From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Aug 3 11:26:32 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 LAA21893 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:26:31 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA25020 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:13:33 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:13:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199708031513.KAA25020@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 #275 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, August 3 1997 Volume 01 : Number 275 In this digest: RE: IN> Crossovers RE: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) 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 IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #274 Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Andrealphus the Lover Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music (C:tNM tangent) IN> Adventure seed: Not my fault! IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Religions and patron Archangels IN> Dominic as Balseraph Re: IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) IN> Adventure seed: Not my fault! IN> Religious Patrons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 01:12:44 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: RE: IN> Crossovers >> I've had all kinds of evil crossover ideas, thanks to reading too much >> GURPS I guess. >In Nomine - Planescape.... there's a cool crossover idea. Why play >celestials if you're just going to be mucking around in the Corporeal >Realm with them? Don't they deserve a setting equal to their glory? This is a good one, Saminga and some of the others would have a field day on the lower planes. Brings up some great comedy potential: throwing servants of Laurence into Limbo, taking Vapula to Mechanus... Would take some of the mystique out of the War though, when angels and demons just become another faction in Sigil. Kurt doombu@msn.com "I know the Secret Sign now. They wouldn't tell me, but somehow I FOUND OUT" Mr Bungle ~ Carry Stress in the Jaw ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 03:45:52 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: RE: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) emccoy@nh.ultranet.com I was talking with the talented Maya... She said that I should post the scene where people could see it. This is all her fault. She sparked the ideas.... > >Laurence, clutching _Celestial Enquirier_ gossip rag: "Lies! All lies!" > (snipped for brevity) This is a cool idea... maybe should be some kind of "once-in-a-while" insert on the list, or on a Web page? Could have mostly useless but amusing fluff to add to IN games to add flavour or as plot diversions, like: NEWS IN BRIEF - "Elvis is alive and living with an Angel in Kuala Lumpur" Malaysia, Fri 1st August There have been rumours of unconfirmed sightings of the King, Elvis Presley, circulating through the Malaysian capitol. Sources close to this reporter have claimed that Presley is now residing in a shanty town on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur with a young female, commonly believed by locals to be an "angel". Presley, who if he is still alive would now be 62, was the undisputed King of Rock'n'Roll. After his untimely death in 1977 (supposedly from a codeine allergy) many devoted fans claimed the King never died. Some even claimed he was kidnapped by aliens in their plan to alter the Earth's history! [1] Of course one more Elvis sighting is hardly likely to draw any serious attention, but I have a positive lead on the supposed whereabouts of the King. With the aid of Nguyen, a "Close personal friend" of Mr. Presley, I travelled to the shanty town where the King has set up his new Graceland, to meet Mr. Presley and his enigmatic Angel. Following is a transcription of the discussion with "Elvis' Angel": Me: Is it true that this is the home of Mr. Elvis Aaron Presley, the former "King of Rock and Roll"? Her: No, this is my house, I have lived here for nine years now with my son, Cain. (muffled voice in background: Who's at the door, baby?) Noone, just a reporter (voice: Reporter? Shit, I ain't talking to the press.) Me: And the allegations that you are in fact an angel, who has lived with Elvis since his first sighting here? Her: Let me ask you something... you're *really* after this story aren't you? Well, I'll tell you what. I'll give you the full story on Elvis, but you just promise to do one teensy little thing for me? Me: Anything for a story. [end transcript] As you can see, reports are inconclusive at this stage, but this reporter will stop at nothing to reveal the true story behind "Elvis: Alive and Well in Malaysia". Kurt White - from the Pacific Rim Editor's note: Mr. White was arrested yesterday morning in Memphis, Tennessee after attempting to break into the now legendary SUN recording studios. As police officers escorted the ex-reporter to the squad car, witnesses claim Mr. White shouted "She made me do it! It wasn't me I tell you!". Mr. White will appear in court this Thursday. [1] Many thanks to Mr. Rankin for this information (well maybe not like that but you can see what I mean). Dwelling in the Realms of Stupidity Kurt doombu@msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 04:30:40 UT From: "Hermes Trismegistus" Subject: