From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Aug 3 11:57:12 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 LAA14524 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:57:11 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA21577 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:48:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:48:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199808031648.LAA21577@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 #893 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 Monday, August 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 893 In this digest: Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? Re: IN> Multiple Roles? Re: IN> Old IN stuff Re: IN> an apology from HAVIC Re: IN> A new Archangel and plot seed. Re: IN> Multiple Roles? IN> Final Trumpets, and Funky Mushrooms. Re: IN> Roles Re: IN> an apology from HAVIC Re: IN> Enhanced Gabrielite Attunements Re: IN> Investigation IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) Re: IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) IN> Greg's Shedim problem Re: IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) Re: IN> HELLO ANY BODY HOME Re: IN> A new Archangel and plot seed. Re: IN> Final Trumpets, and Funky Mushrooms. IN> Lost Words? Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Re: IN> Roles Happen Re: IN> Miltonian IN Re: IN> Lost Words? Re: IN> Miltonian IN Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? Re: IN> IN- Why not spread the Word (was RE: Roles and what to do...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:57:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Doug Muir wrote: > >My own personal take on the situation is that you are in trouble if > your > >word dies. So don't apply for trivial words. > > Yeah, but it's possible to have Words that are nontrivial, vital even, > but *temporary* by their very nature. The Angel of the Roman Empire, > Any Word that is either political or technological in nature is probably > doomed. And that covers quite a lot of ground. Not if you think carefully. The Angel if cd's is a fool who deserves what he's going to get (assuming that he exists). I am not going into the mistranslation argument. You wanna go that route then you should've said right away that cd's was just a shorthand way of saying something else. As someone allready pointed out the angel of storage media is not trivial, and has arguably been around since some cave man decided to draw on his wall. While many things sound like it would be really cool to have a word on, a word, just like a business, cannot survive in the long run if it just focuses on a trend. Angels aren't that stupid. > > > I think the Seraphim council > >(or Lucifer) would allow trivial words just as an example to others. > Oh, that's canon. It's clearly stated (somewhere) that Lucifer gives > out misery names. Yeah, Lucifer does it for fun, and hell is probably filled with imps who used to be word bound demons. But the Seraphim council, while it woudl do it occasionaly, won't make a habit of it. It's not very nice after all. > I think the Demons of Stale Bong Water and Pocket > Fluff were mentioned. Stale bong water is not a fluff word. I have had a close encounter with stale bong water ("gee how does this (bong) work?" says a friend of mine while tipping the bong, "AAAAARRGH" says I as the liquid comes pouring out) and let me tell you, there aint a more disgusting substance on the planet. For those that have seen the Labyrinth, think bog of eternal stench. > >I'm not sure it's really kosher > >to change words, under these circumstances. It would be like having a > >heart transplant, while you were awake (unless you fall (are redeemed) > >which is painful enough as it is.) > > Well, I agree... it probably *is* really painful and unpleasant. But > sometimes it would be necessary, n'est ce pas? Yeah, but that is why it can't be common occurence. It might happen once century in heaven (or even once a millenium or less), and probably more in hell, but don't think it's a common occurence. At least, not in my game. mvg, Jasper Floor "For words are wise men's counters,--they do but reckon by them; but they are the money of fools." Thomas Hobbes - The Leviathan. Part i. Chap. iv ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:20:48 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Multiple Roles? "Patrick O'Duffy" wrote: > >G'day. > Just reading through the recent threads on Roles gave me a headache, >but I imagine that people running ongoing IN games have to contend with >these things. > What I'm wondering about is whether people think that a character >could have multiple Roles (never mind how they're established). Would a >character be able to use two seperate identities? What is they had two >different Vessels to swap between, one per Role? If you are using the "mystical reality-bending" Role method, then I don't see any problem at all with having multiple Roles, as long as they all fit the character idiom. If you are using the "the build up a cover" Role method, then it's unlikely you'll have more than a few very-low level Roles, and it's impossible to have more than one high-level one. (You'll likely have one Vessel for normal use, and another for any illegal activities you feel like pursuing.) > And what's with Seraphim & Roles? I mean, it's obvious