From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Sep 1 11:51:07 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 LAA11489 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:51:05 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA30001 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:01:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:01:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199809011601.LAA30001@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 #935 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, September 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 935 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds Re: IN> Wordhounds IN> The Word of Freedom (was Re: Wordhounds) Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Worded celestial detection Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> Worded celestial detection Re: IN> Masada IN> Fufur Re: IN> Fufur IN> books Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Fufur Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Worded celestial detection Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Wordhounds Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Broken promises etc. IN> Lilith Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> Massada Re: IN> Worded celestial detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:16:38 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith At 11:09 AM -0500 8/31/98, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Earl Wajenberg 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. (Also IPG history -- she turned out more honorable than expected.) >She seems to be in favor of all types of freedom, including the freedom to >reduce your future freedom. Mind you, she'll think you're an idiot or crazy, depending on how much freedom you voluntarily give up... But if you gave it freely, upon your head be it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:09:22 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds At 10:55 AM -0500 8/29/98, Eeyore wrote: >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. Believe me, I looked at the setup. Note that Scamper and Scurvy had about 1000 Essence to start with, and by the end of the day, they were down to less than 100. And neither of the Seneschals were *in their Tethers* at the time. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:04:23 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Wordhounds At 12:10 AM -0400 8/28/98, David Edelstein wrote: [...] >If she starts to be perceived as a threat, she becomes >forced to play hardball to survive, and that's definitely not where she >wants to be. Besides, think of all that *ICKY PAPERWORK*! She's not a Princess because she likes being an *administrator*! (I mean, sure, she's probably competant if she has to be, but I'm sure she hates it.) "Lemme get this straight. You want me to protect you, do paperwork, and all I get are Geasa from you? Riiiiiiiiiiight. Why don't you do me a favor *first*? You see, I want a certain cute Malakite, delivered to me in chains, unable to escape. When you've fetched me the Archangel of the Sword, *then* I'll sponsor that organization of yours." [Later:] "Oh, Asmodeus, always a pleasure to see you. By the way, a collection of demons wanted me to sponsor them as assassins for hire. Something about clearing the path of ambitious underlings who wanted specific Words. I told them to fetch me Laurence, a total prisoner. If they survive, I'll sponsor them. And I'm sure I'll be able to collect more Geases upon them. You get dibs, of course, on those Geases." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:02:00 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> The Word of Freedom (was Re: Wordhounds) At 9:18 AM -0400 8/28/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >>Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:50:28 -0400 >>Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >>Strict control. Lilith. *In the same sentence??* > >Why not? You don't think that Lilith actually believes in freedom for >anyone but herself, do you? After all, if other beings' rights have to >be observed, that would impede her own freedom of action -- and she >can't go against her word, after all... Ah, but look at it this way: Premise: the power of one's own Word is dependant on how much one's Word is represented in the Symphony. Premise: Lilith requires at least a minimal amount of power to remain free herself. Premise: there are times enough when strict control would be more trouble than it's worth -- if you are exercising strict control, then you're tied down *doing* that! You can't be going off sunbathing and sipping drinks with cute guys. Conclusion: Lilith believes in Freedom -- mind you, when a Freedom of someone else treads on *her* toes, she'll deal with that, but otherwise? The more Freedom in the universe, the more power she has to remain free. An interesting balancing act... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:18:23 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. At 8:51 PM +0100 8/29/98, Julian Breen 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 :) Factions, both of 'em. After all, Factions likes isolating people, and promises are bonds -- bonds that should be broken as soon as convenient. They could also be part of the Game (especially the former), but I think the Factions tie is slightly stronger -- The Game can encompass a *lot* (it is a powerWord!), but the links aren't always as useful. (One could say Freedom -- but she has no Servitors, and the main book says that she always keeps her word, unlike other Princes...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:30:09 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 03:18:23PM -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 8:51 PM +0100 8/29/98, Julian Breen 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 :) > > Factions, both of 'em. After all, Factions likes isolating people, > and promises are bonds -- bonds that should be broken as soon as > convenient. > > They could also be part of the Game (especially the former), but > I think the Factions tie is slightly stronger -- The Game can > encompass a *lot* (it is a powerWord!), but the links aren't always > as useful. > My take is that the former is a Game word, since a promise that isn't intended to be kept seems to be a tool, with the emotional connotations secondary (and thus fitting the Game) whereas a broken promise is the severing of a bond with all the angst that entails (and thus fitting Factions). It also amuses me to have very similar Words in different branches of the Word hierarchy. 