From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Feb 28 12:18:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA22569; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:06 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA30944 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:01:29 -0600 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:01:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199702281601.KAA30944@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 #47 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 Friday, February 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 047 In this digest: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> Coolness of Evil Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? Re: IN> Coolness Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Re: IN> Freed Lilim? Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Re: IN> Homocelestiality Re: IN> More Malakite Oaths... Re: IN> A few thinking points on "Fallen Angels" Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? Re: IN> More Malakite Oaths... Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> A Question of Cool IN> Resonance, Dissonance, and Discord Re: IN> Resonance, Dissonance, and Discord Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil IN> Cold War collaberations - WAS: Coolness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:32:37 -0500 From: "Rocky Roccoco" Subject: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? Okay, I apologize if this is completely obvious... If a PC celestial has his physical Vessel killed, and is forced to return to the Celestial Realm, how, in game terms, does he get a new vessel? Does she have to pay character points for it as during creation (the rules seem to imply this, but as there appears to be no way to obtain character points during Celestial "down-time" a character who didn't happen to have a bunch stockpiled at that moment would be screwed, effectively out of the game forever)? Or do they just get another one automatically (after coming out of trauma)? If so, what is its level? Same as the previous one? Superior (or GM) whim? The rules don't seem to directly address this. Thanx in advance for any help, Rocky Roccoco Impudite of Andrealphus, Demon of Pimps/ Mercurian of Eli, Angel of Psychedelia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 23:00:42 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen >> >Kestrel: >> >I'm not. I have a low opinion of Christians in general, particularly >> >the ones who proclaim it from the mountaintops. > >Oh really? Statistically speaking, there's a good chance that at least >one person you're on good terms with is Christian, and even goes to >church on Sunday, but surprise surprise, he doesn't preach or proselytize >every chance he gets. He just believes in the Christian god and chooses >to worship Him. [lots deleted] Ummm, what the hell is this crap? For someone who is not trying to be preachy, you went about it in the wrong way. *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:46:43 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Coolness of Evil On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Aaron Harmon wrote: > John Maurer hath spoken: > >>well, they needed an alternate choice. So God allowed > Lucifer to rebel. > > Hey, it wouldn't be the first time that God set up a fall guy simply to > further his cause. Somebody had to betray Jesus to further the cause, so > Judas betrayed him. > (I would have held out for more though, 30SP to betray the son of God? > Yucko!) Have you ever seen The Last Temptation of Christ? EXCELLENT film. Not strictly accurate to the Bible, but it was never meant to be. Willem Defoe plays Jesus, and Harvey Keitel plays Judas. In the film, Judas is of course Jesus' closest friend. But what surprised me was that Judas didn't WANT to betray him. Jesus knew that to be the Messiah, he had to sacrifice himself, and to do that, someone had to rat on him to the Romans. Judas, being his best friend, was the only one he could trust to do it. I highly reccommend the film. For one thing, it demonstrates the true power of a Balseraph. (You'll just have to see it to know what I mean. :) > > God needed a bad guy so that he could be the good guy. No bad guy = no good > guy. > > Whoa...I have been reading alot about Zen lately and now I feel like I am > drowning in dualism. To quote from the Tao Te Ching: What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job? |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:50:22 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Deathdog wrote: [without attribution] Raven: > >Oh really? Statistically speaking, there's a good chance that at least > >one person you're on good terms with is Christian, and even goes to > >church on Sunday, but surprise surprise, he doesn't preach or proselytize > >every chance he gets. He just believes in the Christian god and chooses > >to worship Him. > > [lots deleted] > > Ummm, what the hell is this crap? > For someone who is not trying to be preachy, you went about it in the > wrong way. Now now, children. This is unnecessary meta. This is also flaming. This (pointing to in-nomine-l) is supposed to be a polite list. Be nice. -- fish, who's not perfect either but