From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Aug 31 14:25:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27489 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:25:46 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA13466 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:58:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:58:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199808311858.NAA13466@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 #934 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 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 934 In this digest: IN> Lilith IN> Demonic Resonance IN> Demonic Resonance Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds (incl. FotM spoilers) Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler IN> Worded celestial detection IN> Re:The Tsayadim Re: IN> Massada (was LA Wordhounds) Re: IN> Broken promises etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:53:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Lilith On 30 Aug 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > Yes, but remember that Lilith has the _demonic_ Word of Freedom. The > freedom to swing your fist no matter whose face happens to be in the way. If that's all she is, why wouldn't she accept permanent servitors? Her expanded writeup says that she ignores murder but has been known to stomp on slavers. (It also implies she disapproves of gun control.) Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:31:44 -0400 From: ixDragons Subject: IN> Demonic Resonance I am a bit confused about the resistance of Demonic Resonance. In some places a contest is referred to as a Will roll and a Will roll as a contest. For example in the Habbalah Game Mechanics: "If his Will roll succeeds with a higher check digit than that of the demon, the resonance will backfire." Isn't that the only way to succeed in a contest? Is it a contest? This is what I'm getting so far. Defend meaning a Will roll and Resist meaning a contest. Balseraphs: Defend Djinn: None (Resist Celestial) Calabim: Resist Habbalah: Resist? Lilim: Defend? Shedim: Resist Impudites: Resist? In my Opinion, they should all be Defend; that way a demon gets more successful as his power grows. It really bothers me that even a child can deflect Lucifer's Resonance. Although I understand how powerful a Belseraph's resonance would be otherwise, it still bothers me. begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(@P``0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`R $```$````0`````P``, ,````+``\.``````(!_P\!````3P`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````&EN7VYO;6EN92UL0&QI``,P`0```!D```!I;E]N;VUI;F4M;$!L:7-T`/9?`0```!D```!I;E]N M;VUI;F4M;$!L:7-T`$(``0````H```!I>$1R86=O;G,````"`4\``0```%P````!````5 `` M`$\`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!I;E]N;VUI;F4M;$!L:7-T M`&0``0````4` M``!33510`````!X`90`!````&0```&EX9')A9V]N`' ``0```!(```!$96UO;FEC(%)E``@0`0```&4```!)04U!0DE40T].1E53141!0D]5 M5%1(15)%4TE35$%.0T5/1D1%34].24-215-/3D%.0T5)3E-/34503$%#15-! M0T].5$535$E34D5&15)214143T%305=)3$Q23TQ,04Y$05=)``````(!"1 ! M````JP8``*<&``!X#@``3%I&=7\%,/(#``H`D;]/\>$AQ_($\@#1^/ M';\<#Q!@_#(X)=HF\2:O)[D;]"?BOR9/*A\IW2E?)X\K5#D.4!\NI# !*",P M``*"!P M"Y R/S*C"&#K,I +@&4QH'8Y8 % ,YN_## T9"@`-T $H N 9R?QZ33F8F$7 M$&0"(#6@-4;G,= SD#N1(#$Q,PY0-I__-Z\XOP!1.?P`H#1N/'\]AO\Q) _ M/H\_GT"O#E Y[T,/VT0?/;,S`H(3$&,V8$NADS.0/;!T:3F0($0!$*AA=6P% M0% *P&$)P.!A<&@@1@(A-B0E0.AF:2T/D#@!0#DP4#/K1P\RHV(+('()4%)2 M%J#94E)W-"5!%P!P`=!-AT93HV)#9/_U$/4A__4R]4.3' /:,.(4NA.K8.4)M5;U9^ M4CF!%P$@2#V1^P20-B0W66]:?UN/7)TY#R]=OP^0:7 (T&(*L'0X_TGZ#U1& M$%^_8,9J`&'0"U"\>2]/0%RP"Q%B17,V)/\H`&,_9$]E7URO5$]K7VQO[VUU M5])7=%BI.6^_,S\#,!UILSESGW2O>J!$;V/^=0> `C %T$\`&@%XTG@P]WAP M<5$!@&Y8, !@"?!-H.]]``(!->!>4F4`\'T`,8"20382P30W@`V!S;P& (*Y/`2 -X'_P7(9F10# ]0,0+DMP='W0 M%Q!X<#4A[6=R> % ?P%N,= :\(@$/4XT8P,@$O,`@ 60;';_0:%&T YP->"* MD@&0`""+(O^ \7U!`<&*D1;@#W ``$;0\PS0`9 @+AH2BH@.4(M"_TYP>,"+ MOXS/C=\/P$;0!8&WCW^0CY&?;&M 1M!LCS_[D_^5!2F.#"5 DM^7OY3T^&(@ M* *1F-^*TUE0EH__FT^<7YUOBP!C$)ZRBX^@'_^A+XX,* ">OZ0_I4^F7XL` M_W@`HS^HSZG?JN0*^0,P>"^?>3]ZS0C!-/(UH$D@A2&5E5!B3< @!:!N9K(0 M3PF M# &X&=0('0QT"#7&O `D*RQ;H:@((8@3A%;!& #`&-AP880;K9B+MX@ MM! #H(80!X @"U&&H+\$( J%E5"TT5C ,7 @! #;M?$04'(:\;6P;[0P!"#] ME5!7`Q #( -@NX$`<+5!W[M:NR*YI;?Q;6$@-7"%(-\+4!. L$$*A;7"2 &@ M2S#;"V!/($>%(!. 3060E*%%#>!S5[ @(DFVP&C[NB&[:',.<(:@"8 $( /P M?[7 M&'!<+)@!)"TP#'08_1K(#VP9[2AON<#D<3QWP5 MK&UP@$`MP$LM;:W ME#_"T;N!2S##\&[0&O N(O>X`+00-5 GM:+%8;7"`B#[;3#"T&')D+KA"H7" M5;ZBO;F'/\A2NA %0,M*5,%RI;HA=\5222>%,&<7(-=-T#W1AA @3D!RM_%. M(?]_`;D&!X# L3W1NTZW8;8Q[] 9O5<*A0J%0@= %Q!.\M/ \L],1&H+@&[! M`37 =S5@JE#1I4-GH3%P!S$I_;D&0[_1M)!7H=&6"H6_EO?8M\O0"H5,`Q#8 MD\]$VM>^4S'0/;#8K[00A"!U3;%?!Y#:3[D&X%*X(6W)D$]Z< N :<8UR9 Q MP A@;.^U0<=R3@-_`3O%-,FRE5#_Q@/.(@0@!& :\,)$!!"U`.\#(+D6!"#! MW:D%.<.'QLF"T$?YUK5$7`+91-2#A\ ?@YH/[ MY6*54$)GH-14ZP'&N>(#[PJ%XI'H$P/Q9<90M*'789_'2!L M:7-T2!L:7-T'1087)T7S P,%\P,4)$1#,T12Y"1C8Q03@P, T*0V]N=&5N="U4>7!E.B!T M97AT+W!L86EN.R!C:&%R%```!