you get into >trouble without a Role (and the Seraph in my last game played this up >wonderfully), but is claiming a Role a lie? It's implied that it isn't, >since only servitors of Litheroy are banned from having one - but the >Litheroy writeup says that Roles are a lie! I'm of the opinion that >Seraphim should be able to use Roles as effectively as other PCs, >otherwise they lose some of the general fun, but what do others think? It's messy, any way you slice it. You'll just have to pick the variation that makes you happiest. IMC, Seraphim can't even intentionally lie by omission or misdirection (their resonance picks up on more than literal truth, so their dissonance ticks likewise), and Roles are mostly false paperwork, so they can't have them. This doesn't make me particularly happy, but it has the side-benefit that Seraphim are thin on the ground on Earth. The Seraph resonance is just really gross at investigations. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:40:59 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Old IN stuff Casca wrote: > >On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, The Anti-Santa wrote: > >> But just look at poor old Michael >> >> Thank God they didn't use THAT pic > >I dunno. I kind of like it, especially with the reason they gave. >The really ancient Celestials should be quite alien, I think. Michael also had a rather more nuanced and interesting writeup, as well. It's a pity he was simplified so much. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:45:24 +1000 From: "kenkoala" Subject: Re: IN> an apology from HAVIC OK that's two messages sent unsolicited. Please refrain from blamket mail across the net medium. Yours is the stuff spam is made of - and mine is the ire with which spam is born. - -----Original Message----- From: havic@erols.com Date: Monday, 3 August 1998 12:30 Subject: IN> an apology from HAVIC > >Dear Sir or Madam: > We apologize for the e-mail sent earlier. Our e-mail >lists were accidentally mixed. We have corrected this >problem, and your e-mail address has been removed >from our list. If you wish to receive further e-mails, >please request to be on our e-mail list at >www.HAVIC6.com. We appologise for any >inconvienance this may have caused. > >Sincerely, >Peter Gray >PGI Limited >www.HAVIC6.com > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 06:33:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: Re: IN> A new Archangel and plot seed. Not only has the Archangel of the Waters been explored, he's been destroyed. IPG p.13. (It's ok, at least he took a Demon Prince of the Ocean down before getting sacked.) - ---Akumsa@aol.com wrote: > > This, I think, was a word that should have been in the main book, but as yet > to be unexplored. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:40:56 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Multiple Roles? On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 09:20:48AM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > It's messy, any way you slice it. You'll just have to pick the variation > that makes you happiest. IMC, Seraphim can't even intentionally > lie by omission or misdirection (their resonance picks up on more than > literal truth, so their dissonance ticks likewise), and Roles are > mostly false paperwork, so they can't have them. > I personally do it the other way round. Their resonance doesn't pick up misdirections and omissions except on check digits of 6, and their dissonance doesn't prevent them using them. Otherwise if a Seraph says "I'm called Mr. X", that should be dissonant, as it's both an omission and a misdirection. Where I'd restrict Seraphim are in relation to the following: self-fulfilling prophecies, and implicit claims. Implicit claims are complicated, but I'll explain them thus. A Seraph wants to restrain a friend from doing something, and thinks that coercion will probably be required. However, the Seraph doesn't want to hurt his/her friend. So the Seraph bluffs... The Seraph can say "Stop or I'll shoot" without meaning that the Seraph will shoot the friend. If, immediately after the friend doesn't stop, the Seraph shoots something else, I wouldn't inflict dissonance. (It's best if whatever the Seraph shoots is in some way related to the situation, and clearly wouldn't have been shot if the friend had stopped.) If the Seraph didn't shoot on the grounds that a time period wasn't specified either, I'd inflict dissonance on the grounds that the Seraph is implicitly claiming to be able to predict the distant future. In this model, it doesn't matter whether the Seraph is right, and does shoot something else later on, because the Seraph was still claiming knowledge it didn't possess. If it was a Balseraph, that _would_ purge the dissonance. I don't expect you to agree with this, but it's my take on it. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:47:38 -0500 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Final Trumpets, and Funky Mushrooms. Okay... http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/FinalTrumpet/img/cover-lg.jpg ...So it makes you think you've been eating them funky mushrooms again. But who cares? The cover is pretty cool... I have to agree that the Marches has the most amusing cover, but lacks in content (Well, save for the Superior writeups; Especially Gabriel, yummm...) Though I kinda like Heaven and Hell's cover... And on that note, here's another picture that'll make you think you're eating Funky mushrooms: http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/hellsplaygnd.jpg Including the much better, but slower downloading: http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/hellsplaygnd150.jpg Ah, the things one does when they are bored and own a 3-d rendering program... - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Technomancer, Six of Nine. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:05:35 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Roles On Sun, Aug 02, 1998 at 02:02:59PM -0500, The Bard wrote: > > But the question is: How do they get this way? The length of the discussion is that > > we're having a lot of trouble explaining this part of canon, or figuring out how often > > you can let it happen. > > It is devine (or infernal) intervention. The arch angels and demon princes have altered > reality before of course thay can forge some documents and memories. Thats wheree thay came > from. As for how often you should let it happen depends on the story and the players. No > two instances are the same. > An alternative interpretation is that that quote was hyperbole. I find this more useful, in that it allows greater scope for espionage-related games, at least in theory. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as saying that nothing will show you're not a cop, but that there might be an absence of things that show you are. Either way, it's pretty clear that someone with a Role as a cop does indeed work as a cop. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:25:16 -0400 From: Afterburner Subject: Re: IN> an apology from HAVIC >OK that's two messages sent unsolicited. Please refrain from blamket mail >across the net medium. Yours is the stuff spam is made of - and mine is the >ire with which spam is born. Not to worry. He also spammed my private email address. Not a smart thing to do considering that (A) I work at the ISP he used to send out the spam; and (B) I'm the guy in charge of cancelling spammers. The apology he sent mitigates the circumstances *slightly*, but he's still looking at a suspension. Afterburner Malakim of Anti-Spamming Erol's Abuse Guy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:24:54 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Enhanced Gabrielite Attunements On Sat, Aug 01, 1998 at 06:55:06PM -0400, Casca wrote: > Neat. Other than the Ofanite and Malakite, I thought her servitor > attunements sucked as well. > I was always a bit suspicious of the Ofanite attunement, on the grounds that it's more powerful than Belial's Firewalker attunement, which costs twice as many cps to get. > Seraphim > -------- > ...have the additional gift of knowing the temperature of anything in their > line of vision, even in the dark. > Not bad. > Cherubim > -------- > It is the role of Gabriel's Cherubim to burn those who, within the last > year, have horribly betrayed someone who was devoted to them. These > people's skin blisters and itches at the touch of the Cherubim of Fire, > doing 1 die damage every other round up to a number of dice equal to the > angel's Corporeal Forces. > Hmm...the problem with this is that it allows them to fulfill their dissonance conditions automatically, with hardly any effort. > Elohim > ------ > They have the ability to extract the emotional pain from one person, > which heals that human's heart, and pass it along to anyone else, > amplified. For some reason, I hear the word Habbalah. The victim of the emotional backlash, with a touch, takes a > number of dice damage to his Celestial Forces equal to the Celestial > Forces of the angel. > No. Never. The word munchie is inadequate to describe this power. This attunement causes far too much damage, much more than the Calabim of Lust attunement, which at least is resistible and can't strip Forces. > Kyriotates > ---------- > Kyriotates serving Gabriel can manifest thermal energy -- hot, flickering > flames which only consume what the angel wishes to burn. > Thus making the True Shape of Flame attunement useless. Personally, I liked Hitherby's stuff, though I think giving the Elohim 1 in Artistry is a bit too little. Adding Celestial Forces to Artistry would be better, or giving them something analogous to the Cherub of Flowers attunement. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:33:11 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Investigation > >Because of this, I now allow my players to obtain roles *if* they get > >the character points *and* they play the roll they want to embrace > >them. If they do a good job of staying "in character", then I'll let > >them weave themselves slowly into the Symphony. This will however > >take quite a bit of time and effort. Exactly. Roles are a way to convince HUMANS that the celestial belongs in their world. The more people that see/recognize the character, the more databases that come up positive when people check into them, the more definite signs that someone exists convinces the Symphony (through human beings) that the celestial belongs there. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) I'd suggest that the Archangels and Demon Princes have nothing to do with it. It is an effect of the Symphony. IF a celestial behaves as a part of the Symphony long enough, he/she WILL develop a role. No documents are needed. No memories need to be forged. Period. A role is not about ID. A role is about not sticking out like a proverbial sore thumb. There's nothing in canon to suggest that the Archangels or Demon Princes have anything to do with it whatsoever. I'm not sure why people here seem so bent on maintaining that the hand of the divine or infernal must in some way be responsible for every game mechanic. Roles happen. They're a happy side effect of playing "in character" within the symphony. No one has to come in and tinker with your background. No one has to forge documents. No one has to manipulate human minds. If they do, you probably don't deserve that role anyway and I'd mock your GM for giving it to you. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but so far I see no reason that anything I've said violates even a single line of printed material. -Jayson > On Sun, Aug 02, 1998 at 02:02:59PM -0500, The Bard wrote: > > > But the question is: How do they get this way? The length of the discussion is that > > > we're having a lot of trouble explaining this part of canon, or figuring out how often > > > you can let it happen. > > > > It is devine (or infernal) intervention. The arch angels and demon princes have altered > > reality before of course thay can forge some documents and memories. Thats wheree thay came > > from. As for how often you should let it happen depends on the story and the players. No > > two instances are the same. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:01:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) Jayson Howell wrote: > Roles happen. They're a happy side effect of playing "in character" > within the symphony. No one has to come in and tinker with your > background. No one has to forge documents. No one has to manipulate > human minds. I don't understand. Where do the documents come from, then? There have to be docuements, or "Jedi mind tricks" at least, from time to time, since presenting them is part of being "in character" in the modern world. I could believe that the PC itself got those documents, one way or another, and that this is represented by the character points spent on the Role, but documents or their appearance there have to be, from time to time. Are you saying the Symphony whips them up in response to the celestial's good acting? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:01:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Greg's Shedim problem > And most importantly, can anyone help with my Shedim problem? :) How did that go on Saturday, by the way? :) - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: Re: IN> Roles Happen (Re: IN> Roles) Why? Why are people so insistant that a role come with ID? No, there don't have to be documents. I dare you to get ID from a squirrel in a park, or a bum on the street, or an aboriginal kid in the outback. All are legitimate roles. Paperwork doesn't come from anywhere. A role doesn't require documentation. None. Nada. What a role requires is that no amount of background checking will *disprove* the role. Not that it will be proven through extensive FBI searches. If you come up with documentation, if you come up with ID, if you come up with friends back home, that merely adds to what you can do with your role. - ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Jayson Howell wrote: > > > Roles happen. They're a happy side effect of playing "in character" > > within the symphony. No one has to come in and tinker with your > > background. No one has to forge documents. No one has to manipulate > > human minds. > > I don't understand. Where do the documents come from, then? > There have to be docuements, or "Jedi mind tricks" at least, from > time to time, since presenting them is part of being "in character" > in the modern world. I could believe that the PC itself got those > documents, one way or another, and that this is represented by the > character points spent on the Role, but documents or their appearance > there have to be, from time to time. Are you saying the Symphony > whips them up in response to the celestial's good acting? > > Earl > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:33:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> HELLO ANY BODY HOME - ---"Al.Bri" wrote: > > The Bard wrote: > >Graveyard Greg wrote: > >> ---SienarFLT@aol.com wrote: > >> > And of course some of us quietly save all the useful stuff to use in > our games > >> > without feeling the -need- to comment on any of it. I personally will > not > >> > waste the time and space sending a post that says "hey I liked it" > >> > and nothing else. > >> But some of us need the gratification. :) > >Yes how are we suppose to know if people like what we are talking about. > >And compliments help make friends :-) > > One can always sends "thanks" by person to person e-mail instead of through > the list. > > Andrew Martin Agreed. And that is all I have to say about this thread. :) Graveyard Greg, waiting for the next thread _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:44:01 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> A new Archangel and plot seed. Oh, I dont have the infernal players guide... Oops! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:43:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Final Trumpets, and Funky Mushrooms. - ---Shadowstar wrote: > > Okay... > > http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/FinalTrumpet/img/cover-lg.jpg > > ...So it makes you think you've been eating them funky mushrooms again. > But who cares? The cover is pretty cool... Gabriel has never looked better! :) I have to agree that the > Marches has the most amusing cover, but lacks in content (Well, save for > the Superior writeups; Especially Gabriel, yummm...) > I disagree. I think the Marches has a terrible cover. Oh well! > Though I kinda like Heaven and Hell's cover... Heh. I agree with you there too! All in all, I think The Final Trumpet will have the best cover, next to Fall of the Malakim...Can't wait to get it! :) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:55:55 PDT From: "Doug Muir" Subject: IN> Lost Words? >> >My own personal take on the situation is that you are in trouble if >> it's possible to have Words that are nontrivial, vital even, >> but *temporary* by their very nature. >> Any Word that is either political or technological in nature is probably >> doomed. And that covers quite a lot of ground. > >Not if you think carefully. The Angel if cd's is a fool who deserves what >he's going to get (assuming that he exists). H'm. That argument would apply to pretty much every form of technology, from flint hand-axes to slide rules. So, if we take your position, technological Words are left empty, or only filled by stupid angels. Ditto for words representing political entities, corporations, etc. Oh, and also -- these Words will *not* be left empty by the diabolicals. Hell wouldn't hesitate to shove some reluctant demon into the position whether he wanted it or not. This would seem to give Hell a pretty huge strategic advantage... >> > I think the Seraphim council >> >(or Lucifer) would allow trivial words just as an example to others. > >> Oh, that's canon. It's clearly stated (somewhere) that Lucifer gives >> out misery names. > >Yeah, Lucifer does it for fun, and hell is probably filled with imps who >used to be word bound demons. But the Seraphim council, while it woudl do >it occasionaly, won't make a habit of it. It's not very nice after all. Right -- exactly. So does this mean that Hell has that huge advantage (because they have more leeway in giving out Words)? >> >I'm not sure it's really kosher >> >to change words, under these circumstances. It would be like having a >> >heart transplant, while you were awake (unless you fall (are redeemed) >> >which is painful enough as it is.) >> >> Well, I agree... it probably *is* really painful and unpleasant. But >> sometimes it would be necessary, n'est ce pas? > >Yeah, but that is why it can't be common occurence. It might happen once >century in heaven (or even once a millenium or less), and probably more in >hell, but don't think it's a common occurence. At least, not in my game. Well, we all seem to have missed this so far, but there *is* at least one example in canon: Avery, the former Demon of Hot Sauce, now Wordless (_Marches_, p.25). Avery seems to have had his Word stripped away from him (certainly it wasn't lost to obsolescence or extinction). It doesn't seem to have hurt him too badly. He's disgruntled and pissed off, but still very much around, and tolerably powerful -- 9 or 10 Forces, not an imp or anything. He's got some Discord, but then he's a Calabite, so that doesn't mean much. *And* it's stated that he's very much on the lookout for a new Word. Avery's example would seem to support the "it's exceedingly painful and unpleasant, and maybe dangerous, but not necessarily debilitating or fatal" position. Say that it's roughly the equivalent of having open-heart surgery while simultaneously losing your best friend and going through a messy divorce... not something anyone would look forward to, but you *could* get through it and survive. Note that this interpretation, if correct, would largely negate Hell's advantage. Angels could then take temporary Words out of selfless love, which is, after all, their strong point. The Angel of Macintoshes faces an uncertain future, but he took the job because he loves (and pities) the suffering end users, and is willing to risk horrible pain himself to make things a little better for us... Doug M. dougmuir@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 16:57:15 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade On Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:23:05AM -0400, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > Personally I believe Uriels represented his word so well that god realized > > it had no place in the symphony ( except as horses names). Purity by its > > nature is 'free of sin'. So as everything is a part of God and Uriel was > > trying to destroy elements of God he was basically cutting out the cancer > > without regards to the host entity. > > Uriel is the Archangel of Purity. I would (and did) assume that the > original function of his Word was to be the "immune system" for God. He > found defects in the Symphony and purified them. It wasn't until after > the Fall that Uriel took the offensive with that purification. > > It may very well have been that Uriel performed his function too well. > After all, if God was really trying to determine if He had free will, Evil > (the Fate of God) had to exist as an option. Uriel was steadily > eliminating it, and the Purification Crusade marked the beginning of > Uriel's final offensive