tries. | fish flowers (i don't exist!) ><> |\ |\ \ / | | | |\ | > \/ |/| | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu, eidolon@io.com | |< /\ |/| | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | | \ / \ | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:52:52 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? My take on it is that Celestials who have lost their Vessels are, yes, required to pay character points for a new one, unless (of course) they're Kyriotates or Shedim. Of course, there are all sorts of alternate schemes you could work out, most of them bargaining with one Superior or another... seeing as how much of the character point award for most play comes from Superiors, they're obviously capable of pulling something like this off. Another possibility is just to kick around in the Celestial or Ethereal realms for awhile to gain the CPs needed. YMMV. -- fish. | fish flowers (i don't exist!) ><> |\ |\ \ / | | | |\ | > \/ |/| | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu, eidolon@io.com | |< /\ |/| | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | | \ / \ | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 23:06:36 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Coolness At 09:16 PM 2/26/97 EST, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>Kestrel: >>Dominic ferrets out Angelic Heresy, but works alongside Asmodeus as well. > > I wouldn't say 'alongside'. 'In conjunction with' would be better. To >get back to the Cold War metaphor, this is like the U.S. and the Soviet Union >working together to break up a criminal terrorist ring. Renegades are the >ememy of Both Sides. While Outcasts are a challenge for the diabolicals. If that were the case, Dominic's little helpers wouldn't hush up when asked about this. Also, aren't Renegades prime targets for Redemption, like Outcasts are for Falling? Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 23:06:37 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen At 09:16 PM 2/26/97 EST, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>Kestrel: >>I'm not. I have a low opinion of Christians in general, particularly >>the ones who proclaim it from the mountaintops. > >mountainside> In general. I don't know enough about you to say, but about half the "Christians" I know are either hateful bastards or think that God gave people free will, but Christians can take it away. Self-deluded "Soldiers of the Lord" who go on a "war" against atheists on ng and the like. Remember, -I- am a Christian as well. >>It's to suggest scarcity. Those prices were unheard of in those times. > > Exactly -- and this leads to Famine. Yep. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: HarlinHirs@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen In a message dated 97-02-28 00:07:41 EST, Kestrel writes: > I don't know enough about you to say, but > about half the "Christians" I know are either hateful bastards > or think that God gave people free will, but Christians can > take it away. Self-deluded "Soldiers of the Lord" who go on a > "war" against atheists on ng and the like. Remember, -I- am > a Christian as well. Heh... About ninety percent of EVERYBODY I know are either hateful bastards or think that they're entitled to curtail my free will. True, there are those folks who declare virtual crusades on newsgroups, but it seems there's a fair share of self-declared pagans who are always looking to scrap it up with a monotheist or two, as well. I seem to recall that this started as a discussion about Dominic... shall we ask ourselves at this point if it still is? Paul. Impudite of Nybbas, whose word is Sturgeon's Law. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:54:48 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Lenny Zimmermann wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Bill Reed wrote: > > > >What is ultimately to be gained? How does > >"doing evil" stack the oddds in favor of the diabolicals winning the War? > > >- - The Ultimate goal of the War is control of the Earth. When all the > >humans are gone, the Side with the most souls gets the Prize. > > One possible way of looking at it. Or perhaps it would be better to > say it is a PART of the picture? > > >- - Lucifer wants to be worshipped by more people than God. The more > >worshippers, the more powerful the Celestial is. Power is Lucifer's > >Ultimate Goal. Did any see the Babylon 5 episode where they finally ended the Shadow War? The thing about the Vorlons and the Shadows is this: They both had an ideology, and they both thought they were right. Every thousand years, they would duke it out. Between wars, they would influence younger races, trying to get them to their side of the debate, usually without them knowing it. But when open war broke out, they would never directly attack the enemy. In the last war, the Vorlons went around destroying planets with any Shadow influence, and the Shadows started doing the to the Vorlons. /But they never directly attacked each other./ Sheridan and Delenn finally figured it out: they didn't want to destroy the enemy, they wanted to prove to them that 'we are right and you are wrong'. If they destroyed them, they couldn't do that. Sheridan compared it to two parents fighting in front of their child, trying to get