From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Feb 10 15:03:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA31820 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:03:07 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA00649 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:58:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:58:03 -0600 Message-Id: <199802102058.OAA00649@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 #618 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, February 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 618 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction Re: IN> IN played with the safety off Re: IN> Greek gods Re: IN> IN played with the safety off IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) Re: IN> Innocence Attunements Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction IN> IN Safety's off, just don't shoot MY game... Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction IN> FLUFF! (Re: Lilim and Reproduction) IN>[FLUFF] The End of Faust [was:Innocence attunements] Re: IN> More PBeM Madness Re: IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) Re: IN> IN Safety's off, just don't shoot MY game... IN> IN played with the safety off IN> Lilim and Reproduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:59:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction > Okay, so they're not organic. I just can't help but think that they have > the curse of most immortals. I think that creatures that have a potential > life span measured in aeons need to have some balance to equate them with > other living beings. In this light, I have trouble seeing celestial > reproduction No, not really. Firstly, given that there is a War out there, celestials are getting toasted pretty regularly. Maybe not very regularly, but certainly enough to put a brake on numbers. There's also a more fundamental break. Forces presumably consiste of lots of Essence being stuck together in a particular way. Essence naturally gravitates to Celestials (at sunset or sunrise, depending), so each Celestial is a drain on the total amount of stuff available to make new Celestials. So in that sense there is a carrying capacity equal to the amount of Essence in the universe that isn't consumed by other living things and doesn't exist in the intractable form of matter. Actually, the big trend is towards ever greater concentration of Forces in a few hands, but that is counteracted by the desire of Superiors to create more Servitors in order to defend their power-bases. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:11:33 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilim and Reproduction > Okay, so they're not organic. I just can't help but think that they have > the curse of most immortals. I think that creatures that have a potential > life span measured in aeons need to have some balance to equate them with > other living beings. In this light, I have trouble seeing celestial > reproduction. I think that Lillim could produce human offspring, but > Lillith was one of the "humans" used in the first experiment (there's an > out). I just come back to the idea that if celestials can reproduce, then > the world would be overcome with celestials (being as they don't naturally > die). Keep in mind a few interesting Fun Fax (tm): 1. There are far more demons in Hell then angels in Heaven. Granted they are the wimpy 7 force kind, but let's think for a moment. On third of the Host Fell, and now there are about 10x more demons then angels. They had to come from SOMEWHERE, and the Princes don't sit around making demonlings all day. Can you see Asmodeus doing that? These are busy people, uh, beings. (I advocate vats and breeding programs.) 2. Time is a funny thing up in Heaven. Granted, they live aeons, but that millenia that just passed may have felt more like a week. They may reproduce, but it is slow, and over a long period of time. Also, the angels are going to take their time working out their relationships before they're going to do it. So therefore, it balances out. One kid every 2000 years does not equal a breeding program. 3. Heaven and Hell are infinite in size. There is always enough room for a new Celestial. 