From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Aug 14 11:35:58 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 LAA27924 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:35:57 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA17601 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:31:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:31:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200008141631.LAA17601@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 #1779 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, August 14 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1779 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> The Malebranche (long) IN> Furfur, Archangel of Fortitude Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN>The Superior Dinner Party Re: IN> Saminga? Re: IN> In Nomine Nobilis Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Re: IN> Lilith? RE: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) Re: Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) Re: Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:05:07 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 10:44 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > > > The fact that humans stay in bad situations all the time because the > > > perceived costs of leaving are seen as greater than the perceived costs > > > of staying, and the fact that Lilith is human, albeit a Wordbound one. > > > > But not a stupid one. AAMOF, she's quite likely the single most > > intelligent and perceptive human left in Creation. > > Which does not necessarily mean that the perceived costs of leaving her > position in Hell do not outweigh the perceived costs of staying. Given that we've pretty much established that the genuine costs of leaving her position etc. aren't necessarily so, then Lilith would have to be perceiving wrongly for the perceived costs to be etc. Lilith is highly unlikely to perceive wrongly. [snip] > > "She chose to walk away from God. She cloaks herself in the ideology of > > liberation, but never forget that she represents the consequences of free > > will exercised selfishy -- the power to choose Hell over Heaven." > > > > Nothing in here mandates that Laurence would kill Lilith if Lilith was > > trying to escape Lucifer's service. > Nothing in there mandates that he would not view her as fair game if she > left Hell for any reason other than joining the service of Heaven, either. Save, of course, the fact that even as a neutral she's far more valuable to the Host alive and making deals rather than dead and in a box. And Laurence is honorable -- not stupid. > > And don't forget, Laurence is a *Malakite*. One resonance ping and he > > knows whether or not she's genuinely trying to escape the service of Lucifer... > > As Lilith is a Superior, she can render herself immune to Laurence's use of > his Resonance (see p99 of the GMG.) She *can* do so. OTOH, she is not *required* to do so -- and if she's genuinely trying to convince Laurence of her sincerity, she *won't* do so. > > and if she is, no problem. > If she does not prevent him from successfully using his Resonance on her, Prerequiite to a successful businsss deal. Lilith *knows* how to deal with Malakim and Seraphim... tell 'em the truth. Just make sure that the situation is such that the truth is the best option. And if Lilith is trying to escape Hell and barter info to Heaven in return for their turning a blind eye to her Renegadeness, then the situation is such that the truth is her best option. All of your scenarios seem predicated on Lilith *not* making the smart move for a given situation. > and is trying to escape the service of Lucifer in order to serve Heaven, > then yes. If she is not seeking to serve Heaven, however, she's a Princess > without Lucifer's protection. .. and still of much use to Heaven, even as a neutral. [snip] > > > > > Or if you entertain the possibility that she made a bad decision in > > > > > helping out the Fallen, and then had no choice but to make the best > > > > > of it. > > > > > > Neither is this. > > > > Incorrect -- having no choice but to remain trapped in a bad situation > > *is* unfairness. > > The topic of Heaven's enmity being unfair appears to have drifted slightly > here. Not really -- it was Heaven's emnity that you alleged was part and parcel of keeping Lilith allegedly trapped in said bad situation. [snip] > > One... you left out a step in the logic chain. > > The logic chain that involves her seeking Redemption, you mean, which was > never part of the logic chain used in my arguments? No, the step that even if Lilith is not seeking Redemption but merely trading info (and perhaps Daughters) for Heaven's not interfering with her Renegade-ness, then Heaven *still* comes out ahead on the deal. > > For as long as Lilith retains allegiance with Lucifer, she is their enemy. > > For as long as she refuses to serve Heaven, also. Incorrect. "That which is not against me may someday be persuaded to be for me." It's Michael's motto. "That which is not for me is against me" is *not* the motto of all the Host. Some of the hardliners, yes. But some of the hardliners, no. *All* of the peace faction, no. If the Seraphim Council ever took a vote on what do with Renegade Lilith, the "Kill her now" faction would be in the minority. > > > Collaboration with a Renegade Princess. > > > > That's not a crime. > > It is if she remains hostile to Heaven. If she's going Renegade and abandoning Hell, she's no longer hostile to Heaven -- even if she's not joining Haeven. > > My argument is that Lilith plays the odds on whether or not she thinks > > she'll succeeds or fail, not on whether or not it exists at all. > > As does mine, although mine involves her deciding that the odds are better > if she stays in Hell. Then she chooses her servitude willingly, and as such is liable for the consequences of it. No excuses. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:27:54 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > Which does not necessarily mean that the perceived costs of leaving her > > position in Hell do not outweigh the perceived costs of staying. > > Given that we've pretty much established that the genuine costs of leaving > her position etc. aren't necessarily so, then Lilith would have to be > perceiving wrongly for the perceived costs to be etc. Only if we all accept your assumptions, which I do not. > > Nothing in there mandates that he would not view her as fair game if she > > left Hell for any reason other than joining the service of Heaven, either. > > Save, of course, the fact that even as a neutral she's far more valuable to > the Host alive and making deals rather than dead and in a box. Not if she continues actively working against Heaven, she isn't. > > As Lilith is a Superior, she can render herself immune to Laurence's use > > of his Resonance (see p99 of the GMG.) > > She *can* do so. OTOH, she is not *required* to do so -- and if she's > genuinely trying to convince Laurence of her sincerity, she *won't* do so. She will if the only thing she is sincere about is leaving Hell behind. > > If she does not prevent him from successfully using his Resonance on her, > > Prerequisite to a successful businsss deal. > Lilith *knows* how to deal with > Malakim and Seraphim... tell 'em the truth. Just make sure that the > situation is such that the truth is the best option. Which, if she isn't planning to defect, it is not. > And if Lilith is trying to escape Hell and barter info to Heaven in return > for their turning a blind eye to her Renegadeness, then the situation is > such that the truth is her best option. That is not the situation with which my arguments have been dealing. > All of your scenarios seem predicated on Lilith *not* making the smart move > for a given situation. Only if you view not giving both Heaven and Hell a reason to hunt you down like a dog as a stupid move. > > > Incorrect -- having no choice but to remain trapped in a bad situation > > > *is* unfairness. > > > > The topic of Heaven's enmity being unfair appears to have drifted slightly > > here. > > Not really -- it was Heaven's emnity that you alleged was part and parcel of > keeping Lilith allegedly trapped in said bad situation. And when did I say it was unfair for Heaven to view a Prince or Princess as an enemy? > > > One... you left out a step in the logic chain. > > > > The logic chain that involves her seeking Redemption, you mean, which was > > never part of the logic chain used in my arguments? > > No, the step that even if Lilith is not seeking Redemption but merely > trading info (and perhaps Daughters) for Heaven's not interfering with her > Renegade-ness, then Heaven *still* comes out ahead on the deal. Which leaves out the step in the logic chain that derives from the hostility of the majority of the Seraphim Council. > > > For as long as Lilith retains allegiance with Lucifer, she is their > enemy. > > > > For as long as she refuses to serve Heaven, also. > > Incorrect. "That which is not against me may someday be persuaded to be for > me." It's Michael's motto. "She can never be trusted" is his motto where Lilith is concerned. > If the Seraphim Council ever took a vote on what do with Renegade Lilith, > the "Kill her now" faction would be in the minority. Not judging from the stated opinions of the Archangels, Charles. > > It is if she remains hostile to Heaven. > > If she's going Renegade and abandoning Hell, she's no longer hostile to > Heaven -- even if she's not joining Haeven. The Ethereals' example indicates otherwise. > > > My argument is that Lilith plays the odds on whether or not she thinks > > > she'll succeeds or fail, not on whether or not it exists at all. > > > > As does mine, although mine involves her deciding that the odds are better > > if she stays in Hell. > > Then she chooses her servitude willingly, and as such is liable for the > consequences of it. No excuses. Which is the exact sort of attitude that ensures that she will continue to rely on the security of her position. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:40:59 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 11:27 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > > Which does not necessarily mean that the perceived costs of leaving her > > > position in Hell do not outweigh the perceived costs of staying. > > > > Given that we've pretty much established that the genuine costs of leaving > > her position etc. aren't necessarily so, then Lilith would have to be > > perceiving wrongly for the perceived costs to be etc. > > Only if we all accept your assumptions, which I do not. Those "assumptions" are justified by the writeups. > > > Nothing in there mandates that he would not view her as fair game if she > > > left Hell for any reason other than joining the service of Heaven, > > > either. > > Save, of course, the fact that even as a neutral she's far more valuable > > to the Host alive and making deals rather than dead and in a box. > > Not if she continues actively working against Heaven, she isn't. If she's going Renegade, she's not doing that. [snip] > > > As does mine, although mine involves her deciding that the odds are > > > better if she stays in Hell. > > > > Then she chooses her servitude willingly, and as such is liable for the > > consequences of it. No excuses. > > Which is the exact sort of attitude that ensures that she will continue to > rely on the security of her position. What kind of inverse logic is this? Her current position is what ensures the emnity of Heaven to her in the first place! She abandons Hell and the objectives of Hell, she's no longer on Heaven's target list. You don't stay with Lucifer to *avoid* Heaven's hostile attentions... - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:37:43 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> The Malebranche (long) Zeresh43@gateway.net wrote: > > Hey, some time ago I submitted a demon prince named Malacoda. He came > complete with his own Band, but I never bothered to submit the Band. So, for > the one person who was actually interested in him, here's the Band that goes > along with him. Yay ^_^ I like 'em. One nitpick: generally resonance requires a roll, but it should take all of two seconds to rig up a system here. (for the record, Malacoda is being used as a high up Word Bound, nominally serving Asmodeus but actually, it appears, working for Lucifer himself, in the Angelic campaign I'm playing in. The GM seems to be having fun with him, although I'd be lying if I claimed my encounters as PC Angel in Hell with the Demon of Pain have been all that pleasant ^_^) > Oh, for some background info, the concept is taken from > Dante's Inferno, and Malacoda and the Malebranche are mentioned. Just > thought I'd point that out, for those who care... Hrmph. Well now I'm slightly embarassed... Cheers, -Ryan, who read Inferno a couple years ago yet completely failed to catch this when reading Malacoda's writeup "Peter Pumpkinhead was too good Had him nailed to a chunk of wood He died grinning on live TV Hanging there he looked a lot like you And an awful lot like me." -XTC, The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:00:46 +0800 From: lizard Subject: IN> Furfur, Archangel of Fortitude Here's my vague, rough attempt at Attunements for a Redeemed Furfur, going by the suggestion that Furfur's Word be Steadfastness..which is pretty much the same as Fortitude. Ignore the canonical Angel of Fortitude. Any suggestions, upgrades, and general flaw-pokings of these Attunements will be much appreciated. And since I don't have Furfur's Princely Attunements on hand, I can't do any fancy variations or reversals of those Attunements.. Also, has anyone ever done a writeup of pre-Fall Magog? Not going to do the history and personality and so on, as it's fairly rough and vague... 'The world is being torn down; resist, you bastards!'(not a very good quote, but Redeemed Furfur isn't the nicest of Archangels..enthusiastic, but not nice) Dissonance: It is Dissonant for a servitor of Fortitude to..I don't know. Maybe it is Dissonant for them to alleviate suffering that will make a person stronger? Anyway, a vague idea is that it is also Dissonant for them to not answer Demonic violence with violence; this annoys Novalis greatly. I'll try to work out a more logical version. Choir Attunements: Seraphim: With a single gaze, a Seraph of Fortitude can tell how well a person is enduring whatever situation they are currently suffering in. They will also know if the person is suffering for a cause or reason, and what truth there is behind this cause. They regain Essence for informing the sufferer of a truth about his situation that will give him hope in his cause. Ehh, this Attunement is probably more suited for a Malakite. What do you think? Cherubim: The Attuned of a Cherub of Fortitude has the same Corporeal Forces as the Cherub, but can only call upon it once a day when suffering unjust pain. Ofanim: Ofanim of Fortitude may accelerate or lengthen the sensation and perception of time of a sufferer. This is a very vague idea, and I'll probably change it to something related to Furfur's old Calabite Attunement, which I vaguely remember. Elohim, Malakim: DOn't know. So far, all ideas don't seem very good. Bright Lilim: Vague ideas kicking around, but nothing solid Kyriotates: May automatically possess a person in pain, and halve it, while remaining a soothing presence in his mind. Eh, this seems too Cherubic, really. Mercurians: The Friends of Man get a version of Yves' Divine Destiny, but it only informs them of whether this suffering will be potentially good for the victim. Servitor Attunements, Distinctions, Rites, Invocation Modifiers are a blank. Relations I'll do later. Will also much much appreciate help for this AND help for an AA of Zeal; even if I do make Furfur AA of Fortitude, there might still be room for a different AA of Zeal in future. Or maybe it'll be the other way round, with Redeemed Magog or the canonical Angel of Fortitude as AA... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:14:16 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:09 PM -0500 Prodigal wrote: > > Your portrayal of Lilith's motives has simply been too black-and > white for me to agree with. > Agreed. While the reality of the situation might be black and white, that wouldn't "make for good television." Plus, even in the black and white, thing are *never* that simple. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:23:52 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 11:19 PM +0100 Omentide wrote: > > In a vague hope of keeping this related to IN rather than political > diatribe and to avoid flame wars.... > ...Episode IV - A New Hope.... > Perhaps we shold ask Khalid and the Faithful for their opinions on > the following:- > > The perceived correlation between Satan/Hell and the Great Satan > > The free market, capitalism etc, and why Jesus threw the money > lenders out of the temple, linked to the morality of a currency > trader destroying the livelihood of the population of a country > just to make a quick buck. > Partially correct. Christ was enraged that they had turned his Father's house and religion into a way to make a quick buck. > > The demonisation of spiritual and political leaders who have tried > to promote the ways of the faithful over those of the capitalist > world. Khomeni, Gadaffi, Arafat.... > And you hold up these shining examples of humanity (which can be classed easily with Mousillini, Hitler, Richard III, Alexander, ad nauseum) as examples of...? What precisely? > > Need I go on. > No, no, it's pretty clear who you're angry at by now. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation (Ephesians 2:13-22) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:25:34 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:22 PM -0500 David Edelstein wrote: > As I said before, most of the DPs probably don't think > of themselves as "evil" in the sense of being _wrong_ or acting in > an unjustifiable manner. I imagine they think of it as "enlightened self-interest." Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("Wow. Lotta balseraphs in the audience tonight.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:38:36 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 11:40 PM +0100 Omentide wrote: > We ain't seen communism yet. Not on a grand scale. Kibbutzniks, > after all, are pretty prosperous on a small scale. > But as you incerease the size of the group, you exponentially increase the social "tidal forces" at work. Communism is lovely on paper, but ignores a simple (and yes, I'm sorry, completely true) fact of human nature. In any group larger than one person, someone is going to become dominant at some point in some way. Total equality is a *mathematical* theory, assuming all pawns, to mix metaphors, being equal - Marx was a social thinker, and honestly should have known better, but was probably still carrying philosophical baggage from his split with Bakunin (who was, I believe, as wrong as wrong gets). > David, you know that you and I are about five million light years > apart when it comes to politics. Let's at least make some attempt > to keep on topic? I'm confused. I thought the sociopolitical motivations of Lillith (and collateral Heaven-bashing) was the topic. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("We're all equal here, just some more than others.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:51:05 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:45 PM -0500 Charles Glasgow wrote: > But if Lilith makes a run for the border and Redemption... Hell > can't catch her, and Heaven won't kill her. But most of her favorite behaviors and tactics would have to be abandoned. So I betcha she won't. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("I've never seen this many copies of For The New Intellectual in my entire life.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:52:24 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Monday, August 14, 2000 12:47 AM +0100 Omentide wrote: > >> Hey, how come you told David to "keep on topic" in an post that was >> manifestly off-topic? > > Because I am HAL, Elohite of making sure people say what they mean > on list. > Check for dissonance. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:58:25 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 7:19 PM -0500 Prodigal wrote: > > No, it isn't. You argue that, if Lilith seeks Redemption, then > Heaven will have no reason to destroy her, and that Hell won't be > able to catch her in time to stop it. I argue that, if Lilith > chooses to leave Hell, then both sides will be trying to kill her. > Back up a step for those of us who are slow on the draw. Hell I can see drawning her a death mark...the idea of all those hellbound geasa ending up on the Wrong Side would give any DP an ulcer. Why would Heaven have a mad on for her? Ostensibly, a Scion (if she retains energy level) of Liberty with an entire organization of servitors already at her fingertips would be an enormous asset in the battle. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("Not that I think she'll turn, mind you, but that's the dream.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:58:12 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Bowden" To: Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:51 AM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > > --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:45 PM -0500 Charles Glasgow > wrote: > > > But if Lilith makes a run for the border and Redemption... Hell > > can't catch her, and Heaven won't kill her. > > But most of her favorite behaviors and tactics would have to be > abandoned. So I betcha she won't. Absolutely true, but that would mean that Lilith's staying in Hell because she *wants* to, not because she *has* to -- which is what I've been arguing all along. Lilith stays in Hell because she can do what more of she wants to do in Hell than she can do anywhere else. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:01:40 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 7:36 PM -0500 Charles Glasgow wrote: > IIRC, Lilith has never lacked for either nerve or wit. And she's > taken bigger gambles before. (Walking out of Eden and cutting > Lucifer loose on the world was not exactly free of risk itself...) Lillith being the ultimate accountant, she could also just have decided that the profit/loss potential suited her for both actions. I can (no surprise to the assembly here) see it both ways. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("I wonder how much of a hand Lillith had in the creation of the mafioso, yakuza, seioupia rings, etc.?") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:05:18 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 9:47 PM -0500 Charles Glasgow wrote: > > Nope. Lilith's writeup makes it plain that as opposed to what she > expects from her Daughters, Lilith herself will welch whenever she > feels like it. > > Of course, she calls it 'changing her mind'. > So do most women. ;) Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("Joke! Kidding! Beth, put the gun *down*!") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:12:21 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 4:52 AM -0400 "Rev. Pee Kitty" wrote: > > Now, let's all go back to discussing what music is most appropriate > when running an In Nomine game, okay? > Anyone else for the "Mortal Kombat" CD for the climactic fight scenes? Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("That music would make a mercurian want to smack somebody around.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:14:44 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 11:55 PM +0100 Omentide wrote: > >> Now, let's all go back to discussing what music is most >> appropriate when running an In Nomine game, okay? > > 'Sympathy for the Devil', Rolling Stones. > "Pray", Tina Cousins Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("Okay, one more 'Touched by an Uncle' crack and someone dies.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:08:04 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - -----Original Message----- From: Marc Bowden To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:01 AM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > >--On Sunday, August 13, 2000 7:19 PM -0500 Prodigal > wrote: > >> >> No, it isn't. You argue that, if Lilith seeks Redemption, then >> Heaven will have no reason to destroy her, and that Hell won't be >> able to catch her in time to stop it. I argue that, if Lilith >> chooses to leave Hell, then both sides will be trying to kill her. >> > > Back up a step for those of us who are slow on the draw. Hell I can >see drawning her a death mark...the idea of all those hellbound geasa >ending up on the Wrong Side would give any DP an ulcer. Why would >Heaven have a mad on for her? Ostensibly, a Scion (if she retains >energy level) of Liberty with an entire organization of servitors >already at her fingertips would be an enormous asset in the battle. Prodigal has been arguing again and again that no matter what Lillith's intentions would be after leaving Hell, the Host would still consider her a lethal enemy and hunt her down without mercy. Of course, he bases this entirely on the standard "Superior's Opinions" from the main books, where Lillith ISN'T trying to leave Hell. If the status quo changes, then so will the Superior's opinions. - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:19:42 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:26 PM +0100 Omentide wrote: > What's the proper word for a game that assumes 'Heaven and Hell are > more or less equally balanced when it comes to the war. However, > from the point of view of those of us who are stuck in the > crossfire, there's not a lot to chose between the two moral > viewpoints'. I thought that was 'low contrast'. The word that > seems to be missing is the one that means 'IMC, Hell is actually > RIGHT.' Actually, "low contrast" is code for "hell is cool and stuff." Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("They'll let you do whatever you want. Sure they will.