From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 11 09:23:58 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 JAA25751 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:23:58 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id IAA18234 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:36:18 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:36:18 -0600 Message-Id: <199802111436.IAA18234@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 #620 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, February 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 620 In this digest: Re: IN> Greek gods Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction IN> Re: IN-Remnants (they sure are fun) Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty IN> Shedim and Free Will IN> Baal and Michael's "retirement" IN> In Nomine flavor concerns IN> [FLUFF] The Devil and Marijuana Re: IN> In Nomine flavor concerns IN> Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction IN> Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) IN> Re: IN- In Nomine flavor concerns IN> Re: IN-Remnants (they sure are fun) Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:21:29 -0500 From: jesse Subject: Re: IN> Greek gods >Well, Heaven and Hell has stats for Thor and Loki. (a very *weak* Thor, I >might add) Well in Heaven and Hell Thor is alot stronger then in the Marches. In the Marches, he is dead. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:40:38 -0500 From: jesse Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction >Okay, so they're not organic. I just can't help but think that they have >the curse of most immortals. I think that creatures that have a potential >life span measured in aeons need to have some balance to equate them with >other living beings. Aeons of what? To the mayfly we are immortals. But just because we immortal in the eyes of the mayfly it does not stop us from reproducing. Sure the game of In Nomine is based around us (men) but that may be just because the writers wanted a setting to which readers would relate. The setting of In Nomine can be concived as much grander than Earth alone. Sure some angels are concerned with men, but some men are concerned with mayflies. Certainly not a majority of men worry about the mayfly but than not a majority of angels activly do something about men. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:50:24 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN-Remnants (they sure are fun) Admittedly these are mostly my oppinion, but... >Do remnants age? Yes. When they lose all of them that is celestial they become (at least partly) part of the natural symphony and become mortal. >When an angel changes vessels, one mutates into the form of the other. > During which, the angel is still protected by his corporeal vessel >from Celestial attack. This implies that although it makes the >disturbance of taking Celestial form, it does not involve the taking >of that form. Pretty much yes. Though I don't believe that the disturbance to the symphony would be as if they assumed celestial form. I believe that the only disturbance would be from the essence spent. >Can a remnant change vessels? Remnants may only have one vessel, thus no. The remnant is based on the vessel and its role (if its got one), not the angel really. This means that one angel might be able to become multiple remnants, though I would imagine that it would be very rare. >Can a remnant use 10 character points to spontaneously regenerate one >Celestial force? No. Characteristics may not be improved during a game. Remnants are formed INSTANTLY when a celestial has a corporeal form not in use and loses their last celestial force. >Does a remnant retain any rites or attunements? Attunements that are not purely celestial in nature (i.e. use will or perception or the level of celestial force to determine any part of the effect). Rites are not mentioned directly (that I remember) but as they are definitely celestial in nature I would tend to doubt it. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:56:12 -0500 From: jesse Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty >Alternative Interpretations of In Nomine, those might sell quite well... But... will they be canon? Get that Balseraph Bomb away from me! - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:56:33 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Shedim and Free Will Someone wrote, on the Baal thread: >> 2. Free will does not allow ANYONE to snap their fingers and make >> someone evil. And Kevin Walsh responded: >The question of whether free will exists in the IN universe is an >unresolved one. >And I would also point out that Shedim can do that sort >of thing, and indeed must. Hmm. I can't dispute your first point. But I'm not sure about the second. Notice the key difference between Shedim and Kyriotates -- Kyrios push the host mind out entirely, while the Shedim keep it around. Also notice that Will roll that the host gets to make. It is possible, though difficult, to resist the Shedite's attempts at corruption. And Shedim generally work gradually, pulling a host into evil