From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Mar 26 04:59:46 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 EAA20212 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 04:59:45 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id FAA05329 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 05:01:33 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 05:01:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199903261101.FAA05329@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 #1179 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 Friday, March 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1179 In this digest: Re: IN> In Defense of Dominic Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) IN> Undead and Corporeal Forces IN> Kyriotates and Insects Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade IN> Another Alternate History Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) IN> Dominic and Justice Re: IN> Dominic and Justice IN> Bonded Servitors Re: IN> Dominic and Justice Re: IN> Dominic and Justice Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade IN> Oaths, Bright Lilim & Judgement. IN> (Bal)Seraphim, Other Celestials & Earrings (WAS: Bonded Servitors) Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Re: IN> Dominic and Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:32:40 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> In Defense of Dominic Whistling in the Dark wrote on 25 March 1999 >At 3:54 PM +0000 3/25/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> >>> Poor Dominic, everyone's always picking on Dominic. He supported Uriel, >>>he persecuted Michael and Gabriel, he's a Nazi. (well okay, not a Nazi, >>>but Asmodeus comes off -great- when you RP him as an SS officer) Myself, >>>I tend to -like- playing angels under Dominic because his Word is very >>>-defined-, moreso than some of the others. Personally, I have to stop >>>myself from saying 'Justice' instead of 'Judgement', since I doubt the >>>simple meaning of 'Judging others' is Dominic's job and he doesn't have >>>some external standards to adhere to. >> >> The way I see it his Word is *so* Judgement. As I see it yes Judgement may >> be Dominic deciding the punishment of a sinner, but that's just a side >> thing, Judgement is about choosing between Right and Wrong. The law stuff >> is just to try and help people make the right decision. > >Judgement isn't *only* the act of judging. It's also common sense. >"Using good judgement." In short, Judgement is the act of making >correct choices -- not just about right and wrong, but in all things. >When you buy a new car and you pick the one that has the better >ratings, holds its resale value and generally performs better over >the one that's a thousand dollars less, you're exercising good >judgement, and Dominic grows stronger. I don't really think choosing between good and bad choices (in the senses of stupid and not stupid) is really an important aspect of Dommies Word (otherwise he would be more into schools and the like and I don't really see any of that). >> She has never faced trial, I think it would be found that she commited no >> crime (I actually think Dominic is *usually* right) > >Yeah -- to my knowledge she cracked under inquisition. He likely >feels badly about that. Of course -- now she's insane and a threat, >and the Inquisition showed just how close to cracking she was, so >clearly it wasn't all for naught.... I thought she left Heaven after accusations started flying at her, because she was offended that in doing what she saw was obviously God's Work (after all she was following the orders of Yves [IIRC]) and being accused of some crime against God for doing it. >And, if a GM doesn't >mind the occasional tragic ending, they should watch the new Demon >skittering off to Hell every now and again, licking their wounds and >tasting the bitter dregs of betrayal... only to have the Servitors of >Judgement arrive, watch, and shake their heads in sorrow. If only >they could have gotten their sooner. If only they had been able to >put the Question to the Angel before now... before he Fell.... It's still not to late, not really, it just gets a hell of a lot tougher to get them back on the right path. Then again if I didn't work for Janus I might work for Novalis (But in no way would I work for anyone Hell. No Really! :-) ). Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:37:08 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >> Or you could work it so that all three are right, at least from the >> point of view of the people in it. Which is my preferred stance. > >Tricky, since the Koran is quite explicit about Jesus NOT being >the Son of God. Possibly they all contain some Truth, but they also contain things that are wrong. