From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 16 16:41:31 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 QAA22066 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:41:31 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA14695 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:36:02 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:36:02 -0600 Message-Id: <199903162236.QAA14695@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 #1158 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 Tuesday, March 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1158 In this digest: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Corporeal forces Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> House Superior: The Archangel of Pride IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa IN> First Celestial Census Re: IN> Stuff Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) IN> more lilim Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Seraph and Truth ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:45:50 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Tick Tock wrote: > Redemption candidates? Impudites followed by Calabim that see redeeming as a > stepping stone to becoming Malekites in the service of Michael or David. Heh. Those Calabim who think you get to pick your choir when you Redeem, you mean? Changing from an Ofanite to a Malakite would involve pretty much destroying what you are now and rearranging your component Forces into the new shape, IIRC. In Perry's campaign last semester, my Malakite was a former Mercurian Remnant, found by Eli - no Celestial Forces. The Archangel stripped him of his Ethereal Forces and tacked on new Forces of every type, then woke him up in Rio de Janeiro as a Malakite and sent him to find the Archangel of Death. > Just a thought. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:41:50 +0300 From: "Tick Tock" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken >She doesn't have horns, or green skin in canon -- though people seem to >presume she looks like her Daughters. D'oh! Point taken. >Another possibility is that he did manage to give her a Word, but something >about the process worried him -- e.g., he discovered something *really >dangerous* about giving Words to humans. And for some reason, he didn't >immediately destroy her. Sounds good, but it doesn't offer an underlying logic to explain canon stating that humans cannot have words. Although it might offer a reason why humans should not *have* words. >The Seraphim Council, conservative body that it is, has never tried. You would think that somewhere along the line one of the Bodhisatva or Saints would have been nominated by a Superiors not afraid of rocking the celestial boat. Michael nominating a penultimate warrior or Eli an insightful jazzman. The council would be aghast at the innovation but would have to discuss the matter. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:27:13 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to > Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing > small babies?" Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a statement. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:39:57 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Corporeal forces Kevin Walsh wrote: > IMO, new demons are created with Corporeal Forces so that you don't get > the spectacle of 7-Force scum with the same number of Ethereal and > Celestial Forces as those Knights who have been on heavy Earth duty. The > other reason for giving Corporeal Forces to major Celestials (as opposed > to relievers/demonlings), so that they're ready to be assigned to Earth, > is a lot more real for angels, given Heaven's lower Celestial population. One question I've had is whether or not Heaven really has fewer angels or whether it merely appears that way. A large number of demons are occupied taking care of (interpret that phrase however you like) damned souls. Most saved human souls go off camera to the Higher Heavens, and we have no idea how many angels (aside from Uriel) are up there with them. Or whether or not those angels have any Corporeal Forces. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:59:51 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? There's a mild Final Trumpet spoiler in here, but it only involves a hypothetical alternate ending to the adventure. Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Or he could give any human a Word, but for some reason chooses not to. > (Part of his original bargain with Lilith? Just doesn't see anyone > who's that interesting? Doesn't need human Princes anymore to help > forge the Tethers that led from Hell to the Marches, and later > Earth? Knows that if he does it, Lilith won't give him any nookie > anymore?) The concept of Armageddon in the IN universe (well, okay, in the real one too, but that's a different matter) bothers me since the setting is supposed to be centered on humans. For me, it all works better if Armageddon is never supposed to actually happen in a literal sense. The War is supposed to always remain a cold war, unless perhaps the *humans* do something that causes the cosmos to achieve its Destiny or Fate. God knows this; Lucifer knows it; perhaps Yves and Kronos know it. But they don't tell anyone else, because they couldn't help but act on this knowledge and that would subvert that process since [insert mumbo jumbo rationale here]. So Lucifer gives Lilith her Word as a fail-safe, hence the alternate FT ending where Lilith and Marc go off and have dinner instead of duking it out like the two champions are supposed to. Lucifer can count on her, far more than any of the truly demonic Demon Princes, to stop Armageddon in its tracks. Or, depending on how you look at the necessity of human intervention to produce the final battle, if Lilith steps to the plate, then Armageddon is on. But none of the others can actually make that choice. And, as Dark Humor, the whole FT plot works better if everyone was getting bent out of shape worrying over and event that can't actually happen. Kobal's laughing himself silly, whether he knew that in advance or not. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:14:08 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies Benjamin Acosta wrote: > My choice for most likely to Redeem are Impudites. They are already > friendly and it's such a short step from pretending to care about the > humans you use to getting involved in their lives and really caring. I'd say it's less of a step for the Djinn - after all, they're only convincing themselves they don't care. The Shedim, on the other hand, are the least likely to; even if their angelic counterparts get to inhabit multiple people, corrupting people is just so much _fun_... > As for Chor most likely to Fall I say Seraphim, because they have > standards which are very difficult to maintain on the Corporeal Realm. > Lying for the right reason is SO EASY and a big temptation. Many Seraphim > might slip. And remember, the first Angel to Fall was a Seraph. Remember, though, that the first angel to Fall actually Jumped. I'd go with Ofanim, myself. It's the first time they watch a hurricane, you know, or a building being collapsed... they watch all that beautiful motion, and wish they could see it on a regular basis - and it's only a short step from that to wanting to do it themselves... - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:57:50 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? > >I just have this image of Huge Lilith walking down the streets of > >Shal-Mari, battling the giant blobs from Outer Space which are invading > >the sancity of Hell! > > The Martians are invading Shal-Mari! > > Er, you do believe your friendly Media Balseraph when he tells you this? > Sure you do. Really. > > (now where did I leave those War Of The Worlds tapes...) Only Terry. Because, um, I mean, he's too much of a goof not to believe. And I'm used to swallowing his bullshit. :) * Em says, "I love Terry, he's my favorite of all my characters. And he deserves to be menanced by giant demon eating blobs in the streets of Shal-Mari." - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:56:32 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies >Redemption candidates? Impudites followed by Calabim that see redeeming as a >stepping stone to becoming Malekites in the service of Michael or David. > >Just a thought. Yes, but a Calabite who wanted to Redeem to become stronger wouldn't be a good candidate. Instead, David or Michael would crush him like a bug or the Process would tear him apart. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:07:03 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Tick Tock wrote: > Sounds good, but it doesn't offer an underlying logic to explain canon stating > that humans cannot have words. Although it might offer a reason why humans > should not *have* words. This is partially explained in the CPG. See below, though. > You would think that somewhere along the line one of the Bodhisatva or Saints > would have been nominated by a Superiors not afraid of rocking the celestial > boat. Michael nominating a penultimate warrior or Eli an insightful jazzman. > The council would be aghast at the innovation but would have to discuss the > matter. Why? Eli's not nominating much of anything lately, and as far as Michael knows, humans can't have Words. Contrary to popular belief, laws aren't necessarily reactive in nature; it could well have been established, long, long ago, without someone asking about it, that humans can't have Words. Why would an Archangel question that - and even if one did, what's to stop the Seraphim Council from saying "Nope, sorry. Next!" and moving on? On the other side of the world, metaphysically speaking, why would a demon nominate a human for a Word in the first place? ;) And "penultimate", by the by, means "second to last". :) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:07:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies My guess at the likeliest band to redeem is Habbalah. They already think they're angels working for God. Like Balseraphim, they're delusional, but unlike Balseraphim, they don't *work* by polishing their delusions. So, let their insanity chip a little, and they're ripe for an "Oh my God! What have I DONE?!" conversion experience. I think Seraphim might be the likeliest choir to fall, if faced with too much espionage-like Earth duty, where deception is too often the right thing to do. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:16:11 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 01:14:08PM -0500, EDG wrote: > I'd go with Ofanim, myself. It's the first time they watch a hurricane, > you know, or a building being collapsed... they watch all that beautiful > motion, and wish they could see it on a regular basis - and it's only a > short step from that to wanting to do it themselves... > I don't buy this at all. If it were true, it's hardly likely there'd be many Windies left, because they'd all become Servitors of Dark Fire. Consider the steps necessary to become a Calabite, and try to imagine how *terrifying* they would be to most Ofanim. Passivity, stillness, etc. I think it quite likely that Ofanim are the angels most likely to feel sorry for their Fallen counterparts, but not to emulate them. (Not that that would be likely to stop an Ofanite killing a Calabite if necessary, of course.) 