From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 10 13:38:31 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 NAA31034 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:38:21 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id NAA00478 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:34:25 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:34:25 -0600 Message-Id: <199903101934.NAA00478@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 #1142 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 1142 In this digest: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> glad you are well IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:22:53 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > 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. [long example snipped] > 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. I find your example a bit strange. Is this supposed to show how selfish the -Lilim- is? Personally I think Joe's the jerk in this little tale (version A, that is), provided he could donate the $20K without turning everything he owns over to a pawn shop. He breaks his word to someone who saved his daughter's life for -money-? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:26:38 -0600 From: Seth Buntain Subject: IN> Lilim and Geases... Hi, new to list and have been lurking for a bit, but this seems to be a hot current topic so I thought Id ask a few questions I had... Free Lilim have no infernal Heart, so they go to Limbo when knocked into Trauma. This presents something of a problem for those people who like to play Free Lilim, as they are likely to spend months or years in Limbo trying to save the essense up for a vessel/1. One idea I had was the following. Through dedicated hard work, collect a series of geases on all your infernal not so buddies. When you call them in, could you word it something like: "When I go into Limbo, send me X essense" Where X is dependent on the level of Geas (3-5/level or there abouts.) That way you could do several little favors for your local Impudite of Technology with the 6 force familiar and reliquary, and Geas/6 him into sending you 30 essense when the Malakite lops off your head. Does anyone see any problems with this? If you got 17 people geased at level 3 to send you 9 essence each, you could walk out of limbo directly after Trauma with a vessel/2. (neglecting the inherent difficulty of grabbing 17 people with level 3 geases and so on.) Things I worry about: How long would such a Geas last? (Ie, would you only be able to word it: if I go into Limbo in the next year...). Theoretically, they would only get dissonance if they delayed or where unable to send essence right away, so choose your essence batteries wisely. (Like the above mentioned Impudite of Tech). Also, the Geas doesnt go away cause your in Limbo does it? I know that Geas and hooks on people who go into Limbo disappear, but people who are _owed_ Geas keep them even in the Higher Heavens (again, in theory.) The other trick is that they have to know you went into Limbo. I imagine that if they didnt know you had gone into Limbo they wouldnt suffer dissonace for resisting the Geas. (Celestial Song of Tounges useful here, using that last point of essence to alert your friends as the sword comes arcing down.) On the other hand, if they _do_ suffer dissonance, thats a really quick and easy way for them to figure out you had gone into Limbo and rectify the situation. Slightly differnt question: What kind of Geas is the "Act as a Servitor for X time" Geas? Ie, is a "Act as a Servitor for 1 year" geas a Geas/6? I know that should probobly be obvious, but I seem to have confused myself with all the reading Ive done on it. For example, a Free Lilim promising to act as a Servitor of Asmodeus for one year (in this case in exchange for a vessel and role), it had been argued that working for the game is more dangerous and/or against personal code than other Princes, so the Geas might be higher... (obviously this would translate into a Geas/6 work for me, and a Geas/x to be specified later.) And finally, how often to Angels/Demons get their vessels replaced? Id like to know because it would help gauge how often the Free Lilim would get gifts from her temp Superior while in Limbo (less than everyone else, but maybe on occasion.) Do Malakim get replacements more often than everyone else? (Like, anytime they get their butt kicked in honorable combat?) Thats always bothered me, cause otherwise the Malakim is going to be spending all his character points on replacing his vessel, instead of songs or stats or whatever. Phew, too long, sorry. - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:19 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well > 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.... > But they might be after they pupate! *waggle eyebrows* - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:51:07 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> Re: Marc Martin Arnold wrote: > >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. 