From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Sep 15 12:21:29 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 MAA01465 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:21:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id LAA11329 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:50:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:50:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199709151650.LAA11329@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 #342 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 Monday, September 15 1997 Volume 01 : Number 342 In this digest: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo Re:IN> INRI Tattoo IN> Bright Malakim IN> Fallen Malakim Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) RE: IN> Fallen Malakim IN> Amusing Incident RE: IN> Bright Malakim Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #339 Re: IN> Amusing Incident Re: IN> Really Bad Perception Rolls Re: IN> Really Bad Perception Rolls IN> Malakim are Warriors? Yes they are! IN> Rambles on Dissonance and Superiors (was Davidian Malakim) Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] Re: IN> A Few Questions IN> Angels & real theology (was Four Horsemen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:53:36 -0500 From: Colin Fredericks Subject: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo > That's not a demon, that's a *motorcycle*. There's a picture of >Anael, a Malakite of Eli, in Pyramid #23, with INRI on her left bicep, but I >don't think there's *any* picture of a demon with that tattooed on their >vessel anyplace. Methinks somebody's pulling your leg. The Lilim on p. 148 >has "666" on her shoulder, and the Shedim's host on p. 151 has a pentacle, >and the Calabite on p. 144 has a "TCB" belt buckle , and there's a >demonling on p. 192 with "Bad Boy" on his upper arm. "Night Music" has a >(presumed) Soldier with "128 MB of Evil" on the upper arm on p. 51, and p. >80 has a shot of (also presumably) Druiel with a tattoo of a sword with a >crown and angelic-looking wings. No demons with tattoos in Pyramid #23-26... Hail. I assume we all know that the Malakite picture has "Mission from God" on his forehead and "Mercy" on his knife? "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it." -Sir Colin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:57:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Mark Kinney wrote: > On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Michael C. Nutt wrote: > > >I don't know about the main book, but there is such a thing (if that's a > > >demon, of course; you know you can't tell in this game :-) on the GMs > > >Screen. > > That's not a demon, that's a *motorcycle*. There's a picture of > For the second time in as many days, I run back to my room to grab gaming > books. Damn it, you're right (although you never know, that *could* be a > vessel of some sort :-). This has me bugged, now, too, as I'm sure I've > seen this, and I've not picked up a Pyramid with IN content until the most > recent. > Meanwhile, the one I thought I saw instead has "I'm Going To Hell" > tattooed on her arm. Methinks either I need to wake up, or someone needs > to tell Dan Smith not to draw Balseraphs quite so *well* in the future... > :-) Mmm. Are y'all *positive* no such drawing exists? Could've sworn I've seen at least two, one of whom was the promo poster angel who didn't make it into the book... Joe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:33:47 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Bright Malakim >>Remember that the resonance of the Malakim is not violence, but honor. They know how closely a subject has adhered to his or her principles. As falsehood is met with truth from the Seraphim, so the Malakim respond to dishonor with honor. The violent aspect of the Malakim is really just icing on the cake; the notion of dishonor is far more abhorrent to them than lies are to the Seraphim if you judge by their reaction to it.<<< Right, their resonance is used for honorable purposes. But wouldn't it be interesting if they are indeed demons, who have just somehow been kept on Heaven's side? Given how badly this knowledge would rock celestial society, I think it's safe to assume that, if true, almost NO ONE knows about it, not even Superiors! Not even (*especially* not even) the Malakim Archangels! Yves *might* know..... but I don't think anyone on the infernal side could, or else they'd have blown the lid open long ago. Kronos and Lucifer *might* have their suspicions... >>>Malakim (honor) would become something different, whose resonance would be *dishonor*. And what's the first thing that a being with a resonance of dishonor would do? Right -- CHANGE SIDES!<<< No. Because demons DON'T change sides, no matter how much dissonance they acquire. Angels Fall, but demons don't Redeem, except by conscious choice and great effort. That's why this explanation is so brilliant-- it actually FITS the concept AND the game mechanics perfectly! >>>- -David No, not THAT David.