From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Feb 27 03:21:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA06685 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:21:32 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA12318 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:36:34 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:36:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199902262136.PAA12318@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 #1128 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 Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1128 In this digest: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim IN> Lilim and Geases Re: IN> Lilim and Geases Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth IN> Shedite Sex IN> Falling into The Wrong Hands (tm) Re: IN> Lilim and Geases Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) Re: IN> Re: words Re: IN> Word of Redemption Re: IN> Falling into The Wrong Hands (tm) Re: IN> Lilim and Geases Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) Re: IN> Character Sheets. . . Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim IN> Tethers and Windies and Thieves, Oh My! IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1127 Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1127 Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:03:42 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim At 6:34 PM -0500 2/25/99, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: >>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.... > >I'd have to disagree in all the above situations. At least in my opinion, a >Violent act requires willfully and purposefully doing harm to another being >or object when fueled by rage. > I completely agree. I was trying A) to point out the problems inherant in making unwilling violance that a Mercurian cannot control Dissonant (clearly not well enough) and B) think up lots of astoundingly improbable ways Mercurians could be used as a weapon (which was my primary task). I *am* disappointed I didn't consider stuffing a lit stick of dynamite in a bound Mercurian's mouth and throwing him into a room full of people. But I didn't actually *have* the Cartoon Network on my television when I compiled the above. I hope this makes up for the inconvenience. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:17:48 -0500 From: EDG Subject: IN> Lilim and Geases Nota bene: I don't have the IPG, and it's quite possible the answers to these questions are in there. If so, feel free to direct me there. :) First: Can a Lilim purchase Geases at creation? If so, how much do they cost? Second: It's mentioned in several places that Lilith herself can trade Geases for other favors. (As a matter of fact, my current Lilim is benefiting directly from just such a trade.) Question is, can Lilim do this? "He owes me a favor... ask him!" - - a curious 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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:33:45 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases At 7:17 PM -0500 2/25/99, EDG wrote: >Nota bene: I don't have the IPG, and it's quite possible the answers to >these questions are in there. If so, feel free to direct me there. :) > >First: Can a Lilim purchase Geases at creation? If so, how much do they >cost? This is actually in the Lilim section in Fall of the Malakim. The answer is yes, and the cost of a hook depends on who's hooked. A mortal = Status + hook-level. Ethereal or celestial = (Status + hook-level) *2 Enemy side's Celestial = (Status + hook-level) *3 If the victim has extra abilities, resources, etc., the cost goes up as the GM sees fit. That's for a *hook*, which can be resisted. For a full Geas ("unspecified favor") that can't be resisted by a Will roll, it's double the cost of an equivalent hook. >Second: It's mentioned in several places that Lilith herself can trade >Geases for other favors. (As a matter of fact, my current Lilim is >benefiting directly from just such a trade.) Question is, can Lilim do >this? "He owes me a favor... ask him!" Lilim cannot. They can swear to invoke a Geas only when and as someone else dictates. (This is also in FotM.) They cannot trade Geas-tokens. (I think some of this may be in the sample text from FotM, at the web-page for FotM. (reachable from www.sjgames.com/in-nomine).) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:31:32 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >At 5:50 PM +0000 2/25/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: > >>Personally, I find a much more interesting restriction on Seraphim is to >>prevent them from stating belief as fact, which is, IMO, much harder for >>most people to avoid doing than lying per se. Seraphim should live in the >>world of the real, and should have reasons, good reasons, for all their >>opinions. It is important that when a Seraph says something is so, people >>listen because either it _is_ so, or the Seraph has violated its nature. >>It makes Seraphim impressive instead of incompetent. >> > >The problem I have with this is that Seraphim don't live in the world of >the real at all. In fact, they are the furthest Choir *from* the real -- >which is to say the Corporeal realm. This is not true for all campaigns; here's what I did in my own campaign. There's a difference between the ordinary everyday existence that people inhabit -- the so-called real world -- and the Real, in the absolute ideal. The Real -- the power that gives the world existence -- is precisely the divine Will. God is the ultimate reality, the ultimate truth, and the actuality of a thing is determined by its closeness to Him. In my game, each realm had