4. Only the choicest, most loyal beings get sent up to Earth. Even if millions of Angels were suddenly born, the same amount would be sent on down to the humans - exactly the amount necessary. So, those are my reasons why they can breed. And in my game, they certainly do. - - Em, Breeding the Shedim in the big Vats ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:15:15 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> IN played with the safety off - ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > > (To put it more ecumenically, I want the deep fringe beliefs > > of the Abrahamic religions to hold the ontological high ground in > > the IN universe.) I think its appropriate to try to be clear as to whether you are talking about deep fringe beliefs of Catholicism or deep fringe beliefs of Abrahamic (is that a word? :) ) religions. Either is fine of course but since IN isn't particularly set up to be true to Christian theology (or indeed any theology in particular ;) ) then any version that you run that uses doctrines like original sin and papal infallibility will be highly homebrew. As I said, this is hip and cool, but I think its appropriate to be aware of that when you are writing ideas up which are based on it and to note it. I'm all for absolutes of good and evil (and I don't agree with Earl on this, I think it most definitely does exist in-game which is one of the utterly appealing things that sets it aside from the WoD). As it happens, one of the things I like about the way the superiors are set up is that the angelic side shows a huge range of different attitudes, from the obsessively fanatical to the laid-back liberal. Its quite easy to interpret all of them as being Good, even if some take the view that you have to be cruel to be kind. Thats actually quite illuminating if you flip back and compare it with the real world -- or at least I find it so :) (I know I may be in a minority of 1 but I think Dominic is utterly cool) Similarly with the demonic side, some superiors seem so cute or fun that you could almost forget they are black-hearted personifications of Evil. Then again, some are just disgusting or cruel, or obviously Bad, but it doesn't take too much effort to portray all of them as aspects of Evil. Its very difficult (and probably undesirable) to have PCs who are utterly evil, so a demonic game can't concentrate on that to the same extent. But thats OK because there is plenty of room for selfish-evil, incompetent-evil, ignorant-evil, greedy-evil, apathetic-evil, evil-that-doesn't-realise-it-is-evil, evil-that-wants-to-be-good etc etc. Thats also pretty illuminating if you compare it to the real world. > (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or > panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch > of any Abrahamic religion. OK, yeah. I agree on this one ;-) > Getting back to the whole Innocence Attunement idea of showing a > human their unfallen self, if you really can't stand the idea of > Original Sin, simply have the attunement show the human what their > Destiny ought to be. I really can't stand the idea of original sin. I'd just show them a vision of heaven or something ;-) Novalis' Mercurians fill humans with joy when they appear in their celestial forms -- I'd do a stronger version of that. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:53:51 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Greek gods Kevin Walsh writes: >> >> Well, Heaven and Hell has stats for Thor and Loki. (a very *weak* Thor, I >> might add) > >You're kidding. In p96 the Marches, it says clearly "Thor was the only >important Aes lost in the Crusade." If this isn't an accidental >contradiction, you've been spoilering us. Nonsense. The fact that someone was "last seen in combat with superior forces" by no means implies that he's dead: ever hear of MIA's? There are at least two possible models for having a (very weak) Thor running around the Marches, despite the description given in _The Marches_: (1) Thor won his fight against the six Malakim, at the cost of *lots* of his Forces. It took him a long time to find his way back to Asgard, so everybody thought him lost. (2) A new Thor coalesced after the first one died. After all, that's where the gods came from in the first place. Uriel's Crusade happened in 745 CE; Thor (and close cognates like Donar) remained a focus of worship for a very active warrior-cult for at least 2 centuries after that. He probably had more energetic and organized worship, and more worshippers, in the period 800-900 CE than he did when he first coalesced out of the vague idea that Thunder might be a *person*. Still, Thor II wouldn't have had much time to consolidate himself before the spread of Christianity cut the Essence flow to a trickle. (But never wiped it out entirely -- the Nordic pantheon has had some active worshippers throughout the period of Christian hegemony, and Asatru remains a living religion, if not so vigorous as Voudun or Santeria. Thor, FWIW, seems one of the better-loved deities and one who gets a lot of attention.