From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Dec 11 11:46:58 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 LAA24152 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:46:57 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA02527 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:14:07 -0600 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:14:07 -0600 Message-Id: <199812111714.LAA02527@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 #1048 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, December 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1048 In this digest: IN> Two Quick Questions Re: IN> Two Quick Questions Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Re: IN- question Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Two Quick Questions Re: IN> Re: IN- question Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Jean's word Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) Re: IN> Jean's word IN> Honor and Pride Re: IN> Jean's word IN> Numinous Corpus IN> Discord & Renegades IN> Maximillians Dissonance Re: IN> Numinous Corpus RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Maximillians Dissonance Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Numinous Corpus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:25:59 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> Two Quick Questions Just to prove that you can read the rulebook umpteen times and still have things occure to you, two things I'm wondering about: 1) Does a Possessed body (as in Song of Possession) cause Disturbance through its actions? That is, if Joe Celestail possess Jane Mortal & kills another person using that body, will that act cause Disturbance? I can see argumants for & against that idea. 2) When you use a Relic, you automatically use all the Essence in the Relic. Does all that Essence have to go towards 'powering' the Song (increasing its effect), or can it be used to increase the Target Number as well? (Eg - using a Relic/5, can I use 3 Essence to power the Song & 2 Essence for a +2 to my chances of success.) I'm in favour of this idea, since Songs are pretty hard to pull off, but I can see how it could be unbalancing. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia ...my attorney kept screaming at them: "Shoot! Fuck! Scag! Blood! Heroin! Rape! Cheap! Communist! Jab it right into your fucking eyeballs!" HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:26:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Two Quick Questions At 9:25 AM +1100 12/11/98, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >Just to prove that you can read the rulebook umpteen times and still >have things occure to you, two things I'm wondering about: > >1) Does a Possessed body (as in Song of Possession) cause >Disturbance through its actions? That is, if Joe Celestail possess Jane >Mortal & kills another person using that body, will that act cause >Disturbance? I can see argumants for & against that idea. It causes disturbance, just as if Joe were a Kyrio or Shedite. I'll let someone else do the Relic question... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:46:29 -0600 From: "James Bearse" Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word I wish I could remember the quote, but it went something like "How did you ever come up with your theory of ?" "By thinking about it unceasingly." - ---------- > From: Robert Knop > (Recently, some of my astro group (I work on supernova cosmology) was > interviewed by a television crew from the BBC. They kept asking me (and > others), "how did you feel in the moment when you discovered that there > was a cosmological constant?" (Or, "when you discovered the universe was > accelerating?") The problem is, there wasn't a _moment_. It built up > over time. When our results first told us that, I didn't believe it. > The work lasted over the course of years (and still goes on), and the > realization of the results didn't happen in a moment, they happened over > the course of months. Indeed, many scientists still don't believe them, > and we still have to do more work to convince ourselves that it's right. > I've talked to other scientists who feel the same way. Usually science > doesn't come as a sudden startling discovery, but as hints that there's > something odd, followed by hours/days/months/years of trying to pull the > signal out of the noise and understand the systematic effects well enough > to find and believe the result.) > > Here's what I see as a better way to describe the metaphor of Jean's > lightning for the inspiration of scientific discovery. Although to the > outside observer, lightning is a sudden, unexpected, random event, in > reality it isn't so. The weather, motion clouds, wind, etc. slowly work > together to builds u static charges in clouds. This slow buildup of > charge could be metaphorical for all of the groundwork, unseen and with > uncertain results, done by scientists. When it comes to fruition, there's > a sudden flash, and it becomes visible to the public; the charge had been > building for time, but is released in an instant. (A metaphorical > explanation for the public's misconception that all scientific discoveries > come in "Eureka" moments.) > > IMHO (or IMC, as the case may be), Gabriel doesn't really have much to do > with the inspiration that comes with scientific discovery. That way, I > can keep lightning for that sort of inspiration without requiring a > "Eureka" moment. > > -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:18:38 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word At 02:41 PM 12/10/98 EST, you wrote: >>I have a bit of a beef with this, since in my experience (and in the >>experience of other scientists I've talked to) the "Eureka" moment is >>*extremely* rare in science. It's certainly a part of popular conception >>and lore, so in that sense it may well have a place in In Nomine, but in >>most cases it has very little to do with actual scientific discovery. Remember that the brain operates under neurochemical responses that also involve electricity. It could be said that there is "lightning" in the brain, that forms peoples' thoughts and ideas. Since the synapses involve electricity, science and reason could be under Jean's domain fairly easily. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:38:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > Remember that the brain operates under neurochemical responses that also > involve electricity. It could be said that there is "lightning" in the > brain, that forms peoples' thoughts and ideas. Since the synapses involve > electricity, science and reason could be under Jean's domain fairly easily. I have an undergrad biologist sitting next to me who will kill me if I don't take this one up. Sorry. 1) Synapses are bridged with chemical, not electric, messages (with a very few exceptions, apparently). 2) The 'current' in nerve cells is actually not a conventional electric current, or even a flow of charge. It is more like a transverse wave of charged particles. So lightning is a tad misleading. More importantly, by the same argument everything comes under Jean, since electromagnetism is the most important force in chemistry and biology, and there isn't an Archangel of Gravity (yet). If Jean has managed to stretch his word on those grounds, then I'm impressed. He's almost Balseraph material. (Hang on. Lucy's word is Light, and photons are the particles which carry the e-m force. So... The only person Lucy ever needs to worry about is the Demon of Higgs Bosons!) Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:51:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- question On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >More seriously, apart from game balance reasons, why should a Kyrio find > >it any easier to manipulate a 32 bit GUI than to compose, compile and run > >his own assembly code on the fly? > > Well, I know which one I'd use. (Which depends on the GUI, actually....) Well, yes, but I also know how I'd get a bird out of a tree, and it isn't the same way a Kyrio would. They are *supposed* to intuitively understand the animals they possess, and Jean's attunement might as well be an extension of that as not. > >I would be inclined to tell the player 'you have a hard drive', rather > >than 'you have a window up for c:'. > > The computer scientist in me rebels at this slightly. Yeah, the Kyrio > could possess the drive directly, and make the spindle motor turn on and > off, and move the heads back and forth, but that would be out it. Being > able to comprehend the rather random way data is indexed and coded in a > filesystem is much harder than saying, "I want the directory listing for > '/'". I realise that I disagree with you less than I thought, but I personally rule that the Kyrio should not be limited by the OS the computer runs, but by it's hardware capabilities - that he possesses the computer as an object rather than controlling it just like any other operator would. As with kung-fu cats - he is limited by the bones, but he brings his own reflexes and skills with him. > In practice, I'd probably allow the Kyrio to use the operating system > primitives directly as "reflexes", as well as operate the I/O devices. I'd give him the 'device primitives' (don't know the technical term). So if he wants to print text off the printer, he doesn't have to fire up MSWord (or even the printer driver) to do so, he just knows the right binary stream to send through the parallel port. If he wants a certain file from a HDD, he can 'look it up' on the FAT 'for himself'. It's mostly a difference in flavour I think, and it keeps the analogy that a Kyrio doesn't need either a degree in neurophysiology or a lifetime of practice to 'operate' an unfamiliar animal. > But no direct reading of the contents of memories, disks, books, or > other data storage media -- their minds simply shouldn't be able to move > that fast. I'd let them read off the drive as fast as they can 'really' read (for ASCII at least. Not binary). Even if the drive in question was only mounted under LINUX and the PC was booted with DOS, which has no idea that the file exists. I'd also let them transfer data at bus speed without reading it in the same circumstances, although there are humour possibilities in saying 'sorry, you're going to have to reboot yourself to do that'. Does performing an illegal operation inflict dissonance? Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:55:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word > >Most scientific and engineering tasks are amazing amounts of work. I know > >from programming that, while I might go, "Oh hell, that's how to do it" a > >dozen times a day, that actually producing a product is hours and hours > >[and hours and hours] of constant work coupled with a barrage of swearing. > > No question about that. But simply putting in hours and hours and hours > of work *without* inspiration is often pointless, or at least > *extremely* inefficient. I dunno about that. I wrote, for example, a set of classes which will wrap around the standard WindowProc Callback procedure for Windows today, along with all the creation and initinstance stuff. The idea is to make my entire life and existance largely MFC free, for all sorts of reasons. It was ~700 lines of debugged functional code [with a migraine no less]. And it was all amazingly uninspired stuff. It just really needed to be done, and any fool who knew the basics of the windows messaging loop could have done it. But the work was neither pointless NOR inefficient. It was part of what needed to be done so that the more interesting pieces of code could work to spec. I've long discovered that real, honest to god production code is 1% inspiration and 99% pain. This is not scientific code or algorithm code or code that works on giant experimental machines. This is real, honest to god production stuff which has to conform to a spec I'm sure Jean would appreciate: It's fault-tolerant and it's largely bug free and it's easy to use by human beings. Of course, production applications are very rarely inspired. They are simply something that is needed by human beings to accomplish tasks easier. Maybe some of the core concepts behind them, somewhere deep down inside is inspired, and maybe there are cool bits of threading or some jive fast algorithm mojo, but by and large it's mostly the drudery of putting UIs together and doing huge amounts of testing. - - Em [who needs a little bit of a break from her job.