From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 7 03:07:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA21545 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 03:07:45 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA04874 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 02:51:10 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 02:51:10 -0600 Message-Id: <199812070851.CAA04874@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1039 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, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1039 In this digest: IN> Tsayadim Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! IN> Re: Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Tsayadim IN> question Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> question IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:53:15 -0700 From: Gareth Wood Subject: IN> Tsayadim They (the Tsayadim) are mentioned briefly in The Final Trumpet. No description is provided of their forms, abilities, etc. Will they be described in a future book? Gareth Wood ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 19:21:47 +0200 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 05:26 06/12/98 , you wrote: >>>>Remember, the real Inquisition went after and tortured/killed many >homosexuals. What about Dominic, and how can he justify this except that >"it's the law, right or wrong?"<<< Incorrect. I'm not saying the inquisition never burnt an overt homosexual, but hunting homosexuals was never a part of its function. The inquisition was meant to fight heresies and heretics. Later, witchcraft was considered as heresy (that's John XXII's major influence on history), and relapsed Jews also suffered (they were considered relapsed heretics), but that's about it. The inquisition never dealt with crimes against common morality. Nobody did, in fact, as long as it wasn't too obvious. As one of my lecturers likes to say, "The Catholic Church was always easy on the sinners, and very rough on the heretic." Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:29:24 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! > Since I didn't see it on the INC yet, I'd like to repost Casca's wonderful > essay on the subject as a final word. I don't think I ever received the essay. My belief is, if it doesn't appear in my zenith@pyramid.sjgames.com mailbox [and not HERE, don't ever send me stuff here] then it doesn't exist. :) Additionally, I had a dozen submissions to the INC get wacked when the disk was lost. _sigh_. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 13:51:08 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Re: Law and Judgment and Morality Greg Jensen wrote: >I have to disagree, I think Dominic does support all the rules of the >Catholic church. It's not so much that he has a problem with gays or >contraception or eating meat on Fridays or whatever. It has to do with >rules. Part of the consequences of living in a civilized society, >organized for the good of all, is having to live under rules. Not all of >the rules will be fair, but it is better than having no rules. If we start >deciding that we can break any rules we don't like, where does it stop? It >is little different from anarchy, and this is something Dominic feels is >far, far worse than a few oppressed homosexuals. The ends justify the >means. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from deciding they don't like >property laws, and think it's fair for them to steal your stuff? Or if >somebody disagrees with homicide laws and kills you? These are good reasons for Dominic to be very conservative where laws and rules are concerned. I've always felt that to be the source of the conflict between him and Eli, even before Eli went rogue: even though the themes of Judgment and Creation are both necessary to the harmony of the Symphony, they clash terribly in close proximity. Dominic's Word predisposes him to be suspicious of change and new ideas until he's worked out how they fit within The Rules. Eli, on the other hand, is driven by *his* Word to delight in change, no matter what complications it might introduce; anything's better than stagnation. However, it is clear in canon that Dominic does not simply value rules for the sake of rules. He is just as incensed when the innocent are punished as when the guilty go free, and his angels are just as likely to help those innocents -- even going outside the law if necessary -- as to lay down some vigilante justice on the criminals who got away. To Dominic, unjust laws should be the worst thing imaginable. They're a tool for ensuring justice, perverted to serve just the opposite end. He might even make an analogy with the way most demons are similarly perverted versions of angels. And we know how Dominic views the Fallen. I would also like to note that the Catholic Church's "law" against homosexuality is a bit different from most secular laws, and that difference might color Dominic's view of the matter. At least nowadays, the Church's law doesn't say "WE will punish you for unrepented homosexual activity," but rather "We believe that unrepented homosexual activity is displeasing to God, and may well end you up in Hell. Be warned." Dominic would have reason to know whether the Church's opinion on the matter is accurate. Since homosexuality per se does not send people to Hell in the IN universe, it seems unlikely that he would favor the prohibition just for its own sake. Remember, Dominic's a Seraph. In addition to Judgment, he is also Truth. It hurts him to lie, and he finds the very *idea* of falsehood abhorrent. In the case of homosexuals, we have a group of people who is being unjustly looked down upon, and sometimes mistreated, as a result of an apparently false belief. I can think of few things that should disturb Dominic more. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 11:00:03 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. At 04:22 AM 12/6/98 EST, you wrote: >On a side note: it always bugged and confused me that Charisma was a function >of the vessel and not the personality of the celestial involved. But being to >lazy to actually change or fix that I called upon my old friend >Rationalization. Why fix a problem when you can rationalize a reason not to? >Here's what I came up with: Charisma is a function of the vessel because you >are supposed to roleplay the personality. If you want a celestial who gets his >way by being forceful, commanding, or smooth and slick, you'll have to >roleplay to get those bonuses. The vessel's Charisma simply shows any freebies >given because of chiseled good looks, a powerful build, etc. You could act >like the biggest wad of dirty toilet paper on the planet and still get bonuses >because your vessel's sexy thang Charisma is greasing the wheels. Anything >more than that you'll have to work for through roleplaying. >Anyway, that's all my current thoughts on the subject. Opinions, anyone? I have to agree, I think IN misused the term "charisma." From what I know, charisma is a measure of one's ability to command respect, win friends, and influence people. It is more of a skill than good looks. Now, looks certainly do influence people (for better or worse), but that's not the same as charisma. I think it still works, though (even if it is the wrong term), as a highly attractive vessel will be treated better than an ugly one by the (unfortunately) vast majority of humans. A cute puppy will be treated better than an ugly snake. A well-dressed, clean-cut yuppie will be treated better than a filthy homeless person. It may not be fair, but it is real. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 11:05:02 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! At 09:21 AM 12/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >>And then maybe offing >>them so that no one else may have them. >>But these Djinn can't even do that. > >/diabolic mode on >No. >They can't kill them. >But anyone who stands in their way is fair game. Lovers, friends, pets... >And, if sufficiently motivated, they're explicitly allowed to have someone >*else* hurt the object of their desire. "Not by their own hand," remember? >/diabolic mode off I was also under the impression that they could kill their attunement if it was part of a specific request of the person. So they can kill someone if they ask. I also thought they could trick people into these requests, just like the classic djinn from Arabian folklore. For example, they may say "I wish I had a new porsche." The djinn says "as you wish, master" and drives a porsche into the wisher. "your wish is my command." Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 16:12:30 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Tsayadim On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Gareth Wood wrote: > They (the Tsayadim) are mentioned briefly in The Final Trumpet. No > description is provided of their forms, abilities, etc. Will they be > described in a future book? As I recall, the Tsayadim (meaning "Hunters") are just the Servitors of Purity (mostly Malakim, but with other Choirs among them) who refused to follow another Word when Uriel was called to the higher Heavens. Instead they went into the Marches and continued the Purification Crusade. They look normal for their Choir, and the only canon extra ability they have is that they cannot Fall; they are protected by Purity in the same manner as the Malakim. Chris Crowe did a write-up of them which is on his web page (I don't remember the URL or I'd tell you where you can find it). I have a write-up of Uriel on my page, which you could use to extrapolate their abilites. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:16:56 -0500 From: Setzer Gabbiani Subject: IN> question how many angels can dance on the head of a VCR? Ben ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 23:24:38 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 23:18 04/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Wow, anyone who disagrees with you is siding with Hell (albeit a fictional >RPG version of it)? But that's the whole point of GMing IN! You get to force your political opinions down everyone else's throat and label any one and anything you don't like a minion of Hell! (Hands up everyone who has done this for McDonalds, Microsoft, Mrs Thatcher, etc etc? ) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:57:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > If there is a punishment for such a behavior that harms noone, it > cannot be a just punishment. So where would Dominic stand on this issue? That's not necessarily so. Ethics is really quite complicated, since no-one ever agrees on the rules to start from, but the idea that a 'proper' (i.e. just) punishment should equal (or even fit) the crime is not universal. For example, Dracon declared that the punishment for pretty much any crime was death (presumably because a lawbreaker did not deserve a place either in society or on earth). Just because most humans disagree with that doesn't necessarily mean Dominic does. Since Dominic's standards of justice need not conform either to mine, yours, Derek Pearcy's, or the American constitution, 'just' in this context probably means either 'according to Dominic' or 'according to the angel' depending exactly how you think dissonance works. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:16:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else > use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it > -is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't > matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. It is your opinion that sexual intercourse is in a fundamental way different from pushing a broom across the floor, due to what you call 'intimacy'. However, I doubt many prostitutes think of themselves as being intimate with their clients. Certainly less so than, say, psychiatrists or social workers, or even masseurs. However, I think that part of Dominic's role in the game is to have strict beliefs that are not shared by the 'flakier' archangels (including, in this case, Michael :-) So he may well rule that all sorts of funny things are wrong, possibly including drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, heretical thinking, the Spice Girls, or for all I know sausages. As always, GM fills the canon gap. If any Archangel is going to be the kind of 'knee-jerk reactionary' that Mr. Edelstein so dislikes, it is Dominic, because he Knows He Is Right. IMC, Dominic is reasonably sensible, but he still doesn't share all my personal opinions, and has different ideas from me about justice. In short, don't make all your archangels agree with you personally, because your players *will* notice. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:55:43 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality >>>>To get back on the subject of Dominic, perhaps a better example would be >homosexuality. I assume Dominic would not approve of homosexuals.<<< > >I dont assume that. I think Dominic doesnt care much about human >sexuality. > I would think that this is likely true for most if not all Superiors, Heavenly or otherwise. Celestials are asexual beings, yet fully capable of expressing love between themselves, so they can probably understand the desire amongst humans for similar union. Its the mutual _love_ that's important. What no doubt upsets Heavenly Superiors more is the high level of promiscuity found in homosexuals in general - a fact which can undoubtedly be attributed to Lust. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 21:48:09 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Julian Breen wrote: > What no doubt upsets Heavenly Superiors more is the high level of > promiscuity found in homosexuals in general - a fact which can > undoubtedly be attributed to Lust. *winces* Ye lost me there, Julian... I think it can be accurately said that promiscuity is a trait which is commonly ascribed to homosexuals, and generally falsely so. J. Random Homosexual is probably less promiscuous than, say, K. Random Prostitute. ;) A thought on the prostitute issue, by the way - and I don't _think_ this has been brought up. If Dominic doesn't like prostitutes, much of that may hearken back to the days when most prostitutes had second jobs as priestesses of now-Ethereal gods... - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:31:06 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Pee Kitty wrote: > Since I didn't see it on the INC yet, I'd like to repost Casca's wonderful > essay on the subject as a final word. Permission granted (after the fact, but still. :) > The Djinn Mindset > By Casca I'm pleased that folks like my stuff enough to not only remember it, but also post it later on. :) For those who care, it's archived at Jo Hart's webpage (the URL escapes me at the moment) alongisde her fabulous essay on Balseraphim. And Kevin Walsh did an equally good writeup on Calabim. I wonder now if I should post my thoughts on Habbalah? It would keep the trend going. I hasten to add that the Shedim should be left to Maya, who is herself the very incarnation of oozing evil. ;) - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (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: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:39:40 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> question On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Setzer Gabbiani wrote: > how many angels can dance on the head of a VCR? It has recently been discovered that up to 6.25 angels can dance on a single recording head of a VCR. However, since most VCRs have four heads, this comes out to 25 angels in one electronic device, which as I'm sure you'll admit is very tight quarters. Thus, it behooves us to develop a random matrix to determine how many angels, or fractions thereof, are present on a recording head at any one time, specifically to determine the results if angels (or fractions thereof) on one head attempt to engage in melee combat with angels (or fractions thereof) on another. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (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: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 21:17:58 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: IN> Politics and stuff At 11:24 PM 12/6/98 +0000, you wrote: >But that's the whole point of GMing IN! You get to force your political >opinions down everyone else's throat and label any one and anything you >don't like a minion of Hell! (Hands up everyone who has done this for >McDonalds, Microsoft, Mrs Thatcher, etc etc? ) Don't forget Ken Starr, Balseraph of Lust. Actually, one of the things I am finding I like about IN and would like to expand on is how just about any political or religious belief can easily be good or evil. I think Khalid is an excellent example. The Archangel of Faith, with just a little work, could easily become the Demon Prince of Fanaticism (Dark Khalid). I also heard Eli fell. What product did this happen in? I liked Eli, and I found it ironic that he seemed the most Christ-like IMO. One last question, since we see on occasional Archangel fall, how about seeing a Demon Prince redeem. I think Lilith should be just about primed for redemption, personally. I think it's a product of changing values. In ancient times, when women were considered property, somebody advocating the freedom of women and minorities would be seen as evil. In more enlightened times today, this seems to be a more noble goal, and I can easily see Archangel Lilith. Anybody else? Kind of like a reverse of Khalid, I was thinking of creating a Demon Prince of Atheists redeem to become the Archangel of Tolerance. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:16:51 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Casca wrote: > > The Djinn Mindset > > By Casca > > I'm pleased that folks like my stuff enough to not only remember it, but > also post it later on. :) I have several copies of that essay printed out in a suitably eerie font, which I hand out to any player considering playing a Djinn. Seriously. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 21:25:43 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 01:16 AM 12/7/98 +0000, you wrote: >However, I think that part of Dominic's role in the game is to have strict >beliefs that are not shared by the 'flakier' archangels (including, in >this case, Michael :-) So he may well rule that all sorts of funny things >are wrong, possibly including drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, >heretical thinking, the Spice Girls, or for all I know sausages. As >always, GM fills the canon gap. If any Archangel is going to be the kind >of 'knee-jerk reactionary' that Mr. Edelstein so dislikes, it is Dominic, >because he Knows He Is Right. I agree. I think Dominic should be intelligent and not narrow-minded, but that he does adopt a utilitarian view of ethics. The greater good for the greatest number must be served. Laws serve the greater good, and must therefore be followed even if the reason for the law might not be immediately apparent. I agree that Dominic abhors unjust laws and works diligently to change them. However, I don't think that he considers rebellion to be a legitimate way to oppose the law (with the possible exception of non-violent resistance). Rebelling against laws just because you don't like them does not serve the greater good. It may serve individual rights, but it is the greater good, not the individual, that must be looked out for. This is in stark contrast to the individualistic attitudes of Eli and Novalis, but no less a legitimate attitude for an AA. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 21:32:42 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 09:48 PM 12/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >Julian Breen wrote: > >> What no doubt upsets Heavenly Superiors more is the high level of >> promiscuity found in homosexuals in general - a fact which can >> undoubtedly be attributed to Lust. > >*winces* Ye lost me there, Julian... I think it can be accurately said >that promiscuity is a trait which is commonly ascribed to homosexuals, >and generally falsely so. J. Random Homosexual is probably less >promiscuous than, say, K. Random Prostitute. ;) Most of this is based on earlier studies (before HIV), and then only with people who were openly gay. Things are different now. >A thought on the prostitute issue, by the way - and I don't _think_ this >has been brought up. If Dominic doesn't like prostitutes, much of that >may hearken back to the days when most prostitutes had second jobs as >priestesses of now-Ethereal gods... Good point. I think the main problems with both homosexuality and prostitution is that they have challenged the traditional patriarchal institution of marriage. With a strong interest in population growth, marriage is necessary (and with high infant mortality rates in ancient times, population growth was necessary for survival of the society). Obviously, we don't have quite as many problems with keeping the population up (we have suceeded a bit too much, in fact), but these elements of our culture still remain. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:22:30 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff In a message dated 12/6/98 11:22:32 PM Central Standard Time, gjensen@mail.wsu.edu writes: > I also heard Eli fell. What product did this > happen in? Whaat? Eli did not fall! Not on my watch, Chuckles! I didn't even hear that as a rumor, let alone canon. Where exactly did you hear that, pray tell? Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:25:48 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff In a message dated 12/6/98 11:22:32 PM Central Standard Time, gjensen@mail.wsu.edu writes: > I can easily see > Archangel Lilith. Anybody else? Sounds good except for one snag. Lilith is not, technically, a demon. She's a really jumped-up human. Therefore she can't even become an angel, let alone an Archangel. If she ever redeemed, she might become a really powerful saint. But I don't see the forces of heaven letting her have a Word. Yours, Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:37:11 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jo Hart wrote: > (Hands up everyone who has done this for McDonalds, Microsoft, Mrs > Thatcher, etc etc? ) My GM had the Holy Grail come after Bill Gates. It was offended by the false Grail he was under the influence of. (Two person game with high-powered primary PCs, one apiece. Mine is a Renegade Lilim who has been playing footsie with Heaven for the past few hundred years; long story. Anyway, she had occasion to resonate on Bill Gates and discovered he needed (among other things) to be loved. She figured a little goodwill from Lightning was well worth a phone call, so she called a Lightning Seraph and told him. Some odd events later, Jean ended up downloading himself onto her laptop and drafting her for his backup plan. She thought for a moment to get ready to bargain, and realized that the curiosity bug had bit her and she'd do it for free. And she's talking to a detail-minded Elohite Archangel who'd *know* what she would do if he said she wasn't getting paid. So she got pissed off and resonated. She was *expecting* a headache. She wasn't expecting to faint from information overload. ;-)) Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 01:55:11 -0500 From: Setzer Gabbiani Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff At 01:22 12/7/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 12/6/98 11:22:32 PM Central Standard Time, >gjensen@mail.wsu.edu writes: > >> I also heard Eli fell. What product did this >> happen in? >Whaat? Eli did not fall! Not on my watch, Chuckles! I didn't even hear that as >a rumor, let alone canon. Where exactly did you hear that, pray tell? > I can see part of where this rumor could have come from. There is an odd hint in the main book which points to diabolic involvement on Eli's part. In the picture of Nybbas he has images of Kobal, Saminga and some other demon princes and Eli. I have wondered ever since i saw this what the significance of this inclusion was. I figured that it was a hook for something to come later. that's where i think the idea came from. Ben, Cherub of Destiny fast on the way to becoming Djinn of Fate ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:04:49 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > One last question, since we see on occasional Archangel fall, how about > seeing a Demon Prince redeem. I think Lilith should be just about primed > for redemption, personally. I think it's a product of changing values. In > ancient times, when women were considered property, somebody advocating the > freedom of women and minorities would be seen as evil. In more enlightened > times today, this seems to be a more noble goal, and I can easily see > Archangel Lilith. Anybody else? Kind of like a reverse of Khalid, I was > thinking of creating a Demon Prince of Atheists redeem to become the > Archangel of Tolerance. Frankly, I'd rather see Lilith find a way to keep her Word while renouncing her status as a Demon Prince, proceding to skate on the edge of the war and trading with both sides. IMO, she's been *too* obviously lightened to be much fun to play with the idea of Redemption. Andrealphus - Novalis and/or Eli convince him that sex is more fun if there are friendly emotions involved. Asmodeus - The amusement value would be tremendous. Hm. Maybe if he went Cherubic on failing to remove an attunement to a captured angel? Baal - Well, prophecy contradicts it, but what if he were genuinely convinced that God is omnipotent ... and therefore God is always right? Beleth - This one's hard.... Maybe if she decided that inspiring fear is more interesting when the person *knows* they ought to be frightened but are willfully ignoring the consequences? Attunement backlash on a dreamer? Oh ... I know. A meeting with Blandine about a crisis threatening all the Marches, she attunes to Blandine so she can find Blandine for little violent get-together afterwards, and when the problem's solved she backlashes an attempt to remove an attunement to *Blandine*. Belial - Can't see this one. Fleurity - Realizes that if you stick to taking drugs in non-harmful ways, the people can take them for longer? Furfur - Gets corporeally killed by Michael/ Gabriel/ David/ Laurence/ Janus/ Dominic in a supremely cool fashion, is impressed, and wants to be just like his idol. Haagenti - Falls in love with Eli's cooking (so *that's* what Eli's been up to....) Kobal - Decides it would be Funny. Or