From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 2 13:38:59 2000 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 NAA22791 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:38:58 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id NAA28837 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:35:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:35:33 -0600 Message-Id: <200002021935.NAA28837@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 #1519 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, February 2 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1519 In this digest: IN> Fighting Styles Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell Re: IN> Fighting Styles IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance Re: IN> Fighting Styles IN> Mals'n'Hitler again Re: IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance Re: IN> Fighting Styles Re: IN> Bright Lil in big trouble Re: IN> Mals'n'Hitler again IN> Malakim dissonance & Undead vessels Re: IN> Fighting Styles Re: IN> Malakim dissonance & Undead vessels Re: IN> Fighting Styles Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell Re: IN> Superiors 3 Question IN> Hitler & Malakim again (Re: Reconciling Vows and Resonance) Re: IN> Ethereals and Essence IN> [ADMIN] Nothing But Plain Text! Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell Re: IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 18:17:40 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Fighting Styles Caias Brian Ward wrote: > With a cinematic system like IN uses, different combat styles are just > descriptives. Mind you, it makes fighting more than a dice-rolling > exercise, and I encourage it in my games (live action or tabletop) I might give bonuses or penalties to certain actions based on the character's description of his Fighting skill. Hmmm. Off the top of my head, some examples of how Fighting skill might be made more "specialized" in In Nomine: (Review: IN, p. 65. Recall that normally, Fighting/4 or higher adds a point of Power to punches and kicks IF the character is wearing heavy gloves/boots, etc., and that anyone with a Strength of 9+ gets to add a point of damage to HTH attacks.) Boxing: Only Fighting/2 is required for the bonus to punches while wearing gloves, and at Fighting/4+, no gloves are required to get the bonus. However, Fighting skill may not be added to kicks. Karate: Lower the skill requirement to Fighting/3 for punches and kicks to get a bonus for equipment, and at Fighting/5, no equipment required. Fighting skill doesn't apply to grappling or throwing, though. Tae Kwon Do: Only Fighting/2 is required to get a bonus to kicks while wearing boots, and at Fighting/4+, gets the bonus even bare-footed. Fighting skill doesn't apply to grappling or throwing. Aikido: No damage bonus at high skill levels, but the character can add +1 to the check digit of any successful Dodge roll against non-ranged attacks, and at level 4+, high-strength unarmed attacks against him do NOT add +1 Power. Jujutsu: Requires a skill of 6 to get a damage bonus with punches and kicks, but at Fighting/4 or higher, may add +1 to the Power/CD of grapples and throws. Judo: As above, except no damage bonus for punches and kicks at any level. Wrestling: Requires a skill of 5 to get the bonus for punches and kicks, but at the same level, also gets a +1 bonus to grapples. The above rules, of course, are totally optional and add complexity, and even if someone has defined their Fighting skill as "Boxing" or "Judo" or "Karate," they shouldn't be forced to adhere to them; the GM may assume they're basically a well-rounded fighter with emphasis on a particular school of combat, and maybe give an occasional +1 bonus for appropriate maneuvers. (If the player describes colorfully how he delivers a "lightning series of jabs followed by a devastating uppercut," let his Fighting, defined as boxing, give him +1 Power. If he's a judoka, give him a +1 for throws when it amuses you. And so on.) > Also, are what we consider Chi maneuvers in martial arts possibly Song use > by Soldiers? Not stunts, mind you, but "classic" stuff we see in movies but > might be considered 'real' in the In Nomine world? Some Songs could be viewed in that light, but as suggested in the Corporeal Player's Guide, I'd regard chi (or "ki") as the ability to make a focused effort (i.e., spend Essence on a maneuver). - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:15:00 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell >I know that Malakim can't let demons live, except under really limited >circumstances such as Superior's orders, but what about Soldiers