From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 1 09:10:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA21290 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:10:11 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA04034 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:49:00 -0600 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:49:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199812011449.IAA04034@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1029 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, December 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1029 In this digest: Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Oops IN> Email received (Re: Pagan Soldiers) Re: IN> !! Wanted Home Product Assemblers !! Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Oops Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) IN> Atheists and Angelic Humans? Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) IN> Tethers to places (Re: Nybbas non-evil?) Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Atheists in IN IN> Good and Evil Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> The College of Saints Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) IN> Re: Nybbas non-evil? Re: IN> Atheists in IN Re: IN> Re: Nybbas non-evil? Re: IN> Atheists in IN- and time differences Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 17:19 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN >True, but we weren't talking about "automatic" redemption, but >"spontaneous" redemption. I agree that it would be very poor GMing to >arbitrarily force a Habbalah PC to redeem just because of a wacky die >roll. However, IF that player thought it would be good roleplaying to >redeem on the spot, spontaneously, without the help of an AA, would that >fit into canon? I'm curious. I don't think it's explicitly forbidden anywhere in canon, but I suspect it will never be supported in canon, either. Personally, I prefer to keep this as CDaU. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:25:27 +0000 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Oops John wrote: > YES! Humans are humans. Celestials are celestials. One > cannot become the other! > Your individual campaign may vary... but this is Canon. It's pretty much also Canon that God (especially) and Lucifer (maybe) can do what they like, to hell with the rules. If God decides to shuffle some ex-human's forces around and say that he/she can be an angel, no Archangel is going to argue (admittedly, this is unlikely to occur). Also, if Lucifer decides to do the same to a condemned soul on a whim, it would be a brave Demon Prince who would argue to his face... Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:42:00 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Email received (Re: Pagan Soldiers) At 2:53 PM +1100 11/29/98, KC wrote: >Casey, Balser... Ummm... Seraphim... of Gabriel... Yeah... No really I am!! You're plural? O;> >P.S I currently get the Digest version of this mail list... I'd like to get >the full, but won't that give me 80 email a day or something? It depends on the day -- sometimes, yes. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:49:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> !! Wanted Home Product Assemblers !! At 9:39 PM -0500 11/29/98, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >Hunt these people down and destroy them. I sent email to AOL... You might want to do the same, since they would hopefully listen to people who are paying for their service... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:19:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN At 9:26 PM -0800 11/29/98, Greg Jensen wrote: >[...] Since not all >angels are kind, do all demons have to be cruel? Short answer: no, they don't. Longer answer: since a lot of demons (especially Balseraphs) don't see anyone else as entirely *real* except themselves (and maybe the Princes), they don't tend to *want* to do things that are good unless it benefits them somewhat (more friendly people around them) *and* it's no skin off their nose. (More on that if you pick up the Infernal Player's Guide, in the Redemption chapter. Plug, plug.) There are also Habbalah, who see weaknesses all around them that cannot be allowed to contaminate Heaven, or Shedim, who just like to make other people wallow in their filth, or Calabim, who like to break things or people. Even the nicest demons (usually drawn from the ranks of Lilim and Impudites) tend to see humans as quasi-disposable toys. Valuable property at best. Pets. There's more than one kind of evil. Some kinds of evil are so soft and gentle that you never notice them -- until it's too late. Remind me, someday, to talk about my masochistic Balseraph of Lust (NPC) and what she is actually intended for when she's not being the comic relief. Alternatively, play it as more satire -- there are *only* shades of gray, *only* antiheroes, no matter which side they claim to be on. (Walter mentions some of my