From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 24 23:04:30 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 XAA17813 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:04:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id WAA05602 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:38:26 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:38:26 -0600 Message-Id: <199902250438.WAA05602@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 #1126 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, February 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1126 In this digest: IN> The rules system Re: IN> Character Sheets. . . IN> Re: Character Sheets. . . Re: IN> Re: Character Sheets. . . Re: IN> words Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> words Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth RE: IN> words Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> words Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> The rules system Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> The rules system Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1125 IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:33:15 +0000 From: Simon Killingray Subject: IN> The rules system Hi, this is going to be my first mail to the digest so if people could reply I would know my mail was getting there. I have the core in nomine book only and I am having some problem using the rules. I don't mine that they are vague you can get round that by just interpreting. My problem is that in using the book I have a devil of a job finding the rules. Just working out to create characters took ages. Is there any rules summarys round the place that I can have? Could it be e-mailed to me or can have I the URL? Failing that does any body have any suggestions for dealing with it? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Killingray "Eeeeeewwwwww, that's the third Jedi we've lost this month. I tell you we've got to make it more obvious which end of the lightsaber is which!" - Jedi training camps: The Untold Story - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- See my site on the Web at: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~smu96spk/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:07:25 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Character Sheets. . . I'm definitely interested. Perry's got his own set, as do I (pencil-on-paper works wonders), but I'm certainly interested in seeing what others have come up with. :) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "Come on, I'm just a fish! I don't know these things." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:56:37 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Re: Character Sheets. . . To those who are interested, Okay, I -should- really send this privately to them, but might as well make it a general announcement for any future takers. . . I'm going to be doing my darnedest to convert the lot into .pdf format. . . However, with a total of 17 files to do so, it's going to take a while. Especially since I'm having such a bear with Adobe Acrobat in converting 'em. *grin* Seventeen, you may ask? Yep, all the Band's, all the Choirs (-including- Bright Lilim, which was a -real- pain to scan mind you) and two generic sheets. I'll start with the generic ones first, see what people think. When they -do- go up, I'll shove 'em onto my current IN NOMINE Website: http://www.best.com/~lycuem/shdwstar/in-nomine. *grin* I'll announce that their up once I beat the program to near-death, and get it spitting out - -good- .pdf format files. *grin* - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph Marquis of Fate, Demon of Delusions of Granduer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:38:03 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Re: Character Sheets. . . Shadowstar wrote: > http://www.best.com/~lycuem/shdwstar/in-nomine. *grin* I'll announce http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine. Subtle typo, but it's there. ;) Thanks, Tafka! - -EDG maybe I shoulda gone into Nitpicking... - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "Come on, I'm just a fish! I don't know these things." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:13:13 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> words Redneck Gaijin wrote: > Um, is the same Dominic who sends hit squads after Outcast angels and orders > dismemberment of angels for transgressions? > > Dominic is into consequences, NOT forgiveness. IMC, it's a rare day indeed > when Dominic consents to sponsor a demon or Outcast's Redemption. > > Yves, on the other hand, always sees the brightest in everyone- even Kronos. Do recall, from the APG, the angel of Mercy serves Dominic. Puts a whole new spin on it, hm? I'm -sure- Dominic would much rather have a demon in Heaven, where he can pump it for information which it will - -gladly- give its new Heavenly friends, than as a scattered collection of Forces. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:12:45 +1100 From: Leath Sheales <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth At 03:32 PM 2/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 7:03 PM +0000 2/23/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >>Can a Serpah tell a factually untrue tale if it serves to illustrate a >>higher truth (without incurring dissonance), like Aesops (is that how you >>spell it) Fables. > >If they announce that it is a fable beforehand, sure. (In Heaven, the >required tonalities and shadings of 'fable' and 'metaphor' show up >automatically...) Or if they say "This is a tale once told to me..." or "I heard this once...". If either case is tue, then IMO the Seraph would not generate dissonance. They would also be able to describe a complete lie if someone else told it to them, and they were merely reporting it to someone verbatim as "What they were told." Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:14:29 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Leath Sheales wrote: > Or if they say "This is a tale once told to me..." or "I heard this > once...". If either case is tue, then IMO the Seraph would not generate > dissonance. They would also be able to describe a complete lie if someone > else told it to them, and they were merely reporting it to someone verbatim > as "What they were told." Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying that it is, in fact, a falsehood, and probably double dissonance because they're also misleading the subject into thinking that what the Seraph says might be true. > Leath. - -EDG Balseraphs probably get dissonance for telling a fable even if they disclaim it. :) - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "Come on, I'm just a fish! I don't know these things." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 99 00:29:53 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> words >On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 01:41:37PM -0500, Redneck Gaijin wrote: >> Dominic is into consequences, NOT forgiveness. IMC, it's a rare day indeed >> when Dominic consents to sponsor a demon or Outcast's Redemption. >> >Surely, however, it is not just to take the opportunity to redeem from >someone, especially a Hellborn demon, who sincerely desires it. I can see >him being less keen to forgive certain Outcasts or Fallen, but the >Hellborn didn't choose the circumstances of their creation, and should not >be held accountable for them. > However, those acts which they commit after their creation -are- their responsibility, and subject to justice. Just because a Celestial is Hellborn does not excuse sin. And the wages of sin... you know... Redneck (there would have to be VERY strong reasons for Dommie to not spack even a repentant demon on sight) 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:06:50 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 01:14:29AM -0500, EDG wrote: > Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in > and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question > certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying > that it is, in fact, a falsehood, I fail to see why. The Seraph is not, in fact, claiming that it is true. All the Seraph is claiming is that the Seraph heard someone say it. and probably double dissonance because > they're also misleading the subject into thinking that what the Seraph > says might be true. > Misleading people is specifically allowable, though most Seraphim dislike it severely. If you doubt me, examine the Seraph of the Wind attunement, which gives a bonus to Fast-Talk. The ability to persuade is heavily linked to the ability to edit accounts of reality. And in any event, if they couldn't mislead people, they'd hardly be able to get by on Earth due to having to use their Celestial name every time they were questioned. I'm still not sure of the use of the phrasing "a number of times" to mean never, though. (A good example of the way a Seraph of the Wind operates can be found in Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow series. 4 books through it, and I have yet to find an instance of Arithon s'Ffalenn telling a lie, though he has run bluffs and deceived people on countless occasions.) > Balseraphs probably get dissonance for telling a fable even if they > disclaim it. :) > I can't imagine why. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "With such tripe masses of human beings were tranquilised - until those rare occasions when they woke up, saw what was happening around them, misunderstood it, and did their best to impose the stupidest possible solution on the men who normally led them." A Dark and Hungry God Arises, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:32:09 -0500 From: "Sheep Boy" Subject: RE: IN> words Just to throw my two cents into the Angel of Redemption thread, I think of the granting of Words to be a bit more political in Heaven. IMC, Dom would probably be a bit too hard-nosed to deal with the Word fairly, but just for extra giggles, I'd give it to Revelation. It would fall under "Seeing the light" and "Realizing you're wrong" and along similar propaganda lines. But that's just me. On a more personal front, I had immediately thought Seraph for the choir, and really raised my eyebrow at the suggestion of Malakite. But after thinking about it, I would _really_ enjoy a Malakite Angel of Redemption. For the bit about "Never suffer an evil to live..." most remove the "life" portion of the statement. Our Angel here removes the "evil" part. I think it would make a great character. Probably one of the most patient and caring Malakites around. If he didn't take the "Join us or die" angle. :) Best o' luck, - Stavro +-stavro@crackden.org-------------------------ICQ#18493910-+ | "Cinema, simulated life and trauma | | Birthright, culture, Americana" | | - Rage Against the Machine, "No Shelter" | +----------------http://www.crackden.org/------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:11:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth EDG wrote: > Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true > in and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in > question certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood > without clarifying that it is, in fact, a falsehood, and probably > double dissonance because they're also misleading the subject into > thinking that what the Seraph says might be true. First, I second what Kevin Walsh said about misleading being specifically allowed. Second, I thought the original issue was not misleading, but whether a seraph could recount fiction in any way, without getting dissonance. If it can mislead by omission, then it seems to me that it can certainly say, in safety, "Here is a parable: Once, there was a jar of salad dressing..." It isn't even trying to mislead. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:13:24 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> words Sheep Boy wrote: > Just to throw my two cents into the Angel of Redemption thread, I > think of the granting of Words to be a bit more political in Heaven. > IMC, Dom would probably be a bit too hard-nosed to deal with the Word > fairly, but just for extra giggles, I'd give it to Revelation. It > would fall under "Seeing the light" and "Realizing you're wrong" and > along similar propaganda lines. But that's just me. Hm. You could make the situation more complex by giving the Word of Redemption to a servitor of Destiny, but giving the Word of Conversion or Repentance to a servitor of Revelation. Conversion, it seems to me, is more specifically concerned with "seeing the light," but of course the two Words, and thus the two angels, have to work closely together for good effect. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:23:12 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth >EDG wrote: > >> Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true >> in and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in >> question certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood >> without clarifying that it is, in fact, a falsehood, and probably >> double dissonance because they're also misleading the subject into >> thinking that what the Seraph says might be true. > >First, I second what Kevin Walsh said about misleading being >specifically allowed. > I'll third it. If a Seraph tells a true statement, it is a true statement. If we assume that by phrasing a factually true statement in a way that misleads the listener is a dissonant condition for a Seraph, we end up with unintended extremes. For example, let's take the statement "I was told by Joe Balseraph that Lucifer was dissonant and on the edge of redeeming." Joe is clearly lying (by believing what he was told, naturally). Skippy Seraph knows this. However, the above statement does not claim that Lucifer is headed for white wings. It claims that Joe *says* he's on the way to white wings. Skippy encounters a crucial demon, Danny Djinn, who is a quarter inch from redemption and who has important information about Skippy's mission. To try and tip the scales, Skippy tells Danny the above statement. It is factually true. Joe told him that. Let us assume that the gamemaster rules this is a lie by misleading, and dings Skippy with dissonance. Later on, in making his report to his Superior, Skippy needs to make the same statement. If Skippy is *not* dinged with dissonance this time (and obviously Skippy is not lying, so he shouldn't be), we run into a condition where Skippy can make the same exact statement about the same exact person and be dissonant in one condition and not dissonant in the other. This seems highly wrong to me, as it calls Skippy's intent into question every time he opens his mouth. The rule is not "Skippy cannot intend to mislead" but "Skippy cannot *lie.*" So, either Skippy needs to be dinged for telling the truth to his Superior or -- and this seems *far* more likely to me -- Skippy is *not* dinged for telling the truth (in a misleading way) to Danny. Now, we know most Seraphs would find any kind of obfuscation *unpleasant* at the least, and may elect as a matter of principle not to do it. However, some Seraphs might almost be required to use deceptive language in the performance of their duties. For example, Servitors of Dominic may have to employ the tool on a regular basis, as a part of their examinations: [Maria Mercurian] I don't know anything about the Lilim Underground Railroad. [Skippy] Interesting -- I've been told you know quite a lot about it. [Maria] Who would have told you that? I'm telling the truth! [Skippy] That's not what I've heard. [Maria] Look, I don't know why Ollie Ofanite set me up, but it's got nothing to do-- [Skippy] Ollie may be involved? Interesting. Thank you, Maria. That will be all. [Maria blinks, as the rest of the Triad escorts her out.] >Second, I thought the original issue was not misleading, but >whether a seraph could recount fiction in any way, without getting >dissonance. If it can mislead by omission, then it seems to me >that it can certainly say, in safety, "Here is a parable: Once, >there was a jar of salad dressing..." It isn't even trying to >mislead. > Right. So long as the Seraph isn't using a first person storytelling approach (a la Garrison Keillor's "News from Lake Woebegon") and makes it clear he is telling a story, he can tell a story. Especially if that story illustrates a greater truth. It may be those 'exceptions,' in fact, which allows a Seraph to start redefining what a true statement is, which in turn leads to Falling to a Balseraph, now that I think about it.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 99 10:08:20 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth >"Here is a parable: Once, >there was a jar of salad dressing..." "... why are you laughing? It's a perfectly good parable, I wrote it myself." "I'll... hee hee... bet you did." Redneck 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:12:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > it seems to me that [A seraph] can certainly say, in safety, "Here is > a parable: Once, there was a jar of salad dressing..." It isn't even > trying to mislead. Well, Christians believe that Jesus told parables, and Christians also (I assume) believe that Jeses didn't lie. So something like 80% of the population of Europe and North America over the last 2000 years is with you on that one... And before anyone starts, the indigenous population was negligable compared to New York City today, let alone the whole US. Steve. - ------ One third of all homo sapiens who have ever lived are alive today. Therefore, humankind has a mortality rate of approximately 65% - ------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 99 11:43 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The rules system >Is there any rules summarys round the place that I can have? Could it be >e-mailed to me or can have I the URL? Failing that does any body have any >suggestions for dealing with it? The APG (Angelic Players' Guide) and the IPG (Infernal Players' Guide) have a fairly good summary of character creation in the back. Those are the only summaries I'm aware of. And yes, the core book is badly organized, and a 2nd edition is at the top of the Line Editor's wishlist. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:04:49 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Whistling in the Dark wrote: > For example, let's take the statement "I was told by Joe Balseraph that > Lucifer was dissonant and on the edge of redeeming." This isn't the issue in question, though. It was a matter of phrasing; what you just quoted is perfectly truthful, if Joe actually said that to Skippy, but only one part of this is: "The following was told to me: Lucifer is dissonant and on the edge of redeeming." Granted, I can see how Skippy could slip through by claiming that the second half is a quote (but it has to actually be one!). > factually true. Joe told him that. Let us assume that the gamemaster > rules this is a lie by misleading, and dings Skippy with dissonance. I'll concede on this; misleading is an important part of being effective. > Right. So long as the Seraph isn't using a first person storytelling > approach (a la Garrison Keillor's "News from Lake Woebegon") and makes it > clear he is telling a story, he can tell a story. Especially if that story > illustrates a greater truth. *nods* Which was part of my original point. :) > It may be those 'exceptions,' in fact, which allows a Seraph to start > redefining what a true statement is, which in turn leads to Falling to a > Balseraph, now that I think about it.... Yep. >:) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "Come on, I'm just a fish! I don't know these things." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:12:35 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> The rules system At 11:43 AM 2/24/99 EST, you wrote: >>Is there any rules summarys round the place that I can have? Could it be >>e-mailed to me or can have I the URL? Failing that does any body have any >>suggestions for dealing with it? > >The APG (Angelic Players' Guide) and the IPG (Infernal Players' Guide) >have a fairly good summary of character creation in the back. Those are >the only summaries I'm aware of. >---Walter Just an idea and I have no idea how feasible it is...maybe take those summaries, PDF them perhaps into an abbreviated version that doesn't list attunements at all and make them available on the web, sort of an Instant Characters for In Nomine? Please note that I own every single In Nomine book presently in release including a hardcover of the core book in white. So I'm not trying to be cheap here. I simply think it might help those new to the game...for myself, I can always photocopy the pages so I don't have to constantly try to keep the book open nearly to the back... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:19:32 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth EDG wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >> For example, let's take the statement "I was told by Joe Balseraph that >> Lucifer was dissonant and on the edge of redeeming." > >This isn't the issue in question, though. It was a matter of phrasing; >what you just quoted is perfectly truthful, if Joe actually said that to >Skippy, but only one part of this is: > >"The following was told to me: Lucifer is dissonant and on the edge of >redeeming." > >Granted, I can see how Skippy could slip through by claiming that the >second half is a quote (but it has to actually be one!). > Hmmmm... I would think that if Joe were in a position of knowing whether or not Lucifer were on the point of Redeeming (and let's just imagine Asmodeus sending the Game to investigate *that* one for a second), even though Skippy *knows* it is a lie, he could successfully make a statement like: "I have heard from one in a position to know that Lucifer is dissonant and on the edge of redeeming." and be free from Dissonance. In a way, the Truth becomes a question of sentence structure. The sentence, minus clauses, is "I have heard." Perfectly true. The preposition that follows is *also* true. "I have heard from one in a position to know." That Joe was lying is irrelevant, because the sentence is true. What Skippy has heard, even paraphrased the way it is above, is what he has heard. What Skippy *couldn't* say is something like: "I have it on good authority that Lucifer is on the fast track for white wings." *That* sentence implies that Joe is a good authority -- not merely someone in a position to know, but someone whose word could be trusted. Not only is Skippy bright enough to know a Balseraph couldn't be trusted to add two and two together without convincing himself the answer was twenty-two, he also would know by resonance that the statement was false. By incorporating that level of supporting opinion, the Seraph crosses the line. Bing, dissonance. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:39:36 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Kevin Walsh wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 01:14:29AM -0500, EDG wrote: > > Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in > > and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question > > certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying > > that it is, in fact, a falsehood, > > I fail to see why. The Seraph is not, in fact, claiming that it is true. > All the Seraph is claiming is that the Seraph heard someone say it. > Because the falsehood- even the deception in the words is painful to the Seraph. The seraph's nature is Truth, which doesn't leave room for much deception at all. Granted, they do learn fast-talk, especially Janus' seraphs, but even then it's just not comfortable. Depends on the seraph and type of seraph, really, as well as how much deception the falsehood causes. > and probably double dissonance because > > they're also misleading the subject into thinking that what the Seraph > > says might be true. > > > Misleading people is specifically allowable, though most Seraphim dislike > it severely. If you doubt me, examine the Seraph of the Wind attunement, > which gives a bonus to Fast-Talk. The ability to persuade is heavily > linked to the ability to edit accounts of reality. And in any event, if > they couldn't mislead people, they'd hardly be able to get by on Earth due > to having to use their Celestial name every time they were questioned. > I'm still not sure of the use of the phrasing "a number of times" to mean > never, though. > > (A good example of the way a Seraph of the Wind operates can be found in > Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow series. 