RE: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music >>You're certainly within your rights to express discontent with this arrangement-- if enough people agree with you, SJG will likely reconsider how they release new In Nomine supplements. However, frankly, I don't think many people are going to object to having adventures and settings included with other material. << I should put my hand up here and say "I object!". And with good reason I suspect... Even though Might Music will demonstrate how PCs fit into a city, there are still some questions of relevance for me. Is it at all likely that SJG will release a supplement which deals with Sydney, Aus (or indeed Brisbane, Adelaide, etc)? Probably not for two reasons: 1) not a big enough market 2) lack of familiarity with the subject matter. However, I hope to be able to remedy this. For some time I have been working on translating certain areas of Sydney into IN settings (I'd do the other cities, but I don't know them well enough). So far I have worked out (roughly) a Tether for Jordi, and one for Kobal. I haven't added another yet as there doesn't seem to be an appropriate one in Sydney (although I have seen some Servitors of Jean leaving the Novell building in North Sydney :) ). I may put these up on the list when I can find more info on Tethers and Seneschals, or if I *really* like them, I may try to work up a whole supplement and stick it on a web site (with copyright from SJG hopefully). Now, after straying from the point I was originally making: I don't want background info on US cities. The only campaign I have ever written for America was Rifts[1], everything else is local. This means that settings, and usually adventures, are of no real use to me as they do not apply to my games. Other gamers from Australia, England and wherever else[2] may agree with me on this, maybe its just my problem. If, as was earlier suggested, all new rules and characters were included in separate books from settings and adventures I would be happier. Especially when the books cost more by the time they are shipped here, and the settings are made less relevant. [1] And who needs source info for that, apart from the Coalition? [2] Sorry for not mentioning specifics, but I don't know where you all are (what do you think I am, Dominic??) :) Kurt doombu@msn.com "You cannot sedate, All the things you hate" Marilyn Manson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 01:27:05 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 05:52 PM 8/2/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>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.<<< > > >There is a distinction between Judgment and justice, yes. But Dominic's >brand of Judgment is not devoid of justice, else he wouldn't be an >Archangel. Neither is it devoid of injustice. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 01:27:00 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 05:52 PM 8/2/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>Servitors of Judgement gain dissonance according to their own standards >of heresy and truth, not Dominic's.<<< > >Yes, but if a Servitor's standards deviate from Dominic's, there's gonna be >trouble. Have to wait on that. We don't know how much free reign Dominic gives his own yet. >>>>More to the point, that Michael's pride was well-founded.<<< > >Not necessarily. "God intervened and aquitted Michael, not because he was innocent but because without pride and glory - and Michael - Heaven's greatest battles would be lost." - In Nomine, pg 230 Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:17:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Zbaraschuk Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #274 >I think that if you want an Archangel to counter Andrealphus, you will >need to leave English in order to find a word specific enough. The Greek >"Eros" might do for romantic love. Man - AFAIK, it hasn't been since >ancient Greece that a western language has found it necessary to produce >words to distinguish between the different kinds of love. Hundreds of >English words for abusing people with, one word for all the different >kinds of love. I think I'm going to sit in a corner and cry now ... :( Love. Lust. Friendship. Infatuation. Attraction. Compassion. Empathy. Sympathy. Kindness. Gallantry. Chivalry. Benevolence. Philanthropy. ... English has _lots_ of words for the different facets of love. You can probably come up with a dozen more if you try hard enough. I'll go with the person who stated that Love is God's Word (if, indeed, the concept of "Word" can be said to apply to the Composer of the Symphony.) It just works out so nicely... Tony Z ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 01:27:06 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 05:52 PM 8/2/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>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?<<< > > >That wasn't the point. Someone (I don't even remember who it was now) said >that Dominic's Inquisition might actually *push* angels into Falling. I >said it was unlikely, that they're a lot more likely to prevent an angel >from Falling, and that if an angel does Fall after the Inquisition starts >cracking down on him, it would be hard to demonstrate that it was the >Servitors of Judgment who caused it, rather than, at most, precipitating >what was inevitable anyway. A successful Judgement on an angel can indeed cast an Angel out of Heaven. Regardless, an Angel on the verge of Falling can be brought back. One given a push can't be helped so easily. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 01:27:05 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 05:52 PM 8/2/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>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.<<< > > >They're following the theology of one faith, and supporting the Church for >political reasons. Not necessarily political. Laurence and Gabriel are not at odds politically, though they are religiously. >Any beliefs they may have about what is and is not proper behavior will be >based on their own agenda and outlook, and not that of the church. I find >it doubtful that either Dominic or Laurence would care much about human >sexual preferences in themselves. I don't. Laurence wants the Catholic Church to be the single most powerful group on Earth. This would mean its tenets be important as well. Dominic's kinda iffy, though. I could see it either way. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 02:33:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus the Lover On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Gregory Littmann wrote: > I think that if you want an Archangel to counter Andrealphus, you will > need to leave English in order to find a word specific enough. The Greek > "Eros" might do for romantic love. "Philadelphia": Brotherly love. "Agape`": Unconditional Love. The problem with "Eros" is that words such as "erotic" came from it. These terms are definitely Andrealphic in nature (to coin a phrase). Besides, "Eros" (or his Roman cousin "Cupid") was what I was thinking about naming the AA, but was uncomfortable with some of the name's connotations. Plus, I would have had to explain the difference between Andrealphus' "Lust" and Eros' "Devoted Love". There is a thin line there that I don't want to draw in the sand. And I'm just cynical enough to believe that there isn't much of a difference in the first place. >Man - AFAIK, it hasn't been since > ancient Greece that a western language has found it necessary to produce > words to distinguish between the different kinds of love. Hundreds of > English words for abusing people with, one word for all the different > kinds of > love. I think I'm going to sit in a corner and cry now... :( > It is depressing, isn't it? 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, 3 Aug 97 01:27:06 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 05:52 PM 8/2/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>>>Justifiable? No. Justifiable would have been to go after Yves. >Dominic wanted to kill the messenger.<<< > >Like I said before, there was more to it than that (and the bit about Yves >*does* bother me too, it just doesn't make sense), and besides, we don't >know Dominic was trying to kill Gabriel or do anything else, other than >*investigate* just what she was up to. "Dominic... declared her heretical and tried to have her exiled from Heaven." - In Nomine, page 118 He tried to force an Archangel into being Outcast. Astoundingly bad idea. >>>>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.<<< > >That's one possible assumption. Not necessarily the correct one, though. What other options do you propose? >>>>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".<<< > >No, objectivity isn't inherently right or wrong, good or evil. As I pointed out. >I'm not overlooking the "Inquisition" part, but the "Divine" part, to me, >makes it unlikely that Dominic would become as blind to justice as the >Earthly Inquisition did. An "Inquisition" in itself is not inherently evil. I disagree. The triatic method of the Inquisiton involves the loss of all privacy, dignity, and respect for the accused. >>>>Not the point made. Dominic, it would seem, has an exceptionally >dim view of non-Catholics/Christians.<<< > >Again, you're assuming a great deal. Dominic probably has a dimmer view of >corrupt Catholic priests than he does of honest atheists. Then why did he try to exile Gabriel for Islam but not Christianity? Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Aug 97 00:02:17 PDT From: Christopher Paul Subject: Re: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music > Well, each release in the current schedule is part of the aforementioned > Revelations cycle, which means they're going to tie together in an overall > storyline-- so yes, you can probably expect that there will be an adventure > and often a new setting with each new supplement. > You're certainly within your rights to express discontent with this > arrangement-- if enough people agree with you, SJG will likely reconsider > how they release new In Nomine supplements. However, frankly, I don't think > many people are going to object to having adventures and settings included > with other material. I did buy Night Music, and I like the new AA and DP, and the clarification of Soldiers, especially the new hit point formula for humans. However, I don't really care for the presentation of Austin (for a variety of reasons), and I'm quite unimpressed with "The Demon Prince of Rock n' Roll." I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE: adventure seeds (a la GURPS sidebars), brief interesting locations (more tether examples!), discussions of political