From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Sep 18 10:30:14 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 KAA25498 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:30:14 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA06744 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:00:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:00:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199709181500.KAA06744@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 #346 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 Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 346 In this digest: Re: IN>The four cherubim Re: IN> Malakim Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) Re: IN>The four cherubim Re: IN>The four cherubim Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) IN> [FLUFF] Seraphim fan club IN> Mundane soul-trading Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading IN> Some relevant poetry Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading IN> Humans, Free Will, and Game Mechanics IN> Malakim and the Pearcy Gospel Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) IN> The Marches errata available Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading Re: IN> Malakim and the Pearcy Gospel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:45:21 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN>The four cherubim >EM> I am suddenly struck by the image of 6-winged angels with Great Big >EM> Huge Anime Eyes. > >EM> I think I shall slink away and whimper now. > >And when I read Beth's response, I saw the four cherubim with not only >GBHAE but also in the Small Body manga-style as befits the current >misconception of that choir. ("Ahh, kawaii!") > Oh, no! Not super-deformed Cherubs! Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:42:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Seeing I'm the one who made the offending post, I should probably refute the argument against it, or at least try. So this is a nice, long, weird rant. It's been that sort of a day, and I need to get off the crack. > I have to say I disagree with this whole "Malakim are kind of demons" > thread. Before I go further I'll say this is all IMO. Well, that's good then. It would be really weird if it was in, say, Kingsley's opinion. :) > By assuming > that Malakim are already Fallen, therefore are selfish and evil, I > feel you are missing the whole point of these angels. The Malakim > represent God's vengeance. It's not nice but it's a part of what God > is (in the IN book, and Old testament). ^^ I don't know about missing the whole point. Possibly some of it, but that's to be expected, because I have a strange, twisted point of view on things. God forbid. I don't think anyone can dictate what God is or isn't for anyone else's worldview, especially in a game as loosely defined as this one. For the most part, the rulebook sort of waves it's hands in the general direction of God, says he's not around much please leave a message, and lets it go at that. That's why there are Superiors for PCs to deal with. See, PCs can, maybe, at the outside, actually run into Lucifer because Lucifer is very well defined in literature (Milton et al), and has a stereotype which can be worked into, all the way down to the color of his suits and his tie. We know he's male, smooth, and likes red. As for God, well, we know the results of his actions, and we know what some of the things he's said from the interpreted word of his Prophets, but no one knows anything about God himself. I spent literally years in Philosophy classes listening to pretentious underclassmen pretend like they know, but no one really knows. If we did, why would we bother with so many religions? Or so many Philosophy courses, for that matter? So, I don't think either the Sourcebook or the Holy Book of Your Choice (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, the Zohar, the Lotus Sutra, Quantum Mechanics Texts, etc) really goes ahead and defines God. There's a George Carlin bit about people who know what God looks like down to hair color and toenails. And they like to describe him to you! "He's all powerful. And he knows EVERYTHING!" But we don't know. And it's a good thing, because if we did, this would be a boring game to play. :) This is a good thing, not knowing the nature of God. It lets us sit around and speculate for a while. And from there, we can all come to completely different conclusions, which is good, because diverse backgrounds means diverse games, and we can all sit around, armchair theologians, and tell each other what should or should not be. As for the Malakim, I don't think I've actually missed it too badly. I said it before, "God