non-canon ideas...) (Lilim and enlightened self-interest, sure. I do a favor for you, you do a favor for me later, and we're happy and get along and all is well. And if you don't do me that favor afterwards, then whether or not I have a Geas-hook in you, you're gonna regret that you ever ticked me off, you little scummy git.) (Since Lilim all know they think like that, they tend to be "nice" among each other because if they aren't, they've just made an enemy who is capable of hooking them later and serving revenge at absolute zero. Amazing how nice and fluffy people can act when they've all got a gun at their belts. No, they're *not* doing it to be nice; they do it because if they don't... Even the Free have rules, though you'll never hear them say so. And if this results in a surface that seems amazingly nice and polite, well, that's a nice benefit as well, so young Lilim had better not rock the comfortable boat that the older Lilim have got running smoothly.) (Well, they can. They don't take orders unless they want to, dissonant otherwise. And all polite Lilim know better than to order Free sisters around, since that just gets backchat and wastes time. They phrase everything as a request, adding "Please" and "Would you" to their instructions. Why? Because a weaker Lilim will be glad to do something for her more powerful sister (unofficial favors, though, remember) if they all keep up the fiction that the more powerful one wouldn't try to force compliance.) (But the consequences of not fitting in can get nasty...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:04:10 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Oops At 3:02 AM -0800 11/30/98, Casey Eayrs wrote: >It sure didn't like my last message... Bloody Netscape... > >Ahhh welll... All's better :) > >Patrick O'Duffy Wrote: > >"Ah, no. Bear in mind that Celestials ARE NOT HUMANS AND HAVE NEVER >BEEN HUMANS [...] > >Really??? Really. There's some errata about humans becoming demons in Night Music (which, I was told, was intended as sarcasm. *sigh*) but otherwise mortal-souls are mortal-souls and celestials are celestials and the twain do not meet. Undead and Saints are as close as humans get. (Lilith is an exception, but we're disregarding her -- she was created directly by God and Lucifer is The Balseraph, so hey.) If you got the idea humans could become celestials, it had *BETTER* not be from anything in the main book... >Actually my first game I was planning to run (Tomorrow... Ahhhh >CRAP!!!!!) is based on a bunch of mundanes becoming Soldiers, then >Relievers, and then eventually Angels... Looks like that one's shot to >pieces... Ahhh welll... Maybe it can be a sort of house-rules type >game... :) House-rules are always fine -- the Malakim in Black won't come after you. The Habbalah in Black might, but only if you start trying to argue quasi-canon from house-rules. >Also Saints are something I know nothing of... Damn it I need more >books!!! :( They're in _Night Music_ -- basically 7+ Force humans who have come back (with the permission of a Superior) and have some limited celestial-like abilities. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:25:37 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Pagan Soldiers At 6:07 AM +1100 12/1/98, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >Perry Lloyd wrote: > >> What about Ethereal Soldiers' Essebce supply? Rather than getting >> Essence for doing things to serve their superior, they lose it, sending >> Essence to their superior. (Right?) That's a Definite Minus. > > My reading was that when a Soldier perfoms one of their Superior's >Rites, the Superior gets a bit of Essence - but the Soldier doesn't _lose_ >that Essence. It just comes out of the Symphony. No, they're losing their Essence. It's a worship Rite, p. 95: "These [Rites] do not _generate_ Essence . . . they _channel_ Essence from worshippers to the object of worship." Etc. in that paragraph. It transfers Essence from the worshipper to the ethereal god. Now, mind you, the list of Rites below is *TOTALLY UNCLEAR* about whether these Rites give the Essence to the performer or to the ethereal, so I will be in a snitty mood about that for a while... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:27:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN At 3:29 PM -0500 11/30/98, Pee Kitty wrote: >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >> > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, >> >> As far as I know, it's totally unknown in canon, though not explicitly >> forbidden. (I've got some plans in my own game that it might happen as >> part of the Millenium.) > >What about Habbalah who roll a divine intervention on Emptiness? While >that's not an automatic redemption for sure, the book seems to suggest >that MANY who do that just...redeem. Right there, on the spot. They become instant candidates for Redemption, but they still need an Archangel to help them untwist their Forces. They just *UNDERSTAND* that they were deluded and wrong. If they *couldn't* find someone to help them get back to Heaven, they might backslide... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:33:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN At 4:25 PM -0500 11/30/98, Pee Kitty wrote: >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >> >> > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, >True, but we weren't talking about "automatic" redemption, but >"spontaneous" redemption. I agree that it would be very poor GMing to >arbitrarily force a Habbal[ite] PC to redeem just because of a wacky die >roll. However, IF that player thought it would be good roleplaying to >redeem on the spot, spontaneously, without the help of an AA, would that >fit into canon? I'm curious. Technically, it would not. But there is, in the Redemption section that says something like, "Divine Intervention aside, only an Archangel [can redeem a demon]." Canon allows the possibility, sort of, but it's certainly nothing common, no. If I let a PC spontaneously redeem, there would be a major political circus about it, not to mention what Asmodeus would want with such a traitor. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:34:15 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: [some Dresneresque ranting snipped :)] > There is an obvious way to fix this - make some things in the game very > bad and some things very good and let everyone else fall in between the > range. The best possible outposts to determine absolute good and absolute > bad in the system are the Archangels and Demon Princes who have worked and > slaved and sweated to be the absolute powers in the universe. But for > some reason there is a blatant refusal to use them as such and let the > NPCs and the characters fall in the in between areas. I agree with this, partly. I think -some- of the AA:s should be the holiest, nicest, most goody-goody people there are, and -some- of the DP:s should be so evil, nasty, horrible, depraved and so lacking in personal hygiene that people fall over and die just 'cause they try to imagine it. But I don't think -all- the AA:s should be totally good and just, and - -all- the DP:s totally evil. There should be grades of goodness and evil. Granted, most, or all, AA:s will come quite close to the Ultimate Good corner, and most, or all, DP:s will come quite close the Ultimate Evil corner, depending on what kind of campaign you want. If you want a simple slugfest of Birdwings vs. Batwings, making everyone Totally Good or Totally Evil makes things simpler. But if you want a more ambiguous setting, making the Superiors less easy to figure out is a plus, IMO. Now, which AA:s are the most Good and which DP:s the most evil is up to the individual GM, of course... ;) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:52:48 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > I agree with this, partly. I think -some- of the AA:s should be the > holiest, nicest, most goody-goody people there are, and -some- of the DP:s > should be so evil, nasty, horrible, depraved and so lacking in personal > hygiene that people fall over and die just 'cause they try to imagine it. > But I don't think -all- the AA:s should be totally good and just, and > -all- the DP:s totally evil. There should be grades of goodness and evil. > Granted, most, or all, AA:s will come quite close to the Ultimate Good > corner, and most, or all, DP:s will come quite close the Ultimate Evil > corner, depending on what kind of campaign you want. If you want a simple > slugfest of Birdwings vs. Batwings, making everyone Totally Good or > Totally Evil makes things simpler. But if you want a more ambiguous > setting, making the Superiors less easy to figure out is a plus, IMO. > > Now, which AA:s are the most Good and which DP:s the most evil is up to > the individual GM, of course... ;) No, it should be reflected in the game system. The Archangels and the Demon Princes, very much so, make up the universe in which the canon material is published. In making Saminga _very_ evil, we have something to measure Nybbas's different but not as deadly evil against, and on the other side of the coin you can really see the goodness in Novalis and Laurence. And then there is some justification of why Malakim take oaths to not suffer evil to live. It's a great big machine. If one side balances out, then the other side balances out nicely and it all runs nicely and logically. But if it doesn't then there is no reason for the other side to exist. The argument of why there should be no fluffy Princes at all is that it negates the argument for why one needs a Heaven in the first place. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:56:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > In response to this and other comments on the subject, I'd like to point > out that the original intent of the game, as I understand it, was for > there to be a lot of ambiguity about good and evil on both sides. From > this point of view, the AAs seem to come out in various shades of gray, > sometimes pretty dark -- there are a fair number of dubious aspects to > them. But the DPs tend to come off much more toward the black end of > the spectrum, with few, if any, ah... redeeming features. > > For some reason, a lot of people seem to be a lot more comfortable with > darkish AAs than lightened DPs. I don't know if this is due to the > current fad for "dark" roleplaying (I know Em has the "brightness" knob > all the way down...), or if there's something else going on. Heh. I doubt I've started any sort of fad toward dark roleplaying. I was gaming that way long before I ever ran into In Nomine. I would suspect there is something else going on. We've had 10 books now, if you count the ones which are in production. Out of 10 books, I can say that, as a GM, I use only one on a regular basis + the main sourcebook. That's not a great batting average. People are looking for something more... something inspired, something great, something they want to read and say, "That is so cool that I will buy this book and use it in my campaign over here which uses a completely different system, along with my In Nomine campaign." And we're all still... waiting. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:15:07 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) At 01:06 PM 11/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >I could not agree more. Nybbas and Lilith (Andrealphus, Haagenti and Kobal >as well) give me no reason to have nightmares, if I was simply to read >their canon descriptions from the supplements and pithy quips. The >diabolical in them seems to have changed rather a lot from the original >core book to sort of a warm, happy evil. The sort of evil that you >wouldn't want to bring home to mother, but nonetheless nothing really >spooky. The thing is, that's fine if you want to do a lighter campaign. >However, for really dark versions of the RPG (which I tend towards), it's >really pretty inappropriate. Different people, religions, and even different archangels all seem to have their own ideas about what's evil and what isn't. Dominic seems to think that Eli, and possibly Michael, are evil. Eli and Lilith don't seem too far apart, to me. I think it's easy enough to make Andre, Haagenti, Kobal, and Nybbas pretty scary with a bit of work, but I'm not sure that's needed. To some people, acts of lust, gluttony, etc. are more evil than things that would give me nightmares. I think this can add to a dark campaign in forcing the characters into moral dilemmas. What would they do if David's Malakim were torturing and killing a bunch of Andrealphus' Lilim? Would they side with the devils or the angels? The demons certainly aren't good, but are they don't seem to be doing any real harm (perhaps they operate a strip club). Seeing the good guys act like the bad guys (and vice-versa) definitely adds a dark mood to the game, as the PCs won't know who to side with. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:02:33 EST From: Gruzzle@aol.com Subject: IN> Atheists and Angelic Humans? I beleive the core rules book made it very clear that religion has nothing to do with whether one goes to heaven or hell. True, some Archangels may *support* the theologies of Christianity or other religions--maybe strongly--however, this doesn't mean these religions are the end-all facts of the universe. True, their manifesto might posess certain ideas of nice philosophical merit and what not, but this doesn't mean they exists as the only truth, or that there can't exist other truths which may have *nothing* do to with their truth. Yes, Religion has its perks and can be very nice. However, one doesn't need to follow a certain dogma in order to be selfless enough to make it into heaven. (as far as In Nomine is concerned, imo) ---------------------------------- Also, I'd like to say that humans and celestials are, as far as canon should ever be concerned, too separate beings incapable of truly becoming the other (though they might come very close as remnants or saints). This is simply because Humans are part of the symphony, angels are not. The make of an angels forces is totally different from that of a human. Now, as far as wanting dead humans to be "guardian angels", I think that would be canonically possible--just treat the human as a sort of saint/ghost, or maybe just a ghost.... or hell, maybe just plant the human's forces into a corporeal body with remnantesque memories (they don't really know why, but for some reason they recall that old family members (who are strangers to them for now) are nice people deserving of their kindness and help). Anyway, I think I've lost myself now, so I probably lost all of you.... of course, all of the above is merely my take as of now on the game.... the only definite I can say for In Nomine is that there is no definite, no real answer. The game treats life as an abstraction, a place with no real answers but instead more questions. Just like a good story/seed, each person must formulate and act upon their own theories based upon the