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:38:35 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) In a message dated 3/25/99 11:20:39 AM, tomtimb@ionet.net writes: >PS.... Anyone got any ideas on how Odin would hold court? >My players have chased Loki to Valhalla, and are in the midst of >what remains of the Einheriar, with Odin standing there, Gungnir in >hand. They are operating _far_ from their normal fields of operation, >in the Far Marches, on Loki's [and Odin's] home-turf, with no close-by >backups. And Odin does have a Kin-oath with Loki. And all of Asgard remembers >Uriel's Purge.... >Help? Suggestions??? > >thanks, >tt > Aesir law could be more or less based on the Danelaw. Try this on for size: The tall, aged Aesir with the eye-patch speaks in a gravelly voice, "You owe me were-gild." The raven on his left shoulder bobs his head in agreement, and his spear shakes as runes rose briefly to the surface and glow. "Your kin has slain mine, and I demand repayment." The raven on his right shoulder croaks in agreement. Loki smiles triumphantly, "I too have claim against these so-called celestials. I would petition you, All-Father, for recompense." Suddenly, behind Odin, a giant throne appears. As the Lord of the Aesir sits, he lays his spear across his knees. "Speak the words of your claim, trickster, and I will judge," He holds up a hand. "Do not be alarmed, strangers. You will have your say, and if you can show that you are not the most likely cause of my son's loss, you may go free. Else, you will serve in Valhalla until he has been recompensed." At this, Loki's face falls. "I had hoped that you would sentence them to serve me where I would. But serving me here in Valhalla is good enough for my purposes." At this, both ravens caw in raucous laughter. - ---- You can see how fun this would be. Remember the laws of the time of the stories of the Aesir are more like modern liability laws, and less like modern criminal laws. The People's Court could be a decent model of how the proceedings could go. Also remember, If the characters demand a jury, that a jury is composed of people who know the character of the plaintiff, not people who are able to be impartial. Of course, any twelve of the inhabitants of Valhalla are going to know about Loki's less than savory reputation. Just a few thoughts, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:01:30 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Undead and Corporeal Forces > Also along those lines, why do the undead retain celestial forces? Because they do. Those Forces are twisted and bizarre compared to everyone else's but they are still there.<<< Actually, the reason is more direct than that -- undead still have souls (their souls are now inextricably bound to their corporeal forms), and Celestial Forces are the embodiment of the soul. This is why zombis, who do _not_ have souls, have no Celestial Forces. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:03:56 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Kyriotates and Insects >>> Right. It's plants and machines which require a special attunement. And insects. <<< Hmm -- can't any Kyriotate possess insects, like other animals? But each individual bug would require the investment of at least 1 Force, and harm to that bug would cause dissonance. It's only Kyriotates of Jordi that can possess _swarms_ of bugs, and ignore the loss of a few individuals within the swarm. At least, that's how I'd read it. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:36:37 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Whistling in the Dark wrote: > 1) We don't understand the Higher Heavens, and neither do the > Archangels. What seem like two contridictory statements to us are > very clearly able to be reconciled from the point of view of the > beings Above. I've never liked this argument in philosophical matters, and don't for gaming products either. Granted, in the former case, it might be right, but as a debating stance, I think it's a cop out. In the latter, the GM *should* know the answers to this kind of question, if it's going to make any difference to his game. > 2) If we take as possible the idea that Yaweh is actually an > extremely powerful Ethereal... it is entirely possible that Yaweh, > Jehovah and Allah are themselves a Holy Trinity up there... and while > Jesus is the Son of one of Jehovah, he's not the son of Allah. > Therefore, the New Testement and the Koran are both correct. (Of > course, that brings up the issue of "There is No God but Allah and > Mohammad is his Prophet, but hey, one reconcilation at a time!) One idea I've had recently works off of the "God is a hopped up Ethereal" idea. You see, there are two Yahwehs. One is indeed quite different from an ethereal; if not truly omniscient and omnipotent, he's certainly quite superior to and has very different origins from them. The other *is* an ethereal, brought to life in the same way that other ethereals are: human worship and Essence transfer. It seems that at least some of the monotheistic sects have been off the Truth by enough that that they brought into being the object of their worship. There's an obvious slippery slope here; by logical extension, there could easily be *lots* of Yahwehs. I'd probably limit it to just one, though. One seed for this ethereal's use is that he's just enough like the real Yahweh that he's managed to disguise himself in the Symphony for a long time, gathering his strength. And, boy, has he been collecting a lot of Essence. And now he's coming out of hiding... To do what, I haven't come up with, yet. If I ever do get to run an IN game, I may come up with it then. > 3) Alien spores. All contridictions can be explained by Alien > Spores. They're *everywhere.