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:56:23 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Two Quick Questions On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Just to prove that you can read the rulebook umpteen times and still > have things occure to you, two things I'm wondering about: > > 1) Does a Possessed body (as in Song of Possession) cause > Disturbance through its actions? That is, if Joe Celestail possess Jane > Mortal & kills another person using that body, will that act cause > Disturbance? I can see argumants for & against that idea. Yes, absolutely. The Disturbance comes from Celestial intervention in mortal affairs. House rule: if a Celestial kills, then flees a body into another, the 'echo' of the Disturbance stays with the Celestial, not with the body. Jason this man is very useful to me in spite of his race ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:05:51 -0800 From: bloodroot@earthlink.net Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- question At 03:51 AM 12/11/98 +0000, you wrote: > >Does performing an illegal operation inflict dissonance? > >Steve. > > Only if you are on loan to Dominic. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:43:55 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word > I've long discovered that real, honest to god production code is 1% > inspiration and 99% pain. This is not scientific code or algorithm code As somebody who writes a lot of code for scientific purposes, I'd say that the ratio is about the same. Often, you're writing code to convert images from format X that comes off of the telescope to format Y that your database expects, or something equally mundane. There's 0% inspiration in that, it's a matter of sitting down and slogging through it. The lightning flashes of inspriation come when you figure out that all the core dumps are because you have a typo in a variable name on line 560. "Oh! No wonder! Why didn't I see that before?" - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:03:58 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word At 22:43 10/12/98 -0800, you wrote: >> I've long discovered that real, honest to god production code is 1% >> inspiration and 99% pain. This is not scientific code or algorithm code > >As somebody who writes a lot of code for scientific purposes, I'd say that >the ratio is about the same. > >Often, you're writing code to convert images from format X that comes off of As someone who writes algorithm code, I'd agree :) Thinking up the basis for the new or improved algorithm is the easy bit. It usually happens in discussions around the kettle. Figuring out ways to test whether it really does work better is a painful slog. And that's even before you get it into a mass market state where it can be downloaded onto a phone (err. for example). jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:10:22 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim At 22:59 10/12/98 +0100, you wrote: > >I still think Shedites' goals are to make their hosts do dishonorable >things. I mean, what else are they doing? Whether the Shedite thinks those >things are dishonorable doesn't matter - in order to corrupt its host it >must understand its morality. > But it's much easier to persuade a host to do something which is equally unhealthy but doesn't directly contravene one of their deeply held principles. Could probably even be done without a will roll. ie. If someone has a strong moral code against lying, it'll be easier for the Shedite to persuade them to spread malicious gossip and tell their friends what they _really_ think if them, than it will to simply lie for no reason. So Shedim specialise in twisting morals, or working around them -- not outright breaking them. I'm not sure you really need to understand a host's morality to corrupt it, although it'll make it easier to pick the path of least resistance. The Shedite could leave the mortal host without having broken any of its taboos.. but having done plenty of other things, and still feeling fairly honorable. (OK, I shot this guy dead because he looked kind of suspicious. But anyone can make a mistake. And at least I didn't lie to anyone!) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:54:12 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jo Hart wrote: > At 22:59 10/12/98 +0100, you wrote: > > > >I still think Shedites' goals are to make their hosts do dishonorable > >things. I mean, what else are they doing? Whether the Shedite thinks those > >things are dishonorable doesn't matter - in order to corrupt its host it > >must understand its morality. > > But it's much easier to persuade a host to do something which is equally > unhealthy but doesn't directly contravene one of their deeply held > principles. Could probably even be done without a will roll. > > ie. If someone has a strong moral code against lying, it'll be easier for > the Shedite to persuade them to spread malicious gossip and tell their > friends what they _really_ think if them, than it will to simply lie for no > reason. > > So Shedim specialise in twisting morals, or working around them -- not > outright breaking them. I'm not sure you really need to understand a host's > morality to corrupt it, although it'll make it easier to pick the path of > least resistance. The Shedite could leave the mortal host without having > broken any of its taboos.. but having done plenty of other things, and > still feeling fairly honorable. (OK, I shot this guy dead because he looked > kind of suspicious. But anyone can make a mistake. And at least I didn't > lie to anyone!) I think we've read the Shedite dissonance conditions differently. I've always understood it to be that the Shedite must force the host to do something that it (the host) finds more morally repugnant than anything it has done before. "Each time the host crosses a moral line, a new standard is set." I suppose you have read it to be something more immoral in some kind of general framework. I don't believe in absolute morality, which probably has shaped my understanding of the Shedim. :) 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: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:33:22 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of War (Re: Disturbance\Causation) Kevin Walsh wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 04:49:23PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > Michael explains to the Malak that since Malakim don't Fall, he > > >gets next to nothing out of sucking up to the Demon Princess of > > >Nitpicking? :) > > > > Hey, hey! I can offer a very nice benefits package, including five > > demonlings a day to slay! > > > (Of course can doesn't necessarily mean will.) > > Angels of the Host, Nitpicking Needs You! > > Have you ever been annoyed by misprintings in important documents? > Have you ever been frustrated by idiots who can't make coherent arguments > but still insist on annoying you with trivialities? > Have you ever felt the need to throttle drunkards loudly singing > traditional songs while getting all the words wrong? > > Then Nitpicking has a place for you! > > Slay the dragons of ignorance! Indulge your contempt for your fellow > beings! Reshape the world to your own vision of the Truth! Match your wits > with the finest intellects known to Celestialkind! > > Sign up for Nitpicking today! You won't regret it! > > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. > -- > "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display > incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign > inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; > when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." > -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. Pssst. Don't believe them. They're nasty little buggers. And they want your soul. In triplicate. *the occasionally powerful renegade demon slithers around in celestial form, trying to look scary and mysterious. It's hard. He's a hundred feet long, and rather pathetic- he's having a self doubt period.* Um. You're angels right? *launches himself at the nearest one* Take me with you! You guys are so COOL! I'll be a great Malakite, really I will! I've just got this problem with lying... it's soooo easy... wait, back to topic, right the nitpickers. They're naughty and evil and nasty, and they're no fun to play with. Trust me. Really. I'm not lying. (He's not, right now he couldn't lie to save his life. Literally) Oh sh*t! Here come the Gameboys! *he runs off through a Plot Hole* - -- Berian, Renegade Balseraph of Imagination, ex-of Fate. "I'm a Malakite, dammit! Okay, so I will be..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:17:31 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word James Bearse wrote: > I wish I could remember the quote, but it went something like "How > did you ever come up with your theory of ?" "By thinking > about it unceasingly." I remember the words as a little more like "By always thinking unto them," not that that is necessarily more accurate. The speaker was Isaac Newton, so the question must have been about gravity, classical mechanics, or optics, but I can't guess which. Also relevant is Thomas Edison's quote about genius being 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I studied history of science for a couple of years, and, based on what I learned of the biographical bits of folks like Newton and Darwin, I concluded that, yes indeed, genius is largely founded on something that looks suspiciously like obsession. It gives the lightning a bigger target to strike, perhaps. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:53:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Honor and Pride Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I still think Shedites' goals are to make their hosts do > dishonorable things. I mean, what else are they doing? Whether > the Shedite thinks those things are dishonorable doesn't matter - > in order to corrupt its host it must understand its morality. I'm not sure I agree about this "dishonorable" business. "Honor" is a very vague term in our culture, which has no clear code for it. From what I've read by people closer to real honor codes -- chiefly literary types familiar with high-honor periods -- "honor" is not coincident with personal morality. Sometimes, it was characterized as a sort of junior grade of morality, or a morality lookalike. My own generalization of what "honor" is, is that it is the pride you are allowed to have in yourself (and display publicly, if you desire) justified by your adherence to certain *specific* virtues. And the honor code is a pretty public construct. Thus, ideally, chivalraic honor is one's pride in being just. There are other virtues than justice, but they don't bear on that kind of honor. A much commoner form of honor is warrior's honor, which is one's