From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 10 11:23:25 1999 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 LAA01734 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:23:25 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA21764 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:15:31 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:15:31 -0600 Message-Id: <199903101715.LAA21764@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 #1141 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 Wednesday, March 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1141 In this digest: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> [Slightly Off Topic] A riddle Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> [Slightly Off Topic] A riddle Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well IN> Dictionary of Angels Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Lilim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:36:27 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict At 10:18 PM -0500 3/9/99, Pee Kitty wrote: >On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 12:41 PM -0600 3/9/99, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >> >On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> > >> >> So if you want to kill someone with Geases soundlessly, you Geas one >> >> guy to booby-trap the tree, and another to chop it down (and have >> >> it land on him). >> > >> >Wouldn't it be simpler to just Geas person A to shoot person B? I >> >wouldn't expect that to cause noise since ordering a Soldier to shoot >> >another human doesn't. >> >> Well, yes, that would work too. But falling trees are so much more, >> um, unique? > >Not to mention, I'd assume it'd take a much smaller geas to get someone to >booby trap a tree than to get them to kill someone in cold blood. > Are Geasa levels for 'real' or 'percieved' difficulty? For instance, it takes a Geas/6 for "danger," but it would seem to only take a Geas/1 for "go into the next room and mix me a drink," with the chemicals in the bottles rigged to explode. So, what happens from there? - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:25:38 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> [Slightly Off Topic] A riddle Thanks to all those folks who replied with an answer to the riddle. Now back to your regularly scheduled listing. Leath (Servitor of Kobal, sucking in the Essence of a Rite done well). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:32:40 -0800 (PST) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 2:11 PM -0500 3/9/99, EDG wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> I'd say yes. > >On the other hand, it's still supernaturally-inflicted damage. > Bingo. [i'm leaving this intact because of the "supernaturally-inflicted damage" phrase] > >Another interesting question: If a Geas is _effectively_ impossible to > >fulfill, does the Geas continue to do damage? > > > >To give an example: Joan the Lilim asks Ed the shoe salesman to break > >into a store and steal at least $100 worth of merchandise, after doing > >him an equivalent favor. Ed manages to break into the store but is > >caught and imprisoned. He has not fulfilled the Geas - nothing got > >stolen - but is imprisoned, and so is unable to fulfill the Geas. Does > >Ed take damage from the Geas while he's in prison? > He dies from the Geas -- just as if he handcuffed himself to the bed and > threw the key down the toilet. Only if that store burns down or it > somehow becomes *actually* impossible to fulfill it, will Ed get > the Geas lifted. Ed dies of Geas-resistance. does his supernaturally-induced death thus gong throughout the Symphony? [snip paranthetical] -=|horsefly|=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 02:06:01 EST From: Heretic103@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> [Slightly Off Topic] A riddle In a message dated 3/9/99 5:46:16 PM Central Standard Time, 938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au writes: << What is greater than God More evil than the devil, The poor have it, The rich need it, And if you eat it you die? >> LIES! - -Heretic angel of Heresy, in serivice to the archangel of revelations ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:36:34 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:59:04PM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: There endeth the parable. Maybe Marc's word > is selfish, but perhaps he oversees 'the give and take of daily life' in > a more -accountant-like fashion; so long as the books are balanced it > doesn't matter. I don't really see it that way. I see Marc as being a wealth creator, in that many items don't have the same value to different people, and that moving them to where the greatest need/desire is effectively increases the amount of wealth. But either way, how can a Lilim redeem ad keep her > resonance? > I'd say yes. > Also the victim likely has no idea that they are dealing with hellspawn. > Secondly it's forced on them, thirdly Marc's word inspires, as he's > selfless (!), openness in that all parties concerned are fully aware of > what they are getting into, regardless of what that is. That is Marc's > word. > I'm not so sure about that, but if someone fails to read the terms of a contract, IMO any trouble they get into is their own fault. > For my money, geas are