From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Dec 19 17:59:43 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 RAA14552 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:59:42 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA24387 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:46:18 -0600 Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:46:18 -0600 Message-Id: <199812192346.RAA24387@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 #1061 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Saturday, December 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1061 In this digest: Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Remnanats Re: IN> Humanity IN> FLUFF (Re: TSR (Was Acronyms)) Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: TSR (Was Acronyms)) Re: IN> Creating Archangels Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Malakim identifying demons Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place Re: IN> Malakim in their place ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:42:18 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 10:21:12AM -0800, Greg Jensen wrote: > I see very little actual difference between Habbalah and Malakim. Both > think they need to be total bastards for God. Actually, it's generally the Elohim, and to a lesser extent Seraphim and Ofanim, who have to be total bastards for God. Malakim often have oaths against all kinds of fun activities. As a demon, I have to say that killing demons isn't being a total bastard. Frequently, it's common sense. I suppose you could argue > that torturing and killing are somehow good things when done by the > Malakim, but that's going to be a hard sell. Not all Malakim torture. Some may have oaths against it. Yes, I know not all Malakim > are like that, and most probably are not. But you have to admit, there is > no shortage of bad apples spoiling their barrel. Ah well, if most Malakim aren't evil torturers, then all Malakim are evil. QED. > 1) Malakim never do anything wrong. Whatever you see a Malakite doing, you > can rest assured that he is acting completely good. The description of > Malakim in the main book dispelled that notion for me entirely. Hit > someone on the head with a 2X4 to see if he's mortal or not? If you read that vignette, you will notice that the Malakite had resonated it (with an implied check digit of 6). It was the Soldier observing that was listening for the disturbance. (I remember this, and haven't had my book in, oh, 6 months now.) They seem > like violent fanatics to me, just like the Habbalah. I suppose that description of the Habbalah is valid if you include emotional violence (though for some reason I can easily imagine a Habbalite sysadmin). > 2) Malakim are expected to do plenty of "dirty work," and to sometimes > cross that line that angels are not supposed to cross. As a result, they > have an inherent immunity to Falling, to keep Hell from getting them. Actually, it's because they really don't like Bad Things. And because of Uriel. Malakim are very intolerant of dissonance; more so even than Seraphim. If it weren't for the Tsayadim, I'd say that there were less Outcast Malakim than any other Choir. They > are given more leeway than any other angel because they need to be able to > act cruelly at times. Don't be silly. Elohim and Ofanim have to do nasty things if it's what has to be done. Malakim are more usually faulted for being overly idealistic. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 98 11:09:11 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > I see very little actual difference between Habbalah and Malakim. Both > think they need to be total bastards for God. I suppose you could argue > that torturing and killing are somehow good things when done by the > Malakim, but that's going to be a hard sell. Yes, I know not all Malakim > are like that, and most probably are not. But you have to admit, there is > no shortage of bad apples spoiling their barrel. > The problem stems from the fact that Malakim do not Fall. Ever. There are > really only two explanations for that: > 1) Malakim never do anything wrong. Whatever you see a Malakite doing, you > can rest assured that he is acting completely good. The description of > Malakim in the main book dispelled that notion for me entirely. Hit > someone on the head with a 2X4 to see if he's mortal or not? They seem > like violent fanatics to me, just like the Habbalah. > 2) Malakim are expected to do plenty of "dirty work," and to sometimes > cross that line that angels are not supposed to cross. As a result, they > have an inherent immunity to Falling, to keep Hell from getting them. They > are given more leeway than any other angel because they need to be able to > act cruelly at times. They are not the most moral of angels, quite the > contrary. They are the ultimate anti-heroes, mean and vicious people > fighting for the side of the Angels. > > Greg Jensen I think your making that way too simple. The Malakim are like a police/military force. They don't really have peace time uses. Remember, in In Nomine, the angels aren't as flexible as humans. They break things and punish the unjust because that's what they do. Some do it in fairly peacful ways, like Novalis' servitors. To stick them in the fanatic category is a bit much. Dominic's Malakim are the least likely to act in the manner that you described. Laurence's and Micheal's would give the opponent every oppurtunity to straighten up. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:25:23 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place At 09:58 AM 12/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >I really don't think genocide is the way to describe what Uriel did. >Remember that he alowed entire pantheons to leave the Corporeal realm >unscathed (the spirits of the Australian Dreamtime, for instance). Just >that fact leads me to believe that he did try and continued to try other >methods to resolve the Crusade; it's just that those methods turned into >gunboat diplomacy at times. So everyone with a minority religious view was either killed or forced to leave? Sounds like a great guy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:57:50 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > like violent fanatics to me, just like the Habbalah. > 2) Malakim are expected to do plenty of "dirty work," and to sometimes > cross that line that angels are not supposed to cross. As a result, they > have an inherent immunity to Falling, to keep Hell from getting them. They > are given more leeway than any other angel because they need to be able to > act cruelly at times. They are not the most moral of angels, quite the > contrary. They are the ultimate anti-heroes, mean and vicious people > fighting for the side of the Angels. > This is close to how I run Malakim. Malakim in my game have no immunity from falling - it's just impossible for them to. If a Malakim Falls, they evaporate, because the opposite of their Choir attunement of honor is betrayal itself. You can't build a resonance based on betrayal out of someone whose resonance is based on honor in the same way you can build lies out of a truth-spirit like the Seraphim or destruction out of protection-spirits like the Cherubim. All of the demonic bands, and yes, this includes the Lilim, have a positive thing that they act to build, be it lies, corruption, hatred, whatever. A Malakim's preoccupation with honor has no opposite. Malakim therefore can disappear...but not fall. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:37:58 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place At 06:42 PM 12/18/98 +0000, you wrote: >I suppose you could argue >> that torturing and killing are somehow good things when done by the >> Malakim, but that's going to be a hard sell. >Not all Malakim torture. Some may have oaths against it. Yes, and I said as much below. >Yes, I know not all Malakim >> are like that, and most probably are not. But you have to admit, there is >> no shortage of bad apples spoiling their barrel. > >Ah well, if most Malakim aren't evil torturers, then all Malakim are evil. >QED. What? I don't believe I said anything even similar. >> 1) Malakim never do anything wrong. Whatever you see a Malakite doing, you >> can rest assured that he is acting completely good. The description of >> Malakim in the main book dispelled that notion for me entirely. Hit >> someone on the head with a 2X4 to see if he's mortal or not? > >If you read that vignette, you will notice that the Malakite had resonated >it (with an implied check digit of 6). It was the Soldier observing that >was listening for the disturbance. (I remember this, and haven't had my >book in, oh, 6 months now.) He still wasn't acting like the epitome of virtue and kindness. >> 2) Malakim are expected to do plenty of "dirty work," and to sometimes >> cross that line that angels are not supposed to cross. As a result, they >> have an inherent immunity to Falling, to keep Hell from getting them. > >Actually, it's because they really don't like Bad Things. And because of >Uriel. Malakim are very intolerant of dissonance; more so even than >Seraphim. If it weren't for the Tsayadim, I'd say that there were less >Outcast Malakim than any other Choir. However, many "bad things" don't give Malakim dissonance, so they can still get away with a lot. >They >> are given more leeway than any other angel because they need to be able to >> act cruelly at times. > >Don't be silly. Elohim and Ofanim have to do nasty things if it's what has >to be done. Malakim are more usually faulted for being overly idealistic. But, in their idealism, they often feel they can do no wrong. This leads them to do things without considering the moral implications, because if the Malakite does it, it must be good. And I realize I'm overgeneralizing here, and that not nearly all Malakim fit this description. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:49:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remnanats At 3:51 AM +0000 12/18/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >What happens to a Kyriotate or Shedite who loses all their Celestial >forces? This is in the archives, I'm *sure*. Nevertheless, here goes again. #1: if they're not in a vessel, and not a Kyrio of War or the Sword or the Wind (!!), they are dispersed into the Symphony. Blpt. Dead. #2: Shedim cannot engage in celestial combat *AND* be in a host. #3: if they have Forces possessing something (and haven't lost enough Forces to make them have to de-possess that host), they merge into the host, permanently displacing the host-consciousness into the Marches. Most Kyrios are too responsible to do this. >P 68 of IN (just before Loss of Corporeal Forces) says "A Celestial who is >completely lacking in one type of