against the impurities in the Symphony. > Therefore, to preserve the integrity of His experiment, God recalled > Uriel. > I'd like to venture a conspiracy theory. To wit, the whole thing with Uriel and the Purity Crusade and his recall to Heaven was done in order to place Laurence at the head of God's armies. After the Fall, Michael was put in place as, if you like, the popular candidate. He had defeated Lucifer in battle personally and was presumed capable of doing it again. However, Michael proved to be too much of a troublemaker to do his job properly. He succeeded in alienating the Cherubim in counsel and bringing upon himself the attention of Judgement. None of the alternatives looked any better. However, Yves noticed the potential of a young angel named Laurence, and reckoned that he could do well as head of God's armies. The problem with this idea was that he was too weak, and too inexperienced, to do the job. So a way had to be found to provide him with that experience, and so Uriel was put in charge, in the knowledge that one day he would go too far and be recalled to the Higher Heavens, leaving a vacuum in which Laurence could be placed. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 12:05:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's Crusade Kevin, I rather like the conspiracy idea, because, the conspiracy being Yves', it explains Michael's dislike of Yves. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:04:09 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Roles Happen > I dare you to get ID from a >squirrel in a park, or a bum on the street, or an aboriginal kid in >the outback. All are legitimate roles. Paperwork doesn't come from >anywhere. So what is the difference between having a role as a street-bum and having no role, but dressing down and telling people that is what you are? Apart from having had to spend CP on it... Could any celestial just step off a train and assume the role of 'foreign tourist'? I do like the notion that if you act in harmony with the symphony then its corporeal themes will adjust to fit you in. I prefer the mystical model to the mundane paper-trail because it far better suits the style of game I want to run, but you can't just walk into an office and act as though you were the CEO from nowhere, unless you are amazingly good at fast talking ;) By this model, I'd guess the determining factor in how high a level you can take for your role is how long you have been acting it out. How long might it take to get a role at level 1, bearing in mind that you can't have a role at higher status than level? How does anyone ever get a high status role this way, or do they still have to live the life from childhood (which presumably counts as low status)? (Not trying to nit-pick, I'm just curious as to how you make this consistent). jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:09:15 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Miltonian IN On Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 05:05:26PM +0200, Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > > For one thing, you'd have to make all demons friends with one another (to > > the extent that demons can actually be friends). I distinctly recall a > > passage in which it was stated that demons are loyal to the Rebellion and > > to Lucifer, and don't fight with one another. I've found the lines, and they're in book 2. I couldn't find them earlier because I was looking in the later books, after Adam and Eve fell. " where there is then no good For which to strive, no strife can grow up there From Faction; for none sure will claim in hell Precedence, none, whose portion is so small Of present pain, that with ambitious mind Will covet more." "Nor fail'd they to express how much they prais'd, That for the general safety he despis'd His own: for neither do the Spirits damn'd Loose all thir vertue;" "O shame to men! Devil with Devil damn'd Firm concord holds, men onely disagree Of Creatures rational, though under hope Of heavenly Grace: and God proclaiming peace, Yet live in hatred, enmitie, and strife Among themselves, and levie cruel warres, Wasting the Earth, each other to destroy:" Of course this idyllic picture is somewhat spoiled by contradictions earlier on, where it is plain that Satan fears that others might try to steal some of his prestige, and also by the quibbles among the lowerarchy. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:17:09 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lost Words? On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 08:55:55AM -0700, Doug Muir wrote: > H'm. That argument would apply to pretty much every form of technology, > from flint hand-axes to slide rules. So, if we take your position, > technological Words are left empty, or only filled by stupid angels. > Ditto for words representing political entities, corporations, etc. > There aren't many flint hand axes any more, but hand axes are probably going to be around so long as civilisation exists. I don't think that specific entities (other than Tethers) will get represented by Words, but philosophies probably will. The Demon of Libertarianism will last somewhat longer than the Demon of the Libertarian Party. > Well, we all seem to have missed this so far, but there *is* at least > one example in canon: Avery, the former Demon of Hot Sauce, now > Wordless (_Marches_, p.25). > The