From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 14 07:29:22 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 HAA16813 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:29:22 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id HAA17268 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:07:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:07:23 -0600 Message-Id: <199812141307.HAA17268@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 #1051 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, December 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1051 In this digest: RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim IN> Silly Celestial Artifacts... IN> Sorcery Question Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim IN> seneschal query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 00:47:41 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim >> Granted. What I'm saying, however, is that there's absolute morality >> within the human race - intrinsic to the race or not, it does exist. > >My attempt to get in first on this one - you what!? > >I don't want to knock anyone's religious beliefs: many people do believe >that their own moral code applies equally to the entire race. However, one >of the purposes of In Nomine as a satire is to poke fun at the whole 'I'm >right and you're not' attitude. There simply are *no* morals which are >subscribed to by every member of the human race, irrespective of whether >anyone thinks there ought to be. > >On a list half full of atheists and agnostics, you aren't going to get >away with claiming absolute morality :-) ::sighs:: I seemed to have opened a can of worms. Oh well. I'm not attacking religious people, atheists, agnostics, or deists. All I'm saying is that across time, there has been a couple of things (regarding incest) that all peoples have believed, namely mother-son incest is a bad thing. If you don't want to call it absolute morality, don't, but I'm going to say if that all societies that we know of in the course of history believed that, then it comes about as close as we can within a current realm. (Incidentally, if I were to expand that point, I'd get all the religious people pointing at me.) Look, I love IN because of it's satirical qualities, and I do agree that we can't ascribe a general moral sense to the entire human race without being wrong at some point, but I will say that something exists of that type. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:21:54 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Matthew Stein wrote: > > >> >Are you referring to humans or to angels? Certainly, I wouldn't > say > >> these > >> >are universal among angels. Stealing is positively encouraged by > one > >> >angelic Superior. > >> > >> Okay, fine, so maybe some Angels practice the art of thievery. > >> However, within human culture and society, stealing and sleeping > with > >> one's own mother are considered to be immoral and hence bad. > > > >Why the mother? Why not the father? > > Without getting into too much nitpicking, I will note that in every > culture, mother-son incest has been considered bad. In elder Hawaii, > brother-sister incest was good for tribal leaders and in ancient > Egypt, fathers married their daughters and brothers married their > sisters. In a couple of Far Eastern cultures, father-daughter incest > occurred on a regular basis and was not frowned upon. I can't tell you > why, but humanity seems to have accepted, universally, mother-son > incest as bad. And that's about it. (I'll bow to your knowledge of > thievery, but I will note that an army's thievery was considered > within the bounds of legal behavior even by cultures that outlawed > thievery because of the "conquering army" concept.) Well... what about cultures with no sense of true personal ownership? - -- Brian A.H. "I am Don Arturo de Los Angeles. I am the greatest reader of all time. I have read over a million books in my lifetime, and their pages flow through my mind like summer days..." Phoenix Clan Purifier*Gaijin*Shugenja*ABC Geeky Shugenja Man*Totoroan L5R(1.1) PX+ S(LA) G++ R Y+ C+ E+ M-- T-- D++ K U+++ L5R(R1.3) GP++ (PR+++ CC++) RP+ GT:! P+ PX/LN+ S++ G+++ R Y+ C++ CG++ U+++ J---- ABC(1.0) PX/ABC++(ic, anyways. =)) S(LA) Y+ A++ D++ BO/OC!N!