From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jul 15 08:10:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA20713 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:10:14 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA27556 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:09:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:09:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199807151309.IAA27556@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 #857 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 Wednesday, July 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 857 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments Re: IN> Angels and Governments IN> Something on-topic Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> A little Knowledge... Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> Re: IN- Word-Bound Servitors of David Re: IN> Dominic's dissonance (was: angels and governments) Re: IN> Dominic's dissonance (was: angels and governments) Re: IN> A little Knowledge... IN> Princes and Renegades IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments IN> Dissonance: Intentions or Consequences? IN> In Nomine Mix Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments Re: IN> In Nomine Mix Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light RE: IN> In Nomine Mix ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:14:19 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments At 8:24 PM -0400 7/13/98, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: >Daniel Maberry wrote: > >> >My thoughts on this are that Vengeance can get out of hand. Dommie's >> boys >> >tend to mete out the exact value of punishment for the crime. Also, and >> I >> >think that people forget this side of Dommie, his Servitors defend the >> >innocent. Gabriel avenges the wrong doing. Again, she might get going >> >after the wrong person. Just my thoughts, >> >> I don't think Gabriel is very likely at all to punish the wrong person. >> After all, her Choir attumenents lether servitors detect guilt. Their >> punishments are targeted based on what people know they've done >> themselves, not what others think they've done. >> >> Also, remember that Dominic's dissonance restriction is to never punish >> someone MORE harshly than they deserve. Think about that. > >Good point about the implied acceptance of punishing someone _LESS_ severly >than they merit. The question becomes whether this is to allow mercy or >something else. > >Just to throw another ball in the air, if I remember correctly, Dominic's >word is Judgement, not Justice. These words are not synonymous, Dominic's >Judgement's are not required to be just. His decisions don't have the same >divine inspiration, saving those using Heavenly Judgement attunement, that >Gabriel's, and his people's, do. About Dominic's Judgements not being required to be Just: Take another look at Dominic's Dissonance conditions; "it is dissonant for them to inflict a punishment greater than the crime, or to stand by while the innocent are punished unfairly." Seems pretty geared towards some sense of justice to me. Gabriel's servitors, on the other hand, are free to slice your leg off because you kicked a puppy... ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Melvil, Djinn Knight of Fate, the Demon of Dewey Decimal System. nofori@pop3.utoledo.edu | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:56:14 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Governments At 4:32 PM -0400 7/12/98, Yossi Gurvitz wrote: > If I understand it correctly, Dominic is only interested in those angels >assigned to earth, those who can actually fall or be corrupted. In that >case, an angel wanting to avoid the unfortunate scrutiny of Old Bugeyes >only has to find himself a cushy job in Heaven. On the contrary, you can Fall, or be Corrupted in Heaven.That's the way the original Fall occured. In Heaven, though, there are far fewer shades of gray abounding, and your divergence from the Party Line will be noticed a lot quicker.Heaven's the last place I'd go to avoid scrutiny. > > Apart from that, every military needs a wing of internal security, and we >should not forget that the Heavenly Host is first and foremost a Host. I >dislike Dominic, personally - my character, a former Outcast Malakite of >Fire, is on his hit list - but he does have an essential job to do. > > Quibble: Gabriel is, among other things, in charge of Vengeance. Dominic >is in charge of Justice - those two words are very close to each other, >but, alas, the two archangels don't get along all that well. How would >that reflect on their servitors? Will they cooperate - they have very >similar goals - or will they hinder each other, or at least regard one >another with hostility? Hostility, I'd imagine. Dominic holds his servitors close to his ideologies, and brooks far less dissent than any other Archangel. Gabriel's servitors cling to her good side because she's what's standing between them and the Divine Inquisition... And because it's abit difficult to predict Gabriel's moods. The further you are on her good side, the less likely you are to get burned when she's in a bad mood. And though the goals are the same, the methods tend to differ. Dominic's Angels are more likely to work within the system, giving the local justice system a chance to punish the offender in its own way, with the Angel pushing the proper buttons to bring on sufficient punishment. Gabriel's Angels are more likely to to put on a mask and go leaping from rooftop to rooftop, meting out vigilante justice, swift and brutal. Note tat I said more likely, not that all do so. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Melvil, Djinn Knight of Fate, the Demon of Dewey Decimal System. nofori@pop3.utoledo.edu | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:33:59 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Something on-topic No, really! I'm on topic this time! Recent discussions have led me to create a new word for Servitor of Factions, though I don't have stats or anything yet. Galkiel, the Demon of Terms with Different Definitions. He's a Balseraph.. His job is taking words by which groups, usually ones political in nature, define themselves and giving them altered definitions. It usually works best when he produces concepts that are very close to each other, but different on one or two points. Not only does this produce two factions, following each definition, where there was only one before, but groups will often tear themselves further apart arguing over the differences. And there can be even more mayhem when opponents of the group still lump all of its followers together under the single term. Galakiel's greatest success of recent years has been the word "feminism". Malphas has been able to parcel this word out among a number of servitors: the Demon of McKinnonite Feminism, the Demon of Pro-Life Feminism, the Demon of Riot Grrrls, and so forth. Look for Galkiel in the future, he seems to ba an up-and-comer. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:18:35 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light >The reverses began around the time of the Crusades, but for the typical >Muslim deep in Dar-al-Islam (the collective term for all Islamic >countries) this was, as indicated above, mostly a minor nuisance on the >periphery. For a while the barbarian Franks actually had the temerity to >seize Jerusalem, but this was duly corrected by Saladin and all was right >with the world again. I think the sack of Bagdahd by the Mongols (whose leader trampled the Caliph, titular head of the Islamic world, beneath his horse) warrents mentioning, as does the Black Death. For that matter, how do the superiors react to outragous acts against God, such as the burning of the Jewish temple, 70 AD? Were the Romans led by demons? Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:24:00 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> A little Knowledge... >To pick a name not-completely-at-random, wouldn't one of Michael's >angels be extremely likely to consider anything St. Joan of Arc tells >them a Good Idea(tm)? Well, considering that the voices she heard incldued that of "St. Michael the Archangel" (guess who!), that won't be surprising. It might say her connection to Mike is better than the angel's... Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:12:54 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light >corrupt state. These were very real things in the turn of the century. Nitpicking: Communism, as a movement, began in the middle of the 19th century. >Russia, where the first real communist revolution took place was >particularly bad - at home workers suffered appalling conditions as >soldiers were sent off too inglorious death because of some petty >aristocratic sqabbling. Oh, I wouldn't call the First World War "aristocratic squabbling". The aristocracy has lost much of its power in most countries by the beginning of the Great War. >Islam - One thing that a lot of people today don't pick up on (esp those >who are U.S. based - maybe that's unfair sorry!) is HOW powerful the >13-14th century Catholic chruch was - this was a superpower - they could >(and did) get rid of Kings & aristocrats, they owned vast amounts of Aside from Holy Roman Emperors, I don't seem to recall the Church deposing any kings. They did put some under interict - John of England is a good example - but it was rarely helpful (in John's case, the Church gave up after a decade or so - the Englishmen just didn't seem to care too much about the whole thing). >land etc. One day they told everyone in Europe to go and butcher a whole >load of (until then) pretty peaceful lot of arabs in the name of God. That "load of Arabs" was not as peaceful as modern historians try to paint them. They did, after all, hurt pilgrims on their way to the Christian holy sites and were as fanatic as the Catholics themselves. It's also true that they didn't have the power to actually strike the Eurpeans on European soil. >Whereas the christians butchered everyone - Jews, Muslims,and christians >that happened to be the wrong side of the Hosporus, the Muslims were >fairly sensible and even treated their prisoners not-badly (for the >middle ages) It was only after about 40 years of a constant wave of >Europeans trying to slaughter them all that the moderate muslims were >overwhelmed by more fundementalists who are the force more prevailant >today. If you want to blame anyone for the way the forces of Islam work >today, blame Uriel and his bloody crusade! Minor tidbit: Uriel was "retired" in 745, First Crusade was about 1096-1099. The only successful one, too. The 14th century saw the scandalous disbandment of the Templars. The Crusades, at the time, were well past their high mark. Also, the Crusades were a mere excuse for a nobles and nobles-wanna-bes to kill, rape and pillage. Though Church doctrine says every crusader who died "for the cross" enters heaven as a saint, I do believe Michael to have different ideas on the subject. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:50:27 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Word-Bound Servitors of David At 9:43 PM +0200 7/14/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > >> An Impudite patron doesn't work, because demons have to prevent human >> death whenever they can, whereas Mercurians can stand by, or even >> instigate it. > >That's something about the Imps that I really have a problem with - they >actually become -softer- on humans after Falling, with regards to killing >them. They can't stand by while their buddies kill some hapless human, the >way a Mercurian can. I think it's a bit strange, to say the least. But they can personally beat up a human to the *point* of death. They just have to make sure their little bonbon doesn't *die*. They can threaten, punch, or otherwise abuse the human. A Mercurian can stand by while one is killed, but cannot offer violence to even the nastiest street gang that is surrounding him and explaining that they're Hellsworn who are just thrilled to be able to have their very own angel to abuse in unspeakable ways. Also, there are some Impudites who can kill, under certain circumstances. They can probbaly also stand back and let humans be killed under circumstances that they could have killed the human themselves. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:10:23 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic's dissonance (was: angels and governments) At 9:38 PM +0100 7/14/98, Jo Hart wrote: >At 13:12 14/07/98 PDT, you wrote: > >If an angel disagrees with Dominic's ruling then _obviously_ its own >judgement is called into question ;-) (So if it has information that he >doesn't (very unlikely) then it had better cough up quickly, or face the >music and prepare to be out-argued. I think the APG says that Dominic would >rather see an angel destroyed than disobey him.) It says he tolerates no dissent. (Mind you, if it would be unjust to punish an angel for believing that it has other information that indicate a lesser punishment is indicated...) Me, I'd think that if Dom had a Servitor who routinely disagreed with him *and was otherwise dutiful and angelic* (and angsting over the fact that he, horrors, disagreed with his Lord!), he'd probably trade that Servitor to Yves (and from there, the Servitor might eventually migrate to Flowers or who knows where). But I do a tough-and-strict-but-caring-as-all-angels-do Dominic, who may well do the Six-Eyed-Stare-Of-Seraphic-Intimidation at someone, but if they are tapping into any kind of Truth, will take that into account. Anyone doing a more fanatic Dom might well decide he's a lot harsher than that. >I wonder if one of the reasons for being able to punish less harshly is in >order to allow for the possibility that a demon might redeem or a mortal >might be rehabilitated. (Which they can't really do if they are dead). Sounds good to me... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:40:02 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Dominic's dissonance (was: angels and governments) At 18:10 14/07/98 -0400, you wrote: > (Mind you, if it would be unjust >to punish an angel for believing that it has other information that >indicate a lesser punishment is indicated...) I dunno. Surely it is contempt of court to not offer important evidence at an appropriate time! (Where 'an appropriate time' is ASAP). It might be more interesting if the servitor was arguing for a harsh punishment but got over-ruled -- although that must be rare. OTOH, we do know there is at least one angel who is tougher than Dom, so it might not be unknown. jo jhart@btinternet.com http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ "Buy old masters. They bring better prices than young mistresses." -- Beaverbrook (1879-1964) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:54:34 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> A little Knowledge... On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >I think that's correct in canon. However, if you *want* to have a > >Word-bound Saint (another canon no-no), then there's no realistic reason > >why he couldn't have Angelic Servitors. Just assume that Heaven is a > >meritocracy, and you are good to go. > > Huh? Where does it say angels can't work for saints? Truthfully, I dunno. I just kind of assumed that was the case based on the post I responded to and went from there. If I'm wrong (and I could be), that just means my campaign deviates a *little* less from canon. > To pick a name not-completely-at-random, wouldn't one of Michael's > angels be extremely likely to consider anything St. Joan of Arc tells > them a Good Idea(tm)? Depends on how condescending they are to humans. I could see one of them saying "Thank you for your advice; now be a good girl and run along". But most would probably listen. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment, or a company entire than to destroy them. -Sun Tzu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:14:56 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Princes and Renegades >>>Perhaps the Demon Princess of Nitpicking could explain how, with the absolute and frequently-reiterated limit the current Line Editor has declared on "No More Than 6 Forces Per Category For *ANYBODY*", a Djinn (even a Djinn Prince) can manage to have more than 6 attunements at a time? Or, if Word-Forces are making their way into canon, would a Word-Bound Djinn be able to add Word-Forces to the count of Celestial Forces in figuring the maximum number of attunements possible? Or does achieving Superior rank allow you to multitask long-term resonance effects the same way it does your physical or spiritual presence?<<< I'd say the latter. The limit on Forces doesn't necessarily apply to Superiors -- they're simply off the scale. They may have a finite number of Forces, and they may even be limited to 6/6/6, technically....but normal game mechanics and limitations just don't apply to them, except when the GM wants them to. So if Asmodeus wants more than 6 attunements (and I think he has a _lot_ more than that), he can have them. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:25:24 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light >>>While it is true that they were largely an excuse for plundering (and plundering the Byzantine Empire as much as anything else), it is also true that, in the 8th and 9th century, there was genuine worry in Europe that Islam would sweep up from Spain into France, and on and on.<<< Indeed, had the advance of the Emirate of Cordoba not been halted by Charles Martel -- I forget the exact date, but sometime in the late 8th or early 9th century -- that could have happened. There was a battle just the other side of the Pyrenees that was one of those "turning points" in history that makes for a good alternate history scenario. Had the Muslims won that battle, it is quite possible that the dar-al-Islam _would_ have spread across most of Europe, and engulfed Christianity. York H. Dobyns' description of the history of Islamic fundamentalism is very good. Yes indeed, by medieval standards, Muslims were actually far more civilized and humane than their Christian counterparts. Unfortunately, that makes for good historical anecdotes, but not much in the way of practical solutions for the modern day. The Islamic world has fallen behind the West, and shows no signs of catching up, technologically or socially, any time soon. And to bring this back to In Nomine relevance: look for some of this to be discussed in The Final Trumpet, featuring Khalid, Archangel of Faith and patron of Islam. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:00:52 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > About Dominic's Judgements not being required to be Just: Take another look > at Dominic's Dissonance conditions; "it is dissonant for them to inflict a > punishment greater than the crime, or to stand by while the innocent are > punished unfairly." Seems pretty geared towards some sense of justice to me. Couple of things here:1) Greater than the crime by whose definition? The angels? Dominics? Gods? The American Legal System? Leviticus and Deuteronomy? And what happens if you (and this can be any 'you') disagree? In game example, PC is assigned to punish someone guilty of a crime they find particularly offensive. The form of punishment they choose to institute is brutal, so brutal that it offends the GM, and is blatently illegal and excessive under current US (or wherever) statutes, but they can come up with a solid justification under some alternate, and valid, concept (strict Biblical interpretation, the laws of the offenders homeland, etc.). What then? And secondly, note that Dominic's dissonance conditions do not require one to fully or even adequately punish the crime. They can not overpunish or punish unjustly, but they may underpunish, or not punish, if they so choose. This could be to allow for mercy, or it could be for something more sinister. The word isn't necessarily Good Judgement. > Gabriel's servitors, on the other hand, are free to slice your leg off > because you kicked a puppy... Somewhat excessive, but true. On the other hand, one would hope that the angelic assignment system implicit in the Gabrielic resonances assigns by priority. - - Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:41:46 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> Dissonance: Intentions or Consequences? Hmm... Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > But they can personally beat up a human to the *point* of death. They > just have to make sure their little bonbon doesn't *die*. They can > threaten, punch, or otherwise abuse the human. A Mercurian can stand > by while one is killed, but cannot offer violence to even the nastiest > street gang that is surrounding him and explaining that they're > Hellsworn who are just thrilled to be able to have their very own > angel to abuse in unspeakable ways. Technically speaking then, Mercurians have a sure-fire demon-detection technique: hit a suspected demon and wait for the note of dissonance. Keep bludgeoning if it doesn't sound, apply the Corporeal Song of Healing if it does. Of course, as a GM, I would give them a note of dissonance anyway, as they have clearly violated their natures by being willing to harm a potential innocent in the hopes of uncovering a possible diabolical. Which leads to an interesting question: is dissonance simply a matter of consequences (with the possibility of servitors of Destiny