developments, and "feel" developing fiction bits. AUSTIN: I like having an example of how a celestial population "works" in a city. "the Austin Truce" is a cool idea, and encourages roleplaying and demon/angel interactions that aren't violent. I think it would be a crummy city to play a servitor of Mike, Larry, David, or Baal in, however, and I think it is an impossible environment for Malakim that aren't IDIOTS. I am upset by how many of the celestials in Austin are Word-bound. I was under the impression that Words are harder to come by and less common than they appear to be. THE ADVENTURE: I have no problem with "Revelations," and stories and plots that develop as supplements are released. The totally contingent nature of the creation of the DP of Hardcore, however, really gives me pause. The way the adventure is set up, it seems very likely to me that a group of reasonably talented PCs is going to thwart Furfur, yet further cycles will assume he achieved his Princedom. I expect I would have to work very hard as GM to keep him from failing, and if I wanted to work very hard, I'd write my own damn adventure. Also, as someone else mentioned, someone seems to have confused dissonance and disturbance in the adventure text. Killing humans is noisy (disturbance) but it is not against a celestials nature (dissonance) unless they are a Mercurian or Impudite, or serve a supperior that gives dissonance for bashing peoples. That said, what is wrong with "disturbing the symphony"? Other than alerting other celestials, is it "bad"? Should it be avoided for any reasons beyond the tactical and stealth? I'm curious how "Demon Prince of Rock 'n Roll" went in play testing, and I'm also curious how much In Nomine GMing the adventure's author has done... BOTTOM LINE: I vote against bundling adventures and settings with Rules and Meta unless the content ratio is changed radically to favor the later and make the former of boradest possible utility. (Not that anyone asked for votes, but I wanted to avoid remaining in the "silent and thus assumed content" majority). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:44 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>He is "the most powerful angel, in mind and body", he "bested Lucifer in hand-to-hand combat". He is, by inference, either the second or third most powerful being there is (second only to God and perhaps Yves).<<< And pride cometh before a Fall.... - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:43 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) >>>Thoughts? Comments? Rotten Fruit?<<< Heheheh. That's a truly wicked idea. I rather like it. BUT-- I simply can't buy the idea that all the other Archangels could fail to notice a Fallen Archangel in their midst. (Especially a Balseraph! Malakim, especially Laurence and David, would sense him eventually even if no one else could.) - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:46 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Why I didn't buy Night Music (C:tNM tangent) >>>You mean the f***in' dreadful art in New Millenium? Jesus, that sucked. Working in a comic shop, I saw a lot of bad comic art, but that rulebook really bit the pipe. Shame, since the rules and setting are pretty worthwhile.<<< Someone on another forum made a comment I thought most apt: "I resent the implication that I was inadequately weaned." - -David (watch out for those hurtling Golden Globes on the cover!) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:48 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Adventure seed: Not my fault! I see two problems with it: 1) A Geas can't be used to demand something above the level of the Geas. The rules don't make it explicit, but I'd say if a Lilim (or anyone else) holding a Level 1 Geas on someone tried to invoke it for a Level 6 favor, the target doesn't even need to make a Will roll to resist. There's no backlash-- the Geas hasn't even been invoked properly. (Or if you're a mean GM, you could say it vanishes.) 2) Again, the rules don't make it clear, but I don't think if a Lilim trades a Geas she holds on someone to another person, that *she* will take dissonance if the subject resists when the Geas is finally invoked by a third party. Seems to me if this could happen, Lilim would be a lot less likely to trade Geases! (Are you really going to count on Lilith's ire saving you?) - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:53 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>I don't. Dominic has his point of view. All others are heresies.<<< Not necessarily heretical, but wrong. In any case, prosecuting what he considers to be heresy doesn't mean he's persecuting people he has a grudge against. >>>For such a trivial theft, making restitution and >apologizing would probably satisfy a Servitor of Judgment. Malakim?<<< Probably, though it would depend on what else the Malakite saw with his resonance. >>>And who's responsible for the situation she was in when she left?<<< Gabriel and Dominic both, IMO. >>>He needs it. Attempting to cast out the two most major warrior Angels from Heaven, while you're still in war, well, it seems to lack what one would call... good judgement.