retains Demons for Instruments of his Vengence." My entire argument revolved around the fact that Vengence is in fact an extremely selfish term. You don't actually get too much more selfish. Even lying shamelessly can be used to cover others. Do Next? !webster revenge Cross references: 1. avenge 1. re.venge \ri-'venj\ vt [ME revengen, fr. MF revengier, fr. OF, fr. re- + vengier)X to avenge - more at VENGEANCE 1: to inflict injury in return for {~ an insult} 2: to avenge for a wrong done {~ oneself} - re.veng.er n 2. revenge n [MF revenge, revenche, fj. revengier, revenchier to rev]enge 1: an act or instance of revenging 2: a desire for revenge 3: an opportunity for getting satisfaction or retrieving oneself You see the words "For the greater good" in there anywhere? No. It's "to inflict injury in return for an insult to oneself". God can be as Selfish as He wants. He is, after all, God. He may very well be Satan as well. And we return to that argument of "what is God?" Is he God of the Old Testament, all fire and brimstone? Is he Gautama Buddha's God, the Eternal Nothingness? Is he a giant pink elephant? I'm going for the pink elephant. I dunno about you. > The Malakim's resonance is > for Honour. They do not go around killing people and stopping evil > because it's fun or cool (although most Malakim grow to enjoy it, > because that's what they were made to do). The Malakim have Oaths to > live by. The two that most restrain their lives are given to them. > They do not choose them. Malakim represent that aspect of God that > says "I'm warning you, do this/ do not do this or I will be angry and > you'll feel my wrath!" Malakim have their codes of honour so that if > someone violates these codes they are able to exact vengeance. Bing. Right there. God uses humans to warn people of his vengence, not Angels. I point to exhibit A, the prophets of the Torah. But that's a technicality. Oaths are used to restrain oneself and give oneself direction. Honor is a personal vision. Someone violates THEIR vision they extract Vengence. Is there anything in there for the greater good? Eventually yes. They're like computers, which are horribly evil, but can be used for a greater good (and an even greater evil) when put to Good use by Good People. And like a good OS to a computer to restrain it from doing stupid things, a good oath controls a Malakim. Just because Good might come out of the act of Vengence, there is nothing inherently Good about the act itself. And the point is the acts themselves, not the long term outcome. There is not a thing good about the act of coming down out of the sky and destroying a city filled with a million people, for whatever reason. > God > did not want any of his angels to rebel (well maybe he did, but that's > another debate), therefore those who did violated his wishes and are > subject to his wrath, the wrath embodied in the Malakim. Malakim can > be cruel, destructive and violent, but so can God. But Malakim don't just kill Demons. That would be something else. There are plenty of humans that are far more soulless then a Demon ever could be. And God doesn't do such close "one on one" councilling with the bad guys. Even so, we return to the debate about "what is God". Is God this sophmoric child who feels the need to level cities and kill off his Creation every time he feels slighted? Does he need Malakim to go around and visit all the people who slighted him personally? > If you make > Malakim demons instead of angels, you miss a big part of what IN is. This is the same game which named a demon prince after an IBM Mainframe programming language. Something I consider apropos, but that's another story. I think I just have a completely different view of this game, a view that is different, but perfectly valid. > God is not necessarily the nicest thing around. He embodies love, he > is a parent, but even parents get angry and punish their children. Here's where your argument gets cyclic. The view is clearly that "God is Good" but that "God needs to kill everyone who doesn't believe he is Good, so the view is that God is Good." Therefore is God really Good? Yes, he is, because you believe God is Good, because He killed off everyone who thought God was Bad. And parents don't kill, murder, or exact revenge on their children, unless their brain is miswired. OR you're playing Amber. Whichever comes first - - and also amounts to the exact same thing. > The Malakim are the representation of this aspect, nothing more, > nothing less. Malakim in general do not fall because they police > themselves so well. They embody God's vengeance, therefore they > practice it on any of their brethren who need it. I personally believe that the "Malakim don't Fall because they