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:47:58 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> IN played with the safety off Hart, Joanna wrote: > I think its appropriate to try to be clear as to whether you are > talking about deep fringe beliefs of Catholicism or deep fringe > beliefs of Abrahamic (is that a word? :) ) religions. Either is fine > of course but since IN isn't particularly set up to be true to > Christian theology (or indeed any theology in particular ;) ) > then any version that you run that uses doctrines like original sin > and papal infallibility will be highly homebrew. Yes, I should have said. For the reasons I gave in the previous post, I don't expect SJG to do much other than it has been doing. (Though there are a few tweaks I'd put in.) But every game is a homebrew to some extent or another, and I just think this is a style of homebrew that can work very well. Of course, for reasons similar to the ones faced by SJG, you have to make sure it is tolerable to your particular set of players. And, yes, "Abrahamic" appears to be a word. It refers to the common ground of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and Bahai, too, I guess). > I'm all for absolutes of good and evil (and I don't agree with Earl > on this, I think it most definitely does exist in-game... Oh, it certainly *exists*, but they talk (or at least Derek talks) around it. He makes this pretty clear in the "Pyramid" article where he writes out his design ideas as a dialogue between the "angel in his head" and the "demon in his head." In the IN book, the actual words "good" and "evil" are avoided in preference to "unselfish" and "selfish," which in a way is very concrete and specific, and thus a Good Thing, but there's a general reluctance to connect these ideas with good and evil. > (I know I may be in a minority of 1 but I think Dominic is utterly > cool) Fine, and I certainly think Dominic can be gamed that way. Should I ever, by some twist, be an IN GM, I would probably try to "rehabilitate" him. But he needs the rehabilitation, at least from the description in the IN book and the bits I've seen elsewhere. You are invited to be scared of him, but you are not invited to respect him. YOUR stories of Judgement, Joanna, on your Web pages, are some of the best treatments of Judgement I've seen. > Similarly with the demonic side, some superiors seem so cute or fun > that you could almost forget they are black-hearted personifications > of Evil. Yep. Their descriptions are, in general, more successful to my eyes. And Mephistopheles is the most amusing character in "Dr. Faustus." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:58:07 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Things I've noticed are: > > (1) The deliberate avoidance of absolute good and evil. > Absolute values are *out*. Absolutely. Yeah! And I want these in my game big time. It's not that hard. Star Wars has good guys and bad guys -- if a game about ANGELS and DEMONS can't have good guys and bad guys, what kind of game -can-? > > (2) The way some angels, notably Dominic and Malakim, are almost > evil. Significantly. these are the angelic figures that stand > most nearly for absolute values in their self-descriptions. Exactly. When I describe Dominic's people to angelic PCs, I say "Heaven's secret police." They chuckle nervously. Then I say. "HEAVEN's secret police." Then they look a bit more confused. After a couple of sessions it dawns on them what it's all about. Turns out "Hell's secret police" is a harder concept to describe. > (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or > panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch > of any Abrahamic religion. That's less disturbing to me, since it's also positted that all angels and all demons more or less are opposed to the other pantheons on general principle and nobody really knows what to make of them. Not a bad thing. Jason everybodys dancing with the brown derby chicks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:58:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Innocence Attunements At 10:29 PM -0500 2/9/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >Of course, I shall continue to buy the supplements, largely on the >strength of James Cambias's Sorcery rules. (I know how to run James >Blish's _Black Easter_ now, thanks to him.) Eventually he's bound >to write some more for IN, and I want to help make sure that the book >he contributes to exists. Sam Chupp's. James Cambias has written many things for IN, but he's not in _The Marches_ at all. (OTOH, Cambias wrote the Dominic writeup that actually got me seeing Judgment in a sympathetic light, from which arose some fictional characters, including the Elohite in Maya's latest Caliah story ("Facade", IIRC). (Yes, we borrow each other's characters from time to time...)) [...] >It's no worse than a Servitor of Judgement calling down Heavenly Judgement >on a demon and teleporting away, IMHO. (This is the standard method of >dealing with Shedim, once you get it out of the host. Shedim /fear/ the >Kyriotates of Judgement.) I like that. I'm going to remember that.