From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Aug 2 15:35:44 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 PAA28016 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:35:43 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA20398 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:32:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:32:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199708021832.NAA20398@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 #273 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 Saturday, August 2 1997 Volume 01 : Number 273 In this digest: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music Re: IN> Know your Diabloicals 15 Christopher Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music Re: IN> Andrealphus the Lover Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music IN> Andrealphus the Lover IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music IN> Know Your Enemies 16 Fluerity IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music IN> S. of Hell -> Demons & a Saints ? (Night Music) Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Dominic, Gabriel, and Yves - The New Three Stooges? (was: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:40:01 +0000 From: "Captain Nemo" Subject: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music David Edelstein wrote: > Well, 70 pages of the book is still non-Austin, non-adventure material. Well, yes. The original point was not that it was worthless, merely that the author though there wasn't enough non-Austin, non-adventure stuff to be worth $17.95. About half as much, according to his estimate. Personally, I'd disagree, but also unlike the original poster, I like some of the NPCs. I may never use Austin, but I may use at least some of the NPCs. However, this is very much a YMMV topic. From what I can gather from his posts, it's probably not worth $17.95 to him. More power to him; at least he's not a blind fanboy. :) > I'd make the point that reading the "official" SJ Games treatment of a > major city gives you a better idea of what the world at large is like, and > it's bound to spark some ideas. This, though, I would tend to disagree with. Several times in the setting, it is mentioned that Austin is special, and not your typical major city. Several times "the situation" (as it's put on p. 79) is written of as being something unusual. It'll perhaps spark ideas, yes, but the world as a whole isn't like Austin. I suppose that Night Music gives you *that* idea, at least, but I wouldn't consider that good justification. > As for the adventure, even if your PCs > don't actually play it, it is part of an ongoing storyline that will weave > through the entire Revelations cycle. Yeah, well. I'm not convinced that's a major selling point, either. If someone doesn't necessarily like having to purchase a book for a specific setting, I dunno if they'd want to purchase it for a couple of pages on how the general setting is gonna change, whether you like it or not. Myself, I'm admittedly of two minds about this. On the one hand, I like the theory of a living, changing, breathing gameworld. And from the SJG viewpoint, it's good business--you *have* to buy the next supplement, or you don't know how the world had changed now. And they have to keep selling stuff to keep a line profitable to justify its continuation. On the other hand, I dislike having stuff rammed down my throat. So if my PCs actually play the adventure, and come out with a different ending, does that mean I can't do anything with their next three adventures without nice amounts of modification? In that case, why play their adventures? I mean, if varying from the script means modifying the next however-many, then we're all playing the same story, from slightly different points of view. On the whole, though, don't get me wrong. I *liked* Night Music overall. The expanded writeups of Laurence & Saminga were very nice; Christopher & Fleurity were interesting; and I really enjoyed the mortals section (which made them much more viable, IMHO). The setting had some ideas and NPCs I can steal. The adventure ... it's less than 15 pages, and had one major idea that I really liked. That one idea was probably good enough to justify most of the 15 pages. I think, though, that if the adventures are going to have "official continuity" resolutions, then they're not adventures. Just write them up as background stories. For adventures, if we're supposed to run the things, give us something that actually has a chance of changing. If you want the adventures to run the world, do what TORG did--let people write in and tell you how it went. Tally votes/resolutions and have the outcome in a later book. - --Nemo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:53:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Know your Diabloicals 15 Christopher > >> Malphas: The innocent have no faction politics. How he grinds his teeth > > about that. > > What planet did you grow up on?