From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jul 22 22:42:36 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 WAA10594 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:42:35 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA27655 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:14:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:14:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199707222214.RAA27655@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 #255 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 Tuesday, July 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number 255 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN>Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) IN> In Nomine Underground IN> Dominic, Again IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 IN> Angels and Religion Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:32:40 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:43:25 -0400, John Dye wrote: >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? Yves. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:43:31 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Walter Milliken wrote: > 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. But note that there's a bug difference between causing misery and "getting" a soul. Get an unjust law passed, and you cause misery to lots of people, but in that misery many of them may be roused from moral numbness by the new sense of outraged injustice. In "The Screwtape Letters," the senior demon Screwtape often warns his nephew, the junior tempter Wormwood, to protect his "patient" from mishaps that could awaken his conscience, or blow away the framework of vanity and contented worldliness Wormwood is trying to trap him in. Likewise, Screwtape is impatient with Wormwood's rhapsodies over World War Two, pointing out that war and peace, sickness and health, wealth and poverty, and much else that humans get excited over, are, from the spiritual point of view, just raw material that can be used by either side. It may simply not be possible to save or damn people en masse. Mass movements can only law groundwork, and then individual "case workers" have to move in. Also, leverage is not always obvious. For instance, where DO fads and fashions start, anyway? And there's the already-mentioned case of Hitler's grandmother. Hidden leverage would be meat and drink to any game with any "illuminated" flavor. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:52:50 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 11:05 AM 7/19/97 -0600, you wrote: > >> >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. > I still think that there has to be something there to boost (no wet noodle/6). Plus, I think of it more as a Perception roll to see the way to use an object effectively as a weapon. Remember that a MoE can use that attunement on a battle axe. If he does so he has a 1/3 chance of seeing a way of using it *creatively* in a manner that will make it more effective in the current combat situation. > 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..) > Until a MoE does something *really* nasty to that demon with the t-shirt/6. Hmmmm.... If a KoE with the Malakite attunement goes to work for Jean and gets the Jean KoJ Attunement, could it posses the underware and give a demon a wedgie/6? 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 15:45:33 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) At 7:09 PM +0000 7/19/97, Walt Mazur wrote: [...] >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. Whether or not the GM will allow someone to get the Truth from someone who not only doesn't know it, but has no likelihood of being "in tune" enough with that thread of the Symphony for the Seraph to get more data from "listening between the words"... (there, that handwaved nicely) Resonances work against other celestials. Nowhere in the book does it say they don't, and in some places it's stated explicitely: p. 142: "When resisting the lies of a Balseraph, a Seraph adds the number of his Celestial Forces to his Will roll, whether the angel is aware of the liar's true nature or not!" p. 147: "Elohim, unaccustomed to the ravages of emotion, are at a disadvantage when dealing with the Habbalah. Their Will rolls to resist [the Habbalah resonance] are reduced by the number of the demon's Celestial Forces." p. 154: "If an Impudite uses his resonance on a Cherub, an Elohite, a Kyriotate, or a Mercurian, then the angel not only gets a Will roll to resist but a Perception roll as well. [...] Also, if the angel makes his Perception roll, as his next action he can try to invoke his Choir's resonance upon his violator, no matter where the demon is, as though the two celestials were actually touching." That means that a Cherub could attune to the Impudite and track him (and be his guardian angel, sort of...); an Elohite could get the emotional state of the demon; a Mercurian could spot the Impudite's social status, etc.; and the Kyriotate could ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER THE DEMON! (Well, that answers *that* question about celestials possessing other celestials...) As the mentions on p 142 and p 147 appear to take it for granted that the demons are going to be using their resonances on angels, I'd assume it works both ways -- implicitly. - --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 