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? Right. IMC Bright Lilim of Marc were strictly forbidden to invoke geases, because they were one-sided and involuntary. IMC Marc's word of Trade represented mutual, voluntary charity. If I have two slices of bread and you have two slices of cheese, then each giving the other one of their slices meant we could both make a sandwich -- both of us would be better off than we were before. Certainly, it's not a heroic and terrifying demonstration of obedience to God like suffering martyrdom for the Faith. But OTOH few people are required to be martyrs, and even then they are martyrs only once. Charity and working for the benefit of others and yourself is something that must be done day in and day out, for your whole life. In art it's possible to turn around with a single transcendent act, but to live a real life touching real people well means that honesty and charity must permeate all actions down to the smallest acts. (This is a noneconomic way of looking at things; somehow talking about revealed preferences and Pareto-improvements didn't seem to invoke an image of heaven to me. :] I'm also trying to figure out a way of working Biblical prohibitions against usury into Marc's persona, as it would be a subtle way of negating the notions of progress and modernity.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:14:15 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > (This is a noneconomic way of looking at things; somehow talking about > revealed preferences and Pareto-improvements didn't seem to invoke an > image of heaven to me. :] I'm also trying to figure out a way of working > Biblical prohibitions against usury into Marc's persona, as it would be > a subtle way of negating the notions of progress and modernity.) That's a pity. One of the reasons I like Marc is because he seems to be one of the few Archangels that sees the universe as dynamic (the other main one being Janus). In particular since everything that's been said about material trade also applies to interest-bearing loans. Someone has money that he doesn't have a need for at the moment, and someone else needs the money now enough to be willing to pay back more later. Any doubts I might have had about the goodness of usury have been dispelled by watching my Islamic friends who are unable to buy a house because they can't take out a mortgage. But, then, I am a modernist, so I'm happier with a Heaven that has *someone* who thinks at least a little like I do. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:09:52 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> IN ethical theory Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >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. In C.S. Lewis's _Screwtape Letters_, the demon Screwtape suggests that one of Hell's great victories was to get mankind to think of "selflessness" as the opposite of "selfishness." When humans see the choice between indulgence and abstemious ascetism, the naturally choose to live for themselves. But this is a false choice: God did not create humans so they could destroy themselves -- selfishness actually violates the commandment to Charity. Humans are commanded to love and help one another, and selfishness is refusal to obey this Law. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 23:03:55 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... >Free Lilim have no infernal Heart, so they go to Limbo when knocked into >Trauma. This presents something of a problem for those people who like to >play Free Lilim, as they are likely to spend months or years in Limbo >trying to save the essense up for a vessel/1. One idea I had was the >following. Through dedicated hard work, collect a series of geases on all >your infernal not so buddies. When you call them in, could you word it >something like: "When I go into Limbo, send me X essense" Where X is >dependent on the level of Geas (3-5/level or there abouts.) That way you >could do several little favors for your local Impudite of Technology with >the 6 force familiar and reliquary, and Geas/6 him into sending you 30 >essense when the Malakite lops off your head. > well you could always get a geas on a demon prince and use the favor to have them make and hold onto a heart for you. Ben "I'm not the heroic type. I was beaten up by Quakers." Woody Allen "Sleeper" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:08:38 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Right. IMC Bright Lilim of Marc were strictly forbidden to invoke > geases, because they were one-sided and involuntary. One-sided? How? And it's not entirely involuntary. If the deal is laid out at the beginning, then there's no one-sidedness about it; a Geas is simply the Lilim's way of making sure she gets what's coming to her. IOW, if the Lilim and Person N make the deal "if I do X, you agree to do Y", the Lilim does X, and then N tries to get out of doing Y, the Geas says "oh no you don't" and smacks him, either with dissonance or with damage. Just because the Lilim's getting something out of the deal, IMOW, doesn't mean the other participant isn't. > IMC Marc's word of Trade represented mutual, voluntary charity. If I have > two slices of bread and you have two slices of cheese, then each giving > the other one of their slices meant we could both make a sandwich -- both > of us would be better off than we were before. Certainly, it's not a heroic > and terrifying demonstration of obedience to God like suffering martyrdom > for the Faith. But OTOH few people are required to be martyrs, and even > then they are martyrs only