of Hell? >Can a Malakite choose to leave a Soldier of Hell alive if he has a really >good reason (after all, it would have to be a really good reason for him to >*want* to leave one alive), or do they come under the blanket prohibition of >his oath? The oath extends to evil humans not involved in the war, Malakim don't care if you're human, celestial, ethereal, from an alternate reality, a higher manifestation of God or a rock. If you resonate as evil letting you live is dissonant for the Malakite. >What I mean by "really good reason" would be things like the following: > >1) He could, by agreeing to leave the Soldier alive, destroy a demon or >other greater evil by getting information, scaring the Soldier into >cooperation, etc. Or he could, instead of killing the Soldier, follow him, >feed him false information, or otherwise learn something useful. They can use evil against evil, and going after a bigger fish is acceptable. Especially if you fry the smaller fish after your done. However if the trick doesn't work the Malakite swallows dissonance. >2) The Soldier's death would endanger other people whose welfare was >important, such as innocent civilians, hostages, a Cherub's attuned, etc. Only if they were told to care about that welfare, then it wouldn't be there choice. So if it was a personal reason (they liked the innocent person that is dependent on the sleaze) they would take dissonace. If they were orderd to let no innocent human come to harm then they wouldn't take dissonace (unless it was an oath, and then they would, you have to be careful with swearing those things). Blowing up a a bus full of children to kill the Demon of Hardcore driver isn't acceptable, and letting it go won't cause dissonance (especially since you can wait for him to drop the kids of before you kill him). >3) There is a reasonable chance that the Soldier might change sides. Yes, same with potential redemption canidates. Its better than a soul kill, the evil is not just eradicated but becomes something useful. >4) Not killing the Soldier would help keep the peace among other angels the >Malakite works with, for the reasons given above or because of the >preferences of individual angels (Mercurians, Servitors of Flowers or >Destiny). Only if they were told to play nice or listen to one of those angels. Otherwise they will kill the soldier. Remember that Malakim, like most celestials, aren't stupid. If they were ordered to do X, and they notice evil they make a note of it and do X. If they can't find the evil they noted then they get pissy about not getting to kill evil. If they find it then they seem a lit less up tight when their friends see them next. If the evil is in the way of the Malakite doing X then their killed quickly and the Malakite does X while smoking a cigarette. The thing with a Soldier as a opposed to a demon is that its less clear cut. A demon is evil unless its on the path to redemption, and any Malakim around are gonig to be asking why the demon hasn't been redeemed yet. A Soldier doesn't undergo a metaphysical change, as such a Malakite can be sure their really evil unless they use their resonance. As long as they don't confirm that the individual is evil they don't have to kill them. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:42:20 -0500 From: "Gregory Gietzen" Subject: Re: IN> Fighting Styles - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edelstein" > Wrestling: Requires a skill of 5 to get the bonus for punches and kicks, > but at the same level, also gets a +1 bonus to grapples. Professional Wrestling: requires use of the Lying skill to look real. Except for the Bals, who can use their resonance to completely fool someone, because they're *professional* wrestlers, and this is *for real*. "Ohmigod! The Screamin' Demon just hit Person Man with a frying pan! This could be the end of his career! He's not breathing!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:44:13 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance The thread about what a Malakite's latitude is when dealing with Hellsworn has reminded me of a question that's been bugging me for a while. In the APG, it stated that Malakites hate working in unjust human societies because it can really screw up getting an accurate resonance of a human's honor/dishonor. Fair enough. However, the example that they used (pg 48-49, A. Hitler himself) seems contradictory. If I'm reading it right, Hitler avoided being spitted on a fiery sword solely because he never, ever acted in a manner that violated his own internal code of honor. Two questions: 1) "What, never?" (I can see a blackwing cherrfully singing, "Well ... hardly ever..." as he starts to lay down heavy Smiting, BTW). Pretentious quoting aside, can a human _really_ stay that straight and narrow, even if it's to a personalized code of honor, for their entire life without even _one_ slip-up? Lord knows I can't, and pardon my polite disbelief in advance towards anyone who claims otherwise. 