< > > Its not which planet I grew up on that matters [Hong Kong for your > information] . Its more that Christophers party line is faction politics > didn't occur before the fall when the angels were innocent. Were you not suggesting that children, being innocent, don't have faction politics? If so, then I too disagree - they taught *Malphas* all about it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:57:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Alexander Shearer wrote: > >And none of the stuff for Chicago, Washington, D.C., or New England could > >be adapted for San Diego and Detroit? I would have thought that Chicago, > >at the very least, could be adapted to play in Detroit, and L.A. for San > >Diego. > > It could, but why? Why go out of my way, spending money best saved > for other things (like hideously overpriced textbooks, but that's a > different complaint), when I have my own ideas? In both of the cases above, > I picked the settings because I knew what I wanted. San Diego was my first > vampire Chronicle, so I picked my (then) home town, so I'd be able to > understand where and why everything was. Well, this is just common sense GMing. Only the most experienced GMs should run a campaign in a city other than their own. >My Detroit Chronicle was a Sabbat > game, and I knew what I wanted to do. I really don't feel like buying $15-20 > books so I can adapt a couple of interesting things. I can just as easily > skim the library for cool ideas from books - and it's free (and often much, > much better than the game-specific background stuff). Agreed. But a supplement should give you *some* idea of the kind of stuff (such as genre conventions) are good, and which to stay away from at the very least. > > > >The same could be said for "Night Music," as well. You may not be able to > >use *everything*, but it should be good for at least a *few* good ideas. > >For example, Hero Games released the supplement "Normals Unbound" a few > >years back. While I couldn't use everything in the supplement, I got a > >few great gaming sessions out of the chilling "Mr. Rapentap and his > >Children Followers," and out of the equally chilling Ananias Topps and his > >girlfriend, Tandy. > > > >While I used little else from this book, these few things helped flesh out > >the world a little bit, and helped me create and write thoughtful, > >insightful stories that I could use to create the much needed pathos in my > >players. > > Maybe, but...this may just be me, but I'm very selective about what > I purchase. I don't buy a book thinking "Oh, new IN book." Lots of gamers > do, and I understand that. I pick the book up, think about the contents, > decide if they'll be an interesting read and add to my gaming. Thus, when I > looked at Night Music, my thoughts were "Cool - I'd like to read more stuff > about Soldiers, and all new Superiors are cool, since I enjoy seeing the IN > treatment of angels and demons." Then I noticed that a big chunk of the book > is an adventure. Ooh. I have no desire to run a published adventure. Then > there's the Austin setting. Hmm. Maybe I'd be interested in seeing that, but > then the blurb promises tons of NPCs, something that I want even less than > the setting. This may just be me, but one of my favorite parts of GMing is > creating the "supporting cast" for the game. Then you and I are polar opposites. I'll buy the book if it has *something* I can use. But I realize that you are (more than likely) a college student without a lot of spare cash lying around (you did mention textbooks), so you would have to be a little more selective as to what supplements you buy. > > > >> For an IN supplement, I'd prefer that the "meta" stuff be presented > >> separately from the specific setting info and adventures. In the case of > >> Night Music, "meta" would approximately cover the new info on Soldiers and > >> the new stuff on Superiors. The "specifics" include the adventure and the > >> setting of Austin. > > > >As I've argued on the UseNet, "Any setting is better than *no* setting." > > Well, yeah, but that's not really the situation. Look at the IN main > rules - it has setting, but nothing really useless to me. Lots of "meta" > setting. Whole-game kind of stuff. Look at Night Music - it has "meta" > setting also (Soldiers and Superiors...which sounds like a poor TSR > knockoff). Unfortunately for me, it also has Austin and an adventure. The > book retails for $17.95, so for me, that's ~$9.00 of stuff I didn't want. I > don't like blowing money on these things...(mind you, lots of people don't > mind blowing nine bucks on small things, as clearly shown in places like > Virtual World and certain movie theaters). It's not that I can't afford the > whole book; it's more the principle of buying a book for half its contents. > > > >> > > >> I can't speak to that specifically, as I've never been a Champions > >> player. I might, however, have preferred the older rules, depending. Is NM a > >> specific setting, or general setting information? I wouldn't mind the > >>latter... > > > >A little of both, actually. Most of it is about the world that the game > >is set in, and some of it is specifically about Bay City (a fictional city > >on the west coast). The game world itself *is* interesting, and (if > >nothing else) should be looked at as a model for designing superhero > >campaign worlds in the future. > > Hmmm. I loathe fictional cities in supers games (which may make me > unique), but I'd have to see how big a chunk it takes up. Not much. I think about (at most) ten pages of a 200 page book. >I've played supers > games mostly with GURPS Supers, so I can address the inclusion of a campaign > world there. I really didn't like it. OTOH, I do like the approach David > Pulver took in Robots and Psionics, where lots of helpful