From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jun 12 14:35:54 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 OAA09560 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:35:54 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA14121 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:30:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:30:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199806121930.OAA14121@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 #822 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 Friday, June 12 1998 Volume 01 : Number 822 In this digest: Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God IN> Re: IN- Buddhist In Nomine Revised Re: IN> Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia RE: IN> Zoroastrian In Nomine IN> Willy Wonka and Children Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God IN> Native American Nations Re: IN> Crossover Games (was Re: IN> Communism=Evil?) Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Re: IN> Jack Chick, Balseraph of Factions? Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Re: IN> Word Forces Re: IN> Crossover Games (was Re: IN> Communism=Evil?) Re: IN> Re: Willy Wonka, what is he? Re: IN> Re: IN- Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia Re: IN> Communism=Evil? IN> Yet Another Try Re: IN> Communism & Alpha Complex Re: IN> Re: IN- Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:07:05 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God David Edelstein wrote: > > >>>Firstly, Ethereal deities cover a number of these people, secondly > remember that just about anyone who achieves their destiny can get in to > heaven, even Native American shamans, in fact I believe Native American > vissinary, Black Elk, was noted as being in Heaven.<<< > > I think this is a perfect example of why we _should_ be leery using > non-mainstream religions in In Nomine. Native American > spirituality/mythology, for example, is very chic right now, and a lot of > people think they know something about it from reading a New Age book by a > self-proclaimed "shaman", or watching "Dances With Wolves". > > The fact is, though, that (according to my limited understanding) Native > Americans did not HAVE "shamans." They did have spiritual leaders, they had > some spiritual practices that bear superficial resemblances to shamanic > beliefs in other parts of the world, but *anyone* who claims to be an > "authentic Native American shaman" _isn't_. Yah! What _he_ said! As David mentioned (at least I think he did) there was a wide variation in the beliefs of the native cultures of North America... it was entire continent for Pete's sake! ;) My take on the multitude of religions (which may or may not be close to canon... if we even decide to have canon for this): None of the religions is completely right and quite a few of them are mostly wrong. Almost all have a piece of the truth. The way the game is presented is awfully monotheistic, but that's not really set in stone. With the presence of several nearly-supremely powerful entities, it's easy to see how polytheistic religions could spring up (especially since humans are very clever at inventing gods for themselves). So the monotheists are right, and yet not quite. The reincarnationists have some evidence, but don't quite hit it. Etc, etc. One of the Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty is the nature of God. Who says it's a single being? Ask an AA and they may tell you that's it's more complicated than singularity and multiplicity. Or they might tell you that you aren't cleared for that information! ;) What if the AA's are _collectively_ the will of God? The Fall could be his id and ego duking it out with the Superego watching from the sidelines. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:28:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > So the monotheists are right, > and yet not quite. The reincarnationists have some > evidence, but don't quite hit it. Etc, etc. One > of the Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty > is the nature of God. Who says it's a single being? > Ask an AA and they may tell you that's it's more > complicated than singularity and multiplicity. One way to represent the complexity is to recognize "god" as a social status, instead of or in addition to a state of being. Most mythologies I know of have a Creator figure or a First God in there somewhere, but it is very marginalized in the polytheistic religions. It's as if they do not deny the existence of the God of the monotheists, but do not think He is very involved or that worshipping Him is very important. (Contrariwise, monotheisms syncretize some pagan gods with angels.) So monotheism vs. polytheism can be viewed as an ontological question of "How many gods are there?" or as a question of metaphysical politics, "How many beings deserve the title "god"?" Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:31:09 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Buddhist In Nomine Revised Valefor teaches existentialism, but does not practice it. So he's a hypocrite? Of course he is, he's a DP. >From: Anders Gabrielsson > >I'd think it's rather the other way around - he's happy when the person >he's stolen something from misses it. (I think it's even in the IN book - - >theft inspires greed and anger in the victim.) Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:30:34 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > To yank things to IN-land. Would the Beast have counted as a Djinn? I'd have said he was a human transformed by a Song of Form sung by an Elohite, perhaps of Blandine's or Novalis's, but maybe even of Gabriel's. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:41:57 -0400 From: "Robb Kidd" Subject: RE: IN> Zoroastrian In Nomine > It's in the Yves description of Heaven and Hell, and IRL there is a lot > of proof that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and subsequently > Christianity, and is still practiced today by a number. Therefore if you > want a place for Judaism in In Nomine then you can claim it ws a tribal > religion [...] Er. Judaism -was- a tribal religion at its roots. 12 tribes who called themselves Israelites all twinking about the desert with a patron desert storm deity keen on smiting enemies. Quite tribal. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:52:27 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Willy Wonka and Children Armand wrote, regarding the tendency in our culture to "sugar-coat" reality for children: >If I was the type to run the Angels as the antagonists, then I would set >this up as the work of a servitor of David. This is his way of insuring >that children will band together with something (inadvertently missing out >on the idea that this makes it easier for Demonic influence to influence >the growing mortal) I would have the PC's be a group of Celestials that >see the need to stop this plot, because more willful humans are more >satisfying or something. I like this idea, but would quibble with your choice of David as the antagonist. Christopher or Novalis, maybe (yes, the nicey-niceys as villains). But David, in addition to his communitarian aspect, has the whole "that which does not kill me makes me stronger" thing going. He would want children to experience life in all its nastiness, and grow stronger thereby. IMHO, at least. Actually, Christopher's probably a bad candidate, too. For all the value he places on the innocence of childhood, he also comes out against lying or talking down to children. Sugar-coating reality probably falls under those strictures. Soft-hearted Novalis? Maybe. Zadkiel (Arch of *Protection*) might be an even better candidate. These differences are the stuff of which Seraphim Council debates are made. Z: "They're so tiny and helpless. We have to shelter and protect them." D: "So they'll never be anything *but* helpless?" Z: "You'd prefer to see them hurt or killed?" D: "The strong ones will survive. Look at it as improving the breed." That kind of thing. Particular irony might be found in the fact that David is an ex-Cherub (turned Malakite during the Rebellion), and therefore was once of the same "protective" choir as Novalis and Zadkiel. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:01:57 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Native Americans and the Nature of God Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > > So the monotheists are right, > > and yet not quite. The reincarnationists have some > > evidence, but don't quite hit it. Etc, etc. One > > of the Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty > > is the nature of God. Who says it's a single being? > > Ask an AA and they may tell you that's it's more > > complicated than singularity and multiplicity. > > So monotheism vs. polytheism can be viewed as an ontological > question of "How many gods are there?" or as a question of > metaphysical politics, "How many beings deserve the title "god"?" Very much so! In fact, some of the polytheistic religions might be closer to the mark. As you say, some of them have a 'prime creator' who is permanently off-stage while the lesser 'gods' do all the active stuff. Sounds familiar, eh? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:59:45 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Native American Nations I don't know how up to canon this would be, but has anyone read Native American Nations vol 1 & 2 by Shadowrun. They're pretty topical, but give a very good breakdown on the culture and belief systems. Out of print, unfortunately, but very good writing. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:15:39 -0700 From: Dale Friesen Subject: Re: IN> Crossover Games (was Re: IN> Communism=Evil?) >IN/Over the Edge > The conspiracies of Al Amarja would make a great cover for the >activities of the War. Hmm... secrets and conspiracies... maybe Monique >D'Aubainne is Malphas in disguise. Maybe parts of the Island overflow into >the Marches (could explain some of the Mystic Sh-t). Can even celestials >stop the power of the Throckmorton Device? What _would_ happen if a >Shedim-host got a Kergillian implant? Will Aaron Parker's ascent to >Rock'n'Roll Godhood topple Heaven? I figure that the Throckmorton Device was designed by a Habbalite of Vapula in service to Kronos. The Kergillians could prove really interesting--what if they're from a world where they're as important as humanity is here? What if they have a whole set of archangels/demon princes and choirs/bands that are associated with that world? What if on that world one side has already won (say, the demons) and they're trying to move in on Earth? Maybe the demons and the angels here would band together to get rid of the Kergillians, but they're facing a much bigger foe than is evident on the surface? My take on Aaron Parker is that he's an Ethereal, pure and simple. If he's caught by a Malakim, he's toast. Cheryl D'Aubainne is a little more complex, though, as is Carla Sommers. Has anyone done an OTE/IN crossover yet? Any opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily the book store's. Dale Friesen  Sysadmin Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada dfriesen@amtsgi.