12:41:01 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... At 8:42 AM -0700 7/21/97, Walter Milliken wrote: >> 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. I can understand that, and it's the obvious way of looking at things. But I *like* the idea of all souls being equally likely to attract the attention of powerful Celestials. Because, as I mentioned, I like the idea of them being alien. Their goals and priorities being different from what your's would be, were it up to you. Look at the first module, Feast of Blades. The goal of the module is a McGuffin. It's fairly standard role-playing stuff. How much more interesting, I wonder, would it be if the things sought after weren't magic daggers with demons in them (hell, I could find one of those in an AD&D module) but the corruption/salvation of a harried accountant in Colorado? Or influencing the development toward darkness/light of my example: a 10 year old boy. This would be A: different and original and B: just as much fun, if not more so because it'd be the kind of thing you could only do in a "The Players are Celestials" RPG. Don't get me wrong, I don't think In Nomine's approach is *wrong.* In fact, as I said, it's not even incompatible with what I'd like to do, I just think that, so far, it could be more original, more unique to the setting. - ---------------------- --------------------------- 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: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:17:15 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Actually, I haven't seen ANYONE make him out to be petty. Vindictive, yes - that's his job.<<< Some people have suggested Dominic is persecuting Eli and Gabriel because of a personal grudge, and that he went after Michael for similar reasons. I see him as being more impersonal than that. >>>Kind of implies? I don't see it...what standard do you see being kind of implied?<<< See the example that followed. If they have no standard laid down for them, then why bother including that dissonance rule? "I'll punish 'em however I see fit...that's MY standard." Doesn't work for Servitors of Judgment. Exactly what standard they're using is up the GM-- if you want to say they carry out capital punishment for any crime they see, you can do that. That doesn't make much sense to me, though...I see Servitors of Judgment more as old-style Texas Rangers than Judge Dredds. >>>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?<<< I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I don't think the Old Testament advocates cutting off a hand for stealing, either. (Neither does the Quran, incidentally....that charming law in some Islamic countries is quite contrary to Islam.) "Make the punishment fit the crime" means equal severity for the injury you caused. Stealing a candy bar from someone doesn't harm them as much as cutting off their hand, so that wouldn't be an appropriate punishment. For such a trivial theft, making restitution and apologizing would probably satisfy a Servitor of Judgment. Of course, subsequent offenses would be dealt with more harshly....you're supposed to *learn* from your punishment. >>>Well, he accepted it the one time God Himself stepped in, yes. The time Yves and Michael stepped in, on the other hand, he didn't...<<< Dominic is NOT still persecuting Gabriel for the founding of Islam-- he's accepted that. He's investigating her now because of all the things she's done *since* leaving Heaven. >>>and he judges according to HIS standard, not necessarily the prevailing one.<<< His standard IS the prevailing one in Heaven-- he's Judgment! God gave him that authority. He just gets reminded occasionally that this authority isn't absolute... His Servitors, on the other hand, enforce both Dominic's standard and the local laws...the former taking precedence over the latter. >>>As I said. Among other things, he has `inferred' that Christianity is the way to go, and taken some considerable efforts to that end.<<< Dominic is a "Christian" Archangel, but like a Christian judge, he's capable of making rulings independent of his personal beliefs. Otherwise, he'd be charging every angel that *hasn't* accepted Christianity with heresy. >>>Again; never called him a `rogue' judge. Just a scary one, and a fanatical one.<<< Yes...but what makes him really scary is that he's usually right! - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:27:46 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN>Malakim of Creation > >"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." > > > >The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a > >weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he > >come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with > >small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the > >nature of his attunement? Well, my personal take is to drop the specialization requirements from the combat skills. Too complicated. Stuff like specialities just get in the way of a good, well-paced action scene. In my view, Ranged Weapon covers every type of gun/bow/whatever. Large Weapon and Small Weapon combine into Melee Weapon and work off Agility (Default: -2). Fighting still works off Strength. Less paperwork, faster, and characters who favour one Stat over others have a combat skill that relates easily. The Malakim of Creation just grabs a rolling pin and uses Melee Weapon. It's what he's good at. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia It always comes and finds you It will always hear you cry I cross my wooden leg and I swear on my glass eye It will never leave you high and dry Never leave you loose It's harder to get rid of than tattoos TOM WAITS, "That Feel" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:56:37 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:32:31, Jeff Miller wrote: >Why would an Archangel *want* angels from another Arch? Their own way is >much better isn't it? Different capabilities. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 03:45:13 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:45:33 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 7:09 PM +0000 7/19/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >[...] >>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. ... >As the mentions on p 142 and p 147 appear to take it for granted >that the demons are going to be using their resonances on angels, >I'd assume it works both ways -- implicitly. I agree with all you say, but as you point out with many examples, resonances work a little differently among celestials. I'm not saying a seraph can't use their resonance against another celestial, I'm just saying the part, revealing *Symphonic* Truth won't function normally when applied to a celestial, canonically outside the Symphony. I might go so far as to allow what that celestial has done to the Symphony (assuming he's dumb enough to talk about it), but certainly if you ask about celestial plans isn't going to give you anything extra. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 03:23:46 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:38:42, Jeff Miller wrote: >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. You can pick one up and use it at crowbar-power, whatever that's decided to be. Maybe they're only crowbar/2 that you need small weapon for; but there's a pile forming a crowbar-caltrop/3 that you can use fighting to throw someone onto. You'll have to choose based on which opportunity is most advantageous for you. >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? If they're the same type crowbars, I'll give you the same power. >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? Wood would be Novalis' domain. You could create iron. I don't know if you can shape it well. The rules don't say, but improvising: It would depend on your skill in Artistry (scupting). I'd be tempted to give you the lower of the power of the weapon you perceived (crowbar, sword, whatever) and the check digit of the Artistry roll. Or, you could ask the demon nicely to wait while you go do a machine shop to get your metal shaped. Some demons might agree. :) >I think that the rules, as stated in the book, make much more sense if you >consider that a MoE might actually be *creative*. Absolutely. Still, if demons pick the battleground, they may try to restrict your options; they may or may not succeed. I'll give you full use of your attunements within reason but not stupid demons that are going to ignore what they know of your capabilities (when and if they learn of them). "Be afraid. Be very afraid." :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:55:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: 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. Its also one reason why I like to keep my archangels more abstract in play. They don't have faces, just a presence with lots of weird effects. > > How interested are people in me doing a writeup of the way I have > been looking at the In Nomine universe lately? Sure. > I will warn you, it > is dark, and heavily influenced by World of Darkness That's O.K.. I *like* the WoD. :) > (it is the back > story for a In Nomine/WoD game I am planning to do...someday). Difficult - especially since some mages seem more powerful than angels. > BTW, speaking of In Nomine & the WoD, I recently read an interview with Steve Jackson where in which he commented on the fact that surveys show people prefering to play Angels to Demons 4 to 1. He took it as a sign than people were sick of dark angst games. Personally, I think that In Nomine played for dark angst works a whole lot *better* when you are playing an angel. Demons don't get depressed by suffering and they sure as hell don't have to wonder if they are really making a difference! WoD games themselves usually focus around people trying to do the right thing in a world that is going to hell in a handbasket. I just hope that SJG doesn't decide that dark is dead. In Nomine can reach levels of dark that other games, even WoD games, simply can't reach. Evil is a pretty indespensible part of it, after all! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:02:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > > > > > > > > > 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. > In Nomine should clear up the whole question of how Angels relate to religion. The main book mentions who supports which, but mainly, it seems, in terms of wanting humans to believe one or the other. Do Angels pray? Do they ever go to church for any reason other than to watch over the congregation? Do they even *believe* the religions they support, or just think that they are useful tools? Do they think God loves them and cares about them as much as He cares about humans? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 03:16:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Hello, all. Consider this an official de-lurk, even though I joined the list yesterday. ;) Oh, fair warning: I'm a big WOD goob. On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Gregory Littmann wrote: > Difficult - especially since some mages seem more powerful than angels. I rather thought that was the point. I mean, why did Lucifer rebel? One account has it that he objected to the notion that humanity would be placed above the angels. And if you note, only humans can be mages in the WOD. 'The meek shall inherit the earth' and all that. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) No amusing IN .sig yet. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:23:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Meera Barry Subject: IN> In Nomine Underground Quotes refer mostly from: > From: Highway Star > Subject: Re: IN> Word Silliness > Ooooo...that just gives me more evil ideas that I know what to do with! (grin) The LintKing may refer to some of our quotes from the game just yesterday where I mixed In Nomine with the Amber system in an Underground world. The total nuclear destruction of the mortal world is soon to come. (In the game; I'm not a Doomsday theorist.) It is mostly designed as a Diabolical Throne War, to get us all more familiar with the genre/system, etc. Still, with lines like, "Valefor...give it back." And Kobal asking, "What's it worth?" ...hee hee. > He goes and gets his butt kicked by some human with four > arms whose skin can bounce 20mm shells...:) Seventy-five ofanim met their quick ends against Prince Tiberius's cyber-enhanced army. Within about 10 minutes. (I keep seeing all the little ofanim shaking their heads and self destructing like Lemmings of the computer game of the same name.) > > (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. The LintKing pointed this out to me, following it up with, "Plants THRIVE on that sort of stuff." \\ Mb \\ mabarry@xpert.net "We must report the unfortunate death of Archangel Novalis, previous holder of the South American estates. Prince Drew of Factions denies any recent dinner plans with Her Leafiness." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:43:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Meera Barry Subject: IN> Dominic, Again From: Thomas Davidson > Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > 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. Archangel Beth throws in (along with the LintKing): > 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... You know, the more I think of it, the more I like my original interpretation of Dominic: He's young. Alright, he's been around for 2000 years or so, that we can presume. Heavenly duty -- he hasn't had to deal with the unusual circumstances of corporal Earth duty all that much. He's...aware of it, but he knows where his job is. And, being a Seraph, he's DETERMINED to do what's right. He was given a WORD. And, for God's sake , he's going to perform his duties to his utmost. Look at the system he's set up -- only his *most favoured* servitors can go judge off by themselves. Otherwise, it takes a triad of angels to pass judgment, and that only after (presumed) he's given it the review. This is not the set-up of a tyrant; he's giving all sorts of "fair shakes" that he doesn't have to give. Psychologically, Dominic is in a bad place. He doesn't WANT to be the bad guy... but it's his WORD. He, and he alone, has the Word that says, "There are angels going bad out there, find them out." He's a little paranoid... because what if one slips by? That means HE's slipped... and maybe he isn't worthy of the calling he has been given. Dominic DOESN'T WANT to find bad angels. It tears him to pieces knowing that good is being corrupted. So he hardens his Heart (so to speak) and Does His Duty. He's not an Elohim - he doesn't have to be uninvolved emotionally...but sometimes he wishes he could be. He knows the truth though -- he's a Seraph. And that's what he was Made to be. Unfortunately, the years are getting to him. He's beginning to try to find those who are corruptable a bit early...because the pressure's on. He probably knows at this point that he was a little jumpy about Gabriel. Wouldn't you be? Here you are, told that Christianity is going to be dominant...and all of a sudden, one of your sisters-in-spirit is making googly eyes at a prophet and rewriting what you (Dominic), as a Seraph, knew as the Truth. The plan is ineffable...sure. But that plan didn't come from HIM, it came from Yves. Suspicion. Of course, you're going to ask questions. You HAVE to. It's Your Word. Your Job. Your Being. And you try so hard...because you're Good. Because Good has to try hard. It isn't always easy. \\ Mb \\ ******************************************* mabarry@xpert.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:13:41 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>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?