From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 25 15:54:45 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 PAA07009 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:54:44 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA05120 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:50:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:50:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199707251850.NAA05120@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 #260 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 Friday, July 25 1997 Volume 01 : Number 260 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) IN> Seraph Resonance. Re: IN> Celestials Vs. Humans Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dark In Nomine IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Gen Con IN> Dominic, Michael, and God Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Celestials Vs. Humans Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) IN> Graduations, Saints, and "Night Music"... Re: IN> Eli (no longer Dominic....) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:27:26 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Casca wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > > > thumbing his nose at the younger Seraph. Dominic put him on trial, and > > remember, God didn't say Dominic was *wrong*, just that, in effect, > > Michael's virtues outweighed any alleged sins. > > Wait a minute...problem here. I remember a few posts back about how > Dominic operated on Objective morality: mitigating circumstances be > damned, if it's wrong then it's wrong. > > And then we have an example of God doing -just that- to acquit Michael. > This bothers me, since I don't see God as the type to set rules and then > break them. I'm certain this would irritate Dominic to no end. Geez! Even in our less then perfect legal system, we have an out for "problem cases". Michael got a call from the "Governer" on his way to the electric chair. Dominic is judgement, not mercy. God can take any Word he wants at any time. > > This, of course, brings up the question: can God gain Dissonance? And if > so, who's gonna call him on it? ;) Inneffeablility (sp) is the hallmark of God ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:43:10 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:34:22 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >I suspect that they only gain the dissonance conditions if they >are also able to invoke that Superior -- if they're just told >to go work *with* somebody's group, they will follow their >Archangel's orders, but don't have the dissonance conditions. Agree, but the Archangel borrowing them will generally want them bound by his dissonance so they're on their best behavior not to undermine his Word. That might not happen in all cases, but I think it's the general case, at least for PCs. >Dissonance conditions would only apply to long-term loans, and >maybe not even then. (Eli's do *not* get them, for instance; >neither do they get freebie attunements from their temp AAs, >though.) Freebie Attunements? I thought Attunements would be handed out free only as a special reward, and Eli's servants would be as eligible as any. (But Elians do have trouble getting distinctions.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:19:43 GMT+10 From: "Leathal Weapon" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: IN> Seraph Resonance. With all the talk about Truth and the Seraphim Resonance, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth in. In my game, I've decideed that the Seraph resonance entirely depends on the subject's knowledge of the truth. With a check digit of 1 (don't have the book, so bear with me) the Seraph learns if the subject thinks they are telling the truth or not. If the subject thinks they are telling the truth, then that's all they'll ever learn, regardless of whether they get a CD up to 6, because the resonance is based on interpreting the subject's honesty. Only if the subject is lying will the Seraph get more information with a higher CD, and even then I usually limit the amount of information to what the subject would normally have a clue about. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:49:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Celestials Vs. Humans > You see, humans do a pretty lot of mess by themselves - the > angels, specificaly, just watch it happen?? Or do they interfere? Would > it be like disturbing the Sym?? Even if it was for a good cause??? I think it depends on the Superior...some are oriented very specifically towards it (Gabriel, Jordi, and Blandine are all strongly situated to mucking about with humanity), while others aren't (Dominic, Jean, and Laurence all seem very much concerned strictly with the Celestial, with some minimal exceptions). Though, personally, I DO tend to feel that if something was about to be destroyed, as part of the Symphony, then saving it against the Symphony should create just as large a Disturbance as the ill-timed destruction would have...(eg. a person just fell off a cliff with absolutely no Celestial intervention, direct or otherwise, and an Angel saves his life. Suddenly, there's this person hanging around who was supposed to be a splatter...