From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Oct 21 12:20:36 1999 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 MAA16236 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:20:35 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA11257 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:18:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:18:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199910211718.MAA11257@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1369 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 Thursday, October 21 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1369 In this digest: Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) IN> Judgement Re: IN> A question. Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) Re: IN> Another question. Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> Judgement Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> A question. IN> More on Mercs Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> More on Mercs Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> Judgement Re: IN> More on Mercs Re: IN> Furfur's Word Re: IN> Judgement Re: IN> More on Mercs Re: IN> Furfur's Word Re: IN> Judgement Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) Re: IN> Judgement IN> Murky Dissonance (Re: A question.) Re: IN> More on Mercs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:20:37 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> A question. >From: Walter Milliken >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >It's also a better rein on munchkinoid >players; it's sometimes hard to judge a *player*'s intent. Actually, Elohim are much harder to make a GM call on. You pretty much always just have to rely on a player being honest with you about what his character's motives were. Anyone with real munchkinoid tendencies would be able to easily argue his way out of dissonance when playing an Elohite. So I'd be more lenient on Mercurians. Keep the poor things playable. I'd certainly let them slap other celestials around if they thought it was necessary. For some of them, it's the only way to make them take you seriously. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:31:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 3:40 PM -0400 10/20/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >So my interpretation of the dissonance condition would read something like: > >1) A Mercurian cannot directly do physical harm to a human. Bingo. And I'll errata the blasted text AGAIN if this is still unclear.... >2) He also cannot *condone* such harm unless he's tried non-violent > means to resolve the problem. Except #2 is the _Flowers_ dissonance condition, and I'm loathe to make every Mercurian a Flowers-Servitor by default. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:36:48 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Elizabeth McCoy > At 3:40 PM -0400 10/20/99, Walter Milliken wrote: > > >2) He also cannot *condone* such harm unless he's tried non-violent > > means to resolve the problem. > > Except #2 is the _Flowers_ dissonance condition, and I'm loathe to make > every Mercurian a Flowers-Servitor by default. It's not bad to use as a general guideline, though. Not that I would thwap a Mercurian with dissonance every time their first choice was to step back and unleash the blackwings, but if they made a habit of it... *eg* Prodigal Demon of Calling In To Tech Support Without The Product Nearby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:41:40 -0500 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 03:36 PM 10/20/99 -0500, you wrote: >From: Elizabeth McCoy >> At 3:40 PM -0400 10/20/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >> >> >2) He also cannot *condone* such harm unless he's tried non-violent >> > means to resolve the problem. >> >> Except #2 is the _Flowers_ dissonance condition, and I'm loathe to make >> every Mercurian a Flowers-Servitor by default. > >It's not bad to use as a general guideline, though. Not that I would thwap a >Mercurian with dissonance every time their first choice was to step back and >unleash the blackwings, but if they made a habit of it... *eg* It's not a -bad- system, really. If the human is innocent (or no more than averagely sinful), the Malakite will do nothing. Most Malakim, in my viewpoint, will not do anything -permanent- to a human unless their Resonance reveals no honor, no chance for redemption in their eyes. Even a Hellsworn -might- get to live, if the Malakite senses some true honor despite their loyalty... In short, once the Mercurian steps aside, his part in the decision chain is ended. What happens to the mortal next is between him and the Malakite. As such, no dissonance. However, if the Mercurian decides not to wait for the Malakite, that is dissonant. Redneck Kris Overstreet, too many websites.... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Personal homepage http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - Business webpage http://www.antarctic-press.com/ - Someone else's page ... not enough time ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:46:36 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 15:07 -0400 10/20/99, Ben Glickler wrote: >I've always been given to understand that angels become dissonant due to >their choices, not due to their bad luck or incompetence (as demons do.) Not entirely true, as the Cherub case is a counter-example. (One can argue that the Cherub chose to take insufficient precautions, or to attune to too many things, though.) In the case of the Mercurian throwing a baseball, it could be argued that a) he shouldn't have been playing a sport where he could easily injure a human through mischance, b) that he shouldn't have been using so much of his supernatural strength in his throwing, and/or c) that he shouldn't have been risking this unless he was *really* good at Throwing skill. Overall, I'd consider the baseball example iffier than the winter driving case, since the latter is more likely to result from carelessness or overconfidence than the baseball one. Frankly, I'd probably give him dissonance anyway (sometimes being an angel is just plain tough...), but this would be one of the cases where a Superior would be likely to remove the dissonance without much comment. (Likewise, I'd let him easily work it off in a Tether.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:37:28 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 16:31 -0400 10/20/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 3:40 PM -0400 10/20/99, Walter Milliken wrote: > >>So my interpretation of the dissonance condition would read something like: >> >>1) A Mercurian cannot directly do physical harm to a human. > >Bingo. And I'll errata the blasted text AGAIN if this is still unclear.... > >>2) He also cannot *condone* such harm unless he's tried non-violent >> means to resolve the problem. > >Except #2 is the _Flowers_ dissonance condition, and I'm loathe to make >every Mercurian a Flowers-Servitor by default. I tend to see it as a weaker form than the Flowers dissonance condition. For Flowers, the violence has to be absolutely necessary (is how we phrased it in GURPS IN), while I'd see the Mercurian condition as being more "if the person won't listen to reason, then OK, we try something else". Also Flowers servitors extend their pacifism to demons; Mercurians don't. It is a somewhat subtle distinction, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:07:58 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Elizabeth McCoy > > Actually, it's a perfect example. He's not to blame for _human_ > reactions. Just as if he tells a Malakite, "This Hellsworn is > not being reasonable. Your turn," he's not dissonant. It is when > he is directly the cause of the violence. (His fist, a human face. > His baseball bat, a human body. His car which he is nominally in > control of (i.e., conscious and able to get to the wheel), and a > human. > but surely he is to blame if he assumes that the humans caught up in his traffic chaos will have good enough reactions, when he knows that's unlikely. maybe i misinterpreted the original example. i assumed the point was that it was a complete accident, outside the mercurian's conscious control (except perhaps that he shouldn't have chosen to drive on a wintry day). if the idea is that he purposefully chose to drive around somewhere despite knowing that the driving conditions were dodgy and there could be people about, then i'd consider giving him dissonance, but probably not. if he was driving around recklessly in bad weather and crowded conditions, where it was obvious there could be an accident, and there was one, i'd give him dissonance. just as i'd give him dissonance for causing an accident in the above example. i guess i'm more bothered by the intent than by the causality. works for me, but i can see how that could be awkward official-games-mechanics-wise. liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:57:05 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Walter Milliken >(I.e., a drug injection that kills a human in his > sleep. Or paralyzes him. It's not really *violent*....) > i don't think he meant "violent" as in "smacking someone around". he meant it in terms of purposefully intending to cause harm. so the drug injection would be violence, as it was intentional harm to that person liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:12:49 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Ben Glickler > > READ THE ERRATA. www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/ > > The books were unclear, and are errata'ed. > > > Change the first two sentences under Dissonance to: "Mercurians cannot be > violent toward humans. Violence is the antethesis of politics, the dampener > of reason." > > > You can hurt someone without being violent. Violence requires either an > emotional commitment (I'm steaming mad! Argh! Thwap! *bong*) or > intellectual commitment (I'm sorry, I can't let you do that. No. Stop. > Thwap! *bong*). > > If a Mercurien is playing baseball, and the ball beans a human and kills > him, he's cool. Pissed, dumb, but cool, and certainly not dissonant. After > all, he wasn't being violent, it was just an accident, right? > > One could extrapolate from this that a Mercurien who is driving and runs > some schlub over was not being violent. He must take a violent action > against a human to be dissonant. This means he, himself, launching an > attack against a human. Unless I've