a degree of ontological status that depended on its position with respect to God. The closer it was to God, the more coherent and ordered it was. The map might look a little bit like this: God | High Heavens | Low Heaven | +----+----+ | | Earth The Marches | | +----+----+ | Hell Hell was a place of perfect and complete disorder. Nothing /ever/ made any sense there; neither physics nor poetry were capable of encompassing the sheer incoherence of the place. The High Heavens were the part of reality "closest" to God. The souls who resided in the High Heavens had a very strong sense of the presence of God. A characters (including PCs) who climbed Jacob's Ladder from the Low Heaven into the High Heavens typically could not integrate the experience into their memories and personalities very well -- typically they had only fragmentary impressions of overwhelming glory. It simply was too pure and perfect an experience to fit into the ordinary structure of experience for most characters. The Low Heavens were more distant from God, but still much closer than anywhere else in the universe. The Low Heavens were still a much more structured place than the rest of the universe: colors and tastes and experiences were much stronger here than elsewhere, and the events that happened in the Low Heavens normally obeyed -both- poetic and physical laws. By physical law, I mean (for example) a scientific researcher in Low Heaven would be able to conduct repeatable experiments. Likewise, mystical and intuitive ways of understanding reality would also work -- anyone watching for omens and portents would see them, and they would hold. (I played this for comic effect: sometimes an angel of Jean would conduct a delicate, tricky, and complex experiment to detect a subtle effect that another angel was able to confirm simply by opening the bible to a random page. Other times, a mystically-oriented angel would be faced with a cryptic portent, and the scientific angel could simply check a database to get hundreds of pages of detailed explanation.) Earth (ie, the physical universe) and the Marches are both more distant from God still, and as a result neither one was as ordered. The material universe retained the orderly physical law, but events did not necessarily fall into properly mythic patterns. Conversely, in the dreamlands events normally made emotional sense but did not necessarily make logical sense. Hell, most distant from God of all the places in the universe, was a place where neither order necessarily applied. God did not directly maintain order in Hell -- it was literally what its inhabitants wanted it to be. Millions of minds, each with its own vision of what reality must be like, none of them agreeing, none of them cooperating -- well, it was an awful cacophony of images and sensations. (The different realms of Hell were mostly the result of the Princes being the strongest beings in Hell, and therefore most able to impose their vision on it.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:50:48 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Shedite Sex >>>If I recall the vignette correctly, the Mercurian and the Shedite had produced, not a Nephal, but an (incipient) imp. And the Shedite was the "mother." That is, when we saw the converse trial in Hell, with Asmodeus and the Shedite's Superior gloating over it, I thought we also were told of the cluster of incubating forces inside the Shedite, which was "pregnant." The Infernals sentenced the Shedite to be disbanded after the "birth" of the baby, and its forces fed to the baby, as a sort of experiment. *IF* I remember rightly.<<< Almost. The Shedite (Carpus) was sentenced to be taken apart immediately, and its Forces fed to its progeny -- this sort of thing isn't hard for Superiors, since the incipient creature was a celestial also. Then the celestial would be Bound to a human vessel and sent back to Earth. Also note that the Mercurian's (Apphiael) sentence was not to go back and _kill_ her offspring in 34 years...it was to execute the sentence determined by the Triad of Judgment that would accompany her. Which might or might not be death..... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:00:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Falling into The Wrong Hands (tm) >>>I'd just like to say that IMG this wouldn't work. You *can not* gain dispensation from your Superior regarding their Dissonance conditions. The Dissonance is part of their Word, it is part of their being. They are bound to it more tightly than you could ever be, and they are in no position to 'give you a break' with Dissonance. If they want someone who doesn't suffer from their Dissonance, they hire someone else's servitor for a while.<<< On the other hand, there are precedents for Word-bound celestials (and for certain Choir or Band attunements) to override a Superior's dissonance conditions (or Band or Choir dissonance conditions). >>>PS. This is why I hate the section (APG? Can't remember which book) that says when you summon Blandine, she's more likely to appear Celestially to you one Earth. No way! That would tear her soul apart IMO.<<< She is a Superior. Consider that she may have reasons for forbidding her own angels from manifesting in celestial form that do not apply to her. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:01:50 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases At 7:33 PM -0500 2/25/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 7:17 PM -0500 2/25/99, EDG wrote: >>Second: It's mentioned in several places that Lilith herself can trade >>Geases for other favors. (As a matter of fact, my current Lilim is >>benefiting directly from just such a trade.) Question is, can Lilim do >>this? "He owes me a favor... ask him!" > >Lilim cannot. They can swear to invoke a Geas only when and as someone >else dictates. (This is also in FotM.) They cannot trade Geas-tokens. >(I think some of this may be in the sample text from FotM, at the >web-page for FotM. (reachable from www.sjgames.com/in-nomine).) > > I assume they can do so "manually," though? As in "Well, he owes me a favor, so I'll go ask him to do it for me!" Or am I just wrong? - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:58:35 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) Recruited? I'm trying to Redeem! Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 5:55 PM +0000 2/25/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 01:24:33PM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> Ramesh aka Demon if Fiddling (Would Redeem but Fiddlings too cool and it's > >> obviously Infernal :-) ) > > > >It's interesting to note the number of regular list-posters who started > >off with angelic taglines which have since changed into demonic ones. > >Clearly the list is under powerful infernal influence. > > Shhhhhhh! > > Don't *tell* them that they're being recruited! > > --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking > http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html - -- Berian Balseraph of Fate, Demon of Imagination. - -- "I WANNA BE A MALAKITE! WAAAAAAIIII!!!!!!!" (If you have never seen a gigantic, discord-ridden balseraph whine like a little kid and then run from the Game-boys (pun intended) that were just sent after it, you should. Once. Just once. And then, the recommended cure for the resulting psychological distress is to spend a few years in Novalis' garden. Even then, you may not be able to burn the memory from your mind...) *sniff, chomp* "I mean, it's not my fault it's so easy to lie... *sniff sniff, eat another Gamer (no, not you guys, Asmodeus' toys)* I'd make such a GOOD Malakite! In fact, I'm already more honorable than all of my friends..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:43:30 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Re: words - -----Original Message----- From: Krowe _ To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 25 February 1999 19:18 Subject: IN> Re: words >My character in our local campaign is a Malakim Master of Destiny and >the Angel of Redemption. Cool! What other choir Resonance does he have? >He plays just fine. Cool, If it works. I just would see that a member of a different choir would be better suited to the position. >You must remember that Redemption is among the most >honourable thing that a person can undertake. The APG specifically >states that Malakim are not bound by their oaths to slay evil if that >evil is trying to repent/redeem. >It's also important to remember that, even though the oath is 'never >suffer and evil to live if it is their choice', that does not mean that >said evil must be destroyed immediately. So long as it is eventually >destroyed is all that matters. True, but a Malakite couldn't really understand being wrong in the first place like an Elohite (starting to some round to your thoughts Eric) could. A Malakite cannot be as wrong as others can be, sure they can pick up dissonance - but that's not the same as *being* wrong being the evil that is a demon a Malakite cannnot go that far and thus cannot Redeem in the same ways others can. >Krowe >Malakim Master of Destiny, Angel of Redemption Hey could you check if I'm a Balseraph for me? :-) Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:34:26 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Word of Redemption From: Whistling in the Dark Date: 25 February 1999 18:44 >"Ramesh Satkurunath" wrote: >>Surely what's more important is the flavour a choir gives to a word rather >>than how useful their resonance is. >>Also (to work against my point, D'oh!) a Seraph could detect the self >>deception that keeps demon in the pit. >> > >I really favor the Elohim for this -- Redemption must come not only from >the resonance of the emotions warring inside the upward looking demon, but >from the objective balancing of that demon's makeup. What the angel knows >of the demon, what his emotions say about him. A Seraph can seperate truth >from evil, and a Malakite can actively pursue and thrash out evil, but an >Elohim can tell, *objectively,* whether or not the selfishness inside the >demon is too valuable to that demon to give up more than temporarily. I like the Elohite idea too - I love Elohites - I was just saying Seraphs could make sense. >Furthermore, let's look beyond demons for a moment. The Word of Redemption >isn't "The reclaimation of Fallen Angels" exclusively, after all. It's a >powerful word that, at its heart, means forgiveness for heinous acts. Agreed. But Redeeming a Fallen Angel It >means learning to forgive one's self and make amends for one's sins. When >a man commits crimes against his town, and is cast out -- and the man truly >repents and works to preserve what he once callously disregarded... when >that man lies bleeding in the street after fighting off the mob bosses who >were going to burn down the school, and the people of the town come out and >accept him -- his past, his sins and welcome him back... the Angel of >Redemption's word grows stronger. Stronger, I should think, than even a >Demon Redeeming would. Possibly, but it depends entirely on the Demon. >Finally, unless we're discussing the Archangel of Redemption, the angel >himself can't Redeem anyone. All he can do is petition an Archangel to do >so, and the Archangel will accept that recommendation or reject it >(sometimes on a whim). True, but a recommendation from the Angel of Redemption should mean a