From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Feb 15 09:55:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA28599 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:55:40 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA22743 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:52:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:52:48 -0600 Message-Id: <200002151552.JAA22743@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 #1530 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 Tuesday, February 15 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1530 In this digest: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) IN> Howl Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) Re: IN> Howl IN> looking for URL Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... IN> Superiors 4 in playtest Soon Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? IN> High-Contrast Words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:45:47 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) Maybe in the middle. The song is more useful if it generates noise at the point you leave from (as it makes for a stealthy entrance). So my GM instincts say to make it come from the point of arrival. One could have it be from both and split the disturbance, but I'd say it just eminates from where the celestial arrives. Timothy, Angel of Rambling Go here, or else: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:01:22 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... In a message dated 2/13/00 1:52:08 AM Central Standard Time, perrylloyd@hotmail.com writes: << >What do you think? Is this dissonant? The Elohite is certainly feeling >emotion; however, that isn't dissonant in and of itself. I think no, but >I'm not sure... >> My personal take is that I'd let it slide, and reward the guy for good roleplaying. You don't want to go to far with these dissonance conditions. A Seraph can talk around the truth and let people believe a lie. A Kyriotate can leave a guy confused with 4 days of his life missing, but as long as his life is still intact, the Kyrio is cool. An Ofanite can stay in one room for a week if he has a reason to do so, but if sits there when there is other work to be done, he's dissonant. With an Elohite, I would rule that his emotion cannot overrule his logic. This Elohite did the right thing. He argued against vengeance. He wanted, with all his angelic heart, to go kick demonic ass, but logically knew there was no point to it. As a rule of thumb, I go by the "no logical reason not to" idea. If an Elohite has spare time and wants to go see a movie, let him. A good Elohite will probably watch the audience more than the flick, but the reasoning still stands. Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: Experimental Version Subject: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) From: Tim Groth (Some call him Tim) Subject: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) >Maybe in the middle. > >The song is more useful if it generates noise at the point you leave from >(as it makes for a stealthy entrance). So my GM instincts say to make it >come from the point of arrival. > >One could have it be from both and split the disturbance, but I'd say it >just eminates from where the celestial arrives. Cool, That makes sense, (even the "this makes it better so that can't be it" answer) BUT, most of the time that I have been using this Song, I'm just moving stuff. I.E. There is not a celestial at either end. Hey, may be that makes NO Noise. I could dig that. Bob Lanbert, B.O.F.H. (literally) What ever you do, DON'T get your ... ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:54:54 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Howl Does the War attunement "Howl" cause celestial disturbance when it is used? And if so, is the degree of disturbance affected by who its victims are (no extra disturbance for stunning celestials, extra disturbance for stunning humans)? Janet Anderson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:52:56 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) Experimental Version wrote: > >One could have it be from both and split the disturbance, but I'd say it > >just eminates from where the celestial arrives. Canon is, GM's option. I would say that disturbance is not entirely predictable -- sometimes it emanates from the origin point, sometimes from the arrival point, and sometimes from BOTH points! Disturbance is supposed to be something that is annoying, inconvenient, and to be avoided, and making celestials unsure exactly how and where it will manifest is one way to discourage them from being too blase about it. If they can't predict where the disturbance from the Celestial Song of Motion will manifest, it can't be used when they have to be stealthy...which is good. The same principle applies to other Songs that can take affect some distance from the performer. > Cool, That makes sense, (even the "this makes it better so that can't be > it" answer) BUT, most of the time that I have been using this Song, > I'm just moving stuff. I.E. There is not a celestial at either end. Hey, > may> be that makes NO Noise. I could dig that. Nope, the Song always makes a disturbance. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:55:50 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Howl Janet Anderson wrote: > > Does the War attunement "Howl" cause celestial disturbance when it is used? No. > And if so, is the degree of disturbance affected by who its victims are (no > extra disturbance for stunning celestials, extra disturbance for stunning > humans)? Stunning does not cause a disturbance -- only inflicting actual damage does. In a campaign where you really want to make celestial intervention difficult and discourage gratuitous use of supernatural powers, it would be reasonable to assign some disturbance to Howl. But canonically, it does nothing that would directly cause a disturbance. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:05:22 -0000 From: "Laurent" Subject: IN> looking for URL I can't remember the URL where I found the non-canon Song of Gravity (or is it gravitaion?). Anyone who knows about it? Thanks Laurent. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:59:28 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? Tim Groth wrote: > As a general question (instead of sending out a logical argument) > is it just me or are Elohim obviously not objective because they > start with the assumption God is right. A very philosophical question. It seems to me that basic, canonical In Nomine is built on the premise that the common ground of the monotheistic religions is true, with enough kinks and additional detail to provide interesting color. "God is right" is part of that premise, and therefore part of the objective truth of that setting. Elohim will be hooked into that piece of objectivity by default. Any exceptions will be odd. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:07:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... EDG wrote: > The Elohite is feeling emotion. Not dissonant. > > The Elohite is allowing that emotion to color his actions. Dissonant. The original write-up on Elohim said their striving toward objectivity sometimes worries other angels because "hell is full of heartless angels." Expressing emotion is not the same as having your judgement swayed by the emotion. An Elohite that strives to never express emotion will then slide toward trying to never HAVE emotion (since sitting on unexpressed emotion is uncomfortable), and be building up pressure to eventually lash out and Fall. Either that or become truly heartless and Dive. Or that's at least as reasonable an interpretation as your well-written road-to-emotional-addiction scenario. For roleplaying purposes, it's actually quite dramatic if the character expresses an emotion that goes counter to the judgement they deliver. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:27:24 PST From: "Miles 2 Go" Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? >Tim Groth wrote: > > As a general question (instead of sending out a logical > > argument) is it just me or are Elohim obviously not objective > > because they start with the assumption God is right. Elohim hat is now on... What separates celestials (and humans) from the beasts is our ability to reason. It is God's gift to us to choose our actions and our consequences. That is the aspect of divinity that our choir represents. Not the suppression of emotion in favor of logic, but the triumph of reason over emotion. Intelligent thinking beings have the capability of chosing the moral path, to put aside the needs of the moment and do the right thing. remove hat... Remember that the choirs are supposed to be aspects of divinity. If you think of Elohim as logical aliens aka Vulcans/robots/etc. you are missing the point. Elohim embodies the aspect of divinity that is what religon says sets man apart from the beasts. This is the old Adam and Eve story, knowledge of good and evil. Man can choose, so he is more. This aspect of divinity is what the Elohim embody. The ability to make moral choices over immediate animal needs, to choose reason over emotion. At least that is my take. Tim ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:59:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? At 4:01 PM -0700 2/11/00, Tim Groth wrote: > As a general question (instead of sending out a logical argument) >is it just me or are Elohim obviously not objective because they start with >the assumption God is right. Well, Elohim will tell you that, objectively, God is right. Demons will tell you that Elohim are all deluded about their objectivity for exactly that reason -- they're all Heaven-biased. And there are, of course, other nuances, which I'll let others go into because last night, I woke up every hour, practically _on_ the hour, and had very annoying dreams involving Jesuits, anime, and a logic puzzle which only made _any_ sense in the context of the very annoying dream and not much there either. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:00:38 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... At 4:07 -0500 2/11/00, Robert Veneman-Hughes wrote: >What do you think? Is this dissonant? The Elohite is certainly feeling >emotion; however, that isn't dissonant in and of itself. I think no, but >I'm not sure... This certainly sounds plausible to me. Maybe a *bit* overemotional, but well within bounds, I'd say. The only question I'd ask was whether the emotional indulgence was taking the Elohite away from more important work. If not, then there's no problem. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:21:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Superiors 4 in playtest Soon http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/login/playtest/superiors4/ The board itself is not yet up, which gives people a chance to read thoughtfully instead of popping off with half-baked comments which are resolved in the next 1-4 paragraphs... O:> You need a Pyramid subscription ($15 a year) to get access to the playtest. If your comments are useful enough to the authors and editor, you get a free copy of the book... One very useful, terse comment is worth as much (if not more) than a bunch of scattershot comments. Of course, lots of very useful comments practically assure your place in those hallowed ranks... O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:14:26 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? I've always taken it that Elohim are allowed to make that assumption because despite God's current silence there is ample evidence not only for God being the first being but also being nigh all powerful (God doesn't need to be literally all powerful to seem that way, but that's a different discusion). So God gets to make the rules, and as the starting point trying to argue God is like dismantling the rules of logic. It can be done, but its not very productive and best left to Balseraphs. God is not just defeatable and therefor falliable, but he's a jerk. Elohim represent his worst aspect, blinding 'reason' in the face of reality, the desire to bring needless order and the repression of individuality (represented as the emotions the angels must justify through their divinly twisted logic). Arguing God is a neccesary thing because God is wrong, wrong, wrong. Balseraphs are best able to see this because they are masters