police themselves" is the biggest cop-out I've seen, I dunno, all week. Maybe all month. Are you going to tell me that a Malakim has NEVER fallen, ever, beause they watch each other with such paranoid eyes 24-7 that they will know the instant one of their members picks up any dissoance? Do they travel in groups so they can watch each other? Can they never leave their homes, in fear they might pick up that ONE POINT and be destroyed? They have some constant relaying mechanism that tells everyone they're current state? There has never been one single Malakim EVER, in the entire time of Existance, which thought, "Hey, I wanna see if I can Fall", goes off to some weird part of the world where they can't be watched and tries it? It's a poor rule with big logic flaws. As for instruments of Vengence, look at what I wrote above. According the Oaths (selfish) that they took for themselves (selfish) to frame their particular notion of Honor (selfish), standardized or not, they exact vengence (selfish) on people they feel (selfish) within their worldview are heretics or going against the Word of God. Where are they helping PEOPLE? By removing evil? You can remove evil in better ways then blood and death. See exhibit B, the Mercurians. Funny thing is, you start getting into this same trap with the whole Dominic the Balseraph conversation. It's the exact same trap, both ways. > > Leath. > *sigh* The point is that the game is very flexible, and is open to all sorts of crazy wild interpretations. My interpretation is much darker, nastier, and all around eviller then probably most others. I like there to be demons nested happily snug in Heaven. I like there to be an Eli as a Tortured Modern Christ. I like that no one knows what is going on. These things make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and scare my players. Good. But MY point is that I will never, ever, buy an argument that boils down to "because the rule book said so". We're creative! We're weird! We're even funky! Enjoy the funkiness, because with increasing supplements, it's just not gonna last. I'm gonna go off and swim in my big bowl of crack now, thanks. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:34:45 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) At 10:07 PM +0000 9/17/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:35:36 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>>Still, it might be a reason to let them have only one chance. >> >>And one not based on their Will, but on how much they worked for that >>Geas? (Usually.) Dunno. I'd probably have to see both options in >>play. > >Hm. Dunno. How much the Lilim needs to work for the Geas hasn't entered the >picture before that I recall. Meta-consideration. Most of the time, the Lilim will have to work to get that hook. Definitely a *META* consideration, though. >>Lilith trades Geases. She's the only one. Or, rather, you do her a favor >>and she gives you a Geas on a Lilim. And she could trade them to >>ethereals, celestials, and humans -- she knows a lot of people... > >Ok, I understood that the no trading rule was absolute. If Lilith is an >exception, that makes a big difference. She's a Superior, of *course* she's an exception! Other Superiors might be able to do it as well, but I'm not going to say anything about that right now. >Hm... Maybe Geas trading is an >Attunement Lilith might give out to her very favored Lilim? Everybody seems to want this thing... We'll see. >> Lilim do not trade Geases. Lilith trades Geases. >>Also, a "trade" could be "I promise that I won't invoke this Geas save >>as you instruct me" (thus putting another Geas/1 on the Lilim). In fact, >>that is what most Lilim refer to when they speak of trading Geasa. > >Sorry, I clearly misunderstood the ruling. I gues we'll see the official >canon when the FAQ gets updated next. KARAKASH? >>>>If the GM *chooses* to run too many "Get Beth's Geasa knocked down >>>>a little" adventures in a row, then that's a GMing problem. ... >>> >>>Agree. But I think most campaign will be angelic. >> >>Then what's a Lilim doing in it? If the GM thinks it's going to >>be a problem, he shouldn't have a Renegade in his group. > >I see Lilim as right on the edge, as indicated by Lilith's odd placement in >IN. She isn't quite a Prince(ss). She has that level of power, but not that >level of submission to Lucifer. Somehow she's struck a special deal. That's one way to see her. There are others. >>>With at least limited trading, a GM could use smoke and mirrors to get her >>>freed pretty fast. >> >>Oh, I hope not... > >Wall, not completely freed, but with her Geases and oaths all to AAs or >other angels. Bright, I should have said. Lilith would be happy to trade with AAs. She'd