From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed May 26 06:52:52 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 GAA15852 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 06:52:52 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id GAA11317 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 06:52:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 06:52:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199905261152.GAA11317@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 #1237 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, May 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1237 In this digest: RE: IN> Other interesting Habbalah IN> From Alain: An Apology Re: IN> Other interesting Habbalah RE: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> From Alain: An Apology IN> Re: Dark Victory Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) RE: IN> Malakim and violent oaths IN> Malakim and violent oaths Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) IN> Other interesting Habbalah Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) IN> ShoreCon '99 IN> Shedim and Lilim Re: IN> Shedim and Lilim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:09:18 +0100 (BST) From: Warsinger Subject: RE: IN> Other interesting Habbalah On Tue, 25 May 1999, Helm, Matthew wrote: > I don't think that the Habbalah could ever _actually_ work for heaven > without redeeming. I think it could do good things, but every so often, > when it wasn't paying attention, or it stopped concentrating for a > little bit, it would go back to it's true personality (of course it > would be building up lots of dissonance in the meantime). The thing about dissonance is you have to be violating either Superior or band/choir conditions. Superior one wouldn't be a problem - band one I think wouldn't necessarily prevent you from doing good. Certain actions could be problematic - but that happens to everyone. > > If I were playing, or GM'ing this character, I would say that it could > try to assist God's work, but to do so required a great deal of > concentration, effort, and energy (sort of like trying to solve a > complicated equation when you _really_ need sleep, and you have to force > yourself to carry on with it. Clearly that kind of concentration > couldn't be kept up for ever, and so, now and again, it would revert to > demonic ways, until it realise what it had done, and started making a > conscious effort to stop again. Because of this, I think it could be > very difficult to integrate the character into any but the most > sympathetic group of angels. The lapsing problem is one of the major barriers I agree - but basically the plan revolved around me finding the angels while in the right frame of mind - and getting them to assist in fooling the more demonic side of the personality. > > As for it's plans, I think an important part of it would be to take some > time out, every day, or perhaps more often (just before dawn and just > before sunset would be kind of poetic, I think), to sit down and look at > it's actions during the day. It should weigh up the Holy or Infernal > aspects of everything it did, and make a few notes about what to keep > doing and what to avoid in the future. Clearly this requires a degree > of self awareness and objectivity about your actions and the world > around you (Does this sound like any choir you can think off?!?). > I wasn't planning on remaining in the objective viewpoint - the idea was trick the demonic Habbalah into working for God truly. Only needs one moment of clarity to set off. > It could also try and look at the good things and turn them into > projects or goals for the future, and maybe look at the bad things and > see how it could make amends for it's actions. I don't know all that > much about the Habbalah, so I can't suggest anything more band specific, > I'm afraid. > Mad little so-and-sos :) > I assume that your character would be an Outcast or Renegade (I never > quite got my head round the difference), in which case it could be > possible to work with a group of angels, as long as there weren't too > many Laurencites around. I suppose you could try and keep your demonic > identity hidden, but I can't remember any rules for that, so I don't > know how successful you would be. > Outcast - angel thrown out Renegade - demon legging it away The Elohite of the party is an Elohite of the Sword - ironic :) The Malakim of War is likely to be the biggest barrier. Actually determining whether someone is Angelic or demonic is normally quite hard - but the Malakim has the Malakim of Destiny attunement *sigh* Although he would be willing to work with me I reckon. > If I were GM'ing, I would say (and my humble apologies to everyone for > lapsing into WW speak) that although the Habbalites Demeanor might be > helpful and good, and it's heart might be in the right place, but it's > nature would always be demonic until it redeemed. > I see your point - but I don't agree - I accept the idea of demon selfishly deciding to do good. Warsinger Cute and fluffy....