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:09:30 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction At 9:24 AM -0500 2/10/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >David Edelstein wrote: > >> Eli might _consider_ helping any two celestials reproduce, but [...] > >Why two, by the way? Couldn't it be any arbitrary number? It's certainly *my* opinion that it can be any arbitrary number -- though if it's only one, then it's more like the celestial and the *Superior* being the parents... (Which is cool; there's an NPC Seraph of Creation in service to Destiny running around our game. Mum was a Seraph of Destiny and Daddy was an Archangel of Creation... This partly explains why Terian is so very Mercurian sometimes, for a Seraph.) Two is sort of the minimum number for most celestials, though -- usually Superiors just watch and do the Forces-glue, not actually, well, participate in the *same* way... >Especially for communitarian types like David's servitors. I can >see a couple of dozen of them taking up a collection and going >to David, saying, "Here, boss. Let's make a new squad." "Some of >these forces look demonic." "Hey, boss, we didn't say all the >donations were *voluntary*. Can't you sterilize them or something?..." At 10:51 AM -0500 2/10/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > All celestials are manufactured >by Superiors; it's just that some are manufactured from Forces donated >by older celestials, while others (I always supposed most others) were >created by the Superior acting alone. Yes, most celestials are created soley by their Superior. (Gee, imagine having Laurence as a *Daddy*...) >[...] One may also suppose that celestial-making >is difficult and time-consuming even for Superiors. Mm-hm... >And always remember that the celestials who see Earth duty are a tiny >minority. The bulk of them are inconspicuously tucked away in >Heaven or Hell. Exactly. The streets of Shal-Mari may be crawling with demonlings, but that's only obvious in Shal-Mari. ("Why don't we invade Hell, Daddy?" "Do you know how many demons there are down there?" "Uh, no." "Think about it...") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:02:01 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN> IN Safety's off, just don't shoot MY game... - ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > The problem I keep running into is that 20th century Western > > liberalism is seeping into the game, Explain this one to me. I've found that every In Nomine player has a different view on this one. Some view it as inherently Catholic in origin, with variations to make it more appealing. Some see it as very liberal, a new religion entirely. (To put it more ecumenically, I want the deep fringe beliefs > > of the Abrahamic religions to hold the ontological high ground in > > the IN universe.) That would put a theological bias on the game. I like it *because* every religion is close to the Truth (as In Nomine postulates the Truth to be) but none are on target. At the same time, no religions are specificly refuted either. In Nomine incorporates the buddhist beliefs that a soul unfulfilled is reincarnated. That one who attains enlightenment (or fulfills his divine destiny) goes to a better afterlife. It even follows that one who attains the divine may come back to Earth to help the weak on their journeys. Laurence and Dominic feel the Catholic Church to be a powerful tool, lending support to it's mundane influence on the world. Gabriel did indeed trigger Islam, also providing support for that faith. Jesus is not dealt with, thus including a great many religions, as well as remaining mysterious. If a theology, ANY theology, is used as a basis, it must risk ostracizing other belief systems. I'm all in favor of that in individual games, but I don't want it in the books. Religious beliefs go to the very heart of an individual's view of the universe. By allowing for the acceptance of all major religions, the game can tailored to the beliefs of those who play it, rather than those who wrote it. > I understand that, when most of the audience and writers are presumed > to be more-or-less liberalized Westerners -- or at least can NOT be > presumed to be adherents of the Abrahamic religions -- SJG has to > tread warily. But really, to get the maximum shock value and richest > flavor from In Nomine, you don't seek a least-common-denominator or > a least upsetting interpretation (least upsetting to the imagined > standard gamer). > > Things I've noticed are: > > (1) The deliberate avoidance of absolute good and evil. > Absolute values are *out*. Absolutely. This would force the authors to define good and evil. In Nomine takes a very simple view. Angels care about something, and follow God's plan. They may disagree as to what that plan is, but they're all loyal to God, if not to their superior. Demons are looking out for number one, and consciously rebel against God. Redemption is fairly simple for any demon who truly wants to serve God. If we introduce Good and Evil as game mechanics, we have to open up ancient philosophical discussions again. Is