From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Mar 15 11:40:15 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 LAA13287 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:40:14 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA25783 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:35:55 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:35:55 -0600 Message-Id: <199903151735.LAA25783@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 #1153 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 Monday, March 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1153 In this digest: Re: IN> Servitors of Purity Re: IN> House Superior: The Archangel of Pride Re: IN> Servitors of Purity IN> Lilim again (longish) IN> Servitors of Purity IN> Outcasts IN> Re: IN- Servitors of Purity IN> On Balseraphs & Bordom. Re: IN> On Balseraphs & Bordom. IN> Waiting to hear from you. Re: IN> Waiting to hear from you. Re: IN> Waiting to hear from you. Re: IN> Outcasts IN> Dan Smith's Inspiration IN> Marc Goes in for subcontracting Re: IN> What do you think? Re: IN> Dark Humor Re: IN> Marc Goes in for subcontracting Re: IN> Dark Humor Re: IN> Dark Humor Re: IN> Lilim again (longish) Re: IN> Lilim again (longish) Re: IN> Dark Humor [none] IN> Re: Re: IN> Dark Humor IN> Even more stupid Lilim tricks RE: IN> Re: IN- Servitors of Purity Re: IN> Re: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 19:12:07 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Servitors of Purity On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > According to different materials -- absolutely none of the Tsayadim have > ever Fallen. However, does this extend to other Servitors of Purity -- or > are the Tsayadim specifically those Servitors who refused to align > themselves with another Archangel (remaining Pure), and other Servitors, > having moved on, might then Fall? I'm sure David will correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I remember on the subject: The Tsayadim are all of the Servitors of Purity who continued to serve Purity after Uriel was recalled. They are all protected from Falling (just like the Malakim are), by the power of that Word. None of them can Fall. > In other words, are any of the (non-Malakim) former Servitors of Uriel > currently in Hell? There's at least one, but I don't remember his name. However, an ex-Servitor of Purity would have to consciously reject the Word of Purity to Fall. They have to Jump, in other words. (Incidentally, this hints at how Malakim *could* Fall, something I'm using in my revision of FotM when I get around to running it.) Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:45:02 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> House Superior: The Archangel of Pride Whistling in the Dark wrote: >At 9:43 AM -0500 3/14/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Whistling in the Dark >>Very cool. I just think Stone and Pride should work together, but I guess >>Malphas' plots are working even in Heaven. >> >>Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of Wind > >Actually, that's kind of the point -- sometimes, you can be your own worst >enemy. David, by seeing his archenemy in Akim, serves his archenemy's >interests. Also I think that because so many angels of Pride have fallen before Akim and the fact that David's mind is so much like Stone (Strong and immovable), David would be unlikely to Trust Akim until He has proved himself greatly - which would probably take millennia of steady success rather than a few spectacular successes - Ahhh the Advantage of Dynamism. Isn't it ironic that the AA that Symbolises Dynamism is Aliied to the most Fixed AA? But not visa versa Hmmm... aren't the Relations (in general) really strange? Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of The Wind ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 01:31:05 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Servitors of Purity On 15 March 1999 Richard Gant wrote: >On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >> In other words, are any of the (non-Malakim) former Servitors of Uriel >> currently in Hell? > >There's at least one, but I don't remember his name. Have you (or anyone else) got any idea what the character was mentioned/featured in? >However, an >ex-Servitor of Purity would have to consciously reject the Word of Purity >to Fall. They have to Jump, in other words. By "Jump" I guess you mean conciously Rebel against Heaven like Lucifer did. If so one question: If an angel (former servitor of Purity) subconciously rejected the values of Heaven (possibly because like Lucifer [in one possible interpretation], they were dissatisfied with Heaven. Dissatisfied because they are possibly jealous of humans and of Micheal [the 1st angel, Lucy being the 2nd angel].) but on the conscious level told themselves that they were Right and were acting for good (which I sometimes think Lucifer thought in his Rebellion - current got that concept on a backburner in my mind). And due to the darkness they have let into their soul, they start acting against their nature and thus walked the road of picking up dissonance (like how I described how I thought Nicole would fall to Whistling in the Dark after I came to my senses) and so came to the situation where they should Fall (game mechanically for a non-former-servitor of Purity) would the Word of Purity protect them, or would they count as Jumping because essentially they were Rebelling - but they just don't admit it to themselves. >(Incidentally, this hints at how Malakim *could* Fall, something I'm using >in my revision of FotM when I get around to running it.) You gonna put that on your page? Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of The Wind "Send me an angel to love, I need to feel a little piece of Heaven. Send me an angel to love, I'm afraid I'll never get to heaven." My Lovers Box - Garbage ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:48:50 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim again (longish) >Erm David, What happened to rational debate?< Some points can't be "rationally" debated. If something is established, objective fact, it's right and those who disagree with it are wrong. In canon, the Lilim resonance is not inherently selfish, because canon is _defined_ by the books and by Elizabeth McCoy, and both say he's wrong. He's free to say the Lilim resonance is inherently selfish in his campaign, but he wasn't speaking in that context. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:50:54 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Servitors of Purity >According to different materials -- absolutely none of the Tsayadim have ever Fallen. However, does this extend to other Servitors of Purity -- or are the Tsayadim specifically those Servitors who refused to align themselves with another Archangel (remaining Pure), and other Servitors, having moved on, might then Fall?< The latter. If a Servitor moves on to another Archangel, he is no longer a Servitor of Purity. >In other words, are any of the (non-Malakim) former Servitors of Uriel currently in Hell?< Yes, but only because they abandoned the Word of Purity. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:52:03 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Outcasts >Also, as a matter of clarification, does a Heartless celestial have no hope of reaching the celestial plane except through a tether? Or am I missing something... I'm speaking in solitary instances, of course, I know they could follow someone else...< They can also use a False Heart (from the Liber Reliquarum). - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:57:08 PST From: "Leath Sheales" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Servitors of Purity "Ramesh Satkurunath" wrote: >>There's at least one, but I don't remember his name. > >Have you (or anyone else) got any idea what the character was >mentioned/featured in? From memory, it's in the Infernal Players Guide, listed under one of the Band descriptions as 'Famous Members Of This Band". Unfortunately, I can't recall which Band it was. Leath. Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:05:22 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> On Balseraphs & Bordom. Well, You see when I get bored, I create. . . Here's a sample of my current work in progress. http:/www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine/balseraph.jpg Yes, I -know- it's _dark_. Think of it as a Balseraph of Fate with the Malakite Resonance. Ergo, it's jet black etc. . . I also know it doesn't have teeth. I'll get there. I did say it was a work in progress, right? *evil grin* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:19:59 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> On Balseraphs & Bordom. http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine/balseraph.jpg *mutter, grumble* Damned servitors of Valefor. . . *grumble, mutter* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 19:27:35 From: Kelly555@hotmail.com Subject: IN> Waiting to hear from you. LIVE HOT PHONE SEX! NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED! NO 1-900 FEES! Just a regular long distance call! CALL NOW!!! 1-473-473-4917 To immediately be removed from future mailings please call 1-473-408-8477 (This is a remove line only!) - -You may also reply to this email to be removed but please note it could take up to 2 weeks to process your remove request via email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:18:33 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Waiting to hear from you. At 7:27 PM -0500 3/14/99, Kelly555@hotmail.com wrote: >LIVE HOT PHONE SEX! >NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED! >NO 1-900 FEES! >Just a regular long distance call! >CALL NOW!!! 