(with claws) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:22:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> From Alain: An Apology (Alain Dawson asked me to post this to the list; it's also on the Daily Illuminator. --Beth) An Apology . . . to Kris Overstreet, who wrote a yet-unpublished article for Pyramid magazine that was the basis of the rules for ghosts in the In Nomine Corporeal Player's Guide. In all the last-minute hustle to get the book to the printers, I left his name out of the credits. Mea culpa, Kris, and thanks for your help on the CPG. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:41:51 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Other interesting Habbalah At 12:29 AM +0100 5/25/99, Warsinger wrote: >However, suppose you have a Hellborn Habbalite who gets that Divine >Intervention on an Emptiness roll [...] It >knows the objective viewpoint it has now will wear off, but doesn't want >to go back to being a deluded Habbalite, so decides to psychoanalyse itself >in its deluded state and make plans so that it can truly be working for >heaven despite its fallen state. This is pretty much what I called a "Gray Renegade" (as opposed to a Grey Renegade, who is a runaway guy from a flying saucer) in my article in Pyramid... (insert obligatory "it's only $15 for a year!" plug) I thought it was a pretty plausible sort of critter, actually. Mad as a hatter, but plausible enough (if you think Gray Renegades are plausible at all)... They're probably prone to mood-swings like nobody's business, as their selfish, emotional nature and urge to strike down THESE IDIOT WEAKLINGS (ahem) get the better of them -- and then they recover and look at what they've been doing and how it doesn't serve the plan they laid out for themselves (in a moment of abberation?), and may swing the other way into remourse and sackcloth and ashes (and look at how _strong_ they are, such martyrs!). I'd probably play such a creature as still convinced it was an angel -- but that it shouldn't be working in Hell anymore. It should be with other angels, convincing them that it is just as much an angel as any Malakite. (Then again, I'm in a game (long on hiatus, hmmmm) where the very confused Habbalite of Fire (THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRE AND I WILL PUNISH THE WEAK CRUEL BULLIES!) got hit with the equivalent of a 111. She's currently wandering around to do the TASK that Gabriel assigned her, and is in the mindset of "It doesn't matter. Punishing angel or divine demon, I have a task. It serves Heaven. I will do it, or die trying." She hasn't gotten to the giggling madness stage, but I wouldn't be surprised if she hit it eventually. Either that, or the world will be destroyed.) Anyway, I'd figure that a Gray Habbalite is a rather unstable state -- if it's going to be with angels, they're probably going to be trying to help it redeem. How successful they are, and what tactics they use for this . . . is all part of the adventure, I'd figure. O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:53:18 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: RE: IN> Malakim and violent oaths On Mon, 24 May 1999, EDG wrote: > Malakite heals bird, then goes after kids. Kids shoot bird while Malakite > is en route to them. Malakite returns to bird. Repeat process indefinitely. I wouldn't have thought so: malakite heals bird. Malakite walks directly towards kids. Kids can't see bird due to brick sh*t-house interposed between them and bird. Malakite gently removes BB gun from kids' hands. Malakite shoots kids, Malakite calls Medicare, books surgery to remove ball-bearings from kids legs. Malakite leaves. Then again, there will be situations where a malicious opponent can take advantage of a Malakite's oaths to manipulate his actions to their benefit. The answer to that isn't to change the oaths - it's to call up your mates and have them squit the bad guy while you fix the bird :-) > It also leads to situations where the Malakite is stopping the car to use > Corporeal Healing on the caterpillar that just got half-squished beneath a > tire. That does get a bit tricky. I'd probably rule that any damage done with a car is OK if and only if it could reasonably have been done accidentally on foot. So squishing bugs is legal, and all part of life's rich tapestry. Hitting deer at 75mph isn't. > I'd recommend something on the order of "Never suffer an animal to die > within range of your senses, or to remain harmed for more than (X length of > time), if it is my choice." I assume that comes out shorter in Celestial tongue. My AAs don't approve of Malakim oaths with hedge-factors :-) More seriously, that sounds like a valid, but slightly weaker, Oath. Given Jordi's dissonance conditions, the 'if it is my choice' is very rarely going to be a get-out clause, since you don't have the choice to ignore the death of a bug just because *humans* don't think they matter. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 99 11:29:56 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> From Alain: An Apology >(Alain Dawson asked me to post this to the list; it's also on the Daily >Illuminator. --Beth) > >An Apology > > . . . to Kris Overstreet, who wrote a yet-unpublished article for Pyramid >magazine that was the basis of the rules for ghosts in the In Nomine >Corporeal Player's Guide. In all the last-minute hustle to get the book to >the printers, I left his name out of the credits. Mea culpa, Kris, and >thanks for your help on the CPG. My Lord, that's three apologies this week. }:-{D You're forgiven, Alain. }:-{D Redneck Kris Overstreet's email has changed... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/milkmaid.html - The Magnificent Milkmaid ... but his sig hasn't -- redneck@detnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 12:06:59 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: IN> Re: Dark Victory Are you still accepting players for your PbEM Dark Victory game? If so, I'd like to sign up. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:24:59 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) On Mon, 24 May 1999, Benjamin Acosta wrote: > How would everyone treat such an ambiguous character? [A Habbalah who's taken Malakite oaths, and fights Hell.] Tum te tum. I'm bored: Blandine: "Nurture his beliefs, accept his help." David: "He can join us as an angel, or die." Dominic: "Give him one chance to redeem." Eli: "Let him help. You had to ask?" Gabriel: "He's on our side as long as he fights our enemies." Janus: "Nurture him - he's an exception. Kill him if he becomes a problem." Jean: "Well, if he's really on our side he'll redeem. Otherwise... perhaps we should tolerate him, since we have bigger problems." Jordi: "I don't care." Laurence: "Redeem him or kill him." Marc: [Don't have much handle on him] Maybe: "Leave it to Laurence to decide if he can use him. Not really my bailiwick." Michael: "Let him fight for us, see if he redeems. Be careful though - he could be part of a bigger plan." Novalis: "Wonderful! Of course he wants to be one of us - and we can help him." Yves: "What do *you* think of him? Why?" Almost all the DP's: "GET HIM DOWN HERE *NOW*!" Steve. - ------ And malt does more than Milton can To justify God's ways to man. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:56:12 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) At 6:24 PM +0100 5/25/99, Steve Jessop wrote: >On Mon, 24 May 1999, Benjamin Acosta wrote: > > > How would everyone treat such an ambiguous character? >[A Habbalah who's taken Malakite oaths, and fights Hell.] > >Tum te tum. I'm bored: I'm not, but I want to throw in my own spin. >Blandine: "Nurture his beliefs, accept his help." "Let us see if he can 'inflict' beneficent emotions, and use him thusly. If not, perhaps we could turn him towards the Punishment of Nightmares, since in this way we turn victims to Dreams." >David: "He can join us as an angel, or die." "As for his being a Malakite...." >Dominic: "Give him one chance to redeem." "And watch him -- *watch* him. I do not trust this convenient delusion. He could be a mole. He could be many things. See if he is willing to submit to and serve Judgement. Perhaps we could use him as an enforcer or executioner in a Triad that itself will watch and test him. And if necessary, redeem or destroy him..." >Eli: "Let him help. You had to ask?" "Besides -- killer clothes sense. Hey, call him over. Tell him Malakim like drinking Long Island Iced Teas." >Gabriel: "He's on our side as long as he fights our enemies." "Besides... he punishes. Perhaps he could punish and scurge the cruel, from within the ranks of the Demons themselves. Perhaps this is our opportunity to drive a molten hot spike into the heart of Belial and the rest. Perhaps this Demon who looks to the heights is the sign we have waited for. What -- no I *don't* need to take my medicine yet, damn you!" >Janus: "Nurture him - he's an exception. Kill him if he becomes a >problem." "And tell him to watch his sword more closely. This should fetch a good price..." >Jean: "Well, if he's really on our side he'll redeem. Otherwise... >perhaps we should tolerate him, since we have bigger problems." "Perhaps we can retrain him -- there are advantages to demons who fight demons. If we inflame his delusions we could slide him into the right position to use his resonance to destabilize certain Hellish organizations. Mm. Let me talk to him." >Jordi: "I don't care." > >Laurence: "Redeem him or kill him." "And either way, get him out of my way." >Marc: [Don't have much handle on him] Maybe: "Leave it to Laurence to >decide if he can use him. Not really my bailiwick." "Well, here's the question. Does Hell *want* him? Redemption might not be a wise return on our investment -- well, right away. Eventually, of course... but if he were an example to other Habbalah, shown to be accepted by the Host and allowed to do his... 