<<< Y'know, I'm truly flattered that my notoriety has become so great that people feel a need to specifically deny being me. >;) - -David (THAT David) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:33:49 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Fallen Malakim >>>Ahhh... So you view them as ass-whipping angels... I don't see their resonance being for ass-whipping, I see it as honor.<<< It's their resonance that drives them to become ass-whuppers. >>>Perhaps what we need to do here is not use the word Fallen ANY MORE.<<< Too bad it's canon and well-established. >>>As for using the word Dark, the Malakim are Dark as presented in IN, I see no need to "decide" that they are Dark.<<< What do you mean, they are "Dark as presented in IN"? Dark in mood, certainly, but one could certainly call lots of other angels dark in nature too. You seem to be using "Dark" as a technical term, which is inaccurate. >>>Perhaps what we need is not to create a Choir of Angels which would be "Bright" Malakim. I find the concept a bit silly.<<< Don't use it, then. >>>SO far as I can tell, the resonance of the Benekim as presented here on this list is Mercy. Mercy is in no way the "reverse" of Honor, is it? You tell me.<<< Actually, the nature of the Malakim is more complex than that-- it's to *punish* those lacking in honor. So the Bonakim *forgive* instead. It makes sense to me (though I don't like the actual mechanics). >>>So, I say drop this whole "Bright" Malakim thing and lets just make a new choir!<<< Yo, Perry, virtually all list discussions are unofficial proposals by In Nomine fans. If you don't like the idea, don't use it, and feel free to contribute your opinion, but don't tell people "I think this is silly so let's drop it"! The point of the Bright Malakim proposal was not to just create a new Choir, anyone can do that. It was to look at the whole concept of Malakim from a new angle. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:29:26 +0200 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] At 17:49 14/09/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:37:55 EST >From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" >Following this logic, perhaps the Benekim would better described as fallen >Malakim. Malakim who have given up their angelic purpose, casting aside >any concept of honor, instead focusing on their selfish decision to >forgive the dishonorable instead. Hmmmm... I could see these guys >working for the diabolicals. I envision demons seeking out the crazed >Benekim, each demon trying to win the Benekites favor in order to be >forgiven first.... Hmmmm... > Neat! I don't like this Malakim-are-fallen idea. Why can't an angel be violent, unreasonable, zealous and/or unpolitically correct, after all? I think thats rather a significant part of the background -- they CAN. Thats why Dominic isn't a Balseraph etc. If he was, there'd be no sting in it ;-) Sometimes the forces of evil just do seem nicer and more reasonable than the forces of good. As to a choir that can alleviate discord/ block dissonance -- I don't see it. How can it be in any way angelic to encourage celestials to cheat on their true themes in the symphony? Mercy isn't relevant here. It isn't as if you were dispensing mercy for crimes committed against mortal law. You are letting people off on crimes against the symphony -- mercy does imply a certain amount of judgement alongside it, not just giving people the 'get out of jail free card' and patting them on the head like a self-righteous middle-class social worker in the inner-city ghetto. Naturally no archangel would want that -- they reserve that privilege themselves. If a celestial gains dissonance for violating his superior's personal rules then he SHOULD have to explain that personally and not just pay a visit to the local pardoner. Bonakim as fallen-Malakim I can see though ;-) Most demons see breaking laws as an entirely reasonable way to spend eternity. They'd be equally unpopular with The Game, that's prolly why they don't exist. Maybe Lilith would like them -- as long as they didn't start absolving people of her dissonance conditions.... (*plonk* Too high twink potential). jo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:56:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) Perry Lloyd suggested; > > So calling them Fallen is a bad choice of word; they were just > >built Dark-side-up. [Presumably because God was looking at it as he built > Ahhh... So you view them as ass-whipping angels... I don't see their > resonance being for ass-whipping, I see it as honor. I tend to see them more as Retribution, bound to Good by the chains of their honor. The Malakim Vows are one of the primary reasons I consider them intrinsically Dark; NO OTHER Choir requires anything like that. If they'd been done like anyone else, their Dissonance mechanic would