good and evil measured by act, or by intent? Is assisted suicide good or evil? Is abortion good or evil? If you want to deal with absolute good and absolute evil, this is the can of worms you have to be willing to open. Again I think it adds a lot to the game, but don't ask it to be published. If you want to open a can of worms, don't open it onto my gaming table. Let me open my own thank you. > > (2) The way some angels, notably Dominic and Malakim, are almost > evil. Significantly. these are the angelic figures that stand > most nearly for absolute values in their self-descriptions. Dominic? Evil? Interesting... Is it Good to let an angel fall and join the ranks of Hell? Does this promote the fate of man? Should he really be killed? If he is dissonant enough, is it not in his inherent nature that he is already rebelling against himself, and therefore against serving God? Should such a risk be taken? Oops, sorry. That looks like another can of worms. The Malakim evil? Hmmm...I see them more as celestial samurai than celestial gunmen. Passover...an angel slaughters anyone who doesn't have the correct mark at their door. Is this a good act? An evil act? Remember that can...? > > (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or > panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch > of any Abrahamic religion. Now this one, I have to disagree with. What differs here is that every angel and archangel serves God. Period. The celestial heirarchy is basicly a chain of command. From God, to Archangel, to Angel. If anything, it is the very model of a western church. From Pope, to Bishop, to Father Phillip. Archangels are not praised, worshipped, or revered. They are superiors, not deities. To be a pantheon, they must be a collection of deities. > > It is my impression that all these things are quite compatible with > "20th century Western liberalism," but I know they are not at all > flavored the same way as the Abrahamic religions the game draws on. Is a flavor of a story derived from the tale, or the storyteller? If this exact same book were printed word for word, but the artwork was all dark, gothic, Catholic imagery, would it then have a flavor close enough to your tastes? In Nomine is a game. A premise. You have to add the atmosphere, the drama, the passion, and the poetry. Without such involvement, any RPG is simply a collection of stale words in a featureless act of random imagination. > > So, while they tend to make the game more palatable to some people, > they also increase the danger that the game will turn into "secret > agents with funny superpowers" or "modern fantasy in a modern > setting." I'm sure fun games can be played that way, and I'm sure > the drift can be resisted, but I think the way to get the most > mileage out of IN is to play it as "it's the modern world and your > Sunday school teacher was right." Shocking thought. If your Sunday school teacher is right, then his is wrong. Sorry friend, your entire world view is incompatible with this new role playing game. Pretend Catholicism doesn't feel wrong to you. Or mormonism. Or Islam. Put those pesky worms away. Play with them at home please. == --Querent, Angel of Widescreen. Mercurian Servitor of Creation. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:31:34 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Reproduction > > All celestials are manufactured > >by Superiors; it's just that some are manufactured from Forces donated > >by older celestials, while others (I always supposed most others) were > >created by the Superior acting alone. > > Yes, most celestials are created soley by their Superior. (Gee, > imagine having Laurence as a *Daddy*...) AUGH! *eyeballs explode* You know, my Lilim have two parents and two parents _only_. And I have never once said that Lilith could only pick from high ranking demons and Demon Princes. (Not canon, but available if ya wanna use it.) My God. What a confused chick she would be. "I must valiantly uphold the tenants of Freedom against the accursed Angels who would besmirch my Honor! And the Game! Don't get me started on them." Yikes. There are some people Lilith just should not... now I love Laurence. That's why I beat him up and put him through angst hell. But he just should never have any Lilim who call him 'Dad'. > >And always remember that the celestials who see Earth duty are a tiny > >minority. The bulk of them are inconspicuously tucked away in > >Heaven or Hell. > > Exactly. The streets of Shal-Mari may be crawling with demonlings, but > that's only obvious in Shal-Mari. ("Why don't we invade Hell, Daddy?" > "Do you know how many demons there are down there?" "Uh, no." "Think > about it...") And Lust without contraceptives in an infinite space. Yikes. :) - - Em, who read a Lust story elsewhere, and got grossed out totally. Lust + Death = Nastiness. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:57:55 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> FLUFF! (Re: Lilim and Reproduction) At 1:31 PM -0500 2/10/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> > All celestials are manufactured >> >by Superiors; it's just that some are manufactured from Forces donated >> >by older celestials, while others (I always supposed most others) were >> >created by the Superior acting alone. >> >> Yes, most celestials are created soley by their Superior. (Gee, >> imagine having Laurence as a *Daddy*...) > >AUGH! *eyeballs explode* All *six* of them? Gee, Em, I'm sorry... I didn't know the idea would be worse than Djinnporn. Um. Right. Sorry, sorry, forget I mentioned it. >You know, my Lilim have two parents and two parents _only_. And I have >never once said that Lilith could only pick from high ranking demons and >Demon Princes. (Not canon, but available if ya wanna use it.) >My God. What a confused chick she would be. "I must valiantly uphold >the tenants of Freedom against the accursed Angels who would besmirch my >Honor! And the Game! Don't get me started on them." I bet Malakim would be even *more* confused, meeting her. "Um. Maybe she's one of us. On some serious drugs. We should rescue her. We think." >Yikes. There are some people Lilith just should not... now I love >Laurence. That's why I beat him up and put him through angst hell. But >he just should never have any Lilim who call him 'Dad'. Well, I admit that there I was thinking of the general angels that he creates, more than J.Random Lilim... But there is that, isn't there? Of course, the trick is to get him dating a Princess for long enough... emccoy@nh.ultranet.com, Uppity Wynch http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html "rumoured to contain hoards of plunder, and many young wenches" Mike [falsetto]: "We're tired of these degrading patriachical slurs! From now on we demand to be called 'wynchys.'" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:00:20 -0600 From: tom timberlake Subject: IN>[FLUFF] The End of Faust [was:Innocence attunements] Julian Breen wrote: > > > VOTRS is > >the Faustian Redemption distinction. > >Comments? > > > >tom timberlake, Role of James the Stone Malakim > > > Heh, Redemption? *Sure* You've been reading too much Goethe };) > > Be Assured. We_have_him. > -- > Jules - Now serving Peril. > jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk Says you! But everyone knows how much to believe a Hellspawn/Fallen. Even your own *allies* [snicker] know better than to believe anyone from their _side_ of the Celestial RR tracks. And if you are calling a Malakim of Stone a liar, then it is time to call in the gentleman with the voice. You know, the one who says "Laaaaaadies aaaaaaand Gentlemen: Are you ready to rummmmmmmmmmblllllllllllllllle?!!!!!!!!!" [sound effect: bell/ ding! ding! /off sf:bell] Take the word of a Malakim: Faust WAS redeemed and is in the Upper Heavens, safe from your Temptations for Eternity. I, a Malakim of Stone, have said it; it is so, and all Hell's lies won't change the Truth. [we now return you to the usual relevant discussions--hope everyone enjoyed the digression, twas fun!] tom timberlake, role of James the Stone Malakim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:04:08 -0700 From: Chris Piekarski Subject: Re: IN> More PBeM Madness Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > >I will also be starting a PBeM game soon based on White Wolf's World of > > Darkness, > > >but incorporating In Nomine characters to play with a system that I > > developed. So > > > Now that I've had a night to think of ruleslawyery questions, I'm going > to ask some. > > Are you going to give Renegades, Outcasts and Calabim the points for > their compulsory Discords? > > Will Renegades and Outcasts keep their attunements? > > Will Balseraphs of Fate get to be Seraphs? Will they get double > dissonance if they screw up? All IN rules are still IN rules, I'm not editing the dang book. > Are there any Trads, Bloodlines, Clans, Choirs, Bands, Tribes or Crafts > which are forbidden or discouraged? Yes...what, you want a list? Mage: No Celestial Chorus, Werewolf: No Children of Gaia or Red Talons, In Nomine: No Kyrios/Shedim. That's pretty much it. > Are characters going to be made under the old systems and then converted > or will they be made in a new way? WoD characters are made the same way (because we're using the Storyteller system), but IN characters are made normally and then transferred to a WoD-style char sheet. > Will angels and demons keep the higher attributes/lower skills balance > relative to WOD supernaturals? Yes, I'm keeping it all balanced...though the angels might be a little more powerful, since basically every other character is bent on corruption in some small way (or a very large way). > Will you be generous with regard to artifacts, Choir attunements, > Servitor attunements, Lores, etc? Will you require people to pay points > for, par exemple, Area Knowledge: Gehenna for Servitors of the War? The whole world of vampires, etc. is known to angels and demons, but not explored by them in detail. They know about Gehenna already, but to know the inside scoop they'd probably have to pay or ask a gothic buddy. > What is the likely life-span of an Orphan Forces Mage with the Lifesaver > flaw and a love of extremely vulgar magick coupled with a complete > incomprehension of how the supers in the WOD function? 