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:42:54 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Just an aside on Kobal and Dark Humor, I personally tend to >translate "Dark Humor" as "Mockery." It sounds more vicious. Hmm. For my game, it's "the laughter of despair." He's nearly as nihilistic as Kronos, and is rather more active -- seriously bad news for mankind. Most of the Princes IMC seem to be masks stretched over oblivion, for whom intellect and motivation are more like tools than aspects of personality. There was a bit in C.S. Lewis's _Perelandara_ where Ransom confronts a demon and realizes that it is a pure malign will in its natural state -- mind as we understand it isn't natural to it. And Jo posted a few weeks ago how the mask seen by Servitors of Asmodeus actually *is* the Prince of the Game, in the sense that whoever with the daring to wear it is the demon prince Asmodeus. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:46:06 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) wrote: > >I decided on angels for my players just because I wouldn't expect >demons to be as shocked to find out that the Creator is evil. Also >there are only two ways you can run sympathetic demons: Paranoia (as >in "A Dark Dream"), and World of Ennui. In some ways it's >unfortunate, as my players (mostly graduate students) identify more >with demons than with angels. I am having the problem of convincing my players that God and the angels really are genuinely benevolent. I don't mean characters, I mean I am having trouble convincing the players of the possibility. It's really kind of odd. Maybe if they repeatedly fail to find ulterior motives and hidden plots they will be shocked into discovering that God is good. :) The thematic question for my game is not whether faith in a good God is possible, but rather how to live once the question has been answered in the affirmative. Orson Scott Card once wrote that the question of doubt is in a way the least interesting question for a believer, in that they have already been decisively answered it, and must now figure out how to live day by day in a manner consistent with their faith. (Speaking of Card, I really recommend his short story collection _Cruel Miracles_, which is full of some amazingly twisted takes on faith and religious life. I particularly liked "Kingsmeat.") - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:01:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Most of the Princes IMC seem to be masks stretched over oblivion, > for whom intellect and motivation are more like tools than aspects > of personality. > > There was a bit in C.S. Lewis's _Perelandara_ where Ransom confronts > a demon and realizes that it is a pure malign will in its natural > state -- mind as we understand it isn't natural to it Dante, following Aquinas, said the damned had lost "the good of the intellect," meaning much more than a modern would mean by the term. It would include intelligence, but also things like sanity and psychological integrity and coherence. Lewis was probably thinking of that when he made up the Unman for "Perelandra." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:16:19 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Jack Chick, Balseraph of Factions? > It seems to me that, in the In Nomine universe, Mr. Chick would >really be a Balseraph of Factions. I can see a few plot seeds involving >Angels attempting to counter the seeds of distrust sown by Mr. Chick. >While in the real world, I'm sure he's doing what he thinks is right and >proper, in the In Nomine world it's easy to envision his actions as being >spawned by Malphas in an attempt to fractionalize the Christian faith. And >I'm sure that Laurence probably takes a dim view of Chick's >anti-catholicism... You know, if this keeps up, celestials will outnumber humans on Earth. }:-{D I'm very inclined to believe that Mr. Chick is a normal human being who honestly believes that only 144,000 people will get into Heaven, or somesuch. After all, not every halfway famous person is a celestial, no matter how much fun it is to speculate. }:-{D Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:41:36 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? Peter Frederick wrote: > OTOH grey characters are always intresting to play, and IN does give you > the chance to do a whopper of a redmeption story. If that's what people > want to do with it I would support them. If they want to explore what it > means to be Evil they can do it without me, I don;t need to visit that > territory anymore. Right and agreed. As a matter of fact, my only use for the demons is as the villians to run angels against. Angels, then ethereals, then SOGs [not SOHs], forget demons and undead: these would be my role-playing preferences as a character in the game. Call me a sucker for stupid nobility and goodness, but hay, that's just me -- you don't like it, feel free to live your own life, instead of imitating mine. As a cyberfriend of mine says, just my toll for the Ferryman, tom timberlake, cadre Cherub of Heaven ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:17:09 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Are Demons still bad? On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 11:39:07AM +0000, Peter Frederick wrote: > Angels are, within the game universe, aligned to "Good", that's capital G > good. That doesn't mean they are nice. I tend to think that some Choirs > get caught in the bigger picture, particulalry Seraphim, Malakim and > Elohim. I tend to think that Ofanim can be pretty damn ruthless as well, and probably more so than Malakim. I reckon Janus is by far the most ruthless of the major Archangels. (Yes, more so than Michael.) And along with David and Novalis, the most devious. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:25:27 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Word Forces > I'm not sure the benefits of Word Forces is worth > > > upsetting that balance. Couldn't the greater power of Word-bound > > > Celestials be modelled in some other way? Kevin Walsh wrote: > I suppose it could, but Word Forces have the grace of being > self-consistent, and only being one mechanic. I quarrel with a definition > of rules-light that includes 181 special powers, depending on what your > character is. Tom T. writes:But only about 8 or so apply to any one character, maybe 12 in a starting character that is very heavy in Songs or stuff like NC:claws et. al. I'm not counting skills, since they are fairly ubiquitous, though there may be different benefits for firearms in IN vs. firearms in Werewolf the Apocalypse. Tom T. wrote: > What lies within a player's > > understanding that they can use to give them a leg up on roleplaying a > > decidely non-human character with such an attribute? Attunements can at > > least be modeled on browser plug-ins or the titles and powers one > > encounters in the workplace. Besides, if we set a precedent for going > > from non-Word Bound to Word Bound by adding Word-Forces, then what gets > > added when you make the jump from Word Bound to Superior? Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > I'm not sure if the difference is as big. [snip]Tom: This is probably where we really disagree -- I *do* see the jump from Word Bound to Superior as being _that_ big. If Word Forces make a WB 4-dimensional, then I [personally] see Superiors as being 5-dimensional: they are that much greater, in my view. I can envision a well-prepared group of PCs taking out a WB without Sup. help, but !no way! could they do a Sup. without the help of a hostile [to the target] Sup. The problem with this view is just what I said earlier -- what makes up the 5th dimension that is added to WBs making the jump to Sup. status? You see now why I, personally, am resisting adding a 4th Force, at least until I can get a satisfactory answer to what the 5th Force will be. Better, IMO, to stick to the established triad of Forces. If someone can come up with a workable 5th Force, then I reserve the right to change my mind. > [snip] Tom T. : > The Goodie was still there, > > could still be used by others who _did_ have access -- all without > > having to disassemble the Tinker-toy triangle of Forces that make up the > > Celestial and rebuilding it as a square. Kevin Walsh : > Why do you think its necessary for the Seraphim Council or Lucifer to > intervene, if it's only adding more goodies? Because it takes this kind of aggregate mindpower and/or Forces to store the encrypted password needed to make the access change; it is that huge, and encrypted to boot -- PGP 5.0 x [10^googolplex], anyone? IMO, YMMV tom timberlake, cadre Cherub of Heaven ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:22:53 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Crossover Games (was Re: IN> Communism=Evil?) On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 09:15:39AM -0700, Dale Friesen wrote: > My take on Aaron Parker is that he's an Ethereal, pure and simple. If he's > caught by a Malakim, he's toast. Cheryl D'Aubainne is a little more > complex, > though, as is Carla Sommers. > Cheryl might well be a Servitor of Flowers in disguise. And I prefer the idea that Karla Sommers isn't a god, myself. My favourite IN/OTE theory is that Chick is a Word-bound Lilim (and _very_ powerful at that) of some description. Whether in service to Fate, or Theft, or the Wind, or something else is a matter of debate. > Has anyone done an OTE/IN crossover yet? > Someone whose name I can't remember posted up thoughts on it on the INC. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:04:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Re: Willy Wonka, what is he? On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > > > >> >I think willy wonka is a servant of creation on loan to dream. > >> > > >> Willy Wonka is a fictional character. > > > > I know that. It was a coment on the character, not a person. > > The character is, and must be, totally human, an example of humanity > surpassing even the capacity of celestials. Sounds resanable. Question is does he know of the celestials, and ignore them, or antaganize them? > >> Roald Dahl, creator of Willy Wonka and writer of several other children's > >> stories, was secretly Roaldiel, an Ofanite of Creation in service to > >> Christopher, Archangel of Children. > > > > How do you account for "Roald Dahls Book Of Ghost Stories"? It is > >deffinatly NOT for children. > > > That book is why I say he is a Creationer serving Children, not the other > way around. All right. For some reason the first time I didn't notice the creation part. > And that book, I suspect, got him into some serious hot water.... Probably. A friend of the family got the book for one of my neices, and it is presently in my brothers bookcase till I get there to remove it till further notice. Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:33:04 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 02:04:07PM -0400, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > I didn't say he was concerned with materialistic gain from Earthly wars, > > but I would be very surprised to find that he wasn't interested in Earthly > > wars. And for any war bigger than a barroom brawl, Trade is necessary to > > some degree. Because wars can't be fought without wealth, and wealth can't > > be generated without some kind of trade, be it by barter or otherwise. > > Wealth is hard to generate without trade, but it's > possible. Hmm...can you be more specific? Are you referring to individuals, or communities? Of course, in some rare areas, the wealth is just there, and you don't need Trade to generate it; you need it to get rid of it. Wealth can be _procured_ without trade, though. > It's called stealing. But if the wealth isn't there already, the theft won't occur, so wealth is fueling war. And there was a reason I used the word generate. > A more modern example would be to rush in, 'liberate > the masses', kill the evil oppressors, confiscate everything > for the state, settle in for a long stay... I think I like > the mongol version better! ;) > But the Mongols also played the steppe politics game, where you rush in, kill the pagan tribesmen, and move the survivors to somewhere else where they'll be more useful to you, and levy lots of tribute from them. The Tsars, and later Stalin, learned a lot from the steppe nomads. (Of course Stalin modelled himself on Ivan the Terrible, so it was at second hand.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:45:23 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Communism=Evil? On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 03:28:25PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > Yeah, but then Alpha Complex is more communist than any Real Life state > that I've heard of... :) It's certainly a nicer place than Stalin's Russia was. (ObOnTopic: Hades is a nicer place than Stalin's Russia was.) You could get sent to the camps for moving to Leningrad before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, or for "Contacts Leading to Suspicion of Espionage". (Not a grounds for investigation, it was a crime in itself.) Lenin laid the groundwork, with a draft article that talked of assisting counterrevolutionary organisations, "objectively assisting or being capable of assisting". In theory, you could be sentenced for having intended to fail to denounce someone of a crime, and you'd have to prove that you had never even thought of not denouncing it (Article 58, Section 12, via Article 19). And you would receive the same sentence as if you actually had committed the crime. Telling a party official to drop dead resulted in a sentence for Terrorist Intent, and escaping from a prison camp was considered subversion of the camp system, ie economic counterrevolution. One of my favourites was the surveying team arrested for "intentionally concealing tin deposits in anticipation of the arrival of the Germans" ie failing to find the deposits, and another was the ten-year (or was it twenty years?) sentence for stealing a spool of thread (described in the transcripts of the trial as 150 metres of sewing material), as Theft of Socialist Property. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:51:56 -0400 From: Twila Oxley Price Subject: IN> Yet Another Try Hi, again. It's me, the phantom poster from Ann Arbor, with my new & improved characters -- which, this time, I hope meet all canonical rules, regulations, and codes. (I'm also working on the story of their first meeting, which should prove to be ... entertaining.) Many thanks to the kind folks who steered me in the right direction when I tried this before, and I hope that I've profited from their advice. (For some reason I find that the In Nomine rules aren't "taking", even though I own all the rulebooks AND I've read them several times -- maybe it's advancing senility, but I just can't seem to get them to gel in my mind. If anyone has suggestions about how to fix that (beyond a brain transplant), I'd appreciate that as well!) Twila ========================================================================== Caidel Malakite of Creation, in service to Laurence Corporeal Forces - 4 (Strength 9, Agility 7) Ethereal Forces - 4 (Intelligence 8, Precision 8) Celestial Forces - 5 (Will 10, Perception 10) Vessel: Human/2 (male) (cost: 6) Role: Martial arts teacher (Kai Sakura)/3; Status/3 (cost: 5) Skills: Fighting/5 (martial arts); Driving/1; Large Weapon/5 (sword); Tracking/4; Knowledge (blade-smith/5, Oriental philosophy/3, teaching/1) (cost: 24) Songs: Motion (Corporeal/3, Ethereal/3, Celestial/3); Thunder/5; Tongues (Ethereal/3) (cost: 17) Attunements: Malakite of Creation; Abracadabra; Blade Blessing of Laurence. Special Rite: Create a worthy blade (+2 essence). Malakite Oaths: Never suffer an evil to live if it's his choice; Never surrender; Foster skills