abstract background presented to them--no one choice being a right or wrong answer. There I go losing myself again, I better stop while I'm ahead... well, while I'm here. - -Twitch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 19:20 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) >Heh. I doubt I've started any sort of fad toward dark roleplaying. I was >gaming that way long before I ever ran into In Nomine. I didn't say you *started* it -- I was just using you as one of the more obvious local examples.... Dark roleplaying was certainly around well before IN, and is the fad that WW exploited, though they're probably not the earliest example. >I would suspect there is something else going on. We've had 10 books >now, if you count the ones which are in production. Out of 10 books, I >can say that, as a GM, I use only one on a regular basis + the main >sourcebook. That's not a great batting average. On the other hand, as a gamer, I don't want a game where I *need* 10 books, either.... So I'm not sure how bad a thing this is (other than from a sales perspective...). While my GURPS collection is probably going to become a Tether to Gluttony any day now, I tend to use only about 5 GURPS books regularly (Basic, Magic, Grimoire, Psi, and Ultra-Tech, for the curious). >People are looking for something more... something inspired, something >great, something they want to read and say, "That is so cool that I will >buy this book and use it in my campaign over here which uses a completely >different system, along with my In Nomine campaign." And we're all >still... waiting. They're still experimenting with the psycho-active chemical coating on the covers.... Frankly, I don't think very many gaming products would *ever* meet such a stringent test. Partly it's due to Sturgeon's Law, and partly to the fact that a truly *inspired* product only comes along once a decade or so in a given industry. Not to mention that people's reactions to "inspired" products ranges rather widely -- they tend to inspire polarized feelings, as well. Either you love them, or you hate them.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:51:34 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Tethers to places (Re: Nybbas non-evil?) At 7:20 PM -0500 11/30/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >So I'm not sure how bad a thing this is (other than from a sales >perspective...). While my GURPS collection is probably going to become >a Tether to Gluttony any day now, Can't. It's already a Tether to the Archangel of Archives. Or maybe the Princess of Nitpicking... And I'm not giving it up to any upstart Calabite munchiemonster. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:51:21 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > >I would suspect there is something else going on. We've had 10 books > >now, if you count the ones which are in production. Out of 10 books, I > >can say that, as a GM, I use only one on a regular basis + the main > >sourcebook. That's not a great batting average. > > On the other hand, as a gamer, I don't want a game where I *need* 10 > books, either.... I agree with this side. It's nice, actually, that one can get by in IN just by referring to the core book. OTOH, it's nice when your supplements come with lots of neat ideas and cool background stuff that you can put into play. I fear that much (50% or more) of the text of (at least) the Revelations cycle falls into the category of read once, never refer to again. I'm not sure GURPS is a good comparison... there are scads of books for it out there, and I too have a nearly-gluttonous collection of such. However, they are for such a vast array of different genres that I couldn't imagine wanting to use all of them at once (whereas I could imagine that for IN). My gluttonous GURPS collection is so that I can run (or at least think about running) many very different games. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:01:46 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheists in IN >>>It seems to me that any really good Existentialist or Secular/Cosmic Humanist who follows the normal faithless life is doomed to end up arguing their Godless philosophy for eternity under the whips of Habbalah while cowering in the alleys between beautiful manor houses of Malphas's Stygian Paradise. [Tickets now on sale at your nearby Ticketmaster!]<<< Not necessarily. There are certainly Archangels (like Dominic, Laurence and especially Khalid) who have a low opinion of atheists, but actually believing in God and/or Heaven has never been stated as a requirement to get to Heaven in IN. And it certainly seems possible that an atheist could achieve his Destiny while still being an atheist, in which case, according to canon, he would certainly go to Heaven. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:36:12 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN David Edelstein wrote: > Not necessarily. There are certainly Archangels (like Dominic, Laurence and > especially Khalid) who have a low opinion of atheists, I'm not entirely convinced of this in the case of Khalid, but that reflects my view as a thoroughgoing agnostic. I think the atheists have put their faith in something (even if it is nothing), and, depending on the circumstances, I find it either cute or annoying when they insist that they haven't. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:24:39 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Good and Evil On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I agree with this, partly. I think -some- of the AA:s should be the > holiest, nicest, most goody-goody people there are, and -some- of the DP:s > should be so evil, nasty, horrible, depraved and so lacking in personal > hygiene that people fall over and die just 'cause they try to imagine it. > But I don't think -all- the AA:s should be totally good and just, and > -all- the DP:s totally evil. There should be grades of goodness and evil. Of course, Good doesn't mean *nice*, and Evil doesn't mean *sociopathic*. IMHO, the Archangels should be Good and the Demon Princes should be Evil, and those that aren't should be on the verge of Falling or going Renegade. But that doesn't mean that every Archangel is a fluffy, cuddly, group-hug kind of being, or that every Demon Prince is out for blood, pain, and fear. They should be subtle and mysterious, with their primary motivations based on the Word they hold and the Choir/Band they serve. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:13:07 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN In a message dated 11/30/98 2:51:15 PM Central Standard Time, milliken@BBN.COM writes: > The way I recall reading that is that is does break them of their > delusions about the true effect of "God's work", as Habbalah perceive > it, but that it doesn't truly change their nature. I.e., they're still > demons, but they'd be fairly likely to be looking for redemption. Just curious. A Habbalah, does the Emptiness thing and has it rebounded on him, and realizes the truth about himself. And then decides not to seek redemption. Would the demon remain aware of his nature? Or perhaps eventually slip back into his delusion? After all, the delusion seems to be an intrinsic part of the Habbalah's nature, since even Habbalah who were born in Hell seem to share it. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 07:12:17 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> The College of Saints At 15:36 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote: > >- Mergen, a mermaid, caught off the coasts of Holland. She learned >Dutch and converted. A rare example of an Ethereal saint. > I _really_ liked this one. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:53:22 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Emily K. Dresner wrote: > > I agree with this, partly. I think -some- of the AA:s should be the > > holiest, nicest, most goody-goody people there are, and -some- of the DP:s > > should be so evil, nasty, horrible, depraved and so lacking in personal > > hygiene that people fall over and die just 'cause they try to imagine it. > > But I don't think -all- the AA:s should be totally good and just, and > > -all- the DP:s totally evil. There should be grades of goodness and evil. > > Granted, most, or all, AA:s will come quite close to the Ultimate Good > > corner, and most, or all, DP:s will come quite close the Ultimate Evil > > corner, depending on what kind of campaign you want. If you want a simple > > slugfest of Birdwings vs. Batwings, making everyone Totally Good or > > Totally Evil makes things simpler. But if you want a more ambiguous > > setting, making the Superiors less easy to figure out is a plus, IMO. > > > > Now, which AA:s are the most Good and which DP:s the most evil is up to > > the individual GM, of course... ;) > > No, it should be reflected in the game system. The Archangels and the > Demon Princes, very much so, make up the universe in which the canon > material is published. In making Saminga _very_ evil, we have something > to measure Nybbas's different but not as deadly evil against, and on the > other side of the coin you can really see the goodness in Novalis and > Laurence. And then there is some justification of why Malakim take oaths > to not suffer evil to live. > > It's a great big machine. If one side balances out, then the other side > balances out nicely and it all runs nicely and logically. But if it > doesn't then there is no reason for the other side to exist. The argument > of why there should be no fluffy Princes at all is that it negates the > argument for why one needs a Heaven in the first place. I think we're talking two different kinds of "Good" here, or at least I am, I've realized. One is the Symphony's, or God's view - from His POV all the AA:s are really good, or they wouldn't stay AA:s, I think. His intervention in Michael's trial is an example of this. The other definition of "Good" is ours, as players. I don't think all AA:s have to meet my standards for Good and all DP:s my standards for Evil in a campaign that I run or play in. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 11:35:56 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Re: Nybbas non-evil? >I don't think all AA:s have to meet my standards for Good and all DP:s my standards for Evil in a campaign that I run or play in. No, but I think they should meet their own standards of Good/ Evil (respectively), preferably in some way which can be explained to players in a comprehensible way -- at least if someone is playing a servitor of one of those superiors. ie. I think that all Archangels should be totally supporting their own ideas of Good, even if some of the assumptions those ideas base on seem very very strange to players. Let me give an example (I'll use Dominic as he is easiest). Let's assume that in my game world, I decide (on behalf of Dominic) that angels of judgement do not incur dissonance for killing a mortal IF that mortal ends up in heaven. After all, isn't heaven a better place for humans than earth anyway? It might even be considered a reward. This will mean that Dominic cares nothing if his angels kill innocent mortals if they have any kind of reason (ie. to get to an outcast). If the mortals were innocent, they will go to their eternal reward. However, any angel who kills a mortal that ends up in hell has removed any chance that mortal might ever have had to repent and change. Bad angel. Take a note of dissonance. The only possible justification for damning someone eternally in this way is if the angel was sure that the mortal would have gone on to corrupt other people. Similarly, killing a celestial's vessel might be assumed to simply be a quick way of returning them to their plane of origin, and needn't be a punishment so much as a 'Return to heaven. Do not pass GO.' deal. This assumption that 'murder' isn't really a punishment will lead to very strange behaviour from Dominic and his angels, which still fully supports an idea of Goodness, even if it is really bizarre to players (and I would hope this would be bizarre :) ). There'd be a lot of really murderous but pure-hearted angels of judgement. Worry. This also means that DPs can easily support acts which seem harmless, neutral or even good. But at the bottom of it, they should always have evil motives (or at least selfish and power-grabbing ones), and I think those should be presented as background, where appropriate. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:39:58 +0000 From: Peter Witney Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN At 05:52 PM 11/30/98 , Walter wrote: >> Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, > >As far as I know, it's totally unknown in canon, though not explicitly >forbidden. (I've got some plans in my own game that it might happen as >part of the Millenium.) I believe that Habbalah forced to absorb emptiness, have a chance to spontaneously redeem on a divine intervention. They regain their divine nature, though they are outcasts and/or renegades. Pete peter.witney@kobal.demon.co.uk Wearing two hats at once is not difficult for those who are in two minds. Or have two faces. Sir Humphrey Appleby, KCB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 13:23:26 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: Nybbas non-evil? On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >I don't think all AA:s have to meet my standards for Good and all DP:s my > standards for Evil in a campaign that I run or play in. > > No, but I think they should meet their own standards of Good/ Evil > (respectively), preferably in some way which can be explained to players in > a comprehensible way -- at least if someone is playing a servitor of one of > those superiors. Oh, absolutely. Or at least to the best of their abilities. Part of the tragedy of Dominic is that (s)he can't be as just as (s)he wants to, though (s)he does her/his best. > This also means that DPs can easily support acts which seem harmless, > neutral or even good. But at the bottom of it, they should always have evil > motives (or at least selfish and power-grabbing ones), and I think those > should be presented as background, where appropriate. Just a nit: they shouldn't necessarily have motives that -we- find evil, but motives that -they- consider evil, just as in the example with Dominic, where angels of Judgement commit acts that they find good, though most people wouldn't. For example, a relatively nice version of Haagenti might fund agencies that send aid to Africa, because that will help all the nice little consumers there survive. After all, dead people can't be gluttons... Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 12:45:11 +0000 From: Peter Witney Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in IN- and time differences ...chasing my own e-mail via several hours across the atlantic At 10:33 PM 11/30/98 , emccoy wrote: >At 4:25 PM -0500 11/30/98, Pee Kitty wrote: >>On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: >> >>> >> > Spontaneous Redemption is very, very rare, >>True, but we weren't talking about "automatic" redemption, but >>"spontaneous" redemption. I agree that it would be very poor GMing to >>arbitrarily force a Habbal[ite] PC to redeem > >But there is, in the Redemption section that >says something like, "Divine Intervention aside, only an Archangel [can >redeem a demon]." Canon allows the possibility, sort of, > >If I let a PC spontaneously redeem, there would be a major political >circus about it, not to mention what Asmodeus would want with such >a traitor. I would allow a half-way house. The Habbalah realises their delusion *and* redeems to the level of Outcast Elohim. But their deep rooted personality doesn't actually alter. They'll still be reacting emotionally to things and racking up dissonance by the hour. They've got the extreme likelihood of falling very quickly. A group of angels finding this ex-demon might be able to stop that, but it would be difficult. So, after a few hours of horrific dissonance and discord, the Habbalah falls again and has to find a way back to Hell to grovel in front of its superior. The chance of this scenario might be slim, but who knows, it may happen more often than Asmodeus (and the other DPs) want to admit. The redeemed demon *has* to want to redeem (and be worthy of it) or it will fail. The spontaneous redemption might help a Habbalah on their way to the divine service, but it's their mindset that dictates if they get there. Obviously, this is a *big* change for a Habbalah, and the GM's campaign, which would have to shift to take account of the new Outcast/Renegade. So, if the GM doesn't want it, they don't have to use it. As usual, GM rules. Pete Peter Witney peter.witney@kobal.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:43:25 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Nybbas non-evil? (was Re: IN> Atheists in IN) > >I would suspect there is something else going on. We've had 10 books > >now, if you count the ones which are in production. Out of 10 books, I > >can say that, as a GM, I use only one on a regular basis + the main > >sourcebook. That's not a great batting average. > > On the other hand, as a gamer, I don't want a game where I *need* 10 > books, either.... So why would anyone continue to purchase In Nomine supplements? By that logic, no one should ever buy a supplement again because they are totally unneccessary. If no one wants them, and the _writers_ don't even use them, why should there be any more? The books should be optional when playing, but there should at least be some value in the other nine which are sitting on the shelf. > Frankly, I don't think very many gaming products would *ever* meet such > a stringent test. Partly it's due to Sturgeon's Law, and partly to the > fact that a truly *inspired* product only comes along once a decade or > so in a given industry. Not to mention that people's reactions to > "inspired" products ranges rather widely -- they tend to inspire > polarized feelings, as well. Either you love them, or you hate them.... No, I don't see any _GURPS_ gaming products which will fit that test. I never have. On the other hand, there are several other games, and this is hardly once in a decade. I can look at my bookshelves, and I know I'm a picky gamer, and I can see games which have something to them which made them worthy in some way - KULT, OTE, Cthulhu, Nephilim, Amber, Shades of Destiny/Shades of Nightfall, Armageddon and Witchcraft, even HOL to some extent because at least it has a very definite soul. I've even started looking through the WW: Mage stuff, just because the main sourcebook has something there. All of these have something which one can point to and say, "Hey, that's pretty inspired." There's even that quality in the In Nomine sourcebook, which is the reason I bought it in the first place. So what is the IN excuse for putting out lackluster, and occasionally poor, supplements? That everything in the industry sucks so it's okay? That no one has the time? That there is some hairy monster with a red pen who crosses out every inspired concept that comes along? The problem is that the brilliance is right there under the surface, wanting to get out if someone is just willing to suck up the fact that someone out there will say "I don't like this" and just DO it. It shows up in weird places like some of the objects in the Liber-R and some of the tethers in the Tetherbook, but it can't get out. I don't think the test of saying, "This is so cool I want to steal from this" or "This is so cool I want to make my friends buy this" is a bad test at all. It's actually the perfect watermark. If people want to steal it, then they'll use it, and heck, they'll probably buy the book too. I would rather hate it or love it, instead of the all over, across the board blah. I would rather get excited about it. But right now, there's not a heck of alot to get excited about. - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1029 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.