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 98 15:53 EDT From: Walter Milliken 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.) But letting Mira loose would have blown the whole "Fallen Malakite" scheme, and quite probably the trigger for Armageddon, which is the main plan here. What you propose above is a perfectly plausible Malphan plot - -- but an entirely different one. >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. If she could tell people, in Heaven it would quickly become "Malakim really can't Fall -- it was all an Evil Demonic Trick (TM) to make us think so. Let's go stomp some demons." This isn't what Malphas and Kobal are after. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 12:54:03 PDT From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. > >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 :) > > Factions, both of 'em. After all, Factions likes isolating people, > and promises are bonds -- bonds that should be broken as soon as > convenient. > > They could also be part of the Game (especially the former), but > I think the Factions tie is slightly stronger -- The Game can > encompass a *lot* (it is a powerWord!), but the links aren't always > as useful. > > (One could say Freedom -- but she has no Servitors, and the main book > says that she always keeps her word, unlike other Princes...) > This brings up a point that I was mulling over. What if (as an option; definately non-cannon) for servitors it was possible to have two individuals with the same word modified by their connection to their prince/arch? Note that in angelic there would be a clear difference in the words but in english it would appear to be the same thing (much like the existing war). So with the above example there might be: 1.) the demon of broken promises (furthering interpersonal distrust and growth of differing and conflicting idealogies [factions]) 2.) the demon of broken promises (furthering interpersonal conflict [game]) 3.) the demon of broken promises (furthering invalid claims that encourage false hopes in the afflicted [media]) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 15:59 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Worded celestial detection >How can other celestials tell if one of them has been granted a word? In general, I'd say no. Superiors should always be able to tell, though. About the only way for the ordinary celestial (or Soldier) to tell is to see them grant an attunement or rite -- something that only Word-bound can do. You could also catch them using one of their special Word attunements, but they might always have gotten it from someone else (like a Superior). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:36:04 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Masada MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > >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. "Failed suicide pact"? I have always taken Josephus to be a sort of real-life Flashman. I read that when Josephus's military unit faced defeat, the members of the band agreed to commit suicide rather than surrender. Josephus rigged the lottery so that he was the last one to kill himself, and once all the witnesses were dead he sold out utterly to the Romans. After the war he retired to Rome to write a series of trashy and wildly popular novels based on his experience. He was an amazingly slimy man, but if everyone had been as spineless as him it would have been much easier to bring peace to the Middle East. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:34:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Sekhmet Subject: Re: IN> Worded celestial detection Ok, that makes sense then. Otherwise, one could end up with someone saying, "Hey, Bobiel, either you've just been granted a Word, or you've been using Just For Men haircolor! Which is it?" Thanks. On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >How can other celestials tell if one of them has been granted a word? > > In general, I'd say no. Superiors should always be able to tell, > though. > > About the only way for the ordinary celestial (or Soldier) to tell is to > see them grant an attunement or rite -- something that only Word-bound > can do. You could also catch them using one of their special Word > attunements, but they might always have gotten it from someone else > (like a Superior). > > > ---Walter > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:12:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Masada On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/30/98 2:03:59 AM, ygurvitz@netvision.net.il writes: > > > 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 Sounds about right, yeah. > Masada became a symbol. Nowadays, Masada has the implications of stubborn > defense and patriotism, both ideas that fit well with the word of Stone. As well as 'lost causes valiantly fought', which isn't quite so Stone-ish. However, the writeup mentioned that Zuriel was branching out, and could conceivably make Archangel within the next thousand years. > 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, I was under that impression as well. > 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. You'd be correct. > 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. *gears in head grinding* I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Josephus wasn't at Masada. Yes, he was involved in a seige where the defenders committed suicide, and yes, he was the only one left alive at the end, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Masada. I'll have to check my books when I get home. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:00:05 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: IN> Fufur anyone else notice that Fufur became a Demon Prince in FOTM? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:38:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Fufur > anyone else notice that Fufur became a Demon Prince in FOTM? Um, I don't have FOTM yet, but I do seem to remember noticing that in Night Music... :) - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:42:12 EDT From: Gold584909@aol.com Subject: IN> books About three weeks ago I sent in money and an order form for the In Nomine books, Fall of the Malakim, and The Final Trumpet. I was told that if they did not come within three weeks that I should e-mail them. Could you tell me where to e-mail them or could you even tell me the status of my books. Thanks, Nick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:55:41 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Neel Krishnaswami replied: >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. > Yes, that's the way I'd gone, Neel, hence my previous politician analogy. It's all to do with _how_ promises are broken (the vast majority). A promise blatantly disregarded (with no explanation given) _would_ cause hostility and division. But truthfully, such instances are quite rare. What is far more common is the promise-breaker who tries to convince you that he never actually promised *that* in the first place, or one who attempts a technicality to get off the hook. 'What? No, No. I said that I was taking you out for a meal. And I have! I picked you up and drove you here and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. But I didn't say that I was _paying_ for it! In any case darling, I seem to have misplaced my wallet...' In other words, the person has twisted the rules but not broken them. Not really. What they *have* done is play the Game. - -- Julian (Who has never stooped to the above tactics) ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:16:21 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Fufur On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 Akumsa@aol.com wrote: > anyone else notice that Fufur became a Demon Prince in FOTM? Actually, I think he became a Demon Prince in Night Music. They reference him in FOTM. (Which doesn't change the fact that my players beat him within an inch of his inherent-Calabim-Discord life...) Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 20:44:45 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. >Neel Krishnaswami replied: > >>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. >> Well, maybe, and then.... Demon of Promises You Don't Intend to Keep- Andrealphus Demon of Broken Promises- any number, but I prefer Malphas Demon of Betrayal- Asmodeus Demon of Warranties- switches between Nybbas and Vapula Demon of Breaking Parole- originally one of Baal's servitors, he went Renegade and then came back under Valefor's sponsorship Demon of the Check Being in the Mail- Kronos. When you -really- need that money, can't you just -feel- time slipping away... and finally Demon of the Fine Print- Mammon. See how many ways 'breaking promises' can go? Redneck (just a quick tossoff) Kris Overstreet's email has changed... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/milkmaid.html - The Magnificent Milkmaid ... respond to redneck@detnet.com please ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:51:08 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Worded celestial detection Walter Milliken wrote: > >How can other celestials tell if one of them has been granted a word? > > In general, I'd say no. Superiors should always be able to tell, > though. > > About the only way for the ordinary celestial (or Soldier) to tell is to > see them grant an attunement or rite -- something that only Word-bound > can do. You could also catch them using one of their special Word > attunements, but they might always have gotten it from someone else > (like a Superior). I have a minor modification of this question. It may actually be covered by this answer, but I'd like to be sure. When a demon is given a Word, is it necessarily public knowledge that this Word has been taken? Or might a Superior petition Lucifer to grant one of his Servitors a Word for which he is suitable, only to be told, "Why, no. I gave that one out years ago." J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:08:32 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Believe me, I looked at the setup. Note that Scamper and Scurvy had > about 1000 Essence to start with, and by the end of the day, they > were down to less than 100. Uhm, then you have a major league typo. On page 120, in the description of Absinthia James death and return to LA, it says that the battery was "fully loaded with 120 Essence..." Then again, it would make sense that this is a typo, because as a rules learning exercise, I was sketching out the events that had to take place during this whole sequence. Since it states that 55 was left to the construct and it took 12 to activate it, that left only 53 Essencefor the duo to kill Donna, Bang Man, Hopsctoch, Absinthia James, Juergen, and Sarama, and for the construct to knock off Pendrake and Scurvy. The math doesn't come close to adding up. A couple other things were learned during this exercise that are of interest. How did Scurvy send Hopscotch to permanent death? Unless I've missed something in the rules, he doesn't have any way to get Hopscotch into his Celestial form to do Soul damage. The only possibility I see is that Hopscotch _chose_ to assume celestial form because he is better at it than the Corporeal kind. Of course, with Scurvy having the battery, he'd be nuts to do this, even for a Habbalite. Also, I don't think that there's any chance that the PCs will ever find the construct to gather an opinion one way or another about its legitimacy. The section on a constructs Principles states that if it violates all of them, it is destroyed and dissipates. This construct's four Principles were: "I will defer to my creator," "I will obey my master," "I will not harm any human being," and "I will aid the forces of good." If one assumes that Scurvy yelled at it to stop at some point while it was dismantling him (which seems like a safe bet to me), it has already violated #1, #2, and #4 before it ventures out into the night. Thus, the first time it harms a human being, which the description says it will do to the first one it meets, Poof. No more construct. > And neither of the Seneschals were *in their Tethers* at the time. If they aren't any more powerful outside of their Tethers, I'd like to get back to the original question of how their Word's better defend LA. And why does Kevin maintain his residence so far from his Tether? J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:35:14 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. In a message dated 8/31/98 9:50:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, redneck@detnet.com writes: << W Demon of the Check Being in the Mail- Kronos. When you -really- need that money, can't you just -feel- time slipping away... and finally Demon of the Fine Print- Mammon. ' can See how many ways 'breaking promises go? >> Don't forget "Treaties-you-never-intent-to-abide-by," a promising servitor of Baal... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:40:28 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. In a message dated 8/31/98 9:05:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk writes: << Yes, that's the way I'd gone, Neel, hence my previous politician analogy. It's all to do with _how_ promises are broken (the vast majority). A promise blatantly disregarded (with no explanation given) _would_ cause hostility and division. But truthfully, such instances are quite rare. What is far more common is the promise-breaker who tries to convince you that he never actually promised *that* in the first place, or one who attempts a technicality to get off the hook. 'What? No, No. I said that I was taking you out for a meal. And I have! I picked you up and drove you here and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. But I didn't say that I was _paying_ for it! In any case darling, I seem to have misplaced my wallet...' In other words, the person has twisted the rules but not broken them. Not really. What they *have* done is play the Game. >> What they've done is acted in a typical Balseriphic fashion. If you count all typical balseriphic actions as falling under the game, Azzie is going to be even more of a power-house than he already is... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:44:48 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> FotM Nitpicks, Kitty, Spoiler In a message dated 8/31/98 12:53:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, milliken@BBN.COM writes: << 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...? >> Well... she was a *bright* Lilim, and, while Lilith frowns on Lilim abuse, she certainly understands that any angel is fair game for destruction by demons... On the *other* hand, he did effectively imprison (and torture- force stripping's gotta hurt!) a lilim for his own amusement and sense of irony... which, bright or no, is a much worse thing as far as the Demon Princess of Freedom is concerned... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:52:38 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Lilith In a message dated 8/30/98 1:57:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ebartley@enteract.com writes: << > 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.) >> Well, while I could argue that opposing gun-control might fall under the auspices of a demonic word, I think it's part of the nature of "Freedom" to be, well, free. While most words are very strongly aligned to either their heavenly or hellish aspects, Freedom falls somewhere more in-between. It has to be. If you only represent freedom to act hellish, then you don't represent Freedom at all. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:00:21 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. In a message dated 8/31/98 4:05:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nickj@nafohq.hp.com writes: << This brings up a point that I was mulling over. What if (as an option; definately non-cannon) for servitors it was possible to have two individuals with the same word modified by their connection to their prince/arch? Note that in angelic there would be a clear difference in the words but in english it would appear to be the same thing (much like the existing war). So with the above example there might be: 1.) the demon of broken promises (furthering interpersonal distrust and growth of differing and conflicting idealogies [factions]) 2.) the demon of broken promises (furthering interpersonal conflict [game]) 3.) the demon of broken promises (furthering invalid claims that encourage false hopes in the afflicted [media]) >> I dunno. If "Flowers" can be construed to cover all plant life, plus peace hope and love, it seems subdividing broken-promises kinda diminishes the scope words are supposed to have. Plus, what do you do about outcasts and renegades? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:31:59 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Wordhounds In a message dated 8/30/98 12:40:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu writes: << 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. The freedom of the strong to trample on the weak, and the freedom of the weak to be trampled on (they have the right to defend themselves; who cares if they have the power to exercize it?). The freedom to dump toxins in public watercourses for the sake of personal profit. The freedom of each individual sheep farmer to let that one extra sheep graze on the commons....the sovereign freedom of each nation-state to arm itself with more and more nuclear weapons. >> I think that's how the demons would like her to express her word, certainly, and she does oblige them to an extent. But the trouble with anyone linked to "freedom" is that they are notoriously independantly minded. She tends to be a hard one to control to any agenda, even an infernal one. Lilith does what Lilith wants to do (and thinks she can get away with without reprisal), and she's human rather than demonic. She's not inherantly evil- she has a conscience, and she knows what it's like to be enslaved. I'm sure she gets along quite well with the Angel of Liberty. He promotes freedom. That gives her power. That's just fine with her. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 06:48:45 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilith At 00:52 01/09/98 EDT, you wrote: > > While most words are very strongly aligned to either their heavenly or >hellish aspects, Freedom falls somewhere more in-between. It has to be. If you >only represent freedom to act hellish, then you don't represent Freedom at >all. > > You could say the same about Death, Technology and the Media. (And probably the other infernal words also, with a push). Acting hellish just means acting selfishly. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:09:04 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 CaelinR@aol.com wrote: > I dunno. If "Flowers" can be construed to cover all plant life, plus peace > hope and love, it seems subdividing broken-promises kinda diminishes the scope > words are supposed to have. Plus, what do you do about outcasts and renegades? OTOH, we have the Words of Fire - same (English) Word, different meaning. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:14:34 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> Lilith On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 CaelinR@aol.com wrote: > I think that's how the demons would like her to express her word, certainly, > and she does oblige them to an extent. But the trouble with anyone linked to > "freedom" is that they are notoriously independantly minded. She tends to be a > hard one to control to any agenda, even an infernal one. Lilith does what > Lilith wants to do (and thinks she can get away with without reprisal), and > she's human rather than demonic. She's not inherantly evil- she has a > conscience, and she knows what it's like to be enslaved. Hm. I'm not sure about the conscience thing... she never ate the apple, after all, so perhaps she can't see the difference between good and evil? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:28:25 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Masada At 23:36 31/08/98 , you wrote: >I read that when Josephus's military unit faced defeat, the members of the >band agreed to commit suicide rather than surrender. Josephus rigged the >lottery so that he was the last one to kill himself, and once all the >witnesses were dead he sold out utterly to the Romans. Correct, and he was in fact the equivalent of today's General of the Northern Command. He commanded all the rebels' troops in Galilee. >After the war he retired to Rome to write a series of trashy and wildly >popular novels based on his experience. "Retired" is not the word - he was the emperor's slave (though he was freed, and according took the "Flavius" cognomen). The books were not trashy, either, and not that popular (the Jews, for example, did not preserve his writings). They are virtually the only historical source for the Second Temple period. >He was an amazingly slimy man, but if everyone had been as spineless as him >it would have been much easier to bring peace to the Middle East. :) The extreme right over here always saw Josephus as a traitor, yes. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:33:15 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Masada At 00:12 01/09/98 , you wrote: >> Masada became a symbol. Nowadays, Masada has the implications of stubborn >> defense and patriotism, both ideas that fit well with the word of Stone. >As well as 'lost causes valiantly fought', which isn't quite so Stone-ish. >However, the writeup mentioned that Zuriel was branching out, and could >conceivably make Archangel within the next thousand years. Where is this writeup? Final Trumpet? >> 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, >I was under that impression as well. It's a slogan, nut much used today. It's not part of the oath. (I know, I took one...) >I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Josephus wasn't at >Masada. Yes, he was involved in a seige where the defenders committed Most historians agree that he wasn't there. He went with Titus to Antioch, and from there to Rome, and there's no indication that he returned for a siege campaign that dragged on for three years. Besides, if he did, he would have entered one of his own famous speeches... >suicide, and yes, he was the only one left alive at the end, but I'm Yodphat, in Galiliee. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:23:55 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Massada At 20:52 31/08/98 , you wrote: >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. That really depends on how you view it.... I'm really not trying to offend somebody, but it seems that abroad (i.e., outside Israel) people know about Massada due to the TV show that had several famous stars in it. In Israel, there's a rather bitter arguement, going back some thirty yours or so, about what to do with the Masada legacy. Even putting aside the historical question (did the defenders actually kill themselves?), everyone - - as usual - split into two camps: the nationalist one, which says Masada was the "height of Jewish bravery", and therefore should be chiseled into every child's mind; and the secular camp (for lack of a better word) which thinks fanaticism and mass suicide are not that good ideas to educate children by. Obviously, I belong to the second camp. In the IN universe, I'd place Masada under Saminga and Malphas (when he bothers to get out of Jerusalem, that is); others would use Michael and (probably) David. As a note to stone favorites, this is one of the more excavated sites around here. >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, That was the military's motto in the 1940s and 1950s. Between 1948 and 1967, Masada was in Jordanian hands, IIRC, and since it was the armour soldiers who re-took it, they take their oaths there. Paratroopers, for the same reason, take their oaths, at the Wailing Wall. The military oath does not include any references to Masada. >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 Hell, no. Just between 18 and 21. I know a couple of people who would have committed suicide if forced to undergo six years of military servitude....err, service. But this is email stuff. >about that pile of oaths...) I'd say that the Angel of Masada would be a >Malakite of Stone. Malakite, yes; but why Stone? Whatever happened to Michael's original role (in the Book of Daniel) as the "Protector of Israel"? >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. True, though he claims to have heard the story from five survivors. Your call, I guess. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:07:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Worded celestial detection At 8:51 PM -0500 8/31/98, Eeyore wrote: >I have a minor modification of this question. It may actually be covered by >this answer, but I'd like to be sure. When a demon is given a Word, is it >necessarily public knowledge that this Word has been taken? Or might a >Superior petition Lucifer to grant one of his Servitors a Word for which he >is suitable, only to be told, "Why, no. I gave that one out years ago." Lucifer is perfectly capable of this, yes. Especially if it's a relatively minor Word, and/or the recipiant doesn't make much of it politically, and/or doesn't publicize that he's gotten that Word. Note Lauren, Demon of Strippers. Andre found out, but *she* wasn't telling anyone. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #935 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.