lot. Once again, the Elohim would be well suited not >only for preparing the appropriate recommendation for a given case, but for >doing so objectively, rather than being swayed by a desire to promote his >Word. That part I don't like. I'd prefer to think of the Angel of Redemption as wanting to fight the hopeless fights - Redeeming needs a lot of hope and faith which seems ridiculous (OTOH I suppose that's only because you see it as being hopeless but objectively it isn't). >(All this being said, I can see the Angel of Redemption being a Servitor of >Dominic, which other's can't. I think, I could - H&H (not at hand at the mo' so I can't reference) details Dominics Portfolio slightly better and I think it could fit with if things like Concilation (IRC) could. And remember before the Fall while he was angel of Judgement, all he needed to do was point out mistakes and angels would correct themselves. Judgement isn't just about judging whether people are right or wrong after someting has occured, it is also (and quite importantly) about judging the between good and evil in a present situation and acting towards good. I think Dominic is an Idealist he cares about choosing between Good and Evil, and were an evil person to realise how they acted is wrong and to set about righting what they have done I think the punishment Dominic would impose would be suit the fact they were trying to redeem themselves. I like to think that although Dominic needs the fear of being like the Inquistion to do his job, he is fair in his judgements - sure he ruled against Micheal, but Micheal was actually guilty, the question is what punishment should Micheal recieve IMO none which is what God Judged and Dominic can't disagree with that. >If Redemption is *going* to happen, and >Dominic isn't all that sure about it anyway... well, you can be Blessed >sure Judgement will have a hand in the process. In my own game, I could >see allied Archangels to Dominic requesting an assessment of the demon by >the Angel of Redemption -- played not unlike the Testing of Delenn and >Sheridan by the Vorlons on Babylon 5. It would not be an easy test.) Jack the Ripper as the Angel of Redemption - I think not! :-) I would prefer to think of the Angel of Redemption being concerned about the individual rather than working for a particular side (as Jack did), In my view the Angel of Redemption (quite possibly a Cherub or Menuite) would be help the individual come to terms with their sins, and help them find their place in the Symphony and use that place to correct their wrongs. i.e. The Angel of Redemption would find a demon and help them redeem even if it meant the new angel went on to work under a hostile AA (because that is what that angel needs to do to be true to themselves) rather than trying to get a demon to Redeem to work under a specific AA. >>>And I like the Malakite notion myself -- a Malakite Angel of Redemption >>>would be someone who'd absolutely defend a genuine candidate for >>redemption >>>and be his most loyal supporter....but you can bet that no one will go to >>>him unless they're _sure_ they're ready to redeem! And he'll deal with >>>anyone who backslides before making it to an Archangel... >> >> >>Thing about a Malkite is that they can't fall into the pit - they can't >>understand what it is to be cut off from the Symphony, to be so disconected >>from all that is right, to be a Demon - they are the Bastions of Purity not >>The Cleased. >> > >Which is obviously a part of why I favor Elohim as well. Elohim can >understand Falling, in an objective sense. Hey, wouldn't a Redeemed Hellborn Habbalite be a really cool choice, since they believed they were right but then (presumably) came to the realisation that they were wrong and chose the real right. Where any other choir would >instinctively flee from any thought of sympathy for the act of Falling, an >Elohite can weigh whether or not a Demon is best served by Redemption or >not -- he can weigh the advantages (for the Demon) of his profane, selfish >state and decide whether or not those advantages better suit the Demon than >Heavenly grace. After all -- if the new Angel discovers he doesn't like >his blessed state as much, and remembers the darkness as being somehow... >better.... I don't think whether demon X on the street would think being a demon is better for them - quite simply they are wrong - being a demon is wrong. It is up to the Angel of Redemption to show the Demon the demon that they are wrong and good is right. An Elohite could Logically choose (and therefore possibly believe that others should choose) between right and wrong even if wrong choosing to do wrong would help them, if they use the axiom "Good is better than Evil" that the actions you should take should not be decided on what *You* gain from it but from the Good that springs forth from it. Ramesh aka Demon of Fiddling (would be a Seraph or Elohite if I was an Angel. So obviously I'm A Balseraph [I AM NOT a Habbalite]. Remember Balseraphs *never* lie) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:49:55 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Falling into The Wrong Hands (tm) Leath Sheales wrote: >I'd just like to say that IMG this wouldn't work. You *can not* gain >dispensation from your Superior regarding their Dissonance >conditions. The Dissonance is part of their Word, it is part of >their being. They are bound to it more tightly than you could ever >be, and they are in no position to 'give you a break' with >Dissonance. If they want someone who doesn't suffer from their >Dissonance, they hire someone else's servitor for a while. > >Leath, > >PS. This is why I hate the section (APG? Can't remember which book) >that says when