* Why, thank you. You're giving me leads in to lots of my crocked ideas. I've also come up with an idea for backdooring people into an IN game. I have a Call of Cthulhu game that's in hiatus. If I get it restarted, one direction I may take it works off of the idea that was floated around a couple of months ago: that The Symphony is a phenomenon limited to the local area of space (like the solar system) and that there may be other Symphonies elsewhere. Well, that fits fairly well with the origins of much of the Cthulhu mythos; they're supposed to be from elsewhere in the galaxy. That's why they are so mind-warping: they come from a completely different Symphony. They've been invading, and doing so quite successfully against the forces of both Heaven and Hell. It's somewhat akin to Dark Victory. I'd have to discard significant chunks of the Cthulhu mythos, most notably much of the ancient history bits, but it might be interesting. In might also provide a framework for making Sanity loss a bit less crippling. And I'd have to reconcile the hypocrisy of using this idea with the fact that I can't stand the Derlethian "War in Heaven" junk. Balseraphdom, here I come. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:59:51 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade >PS: Marc is next for "Alternate History Month". Any requests after that? I would like to see something about david. Maybe a little too intense on his tough love or something. Ben Elohite of Stone angel of intentional communities ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:02:25 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: IN> Another Alternate History Here's another Alternate History Idea, brought to you by the Foundation For Twisted Thinking. It's called, "Let's swop Christianity and Islam", more or less. Gabriel founded them both, certainly, just like the book says. But _Christianity_ was the runaway idea on Yves' orders which Dominic disapproved of, while Islam was the later (and generally agreed to by Heaven) idea. However, Gabriel went into such a fury after having been "forced" to recite the Qu'ran to God by Dominic (and only submitting to doing it on Yves' instructions, in the end) that she has retired to her Volcano or to Earth, and is her usual illuminated (and unhinged) self. Khalid, Archangel of Faith, supports Christianity, observing the faith of the early martyrs and disciples. Martin Luther was one of his protegees, encouraging direct faith in God without the intermediary of priests and prelates. On the other hand, Dominic and Laurence (though it's bad form to call him the Archangel of the Scimitar, as a few do) are firm supporters of Islam, seeing it as a stabilising force and one that leads humanity towards virtue and God. This'd probably require a few other adjustments in history, but... - --- 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: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:18:33 -0500 From: "James M. Zoshak" Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas >Mmm -- I'm a great believer, at least in theory, of what Heinlein >called Multiperson Pantheistic Solipsism. I can certainly accept >that the Koran is right in calling Jesus *not* the Son of God, and >that the various Christian religions are right in saying he *is* the >Son of God. How is that possible? Some thoughts: Well, you know Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, and didn't really ascribe any more power to being the son of the Judeo-Christian God than any other person has for being a son or daughter of God.... So it could be said that him being assumed to be the literal Son of God is all just a really big mistake.... A REALLY big mistake.... >3) Alien spores. All contridictions can be explained by Alien >Spores. They're *everywhere.* 'Cause it's Tuesday. And you know what THAT means.... Az. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:30:10 -0500 From: "James M. Zoshak" Subject: Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) >Aesir law could be more or less based on the Danelaw. Try this on for size: Yeah... or Odin and crew could just go berserkergang on the angels, seeing as how they're probably likely to be thinking a lot less about law than about vengeance. The norse gods were warriors' gods, after all. It is important to remember, though, that in the norse Eddas, there was a great deal of trickery and twisted plot -- you should definitely give the characters a chance to be crafty and escape from horrible Viking-death. :) Az. J. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:50:01 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Dominic and Justice It was I who in passing mentioned that Dominic was not popular on this list (or with players in general). I have seen him and his servitors played less obnoxiously than they are written, and I enjoyed the recent story posted on what the Servitors of Dominic *ought* to be like (and I agree). But there's no evidence for it in the book. When I read the parts in the book about Michael and Gabriel, I don't see them as examples of Dominic's being right. On the contrary, I thought that God suppressed Dominic's case against Michael, not because Michael didn't *do* the things Dominic said he did, but because the things Michael did *weren't wrong.