selfish, period. Seeing needs isn't but the > minute they use their power to make the person pay them back, even in a > 'nice' way (pass the collection plate) they are knock-knock-knocking on > Hells' door. But in this instance, you're not necessarily making them do something that benefits you. Your Word shouldn't be something you serve because it gives you a power trip. > Maybe Bright Lilim should have a new power instead to go > with their seeing needs (as obviously this aint enough on it's own). No they shouldn't, because if they don't try to geas anyone they can't get dissonant. The > reason is that you are forcing someone to do something because you have > done something for them. > At this point I ponder Cherubim of the Wind and Kyriotates. Except that in those cases you incur the obligation because you have forced someone to do something for you. > "Also check out the "agreed-upon-Geases" (in the Infernal Player's > Guide, sophisticated use of resonance) and Trade's Divine Contract > Servitor Attunement." > Well, even if both parties are aware surely it's till selfish…isn't it? > Maybe? You are still entering the deal because you want something in > return. (Hmmm, I am aware of where this is going!) There is a difference between a deal that's beneficial to both parties, and one heavily weighted in favour of one party. (Like the way some banks manage to levy enough charges on accounts to more than offset the interest they pay.) Trades that benefit both sides are good things. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "With such tripe masses of human beings were tranquilised - until those rare occasions when they woke up, saw what was happening around them, misunderstood it, and did their best to impose the stupidest possible solution on the men who normally led them." A Dark and Hungry God Arises, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:42:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well Kevin Walsh wrote: > I see Marc as being a wealth creator.... Trades that benefit both > sides are good things. I've often thought a better title for Marc would be the Archangel of Prosperity. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:46:28 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Dictionary of Angels A couple of days ago, I got Gustav Davidson's "A Dictionary of Angels," via Bibliofind.com. It's one of the main sources of angelic lore used by Derek, according to the IN bibliography, and makes a great browsing book for an IN fan. Two snippets: The Dictionary lists the "Angel of Judgement" as "Phalgus." "Dominic" is much better... An angel that caught my eye this morning is Taus-Melech, the Peacock Angel. First, it's just a great name and epithet. Second, he is described as a fallen but redeemed angel, in charge of reincarnation. Clearly a major Worded servitor of Yves with an interesting history. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:10:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict At 2:14 AM +0000 3/10/99, Richard Drysdale wrote: >On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> > Another interesting question: If a Geas is _effectively_ impossible to >> > fulfill, does the Geas continue to do damage? [...] >> He dies from the Geas -- just as if he handcuffed himself to the bed and >> threw the key down the toilet. Only if that store burns down or it >> somehow becomes *actually* impossible to fulfill it, will Ed get >> the Geas lifted. > >This brings up a point that I've been wondering about. If a Geas causes >enough dmage to a mortal to kill them then it does cause a disturbance, >doesn't it? Yes. >- Richard Drysdale (rdd@dcs.st-and.ac.uk) > Balseraph of Fate, Vassal of Archives ("I can explain! Honest, boss!") I like this one.... I wanna hear the explanation, too. At 10:18 PM -0500 3/9/99, Pee Kitty wrote: >On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >Wouldn't it be simpler to just Geas person A to shoot person B? I >> >wouldn't expect that to cause noise since ordering a Soldier to shoot >> >another human doesn't. >> >> Well, yes, that would work too. But falling trees are so much more, >> um, unique? > >Not to mention, I'd assume it'd take a much smaller geas to get someone to >booby trap a tree than to get them to kill someone in cold blood. Right -- that too! And it will annoy Novalis more. At 10:36 PM -0500 3/9/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >Are Geasa levels for 'real' or 'percieved' difficulty? For instance, it >takes a Geas/6 for "danger," but it would seem to only take a Geas/1 for >"go into the next room and mix me a drink," with the chemicals in the >bottles rigged to explode. So, what happens from there? I think we're rapidly getting into the area where a GM has to start making judgment calls... p. 30 of FotM says, "A task the invoker believes to be impossible _cannot_ be commanded!" If neither of the participants, geaser and geasee, believe the task is dangerous, then a Geas/1 will be fine. If a Lilim believes the task is dangerous, then to be safe, they'd better fast-talk the person into agreeing and then geasing them to that specific thing (as per the enhanced resonance rules). If the target believes the task is dangerous and the geaser doesn't, then the target may blow all his Essence to resist and make the question moot. Considering that Lilim don't have to roll to invoke a Geas-hook, but