of arguments. I liked the other Tim's response about how the Elohim represent the aspect of the divine that seperates man from other animals (though Jordi may grumble a bit at that). I hadn't thought of it in that way yet. However it remains that they do act out of loyalty (or other emotions) to heaven IF reason conflicts with what heaven (or God) demands. So unless they're allowed to assume the infalibility of God and thus the Heavinly structure (implemented by God) they aren't being objective or reasonable, their being loyal (or affraid, or loving, or whatever). Timothy, Angel of Rambling Go here, or else: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:29:55 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? At 18:01 -0500 2/11/00, Tim Groth wrote: > As a general question (instead of sending out a logical argument) >is it just me or are Elohim obviously not objective because they start with >the assumption God is right. More than that, they will generally have a bias in favor of their Superior's Word. In my campaign, they get around this by knowing that other Elohim serve other Words equally, and they all get together with each other and debate the relative merits of the positions of the Words they serve, thus coming to a sort of consensual objectivity. In other words, Elohim know that they're promoting their Superior's Word more than others, but that this is OK since their choirmates balance out the overall effect on the Symphony, and that all Words need to be served for the Symphony to prosper as a whole. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:43:03 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > The Elohite is allowing that emotion to color his actions. Dissonant. The real question is whether or not ranting and carrying on in private is an "action." For dissonance purposes, emotion is coloring the Elohite's choice of actions IF he would have done something else *more productive* (i.e., objectively more useful) without that emotional outburst. If he SHOULD have been working on a project, looking for information, hunting down the demon responsible, etc., but instead took time out to go have his fit, then I'd say he was dissonant. However, if the mission was essentially over, and there was nothing else of any importance that the Elohite could have done during that time, then he can probably get away with indulging in his emotions. But it's a *very* fine line he's walking. Of course an angel could always be doing *something* else, and probably something more useful than throwing a fit. I would agree with the others that this action was not *necessarily* dissonant, but it would be cause for concern, especially if it happns more than once. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:36:24 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Cel Song of Motion (Where is the noise?) At 17:16 -0500 2/13/00, Experimental Version wrote: >The disturbance created by the Celestial Song of Motion, Where does it >center at? Where you left? Where you went to? Both? (Gads, I hope not >both, that would make an Extremely Loud Noise (tm)). Generally, I'd say that it would come from both points, if they are any significant distance apart (i.e., where the disturbance wouldn't be considered additive). So jumping a few feet produces a single disturbance which appears to emanate from both the entry and exit points. Jumping a mile would generate two equal disturbances, one at the entry, and one at the exit. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:56:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Angry Elohite... David Edelstein wrote: > The real question is whether or not ranting and carrying on in private > is an "action." For dissonance purposes, emotion is coloring the > Elohite's choice of actions IF he would have done something else *more > productive* (i.e., objectively more useful) without that emotional > outburst. Granted. Going off and doing nothing but vent emotion is very un-Elohite-like. But I don't think expressing emotion need be. The Elohite could cry or curse or laugh (depending on the occasion) while going about its business, provided such expression did not interfere with its work. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:00:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Truly Objective Elohim? An interesting Elohite-like character, if you can track her down, is the allegorical figure of Reason in C. S. Lewis's obscure work, "Pilgrim's Regress." By the end of the book, you realize that she is God's own daughter, but, though she exposes the decites of the Enemy, she refuses to indulge any requests for sheer revelation. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:47:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> High-Contrast Words It has sometimes seemed to me that the Superior Words aren't heavenly and infernal enough. Of course, there are a couple of reasons for that. In the case of someone like Lilith, there's interest in taking a neutral or positive concept and putting an infernal spin on it. In the case of the "elemental" or "nature-spirit" Archangels, there's interest in giving them both moral and cosmic functions, since it is an ancient part of monotheism that cosmic and moral order are both rooted in God. BUT, if you want a higher-contrast campaign, here is a list of new Superior Words, slanted more toward Good vs. Evil, with "elemental" functions listed as secondary titles. (Unchanged Superiors are listed in parentheses.) Blandine - Hope (Mistress of Dreams) David - Loyalty (Master of Stone) Dominic - Justice (Eli - Creation) Gabriel - Inspiration (Mistress of Fire) Janus - Renewal (Master of Wind) Jean - Progress (Master of Lightning) Jordi - Freedom (Master of Animals) Laurence - Honor Marc - Prosperity Michael - Courage Novalis - Mercy (Mistress of Flowers) (Yves - Destiny) (Master of Time) (Andrealphus - Lust) Asmodeus - Snares (Baal - the War) Beleth - Fear Belial - Destruction (Master of Fire) (Haagenti - Gluttony) Kobal - Mockery (Kronos - Fate) Lilith - Anarchy Malphas - Discord Nybbas - Fame (Saminga - Death) Vapula - Artifice Comments? Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1530 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.