2) It also suggests that the Malakite would be up for dissonance if they went ahead and killed the bugger anyway. Servitors of David and Novalis aside, why? Doesn't the "I will not suffer an evil to live if it's my choice" vow cover the situation neatly? If this has already been answered before I s**scribed, or if that's a part of the APG that'll be ripped to shreds and scattered to the four winds next edition, please accept my apologies for bringing it up again. Morgan Kyriotate of Destiny __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:51:13 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Fighting Styles > Capoeira. Sorry to be nitpicky, but my art doesn't get a lot of mention, so > when it does I like for the mention to be accurate. Sorry, I did know but it was a typo :( Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:54:35 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Mals'n'Hitler again >If this has already been answered before I s**scribed, >or if that's a part of the APG that'll be ripped to >shreds and scattered to the four winds next edition, >please accept my apologies for bringing it up again. Hey, no worries. Nobody expects you to have read and memorized all the list archives. And welcome to the list, btw. But, yeah, the Hitler thing. It has come up a couple of times now. The consensus is that it's a soft spot in the APG... misleading at best, flat wrong at worst. When-and-if there's a 2nd edition, it will be changed. The general point about Mals disliking unjust human societies is well taken, though. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 01:11:06 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance Maurice Lane wrote: > However, the example that they used (pg 48-49, A. > Hitler himself) seems contradictory. If I'm reading > it right, Hitler avoided being spitted on a fiery > sword solely because he never, ever acted in a manner > that violated his own internal code of honor. IMO, this was a stupid example, and I have never understood why it was inserted into the final draft. I completely disagree with it. > 1) "What, never?" (I can see a blackwing cherrfully > singing, "Well ... hardly ever..." as he starts to lay > down heavy Smiting, BTW). Exactly. Hardly any human is going to resonate as being pure as the driven snow. If a Malakite could feel justified killing anyone who's been dishonorable in any way, he'd have almost no restrictions.... > 2) It also suggests that the Malakite would be up for > dissonance if they went ahead and killed the bugger > anyway. Servitors of David and Novalis aside, why? > Doesn't the "I will not suffer an evil to live if it's > my choice" vow cover the situation neatly? Whether or not Hitler was "evil" depends on what definition you're using, of course. From a Malakite's perspective, "Evil" = "serving the cause of Hell," and while Hitler may not have been doing so consciously, it's hard to argue that he wasn't doing a lot more for Fate than for Destiny. Now, if you define "evil" as "selfish," then one could argue that Hitler was in fact acting selflessly -- if one accepts the argument that he truly believed he was acting for the greater good of Germany, and mankind. Of course, insanity raises all kinds of questions in the free will debate. But frankly, I don't see why a Malakite would particularly care if Hitler was acting honorably according to his own code, if he happened to be aiding Hell while doing so. It is hinted in various places that angels, including Malakim, are loathe to interfere in the natural course of human events, however vile, and thus will not intercede in a purely human evil. OTOH, there are plenty of counterexamples, and it clearly depends on the individual Malakite, and his Superior. > If this has already been answered before I s**scribed, > or if that's a part of the APG that'll be ripped to > shreds and scattered to the four winds next edition, > please accept my apologies for bringing it up again. It has been brought up before on numerous occasions. I'll certainly be arguing for a revision when/if APG 2nd ed. happens. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:15:07 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Fighting Styles > I don't think body language is appropriate for the Seraphim, being so far > removed from humanity. I would think thier strength would lie in knowing > the truthfulness of an opponent's action, and therefore tell what he was > going to do. That didn't come out right. You pretty much said what I wanted to. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:19:34 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lil in big trouble >>At one point this character had *four* celestials attuned to him -- two >>Cherubs and two Djinn >>He didn't *know* he was in a Tether... but a few minutes later, when he >>walked out, he suddenly found himself the center of a LOT of attention. > >I _liiiiiike_... Thankee. It was fun to play, too. The PC was juggling two cell phones (Djinn on one, Cherub on the other) while Djinn #2 and Cherub #2 were about to come to blows over him. I got to yell at him in four different voices... "You come with me, right now!" "Wait, I --" "Hey, what's going on there?" "Okay, hang on a sec, I got a --" "I sense you're in danger! Tell me your location!" "Well, I'm in front of the Empire State Building, and there's a --" "Put that thing down and COME HERE!" "You leave him alone!" "No, hang on, don't --" "Should we send assistance? What's your situation?" "I'm not afraid of you. Back off, or --" "Hello? What's happening? Pick up the phone!" "I'm warning yo, let him go or I'll --" "Wait! Stop! SHUT UP, PLEASE, ALL OF YOU!!" Fun. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 23:44:35 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Mals'n'Hitler again >From: Douglas Muir >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >The general point about Mals disliking unjust human societies is well >taken, though. > > Question is whether there are any human societies that are not unjust, by angelic standards ... jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:28:13 -0000 From: "Laurent" Subject: IN> Malakim dissonance & Undead vessels This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF6D70.97A7BB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was just reading the Q&A about a Malakim willing to let a Soldier of = Hell live, and I was wondering: Does a Malakim have to destroy any evil straight away, or can it wait a = day or two? I should start a small adventure in a week, and one of my players is a = Malak of the sword. And he's about to see a whole army of undeads. Will = he have to attack the army on his own, or is it ok if he goes back and = asks for reinforcement? I don't like the idea of killing my players' = characters at the very begining of the adventure... Another thing: Do undeads have to breath? the army is about to attack = another city (located on the coast), and I would really like it if they = could just walk under the water (so nobody can see/hear them) rather = than walk over the hills where everybody is expecting them... Just in case you didn't notice, my army is sponsored by Saminga... Oops! Third question actually: one of my players is from Jordi and has a = cat vessel (big cat). When in this form, I don't think he can... hem... = talk to the other (human like) players (unless he uses ethereal song of = tongues, of course), but can he understand what the players are telling = him? I'd say yes, but I'm not sure... I think that's all. Thanks everybody. Laurent. - ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF6D70.97A7BB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was just reading the Q&A about a Malakim = willing to let=20 a Soldier of Hell live, and I was wondering:
Does a Malakim have to destroy any evil straight = away, or can=20 it wait a day or two?
 
I should start a small adventure in a week, and one = of my=20 players is a Malak of the sword. And he's about to see a whole army of = undeads.=20 Will he have to attack the army on his own, or is it ok if he goes back = and asks=20 for reinforcement? I don't like the idea of killing my players' = characters at=20 the very begining of the adventure...
 
Another thing: Do undeads have to breath? the army = is about to=20 attack another city (located on the coast), and I would really like it = if they=20 could just walk under the water (so nobody can see/hear them) rather = than walk=20 over the hills where everybody is expecting them...
 
Just in case you didn't notice, my army is sponsored = by=20 Saminga...
 
Oops! Third question actually: one of my players is = from Jordi=20 and has a cat vessel (big cat). When in this form, I don't think he = can...=20 hem... talk to the other (human like) players (unless he uses ethereal = song of=20 tongues, of course), but can he understand what the players are telling = him? I'd=20 say yes, but I'm not sure...
 
I think that's all. Thanks everybody.
 
Laurent.