him to pick a side. Earlier, they had thought that the Vorlons were the good guys and the Shadows were the bad guys, but it was quickly learned that the were both equally screwed up. (For the record, the Vorlon ideology was order and strict obedience without question, while the Shadows believed in chaos and growth through violent conflict. Neither is really that appealing on its own, is it?) Maybe some demons (perhaps even Lucifer) have this same perspective. They don't want to win anything, they just want to prove God wrong. But prove Him wrong about what? > >My only problem with this one is, why hasn't God just smitten > >him, if it's a personal thing? Not everyone agrees that God /could/ smite him. I admit this is second hand, from friends who have spoken with Rabbis on the matter, but from what I've heard, the Jewish belief is that Satan was actually close to winning to First War. It was finally ended with a sort of truce: God agreed to let Satan and his rebels had free travel across the Earth, and Satan accepted being forever barred from entering Heaven. Their belief on why God allowed the Holocaust to happen was that he was too busy fighting another round with Satan, and didn't have the time and forces to spare. He did what he could to help, but it clearly wasn't enough. (So, I suppose God really /can/ make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, metaphorically speaking.) > >Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? > > I think the biggest clue we have, at least in game terms, is that > Lucifer and his Diabolicals are all doing nothing more than promoting > selfishness. This may not be a "war" about power at all, it could be > more akin to a fight between a teenage boy and his father. The > own way. Maybe that "free will" concept is just as strong in the > Celestial realm as it is here. An interesting interpretation. I think I'll toss out my own theories now: Moral objection: Here's another theory I got second hand from a Rabbi through a friend. Satan was the first created and most loved of the angels. He was also the one gifted with the most power, and the first of God's creations to have free will. He was troubled, though, by all the horrible things that the angels were asked to do: slaughtering first born children, turning cities to salt, and so on. He was the first angel to ask God "Why?" God's reply was, essentially, "Because I'm God and I say so." Satan was not satisfied, and so he rebelled. Pride: This is the one most supported by the Christian community as I understand it. Lucifer was too proud of his status, and thought that he could run the world better than God could, and so attempted to overthrow Him. Love of God: Check out my recent post, where I mentioned The Last Temptation of Christ, and why Judas betrayed Jesus. Perhaps God needed a bad guy, as someone proposed earlier. The trials of life would be pointless without a source of conflict. So God asked Lucifer, his most trusted angel, to rebel againt him. He hated to do it, but he knew it was important. The universe, the angels, and most importantly, humanity, could not be made perfect without a babtism in fire. This would be perfect for the Habbalah, as it would explain why something that thinks it serves God would be working evil. Love of a Demon: If an angel fell in love with a demon somehow (in Good Omens, we se an angel an demon become friends; love is only a step further), or perhaps loves an angel who later falls, despair and a desire to be with his beloved may drag him into the Pit as well. Hate: A simplistic reason, but it still works. The demon, for whatever reason, hates God. Perhaps most appropriate for a demon created after the Fall, who resents his damned status and blames God for it. Love turned sour: We all know how love can turn to hate all too easily. The demon (or even Lucifer) could love God, but may have been embittered by some incident that made him feel as though his love was not returned. For example, an angel who falls may not really be evil; after all, he was an angel, but just lost his way. Perhaps he feels that God betrayed him, especially if his Dissonance was gained in the line of duty, and he felt that there was no way to avoid it. He may hate God for letting him turn Infernal, when all he was trying to do was serve Him. This could be appropriate for any fallen angel, but not for a born demon. It could work especially well for one who fell because of love for a demon. Righteous hatred: The demon (or again, Lucifer) may hate God, and may feel he is in the right. A possible reason may be that he percieved God as a fascist, who created the world to filter out all the human souls who wouldn't be willing to worship him unconditionally. He is of course unwilling to accept this, and so he rebelled against God. In this case, The demon or Lucifer would not really be interested in working evil, but in fouling God's plans. Any acts of 'evil' would be along the lines of terrorism; many groups have committed heinous acts to promote something they saw as righteous. This perspective is well suited for human Satanists (I think Anton LaVey's Church of Satan follows a similar belief, that God is actually evil, and Satan is the force of good, or at least freedom), Lilim, and Balseraphs. It might even be interesting