you summon Blandine, she's more likely to appear >Celestially to you one Earth. No way! That would tear her soul >apart IMO. I agree, but just one question do you serve nitpicking? :-) Ramesh aka Balseraph (?) of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:02:30 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Geases EDG wrote on 26 February 1999 >Nota bene: I don't have the IPG, and it's quite possible the answers to >these questions are in there. If so, feel free to direct me there. :) > >First: Can a Lilim purchase Geases at creation? If so, how much do they >cost? It's an optional rule in FOTM in the Lilim section p31. Erm to "The Powers that Be" is it okay if I just give this info out, or would that be overstepping the line? Ramesh aka Balseraph (?) of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:06:34 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth Neel Krishnaswami wrote on 26 February 1999 >>The problem I have with this is that Seraphim don't live in the world of >>the real at all. In fact, they are the furthest Choir *from* the real -- >>which is to say the Corporeal realm. > >This is not true for all campaigns; here's what I did in my own campaign. Way Cool! Ramesh Balseraph(?) of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:07:57 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) Elizabeth McCoy wrote on >At 5:55 PM +0000 2/25/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >>On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 01:24:33PM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >>> Ramesh aka Demon if Fiddling (Would Redeem but Fiddlings too cool and it's >>> obviously Infernal :-) ) >> >>It's interesting to note the number of regular list-posters who started >>off with angelic taglines which have since changed into demonic ones. >>Clearly the list is under powerful infernal influence. > >Shhhhhhh! > >Don't *tell* them that they're being recruited! I may work for Nitpicking :-). I'm not sure yet. Ramesh aka Balseraph(?) of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:32:46 EST From: "the spook" 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 Hey, that reminds me, Chris, we shoud scan that puppy and make it available to these guys. :) Talk to me off-list: perrylloyd@hotmail.com - -spook "I am not a number. I am a free man!" --No. 6 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:53:17 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim In a message dated 2/25/99 5:45:28 PM Central Standard Time, maltesh@usa.net writes: > Angelic Choir Dissonance is primarily about Choice. You /choose/ to act > against your nature,. The exception, of course, is the Ofanim, who can become dissonant on a badly failed skill roll. (I've never like that. I wouldn't use it. I'd restrict Ofanim dissonance to choice. i.e. choosing not to act) Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:25:20 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim - -----Original Message----- From: BillionSix@aol.com To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 26 February 1999 06:00 Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim >In a message dated 2/25/99 5:45:28 PM Central Standard Time, maltesh@usa.net >writes: > >> Angelic Choir Dissonance is primarily about Choice. You /choose/ to act >> against your nature,. > >The exception, of course, is the Ofanim, who can become dissonant on a badly >failed skill roll. (I've never like that. I wouldn't use it. I'd restrict >Ofanim dissonance to choice. i.e. choosing not to act) Maybe it's because like (Most) Demonic Resonances it changes the Symphony. Now I come to think of it when a Demon uses their Resonance in a perception-ey manner (Like detecting a Need, a method of Destruction, Using the Elohites Resonance, etc, etc.) they can't gain dissonance from failing (I think). Ramesh aka Balseraph of Fiddling. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:27:51 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Tethers and Windies and Thieves, Oh My! Okay. I know in order to get rid of dissonance the preferred method is to work it off in a Tether. (leaving aside other specific methods involving repentance or restitution or getting the victim on the second try.) This makes it rather hard on Servitors of Theft and the Wind, doesn't it? They have to stay on the move. And since transient and mobile Tethers are rather rare, they're kind of S. O. L. when it comes to getting rid of dissonance. Not to mention Gabriel and Nybbas's people, who are on a constant deadline. The rules state that in general, it's one point of dissonance worked off per week. Does this week have to happen all at once or can it be spaced out? For example, can a dissonant Windie hop back and forth between too Tethers every couple of days? Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:23:58 PST From: "Ali- Baba" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1127 Okay, So, I'm lazy...I could probably find it somewhere if I dug through all my source books again. BUT..I'm sure you guys will be able to tell me much faster :) Everyone remember my question about the angel with 64 forces? Well, the suggestion to use it as a Word bound Angel with 18 personal forces and the rest Word forces seemed like a good answer to me...