'work' in such a way, we could potentially influence the majority of them to work against other Hellish influences at least in the short term. That might be worth the sacrifice of one Demon...." >Michael: "Let him fight for us, see if he redeems. Be careful though - he >could be part of a bigger plan." "Sometimes you are the hand that holds the axe, and sometimes you're the axe. If this... 'angel' believes what he says, we can drive him deeply into our enemies. If not... we can always reforge and try again...." >Novalis: "Wonderful! Of course he wants to be one of us - and we can help >him." "But he's so *violent.* Hm. He should come to us. By harnessing his desires, we can lead him out of his delusions and back into the light of Heaven. We can prove once and for all that the drive to punish can give way to the desire to accept, to redeem. What? No, I don't *need* to take my medicine, thank you." >Yves: "What do *you* think of him? Why?" - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:22:47 -0700 From: "McCarthy, Douglas J" Subject: RE: IN> Malakim and violent oaths > From: EDG > >> 4) Aid animals first. >> He has to heal the bird before he can go after the kids >> shooting at it with BB guns, for instance. > > I'm not sure that going after the kids first would be dissonant in this > example, unless the bird's life were in extreme danger. It doesn't take too many BBs to put a bird's life in extreme danger! > It would be much more efficient I hate chopping up sentences like this, but I need to here. Malakim are not about efficiency; they're about honor. It would be more efficient to, say, surrender or retreat from a fight once in a while too, but Malakim aren't going to do that either. > to go after the kids first; unless you have no other choice, > always eliminate the threat before cleaning up the damage, or else the > threat remains to cause _more_ damage. In this particular case, what that > means is that the bird might well get shot again during or after the > healing, which would simply prolong the problem. > > Malakite heals bird, then goes after kids. Kids shoot bird > while Malakite is en route to them. Malakite returns to bird. > Repeat process indefinitely. With all due respect, that would take some pretty dumb kids, and an even dumber Malakite. If I were taking pot shots at some birds (which I wouldn't, but I digress), and some guy appeared and started bandaging up the bird, I'd run, especially if I didn't know running was futile. And if I were a Malakite healing a bird, the first thing I'd do when I was finished was make sure that the bird was out of danger before hunting down the kids that shot the bird. > It also leads to situations where the Malakite is stopping the car > to use Corporeal Healing on the caterpillar that just got > half-squished beneath a tire. All right, it needs the "intentional, malicious, and cruel" modifier too. > - -EDG > who once had a Malakite with the Oath "Define anyone > actively helping me to be not evil". This would be a GREAT one for a Malakite of Novalis! I like it! - -- Doug McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight... douglas.j.mccarthy@intel.com and artificial sky. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:38:54 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Malakim and violent oaths >>>I'd recommend something on the order of "Never suffer an animal to die within range of your senses, or to remain harmed for more than (X length of time), if it is my choice."<<< I'd never allow a Malakite to have an oath that sounds like it was written by a lawyer. >>>who once had a Malakite with the Oath "Define anyone actively helping me to be not evil"<<< And I think most Archangels would have a problem with that one, since the Malakite is basically saying that he can define who is and is not evil. How about "Define demons I like as not evil"? Works the same way. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:44:20 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) >>>Also, what would a Triad want to do with him? Even though he's a demon (Azariel: "No I'm not! I'm a malakite!) he hasn't done anything "evil" and has greatly aided the forces of Heaven.