short campaign > suggestions are included, with various considerations mentioned. Note that > there still are some backgrounds I enjoy (Vampire, IN, Shadowrun), but I > still avoid books that bundle a few interesting bits of metastuff into > adventures or settings I don't want (e.g. any of the Giovanni Chronicles > books for VtM). No, it doesn't do that at all. It is a *lot* like the WoD Rulebooks and IN in that it describes a world setting, with little bits of color added for good measure. Unfortunately, it is this color (color comic book plates) that detract from it in a real way. > > > > > > > >> >I guess you just can't please everyone. > >> > > >> Well, that's a given. I'm just wondering why things which seem to me > >> [1] to be so disparate were packaged together. > >> > > > >Perhaps. But there does seem to be a movement in roleplaying supplements > >to do away with providing adventures, altogether. I don't always have the > >time (or the energy) to come up with these on my own. I usually take a > >published adventure, change what needs to be changed for my campaign > >world, flesh it out a little bit, and use it. It may sound like a lot of > >work, but it's a lot better than writing an adventure from scratch. > > Maybe. I don't write a whole lot of my adventures ahead of time > anyway. Thoughts on plot, thoughts on NPCs, and there we go (NPCs get far > more attention than anything else). I have to write them ahead of time, or else the adventure ends up like that D&D episode of Dexter's Laboratory where Dexter's sister begged them to let her GM: "Okay, you're walking through the forest.... and you're walking.... and you're walking.... and you're walking.... and you're walking.... and... a dragon jumps out! And he's big and scary, and he breathes fire..." > > > >But writing rpg supplements is *very* difficult, mostly because you're > >trying to be everything for everyone, and that obviously doens't always > >work the way you planned. I don't want you to buy Night Music if you > >don't want to. In fact, I have no stake in it whatsoever, other than the > >fact that your buying it will allow SJG to further support In Nomine. > > > Well, yeah again. As I noted, SJG isn't trying to force me to buy > stuff I don't want. I'm just really curious as to the motivation behind the > approach. Here's another tack - how much do the adventure and setting info > rely on the metastuff, and vice-versa. Is Austin especially special to > Soldiers? Is it really appropriate for a game with its emphasis on Soldiers? > This I can agree with. (You see, I can be agreeable if you try really hard.) :-) Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 01:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus the Lover On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 1:07 AM -0400 8/1/97, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>>But, at the same time, he's the ultimate lover, too. Maybe he has a > >really nice pad.<<< > > > >Heh. I don't think so many people will find the idea of being Andre's lover > >thrilling after reading "Night Music"... > > He's not always like that -- note that it was "attentions towards > *this* Servitor" . He's all aspects, and chooses > to manifest them at whim. > > I'm not entirely sure that he'd be the ultimate *lover*, though. > His technique is going to be *damned* good, when he wants, but > the affection side will probably be missing. > > Now, if you want a *lover*.... What are those Creation rites again? > And who's holding that Word? O;> > I was thinking about creating an AA of "Love" to be counter to Andrealphus. Some Distinctions I had in mind: "Vassal of the Devoted", "Friend of Lovers", and "Master of Hearts." But I made a judgment call that this probably wouldn't be in the best interest of everyone. I felt that maybe there was a reason that there was a Demon Prince of Lust, but no Archangel of Love. Then I made a realization: Isn't Love God's Word? Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:48:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music > Well, 70 pages of the book is still non-Austin, non-adventure material. WHich is fine if you are only paying for 70 pages. Normally I try not to make "me too" posts, but since there seems to be an important issue about how many people feel that the meta material doesn't belong with setting and adventure specific material, let me say "me too". I want new superiors and badly want more detailed write-ups of present superiors. I want rules on Soldiers too. I don't want adventures or specific settings - - I'd rather do those myself. But in order to get the 70 pages I want, I have to buy a whole bunch of stuff that I *don't* want to pay money for and that doesn't seem to be related to the stuff that I *do* want to pay money for. This problem is especially dire in that the write ups of superiors in the main rule-book are very brief. I can understand *why* they are that brief, but they need a lot more detail - especially as regards their relationships to each other. But I can only get expanded information on them two superiors at a time by buying books full of material I don't want. I'm just not rich enough to do that. I *may* buy Night Music, but I'm certainly not going to be getting everything put out for In Nomine and that means that I'm going to miss out on a lot of detail for a lot of superiors. > > I'd make the point that reading the "official" SJ Games treatment of a > major city gives you a better idea of what the world at large is like, Not as well as a direct discussion of what the world at large is like. > and > it's bound to spark some ideas. I'm sure it would and I'm sure that if it were free, I would snap it up and read it. I'm not saying that setting descriptions and adventures are useless - but they are not worth what I have to pay for them. > As for the adventure, even if your PCs > don't actually play it, it is part of an ongoing storyline that will weave > through the entire Revelations cycle. And it may be a great storyline, but I could easily follow it if a one-page update on the world were included in each book. More importantly, if I want the material on superiors, I don't get a choice on whether I want the storyline or not. I, too, am *probably* not going to buy Night Music - despite the fact that it contains material that I badly want. If only that material were included with other, similar, material (say a book on x Archangels and Princes), I most certainly *would* buy it. I'm an In Nomine fan. I want to buy In Nomine stuff. I just don't want to buy *everything* associated with In Nomine. I think that most gamers don't want to buy everything associated with a game, even if its a game they love. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 07:51:33 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Andrealphus the Lover Elizabeth McCoy > And/or it's a case of doling out abuse, and getting some kind of emotional gratification< I see that incident as part of Amndrealphus thinking she's my minion I can do what I want with her and what I want is to see someone writhing in pain. He is a ademon and therefore hevily selfish and has from his dissonance requirements no care for what happens to his sexual partners. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 07:51:36 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) Elizabeth McCoy >She goes around resonating Malakim for their Needs to kill demons and then reveals her nature and throws herself on their swords, potentially gathering Geasa.< Her problems come when she runs into a Malakim of Flowers or Destiny, Either of whom is more likely to resonate a need to redeem a demon and either of whom are going to be quite happy to hopld her down while explaining why herbal teas make you a lot less cranky or why it is your destiny to fight against the forces of darkness. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 07:51:42 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music From: Gorta the Dwarf from Under Valhalla >Isn't this character illegal? Mortals are supposed to have 2 corporeal forces. < I think the implication of the text on him is that he was born with his sixth force and in that unusual configuration of forces and rather than being hardend up by the infusion of a sixth force which is Corporealif the subject has only 1 Corporeal force, He was just recruited because he was unusual [read as PC cannot be like this]. By the rule book mortal humans must have one of each force, Soldiers and Mummies must have two corporeal forces, Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 07:51:39 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Know Your Enemies 16 Fluerity From: David Edelstein >>>Marc: They seem to be unable to understand the basic economic principle that illegal chemical recreationals have a massive profit margin due to supply and demand<<< I'm sure they understand that principle very well. Actually, Marc would probably like to see drugs legalized precisely *because* it would put them into the realm of legal trade....no more violence, no more grossly inflated profits for crimelords, and they could then be regulated, taxed, etc. < It's what a senior demon of Fluerity tells a juniopr demon, not necessarily the truth and definately slanted to a negative view point, same for all the KYE items, though some are more helpful with advice. Marc gives an invocation bonus for illegal goods smuggled from another country. Not quite the sort of entity that really believes in legalisation of controled substances. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com 'Vice and Drugs will be our weapon against this puling Civilisation' Fluerity in his role as Gharlane of Eddore ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 07:51:23 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music Thomas Davidson > This is one thing that has always confused me. I've seen this sentiment before, but I've never understood it. If you don't want adventures, don't want settings, then what would make you happy? What other things could be written about in a RPG supplement that would have everything that you would be looking for and nothing more?