songs in relics still require Essence to fuel them. Any relic can hold as much Essence as its level, or its Song is capable of using, whichever is lower." The difference between a Relic and a Reliquary in terms of Essence is: 1) The Relic cannot _generate_ Essence 2) Essence use _has_ to be for the Song in the Relic and it's an all-or-nothing proposition The user of the Relic _can_ provide Essence as well. The way a Relic 'recharges' is by contributions from someone who can use Essence or from a convenient Reliquary. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:05:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Something i have been doing with the group I am starting in Kenosha WI, is to allow the attunement to be added to the damage mod for an item. That way if he is using a sword he is using it creatively and get the sword mod + the attunement mod. Otherwise you have a warrior throwing away the sword be cause he gets a better mod wit hte SCABARD> What is other peoples take on this idea? Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:45:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, John Dye 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." > > > > > I'm kind of curious about the whole premise of applying the Bible to > angels. First, the Bible was sent to people, essentially for social > order and redemption. Angels are not in that class really. > Because the argument was that Dominic supports Christianity. The precepts of Christianity are based on The Bible, directly or indirectly: specifically, the teachings of Jesus. > > I (John) wrote > > Feh, Gabby is a loony (at least as explained in the book). Go into war > > with a lunatic at your flank and half the time you'll love them for > > being a better target then you and the other half you'll be dead. Dom > > is justified and Gabby has the same self control as the average munchkin > > player. > > > Thom wrote > 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. > > Well, since we're throwing quotations around how about this one. > "Gabriel is too unstable to manage God's Armies, TOO DISTURBED TO > REHABILITATE, and too powerful to destroy." Yves has a soft spot for > her. > Yes, because he has something else in mind for her... remember the Covenant with Noah? In essence, the world would never again be destroyed by flood: rather, the next time it will be with fire. Hmmmm.... Also, note that I am *not* supporting Gabriel by any stretch of the imagination. I sincerely believe that Gabriel has some serious problems. I just don't believe that those were the reasons that Dominic "tried" her. See below. > Yes, she quoted the Quran to Mohammed. Yes, she got in trouble for it. > Funny Yves didn't do it himself. Heck, I think he keeps Gabby around to > do the "sensitive" (i.e. send someone expendable) work for him. That's > the only reason she's around. If Dom persecutes Gabby, it is for way > more then Islam. > Perhaps it's my cynicism concerning the judicial system in *our* country that has me all riled up about this, but I believe that Dominic had a political agenda in mind when he tried Gabriel. You'll notice that Dominic *didn't* try Gabriel when she was present at the birth of Christianity. Why? Because as long as Gabriel *seemed* to support Christianity she was fine. As soon as she *seemed* to show support Islam, however, she crossed some invisible line in the sand as far as Dominic was concerned. > > > > 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. > > So, I like choclate chip ice cream. My house has choclate chip ice > cream. Prez Bubba likes loopy types running the Treasury department. > He gets loopy folks in the Treasury department. Yes, but you aren't trying to get the entire *universe* to like chocolate chip ice cream. You're also not putting someone on trial because they like Pistachio Nut. Bubba may be trying to get everyone to like "loopy types", but he isn't trying to change the overall structure of the universe in order to do so. This is what Dominic is attempting for *his* brand of Christianity, I fear. > Dominic and Laurence > like Christianity. Strangely, they arrange matters to favor > Christianity. Big Deal. Jordi likes animals. I don't hear you > complaining about her personal bias? Because Jordi isn't being discussed... Dominic is. 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: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:55:03 +0200 From: Jo Hart Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #253 At 09:59 21/07/97 -0500, you wrote: >Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >> As for what standard they use, I'd go with the Biblical one, since Dominic >> tends to favor Old Testament justice. This standard is usually harsh, but >> not absurd. Eye for an eye, not head for a stolen candy bar.... > So...what, then? A stolen candy bar for a stolen candy bar? Or do >you go ahead in good Old Testament style and take the one step back from >the head, chopping off the hand? Personally, *I* consider that a little >harsh...(and I'll say again, there's a decent case for the head. Cut off >the hand, and you leave them every opportunity to commit, at best, other >crimes...you already KNOW they're a criminal.) Actually the Old Testament verse about 'an eye for an eye' is incredibly sane and humane compared to what else was going around at the time (ie. fullscale family vendettas). It was basically saying - no, you take only an eye for an eye - that is the law. You may not slaughter another man's herd and send him and his family into penury because he raped your daughter - - you take your case to a judge who will dispense justice and then you must let the matter rest, or become liable to be judged yourself. An eye for an eye isn't the harsh sentence that its usually quoted as. If you try to put it into context it isn't so very different from legal principles that still apply today. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:01:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 2:50 AM -0400 7/19/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, John Dye wrote: [...] >> I have a great answer for that. Let the players go on a big 2 month >> long elaborate mission without any of Dom's old boys, and have them >> backstabbed HARD by a trusted, "rules loose" kind of angel who just >> happens to have been on earth too long... >> >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. Who says it has to be a slacker Creation-angel? Could be anyone -- especially anyone who's got a "good reason." Perhaps one of Gaby's who *needs* to take out the information source that the PCs are relying on ("He was cruel!"), or a really dense Flower-child who is *sure* that he can redeem the PCs' target and wants to gain the target's trust by betraying the hit-squad. Or a Servitor of Janus who's gone from shaking things up to getting a little carried away ("Uh, we thought you were Elohim..." "Yeah, but I just really *love* these explosions..."), or one of Michael's, ditto -- or one of Laurence's, who figured that putting the PCs in the middle of things will make a dandy distraction while he PERSONALLY takes out this jerk demon who's been sneering at him for months now... Or someone from *any* lot who's convinced that a demon on the other side is ripe for redemption and screws everything up trying to rescue that demon (who may or may not be upwards-bound) -- not *trying* to foul up the PCs deliberately, but just got a little too careless.... >And don't think for a minute that an over-zealous angel of Judgment >wouldn't do the same thing... Now that would be entertaining. Especially if a triad showed up and zorched the guy right afterwards... (And apologized for the miscreant's unangelic behavior.) >>>Now, some of Dominic's personal obsessions -- such as Gabriel -- >>>may call his objectivity and fairness to question. >> >> Feh, Gabby is a loony (at least as explained in the book). "This is reason, this is glory, candle-dancing, playing with fire, all I am to ashes burning, what more could I desire?" [Candle-dancing, Rhodri James, IIRC...] [...] >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, Criminal orders? Beats me why he hasn't yowled at Yves about it. Maybe he's convinced that Gaby exceeded her orders somewhere. >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." > >As I have stated to David, since Dominic hasn't Fallen, I'd like to >believe that he *means* well... but.... this has stuck in my craw ever >since I read it. Dominic considers himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner >of the Host, and yet he is clearly biased toward *one* form of thought. 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!!! ) Dominic's word is *Judgment*, not Justice. While he does apparently attempt to play fair, it's not clear that this is a requirement of his Word.... Obviously he needs an equal Elohite of Justice to balance him. Maybe he had one, once, who Fell... At 2:49 PM -0400 7/19/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>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. True -- but the *easy* equation is "liked = good" and "disliked = bad." Dominic, a celestial anti-hero. Now *there's* a weird thought... >>>>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. I don't think Dominic is entirely "objective" about his morality. I think he tries to be *fair*, but it's not objective. It's fairness by his rules, as said above. He's a Seraph, not an Elohite. >>>>"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....) A young, or very close-minded Servitor, aye -- he'd be dissonant not to do something about this *OBVIOUS* seduction... >>>>"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. Or so think the Servitors of Judgment -- the question becomes "how 'enamored' is '*too*' enamored?" Do they over-react? By whose standards? It's my notion that sometimes they're over-reacting, and sometimes they're not -- an Elohite with a craving for yummy foods is a lot more suspicious than a Mercurian with the same desire, and the Mercurian might be more (or less!) safe with such corporeal pleasures than a Cherub. OTOH, getting upset over a Servitor of Flowers becoming too attached to his garden ("pleasures of the corporeal realm" -- scent and beauty likely count...) might be a bit silly -- to everyone but the asthetic Servitor of Judgment who did the asking.... That's easy to spot; harder would be spotting if a Servitor of Creation (there *is* a reason for that hostility...) is getting too "carried away." I mean, one of the Rites of Creation *is* consensual sex! The older Elohim of Creation can probably manage to be objectively passionate about it (the ones who couldn't are now Habbalah of Lust; celestial evolution in action) -- but what does it look like to the Servitor of Judgment? >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. Or might have actually pushed someone fatewards by their approach. They don't always call it right -- sometimes they're the stormtroopers, and sometimes they're the cops... (I tend to think of them more as cops, but you still don't want them around most of the time -- especially if you're serving a Word that *requires* bending the rules. Yes, presumably a non-dissonant Servitor of Creation, Wind, or Fire can handle what their job demands. But the celestial cops don't always believe that -- or at least don't believe it quickly. (Our local Creation-servitors get bi-monthly visits from a triad of Judgment, just to make sure they're not going postal or anything. They show up (usually in Seraph, Cherub, Elohite conformation), ask a bunch of annoying questions, get in the way for a little while demanding attention, and go away again when the Seraph finally gets a Symphonic Truth of "No, they're not about to Fall." Fine and dandy -- unless something happens to make one just a tad dissonant...) At 2:50 PM -0400 7/19/97, David Edelstein wrote: [...] >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.) I like this one -- it's also backed up by the Relations listed for Dom -- he's *Neutral* to Gaby, these days. He doesn't much *like* her (but she's protected), *or* Janus, *or* Novalis. But he's basically going to treat those Servitors "neutrally." The only "hostile" relation he's got is the AWOL Archangel, Eli. And one has to admit, Eli's not the most...understandable of the Archangels, these days. And he's *not* acting on Yves' orders (or so we assume?). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:04:47 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > The archangels look nuts because they aren't so much people as > personifications -- abstract principles wearing masks. That's > sort of what being Word-bound means, I think. How interested are people in me doing a writeup of the way I have been looking at the In Nomine universe lately? I will warn you, it is dark, and heavily influenced by World of Darkness (it is the back story for a In Nomine/WoD game I am planning to do...someday). Why did I quote that? Because it tends to play a large part in the backstory, at least as far as God is concerned. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "I seem to have forgotten what families are actually for...Families seem to be a form of SM relationships without safewords." - Neil Hudson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:25:14 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> in_nomine-l@lists.io.com At 10:31 PM 7/19/97 +0500, you wrote: >> 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. > C-Ko, would have to be one heck of a Lilim. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:43:02 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 01:44 AM 7/19/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:54:21, Jeff Miller wrote: > >>Yeah, you could shove the wet-noodle up the Demon's nostrel and hope he >>suckes it into his lung.... > >Ok, your Accuracy is -10. :) > Exactly! That's why the rules, as stated, work just fine if you use some common sense as a GM. It would take a lot of planning or just blind luck to be able to use a wet noodle as *any* kind of weapon. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:32:31 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 12:59 AM 7/19/97 GMT, you wrote: >Just FWIW, my take has been that a player's Archangel orders him to serve >some other Archangel, and generally all the PCs serve the Archangel(s) >appropriate to the task they're assigned. IOW, the GM says, "Ok, your >Archangels have all assigned you to work for Novalis this month." I pick >Novalis just to scare the hell out of my own players. ;) > Wouldn't bother me none. However, I think that most non-Eli angels work only for their own Archangel. They may be ordered to cooperate with angels of other Archangels but they are, ultimatly, following the orders of and responsible to their own Archangel. Why would an Archangel *want* angels from another Arch? Their own way is much better isn't it? Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:17:16 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>By modern american standards all angels are bad. [They want you to be chaste,hetrosexual, temperate,<<< Uh, no, there's no indication that most In Nomine angels care about your sexual activities or orientation. (Other than inasmuch as it affects how you treat others.) In Nomine angels aren't following any one religious doctrine, remember? >>>Marc excepted they think that capatilism is wrong<<< Where do you get this? >>>they don't like betting<<< Some angels might enjoy gambling, especially angels of Eli. >>>Teleevangalists<<< Laurence and Dominic are probably fond of Billy Graham, but not the ones like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker. >>>Freedom of Speech.<<< Many angels are probably strongly in favor of freedom of speech and other civil liberties. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:38:42 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 05:19 PM 7/18/97 GMT, you wrote: >My house rule will be something like, "A successful Perception roll will >notice a weapon of at least the power of the check digit which will last >the combat IF such an object is there to be perceived. Additional weapons >of lesser or greater power or durability may also be perceived at the GM's >option. The accuracy of perceived weapons will also be sensed." > So if you are in a room full of crowbars fighting demons and you get a CD of 3, you can pick up any crowbar and use it at Power/3. In in a later fight in another room with crowbars in it, if you get a CD of 2 then you don't notice any crowbars in it? What about the ability to create matter? If a MoE uses a 2x4/6 against a demon, does that mean that in later combats that he can create a 2x4 and know that he'll get a Power/6 weapon? I think that the rules, as stated in the book, make much more sense if you consider that a MoE might actually be *creative*. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #254 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.