can apparently work through some kind of twisted Symphonic sense of "fair play" [note, I said *TWISTED* there, so don't go nuts saying that it's not fair] to impose the guilt/sense of 'gotta do it'/whatever, it's probably reasonable to let the difficulty of the task feed off of the Lilim *and* the target's sense of how much they could complete it. After all, if a Lilim thinks she's geasing a cold-blooded Mob killer to make a hit, but he's actually an under-cover cop who wouldn't do it... A Mob killer might consider killing someone to be "normal work" or "hard and uncomfortable," while the undercover cop will think of this as "definitely contrary to character" or even "traumatically contrary to character." So the Lilim will start invoking her Geas/2 and realize that *it's not strong enough*, and she can abort. (Instinctive knowledge of what they can get away with.) She won't know *why* it's too hard, of course -- maybe doing it for "free" is traumatically contrary to the character of this hitman? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:08:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well At 2:36 PM +0000 3/10/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:59:04PM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: >>But either way, how can a Lilim redeem ad keep her resonance? >> >I'd say yes. (Especially in canon. O;> ) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:40:13 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well It's all well and good to say that Lilim are all selfish but you must realize that to some degree everyone is "selfish." Saying that doing something to get something else is selfish makes every action in many ways selfish. Selfishness and selflessness relies less on concerning yourself with your own needs but more with concerning yourself with other peoples needs. A Bright Lilim who forces someone into rehab could be seen as selfishfor not taking into account the needs of the person but not because it furthers her cause. If that were true anyone serving a word and trying to further that word to the exclusion of other words could be seen as selfish. This seems good in theory but a servitor of Flowers who is trying to prevent War is being selfish because she is not helping those who live by the war industry. Is this selfish? On a similar topic Marc's word is not selfish. In the theory of barter economics there is what is called the dual coincidence of needs. This refers to the manner in which barter and thus trade functions. Someone has something they need and so they give someone else something that person needs as a trade. Thus ech person gets what they need. This is not selfish it is the basis of social interaction. Money just makes it so that one needs not wait for someone else needing what they have. Trade is the manner people get what they need. That is Marc's word you want the alternative try Mamn Ben, Cherub of Destiny ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 07:58:47 -0800 (PST) From: Wade Trupke Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well - ---Martin Arnold wrote: > > Martin > > Seriously, the resonance of Lilim is selfish there's no two ways abut > it, IMG anyway! To do something expecting something in return (which is > how they operate and how they function, else their resonance would be > bloody useless!) is selfish. There endeth the parable. I certainly see your point here. The Lilim resonance certainly tends toward the selfish. Then again, so does the Kyrio resonance. ("Excuse me, but I need your bodies more than you folks do right now...") Heck, the whole thing about leading people to their Destinies is selfish, since it's just Heaven's way of keeping the souls for themselves, and not letting Hell get them. Maybe Marc's word > is selfish, but perhaps he oversees 'the give and take of daily life' in > a more -accountant-like fashion; so long as the books are balanced it > doesn't matter. But either way, how can a Lilim redeem ad keep her > resonance? > A lilim can keep her resonance fair. She can state what the deal is right off the bat, and make it perfectly fair, or even in favor of the Geasee. I'm not sure the difference. > > "Imposing Geases can be selfish, or it can be selfless -- such as a > Lilim making a scumbag businessman give to charity (Lilim of Gabriel, > anyone?) or forcing a demon to keep its word (Lilim of the Sword, > perhaps?)." > > For my money, geas are selfish, period. Seeing needs isn't but the > minute they use their power to make the person pay them back, even in a > 'nice' way (pass the collection plate) they are knock-knock-knocking on > Hells' door. Maybe Bright Lilim should have a new power instead to go > with their seeing needs (as obviously this aint enough on it's own). The > reason is that you are forcing someone to do something because you have > done something for them. > Which is pretty much the same thing that a contract does. Party A does something for Party B, Party B does something for Party A. > "Also check out the "agreed-upon-Geases" (in the Infernal Player's > Guide, sophisticated use of resonance) and Trade's Divine Contract > Servitor Attunement." > > Well, even if both parties are aware surely it's till selfish…isn't it? > Maybe? You are still entering the deal because you want something in > return. > In the end the act of doing someone a favour simply to