`````0`````````>`$. "" &``````# ```` M````1@`````XA0```0````$`````````'@`]``$````!``````````,`#33] %-P``8J ` ` end ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:11:41 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Demonic Resonance Actually, the Songbook is going to address this problem by introducing a distinction between _resisting_ a Song (or resonance, etc.) by needing to beat its CD (e.g. win a Contest), and _negating_ it by simply needing to make the applicable roll. Some Songs and resonances are resisted, some are negated. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:16:49 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Caelin replied: > Anyone got any suggestions for which Prince the Words of 'Promises Never > Intended to be Kept', and 'Broken Promises' fall under? > I can't make my mind up :) > >> > > Who're you thinking of here and why? You seem divided, but the only >obvious >choice I can see is Factions. > I _was_ thinking Factions. Maybe that was why I was divided. ;) I got sidetracked into thinking too much about the 'Whys' of each Word rather than their end effect. 'A Promise Never Intended to be Kept', for example, started to sound as if it might fall under *Cruelty*. Actually, since I posted, I thought 'Politicians!' and _that_ made everything a whole lot clearer... Thanks everyone :) - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:38:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilith Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > On 30 Aug 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > > > Yes, but remember that Lilith has the _demonic_ Word of Freedom. > > The freedom to swing your fist no matter whose face happens to be > > in the way. > If that's all she is, why wouldn't she accept permanent servitors? Infernal "freedom" is irresponsibility. Lilith's Word is strengthened by people casting aside their responsibilities. It's hard to cultivate that in your servitors. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:09:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lilith On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > Infernal "freedom" is irresponsibility. Lilith's Word is strengthened > by people casting aside their responsibilities. It's hard to > cultivate that in your servitors. Hrm. Lilith is noted for keeping her end of a deal even without a geas involved. The reputation's in her best interests, but it takes responsibility to keep your end of a bargain if no one will make you. She seems to be in favor of all types of freedom, including the freedom to reduce your future freedom. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 12:43 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler >> I just got FotM today, and I am wondering, WHY did he kill her? She did her >> part... If this is how Malphas rewards his servitors, whats the point? > >He killed her because she was a Bright Lilim and he no longer needed her. I think more to the point -- because he didn't want her spilling the real story of what happened to the Malakite's Heart. And she *was* a former servitor who'd defected -- I'm not sure killing such a "traitor" is all that uncommon, given the opportunity. Note, however, that killing Lilim under geas is one of the things Lilith tends to frown on, so it's not something done lightly. I think this is a case where it was done because the plot was so major that Malphas didn't care. Once you've started Armageddon, who cares what Lilith thinks...? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 12:48 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds >>>Looking at FotM I was just a little surprised to see no real coverage of >>>Word-bounds operating there. I would have thought that there would have >>>been more of them in such an important place to hell? >> >>There are several Word-bound Seneschals, I believe. > >Aren't seneschals usually Word-bound by definition though, their tether >generally being their Word? In the expanded Tether proto-canon for the Tether book, there are actually two kinds of Seneschals. The weaker kind is merely attuned to the Tether, the stronger type is actually Word-bound to it. Hence my making that distinction -- the LA Seneschals are all the Word-bound type. (This is the common case for a mature Tether.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:51:56 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Julian Breen > >Anyone got any suggestions for which Prince the Words of 'Promises Never >Intended to be Kept', and 'Broken Promises' fall under? >I can't make my mind up :) I'd say that's all part of the Game, myself. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 12:58 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds (incl. FotM spoilers) >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> The Wordbound Seneschals may be sufficient, along with Absinthia >> and Jurgen. (With the Tether-rules being proposed, Seneschals are >> nasty, nasty people to go up against.) > >I know this is opening up an old debate, but you might want to be careful as >you head in this direction. Fall of the Malakim becomes even more implausible >if Seneschals are so powerful. Scamper and Scurvy took out two of them (Kevin >and Donna) in one fight at Kevin's party. The Essence Battery was the deciding factor -- the fact that they could blow so *much* Essence in a single attack (typically Ethereal Song of Entropy, I think I figured out, followed by simple pounding on the stunned victim) as to override any resistance. Seneschals have access to a lot of Essence, but not all at once. This makes it hard to mount a sustained attack against a Tether, especially if the Seneschal has a number of reliquaries around that are kept "topped up". However, someone with a *lot* of Essence to blow at once can still overwhelm a Seneschal, especially outside his "home ground". Normally, this would only be a Superior; the full Essence Battery gave the two killers nearly as much power as a Superior -- for a few hours. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:12:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Note, however, that killing Lilim under geas is one of the things Lilith > tends to frown on, so it's not something done lightly. *Technically*, Mira had just fulfilled the geas by returning the artifact and was no longer under geas. I don't think Lilith would care about that technicality, since Mira would never have returned to where Malphas was waiting if she hadn't been under geas; however, Lilith might somehow be automatically _aware_ every time a geas-holder killed the Lilim under geas, and she's a lot less likely to find out about it this way. (I think Lilith couldn't politically afford to *openly* do anything to Malphas for killing an angel, Lilim under geas or not. However, since ordinary Lilim can also be killed while under geas, she can do things covertly and Asmodeus might glower but the rest of Hell would look the other way.) Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:20:55 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 12:43:00PM -0400, Walter Milliken wrote: > >He killed her because she was a Bright Lilim and he no longer needed her. > > I think more to the point -- because he didn't want her spilling the > real story of what happened to the Malakite's Heart. He'd have a lot to gain from it, though. By letting the story of how a Bright Lilim broke a Malakite's heart circulate, he causes massive suspicion (paranoia even) of all Bright and Grey Lilim, and by extension, any angel with a significant Geas held over them, or who is suspected of having a significant Geas held over them. By letting her go free back to Blandine, he'd also make her the focus of a _very_ divisive trial. (After all, the arguments that she was in a state of diminished responsibilty are quite compelling, and much finger-pointing at Blandine and David would result.) He'd also get the minor side benefit of being publicly seen to play (relatively) fair. As it stands, I don't see the argument that keeping her secrets helped anything. Anyone knowing the details of the case would recognise that 33 levels of Discord is so exceptional that it's very unlikely it could happen again. And she *was* a > former servitor who'd defected -- I'm not sure killing such a "traitor" > is all that uncommon, given the opportunity. > His former Servitor? That would make sense. > Note, however, that killing Lilim under geas is one of the things Lilith > tends to frown on, so it's not something done lightly. I think this is > a case where it was done because the plot was so major that Malphas > didn't care. Once you've started Armageddon, who cares what Lilith > thinks...? > Are we to believe Malphas doesn't believe in contingency plans? (And I noted David Edelstein's post about his works being misrepresented as canon. Mea culpa. That's what I get for relying on memory.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:24:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Sekhmet Subject: IN> Worded celestial detection Thought I'd delurk for a second to ask a question that came to me after reading the arguments for and against Wordhounds. How can other celestials tell if one of them has been granted a word? I'm wondering especially about demons here, as things get more cutthroat for them with regard to Words. Say a demon walks into a private meeting where it is to be considered by Lucifer for a Word. Its friends stay at the door, not knowing what the meeting is about. Suppose Lucifer grants the demon a Word, and the demon walks back out to meet its friends. Can they tell that there's been a change? If so, how? If they can tell, would it be possible for a stranger to tell? - -j ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:39:51 PDT From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Re:The Tsayadim >>>A case could be made for this being true as well. In fact, I believe Krowe wrote them up as a Choir on his web page (although I don't remember what his URL is, so I couldn't say for sure). I prefer them being the loyal Servitors of Purity of all Choirs, but that's just a style thing.