to play an entire campaign on In Nomine in a 'parallel world' where this theory is actually /true/. You could play a group of demons who work free humanity from God's tyranny, and a group of angels who, for some reason, realize what's really going on, and rebel (and of course, fall). Any of these motivations could be used in In Nomine; any of them could be the predominant reason, depending on what you want to do with your campaign. The Love motivation, although taken to less of a dramatic extreme, could work for a 'Good Omens' style game, where most demons looks on their jobs like a tax collector (as Crowley put it in the book), basically just doing their job. Or the main motivation of the Diabolical forces could be the Righteous Hatred theory, where most (if not all) of the demons think they're in the right. Such a campaign, if one side ever got a good earful of the other's philosophy, could force the characters to decide who's right. Also, it seems to have been left out of the final cut, but something I remember from a playtest copy I got from Illuminati Online (back when I had an account there), that said that Lucifer was a Balseraph. Kinda makes ya think. It would explain how he got a third of the Heavenly Host to join him... ;) > > Perhaps there is no great "Plan" at all, but it is how the Celestials > make sense of THEIR world. No matter how you look at it always > remember that when you have created something in your game world and > your players question it, even if you agree with them in concept, what > is done is done and you can always fall back on "It is all part of a > much greater Plan that none of us can understand". Then see if you can > work the "screw-up" in as an advantage to your side at some later > point. HA! I like that idea; I'll definitely have to use it. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:10:21 -0800 (PST) From: Jason Newquist Subject: Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Raven wrote: > (For the record, the Vorlon ideology was order and strict obedience > without question, while the Shadows believed in chaos and growth through > violent conflict. Neither is really that appealing on its own, is it?) The Vorlon ideology is harder to place, but it's probably something like Dominic's. Remember the Inquisitor (from Season 2, I think it was). > Maybe some demons (perhaps even Lucifer) have this same perspective. They > don't want to win anything, they just want to prove God wrong. But prove > Him wrong about what? The Shadow ideology is found in David. Pretty clearly. - ---------------------------------- Jason Newquist, lists@nocturne.org Network Operations, San Jose Netcom Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:29:11 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Freed Lilim? On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Thany wrote: > What, if anything, would happen if a Lilim managed to pay off all her > Geases? I would imagine that, after a breif vacation from the gofer routine, the Lilim in question would get bored and/or realize that she isn't getting anywhere sitting on her rear and get back into the trading game. > (for another, how do you spell the plural of geas?) Geasa, IIRC. Oops da Ogre, who would like to take this opportunity to point out that Lilith has just made an advancement in Ireland; although there is a four-year waiting period, divorce is now legal in Ireland! - -- Oops da Ogre (mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu) Donald G. Bixler "Bah! Vhat good is science if no one gets hurt?" -Dr. Chromedome ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:39:25 +0200 (EET) From: Ella Lynoure Rajamaki Subject: Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Raven wrote: > Did any see the Babylon 5 episode where they finally ended the Shadow > War? The thing about the Vorlons and the Shadows is this: They both had This is not "USA only" -list, so please please do not spoil Babylon 5 for the people who have not seen the episode yet (I have, but there might be others who havenīt)!!! It is evil to spoil, you know... Lynoure (who BTW doesnīt believe those are the only Shadow motivations) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:40:56 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Homocelestiality On 27 Feb 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > 3. A humanoid and animal coupling of celestials is not bestiality. A > humanoid and object-like coupling is not a fetish. A male and male coupling > is not homosexuality. A male and female coupling is not heterosexuality. > Those concepts just don't apply to the celestials. They are not sexed and > engendered in their celestial forms; they are beyond such distinctions. If > anything, 'unisexual' or 'omnisexual' would be better terms, if applicable at > all. There is no celestial sexual drive oriented toward wheels of fire, > serpents, male or female forms. There is no celestial sexual orientation > except to another celestial, disregarding their form. I dunno If I agree with this. It makes sense assuming that Celestials have a sexual nature, but I don't agree that they do. Sexuality ultimately derives from a mortal species' need to propogate. While Celestials can be destroyed, they are not really mortal. Without another celestial tearing them apart Force by Force, they would live forever. Of course, angles and demons get destroyed, and their numbers need to be replaced. However, new celestials are created, not born. Now, of course, love can exist between to celestials, even romantic love. A couple may even choose to have a 'child', that is, raise a newly created angel (or nurture a new reliever as it grows to angel status, however it's done). There /might/ (heavy emphasis on 'might') even be some form of celestial lovemaking that involved joining their celestial forms and linking minds, and would obviously be an incredible experience, but I don't think it can really be termed sexuality. Some of the details may be similar, but the overall concept is quite different. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:49:36 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> More Malakite Oaths... > At 04:38 PM 2/26/97 +0000, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >Suggested Malakim Oaths: > > > >I still get the impression that Malakites do generate a _ sort_ of > >dissonance whenever they go against their true nature (i.e. act in an > >`anti-resonance' rashion). Thus, Malakites would undertake even more > >stringent personal codes of conduct in an attempt to prove their > >absolute dedication to the War. I tend to use them as role-playing > >cues, and methods by which to bring about more dimension to a > >character that may be in danger of becoming "just another Fighter". > >Think of Samurai, who spent their spare time drilling, learning new > >skills, arranging flowers, writing poetry, etc. as part of their > >personal code: this was their way of proving their devotion to their > >vocation. The following are some additional Malakite > >oaths/codes/promises. On a related, but different topic, that of the Malakim's inability to fall: I personally disagree with what the book says on the matter. To me it makes more sense that, instead of gainisg Discord in lieu of falling, Malakim only make it far as Outcast. Outcast Malakim are hunted brutally and mercilessly. His Superior gives access to his Heart to the Stark Fist of Removal (i.e., Dominic's Malakim Green Berets), and they turn him into the celestial equivalent of a moist red spot. And while we're talking about Samurai/Malakim and their hobbies, don't forget Neko Bana: the Japanese art of cat arranging. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:59:19 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> A few thinking points on "Fallen Angels" On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 HarlinHirs@aol.com wrote: > 2) Genesis 6:2 (New International Version) "The sons of God saw that the > daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." > (Note: It's not ME deciding this, it's a whole lot of dead rabbis...) In > other words, the angels were tempted by the beauty of women, and fell... > right into their arms. This is actually the most frequent attribution when > there is a legend or reference to the reason why a specific named angel fell. > 5) (Which should be right next to #2, actually, as it's related) Angels were > set to watch over the affairs of humanity and simply "Went native." This > seems like the Gregori's situation in IN... Actually, Genesis 6:2 IS referring to the Grigori. Neither Derek Pearcy nor Croc made them up; they are an actual part of Hebrew folklore, along with the Nephilim. 'Man, Myth & Magic', an encyclopedia on the occult, under Devil, mentions the Watchers. Soemwhere else (I forget where) I found the name Grigori attached to them. Speaking of whom, are we ever gonna see more stuff on either the Grigori or the Nephallim (as IN spells it)? I'd love to know what their abilities and weaknesses are, and them and Nephallim would make some tasty NPC's. Or PC's? I wonder... |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:07:58 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, fish wrote: > Another possibility is just to kick around in the Celestial or > Ethereal realms for awhile to gain the CPs needed. Or go into 'CP debt', being granted a vessel by your Superior, but if you don't have enough CP's, he takes all you have, and the ones you earn automatically go to the vessel until it's payed off. Since alot of used of CP can be interpreted as earning boons from your Superior, if you've done weel in the past, he's probably be willing to cut you some slack. Just don't ask for much for a while... |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:43:41 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: Re: IN> More Malakite Oaths... Okay, Kestrel... here goes... 1. The original post was made before Moriah so helpfully cleared up my player's misconceptions. Malakites do become Outcasts, they just don't Fall all the way. Outcast Malakites are probably hunted by Dominic. 