2 hours. > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. You're good at it.. - -- --¥-Chris-¥-- Webmaster of -Anime News and Reviews- "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."--Albert Einstein GodGundam@humanoid.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> IN played with the safety off (was Innocence Attunements) On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Things I've noticed are: > > (1) The deliberate avoidance of absolute good and evil. > Absolute values are *out*. Absolutely. That kind of bothers me as well. Why were the labels "Heaven" and "Hell" bothered with, if Heaven and Hell are almost morally equivalent? Canon should draw a greater distinction between the two realms. > (2) The way some angels, notably Dominic and Malakim, are almost > evil. Significantly. these are the angelic figures that stand > most nearly for absolute values in their self-descriptions. I can see the argument for Dominic being almost evil the way he is presented, although he always seems more *obsessed* than evil to me. But the Malakim? I don't think so. I've always thought of them as the only angels that you can always count on to be good. They know good from evil, and will not tolerate evil no matter what the cost. They are the only angels who will always take a stand against evil, no matter what form it comes in. > (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or > panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch > of any Abrahamic religion. I don't see the pantheism in In Nomine. Could you elaborate, please? > It is my impression that all these things are quite compatible with > "20th century Western liberalism," but I know they are not at all > flavored the same way as the Abrahamic religions the game draws on. That's true. "20th century Western liberalism" is terrified of seeming judgemental. Evil is tolerated, and good is mocked when it tries to stop tolerating evil. If In Nomine was real, Kobal would be laughing his ass off over this. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:46:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> IN Safety's off, just don't shoot MY game... Querent wrote: > > ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > > The problem I keep running into is that 20th century Western > > > liberalism is seeping into the game, Actually, Neel Krishnaswami wrote that. Probably why there are three angle-brackets, not two. Admittedly, I said "Hear, hear!" > Explain this one to me. > I've found that every In Nomine player has a different view on this > one. Some view it as inherently Catholic in origin, with variations > to make it more appealing. Some see it as very liberal, a new > religion entirely. *Gurk* I hope no one sees it as a *religion* at all! Yes, there's certainly Catholic coloring to it, starting with the name and going on to things like Dominic and Laurence upholding that church. It also has a certain amount of Cabbalistic coloring, and so on. In fact, it clearly draws on many sources, and apparently different people are more sensitive to some sources than others. The bits I found particularly redolent of Western liberalism are the ones on my little list that you quote later. > If a theology, ANY theology, is used as a > basis, it must risk ostracizing other belief systems. I'm all in > favor of that in individual games, but I don't want it in the books. Right. As I said, I don't expect SJG to do much differently. For instance, I wouldn't expect them to indicate any preference for Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. On the other hand, they've already put paganism in an inferior position by relegating those gods to the Marches and designating them as creations of human dreams. (Though they (carefully?) avoiding refering to the two major living paganisms, Hinduism and Shinto.) That being the case, they have already put themselves in an essentially "Abrahamic" universe. That being so, they could go a little further into it and present a world that was a little more Abrahamic and a little less generic-modern-fantasy. They would not, I think, offend any more people, and the game would have more distinctive flavor / color / quality. Not that it doesn't have plenty already. But those would be tweaks, not overhauls. As I said in my reply to Joanna, I was talking about homebrews and private campaigns, not canon. > This would force the authors to define good and evil. In Nomine takes > a very simple view. Angels care about something [...]