From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 28 16:31:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA00636 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:31:11 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA19846 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:28:24 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:28:24 -0600 Message-Id: <199801282228.QAA19846@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 #599 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, January 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 599 In this digest: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking Re: IN> DP of Nitpicking (Was Re: Raphael) IN> In Nomine Inverted Re: IN> Role Problems IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Role Problems Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Re: Role Problems Re: IN> Role Problems Re: IN> Lilith a human? Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth IN> Test and Greetings Re: IN> Role Problems Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth IN> Heaven and Hell Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:23:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking > >Servitor Attunements > > > >Eye of Argon > >The demon automatically knows which subjects within view are most > >vulnerable to his (or her) Band attunement or resonance. (Shedim of > >Nitpicking notice unattended items they are allowed to possess.) It's a > >GM-call, of course, especially if someone else's Servitor is gifted with > >this attunement. > > Ah, but -any- creation may be nitpicked, therefore anybody is vulnerable. }:-{D > It specifies which subjects are _most_ vulnerable to various Band attunements and resonances. So it can be used to pick out those who are weak-willed, those who tend not to be accurate in their speech, those who conceal parts of the truth, and so forth. Put ten Seraphs in a row, and by telling which is the easiest to nitpick you have likely found the one which is most dissonant or has spent the greatest amount of time on Earth. > > Redneck (hey, who nitpicks the nitpickers? }:-{D ) > They nitpick each other, of course. Creating an order of Uber-Nitpickers would be folly, as it would simply create a need for further recursion, which would tend to the infinite. Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:26:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> DP of Nitpicking (Was Re: Raphael) > > >Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia, applying for > >readmission. > > Hm. And you have some good reasons why you should have another chance, > Servitor? *Really* good reasons? > No reasons, other than the fact that it is less trouble to accept me back into your service than to have me eliminated and to bind someone else to my Word. Or have you changed your mind as to the usefulness of the Word I hold? Do you care? Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:27:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: IN> In Nomine Inverted Redneck's Superior reversal inspired me, so I'm now going to do the same with the Bands and Choirs. There are a few rules-mechanic changes and clarifications which have to be made. Obviously, it's Angels that Fall, so Fallen Balseraphs become Seraphim. And Malakim are Fallen Lilim. Their Oaths are never to suffer Virtue to live and never to surrender to God. Shedim force their hosts to perform unselfish acts which they wouldn't have done otherwise (I'd like to keep it the same way as before but I can't rationalise it to myself. Bad dissonance. Very bad dissonance.). Habbalah detect the emotion that would do someone the most good. Elohim don't think they're angels. (I might inflict that on the Seraphim. You have to have one of those, after all. It could be a blind spot they only notice when there's a Divine Intervention.) And it's Ofanim who have Discord, not Calabim. Also, it's always the Fear or Cowardly Discord. I have good metaphysical reasons for it, trust me. Aside from that, the Resonance and Dissonance for all Choirs and Bands remains exactly the same. There are a few points I haven't decided on, such as whether Malakim can be redeemed, and I haven't fit the Grigori into this scheme, but all will become clear in time. On the nature of Angels: Angels are the literal or figurative hands of God, who exist to push the Symphony onto the track it's supposed to take. So God _isn't_ the Symphony, he's an outside force who seeks to mold the Symphony to his own unfathomable purposes. Since this is the case, it is not surprising that all angels, to some extent, seek to impose their Will on humans (I don't regard the Lilim as an exception here. Their geasa are _compulsions_. It's not a direct application of Will, but the results are similar.). They are simply doing as God does. Demons are, by and large, those Angels who have failed to impose their Will on the Symphony (the Fallen Impudites being the most obvious exception). Since all Demons have failed in some way, it is not a surprise that they are not, by and large, a match for angels in individual combat. However, with the advantages of numbers and greater