get something out > of it in the end, which is, as I understand it, how Lilim resonance > works (bright or dark), is selfish. > Actually, that's Trade. That would mean that Marc is just as selfish as Lilith. (Hey, Marc's a Bright Lilim!) > Rameesh: "Ahh... I see, because you *have* to pay the Lilim back it's > obviously evil. But if you were able to walk away from the bargain, like > a normal deal it'd be okay." > Actually, you can't walk away from a normal contract either. Not legally, at least. Unless there are extenuating circumstances. > Wade (hello Wade!): Hi Martin! > "Easy. Geas someone into doing something for their > own good, or the greater good. Geas the druggie into checking himself > into rehab…The list goes on..." > > However, forcing the poor sod into rehab is selfish. The Lilim, I'm > assuming, is thinking 'hey, ill help you do such-and-such, but only if > you get help now y'hear!' Again the Lilim is only acting out of personal > motivation, that is hardly selfless! Maybe the outcome is helpful (maybe > not, the junkie is obviously not ready for rehab and therefor may end up > doing more harm than good!). > Okay, that was a bad example. But I think my point still stands: If the BL doesn't gain anything from the Geas, and the Geasee manages to do something for his own good/avoid being tempted by demons/not hurt someone they love/etc., it's at least not as selfish as a Kyrio possesing him. Or, if the demons have gotten the guy to do something that's a serious threat to the Symphony, Geasing him to not do it is a lot nicer than killing him before he can. On the other hand, I do see where you're coming from. In fact, I kind of like the idea of Bright Lilim being an Angelic Myth. But I don't think that, just because an act is selfish, it is necessarily evil, or non-Angelic, or whatever term you want to use. Angels can be pretty selfish, pretty often. (The Cherub from 'A Bright Dream' keeps coming to mind.) But even their most selfish act is done for the good of the Symphony, and therefore, the good of everyone (at least, from the Angelic POV). Which brings us into the whole "ends justify the means" debate, which I imagine Heaven seeing as a necessary Evil... Errg. There's a phrase I bet they don't like! I think I'll just let this snowball go off on it's own now... Wade (this is what happens when I think too much about RPGs) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:17:45 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> IN ethical theory Ben Aldred wrote: > It's all well and good to say that Lilim are all selfish but you must > realize that to some degree everyone is "selfish." This is a feature of IN, perhaps more terminology than anything else, that often nibbles at me. Selfish vs. "selfless" behavior is very near the core of Christian (and I think general Judeo-Christain) ethical theory, but "selfless" or "unselfish" isn't quite the right word. That suggests that one is required to NOT love oneself, even to hate oneself perhaps. But the Golden Rule -- which Christ gave immense authority, for Christians, but which he quoted from the Torah, Deuteronomy I think -- is to "love your neighbor as yourself." That can't mean hate yourself, or even be neutral and not love. "Charitable" or "altruistic" would be better words than "unselfish" or "selfless." But people tend to over-simplify and polarize things. The result is that real-world ethics, in lots of people's heads, is that "being good" requires despising oneself and being a general doormat, to the point that they become deeply suspicious of any talk of "self-esteem." (And of course it doesn't help that *other* people will talk about "self-esteem" as a cover for being really selfish.) And all this has spilled over into IN's terminology. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:21:09 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well >On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:59:04PM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: > There endeth the parable. Maybe Marc's word >> is selfish, but perhaps he oversees 'the give and take of daily life' in >> a more -accountant-like fashion; so long as the books are balanced it >> doesn't matter. > >I don't really see it that way. I see Marc as being a wealth creator, in >that many items don't have the same value to different people, and that >moving them to where the greatest need/desire is effectively increases the >amount of wealth. > The same here. Trade, in its essence, is about the transfer of goods and resources from regions of plenty to regions of need in a way that enriches both sides. Trade becomes a web of interaction that -- when done 'selflessly' enriches everyone. This isn't bad business practice, it's good business practice. By providing a good, fair deal that stimulates the market and provides goods to those who need to buy them, a business helps build those markets up, not only improving the lot for those who are consuming but making them better able to *keep* consuming. This is how the Angel of Trade differs from the Demon of Gluttony, the Demon of Greed or the Demon of the Media. Competition is healthy because a web of trade makes things better for everyone. Consumption for its own sake and the driving of product down people's throats are good for the short term profit margin in a business, but ruins it for everyone in the long run. >But