1-473-473-4917 > > So... if you call this, but dial 10-10-321 first... would this strengthen Vapula's word as a technology use, Andrealphus's word as cheap meaningless phone sex, Haagenti's word for meaningless consumption, Nybbas's word for media use or Malphas's word for using a factionalized long distance carrier? - -- 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: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:43:04 -0800 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> Waiting to hear from you. >So... if you call this, but dial 10-10-321 first... would this strengthen >Vapula's word as a technology use, Andrealphus's word as cheap meaningless >phone sex, Haagenti's word for meaningless consumption, Nybbas's word for >media use or Malphas's word for using a factionalized long distance carrier? Yes. - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 06:26:09 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Outcasts - -----Original Message----- From: David Edelstein To: INTERNET:in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 15 March 1999 02:55 Subject: IN> Outcasts >>Also, as a matter of clarification, does a Heartless celestial have no >hope of reaching the celestial plane except through a tether? Or am I >missing something... I'm speaking in solitary instances, of course, I >know they could follow someone else...< > >They can also use a False Heart (from the Liber Reliquarum). > Or song of projection (OK, they won't physically _go_ to heaven but...) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:14:11 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dan Smith's Inspiration http://members.tripod.com/~girls_in_PVC/pictures/28.jpg 'Nuff said. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 07:43:34 -0500 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Marc Goes in for subcontracting I spotted this some what worrying advert: REAL ANGELS angels for personal transformation CHAKRA ATTUNEMENT ANGEL PEACE & RELAXATION ANGEL Spiritually aligned angels that work with humans correcting their chakra systems, bringing peace and relaxation on a unique subtle level. REAL ANGELS are learning about us as we are from them. REAL ANGELS and all the marvelous energywork is available because of the training and empowerments offered at the LOVESTREAM CENTER. If you would like to work with a REAL ANGEL or learn about healing classes taught at the LOVESTREAM CENTER please request information by visiting the Lovestream website linked at the bottom of this page. REAL ANGELS ARE PURCHASED BY CALLING 510-525-5562. On http://www.inergy.com/Angelwork/ Or is this just one of KK's fronts. Adam Canning - -- Malakim of Creation, Angel of Philisophical Warfare. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:30:40 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> What do you think? In message , Adam Campbell writes > What do you think of a world-wide conspiracy to cover up the >discovery of Atlantis. I think that I'm going to have to send you a private mail because my players read these lists... :) - -- Julian -- (who believes that Graham Hancock is an unwitting servant of Revelations...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:51:17 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Dark Humor In the ongoing thread about Superiors and Words and such, someone whose name got lost in the replies wrote: >>Mm -- I can see the point, and can accept that argument as being valid >>for a given game. At the same time, Lilith's Word is Freedom, and >>is quite explicitly incorporating the Good as well as Evil of Freedom. To which David Edelstein replied: >Well, no. In my best "Hollywood Squares" voice, I'll have to disagree. (X gets the square, I'll take Bobcat Goldthwait for the win. Jeez, Bobcat. What happened to you? I... I digress. I apologize. Moving on.) >The fact that a Word _can_ be good or evil >doesn't mean the Word-holder represents all aspects of it. >Vapula doesn't represent the >advance of knowledge and the betterment of mankind through technology, he >represents mad experiments, arrogant scientists who do things because they >can without questioning whether they should, and technology that can >changes the world devoid of moral considerations. In my utterly arrogant opinion, that's nonsense. To say that the person who holds a Word doesn't *really* hold *all* of the Word devalues the very idea of having a Word. Especially if it's a Superior who holds it. If there's an aspect of your Word that you don't control, chances are it's because that aspect is someone else's Word, and they control all of *it*. [1] And, being an Occam's Razor kind of guy, prefer not to multiply Superiors unnecessarily. I don't see the need for there to be the Angel of Good 'X' and the Demon of Bad 'X'. There's just 'X', and whoever holds that Word gets to steer it. Jordi holds sway over both the shark and