* And he persecuted Gabriel for political reasons, because the new religion she announced threatened the one he was supporting. (True, she is as nutty as a fruit cake now, but that was *after* the trial. So it's his fault if it's anyone's.) I can't speak for anyone else, but my ambivalence about Dominic does not stem from a dislike of absolute authority. Although maybe the writers of IN have that feeling, since they certainly made Dominic revolting and creepy. (Why does an angel in celestial form need to wear a long, concealing black cloak?) The "canon" Dominic has absolute authority and misuses it -- the kind of person for whom "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and vice versa. (This is, if I recall correctly from the APG, the person who would view a request from two angels to have a child as "evidence of irregularity.") But as I said, most people who believe in the concept of Justice as a good and desirable thing rewrite Dominic as good and desirable, if difficult, and I'm in favor of that. Janet Anderson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:47:35 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Justice At 6:50 PM -0800 3/25/99, Janet Anderson wrote: > When I read the parts in the book about Michael and Gabriel, I don't see > them as examples of Dominic's being right. On the contrary, I thought > that God suppressed Dominic's case against Michael, not because Michael > didn't *do* the things Dominic said he did, but because the things > Michael did *weren't wrong.* And he persecuted Gabriel for political > reasons, because the new religion she announced threatened the one he > was supporting. (True, she is as nutty as a fruit cake now, but that > was *after* the trial. So it's his fault if it's anyone's.) I prefer the take that says that Michael was pardoned because if he was thrown out, Heaven would up and lose the War, so God cut him some slack. As for Gabriel, it is possible he *began* his campaign for political reasons, or because it sounded as though she was advocating heresy, but once he was into it he pursued the case honestly. However, the Inquisition is rigourous in its pursuit. And it's certainly as much his fault as anyone's. No one is claiming he isn't overzealousness on a plate. > I can't speak for anyone else, but my ambivalence about Dominic does not > stem from a dislike of absolute authority. Although maybe the writers of > IN have that feeling, since they certainly made Dominic revolting and > creepy. (Why does an angel in celestial form need to wear a long, > concealing black cloak?) The "canon" Dominic has absolute authority and > misuses it -- the kind of person for whom "everything not forbidden is > compulsory" and vice versa. (This is, if I recall correctly from the > APG, the person who would view a request from two angels to have a child > as "evidence of irregularity.") He's the furthest away from Humanity in Choir. And he's in his own way a *lot* further away than even the average Seraph. That's why he's in charge of Internal Security. > But as I said, most people who believe in the concept of Justice as a > good and desirable thing rewrite Dominic as good and desirable, if > difficult, and I'm in favor of that. The thing is, Dominic is a Seraph. He *knows* Truth, and he follows it. Using his Seraph resonance, on a check digit of 6 he learns the Absolute Truth. Now, he might not like that Truth, but it's everything to him. Unless, of course, that Creepy Black Cloak is actually a relic that keeps the Light of Heaven from his twisted Balseraph form-- Oh, now *there's* a thought.... - -- 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: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:47:21 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Bonded Servitors I really like this concept, but I have a lot of questions about the way you carried it out. In fact, I like it so well that I will certainly use it, but I have so many questions about the details that I have come up with some alternatives. For example: 1. I don't think it should be a distinction, but a completely "other" kind of relationship. How rare it is depends on the Superior, but it should not be common. 2. I think the four basic tenets should stay unchanged: never to serve another Superior, never to be a Superior, to reappear in the Superior's presence if killed, and an enhanced chance of invocation. I would also add the being's celestial forces to any Will roll to avoid possession by a Kyriotate, a Shedite, or the Song of Possession. 3. My questions begin with the "Fallen/Redeemed Superior" parts of this relationship. First of all, I disagree with the idea of servitors being able to use demonic rites unless they are either demons or on the way to being demons (i.e., very stupid Outcasts), and the same would apply to demons using divine rites. And if they do get them, then using them would produce dissonance. Also I would definitely lose the part where they are unable to fall or redeem unless their Superior did. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I look at this from a PC point of view. How often in the average game does a Superior fall or redeem? How likely is this to happen? You can have some ancient angel who was Bonded to Lucifer back when rocks were soft as an NPC, but it's not a problem that a PC is likely to have. With this in mind, I present as an alternative the following inconveniences to add to the benefits of being Bonded: 1) As some perceptive person already observed, if you are Bonded and you Fall or Redeem, and you die, you will still return to wherever your Superior is now. This will probably result in your being soul-killed while you are in trauma. (If you're a Bonded Servitor of Novalis who fell, you will probably be allowed to come out of trauma and offered a chance to redeem first.) If you're a Redeemed celestial and you appear in Hell, your Superior *may* be merciful enough to soul-kill you while you're still in trauma, because he used to like you quite a lot, but I wouldn't bet on it. 2) Since your Superior effectively is your heart, he can find you anytime he wants to. This can be good or bad depending on circumstances. 