<<< Archangels aren't necessarily crazy....they're just different. In many ways, they are *simpler* than humans. Every Word-bound celestial has an *extremely* biased view of the world- they are only capable of seeing it through the filter of their Word. This isn't narrow-mindedness or obsession or any flaw in human terms-- it's a fundamental part of their nature. Archangels, having the most powerful Words of all, are also the most bound to them. (Remember that term-- Word-BOUND.) Dominic doesn't just "practice" Judgment, or "impose" Judgment, or "create his own standard of" Judgment...he IS Judgment. Just as Michael IS War, and Gabriel IS Fire. They are not even remotely human in their thinking. Everything we say and guess about their motives and their behavior is at best an approximation. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:13:39 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>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.<<< Or more likely, Dominic didn't care about that nascent religion at the time. He might not even have been aware of what was developing. Then he became a convert, and when centuries later Gabriel helped found a religion that had the potential to threaten Christianity, Dominic cracked down. It's an open question whether his reasons are religious or political, though. >>>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.<<< Dominic doesn't put people/angels on trial for not being Christian. He *might* put them on trial for actively opposing Christianity....but actively opposing any religion that's generally seen as encouraging belief in a monotheistic God-- including Judaism and Islam-- would probably annoy Dominic. Opposing Christianity would just annoy him more. >>>Because Jordi isn't being discussed... Dominic is.<<< The problem with Jordi is that he exempts himself from politics, and his Servitors rarely deal much with humans at all. So Jordi doesn't figure much into most campaigns. If other angels were running into Servitors of Jordi more often, he probably would rank right up there with Dominic for annoyance & threat value. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:13:37 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>> 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.<<< Well, Elohim aren't the only angels capable of objectivity. Besides, I was talking about the philosophical underpinnings of Dominic's viewpoint, which don't have much to do with whether or not Dominic himself is objective. Basically, there's the Objective Morality model: this says that certain things are Right, and certain things are Wrong, and this doesn't change because Right and Wrong emanate from a higher source. (God, usually, though some people believe in things like "Natural Law".) The Subjective Morality folks, on the other hand, believe that what's Right and Wrong can vary depending on the situation. Dominic, of course, is firmly in the Objective Morality camp. God has said certain things are Right and Wrong, and by God, that means you don't get to make exceptions just because a Wrong *seems* Right in one particular situation.... And from this, it follows that at times Dominic CAN be unfair. Example: Accepting a Rite from a Demon Prince would most certainly be serious heresy (and major dissonance) for an angel. Dominic would come down HARD on any angel stupid enough to do such a thing, and most would say with good reason. But what if we have an extraordinary situation? What if we have a Redeemed former diabolical...who still possesses his old Superior's Rites. And on a mission for his Archangel, he's all out of Essence, and he absolutely NEEDS that Essence, in order to save the day for the forces of goodness and light. So he performs a diabolical Rite, gets the Essence (and the dissonance), and saves the day. Dominic comes down HARD on him. Fair? Unfair? Subjective Moralists (including many angels) would say that in that situation, what the angel did served the greater good, it was necessary. Dominic would say (a) an angel who wasn't a Redeemed diabolical wouldn't have had the option to do that, and might have taken a completely different approach, knowing the option didn't exist, and (b) yes, he saved the day this time-- and so he and every other Redeemed demon has an excuse to use a Diabolical Rite the *next* time he really, really needs Essence... There isn't really a right answer. Dominic holds firm to the Objective Morality point of view, and that's going to strike the subjectivists as harsh, even unfair. OTOH, let's not forget that the punishment must fit the crime. Dominic will come down hard on the errant angel above...but not as hard as he'd come down on a Redeemed demon who used a diabolical Rite in a LESS dire situation. He does take intent and situation into account, he just doesn't let outside factors *absolve* one of guilt for breaking the law. >>>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...<<< Dominic's not infallible, so his Servitors certainly aren't either. OTOH, I'd say like Dominic, most of them are right more often than they're wrong. When you can even be sure of a "right" or "wrong"-- see above. If the teetering angel Falls after the Servitors of Judgment crack down on him, who's to say whether he would have Fallen anyway, then or later? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:57:52 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 Walter Milliken wrote: > > >> 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. [snip] Sorry, my point was that Yves delegated responsability rather than have Dominic bear a grudge against him (as opposed to someone else). For whichever reason it had to be done, but let someone else take the blame. Sam - -- There are *my* opinions, dammit, and let no-one say otherwise. Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati Chances are if your parents didn't have children then you won't either. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:34:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Angels and Religion Gregory Littmann brought up th eissue of angels and religion, and what religious beliefs are common among angels. Pending anything official from SJG, I'd suggest that angels believe what is common ground to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And this is a great deal, including: - God is one, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, both immanent and transcendent, perfect, eternal, and good, creator and ruler of the universe. - The tales of Genesis are true -- Adam and Eve (and Lilith) in the Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, the breeding of the nephilim, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Covenant with Abraham (whom the Arabs count as their forefather, just as the Jews do -- they just trace back through Ishmael rather than Isaac). - The Messiah will come. (Come again, for Christians.) (Known as the Mahdi, if I recall correctly, to Moslems.) - There will be a Day of Judgement, a general and bodily resurrection of the dead, and a new universe. - Obviously, there are such things as Heaven, Hell, and souls. The three religions don't have a lot to say about the direct relation of angels to God. Sometimes, Judaism doesn't represent angels as having any independence at all, but we can dismiss that for game purposes (except for philosophical discussions about predestination, a puzzle common to all three religions). Where angels are depicted as independent personalities, they are also generally depicted as praying to God, and in fact I have generally assumed that the "average angel" (not a PC on Earth duty) spends most of its time celebrating the glory of God. (In the TV show "Touched by an Angel," the angel Monica tells a mortal that she, like "everyone," started out in "the Choir," then moved to Annunciations, then Search and Rescue, then Case Work. Sometimes, when she is frustrated with herself, she asks her boss, "Send me back to the choir!") So I think it would be entirely appropriate for an angel to take part in a service at a place of worship of its choice. I can't answer for all three religions, but the supposition in medieval Christendom was that angels were more valuable to God than humans, though there was speculation that human saints might ultimately be promoted to levels higher than the angels. IN angels might wonder about this, too, since most human souls that enter Heaven ascend to levels that PC angels have never seen. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:51:44 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 5:31 -0400 7/21/97, Adam Canning wrote: >By modern american standards all angels are bad. [They want you to be >chaste,hetrosexual, temperate, Marc excepted they think that capatilism is I don't know if I can agree with this at all. It says specifically about angels having sex and even a hint of a homosexual relationship (it lists Blandine and Beleth as being lovers before the fall, however, both are refered to as female). Angels don't seem to care about lovers or minor "sins" such as extramarital sex; they're more worried about the War as a whole. If a man and his girlfriend (for example) have sex, they won't care. If the man cheats on his wife with an old girlfriend then they will - that's more likely to cause problems such as hatred, jealousy, etc. SeanMike - ---- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:38:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) > Impudite's social status, etc.; and the Kyriotate could ATTEMPT > TO TAKE OVER THE DEMON! (Well, that answers *that* question about > celestials possessing other celestials...) Though, I actually would think a Kyriotate would have trouble taking over a Demon of the same number of Forces...that would mean concentrating the Kyrio all in one place. It's not specifically MENTIONED under their Dissonance, but that's a clear step towards Shedim... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:18:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > Why is Heaven controlled by a load of whackos?<<< > > Archangels aren't necessarily crazy....they're just different. In many > ways, they are *simpler* than humans. Every Word-bound celestial has an > *extremely* biased view of the world- they are only capable of seeing it I definitely agree with this...even beyond Word-bound, any Celestial is heavily influenced by their Resonance, which is far more than a game mechanic... You can't QUITE say "All Seraph are snobs", but you can almost certainly say, "All Ophanim are hyperactive." In effect, the Resonance shouldn't just mean that a Seraph can, if he feels like it, check to see if someone's telling the truth. It means that seeking truth is what Seraph were designed for. They can give that different takes (to the extent of, say, Michael, who defends truth more than seeking it...and yes, personally I would suggest that Dominic is now seeking a PARTICULAR truth, which can definitely slant your results, but the point does remain that, in the discussion at hand - he CAN'T not seek it. Beyond being Judgment, he's Seraph.) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #255 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.