horribly misread the errata, which is > entirely possible. > i entirely agree with the above. i guess it comes down to intepretation (quite possibly incorrect interpretation on my part) > I've always been given to understand that angels become dissonant due to > their choices, not due to their bad luck or incompetence (as demons do.) > generally i go along with this, though in the case of some (cherubim and kyriotates spring to mind) i can see the "bad luck factor" causing dissonance. liam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:32:10 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 19:57 -0400 10/20/99, Liam wrote: >From: Walter Milliken > >>(I.e., a drug injection that kills a human in his >> sleep. Or paralyzes him. It's not really *violent*....) >> > >i don't think he meant "violent" as in "smacking someone around". he meant >it in terms of purposefully intending to cause harm. so the drug injection >would be violence, as it was intentional harm to that person OK, then, is euthanasia "harm"? One could see a Mercurian killing a "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real harm. But I wouldn't really want Mercurians operating that way -- at least in general. Some Words might provide enough bias on Servitors to do that in some cases, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:08:09 -0700 (PDT) From: The Alien Subject: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) I think this would make a great Mercurian dissonance package. 1.A Mercurian may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2.A Mercurian must obey orders given it by Laurence except where such orders would conflict with the first dissonance condition. 3.A Mercurian must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second dissonance condition. Uh... yes, that's my cue to invoke the third dissonance condition. I felt this thread needed levity. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:38:18 -0500 (CDT) From: paranial@creighton.edu Subject: Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, The Alien wrote: > I think this would make a great Mercurian dissonance package. > > > 1.A Mercurian may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a > human being to come to harm. > 2.A Mercurian must obey orders given it by Laurence except where such > orders would conflict with the first dissonance condition. > 3.A Mercurian must protect its own existence as long as such protection > does not conflict with the first or second dissonance condition. > > Uh... yes, that's my cue to invoke the third > dissonance condition. > > I felt this thread needed levity. > On behalf of In Nomine players everywhere I humbly apologize to Issac Asminov. Bradley Paranial, Mercurian Vassal of War. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:53:39 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> Judgement Got a good quote here that I found. Pretty much sums up my idea of Judgement and Malakim. "There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organisation. If there are such things as angels I hope they are organised along the lines of the Mafia" Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens of Titan Anyone else see Judgement and the blackwings like this? That is, a bunch of very dangerous, organised people who are willing to break a few eggs to make the omlette. Speaking of breaking however, Domonic seems portrayed as a pretty much fanatical anti-falling guy. Would you have him to let someone fall if it served a greater purpose? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:56:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A question. Walter Milliken wrote: > If he didn't get dissonant, he ought to at least be *really* unhappy. My own opinion on dissonance is to play it psychologically. An angel's reaction is a wrenching "Dear God in Heaven, what have I *DONE*?!!!" response that, when it builds up enough to be Discord, induces the celestial equivalents of psychosomatic illness, nervous breakdown, etc. An angel's dissonance response usually has shades of guilt and horror in it; I suppose a demon's would be more plain fear. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:57:08 -0600 (CST) From: "James T. Peebles" Subject: Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 paranial@creighton.edu wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, The Alien wrote: > > > I think this would make a great Mercurian dissonance package. <> > > Uh... yes, that's my cue to invoke the third > > dissonance condition. > > > > I felt this thread needed levity. > > On behalf of In Nomine players everywhere I humbly apologize to > Issac Asminov. Somehow I think St. Asimov would be amused by this, considering how he felt about the supernatural and where he must be. I get this neat picture of him in Yves Library as he continues writing ('The Anatomy of Angels' prehaps), despite the distractions provided. James, Soldier of God ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:10:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Another question. Liam wrote: > still, you might want to suggest to the player that he make less > statements about the future, something a seraph couldn't be sure of > and might feel uncomfortalbe talking about. "i intend to shave your > head" is better than "i will shave your head" And it might make an additional difference if the seraph is a grammarian. (I bet lots are.) In stickler-mode English, "I will" *is* a statement of intent, not about the future. The statement about the future is "I shall." (Somewhere, there's a poem with the line "I will not die, but I shall.") Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:15:11 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) At 8:57 AM -0600 10/21/99, James T. Peebles wrote: > > Somehow I think St. Asimov would be amused by this, considering >how he felt about the supernatural and where he must be. > I get this neat picture of him in Yves Library as he continues >writing ('The Anatomy of Angels' prehaps), despite the distractions >provided. And writing. And writing. And writing. "Issac? How is it possible your output has increased so much?" "Mm? Oh. I no longer need to eat or sleep. This really *is* Heaven." - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:16:43 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Walter Milliken > OK, then, is euthanasia "harm"? yes >One could see a Mercurian killing a > "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real harm. not in the long run, maybe, but that's like hitting someone and saying "they'll feel alright again in a bit" liam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:06:19 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. like I tell all my new players when I instruct them to read the opening vignettes, "Nicole is not a good angel. in fact, she's a horrible angel. in fact, IMHO, she's about to fall, and it ain't going to be pretty." - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:27 PM Subject: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. >>So... the angels around Nicole from "Bright Dream" have their local >>Judgement tether on speed dial? > > So _this_ is why I got the impression she doesn't really >stay _that_ long in one town? > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:20:48 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A question. Do all these questions about Mercurians and harm remind anyone of the cybernetic mind-games Isaac Asimov used to play with the First Law of Robotics: "A robot shall not harm a human being or allow a human being to come to harm"? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:27:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A question. Walter Milliken wrote: > OK, then, is euthanasia "harm"? One could see a Mercurian killing a > "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real > harm. But I wouldn't really want Mercurians operating that way -- > at least in general. Some Words might provide enough bias on > Servitors to do that in some cases, though. Perhaps Mercurians of the Archangel of Death, should that worthy ever make a canonical appearance? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:39:07 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Judgement At 6:53 -0400 10/21/99, bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au wrote: > Speaking of breaking however, Domonic seems portrayed as a pretty muc >fanatical anti-falling guy. Would you have him to let someone fall if it >served a greater purpose? I tend to view him as fanatical that way, also. I'd say no, he's so fanatical that he wants to keep *every last angel* from Falling. An Elohite might be willing to sacrifice such a principle for a greater good, but I don't really see Dominic thinking that way. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:38:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A question. I wrote: > Do all these questions about Mercurians and harm remind anyone > of the cybernetic mind-games Isaac Asimov used to play with > the First Law of Robotics while working through a back-log, and obviously before I got to the earlier e-mail with the same idea. Sorry. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:41:08 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 10:16 -0400 10/21/99, Liam wrote: >From: Walter Milliken >>One could see a Mercurian killing a >> "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real harm. > >not in the long run, maybe, but that's like hitting someone and saying >"they'll feel alright again in a bit" Which I can easily see a Servitor of Stone agreeing with... "It's for their own good, really." - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:44:10 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 10:56 -0400 10/21/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >My own opinion on dissonance is to play it psychologically. >An angel's reaction is a wrenching "Dear God in Heaven, what have >I *DONE*?!!!" response that, when it builds up enough to be Discord, >induces the celestial equivalents of psychosomatic illness, nervous >breakdown, etc. Pretty much how I see it, though sometimes it's also the angel choosing to do something they consider wrong for a Higher Purpose. (Generally a Bad Idea, but angels are fallible.) >An angel's dissonance response usually has shades of guilt and >horror in it; I suppose a demon's would be more plain fear. Or anger at being thwarted by the Symphony. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:45:36 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> More on Mercs 1) Is it dissonant for a Merc to harm a human in order to prevent that human from harming other humans... viz., by shooting someone who's about to shoot someone? Could it be dissonant for the Merc _not_ to act in this situation? 2) Does psychological violence count as violence? Could a Merc use threats and bluff to terrorize a human? 3) A human is in hysterics. Can the Merc slap the human in an attempt to restore sanity? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:48:19 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) umm...why listen to Laurence? and these sound familiar...been reading I, Robot lately? - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:59:30 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A question. At 11:27 -0400 10/21/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: > >> OK, then, is euthanasia "harm"? One could see a Mercurian killing a >> "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real >> harm. But I wouldn't really want Mercurians operating that way -- >> at least in general. Some Words might provide enough bias on >> Servitors to do that in some cases, though. > >Perhaps Mercurians of the Archangel of Death, should that worthy >ever make a canonical appearance? Maybe. I was thinking of Stone and Judgment, when I wrote that. Maybe War. Probably not the Sword -- it's too much like cheating to send humans to Heaven ahead of time. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:06:25 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> More on Mercs Douglas Muir wrote: > 1) Is it dissonant for a Merc to harm a human in order to prevent > that human from harming other humans... viz., by shooting someone > who's about to shoot someone? It probably gets dissonance that its Superior is very willing to remove. > 2) Does psychological violence count as violence? Could a Merc use > threats and bluff to terrorize a human? I don't think psychological violence counts. > 3) A human is in hysterics. Can the Merc slap the human in an > attempt to restore sanity? Hm, tricky. I think not. Again, the Superior might be very ready to remove said dissonance. Or it might be very easy for the Mercurian to work the dissonance off itself, say by being rather stickily solicitous of the human after they come out of hysterics. All just off the top of my own head. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:08:31 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. >From: "Amo Nympham" > > >like I tell all my new players when I instruct them to read the opening >vignettes, "Nicole is not a good angel. in fact, she's a horrible angel. >in fact, IMHO, she's about to fall, and it ain't going to be pretty." > I think Nicole's a great angel! She's my role model. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:10:22 +0200 From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> A question. Walter Milliken wrote: > At 10:16 -0400 10/21/99, Liam wrote: > >From: Walter Milliken > >>One could see a Mercurian killing a > >> "good" person, since sending them to Heaven isn't intending real harm. > >not in the long run, maybe, but that's like hitting someone and saying > >"they'll feel alright again in a bit" > Which I can easily see a Servitor of Stone agreeing with... "It's for > their own good, really." Who do you think invented the term "Tough Love"(tm)? /cd, lurking along - -- A mouse is a device to point at the xterm you want to type in. -- Seen in a.s.r ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:13:13 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Judgement >From: Walter Milliken >>At 6:53 -0400 10/21/99, bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au wrote: > > Speaking of breaking however, Domonic seems portrayed as a pretty muc > >fanatical anti-falling guy. Would you have him to let someone fall if it > >served a greater purpose? > >I tend to view him as fanatical that way, also. I'd say no, he's so >fanatical that he wants to keep *every last angel* from Falling I agree that he absolutely wouldn't countenance that sort of argument, but that isn't necessarily fanaticism. I mean, how fanatical do you have to be to say, "Sure, we'll let this guy's soul go quietly to Hell. It doesn't matter in the long run, because we have GREATER things to think about"? That's fanaticism. Thinking that your chosen ideal is more important than anything or anyone who stands in the way. Sacrificing the 'unimportant' pawns to further your grand schemes. Michael is a fanatic. Dominic is an idealist :) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:17:35 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> More on Mercs >From: Douglas Muir > >1) Is it dissonant for a Merc to harm a human in order to prevent that >human from harming other humans... viz., by shooting someone who's about to >shoot someone? Yes. But if he later heals the gunman, the dissonance will vanish (not that this is an especially great way to behave...) > >Could it be dissonant for the Merc _not_ to act in this situation? > That's what Songs of Harmony (or Malakim) are for. >2) Does psychological violence count as violence? Could a Merc use >threats and bluff to terrorize a human? No and yes. One would hope that she'd have a good reason, though. > >3) A human is in hysterics. Can the Merc slap the human in an attempt to >restore sanity? > Sure. She'll get dissonance though. (refer to earlier comment about Songs of Harmony) (I don't think slapping people actually helps much anyway -- I seem to remember reading somewhere that this was an old wives tale.) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:37:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Furfur's Word Liam wrote: >> I'd say Lucifer is Pride. > > i like this idea, due to the whole "Lucifer fell because of his pride" > thang, but i'm not entirely convinced that pride as a concept is a > Bad Thing in the IN universe. "Pride," like "love," is a word with many meanings. As a Deadly Sin, it means basically the same as Selfishness, which is the IN center of evil. I'd recommend Malphas as the best candidate for Envy, since it is such a great tool of devisiveness. There is no great candidate for Sloth among the Princes right now, but Saminga is a good idea. Not that Saminga himself is lazy, except maybe intellectually. But this brings up an interesting point about serving evil Words, or serving Words evilly -- do you act as the highest EXAMPLE of the sin, or do you act to PROMOTE the sin? Because they can be work in opposite ways. The late Prince of Sloth was himself slothful, and that did him in. But I could imagine a Nybbas-like Prince of Sloth who worked with great industry to make his VICTIMS be slothful. Likewise, servants of Malphas would often be more effective if they, themselves, cooperated in the act of making humans uncooperative. Etc. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:03:14 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Judgement At 10:39 AM 10/21/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 6:53 -0400 10/21/99, bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au wrote: >> Speaking of breaking however, Domonic seems portrayed as a pretty muc >>fanatical anti-falling guy. Would you have him to let someone fall if it >>served a greater purpose? > >I tend to view him as fanatical that way, also. I'd say no, he's so >fanatical that he wants to keep *every last angel* from Falling. An >Elohite might be willing to sacrifice such a principle for a greater >good, but I don't really see Dominic thinking that way. Yves on the other hand I can see stepping in to let someone fall because it is their destiny to redeem in a spectacularly good manner. and I can see Dominic being very pissy about this and michael being even more pissy about this. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:35:10 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> More on Mercs At 10:45 -0400 10/21/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >1) Is it dissonant for a Merc to harm a human in order to prevent that >human from harming other humans... viz., by shooting someone who's about to >shoot someone? Almost certainly. >Could it be dissonant for the Merc _not_ to act in this situation? Quite possibly -- this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" forks that angels sometimes get into. The basic problem here is that the Mercurian should have managed the situation such that it didn't escalate to the point of violence on the human shooter's part. And if he didn't arrive until the situation boiled over... well, that happens sometimes. He gets the dissonance, but probably won't draw any fire from the Inquisition or his Superior for it, as long as he gets it taken care of right away. >2) Does psychological violence count as violence? Could a Merc use >threats and bluff to terrorize a human? This may be addressed in the APG. Also, a similar problem arises with Djinn, and I think I'd want to treat it the same way. I believe they aren't forbidden psychological violence. For Mercurians, I'd probably allow them to play intimidation games, since they're pretty much "politics as usual" for humans, and a way of *avoiding* physical conflict. That said, if one of them was terrorizing humans *routinely*, then I'd be sorely tempted to slap them with dissonance. >3) A human is in hysterics. Can the Merc slap the human in an attempt to >restore sanity? If all other avenues have been exhausted, *maybe*. (They'd rather have the Elohite do it, though....) Similar questions arise for a Mercurian with a Role as a doctor -- sometimes they have to do minor injury to do a greater good. I would expect that since there's no emotional investment in doing the harm, and the good is distinctly greater, they could manage without getting dissonant, but it's probably uncomfortable (and frankly, I suspect they tend to avoid becoming surgeons). But if they later discovered that the treatment they were using was doing more harm than good, they *would* become dissonant for past sins, I'd say. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:41:26 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Furfur's Word At 12:37 -0400 10/21/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > But I could imagine a >Nybbas-like Prince of Sloth who worked with great industry to make >his VICTIMS be slothful. Actually, I was thinking Nybbas might be the modern embodiment of Sloth, since the media does a lot to promote desensitization, apathy, and mindless "group-think". Not to mention couch potatoes.... And look how his souls are handled in Hell. The stealth version of Sloth.