one tiny step at a time. (I would be inclined to give big bonuses to the human's Will if the Shedite *didn't* work gradually, but that's begging the question since that ruling is based on my interpretation of what happens during Shedite possession.) So a Shedite can't just "snap its fingers and make someone evil." It can _persuade_ someone to gradually drop his inhibitions. There still seems to be an element of free will involved on the mortal's part, else there would be no series of Will rolls to resist. (Human and angelic free will may both be areas of canon doubt and uncertainty, but human free will at least seems to be a lot more widely accepted in the setting.) Of course, mortal Wills are too low to really simulate effective resistance, most of the time -- but that's a separate difficulty I have with the game. (Of course, to connect this to another thread, one could always explain the low human Will score by reference to Original Sin, if one doesn't mind bringing that into the game. Indeed, even if canon affirms no such thing, the mechanics of IN in this instance *do* suggest "fallen" humanity -- not quite Calvinist "total depravity," but close.) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:27:33 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Baal and Michael's "retirement" Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Being a consumate planner, no doubt Baal has a "retirement plan" >in the eventuality he fights Armageddon and wins -- he can start >battling other Princes, as the most obvious choice. It isn't >*The* War, but if he's just won Armageddon, the word of War-in- >general is almost certainly vacant. You've reminded me to bring up the opposing situation, which is *very* interesting when you think about it. Does *Michael* have a retirement plan, in the event that Heaven wins the War? While there's no IN canon on this (for obvious reasons), it's generally presumed that the World to Come will include an existence of eternal peace, right? So what happens to the Archangel of War (given that Word only *after* the Fall, we note) when the Symphony is restored to harmony and war is no longer necessary? I personally favor the tragic hints in Night Music that a Word-bound whose Word ceases to be will simply fade from existence. (There seems to be nothing short of Falling or Repenting that can remove a celestial's Word once it is granted: it has even been opined by John Karakash, I think, that *Remnants* keep their Words, with all the interesting possibilities that provides. That's presumably not canon *yet*, but at least it appears to be in the running.) Has God's most loyal defender, then, willingly taken on a task that will prevent him from ever personally experiencing his own ultimate victory? Will Michael, like Moses, lead his people to the Promised Land, but never enter it himself? I dunno if it's true or canon, but I like it. It gives the whole business overtones of huge, epic, tragic self-sacrifice (one of the reasons I liked Ryan Roth's story from Casca's campaign so much). Speaking of which, the discussions of Word-bounds and their eventual fates have often seen mention of the Angel of World War II, as an example of a celestial who deliberately takes on a temporary Word despite the consequences. In my view, obviously, the AoWW2 faded as soon as open conflict ended, just as he'd known he would. I have visions of a hall in Michael's cathedral where a row of "eternal flames" is kept burning in honor of the various angels of specific wars. Naturally, there's a *big* brazier at the end of the hall, intended as Michael's memorial once the War is won and he, too, fades. Almost makes you want to cry, doesn't it? (Well, it does that to *me*, anyway.) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:12:21 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> In Nomine flavor concerns Earl Wajenberg opined thusly on the tendency of IN canon to embrace fuzzy modern notions of God, good, evil, and all that business: >I'm sure fun games can be played that way, and I'm sure >the drift can be resisted, but I think the way to get the most >mileage out of IN is to play it as "it's the modern world and your >Sunday school teacher was right." Shocking thought. Sir, permit me to shake your hand, at least virtually. I essentially share your thoughts on this issue, but I could never have expressed them as well as that. We've already seen a couple of efforts at adapting IN to specific religions' worldviews. Perhaps you and Mr. Dobyns and I (and anyone else with thoughts in this direction) could work on a general "back-to-the-sources" IN variant? I dropped the pantheism pretty quickly, myself. In my version of IN (which has not yet manifested itself as a campaign), God is the Composer and Conductor of the Symphony, not another name for the Symphony itself. But because I did like some of the Yves/Kronos ideas from H&H, I decided that *Yves* is the Symphony personified, the collective consciousness of the universe as God originally created it. Kronos, conversely, is the personification of what I'd call the Cacophony (a term already used somewhat differently in IN canon). My Cacophony