From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 10 16:22:41 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 QAA14692 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:22:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA13829 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:19:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:19:57 -0600 Message-Id: <199903102219.QAA13829@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 #1143 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 1143 In this digest: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> glad you are well Re: IN> Re: Marc Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Re: IN> IN ethical theory Re: IN> Demon of Fiddling IN> dissonance vs. sin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:39:29 +0300 From: "Tick Tock" Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict - -----Original Message----- From: Steel Angel >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. Need it be tougher? I've been re-reading the books and it's slowly confusing me (nobody plays Lilim in my gaming group). It seems as though the writers encourage the Lilim/Geas to be a closely personal relationship to for the Lilim. Would it then follow that in taking knowing action to sabotage the Geas that the Lilim has 'weakened' the Geas, possibly causing it to cease to function? In a related question, Is the level of the Geas required to get that little 'favor' decided by how hard the Lilim believes the task to be -OR- what the person Geased believes it to be? If it's the victim, would his realization that the task is much harder than he originally thought affect the Geas already in effect? Hmmm... now I am really getting confused on this whole Lilim thing.... ... time waits for one man .... ... if he is willing to pay the price ... TickTock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:16:20 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN ethical theory At 11:17 AM -0500 3/10/99, 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 [...] >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, [...] Hm. I actually hadn't read it that way. I was reading "selfless" as, "acting for the greater good" or "for the good of others" or simply, "giving without asking/wanting something else in return." Angels aren't doormats -- but they believe that they're part of a whole, and act to preserve the whole above the part that they are. (Mind, they may be an *important* part -- but they're a *part*. They're connected to everything else in the Symphony...) For a demon, the "whole" can all go hang when it comes down to "me or others". A demon picks his own interests above anything else's, and will bail from a plot/group/whatever in trouble exactly in accordance to his ability to figure long-term consequences to himself. (If they stay with something annoying, they are certainly expecting vast rewards later on, or bailing out would get them worsenesses.) I may be rambling... O:> But I'm not sure that *everyone* thinks of "being good" as being a doormat. (Much as demons would like to promote that concept!) - --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 14:24:00 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict At 11:54 AM -0500 3/10/99, 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?) > >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 Ofori is wise. In a sense, that would be trying to Geas someone to something impossible, because you're going to *make* it impossible...) - --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 14:34:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... At 11:26 AM -0600 3/10/99, Seth Buntain wrote: >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. This seems quite reasonable to me -- and in fact, may be something that Lilim will do for each other as unofficial favors, which the Lilim in Limbo had best remember when she gets out. >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...). I think that if it were invoked, then yes, it would be limited to a year. (Though if it's trivial enough, a GM could be kind and expand the duration -- especially if the Essence-total didn't have to go in at once.) >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.) You can't invoke 'em from inside Limbo. If they're currently invoked, then I'd do one of two things. (Well, 3: first, I'd consult FotM to see if this problem was solved before.) Option 1: it's invoked, so only soul-killing the holder will trash the Geas. Option 2 (prefered): the Geas vanishes as long as she's in Limbo -- and when she gets out, it comes back. >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? Yes. It's "normal work" according to the FotM table. There's also a bit more in that regarding servants and Geases in the forthcoming Liber S. >And finally, how often to Angels/Demons get their vessels replaced? This depends on the GM, the campaign, and a lot of other factors. >maybe on occasion.) Do Malakim get replacements more often than everyone >else? (Like, anytime they get their butt kicked in honorable combat?) This is probably yes. - --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 19:44:00 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> IN ethical theory >>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. I was rereading a Don Camillo story the other day, which mentioned something that might be relevant here - the story of Saint Martin. This saint happened to be out in cold weather, if I remember correctly, and was wearing a cloak. He ran into a beggar who had barely anything in the way of clothes. Taking off his sword, the saint cut his cloak in half, and gave half to the beggar, keeping half for himself. Now _that_ might fit a Trade model, too. - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:54:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> IN ethical theory Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > I may be rambling... O:> But I'm not sure that *everyone* thinks > of "being good" as being a doormat. (Much as demons would like > to promote that concept!) I'm sure lots/most people *don't* think of "being good" as "being a doormat," but I think use of the term "selfless" rather than "charitable," "altruistic," "generous," or "giving" does *assist* the demonic propaganda that "being good" = "no fun." Not everyone falls for it, but it helps. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:58:47 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Steel Angel wrote: > Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > > 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. Not at all. Asking a friendly Calabite to sabotage the Geas is doing something to sabotage the Geas in its own right. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:25:02 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Seth Buntain wrote: > 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. That's soluable, and has been discussed. In fact, one of the books (IPG or maybe FotM) says that if the Lilim is on 'act as a Servitor of X' duty to a Prince and gets killed for reasons for which a Prince would have replaced a Servitor's Vessel, the Superior is expected to either send significant Essence donations to Limbo or give the Lilim an adequate replacement Vessel when she gets out on her own. This isn't part of the Geas, but if a Prince gets a reputation for not helping out when you get killed in his service, the Frees double their rates when selling a contract to him. For a lesser employer, a Geas to send Essence to Limbo if she fails a regular check-in could be part of the contract. A harder problem is the fact that Trauma times are expanded if you're Heartless: you have a chance of recovery after a number of *weeks* equal to your Corporeal Forces, instead of a number of days. You can modify this with house rules. And of course there are Body Bags and spare Vessels. IMC, once they've gotten to Earth, the first thing a Free Lilim wants is a spare Vessel and the second is a Body Bag. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:38:45 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > (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....) Heh. IMC the Holy Grail got Bill Gates. Marc was not involved (or if he was, no one told the PCs) but Jean was *very* pleased. Coincidentally enough, a Renegade Lilim acted as facilitator. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:00:52 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink Whistling in the Dark (there's only one thing that I like and that is whistling in the dark) who am me wrote: > >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. > I should point out that there's a lot of leeway in that, especially for dark Lilim -- for instance, in the K.K. writeup, when she identified the Need of the Malakim and then fulfilled it, she also shouted "all right, but there's a price!" (paraphrased) To me, the Malakite following through on his Need was an unspoken acceptance of the Lilim's terms. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:12:58 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc Eeyore wrote: > >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. IRL I actually agree with you -- I'm a libertarian, after all. But in my game I was trying to see what the world looked like from a worldview very different from my own -- what if the Sunday school teachers were /right/? So Marc's word of Trade isn't driven by self-interested voluntary exchange -- it's reciprocated charity. This is not the same thing as market relations! When the two people being charitable towards each other are moderately well-off, the results are roughly the same. But it has an altogether different character at the edges -- particularly with respect to the very poor and the very rich. A rich person is expected to give more material goods than the value he receives -- the good of others is his own good, and a person in dire straits will benefit far more from his wealth than he himself does.[*] A poor person can receive more charity than he gives, but of course he is expected to behave as if he were rich when he comes across someone even more impoverished than he is. (So a starving community might give their food first to their children, before feeding the parents....) [*] Notice the trickiness here -- IRL comparing utility functions between two different people is an operation that's impossible to define consistently, because preferences (which are observable) determine a utility function (which is unobservable) only up to a monotonic transformation. Informally, it might well be that a hundred bucks brings more satisfaction to a beggar than to a millionaire -- but it's *also* possible that the beggar cares nothing for material possessions and the millionaire loves money so much that it hurts him to give up his dollars more than it would for the beggar. We can't say for certain, simply from the two peoples' stated preferences over goods. In an IN-like universe, however, God can simply define the appropriate standard of comparison -- because He is the ultimate Truth. If you run with the standard proposed in the Golden Rule, then you get a criterion for judging the justness of a form of social organization very much like what John Rawls proposed in _A Theory of Justice_ -- namely, that a society should be judged by the lot of its worst-off members. He arrived at it by a very different process, though -- Rawls was trying to come up with an intellectually-rigorous justification for a social-democratic state that didn't depend on either utilitarianism or a Marxist analysis. (Whether or not Rawls succeeded is a different question (I think he failed) that spawned a thousand poli-sci PhD theses.) Note that this doesn't require perfect egalitarianism -- if you know that sinful man will not act without the motivation of a reward, then it's reasonable to institute private property and a market economy to raise the level of the worst-off. But this is a pragmatic adaptation rather than a fundamental result of the construction of personal rights that it is in a market-liberal worldview. (C.S. Lewis used a similar argument to justify his support for democracy and equal rights for women -- for unfallen man the perfect government might be a patriarchal monarchy, but for current the current sinful humanity that was just an invitation to tyranny.) Whew. That was long, and probably pretty tedious, so I'll stop now. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:25:51 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc nick jost wrote: > 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. I try to stay away from Biblical parallels because a) I'm not terribly familiar with it, and b) when I've tried on other subjects, I've found it subject to multiple interpretations. Historically, of course, your interpretation has very often not been the one applied. If it was, the legal/moral interest rate was generally fixed without regard to the riskiness of the loan. This dramatically hinders Marc's Word, as no one wants to loan money they might not get back without getting a higher rate in return. The rate also wasn't adjusted for inflation, which at times would lead to the maximum nominal interest rate to provide a negative real rate of return. (If you can ever borrow under these conditions, don't pass up the opportunity. Car companies do it sometimes.) In all, even with your asterisk, usury prohibitions have been a major stranglehold on trade. I think Marc feels about the concept much like Michael feels about restrictions on pride. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:19:38 -0600 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases... >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. Another option is to have someone you trust that you can send a message to and then have _them_ 'activate' the geases. This ties in nicely with the Lilim Life Insurance Company, Inc, GuildHall, Hell. Your friendly neighborhood Lilim Insurance salesperson Geases herself that when she finds out you are in Limbo, she will get X Essence sent to you, in exchange for you doing something or having a Geas etc. That way you can use that last essence as before to let him/her know, and then they do the foot work of collecting the Geas and Essence. I really like the idea of the Lilim insurance. And they could sell to outcasts and renegades, for vastly increased prices of course. >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. Looking at it this way, I can see why it wouldnt be an extra Geas to work for him. I asked because it was an idea I had for a Lilim character I was working on, that she traded a Geas/6 for a vessel and a role as a private investigator, and agreeded to use her abilities to send regular weekly reports to Asmodeus on all the celestial and important mortal goings ons. I liked the concept alot, as a private eye isnt something most people associate with Lilim, despite the excellent 'networking' and information gathering abilities they have. (Or maybe Ive just been around way too many people playing Lilim of Lust *sigh*) And I immediately saw the benifit to Asmodeus for doing this, because he has them sorta under his thumb, rather then off doing G*d knows what. The GM I talked to was allowing Geas for starting characters (if they played Lilim), so it worked out (to bad the game fell through. Anyone want a Free Lilim private eye as part of their game? :). And of course, later on, Azzie (as only the soon to be disintegrated call him) could extend the contract by buying some of Lilith's favors or offering an attunement (like, say, Humanity *drool*.) >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. The last campaign (and my first), I played a Malakite of War. When you are the Big Dirty Stick that all the others threaten the demons with, you go through more than your fair share of abuse (and vessels). I stopped playing cause my GM strictly enforced the 'buy vessels with character points' thing, and I quickly fell behind everyone else in terms of overall power. This was awhile ago (before Fall of the Malakim came out), but sucked more than a little. And I couldnt run, because its dissonant for angels of War to flee from battle. I did manage to rack up a fair kill ratio (2 to 1 for a while there), but that was at the cost of all those side skills that make a character more than a bundle of killing claws (which I had hoped to buy later.) But I digress. >---Walter Thanks! I really liked the idea of a Lilim Insurance agency. If I GM InNomine it will definitely be something that exists (that wont happen anytime soon, gotta play the game a few times first.) - -- 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 13:33:18 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink At 04:00 PM 3/10/99 -0500, in-sabre@annotations.com wrote: I should point out that there's a lot of leeway in that, especially for >dark Lilim -- for instance, in the K.K. writeup, when she identified the >Need of the Malakim and then fulfilled it, she also shouted "all right, but >there's a price!" (paraphrased) To me, the Malakite following through on >his Need was an unspoken acceptance of the Lilim's terms. However, I think it bears mentioning that K.K. is a bad (bad being good) joke, generally speaking. Very funny and all, but who would let a PC do that in their games? Speaking on a fundamental level, I don't think Malakim really Need to kill every demon in sight. Malakim all have a Need/6 (Purge the Symphony of evil.) but that's a bit more tricky to fufill for them. The whole subject was talked over to death long ago on the list so I won't restart the flamewar...I guess. ;) Sean NIMDYD! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 19:52:50 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well Wade Trupke wrote on 10 March 1999 >---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. Yeah, just like the way my Mum making me eat is selfish, that *****! :-) >> "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. Exactly, my point about the Resonance not being *intrisically* more evil than a contract. >> "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. Exactly!!!!!!!! >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." (Wade, I'll also like to point out to you that by name only has 1 e, it's Ramesh) >Actually, you can't walk away from a normal >contract either. Not legally, at least. Unless >there are extenuating circumstances. Ah, so they must be evil too then! :-) But seriously the epitome of Marc's deals are those sealed by your word alone, check his dissonance conditions out. >> 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. I like the Idea of Brights making you do what is best for you even if you don't want to do it. >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... I agree that (some) Angels can often need to perform some pretty evil actions in the cause of furthur good (like murder, blackmail, whatever), however *selfish* actions (which I thought meant actions done for ones' own self gratification) by definition aren't in the greater good. The Cherub in a Bright Dream, was not acting selfishly, he was acting selflessly but overzealously. Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? "First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with Fiddling" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:10:17 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> glad you are well Kevin Walsh wrote on 10 March 1999 >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. How so? Does she use violence against humans? No. I'm not sure how good she is at keeping up at her duty to look after people who harm themselves, but personally I seriously doubt she is hellbound, I agree she is a hell of a bitch but she serves Fire. >>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. I think I agree with you here. Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? "First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with Fiddling" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:41:02 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Marc Neel Krishnaswami wrote on 10 March 1999 >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. Erm . . . How can a Geas be 1 sided? Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? "First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with Fiddling" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:13:53 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim & Geas conflict - -----Original Message----- From: Nana Yaw Ofori To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 10 March 1999 17:11 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'? >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. No, I think the phasing means he needs to redo the exam till he gets full marks (he can re-take, or do the same paper again and again till he does it flawlessly). It's *all* in the phrasing. Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? "First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with Fiddling" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:28:30 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Vurt, FotM, the Kitchen Sink - -----Original Message----- From: Nana Yaw Ofori To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 10 March 1999 17:14 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. >For this example, we'll have two alternate solutions to the problem,. >Matthew, Matthew of Trade, and Lila, Lilim of Theft. Matthew of Theft? Wow, an entire Choir to himself, Cool! What's his Resonance? :-) I see what you're saying but remember if the Geased person can't perform the request the Geas can't be placed upon them. And anyway my original point was that the Resonance isn't intrisically evil, it's a matter of what the Lilim asks in return. Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? "First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with Fiddling" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:52:26 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> IN ethical theory At 07:44 PM 3/10/99 GMT, you wrote: > >I was rereading a Don Camillo story the other day, which mentioned something >that might be relevant here - the story of Saint Martin. This saint happened >to be out in cold weather, if I remember correctly, and was wearing a cloak. >He ran into a beggar who had barely anything in the way of clothes. Taking >off his sword, the saint cut his cloak in half, and gave half to the beggar, >keeping half for himself. > >Now _that_ might fit a Trade model, too. > >--- > > >Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine I do not, myself, think that relates to Trade, though it very holy. At the base of it, Trade is the foundation of modern civilization. Even if everyone is perfectly selfless, without Trade you haven't worked out a method to ensure that people besides cabbage farmers can have cabbage short of theft or violence. Even if everyone shares selflessly, it does come down to "I give you part of what I make in return for part of yours." Your motivation to spread it around could be perfectly pure...you realize that you can use what you get to grow more cabbage in the future, thus giving everyone else more cabbage. Everyone else in turn can make more of whatever they make and all humanity will have bounty! It's a nice theory, not in place in the modern world right now, but still nice. And IMHO, any kind of barter or anything more sophisticated is trade. Trade isn't purely Charity, of course. Surely there's an Angel of Charity somewhere. I think I started rambling. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:02:59 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Demon of Fiddling In a message dated 3/10/99 1:39:54 PM, ramesh.sat@telinco.co.uk writes: >Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling, Balseraph of ???? >"First you must learn Fiddling, then you must forget Fiddling. Must you >remember to breath for breathing to occur? No. It is the same with >Fiddling" > Is this Fiddling as in playing the fiddle? If so, I would think that the demon of Fiddling would be a Habbalite of the Media.... I'm not sure, maybe a Balseraph would work, but I don't think so. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:00:58 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> dissonance vs. sin Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: "I'm not sure how good she is at keeping up at her duty to look after people who harm themselves, but personally I seriously doubt she is hellbound, I agree she is a hell of a bitch but she serves Fire." Which reminds me of a point I once made on this list -- Elohim, it seems to me, are the only choir that are likely to fall from generally being evil. Other choirs get dissonance and discord only from specialized, narrowly-defined failings, or even (in the case of the imprisonned Ophanite), bad luck. Nicole is a very unpleasant Mercurian who isn't eating dissonance because she gets other people to do the actual hitting when she wants hitting done. Kyriotates can be nasty to anyone except their hosts. Malakim can wiggle around their oaths. Ophanim can do anything they like, without dissonance, as long as they don't slow down. Cherubim can be total cruds as long as they aren't cruddy to their charges, and not get dissonant. A seraph can be a total bastard and not rack up any dissonance, as long as he doesn't lie. Only an Elohite gets dissonance just for letting bad temper or appetite or vanity come before good judgement. I suppose they can be bad without dissonance as long as their cold-blooded enough about it... Even waiving the part about Elohim being the only choir whacked with dissonance for general badness, it still seems to me that we have a sort of hole in the mechanics here. An angel can be a total rotter and still be technically unfallen. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1143 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.