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF6D70.97A7BB20-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:15:44 -0600 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Fighting Styles > > Hapkido might be appropriate. In turns, very offensive and very defensive, > > with weapon choices being practical and diverse. > > Don't know about practical; umpteen Bruce Lee movies notwithstanding, > nunchuks are about the most *impractical* weapons imaginable, and my > hapkido teacher tried to train me in their use. (Trust me, anyone who > plays with nunchuks and hasn't had a LOT of practice is an idiot, > probably an idiot destined for the emergency room.) For practical weapons choices, try Jeet Kun Do. Kiara ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 07:29:27 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Malakim dissonance & Undead vessels > Laurent wrote: Turn off your HTML. > Does a Malakim have to destroy any evil straight away, or can it wait > a day or two? It can wait, if it reasonably believes that attacking *now* would be suicidal, but attacking in a day or two will give a better chance of success. > I should start a small adventure in a week, and one of my players is a > Malak of the sword. And he's about to see a whole army of undeads. > Will he have to attack the army on his own, or is it ok if he goes > back and asks for reinforcement? A very young Malakite of the Sword might rush in, but a more experienced one will grit his teeth and fetch reinforcements. (Depending on how strict you feel, you could impose a note of dissonance when he retreats which will be removed when he comes back and destroys the evil.) > Another thing: Do undeads have to breath? No. > Oops! Third question actually: one of my players is from Jordi and has > a cat vessel (big cat). When in this form, I don't think he can... > hem... talk to the other (human like) players (unless he uses ethereal > song of tongues, of course), but can he understand what the players > are telling him? I'd say yes, but I'm not sure... He has his full mental faculties, regardless of his vessel. And animal vessels *can* talk. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 07:14:53 PST From: "Miles 2 Go" Subject: Re: IN> Fighting Styles >Caias Brian Ward wrote: > > That would be a stupid martial art, that expects you to get hit. > > >Most arts(with the exception of boxing) teach attack avoidance > >and redirection. > >I was being somewhat facetious -- but some training regimens do try >to impart toughness on the practitioner. No, I don't know of any >martial >art that actually teaches you to "get hit," but some put >more emphasis on blocking and counterattacking (or preemptively >attacking) than on avoidance and redirection. While Secret Service training isn't a "martial art" it is a combat training program that does indeed teach one how to "get hit". And several martial arts include toughing to withstand blows, intense programs designed to heighten pain thresholds, and how to tense muscles to withstand blows. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 13:14:33 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell Janet Anderson wrote: > > I know that Malakim can't let demons live, except under really limited > circumstances such as Superior's orders, but what about Soldiers of Hell? > Can a Malakite choose to leave a Soldier of Hell alive if he has a really > good reason (after all, it would have to be a really good reason for him to > *want* to leave one alive), or do they come under the blanket prohibition of > his oath? The oath is not to allow an EVIL to live. If Soldier is evil (or even a regular human), they fall under the oath. > What I mean by "really good reason" would be things like the following: > > 1) He could, by agreeing to leave the Soldier alive, destroy a demon or > other greater evil by getting information, scaring the Soldier into > cooperation, etc. Or he could, instead of killing the Soldier, follow him, > feed him false information, or otherwise learn something useful. Destroying the 'greater evil' is, of course, more important. The Malakite says nothing about timing, just results. Use a soldier and then waste him? No problem! Losing an opportunity to destroy a 'lesser evil' in order to get a greater is regrettable. Clever/skilled Malakim will try to work out a way to get both. > 2) The Soldier's death would endanger other people whose welfare was > important, such as innocent civilians, hostages, a Cherub's attuned, etc. This is trickier. Causing evil in order to eradicate evil is a no-no... unless it's another 'lesser of two evils' things. (E.G. The demon is holding an innocent human hostage, but I may never get as good a chance at wasting him than right now. I think that rocket launcher is appropriate.) The personality of the Superior is important in these circumstances. This is one of the reasons