even trade with Dommie and Laurence, if they'd talk to her. (Not bloody likely, of course.) >>>Without it, the only way is to have Lilith assign the Lilim to >>>work for an Angel. Since Lilith isn't stupid, she'll use a more efficient >>>and more binding Geas/6. >> >>Hm? Unclear. If you mean that Lilith will charge more on the angel/AA, >>then that's quite possible. (Computer upgrades, maybe; Vapula's >>seem to blow up all too frequently.) > >What I was trying to say is that you get the most value from Geases as /6. >Six Geas/1's can be done in six hours; three Geas/2's, in three days; two >Geas/3's, in two weeks; but one Geas/6 takes a year to work off. Also, >Geas/6's represent the most odious tasks. That's quite true, yes. It's still up in the air whether the Free Lilim burden is 9 Geas/3s, or 23 (or whatever) Geas/1s. >>>>>I'm not sure humans shouldn't have a fat Will bonus just because God >>>>>created them with free will. It should be damn hard for a Celestial to >>>>>force a human to do something, not the slam dunk it is now. >... >>>Well, it would be a different game almost... >> >>Might be interesting. > >Somehow I think TPTB aren't going to go for that level of change. I'm sure not. But you can always do it at home... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Benjamin D. Hutchins" Subject: Re: IN>The four cherubim > >And when I read Beth's response, I saw the four cherubim with not only > >GBHAE but also in the Small Body manga-style as befits the current > >misconception of that choir. ("Ahh, kawaii!") > > > Oh, no! Not super-deformed Cherubs! > Now think of super-deformed Dominic, with six great big eyes peeping adorably out of his cute li'l hood. [panel 1: SD Dominic and SD Laurence on a cloud, chatting] [panel 2: An SD angel with several big jagged angry notes of Discord hovering over him goes by] [panel 3: Before SD Laurence's amazed eyes, SD Dom whips out a mallet that's twice as big as he is and flattens the Discordant angel, knocking a hole in the cloud under him with predictable results] [panel 4: SD Dom holds up the mallet (we can now see that it has 'REJECTED' carved backward in its face) and grins a goofy Seraph grin.] - --G. - -- Benjamin D. Hutchins, cofounder and Keeper-Straight of the Continuity Eyrie Productions, Unlimited - An AnimeTech Limited Company -><- Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.eyrie.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:17:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN>The four cherubim On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Benjamin D. Hutchins wrote: > > >And when I read Beth's response, I saw the four cherubim with not only > > >GBHAE but also in the Small Body manga-style as befits the current > > >misconception of that choir. ("Ahh, kawaii!") > > Oh, no! Not super-deformed Cherubs! > Now think of super-deformed Dominic, with six great big eyes peeping > adorably out of his cute li'l hood. > > [panel 1: SD Dominic and SD Laurence on a cloud, chatting] > > [panel 2: An SD angel with several big jagged angry notes of Discord > hovering over him goes by] > > [panel 3: Before SD Laurence's amazed eyes, SD Dom whips out a mallet > that's twice as big as he is and flattens the Discordant angel, > knocking a hole in the cloud under him with predictable results] > > [panel 4: SD Dom holds up the mallet (we can now see that it has > 'REJECTED' carved backward in its face) and grins a goofy Seraph > grin.] Dominic.net? I think we have documentation of Kobalic posession here... Joe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 03:19:31 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:34:45 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >She's a Superior, of *course* she's an exception! Other Superiors might >be able to do it as well, but I'm not going to say anything about that >right now. Got it. >>I see Lilim as right on the edge, as indicated by Lilith's odd placement in >>IN. She isn't quite a Prince(ss). She has that level of power, but not that >>level of submission to Lucifer. Somehow she's struck a special deal. > > That's one way to see her. There are others. Well, IN says clearly she is not a demon. (P. 150, paragraph 1.) >Lilith would be happy to trade with AAs. She'd even trade with Dommie >and Laurence, if they'd talk to her. (Not bloody likely, of course.) :) >>What I was trying to say is that you get the most value from Geases as /6. >>Six Geas/1's can be done in six hours; three Geas/2's, in three days; two >>Geas/3's, in two weeks; but one Geas/6 takes a year to work off. Also, >>Geas/6's represent the most odious tasks. > > That's quite true, yes. It's still up in the air whether the >Free Lilim burden is 9 Geas/3s, or 23 (or whatever) Geas/1s. Maybe the conversion rules should be changed? Perhaps it takes two Geas/2 to make a Geas/3, two Geas/3 to make a Geas/4, etc. >>Somehow I think TPTB aren't going to go for that level of change. > >I'm sure not. But you can always do it at home... I don't think my players would be too happy about that level of rule change. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:56:30 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: IN> [FLUFF] Seraphim fan club Here's a thought on how to very quickly make people hate (and possible injure, depending on time of night) a Seraph: Send it down Telegraph avenue (or non-Berkeley equivalent) with a couple of quarters in its pocket. "Hey man - got any spare change?" "Yes." (Keeps walking. Repeat every few meters.) Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:56:32 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: IN> Mundane soul-trading In a brief instance of IN on the brain, prompted by my lab PI saying "just give me the form to sign," it occurred to me to wonder: Can plain old normal mortals own each others' souls? Could Joe Blow A need $100,000 and receive it from Joe Blow B in exchange for a written agreement transferring ownership of the soul? Obviously, anyone IRL could easily sign such a document, but in IN, would it have an actual effect (or is JBB a bit of an infernal optimist)? Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:44:12 -0400 (EDT) From: CptOlympus@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading In a message dated 97-09-18 00:35:10 EDT, you write: > In a brief instance of IN on the brain, prompted by my lab PI saying > "just give me the form to sign," it occurred to me to wonder: > > Can plain old normal mortals own each others' souls? Could Joe Blow > A need $100,000 and receive it from Joe Blow B in exchange for a written > agreement transferring ownership of the soul? Obviously, anyone IRL could > easily sign such a document, but in IN, would it have an actual effect (or > is JBB a bit of an infernal optimist)? On a side note, a friend of mine tried that in high school. He didn't ask for cash, just a signature and for that, he would let you do whatever the hell you wanted free of guilt or threat of damnation. He got quite a few sign-ups. I doubt the documents had any metaphysical validity, but in a superstitious lapse I filched the list and burned them. Mother would be proud of her little heathen. On topic, however, I doubt that mere mortals could trade their immortal souls like so much currency. They simply have no way to lay claim to the other end of the bargain. Besides, any wise contract signee would insist upon a non-transferability clause. Celestials however, with their knowledge of the Symphony could and probably do arrange such contracts. S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:16:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: IN> Some relevant poetry I read this and immediately thought of IN. It's an original piece created by a member of my church, who also happens to be a retired pastor. He used it in a sermon recently and, due to request, was reprinted in the church bulletin. Since it appealed to me, I thought I'd post it.... KALEIDOSCOPE by Rev. Elwyn Williams A fragment of Eternal Essence in the kaleidoscope of life I am forever tossed, tumbled, manipulated bu forces seemingly outside my control. Subject to the untiring, unending, unquenchable search for beauty, for order, for clarity and perfection by the Master Mover of life. I am only a tiny particle of that forever changing pattern of life... Yet without me the final result is incredibly different. I DO COUNT -- precious fragment which I am...insignificant but essential. Without me, the kaleidoscope of life is marred, forever changed, lakcing the touch of beauty which I alone bring. Is it immodest to claim that I am such a vital key to the animation of the universe? I rejoice in my significant insignificance -- a miniscule chip in the Kaleidoscope of the Eternal! - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:23:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading In a message dated 97-09-18 00:35:10 EDT, you write: << Can plain old normal mortals own each others' souls? Could Joe Blow A need $100,000 and receive it from Joe Blow B in exchange for a written agreement transferring ownership of the soul? Obviously, anyone IRL could easily sign such a document, but in IN, would it have an actual effect (or is JBB a bit of an infernal optimist)? >> I can't wait to see the official answer, but I would like to make a wild stab. In Nomine indicates a number of things about existance as a damned mortal... 1) Mortals can not be "promoted" to undead. 