Force gains a Discord of that type" - So >does a remnant begining the game start with some Celstial discord? No. It is the process of losing all their CelForces that makes a Remnant. Once they have lost those CelForces, they can no longer engage in celestial combat, and therefore cannot gain soul hits enough to "lose" another Force-that's-not-there. They can only have this happen for Ethereal and Corporeal Forces. >Also p68 of IN "Resonance involving Perception simply don't affect him" - >what exactly does that mean? A Seraph cannot sense truth from him. A Lilim cannot read his Needs. A Cherub cannot attune to him. (I wouldn't let Djinn do so either.) An Elohite cannot read his emotions. A Mercurian gets no sense of political relationships from him or about him. This does imply that a Kyrio or Shedite could possess him, though... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:43:35 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Humanity At 3:55 AM +0000 12/18/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >The Humanity attunement (Servitor Attunement of Asmodeus IN p161) has been >pussling me for a while: >"This attunement lets a demon pass as a human under any circumstance, to >anyone - except Lucifer" >What happens under the following circumstances: > A Balseraph using this attunement is inspected by a Malakite using their >resonance who gets a check digit of 6, The Malakite's resonance is fuzzed enough that he can only sense this is a very selfish being. >Someone detects they have more than forces than a human could have (using >aura glasses [LR p51], They seem to have 6-7 Forces. (There is a Soldier Bal of the Game in Night Music -- the humans around her think she's a Soldier of God.) >someone sees they have 16+ essence in them, a Seraph >of Eli infers they have a stat above 10 by using their servitor attunement, >etc, etc), >The user has the aura discord, Muted. Basically, this one is a GM Fiat. If you, the GM, choose to have some Discords or circumstances let this attunment be negated, then you should tell the PCs and write those down. (The Game knows many of the rules!) But as written -- they are human and resonances will only be able to find human-style information. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:51:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> FLUFF (Re: TSR (Was Acronyms)) At 12:16 AM -0500 12/18/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >>:-) Actually, I think that TSR is actually what TSR stands for nowadays. [...] >"Tactical Studies Rules", actually. > >>Perhaps some crusty old wargamer of Michael on the list will know... :-) > >I'm not a wargamer, nor a Servitor of Michael, and I hope I'm not >particularly crusty.... Nope, chewy. Mmmmm, spouse! - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:57:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place At 10:21 AM -0800 12/18/98, Greg Jensen wrote: >I see very little actual difference between Habbalah and Malakim. Both >think they need to be total bastards for God. [...] >They are the ultimate anti-heroes, mean and vicious people >fighting for the side of the Angels. The Malakim would argue with you, but the Habbalah would all nod sagely. They, like Malakim, have re-fledged from a previous state. (Never mind that no Malakim have spontaneously manifested since the Fall.) They, like Malakim, serve God with their hands gloved in blood to the elbows. They, like Malakim, cannot Fall... - --Beth, Habbalite's Advocate for the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:54:53 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: TSR (Was Acronyms)) > >I'm not a wargamer, nor a Servitor of Michael, and I hope I'm not > >particularly crusty.... > > Nope, chewy. Mmmmm, spouse! > *Em waggles a finger* NO BITING! There is to be no biting, dying, or summoning of demons, or you'll be sent to Time Out! - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:26:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Creating Archangels Matthew Stein wrote: > Knowledge of someone's truename gives you power over them and so > God submerged His name so no one knows it? That'd be a pretty > nifty trick, and relatively in tune with Biblical sources. God > never identifies himself, and the Torah never refers to God as > anything other than Lord (Adonai) or God (El). The Torah also refers to Him by the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH," which is usually taken to be His real name, but without the vowels that would tell you how to actually pronounce it. The popular guess for the pronunciation is "Yahweh" and popular guesses for the meaning include "He Who Is," "He Who Becomes," and "He Who Makes." I sometimes picture a meeting between ancient nomadic Hebrews and some other nomads. At some point, the conversation turns to religion: "Our patron god is He Who Fertilizes the Goats. Who's yours?" "Absolute Being." "... Oh. ... How nice. Well, what kind of goats to you breed?" Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 98 13:32:35 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > > At 09:58 AM 12/18/98 -0400, you wrote: > > >I really don't think genocide is the way to describe what Uriel did. > >Remember that he alowed entire pantheons to leave the Corporeal realm > >unscathed (the spirits of the Australian Dreamtime, for instance). Just > >that fact leads me to believe that he did try and continued to try other > >methods to resolve the Crusade; it's just that those methods turned into > >gunboat diplomacy at times. > > So everyone with a minority religious view was either killed or forced to > leave? Sounds like a great guy. You might be confusing reality with IN. In the game Uriel has a pretty good hunch that God is the only thing worthy of any adoration. It (gender neutral) then removes the oposition who does not deserve this. What does minority have to do with anything? Remember the angels have "special knowledge". They can't be treated like us. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:52:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place > So everyone with a minority religious view was either killed or > forced to leave? Sounds like a great guy. As I understand it, it wasn't humans with minority religious VIEWS, but Ethereal beings who were religious FIGURES (plus their Ethereal followers), and not in the minority at the time, who were the objects of Uriel's attack. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:59:43 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place Nick Jost wrote on 18 December 1998 22:59 >> >> At 09:58 AM 12/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >I really don't think genocide is the way to describe what Uriel did. >> >Remember that he alowed entire pantheons to leave the Corporeal realm >> >unscathed (the spirits of the Australian Dreamtime, for instance). Just >> >that fact leads me to believe that he did try and continued to try other >> >methods to resolve the Crusade; it's just that those methods turned into >> >gunboat diplomacy at times. >> >> So everyone with a minority religious view was either killed or forced to >> leave? Sounds like a great guy. > >You might be confusing reality with IN. In the game Uriel has a pretty good >hunch that God is the only thing worthy of any adoration. It (gender neutral) >then removes the oposition who does not deserve this. (Assuming God is what God seems to be) God does not need adoration or worship the only thing that is important is that people live "good" lives & it is quite possible to follow a non-montheistic religion and still live a good life. Also what did creatures like unicorns and fairies do to deseve slaying/banishment? Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:38:32 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place Richard Gant wrote on 18 December 1998 >On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> I guess you're probably right that the only way Uriel could concieve of >> dealing with the problem he saw was the Crusade, but I just can't condone >> such genocide except as the final resort to a horrendously problematic >> situation and maybe Uriel saw it as a horrendously problematic situation >> but I don't think he tried other methods. > >I really don't think genocide is the way to describe what Uriel did. >Remember that he alowed entire pantheons to leave the Corporeal realm >unscathed (the spirits of the Australian Dreamtime, for instance). Just >that fact leads me to believe that he did try and continued to try other >methods to resolve the Crusade; it's just that those methods turned into >gunboat diplomacy at times. Fine, maybe genocide was possible the wrong word - maybe comparing it to "racial cleansing" would make my point better. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 10:52:56 +0900 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Neopaganism >>>Neo-paganism Is most likely sponsored by Novalis, Blandine and Yves, and by none on the Infernal side, there are no corruptive influences in Wicca and such, IRL neway.<<< No corruptive influences? What, are all Wiccans saints? I guess you've never met a fanatical Wiccan, but I sure have. Quite aside from all the factions that Jo alluded to, Wicca and all the other neopagan religions are no less susceptible than any other religion to stupidity, chicanery and fanaticism, and diabolicals can certainly find plenty of angles to work on in a pagan circle, just as they can find ways to work their will with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. >>>And since they concentrate more on archetypes and less on actual worship i doubt you could link them directly to the Ethereals<<< Some of them may focus on archetypes, but a lot of them certainly do actually worship a personified spirit. Even those who supposedly focus on archetypes are probably no more successful than many Catholics, who supposedly aren't supposed to worship anyone but God, but many of whom do in fact worship (in any real sense of the word) Mary, various saints, etc. >>>Hmmm, :I, that was not cool, nor funny, if your going to insult other peoples religious beliefs in such a way then you can go somewhere else, it wont be tolerated here.<<< Oh, you really shouldn't go there. You want to be the latest in a short and disillusioned line of people who've argued that it's OK to parody or rewrite Christianity, Islam and Judaism for game purposes, but that PC religions like neopaganism should be left untouched? And you don't really believe that what you will or won't tolerate has any meaning on the list, do you? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:27:43 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 11:26:17AM +0100, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > They aren't necessarily going to get away with it. It seems to me that you > > go to Hell is you get close enough to your Destiny, and likewise with > > Hell. > > Still, he could do far worse things than kicking dogs and still not go to > Hell, because he wasn't getting close to his Fate. I'm pretty sure that if someone's Fate is to kick dogs repeatedly, they're not going to do anything worse than that. That's what the definition of Fate is: the lowest depth you can sink to. If Hitler had just > murdered his parents, would he have gone to Hell? > Is murdering one's parents worse than orchestrating the deaths of millions? > Picking a little nit: it's not whether you believe it's right or wrong, > but whether you act selfishly or unselfishly, I think. It isn't always the > same thing. > I find it difficult to distinguish these. This is probably a matter of my definitions. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 13:04:22 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 11:26:17AM +0100, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > If Hitler had just > > murdered his parents, would he have gone to Hell? > > > Is murdering one's parents worse than orchestrating the deaths of > millions? Uhm... I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I meant that murdering one's parents would be bad enough to send pretty much anyone to Hell, but since Hitler's Fate was on such a grand scale, would he have been sent to Hell for "only" murdering his old folks? 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:48:53 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Malakim identifying demons If I remember correctly, the sample Malakite in the rule book did not simply go around randomly hitting humans to see if they rang the symphonic chimes. He had good reason to believe he was dealing with a demon *before* he hit him. First, he said the person put up more of a fight than a human (a Malakite warrior would recognize this, and demons certainly would hit harder and take more damage than a human), and secondly, he said he'd resonated the person as a "sink of selfishness," which I interpret in-game as his having rolled a check digit of 6. And when he actually hit the demon with a two-by-four, with a blow that would have severely injured or killed a human, his well-supported theory was vindicated. (Mind you, I have known people who *do* play Malakim this way. But I don't think it's justified by the book.) Janet Anderson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 09:19:25 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place At 11:59 PM 12/18/98 -0000, you wrote: > >Also what did creatures like unicorns and fairies do to deseve >slaying/banishment? > >Ramesh > > Well, I don't know what legends you follow, but both creatures wantonly killed humans in certain sources. Unicorns a bit less so, but fairies? Certainly if you follow some of the myths, they were terribly dangerous to humans. Heck, if you follow almost any of the original myths, even the best of the good folk were a threat to humans by their very presence. Many were much, much worse. Purity Now For The Future. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:12:58 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Sean McCarthy wrote: > At 11:59 PM 12/18/98 -0000, you wrote: > > > >Also what did creatures like unicorns and fairies do to deseve > >slaying/banishment? > > Well, I don't know what legends you follow, but both creatures wantonly > killed humans in certain sources. Unicorns a bit less so, but fairies? > Certainly if you follow some of the myths, they were terribly dangerous to > humans. Heck, if you follow almost any of the original myths, even the best > of the good folk were a threat to humans by their very presence. Many were > much, much worse. And more importantly, they were on their way out in terms of belief when Uriel went on his crusade. Why is this important? 1) fewer believers means more marginalized believers 2) more marginalized believers mean angrier believers 3) angrier believers -with actual ethereals to call upon- means supernatural havoc This is why, I imagine, Michael just sort of looked the other way and said "Terrible, terrible, well, someone will look into it." It also has the game advantage of making those ethereals less likely to want to storm reality by force, turning them into cosmic hustlers always looking for just a bit more Essence. I like it. See: http://chronic.lpl.arizona.edu/~corleyj/angels/ethereals.html for more on how they're treated in my game. Jason onwards ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 15:44:48 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in their place At 01:32 PM 12/18/98 PST, you wrote: >You might be confusing reality with IN. In the game Uriel has a pretty good >hunch that God is the only thing worthy of any adoration. It (gender neutral) >then removes the oposition who does not deserve this. > >What does minority have to do with anything? Remember the angels have "special >knowledge". They can't be treated like us. Then why do no two angels seem to agree about their hunches about God? I'm sure Novalis and Eli would have disagreed with Uriel about what God really wanted. Asmodeus probably would have agreed with Uriel. I think the whole point of IN actually was that angels and demons actually can be treated much like us. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1061 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.