is the music of Hell, the clashing of personal symphonies that both comprises and fills that realm. It also includes all the disharmonies elsewhere in the Symphony -- all dissonance, Discord, and even disturbance. Kronos is the collective consciousness of the *fallen* universe. (This does still skirt the near-dualism of H&H, with Kronos almost an anti-God -- but it was the only way I could justify Kronos' abilities given the IN cosmology. My version isn't exactly connected to the Symphony, but he *does* know where all the false notes are coming from, and just which instruments are most out of tune.) As for the "Dominic/Malakim as near-evil" bit, I just adopt the most sympathetic interpretations of them. Only last night, reading the new USAGI YOJIMBO RPG, did I receive the blinding revelation that Malakim are essentially samurai. In the Usagi comic (and, one presumes, in actual historical Japan, as well), samurai are always being forced by their oaths of loyalty and honor to fight against those who might have been friends, except that their lords or mentors or families were enemies. While this strikes me as a bit odd, given the cultural differences involved, I am also able to admire the level of dedication involved in such a life. Instead of viewing Malakim as "problem characters" because they can rarely get along with demons, one has to look at what the Malakite is being asked to do: play nice with a creature who is not only in all probability responsible for all manner of nastiness, but who is also in open rebellion against the Lord (capital L in this case) and the cosmic order which the Malakite has sworn to honor and defend. One could even play up the tragic aspects, as in any good samurai movie: perhaps a Malakite *does* actually like, or even love, a particular demon, whether that is due to past association before the demon Fell or to a relatively personable demon -- but must still oppose its friend because of a higher loyalty. It's the reverse of the more usual (and better-understood by moderns) "Romeo & Juliet" setup . . . but it has a dramatic potential all its own. Or, for the B5 fans among us (and there are obviously quite a few of us here), think of Malakim as Rangers. Just as the Rangers came from all three Minbari castes to swear loyalty to Valen alone, so the Malakim stepped out from every choir to declare their loyalty to God and Heaven, even unto death. Even the initiation oath isn't that hard to recast. Let's see . . . "I am a Malakite. We walk in the dark places where even angels fear to tread. We stand at the Gates, and no Evil shall enter. We live for the Lord, we die for the Lord." As for Dominic, the relatively new Marvel superhero team the Thunderbolts took their name from a proverb that is obviously near and dear to old Dom's heart: "Justice, like lightning, should be terror to all but ruin to few." (That's at least slightly paraphrased.) As long as Dominic keeps both parts of the quotation in mind, I have little problem with his methods. (And for the Dominic-as-Balseraph crowd, the actual central plot twist of the Thunderbolts comic might be entertaining. . . .) Back to the Malakim for a moment, and touching on the "absolute good and evil" question as well -- isn't there anyone else here who was just a little sickened by the APG's bizarre canon explanation of "why the Malakim didn't just whack Hitler"? First of all, it's not even correct mechanically: Malakim do *not* earn dissonance for killing "honorable" humans, even if one considers Hitler "honorable." Second, even though the Malakim resonance is for honor and integrity rather than goodness per se, saying that the Malakim will leave someone alone just because that person lives up to *his own* morality, even if that morality is thoroughly twisted, stands in utter contradiction to every other statement and implication in the IN books about the nature of Malakim. Given that the Nazis are usually such a hot-button topic, I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive outcry against this explanation of "why the angels didn't think Hitler was really evil." Is it because people are so willing to think badly of the Malakite ethos, or did most folks just miss that one? Sorry to be so long-winded. I happily await commentary, however. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:34:31 -0500 From: jesse Subject: IN> [FLUFF] The Devil and Marijuana Hi there! I just found this interesting article on the internet about the connection between Lucifer and marijuana. It can also be found at http://www2.cibola.net/~prophet/maryjane.html It will probably be easier to read it there. Please understand I fwd the whole article below. If you are not interested in a, rather humorous, relationship between Lucifer (and Flurity) and marijuana you might as well delete this post now. I found it humorous but YMMV. If you do have a probelem with this, please send it to me rather than the listserve. The best paragraphs are those in all caps. Afterword it gets a little less humorous. My notes are in <>. MARIJUANA and CHRISTIANS Cure or Curse? THROUGH THE INNOCENTLY APPEARING GUISE OF THE "NATURAL HERBAL HIGH" CALLED