<<< Well, gee.....what if in the middle of WWII we'd discovered evidence that Patton or McArthur were engaged in profiteering, or trying to set up their own little dictatorships, even while they were waging the war on behalf of the U.S.? I think the War Department would have initiated court martial proceedings, even if it would have been disruptive. >>>They also follow their own personal moralities, something inconsistant with such a strict master.<<< Like I said earlier, a Servitor of Dominic whose personal morality differs too much with that of his master is going to have problems. >>>I doubt he has that kind of time. No, he'll only go after famous angels to make them an example.<<< Given that the majority of angels probably have no great predisposition towards Christianity as the Way Things Ought to Be, I'd say Dominic's either not trying to persecute non-Christians out of existence in Heaven, or if he is, he's awfully ineffectual. I lean towards the former. >>>Just because he's right often doesn't mean that he's usually right. His screw-ups have been major, you'll recall.<<< First, as I've pointed out repeatedly, it's a matter of opinion whether he really "screwed up". Secondly, as I've pointed out repeatedly, even if he was wrong, that's two or three mistakes in several thousand years. Looks like a pretty respectable record to me. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:45:50 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Neither does he need any real justification for it. There's a reason he's called an Inquisitor - just ask Gabriel.<<< Yeah, so? We still don't know exactly what his motives were and whether or not he had legitimate reason. >>>He's not indiscriminate. He's a bigot. You don't believe what I do, so what you believe is heresy.<<< You're confusing terms, here. It's possible to believe in heresy without being a bigot. (To Catholics, technically any non-Catholic beliefs are heretical, but that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against non-Catholics.) Dominic is the one who defines heresy in Heaven, by virtue of being Judgment. I've been around and around on this one before, but I maintain his judgment on the matter is usually sound. Now what you *do* about heresy defines whether or not you're a bigot. Dominic is harsh, but IMO, the angels he prosecuted will inevitably have done something-- or be suspected of having done something-- that IS a crime against Heaven. Consorting with demons, for instance. Now we know that angels in In Nomine are going to consort with demons all the time, it's the basis of many plots. Some Superiors tolerate this, whereas Dominic might have you hauled in because you were caught having a friendly chat with your buddy the Impudite who sometimes trades information with you. That's not bigotry, it's rigid (excessively so, in some cases) enforcement of the laws. What you seem to be saying is that, for instance, Dominic will prosecute for heresy any angel who says he doesn't believe Jesus Christ was sent by God. I doubt it. >>>They can, actually. They gain dissonance for ignoring what they believe to be heresy, not for being cruel or callous.<<< Reread page 114. >>>Would you want a police department's IA division headed up by Torquemada?<<< I don't agree that Dominic is Torquemada. >>>He already is. Michael, Janus, Gabriel, Novalis, and the omnipresent (that's sarcasm, kids) Eli are all resisting Dominic on some level. That's nearly half of the major Angelics that don't find favor with Dominic.<<< Janus, Novalis and Eli are all neutral towards Dominic. Sure, they disagree with him about some things. They disagree with other Archangels about some things too. ALL the major Archangels are resisting to the same or greater degree half of all the other Archangels. That's called politics. Dominic isn't held in special disdain. >>>Or deviation from the Company Line. Dominic deals with Asmodeus on a fairly regular basis, but this is not heresy. At the behest of Yves, Gabriel helped found Islam, and that was heresy. Sorry, I can't help but think that Dominic's not someone I'd want in judgement over anyone.<<< Well, I wouldn't want him in judgment over ME. I'd like to think angels are held to a higher standard, though. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 04:47:48 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Religions and patron Archangels >Okay, so Laurance is the patron of Christianity and Khalid is the patron >of Islam. But who are the patrons of other religions? Here are some of >my theories: > >Judaism: Yves. The book of Daniel puts forth Michael as a contender. Dunno if his IN characterization really fits, though. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 05:10:21 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Dominic as Balseraph Casca wrote: >I mean, WHY does a Seraph need a cloak? Why should Dom cultivate the >dark, looming visage of a Spanish Inquisitor? And then there's the name; >'Dominic' sounds so...foreboding. I was pondering that when it hit me. > >Transpose the vowels in his name. Dominic --> Dimonic. Demonic! >The reason he wears the cloak is because HE'S A BALSERAPH! Wow. This I like. I'm usually in the "Dominic good" camp, but this is actually kinda cool. On a related note, I recall that in the earliest playtest drafts of IN, Dominic was presented in feminine mode, as Dominique. There's still a picture of her in the IN art gallery on the SJG In Nomine web page (along with that freaky nonhuman picture of Michael). I wonder -- had Dominic stayed Dominique, and had