he gets God's joke. Kronos - I don't think this is possible, but if it is in your campaign, maybe it could start with the realization that Fate requires that victims have a Destiny to fail. Magog - Can't see this one. Malphas - Not sure. Mammon - Finds some way to put everything he is on the market and gets leveraged into bankruptcy and bought outright by Marc? Realizes that economics isn't a zero sum game? Nybbas - You could do this with Eli too, if you stipulate that (1) creativitiy can be addictive, (2) Nybbas is one of the people susceptible to said addiction, and (3) Eli got him hooked. Saminga - Implausible. Maybe, though, he gets the idea into his head that things have to be *born* before they can *die* and then he goes overboard working from there. Valefor - Hm.... He wants to steal something more from Heaven and plans to be Redeemed and Fall again, and gets carried away? Vapula - I feel there should be a way, but I'm not sure what. Maybe after fighting with Lightning about something and failing to make any progress he decides that God favors them? Or of course he could Divine Intervention on Emptiness. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 07:18:48 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! At 23:31 06/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > > > >For those who care, it's archived at Jo Hart's webpage (the URL escapes >me at the moment) alongisde her fabulous essay on Balseraphim. And Kevin >Walsh did an equally good writeup on Calabim. I wonder now if I should >post my thoughts on Habbalah? It would keep the trend going. > I guess that's my cue to give the URL which is http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN.html - have fun! (The reason that Casca and Kevin are the only people to have stuff up there apart from me (and a few links to Maya's stuff) is that I am supremely picky :) ) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 07:23:15 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff At 01:04 07/12/98 -0600, you wrote: > >Vapula - I feel there should be a way, but I'm not sure what. Seems very unlikely. Even if he decided that he wanted to try it as an experiment, I bet Heaven would just collectively say 'NO. Go away!' jo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 23:59:16 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > > > One last question, since we see on occasional Archangel fall, how about > > seeing a Demon Prince redeem. I think Lilith should be just about primed > > for redemption, personally. I think it's a product of changing values. In > > ancient times, when women were considered property, somebody advocating the > > freedom of women and minorities would be seen as evil. In more enlightened > > times today, this seems to be a more noble goal, and I can easily see > > Archangel Lilith. Anybody else? Kind of like a reverse of Khalid, I was > > thinking of creating a Demon Prince of Atheists redeem to become the > > Archangel of Tolerance. > > Frankly, I'd rather see Lilith find a way to keep her Word while > renouncing her status as a Demon Prince, proceding to skate on the edge of > the war and trading with both sides. IMO, she's been *too* obviously > lightened to be much fun to play with the idea of Redemption. > > Andrealphus - Novalis and/or Eli convince him that sex is more fun if > there are friendly emotions involved. Always possible. What is he, an Impudite? I doubt he'll ever fully redeem, but he might learn the lessons the Redneck Gaijin speaks of in DV a bit early... > Asmodeus - The amusement value would be tremendous. Hm. Maybe if he > went Cherubic on failing to remove an attunement to a > captured angel? Possible. I suspect, though, you'd need the equivalent of say, Valpula rolling a 111 on trying to emptininess him. Show him the lie that is inside about the Game, right? Of course that isn't likely to happen... > Baal - Well, prophecy contradicts it, but what if he were genuinely > convinced that God is omnipotent ... and therefore God is > always right? I really doubt Baal redeeming for a while, unless he starts acting unselfishly towards his troops, which is a possibilty. He might rack up dissonance without knowing it, and then *foom* make the extra step (yeah, right...) > Beleth - This one's hard.... Maybe if she decided that inspiring > fear is more interesting when the person *knows* they ought > to be frightened but are willfully ignoring the > consequences? Attunement backlash on a dreamer? Oh ... I > know. A meeting with Blandine about a crisis threatening > all the Marches, she attunes to Blandine so she can find > Blandine for little violent get-together afterwards, and > when the problem's solved she backlashes an attempt to > remove an attunement to *Blandine*. *nods* > Belial - Can't see this one. Set-up: Gabe and the Burning Boy somehow are Invoked at the Same Time, in the Same Place. Gabe rolls a 111 on her Smite, and Belial flubs whatever roll he makes with a 111 to. *poof* Holy Fire burns away the illusions in Belial's mind. Or nukes him. ^_^ of course, archangels and princes get whatever rolls they want, but... ^_^... anyway, I could see Belial turn into a real fanatical Olfanim of Gabby if he did get redeemed. He gets to burn now- burn those who flee justice! > Fleurity - Realizes that if you stick to taking drugs in non-harmful > ways, the people can take them for longer? Or Novvy gets him into some natural highs? Maybe Eli makes a super-drug, with a catch... Heh. > Furfur - Gets corporeally killed by Michael/ Gabriel/ David/ > Laurence/ Janus/ Dominic in a supremely cool fashion, is > impressed, and wants to be just like his idol. LOL. Could so see that, especially by Michael. Another one- Michael could 'jam' with him on electric guitar. I mean, the whole Symphony knows that Michael's the best with an axe... ^_- > Haagenti - Falls in love with Eli's cooking (so *that's* what Eli's > been up to....) *giggles* That would ROCK! > Kobal - Decides it would be Funny. Or he gets God's joke. *laughs* I like the Redneck Gaijin's version of this in DV (again) except without Haagenti eating him. Besides... Kobal's getting bored with Dark Humor. Maybe he'll try light for a change? > Kronos - I don't think this is possible, but if it is in your > campaign, maybe it could start with the realization that > Fate requires that victims have a Destiny to fail. Merge with Yves at the End of the End. > Magog - Can't see this one. Haven't read his stuff yet. > Malphas - Not sure. Difficult... But think about it. Factions, towards evil, is divisive. Towards good, it's the united forces of many working in harmony- far more powerful than divisiness. > Mammon - Finds some way to put everything he is on the market and > gets leveraged into bankruptcy and bought outright by Marc? > Realizes that economics isn't a zero sum game? Or realizes that by becoming One With God he *CAN* own everything? ^_^ > Nybbas - You could do this with Eli too, if you stipulate that (1) > creativitiy can be addictive, (2) Nybbas is one of the > people susceptible to said addiction, and (3) Eli got him > hooked. Or if he ever realizes that he's the window dressing, and everything he works for will be destroyed if he wins. (Props to the RG again.) > Saminga - Implausible. Maybe, though, he gets the idea into his head > that things have to be *born* before they can *die* and then > he goes overboard working from there. I'm writing this up. Basically, Meet Joe Black. Saminga gets curious about how humans live. He falls in love with a human. This love, though he can't have it returned, Redeems him with the Unselfish act of letting her go and restoring the original mind to the body. > Valefor - Hm.... He wants to steal something more from Heaven and > plans to be Redeemed and Fall again, and gets carried away? Or maybe he's Janus in disguise and never fell? > Vapula - I feel there should be a way, but I'm not sure what. Maybe > after fighting with Lightning about something and failing to > make any progress he decides that God favors them? Or of > course he could Divine Intervention on Emptiness. > Well, yes. That's about it, unless it happens as a REALLY twisted side-effect of one of his experiments... > Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:45:36 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else > > use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it > > -is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't > > matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. > > It is your opinion that sexual intercourse is in a fundamental way > different from pushing a broom across the floor, due to what you call > 'intimacy'. However, I doubt many prostitutes think of themselves as being > intimate with their clients. Certainly less so than, say, psychiatrists or > social workers, or even masseurs. I didn't mean that prostitues are intimate with their customers, but that the sexual act is an act of intimacy, which is "perverted", if you like, by selling it to someone you don't know. It's the lack of intimacy in an act that usually requires supreme intimacy that's bad, I think. > However, I think that part of Dominic's role in the game is to have strict > beliefs that are not shared by the 'flakier' archangels (including, in > this case, Michael :-) So he may well rule that all sorts of funny things > are wrong, possibly including drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, > heretical thinking, the Spice Girls, or for all I know sausages. As > always, GM fills the canon gap. If any Archangel is going to be the kind > of 'knee-jerk reactionary' that Mr. Edelstein so dislikes, it is Dominic, > because he Knows He Is Right. This I certainly don't agree with. If you have knee-jerk reactions against - -anything-, fun or not, you can't be Just, which is what Dominic is trying to be. He could be deluding himself, but he'll get a good enough check digit on anyone who says anything about it that it would be -really- difficult to keep the illusion for long. And IMO, he certainly doesn't know he's right. That's one of his greatest problems - what if he does something wrong? That's his greatest nightmare, I think... > IMC, Dominic is reasonably sensible, but he still doesn't share all my > personal opinions, and has different ideas from me about justice. In > short, don't make all your archangels agree with you personally, because > your players *will* notice. Oh, certainly. But it's -really- difficult to make someone who you find it very difficult to sympathize with appear sympathetic. Like Laurence. :P Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1039 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.