once. Charity and working for the benefit of > others and yourself is something that must be done day in and day out, for > your whole life. In art it's possible to turn around with a single > transcendent act, but to live a real life touching real people well means > that honesty and charity must permeate all actions down to the smallest > acts. What's the difference? Lilim share that way too, only if you take my bread and don't give me your cheese, you get hurt for it. It's essentially the same thing as calling Malakim down to enforce an important deal, only Lilim do it with _every_ deal. In certain ways Lilim actually reinforce Marc's Word. Now, I will readily admit that many Lilim operate as follows: Me: Here, have some bread. *sticks Geas-hook in* You: Hey, thanks, this'll go great with my cheese. Me: Oh, hey, I'd like some of that cheese. *invokes Geas* You: Um, no, it's my cheese. *Geas goes off* Ow! Okay, dammit. Extremely simplified, of course, but it does stand; otoh, it's not the _only_ way that Lilim operate. Additionally, if Bright Lilim of Trade weren't allowed to use their Resonance, I wouldn't think there'd be many Bright Lilim of Trade to begin with... - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "I never trust anybody who can't lie." - Caitlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:22:32 -0800 From: Steel Angel 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'? > > > >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. There we go, but the burgler has to -eekp trying-, which is an important distinction. If a Lilim Geases someone into a -continuing task- (Guard this door until you die. - Extreme example, yes) that person has to keep going at it, or pay the price. But if the Lilim Geases someone into a task that has a definite end, whether they do it well or not, as long as they -did- try, as soon as the task ends, that's it, there's your one (if they failed) and the Geas falls. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:22:29 -0600 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... >well you could always get a geas on a demon prince and use the favor to >have them make and hold onto a heart for you. They addressed this in one of the books. Its apparently a Geas/6 to get the heart created and another Geas/6 to have it 'liberated' so that you can store it anywhere in hell. Not to mention that having a heart seems counter intuitive to the whole Free Lilim concept :):) > >Ben >"I'm not the heroic type. I was beaten up by Quakers." >Woody Allen "Sleeper" - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:24:30 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > > 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?) > > 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. Now what if the Geaser asks a friendly Calabite to sabotage it? Tougher call. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 11:00:04 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc > > (This is a noneconomic way of looking at things; somehow talking about > > revealed preferences and Pareto-improvements didn't seem to invoke an > > image of heaven to me. :] I'm also trying to figure out a way of working > > Biblical prohibitions against usury into Marc's persona, as it would be > > a subtle way of negating the notions of progress and modernity.) > > That's a pity. One of the reasons I like Marc is because he seems to be one of > the few Archangels that sees the universe as dynamic (the other main one being > Janus). In particular since everything that's been said about material trade > also applies to interest-bearing loans. Someone has money that he doesn't have > a need for at the moment, and someone else needs the money now enough to be > willing to pay back more later. Any doubts I might have had about the goodness > of usury have been dispelled by watching my Islamic friends who are unable to > buy a house because they can't take out a mortgage. > Not to mention that the idea of usury doesn't pertain to all interest bearing accounts. There are Biblical parallels that illistrate that loans and such were an accepted means of making money. What was condemmed is, as Webster's notes, the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates or an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money. All of which I'm sure Marc is against. It's bad business practice to boot. > But, then, I am a modernist, so I'm happier with a Heaven that has *someone* > who thinks at least a little like I do. > > J. Michael Neal - -- Kakita Nikku ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:03:44 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark 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. > Yes, it is. Yes, it can. Which does not make it *selfish.