that Malakim are so feared by Hell. They don't make excuses and they are driven to fulfill their duties regardless of cost to themselves... or others. I can EASILY imagine a snivelling demon that is feeding a Malakite information to make him useful enough to keep alive... for now. As long as the demon is marginally more useful alive in getting rid of evils, the Malakite is almost forced to keep him alive. But should his usefulness ever decrease... > 3) There is a reasonable chance that the Soldier might change sides. Converting/redeeming counts as destroying evil. > > 4) Not killing the Soldier would help keep the peace among other angels the > Malakite works with, for the reasons given above or because of the > preferences of individual angels (Mercurians, Servitors of Flowers or > Destiny). "...when it's his choice." If your Superior limits your actions, it's not your choice. The APG, while not perfect, covers these topics for Malakim pretty thoroughly, IIRC. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:18:40 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell At 3:32 PM -0800 2/1/00, Janet Anderson wrote: >I know that Malakim can't let demons live, except under really limited >circumstances such as Superior's orders, but what about Soldiers of Hell? Well, Malakim can let non-evil demons live. Most (or at least many) Malakim equate "demon" with "evil." Not all do -- or at least, not all equate "any demon" with "evil." Think of Destiny's lot... Therefore, Soldiers of Hell can be permitted to live to the extent they don't push the Malakite's "Look, Evil!" buttons. Or to the extent that killing them would allow a greater evil (which may or may not be a _living_ evil...) to persist/happen. Note that all of the below answers depend a lot on the Malakite in question -- those of, say, the Wind, Creation, Flowers, and Destiny are more likely to be able to tolerate short-term-evil for long-term evil-destruction-in-nonintuitive-ways. Those of Judgment, the Sword, and probably Stone are going to be a lot harsher. (Also, a lot depends on the demons in a campaign. If you have a low contrast game, especially one with an above-average "brightness," then one is more likely to run into demons who aren't "evil" in many ways, and Malakim are more likely to have encountered non-"evil" demons. If you have a really black-and-white setting, then demons are generally considered suitable for roasting over an open flaming sword, unless the demon is one of those rare creatures who's flung itself at angelic feet begging for redemption.) >1) He could, by agreeing to leave the Soldier alive, destroy a demon or >other greater evil by getting information, scaring the Soldier into >cooperation, etc. Or he could, instead of killing the Soldier, follow him, >feed him false information, or otherwise learn something useful. He can do all this with a demon, too, though he'll be inclined to toast the evil after it's served its purpose. >2) The Soldier's death would endanger other people whose welfare was >important, such as innocent civilians, hostages, a Cherub's attuned, etc. Yup -- though he will probably just want to just _put off_ the evil's demise until the "greater evil" is no longer in effect. Same for demons. (This sort of case _can_ be sticky -- the Malakite will probably be very edgy, because he's skirting the edge of his nature. More harsh Malakim may figure that if innocents die, oh well. Let God sort 'em out.) >3) There is a reasonable chance that the Soldier might change sides. No problem -- he's slaying evil by conversion. (Works for the more laid- back Malakim and demonic redemption, too, BTW.) >4) Not killing the Soldier would help keep the peace among other angels the >Malakite works with, for the reasons given above or because of the >preferences of individual angels (Mercurians, Servitors of Flowers or >Destiny). This one is a _lot_ trickier -- they'd probably insist that the Soldier (or demon!) be dragged along and watched carefully to ensure that it _COULD NOT_ perform anything evil. (Also remember that Mercurians can cope with someone else toasting a human; they just can't hurt humans themselves.) Basically, that would be a case of slaying evil, not by slaying the person who wanted to do it, but by preventing them from accomplishing anything evil. If the prisoner _did_ manage to get away and do something evil (where "evil" is the Malakite's standards, of course), then I would assign dissonance -- this tactic is often riding on the ragged edge of the Malakite nature. And yes, all of the above _could_ be applied to demons, depending on the Malakite and demon in question. Oh, right, and then there's #5: If the Malakite believes that he _cannot_ kill the evil at that time, for some reason, then attacking and getting killed can be the dissonant action! After all, a suicide-attack that doesn't take out the evil is permitting the evil to live! This applies to demons, Hellsworn humans, undead, Princes... (In regards to Princes, it would be daft if Archangels didn't give direct orders, "Only attack a Prince if you really think you can accomplish something by it; otherwise, I'd rather you not get soul-killed or lose a vessel for no effect.") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:05:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superiors 3 Question At 12:38 AM +0000 2/2/00, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 12:56:23 PST Erich Arendall wrote: >>>From: "-=|horsefly|=-" >>>what's the subtitle for Superiors 3, or has it yet been >>>determined? i'm hoping y'all can keep the catchy titles. >>Hope & Prophecy, was the Subtitle last I checked. > so for AA's, the sequence is 'noun & noun' where for DP's it's 'plural noun of the noun'? sounds fine. Nah, that's just how it's worked out there. Future maybe-titles (not yet decided on) are: Rogues and Riches (DPs) War and Violence (DPs) Peace and Nature (AAs) The Manipulators (DPs) Pillars and WIldcards (AAs, and one of the ones I expect may get changed) (Hey, I had to have working titles here, y'know?) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:31:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Hitler & Malakim again (Re: Reconciling Vows and Resonance) At 10:44 PM -0800 2/1/00, Maurice Lane wrote: [Hitler and Malakim] >If this has already been answered before I s**scribed, >or if that's a part of the APG that'll be ripped to >shreds and scattered to the four winds next edition, >please accept my apologies for bringing it up again. A bit of both, actually. You can check the web-archives for the previous Hitler/Malakim debates... My take on it is that Hitler was A: too unimportant, and/or B: not dishonorable by his own codes (or not dishonorable enough to bother with) in any early stages before he started on his career. Thus, if Malakim _had_ noticed him, they probably would have muttered at the restrictions that keep them from going after every slightly dishonorable human, and gone on. After his path became more clear, I'd use a couple of major reasons: #1: Yves and/or the Council decreed that this is human free will at work, and cannot be interfered with. (Feel free to take out demons who are in the area!) #2: Demons (probably of Fate) start protecting Hitler supernaturally, and he was already protected enough from mundane tactics. For #3 on, anything plausible that takes the choice out of Malakite hands. It would be a painful irony if there had been Virtues _assigned_ to keep their less-tolerant Choirmates from whacking Hitler; any such protectors would probably have been Destiny's... (Ah, look, another reason for Michael to cross his eyes at Yves!) (And for the record, that snippet was added by a non-editor staffer _after_ the main bulk of the section in the APG was written. I heard some of that, but the explanation of what the person wanted to do was more convincing than what actually made it into print. Eh.) The _meta-reason_ behind this instance, though, is the Humans Are Not Pawns tightrope. While celestials have indeed had effects in history, one of the greatest recent world-shaping events should _NOT_ be something that's demonically influenced -- so saying that Hitler was a demon (or that he was whacked early and replaced with a demon, or several demons, or whatever) isn't an option. Malakim-slaying-evil therefore needs to have been defused _somehow_, because All Right-Thinking People _know_ that Hitler was Definitely Not Good. (I'm glossing over a lot of politics and culture here, so lots of Capital Letters.) So, how to defuse... What got into the APG was one attempt at that, but the execution fell a bit flat. O:p - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:39:38 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals and Essence At 6:23 AM -0800 2/1/00, Erich Arendall wrote: >>From: David Edelstein >> >>FWIW, the Ethereal Player's Guide (yes, being written As We Speak) >>should clarify a lot of these points. > >I'm not sure whether to faint in sheer joy or eye you warily to make sure >you're not toying with everyone's emotions. He's being mean and spoiling my rumor-mongering. Oh, wait, I already rumor-mongered that at Arisia. I just didn't mention what authors I'd lashed into harness. That's okay then. O:> >So... What care to let us know what else the collective brains up there >working on? :) Fnord. No, really, I can't talk about it. Yet. You'll hear about anything else when it's more than hopeful thinking. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:49:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Nothing But Plain Text! A repost, for those who missed it... >From: "Elizabeth McCoy" >> Okay, I've managed to lose track of my usual "How To Turn Off HTML" >> message -- Prodigal, are you still around? However, if you poke around >> in the preferences for your given mail-reader, such as Outlook Express, >> you will find a place where it says the default is "text/plain" or >> something like that. Select that. Sending HTML to the list is bad. >> (Sending it after I nail you for it is an u n s u b b i n g offense.) > >From: "Prodigal" >OK, you click Tools, and select Options, then go to the Compose tab. The >options for what format you send stuff in Outlook Express are there. > >Prodigal >Angel of Turning off HTML in Microsoft Products I also add that MIME is bad, and you should be set for 7-bit, not 8-bit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:27:05 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Soldiers of Hell At 18:32 -0500 2/1/00, Janet Anderson wrote: >I know that Malakim can't let demons live, except under really limited >circumstances such as Superior's orders, but what about Soldiers of Hell? No real difference, except the Soldier may be a little lesse likely to be "evil", and may be more easily "turned" (if the Malakite cares about doing that -- not all of them do, and they're not *required* to). It's not "demons" they can't allow to live, it's "evil". While many Malakim will behave like the two are equivalent, and that "can't allow to live" == "must kill", they're not *required* to interpret things that way. Evil humans of any sort fall under their oath; in my game, many Superiors will likely give blanket orders *not* to kill evil humans, except under specific circumstances -- this follows the general directives from God not to expose humans to excessive celestial meddling (as I interpret things). Soldiers are one of the common exceptions to this order, though -- they've already been meddled with by the Other Side, and are therefore fair game. However, Malakim are encouraged to have other humans do the killing (generally a Soldier of God), in order to minimize disturbance. >Can a Malakite choose to leave a Soldier of Hell alive if he has a really >good reason (after all, it would have to be a really good reason for him to >*want* to leave one alive), or do they come under the blanket prohibition of >his oath? There's really no difference from the demonic case; if the subject is "evil" (note that this calls for some judgment on the Virtue's part, and therefore not all Malakim will always agree on whether a given person is evil), the evil needs to be eradicated. However: - there's nothing in the oath that this must happen immediately - the oath doesn't require the death of the subject, just the destruction of the evil These two points allow a certain amount of latitude, though any Malakite who defers eliminating an evil simply for convenience is going to feel *really* unhappy -- rather like a Seraph who stands quietly by while his friends are lying through their teeth, or worse, deliberately allows a human to misunderstand the Seraph's statements in a way that would be a lie if the Seraph stated directly what the human though he heard. I.e., you're running *really* close to the wind here. Most Malakim will defer dealing with a lesser evil to take care of a greater one. A smaller fraction will choose to defer the immediate gratification of killing the evildoer for attempts at reforming him. (But if these attempts go nowhere....) This latter is tricky, since if the evildoer gets away without either dying or reforming, the Malakite is going to eat dissonance (at least until he can rectify his error in judgment). Note that due to point #2, I have Malakim who consider this oath to cover more diffuse evils -- the target doesn't have to be a single person, but might be a group, a law, or even just a social attitude. (In my game, this is particularly common with Malakim of Flowers and Destiny, and to a lesser extent, Creation and Dreams.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:35:29 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Reconciling Vows and Resonance At 4:11 -0500 2/2/00, David Edelstein wrote: [the Hitler/Malakite thing] >> If this has already been answered before I s**scribed, >> or if that's a part of the APG that'll be ripped to >> shreds and scattered to the four winds next edition, >> please accept my apologies for bringing it up again. > >It has been brought up before on numerous occasions. I'll certainly be >arguing for a revision when/if APG 2nd ed. happens. I agree -- it's certainly raised more questions than it answered. My own inclination is to say that Yves intervened in the Council, proposing that the situation be left primarily to human handling, without explaining the reasons in detail. Gabriel might also have produced some prophecy about it, but she'd swing less weight, so I'd go with Yves. (Maybe both of them were involved -- Michael might listen to Gabriel where he'd be suspicious of Yves.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1519 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.