be, "Doing anything dishonorable"; instead, they can detect honor, and gain Dissonance for breaking Vows. > As for using the word Dark, the Malakim are Dark as presented in IN, I > see no need to "decide" that they are Dark. I think you're right that the `gap' here is in differing views of Malakim. The way you're viewing them, they're not Dark in a Resonance sense. Angsty, maybe, but not Dark. For the Bonakim idea, the Malakim are actually `mechanically' built like the Bands, with some added `hooks' to keep them on the heavenly side; the reasons I consider them that way I've gone over a couple times, so I won't repeat it all here. Without that, you're right; the idea of Bright Malakim is kind of silly if the Malakim aren't Dark to start with...so if you're not going with that view, cool; don't use 'em. > SO far as I can tell, the resonance of the Benekim as presented here on > this list is Mercy. Mercy is in no way the "reverse" of Honor, is it? Neither are Kyriotates the reverse of Corruption, which Shedim definitely are. (Exactly what Kyrios ARE isn't that well defined, but it's definitely not "Purification"; multiplicity and perspective seem to be the best suggestions.) Otherwise, I'd push the Bonakim more to Forgiveness than Mercy. (BOTH touch on Mercy, with the Bonakim relieving guilt and the Malakim, well, putting people out of their misery.) Otherwise, they reverse the Malakim resonance in their complete freedom from the restrictions of those Vows. > So, I say drop this whole "Bright" Malakim thing and lets just make a new > choir! No particular point. This didn't come up because people needed a Choir to fulfill their purpose; it came up because the Malakim have lots of loose ends that could be connected to it. It's certainly not canon - though, again, I think there's good canon support for it. ___ _ | | | |HE |_INTKIN|_\--------------------------------------------------------| | Gaming Coordinator: Anaconism III: http://www.xpert.net/ibecc/anacon/ | | Lifetime Member of IBECC / SysOp: TAG (303) 722-6881 / Mortijinglist | | Home Page http://www.a-ztech.com/lintking/ * jIg nOIr mELt productions| |_______________________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:31:25 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: RE: IN> Fallen Malakim >>>Perhaps what we need to do here is not use the word Fallen ANY MORE.<<< >Too bad it's canon and well-established. Sorry, I mean not using the word Fallen in reference to the Malakim, as presented in the Malakim/Benekim paradigm, where the Benekim are "Bright" Malakim. >>>As for using the word Dark, the Malakim are Dark as presented in IN, I see no need to "decide" that they are Dark.<<< >What do you mean, they are "Dark as presented in IN"? Dark in mood, >certainly, but one could certainly call lots of other angels dark in nature >too. You seem to be using "Dark" as a technical term, which is inaccurate. I was using the word Dark to refer to mood, I hadn't considered it to be a technical term. Is it canon? Correct me if I'm wrong. >>>So, I say drop this whole "Bright" Malakim thing and lets just make a new choir!<<< >Yo, Perry, virtually all list discussions are unofficial proposals by In >Nomine fans. If you don't like the idea, don't use it, and feel free to >contribute your opinion, but don't tell people "I think this is silly so >let's drop it"! The point of the Bright Malakim proposal was not to just >create a new Choir, anyone can do that. It was to look at the whole concept >of Malakim from a new angle. Thank you, I appreciate your opinion of my politics. I almost never intend to be offensive and I'm sorry you took offense. I keep forgetting that there is no one single truth, that my conception of the truth is just as valid as yours, or anyone else on the planet. I often forget that we need not come to any decisions here. :) - -Perry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:19:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: IN> Amusing Incident I just needed to share this incident from last night's In Nomine session. Dotti has an Impudite of Technology that she plays on the weekends that the rest of the group cannot make it. I guess that I should put a little notice here to the effect of: CAUTION: SPOILERS FOR NIGHT MUSIC BELOW! ULTRAVIOLET CLEARANCE MATERIAL! CAUTION: SPOILERS FOR NIGHT MUSIC BELOW! ULTRAVIOLET CLEARANCE MATERIAL! CAUTION: SPOILERS FOR NIGHT MUSIC BELOW! ULTRAVIOLET CLEARANCE MATERIAL! Currently, she's getting accustomed to Austin and helping Vilson babysit the Tokamak. I had planned for last night to be a pretty quiet evening with Jezria, Dotti's character, going out for a night on the town and getting to know a couple of the locals. The dice had different plans apparently, since in one session we had two divine interventions and four infernal ones! At one point, she was hanging out with Wrenchial and went to watch Lauren dance. Jezria had been thoroughly impressed by Lauren's appearance