++++(nosebleed) P+++ U++ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:48:16 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim >>(I'll bow to your knowledge of >> thievery, but I will note that an army's thievery was considered >> within the bounds of legal behavior even by cultures that outlawed >> thievery because of the "conquering army" concept.) >Well... what about cultures with no sense of true personal ownership? (We've hit nitpicky.) As I said earlier, a society /must/ have a sense of ownership before it can have a sense of thievery. Wanton destruction of the Native Americans was not considered a moral lapse until the American society developed a sense of equality to everyone of a light-ish skin tone (I'm not even going to approach slavery). Without a basic sense of one thing, a moral question about that cannot arise. Without ownership, one lacks property, thievery, and a few other things that I'm too tired to think of. Sociologists would say that the culture without a sense of personal ownership could or could not lack morals against stealing - and so they exempt those cultures from the same moral questions that other cultures get noted for. A culture without any sense of marriage or monogamy would logically not have a moral issue with adultery - but sociologists would not say that the culture does not have an inherent moral issue with adultery. You follow? (Incidentally, for the reasons why father-daughter incest has been allowed in certain cultures is that it's not always so easy to prove who the father is and so they begrudgingly allow that form of incest. Or they just have their Pharaohs marry their daughters in ancient Egypt.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:52:39 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Silly Celestial Artifacts... >>>Mind you, it was a headache and half trying to figure out how best to use the 'Liber Reliquarum' to create this little gem. I -think- I got it right, but would like a second opinion or two...<<< It is worth noting that putting attunements into a relic is _not_ a standard option. As a general rule, relics contain _Songs_, not attunements. If you allow an artifact to contain an attunement, then either the artifact actually contains a Song that duplicates the effects of the attunement, or you are allowing a special case. Nothing wrong with this, but just remember that since it's not a standard option, it's not something normally possible -- an enchanter can't necessarily put any attunements he happens to possess into a relic, and the GM is perfectly within his rights to say "It's not possible for Gabriel's Smite attunement to be put in a relic," or to say that only a Superior can do that. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:01:51 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> Sorcery Question Boy, all these questions. Not hard to guess I'm working on characters for the Servitorium, hmm? So with Sorcery, you can only summon a spirit/demonling/demon with a Vessel, right? So what I wanna know is, does the summoned critter have to own its own Vessel, or can the Sorceror create the Vessel for it using accumulated Essence? As per the Marches & the stuff on Limbo, you can make a Vessel if you have enough Essence. The way I see Summoning for Demonlings and Spirits, since they rarely have of an individual identity to get such a thing from their Superior, the only way the Sorceror can get the little buggers is to supply enough Essence for them to cobble together a Vessel out of it when they get to the Corporeal Plane. The Sorceror would need to have the Essence stored in Spirit Jars (Focus/3), since they'd need a far amount spare for each Summoned beastie. Am I right in this? Anyone? (And if so, who'd decide on the final form of the Vessel - the Sorceror, who calls the Spirit to appear in a certain form and supplies the Essence to meet the Vessel level, or the Spirit, who crafts the body they desire using the Essence they have to hand?) - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia ...my attorney kept screaming at them: "Shoot! Fuck! Scag! Blood! Heroin! Rape! Cheap! Communist! Jab it right into your fucking eyeballs!" HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 02:43:48 -0800 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) >>What happens if a Malak of War decides to wait until he *isn't* getting >>the warning, then walk up to someone at random and hit them :-) > >As soon as he decides it, the GM decides whether the person will hit >back or not, and starts up the Danger Music. > >And/or makes sure the random person is a Prince. (Apologies if I have the Superior wrong here, but...) Actually, it's much better if the random person is a plain, ordinary human. That way, the Danger Music will be drowned out by the Symphonic disturbance of a Celestial harming a mortal, and the sound of some hefty dissonance crashing down on the Malakite for not only striking an innocent, but doing it FIRST. Ouch. Then again, some might say the Malakite must already be pretty dissonant to even consider such an action... - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:06:25 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, B.H. wrote: > > (I'll bow to your knowledge of thievery, but I will note that an > > army's thievery was considered within the bounds of legal behavior > > even by cultures that outlawed thievery because of the "conquering > > army" concept.) > > Well... what about cultures with no sense of true personal ownership? As I recall from the anthropology classes I had to take, there aren't any. Even in band-level societies, where food is divided up among the members of the band, there is still a sense of ownership: "this is my share of the meat", "this is my spear", "this is my medicine bundle", etc. I assume that a culture which had no sense of personal ownership wouldn't bother to outlaw thievery, or to consider it immoral. They would have no frame of reference for it. But I don't think they exist anywhere. Actually, In Nomine may have one: Heaven. Why should angels have a sense of personal property? Everything exists in Heaven for the greater good (unless you've turned the brightness knob down), and everything is created to beused by those who need it. An angel would use an item until he no longer has a need for it, and then put it aside for others to use. (I don't know how well it would work out, but I think it would put a little more of an inhuman spin on them.) Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:50:33 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On 13 December 1998 Richard Grant Wrote: >I assume that a culture which had no sense of personal ownership wouldn't >bother to outlaw thievery, or to consider it immoral. They would have no >frame of reference for it. But I don't think they exist anywhere. > >Actually, In Nomine may have one: Heaven. Why should angels have a sense >of personal property? Everything exists in Heaven for the greater good >(unless you've turned the brightness knob down), and everything is created >to beused by those who need it. An angel would use an item until he no >longer has a need for it, and then put it aside for others to use. (I >don't know how well it would work out, but I think it would put a little >more of an inhuman spin on them.) I'm not so sure Heaven would have no sense of ownership. If there was no sense of ownership Marc's Word would have little point & Commerce Park simply wouldn`t work. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:57:19 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim At 17:50 13/12/98 -0000, you wrote: > > >I'm not so sure Heaven would have no sense of ownership. If there was no >sense of ownership Marc's Word would have little point I think it would. You'd be able to trade your services (ie. knowledges, time or ability) for services in kind. That's still trade. & Commerce Park >simply wouldn`t work. > True :) If heaven were more communal then whenever anyone made anything, they would just try to give it to someone who seemed to need it. So the only things you could buy in Commerce Park would be things which no-one _really_ needed. jo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:31:10 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Jo Hart wrote: > True :) If heaven were more communal then whenever anyone made anything, > they would just try to give it to someone who seemed to need it. So the > only things you could buy in Commerce Park would be things which no-one > _really_ needed. Not really - that's more altruistic than communal. A communal Heaven would see piles of things (artifacts, relics, etc.) left out for anyone's use. Commerce Park would be useless - with no sense of personal ownership, there's no reason to buy anything. Of course, the basic structure of Celestials - with Attunements, Rites, Essence, etc. - denies a community with no personal ownership. As long as Superiors grant attunements, as long as Essence can be traded and is a valuable commodity, there is always going to be something someone doesn't have and wants. Also, the existence of Superiors' Relics tends to deny this as well. Otherwise, Michael would come home regularly to find a note reading "I've got the axe, will drop it by Tuesday, thanks, Stan the Malakite". (On a side note, for a good look into the workings of no-personal-belongings cultures, take a gander at "The Gods Must Be Crazy".) > jo - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:03:26 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> seneschal query hello folks! Just a couple o' quezzies: 1) i have two types opf tether in my London campaign - greater and lesser (for example, westminster Palace is greater while Wembley stadium is Lesser). What sort of Force-levels shuld the Greater nad lesser sneschals be. A greater tether is one that is very old and has a lot of history (like westminster palace) and im going with 14/15 Force-ish characters, while lesser tethers are ones from this century or the last, and the average seneschal is 11/12 Force. Ive pieced this rule from the sourcebook NPC's so far. i would appreciate some thoughts on power levels (and not just for seneschals - how about Distinctions rankings as well - Greater seneschals are always Master/Baron, whiile Lesser are Vassal, etc.) 2) on a minor note, could someone explain how newly created (ie born in hell) Habbalah would beleive they work for God, why would Prince create a being who believes this? Makes sense for those created through Falling, but...? Yes, such thoughts keep me awake at night! ;-) Thanking you in advanceness...Marnie ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1051 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.