or Fate to acquire dissonance at any given moment as they unwittingly push a mortal toward one or other through direct action) or consequence weighed against intention (such as the above case)--as has been discussed in the Dominic/Gabriel thread? I'm curious about how others handle this issue. - --Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:03:00 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> In Nomine Mix Being new to this list, I have the feeling this has been bandied about before, but I'm interested in opinions... I'm working on an In Nomine mix for my players, based on the seven major Choirs and seven major Bands. So far, I'm considering the following possibilities: Cherubim: U2, "Stay (Faraway, So Close!)" Ofanim: Sheryl Crow, "Everyday is a Winding Road" Elohim: The The, "Helpline Operator" Kyriotates: Bjork, "Army of Me" Balseraphs: Rollins Band, "Liar" Djinn: The Police, "Every Breath You Take" Habbalah: Garbage, "Vow" Lilim: The Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" Shedim: Nine Inch Nails, "Mr. Self Destruct" This gives a rough idea of what kind of music I'm aiming for, but there are a few caveats: 1) Lyrics should be somewhat appropriate to the Choir/Band's nature (resonance and dissonance). 2) The lyrics *can* be more appropriate if envisioning a particular Superior the Choir/Band works for (such as a Kyriotate of David in "Army of Me") or a particular situation (the Djinn in "Every Breath You Take" has obviously blown his attempt to sever an attunement). 3) The general "feel" of the song is just as important as what the lyrics spell out--angelic songs should be more uplifting, hopeful or forgiving and use a major key or be more consonant and harmonious; infernal songs should be nastier and more dangerous, not to mention use a minor key, be dissonant or feel somehow "broken". ("Vow" is more about the Habbalah attitude than their resonance--it echoes disdain and obsession with punishing the weak, for example.) 4) No more than one song from any given group. That being said, the only songs I'm certain I'll keep are for the Balseraphs, Habbalah and Shedim. Everything else is arguable--and I'm still missing a whole lot! Hoping for some input, Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 06:23:48 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Angels and Governments At 23:00 14/07/98 -0400, you wrote: >Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > >> About Dominic's Judgements not being required to be Just: Take another look >> at Dominic's Dissonance conditions; "it is dissonant for them to inflict a >> punishment greater than the crime, or to stand by while the innocent are >> punished unfairly." Seems pretty geared towards some sense of justice to me. > >Couple of things here:1) Greater than the crime by whose definition? The angels? >Dominics? Gods? The American Legal System? Leviticus and Deuteronomy? And what >happens if you (and this can be any 'you') disagree? Oh I'd say in the angel's personal opinion ;-) The only caveat is that the angel is required to be consistent and treat every perpetrator it comes across according to the same criteria. If Dominic disagrees then he'll order the angel not to do it again, send it to amend the situation as best it can, assign it a supervisor or maybe assign it to a triad, although if it is trusted enough to go off and judge people on its own you'd think he'd know what its point-of-view was on these things. If the local legal system disagrees (quite a common occurrence I'd think, most countries don't have an offence of 'serving a minion of satan' on the statute books) then the angel may be investigated or even arrested by mortal agencies. Bible? *shrug* Some will adhere to it strictly, many will view it as a set of guidelines, some will prefer their own sense of fairness. The 'eye for an eye' mentality still allows a fair amount of leeway. Servants of Judgement are supposed to be able to judge and to apply their judgement equally to all -- at least in deciding whether someone is being unfairly punished or not. > In game example, PC is >assigned to punish someone guilty of a crime they find particularly offensive. >The form of punishment they choose to institute is brutal, so brutal that it >offends the GM, and is blatently illegal and excessive under current US (or >wherever) statutes, but they can come up with a solid justification under some >alternate, and valid, concept (strict Biblical interpretation, the laws of the >offenders homeland, etc.). What then? I'd let them. But I'd also force them to apply the same standards to everyone else and face the consequences if mortal society or other angels find out. Some inquisitors are just plain nastier than others, but being angels they should at least be able to ensure that the defendent is actually fully guilty first. If the angel is going to behave in this way, I think it should be fairly obvious in the character concept. You're thinking of something like cutting people's hands off for theft? As far as offending the GM goes, that would maybe have to be some especially nasty form of torture leading to death or permanent disfigurement or insanity I guess? I can't think of any crime that would warrant that unless the victim had been doing similar things themselves and the angel was very into poetic justice, in which case its fine. The only excption seems to be for demons in which case