<<< In an "ends justify the means" way, sure. But as a Habbalite, he's still inherently selfish. He's acting out his selfish delusions that he's a Malakite, and therefore that justifies doing *anything* in the name of "purging evil." As a Punisher at heart, he should be acting like a psychotic Malakite with very little true sense of right and wrong. If he's *really* acting with honor, selflessness, and judgment, in accord with the goals of Heaven, then he should be on his way to redemption (and his ability to disassociate himself from his delusions in order to follow higher principles is pushing him toward becoming an Elohite). >>>In fact, unless they brought their findings to his attention, Azariel would gladly continue to give any aid he can in the War<<< A Habbalite with the delusion that he's a Malakite should reject true angels as being too weak, too wishy washy, to do what really needs to be done -- destroy evil. Kill all evildoers. They are all wicked, and should be punished.... >>>How do angels deal with demons who exhibit beliefs and personality traits which are not incombatible with the Heavenly Host and are in fact totally loyal to Heaven and against Hell?<<< They bring them to an Archangel for redemption. A demon that isn't ready for redemption wouldn't fit the above description. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:48:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Other interesting Habbalah >>>However, suppose you have a Hellborn Habbalah who gets that Divine Intervention on an Emptiness roll and who then realises they are a demon not an angel etc etc. Now it takes a look at what it has been doing and decides to head for redemption, but looking objectively at the situation it doesn't believe that it could survive as an Elohite without falling, even assuming it managed to survive the redemption process itself. It knows the objective viewpoint it has now will wear off, but doesn't want to go back to being a deluded Habbalah, so decides to psychoanalyse itself in its deluded state and make plans so that it can truly be working for heaven despite its fallen state.<<< Then he's still a delusional, selfish Habbalite. He's still putting his own judgment above that of Heaven. One of the primary requirements for redemption is *faith*. If you don't have faith that you can become an angel and trust in God, then you're not ready to redeem (and any redemption attempt *will* destroy you). Note that having faith is not the same as having NO doubts. This Habbalite is on his way toward redemption, but you should roleplay his struggle to accept the fact that truly redeeming means leaving behind any notions that he can "truly work for Heaven" while still a Habbalite, and that he will have to have faith that he will NOT Fall as an Elohite, despite his fears. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:25:53 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths At 07:38 PM 5/25/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>>I'd recommend something on the order of "Never suffer an animal to die >within range of your senses, or to remain harmed for more than (X length of > >time), if it is my choice."<<< > >I'd never allow a Malakite to have an oath that sounds like it was written >by a lawyer. How is that any more lawyerly than "Never suffer an evil to live, if it is my choice"? I wanted "Never suffer an animal to die, if it is my choice", but that causes an incredible amount of dissonance. >And I think most Archangels would have a problem with that one, since the >Malakite is basically saying that he can define who is and is not evil. How >about "Define demons I like as not evil"? Works the same way. No, it doesn't. "Define demons I like as not evil" is allowing personal preference to get in the way of honor. "Define anyone actively helping me to be not evil" is sacrificing the immediate implementation of an order in order to avoid sacrificing the current mission. Malakite PCs, in a game where several key informants are demons, are going to have a hard time not getting smacked down by the PC group if they go around killing the informants. >-David - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:04:16 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Grey Situations (Was Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite) At 7:44 PM -0400 5/25/99, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Also, what would a Triad want to do with him? Even though he's a demon >(Azariel: "No I'm not! I'm a malakite!) he hasn't done anything "evil" >and has greatly aided the forces of Heaven.<<< > >In an "ends justify the means" way, sure. But as a Habbalite, he's still >inherently selfish. He's acting out his selfish delusions that he's a >Malakite, and therefore that justifies doing *anything* in the name of >"purging evil." As a Punisher at heart, he should be acting like a >psychotic Malakite with very little true sense of right and wrong. If he's >*really* acting with honor, selflessness, and judgment, in accord with the >goals of Heaven, then he should be on his way to redemption (and his >ability to disassociate himself from his delusions in order to follow >higher principles is pushing him toward becoming an Elohite). However, there's nothing that says a good number of Angels (and Archangels) who wouldn't happily use such a resource to further the War. After all, it's a perfectly expendable force (a Demon no less) with abilities Angels don't have. Of course, it would require feeding that Demons delusions instead of helping him out of them, but no one ever said being Good was *nice...