. Demons are > looking out for number one [....] > > If we introduce Good and Evil as game mechanics, we have to open up > ancient philosophical discussions again. I have no desire to see good and evil introduced as game mechanics. The stuff about dissonance and discord does enough and maybe more than enough of that, as it is. And I don't think the game would need to *define* good and evil anywhere. Actually, "selflessness" and "selfishness" are very good beginings to such a definition. All I am saying is that Derek shies away from CALLING the two sides "good" and "evil," which is actually kind of funny because that's clearly what everone expects them to be, and even how they are described in the ads. ("Good and Evil. Life and Death. Rock and Roll.") Since there is little danger of mistaking the devils for good, it seems as if there's a reluctance to call the angels good. This goes along with the negative tone to the descriptions of the severer Archangels. Which brings us to: > Dominic? Evil? [...] > The Malakim evil? [...] I'm glad you don't think so. But, as I said before, it seems to me that, though we are invited to be scared of Dominic, we are never invited to respect him. The Malakim are not treated so negatively, but at least once it was suggested on this list that they were Heaven tame demons. My own feeling is that canon just invites them to be played too narrowly. Samurai or musketeer malakim are permis- sibile in the canon, and would be a good break with stereotype, I think. > > (3) What appears to be the unwitting adoption of a pantheist or > > panentheist theology -- a high heresy in any mainstream branch > > of any Abrahamic religion. > > Now this one, I have to disagree with. What differs here is that > every angel and archangel serves God. Period. Read Yves's description of the beginning of time in the Angelic Player's Guide. If you don't own it, that particular passage is available on the SJG web page for the Guide, at http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/Angelic/excerpts.html#lk1 The relevant bit is: Then God began to notice that parts of Himself - again, we use the term 'Him' loosely - had folded in upon themselves, layer upon layer, until they became complicated, intricate and beautiful. That is to say, even more beautiful than they were before. The complicated parts began moving of their own volition. Now we call them angels. That is strongly suggestive of pantheism, the idea that the universe and God are the same thing (not to be confused with polytheism, the belief in multiple gods). Not that it appears to have affected the rest of the game particularly. But it was a sort of gratuitous bit of heresy in a game based on monotheistic religion. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:48:23 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> IN played with the safety off >>>The problem I keep running into is that 20th century Western liberalism is seeping into the game, which is not a worldview terribly compatible with the worldview of St. John the Mushroom Head. (To put it more ecumenically, I want the deep fringe beliefs of the Abrahamic religions to hold the ontological high ground in the IN universe.)<<< Hmm. Well, I take your point -- some In Nomine writing has been grand and epic, some.....hasn't. On the other hand, the same thing that applies to other, similar rants applies to this one -- for every player who wants an official In Nomine universe where the God of Abraham is unquestionably the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe, there is another player who wants the God of Abraham to have been just an ethereal spirit named Yahweh worshipped as a wargod by some Hebrew tribe, that happened to discover a way to become more powerful than everyone else. That said, I *like* the campaigns Neel and Earl are talking about, and that tends to be how my personal campaign is run -- none of this weaselly "maybe God is just a great big ethereal spirit and maybe the demons are really right" crap. But that's my _personal_ take on In Nomine as an In Nomine GM. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:48:26 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim and Reproduction >>>Of Course, this begs the question: Do celestials fall under the definition of "life" ? This is the one thing that has bothered me about the possibilities of celestial reproduction. It anthropomorphizes them more than I think they should be. But hey, I rant on,<<< I agree. I think allowing celestials to reproduce on their own makes angels and demons warring races of super-powered aliens, rather than celestial beings. But as usual, YMMV. - -David ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #618 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.