From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Jul 27 16:53:41 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 QAA24964 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:53:41 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA17578 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:58:38 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:58:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199707271958.OAA17578@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 #263 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Sunday, July 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 263 In this digest: IN> Playing Dead IN> Making a living. IN> Non-Omnipotent God Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Making a living. Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations Re: IN> Dominic Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) IN> God and Morality IN> Omnipotent God = No Challenge? Re: IN> Making a living. Re: IN> Playing Dead Re: IN> Making a living. Re: IN> Playing Dead ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:09:00 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Playing Dead Dear List Since an Celestial doesn't have to breath and has high resistance to enviornmental factors like heat and cold, How easy is it for a Celestial to fake death? Will roll to lower pulse and heartbeat to practically nil then wait for your Vessel to cool down? Could a Kyrio do this considering that their Host is only temporarily Celestial. 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: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:16:48 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Making a living. Dear List How much do other GM's make their Players justify their characters lifestyles by having the character work for a living? Having to work take up a lot of time and while some Celestials with specific briefs to watch a person place or situation can do that in their working life they will have occassional expenses that are way out of their financial league. Is it reasonable to have a Superior say "For this mission I give you this Holy Gun to slay the Demon and this briefcase of unmarked nonsequential $20's to cover expenses." Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? 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: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:02:59 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Non-Omnipotent God >>>Actually, I think the reason for God being just a powerful Ethereal is less PC and more plot based. If you base In Nomine on most Christian thought, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Which causes the same problems in the game that it causes in Christian thought - why doesn't he just smoke the demons, and make the world right? In other words, God is fated to win, demons are fated to loose, and any player or GM who wants an epic game is going to be disappointed. Now, granted, there is room for small victories and defeats, but even that seems to lack purpose.<<< The game does not suggest (in fact, it strongly suggests *against*) the theory that Christianity has it right. The only place Christian theology really measures up is in its monotheistic outlook. (And even then, there *are* other gods, there are just no other Gods.) Instead of assuming that because the In Nomine cosmology bears a strong superficial resemblance to Christianity, this means Christians are "closer" to the truth, consider this-- Christianity bears a strong superficial resemblance to the In Nomine cosmology because so many angels chose Christianity as the medium in which they would work. For instance, Michael is an important figure in Christianity, especially Catholicism. Does Michael especially favor Catholic theology? Almost certainly not....but he worked with the Catholic Church because the Church held most military power for much of European history. So he became so closely affiliated with them that he's their number one Archangel. It's a case of the Church being influenced by celestials, not the other way around. >>>But (to bring this thread back to it's origins - my WoD/IN conversion), if god isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: a) He lost some power when he created the universe, and everything that he *creates* weakens him still more. The idea here is that there is a finite amount of power in the universe - if he has it all, than there isn't anything else. If there is something else, than he must have less than all.<<< Or.... He IS "everything else". Thus, it's hard to argue whether or not God is going to "win in the end." No matter who wins the War, He's still going to be around. But he might have preferences as to how he'd like those autonomous elements of His being to sort themselves out. >>>b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it is necessarily better, but because it strikes me as less Dark than the other.<<< Yeah, but then it means all you need to do is have another Ethereal Spirit discover that same source of power. To me, this takes a great deal away from In Nomine's epic feel. It's no longer an ultimate War between the two bipolar powers of the universe, it's a war between the two entities who happen to have the biggest guns at the moment. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:22:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels > >> Schrodinger? > > > > Just don't expect him to come in the Vessel of a cat. :) Why not? He is the angel of Paradox, remember... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:22:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Making a living. > Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST > facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? Just because it isn't described, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I like the idea, personally - it would also give angels of Janus a way to dispose of money they liberated from undeserving sources. And it would be a good way to remove the casual concern, without allowing abuse. After all, Marc will not like unnecessary expenses. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:22:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) > Omnipotence is a tricky question. Keep in mind that theologians > disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that not only could god > not do things that were impossible, saying that > wasn't limiting his power. Ummm - Thomas Aquinas wasn't very coherent, was he. "He can't the impossible, but he still is omnipotent..." > Mind you, In Nomine is pretty Augustinian. Augustine believed that > god could do things that were impossible. Well, the Canon may be Augustian. Which would would make me a heretic...whose door do I nail my 95 theses to? If I hacked the In Nomine website to include them (*not* that I have the ability to do that, mind you) would that count? I really don't feel like flying to Austin... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:22:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > > Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. > > > > Are you sure? Perhaps God says says idolatry's wrong because it is. > > Please, let's not get into a discussion about this as it solves nothing. > It's a circular argument: > "Why is idolatry wrong?" > "Because God says so." That step isn't there in his arguement, I think. His arguement is that morality exists, and God agrees with it, not that God defines morality. It is (or was, at least) one of the many theological questions that the Church has struggled with. The response would be either "Because it is." or a real explaination of why it is. Now granted, I find that a lot of Christian rules lack any good explaination, which reduces the power of this line of thinking. OTOH, I find that almost any moral rules lack an explanation that doesn't call on other moral rules, so this isn't new. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:22:44 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) > > If god > > isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: Okay, more than two, as this response shows. > > a) He lost some power when he created the universe. > > > > b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. > > c) God isn't good. He created the world, granted, but He's now moved on, > He's setting up other worlds and occasionally checks out this one. Actually, it's not a question of good, it's "God is otherwise occupied." > He set up the angels and demons to take care of the whole housekeeping > aspect of making sure human souls end up in Heaven or Hell and are > reincarnated properly, and prevent the world from going too far towards > Good or Bad - checks and balances, if you like. He's unaware that the > War is going on - whenever he visits Heaven (which is very rarely) the > Archangels and Demon Princes pretend nothing is going on. Or maybe he knows, but is of the opinion that angels are the ones that should be doing things, not him. The Fall did not suprise him, but was not of his planning; however, the only steps he takes against it are to sic angels on the demons. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:43:35 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Non-Omnipotent God > Instead of assuming that because the In Nomine cosmology bears a strong > superficial resemblance to Christianity, this means Christians are "closer" > to the truth, consider this-- Christianity bears a strong superficial > resemblance to the In Nomine cosmology because so many angels chose > Christianity as the medium in which they would work. For instance, Michael > is an important figure in Christianity, especially Catholicism. Does > Michael especially favor Catholic theology? Almost certainly not....but he > worked with the Catholic Church because the Church held most military power > for much of European history. So he became so closely affiliated with them > that he's their number one Archangel. It's a case of the Church being > influenced by celestials, not the other way around. Well, your arguement has a few holes (the Church had little military power - what it had was the influence to get a countries military power moving), but all in all, I agree with the outlook. > >>>But (to bring > this thread back to it's origins - my WoD/IN conversion), if god > isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: > > a) He lost some power when he created the universe, and everything > that he *creates* weakens him still more. The idea here is that > there is a finite amount of power in the universe - if he has it all, > than there isn't anything else. If there is something else, than he > must have less than all.