he/she been drawn as a human rather than an ominous cloaked Seraph, would opinions of him/her be the same? (In fact, I think the portrayal of Dominique was much less negative than that of Dominic. I wonder if the change in description preceded or followed the change in image?) While I'm at it, let me run down each of Dominic's animosities with other Archangels and give my opinion on the matter. MICHAEL: Dom tried him for pride and vainglory, and found him guilty. God pardoned Michael, but did not dispute the verdict. The grounds for the pardon seemed to be not that Michael was right, but that Michael was of too much value to Heaven to lose. GABRIEL/YVES: I always got the impression that Dom went after Gabriel under the belief that she was *lying* about having gotten her orders from Yves, and had thus acted unilaterally to disrupt the religious situation on earth. Indeed, while Yves protected Gabriel politically, I don't recall that he ever came forward with the truth of the matter. It appears Dom never actually brought Gabriel to trial, but did harass her enough that she left Heaven. Note that after that, it was Uriel, not Dom, who really crossed the line in going after Gabriel. URIEL: Probably Dominic's biggest failing is that he seems to have tacitly supported Uriel's Purge (which started as a way to strike indirectly at Gabriel). Given the statement that he's currently looking for another Uriel, I think we can conclude that it was *not* Dom who called the meeting of the Seraphim Council where Uriel was tried. A major and potentially dissonance-causing lapse for Ol' Six-Eyes. NOVALIS: Any enmity here seems to be just prejudice against the "hippie Archangel" -- a flaw shared by Laurence and Michael. However, since I don't see Dom making any *official* moves against Novalis, I must conclude that he is capable of keeping his personal feelings from influencing his professional behavior, at least in this case. ELI: Dom's watching the AWOL Archangel carefully, and would like to see the Word stripped from Eli and given to another. Given the conflict between their themes in the Symphony (Dominic is pro-status quo by default, Eli pro-innovation, just based on their Words) and the fact that what Eli's doing *is* quite odd, I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. JANUS: I've *never* liked the theft aspect of Janus' Word. And given the *strong* hints that he and Valefor are the same guy, I'm glad that Dominic looks askance at him. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 08:42:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > Heheheh. That's a truly wicked idea. I rather like it. Thanks. > BUT-- I simply can't buy the idea that all the other Archangels could fail > to notice a Fallen Archangel in their midst. (Especially a Balseraph! > Malakim, especially Laurence and David, would sense him eventually even if > no one else could.) I'm not so sure of that...Dissonance and Discord can be sensed, sure, but can general 'demonicness'? As long as he's very, very careful -- and he will be, because he believes himself to be an angel and acts accordingly - -- it shouldn't show up. The only clue as to his true nature would be if his wings were batlike instead of feathered in his celestial form, which is why he wears the robe. And give him a few minutes alone with Laurence and David and I'm -sure- he could convince them that their fears were ill-founded.... ;) Yeah, I know it's a stretch to imagine a fallen AA still working in Heaven. But it's a neat idea, and I handwave it by saying it's a special case that got the attention of the Prince of Lies himself, and that's what keeps the charade going. Sure, God could see right through it...IF He still involves Himself with the angels any more. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "All great truths begin as blasphemies." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 09:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>I don't. Dominic has his point of view. All others are heresies.<<< > > Not necessarily heretical, but wrong. In any case, prosecuting what he > considers to be heresy doesn't mean he's persecuting people he has a grudge > against. > That wasn't Kestrel's point. He wasn't saying that Dominic has a *personal* grudge, just a personal bias towards one point of view. In other words, if you're not Christian, then you're heretical. I would dislike Dominic even if he supported the philosophical ideas that I do. It's his motivations that I put into question. > >>>For such a trivial theft, making restitution and > >apologizing would probably satisfy a Servitor of Judgment. > > Malakim?<<< > > Probably, though it would depend on what else the Malakite saw with his > resonance. > > >>>And who's responsible for the situation she was in when she left?<<< > > Gabriel and Dominic both, IMO. > Well, yes, Gabriel did have something to do with it. She isn't completely innocent ("I was just following orders" didn't work in Nuremburg, either). But the point is, neither is Dominic. > >>>He needs it. Attempting to cast out the two most major warrior Angels > from Heaven, while you're still in war, well, it seems to lack what one > would call... good judgement.