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:44:25 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Judgement At 11:13 -0400 10/21/99, Jo Hart wrote: >That's fanaticism. Thinking that your chosen ideal is more important than >anything or anyone who stands in the way. Sacrificing the 'unimportant' >pawns to further your grand schemes. I tend to see that as megalomania, not fanaticism. Though the two are certainly not incompatible.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:45:38 -0700 (PDT) From: The Alien Subject: Re: Revised Mercurian Dissonance (was Re: IN> A question.) On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > umm...why listen to Laurence? and these sound familiar...been reading I, > Robot lately? > > - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" Not in a long time, actually. And I had to stick in SOMETHING there. I considered including obeying God, but He doesn't really give orders anymore. Obeying humans was right out. Laurence is both the commander of the armies of the Lord and the one with a dissonance condition that lends itself towards this. Anyway, it was pretty much a playful swipe at the current thread. Don't read too much into it. Laurence really doesn't secretly control ALL Mercurians. Sean (No, really!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:54:32 -0700 (PDT) From: The Alien Subject: Re: IN> Judgement On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Walter Milliken wrote: > I tend to see that as megalomania, not fanaticism. Though the two are > certainly not incompatible.... As a point of reference, AnotherGameSystem(tm) requires you to buy Fanaticism as a precursor to Megalomania. They are, of course, fanatics about themselves... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:04:21 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Murky Dissonance (Re: A question.) At 5:37 PM -0400 10/20/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >>>2) He also cannot *condone* such harm unless he's tried non-violent >>> means to resolve the problem. >> >>Except #2 is the _Flowers_ dissonance condition, and I'm loathe to make >>every Mercurian a Flowers-Servitor by default. > >I tend to see it as a weaker form than the Flowers dissonance condition. >For Flowers, the violence has to be absolutely necessary (is how we phrased >it in GURPS IN), while I'd see the Mercurian condition as being more "if the >person won't listen to reason, then OK, we try something else". Also >Flowers servitors extend their pacifism to demons; Mercurians don't. It >is a somewhat subtle distinction, though. Right -- especially when you factor Mercurians of War or the Sword into things. There are undoubtedly times when even a Mercurian can see that someone is a raving loon/druggie/berserker/Hellsworn with an uzi and the only thing to do is drop flat while the combat-capable types deal with it. I'd make #1 (No Direct Physical Harm To Humans) the dissonance condition, and #2 is more the "slippery slope" approach. A Mercurian should be _very_ uncomfortable not trying the non-violent approach first, and one who's skipping that part a lot would attract notice from Judgment (or his Mercurian buddies), but not be insta-dissonance. Sort of like Seraphim standing around trying not to look too pained while their buddies lie for them -- it's part of their personality, but they _can_ manage it. When they must. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:24:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> More on Mercs At 10:45 AM -0400 10/21/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >1) Is it dissonant for a Merc to harm a human in order to prevent that >human from harming other humans... viz., by shooting someone who's about to >shoot someone? Yes. (Unless you have a Mercurian of Judgment, let it be noted.) A very good sharpshooter angel could try to shoot the _gun_... >Could it be dissonant for the Merc _not_ to act in this situation? No. Very, _very_ unpleasant, though! (You can have psychological trauma that isn't dissonant. Dissonance is not the _only_ stick celestials face.) But a good angel would take the dissonance and weep afterwards. And most Archangels would remove the dissonance quickly. >2) Does psychological violence count as violence? Could a Merc use >threats and bluff to terrorize a human? Occasionally though usually not, and yes, but they have to be careful -- they're on a slippery slope when they start doing psychological harm. Eventually, if they do it enough, it will probably come back to haunt them in a dissonant way, either because they are doing it and taking _pleasure_ in the harm, or because it has desensitized them enough that they take a swing at someone. >3) A human is in hysterics. Can the Merc slap the human in an attempt to >restore sanity? I'd say no, or certainly not without nearly going into hysterics himself, if not actual dissonance. (And if I were in hysterics, slapping me would probably get me going berserk after ya. Fair warning... O:> ) - --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 #1369 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.