<<< > > Or.... He IS "everything else". Thus, it's hard to argue whether or not God > is going to "win in the end." No matter who wins the War, He's still going > to be around. But he might have preferences as to how he'd like those > autonomous elements of His being to sort themselves out. I dislike this one - it redefines God to the point where the mere concept of God is pointless. > >>>b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a > powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new > source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it > is necessarily better, but because it strikes me as less Dark than > the other.<<< > > Yeah, but then it means all you need to do is have another > Ethereal Spirit discover that same source of power. Actually, some have - the problem is, God, having discovered it and kept it secret long enough, can now destroy something that threatens his source of power. Basically, what the spirit Yaweh found was the way to give a spirit attunements to parts of the symphony, up to and including Words. He took the biggest Word going at the moment - Conflict. Not War, like Micheal - any conflict, from an arguement, to evolution, gives him essence. Which means that he likes the War, a lot... Yes, this makes God a bad guy. Trust me, he gets worse from here on in... > To me, this takes a great deal away from In Nomine's epic feel. > It's no longer an ultimate War between the two bipolar powers of > the universe, it's a war between the two entities who > happen to have the biggest guns at the moment. I don't really like epics - they fill up with entirely too much symbolism, for one. I have trouble seeing an epic battle between good and evil taking the form presented in any of the stories I have seen it in, from the Belgariad to In Nomine. Don't get me wrong - I love heroic. But we are just going to want different things from In Nomine. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:29:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Kabael Subject: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) <<>>> I bought the Immortal book, and have to say that is the worst ogranized book I have ever had the pleasure of reading. It had MANY wonderful ideas, as well as its share of crappy ones too. I admit that WW books can be disorganized a bit sometimes, but I am used to them, and Immortal still had me scratching my head oince I had read it through. Right now, I am trying to pull together something like an Angel book for White Wolf, pulling heavily from IN, Immortal, and the CCG Heresy: Kingdom Come (whose RPG was cancelled, as well as future expansinos.). I have had some interest on this list, and if anyone else is interested, let me know and I will bounce it (off-list of course, since I remember one of the rules was discussing In Nomine, not In Nomine for World of Darkness : ) Immortal, was interesting, very intersting, but only as inspiration for In Nomine and similar games. k a b a e l meo the shoes :- ) kabael@tiac.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 02:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim In a message dated 97-07-26 09:33:53 EDT, you write: << >>>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...<<< No, Renegades lose their Rites and Distinctions, but they don't lose their Band and Servitor attunements. >> Certainly you would keep your band attunements, but your servitor attunements? I don't doubt you...but can you cite a page number for that rule? Thanks. Even so, I gotta say, I would not want to be in our hypothetical Shedim's shoes. If I were he I'd only rebel to attempt redemption, and only then if I had several ready made breaks waiting for me. Call it a crime of opportunity, if you will. If for some reason I was not willing to switch sides, then I'd either stick to my old job or maybe try to cut a deal with Lilith. Someone mentioned that this was *not* a good road to independance! This I readily concede. It's a bad deal. But if being independantly evil was what I wanted, then as bad a deal as it is, it's probably the best offer I'll get. Or is it? My other question remains unanswered- namely, would Lilith be willing to cut a deal with a Shedim? It says the Lilim can't stand the Shedim, so it's probably a safe bet that Lilith can't either. If redemption is out, and Lilith is out, then where? Better make that will roll to shatter your heart, your very existance is riding on it. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 03:16:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) In a message dated 97-07-26 16:29:47 EDT, you write: << Eli left a while ago to wander the earth in an attempt to create something so worthwhile that God Himself would take notice. Whether this was to show that angels are as worthwhile as humans, or to draw His attention to the War that has got out of hand, is up to you. Comments? Sam >> I already rambled on in the other posts so I'll *try*(yeah, right) to be brief. It's really cool. What's especially cool about it is you can use this idea whether you agree with it or not. God could care, or not care, or be really swell, or whatever, but it really wouldn't matter. What matters here is what Eli believes. And this idea develops Eli and makes him kinda cool whether he's right about God or not. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 03:09:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine, Pagans, & plot interpretations In a message dated 97-07-26 13:24:23 EDT, you write: << If you base In Nomine on most Christian thought, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Which causes the same problems in the game that it causes in Christian thought - why doesn't he just smoke the demons, and make the world right? In other words, God is fated to win, demons are fated to loose, and any player or GM who wants an epic game is going to be disappointed. >> In my own game I put a different spin on things. There IS a God. He's mostly offstage...but you have seen him before. He's an infinite being. Which means that to discribe him accurately is to talk for an infite amount of time. You never run out of aspects to describe. You tended to see him when you were young, or when you were very, very, very desperate. Oh...you want an audiance now?! Tell me, are you really *that* desperate? So much so that talking to the other players won't solve this jam? Enough that talking to your Archangels can't solve this jam? Enough that trying to recruit a host of NPC angels can't solve this jam? Whew...that's some problem! If anyone ever has that big a problem then maybe the big G will appear on stage. But this train of logic doesn't so much outlaw the possibility of an appearance and make the odds of it being needed very remote. God is fated to win? The demon's are fated to loose? And so the story isn't epic? I can readily see where you would get this impression, I fretted with it myself, but in the end I disagree. First off, this game is an epic generator. My problem is that when demon's form small bands of mischief makers the loose ends stretch to infinity. In my first set of adventures two bands of demon's had a turf war with the angels on the sidelines...loose ends still abound. But also remember it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. Angelic players by their nature tend to be protective of humans and they tend to form attatchments if you craft the human's personality even a little. If someday, over the rainbow, Lucifer is fated to loose bigtime, so what? The drama of your game is much more affected by the success of the evil plot of today, than the distant someday prophecy of tommorrow. Case in point. In my game today six calabim(!) jumped a player angel in a little cafe, and said angel was hard pressed just to escape with his corperal life. But during the battle a very big man, who is described as being unsavory looking an having at least four corperal forces came to his aid. This big man had a lady friend who was injured in the battle. She ended up in intensive care. The players have watched the man, and his manner is clearly affecting them. He is gruff, bad tempered, and rude. His manners say "demon". But he obviously cares about the woman, is kind to her, and is quite vulnerable where she's concerned. The players wish they could spare him the hurt of seeing her hurt. They want to investigate the man to learn more about him, but pressing matters elsewhere vie for attention. But they also know that to find him they need only look for the woman. And they figure the demon's probably know this too. (Soap Opera Music Please) Who is this strange man? Will the woman survive? How would her death affect the man? He has a noble aspect, but much of his conduct has a fallen aspect? What of his soul? What peril is it in? Did the demon's *really* break in to attack the player? or were they trying to kill the man? or kidnap the girl to coerce him. But yes, you know deep in your heart that someday your side will win, and that the demons will loose. For now the war rages on, and God help the mortals in the crossfire. As far as any other religious interpretations that Christians and Non Christians might make, I say Bravo! I may not use your interpretation, but that doesn't mean I don't approve. I must say I find your 'war god' idea intrigueing and amusing! It would be so very appropriate for a war god to turn to an more pacifistic, loving outlook. Look at how many of his converts share the same story. He is, under your interpretation his own convert. It reminds me of a "hair club for men" commercial. "And remember, I not only founded this religion, I'm also it's very first convert!" ;-) I've rambled enough. It's late and I'm starting to get weird around the edges. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 04:55:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Adam Canning wrote: > From: Thomas Davidson > >> Any case in which Dominic was right would rather imply the defendant was > > not an Archangel afterwards. Like what happened to Uriel. > > > > I don't think that's what happened. He was recalled to the higher planes > of Heaven. > > In fact, according to the rulebook, p. 53 (on the top left), the > implication is that Uriel and Dominic were working together (or that Uriel > was working under Dominic's aegis): "Dominic has yet to find another > Uriel, someone willing to mount a holy crusade against the spirits of the > Marches..." > > < > > My take comes from the line Uriel overstepped his word by slaying all the > Earths remaining creatures of myth. > > Uriel is no longer an Archangel. Which would be true for any Archangel that > Dominic tried sucessfully. The quote you give can be read as Dominic wants > some one to exterminate: Offler the Crocodile God, the surviving Kitsune > and Elvis. Alternatively It could equally well say Dominic is looking for > anyone who might do it so that like Uriel they can be chastised for going > against the will of God. This I find more likely since finding out who > wants to break the rules is Dominic's job and upstairs has ruled that > killing Mythical creatures for no better reason than they are not angels is > wrong. > Why go through this convolutedness? My interpretation says that Dominic wants another Uriel to complete the work Uriel never finished--and that's