earlier in the evening, so I rolled to see how well Lauren danced for her audience. Up came three sixes. Jezria felt something wierd happen behind her and saw Lauren's eye's go wide. She turned around to see a tall figure standing in the corner. She pulled up her Impudite glasses to check if the fellow was a celestial and was nearly blinded. Lucy had come back to enjoy an encore performance, I had decided. He calmly walked up to the stage and motioned for Lauren to lean forward. When she did, he whispered, "I'm afraid that last time I apparently left an insufficient tip," and gave her a soft kiss on the lips. With Lauren fainting behind him, he turned and walked back out of the club, stopping only long enough to whisper to Dotti's character, "I will see you again soon, Jezria." About this time, Jezria noticed a few wisps of smoke curling out from under the death grip Wrenchial had on the edge of the table. Eventually, she managed to caalm herself down enough to get Wrenchial to let go of the table and to fast talk her way back to Lauren's dressing room. After making sure that the demon wasn't going to curl up and die, she went back to Vilson's. She has guessed (correctly) the identity of the man in the club and spent the rest of the night trying to write a coherent report to send directly to Vapula and ponder what to ask of Lucifer if he's in a good mood when they meet again. Needless to say, her nerves were completely shot. When _He_ showed up, I had a quick reaction roll for Him and got _another_ 666, so her was in a very good mood with Lauren. I had him give her a special attunement which generates an effect similar to Etherial Harmony when she strips. (It should keep Andre from being too slap-happy.) I just found the idea of the two inferal interventions for poor Lauren quite amusing and the look on Dotti's face when she figured out just who had passed not one foot from her character fun. Has anyone else had fun like this with interventions left and right? Oops da Ogre, like I said, I was planning something quiet, but the dice had different plans mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:32:13 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: RE: IN> Bright Malakim >Right, their resonance is used for honorable purposes. But wouldn't it be >interesting if they are indeed demons, who have just somehow been kept on >Heaven's side? Given how badly this knowledge would rock celestial society, >I think it's safe to assume that, if true, almost NO ONE knows about it, >not even Superiors! Not even (*especially* not even) the Malakim >Archangels! Yves *might* know..... but I don't think anyone on the infernal >side could, or else they'd have blown the lid open long ago. Kronos and >Lucifer *might* have their suspicions... >>>Malakim (honor) would become something different, whose resonance would be *dishonor*. And what's the first thing that a being with a resonance of dishonor would do? Right -- CHANGE SIDES!<<< >No. Because demons DON'T change sides, no matter how much dissonance they >acquire. Wait, if >>>demons DON'T change sides<<< then how could the Malakim be demons? Anyway, isn't part of the definition of a demon a celestial being which serves HELL and has turned away from the path of the God? - -Perry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:24:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis C Hwang Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #339 On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jo Hart wrote: > > >From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) > > > > > > > >Who has the Word Evolution? Eli? > > > > Vapula, surely. > > Umm......why? - --Dennis dchwang@itsa.ucsf.edu xenopathologist at large! Deathwalker for President: for some *real* health care reform. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:31:25 -0500 From: Colin Fredericks Subject: Re: IN> Amusing Incident >Has anyone else had fun like this with interventions left and right? Actually.... Okay, the group is in Baltimore. Composed of three demons: two Calabites (serving Saminga and Baal respectively) and a Lilim of Andre in service to Lilith. Yes, you read that right. Anyway, one night, one of the Calabites decides he's going to go out and scuba dive where the group heard some disturbances the day before. So he needs a boat and scuba gear. At midnight. He rolls to search for an open store and gets a 666. A fully-equipped motorboat with scuba gear appears in a blast of green flame. So he goes out to dive, and is generally successful. Unfortunately, he fails an Intelligence check on the way up and gets nitrogen narcosis (the bends). In attempting to navigate back to the mainland while under severe pain, he rolls a 111. Instantly the boat's motor gets supercharged and propells him at warp seven across Chesapeake bay to the wrong side. Took him two whole days to get back. :) Stay Cool; -Sir Colin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:35:01 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Really Bad Perception Rolls > >> I'm guessing the character probably only took 2 Celestial > > Forces, right?