it is allowable to remove the demon's vessel even if that particular demon hadn't been doing very much. (Soul-killing is probably OK too). Judgement has wide boundaries but even so, it is possible to step over the line. Their AA does see them every week so if an angel is tending that way without good cause it should have been corrected. Angels can probably appeal to other Dominicans for a retrial & ask for a triad instead. (Or appeal to their own superiors to intervene). > >And secondly, note that Dominic's dissonance conditions do not require one to >fully or even adequately punish the crime. They can not overpunish or punish >unjustly, but they may underpunish, or not punish, if they so choose. This could >be to allow for mercy, or it could be for something more sinister. The word isn't >necessarily Good Judgement. There could be a hidden agenda from D which involvs systematically sparing and fostering specific sinners on a political basis. Probably other angels suspect them of this every time they see someone either being punished to an extent they consider over-severe, or let off on what seems to them to be a loophole. Only the Dominicans know for sure and they won't stoop to defending themselves. There are enough seraphim et al in heaven that if this went on regularly you'd think it would be known, but you could certainly rule that it was a conspiracy to overthrow heaven. > >> Gabriel's servitors, on the other hand, are free to slice your leg off >> because you kicked a puppy... > >Somewhat excessive, but true. On the other hand, one would hope that the angelic >assignment system implicit in the Gabrielic resonances assigns by priority. > On the other hand, a lot of Gabriel's servants are unstable smite-happy maniacs with flaming swords :) You can apply the same argument as above to deciding when the cruel have been punished enough, but these angels have no dissonance restriction which prevents them from punishing far in excess of the actual crime if they think it would be a good idea. Still, sometimes the 'short sharp shock' is really what is needed to put someone back on the right path, and Domenicans can't in good faith do this when it requires a very harsh punishment for a small crime. jo jhart@btinternet.com http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ "Buy old masters. They bring better prices than young mistresses." -- Beaverbrook (1879-1964) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:21:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Taznoky Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Mix "Matthew D. Gandy" wrote: > > Being new to this list, I have the feeling this has been bandied about before, but I'm a ne one too... > Cherubim: U2, "Stay (Faraway, So Close!)" > Ofanim: Sheryl Crow, "Everyday is a Winding Road" That is a good one! > Elohim: The The, "Helpline Operator" > Kyriotates: Bjork, "Army of Me" > Balseraphs: Rollins Band, "Liar" > Djinn: The Police, "Every Breath You Take" > Habbalah: Garbage, "Vow" > Lilim: The Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" > Shedim: Nine Inch Nails, "Mr. Self Destruct" I have a lot of musics from Marilyn Manson that fit very well in some superiors and bands. "Cake and sodomy" is a perfect one to Andrealphus or a perfect sondtrack to Shalmary. "Get your Gunn" would fit very well in Baal or to de Calabites. I'm looking for some others that I don't remember right now. []'s Taznoky _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:47:49 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Yossi Gurvitz wrote: > For that matter, how do the superiors react to outragous acts against > God, such as the burning of the Jewish temple, 70 AD? Were the Romans led > by demons? I really don't think they care much about -things-, such as temples, unless they are Tethers, of course. They care about people, and the future of the world. David probably wasn't all that happy, but otherwise I don't think it was a big deal. All the people killed, OTOH... Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! Geography is just therapy for imperialists. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:15:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light > >land etc. One day they told everyone in Europe to go and butcher a whole > >load of (until then) pretty peaceful lot of arabs in the name of God. > That "load of Arabs" was not as peaceful as modern historians try to > paint them. They did, after all, hurt pilgrims on their way to the > Christian holy sites and were as fanatic as the Catholics themselves. It's > also true that they didn't have the power to actually strike the Eurpeans > on European soil. You're not entirely correct. The group you are thinking of was named "The Assassins" (the actual arabic escapes me at the moment, which is 8:00am), and they were a fanatical Moslem sect who believed that they were the soul protectors of the Holy Land. Mostly, they specialized in harrassing the pilgrims. Saladin didn't think too highly of them, in fact. Think of them as the terrorists of the middle ages. [This is more or less a clarification.] > Minor tidbit: Uriel was "retired" in 745, First Crusade was about > 1096-1099. The only successful one, too. The 14th century saw the > scandalous disbandment of the Templars. The Crusades, at the time, were > well past their high mark. This is one of those that I consider a blip on the radar of the