either way, how can a Lilim redeem ad keep her >> resonance? >> >I'd say yes. > I am still very much in the camp that says there is nothing *innately* selfish about a Lilim's resonance. Remember, Resonance doesn't Geas people, Lilim geas people. (Soon to be a bumper sticker near you!) There are plenty of ways that Bright Lilim can *force* people to do things that will be better for them in the long run. And plenty of ways that Bright Lilim can get hooks sown into the enemy and *really* mess with their long term goals. (Just imagine if a Bright Lilim of Trade managed to get a Geas/5 on Bill Gates -- to use a real world currently high profile example -- and began using it to promote more equitable trade relations between Microsoft and other companies....) >> Also the victim likely has no idea that they are dealing with hellspawn. >> Secondly it's forced on them, thirdly Marc's word inspires, as he's >> selfless (!), openness in that all parties concerned are fully aware of >> what they are getting into, regardless of what that is. That is Marc's >> word. >> >I'm not so sure about that, but if someone fails to read the terms of a >contract, IMO any trouble they get into is their own fault. > Hellspawn might be technically accurate, but when a Lilim redeems, she is an angel, so I don't think it's germane. The 'Victim' (generally, and I would say almost always when it comes to Brights) has a *choice.* He can accept the service, *knowing* there will be a price, or he can refuse. So it's not forced on them because they've accepted it, intentionally or not. Once they've accepted it... yes, it's true. They may have thought they could get away with lying and not holding up their end of the bargain. Learning that they are dealing with a Holy Power capable of forcing them to keep their word might majorly squick the geasee, but it's certainly not an example of selfishness on the part of the Bright. My favorite example is still the hardcore drug abuser. A Bright Lilim gets involved with an abuser, and senses when his need is greatest. And offers him two weeks worth of their drug, with a price -- if they take it, they will *have* to go to detox afterward until they are completely clean and sober. The user's heard this before, sometimes often. He'll say anything to get his fix, so he says yes. So, when the Bright shows up after the two weeks, and suddenly the user has no choice but to honor his agreement... by the time he works the Geas off, he'll still have problems and could still slide back into addiction, but he'll have been given a true, full out chance for something else. And aren't Bright Lilim called the Givers? No one said they gift-wrapped their presents.... >> For my money, geas are selfish, period. Seeing needs isn't but the >> minute they use their power to make the person pay them back, even in a >> 'nice' way (pass the collection plate) they are knock-knock-knocking on >> Hells' door. > I totally disagree. If you sign a contract and agree to accept services in terms of other services, then refuse to hold up your end of the bargain, the other party isn't being 'selfish' if they sue you, take you to court, and have the judicial system force you to make full restitution both for what you failed to do and for the effort they had to make to make you pay up. Having a reasonance that displaces the lawsuit with a burning compulsion to Hold Up Your End isn't selfish. It is equity given form. And is a heck of a lot better than lying and breaking a contract with a Malakim of Trade, who'll decide that the Symphony needs a little disturbing and hurl you off a cliff (Evil has Been Reduced by one. Next?) >There is a difference between a deal that's beneficial to both parties, >and one heavily weighted in favour of one party. (Like the way some banks >manage to levy enough charges on accounts to more than offset the interest >they pay.) Trades that benefit both sides are good things. > And don't forget, *by* *definition,* a Lilim's Geas on someone must be equitable to the service rendered. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:46:28 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 07:58:47AM -0800, Wade Trupke wrote: > term you want to use. Angels can be pretty > selfish, pretty often. (The Cherub from 'A > Bright Dream' keeps coming to mind.) I might note at this point that that Cherub has, according to subsequent stories, fallen. And IMO, Nicole is an Impudite waiting to happen. But even > their most selfish act is done for the good of > the Symphony, and therefore, the good of > everyone (at least, from the Angelic POV). I don't think this is always true even of non-dissonant angels. But then I don't see a problem with angels performing morally neutral acts solely for their own pleasure, unless there's something more urgent they could be doing instead. Which > brings us into the whole "ends justify the > means" debate, which I imagine Heaven seeing as > a necessary Evil... > > Errg. There's a phrase I bet they don't like! > I think you may be underestimating the tendency of Seraphim and Elohim to like accurate description. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "With such tripe masses of human beings were tranquilised - until those rare occasions when they woke up, saw what was happening around them, misunderstood it, and did their best to impose the stupidest possible solution on the men who normally led them." A Dark and Hungry God Arises, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:28:52 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink At 7:06 PM +0000 3/8/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Kevin Walsh wrote on 08 March 1999 >>The difference between many geasa and agreed upon trades is a rather large >>one. One is a compulsion, and the other isn't. > >Ahh... I see, because you *have* to pay the Lilim back it's obviously evil. >But if you were able to walk away from the bargain like a normal deal it'd >be okay. Nah, it's more nasty than a fair trade because of the lengths you have to go to, typically, to say "no." to the deal. It's more nasty because it can be used as a form of entrapment. Say, for instance, Joe Human has a daughter, Jane Human, who has terminal liver failure, and will die in a few months without a transplant. Unfortunately, she has a very rare rejection spectrum that prevents her parents or siblings form coming to her aid. For this example, we'll have two alternate solutions to the problem,. Matthew, Matthew of Trade, and Lila, Lilim of Theft. Situation A: Matt comes up to Joe and says "You know, I think I can get my hands on a Donor Liver All legal, all above the board, and whatnot. You want it?" Joe says "Great! You can't imagine how much this means to me! Jane will be so happy! If there's anything I can do for you, anything at all, you just let me know!" Matt greases the wheels of the bureaucracy a bit, talking to people, pleading the little girl's case, getting her on television and whatnot, and in two months, as a result of her public exposure, and talking to the right people at the right time, Jane gets her liver. Four years later, Matt runs across Joe at a Starbucks. They sit down, have some coffee, and talk about things for awhile. Joe says "Hey, man, what you did for us was ...well, was unbelievable. If there's anything I can do for you--" "Well, there is one thing," says Matt, with unusual tactlessness. "The Olive Street Mission is really down after the fire last week. I'd really appreciate it if you'd make a donation to them, to help them get back on their feet...Say, $20,000?" Situation B: Lila spots Joe in Covenant Pesbytarian Church, talking his problems over with his Pastor. She catches his glance across the crowded pew, and pulls out a Need/6 "Donor liver for my daughter." Luckily, Lila's got a friend in Technology, who hacks into the Donor Organ distribution system, changes around some records, and finds a donor liver that most likely won't be rejected by Jane. Jane gets bumped up on the list, and in a week and a half, gets her new liver. Four years later, Joe gets a phone call. "You don't know me, but four years ago, I found a donor liver for your daughter. Now, what' I'd like you to do is take $20,000 in small, unmarked bills, put them in a black canvas bag, and place it in locker #217 at the Train Station, on Thursday at 5:17 PM. Then return home. You'll find the key to the locker under your doormat . Don't tell anybody about this transaction." Now if Joe wants to say "No." in situation A, he simply stands up, says "I'd really like to help out, Matt, but I just don't think I can swing $20,000 right now. Maybe $500 or so. I'll send 'em a check in a week or two, okay? Look at the time. Well, I've got to go..." If Joe wants to say "No." in situation B, he's got two options: 1) Make a Will-6 roll. Lila gets Dissonance, and gets a bit ticked off. 3.5 days later, Lila makes another request for the cash, calling him at work, and relaying a different drop-off point, in case he's told someone about the initial request. He's got to make a Will roll and if he does, then it's all well and good. 2) Go find Jane. Remove her liver. 3) Hunt down Lila. Have her Soul-Killed, or otherwise "persuaded" to remove the geas. If Joe's not familiar with Lilim, the latter two probably won't occur to him as ways to solve his problem. Essentially, the Geas is like holding a gun to the head of the target. Everybody's happier if you work out an equitable exchange, true......But if you don't want to be Equitable, the geas gives you a lot more leverage to be nasty. And, if you're not careful, humans can get killed pretty easily by a Geas/1. But that's a completely different problem. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Tasha, Balseraph Knight of Factions, the Alternate Angel of Political Correctness. | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 8:58:43 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well > >On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:59:04PM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: > > There endeth the parable. Maybe Marc's word > >> is selfish, but perhaps he oversees 'the give and take of daily life' in > >> a more -accountant-like fashion; so long as the books are balanced it > >> doesn't matter. > > > >I don't really see it that way. I see Marc as being a wealth creator, in > >that many items don't have the same value to different people, and that > >moving them to where the greatest need/desire is effectively increases the > >amount of wealth. > > > > The same here. Trade, in its essence, is about the transfer of goods and > resources from regions of plenty to regions of need in a way that enriches > both sides. Trade becomes a web of interaction that -- when done > 