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:39:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > But God didn't set the rules-- Dominic did, based on his understanding of > God's will. And I'm sure Dominic knows he's not infallible...though he may > not admit that to other angels. But the entire point of the Objective Morality theory is that Something is Either Right or Wrong, Circumstances Be Damned. And how does one know if something is wrong? Well, one gets the definition of this from God. Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. Michael takes trophies and is really proud of them, to the point of starting a warrior cult. Dominic sees that this is idolatry and charges him accordingly. Note that the book states that Dom -wasn't- wrong to charge Michael -- in other words, he was guilty. But God acquitted Michael anyway, meaning that God just violated His own rules. God gains Dissonance? Thought: perhaps Demons are the manifestation of God's Discord.... - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:13:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) > > Cool concepts. Nice art. Incoherent setting. Unplayable rules. > I just got it today, so I can't really comment on it in-depth, but > from what I've read so far the setting makes sense once you've > translated it from Immortal-ese to English. (You thought White Wolf The concepts are definitely cool, and the art is the main reason we picked it up. The setting itself is actually quite well developed, and the rules, once you figure out what they ARE, are..intriguing. The RULEBOOK is horribly incoherent, though - the way they scatter definitions around the sides and bottom is an interesting concept and would have been great if they'd had anything to do with what was being discussed on the page in question, but as completely random as it is, it's awful. The lack of index, with the otherwise negligible organization, is criminal. (I went through it and wrote one, incidentally - I could e-mail it to anyone interested) I finally gave up on the system when I subscribed to the list for a while and found out it ran even deeper than that...core rules are scattered not only throughout the book, but apparently here and there through the sourcebooks as well, which is not only annoying, but problematic as they can be (at least in this area) difficult to track down... [You know how annoyed we all were about that In Nomine glitch of tucking away the option of buying extra Attunements? It took me several hours to figure out how many character points (`motes') you get for Immortal...it doesn't even HINT at it anywhere that would make sense, like, say, at the beginning of the character creation section..*sigh*] Anyway; highly recommended if you have the time to devote to it and want to import the ideas to better-written systems. > (I'm absolutely in love with the Attention (magical power) Looking > Glass... it lets you do stuff with the 'memories' of mirrors... Now THAT'S a way to handle Rebman Mirror Magic that I like...(I've never much enjoyed the `mirror world' concept, personally). Anyway, I now return you all to your regularly scheduled In Nomine list; if anyone's interested in that index, mail me offlist (lintking@xpert.net). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:43:35 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> Dark In Nomine > Actually, judging from this list I think there are quite a *lot*. This >makes things difficult for SJG, because there is a much wider variety of >feels they need to cater to to keep In Nomine fans happy. I can't really >think of any other game that inspires such dispirate playing styles. AD&D. GURPS (almost by definition, really). Those are just my immediate thoughts, I'm sure there are others... -Loki (take GURPS IOU, for example, with its three different versions) - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:25:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > >>>Dominic insists that his law is the prevailing law. Michael, as you > say, chooses not to follow that law...which, I think, is suggesting that he > doesn't agree that that's THE prevailing standard.<<< > No, he's saying he doesn't agree it SHOULD be the prevailing standard. Much Let me try it this way. Dominic and Laurence tend to agree. Michael, Yves, Novalis, Jordi, Gabriel, and Eli have all evidenced differing opinions with Dominic's view of the Law, while the others, on the whole, haven't registered a vote one way or another. This doesn't fit any definition of "prevailing" in the English language *I* learned, but then, I'm an American...*shrug* > >>>But he DOES say Dominic is the hyena of Heaven, refuses to FOLLOW that > law,<<< > He's refused to follow some of Dominic's edicts....that doesn't mean he > goes around defying Judgment's laws at every turn. Well, no, that would be stupid, and I never said he did. > This is not the same thing as Michael believing Dominic has no authority > and can or should be freely ignored. Well, no, that would be stupid, and I never said he did. > >>>there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and > being `in the right'.