knowledge, they are certainly a threat to Angels which should not be underestimated. The Choirs: Balseraphs: The Inspirers. Djinn: The Hounds. The Trackers. Calabim: The Purifiers. Habbalah: The Balanced. The Healers. Lilim: The Enforcers. Shedim: The Redeemers. Impudites: The Guardians. The Bands: Seraphim: The Doctrinaire. Cherubim: The Possessors. Ofanim: The Wheels. The Fearful. Elohim: The Heartless. Malakim: The Bound. The Vengeful. Kyriotates: The Dominations. (It's not original, but doesn't it look scary?) Mercurians: The Spiders. Kevin Walsh, Outcast Balseraph, Angel of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 12:23 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Role Problems [Jules:] >Folks, I have a problem with the way that roles work. Namely, I don't >see that they *do*. Vessels without roles - fine. Kyriotates and Shedim >also fine ( they only possess whats already there ), but I can only see >vessels with roles working in one of three ways , and I'm not that happy >with any of them really. Roles have been discussed heavily in the past -- I suggest you look in tha list archives on the SJG website, for the couple months just after the release of IN. But I'll give a few quick comments on how I view them: Roles can be created in a number of ways -- usurping a human's ID; living the role for a while, or having someone else live it; or having a wholly-ficticious paper trail. Generally, in my game, the higher the Role level, the more it has to be lived normally. In general, you can't just *poof* acquire a Role/6, unless you can somehow usurp a human's identity in a way that doesn't tip off his family, friends, and acquaintances. (This doesn't mean a starting character can't have a Role/6, but it has to be accounted for in his backstory.) Most Roles start with the celestial as "a stranger from out of town", with appropriate documentation and a maybe little backup in the way of references (who may be other celestials in Roles, or people whose memories have been tampered with a little by celestials, or Soldiers). I assume there are servitors of various Superiors whose job is to help other celestials set up Roles. (This is borne out in Night Music, where several NPCs are said to do this as part of their work.) Roughly, by Role level: Role/1 - you have basic documentation, and a reference or two Role/2 - you have documentation that would stand up to light inquiry, a few references, and a few local friends Role/3 - you have pretty good documentation, and a number of local people know you ...etc. up to Role/6 - you could be investigated by the FBI, the CIA, Congress, and the press, and no one could find anything funny about you that wasn't a deliuberate part of the Role. As far as time goes, my general rule is that the higher the Role level, the more time the celestial has to spend in the Role to maintain it. I would not allow a character to have two Role/6s without a *very* good explanation of how they could both be maintained. On the other hand, you could have a number of Role/1s without trouble. Generally, though, if the Role *could* evolve to higher levels (i.e., the schoolkid example), you'll either have to spend the time needed to make it a higher Role, or keep moving around (i.e., keep being "the new kid in school" and then "having to move again" a few days later). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:55:27 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: IN> Nitpicking Beth On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >- Em, Bal of the Game in the service to Nitpicking - but only on Tuesdays > > Glad to have you. I think. If you're glad, then you care, and that means you're not being a proper Djinn, now does it? And I have noticed something in your writeup that doesn't track with continuity: While Asmodeus held his forehead in his hands, torn between fury and admiration and uncaring, Lucifer smiled and patted him on the shoulder. "I'm sure Princess Beth will make a good ally." I thought AA/DP status was dependent upon -power-, not upon being granted a Word. Certainly Beth didn't have the Word of Nitpicking prior to the trial, or else it would have said. The closest it comes is saying that her -angelic- Word was Evolving Consistency. So, either Lucifer made her a full-fledged Princess in addition to granting her Word (which sets a dengerous precendent), or the writeup is in error. Of course, one can assume that Lucifer was speaking of the future, i.e. "If you treat her well, she will reach DP status and become a valuable ally," but it isn't clear based upon context. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:13:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Role Problems The TV series "Touched by an Angel" and the old "Highway to Heaven" both appear to use a lot of Role/1 equivalents. The angel just shows up as part of some standard personnel shuffle in whatever organization is called for, or does "volunteer work" for some relevant charity organization. You can go a long way with a liberal supply of Role/1s. I'd suppose that Relievers of Destiny and Imps of Fate do the necessary leg-work for this kind of stuff. I choose those Words as having the most connection to prescience, which would make the freshly-inserted Roles much more, ah, timely. It might be amusing for an angel to run across a Reliever file clerk (in its own Role/1 or /2), humming away cheerfully, inserting bogus records for incoming celestials. Which raises the prospect of Role Wars. What if the other side starts tracking your Reliever/Imp and follows up, erasing or altering your paper trail? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:21:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth > On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >- Em, Bal of the Game in the service to Nitpicking - but only on Tuesdays > > > > Glad to have you. I think. > > If you're glad, then you care, and that means you're not being a proper > Djinn, now does it? > Firstly, the statement made by my former Princess is not necessarily to be taken literally. It may mean "It will be to my benefit to have you as a Servitor, I think." Secondly, while apathy is the goal of all Djinn, it is not something that is always achieved. Occasionally, there are lapses, which often result in those Djinn gaining Words. > And I have noticed something in your writeup that doesn't track with > continuity: > > While Asmodeus held his forehead in his hands, torn between fury and > admiration and uncaring, Lucifer smiled and patted him on the shoulder. > "I'm sure Princess Beth will make a good ally." > > I thought AA/DP status was dependent upon -power-, not upon being granted > a Word. Certainly Beth didn't have the Word of Nitpicking prior to the > trial, or else it would have said. The closest it comes is saying that > her -angelic- Word was Evolving Consistency. > Prince is a title. It does not necessarily come with power, though since the princes usually have a Word, it is unlikely that they will fail to gain power if they survive long enough. I would venture to suggest, in fact, that the reverse is true. The power comes with being made Archangel or Demon Prince(ss). How so? Because by being made an Archangel or a Demon Prince, the prominence of your Word is accentuated, and other Word-bound who might previously have been of equal stature will find that their Words resound to your benefit. (This topic may actually become a serious discussion instead of fluff.) > So, either Lucifer made her a full-fledged Princess in addition to > granting her Word (which sets a dengerous precendent), How so? Beth had already shown her capacity to promote the Word of Nitpicking in a manner far exceeding that shown by any before her. Clearly, Lucifer felt that Beth would do her duties better with the support of the title of Demon Prince. And I would venture to suggest that she has vindicated his judgement. Already, this mailing list has been hijacked for the pursuance of her Word. or the writeup is > in error. Of course, one can assume that Lucifer was speaking of the > future, i.e. "If you treat her well, she will reach DP status and become > a valuable ally," but it isn't clear based upon context. > > -- Casca, Seraph of Archives > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) > I disagree with this interpretation. My reading of this account is that Lucifer conferred her with the Word and the Principality simultaneously. Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 06:43:59 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Role Problems Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > I asked a question much like this a few months ago. Through the > consensus of replies I recieved, I came to the conclusion that creating a > Role doesn't mess with peoplw's mwmories. Rather, records get changed > (usually the old-fashioned way). If these people have memories and photos, > it's because the person (or a reasonable facsimile, like a Reliever with a > similar Vessel) was actually there to have the pictures taken and the > memories made. So a lot of Roled Celestials tend to be from "Out of Town" > They also tend to have gotten GEDs and taken correspondence courses, if > there wasn't sufficient time to have actually attended the colleges they > have degrees from. > > And there's little chance of a Celestial being invited to a High > School Reunion for a school he never attended. But then you couldn't do the IN version of 'Grosse Point Blank', which would be a pretty keen plot for a one-off game... - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Uncle Bill will never leave a will And the tumor is as big as an egg He has a mistress, she's Puerto Rican And I heard she has a wooden leg TOM WAITS, "Cemetary Polka" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:02:58 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Role Problems Excellent definitions snipped: I usually reject the 'retroactive model' for Roles. This gets too sticky and too hairy in terms of suspension of disbelief. Also, I think it's tacky and doesn't match the drapes, so there. ;) Personally, I use the 'live with it' model. Roles are built up over time. Clever manipulation can hasten the process (coming up with good fake birth certificates, getting to know alot of people in a short time, record-manipulation, etc). The more real the celestial is in human's eyes, the more the Symphony accepts him. The 'placeholder model' is another semi-cool one (though parts of it as written are close to the 'live with it' model. Taking over the life of some human is _quite_ possible and a common tactic if you simply need to replace someone. Vessels can look like anybody, so why not a particular person? Someone once suggested that you use relievers to maintain and develop roles for angels to take over... whatever floats your boat. None of this is canon, btw. (Though I'm constantly tempted to rule out the retro-model. Yeeechhh.