< Night music has 3 things in it : 1 Rules 2 Inomine Austin 3 The demon prince of Rock and Roll Since when choosing which books to take with me for a game I will want alll the rules iin print, but even if I am the Referee I will only need 1 Campaign setting and 1 Adventure with me. Some people as Alexander was saying will not want or need teh adventures and campaign settings at all. Thus He and I would prefer rules in one volume and campaign background and adventures in another. SJ policy is I understand not to publish adventures on their own, because they do not sell well enough. I relly do not want to have to carry 9 or 10 volumes just to have all the information on the basic 27 superiors with me. Adam Canning Yes I do Have Night music but I am confused as to why it fails to mention. Aelmon and Litheroy and why when the volume adds 4 additional servitor attunemets for Laurence[p13] it states that Lawrence has 2 servitor attunements [p31] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:47:22 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> S. of Hell -> Demons & a Saints ? (Night Music) In my readings of NM, I have come across what I feel is an error. I remember some time ago, a canon ruling stating that humans can never become celestials, either demons or angels, that they are two completely differant speicies so to say. On pages 51 & 52, however, it is explicitly stated that Soldiers can indeed become Demons when they die. Frankly what I want to know is, "what up wit dat?" The second thing I wanted to address was this: Under Laurances expanded write-up, it is stated that Saints are reincarnated and are born again and lose their memories until a tramatic event happens each time they go back to earth. In the Saints section, it mentions buying a Role and vessel, which seems to imply this is not the case. Again, I ask the question, "what up wit dat?" Thanks for clearing that up, great book, can't wait for the others. ps. Thinks its at all possible for The Marches to be at GenCon? Since it hasn't gone off the printer yet, i suppose not, but a boy can dream. Ryan Beall aka: Grim88 Look for me in #innmonine on Efnet rbeall@fdl.fdldotnet.com grim88@hotmail.com grim88@as-if.com http://members.tripod.com/~Grim88/index.html "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall through an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music >>My Detroit Chronicle was a Sabbat >> game, and I knew what I wanted to do. I really don't feel like buying $15-20 >> books so I can adapt a couple of interesting things. I can just as easily >> skim the library for cool ideas from books - and it's free (and often much, >> much better than the game-specific background stuff). > >Agreed. But a supplement should give you *some* idea of the kind of stuff >(such as genre conventions) are good, and which to stay away from at the >very least. I find the list is a very good resource for discussing what works and what doesn't work in IN games. > >> > [Big chunk snipped] >Then you and I are polar opposites. I'll buy the book if it has >*something* I can use. But I realize that you are (more than likely) a >college student without a lot of spare cash lying around (you did mention >textbooks), so you would have to be a little more selective as to what >supplements you buy. It's not really that. Compared to rent, food, textbooks, and tuition, gaming is a small expenditure. I just am a sort of thrifty person - I don't want to buy unnecessary things. It's just wasteful, and it bugs me that NM was bundled as it was. I haven't bought an adventure in years, and it's actually been even longer than that since I tried to use one...so I don't like being forced to buy one now. Same thing with the setting. I don't buy books that have something I can use if the bulk of the book is of no interest to me. That isn't exactly the case with NM, but it still has a lot of stuff I don't want. > >> Hmmm. I loathe fictional cities in supers games (which may make me >> unique), but I'd have to see how big a chunk it takes up. > >Not much. I think about (at most) ten pages of a 200 page book. That's not bad. > >>I've played supers >> games mostly with GURPS Supers, so I can address the inclusion of a campaign >> world there. I really didn't like it. OTOH, I do like the approach David >> Pulver took in Robots and Psionics, where lots of helpful short campaign >> suggestions are included, with various considerations mentioned. Note that >> there still are some backgrounds I enjoy (Vampire, IN, Shadowrun), but I >> still avoid books that bundle a few interesting bits of metastuff into >> adventures or settings I don't want (e.g. any of the Giovanni Chronicles >> books for VtM). > >No, it doesn't do that at all. It is a *lot* like the WoD Rulebooks and >IN in that it describes a world setting, with little bits of color added >for good measure. Though it's not as bad as GC, it still /does/ do that to some degree, just by virtue of devoting a large chunk to an adventure and a specific setting. Compare to, say, a Clanbook. They often have odd, person-to-person narrative forms, but if you're interested in the clan, it's all background you want. OTOH, there are solid chunks of NM I don't want at all. I'd rather buy Soldiers and Superiors, with the option of picking up IN: Austin separately (of course, I wouldn't, and maybe that's the point). > >Unfortunately, it is this color (color comic book plates) that detract >from it in a real way. Back to scafing Smif, eh? >> Maybe. I don't write a whole lot of my adventures ahead of time >> anyway. Thoughts on plot, thoughts on NPCs, and there we go (NPCs get far >> more attention than anything else). > >I have to write them ahead of time, or else the adventure ends up like >that D&D episode of Dexter's Laboratory where Dexter's sister begged them >to let her GM: "Okay, you're walking through the forest.... and you're >walking.... and you're walking.... and you're walking.... and you're >walking.... and... a dragon jumps out! And he's big and scary, and he >breathes fire..." Yeah. Maybe this is just in how one started roleplaying. My first games were largely done within my own settings, without rules or dice. Even after we adopted some settings (chiefly Shadowrun for a while) we had a great many instances of playing without rules, dice, or a whole lot of preparation. Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:08 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 03:17 PM 7/21/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>By modern american standards all angels are bad. [They want you to be >chaste,hetrosexual, temperate,<<< > >Uh, no, there's no indication that most In Nomine angels care about your >sexual activities or orientation. (Other than inasmuch as it affects how >you treat others.) In Nomine angels aren't following any one religious >doctrine, remember? Dominic and Laurence are. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:09 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 04:13 AM 7/22/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>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. Considering their jobs, I'd hope so. >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? Gee, we've just abandoned one of our own to face or join the enemy. Sure, this sounds like a bad thing, but who's to say whether he wouldn't have Fallen eventually anyway? Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:01 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 01:37 AM 7/20/97 UT, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>Dominic is unyielding, uncompromising, and sometimes completely arbitrary. >However, he is still an *angel*. He does not act with malevolent intent or >out of personal self-interest, as Asmodeus does. He wants the best for >Heaven and Earth, as much as any other Archangel, he just has a very >different idea of how that should be accomplished. For him, it means not >tolerating the slightest amount of corruption.<< > >In that case, being arbitrary in Judgement would do more damage than good. >That is unless you are doing the heavenly equivalent of random drug testing. >Dominic should always be portrayed as strict, methodical, (plodding?) and >overall consistent. He must be the yardstick used to measure all others. >Remember, Dominic IS Justice. No, Dominic IS Judgement. Judgement simply implies that the sentence has been carried, not whether justice has been served. I think there's a reason that it's called an Inquisition. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:10 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Dominic, Gabriel, and Yves - The New Three Stooges? (was: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252) At 09:57 PM 7/21/97 +0100, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >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. Alternately, Gabriel was present at the founding of Judaism and Christianity, and Yves decided that she would be a good choice for Islam's founding as well. Gabriel, for her part, was probably annoyed with Christianity (this was during the Dark Ages, which didn't satisfy her Word at all) so the prospect of a religion with a heavy emphasis on learning was enough to get her to agree. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:14 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 11:13 PM 7/23/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>It can go either way. Either they're all held strictly to >Dominic's view (whatever the GM decides that may be), or, like the Malakim >choosing their Oaths, each Servitor of Judgment has their own standard.<<< > >No way. Dominic, Mr. "One Standard Fits All", is NOT going to let each and >every one of his Servitors make up their own standards of Judgment.... Servitors of Judgement gain dissonance according to their own standards of heresy and truth, not Dominic's. >>>>Matter of opinion, though I'll note again that there's no >significant evidence that Gabriel WAS insane before Dominic drove her >there...he's CERTAINLY the reason she left Heaven.<<< > >Upcoming supplements will be clarifying a lot of these issues. Fire is fickle by nature. >>>>Well, yes, I'm sure that's HIS answer. I'm not so sure Michael, say, >would agree.<<< > >Why wouldn't he? Michael isn't going to deny Dominic is the Archangel of >Judgment. He simply chose not to follow Dominic's rules-- in effect, >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. More to the point, that Michael's pride was well-founded. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:00 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 03:06 PM 7/19/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com 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.<<< > >According to whose definition of Christianity? :) > >I do get your point, but you're making the assumption that since their >motivations displease you, this makes them villains. > >>>>He doesn't? It certainly seems that way. Witness his treatment of >Gabriel *before* she left in a huff. As several people have pointed out, >he tried her for heresy, when she was only doing her job.<<< > >First of all, where does it even suggest that he got *pleasure* out of >this, that he's persecuting Gabriel just because he dislikes her >personally? I can't really imagine Dominic getting off on anything (well, maybe Oreos, but that's something nobody can hate), but I definitely got the idea that he persecuted Gabriel because he didn't like her. Yves wasn't brought in for Judgement. >Secondly, although it was the Mohammedan thing that sparked it (and I do >agree there's a bit of an implausibility in the background explanation, >where Dominic takes Gabriel to task for doing something on Yves' orders, >but doesn't question Yves over it), Dominic's problem with Gabriel is a lot >deeper th Hmm. Missed it. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:26:59 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 01:24 AM 7/19/97 -0700, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >At 11:24 PM -0700 7/18/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: >>On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: >> >>> For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I >>> guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative >>> reaction against "Judgment". >>> >> >>When I read these words, the first thought that came to my mind was "Judge >>not, lest ye be judged." Which I believe you'll find in Matthew 8:28 >>(IIRC, I don't have a Bible handy). > > Psh. What good's a Bible going to do you? Get a Bartlett's Quotations. No GM should be without one. > And, since I've got one, I can tell you it's Matthew 7:1 And it's "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Without starting an argument, I'd like to point something out: different translations, different Bibles, different chapters and wordings. >>According to the rulebook, Dominic supports Christianity--which I >>interpret to mean that he would like to see the universe (indeed, the >>other angels) become Christian. That means that he would interpret >>everything in terms of "Christian"/"non-Christian", with nothing in the >>middle. > > I presumed, and as with all things I could be wrong, that, since it was earlier established that the Universe (and by that I think we can also read: God) is not necessarily Christian, that therefore what Dominic was supporting was the advancement of the Christian church. Not just Christian, Catholic. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 97 11:27:00 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 02:50 PM 7/19/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Two points I'd like to make: > >1) Possibly (this is just a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me), Dominic >was not so much coming down on Gabriel personally, as trying to make an >example out of her so as to crush the new religion (which he disagreed with >at the time) before it gained more support in Heaven. Basically, he was >playing politics, as all Archangels do. No, not very nice, but justifiable >if you take a the impersonal attitude that the greater good is sometimes >served by making a harsh example of one individual. Justifiable? No. Justifiable would have been to go after Yves. Dominic wanted to kill the messenger. >2) He *tried* to have her exiled, but there was never a formal hearing. >Gabriel left, and has never returned to face her accusers. It may well be >that had she stayed for Dominic's proceedings, he would have found her >innocent and let the matter end there. (Which brings up another possibility >-- perhaps he initiated the proceedings before he *knew* Yves was behind >the whole thing. Once he found out, he might have dropped it, but by then >Gabriel had already stormed away, and started giving him further cause to >worry about her behavior.) Gabriel's been present at the founding of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She embodies the principles of education and enlightenment (both of which were better exemplified by Muslims than Christians at the time). Dominic called her in for not being his kind of angel, not because she was betraying Heaven or her Word. >>>>Dominic considers himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner >of the Host, and yet he is clearly biased toward *one* form of thought.<<< > >Precisely....Dominic takes the stance (shared by many Earthly theologians >) that there IS an objective morality.... as opposed to the philosophy >more popular in the West right now that everything is relative. Since most >people in the U.S. have been brought up on cultural relativity and >subjective morality, of course Dominic seems like a narrow-minded hard-ass. >But that doesn't make him evil.....or wrong. Neither does it make him good or right. You seem to be focussing more on the "Divine", whereas I can't even begin to overlook the ramifications of "Inquisition". >(And before you accuse me of being a fundamentalist or anything, I tend to >lean towards cultural relativity and subjective morality myself, but only >to a point. I'm arguing Dominic's case from a logical viewpoint.) Devil's advocate ;p >>>>I don't consider this fair(or just) at all, in the same way that I think >trying someone for "Witchcraft" isn't fair or just. (What? You're not a >Christian? BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!! )<<< > >I doubt Dominic would try someone just for being a witch. He *would* >investigate anyone claiming to perform witchcraft...in an In Nomine >universe, it's reasonable to assume that some witches ARE getting support >from the dark side, or from Ethereal spirits that are no more friendly >towards Heaven. Not the point made. Dominic, it would seem, has an exceptionally dim view of non-Catholics/Christians. Kestrel ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #273 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.