4 books through it, and I > have yet to find an instance of Arithon s'Ffalenn telling a lie, though he > has run bluffs and deceived people on countless occasions.) > > > Balseraphs probably get dissonance for telling a fable even if they > > disclaim it. :) > > > I can't imagine why. > > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. > -- - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:55:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth At 1:06 PM +0000 2/24/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 01:14:29AM -0500, EDG wrote: >> Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in >> and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question >> certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying >> that it is, in fact, a falsehood, > >I fail to see why. The Seraph is not, in fact, claiming that it is true. >All the Seraph is claiming is that the Seraph heard someone say it. I'd say that only a Servitor of Revelation would have a problem with repeating a fable-clearly-labled-as-such... (After all, only Revelation has problems with allowing people to make their own misconceptions.) (I mean, yeah, one can run it that way -- but it's very crippling. We have a Revelation Ofanite (fear! fear!) in our group, and I have no idea how any Revelation Servitors function long-term without riding on the edge of dissonance to some extent!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:16:23 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth "B.H." wrote: >Kevin Walsh wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 01:14:29AM -0500, EDG wrote: >> > Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in >> > and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question >> > certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying >> > that it is, in fact, a falsehood, >> >> I fail to see why. The Seraph is not, in fact, claiming that it is true. >> All the Seraph is claiming is that the Seraph heard someone say it. >> > >Because the falsehood- even the deception in the words is painful to >the Seraph. The seraph's nature is Truth, which doesn't leave room >for much deception at all. Granted, they do learn fast-talk, >especially Janus' seraphs, but even then it's just not comfortable. >Depends on the seraph and type of seraph, really, as well as how much >deception the falsehood causes. > Except that there is a world of difference between painful necessities and Dissonance. Sometimes you have to do things you don't like. Sometimes, Cherubim have to accept they can't help a human in their problems. Sometimes, Mercurians just can't take the time to get to know someone. Sometimes, a Seraph needs to play fast with the Truth. But when you act Dissonant, you are *directly* acting against your nature - -- your very *existance* in the Symphony. A Seraph who lies. A Cherub who lets his charge die. A Mercurian who kills a human. These things are a direct jarring sound in the harmonies of the Angel's being. A Seraph loves Truth. He believes in Truth. His words can only be true ones. By speaking True words that convey a different meaning, he is remaining reconciled to his inner nature -- he is not lying. He doesn't like doing it, but sometimes you have to do things you don't like. However, to *lie* to someone -- to express falsehoods as truths -- is to sing a modulated third below the melody line, and flat at that. It's instantly noticable, most of all by you. It hurts the music. It hurts the Angel, not just at that moment, but enduringly. That's the difference between the truth carefully phrased and a lie. I can imagine that the more a Seraph splits hairs and obfiscates his truthes inside of wording, the closer he'll creep to out and out lying. And sooner or later, he'll cross that line in his phrasing and be dissonant. And some Seraphim take that wake up call and straighten out. And others don't, and get more dissonance. And even Discord. And stop being able to accept that they're breaking the rule, until finally they *convince* themselves that they're speaking the Truth. Which is about when the package from Lucifer's of Hollywood shows up at the door. So why does a Seraph ever split hairs with the Truth to give the wrong impression? Because sometimes you have to do things you don't like. And the more you do them, the easier they are to do, because you get numb to them. (I promise I'm not so verbose when I'm better rested.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:56:30 PST From: "Steve Marco" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1125 Hi Folks, I have written an expansion for Characturge 111, it includes all of the new songs from the Liber Cancorum. I have not posted it on my web page yet, because I want to get a response from the writer of the program first. Also there is a starting character template on my web page. If you want me to e-mail it to you, along with the program, just let me know! Steve Marco e-mail address: slmarco@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/8736/index.html ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:05:37 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Alright I have a complex question. A Balseraph tells a Mercurian that he is going to kill a group of people in a room. He also tells this Mercurian that if the Mercurian presses this button across the room, the people will be saved. The Balseraph is lying