2. The Year/Month/Week distinctions were made for various players/GM's to fit into their mode of play. I personally agree with **some** (actually, not many) of your comments, but I understand where the confusion came from. I was essentially proposing the IDEA of the oath, and leaving the Temporal Restrictions up to individual interpretation. Rather than me lay down from my limited perspective the absolute LAW about how an oath would relate to a temporal limit, I merely gave different time schemes, in an effort to better enable a GM to fit the oath to their gaming style. As well, leaving the temporal component open allows the component to grow more stringent if the player so chooses. However, once a stringent oath is taken, it can't be set aside, altered, or changed. It's an OATH!!! I'd rather leave options open for GM's, rather than try to dictate a single LAW that probably would be inapplicable in certain situations. I'm not about to pass on MY style of play to somebody else's game... Odd's are, my party is too stringent for most people's tastes (latin dictionaries are your responsibility... you forget to bring yours, that's not MY fault...) 3. Some of the oaths are very hard-nosed and difficult to play... this was done on purpose. Your critiques based on this notion are not necessarily well placed. Such oaths as "fight alone... always" are accurate examples of Warrior Oaths taken from Chivalric/Skald/Comotatis (sp?)/Samurai lore. Such oaths are options for player characters and NPC's... they are not going to be forced upon an unwilling character. These merely reflect the types of Oaths SOME warriors will WANT to take. Many Warriors adopted Oaths that were EXTREMELY ARDUOUS!!! I know you obviously didn't like the more hard-ass attitudes some of them put forward, but some Malakites are going to be hard-asses! Not that I'm going to go out of my way to force people to try and work around some nut-ball Warrior Malakite's Stupid Oath of Honour, but that could very well be somebody's character's oath, and they've just got to live with it!!! 4. Yes, Oaths do piss off some people. They piss off your friends, they piss off your enemies, and they may piss of an Archangel or two. However, the nature of an Oath is such that you don't care who you piss off! THE OATH IS OF PRIMARY PRIORITY! Sorry if somebody's toes get stepped on, but that's the price of Honour!! It is better to to be a dead lion than a live jackal!! (from this perspective... personally, I'd rather be a live lion ;-) ) 5. I got the point about Laurence's fighters being more honourable, and Michael's fighters winning more often... but I don't see the relevance. Sorry, but a warrior can choose many combat styles (low-down dirty fighting is okay for some...), and still swear off any assistance. Thus, Michael's fighters may be the more dangerous because they will happilly kick sand in the other guy's eyes, (but they still want to *do* him one-on-one!...from this perspective, any single combat is honourable, even "dirty" fighting) while Laurence's warriors are more chivalric-type honourable Soldiers, who are used to fighting on a SIDE (and obey the gentlemen's rules of combat, yet would gladly receive assistance from their comrades in arms .) This is simply a different interpretation. If you don't like to play them this way... don't! That's merely the interpretation we've adopted. 5.a. Your comments about Yves show that we obviously differ in our interpretation about Him. My group tends to see Yves as a Sage Archangel, with interests not only in Destiny, but in Knowledge and Self-Discovery (hence his interest in Religion). Academic-pursuits seem to fall under his wing, as it were. Thus, the suggestions we made were completely in keeping with this facet of his character, if not necessarily compulsively bound to his "Word". 6. Your constructive/useful/re-defining comments were less frequent than your other sorts , but still very pleasant. I enjoyed those. Yes, a pick is a good weapon for David, Notre-Dame, I'm not an animal Sadist, , and that sort of stuff. 7. You said you "weren't sure of the exercise". Well, I guess I'm not sure of the extreme amount of effort you put into "critiquing" the suggestions, compared to the little you actually had to "say". Your arguments and insights just weren't up to the quality I've come to expect from you. Take your comments about the reference to Janus... I suggested that agents of Change would want to wreck an evil building, or Site of Diabolical Influence, and then simply start from scratch so that True change could occur through re-building. You then "respond" by saying "Um... Why? Janus is about change." I'm sorry, but I just said that, and showed how Change could motivate someone towards demolition (also reflected in their attunement, no?) It seemed you were generally nit-picking about the DETAILS of the Oaths, when they were purposefully left general enough to be adaptable to any GM's style of play. I'm not one for blanket judgements written in stone... I guess I'm afraid of commitment, and need to take my own Oaths :-) Walk in Beauty, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com Did you hear the one about the Buddhist Monk who Walked up to the hot-dog vendor and said ... "Make me One with everything!