* > 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?" First off, there is no trade involved here. Just an Angel doing a Good Thing. Joe has offered to "do anything, do anything at all, just let me know," but that's really just a sentence. Trade would involve some form of at least verbal contract. > >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." > This is likely unCanon of me, but I have a house rule. To get a hook, a Lilim *must* invoke acceptance of the deal. If she never speaks to Joe, and simply up and gets a liver... well, the contract was never signed, as far as I'm concerned. His Need has been fulfilled, but without the Price being invoked. In the case of a Bright, I would even think it would require interaction. Human Beings Have Free Will, That's The Deal. They Get Refusal Rights. So, Lila walks up to Joe, and says "hi. You don't know me, but I can get a liver for your daughter. No one will be hurt by it, I promise." Joe blinks, and says "You... oh please, I'll do anything, anything at all...." Lila nods a bit. "Well, I'll ask you for a favor sometime, all right? Let's not worry about it right now." Joe has agreed. The Geas hook is within him. >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..." > Yup. Joe has the option to be selfish without a contract. So Matt waits until he's most of the way out the door, and says "you know, kindness isn't a gift, Joe. It's a loan. You receive it, you have to give it to others, or it doesn't mean anything." Joe feels a hair guilty, perhaps, but moves on into his life. And Matt starts a bit of work to help Joe be pushed closer to his destiny, using Joe's daughter as an example, but generally working on him until Joe has a change of heart. >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. > In Situation B, if Joe has Made A Deal, you're absolutely right. Though I think a Bright Lilim would have more brains than this, since this wouldn't help Joe to his Destiny, but instead his Fate. I would see this happening instead. "Hi Joe." "Lila... I thought I'd never see you again. You have to come see my daughter -- she's gotten so big, and she's so--" "I'd like that Joe, but... not right now. Remember we talked about a favor?" Joe blinks and nods. "Sure. Do you need something?" "Mmm... it's not my need, but someone else's. Come on, I'll show you." They drive down to the mission, and see how it's burned out. "The damage is horrible, Joe. They can't go on like this. They need help." "Wow... that's... wow. What can we do?" "Not we, you." She turns and looks at him. "Joe, they need twenty thousand dollars by a week from this coming Friday, or they just won't be able to go on." Joe blinks. "I can't swing that kind of money -- maybe five hundred--" Lila looks Joe in the eyes, and speaks softly. "Whether you swing it -- and I know you can -- or you raise it... they need that money, Joe. That's the favor. You need to help them." Joe blinks, feeling a clutch inside his heart. "But... how... do I...." "How is up to you, Joe. How is up to you." Not sure why... Joe nods slowly. "All... all right. I'll... I'll find a way." Lila nods slightly, smiling a bit. "Good. Perhaps you can start a campaign of some sort. Mm -- I know someone, a friend of mine over at WNBS... he owes me a favor, and I think that station could use some community service, don't you?" She winks. "I'll put you two in touch...." If Joe flat out refuses, he'll get the will roll, naturally. And good luck to him. But a Bright Lilim (heck -- *any* Lilim) knows not just how to use a favor, but how to frame it to minimize resistance. And by bringing him into the problem and then forcing him to solve it, she gives Joe a shot at moving towards his Destiny and growing to accept selfnessless for its own sake (which a phone call order wouldn't.) That's my take on the situation. (Again, think of how a Malakim might handle the situation. "You. I got your daughter life itself. Now it is your turn. You will Honor the debt to you and the life of your daughter." "Or you will pay honor another way.") >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. > I'm an educator. Specifically, I'm an IT Manager at a school that's gone gonzo for technology. I have interns and students I deal with every day, and every student here has computer issues. I work out stuff every day with them. I strive to be a good Elohite, more or less. But sometimes, I have to sit a student down and tell him that either he needs to cooperate with us or we're going to have to expel him, send him home to his extremely unhappy parents, and generally screw up his life utterly. For some of these kids, it's the same as holding a gun to their head. That's not fun or easy. I don't exhaust myself like this for *selfish* reasons. And when the student gets some perspective on the situation, often he realizes the reason why we do things, and that improves his disposition and view of the world. And that's a great thing. I'll tell you right now, if my Systems Administrator were a Bright Lilim instead of Irish, I'd give her more money and have her working pretty darn hard collecting Geasa. So would the school. And there wouldn't be anything selfish about it. >And, if you're not careful, humans can get killed pretty easily by a >Geas/1. But that's a completely different problem. Also very true. One must be careful with that gun pointing at their head. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:14:14 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark 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. > I am *so* glad someone else thinks Nicole is a selfish, vain, intolerant preImpudite. If she were some other Choir, I could see her attitude, but she's so *not* Mercurian it isn't even funny. I mean, within twelve hours of meeting her new Servant he gets his thumb bitten off -- a major trama for most people who *like* opposable thumbs -- and her reaction is some mild, hollow sympathy and an order to get her dry cleaning redone. I can see why her other Soldier betrayed her -- I'd sure be rethinking my alliegences if I spent time with her. >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. > An it harm none, do as thou wilt? I think angels are permitted a social life, so long as it doesn't interfere with their work. The problem is, demons who discover an angel's social life have another way they can begin to sow difficulty with the angel's mission (or doubt in the Angel's mind.) >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. > And Malakim. "The Ends Justify the Means" seems to be an operating principle for a good number of Heaven's Forces. Mortal concerns are not divine ones. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:30:27 -0600 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > >On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:59:04PM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: [snip] > >But either way, how can a Lilim redeem and keep her > >> resonance? > >> > >I'd say yes. Easily. See below. [much snippage] > 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. > 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?) > > And don't forget, *by* *definition,* a Lilim's Geas on someone must be > equitable to the service rendered. In otherwords, the damage from a Geas is a major self-enforcing and self-inflicted breach of contract clause. So, IMC, it is perfectly acceptable for a Bright Lilim to use her _full_ resonance: Need-reading, Need-meeting, hook, and Geas. No surprise to any concerned, most BLs IMC are going to work for Marc, at least the generic ones. Non-generic ones probably have personality quirks that define them and put them in another AA's Service. Plus, the Geas-inflicted damage, without the X6 multiplier that _Divine Contract_ has, is actually an act of mercy. Plus, the refractory period for a high-level Geas is _long_ -- a month for level 4, half a year and a year, respectively, for 5 and 6 -- plenty of time for the damage to have healed up before it is inflicted again, at least in the case of levels 5 & 6. Of course, this still doesn't change the fact that this is a Resonance that _looks_ really nasty to the Bright's fellow angels, so it would probably be better if s/he stuck to reading Needs and passing this info along to other Angels. But that is a social and political restriction and not one [IMC] that is required by Heaven for a Lil to go Bright, though particular AAs may have their own personal requirements that the Lil will have to meet before the Superior will agree to sponsor them for Redemption. My take. Tom Timberlake, Cadre Cherub of Heaven and sometime Unicorn Shugenja - -- "it's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone underwear" Cheers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 14:29 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... >Free Lilim have no infernal Heart, so they go to Limbo when knocked into >Trauma. This presents something of a problem for those people who like to >play Free Lilim, as they are likely to spend months or years in Limbo >trying to save the essense up for a vessel/1. One idea I had was the >following. Through dedicated hard work, collect a series of geases on all >your infernal not so buddies. This seems perfectly plausible, but it's a little tricky to work in practice. As you point out, there's no really reliable way of setting things up so the geasee knows the Lilim is in Trauma. And I think I'd rule that the Geas wasn't actually invoked until the Lilim wanted it to go active. If she has Celestial Tongues, and sufficient time and Essence, she could call all the geasees and invoke the Geases that way, but that's pretty unreliable. A more reliable way to do it would be to use a high-level Geas (/3 or better) to have people send you Essence in Limbo periodically, *whether they knew you were there or not*. This wastes Essence, but this is essentially a life insurance policy, and may be worth it. If she has a few people each sending her a point of Essence in Limbo once a week (which I'd put at one level below the "typical" Geas level for the duration; i.e., a one-shot to send one Essence at the end of a week would be a Geas/2, sending 1 Essence/week for a year would be a Geas/5), she'd be in pretty good shape, at the expense of using up a bunch of Geases. Probably the best way, though is to set up an informal (or formal) deal with her sisters. Something like "If either of us hears that the other is in Limbo, or doesn't check in with the other at least once in two weeks, we agree to send a point of Essence to the other in Limbo every days, and to try to get other people to do, until we've sent Essence [which is probably enough for a basic human vessel without problems]. And when the one in Limbo gets out, she owes a Geas/5 to the other." Or it could be a "pool" deal, with several sisters, and a smaller Geas promised to each. Or some enterprising sisters in the Guildhall might run an insurance business, give them a Geas/2 every month, and they'll try to ensure you'll quickly get enough Essence for a decent vessel if you go into Limbo. Or Lilith herself might offer to send Essence to a Daughter in Limbo -- for a Geas/4, payable in advance, every year. Remember that Lilim trust each other... a little. Their reputation with each