about this but the Mercurian belives him. Though not restrained by the Balseraph, the Mercurian fails to press the button and thus within his mind has through inaction allowed people to come to harm. Does the Mercurian take dissonance for this? How about if instead of a Balseraph it was a normal person lying to the Mercurian? Ben, Cherub of Destiny ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:28:22 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Ben, That'un's easy. The Mercurian dissonance condition isn't for killing humans, per se; it's for violence. "This doesn't mean they don't advocate violence; they just don't indulge in it themselves." (IN, p.104) The Mercurian in question wouldn't take dissonance in either situation, IMO. Now, if the Balseraph convinced the Mercurian that the group of humans were actually demons, and handed said Mercurian a gun, then the angel would be in trouble. But how much dissonance would he accumulate? One for the group, or one for each human he kills? - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "Come on, I'm just a fish! I don't know these things." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:27:58 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Ben Aldred wrote: "Alright I have a complex question. A Balseraph tells a Mercurian that he is going to kill a group of people in a room. He also tells this Mercurian that if the Mercurian presses this button across the room, the people will be saved. The Balseraph is lying about this but the Mercurian belives him. Though not restrained by the Balseraph, the Mercurian fails to press the button and thus within his mind has through inaction allowed people to come to harm. Does the Mercurian take dissonance for this? How about if instead of a Balseraph it was a normal person lying to the Mercurian?" I don't think the Mercurian takes dissonance in either case. On the other hand, if you club someone to death with a completely unwilling Mercurian, the Mercurian may take dissonance. I think it is the physical fact of damaging a human that causes the dissonance, not the Mercurian's beliefs or intentions. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:54:01 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth EDG wrote: > Nope. "I heard this once" and "this is what I was told" may be true in > and of themselves, but by obfuscating like that the Seraph in question > certainly gains dissonance for repeating a falsehood without clarifying > that it is, in fact, a falsehood, and probably double dissonance because > they're also misleading the subject into thinking that what the Seraph > says might be true. Nothing in the sentence is false, except the story the Seraph was told. But the Seraph has convered itself by stating that it was simply something that was told to him. Seraphim are under no obligation to reveal the truth, that is why they can keep silent when lies are being told around them. It may be unpleasant, but not dissonant. Seraphim resonate for the Truth, not blind foot-in-mouth stupidity. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:11:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim At 4:05 PM -0500 2/24/99, Ben Aldred wrote: >Alright I have a complex question. A Balseraph tells a Mercurian that he >is going to kill a group of people in a room. He also tells this Mercurian >that if the Mercurian presses this button across the room, the people will >be saved. The Balseraph is lying about this but the Mercurian belives him. > Though not restrained by the Balseraph, the Mercurian fails to press the >button and thus within his mind has through inaction allowed people to come >to harm. Does the Mercurian take dissonance for this? How about if instead >of a Balseraph it was a normal person lying to the Mercurian? Through inaction, he is perfectly safe. Mercurians can stand aside and let Malakim (or whatever) do what they will to Evil Humans. They can even cheer from the sidelines. Through action.... I would give him dissonance, personally, for he has acted to kill humans. But only 1 note, since it was only 1 action. Now, to make it complex, make it an Impudite, and not a Mercurian, for Impudites cannot *let* humans be killed. (There, I'd say the Impudite might be safe by pressing the button _if he didn't hear the disturbance of the human deaths_ afterwards.) Probably only 1 note, as above. At 4:28 PM -0500 2/24/99, EDG wrote: >Now, if the Balseraph convinced the Mercurian that the group of humans >were actually demons, and handed said Mercurian a gun, then the angel >would be in trouble. But how much dissonance would he accumulate? One >for the group, or one for each human he kills? 1 per human in that circumstance -- and after the first BONG of human death in the Symphony, he'd better get a clue. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:34:03 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim At 4:27 PM -0500 2/24/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >I don't think the Mercurian takes dissonance in either case. >On the other hand, if you club someone to death with a completely >unwilling Mercurian, the Mercurian may take dissonance. I think >it is the physical fact of damaging a human that causes the dissonance, >not the Mercurian's beliefs or intentions. > >Earl Furthermore, if you push a Mercurian out of a window, he unwillingly *doesn't* use Numious Corpus to sprout wings and fly and he lands on a human and kills him, it's a dissonance condition. And, therefore, if you load a Mercurian in a cat vessal into a cannon and aim him at a passing human and fire him and kill the human.... Let's say you take a Mercurian and put him, bound and gagged, and forced him onto one of those auto repair dollys. You mount a flaming torch onto the dolly as well, and send him careening down a San Francisco Hill into an oil refinery, and the resulting explosion kills lots of humans.... (Hey, this is fun!) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1126 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.