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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:08:06 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? >There's a mild Final Trumpet spoiler in here, but it only involves a >hypothetical >alternate ending to the adventure. > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> Or he could give any human a Word, but for some reason chooses not to. >> (Part of his original bargain with Lilith? Just doesn't see anyone >> who's that interesting? Doesn't need human Princes anymore to help >> forge the Tethers that led from Hell to the Marches, and later >> Earth? Knows that if he does it, Lilith won't give him any nookie >> anymore?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I will do the same. >So Lucifer gives Lilith her Word as a fail-safe, hence the alternate FT ending >where Lilith and Marc go off and have dinner instead of duking it out like the >two champions are supposed to. Lucifer can count on her, far more than any of >the truly demonic Demon Princes, to stop Armageddon in its tracks. Or, >depending >on how you look at the necessity of human intervention to produce the final >battle, if Lilith steps to the plate, then Armageddon is on. But none of the >others can actually make that choice. The problem is, the "Final Trumpet" of the adventure's name is sounded only after all the Demon Princes agree to the course of action. By that rationale, Lilith is Committed. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:24:08 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> House Superior: The Archangel of Pride On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 11:45:02PM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > 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? > Actually, if you exclude Michael and Yves, the Archangels Janus is Allied or Associated with are all elemental Superiors, which implies that Janus is into balance just as much as motion. What does surprise me is that he is neither Allied nor Associated with Eli. Creation is an inherently dynamic process, and Eli certainly isn't inflexibly minded. I think what Janus and Michael have in common is a tendency to believe in doing what is necessary rather than what appears to be right, and his association with Yves is because he's, like, Yves. (It also occurs to me that most Windies probably don't tend to resent the intrusions of Servitors of Judgement much, because if they did, the sheer quantity of them would tend to result in major political hostilities.) 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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:43:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) At 10:31 PM +0300 3/16/99, Tick Tock wrote: >Redemption candidates? Impudites followed by Calabim that see redeeming as a >stepping stone to becoming Malekites in the service of Michael or David. (That's Malakim, BTW, as the plural...) Also, the poor Calabim are going to be distressed. Barring very unusual circumstances, they don't get to be Malakim. They get to be Ofanim. Which has its own benefits, of course. **FOOSH**! - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:35:02 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies - -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Acosta To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Cc: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Date: 16 March 1999 17:12 Subject: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies >Here's a question to all you celestials out there: Which Band has the >greatest potential for Redemption, and why? Not the whole Band mind you, >but individual members working on Earth. Lilim. Reasons to follow, when I have a mo. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:14:15 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Emily Dresner wrote on 16 March 1999 17:34 >> > Name exactly one really good application of an angelic resonance which >> > cannot be achieved through the use of any other angelic resonance. >> >> Seraph Check Digit 6. >> >> (Hey, you asked... :) ) > >Bingo. And not even a song available. (But I don't have the songbook, so >something might be in there.) You could blag it with either the Songs of Symphony or the servitor attunement of Yves The Akashic Record, I think. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:35:31 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Emily Dresner wrote: > > > Name exactly one really good application of an angelic resonance which > > > cannot be achieved through the use of any other angelic resonance. > > > > Seraph Check Digit 6. > > > > (Hey, you asked... :) ) > > Bingo. And not even a song available. (But I don't have the songbook, so > something might be in there.) I'll confess that one thing I didn't like about the Liber Canticorum (and, to a more limited extent, the core rules) are the Songs that mimic a Band/Choir resonance. It seems to me to be having it both ways. Yes, the songs are harder to use (usually) and create Disturbance, but it still makes each Band and Choir less special. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:18:09 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: IN> First Celestial Census I've noticed that a lot of list regulars (myself included) designate themselves as angels or demons, and in honor of my recent birthday I've decided to perform the First Celestial Census. This is how it works: BY PRIVATE EMAIL, contact me with your affiliation (Heaven/Hell/Ethereal/Human/Other), Superior (if any) and Choir/Band (if any). The results will be tallied and posted to the list. I will be accepting applications until April 1. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:28:32 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Stuff Hydrax 59 wrote on 16 March 1999 >2. doesn't the existence of Yves point towards a plan on the part of the >divine? Possibly, but I don't neccessary see why it should. Could you elaborate please? >3. What if lucifer is working for the divine? It is possible. But then again isn't it possible that we are all instuments of the Divine? That we all act out God's plan because it is God's Plan and we have no choice? It may be possible that Lucifer saw that the Rebellion would occur (because the angels were getting annoyed due to God's excessive (in their opinion) attention to humans or whatever reasons they had to be dissatisfied, or because the nature of the universe meant that angels had to fall) and decided to lead the REbellion as a kind of damage control. Or Lucifer and God may be conducting another experiment. Who knows? (IMO The GM and only the GM [if anyone]) >4. isn't it interesting how many comic books are depicting lucifer as a >nice guy? Would comic books be under the Domain of Nybbas? Need I say anymore? :-) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:19:11 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing >> small babies?" > >Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a >statement. > >J. Michael Neal Er... no it's not. Or no more than any other question that doesn't begin with Who, What, When, Where, Why, Do or How. The implied clause (linguistically) is "Do I understand correctly that...." The question mark makes it a question-construct, not a statement. *Entirely* different semantic background. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:31:49 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 03:07:27PM -0500, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > My guess at the likeliest band to redeem is Habbalah. They already > think they're angels working for God. Like Balseraphim, they're > delusional, but unlike Balseraphim, they don't *work* by polishing > their delusions. However, Habbalah have to justify their beliefs and actions every moment of their existence, because they are always faced with the knowledge that most Celestials think that they are demons, and unless they're stupid they'll have developed quite sophisticated arguments to prove that they're right. So, let their insanity chip a little, and they're > ripe for an "Oh my God! What have I DONE?!" conversion experience. > One of the big problems here is that a Habbalite who is ready to do such a thing has probably acted against their conscience. It's quite possible to end up with a situation where you have a Habbalite who attempts to punish themselves out of self-disgust, or stops trying to justify themselves out of self-pity (not that such a Habbalite was likely to be redeemable in the first place). They are, in a sense, Brighter than other demons, but that generally serves to keep them more solidly entrenched in Hell. > I think Seraphim might be the likeliest choir to fall, if faced with > too much espionage-like Earth duty, where deception is too often the > right thing to do. > Methinks Seraphim of the Wind may well be the most stable Seraphim in such a situation, because one imagines Janus is quite prompt at removing those who aren't coping well, and those who do cope well tend to have a strong ability to reconcile the needs of the job with their 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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:44:04 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Whistling in the Dark wrote on 16 March 1999 >>On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 12:22:34AM -0500, EDG wrote: >>> > I suppose sarcasm is the lowest form of Truth :-) >>> >>> No - sarcasm is untruth. The implications of sarcasm are truth, and not >>> everyone grasps implications. >>> >>It depends on how you use sarcasm. It's quite easy for Seraphim to use >>sarcasm if phrased in the form of a question. (And the truth can be told >>in a sarcastic tone of voice in order to imply falsehood.) >> > >Oh, expressing sarcastic questions has to be all right, since a Question, >semantically, is not an expression of Truth but a request for knowledge and >an opinion.... But a rhetorical question *is* a statement. If you're talking about real questions though I'd have to agree with you though. >And the one form of out and out lying that Seraphim *can* use is the >expression of truth in such a way that no one believes them. Wait did anyone actually believe me when I said "not that servitors of the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness"? That was so obviously false it *had* to be scarcasm. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:40:03 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> more lilim I think that another point to consider is that one cant use resonance like a gimmick. In other words, to say a Lilim can stop at fulfilling needs is somewhat erroneous. The Lilim's character is defined in part by her resonance (which I would say plays a major part in determining a character's makeup) which has to include the geas part of it…in fact you cant really separate the two anymore than I breathe in without breathing out. Which makes me think that Bright Lilim are accidents waiting to happen (or as a I said before: Suppressed Lilim!); their resonance isn't really suited for doing good. They are like a recovering alcoholic sat at home with a fridge full of tinnies! (Geasweier!) What I am trying to say is that anyone who cheerfully says their Lilim is going to fulfil a need (and even then you have to look at the motivation for that act) and not inflict a geas is not playing properly IMHO :-). I should also add that Lilim are regarded as Demon's n the rulebook (where they are listed under Bands of Demons) where Lilith is a Demon Princess, for similar reasons, so it seems to me a bit sly to assert differently. I think Heaven would regard them as such and not take a more ambiguous stance. Also, I don't recall, but do Bright's have different dissonance conditions for their 'choir'? "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." Which is why I mention the idea of changing the Bright Lilim concept. "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." So the archetypal Bright is the action movie hero (to use a highbrow analogy!) who, having retired from 'Special Ops' to live with his kids, is recruited to do just one more job and call on his renounced killing ways (ways which of course mean he is giving into that part of him he is trying to transcend); a bit like Clint in Unforgiven maybe? I'm reminded of the Batman figure in the Dark Knight Returns. Martin "Just look at it this way; a river of space a ripple of time…like a burial" - -Thomas Dolby Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:57:05 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Er... no it's not. Or no more than any other question that doesn't begin > with Who, What, When, Where, Why, Do or How. The implied clause > (linguistically) is "Do I understand correctly that...." The question mark > makes it a question-construct, not a statement. *Entirely* different > semantic background. But a Seraph would _use_ "Do I understand correctly that..." if he wanted to ask that sort of question. What Beth wrote inspires fear of Judgment; the "Do I understand correctly that..." question is simply inquiring into the correctness of the Seraph's grasp of the situation. - -EDG did that make sense? - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:58:26 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > But a rhetorical question *is* a statement. If you're talking about real > questions though I'd have to agree with you though. It's not, though! A rhetorical question is one where you think you know the answer already. :) > >And the one form of out and out lying that Seraphim *can* use is the > >expression of truth in such a way that no one believes them. > > Wait did anyone actually believe me when I said "not that servitors of the > Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness"? That > was so obviously false it *had* to be scarcasm. Not the same thing as Whistling described - what you were doing was expressing _untruth_ in such a way that no one believed you. ;) And to someone who had no idea of the system, it would _not_ have been obviously false. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth At 1:27 PM -0600 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing >> small babies?" > >Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a >statement. Nope, it's a question -- though a somewhat retorical one -- it requests an answer. You see, if the Seraph of Judgment is asking it, then the chances are that he'll get real information out of even a mumbled, "of course not." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies At 6:35 PM +0000 3/16/99, Jo Hart wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Benjamin Acosta > >>Here's a question to all you celestials out there: Which Band has the >>greatest potential for Redemption, and why? Not the whole Band mind you, >>but individual members working on Earth. > > >Lilim. Reasons to follow, when I have a mo. Because they're babes, and anyone who looks that cute has to be redeemable. (Para-quoted from Maya's In Nomine Musical, which is a work of brilliance.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) At 5:44 PM +0000 3/16/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote on 16 March 1999 >>>On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 12:22:34AM -0500, EDG wrote: >>Oh, expressing sarcastic questions has to be all right, since a Question, >>semantically, is not an expression of Truth but a request for knowledge >>and an opinion.... > >But a rhetorical question *is* a statement. If you're talking about real >questions though I'd have to agree with you though. It's still a question. It's just a question that you think you know the answer to. I mean, you could be wrong! >>And the one form of out and out lying that Seraphim *can* use is the >>expression of truth in such a way that no one believes them. (Though that's pretty hinky.) >Wait did anyone actually believe me when I said "not that servitors of the >Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness"? That >was so obviously false it *had* to be scarcasm. You'd get dissonance even if it's obviously false -- if you said, "The sky is purple!" you'd get dissonance. *ESPECIALLY* because it's obviously false. Face it, you're going to have to get your brain scrubbed by Janus. Denying the inevitable will only get you more dissonance. };> - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:53:33 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is, the "Final Trumpet" of the adventure's name is sounded only > after all the Demon Princes agree to the course of action. By that > rationale, Lilith is Committed. No she isn't. The Seventh Trumpet sounds after the champions have fought. The Fifth Trumpet sounds after the vote in question is taken. And she only voted to let Armageddon happen; she never voted on the question of whether she'd fight Heaven's champion. She may or may not have known she was Hell's champion at the time. Or perhaps she did know, and had political reasons for voting as she did while knowing that she wouldn't carry out the last element. Or she knew, but needed to vote in order to be able to cut a beneficial deal with Marc to avoid Armageddon. Or she simply exercised her reserved prerogative to Change Her Mind (I believe that's one of Freedom's servitor attunements). And it'll cost you to get her to tell you which of these motivations it was. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:00:13 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 1:27 PM -0600 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to > >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing > >> small babies?" > > > >Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a > >statement. > > Nope, it's a question -- though a somewhat retorical one -- it > requests an answer. You see, if the Seraph of Judgment is asking > it, then the chances are that he'll get real information out of > even a mumbled, "of course not." As phrased, it's a statement. With the proper voice inflection, it can imply a question, but I thought that's what you were saying a Seraph should avoid. If you replace the "so" with "do", then it becomes a question. Without the "who", "what", "where", "when" or "why" that Whistling said anything would need to be one. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:16:07 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth At 5:00 PM -0500 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 1:27 PM -0600 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: >> >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> > >> >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to >> >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing >> >> small babies?" >> > >> >Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a >> >statement. >> >> Nope, it's a question -- though a somewhat retorical one -- it >> requests an answer. You see, if the Seraph of Judgment is asking >> it, then the chances are that he'll get real information out of >> even a mumbled, "of course not." > >As phrased, it's a statement. With the proper voice inflection, it can >imply a question, but I thought that's what you were saying a Seraph should >avoid. If you replace the "so" with "do", then it becomes a question. >Without the "who", "what", "where", "when" or "why" that Whistling said >anything would need to be one. > >J. Michael Neal But as we are in a textual medium, it is *not* a statement but a question. The Seraph in question also had the intent that it be a question, not a statement. Therefore, it is a question -- a request for information. No bending rules of grammar -- bad. No cookie. Strunk, the Angel of Editorial Revision, and White, the Angel of Concise Explanation, will have to intervene. And they're not nice to cross. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:41:26 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Whistling in the Dark wrote: > But as we are in a textual medium, it is *not* a statement but a question. > The Seraph in question also had the intent that it be a question, not a > statement. Therefore, it is a question -- a request for information. If it's in writing, fine, though I think it's still skirting the issue, since it could be made into a proper question quite easily. But I was certainly left with the impression that this was a verbal comment. It's one that certainly sounds more natural spoken than written. And as to the Seraph's intent, that still brings us back to the original question, can a seraph use sarcasm that is technically not true even though the Seraph does not intend for the statement to be read as literal truth. And the answer to that was, "No." > No bending rules of grammar -- bad. No cookie. Strunk, the Angel of > Editorial Revision, and White, the Angel of Concise Explanation, will have > to intervene. And they're not nice to cross. It's the sarcasm that bends rules of grammar. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:35:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth At 4:00 PM -0600 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 1:27 PM -0600 3/16/99, Eeyore wrote: >> >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> > >> >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to >> >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing >> >> small babies?" >> > >> >Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a >> >statement. >> >> Nope, it's a question -- though a somewhat retorical one -- it >> requests an answer. You see, if the Seraph of Judgment is asking >> it, then the chances are that he'll get real information out of >> even a mumbled, "of course not." > >As phrased, it's a statement. Considering that the GURPS Common Sense advantage has the GM asking, "Are you *sure* you want to do that?" .... It has a question mark, that makes it a question. If it were a statement, then it would have a period. That's what punctuation *does* in text, you know -- indicates whether it's a question (which, in english, puts the tonal rise at the end of the sentence), a statement (with a nice, flat pause), a section of a compound sentence (with a comma, and a short pause, or a semicolon, with a slightly longer one)... Don't mess with me. I'm getting more and more Djinny. - --Beth, Djinn Princess who likes to chew on skulls ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1158 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.