In Nomine Timeline, if you want to give this sort of thing over to Uriel. It does work out without him, though. > Also, the Crusades were a mere excuse for a nobles and nobles-wanna-bes > to kill, rape and pillage. Though Church doctrine says every crusader who > died "for the cross" enters heaven as a saint, I do believe Michael to have > different ideas on the subject. > Again, "sort of". Keep in mind that the nobility of the time saw Jesus Christ as more of a Feudal Lord then as their savior. They took "Lord and Savior" very literally, and thought that maiming and killing in the name of Christ was exactly what He wanted. The Papacy, which was attempting to reform a new power base, attempted to segue all this loose power, aggression and energy into one particular channel, and that was a crusade to the Holy Land to free the Holy City. The idea was that this would reaffirm belief in the church, bring about a more holy knight, and strengthen the faith in the Roman Catholic church, which had been doing fair to middling previously. Everyone who went on the Crusade was a knight in the eyes of God, so to speak. And so they got a little out of hand. The crusaders didn't just start killing after Constantinople, they practiced on some of the locals; the first major massacre of Jews in Europe occured as the over zealous Franks burned and butchered them along the Reine. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:27:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light > For that matter, how do the superiors react to outragous acts against > God, such as the burning of the Jewish temple, 70 AD? Were the Romans led > by demons? In Nomine, thus far, has turned a blind eye to about 95% of all Jewish history from Moses through to WWII, be it good or bad. (Kings? There's a book of Kings? Where? Where?) So there has been, thus far canonically, absolutely no mention of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalam. No Dome of the Rock, no Wailing Wall, no Jerusalam, no Israel at all. I find this highly amusing on many levels for various reasons, actually. There's a certain part of me that is rather glad. If I had to make a call, I would say that the Roman Centurian who burned down the Temple of Solomon in 70AD was a normal human and not led by any demons at all. It was pure, outright human malice and hatred. Did God really punish the Jewish people for being too covetous and greedy? Or was it just an act of war? Will we ever know? Either way, the destruction of the Temple marked the end of Israel as a nation until post-WWII. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:31:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Communism and Islam seem to get a bad light > I really don't think they care much about -things-, such as temples, > unless they are Tethers, of course. They care about people, and the future > of the world. David probably wasn't all that happy, but otherwise I don't > think it was a big deal. All the people killed, OTOH... *blink* Not a big deal? 2000 years of Jewish guilt isn't a big deal? The state of Israel destroyed by Romans not a big deal? Millenia of Diaspora not a big deal? The Temple considered to be the Seat of God destroyed by Romans not a big deal? Considering that one of the tenants for the coming of the Messiah is that he will appoint the 12 Judges to rule over Israel and rebuild the Temple of Solomon.... Sheesh. Actually, I'd believe it of IN Superiors as written, actually. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:48:13 +0100 From: "Ellen Kakkaratchi" Subject: RE: IN> In Nomine Mix > Being new to this list, I have the feeling this has been > bandied about before, but > I'm interested in opinions... > I'm working on an In Nomine mix for my players, based on the > seven major Choirs > and seven major Bands. So far, I'm considering the following > possibilities: > > Cherubim: U2, "Stay (Faraway, So Close!)" > Ofanim: Sheryl Crow, "Everyday is a Winding Road" > Elohim: The The, "Helpline Operator" > Kyriotates: Bjork, "Army of Me" > > Balseraphs: Rollins Band, "Liar" > Djinn: The Police, "Every Breath You Take" > Habbalah: Garbage, "Vow" > Lilim: The Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" > Shedim: Nine Inch Nails, "Mr. Self Destruct" I love this idea. Here's my tenpence worth. Seven inspirational tracks: Seraphim: The Host of the Seraphim - Dead Can Dance Cherubim: Hounds of Love - Kate Bush Ofanim: Moving On - Sweet Honey in the Rock (acapella gospel) Elohim: Remind me to smile - Gary Numan Malakim: Victory - PJ Harvey Kyriotates: Spirit - Bauhaus (it's about an 'entity' that on good nights possessed the band before a show and made them perform with supernatural excellence) Mercurians: I'm Your Man - Leonard Cohen Seven mean, nasty and/ or twisted tracks: Balseraphs: Big Hollow Man - Danielle Dax (big hollow man with a fist full of sham) Djinn: These Precious Things - Tori Amos (let them bleed, let them wash away...let them break their hold over me) Calabim: Stagger Lee - Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (I can't quote from this, I'd be thrown off the list!) Habbalah: Love Will Tear Us Apart - Joy Division Lilim: More - Sisters of Mercy Shedim: Rape Me - Nirvana Impudites: Oh, You Pretty Things - David Bowie I am, as always, Ellen ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #857 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.