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:39 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a human? > A related question(s): Any ideas on what would happen to a vessel > using angel of Yves that took the Kyrio resonance? Would they loose > the vessel? Would they not have as many forces available for use (as > per Kyrio of War)? And would they kept the vessel, would they get > dissonance if it got frotzed? You lose it. The changed celestial nature of the being is no longer able to support an 'owned' vessel. (Though some GMs might want to keep the potential of the vessel around in case the celestial lost the attunement somehow... either way you can't USE a bought vessel while you have the resonance/attunement.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:04 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > If you're glad, then you care, and that means you're not being a proper > > Djinn, now does it? > > > > Firstly, the statement made by my former Princess is not necessarily to > be taken literally. It may mean "It will be to my benefit to have you as > a Servitor, I think." If there is more than one way to interpret what is said, then what was said was not as clear as it could have been. > Secondly, while apathy is the goal of all Djinn, it is not something that > is always achieved. Occasionally, there are lapses, which often result in > those Djinn gaining Words. So you are saying that the only Djinn that have Words are those who aren't being model Djinn? That only improper Djinn -- bad examples at best, failures at worst -- are Worbound? > Prince is a title. It does not necessarily come with power, though since > the princes usually have a Word, it is unlikely that they will fail to > gain power if they survive long enough. Incorrect. As per _Heaven and Hell_ (I do not have pages references handy as I am at school), it is stated that a potential DP that does not have the power to back up that claim is a dead potential DP. > I would venture to suggest, in fact, that the reverse is true. The power > comes with being made Archangel or Demon Prince(ss). How so? Because by > being made an Archangel or a Demon Prince, the prominence of your Word is > accentuated, and other Word-bound who might previously have been of equal > stature will find that their Words resound to your benefit. Incorrect again. I find no references to the Seraphim Council or Lucifer awarding AA/DP status, and plenty of references to those selfsame entities awarding Words. The direction of power clearly proceeds in the direction of Servitor -> Wordbound -> Superior. Two excellent examples of this are Nybbas and Haagenti. > (This topic may actually become a serious discussion instead of fluff.) Perish the thought. ;;;) > > So, either Lucifer made her a full-fledged Princess in addition to > > granting her Word (which sets a dangerous precendent), > > How so? Beth had already shown her capacity to promote the Word of > Nitpicking in a manner far exceeding that shown by any before her. A nice little phrase which means nothing without the relevant data on previous owners of said Word. I could claim to be promoting the Word of Charmin Tissue in a manner far exceeding that shown by any other before me, and if there were no others before me, that statement, while true, would have little meaning. As for how it sets a dangerous precedent: awarding Words is one thing; awarding titles with the same aplomb is quite another. One need only look to the the Crusade-era RCC for examples of that. Too many Cardinals, and the organization becomes topheavy and inefficient. > Clearly, Lucifer felt that Beth would do her duties better with the > support of the title of Demon Prince. This I do not contest. I contest the implication that such title was awarded, wholecloth, with her Word. > And I would venture to suggest that > she has vindicated his judgement. Already, this mailing list has been > hijacked for the pursuance of her Word. Rather like hijacking a plane to Cuba for the purpose of having it fly to Cuba. > I disagree with this interpretation. My reading of this account is that > Lucifer conferred her with the Word and the Principality simultaneously. > > Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. You realize, of course, that by admitting you are a Balseraph, you undermine your entire argument? - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:09:18 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty On Jan 27, 11:58pm, Raoul Duke wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty > On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > Everyone is, however, aware that *some* of the "teasers" in the > > main book were there to use in cycle-books? (Though some > > weren't, necessarily...) > Hmm. Is it unkosher to ask which bits are which? For that matter, what > are plans for the line after Revelations/IPG/Liber are all done? (I have > a fair idea, I think...) Well, there's a whole 'nother hush-hush cycle after Revelations. Plus a few more 'generic' supplements that look like winners (A Songbook and possibly a Gamemaster's supplement). - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:31:26 -0500 From: Sean Michael Whipkey Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth At 16:06 -0500 1/28/98, Casca wrote: >You realize, of course, that by admitting you are a Balseraph, you >undermine your entire argument? I think y'all are just going through this whole argument in the hopes of getting distinctions from your Demon Princess. Just MHO, of course, YMMV.:):) SeanMike Balseraph of Inappropriate Gratuitous Disgusting Statements - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:33:21 -0800 From: Rob Wolff Subject: IN> Test and Greetings Test Post: Sorry... seeing if connection works. Greetings, List! I'm sorry if this is not an "In Nomine" topic, but I just had to say hello. I've recently re-joined the In Nomine list-serv, and I look forward to reading all of the new ideas that people are coming up with. Salutations to all the people who I corresponded with previously. News: I am now married (over Christmas...Wow!), and I've now moved to the United States! (Pasadena, just outside of L.A.). Maybe I'll even meet some gamers in America. Well, I guess this is enough of a test-post. Hope this gets through. Rob Wolff / Bodhi robjodi@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:32:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Role Problems At 12:57 AM +0000 1/28/98, Julian Breen wrote: [...] >Third approach. Vessels with roles are *lived in* by a portion of your >superior until such a time that he designates you to take over. Another approach is that a reliever (or some other celestial) lives in the role and establishs it, etc., until the PC takes over -- at which point the PC reads a lot of notes, and/or the Superior does a memory-swap of some kind and the PC settles in. Most of these would probably be changelings (SIDS cases that are never discovered) or "given up for adoption" or "abandoned" or whatnot. Some may be changlings who were swapped out for runaways, while the runaway was steered to some bastion of Christopher... Another way is to take on the persona of a dead human that nobody knows is dead -- demons may arrange the death... >This arises from the fact that I recently had a beginning PC in my >campaign that wanted two vessels, each with a role; a cop, and a >schoolgirl. I thought that this was just a little too impractical, >Unless the cop always works nights then the little girl is going to have >to be a truant. It's doable if you're *very* tricky, but generally one Role per celestial, probably. Of course, if you happen to have some kind of Role where you "substitute" for yourself... (Tour Guide, say -- one week, it's Jacquiline, next week it's Jake. Funny how you never see them together.) >Oh, BTW, I was wondering why Khalid got relegated to Fall/Trumpet. >Wasn't he was supposed to turn up in the APG? It was determined that the APG was a place for more "generic" rules and whatnot. Khalid pertained too much to the events in Trumpet... Same reason that Magog (I think it was?) got pulled from the IPG. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:47:10 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Sean Michael Whipkey wrote: > I think y'all are just going through this whole argument in the hopes of > getting distinctions from your Demon Princess. Nonsense. I'm going through all this to get the Word of Tracking Continuity. ;;;) > Balseraph of Inappropriate Gratuitous Disgusting Statements Well, at least you're honest. No, wait... ;) - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:47:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth > > Firstly, the statement made by my former Princess is not necessarily to > > be taken literally. It may mean "It will be to my benefit to have you as > > a Servitor, I think." > > If there is more than one way to interpret what is said, then what was > said was not as clear as it could have been. > Experience informs us that there are few statements which can not be interpreted in different ways. Conceivably, it is impossible to make some such statements more clearly. While this is obviously not the case in this situation, it was not hard to understand the general thrust of the statement, which was to express doubts over the suitability of Em as an associate, while provisionally welcoming it. > > Secondly, while apathy is the goal of all Djinn, it is not something that > > is always achieved. Occasionally, there are lapses, which often result in > > those Djinn gaining Words. > > So you are saying that the only Djinn that have Words are those who > aren't being model Djinn? That only improper Djinn -- bad