From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Nov 30 16:00:02 1998 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 QAA31841 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:00:02 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA17551 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:36:52 -0600 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:36:52 -0600 Message-Id: <199811302136.PAA17551@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1028 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, November 30 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1028 In this digest: Re: IN> Pagan Soldiers Re: IN> Oops Re: IN> Atheists in IN Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Oops Re: IN> Oops Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Oops Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Oops Re: IN> Oops Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) IN> The College of Saints Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: IN> Atheists in IN IN> [Adminish] (Re: PREMIUM TV .......... NO MONTHLY BILLS !) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 13:09 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Pagan Soldiers > It could be my mis-reading the paragraph in question (p.94 of The Marches) >but my interpretation was that Pagan Soldiers _didn't_ get to use Corporeal >Songs - only Ethereal ones and all 3 versions of Dreams. I think I interpreted it that way when I read it, too. But it's *very* vague. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:14:13 -0700 From: Gryph Clarke Subject: Re: IN> Oops >> Actually my first game I was planning to run (Tomorrow... Ahhhh >> CRAP!!!!!) is based on a bunch of mundanes becoming Soldiers, then >> Relievers, and then eventually Angels... Looks like that one's shot to >> pieces... Ahhh welll... Maybe it can be a sort of house-rules type >> game... :) > > >For the record, I too had gotten that impression from the original source >book when I first read it, a year and a half ago. Additionally, one of >my players had _also_ gotten that impression, and had created a >character [Maxwell, Cherub of the Sword] who had been a Soldier, then >Sainted, and then finally an Angel in the modern day. I'm not entirely >sure of the page reference anymore, but I know that it is in there >somewhere. To be perfectly annoying with a "me too" post, and not that anyone really cares ;), but this is how I do it IMC as well. Popular lore, and what we tell our children when a family member dies, says, "Grandma went to Heaven, and now she's your guardian angel, watching over you." I find this a really beautiful sentiment, and wonder why it can't be. If someone who's "handicapped" by having been a human wants to work their now-dead keister off to become an angel by being Sainted, then becoming a Reliever, then earning their wings, I can see several Archangels who might be impressed by their diligence and commitment. Of course, I can see a few who would never, ever go for it. But I'm taking my favorite Soldier (Gabrielle d'Angelo, pronounced gay-bri-ELLE thank you very much) up this route with the permission of the other GM in the house. Given, these are house rules, but I would certainly adore to see them in Canon. It won't happen, but wouldn't it be cool? - - Gryph ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:28:01 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN At 21:26 29/11/98 -0800, you wrote: >I mean, many of the angels (i.e. Malakim, David, and Dominic) are >not what I would personally consider "good," more resembling fanatic >terrorists. 'A fanatic is someone who does what the Lord would do, if He knew the facts of the matter.' --Peter Finley Dunne ie. I think you are spot-on about them resembling fanatical terrorists. But what if you lived in a world in which some of the fanatical terrorists were _right_? It's down to an individual GM, but you can if you want run a game in which fanatical is not equal to evil :-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:33:01 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) At 12:50 30/11/98 EST, you wrote: > Lilith and Nybbas are >probably the least evil, in canon descriptions I don't know about anyone else but I would _really_ like to see this impression of Nybbas as a not-very-evil DP corrected in canon at first opportunity. I always saw him as one of the nastiest; and the other princes should be more worried about him than they currently are (read the write-up in the main book again... that did not strike me as 'not very evil' -- it struck me as 'this demon prince is going places and he won't stop until he has the whole of Hell under his thumb.' It seems to me that he has a personal gripe against the infernal powers that be, and any powermongering in the corporeal realm is just so that he can garner more power for his real goals in Hell.) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:36:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Oops Gryph Clarke wrote: > Popular lore, and what we tell our children when a family member > dies, says, "Grandma went to Heaven, and now she's your guardian > angel, watching over you." I find this a really beautiful sentiment, > and wonder why it can't be. On the other hand, there's the popular (if now slightly archaic) expression "my sainted grandmother/aunt/grandfather/uncle" in reference to deceased family. Another possibility that lets humans be celestially powerful without being celestials it to up the voltage on Saints. I have, before now, suggested a College of Saints as a counterpart to the Seraphim Council, and high-level saints (e.g. the Virgin Mary) as alternative Superiors for a Christian-toned IN campaign. One could also exceed canon on the limits for Sainted PCs. And remember that Saints don't generate disturbance nearly as readily as angels do; that makes up for some lack of firepower. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:40:47 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Oops At 11:14 30/11/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Given, these are house rules, but I would certainly adore to see them in >Canon. It won't happen, but wouldn't it be cool? > I know in my group, players really enjoyed playing angels who were new to earth and had a lot of trouble (and amusing miscommunications and misunderstandings) with trying to deal with humans. This is something you can't really do if they are assumed to have lived an entire mortal span, IMO. I prefer angels as a separate type of being -- created both lesser and greater than mortals. In some ways they are better than the humans, but in other ways humans are capable of things which leave them open-mouthed and awed -- and I really like that separation. One thing I have said is that blessed souls (ie. the dead who end up in heaven) are able to keep tabs on their still-breathing friends and relatives, and can petition an archangel or the seraphim council to send help to one who seems to be in need. (Or probably just ask an angel/ reliever with whom they are friendly to look into it as a personal favour - -- this is a neat little plot hook as well.) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:51:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Doubting Eric wrote: [on atheists] > Short answer: They're wrong. Long answer: *Everyone* in In Nomine is wrong. Probably because the French original is a satire. Every single archangel disagrees with some other archangel over the fundamentals of God and the Universe, often in ways that would result in burning in many major world religions. Every angel believes some things that some Seraph, somewhere, would scan as 'false' (Michael and Dominic being obvious examples). You can either pick what is 'really' real, and say that Michael (say) is dissonant and about to Fall, or you can apply Occam's razor to conclude that it clearly doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you stay true to your nature. Consequences for the sapience of God on a postcard... Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:54:03 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Possibly a simpler way to look at it is that demons aren't particularly > cruel, per se, as much as they are insensitive and un-empathic. They > really don't care what happens to other people, especially lower life > forms (like humans and any demon weaker than them). > > If the quickest way to achieve their goals is to blow up a building full > of school kids, sure, no problem. If it's funding a relief agency (to > ensure that the workers in the cocaine fields don't die off, say), then > sure, they can do that, too. > > All they really care about is the ends (improving their own situation), > and they're *totally* indifferent to the means. That leaves a lot of > scope for variations in visible behavior. I don't buy into this view, myself. I prefer to see the demons as a bit more ambiguous - not all of them are completely selfish and evil. Most are, and some are really nasty, but some aren't particularly interested in advancing the goals of Hell or their Prince, or even of getting power themselves. They're stuck in Hell and have to cover their tails by not seem soft or weak, but they don't always like what they have to do. Most of these will go renegade, given the chance, and many will want to redeem, though they may balk at the risk. All of it is just my opinion, of course. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:55:38 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Oops Walter Milliken wrote: > > >Really??? Somehow I got the impression that once a human dies he/she is > >basically asked if they want to spend eternity (or until Demons get > >there) in upper heaven or else join the ranks of servitors. At first as > >a Reliever, Imp or Gremlin until they earn their 'Wings' and then they > >become full Celestial Servitors... > > Nope. Canon (though not maybe in the main book) is quite clear on > this. It's certainly been made clear to the writers, at least.... YES! Humans are humans. Celestials are celestials. One cannot become the other! Your individual campaign may vary... but this is Canon. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:06:42 -0600 From: Bob the Dancing Monkey Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) At 06:33 PM 11/30/98 +0000, you wrote: >At 12:50 30/11/98 EST, you wrote: >> Lilith and Nybbas are >>probably the least evil, in canon descriptions > > >I don't know about anyone else but I would _really_ like to see this >impression of Nybbas as a not-very-evil DP corrected in canon at first >opportunity. I always saw him as one of the nastiest; and the other princes >should be more worried about him than they currently are (read the write-up >in the main book again... that did not strike me as 'not very evil' -- it >struck me as 'this demon prince is going places and he won't stop until he >has the whole of Hell under his thumb.' I could not agree more. Nybbas and Lilith (Andrealphus, Haagenti and Kobal as well) give me no reason to have nightmares, if I was simply to read their canon descriptions from the supplements and pithy quips. The diabolical in them seems to have changed rather a lot from the original core book to sort of a warm, happy evil. The sort of evil that you wouldn't want to bring home to mother, but nonetheless nothing really spooky. The thing is, that's fine if you want to do a lighter campaign. However, for really dark versions of the RPG (which I tend towards), it's really pretty inappropriate. - -Drew [O] Drew Johnson - CLA - Office of Info Tech [O] x5-4885 - http://www.econ.umn.edu/~djohnson/ [O] djohnson@cla.umn.edu - ICQ: 10800645 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:13:01 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > I don't know about anyone else but I would _really_ like to see this > impression of Nybbas as a not-very-evil DP corrected in canon at first > opportunity. I always saw him as one of the nastiest; and the other princes > should be more worried about him than they currently are (read the write-up > in the main book again... that did not strike me as 'not very evil' -- it > struck me as 'this demon prince is going places and he won't stop until he > has the whole of Hell under his thumb.' It seems to me that he has a > personal gripe against the infernal powers that be, and any powermongering > in the corporeal realm is just so that he can garner more power for his > real goals in Hell.) I agree with Jo wholeheartedly, and this has nothing to do with the suspicious looking device she's holding to my head. After structuring a very serious war in Hell for my game, I've discovered just exactly how nasty and evil Nybbas really honestly is - and what it takes to fight him. He isn't naive, he isn't nice, except in the pure Impudite sense. He clawed his way up the ranks of Technology first to become a Prince, and that doesn't exactly take a nice person you want to invite over for dinner. I would worry about Nybbas. He's currently the Mass Market outlet of Hell to mankind. Nybbas can spread more evil and nastiness and overall Words faster then anyone else in Hell. Need to spread Dark Comedy? Gluttony? Death? The War? The Game? I can flip through 65 channels of cable and see any of this playing at any one time, at any time of the day or night. One demon can get the message out to more people via a nice satellite in one swoop then the rest of them combined. And this is nice and fluffy? He's a very subtle sort of evil, and In Nomine doesn't seem to do subtle very well, and thus it comes across as "sort of nice and gray". It's a fault - it should learn to do subtle and keep in mind that a guy who became Prince and enslaves and tortures thousands and thousands of souls for his own personal gain can't possibly be nice or good in any way, shape or form. ["I dearly believe," Daimon had said once in Holy War, "that Nybbas doesn't actually he have eyes. He might have marbles or antenna or holes or - ew - giant fried eggs up behind his glasses, but he doesn't have eyes."] - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 14:16 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN >I don't buy into this view, myself. I prefer to see the demons as a bit >more ambiguous - not all of them are completely selfish and evil. Most >are, and some are really nasty, but some aren't particularly interested in >advancing the goals of Hell or their Prince, or even of getting power >themselves. They're stuck in Hell and have to cover their tails by not >seem soft or weak, but they don't always like what they have to do. True. I was perhaps writing of the demonic viewpoint in more black & white terms than is really justified by canon. A lot of demons are "just doing their job", and trying to get by. And they're not *incapable* of empathy or sympathy for others, otherwise they wouldn't be capable of redeeming. But it tends to be rather rare, and selective. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:25:59 -0700 From: Gryph Clarke Subject: Re: IN> Oops At 06:40 PM 11/30/98 +0000, you wrote: >I know in my group, players really enjoyed playing angels who were new to >earth and had a lot of trouble (and amusing miscommunications and >misunderstandings) with trying to deal with humans. This is something you >can't really do if they are assumed to have lived an entire mortal span, IMO. I'd say you could really do either. It's going to be bloody rare to see a mortal with the tenacity to actually make it to angel, especially with the splendors of Heaven waiting...and especially as their other relatives make it there. The temptation is going to be fantastic to just kick back and enjoy eternity. Of course, I can see the potential enjoyment in playing someone new to Earth. I can also see the enjoyment of playing someone who's been there and done that trying to teach said newbie angel about mortal life. Talk about frustration.... :) I do like your idea of petitioning angels for help for your mortal family, though. I think it could all co-exist. But then again, I also frequently mesh Kult, White Wolf and In Nomine all together IMC, so I'm a little...odd. ;) - - Gryph ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 14:20 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Oops >Given, these are house rules, but I would certainly adore to see them in >Canon. It won't happen, but wouldn't it be cool? For the reasons I mentioned in a previous post, I don't think it's *ever* likely to be canon. But it's a perfectly legitimate variant, and I doubt it will run afoul of canon very much, other than occasional mentions in canon that humans and celestials are distinctly different, or that one or the other can do something the other can't. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 14:32 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) >At 12:50 30/11/98 EST, you wrote: >> Lilith and Nybbas are >>probably the least evil, in canon descriptions > >I don't know about anyone else but I would _really_ like to see this >impression of Nybbas as a not-very-evil DP corrected in canon at first >opportunity. Note that I said "probably the least evil", not "not very evil". None of the Princes are what I'd call nice.... > I always saw him as one of the nastiest; and the other princes >should be more worried about him than they currently are He's certainly subtle, and anyone who can jump from minor Servitor to Prince in one step is someone to be careful of. Lucifer had to have a reason for promoting him.... > (read the write-up >in the main book again... that did not strike me as 'not very evil' -- it >struck me as 'this demon prince is going places and he won't stop until he >has the whole of Hell under his thumb.' I don't think I'd go that far, but I wouldn't argue that he's not an ambitious go-getter.... > It seems to me that he has a >personal gripe against the infernal powers that be, and any powermongering >in the corporeal realm is just so that he can garner more power for his >real goals in Hell.) I didn't read all of that into the write-up, though I admit it's been a while since I looked at it. - --- In response to this and other comments on the subject, I'd like to point out that the original intent of the game, as I understand it, was for there to be a lot of ambiguity about good and evil on both sides. From this point of view, the AAs seem to come out in various shades of gray, sometimes pretty dark -- there are a fair number of dubious aspects to them. But the DPs tend to come off much more toward the black end of the spectrum, with few, if any, ah... redeeming features. For some reason, a lot of people seem to be a lot more comfortable with darkish AAs than lightened DPs. I don't know if this is due to the current fad for "dark" roleplaying (I know Em has the "brightness" knob all the way down...), or if there's something else going on. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 06:07:14 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers Perry Lloyd wrote: > What about Ethereal Soldiers' Essebce supply? Rather than getting > Essence for doing things to serve their superior, they lose it, sending > Essence to their superior. (Right?) That's a Definite Minus. My reading was that when a Soldier perfoms one of their Superior's Rites, the Superior gets a bit of Essence - but the Soldier doesn't _lose_ that Essence. It just comes out of the Symphony. So they don't get the ability to gain extra Essence through Rites - but then again, nor do most normal Soldiers. Gaining a Rite is rare and based on merit. > Also, Ethereal Soldiers work for Ethereals, who, in Canon, just don't > have much power. A Soldier of God or Hell has back-up, a very powerful > patron. An Ethereal Soldier? Hardly, the Ethe Soldier's boss, if s/he > shows up at all is most likely going to get their butt thumped, too. Check the stats for Loki and Odin in 'Heaven & Hell'. They're hardly comparable to the biggest Celestials, but they could easily kick the arse of PCs. Now, imagine Odin. He'd probably be on the same power level as a weak Superior (Mammon or Zadkiel, for instance). Sure, if he's got to face off against a Superior, he'll lose. But if he shows up to defend one of his Soldiers, the PCs are _stuffed_. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia There is always room on TV for a man who can beat people to jelly in nine flat... HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:16:04 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) At 14:32 30/11/98 EST, you wrote: > > >In response to this and other comments on the subject, I'd like to point >out that the original intent of the game, as I understand it, was for >there to be a lot of ambiguity about good and evil on both sides. I thought the intent was to be funny and poke fun at some sacred cows. (This difference of interpretation explains a lot ;) ). >For some reason, a lot of people seem to be a lot more comfortable with >darkish AAs than lightened DPs. I got over my 'dark RPing' phase. Speaking for myself, I think the issue is in _how_ you lighten them. I'm happy for them to be witty and amusing, to be worryingly human, to be ineffable, to do strange and possibly silly things .. but I don't actually want them to be good. I prefer to think that if a DP (any DP) does something, you can guarantee that it is evil -- it just might take some very convoluted thinking to work out precisely how. Similarly with archangels (with one notable exception). jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:29:09 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, > > As far as I know, it's totally unknown in canon, though not explicitly > forbidden. (I've got some plans in my own game that it might happen as > part of the Millenium.) What about Habbalah who roll a divine intervention on Emptiness? While that's not an automatic redemption for sure, the book seems to suggest that MANY who do that just...redeem. Right there, on the spot. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 15:32 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers >> What about Ethereal Soldiers' Essebce supply? Rather than getting >> Essence for doing things to serve their superior, they lose it, sending >> Essence to their superior. (Right?) That's a Definite Minus. > > My reading was that when a Soldier perfoms one of their Superior's >Rites, the Superior gets a bit of Essence - but the Soldier doesn't _lose_ >that Essence. It just comes out of the Symphony. That's inconsistent with current Rite canon. It may be that Ethereal "Rites" are something else entirely. (I'll note here that Rite canon wasn't established when the Marches was written.) Some of the text I wrote in the Tetherbook is also inconsistent with this view -- if I remember correctly what I said there, the ceremonies performed at Ethereal Tethers were intended to *give* Essence to the ethereal gods (which is one of the main reasons the Ethereals encouraged such worship). However, there is also support there for the other aspect -- that these ceremonies also could generate Essence for the god as a side effect, by emphasizing a thread of the Symphony which resonated strongly with the god's nature. This Essence becomes part of the Tether's Essence flow, which feeds corporeal Essence to the god. >> Also, Ethereal Soldiers work for Ethereals, who, in Canon, just don't >> have much power. A Soldier of God or Hell has back-up, a very powerful >> patron. An Ethereal Soldier? Hardly, the Ethe Soldier's boss, if s/he >> shows up at all is most likely going to get their butt thumped, too. > > Check the stats for Loki and Odin in 'Heaven & Hell'. They're hardly >comparable to the biggest Celestials, but they could easily kick the arse of >PCs. And could be fairly easily toasted (corporeally, anyway), by a squad of humans with military weaponry, such as a SWAT team. They might overmatch *one* 9-Force PC, but I wouldn't count on them handling a group of them. And even one would probably hurt them, under circumstances where they can't afford to be weakened any further. > Now, imagine Odin. He'd probably be on the same power level as a weak >Superior (Mammon or Zadkiel, for instance). I doubt it. Superiors are in another class, entirely. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:32:08 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 08:16:04PM +0000, Jo Hart wrote: > I got over my 'dark RPing' phase. Speaking for myself, I think the issue is > in _how_ you lighten them. I'm happy for them to be witty and amusing, to > be worryingly human, to be ineffable, to do strange and possibly silly > things .. but I don't actually want them to be good. I prefer to think that > if a DP (any DP) does something, you can guarantee that it is evil -- it > just might take some very convoluted thinking to work out precisely how. > > Similarly with archangels (with one notable exception). > All the archangels (with one exception) do nothing that isn't evil? And you call that getting over your dark RPing phase? (Who is this mystery Archangel, incidentally?) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:36:26 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> The College of Saints I've mentioned a College of Saints enough times that I figures it was time to write it up. The College would be an extra-canonical addition to the In Nomine setting, playing a sort of House of Representatives or Commons to the Seraphim Council's Senate or House of Lords. I envision it for a Christian-toned game, but it could be just as ecumenical as canonical IN. In canon, every Saint works for some Archangel or other. With the College of Saints, a Saint of PC level might also work for a greater Saint. Also, an angel might be the servitor of a Saint, either on loan from an Archangel or simply working directly for that Saint. In general, there is a smoother sliding scale of power from, say, my sainted grandmother up to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Saints are still human, even the greatest of them, and so do not have Words or pass out Atunements or Distinctions. Nor do they create angels. However, the greater ones can have Rites and be invoked. And they have their native disturbance-proofing. (For instance, invoking a greater saint is not nearly as noisy as invoking an Archangel. Maybe it's noiseless; I haven't decided.) Saints may be patron saints of something or other. This isn't the same as a Word; it's just an area of interest for the saint. But it affects where their attention is put and where they're likely to be invoked. They make up for the lack of Atunements and Distinctions by making and passing out artifacts, and by teaching Songs. The inability to create angels is somewhat compensated for by the ability of great saints to bestow additional Forces. Saints don't suffer Dissonance and Discord. Angels serving the saints directly (rather than on loan from an AA) have no Word-specific dissonance conditions, since they have no Word. At the top of the power-scale within the College of Saints are several distinct groupings. These include: The Holy Family -- This would be headed by Jesus, but GM strategy dictates he not be on stage much. Possible on-stage members include: - - The Virgin Mary. If the game has a specifically Orthodox or Catholic tone, she is undoubtedly the supreme saint of the whole College. She is patron of a huge number of things, but Mercy might be at the top of the list. She is probably allied to Blandine, Zadkiel, Christopher, and Novalis. - - Ann, Mary's mother - - Elizabeth, Mary's cousin and the mother of John the Baptist - - John the Baptist, Jesus's cousin and the inheritor or reincarnation of Elijah - - Jesus's siblings or cousins (depending on your beliefs), including (running on memory): -- James (possibly the author of James's epistle and head of the early church in Jerusalem) -- Jude (possibly the author of Jude's epistle, patron saint of the impossible) -- Simon, Joseph, Mary, and Joanna The Holy Innocents -- These were the baby boys (up to two years old) slaughtered in Bethlehem at the orders of King Herod in his effort to kill the infant Christ. They are probably allied with Christopher and St. Nicholas. Maybe also with Gabriel in punishing the cruel. The Twelve Apostles -- There are probably thirteen of them, actually. Judas, ah, resigned, and the remaining eleven elected Matthias to replace him, but then Paul showed up. The apostles include: - - Peter, leader of the apostles and, according to Catholics, the first pope - - John, son of Zebedee, gospel author and author of Revelation (by some traditions) - - Thomas ("Doubting Thomas") - - Matthew, the tax collector and gospel author - - Paul, apostle to the gentiles The Disciples -- A much larger group, not all of whom are known, but it includes: - - Mark, the gospel author - - Luke, the physician, companion of Paul, and gospel author - - Stephen, the first Christian martyr - - Mary Magdelene. She was the first human to see the resurrected Christ. She is also commonly supposed to be the woman taken in adultery and forgiven by Christ, and is the sister of Martha and Lazarus, the resurectee. As a former victim of possession she has a particular hatred of Shedim and may give assistance in exorcisms. The Prophets -- They are not usually referred to as saints, but technically they are. The College of Saints can take on a more ecumenical tone by including among the prophets Mohammed, Siddharta, Lao Tze, Confucius, Bahaul'lah, etc. Preeminent among the Prophets is Elijah, who called down fire from Heaven on the priests of Baal and, in the end, ascended to Heaven bodily in a flaming chariot. He's traditionally active on Earth during the Passover, and will announce the coming of the Messiah. He's probably allied with Gabriel and was most likely an ally of Uriel. He bequeathed a third of his spirit (a Celestial Force?) to his disciple Elisha, and this may have been passed down to John the Baptist, or Elijah may have reincarnated as the Baptist. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs -- Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, and the twelve sons of Jacob, plus their sisters and wives. One may doubt that all of them got into Heaven, based on the characters depicted in the Bible, but Abraham, Judah, and Joseph are pretty good bets. Their number can also include Noah and Enoch, the latter famous for having been taken into Heaven bodily, like Elijah. Noah and Enoch probably have first-hand experience of the Grigori and Nephilim. Other interesting saints include: - - Dionyius the Areopagite, who transmitted to mortals the most widely-received angelology. It wasn't entirely accurate by IN standards, but Dionysius has had lots of opportunity to refine his observations since then, and is a leading angelologist. - - Nicholas, a bishop in Turkey, patron saint of children, sailors, and pawnbrokers. He is probably allied with Marc, but he is best known for his connection to Christmas and children, and so is probably friendliest to Christopher. Elves are said to work for him, so he and Blandine may join in shielding benevolent Ethereals from Hell and the likes of Uriel. - - Mergen, a mermaid, caught off the coasts of Holland. She learned Dutch and converted. A rare example of an Ethereal saint. One could go on and on. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:37:10 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Jo Hart wrote: > Similarly with archangels (with one notable exception). Okay, I'll say it. Which one is the exception? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 15:43 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN >> > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, >> >> As far as I know, it's totally unknown in canon, though not explicitly >> forbidden. (I've got some plans in my own game that it might happen as >> part of the Millenium.) > >What about Habbalah who roll a divine intervention on Emptiness? While >that's not an automatic redemption for sure, the book seems to suggest >that MANY who do that just...redeem. Right there, on the spot. The way I recall reading that is that is does break them of their delusions about the true effect of "God's work", as Habbalah perceive it, but that it doesn't truly change their nature. I.e., they're still demons, but they'd be fairly likely to be looking for redemption. "Automatic" redemption, especially on a die roll, seems *way* too strong, and too choice-less. I think it plays much more interestingly if they suddenly realize what a mess they've made of things, but are still demons until they get straightened out by an Archangel. Lots more character development and plot potential, I think.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 15:49 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) >>In response to this and other comments on the subject, I'd like to point >>out that the original intent of the game, as I understand it, was for >>there to be a lot of ambiguity about good and evil on both sides. > >I thought the intent was to be funny and poke fun at some sacred cows. For the French version, INS/MV, that was certainly a major goal. For the SJGames version, I believe the satirical intent was relatively low, other than the satire inherent in making the two sides hard to tell apart.... > I'm happy for them to be witty and amusing, to >be worryingly human, to be ineffable, to do strange and possibly silly >things .. but I don't actually want them to be good. I don't think there's *any* risk of them being "good". Evil in a comprehensible and tolerable way, maybe. Some of them will be lighter than others, and some of them may be somewhat ambiguously evil -- without knowing their intent, some people could give them the benefit of the doubt. > I prefer to think that >if a DP (any DP) does something, you can guarantee that it is evil -- it >just might take some very convoluted thinking to work out precisely how. I don't particularly agree with this -- I don't think *everything* a DP does has to be evil. It probably won't be *good*, but maybe neutral. Their motives should always be suspect, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:58:58 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) At 15:37 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: > >> Similarly with archangels (with one notable exception). > >Okay, I'll say it. Which one is the exception? > Eli. YMMV. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:25:11 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >> > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, > >> > >> As far as I know, it's totally unknown in canon, though not explicitly > >> forbidden. (I've got some plans in my own game that it might happen as > >> part of the Millenium.) > > > >What about Habbalah who roll a divine intervention on Emptiness? While > >that's not an automatic redemption for sure, the book seems to suggest > >that MANY who do that just...redeem. Right there, on the spot. > > The way I recall reading that is that is does break them of their > delusions about the true effect of "God's work", as Habbalah perceive > it, but that it doesn't truly change their nature. I.e., they're still > demons, but they'd be fairly likely to be looking for redemption. > > "Automatic" redemption, especially on a die roll, seems *way* too > strong, and too choice-less. I think it plays much more interestingly > if they suddenly realize what a mess they've made of things, but are > still demons until they get straightened out by an Archangel. Lots more > character development and plot potential, I think.... True, but we weren't talking about "automatic" redemption, but "spontaneous" redemption. I agree that it would be very poor GMing to arbitrarily force a Habbalah PC to redeem just because of a wacky die roll. However, IF that player thought it would be good roleplaying to redeem on the spot, spontaneously, without the help of an AA, would that fit into canon? I'm curious. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:34:22 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [Adminish] (Re: PREMIUM TV .......... NO MONTHLY BILLS !) At 12:18 PM -0600 11/27/98, Uncle Wolf wrote: >BHead68652@aol.com wrote: [SPAM!] >[snip] >Is it safe to assume that these people [using the term very liberally] >have been duly chastised, warned, and threatened with legal action if >they ever do this again? I sent mail to abuse@aol.com (since that's where the received headers seemed to point as well) and suggested they send a lawyer to the PObox included in the spam. That's about all I can do. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:31:22 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > For the French version, INS/MV, that was certainly a major goal. For > the SJGames version, I believe the satirical intent was relatively low, > other than the satire inherent in making the two sides hard to tell > apart.... Unfortunately, this is where one runs into a very solid, yet very real wall. In the process of making _everything_ in the universe nice and ambigious, the text has been watered down, the Demon Princes have been made light and fluffy, and the good guys look like psychotic fanatical tyrants - which most should not. I mean, it's awful hard to justify the killing a Malakite or Elohite does in the name of God when the demon is a nice person you just want to take home, doesn't it? How do you justify Judgment ordering the death sentence of a falling angel when the Fallen just really aren't that bad? How do you justify Michael's killing fields when the people he is ordering killed are really nice people who plant herb gardens? You can't. There is no black and there is no white. The entire game is gray, and while this can be used to great leverage if things are twisted and bizarre enough, it makes things in the land of Angels and Demons pretty watered down and dull. It's one big continuous smear all concentrated in the world of "Non Offensive". In an effort to avoid real philosophy or real politics or anything real at all and to make things light and nice and politically correct, it ends up with a game empty and utterly devoid of life. It's sort of like a Star Trek: Next Generation episode, where bad guys aren't really bad and we all get along at the end of the episode. There is a lack of range in the game system that is so profound you can build condos in it. The game isn't satirical, so that isn't the dodge. It isn't anything. It's like spaghetti sauce with too much water. There is an obvious way to fix this - make some things in the game very bad and some things very good and let everyone else fall in between the range. The best possible outposts to determine absolute good and absolute bad in the system are the Archangels and Demon Princes who have worked and slaved and sweated to be the absolute powers in the universe. But for some reason there is a blatant refusal to use them as such and let the NPCs and the characters fall in the in between areas. This does not mean infallible or all knowing or all powerful. This means make Saminga as evil as it can be pushed and make Laurence the shining pillar of knighthood in Heaven and let the characters hash out where they fall in between - which is as it should be. _Superiors are not the Player Characters. They are part of the game world_. This is a fact that seems to be lost. The suggestion here is to fix Nybbas post-haste before he gets written like Lilith - too fluffy to be viable in a campaign world. To make him into a Prince of the Media - not someone naive, not someone you like, but make him a _Prince_, who regularly orders the deaths of servants and the brainwashing of millions of ignorant humans who tune in at 8pm every night. It can be light, it can be humorous, it can have a twisted bent, but he's still evil, and he's still a Prince, and that really is the bottom line. [For what I'm thinking about: The absolute best thing that I have seen come out of the actual product line was David Edelstein's Dark Malakite write up, and that got cut. It shouldn't have, it would have added quite a bit to the otherwise lackluster FotM. Luckily, it's posted online.] - - Em Current Quote: Shannen says "Follow not the NULL pointer, for at its end, you will find only chaos." Sephar laughs. Sephar says "No, you actually just find void." ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1028 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.