pride in being brave and loyal. You may also be cruel or gluttonous or lustful, but if you are brave and loyal, you are honorable, and if your self-esteem centers on your honor, your other sins won't bother you much. In fact, you may count them as assets. (Lots of people are proud of their lustiness, for instance.) Combining the above forms is the gentlemanly code of honor as practiced in Europe from the Victorian period and back quite a way. A gentleman is brave, loyal, polite, and keeps his word. He may still be gluttonous, lustful, cruel, avaricious, eaten up with envy, etc. (Well, the code often includes "generous," too, which would scotch the avarice and envy.) A gentlewoman has a similar code, but is also required to be chaste. In partial compensation, standards for bravery are relaxed for her somewhat. Starting to get a little analogical, there is a scholarly code of "honor," requiring one to be honest and objective -- in matters touching one's scholarship. And if you put a lot of stock in humility, "honor" gets even more analogical, because self-esteem and the regard of others is not going to be much on your agenda. "Honor" is, in origins, an aristocratic term. I think the bourgoise equivalent is "respectability," but I find that harder to characterize. Turning this to IN, I don't think Shedim need concentrate on "honor" as I, at least, here understand and describe it. In fact, a moderately subtle Shedite might do a lot of corruption of a host under cover of "but you're still honorable," just by concentrating on the sins not outlawed by the particular honor code. Malakim are specifically described as embodying Heaven's "honor." It's made clear that each Malak has its own honor code. The common oaths they all take, and the tale of their origin, make it look like the "honor of Heaven" being upheld here is the rule that evil shall not "get away with it." "The wrong shall fail, the right prevail." I'm not sure, though, that it meshes more than peripherally with historical concepts of honor. The tie-in seems to be to regard evil as an insult to good. Insult is important in honor systems because honor is measured in terms of pride; an insult to honor is a claim that you are not as honorable (just/brave/loyal/polite/chaste) as you claim. But with Malakim, it's not clear what the insult is, unless it's simply, "You are not right," or "You are not going to win." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:51:06 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Jean's word In a message dated 12/10/98 1:13:13 PM, rknop@ncal.verio.com writes: >While the discover of sun being at the center of the solar system is easy >to visualize as an Eureka flash (or, at least, the idea that that might >be >so), it doesn't have to have come that way. I'm not talking history here, >I'm talking a way it could have gone: Somebody could have suggested it, >tentatively, not really believing it himself. Others could have laughed, >because it is so far out from the accepted model. I feel like I'm the only person on the list with significant knowledge of Science History. Nicholas Copernicus/Nikolai Cupernik was actually trying to prove *that the Sun traveled around the Earth.* His book was a marvel of logic, except for one thing... His illustrations, graphs, and math while trying to remove the (I forget the term) backwards movement of the planets around a center point, ended up requiring that the sun be in the center of the solar system. Legend has it that his last words were "The sun revolves around the earth. My book proves it." To be fairly blunt, Rob's description above is exactly what happened. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Jean wasn't involved. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:18:03 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Numinous Corpus This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_020F_01BE2521.D43145E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Numinous Corpus Feet says "You can attack with both supernaturally=20 augmented feet and hands at the same time, as long as one attack is = based=20 on Strength and the other is based on Agility or Precision" How do you make an attack based on Agility? Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_020F_01BE2521.D43145E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Numinous Corpus Feet = says "You=20 can attack with both supernaturally
augmented feet and hands = at the same=20 time, as long as one attack is based
on Strength and the other = is based on=20 Agility or Precision"
 
How do you make an attack = based on=20 Agility?
 
Ramesh
- ------=_NextPart_000_020F_01BE2521.D43145E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:23:57 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Discord & Renegades This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0225_01BE2522.A72FDC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A demon with Celestial discord, is considered a renegade (at least by = Admodeus=20 [In Nomine =96 p. 160]). What if the discord is the same as their = servitor=92s word? I.e. a servitor of Gluttony having Gluttonous, (when the Demon Prince of = Sloth did exist)=20 Servitors of Sloth having Slothful or a servitor of Lust having Lustful. And why celestial discord rather than Ethereal or Corporeal? =20 Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_0225_01BE2522.A72FDC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A demon with Celestial = discord, is=20 considered a renegade (at least by=20 Admodeus
[In Nomine – p. = 160]). What if the=20 discord is the same as their servitor’s word? I.e.
a servitor of Gluttony = having=20 Gluttonous, (when the Demon Prince of Sloth did exist)
Servitors of Sloth having = Slothful or a=20 servitor of Lust having Lustful.
And why celestial discord = rather than=20 Ethereal or Corporeal?