2) A perceptive celestial can sense the presence of the Bond. Seraphim and Malakim can detect Bond and Superior on a check digit of 6. Other angels can only detect the Bond on a check digit of 6. Mercurians can detect Bond and Superior *automatically*. Demons also need a check digit of 6 to detect the Bond, except for Lilim, who detect it automatically. (By the way, need I add that Bonding is anathema to Lilim?) Exceptions are Servitors of Malphas or Kronos, who will know both Bond and Superior on a check digit of 6. A Superior on either side will automatically know you are Bonded and to which side (divine or infernal), but not necessarily to whom. This applies of course to vessels. I suspect that *anyone* can see that you are Bonded when you're in celestial form. (I liked the idea of an earring that shows up celestially, but Seraphim, Ofanim, and Kyriotates don't have ears in celestial form.) I suspect that most of the "orphaned" Bonded Servitors on both sides are very old angels whose Superiors died during the Rebellion. There are probably also a whole raft of Servitors of Uriel. And does the "never serve another Superior" part preclude being an angel "in service to" someone, like the Servitors of Eli? Lastly, because of the nature of this relationship, I'm not convinced that it is at all common among demons. If you care about and trust another being sufficiently to *voluntarily* give yourself into their keeping that way, you've taken a large step outside the Hell of yourself - -- and toward redemption. And I believe that by definition it has to be voluntary; charming wouldn't work, nor threats, nor anything except agreement and commitment on both sides. Janet Anderson (I'm sorry to hear that some people are bored by this list. I've been bored by a few of the topics, but this is more than offset by ideas like this one.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:04:45 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Justice At 10:47 PM -0500 3/25/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >> I can't speak for anyone else, but my ambivalence about Dominic does not >> stem from a dislike of absolute authority. Although maybe the writers of >> IN have that feeling, since they certainly made Dominic revolting and >> creepy. (Why does an angel in celestial form need to wear a long, >> concealing black cloak?) The "canon" Dominic has absolute authority and >> misuses it -- the kind of person for whom "everything not forbidden is >> compulsory" and vice versa. (This is, if I recall correctly from the >> APG, the person who would view a request from two angels to have a child >> as "evidence of irregularity.") > > He's the furthest away from Humanity in Choir. And he's in his own > way a *lot* further away than even the average Seraph. That's why > he's in charge of Internal Security. Forgot to make my actual *point* in this one. He wouldn't *understand* why two angels would want to have a child. Angels are formed by superiors for needs or as directed by the divine inspiration. They are an expression of the Divine Love for the Symphony. They are above individual wants or needs in any way -- for individual wants are selfish in their core, no matter how pure that love may be. To take that Divine Love... and want to make it... an expression of something between two angels instead? How does *that* reflect the selflessness of the Symphony? Well yes, *humans* do that, but they also fling their feces at their cag-- oh, Humans, monkeys... really, aside from Free Will, what's the difference. Not to offend *you,* Jordi. But they can't seriously be suggesting modeling their behavior after *humans....* Clearly, this warrants closer examination.... - -- 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: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:39:22 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Justice On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Janet Anderson wrote: > It was I who in passing mentioned that Dominic was not popular on this > list (or with players in general). I have seen him and his servitors > played less obnoxiously than they are written, and I enjoyed the recent > story posted on what the Servitors of Dominic *ought* to be like (and I > agree). But there's no evidence for it in the book. Consider Dominic's dissonance: dissonant to punish more than is just. It's not dissonant to punish less than is just, though it's dissonant to ignore what you *personally* consider heresy when coming from an angel. That having been said, the main book portrays him as zealous to the point of trying other Archangels, harsh justice in once something comes to trial, with his mercy possible but rare. His writeup in Heaven and Hell doesn't contradict that, but it shows an example of his mercy, and it portrays him as believing that in the long run harsh punishments *are* merciful, because it's better to die than to fall. In my campaign, Inquisitioners vary in how harshly they treat minor sins, and even sometimes whether they think grey areas are wrongful or not. Of course, if an Inquisitioner strayed too far from Dominic's own opinions he would either be disciplined or put into a task such as recordkeeping where