* > >>>In fact, unless they brought their findings to his attention, Azariel >would gladly continue to give any aid he can in the >War<<< > >A Habbalite with the delusion that he's a Malakite should reject true >angels as being too weak, too wishy washy, to do what really needs to be >done -- destroy evil. Kill all evildoers. They are all wicked, and should >be punished.... Depends again on the situation. True fanatics of Gabriel would likely be "acceptable" to that Habbalite. I think the real trick is making sure the Demon remains Demonic in the game. (Of course, with the belief that his Superior is *God,* the Habbalite will also assume that Archangels are lower than he is on the Celestial Food Chain, so that if they didn't bow to his beliefs or give the impressions of doing so, he would of course have to punish them... and as a Malakite of God he could of course win... just ask him....( > >>>How do angels deal with demons who exhibit beliefs and personality >traits which are not incombatible with the Heavenly Host and are in fact >totally loyal to Heaven and against Hell?<<< > >They bring them to an Archangel for redemption. A demon that isn't ready >for redemption wouldn't fit the above description. But they aren't enough for redemption either. Without that leap of faith, that desire to work for the whole rather than be God's Own Champion... Azariel would get par-broiled in the redemption. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-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.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:23:15 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: IN> ShoreCon '99 Greetings... I'm the RPG coordinator for ShoreCon '99, which will be held on September 9-12 1999 at the Hilton in Cherry Hill, NJ. In that capacity, I'm making a final plea for GMs to run In Nomine specific events at the convention. We currently only have one GM scheduled to run IN events, and I know he'd welcome the chance to sit in on someone else's game and get the chance to play for a change! The best way to get people interested in the game is for them to take part in the stories that unfold there, and a convention is one of the easiest and most visible ways of accomplishing that! The deadline for event submissions is June 1st, and by visiting our website at you can find complete information on hotel accomodations, online GM registration (now guaranteed to work!), and even get on the mailing list to have our pre-registration book sent directly to you. If you are interested in GMing an event, the time to sign up is now! This year ShoreCon will will be having several special guests, including Peter Adkison (President and CEO of WotC/TSR), Steve Jackson (President of Steve Jackson Games) and Jolly Blackburn (creator of Knights of the Dinner Table)! We'll also be boasting Target Games' 1st Annual Games Expo, several LARPs (Vampire, Star Wars, and Toon!), as well as a large selection of RPGs, CCGs, Miniature events and Network Gaming! Thanx for your time... - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta (note change!) Homepage - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 02:10:50 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: IN> Shedim and Lilim Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that a Shedite and a Lilim decide to really put the whammy on a human important to the Host. Can said Shedite possess the human, find out or - -put- him in a situation that creates a large Need, then have the Lilim come in and save him and owe her a Geas 5 or 6? I'm wondering since a Shedite must struggle against the host's will to do evil and, most importantly, canon states clearly that the host -is- corrupted by the possession. So, opinions on either finding a need or creating one by the host's actions? Also, if the Shedite pushes the host to agree to the 'trade', is it still a Geas on the host? - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 04:53:14 -0700 (PDT) From: The Alien Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Lilim On Wed, 26 May 1999, Steel Angel wrote: > So, opinions on either finding a need or creating one > by the host's actions? Also, if the Shedite pushes the host to agree > to the 'trade', is it still a Geas on the host? I would say a possessed mortal cannot be indebted 'by force' as it were. I think having the Shedite Inside would risk getting the hook in the wrong place. On the other hand, it would be trivial for the Shedite to get the mortal into that situation and then bail. That is the same annoying trick as pushing someone overboard so they Need a life preserver...it's cheating, but you can likely still hook them. Good thing for humans that Lilim and Shedim don't get along... Sean ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1237 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.