other for fair dealing with sisters is an important asset. >Slightly differnt question: > >What kind of Geas is the "Act as a Servitor for X time" Geas? This is one of your "typical" service Geases (I think this is in the IPG or FotM). This presumes that the Lilim will be treated as a typical Servitor, and not as angel-fodder. (Well, that *is* typical behavior for *some* Princes....) It also presumes the Lilim will get whatever support a regular Servitor would get, and even be eligible for the rewards a normal Servitor might get, though not with nearly as high a probability (since the Lilim is already being "rewarded" somewhat by losing the Geas). > Ie, is a >"Act as a Servitor for 1 year" geas a Geas/6? Yes. Usually. > I know that should probobly >be obvious, but I seem to have confused myself with all the reading Ive >done on it. For example, a Free Lilim promising to act as a Servitor of >Asmodeus for one year (in this case in exchange for a vessel and role), it >had been argued that working for the game is more dangerous and/or against >personal code than other Princes, so the Geas might be higher... (obviously >this would translate into a Geas/6 work for me, and a Geas/x to be >specified later.) The Game probably isn't much worse than the others; frankly I'd say working for Baal or Belial would be more likely to be dangerous than working for the Game -- Lilim are usually better suited to intrigue than combat. But yes, Asmodeus might have to pay *Lilith* more to buy a Geas than she'd charge, say, Valefor or Andrealphus. And if he hires Lilim "free market", they probably charge more, or he has to offer more to get them to take temporary service. Of course, he can lean on them a bit, too, as long as he doesn't get too blatant about it. Remember, too, that Asmodeus is one of Hell's trickiest people -- he may actually deal fairly generously with Lilim... most of the time. That way, no one will really be inclined to trust any Free Lilim; she might be under contract to the Game. And they get around a lot -- it's an easy way to plant a spy on someone, albeit temporarily. It also gives him a way to check up on these -- in his opinion -- loose cannons. >And finally, how often to Angels/Demons get their vessels replaced? Depends on the Superior, the job, and how much the Servitor is in the favor of his boss. I'd expect that, except for Malakim and Servitors of the most combat-prone Words (Dark Fire, War, the War, Stone, and the Sword), that most Servitors are expected to keep a given vessel for years. On the angelic side, I'd expect most Superiors to replace without fuss or comment a vessel that was lost for a good reason; i.e., something really important to the Superior's Word, defending a Tether, or just unexpected, overwhelming force from the opposition. The Princes are a little more unpredictable, but most of them aren't going to let an otherwise useful Servitor go to waste just because he lost a vessel. On the other hand, losing a vessel through sheer stupidity or incompetance is more likely to get the Servitor stuck in the celestial realm, with a severe lecture and a nasty scut-work job for a while. If not worse. > Id >like to know because it would help gauge how often the Free Lilim would get >gifts from her temp Superior while in Limbo (less than everyone else, but >maybe on occasion.) I think this would depend strongly on how useful the Prince thought her to be. Also, it's good politics (when you want to hire other Free Lilim, later) if you're relatively generous about replacing vessels "lost in the line of duty", especially when under direct orders (not necessarily to get killed, but to do something that caused the death). > Do Malakim get replacements more often than everyone >else? (Like, anytime they get their butt kicked in honorable combat?) Probably a bit more often, but most of the war factions on both sides are likely to do much the same for all of their Servitors. Basically, if it's your job to go out and kill or be killed every day, vessel replacement should be common, unless you're too incompetant to be worthwhile to your side. >Thats always bothered me, cause otherwise the Malakim is going to be >spending all his character points on replacing his vessel, instead of songs >or stats or whatever. They probably shouldn't be losing vessels all *that* often. In my game, at least, most combats aren't fatal. In particular, most demons will retreat to Hell to avoid losing a vessel, and many angels will likewise retreat to Heaven if in circumstances where dying would do no particular good. Vessel-replacement is expensive enough that explaining a celestial retreat is generally better than not retreating and having to explain losing a vessel. This leaves vessel loss as a deliberate sacrifice move in many cases, someone a celestial does because the alternatives are worse (either for himself, for demons, or for others/the Symphony, for angels). Of course there are car accidents and other sudden, deadly, traumas that can kill with insufficient warning that the celestial doesn't have *time* to retreat. And then there are some celestials who can't manage to make Will rolls to ascend, leaving them open to celestial death; staying in the vessel is the better course, then. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1142 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.