in honorable students; Engage in one creative endeavor every week; Protect Jereth. Point total: 52 (spent: 6 + 5 = 11 + 24 = 34 + 17 = 52) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Caidel is, even for a Malakite of Creation, odd. He focuses so fiercely on his twin passions (killing demons and creating beautiful blades) that he gives the impression of being absent-minded when other matters are involved, although he isn't. He didn't question Eli's order to protect the Free Lilim Jereth because he really didn't care about the why. When Eli vanished, Caidel had no intention of serving another Archangel, being very content to just "be cool" and do what he'd always done. However, when a Triad accused him of consorting with demons, Laurence intervened, citing Caidel's superlative skills at demon-killing, and his equally superlative skill at creating fine blades, as well as the fact that Jereth was not serving any Demon Prince, and Dominic allowed Laurence to take Caidel into his service. Caidel likes serving Laurence as much as he can enjoy serving any Archangel besides Eli, particularly since he appreciates how Laurence must miss being on the front lines. He respectfully insists that his previous obligation to Jereth must be taken into account when he is given assignments, but Laurence grits his teeth and accepts it because Jereth is wavering on the edge of Redemption. (Laurence *really* wants a Lilim in his service (preferably one that doesn't swoon over his back view, as it were), and if Caidel can deliver, that would be *excellent*.) Caidel's human vessel is a thirtyish Oriental man, Kai Sakura, the owner of a dojo in a small midwestern city. He teaches an obscure martial art, and the dojo itself is not very well-attended. However, Master Sakura has a reputation as an excellent blade-smith who creates his blades in the "Old Way", although he only takes commissions from humans who are honorable enough to deserve one of his blades and/or any angel who might need one. He has three part-time assistants at the dojo, all former students and potential Soldiers, who have no idea of his true nature. All would be well enough, except for one small problem. Caidel has fallen in love with his charge. He knows that any relationship is doomed to failure, since Jereth is a Lilim, but he can't help the way he feels. He won't break his oaths for Jereth, but he will do anything short of that to keep him safe. ======================================================================== Jereth Free Lilim Corporeal Forces - 3 (Strength 6, Agility 6) Ethereal Forces - 3 (Intelligence 6, Precision 6) Celestial Forces - 4 (Will 9, Perception 7) Vessel: Human/2 (male) (cost: 3/level = 6) Role: Art and Antiquities Dealer (Jeremiah Madison)/3, Status/2 (cost:3) Vessel: Cat/1(Maine coon) (cost: 3/level = 3) Skills: Knowledge (art/antiquities)/5; Fast-talk/4; Seduce/3; Savoir-Fair/3; Ranged Weapon (pistol)/3; Dodge/3 (cost:21) Songs: Healing (Corporeal/3, Ethereal/3, Celestial/3); Motion (Celestial/3); Form (Ethereal/2); Numinous Corpus:Claws/2 (cost:16) Attunements: None. Dissonance: 1 level/3 Geas, owed to Lilith; Need/2 -- blood (15) Point total: 55 (spent = 6 + 3 = 9 + 3 = 12 + 21 = 33 + 16 = 49) - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jereth is one of the few Lilim who considers himself exclusively male. His major desire from the moment of his creation was to endure until he'd paid off all of his Geases and then to truly be Free. His strategy was to keep a low profile and not to buy anything he didn't absolutely need in terms of Songs/Attunements. He had managed to pay off half of his original debts and the costs of his Songs and Vessels before the disaster befell him. The disaster, simply put, was that Kobal bought one of his Geas from Lilith. Jereth was to be the centerpiece of one of Kobal's more obscure jokes, which involved convincing a certan human that vampires did exist. Jereth, in the role of vampire, was to seduce the human. Unfortunately, this human was a Saint, which minor detail Kobal had not seen fit to share. She prayed for angelic support, which was granted, and Jereth ended up in Trauma. His companions blamed his clumsiness for the fiasco, and Kobal decreed that since his original joke was spoiled, Jereth would BE as close as a Celestial could come to being a vampire, imposing a Need/2 for blood upon the Lilim and supplying him a new Vessel which corresponded with the romantic vampire stereotype -- handsome, pale, Byronic... (Lilith was not pleased but accepted Kobal's word that he'd revoke the Need when the joke palled. So far, it has not.) When Jereth awoke, on Earth, from his Trauma, he discovered that he couldn't go back to Hell, nor could he seem to contact his Princess. This was the final component of Kobal's joke on him, and he has never forgiven the Prince of Dark Laughter for it. Sometime later (Jereth won't say how long it's been), he wandered into a blues bar and tried to seduce the bass player, feeling an attraction the likes of which he'd never felt before. When Jereth was turned down, he started acting like a groupie, following the band to every gig and turning his big green eyes on the bass player during every set... Finally, just to stop the nuisance, Eli revealed himself. Jereth freaked, but ... this celestial resonated with a Freedom more intoxicating than any he'd experienced before, and he asked Eli if he could become what he was. Eli