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:20:03 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Bowden" To: Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:12 AM Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... > > > --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 4:52 AM -0400 "Rev. Pee Kitty" > wrote: > > > > > Now, let's all go back to discussing what music is most appropriate > > when running an In Nomine game, okay? > > > > Anyone else for the "Mortal Kombat" CD for the climactic fight > scenes? "Touch", from the "Transformers" movie soundtrack, whenever somebody chucks a 111... "Dare To Be Stupid" whenever the servitors of Kobal show up. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:23:18 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN>The Superior Dinner Party - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:58 PM +0000 Charles E Smith wrote: ["Guess what's coming to dinner" snipped] Thanks, Charles. I needed to have my brain hurt. ;) Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("You want me to bus tables for *WHO*?") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:30:46 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Saminga? - --On Sunday, August 13, 2000 11:44 PM +0000 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > I like Saminga! He's just fun! "Soon, the world will be a > wasteland. All life will be destroyed, and I, Saminga, shall > reign supreme!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!" It's hard not to have fun with a DP who crosses the line between villany and cartoonish supervillany. =) Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("It'll be like taking candy from a baby. Say, that sounds like a larf..." - One of Saminga's vessels, to a syncopant.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:43:09 -0400 From: "Krishnaswami, Neel" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Nobilis David Edelstein wrote: > > I have posted my first draft of In Nomine Nobilis, using Nobilis rules > to play a mythic In Nomine campaign. > > What I've written so far is pretty basic, and I haven't done > Superiors/Imperators yet. But if anyone's interested, take a look, and > feel free to send me feedback and/or suggestions. > > http://www.amadan.org/nobilis/IN-Nobilis.html Nice. My own attempt to do this conversion was in the other direction -- I wanted to port the Estate rules into IN to use as a substitute for the Word-bound rules in the GMG. I wanted to have characters who were intermediate between PC and Superior level; the sort who might be able to destroy a city with a rain of fire but who couldn't shatter a planet in two. It would also be a useful mechanism for systematizing how Word-bound created attunements. The basic idea I had was that IN Wordbound would buy Estate levels just like Forces -- 10 points a level, with a maximum Estate of 4. To work an unrestricted Nobilis-style miracle, the Word-bound would have to spend as many character points as the Nobilis rules require Miracle points. This means that slinging around big miracles is something that a Wordbound can do, but in very limited amounts. However, they can alter themselves (or people around them) by spending those character points to create a permanent ability -- ie, acquire an attunement. The cost to create an attunement was 10 + the Miracle cost in character points. To teach another character would cost 10 points, but you could use their xp. I also needed to invent some mechanism for disturbance, and for making large-scale alterations to reality very difficult. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:31:44 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Marc Bowden wrote: > Actually, "low contrast" is code for "hell is cool and stuff." Wrong. "Low contrast" is code for "Heaven and Hell aren't all that different." This can be bright or dark, humorous or not. "Good Omens" is an example of low contrast. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:42:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) Omentide wrote: > What's the proper word for a game that assumes 'Heaven and Hell are > more or less equally balanced when it comes to the war. However, > from the point of view of those of us who are stuck in the > crossfire, there's not a lot to chose between the two moral > viewpoints'. I thought that was 'low contrast'. The word that > seems to be missing is the one that means 'IMC, Hell is actually > RIGHT.' "Not a lot of difference" is indeed called "low contrast" in IN jargon. "Hell is right" is called "playing backwards." "Dark" means "Hell is wrong and is winning." "Dark backwards" means "Heaven is wrong and is winning." "Bright backwards" is "Hell is right and is winning." Marc Bowden wrote: > Actually, "low contrast" is code for "hell is cool and stuff." More like, "Hell doesn't totally suck and Heaven's not that cool." Hell could be "cool" in a "bright, low-contrast" game, especially if it's mostly humorous. It would tend to be more full of mischief than of evil. And, of course, it can be cool in a "backwards" game. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:49:40 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) A short glossary of IN "setting" jargon: Backwards: Hell is right; Heaven is wrong. Bright: The right people are winning. Dark: The wrong people are winning. High Contrast: There's a lot of difference between the two sides. Low Contrast: There's little difference between the two sides. Humorous: (If I have to explain this one, you won't understand.) These are spelled out in greater length and in various combinations, near the beginning of the GM Guide. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:50:21 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? In a message dated 8/13/00 10:56:42 PM, omentide.omentide@Virgin.Net writes: >>If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't >>like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied >>even-handedly," I guess so. > >I can't, off the top of my head, think of ANY society which has ever done >that. Disappearance and detention without trial I can believe, execution >- no. Taking actions based on one's opinions is a different matter. > Try Stalin's government during the Great Patriotic War (WWII to us Yanks). It was a capital offense to: - -Surrender - -Retreat - -Speak against the Government - -Speak against the political officers if you were a soldier in the Red Army. All of this was clearly published and well known. Excecution followed a hearing by your unit's political officer. I really don't think Dominic approved. (Asmodeus, on the other hand may have changed his operating style to imitate these clever humans.) Clearly published, transparent, and evenly enforced laws have very little to do with Judgement (especially Good Judgement), if they are absurd, impractical, or counter-productive. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:39:31 -0500 From: Christopher Gerkey Subject: RE: IN> Lilith? > From: Charles Glasgow [mailto:cglasgow@hotmail.com] > Somehow, I kinda doubt that Lilith, Demon Princess Of > Freedom, gave away > that many Geas/6 on herself with the promise "I Will Never > Try To Leave". Nah. Just one. To Lucifer, in exchange for the Word of Freedom. That's exactly the sort of ironic joke Lucifer would like, I think. Topher ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:50:29 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> Sympathy for the Devil (was Lilith) > Wrong. "Low contrast" is code for "Heaven and Hell aren't all that > different." This can be bright or dark, humorous or not. "Good Omens" is > an example of low contrast. I agree completely, but I bet most people who call their games "low contrast" really do play their games by the motto of "hell is cool and stuff." > -David Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:55:52 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) > "Dare To Be Stupid" whenever the servitors of Kobal show up. I am offended beyond words. Kobal and his servants are generally smart, sarcastic and cruel. They are generally not goofy screwballs with eyeballs on bouncy stalks on their heads. This song is more appropriate for Haagenti. > Chuckg I shall now brace myself for a ten-page, badly-editted, unsnipped response that will take up all of today and half of tomorrow to stop being replied to. I can compose Prodigal's part as well by simply rewriting whatever is said in each paragraph of the post and adding "You're wrong." to the end. Heck, I could put a recipe to clam chowder as half of the responses and almost the entire list wouldn't notice, because they'd delete them as soon as they saw the header. It'd be swell, until whoever was bad-mouthing Lilith gets chucked off the list and whoever was praising her gets a pat on the head. O:-) This song is more appropriate to participants in flame wars. :-) Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:07:03 -0500 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) At 09:55 AM 8/14/00 -0600, you wrote: >> "Dare To Be Stupid" whenever the servitors of Kobal show up. > >I am offended beyond words. Kobal and his servants are generally smart, >sarcastic and cruel. They are generally not goofy screwballs with eyeballs >on bouncy stalks on their heads. > >This song is more appropriate for Haagenti. Not -exactly.- It's appropriate to Kobal's Servitors... their -victims-, anyway... Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:30:54 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: Dare To Be Stupid: (was Re: IN> Yeeeeesh...) > It's appropriate to Kobal's Servitors... their -victims-, anyway... Well, paint me wrong and call me Nancy. In an interesting way, we have proven ourselves correct. I dunno, while you're quite right (and I fell into this, demonstrating your rightness), I can just picture a huge, corpulent servitor of Haagenti walking down the street at midnight with the song "Dare To Be Stupid" pumping in the background as he waves to all the demons he passes. Maybe we could fade into "Pretty Fly (For A White Guy)" and keep things going. My players think Haagenti is hilarious -- of course, they've never actually been near him in a game, or they'd be singing a different tune. One day I'll talk them into playing hungry hungry demons... > Redneck Ben ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1779 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.