MARIJUANA, SATAN HAS FOUND AN OPEN DOORWAY FOR INVASION INTO THE MINDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. MANY A DECEIVED CHRISTIAN HAS LOST THEIR SALVATION IN CHRIST THROUGH THIS DECEPTIVE DEVICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO KILL, STEAL, AND DESTROY. THE DECEPTIVE REASONING THAT SATAN USES IS THIS: "GOD MADE PLANTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MAN, MARIJUANA IS A PLANT, THEREFORE GOD MADE IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF MAN. IT OPENS UP A PERSON'S MIND SO THAT THEY CAN FLOW IN THE SPIRIT." THE TRUTH IS THAT THE SPIRIT WHICH THIS PLANT OPENS ONE UP TO IS THE SPIRIT OF THE DEVIL. THIS "INNOCENT NATURAL HIGH" IS REALLY JUST THE BAIT THAT THE DEVIL USES TO CAPTIVATE THE SOUL (MIND, WILL AND EMOTIONS). THE DEVIL IS THE MASTER OF DECEPTION!!! READ SOME CASE HISTORIES OF THOSE IN MENTAL WARDS, MOST OF THEM STARTED OUT SO "INNOCENTLY" ON MARIJUANA. MARIJUANA HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A DRUG THAT RENDERS IT'S USERS PSYCHOLOGICALLY DEPENDENT TO A SEVERE DEGREE. MANY M.J. USERS BECOME TRAPPED IN A DEAD END LIFESTYLE OF POVERTY, DEPENDENCE AND PARANOIA. OF WHOSE SPIRIT ARE THESE FRUITS?? DID YOU KNOW THAT THE DEVIL USES NO NEW THING TO BEGUILE PEOPLE? SORCERERS, SATANISTS, AND WITCHES HAVE KNOWN FOR CENTURIES THAT MARIJUANA IS A MEANS OF OPENING UP TO THE SPIRIT WORLD OF SATAN AND HIS DEMON FORCES. CHRISTIANS DON'T NEED THE DEVIL'S TOOLS! WHO CONTROLS YOU? The thief (Satan) cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I (Jesus) am come that they may have life and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10 THE DEVIL WILL USE ANYTHING OR ANYONE TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSES. HIS NUMBER ONE TARGET IS CHRISTIANS!! IF HE CAN USE MARIJUANA TO CON THEM INTO BEING WEAK AND INEFFECTUAL, HE WILL. WHEN WE COME TO JESUS CHRIST, HE FORGIVES US FOR OUR SINS AND PUTS HIS LIFE INSIDE OF OUR HEARTS. THEN WE CAN WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. WE DO NOT NEED THE CRUTCHES OF THE FORMER LIFESTYLE LIKE MARIJUANA. THE CHRISTIAN WHO TRIES TO WITNESS FOR CHRIST WHILE HIGH ON MARIJUANA IS REALLY NOT A WITNESS FOR CHRIST AT ALL. THE ONLY WITNESS THAT SUCH A ONE GIVES IS THAT SATAN STILL HAS AUTHORITY IN HIS LIFE. DEAR CHRISTIAN, YOU DO NOT NEED MARIJUANA (OR ANY OTHER DRUG, INCLUDING ALCOHOL), FOR THROUGH JESUS CHRIST YOU CAN HAVE LIFE AND HAVE IT MORE ABUNDANTLY. YOU MUST LEARN TO NO LONGER LOOK TO THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, SUCH AS MARIJUANA, FOR HELP. YOU MUST LEARN TO LOOK TO GOD! YOU MUST LEARN TO KNOW HIM, FOR HE IS ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED. LOVE JESUS, WALK IN HIS HOLY SPIRIT, AND DON'T LET SATAN CONNIVE YOU INTO FOLLOWING ANOTHER SPIRIT -THE SPIRIT OF ANTI-CHRIST. "But I fear, lest by any means as the serpent beguiled eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit (demons) which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Cor. 11:3-4 THE WITCHCRAFT - DRUG CONNECTION! Let's not lose sight of the fact that all drugs are more correctly identified by their proper name of pharmaceuticals, which in the Bible is always translated as witchcraft or sorcery. Yet many people mistakenly believe that using drugs to gain access to spiritual forces is a modern fad and that the Bible is silent in this regard. This is simply not true. As a matter of fact, mind altering drugs have been employed by the devil since the earliest times to achieve his ends and are specifically condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Of course a distinction must be made between drugs that have a proven medical value and are used accordingly and those drugs that are misused and abused by people seeking to escape reality. It is this latter category that definately relates to witchcraft and sorcery and ultimately ends in the total demonic enslavement of the user. It has been shown in other research works that the Greek words pharmakeia, pharmakeus and pharmakos, which are translated witchcraft, sorceries and sorcerers in the New Testament are connected with the use of mind altering drugs. The three words are derived from the Greek word pharmakon, which means drugs or magic potions. In the Greek version of the Old Testament the words pharmakeia, pharmakeuo, pharmekon, and pharmekos are used twenty two times to translate several different Hebrew words. The Hebrew words in question are kashaph, lehatim and chartummim. All three words are connected with sorcery, witchcraft and enchantments. <> It is obvious that the Greek word pharmakon has to do with drugs; a more relevant and contemporary application could hardly be found. The denunciations against sorcery contained in Revelation 9:21; 18:23; 21:8 ; and 22:15 apply to those who use drugs to bring on trances during which they claim to have supernatural knowledge or power. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers) <> SORCERY A. Nouns. 