< > > 5 Corporeal 2 Etherial 2 Celestial. Role Nun, Attunement Ax. Wow, that's just a hilarious image...Arnold ala Red Sonya, in a nun's habit... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:35:02 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Really Bad Perception Rolls > >If munchkinism were the name of the game, why would they take a > >Seraph, and a crippled one, at that? > > They want a Combat Monster, and the Seraph of War has that lovely > penalty against a target's Dodge. I've seen players who say, "Aw, > screw the Truth, I just wanna kill something! Gotta have Strength > for beatin' on demons, gotta have Precision for shootin' em... > guess we just ignore that stupid resonance stuff, and role-play > later around the hacked and mangled bodies." At least, that's one > possible interpretation of their motive... Given the useful resonances of other Choirs, I doubt it. If I had wanted to Muchkin my KoW, I could have bought the SoW attunement instead of some background stuff, and not had the dissonance condition to deal with, either. KoW have their own bodies, so they don't get dissonant unless they use their resonance. > Maybe they're taking that "Most Holy" thing a little too far, > too... but this is just idle speculation, of course. I've also run > across munchkins who think that taking one particular kind of > character will let them boss the other players around. Never > *lasts* very long, but... . Am dealing with a group which needs a little work to seperate the wheat from the chaff, maybe in this department. Trust me, I know what you mean. (No, Beth, not you guys...others). > Characters that *have* to have other celestials around have too > much of a munchkin flavor for my taste, although specialization is > something else entirely, of course. If your game works better with > hit squads of celestials coming in to do one specific type of job, > more power to you. Well, I have made self-sufficent characters in the past. They just don't work in a group, and roleplaying them isn't as fun. Holes give places to fill in through roleplay. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:34:58 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Malakim are Warriors? Yes they are! Dear List I was looking back over some posts to the List recently and I came across a comment by Kingsly Lintz that made me think again about Malakim. Which thoughts, in no way meant as an attack on Kingsly, I thought I would share with you. Well I typed this before I got my mail down and read the Bright Malakim post and thread. Just want to add in my congrats, really nicely done Kingsly. >Kingsly wrote > That's actually an interesting note, just on the side - most >Malakim seem equipped to take out demons Corporeally. Which is annoying, >but hardly permanent..and they DON'T seem particularly required to >actually destroy Demons Celestially. (Which is a good thing, given the >near impossibility of it in the system..) Malakim must get frustrated >with that. It's like doing dishes. You wash a dish, someone eats off it. >You kill a demon, he comes back a couple weeks later when he's over the >Trauma... Why are Malakim regarded as Heaven's Premier Warriors? It appears that they are, but then Michael is a Seraph. The Malakim Resonance does not seem to help them in any direct conflict. They get no bonuses to combat of any kind on any Plane. Even their resistance to Trauma is noted as being because of their greater than average experience of it, which arguably any Celestial could acquire. Most Malakim I have seen tend towards a direct, combative and mostly Corporeal style, but that is because they have been designed that way. Change their Choir to Seraph or Cherub and you get very little game effect, change it to Ofanim and they might even be better Corporeal fighters because of that Choir's ability to enhance dodges. To argue that Malakim are better at combat than any other Choir is I believe not supportable. However, they are still Heaven's Premier Warriors because their focus is on the main issue of the War. Seraphs deal with Truth, Cherubs deal with individuals, Ofanim change focus when things get boring. Malakim never give in and when Evil comes to their attention they pursue it to a final conclusion. Other Choirs deal with important issues within God's Plan, but Malakim are made for the War. The War is not fought always with a sword, but the attitude of the Malakim can as easily expressed through other vocations. The reporter who follows every lead and never lets a story be cut or watered down because it is too sensitive or too controversial. The aid worker who gets food and medical assistance to refugees despite fighting and terrorism all around them and the efforts of corrupt governments to expel them. The youth worker who