those opinions didn't hinder performance. At the same time, Dominic doesn't try to make their opinions clones of his own, and his dissonance is ignoring what *you* think is heresy in an angel, not what *Dominic* thinks is heresy in an angel. The Inquisition has a bad reputation because of several things. First, they don't do PR other than correcting outright lies. Second, no one likes internal security. Third, Inquisitioners will *not* dispute each others' judgements except in a formal appeal, so the whole Inquisition tends to be perceived as believing what its most extreme elements do. Usually angels who get into major trouble with the Inquisition over small issues were looking for trouble. Usually. Dominic's still not a nice person in this campaign because he also runs a lot of Heaven's intelligence work, and in that context he's probably Heaven's most ruthless Archangel. (He encouraged a Renegade Lilim on the verge of Redemption to take a position in Hell (er, with Lucifer) in order to become his double-agent. He thought the odds of her eventually deciding she wanted to work for Hell again for real were about fifty-fifty, but if she did he'd still have her information up to that time plus wonderful blackmail material to get more.... No one knows of any instance of him allowing angels to Fall for similar reasons. I hope he hasn't; that would put him teetering on the edge himself.) Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:06:48 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas > >For the most part, I *like.* However, to my knowledge, Elijah and >Eli both mean "Jehovah is God" when applied to a name. > Eli means 'my God' (the li/i on the end is first person possessive). Elijah means 'God is God' (more lit. 'God is Jah/Jehovah'). But since Eli is a really normal pet-form for Elijah anyway, it's not a big deal. (I mean, I have a great uncle called Elijah, and we always called him Uncle Eli) jo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:24:38 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Odin's Court (An Idea...) >Yeah... or Odin and crew could just go berserkergang on the angels, seeing >as how they're probably likely to be thinking a lot less about law than >about vengeance. The norse gods were warriors' gods, after all. It is >important to remember, though, that in the norse Eddas, there was a great >deal of trickery and twisted plot -- you should definitely give the >characters a chance to be crafty and escape from horrible Viking-death. :) > > I would actually say that Odin's court would be very big on justice. His is after all a court of law and norse mythology is riddled with tales of obeying obligations. Just look at the manner in which odin treats Loki. He knows that Loki is a cruel and truly evil bastard but because they are blood brothers he cannot betray Loki. He is all about obeying the rules. Ben Elohite of Stone ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:16:16 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > (The assumption is > that any Archangel who does this will have to devote a majority of his/her > resources to this, reducing the time that can be spent promoting a Word in > other ways.) It would be interesting if one (or maybe two or three working together) tried to handle both, creating a war of attrition rather than extermination, possibly continuing even today. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:53:42 +0000 From: Mark Baker Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas Jo Hart writes >Eli means 'my God' (the li/i on the end is first person possessive). Elijah >means 'God is God' (more lit. 'God is Jah/Jehovah'). > Just a quibble, but I prefer to translate El as 'Lord' rather than God, because the word was used in other contexts (eg. Be-el-zebul), while Yah was only ever used to denote the short form of the true name of God. Thus Elijah = God is my Lord. OTOH. I agree with the rest of your message considering Eli as a name. It was a relatively common abbreviated form, and would make Christ's statement from the cross rather less meaningful because there is nothing further in the quoted words to tie them back to a specific archangel named Eli. - -- Mark Baker (L'Ange de l'Abime) aka. Simeon, Mercurian of Novalis aka. Rebekkah, Menunite of Blandine "Some of my best friends are demons. You know where you stand with them." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:42:15 +0000 From: Mark Baker Subject: Re: IN> Alternate Crusades - The Dream Crusade An interesting piece of fictional (that's the Rebekkah perspective talking) history. A few people have pointed out that Blandine would be unlikely to take the fight to the corporeal realm already. I feel there's a couple of other problems with the idea as you portray it though: 1) Most of Blandine's servitors are Menunim, for whom such direct action would almost certainly be dissonant. The strain of being ordered to participate in such a struggle would almost certainly have caused a lot of them to lose faith in their superior, perhaps turning renegade or even falling, which could explain why there are now so few of them. 2) Given their past history, I can't believe that Blandine would ever become so involved in a struggle against the creatures of the ethereal that she would ignore Beleth. - -- Mark Baker (L'Ange de l'Abime) aka. Simeon, Mercurian of Novalis aka. Rebekkah, Menunite of Blandine "Some of my best friends are demons. You know where you stand with them." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:32:00 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Oaths, Bright Lilim & Judgement. Okay, I had in mind for a pre-generated character being a Bright Lilim of Judgement. (Why Judgement? Why not?) Naturally, Dominique being the bitch she normally is. . . I was thinking, that perhaps this Bright would have self-geased herself into duplicating the two important oaths of any Malakim. 'Never to suffer an Evil to live, when it is your choice.' 'Never Surrender to, or be captured by, the forces of the Adversary.' Or something along those lines. Just as an insurance policy to make certain she would not betray Judgement. Being a Seraph, means he saw the Truth in her heart. *grin* Naturally this concept would -grate- on the Lilim's sense of freedom, but then she wound up in Judgement in the -first- place. Looking at it, I've been wondering what level of Geases would equate to that level of devotion? They are in the negative, which makes things that much harder. . . Which is why a Third Geas to: 'Always to renew my Oaths to my Duty' would seem appropriate in this case. Again, she -chose- to willingly serve Dominique! Sometimes it happens. *grin* /FotM/, naturally does have the information on Geases. . . But this case skirts on the impossible Geas/7 level of believabilty, so I thought I'd get suggestions in how to solve this quandry. Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:42:55 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> (Bal)Seraphim, Other Celestials & Earrings (WAS: Bonded Servitors) >(I liked the idea of an earring that shows up celestially, but >Seraphim, Ofanim, and Kyriotates don't have ears in celestial form.) As somone in the process of Rendering a Balse. . . Er Malakite of Fate, I'd like to point out that, yes, Seraphim have ears. Look closely at the D-Smith artwork in the mainbook, and clear as day you see the two little ears. People prolly think they are 'horns' or some-such-nonsense. An Ofanite with a 'ring' would just look like an Ofanite with one more small, tiny wheel. Kyriotates don't necessarly 'have' ears. . . But the ring can shift around. . . (Okay, not to the level some Shedites have, but close enough to still gross out some mundanes. . .) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:45:35 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > One take for Jesus is that he is the son of the Archangel Eli, and is a > being like the Children of the Grigori. I always thought it was quite strongly implied that Jesus was the son of Gabriel - "Gabriel was present at the conception of two major religions (literally, in the case of Christianity" - though now that I re-read it, I suppose she just might have been hanging around, making sure everything was done correctly. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 02:56:44 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Justice Whistling in the Dark wrote: > As for Gabriel, it is possible he *began* his campaign for political > reasons, or because it sounded as though she was advocating heresy, > but once he was into it he pursued the case honestly. However, the > Inquisition is rigourous in its pursuit. > > And it's certainly as much his fault as anyone's. No one is claiming > he isn't overzealousness on a plate. Yes, but Gabriel -still- went nuts duting the course of the investigation. I highly doubt Dominic did anything other angels have had to put up with, and Gabriel -cracked-. Shows a bit of a flaw in the AA of Fire, wouldn't you think? Not someone you -quite- want to trust with such responsibility as Heaven's Messenger. > > I can't speak for anyone else, but my ambivalence about Dominic does not > > stem from a dislike of absolute authority. Although maybe the writers of > > IN have that feeling, since they certainly made Dominic revolting and > > creepy. (Why does an angel in celestial form need to wear a long, > > concealing black cloak?) The "canon" Dominic has absolute authority and > > misuses it -- the kind of person for whom "everything not forbidden is > > compulsory" and vice versa. (This is, if I recall correctly from the > > APG, the person who would view a request from two angels to have a child > > as "evidence of irregularity.") I wouldn't say that he misuses it at all. Remember, in canon, a full - -third- of the Host up and -walked- on the Symphony, and Dominic had to watch. That's bound to make you a little overprotective of Heaven as a whole, and I've yet to see a canon example of Dominic out and out misusing his authority. Again, I see a dislike for those in authority who -must- be unflinching in your dislike of him. And I don't see 'revolting' at all, where do you get that? And as for creepy, -judges- wear long, black robes, so do -priests-. It's a powerful colour that commands respect, and if anyone -must- command respect, it's Dominic. > Unless, of course, that Creepy Black Cloak is actually a relic that > keeps the Light of Heaven from his twisted Balseraph form-- Or that's why Novalis never appears as an animal with wings, or why Michael uses a human shape and an -axe- in the Celestial realm. I actually get the strong impression that AAs can look how they -want- to look. By the time you are an AA, you're no longer quite bound by a Choir's 'look'. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1179 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.