From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Feb 10 10:24:59 1998 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 KAA03957 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:24:59 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA27270 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:01:50 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:01:50 -0600 Message-Id: <199802101601.KAA27270@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 #617 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 Tuesday, February 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 617 In this digest: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name)y Re: IN> Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Greek gods Re: IN> More PBeM Madness Re: IN>PBEM Casting Call IN> Lilim and Reproduction IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Innocence Attunements Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts Re: IN> More PBeM Madness Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty IN> Baal and the end of the war Re: IN> Innocence attunements Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Baal and the end of the war Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:08:38 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name)y At 11:22 AM +0000 2/9/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >> >> > (Now that I've given myself nightmares with this extension of a Word's >> > power, I'm going to carefully refrain from thinking about the sort of >> > things Baal and Michael can come up with when they're bored.) [...] >Starting with Baal. Ever noticed that Baal's Word is "the War" as opposed >to War? [...] >Now think carefully about the implications of this. Corrupting angels is >obviously a major gain for the War, so Baal has a natural resonance for >corrupting angels. So, faced with a PC-level non-Malakite angel, Baal >could probably click his fingers and make them Fall. This would probably depend on the GM. It could be argued that there has to be a *choice* for an angel to Fall -- and therefore Baal can't just Drop one. Unless he can convince the angel that it *wants* to Fall. (And when you're a Balseraph Prince...) Which is probably what I'd do, because (scary and chilling as it is) the idea of Princes being able to do that *without thought* (or without...seduction...) is just too creepy. But that is certainly a valid approach... And he *is* a Balseraph. Hm. To paraquote some filk: "Why do you think they call it 'snake oil'?" Be very careful not to have any self-doubts with Baal around. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:13:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty At 2:53 PM +0000 2/9/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >> >> 1. Corrupting Angels is making them meet their Fate. >> 2. Free will does not allow ANYONE to snap their fingers and make >> someone evil. > >The question of whether free will exists in the IN universe is an >unresolved one. I love canon doubt and uncertainty. >And I would also point out that Shedim can do that sort >of thing, and indeed must. Ah, but here's a thing to think upon... What happens to the "corrupted" soul? Do all Shedite-ridden souls go to Hell? Have they become that selfish *automatically*? Or might one *reject* the evil that was done while under the influence, and repent, even while dying? Maybe this is what the Judgment pair at Hellmouth Gate are there for... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:57:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction At 7:46 PM -0500 2/8/98, Peter Frederick wrote: >>Archbeth Commented >>Yeah. I suppose that the addition of pure Forces can work... >>I wouldn't let PCs *count* on it, though. (I'm not entirely >>happy with the reproduction section, myself. It's good, it >>works, but I had an entirely different model in my head, so >>I'm probably always going to be a little grumpy about it. ) > >Throw my 2c in with you on that, whether as LE or GM or just list >commentator :) . It makes one less thing that divides Angels from Humans. >Angel creation by Archangels is one thing, but any two angels just getting >it together and producing offspring, That's the thing -- they don't. They require a Superior to stick the donated Forces together to make a critter. My own personal notion was that 2-20 (or whatever) celestials might be able to get together and stick their own Forces together. Most of the time, you get a reliever. And you're down a Force or two. Which are *not* going to come back freely. And the NPC is *NOT* your servant. (Yeah, you can go off and make fifty billion implings. And, selfish things that demonlings are, they'll probably toast you and run wild.) ["You want to go off, sacrifice 30 points' worth of Forces, for an NPC that you can't control? *Thank* you!"] I liked that one 'cause it didn't take personal intervention from a Superior and nicely accounted for #1: relievers/demonlings, and #2: explained how some very old celestials wind up with only 9 Forces -- they have kids occasionally. (Especially those Creationers!) Of course, I figured that celestials didn't have anything