stands up to drug pushers and organises alternative activities for youth at risk, despite threats from criminal elements and apathy from other social institutions. The War is not against individual Demons, but against Evil, whether you define that as Injustice, Social Dysfunction, Cruelty, Hatred, Fear, Overindulgence or Stagnation it is Evil and that is what Malakim wage their War against. The Sword of the Malakim is their Spirit, their unfailing and unflagging opposition to anything which perverts or disrupts God's Plan. Ahem, well I'll stop ranting now and put the soap box away for a while, thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:34:55 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Rambles on Dissonance and Superiors (was Davidian Malakim) Dear Kingsly and List generally I avoid "me too" and "I agree" posts, as we seem to be quite close on stuff here, but I am hoping that someone will find our rambling back and forth on these issues interesting, amusing or inspirational, no accounting for ego huh :). >> Dear Kinsgly and List >> > Peter Frederick, replying to an assortment of people, noted > >> > I'm making a distinction here between having Dissonance imposed >> >from the outside and having conditions for Dissonance imposed. Everyone >> I can see your point and agree with it about 90%. Angels gain Dissonance as >> a consequence of their actions. > Wow...I think I only agreed with it about 80%... One thing >I'm wrestling with is the idea that an Angel can fall -without noticing-. >This is an idea I LIKE, particularly for role-playing purposes - the >Elohim who suddenly realizes, "Whoa...I'm on the brink, here!", or the >Seraph giving his friends a puzzled look, "What do you MEAN, you think I'm >going `down'? I've NEVER lied. Oh, sure, in the interests of honesty - >happy now? - I make the occasional rationalization, but.." I'm >considering that, depending on exactly how it's gained, one effect >Dissonance may have is to make itself `feel' RIGHT to the Celestial >acquiring it... This is sort of where my "weaseling out of Dissonance" thought was going. For Celestials (particularly Angels) the more you make a habit out of skirting around the rules and operating outside the normal parameters the more that sort of behaviour is going to become part of who you are. >{What I'm working on currently is the idea that it's accumulated >Dissonance that `masks' further additions...so the first one is always >going to be felt strongly, but if they DON'T clear it up, it'll make it >harder to note later ones...} Not a bad idea, might make people happier to see Malakim of Dominic. "Am I okay?" "Nope you've got 3 Dissonant Notes." **Kyrio Stuf Snipped** I think that we are in the area of GM's discretion here. Part of the reason I am sticking to an admittedly harsh view on this is to get a certain campaign effect, for another campaign I might be closer to your view (or even to canon). >> The second point is very interesting. Is Sin Intent or Action? In most >> legal systems there must be an element intent to allow full force of the law >> to be brought to bear. In lots of cases it might be more reasonable to >> judge Dissonance on intent rather than action, but I wouldn't rely on it if >> I was a Player, or an Angel. > I tend to feel that action is stronger for it; if you DO >something Dissonant, you get the dissonance regardless of intent. If you >intend to do something and don't...you MAY get Dissonance, depending, >basically, on whether you'd tripped that `trigger' in your mind before >ending up not doing it, for whatever reason. Isn't intent 100% necessary for the Dissonance conditions of Mercurians and Elohim? It would be pretty harsh to penalise a Mercurian who unintentionally harmed a human, but conspiring to do violence might cause some Dissonance even if the Mercurian changed his mind later. For an Elohim the motivational force behind any action is the thing that can cause Dissonance, regardless of what the action is. >> This for me goes to an important part of the whole In Nomine background. It >> is not only necessary for Heaven to win the War, but to win it while staying >> within the Rules. They are in the position of a Police Force fighting > Heh...it's almost an equally important part of the In Nomine genre >to ME that even Heaven doesn't always follow the rules Rules are definately there to be bent, and occasionally completely ignored. If God had wanted the Rules blindly followed he could have just made all his agents to be automata. Since he gave them all some degree of free will he must mean for us to use it. >...