examples at > best, failures at worst -- are Worbound? > In the same sense that only bad examples of Elohim are Word-bound (not Worbound). The bestowing of a Word is known to warp the perspective of those who are bound to it, so that their interpretation of the Truth is skewed and their every thought is bent toward the service of that Word. For an Elohite, this constitutes a failure of objectivity. For a Djinn, it constitutes a passion which is contrary to the goal of maintaining apathy. > > Prince is a title. It does not necessarily come with power, though since > > the princes usually have a Word, it is unlikely that they will fail to > > gain power if they survive long enough. > > Incorrect. As per _Heaven and Hell_ (I do not have pages references > handy as I am at school), it is stated that a potential DP that does not > have the power to back up that claim is a dead potential DP. > I made no statements as to the longevity of said status. And there are forms of power other than the personal. Strong alliances, for example, may be worth more than an increase in personal power that leaves one isolated. I also made no comment as to how much power Beth had before being granted her Word. Conceivably it was greater than that of lesser Word-Bound. > > Incorrect again. I find no references to the Seraphim Council or Lucifer > awarding AA/DP status, and plenty of references to those selfsame > entities awarding Words. The direction of power clearly proceeds in the > direction of Servitor -> Wordbound -> Superior. Two excellent examples of > this are Nybbas and Haagenti. > I fear that the example of Nybbas contradicts your argument. I will refer to page 176 of the main IN rulebook. "His immediate crowning by Lucifer was unexpected - Nybbas was a low-ranked servant of Vapula at the time, without even a Word of his own." It may be argued that the success of Nybbas' crowning inspired Lucifer to repeat the process with Princess Beth. > > (This topic may actually become a serious discussion instead of fluff.) > > Perish the thought. ;;;) > I fear that the process has become irreversible. > > How so? Beth had already shown her capacity to promote the Word of > > Nitpicking in a manner far exceeding that shown by any before her. > > A nice little phrase which means nothing without the relevant data on > previous owners of said Word. I could claim to be promoting the Word of > Charmin Tissue in a manner far exceeding that shown by any other before > me, and if there were no others before me, that statement, while true, > would have little meaning. > You misunderstood me. She displayed tremendous ability to further the Word of Nitpicking before even being granted it. In my opinion, this is the greatest test of suitability for a Word. In addition, it is my opinion that the Word had not previously been held, though I am open to any contradiction. > As for how it sets a dangerous precedent: awarding Words is one thing; > awarding titles with the same aplomb is quite another. One need only look > to the the Crusade-era RCC for examples of that. Too many Cardinals, and > the organization becomes topheavy and inefficient. > Perhaps you should advise Lucifer of this, as he clearly does not share your opinion. > > Clearly, Lucifer felt that Beth would do her duties better with the > > support of the title of Demon Prince. > > This I do not contest. I contest the implication that such title was > awarded, wholecloth, with her Word. > I believe that the text implies it, and that Lucifer's previous behaviour indicates that he is entirely capable of such a decision. > > And I would venture to suggest that > > she has vindicated his judgement. Already, this mailing list has been > > hijacked for the pursuance of her Word. > > Rather like hijacking a plane to Cuba for the purpose of having it fly > to Cuba. > I'm afraid I don't find this statement particularly clear. > > You realize, of course, that by admitting you are a Balseraph, you > undermine your entire argument? > > -- Casca, Seraph of Archives > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) > I realise no such thing. While I am aware of the unthinking prejudice current among many of those not well acquainted with us, I do not think that it reflects on my arguments. It may well have an effect on how people view my arguments. This is regrettable, but hardly something under my control. In any event, there is no proof that I am a Balseraph, or, for that matter, that you are a Seraph. Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:57:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth > At 16:06 -0500 1/28/98, Casca wrote: > >You realize, of course, that by admitting you are a Balseraph, you > >undermine your entire argument? > > I think y'all are just going through this whole argument in the hopes of > getting distinctions from your Demon Princess. > How can I expect a distinction when I am currently a Renegade? (OOC: I personally find this whole thing surreal. If I had been arguing these points, instead of rping a Balseraph of Nitpicking, I would have admitted to being wrong on certain points, or maybe not, because the motivation for admitting it was to keep favour with my Demon Princess. Now I find myself in the position of being a character in a game, citing the rules of that game to support my thesis in-game. Madness.) Kevin Walsh, Renegade Balseraph, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:06:56 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth > > I think y'all are just going through this whole argument in the hopes of > > getting distinctions from your Demon Princess. > > Nonsense. I'm going through all this to get the Word of Tracking > Continuity. ;;;) You are all suspected of attempting to subvert the laws of Hell with your gratuitous public backstabbing, and are clearly leaving open an area of dissent among your ranks which can leave us open to attack from Above. Some of you are even becoming dissonant. If you will just please talk to these agents over here, I'm sure we can get this all worked out. Oh, and please put this bit in your mouth, it will make sure you don't bite through your tongue during the questioning process. Thank you, and have a nice day. - - Em, Balseraph of the Game ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:17:00 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> Heaven and Hell Hi folks. I just bought Heaven and Hell. 1023? Jean's Hall 23? Jeez, makes me want a Paranoia-In Nomine crossover. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips Plastic Water Pipe Location - The RD500. Receiver features: Visual and audio response. Meter indicates peak response. Battery state indicated at switch on. On/off and sensitivity. That's something to smoke! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:20:54 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) On the other hand, I'll point out, wild baseless speculation is fabulous, because it's good grounds for creativity. :) The wonderful thing about philosophy is that it's a whole pack of questions to which there are _no_ answers whatsoever. No hand of God saying, "Hey, I finally wrote the officialy Manual to the Universe. Here you go kids, have fun." (Maya pointed out that I'm a Balseraph on the lam from the Game to freelance for Eli sometimes. >:P....o ) > > * The true nature of the Symphony > > > Whatever about the true nature of the Symphony, I have a burning desire > to know how it actually works. I hear it's with lots of rubber bands and slinkies. And some already chewed gum. > > * The Janus/Valefor question, and especially "How he pulls it off". > > > Well, the essence of the Wind is changability. (Damn, is there supposed > to be an 'e' in there?) > > Some more general speculation on the nature of Janus' Fall, if in fact > Janus did Fall, follows. > > On page 121 of the main In Nomine rulebook, it says: > "Although his mission is to promote change, he himself has changed very > little in the past millenia." > > So we have a contradiction here. And a contradiction involving your Word > has a special name, that name being Dissonance. Janus has mistaken > superficial change for true change. The destruction of structures of law > by theft was a major change when introduced, but it is ingrained in > reality now, and cannot really be called a change any more. Janus ran out > of new ideas, and fixated on those he already had. And thus he Fell. I can buy that he Fell, and I can buy your argument 100% and I'm certainly willing to, but how does he get back into Heaven? How does he create angelic servitors? How come no one notices he's a Calabite? > > * Kobal's Last Prank > > > > * Why Malakim cannot Fall. (Yeah, I know, already ruined.) > > > > (I acknowledge that I didn't make them Fall, but I wanted them to, and > provided a rationale which may or may not be canon-correct.) I avoided the intense Need (*stare direly at local Lilim*) to make them into Demons, the whole lot of them. But then I had so much ickiness going on, I really needed Laurence to be a Very Good Guy. And he's a Malakite, ya know. And he looks fabulous in leather. I can make the argument both ways quite easily. It's one of those swinging door kind of things. But I really like that they just don't Fall. > > * Why Lilim don't change when they go Bright, other then pick up some > > wings and so on and so forth. > > > Because they were created by Lilith and are thus not Fallen? Because they > are the embodiments of Freedom, which is neither good nor ill in itself, > but only in its uses? (I find that argument unconvincing myself. Lilim > don't look like the embodiments of Freedom to me.) I am unconvinced. Try again. :) > > * The true nature of Hell, whatever that means. Just don't come out and > > say it was carved out of the side of a decaying buffalo. > > > > Hell is that part of the Symphony set aside by God for those who have > transgressed His Will, and also for those of His most trusted servants > who must ensure its continued existence. > > > Just one of the manifold theories about Hell's existence held by > Habbalah, but quite possibly a popular one. Yes, but that doesn't explain why I can't get a good haircut in Shal-Mari. - - Em, Balseraph, Demon of Mean Gamin'. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #599 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.