the lamb. Fleurity's word encompasses both aspirin and cocaine. Vapula is responsible for the polio vaccine and the Skinner box. Nybbas offers us Edward R. Murrow and Geraldo Rivera in the same breath. It's already been shown that Archangels can encompass the destructive, amoral, violent aspects of their Words. Janus is in the Tornado as well as the Gulf Stream that swept explorers to the New World. The fires of Gabriel burn the wicked and inspire the holy. Is it so inconceivable that the Word of a Prince also encompasses the aspects of it that we, as humans, approve of and think of as good and noble? ::jason:: [1]: Except, in the case of people like Gabriel and Belial, where they *don't*. And that's been pointed out as a special case. It seems to me like the Celestial Courts have done their best to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen frequently from then on. [P.S. As a vaguely related aside, I visited David's web page recently, and he's posted his description of IN New York. As a lifelong native, I'm very impressed - especially since he claims to have never visited the city before. David, if you ever do want to visit, I'd be willing to put you up for a day or so. :) On that page, he also has the holder of the word of the Word of Abortion. He's got her as a Free Lilim. In my campaign, she's also a Lilim... but one in service to Vapula. It's an interesting contrast.) - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) werther@hilander.com (play) "But, except in dreams, you're never really free and don't the sun look angry at me?" _Desperadoes_Under_The_Eaves_, Warren Zevon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:05:24 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Marc Goes in for subcontracting >I spotted this some what worrying advert: > >REAL ANGELS >angels for personal transformation >CHAKRA ATTUNEMENT ANGEL >PEACE & RELAXATION ANGEL > Impudites can often find themselves an essence farm by being professional massuses, especially ones with more spiritually attuned professions (Reikai, for example) which leave the recipiant feeling A) exhausted but stimulated in a good way, and B) feeling 'cleaned out' in a spiritual sense. This isn't to say most such practicioners aren't legitimate, but the odd Impudite here or there.... It just happened that *this* time, Impudites of Kobal managed to talk their Master into a darkly funny role.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:20:39 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Dark Humor >And, being an Occam's Razor kind of guy, prefer not to multiply Superiors >unnecessarily. I don't see the need for there to be the Angel of Good 'X' >and the Demon of Bad 'X'. There isn't. But I think it's only in a very grey game that you would expect angels to be bad or demons to be good. In general, angels might use bad methods but they'll do it for good ends. Similarly, demons may use 'good' methods, but their objectives are to drag souls into the pit. >Is it so inconceivable that the Word >of a Prince also encompasses the aspects of it that we, as humans, >approve of and think of as good and noble? Not at all ;) Think about how much good technology has done for people. On the other hand, is it so inconceivable that the ultimate objective of a demon prince is to gather as much power and souls as possible for Hell, and that anything else is a sideline to that end? (And if said prince should show signs of weakness or inclinations to the other side, the others will be onto it like a pack of hyenas). The 'nice' words are the most insidious. You pays your money and takes your choice. It doesn't mean all Freedom or all Technology is evil -- just that you should always be cautious, and even the finest motives and actions can play straight into the hand of one of the ancient malicious intellects which lurk inside the principalities of Hell. (And I'm using 'intellect' in the widest sense of the word :) ) I know the game has real problems with Lilith not being human (come ON! humans don't have green skin, aren't immortal, don't lay geases, don't live in Hell -- there is no definition by which she is human. I know the book says so but IMO that was a really bad design flaw which has continued to haunt the game again and again and again.) or not being evil, but the game gets so much smoother if you can bring yourself to swallow those parts ;) [If Lilith had been an ethereal, I would have had no problems with it -- and it would also explain: a) Why she has an ability (geas) which none of the other celestials (including Satan) seem to have b) Why she is named in folklore as 'the mother of nightmares'] So maybe the 'real' Lilith died long ago, and her forces were stuffed into some demonic experiment. It could happen... jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:52:15 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Dark Humor At 2:20 PM 