 
Ramesh
- ------=_NextPart_000_0225_01BE2522.A72FDC40-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:13:17 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Maximillians Dissonance This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0206_01BE2521.29C9EBC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm in two minds about whether Maximillian got any dissonance from the = oath "Do not suffer an evil to live" (FOTM p62). On one hand the oath says = just that=20 and so as the story bit (FOTM p108) implies he should earn dissonance = from it. =20 =20 However the way I see it the oath should have been "Do not suffer an = evil to=20 live *if it`s your choice*" (IN p101), the angelic players guide goes = into detail=20 about it (p49 - Touchy Situations), stressing that if a superior orders = you not=20 to kill certain demons then it's not you're choice. (And that's exactly = what=20 David did). =20 Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_0206_01BE2521.29C9EBC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm in two minds about = whether=20 Maximillian got any dissonance from the oath
"Do not suffer an = evil to=20 live" (FOTM p62).  On one hand the oath says just that =
and so as the story bit = (FOTM p108)=20 implies he should earn dissonance from
it. 
 
However the way I see it = the oath should=20 have been "Do not suffer an evil to
live *if it`s your = choice*" (IN=20 p101), the angelic players guide goes into detail
about it (p49 - Touchy = Situations),=20 stressing that if a superior orders you not
to kill certain demons = then it's not=20 you're choice.  (And that's exactly what
David did).
 
Ramesh
- ------=_NextPart_000_0206_01BE2521.29C9EBC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:37:21 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Numinous Corpus Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > How do you make an attack based on Agility? A karate blow, or a slicing or thrusting action (as with a knife or claw or foil) would be based on Agility rather than Strength. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:41:55 -0500 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Lilim and Malakim >I think we've read the Shedite dissonance conditions differently. I've >always understood it to be that the Shedite must force the host to do >something that it (the host) finds more morally repugnant than anything it >has done before. "Each time the host crosses a moral line, a new standard >is set." I suppose you have read it to be something more immoral in some >kind of general framework. I don't believe in absolute morality, which >probably has shaped my understanding of the Shedim. :) Granted, I'd say that there /is/ very close to no absolute morality (however some things seem to be universal - don't steal, don't sleep with your mother - but those two are about the extent of it). However, I'd say that a Shedim who just corrupts his host, by forcing him to do something more immoral (to the host) every day isn't living up to his demonic potential. If you go by that paradigm (breaking morals) you can get into a kind of rut: lie, then steal, then assault, then kill. Rah. However, if you enter into the "other" paradigm, the one where the host is corrupted without necessarily breaking his morals, it makes the situation all the better for the demon. To use the earlier example, where the host is left saying "Oh, he looked suspicious but at least I never lied," the host will realize all the stuff he's done /without/ breaking his morals and then realize that, hey, he had fun doing it. (Without advocating murder or robbery, I will not that there is a psychological rush connected to those actions.) So what's the morally upstanding former host of a Shedim to do? Rape, steal, pillage, murder some more - doing a more effective job corrupting himself than the Shedim could have done for him. In fact, I'd be willing to posit that maybe the Shedim's real job within Hell isn't to corrupt people beyond redemption, but to begin the corrupting process and then move on. _______________________________Matt._______________________________ [Angel of Weird Ideas, servant of Eli, kind of kicking it for now.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:49:43 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Maximillians Dissonance On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 04:13:17PM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > However the way I see it the oath should have been "Do not suffer an evil to > live *if it`s your choice*" (IN p101), the angelic players guide goes into detail > about it (p49 - Touchy Situations), stressing that if a superior orders you not > to kill certain demons then it's not you're choice. (And that's exactly what > David did). > Well, "Do not suffer an evil to live" is an incredibly broad oath, and means a lot more than just killing demons/bad people. Some Malakim might consider emotional trauma evil, and may not suffer it to live. IIRC, he was told not to interfere at all though, so that particular oath wouldn't apply so long as he considered his Superior's orders binding. However, Malakim have at least four oaths, and the individual two were the ones causing grief. I'm playing through that scenario, incidentally. (Well, played through it: the order has come down to halt the investigation.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:05:24 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 11:41:55AM -0500, Matthew Stein wrote: > Granted, I'd say that there /is/ very close to no absolute morality > (however some things seem to be universal - don't steal, don't sleep > with your mother - but those two are about the extent of it). Are you referring to humans or to angels? Certainly, I wouldn't say these are universal among angels. Stealing is positively encouraged by one angelic Superior. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:09:32 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Numinous Corpus On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 11:37:21AM -0500, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > A karate blow, or a slicing or thrusting action (as with a > knife or claw or foil) would be based on Agility rather than > Strength. > I'm not so certain. Don't knives fall under Precision? Agility tends to refer to full-body motion, and Precision to hand-eye coordination. Of course the fact that Throwing defaults to Agility blurs attempts to draw nice tidy skill lines. No other attack skills default to Agility, IIRC. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1048 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.