much in the way of a *parental* instinct -- demons would do it mostly 'cause they thought they could bully the demonling into being useful (or 'cause their Superior ordered them to lose some Forces or be seen as a threat...); angels would do it because they joy in creation. In Hell, demonlings would run around and do survival of the fittest -- ignored, preyed upon, or used by older demons as the demons saw fit. In Heaven, relievers would flitter around with Big Eyes and run little errands, finding the Word they fit best with. Just about *every* angel would look upon the baby-angels with a friendly eye, looking out for them like umpteen jillion aunts and uncles. So in some ways, it would be more "human" -- doing it themselves (in celestial form only, thanks...) -- but in others, it would be more alien. Once the kid's created, celestials would be only slightly more parental than, say, angelfish. (Who are very parental -- for a while. If they don't forget and eat the eggs or fry. But they don't *cuddle*.) But that's what I thought would be most cool (and explain celestial spirits and low-Force old celestials at the same time). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:04:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Greek gods At 6:53 PM +0000 2/9/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >> >> Well, Heaven and Hell has stats for Thor and Loki. (a very *weak* Thor, I >> might add) > >You're kidding. In p96 the Marches, it says clearly "Thor was the only >important Aes lost in the Crusade." If this isn't an accidental >contradiction, you've been spoilering us. Hm. Indeed. Actually, what it *says* is "[Thor] was last seen [...] holding off six Malakim." Make of that what you will... - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:33:36 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> More PBeM Madness >I will also be starting a PBeM game soon based on White Wolf's World of Darkness, >but incorporating In Nomine characters to play with a system that I developed. So I can just -feel- the angst. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:45:29 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN>PBEM Casting Call >Auditions are now open for parts in an upcoming Querent film. >To make an appointment with the casting directior, simply respond to >this notice and await further contact. > >Space is limited, first come, first serve. Okay, I'm game. What's the story? Armand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:11:30 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim and Reproduction >>>Reactions from the various Superiors range from Dominic, who doesn't like the idea, and expects a damn good reason, to Eli, who will always do it, no matter how bad an idea he thinks it is, and no matter who the couple is.<<< Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Eli might _consider_ helping any two celestials reproduce, but he certainly will *not* "always do it, no matter how bad an idea he thinks it is, and no matter who the couple is"! He's still an Archangel! - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:11:48 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty >>>Now think carefully about the implications of this. Corrupting angels is obviously a major gain for the War, so Baal has a natural resonance for corrupting angels. So, faced with a PC-level non-Malakite angel, Baal could probably click his fingers and make them Fall.<<< No -- if a Prince could make an angel Fall at will, he would. Although the undivided attention of a Prince dedicated to your Fall is probably more than most angels will be able to withstand for long, if their Archangel doesn't support them. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:24:55 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction > Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Eli might _consider_ helping any two > celestials reproduce, but he certainly will *not* "always do it, no > matter how bad an idea he thinks it is, and no matter who the couple is"! > He's still an Archangel! > We think. :) *waggle eyebrows* - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:41:02 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction >Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Eli might _consider_ helping any two >celestials reproduce, but he certainly will *not* "always do it, no >matter how bad an idea he thinks it is, and no matter who the couple is"! >He's still an Archangel! He's the AA of Creation: Angelic Players Guide p.84 "Eli is the exception, of course - he would never refuse to help create new life." Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 19:09:54 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction >>Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Eli might _consider_ helping any >two >>celestials reproduce, but he certainly will *not* "always do it, no >>matter how bad an idea he thinks it is, and no matter who the couple >is"! >>He's still an Archangel! > >He's the AA of Creation: > >Angelic Players Guide p.84 > >"Eli is the exception, of course - he would never refuse to help create >new life." > >Andrew Of Course, this begs the question: Do celestials fall under the definition of "life" ? This is the one thing that has bothered me about the possibilities of celestial reproduction. It anthropomorphizes them more than I think they should be. But hey, I rant on, Armand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:29:36 -0500 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Innocence Attunements Wow, I seemed to have accidentally picked up the Polarize attunement... :) - ---- >Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:19:45 -0500 (EST) >From: "York H. Dobyns" >Subject: Re: IN> Innocence attunements > >neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) writes: > >>Here's something you could use for innocence attunements or distinctions. >> >>Vision of the Risen Self >> >>All humans are fallen, their innocence shattered by the disobedience of Adam >>and Eve. > >As others have noted, this is very much the Catholic/Christian notion of >Original Sin, and *not* supported by the version of Adam and Eve >presented in APG. Yeah, but I found most of the stuff in the APG to be fairly annoying and/or useless for my campaign. The APG had the feel of a modern trying to write a biblical story, and SJ and company -- cool as they are -- can't compete with 3000 years of wigged-out mystics trying to one-up each other. I shall rant now: I figure that for my game I'm just going to have to tell my players to ignore the APG completely, since everything it burns into canon is completely wrong IMC. I'd already established how angels and demons reproduce, I had already figured out how Genesis related to corporeal history, I had set up Heavenly organizations along very different lines, and in general it did bad things to my game. But Em's already done the canon rant, so I'll shift direction. The problem I keep running into is that 20th century Western liberalism is seeping into the game, which is not a worldview terribly compatible with the worldview of St. John the Mushroom Head. (To put it more ecumenically, I want the deep fringe beliefs of the Abrahamic religions to hold the ontological high ground in the IN universe.) I don't want to say it's wrong to look at the old myths in a modern way, but it should be done deliberately, and not because of an inability to empathize with the pre-modern view. IMHO the whole point of reworking a myth is to double the emotional impact by pushing both the modern *and* traditional hot-buttons. This is why the APG version of Genesis felt so watery and colorless to me, because it managed to miss /every single/ opportunity to evoke any sort of grandeur. Maybe someone will say that I can't really expect 3 pages in the APG to approach the strength of, say, _Paradise Lost_, which is the greatest epic ever written in the English language, or come near the majestic rythmn of the King James version of Genesis. You're probably right, but I can at least expect it to be on the same planet as Brust's _To Reign in Hell_ -- *and it's not*. Of course, I shall continue to buy the supplements, largely on the strength of James Cambias's Sorcery rules. (I know how to run James Blish's _Black Easter_ now, thanks to him.) Eventually he's bound to write some more for IN, and I want to help make sure that the book he contributes to exists. Rant ends now, and I feel a better, thanks. >One of the things I found most interesting about that >notion is how it shifts the whole focus from humans to celestials; the >human religions that contain the myth insist that humans (and their >disobedience) are the center of the whole issue, whereas the story the >celestials tell makes the *celestials'* inability to obey the >"hands-off" edict the crucial point. Appropriate, for a portrayal of the >celestial worldview. That's an interesting way of looking at things, and if you had made this point 3 months ago, I would have grabbed it gleefully. However, my campaign has coalesced to the point that it really does awful terrible things to my cosmology. Which is important; I need to know enough about the universe to decide if Michael thinks he is the Messiah, to pick an example out of my hat. >>For the very reasonable cost of 7 Essence, an angel can show a >>human the glory God intended for him. This vision lasts only an instant, >>and can be shown to a human only once in his lifetime, but its effects are >>lasting and profound. >> >>The human is immediately freed from any Infernal resonance or attunement he >>is suffering from, and gains a permanent +3 bonus to resist demonic powers. > >It sounds like a great way to incapacitate Hellsworn: one zap, and any >Attunements they've labored for disappear. Or did you intend to mean >that it removes the *effects* of *other people's* attunements *on* the >victim? It removes any Infernal effect the human is suffering from at that instant. Shedites are bounced out, Geases break, Dark Desires are overcome, and so on. Of course the demon can try again later, but that particular human gets a +3 on his resistance roll against that and all other infernal resonances and attunements from any demon. Conceptually, it doesn't do anything to the demon. It just frees the human and makes