<<< > Well, first of all, he wasn't 'in the wrong' with Michael. God overruled Well, no, but I didn't say he WAS `in the wrong', just that he WASN'T `in the right'. The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, especially given my example. > Secondly, as you say, we don't know what other incidents have occurred in > the past several thousand years. No, but I think it would get at least a mention in passing. > That doesn't mean Michael wants a free-for-all. (You can bet that anyone *ahem* [Chorus] Well, no, that would be stupid, and I never said he did. [Thanks] > * Eli, Janus & Novalis: Michael's never expressed much of an opinion on the "Or expressed doubts about". As you note, he's never formally charged any of these. As I said, every time he has actually moved against an Archangel, Michael's opposed it, and won. > The evidence suggests that Michael thinks Dominic is an overzealous twit, > but not that he automatically leaps to the defense of every angel accused > by the Inquisition. [Chorus] David, I realize you said right from the beginning that you felt the need to defend Dominic, but you're defending him against too many accusations that haven't been made. All told, I have to say I think this'll be my last word on the subject. The book definitely slants him towards a bad guy (with words like "tyrannical" and "Inquisition"), and personally, I like the view, at least as a way to have him presented to the PCs...you're certainly free to view him otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:07:22 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >> That's because they're angels, and not humans. Angels have their own moral >> code, their own resonance that was was set down by God, either directly or >> indirectly through a Superior. > > That's fine, but they are going to *have* a moral code and take it very >seriously. We really don't have much detail on what Heaven thinks is good >or bad. I know that there is going to be disagreement, but even there, we >don't really know what the big disagreements are other than in very vague >terms. Perhaps this is inevitable in a game of this sort, but it does >make playing an Angel more confusing. If nothing else, we should know >how seriously a servitor of Laurence chould take the 10 commandments >insofar as their *own* behaviour is concerned. They do. It's set down by their Superior and by their Choir. You're thinking in a one-size-fits all fashion, and that simply doesn't work for an angel. Different angels have completely different moral points of view - -- compare a servitor of Dominic to a servitor of Janus. It is *wrong* for Serpahs to lie, and it it *right* (from that angel's perspective) for Seraphs of Gabriel to punish the cruel in any way they see fit. Aside from issues of Dissonance, the nature of one's Choir and of your Superior's Word (and how that Superior handles it) should give one plenty of ideas as to what sort of moral code an angel should have. Most angels of Marc are undoubtedly into business ethics that go beyond merely following through on deals. This doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of room to move around. This, in my opinion, is a *good* thing. It makes things much more interesting, and means that angels can be individuals while still feeling they're serving Good. But the thing to remember that the absolute, total Good is something most angels' aren't even supposed to look at. It's their job to look after their Superior's Word, and it's up to their Superior to look out for the larger issues. That fact that the Archangels don't agree on all the larger issue just makes things more complicated. But it's obvious that the Superiors generally agree on certain things: The plans of Hell should be thwarted, angels generally do not wage open war on each other, humans should be guided toward their Destiny (I don't see Michael disagreeing with this, just being suspicious as to the way Yves is going about it), angels should obey their Superiors, angels should be prevented from Falling... The list goes on. No, it doesn't relate to the Ten Commandments or any *human* law of conduct, and maybe it's a little more informal, but angels are *different*. Their concern is not with human matters. Homosexuality is not an issue for angels, because they only have one gender, regardless of the vessel they were. It may be different for humans. Who knows? Not even the angels. But the servitors of Gabriel do know it's wrong for humans to be cruel... -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 01:26:14 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy David Edelstein wrote: > Secondly, as you say, we don't know what other incidents have occurred in > the past several thousand years. Not to mention, Archangels probably don't > get charged very often. If Dominic was regularly finding cause to bring > other Archangels to trial, there would be considerable distress in Heaven, > from all sides. There would also be a lot less opposition to Dominic, if he was having to bring in Falling AAs every time you turned around---the need for Dom and his work would be nearly unchallengeable, with the proof all around the Angels on Heavenly assignment. tom t. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:19:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) In a message dated 97-07-24 13:51:24 EDT, you write: << > Lessee... Asmodeus' (!!) don't have to "wear out their welcome" > by corrupting the host. Betraying Asmodeus - why does this not sound like a good idea? >> Hmmmm...well, for one, I would think that as soon as he learns what you've done your band/servitor attunements and distinctions would stop working...after all, those powers come from him. So now you *do* have to corrupt your host... Number two, hunting losers like you down is his specialty! Anything bad that happens to renegades would go double for you. Asmodeus would want you *really* badly. Also, (and this goes for *any* of the princes...) what was that bit about having your heart locked in a cage? Ahhh yes! page 185...."most Princes keep their servitors heart locked in steel cages to which only they have the keys." And of course, the juicy part is earlier in that article..."But be careful- wherever you go, your prince can grab your Heart and squeeze...and find you." Don't worry. Of *course* Asmodeus doesn't have a platoon of demons waiting to nail you...and I'm sure the lock on your souls cage is really easy to pick. Actually given the explanation on pg 185 I wonder how any renegades ever make it...You would pretty much have to do it with the full intention of switching sides. Going it alone for evil would just be to dangerous. If your unhappy with your lot easier to switch superiors. Hmmm...say I'm a demon, and I want to be *independant*...that might be possible if I cut a deal with Lilith. Sure, now I owe her favors, but it's a step in the right direction. I wonder how many favor's I'd owe, and how amenable to such deals she is with non-lilim? - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:10:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Shadowcat wrote: > > >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. > > Then again, a hell of a lot of Christian, aren't very Christian, > or as my Grandmother used to say "Cold as a Christian's heart" and she was > brought up in a SERIOUS christian household > As was I, come to think of it... perhaps that's why I shun Christianity? 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: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:16:07 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>>there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and being `in the right'.<<<< Any case in which Dominic was right would rather imply the defendant was not an Archangel afterwards. Like what happened to Uriel. Adam Canning Dahk@Compuserve.Com If justice is Blind why does Dominic have countl;ess eyes. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:16:05 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Dark In Nomine From: Andre Ribeiro > Well, they should be aware of it when they decided to give us a game which could be played as 'Let's save the world!' as much as 'Let's screw it!'... < As I see it both sides want to save the world. It just that the demons want to save it in a different way. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:15:58 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Malakim of Creation >From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) >>True. That would be their goal. The MoE's strength is that he might see >weapons where the demon might not. Exactly. < I see it more as the Malakim of Creation can see or create a use for the object in that situation that may well not be their in another, The Nail gun may be power 6 in one fight because the Malakite can for example spot a weak point on the target but only power 1 in the next because he can't. spot one. Some of the effects can even be due to vacuum uncertainty principle effects. [The rather strange physic's trick where by particles can pop into existance withtout violating conservation of mass just so long as they disappear within a very short space of time.] Also unless there has been somthing in the FAQ I got the impression that the attunment made the item into a weapon with power equal to the perception check digit and accuracy of 0. which is on average no better than than the Malakim of Fire's I can make my hands burn as a weapon with power equal to my celestial forces with an accuracy of -1. which is no less likely on a purely realistic basis than the MoE picking up a playing card and through intimate knowledge opf the universe Knowing how and where to throw it to cause as much damage as a 5.7mm Nato round. As far as playbalance is concerned there are a number of ways of spending 5 points [the cost of a choir attunement] to get weapons that are better than the power 3.5 that the Malakim of Creation attunement gives. [Since he has to pick the item up and do a perception test he is more or less stuck with it for the combat round he tests it. and changing weapons from round to round doesn't help matters much] > can assure you that you will not find a 2x4/6.< Why, just because neither you nor I can see how to use a 2x4 that effectively in that situation doesn't mean a supernatural creature with a speciality in such things cant. After all neither of us can tell exactly what something means to some one just by glancing at it [ Malakim of Trade] or Make my hands burn with green flame at a mere thought [Malakim of Fire] or become totally imovable and indestructable [ Malakim of Stone], pursuade plants to tie people up [Malakim of Flowers] let alone render an enemy so unable to hide that you allways know where they are [Malakim of Revelation] Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve..Com "If any abiltiy in a roleplaying game makes you unhappy to referee it. you can allways tell the players right from the start that they can't have it." Advice to GM's ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:53:51 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form Dear List since there was no Kyrio question going I thought I better start one :) . Page 103 says that a Kyrio with 3 Forces not being used to possess Hosts may manifest a Celestial form and "That form need not be in the same place (or on the same plane) as his host body or bodies, but he can never have more than one celestial form at a time." Does this mean that a Kyrio can manifest his celestial form anywhere? That is anywhere not in the same place as any of his Host(s)? Can a Kyrio who manifests their celestial form use it to communicate with others, presuming he doesn't stun them. Very useful when inhabiting animal Hosts. Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Whoso loveth God truely must not expect to be loved by Him in return." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:22:01 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Adam Canning wrote: > From: Andre Ribeiro > > Well, they should be aware of it when they decided to give us > a > game which could be played as 'Let's save the world!' as much as > 'Let's > screw it!'... > < > > As I see it both sides want to save the world. It just that the demons > want > to save it in a different way. Are you trying to corrupt me...? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:57:29 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > And what's wrong with leaving some poor demon in such a situation? > Sounds like a good joke to me... Have I been hanging around K.K., > Lilim of Dark Humor, too much recently? Dear Archangel, I was just joking myself... :-) I rather liked your idea in fact... I can imagine a thousand ways of leaving a demon host just in time before doom...:-)) Andre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:27:35 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con David.Evans wrote: > Shadowcat querieth:- > > > > With only a week to go, who all is going to be at Gen Con? > > Err, not yours truly folks; it's a little out of my neck of the woods. > > However, I might be able to make it down to European GenCon at the end > of > August. Anyone gonna be going to that? Go ahead, shoot me!! I'm about to burst of jealousy anyway.GenCon, European GenCon... And I'm in Brazil... Ok, let's do it!! Anyone wanna be here next year for the Brazilian GenCon??? :-) I think I can handle it... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:36:29 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Dominic, Michael, and God >> thumbing his nose at the younger Seraph. Dominic put him on trial, and >> remember, God didn't say Dominic was *wrong*, just that, in effect, >> Michael's virtues outweighed any alleged sins. > Wait a minute...problem here. I remember a few posts back about how > Dominic operated on Objective morality: mitigating circumstances be > damned, if it's wrong then it's wrong. > And then we have an example of God doing -just that- to acquit Michael. > This bothers me, since I don't see God as the type to set rules and then > break them. I'm certain this would irritate Dominic to no end. Yeah, I'd say Dominic was irked. Not that it does much good to be irked at God. In fact, that might have been one incident on which even Dominic's self-confidence was a bit cracked: When the Highest makes one of His rare appearances to set aside the judgment of Judgment for purely practical reasons, it's gotta hurt.... OTOH, if we consider what God did for Michael to be more of a pardon than an acquittal, then Dominic may still be annoyed, but he has no real claim against God. (I know the book says "God acquitted Michael," but it sure reads more like a pardon. The duly appointed Judge found Mike guilty, and the Supreme Executive did not disagree -- but did set aside any sentence Dominic might have laid down, on the grounds of Michael's value to society.) Also, a recent post to the list by Derek Pearcy implied that Michael did not come away from his trial scot-free. Although the rulebook does not connect the two incidents, Derek's post seemed to imply that it was after the trial that Michael stepped down from command of the Host (voluntarily?) and Uriel got the job (ooh, bad idea). > This, of course, brings up the question: can God gain Dissonance? And if > so, who's gonna call him on it? ;) > - -- Casca > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:18:54 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Casca wrote: > > Well, its a bit contrived as written, but any group that is > similar > > enough to mages but more powerful will ruin the atmosphere, IMHO. > High > > powered mages are not *much* like angles, but they are similar > *enough*. > > There isn't the difference between say, mages and paradox spirits. Gentlemen, we're speaking of Angels (and Demons) here!! > Heck, give your Celestials as much inherent countermagick as you feel > appropriate. Justify this by saying that since they're not part of the > > Symphony, then Symphonic magick has less of an effect on them. I go for it too. Mages alter the Reality (the Symphony) and Angels are not part of it. By the way, maybe Mages messing with the Symphony is ok (they *are* part of it, after all) - but to a certain extent. Who knows if Paradox Spirits are in fact Angels preserving the Sym? A good crossover, don't you think? "You can play with the Symphony, but you ruins it and you win a discord - corporeal or ethereal, your choice." Maybe Archangel Paradox has Symphony as his word... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:22:39 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >> But God didn't set the rules-- Dominic did, based on his understanding of >> God's will. And I'm sure Dominic knows he's not infallible...though he may >> not admit that to other angels. > >But the entire point of the Objective Morality theory is that Something >is Either Right or Wrong, Circumstances Be Damned. And how does one know >if something is wrong? Well, one gets the definition of this from God. > >Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. Michael takes trophies >and is really proud of them, to the point of starting a warrior cult. >Dominic sees that this is idolatry and charges him accordingly. Note that >the book states that Dom -wasn't- wrong to charge Michael -- in other >words, he was guilty. But God acquitted Michael anyway, meaning that God >just violated His own rules. God gains Dissonance? I think Objective Morality can be, and is, more complicated than you think. Even humans have come up with more complicated systems than you propose, let alone angels. For example, what if God is a Kantian? What's important is not the action per se, but the intent behind the action. It's just that that's a difficult rule of thumb for anyone but God to judge people on, so He hands down a few Laws that He has to explain the exceptions for in extreme cases. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:55:02 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) "Cool concepts. Nice art. Incoherent setting. Unplayable rules." Sounds accurate enough, although I might quibble over the 'nice art'. "(I'm absolutely in love with the Attention (magical power) Looking Glass... it lets you do stuff with the 'memories' of mirrors... transport yourself to rooms the mirror has reflected, hold conversations with people who've looked into the mirror in the past, pull things out of the mirror that it has reflected, etc...)" Yes, you too can live in a Celine Dion/Bonnie Tyler video. yours, "Immortal: Tag, You're It" - -J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:08:33 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (was: Dark In Nomine) >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 20:45:55 -0400 >From: Elizabeth McCoy >Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) >Lessee... Asmodeus' (!!) don't have to "wear out their welcome" >by corrupting the host. > >One of Beleth's might be able to run to the other side of the Marches. > >A Shedite of Belial might take up residence in some fire that >didn't ever get put out, but that's getting pretty dubious... > >Shedim of Death can wander around in corpses... > >And Shedim of Valefor don't *need* a host (if you really want to be >a big target for all the celestials in the area...). > >Shedim of Technology can stay in their laptop. > > >And those are the only ones who wouldn't *necessarily* have to >walk *quite* as narrow a tightrope... > Well, the Shedite of Beleth I agree with. Heck, that seems to be the safest recourse for Outcasts/Renegades in Heaven/Hell. Hide for awhile, then run for the border, and disappear off into the Far Marches. On second thought, the Far Marches probably aren't that safe a place for a lone Angel to hide. What with all the resentful Pagan Gods hanging out there, itching to take out their frustration on someone...Maybe there's some group of renegades/outcasts off in the marches, holding their own against resentful pagan gods and ethereal spirits. Maybe it's them that Uriel was truly after when he attempted to purge the Marches. Maybe they're the real reason Dominic wants someone else to have another go at it. Maybe not. As for the others, Doesn't going Renegade cause the Demon to lose band attunements? Or is that something that the Superior has to personally show up to strip a servitor of? Maybe that's why Shedim are so nasty. They know they have nowhere else to go. = 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: Fri, 25 Jul 97 11:46 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Celestials Vs. Humans > What leads me to a question: Do Celestials get involved with >humans if they threaten theis word (even if there are no infernal forces >involved, as above)?? I mean, do servitors of Jordi, for example, work >to mess humans plans of deforestation or something? And how?? Werewolf >style - blaming the humans and whipping them?? Or are they allowed to do >everything - since it doesn't mess with the Sym? In my campaign, Archangels *do* have their servitors interfere with humans, but generally only subtly. Jordi is a probable exception -- it's fairly easy for his servitors to directly harm particularly-annoying humans without trouble. Remember that angels are essentially there in the corporeal realm to *help* humanity (though generally not outright) -- this gives them a certain amount of license to meddle. Look at the description of David, or the stuff on the Grigori. (Of couse, they're also there to oppose demonic activities, but that's a more recent development.) My treatment of angels generally has them meddling as advisors -- they provide just that *extra* bit of advice or assistance that helps a human who's moving in the direction they want. Demons, of course, do whatever they want with humans, subject to reprecussions from their Superior or the other side.... But that often leads to similar sorts of interference as angels. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 11:31 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) >> >I wonder - if a Kyriotate possesses a demon, picks a fight with it's >> >body, and then leaves it, bloody and damaged, does he get Dissonance? >> >> > By the book the answer is yes, but my feeling is otherwise. > >> The only justification for the negative side that I can see is that a >> vessel is not part of the Symphony. > > I think that's exactly why the answer should be 'no'. You don't >disturb the Sym when you damage a demon, so the Kyrio doesn't need to >worry about it. I think they normally get their Dissonances because >humans are part of the Sym - just like Joe Angel causes riples if he >damaged a person. But I'd let he go a little more far on a demon... This is a more general question, too. For example, if a Cherub uses his resonance on a demon (to track it), and then lets his Malakite friend kill it when they track it down, is that dissonant? I'd say yes -- the Cherub is violating *his* nature, which is to protect his attuned. The fact that the attuned isn't part of the Symphony isn't relevant. Also, there is a Superior ruling that Kyrios of Jean *don't* suffer dissonance when an object host is damaged. So it's not a matter of whether their host is part of the Symphony or not. I'd say it's more a matter of causing harm to a living being (which I'd count as including celestials). Hmmm... can a Kyrio possess a mummy? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:58:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: IN>Paradox Angels On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Andre Ribeiro wrote: > Who knows if Paradox Spirits are in fact Angels preserving the > Sym? A good crossover, don't you think? "You can play with the Symphony, > but you ruins it and you win a discord - corporeal or ethereal, your > choice." Maybe Archangel Paradox has Symphony as his word... Ouch. An Archangel of Paradox.....I love it. Gonna have to write this one up. Can anyone help suggest a name? - --Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:10:38 -0400 From: Tim Seiger Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Andre Ribeiro wrote: > > Dear Archangel, I was just joking myself... :-) I > rather liked your idea in fact... I can imagine a thousand ways of > leaving a demon host just in time before doom...:-)) > > Andre > I can see another thread coming out of this: 1001 ways to kill a demon. :) - -Tim - -- I'm going to the coast of Manhattan with a bag full of blues and a yellow canary. -Agents of Good Roots - ----------------------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed above are not necessarily affiliated with Digital in any way. I am an employee, not a spokesperson. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:09:19 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: IN> Graduations, Saints, and "Night Music"... An ickle bit of Andre's post caught my eye... > You mean religion is something like a course - humans > "study" it to become something else (a being spiritually more elevated, > or something...) - and the angels don't need it because they've already > graduated. Now they teach. Hmmm, it's kinda interesting... Yeah, sounds about right from my point of view. Of course, as any really good teacher knows, that path of learning and enlightenment is a never-ending one... > If so, are Saints humans graduated?? Perchance. > I'd like to put my > hands on Night Music soon... > Heh. Wouldn't we *ALL*??? Which brings me on to ask the question on everybody's lips; "When's Night Music coming out?" Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:31:10 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Eli (no longer Dominic....) At 04:57 PM 7/23/97 -0400, you wrote: >At the least, I would figure that "creating" a relationship (which >would likely lead to raising kids (not necessarily genetically >parented by the people in the relationship) in a happy environment) >would be enough to get at *least* a grudging, "well, that's cool >then." > Those darn Mercurian of Eli matchmakers.... 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: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:50:21 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) At 05:16 PM 7/23/97 -0400, you wrote: > I'd been thinking about this too. To me, it seems virtually >impossible for a Shedim to get Redeemed. > > He's also got to keep corrupting his hosts. Failing to do so gets >him Dissonance, and Dissonance lowers his chance of grabbing a New host >when time's up, unless it's converted to Discord, which has its own >problems. If he wants to stay on Earth, and be Redeemed, he has to >successfully balance the individual harm and the greater good that he does >long enough to attract the attention and gain the trust of an Archangel. No >other Band is forced by their nature to hurt people. Bright Lilim may be >rare, but I think Redeemed Shedim are at least as uncommon. > In this one case, being covered with Discord may actually be a selling feature for a Shedim who is trying to be redeemed. 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 #260 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.