purifying the earth of anything decidedly non-Christian. So, I don't see how you get anything out of that passage other than that Dominic supported Uriel. Dominic never tried Uriel, but U was taken to the higher planes without Dom getting his fingers dirty. Which brings up another point, that someone else has made. In nearly every instance we've seen thus far, Dominic's "authority" has been circumvented by others: his thing with Michael (God said, "He's an exception."); his thing with Gabriel (Yves said, "She was just doing what I told her to do."); his thing with Uriel (God said, "I'm taking Uriel to a higher plane before he can finish something Dom supported."). I'm beginning to believe that Dominic may be in serious danger of Falling *himself*. He might begin thinking that God's constantly jerking him around, and that he's better than God (which, according to some, is the reason Lucifer fell). He's the AA of Judgment, dammit, and how *dare* God get in my way! Just a little thought for you to chew on your Sunday morning. :-) 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: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 06:25:20 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Casca wrote: > Then there's the option I use: > > D) God set the world to work a certain way -- (...) > So now we have a Celestial Cold War in effect. Kewl...! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 05:12:14 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> God and Morality >Please, let's not get into a discussion about this as it solves nothing. >It's a circular argument: > "Why is idolatry wrong?" > "Because God says so." > "Why does God say so?" > "Because it's wrong." > > .... etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > >We either accept the possibility of a Higher Force that is qualified to >make policy regarding morality, or we chuck it into the same cans of >worms that holds "What is art?" -- in other words, banish it to the abyss >of subjectivity. It is possible to have an objective morality without saying that God determines what is moral and what is not. You simply have to believe that Right and Wrong exist apart from the opinions of individuals. Having a God to uphold that morality is convenient, but not necessary; the standards of Right and Wrong may simply *exist*, and God (if He exists) may simply recognize rather than create those standards (as an earlier poster pointed out). There's one of Plato's dialogues that deals with the whole question of whether morality (or "holiness") is determined by the gods or exists beyond them. I think the _Euthyphro_ is the one in question. In the dialogue, Socrates demonstrates that holiness must be something above and beyond the gods' control (for the precise reason that if it were otherwise, the gods could just change their minds, and thereby make what used to be atrocities into virtuous acts or vice versa). Of course, Socrates was dealing with a pantheon of non-omnipotent gods. Monotheists generally just combine God and Morality into one entity, saying that Goodness is God's very nature. So there's not any "higher" power than God that created morality, but neither can God just change the rules -- they are *part* of Him, and where His nature is concerned God has even less free will than _In Nomine_ angels: He CANNOT violate what He Is. Some theologians (including St. Augustine, who based his views on other writings of Plato's) speculate that only Good really *exists* in a positive sense. Evil is simply the distortion or absence of a good thing or quality. In this Evil is similar to darkness and cold in that it can be identified, but doesn't really exist as an independent "thing." Therefore, when we say God can only be Good, we are not limiting God's power but simply stating an obvious fact. Since God is the ultimate fullness of Being, there is nothing "missing" or distorted in Him, and therefore no Evil. Angels and humans, because they are created things, have the potential for Nonbeing and therefore for Evil. The "Evil as the absence of good" theory seems to hold in _In Nomine_, given that demons are described as "broken angels." (Even those demons created in Hell are made according to the same twisted patterns -- i.e., the Bands -- implying that the Princes are unable to create anything truly original, but only to distort what God has already made.) The exceptions, as usual, are the Lilim, but their unusual status probably has something to do with the fact that Lilith is a human (or something similar) rather than a true demon. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net P.S. If you're still interested, AA Beth, please feel free to put my musings on Christianity in the IN Universe up on the INC. I would be honored. (Is inclusion on the INC one of AA Beth's Distinctions? If so, what are her Dissonance requirements?) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 05:11:09 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Omnipotent God = No Challenge? Nathaniel Eliot writes: >Actually, I think the reason for God being just a powerful Ethereal >is less PC and more plot based. If you base In Nomine on most >Christian thought, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Which causes >the same problems in the game that it causes in Christian thought - >why doesn't he just smoke the demons, and make the world right? And the (presumed) answer is the same as in Christian thought: God wants His POWs back. Remember, when God steps in to win the War, it's ALL over. The demons and the damned are packed away forevermore, the Universe is cleansed of Evil, and the angels and saints celebrate for all eternity. But there are still people on earth who have drifted into Hell's sphere of influence. (In IN terms, they've reached, or are approaching, their Fates, and have turned their backs on Destiny.) If God intervenes now, those folks wind up on the losing team, and God loses out on the opportunity to enjoy their company in Heaven -- which is the very purpose for which He created them to begin with. So God isn't going to bring down the curtain until He has everyone He can get in His camp. St. Paul says as much in one of his epistles, so the idea certainly qualifies as Christian thought. In _In Nomine_, God's dilemma is even more obvious. Orthodox Christian teaching is that demons are irredeemable, so God should have no problem "smoking" *them* and concentrating on the humans, who *can* be turned around. But in the IN universe, demons *are* redeemable. Hence, God will certainly *not* approve of their destruction outright, and will not intervene directly until every demon that's *going* to come back has done so. The human situation is similarly different in the game. Orthodox Christianity grants everyone a single lifetime, after which a chosen few wind up in Heaven by the grace of God, and the rest go to Hell in deserved punishment for their sins. In the IN universe, a few get to Heaven, a different few get to Hell, and most (who achieved neither Destiny nor Fate) are reincarnated or recycled to try again. If God intervenes and Ends things, the current generation of humans becomes the *last* one, and everyone's gotta be assigned an eternal abode. Obviously, God's gonna give those reincarnators every chance to win a firm place in the Heavenly camp before He makes that move. >In >other words, God is fated to win, demons are fated to loose, and any >player or GM who wants an epic game is going to be disappointed. I assume you're actually talking about playing out the *end* of the War? (Otherwise, I don't see why you have to specify which worldview is in effect. Any lesser "epic" can still be won by either side, even if God *will* win in the end.) In that case, yes, there should probably be at least some risk that the demons will come out on top. It avoids making the efforts of demon PCs futile, and presents a real challenge to angel PCs. (On the other hand, even if God is destined to "win" in the sense of locking up Lucifer and remaining in charge of the Universe, there could still be drama in playing out the battle over the Final Generation of human souls. If God's ideal scenario is a full Heaven and an empty Hell, then there is a sense in which He has already *lost* the War, even if He is not overthrown.) >Now, granted, there is room for small victories and defeats, but even >that seems to lack purpose. I must disagree. This ties in to the recent debate over the importance of individual human souls to the Celestials in IN. I fall into the "individual souls are vastly important" camp, so that will color the following remarks, which are of course all IMHO: Ultimately, Heaven and Hell aren't fighting *each other* at all, at least not in the sense of each side trying to wipe out the other. Michael could probably have slain Lucifer, and the rest of the Host wiped out the outnumbered demons, in their first engagement. But the goal is not the triumph of angels over demons. The goal is the restoration of the pristine Symphony -- in effect, putting everything back the way it *should* be. And that includes re-installing Lucifer and the other demons in their appointed positions in Heaven -- but only if and when *they* choose to return (that whole free will business). Hence Lucifer's forces were exiled rather than annihilated. The current War on Earth is similarly not a physical conflict between angels and demons, but a battle of influence over the hearts and minds of humans. That would seem to be _In Nomine_ canon: remember "It's a damn cold War"? Heaven can't win by wiping out demons. In fact, given that demons are redeemable, and that God built Lucifer and company into the Symphony originally (as angels), the Celestial death of a demon probably grieves God enormously. And *so does the loss of even a single human soul to Hell*. Each is an irreplaceable Instrument in the Divine Orchestra. Even under Christian thought, God definitely "wins" in the end only if you consider "not being overthrown" equivalent to "winning." God loses, in a small degree, every time Hell gains a new inmate. Hence, "small" victories and defeats are in fact not small at all, and are certainly not without purpose. Again, the above is IMHO. Just trying to point out some factors that your analysis seemed to overlook. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:37:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Making a living. > How much do other GM's make their Players justify their characters > lifestyles by having the character work for a living? Depends on what kind of lifestyle they want...keeping in mind that Celestials don't have many NEEDS that require cash (food and shelter - they might ENJOY either, but that's a personal opinion thing), anyone can get by without wasting time on a `mundane' job. Otherwise, personally, I mostly just say they need to have the Role; I try to keep those on the positive side by having them not interfere overmuch with more important duties...at least, not intrinsically. (A Cherub with the Role of Doting Mother/5, say, will have human `children' that I think it would be dissonant to seriously ignore, while another Choir in the same Role could get away with a bit more on it, say..while many Roles, even at high Levels, don't come with the same kind of connection.) By the time you've bought a Role at level 5 or 6, especially, I really think it should `fill in' for you when you're gone - your Superior approved you having the Role, and presumably it's supported in the Symphony somehow. At that point, I assume most of their `down time' is probably spent perfecting it, but I don't worry about it in the middle of a game except as Roles are meant to be used - if they WANT something from it, or need to act WITHIN the Symphony, the confines of the Role give them a path to do it. > Is it reasonable to have a Superior say "For this mission I give you this > Holy Gun to slay the Demon and this briefcase of unmarked nonsequential > $20's to cover expenses." Maybe for a specific, very important mission, they might toss in cash...MOST of the Superiors (Marc as an obvious exception) I don't see even thinking about expenses, however. (After all, what DO they need to spend it on? Travel, perhaps...if they don't have the Song of Motion. And even there, I think most Superiors are likely to temporarily shanghai the nearest Ofanite to the cause than to suggest Greyhound...) > Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST > facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? Too much mucking about with the Symphony. I expect they occasionally have to STOP Vapula and Nybbas from setting things like that up... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:41:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Playing Dead > Since an Celestial doesn't have to breath and has high resistance to > enviornmental factors like heat and cold, How easy is it for a Celestial to > fake death? The initial premise has a couple of holes...they note that Vessels DO breathe (p48, sidebar). Otherwise, offhand I'm not sure where you're getting the high resistance to environmental factors...certain of them have, but I haven't noticed it as a general thing. (Now, a Shedim of Belial riding through a cremation...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:41:56 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Making a living. On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:16:48 +1000 (EST), Peter Frederick wrote: >How much do other GM's make their Players justify their characters >lifestyles by having the character work for a living? I'd think that's generally a distraction to the story, so I wouldn't generally require it. Of course, if he has a high level Role, he has to spend a lot of time in it. >Is it reasonable to have a Superior say "For this mission I give you this >Holy Gun to slay the Demon and this briefcase of unmarked nonsequential >$20's to cover expenses." > >Why hasn't Marc set up an international bank with universal ATM and EFPOST >facilities to bankroll Divine operations a la Matt Wagner's MAGE? I'd expect Marc has, but he's not going to pass that money out to just anyone. I'd say if you're working for Marc, no problem. Eli's Abracadabra can make gold or diamond to raise money, too. If you're not friendly with one of those two, you might need to cut a deal with someone who is if you need a lot of money. But I think the more fundamental answer is to make it which ever way serves the story better: have them dig up the money somehow, or have it given to them. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:41:47 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Playing Dead On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:09:00 +1000 (EST), Peter Frederick wrote: >Since an Celestial doesn't have to breath and has high resistance to >enviornmental factors like heat and cold, How easy is it for a Celestial to >fake death? > >Will roll to lower pulse and heartbeat to practically nil then wait for your >Vessel to cool down? Could a Kyrio do this considering that their Host is >only temporarily Celestial. Interesting question. Since a Celestial Vessel "...does not need to eat, drink, sleep," or similar stuff, I presume they don't need heartbeats either. Goodness knows what keeps a Celestial warm. I think a Will roll is reasonable or you could require an Ethereal Song of Form or Light to stop heat radiation. A Kyrio host (with the obvious exceptions) is a real body, so I'd say that direct strategy would be right out. If he had a helper (either himself in another host or a *very* trustworthy friend, he could poison himself to stop his heart (or try electric shocks--unreliable). Or the friend could just stab or shoot him through the heart--messier and noisier since you're doing Corporeal damage. At that point the body is unconscious (tying up the Kyrio's 5 Forces) and clinically dead, starting to cool. You have something like 5 minutes until brain damage starts, and maybe 10 minutes to brain death. (You might double those numbers in very cold weather; maybe up to 10 times if the body cools fast, like in ice water.) Up to that point, the other host or friend could use the Song of Corporeal Healing to revive him. After 10 minutes, I'd rule he's soul dead, noise of the death would occur, and the Kyrio would gain dissonance and get his 5 Forces back. Thanks for a good question! ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #263 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.