<<< > > Well, gee.....what if in the middle of WWII we'd discovered evidence that > Patton or McArthur were engaged in profiteering, or trying to set up their > own little dictatorships, even while they were waging the war on behalf of > the U.S.? I think the War Department would have initiated court martial > proceedings, even if it would have been disruptive. > But that wasn't the point behind what happened to Gabriel. Gabriel was Inquisited because she seemed to support Islam. A better analogy (from Dominic's point of view) would be if it were suspected that Eisenhower had written "Mein Kampf". It's ludicrous to think of such a thing, just as it's ludicrous to think that just because Gabriel recited to Q'uran to Mohammed that she had somehow betrayed Heaven. But that's directly the implication that the rulebook makes about the relationship between Dominic and Gabriel. > >>>They also follow their own personal moralities, something > inconsistant with such a strict master.<<< > > Like I said earlier, a Servitor of Dominic whose personal morality differs > too much with that of his master is going to have problems. > > >>>I doubt he has that kind of time. No, he'll only go after famous angels > to make them an example.<<< > > Given that the majority of angels probably have no great predisposition > towards Christianity as the Way Things Ought to Be, I'd say Dominic's > either not trying to persecute non-Christians out of existence in Heaven, > or if he is, he's awfully ineffectual. I lean towards the former. > And I lean towards the latter. It's a matter of how we interpret what the rulebook says about Dominic and his personal philosophy. > >>>Just because he's right often doesn't mean that he's usually > right. His screw-ups have been major, you'll recall.<<< > > First, as I've pointed out repeatedly, it's a matter of opinion whether he > really "screwed up". > And my point has been since this arg...errr, discussion... began that it's not his track record that's being called into question. It's his motivation. I'm putting the Inquisitor through an Inquisition of his own. 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, 03 Aug 1997 10:12:08 -0400 From: speaks@mindspring.com Subject: Re: IN> Falls the Inquisitor (adventure seed/mad rambling) At 10:16 PM 8/2/97 -0400, Casca wrote: >I mean, WHY does a Seraph need a cloak? Why should Dom cultivate the >dark, looming visage of a Spanish Inquisitor? And then there's the name; >'Dominic' sounds so...foreboding. I was pondering that when it hit me. I am sure the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), a well established branch of the Catholic church will be pleased to know their name is so forboding. Now if you want to go on with this. The Holy Office of the Inquisition was run by the Dominicans. >Transpose the vowels in his name. Dominic --> Dimonic. Demonic! >The reason he wears the cloak is because HE'S A BALSERAPH! Dominic's Malakim have the ability to hear discord like a wailing scream. Don't you think they would have noticed if the boss set off car alarms when he walked by? Gabriel's Elohim can sense those who delight in inflicting psychological or emotianal pain in others. Perhaps that would be a tip off. Seraphim of Lawrence can tell whether a foe is ultimately on the side of good or evil. While this requires the seraph to make a foe of Dominic, it stand to reason of Dom gets all broody, Lawrence might send someone to "check him out." >Consider this: Heaven, just after the trial of Michael. Dom is -seething- >about God's intervention. He resents the fact that he's been overruled, >and can't understand why God would pardon such an obviously guilty >Archangel. Dom begins to develop doubts about the Plan...in fact, begins >to doubt the motives of God. He would then gain dissonance and be noticed when he visits his ofanim once a week. I think you are confused about which angel is insane. Thats Gabriel, not Dominic. Add me to the list of people who thinks Dominic gets a bad rap. I feel that these days it is "Cool" to bash authority figures. I find that sad. White Wolf does it all the time. I don't want In Nomine to be another World of Darkness. True, only someone with power can abuse it, but that doesn't mean everyone who has power does. Speaks "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice." -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:23:55 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Adventure seed: Not my fault! From: Nana Yaw Ofori > Well, that's the adventure seed. Tell me what you think.< Nasty idea, it looks like a lot of fun but it does as you say rely on an interpretation of the rules that I am not totally happy with, However does the Lilim have to ask in person or can she send a message to the person she has under geas, in which case he could use the gease she still holds against her. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:23:46 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Religious Patrons From: David Paul >Any other ideas?< Gabriel was, if I remember correctly, the angel that supposedly dictated the book of Mormon to Joseph Smith Junior and thus started the Mormons. As I understand Zoroastrianism it would be easier to map Ahuramazda onto God rather than Gabriel. As for Voodo One could map the Archangels and demon princes onto the Loa's without loosing too much of their feel . Being a Horse of course is our friends the Shedim and Kyriotates. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #275 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.