2) Mortals are promised "positions" in the afterlife but these tend to never materialize. 3) The existance of a mortal in hell is a demeaned, tortured afterlife. So I doubt that having purchased souls would matter significantly. A mortal "purchasing agent" would suffer in hell, no different from any other. What *would* be valid is the seller's commitment to evil. This would be enough to damn him, or at the very least, put him on the fast-track to damnation. For the purchasing agent, this would probably net him rewards (*maybe* promotion) in this life. Hell is greedy for souls and would likely be willing to pay an earthly "comission". This would take the form of material reward, songs, maybe forces. A mortal who recruited effectively for hell would be rewarded- at first. But he would also hasted the day when he was betrayed by his infernal masters...marked by them as "too competent...and too dangerous." - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:38:31 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Humans, Free Will, and Game Mechanics >I'm not sure humans shouldn't have a fat Will bonus just because God >created them with free will. It should be damn hard for a Celestial to >force a human to do something, not the slam dunk it is now. Well, humans in IN tend to be NPCs. Their "free will" is represented by Will rolls, which are allowed against most external or internal influences. In this respect, a power like Dark Desire is no more "controlling" or "forced" than a drug addiction or a bad habit of lust or gluttony (all types of Ethereal or Celestial Discord, which can be resisted via Will). A successful Will roll means that the human has successfully suppressed the influence for the time being; a failed roll means that he gives in to it -- not literally against his will, as in the case of true mind control, but because his will to do it outweighed his will to resist. He may regret the action later, but there was an element of choice involved. True, humans tend to have very low Will scores, meaning they will fail to resist many of these influences. However, free-willed does not equal strong-willed. As long as the human *gets* a Will roll to resist, he's got free will (as modeled by the game mechanics). IN simply represents the majority of humans as easily falling prey to temptation. IN humans may not be totally depraved, as in Calvinist theology, but they do seem to manifest some hint of Original Sin -- they seem to be more strongly tilted toward evil than toward good. (This is based on the fact that *most* of the influences that one rolls Will against tend to be demonic, or at least selfish, in nature. The Merciful Discord is the only counter-example that comes to mind. Even when angelic powers have a similar effect, as in the case of the Menunim or Gabriel's "Last Spark" attunement from _The Marches_, they are generally described as working much more indirectly: the final choice to act is usually left entirely up to the player/GM in charge of the character. Perhaps the designers believe that players will find it harder to role-play accurate responses to evil influences than to good ones, so they provide a bit of mechanical enforcement for the former. Or perhaps the feeling is simply that people don't generally resist a *good* influence....) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: IN> Malakim and the Pearcy Gospel I'm going to comment on Malakim briefly, but first... Does anyone else find it weird how ~half of the discussion on IN theology takes different tacks on interpreting the text? In itself, that's not an odd thing for such discussions to do...but the fact is, this is stuff written by real, normal game designers/authors. That's why it's so strange to say "as we can see from their physical description, Malakim are..." Heck, they look like that because Derek wanted them to (or, depending on how much was kept, because Croc wanted them to). Ever have someone try to interpret something you wrote? It's like that. Anyway, with that in mind, I'm curious where this image of Malakim as angels of Vengeance came from. Let me quote from Book Two of the Gospel of Pearcy: "Malakim embody the purity of Heaven's honor and the swiftness of its wraith." Purity of Heaven's honor - this seems to imply that, despite the fact that their codes of honor are semipersonal (50% or more personal), they /are/ Heaven's honor (or an aspect thereof). This isn't my main point. The "swiftness of its wrath." Pondering this, I trudge to the Oxford American Dictionary I have handy. Wrath: Anger, indignation Hmmm. So...let's see what the good old OAD has to say about these two nouns: Indignation: Anger aroused by something thought to be unjust or wicked etc. Anger: Extreme