Marches? I seem to recall a Habbalite Demon of Hot Sauce in Night Music (or maybe Heaven & Hell) who had been moved from Gluttony to Death. I don't have page references, since I don't own the books, but I trust my memory on this point. He's disgruntled and pissed off, but still very > much around, and tolerably powerful -- 9 or 10 Forces, not an imp or > anything. He's got some Discord, but then he's a Calabite, so that > doesn't mean much. *And* it's stated that he's very much on the lookout > for a new Word. > Fatal Ingestion, IIRC. It's stated that he still thinks of himself as the Demon of Hot Sauce, though, so abandoning a Word still doesn't seem like something voluntary. My main argument against the use of Furfur as an example is that he wasn't planning to lose his Word, he was planning to add other things to it. Rock & Roll still includes Hardcore. (And sex, which might make Andrealphus a bit pissed off.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 12:22:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Miltonian IN Kevin Walsh wrote: > Of course this idyllic picture is somewhat spoiled by contradictions > earlier on, where it is plain that Satan fears that others might try > to steal some of his prestige, and also by the quibbles among the > lowerarchy. How much of the lines you quote come from the mouth of Satan or another devil? I think the first chunk is from a diabolical speech, so we needn't expect it to be more than propagnda. Also note that the first quotation is only saying, "Well, at least we won't quarrel because there is nothing in hell worth quarreling over." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:25:15 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? On Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 09:52:06PM -0700, Doug Muir wrote: > Dyspol, a Shedite, is the Demon of the Know-Nothing Party. You say you > don't know his Word? Step aside, foolish mortal; Dyspol is a Duke and > reports directly to Malphas. > > But _wait_ (says some nitpicker), I looked up the Know-Nothing Party in > my old U.S. history textbook... and they were a short-lived minor > political party in the USA right around the middle of the last century. > They gained strength in the late 1840s as "native" Americans became > alarmed by the rising tide of immigrants, especially Irish fleeing the > Great Famine; they proposed a closed-door policy and discrimination > against immigrants and other inferior breeds. In a weird coincidence, I heard about them for the first time on Friday, in a documentary about the beginning of Irish America. Part of it contained the analysis that the Know-Nothing Party created Irish America, by giving it a focus against which to unite. Prior to this, Irish Americans had much more consciousness of being from their native parish or townland than of being from Ireland. So it looks like the work of Stone to me. One can imagine Malphas being quite pissed off. Of course, parochial thinking is still alive today. I recall conversations in which it was pointed out that it was the North Cork militia who put down the 1798 rebellion in Wexford. Curiously, the person who mentioned this was from Wexford, and the person he mentioned it to was from North Cork. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:27:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> IN- Why not spread the Word (was RE: Roles and what to do...) On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > If people choose to be good because they know that it'll get them > into Heaven and being bad will send them to Hell -- not just believe, > but *KNOW* this will happen -- then are they really choosing to be > good? Or are they being bribed for goodness and punished for badness? The problem is, that this *is* the essential kernel of Christian morality. Virtue will be rewarded, and evil punished, in the next life. The question Elizabeth asks here, carried to its logical extreme, would ask people to be good *for no reason whatever* -- which is preposterous. > It's very possibly the same thing that says "Bribe a demon to > redemption, and you wind up with a dead demon." If a human doesn't > choose goodness for the right reasons, is it really goodness? Except that every demon has the ultimate bribe for redemption, hanging in front of it all the time: a return to its angelic nature. (OK, not exactly a "return" for Lilim or Hellborn members of other bands, but still...) The canon descriptions make it very clear that (as a rule) demons are miserable, hating themselves as well as everything around them, suffering all kinds of psychological problems as a consequence of the fracture at the core of their natures. Angels, on the other hand, are whole, and the canon descriptions suggest that most angels are content to be what they are. Note the redeemed Djinn's description in IPG. Helping others as a Cherub is just more personally satisfying than stalking them as a Djinn. It's not that unselfish beings get any less personal pleasure and satisfaction from what they do than selfish ones; unselfish people are those who take pleasure from helping others. There is, ultimately, no way to divorce actions from personal motives -- if you don't want to do something, and have no reason for doing it, you don't do it. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #893 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.