(I'm very much taken with the idea that you don't have to go to Hell to find some pretty nasty fellows...and, for that matter, that if you DO, you're likely to run >into some perfectly nice chaps while you're looking.) I agree, but Nice and Nasty are human viewpoints and Celestials aren't humans and don't share their viewpoints. I personally have a lot of trouble empathising with Dominic, and to a lesser extant Marc, but I think Furfur is a great guy. Most humans who knowingly encounter an Angel are about to have their lives completely reorientated, that sort of trauma is going to be as often seen as Bad as it is Good. Isn't the line most often attributed to Angels in the Bible "Be not afraid you shall not die." Shows what they must have thought people thought of them :) . >> All this only works if you presume, as I do, that Angels do their work with >> a fair degree of good will between themselves. Even Dominic and his >> Servitors don't _want_ to find that any Angel has done something wrong, they > Well...*ahem* I still kinda like the Dominic-as-Balseraph theory, >and consider several of the Archangels as harboring distinct dislikes for >each other..(Michael fair leaps to mind in this.) Though it may be, at >worst, similar to, say, the FBI and CIA having to cooperate against >terrorists, to go more to your suggested model; they may not LIKE each >other, and may even take a few actions to trip the other up and make >themselves look good by comparison...but both will very much have the >enemy in mind, and only act against the other to an extent that they're >sure won't endanger the real mission. ('Course, they still might >misjudge..) hard to argue with you here. All the Archangels have a fair degree of tunnel vision when it comes to interpreting God's Plan. You wouldn't really expect to find one who was prepared to admit, except under the most extreme circumstances, that another's Word was more important than theirs. However, they all trust in God and His Plan, I hesitate to call it Faith, but it serves the same purpose. Cross jurisdictional conflicts are interesting to consider and I imagine both Asmodeus and Malphas put a lot of effort into trying to make more Angels think about them even more. Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:17:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) (Huzzah! I get to my mail!) > I'm afraid I don't follow you. The Fallen is defined as angels who have > lost "their purpose, their grace." (IN pg 57) It seems to me that the > Malakim retain their purpose to a disturbing degree. As for their grace, > I would say their grace is the wrath of heaven which they embody. > > Grace, n, The state of being protected or sactified by the favor or God. > (The American Heritage Dictionary) > > > "The Lord is a warrior, the Lord is his name." > - Exodus 15:3 > I apologize for not being clear. What I meant was more like a quote from some unnamed movie I saw on a trailer on the same tape as BOUND last night. And since my memory is like a sieve, I paraphrase, as said by James Woods, "God maintains Demons as the Tools of His Vengence." God is, at least in my pantheon, neither Good nor Evil, and maintains the proper tools to keep the balance. As an NPC explained, without Good or Evil, the humans might well just go pfft, and THEN where would everyone be? It makes perfect sense to me in sort of a twisted way. There was no need for honor or vengance against evil until the Fall, because it simply didn't exist. Thus, the Malakim did not exist until the Fall - a retained number of demons kept bound by oaths in the service of Heaven. An interesting paradox - the Malakim fight the Fallen because they were created to do so, but they will not exist after the Fallen have been destroyed, since not only will they have cause to destroy themselves, but the justification for their continued existance will be nullified. Thus, they must continue to Fight the War, but not Win the War - in a most honorable fashion. There is, if one thinks about it, no real such thing as "Selfless Honor" or "Selfless Vengence". Honor is you, yourself, trying to live up to your own personal code. And since Demons are the essense of Selfishness... it's a back feeding cycle. 2. honor or honour \-(*-)rin\ \'a:n-*r-*r\ vt or hon.or.ing chiefly Brit 1a: to regard or treat with honor or respect 1b: to confer honor on 2: to live up to or fulfill the terms of; specif : to accept and pay when due {~a draft} 3: to salute with a bow in square dancing - hon.or.er Although I can't imagine Malakim square dancing. :) - - Em, who can't spell before coffee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:04:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew C. Johnson" Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Casca wrote: > This is from the same demented soul who came up with the "Dominic is a > Balseraph" idea. You Have Been Warned. > > > I've been thinking about Eli lately. Then, when I was in the shower, this > idea occurred to me. (Strangely enough, all of my odd ideas originate in > the shower. Must be all that tile. Hmm...) > > Eli can't be an Archangel. He's something far more powerful. Let us > consider the following: [snip] > > 5) The word Eli means 'My God'. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" -- Matthew 27:46 > > 6) Taken as a verb, Creation is a powerful Word. But if it's taken as a > -noun-, doesn't it encompass everything? > > 7) The French version of IN had Jesus as an Archangel. > > > Conclusion: Eli is Jesus. > > Thoughts, comments, rotten fruit? > > -- Casca > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) Fascinating. To jump on this bandwagon of possibility (despite quite a lot that might point otherwise), I would add that the first chapter of the Gospel of John deals with The Word as that which created. The gospel then goes on to name the messiah as The Word. ('In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God') Eli, who is the Creative Urge imbued with personality, has a fascinating claim to being the Word. What is more, there are portions of the Bible in which _The_ Angel of the Lord appears to bring a message or some such, which is believed in some circles to mean Jesus, before appearing as the son of Mary two thousand years ago... Again, fascinating... - -Drew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:46:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] A few of thoughts: Perhaps "Bright" Malakim / Kapharim are the method by which Archangels remove dissonance or discord. This would be in addition to their "freelancing" as described in the original post. To assist game-balance and make Kapharim (which I much prefer to "Benekim," which can only be a cross-lingual pun of BENE vs MAL in "Malakim," which really means "kings")... ...anyway, I'd say the proper use of Kapharim "freelance" forgiveness is to let an angel avoid dissonance and discord so as to be able to pursue the "spirit of the law" when the "letter of the law" gets in the way. It lets a seraph tell a "white lie," or lets a cherub step aside and let its charge take some lumps when that will teach the charge a valuable lesson, or lets an ofanite stick around long enough to finish its job, etc. Perhaps it is dissonant to a Kapharite to simply use its power to "cheat." As to musical imagery, perhaps Kapharim see themselves as "accidentals." These are notes that don't fit the key-signature but are musically necessary to carry on the theme. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 97 11:46 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A Few Questions >First off, is it allowable to make a character who serves a word-bound >celestial who is not an AA or DP? You'd be missing out on attunements (I >assume only AAs and DPs can grant attunements) but you'd have a much wider >range of words to serve. Characters can serve anyone below an AA/DP in a hierarchy and still get the AA/DP's attunements. Most servitors do indeed directly serve someone lower down than the AA/DP himself. > I'm mainly asking because I'm writing up Mihr, the >Angel of Friendship, and thought he would make a neat superior for PCs; >he's not powerful enough to be an AA though...perhaps he serves the >Archangel of Love. (That's another question...is such a superior >forthcoming from SJG?) I believe Love falls under Eli's Word, at least in some forms (look at his Rites). However, Friendship probably more properly falls under Novalis' Word. >On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the >Archangel of Healing. Raphael's dead -- the latest Pyramid (I think it is) describes how it happened. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:04:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Angels & real theology (was Four Horsemen) Nathaniel Eliot wrote (first quoting me): > > Even the idea that angels are ignorant of which theology is true > > is found in one of the epistles of Paul. > > Very nice...can you give an exact reference? Actually it's in 1 Peter 1:10-12, not a Pauline letter: Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. The angels are thrown in at the end, but then the letter is really about, to, and by humans. > That is an interesting idea - how many of you Bible quasi- > authorities can find stuff that either supports or opposes the way > IN is set up? This works for the Torah and Koran, too, as well as > non-Biblical dogma (Papal creed, etc). Since the Bible says very little about the nature of angels, but only describes their brief interactions with humans, I would wager that, in general, there isn't much scope for flat-out contradition, though there may well be a little. On the other hand, the difference between IN and the angelology of Thomas Aquinas -- who is something of a theological standard in many ways -- is considerable. Thomist angels are pure points of intellectual energy. They were all created at the beginning of time, and immediately either fell without chance of redemption or were eternally confirmed in grace Very schematic. Not much fun. Thomist angels aren't *required* by anyone's theology, but they help form the background assumptions about angels in many minds. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #342 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.