<<< Masny thanks for the plug, Gant. Yes, I wrote them up. But with the usual 20/20 hindesight, I need to redo them. They're just a wee bit off of what I think they should be. I'm starting to share in Gant's (and other's) belief that maybe they aren't minor choir but simply the name given to the remaining Servitors of Purity. If I get something worked out I'll let you know. >>>Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant PS (and blatant plug): I have a write-up for Uriel on my In Nomine page, which might be useful for you.<<< I have that same one on my page, too (unless it's been updated?). Krowe Malakim of Destiny, Angel of Redemption Lord of XAOZ "What good fortune for those in power, that people do not think." -- Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945 "Love is a dirty trick played upon us to achieve the continuation of the species." -- novelist W.Somerset Maugham, 1874-1965 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:52:54 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Massada (was LA Wordhounds) In a message dated 8/30/98 2:03:59 AM, ygurvitz@netvision.net.il writes: >At 06:38 30/08/98, you wrote: > >> >> <<- I think it's mandatory for every pupil to visit the place, and tank >> crews trainees take their vows there -- but that's something very, very >> recent. Me, OTOH, if I had to make it a tether, I'd make it Saminga's. >> Almost a thousand people committed suicide there, you know. Either that, >> or Michael's ("death before dishonor"). >> >> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the rebellion that caused the >siege >>at Masada very much a religious conflict caused by Roman rule? A thousand >>people died there defending their Faith. Based on that, my bet's on Khalid. > The reasons of the rebellion weren't that much about religion -- in that, >the Romans have been more than tolerant -- but about the grinding, unending >oppression of being a Roman subject. Yes, the rebels believed that God >himself would fight for them, there were a hell of a lot of false messiahs >about that time, but the rebellion wasn't, per se, due to religious >persecution (as opposed, say, to the Maccabean rebellion against Antiochus >IV). > > As for the causes of suicide (sigh - do I really have to wade through >1930s Hebrew this early in the morning?), they are definitely not >religious. Elazar Ben Yair even mentions the possibility that they reached >that situation (i.e., the citadel falling into Roman hands) because of >their sins. He calls them to die free (Lilith?), without having to see >their women and children "led off to shame," and themselves to fight each >other at the arena. That's "death before dishonor," in my book. But then >again, they did kill their children -- an earlier version of Jonestown? >- so >they could easily be said to be under the influence of Saminga. > > Mind you, it could always be Malphas at work... They were more fanatic >than the Zealots, and they did commit atrocities toward those who disagreed >with them. > > Yours, > Yossi > Hmm... I think that the original idea was that the Angel of Masada was a servitor of Stone who was assigned to the big plateau. Then Herod built a palace on it. Then the Zealots took it over. Then the Romans besieged it. Then all the Zealots died on Masada. Then the world forgot about Masada. And the Angel of Masada was still there. Then the Zionist movement started, and Masada became a symbol. Nowadays, Masada has the implications of stubborn defense and patriotism, both ideas that fit well with the word of Stone. I may be wrong, but I thought that *all* Israeli soldiers took an oath that Masada would never fall again. And, unless I've *really* missed something, every Israeli citizen between (roughly) the ages of eighteen and twenty-four is a member of the military, and anyone older than that is a reservist. (Think about that pile of oaths...) I'd say that the Angel of Masada would be a Malakite of Stone. On the historical end of things, I've read that Josephus' account may have been colored by the fact that he was a survivor of a failed suicide pact, and that much of the speechifying was based more on wish-fulfilment than on truth. The reasons for the suicides at Masada may never be truly understood. Just a thought. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:57:49 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. At 20:51 29/08/98 +0100, you wrote: >Anyone got any suggestions for which Prince the Words of 'Promises Never >Intended to be Kept', and 'Broken Promises' fall under? >I can't make my mind up :) > Why, I'd put those under Belphagor, Prince of The Promise, of course :) jo ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #934 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.