him harder to affect from then on. Angels can't use it all the time because it a) makes a loud noise that attracts all sorts of attention, and b) leaves the angel without the Essence to deal with the attention. It's no worse than a Servitor of Judgement calling down Heavenly Judgement on a demon and teleporting away, IMHO. (This is the standard method of dealing with Shedim, once you get it out of the host. Shedim /fear/ the Kyriotates of Judgement.) - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:26:13 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts >On lFri, 6 Hippocrates 29 AT (Sat, 7 Feb 1998), at 03:48:52 EST, Stacy >Stroud wrote: >provisionally take your word for it. > >>David fits fairly well as the Vorlon Superior, with the dual emphasis on >>hard testing and communitarian values. > >Makes sense, based on what I've heard about the Vorlons. > When you see what the Vorlon's put Dalenn and Sheridan, through, I'd say that the Superior for most Vorlons (not Kosh) is Dominic. As to the Shadows, I'll go farther out on a limb and name their Superior as a Fallen David. There hard-sell take on Evoltion is like a twisted version of David's methods of toughening humanity. >>Despite his occasional Kyrio trick, >>I'd call Kosh a Cherub (which nicely illustrates the difference in social >>skills between high-divinity Cherubim and low-divinity Mercurians, in spite >>of their mutual focus on humans). > >How so? > >>Ulkesh (Kosh II) is either a >>stereotypically nasty Malakite, or one of those coldly manipulative Elohim >>that Beth occasionally talks about. >> >I think I'd go with the Elo theory, just because it dovetails with Frank >Lazar's thoughts below. > >>Lorien is Yves . . . or at least, he gave me more ideas on portraying Yves >>than anything else I've seen. >> >In which case, I can hardly wait until he shows up. > >>Any other ideas? >> >Not yet -- but dim notions about the Rangers. > >Then, at 10:11:52 EST, Frank Lazar wrote: >[...] >>with my respect for B5, I was going to stay out of this, but I couldn't >>help myself. :) >> >Hey -- it happens to the best of us. > >>Morden - 8 Force Soldier of an Lilim of Kronos. He knows how to make a >>deal and through him, many of met their Fate. >> >Another vote (besides my own) for Kronos. He actually makes *more* sense >to me, now I think about it, than any other potential Prinz that's been >mooted for Morden. Especially after this season's "The Very Long Night >of Londo Mollari." To me, the story Vir and Londo discuss in the epilog >implies that Londo had a Destiny brighter even than Sinclair's, but when >he accepted Morden's help, he started on the path to his Fate. > >>Kosh Elohim Servitor of Blandine. Picked up a note of Dissonance when >>he assumed Celestial Form to rescue Sheridan. Keeps himself hidden at all >>times. >> >So are Encounter Suits vessels or relics? > >>Kosh 2 Habbalite in service to Belial. >> >Or (to merge in Stacy's theories) just an overenthusiastic Mal, or a >highly dissonant Elo. > >>Sinclair/Valen Soldier in service of Yvves. >> >Makes some sense. > >>Sheridan Soldier in service of Michael. (Dominic is going to have a word >>about this "cult of personality". :) >> >Doubtless. > >>Lorien A Celestial from the Higher Heavens under strict limiations. >> >Indeed. > >>Elric and the TechnoMages Mercurian and Soldiers in service to Jean. >> >Having seen "Geometry of Shadows" last Friday, I can't argue with your >choice of Superior, though I'm not really sure how you conclude that >Elric is a Merky. If I had to pick a Choir for him, off the top of my >head, I'd say he's an Elo. > >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>| _ | >>| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | > >Did I mention that I've preserved this .sig in my collection? - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:22:00 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts >On lFri, 6 Hippocrates 29 AT (Sat, 7 Feb 1998), at 03:48:52 EST, Stacy >Stroud wrote: >> >>Kosh Elohim Servitor of Blandine. Picked up a note of Dissonance when >>he assumed Celestial Form to rescue Sheridan. Keeps himself hidden at all >>times. >> >So are Encounter Suits vessels or relics? > Relics --Walking Body Bags of course. :) >>Kosh 2 Habbalite in service to Belial. >> >Or (to merge in Stacy's theories) just an overenthusiastic Mal, or a >highly dissonant Elo. > Having watched In Beginning, I'd say that Dark Kosh Fell in between that time and the time that Sheridan met him. > > >>Elric and the TechnoMages Mercurian and Soldiers in service to Jean. >> >Having seen "Geometry of Shadows" last Friday, I can't argue with your >choice of Superior, though I'm not really sure how you conclude that >Elric is a Merky. If I had to pick a Choir for him, off the top of my >head, I'd say he's an Elo. Because of the supreme grasp he had of both Lando and the circumstances that surround him, plus the argument could be made for a prohibition of violence. I could see your point, but he's both not objective and any Elo that displayed that much passion would be knocking on Vapula's door rather soon, to do God's work of course. :) Think of the conversation he had and this quote from it. "I could warn you, but you will not listen. I could kill you, but another would take your place. So I do the only thing I can, I go away." > >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>| _ | >>| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | > >Did I mention that I've preserved this .sig in my collection? In case you wondering, the glyph is a combinaton of Amiga logos, THE computer for the aspiring Techno-Mage. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:39:44 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> [B5 SPOILERS] General thoughts > > >>Lorien A Celestial from the Higher Heavens under strict limiations. >> >Indeed. > Perhaps the War will only end when Yvves or Lorien (an even higher manifesation of God) calls both angels and demon to "come home" and promises not to abandon either one. :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:35:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> More PBeM Madness > >I will also be starting a PBeM game soon based on White Wolf's World of > Darkness, > >but incorporating In Nomine characters to play with a system that I > developed. So > Now that I've had a night to think of ruleslawyery questions, I'm going to ask some. Are you going to give Renegades, Outcasts and Calabim the points for their compulsory Discords? Will Renegades and Outcasts keep their attunements? Will Balseraphs of Fate get to be Seraphs? Will they get double dissonance if they screw up? Are there any Trads, Bloodlines, Clans, Choirs, Bands, Tribes or Crafts which are forbidden or discouraged? Are characters going to be made under the old systems and then converted or will they be made in a new way? Will angels and demons keep the higher attributes/lower skills balance relative to WOD supernaturals? Will you be generous with regard to artifacts, Choir attunements, Servitor attunements, Lores, etc? Will you require people to pay points for, par exemple, Area Knowledge: Gehenna for Servitors of the War? What is the likely life-span of an Orphan Forces Mage with the Lifesaver flaw and a love of extremely vulgar magick coupled with a complete incomprehension of how the supers in the WOD function? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:52:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty > >>>Now think carefully about the implications of this. Corrupting angels is > > obviously a major gain for the War, so Baal has a natural resonance for > corrupting angels. So, faced with a PC-level non-Malakite angel, Baal > could probably click his fingers and make them Fall.<<< > > > No -- if a Prince could make an angel Fall at will, he would. Although the > undivided attention of a Prince dedicated to your Fall is probably more > than most angels will be able to withstand for long, if their Archangel > doesn't support them. > Well, my interpretation is that he could do that sort of thing, but that he doesn't particularly want to. We are told that Baal has "a peculiar sense of honour". This implies that either he is eccentric due to personal eccentricities, due to Discord, or due to the effects of his Word. Guess which one I'm going to pick. Tangentially, I take it that Superiors can't remove their own Discord. Baal wants the War to continue, because without it he is nothing. So he has to be damned careful never to precipitate Armageddon, because to do so would be to end it one way or another, or at any rate to severely dampen it down, unless God goes contrary to form and nukes the Earth with the might of the Upper Heavens, which come to think of it would probably end the War there and then. So Baal has to be careful to general well, but not too well. If Baal were ever to get a massive advantage over Heaven, the pressure on him to start Armageddon might be too much to resist, and vice versa. So Baal doesn't take full advantage of his powers, skives off for personal duels with pitiful PC types who couldn't possibly stand against him, supports lunatics like Belial who are as dangerous to their own side as the enemy, and generally pisses about. This also explains why he dislikes Malphas and Kronos so much. Baal is in an infinite number of minds about Kronos, but it can be simplified to two basic threads. Either Kronos is a deadweight, which means he couldn't possibly be of any use to his plans, or Kronos is on a winner, in which case he must be stopped at all costs. And as for Malphas: he both weakens Baal's own forces and the Host. It's unpredictable, messes up his plans something awful, and worse still, Baal suspects that if anybody has the will and the ability to set off Armageddon, it's Malphas. In the meantime, both of them have far too much influence over Beleth, who might have the potential to unleash Armageddon, and would do so in a second if she was sure that she'd win and humanity would survive the battle. (I made most of this up this minute, but I think it's cool and makes sense.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia, suffering from the effects of his Truthful Discord again. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:18:38 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Baal and the end of the war >If Baal were ever to get a massive advantage over >Heaven, the pressure on him to start Armageddon might be too much to >resist, and vice versa. I think it is the vice versa that's the kicker. Now this will depend a lot on how you see the general balance of power between Heaven and Hell, but I tend to assume they are neck and neck, overall. That means that Baal is at full stretch just to keep things as they are because the one thing he really can't afford to do is actually lose the war. It would be much easier for him to keep a stalemate going if he was starting from a position of superiority -- 'accidentally' throw away a few crack legions here, send some agents out with orders to report a mixture of true and false info there. He could think of reasons to tell the other princes he wasn't ready for Armaggedon indefinitely (he is a Balseraph after all). Having said that, I see him as the ultimate wargamer. All his troops and resources are just lead pieces on a board to him. However much it might make sense to his personal power to prolong the war, he has a gamer's instinct and wants to win. He wants to definitively prove that his strategies are better than those of the opposition. (How many times have they replayed the battles of Austerlitz, Waterloo, Agincourt etc etc with 'live' pieces in Gehenna just so that he can prove that he could have won, whichever side he had been playing?) He has a private book which contains ratings for each officer, in terms of how much he thinks they can add or detract to the combat or defence ability of different types of unit. If he does have any spare time (after skiving off to cross steel with the odd hapless PC) he probably spends it holding his head in his hands and wondering why the other demon princes behave like a bunch of spoiled brats when there is a war going on ;) jo [Although actually, in the campaign I'm about to start, he has decided to do something about that] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:18:35 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Innocence attunements > VOTRS is >the Faustian Redemption distinction. >Comments? > >tom timberlake, Role of James the Stone Malakim > Heh, Redemption? *Sure* You've been reading too much Goethe };) Be Assured. We_have_him. - -- Jules - Now serving Peril. jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:20:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty David Edelstein wrote: > No -- if a Prince could make an angel Fall at will, he would. > Although the undivided attention of a Prince dedicated to your > Fall is probably more than most angels will be able to withstand > for long, if their Archangel doesn't support them. And the only reason I can imagine for an Archangel not supporting a servitor against such an attack is ignorance. Even if the servitor were stacked high with Discord, was a micron away from being Outcast, and was fresh from a crockery-throwing screaming match with its Archangel, I can't imagine an Archangel saying to such a servitor "To Hell with you" and *meaning* it. That would be giving resources to the enemy. Of course, they might KILL such a servitor rather than risk seeing it Fall... Hm. Well, I *can* think of one condition. "You are such a total screw-up, I think you'll do Hell more harm than good. Damn you. Now scram." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:24:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction David Edelstein wrote: > Eli might _consider_ helping any two celestials reproduce, but [...] Why two, by the way? Couldn't it be any arbitrary number? Especially for communitarian types like David's servitors. I can see a couple of dozen of them taking up a collection and going to David, saying, "Here, boss. Let's make a new squad." "Some of these forces look demonic." "Hey, boss, we didn't say all the donations were *voluntary*. Can't you sterilize them or something?..." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:32:31 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Armand wrote: > Of Course, this begs the question: Do celestials fall under the > definition of "life" ? Sure, they're just not *organic*. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:40:34 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Baal and the end of the war Being a consumate planner, no doubt Baal has a "retirement plan" in the eventuality he fights Armageddon and wins -- he can start battling other Princes, as the most obvious choice. It isn't *The* War, but if he's just won Armageddon, the word of War-in- general is almost certainly vacant. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:50:53 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt And Uncertainty > Hm. Well, I *can* think of one condition. "You are such a > total screw-up, I think you'll do Hell more harm than good. > Damn you. Now scram." *LOL* That explains certain NPCs of mine. :) I was wondering where they came from. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:16:26 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > The problem I keep running into is that 20th century Western > liberalism is seeping into the game, which is not a worldview > terribly compatible with the worldview of St. John the Mushroom > Head. (To put it more ecumenically, I want the deep fringe beliefs > of the Abrahamic religions to hold the ontological high ground in > the IN universe.) Hear, hear! I understand that, when most of the audience and writers are presumed to be more-or-less liberalized Westerners -- or at least can NOT be presumed to be adherents of the Abrahamic religions -- SJG has to tread warily. But really, to get the maximum shock value and richest flavor from In Nomine, you don't seek a least-common-denominator or a least upsetting interpretation (least upsetting to the imagined standard gamer). Things I've noticed are: (1) The deliberate avoidance of absolute good and evil. Absolute values are *out*. Absolutely. (2) The way some angels, notably Dominic and Malakim, are almost evil. Significantly. these are the angelic figures that stand most nearly for absolute values in their self-descriptions. (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch of any Abrahamic religion. It is my impression that all these things are quite compatible with "20th century Western liberalism," but I know they are not at all flavored the same way as the Abrahamic religions the game draws on. So, while they tend to make the game more palatable to some people, they also increase the danger that the game will turn into "secret agents with funny superpowers" or "modern fantasy in a modern setting." I'm sure fun games can be played that way, and I'm sure the drift can be resisted, but I think the way to get the most mileage out of IN is to play it as "it's the modern world and your Sunday school teacher was right." Shocking thought. Getting back to the whole Innocence Attunement idea of showing a human their unfallen self, if you really can't stand the idea of Original Sin, simply have the attunement show the human what their Destiny ought to be. That will be different but not necessarily grossly different. It also implies close relations between Yves and Christopher, but surely that fits; the angel who watches over destinies should work closely with the angel who watches over those who are just beginning their journeys. (At the other end, Yves should also work closely with the Angel of Death, should it ever put in an appearance.) Finally, Neel, please tell us more about your campaign. It sounds like one I want to hear more about. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:39:24 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction >Armand wrote: > >> Of Course, this begs the question: Do celestials fall under the >> definition of "life" ? > >Sure, they're just not *organic*. > >Earl Okay, so they're not organic. I just can't help but think that they have the curse of most immortals. I think that creatures that have a potential life span measured in aeons need to have some balance to equate them with other living beings. In this light, I have trouble seeing celestial reproduction. I think that Lillim could produce human offspring, but Lillith was one of the "humans" used in the first experiment (there's an out). I just come back to the idea that if celestials can reproduce, then the world would be overcome with celestials (being as they don't naturally die). Armand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:39:23 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Armand wrote: > > > Of Course, this begs the question: Do celestials fall under the > > definition of "life" ? > > Sure, they're just not *organic*. Replicating energy patterns, actually. One of these days, I'm gonna post my "Earlier Life in the IN Universe" thingie, which will have, hopefully, some stuff about how the first non-angelic life in the universe was almost like angels, and then changed more and more as time passed.) cd - -- d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se | cd skogsberg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:51:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Armand wrote: > Okay, so they're not organic. [...] I just come back to the idea > that if celestials can reproduce, then the world would be overcome > with celestials (being as they don't naturally die). But celestial reproduction is only a variant on the general idea of celestial manufacture by Superiors. All celestials are manufactured by Superiors; it's just that some are manufactured from Forces donated by older celestials, while others (I always supposed most others) were created by the Superior acting alone. The Superior limits population for its own reasons. One reason would be that all these celestials are, at some level, soldiers in the War, and running off oodles of them would upset the Cold War balance that, for whatever reason, the Superiors in general want to maintain. One may also suppose that celestial-making is difficult and time-consuming even for Superiors. And always remember that the celestials who see Earth duty are a tiny minority. The bulk of them are inconspicuously tucked away in Heaven or Hell. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #617 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.