3/15/99, Hart, Joanna wrote: >>And, being an Occam's Razor kind of guy, prefer not to multiply Superiors >>unnecessarily. I don't see the need for there to be the Angel of Good 'X' >>and the Demon of Bad 'X'. > >There isn't. But I think it's only in a very grey game that you would expect >angels to be bad or demons to be good. Agreed on that. I'm just suggesting that Words, on the whole, tend to be largely neutral - especially the large words. >>Is it so inconceivable that the Word >>of a Prince also encompasses the aspects of it that we, as humans, >>approve of and think of as good and noble? > >Not at all ;) Think about how much good technology has done for people. Exactly. It was my understanding that David was suggesting that the parts of Technology that did good were somehow not Vapula's doing. My interpretation of that (admittedly an inference, and possibly inaccurate) was that he believed that Vapula, a Demon Prince, couldn't or wouldn't intentionally cause effects of his Word that would be considered "good". >The 'nice' words are the most insidious. Agreed. IMC, the shrewdest Archangels in Heaven hold the words of Flowers and Trade. >You >pays your money and takes your choice. It doesn't mean all Freedom or all >Technology is evil -- just that you should always be cautious, and even the >finest motives and actions can play straight into the hand of one of the >ancient malicious intellects which lurk inside the principalities of Hell. *nod* I think one of the tricky bits is the use of good/bad, Good/Evil, and Angelic/Demonic interchangeably. In my eyes, the pairs are very different. ::jason:: - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) werther@hilander.com (play) "But, except in dreams, you're never really free and don't the sun look angry at me?" _Desperadoes_Under_The_Eaves_, Warren Zevon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:16:46 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lilim again (longish) On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:08:15AM -0800, Martin Arnold wrote: > "If she tricks you into it... no one said life was fair." > > Apart from the angels, who would like life to be fair. Fair means gfood! > That is a rather questionable statement. Probably angels of Judgement think that, but I'm not at all certain that, for instance, angels of the Wind would necessarily agree. After all, if God had intended life to be fair, surely he would have made it fair. > And if she tricks you she is certainly not being 'Bright!' > There are times when trickery is necessary. And in some senses, if you fail to ask the right questions when signing a contract, you deserve what you get. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:26:54 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lilim again (longish) On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 03:04:48PM -0500, Emily Dresner wrote: > *Sigh* > > Geasa are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. The selfish part comes > from the detection of the needs and the applications. > I accept that for In Nomine, on the basis that there are other compulsive powers out there on the angelic side. It is a feature I dislike, personally speaking. The general argument against geasa has to do with the morality of compulsion. If compulsion can be moral, then the question is when compulsion is moral. I tend to the argument that compulsion can be moral when the compeller acknowledges a duty of care toward the compelled, and acts in the compelled person's best interests. This argument is considerably larger than an argument about the Lilim resonance. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:57:01 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Dark Humor Jason Schneiderman wrote: > Exactly. It was my understanding that David was suggesting that the parts > of Technology that did good were somehow not Vapula's doing. My > interpretation of that (admittedly an inference, and possibly inaccurate) > was that he believed that Vapula, a Demon Prince, couldn't or wouldn't > intentionally cause effects of his Word that would be considered "good". Vapula is one of the Demon Princes most likely to allow "good" aspects of his Word to flourish, for he certainly understands, and loves, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Sure, it seemed like a good thing when the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent learned how to irrigate their land and raise more food, but look at the place now, after it was over-irrigated for a few millenia. Technology is a Word that has a huge double-edged nature. With enough cunning and malice and a long enough time-horizon, there isn't anything that's produced that Vapula can't figure out some use for. And even Habbalah can be subtle. If Vapula promoted nothing but the negative aspects of Technology, he'd find the opposition to those parts he needs most going up. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:51:07 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: [none] The lilim resonance may not be evil, but it does encourage a selfish mindset in the user. If you use it a lot, you _will_ get into the mindset that says 'No-one does anything for nothing,' because all the time you see people only doing what you tell them because of a need that you fulfilled earlier. If they'd do it without that, then why fill the need and use the resonance? Why not just ask...? Or why not just be supermanipulative and persuade them to make the choice for themselves? I also figure that lilim tend to prefer deals where they can fulfil a need without putting much personal effort into it (maybe by calling in other geases or using contacts), but the geasee will have to work _hard_ to pay it off. Frex, someone has a need/6 for £20K and the lilim with her demonic connections just draws a cheque from the bank of Hell and hands it to him. Bingo. Geas/6. Amount of work involved: maybe a couple of phone calls... Oh sure, the lilim will tell you its a perfectly fair deal. But she still didn't have to actually spend all that much time or effort over it -- and I figure other lilim will back her right up. K.K (again) is a great example. How hard does she have to work to collect geases? Not much. Then, if that's so easy, you've been wasting much time on slaving away and filling people's silly needs for no real reason. One could argue that an angel shouldn't need a reason, but the lilim resonance doesn't say that to its user. So, if I were an archangel, I would be very keen to discourage any bright lilim from geasing people. Not because they couldn't use the resonance for good, but because it encourages the angel to think in unangelic ways... and every time she lays a geas, she has the chance of gaining dissonance. All the demonic resonances could conceivably be used for good ends. The lilim one is the only one which pretty much forces the user to take the mercenary view of 'what do I have to do to force Mr X to do this...?' -- and every other resonance is easier for a mortal to resist (except possibly Shedite). David, can saints get geased? jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:52:15 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Re: >The lilim resonance may not be evil, but it does encourage a selfish mindset >in the user. If you use it a lot, you _will_ get into the mindset that says >'No-one does anything for nothing,' because all the time you see people only >doing what you tell them because of a need that you fulfilled earlier. If >they'd do it without that, then why fill the need and use the resonance? Why >not just ask...? Or why not just be supermanipulative and persuade them to >make the choice for themselves? I also figure that lilim tend to prefer >deals where they can fulfil a need without putting much personal effort into >it (maybe by calling in other geases or using contacts), but the geasee will >have to work _hard_ to pay it off. Frex, someone has a need/6 for >£20K and >the lilim with her demonic connections just draws a cheque from the bank of >Hell and hands it to him. Bingo. Geas/6. Amount of work involved: maybe a >couple of phone calls... > True enough, for the Dark and Free Lilim -- in fact, it's the point of them, it seems to me. Mmmm... crunchy Dark Lilim.... >So, if I were an archangel, I would be very keen to discourage any bright >lilim from geasing people. Not because they couldn't use the resonance for >good, but because it encourages the angel to think in unangelic ways... and >every time she lays a geas, she has the chance of gaining dissonance. > Iiiiiiiii just don't see that. It becomes a question of timing and understanding -- Brights I don't see trading geasa on a daily basis the way darks do. The Brights are the Gifters. But sometimes.... (I will accept that Brights need to be careful, in the same way that all Angels do.) >All the demonic resonances could conceivably be used for good ends. The >lilim one is the only one which pretty much forces the user to take the >mercenary view of 'what do I have to do to force Mr X to do this...?' -- and >every other resonance is easier for a mortal to resist (except possibly >Shedite). > But all the other ones have this innate selfishness to them. Destruction of stuff around them, forcing viewpoints on people, drinking folks's Essence like the Zima of the damned. The Lilim resonance remains one of "get equal value for what you give." And there are times that's a Very Good Thing Indeed. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:00:14 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Dark Humor >>And, being an Occam's Razor kind of guy, prefer not to multiply Superiors >>unnecessarily. I don't see the need for there to be the Angel of Good 'X' >>and the Demon of Bad 'X'. > >There isn't. But I think it's only in a very grey game that you would expect >angels to be bad or demons to be good. In general, angels might use bad >methods but they'll do it for good ends. Similarly, demons may use 'good' >methods, but their objectives are to drag souls into the pit. > Right -- I can't see Demon Princes refusing to accept *anything* that strengthens their word. Their ultimate purpose doesn't change -- use this to take them souls down a peg or two, and drag them to their Fate and eternal torment... but it's easier to attract flies with honey, after all.... Dilbert is often savagely funny, and is certainly Dark Humor. It is also a great goodness. It drives the tractor brightly, brightly and with beauty. But beyond *that,* it also breaks down some of the barriers and restraints people feel towards such things. Read one of the Dilbert books sometime -- the actual books, not the comic collections -- the Joy of Work for example has a ton of savage things you can do to officemates in it, very much oriented towards people actually doing them. The overriding theme of the book is "your workplace and officemates exist purely to amuse you. Use them to these ends." Do I think Scott Adams is evil? Nope. But Kobal's word grows stronger. >>Is it so inconceivable that the Word >>of a Prince also encompasses the aspects of it that we, as humans, >>approve of and think of as good and noble? > >Not at all ;) Think about how much good technology has done for people. On >the other hand, is it so inconceivable that the ultimate objective of a >demon prince is to gather as much power and souls as possible for Hell, and >that anything else is a sideline to that end? (And if said prince should >show signs of weakness or inclinations to the other side, the others will be >onto it like a pack of hyenas). The 'nice' words are the most insidious. You >pays your money and takes your choice. It doesn't mean all Freedom or all >Technology is evil -- just that you should always be cautious, and even the >finest motives and actions can play straight into the hand of one of the >ancient malicious intellects which lurk inside the principalities of Hell. Exactly -- Technology has done great things for us. And Vapula has reaped that benefit. Yes, that means his word has Good to it too -- but what strength he gets from such a broad technological infrastructure in our world then gets *applied* to his primary purpose. Experimentation. Things Man Shouldn't Do (but will, because they trust technology). Capital E Evil. > >(And I'm using 'intellect' in the widest sense of the word :) ) > >I know the game has real problems with Lilith not being human (come ON! >humans don't have green skin, aren't immortal, don't lay geases, don't live >in Hell -- there is no definition by which she is human. I know the book >says so but IMO that was a really bad design flaw which has continued to >haunt the game again and again and again.) or not being evil, but the game >gets so much smoother if you can bring yourself to swallow those parts ;) > I don't know, at fifty thousand years plus old, I expect I'd look a little green myself.... And we know Lucifer gave her "a Word and Power." Which does make her a special case, no matter how you slice it. >So maybe the 'real' Lilith died long ago, and her forces were stuffed into >some demonic experiment. It could happen... > I personally have no problem with that. Especially if she isn't dead, but in fact still has one corporeal and one ethereal force and lies, shattered, in Lucifer's basement, where he goes down to laugh.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:19:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: IN> Even more stupid Lilim tricks Lilim A has a Geas/2 on Lilim B. B knows that A is likely to invoke it. So Lilim B Geas/6 's herself "not to do anything Lilim A tells her until the Geas is invoked". Lilim A invokes the Geas/2 to tell Lilim B to carry her shopping for her. Unfortunately, since the Geas is guaranteed to cause dissonance to Lilim B, a Geas/2 doesn't cover it. So the Geas fizzles and is wasted. Lilim A has no idea why. Is that right? Of course, this all goes horribly wrong if Lilim A finds out about the second geas... Steve. - ------ Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" until you find a rock. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:23:43 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Re: IN- Servitors of Purity Searching http://www.incyclopedia.org/byname.html for both "uriel" and "purity" yields the following: Orifiel Calabite Page reference: Angelic Player's Guide, p. 34 Notes: Fell when Uriel was recalled. Vaphoron Impudite Page reference: Infernal Player's Guide, p. 60 Notes: One of the handful of former Servitors of Purity in Hell. So at least one Ofanite and one Mercurian of Purity are burning. steve - -----Original Message----- From: Leath Sheales [mailto:leathals@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 6:57 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: IN> Re: IN- Servitors of Purity "Ramesh Satkurunath" wrote: >>There's at least one, but I don't remember his name. > >Have you (or anyone else) got any idea what the character was >mentioned/featured in? From memory, it's in the Infernal Players Guide, listed under one of the Band descriptions as 'Famous Members Of This Band". Unfortunately, I can't recall which Band it was. Leath. Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:31:00 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Re: > >So, if I were an archangel, I would be very keen to discourage any bright > >lilim from geasing people. Not because they couldn't use the resonance for > >good, but because it encourages the angel to think in unangelic ways... and > >every time she lays a geas, she has the chance of gaining dissonance. > > > > Iiiiiiiii just don't see that. It becomes a question of timing and > understanding -- Brights I don't see trading geasa on a daily basis the way > darks do. The Brights are the Gifters. But sometimes.... > > (I will accept that Brights need to be careful, in the same way that all > Angels do.) On the other hand, I certainly do: it's a short putt to a long fall. Why would a Bright ever mess with something that is potentially dissonant is beyond me. Look at it this way: you're now officially an Other, you've worked your entire life to get out of that sewer called Hell, you've beaten the odds. The Game wants you back in Hell because you're really bad PR, Media wants to film you because you are really bad PR, and your mother wants you back because you are really bad PR. You're out, you're finally free, and damn it feels good. But in your toolshed are two tools for you to use: the ability to read Needs (an ungodly powerful resonance in and of itself) and the ability to lay Geasa. Reading a Need is, like all angelic resonances, free of all possible dissonance. A Geas, when resisted, is another story. To your mind, the Geas embodies everything wrong with hell: the debts, the service, the pain, the loss of free will, the self serving take day in and day out. It's the shackle which binds. It removes all free will, with or without its invocation. It is the symbol of everything you hate. And your mother doesn't let you go - oh no. Bound to your soul forever is a token to remember Hell by. Asking a Bright to lay a geas is asking the Bright to go looking for another job. This is a two way street: the wise Archangel knows that the way of the geas is the way to dissonance, and Falling. The Bright wants no truck with it - in her mind it's a tool of Hell to keep people bound into service. Geasa in and of themselves are not evil but the Bright's association with them certainly are. They will geas themselves to bind themselves in new and interesting ways, but the Bright will not lay a geas on another. ************************************************** Okay, I know the argument here against this is "The Drug Addict". So here's the junky in a nutshell: The Lilim of Fire (Gabriel) decides she doesn't like the fact that Johnny is on junk, and all sorts of junk, and all junk. She thinks it would help him if she geased him to stay off it to clean him out. What happens next, after she pulls in her hook, is something only a servitor of fire could stand by impassively and watch: the nightmares, the muscle spasms, the cramps, the fevers, the chills, the paranoia. This goes on for days, so hopefully the geas hook was at least a week long. The canny Lilim will realize that the only way to stop the massive withdrawl is to supplement it with something else: methadone or a methadone derivative. So let's say she does this, too. She gets him addicted to methadone. Eventually Johnny makes it through the withdrawl, a fresh new methadone addict, and our hero turns him back out on the street, another job well done. Except one problem: Johnny didn't want to quit in the first place. He was geased to quit. As soon as the geas lifts, he's back out on the street headed for a relapse. Soon he's worse than ever. And because he was clean and someone thought he might have narced on the pushers, they give him a hot tab. The Lilim finds him dead and blue with the needle still in his arm, the victim of strycanide right to the main arteries. I suppose, she thinks, this is what Cherubim are for. Ah, psychological addiction. You think a geas is gonna cure a heroin addiction? If so, it's completely untrue. Even if it was a year long geas, Johnny will probably be back on the junk once its over --- as soon as his life starts to suck, he'll return to it. An angel's job is simply _not that simple_. The geas won't cure anything, really. It'll just put it off for a while. - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1153 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.