thought, and said not yet, but hey, I'll give you a guardian while you work on it, okay? So Jereth was saddled with a Malakite. Who didn't immediately try to kill him and who didn't seem to be the horrible nasty villains that his Guildsisters had always described. Lilith hasn't called in any more Geases, and Jereth hopes that Eli will show up Real Soon Now, so he can ask if he's worthy to be Redeemed yet. He knows that Caidel has warm feelings for him (hey, it's all in the resonance!) but he can't quite bring himself to reciprocate -- the guy's a Malak, for Hell's sake... To ensure his Need being fulfilled, Jereth stalks singles bars and seduces a new person every night. Caidel, needless to say, is less than happy with this, but since Jereth is careful NOT to kill and not to do any more damage than, say, a blood donation would cause, Caidel grits his teeth and doesn't protest. Much. Or too violently. ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:11:55 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Communism & Alpha Complex On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 03:28:25PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > > Yeah, but then Alpha Complex is more communist than any Real Life state > > that I've heard of... :) > > It's certainly a nicer place than Stalin's Russia was. I'm not so sure... but that's quite beside the point - Communisticness =/= Nastiness. :) To keep this on topic via a rather contrived tangent. :) Paranoia describes a (sort of) post-Apocalyptic world (in the pop-cultural sense). The End, an rpg published by a company I've forgotten the name of, describes a post-Apocalyptic world in the Biblical sense - the Four Horsemen's been here and gone home again... and the only people left are those that didn't fit in Heaven nor in Hell, plus a couple of angels and demons that were too late in getting back behind the Pearly Gates/Gates of Hades. IMO, this would make for an interesting background for IN. Very few humans, the only Angels and Demons would effectively be Outcasts and Renegades... The Ethereals might start to reclaim the world, and they'll probably be pretty pissed at the Celestials. OTOH, there will be no AA:s or DP:s to boss them around... and definitely no clear-cut sides! Hmmm... I might have to try this. ;) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! Geography is just therapy for imperialists. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:14:16 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Disney's Infernal Communists - Anastasia Kevin Walsh wrote: > > Wealth is hard to generate without trade, but it's > > possible. > > Hmm...can you be more specific? Are you referring to individuals, or > communities? Of course, in some rare areas, the wealth is just there, and > you don't need Trade to generate it; you need it to get rid of it. If you take wheat and make bread, then your personal net wealth has gone up (presuming the bread is worth more than the wheat). The trick is there is no way to measure the amount of the wealth except by the actions of a market of some sort (i.e. trade). Money isn't 'wealth'. Wealth are things of value. For example a chunk of gold is valueless unless someone actually _values_ it for whatever reason. > Wealth can be _procured_ without trade, though. > > It's called stealing. > > But if the wealth isn't there already, the theft won't occur, so wealth is > fueling war. And there was a reason I used the word generate. The post said that wealth cannot be generated without some kind of trade. This is the point I disagree with. You _can_ create wealth without any trade whatsoever. You just have no absolute way of measuring it without trade. This is a problem people have with economics in general. They view wealth as some fixed value that is only changed by its distribution. In truth, wealth can be created in an almost infinite variety of ways. As a computer programmer, using nothing more than a few cents of electricity and thinking, produce things of value (well, they pay for my time, anyways!). Wealth has been produced. A factory takes steel and whatnot and produces cars. The market says the value of the car is more than that of the input materials (including labor) so wealth has been produced again. Now, if that selfsame factory closed its doors and sealed up the cars where they could never be used, then there's a strong argument that no wealth has been produced (or that it actually had been destroyed since it's unusable!) Back to the original topic: Wars destroy wealth. They take input that could be used to build things and are used to destroy things instead. What are the inputs to a bomb? Refined metal, explosives, fuel to transport it, and labor to create it. What are the outputs of use? Scattered bits of metal and the _removal_ of a thing of value (if you hit your target!) Wars can enhance methods of production, or cause resources to be allocated differently. In the long run, these activites might result in an increase in wealth. (For example, a bombed-out factory might be replaced by a much more modern and efficient one... look at Japan. Or a company that switches to war production might learn new methods of manufacturing that will make them more efficient after the war.) But in and of itself, wealth is not created by war, only used. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #822 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.