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:29:23 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> New Vessels (rules question)? On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, fish wrote: > Another possibility is just to kick around in the Celestial or > Ethereal realms for awhile to gain the CPs needed. This occured to me, but then I answered myself with, "Gee, that's fun. I'll dick around in Heaven, while the rest of the characters actually get the job done." This solution, like roleplaying a Fallen angel, is usually going to be unrealistic, since it forces the GM to now run two different games. | Don Fnordlioni | donfnord@pitt.edu | http://www.pitt.edu/~donfnord | Please use PGP encryption when writing Finger donfnord@pitt.edu for key ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Raven wrote: > I am greatly troubled by some of the things that have been done in teh > name of God in the past; so are my Christian friends, and I would gather, > most Christians. The Roman Catholic Church has been the biggest offender > in this realm, at least as far a judeo-christian religions. However, it > has generally been the church's /leadership/ that has been corrupt, /not/ > the masses of Christian people who made up Europe's population during the > Crusades and witch hunts. You know, you're right. And, on second look, I've decided to become a Nazi. Just don't start bashing me just cause of World War II, or bring up that whole genocide thing. That was the leadership's fault, not mine. > I am trying my best not to flame here, but I get deeply disturbed when > people start categorically dismissing people based on their religion. > It's no better than basing it on skin color or gender. Actually, there's a big difference -- you can't choose your sex or color. I'm with Kestrel -- I have no love for Christians, and I'm not afraid to come right out and say it. I don't like what they've done to Western civilization, and I don't like the "oh, that was then, this is now" dodge. May the flaming begin! Don Fnordlioni, Habbalah of Dark Humor, hoping to score points with the Lillim of E-Mail Flames for invoking Nazis in a thread. "The other night in the parkling lot, a Christian said to me, 'Brother, I will pray for you.' 'No, sir,' I retorted, 'you will BE prey for me!'" - --Reverend Joe Momma, SubGenius Tour of Slack, 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:03:38 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John Maurer wrote: > And COMPLETELY off topic... Are there Male Lilim? Yes there can be Lilim who consider themselves male. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:23:52 -0500 (EST) From: AK Subject: IN> Resonance, Dissonance, and Discord I can't remember if I read this answer or not but does the amount of dissonance and/or discord one have an effect (i.e. difficulty modifier) on other rolls, especially resonance rolls? anthony ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:48:45 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Resonance, Dissonance, and Discord On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, AK wrote: > I can't remember if I read this answer or not but does the amount > of dissonance and/or discord one have an effect (i.e. difficulty modifier) > on other rolls, especially resonance rolls? Yes. Discord does not, but Dissonance subtracts one from your chance of activating your Resonance for each point of Dissonance you have. (Ouch.) That's why it's a possibility to swap Dissonance for Discord, and why Outcasts start out with three levels of Discord -- it's assumed that they cashed in that Dissonance (what made them Trip) for Discord, because who cares? Their Superior isn't too pleased with them anyway, and they'll need to be able to use their Resonance just to _survive_, much less keep from Falling with another botched Dissonance roll... -- fish | fish flowers (i don't exist!) ><> |\ |\ \ / | | | |\ | > \/ |/| | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu, eidolon@io.com | |< /\ |/| | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | | \ / \ | | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:35:13 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Coolness of Evil > Any help? What are the Diabolicals trying to acheive in the end? > Each demon has their own, unique, selfish goal. In the end this might simply mean Power, but not in all cases. Demons work for their superiors in order to forward their own goals (which might be simple survival in the rather brutal demonic hierarchy!). Each demon prince has their own goals which they drive into their subordinates. Each of them, in turn, have their own selfish desires, which they have to subordinate at times out of fear for their peers and their boss. No one is quite sure what Lucifer wants... and that's they way he likes it. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:01:45 +0000 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: IN> Cold War collaberations - WAS: Coolness > > At 09:16 PM 2/26/97 EST, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >>Kestrel: > >>Dominic ferrets out Angelic Heresy, but works alongside Asmodeus as well. > > > > I wouldn't say 'alongside'. 'In conjunction with' would be better. To > >get back to the Cold War metaphor, this is like the U.S. and the Soviet Union > >working together to break up a criminal terrorist ring. Renegades are the > >ememy of Both Sides. While Outcasts are a challenge for the diabolicals. > > If that were the case, Dominic's little helpers wouldn't hush up when asked > about this. Also, aren't Renegades prime targets for Redemption, like Outcasts > are for Falling? > > Kestrel > > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #47 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.