displeasure. Let's run with "wrath as indignation" then. Malakim would be the swiftness of Heaven's anger, that anger being aroused by something thought unjust or wicked. If they're looked at this way, they really aren't that sort of random, fickle ass-kickers for the Lord. Rather, they are the quick, angry response to wickedness. They're no one's vengeance - rather, they solve problems. I'm not sure which angels you send out to slap errant followers around, but it need not be Malakim. That said, Malakim do represent swift anger, and a solution-oriented response to wickedness. As such, they will tend to be all the things found in the second part of the paragraph I quoted from above. Goal-oriented people can be like that. All that, and I'll end by repeating how inherently silly it seems to be to so seriously quote /any/ part an IN book as evidence of the eternal order. This is yet another route to bad places (ever see an argument about the background of the World of Darkness - it's like that). It's always good to remember that it's all (good) stuff by (real people) authors. Cool off, grab your favorite food, and discuss intriguing story ideas with all the Real People. It's almost a beer ad, but for the lack of cheap, crappy American beer (actually, I don't drink, but all my friends express that belief about large-scale American beers). Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:10:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] Jo Hart commented; > 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 Well, if you ever think you see me suggesting that only Demons can be downright nasty (or, for that matter, that only Angels can be nice), then you've probably misread something I wrote.. Giving Malakim (or Dominic, since you mention that, too) a more demonic nature doesn't go against that at all, though...Michael, after all, still keeps bloody trophies on his wall. > 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 So why do Superiors? Kapharim do it for the same reasoning; when sticking with the rules right now is going to cost everything down the line, it's okay to bend them. (As you note; suggesting that Angels CAN'T break the rules misses much of the point to In Nomine..) In effect, God designed Angels with certain strict rules...but He also understood that there are times those rules are going to HAVE to be broken. If He didn't, they just wouldn't be ABLE to. > 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. Well...yeah. That bugged me about Perry's suggestion of demons going after these to use them freely...I'm not sure WHERE the impression came from that Kapharim are intrinsically morons. *shrug* > 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. Far from `local', given how few of them are likely to be around. (Though, of course, a campaign could certainly have them a lot more common, if the GM wanted a world where the Rules are breaking down...) And, as I noted in my comments to Bixler, the fact that most Superiors AREN'T going to quite understand or approve of the Kapharim was specifically maintained as an internal balance. > 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 Mind, as I was designing them, I had Redeeming Demons in mind as one of their primary functions. (After all; they CAN shepherd a Shedim for a while so that he doesn't have to corrupt people constantly, or let a Servitor of Death feed the poor...) [Heh..MaBarry just stuck the image in my mind of a Kapharim in the Vessel of a little girl walking up to Lucifer, taking his hand, looking up into his eyes, and suddenly smiling. "It's okay; you're forgiven. You want to come home now?"] {'Course, it was immediately followed by a bolt of lightning cracking down right behind her as God appears in an apoplectic fit, waving his arms and yelling, "No, no, NO, it's too SOON. Lucifer Morningstar, go back to your Hell this INSTANT."} ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:02:21 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) > >> Lilim do not trade Geases. Lilith trades Geases. > >>Also, a "trade" could be "I promise that I won't invoke this Geas save > >>as you instruct me" (thus putting another Geas/1 on the Lilim). In fact, > >>that is what most Lilim refer to when they speak of trading Geasa. > > > >Sorry, I clearly misunderstood the ruling. I gues we'll see the official > >canon when the FAQ gets updated next. > > KARAKASH? Done last night... along with a jillion other updates to the FAQ! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:08:51 -0400 From: Hunter Johnson Subject: IN> The Marches errata available The first pass of errata for The Marches is available online at http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/themarches.html Hunter - -- J. Hunter Johnson /\ SJG Errata Coordinator (sjg-errata@io.com) http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ /()\ Knightmare Chess Development Coordinator jhunterj@io.com /____\ South Park: Care Bears on Acid -- G.C. Settlers RoboRally Brain Groo LunchMoney DinoHunt Knightmare GURPS AoR INWO ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:34:51 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) On Sep 18, 9:02am, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) > > >> Lilim do not trade Geases. Lilith trades Geases. > > >>Also, a "trade" could be "I promise that I won't invoke this Geas save > > >>as you instruct me" (thus putting another Geas/1 on the Lilim). In fact, > > >>that is what most Lilim refer to when they speak of trading Geasa. > > > > > >Sorry, I clearly misunderstood the ruling. I gues we'll see the official > > >canon when the FAQ gets updated next. > > > > KARAKASH? > > Done last night... along with a jillion other updates to the > FAQ! There are some minor html coding problems... a result of working with far too little sleep. As soon as the network starts behaving, the corrected ones will be up! (The _data_ is right, but some of the links won't work exactly as planned, and the indentions will be off a bit.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:43:46 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: Re: IN> Mundane soul-trading On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Alexander Shearer wrote: > In a brief instance of IN on the brain, prompted by my lab PI saying > "just give me the form to sign," it occurred to me to wonder: > > Can plain old normal mortals own each others' souls? Could Joe Blow > A need $100,000 and receive it from Joe Blow B in exchange for a written > agreement transferring ownership of the soul? Obviously, anyone IRL could > easily sign such a document, but in IN, would it have an actual effect (or > is JBB a bit of an infernal optimist)? > Just as a matter of trivia, you don't need to spend $100,000 to buy someone's soul. I used to buy souls in high-school. Most people would *ask* for money, but when that was turned down, would end up signing just for the hell of it. I even almost got a teacher that way. A few sold their souls to me for immortality. After they signed and asked if they were immortal, I would just say "if you aren't, then I have just been had". Buying souls is *easy*! Greg. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:21:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and the Pearcy Gospel It is pretty clear that Derek & SJG generally left IN open enough so that the GM can bend it several ways. The IN book even lists about four styles of play, including comic. But there is also a "brightness knob" on IN. If you want to pillory harsh and judgemental religion, you can paint Dominic as a celestial Stalin and Malakim as winged Ku Klux Klan. Mercurians are described in glowing terms in their choir write-up, but the Mercurian we actually meet, Nicole, plays very hard ball. On the other hand, you can turn the brightness knob up, play Dominic as tough-but-fair, model your Malakim after the Three Muskateers or James Bond, and have your Mercurians borrow a few feathers from "Touched by an Angel." You can't have a Heaven of pure harmony and still follow the book, but you can shift from "some angels are just devils that haven't technically fallen" to "tragedy is not the conflict of good with evil but of good with good." IN was designed to encompass a whole range of "brightness values." Here are some dramatic uses (as opposed to theological definitions) I see for some choirs and bands: Seraphim: detectives; heck, the description of the vessels even sounds like Sherlock Holmes. Cherubim: action-heroes of the sort who spend a lot of time rescuing sidekicks Ofanim: chase scenes, obviously Elohim: counsellors and advisers for psycho-dramas, and more serious voices for non-action, dialogue-based drama Malakim: action-heroes of the less attached sort, e.g. James Bond or Mysterious Strangers of the Clint-Eastwood-western stripe Kyriotates: masters of disguise, great of intrigue Mercurians: drawing-room comedy, intrigue, and lighter voices for dialogue drama Balseraphim: the villains who weave webs of deception Djinn & Calabim: basic monsters, flavored persistent or crazy Hallabim: psycho villains Sheddites: specifically for demonic possession; also villainous masters of disguise Lilim: specifically for deals with the devil; also all those ever-popular seduction stereotypes Impudites: basic sleaze-ball villains, with a touch of vampire Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #346 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.