1. pharmakia (or-- eia) ^5331^ (Eng., "pharmacy," etc.) primarily signified "the use of medicine, drugs, spells"; then, "poisoning"; then, "sorcery," > We would like to hear from you! To request literature or more information about us or our community please E-mail us: prophet@cibola.net or write to us: AGGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY <>^^^^^^^^^^ P.O. BOX 90 BERINO, NM 88024 End Article Well if you read this far you probably found this amusing too. Feel free to forward this to any lost soul whom you feel will benfit from Aggersive Christianity's timely message. Have a nice day. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:39:40 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine flavor concerns At 01:12 11/02/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >As for Dominic, the relatively new Marvel superhero team the Thunderbolts >took their name from a proverb that is obviously near and dear to old Dom's >heart: "Justice, like lightning, should be terror to all but ruin to few." Actually my fave Judgement 'quote' is "Judgement will be as swift as it is unexpected." >Back to the Malakim for a moment, and touching on the "absolute good and >evil" question as well -- isn't there anyone else here who was just a >little sickened by the APG's bizarre canon explanation of "why the Malakim >didn't just whack Hitler"? Agreed, I thought that was totally unnecessary. jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:35:27 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will Stacy sang: >So a Shedite can't just "snap its fingers and make someone evil." It can >_persuade_ someone to gradually drop his inhibitions. There still seems to >be an element of free will involved on the mortal's part, else there would >be no series of Will rolls to resist. (Human and angelic free will may I'd say this is almost a mechanical device to emulate the corrupting influence of the Shedim. Viz., NPCs do not truly have "Free will", and the will rolls reflect that. For example, if I were GMing Soldiers of God as PCs, and on of the PCs was possessed by a Shedite, I wouldn't bother with the will rolls - I would role-play the encounter out. Of course, since the PLAYER, as opposed to the Player Character, knows he is possessed, I'd have to be a lot trickier (as a GM) to corrupt the PC. For example, you'd have to start the PC off stealing from the rich to feed the poor, and so on. A truly skilful and extremely NEFARIOUS gamemaster, of course, wouldn't even TELL the player that he has been possessed by a Shedite. You would just warp the perceptions of the player character, so that the player seems to be acting "good", with a few subtle clues that all is not right. SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:14:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) > >When an angel changes vessels, one mutates into the form of the other. > > During which, the angel is still protected by his corporeal vessel > >from Celestial attack. This implies that although it makes the > >disturbance of taking Celestial form, it does not involve the taking > >of that form. > > > >Can a remnant change vessels? > > I think not. Essentially, they suffer Bound/infinity... If you > can find something that suggests they should, though, I'll be happy > to look at the references. > The section on changing between Vessels on p49 of the main book says "To switch forms, simply spend a point of Essence. The celestial seems to shift and change shape over a period of one round, taking the new form." I assumed that this meant it made only a 1pt Disturbance (due to the essence expenditure), and that the Bound Discord does not affect it at all, since there is no question of making Will rolls to ascend to Celestial form. If it does cause so much disturbance, spare vessels are going to go with the Songs of Entropy, Possession and Projection into my "those superficially cool things which are completely and utterly useless" collection. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:20:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction > > For that situation, that comes down to a GM decision. What are the odds > that the millenial angel-baby is a PC product? Using my math skills, I > find that I wouldn't lay down any money on those odds. In my game, only > God can create angels. If only God can create angels, then I can't see how there could possibly be more demons than angels. The demons should have lost very quickly since there were less of them, and they were less powerful. If, on the other hand, Lucifer can make demons but only God can make angels, then the demons should have won a long time ago, because Lucifer is active, but God isn't. God hasn't talked to the Seraphim Council since 745, to the best of my knowledge. If Lucifer had done the same, he'd be gone, and Hell would have a new leader. > > Again, not really a pro or con, but I'll work with it. The amount > necessary will come down to a finite amount. Being there is an amount > deemed necessary, then there must also be an amount that exceeds necessity. > Hence, there could too many angels on Earth. In this light, Angelic > breeding programs for the purpose of opposing the armies of Hell would > eventually surpass critical mass. As the addage goes, "Too many cooks > spoil the pot." > What about reserve forces for the fighting of Armageddon? > Armand, > Still under the belief that celestials are asexual beings and cannot breed > more celestials. > Ever heard of flatworms? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:31:54 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will >So a Shedite can't just "snap its fingers and make someone evil." It can >_persuade_ someone to gradually drop his inhibitions. There still seems to >be an element of free will involved on the mortal's part, else there would >be no series of Will rolls to resist. (Human and angelic free will may >both be areas of canon doubt and uncertainty, but human free will at least >seems to be a lot more widely accepted in the setting.) Absolutely true, and one can add another little gem to the mix: When the Shedim leave the person may think that the actions were taken on their own initiative but this does not necessarily change the person's view as to what is right and wrong. It definitely would have a permanent effect, but as to whether it would make the immediately evil/selfish, no it doesn't. It does start them down the road, however. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:50:25 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Shedim and Free Will >I'd say this is almost a mechanical device to emulate the corrupting >influence of the Shedim. Viz., NPCs do not truly have "Free will", and >the will rolls reflect that. Yoyu may be mistaking a game mechanic for the way it actually would work from the perspective of the character. I agree that from the POV of the character that the Shedim's influence would tend to shade things differently, but for game purposes just make a will roll, its easier. Now if you have a PC under the influence you should probably do exactly as you say. Players hate it when you take away their control of the character, but if you describe the scene differently... Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:00:57 +0000 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) Querent wrote: > > Do remnants age? The way I read the book, they will - normally. If, however, they happen to have Ethereal Entropy (or whichever one it is that can slow or reverse ageing), they can live forever. (They have no conscious control over it, but they could very well, say, be looking in a mirror, notice grey hairs, wrinkles or flab, get upset, *really* want them to go away, which triggers a bunch of Essence to be spent on the Song, and hey, they get younger.) I have an ex-Remnant in my campaign, who hung around on Earth for ages before an angel finally noticed that he'd been around longer than he should have, made some inquiries, realised he was one of Uriel's who had been missing since 745ish and hauled him Upstairs to be rebuilt. Laurence grafted some extra Celestial Forces on, and he's now wandering around Glasgow trying to remember what he was like as an angel the first time round. He'd managed to gain a point or two of Will or Perception in the mean time, because in my campaign Celestials tend to accrete power just by being on the Corporeal Realm. He didn't go as far as gaining a new Celestial Force that way, but I don't see why that couldn't happen. In which case, what would you have - a Remnant who was still a mundane, and his Celestial Force was a mundane Force? the same angel as before he was Force-stripped, who could be tracked as if he'd never gone? a subtly different angel? something else? Given that Remnants can't be tracked by any Celestial Forces-based resonance or attunement, and would normally die like a mundane, I assume they don't make noise when they e.g. break things, or spend Essence (they might not even spend Essence when they sing Songs either - can't remember the Soldier rules here). If a Remnant somehow got a new Celestial Force, would he start making noise again? Sam - -- Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 05:18:48 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine flavor concerns >We've already seen a couple of efforts at adapting IN to specific >religions' worldviews. Perhaps you and Mr. Dobyns and I (and anyone else >with thoughts in this direction) could work on a general >"back-to-the-sources" IN variant? Exactly which sources? Keep in mind that as far as the Judiac scriptures are concerned there is no Hell. So if we "go back to the sources" then Judism is WRONG. I have a bit of a problem with this. In my view it is much simpler to say that all the scriptures passed down at least partly from Heaven are just that, partly correct. IN is based upon a judiac/christian world view and in that sence I have no problem if it basically says that religions not based upon these are basically wrong (or at least opposed to the standing order), but if the basis for the world view is wrong there is a large problem. >Back to the Malakim for a moment, and touching on the "absolute good and >evil" question as well -- isn't there anyone else here who was just a >little sickened by the APG's bizarre canon explanation of "why the Malakim >didn't just whack Hitler"? First of all, it's not even correct >mechanically: Malakim do *not* earn dissonance for killing "honorable" >humans, even if one considers Hitler "honorable." Second, even though the >Malakim resonance is for honor and integrity rather than goodness per se, >saying that the Malakim will leave someone alone just because that person >lives up to *his own* morality, even if that morality is thoroughly >twisted, stands in utter contradiction to every other statement and >implication in the IN books about the nature of Malakim. Given that the >Nazis are usually such a hot-button topic, I'm surprised there hasn't been >a massive outcry against this explanation of "why the angels didn't think >Hitler was really evil." Is it because people are so willing to think >badly of the Malakite ethos, or did most folks just miss that one? > >Sorry to be so long-winded. I happily await commentary, however. Since I didn't state it above, I will here, I am of Jewish descent and was raised (until a young age admittedly) as a Jew. This was a bit disturbing at first, then I read it again and found a key phrase and an important thought as part of why. Malakim judge people's honor based upon that person's view of the world, whether it be selfish or unselfish (NOT good/evil though a correlation could be drawn). Hitler was acting for what he thought was the good of his people, in his world view the Jews (not to mention the Gypsies and Gays) were evil and needed to be expunged. According to his world view he could be viewed as acting unselfishly. Of course he acted selfinshly in the way he lived and what he was allowed to do as opposed to what his underlings were allowed, but this is not the point. The actions that he took that were the most attrocious were done from an unselfish motivation. The thought is simple really: The Holocaust happened in the real world (despite revisionist attempts to rewrite it) and was not aborted by the Malakim. Why? Think about how nasty the Holocaust was? Can you possibly say it wasn't Evil? Of course not, but why wasn't it stopped? Free Will baby. The Humans must be left to do their own good/evil. Now I'm sure that the Malakim killed all of the Demons that were influencing key Nazi officials and worked within the Allied front to help, but direct assasination of Hitler would have been too much interference in a lesson that the Humans need to learn. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 05:33:41 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN-Remnants (they sure are fun) >He'd managed to gain a point or two of Will or Perception in the mean >time, because in my campaign Celestials tend to accrete power just by >being on the Corporeal Realm. He didn't go as far as gaining a new >Celestial Force that way, but I don't see why that couldn't happen. In >which case, what would you have - a Remnant who was still a mundane, and >his Celestial Force was a mundane Force? the same angel as before he was >Force-stripped, who could be tracked as if he'd never gone? a subtly >different angel? something else? I think that the Remnant would have generated a mundane force as he has become one with his Role. He would still be mundane/mortal but might now be a cantidate for enrollment in the War as a special kind of soldier as they have their head in more of what could be considered the right place. >Given that Remnants can't be tracked by any Celestial Forces-based >resonance or attunement, and would normally die like a mundane, I assume >they don't make noise when they e.g. break things, or spend Essence >(they might not even spend Essence when they sing Songs either - can't >remember the Soldier rules here). If a Remnant somehow got a new >Celestial Force, would he start making noise again? Remnants make noise when they spend essence just lkike everyone else, even mortals. They lose the ability to control their essence expenditure, and thus blow all they have accumulated each time they use it. They are however mundane as the text says and might regenerate essence if they succeed at any skill roll where they have a skill of 6. He would also regenerate essence at sunrise (I'm not sure about this, don't remember from the text, but he was an angel once, though a strong case could be made for noon). Remnants that have somehow regenerated a celestial force would still make no more noise than mortals. I would say that celestial resonances would start to work on them, however, as there is now a force for them to latch on to. Thei heart would not regenerate and it could still not be used to track them. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:27:52 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>Remnants (they sure are fun) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 2:17 PM -0800 2/10/98, Querent wrote: > >Can a remnant change vessels? > > I think not. Essentially, they suffer Bound/infinity... If you > can find something that suggests they should, though, I'll be happy > to look at the references. I don't have a reference, but a shapeshifting Remnant makes a kind of neat Undead of the Lon Chaney persuasion -- mad and tortured, monstrous, but also pathetic. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #620 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.