'selflessly' enriches everyone. This isn't bad business practice, it's > good business practice. By providing a good, fair deal that stimulates the > market and provides goods to those who need to buy them, a business helps > build those markets up, not only improving the lot for those who are > consuming but making them better able to *keep* consuming. > And to bring this back to IN perfectly...that means that an undefined amount of profit can be experienced by both sides. One of Marcs minions could get involoved in a deal that netted himself 500% profit and AT THE SAME TIME did the same for the other partner in the deal. As an example let's assume that said angel of Marc comes into contact with ten pounds of gold. He has no use for the stuff. It's heavy and slows him down. He purchased it at a good price though and now travels to the Somolia where a very brave man is setting up show as an Integrated Circuit provider. No one travels around with ten pounds of gold in the area, but, well, angels have more staying power. The gold is bought over value because it is needed. It is then converted into computer chips which sell at many times the value of the raw material. Everyone wins. > I totally disagree. If you sign a contract and agree to accept services in > terms of other services, then refuse to hold up your end of the bargain, > the other party isn't being 'selfish' if they sue you, take you to court, > and have the judicial system force you to make full restitution both for > what you failed to do and for the effort they had to make to make you pay > up. > Exactly. They are acting perfectly in accord with generous behavior especially if the court or other forms were last resort. They offer you a good deal, show mercy in collections, and then, since you are obviously selfish and hell bound anyway, obliterate you. Oh...wait these are bright lillm not Malakim of Trade.... - -- Kakita Nikku ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:32:29 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict At 7:46 PM +0000 3/9/99, Jo Hart wrote: >Hang on. Surely the geas can only imply 'do your utmost to fulfil this' and >he did. What if a Lilim geases somenoe to do something which they're just >incapable of -- ie 'Take this exam for me and get top marks'? Well, if it's a Multiple Choice exam, it's certainly possible (though incredibly unlikely) that anyone could get them all right by picking answers at random. If it's an Essay Test on Astronomy, and the person can't read a single word of English, for example, then the Geas doesn't "take." Hope you've got another hook, because you've wasted a perfectly good one. If the person could have done it, (Knows English, but isn't terribly knowledgeable in astronomy), the "Take this exam for me and get top marks" Geas would be of a higher level than it would for someone like a professional astronomer, because it includes commands like "study the material well enough to get a perfect score" or "use a successful cheating system to get a perfect score." At any rate, if he takes the test for you, and doesn't get top marks, the Geas inflicts Dissonance or Damage once, and is gone, as it's no longer possible for him to complete its requirements. > >In this case, she geased an incompetent burglar. A geas can't make someone >competent, and I don't think it should punish someone who was genuinely >doing their best to fulfil it. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Tasha, Balseraph Knight of Factions, the Alternate Angel of Political Correctness. | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:54:46 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict At 8:47 PM +0000 3/9/99, Jo Hart wrote: >What if the person who geased you deliberately sabotages you? (See how >quickly it could get twinkish?) In the words of Daphne, Bright Lilim of Lightning... "Lilim don't *do* that. It's just *wrong*." But since not all Lilim can be trusted to hold to that, and PC Lilim in particular cannot, I'd probably make the following ruling: If the Geaser knowingly, deliberately does anything to sabotage your attempt to fulfill the Geas, the Geas is broken, and you're free to go. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Tasha, Balseraph Knight of Factions, the Alternate Angel of Political Correctness. | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 12:10 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim >>Some GMs tend to give what needs are on the person's mind, or >>the ones which are strongest. (This is where you get Malakim >>oaths as Needs...) > >I try to do this. I've also been playing with the idea that Lilim that serve >a Word tend to get needs that cater to thier word. Lust Lilm get more >sexual/lust needs, Media cravings for attentions/stardom, that sort of >thing. What do people think of that idea? I've been doing things a bit like that, though I treat it as more of a tendency than something that's a hard & fast rule. The notion I have is that they subconsciously sort through the target's Needs at the level of the CD, and pick the ones they're most in tune with. After all, most people have more than one Need at a given level. Another house rule I've seen used is to offer a selection of Needs *at* the CD level, but I think that's too powerful. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1141 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.