(since in the game the chances of it becoming a new ArchAngel itself are pretty darn good if the campaign goes on long enough). New problem is...how the heck would I use Word forces? I mean, would you use those only in a roll that would directly affect the Word? I mean, say (and this is only a fer instance here)...say a Lilim serving the Word Freedom (and what Lilim wouldn't be proud to?) wanted to use her Fast Talk skill to get bail someone out of jail...would she use her extra Word Forces (if she had them...just go with me on this one folks) to help her on that roll? I know, I'm stepping out of canon with this 64 forces angel...but I like to keep as close as I can okay? I (unfortunately) have quite a few /rules lawyers/ *shudder* in my group. "So I tol' 'im, I said to 'im...Bernie, I'll never make my money back on this thing..." -Monty Python, "Always look on the Bright side of Life" _Life of Brian_ Belkial--Angel of That Stuff over There ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:49:13 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs and Truth On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Kevin Walsh wrote: > Personally, I find a much more interesting restriction on Seraphim is to > prevent them from stating belief as fact, which is, IMO, much harder for > most people to avoid doing than lying per se. Seraphim should live in the > world of the real, and should have reasons, good reasons, for all their > opinions. It is important that when a Seraph says something is so, people > listen because either it _is_ so, or the Seraph has violated its nature. > It makes Seraphim impressive instead of incompetent. Interesting. So they'd all be speaking English (or whatever) prime, right? IIRC, E' is the name given to English without the worb "be" in any of its forms. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! A discordian is anyone willing to look at the windmills and concede that they might be giants. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:16:20 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim alright, let me rephrase my original question somewhat. If the balseraph tells the mercurian that pushing the button will kill the humans(it actually is a harmless button with a small lightbulb attached) and the mercurian presses the button and the humans die from other means(they would have died anyway due to Balseraphic machinations) would the mercurian then take dissonance because it chose to kill the humans? Ben, Cherub of Destiny, Angel of recovery from depression "I'm not the heroic type. I was beaten up by Quakers." Woody Allen "Sleeper" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:03:59 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: Fluff (was Re: IN> Word of Redemption) >>Shhhhhhh! >> >>Don't *tell* them that they're being recruited! > > >I may work for Nitpicking :-). I'm not sure yet. You only -think- you work for them. . . >Ramesh aka Balseraph(?) of Fiddling ^^^^^^^^^ Most definitely. - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph Marquis of Fate, Demon of Delusions of Granduer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:23:50 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Ben Aldred wrote: > alright, let me rephrase my original question somewhat. If the balseraph > tells the mercurian that pushing the button will kill the humans(it > actually is a harmless button with a small lightbulb attached) and the > mercurian presses the button and the humans die from other means(they would > have died anyway due to Balseraphic machinations) would the mercurian then > take dissonance because it chose to kill the humans? The Mercurian dissonance condition isn't killing humans; it's lashing out violently. I'd say that a Mercurian who is under control, calm, collected, etc. could push the button without ill effects; he's probably got a reason for doing it. The Mercurian who runs over and slams his fist into the button, yelling "Die, die, die!", on the other hand, takes dissonance. And I'm still curious: Does a Mercurian take dissonance for playing Tekken or Street Fighter to relieve tension? - -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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:53:36 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim - -----Original Message----- From: Ben Aldred To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 26 February 1999 15:36 Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim >alright, let me rephrase my original question somewhat. If the balseraph >tells the mercurian that pushing the button will kill the humans(it >actually is a harmless button with a small lightbulb attached) and the >mercurian presses the button and the humans die from other means(they would >have died anyway due to Balseraphic machinations) would the mercurian then >take dissonance because it chose to kill the humans? If it continued under the belief that it had killed the humans, yes. If it found out that it had been decieved, I think so - interesting question: if the Mercurian didn't gain dissonance and knew it hadn't gained dissonance it would know the Balseraph was lying so surely the Serpent would gain the dissonace. Ramesh aka Balserph of Fiddling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:59:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, EDG wrote: > And I'm still curious: Does a Mercurian take dissonance for playing > Tekken or Street Fighter to relieve tension? IMO, no. Playing Street Fighter is not violence. Neither is playing an RPG in which your character dices 73 humans in three combat rounds. Opening a stuck window by banging on the frame *is* violence - levering it open with a crowbar isn't. My guess, however, is that the purpose of the Merc dissonance is to prevent them from taking violence as an alternative to politics, rather than as an alternative to reason (Elohim). So you can't be violent with an inanimate object, because you can't politic with it either. An Elohite would definitely take dissonance for taking their frustration out on a window. Alternatively, look at violence as the use of unrestrained force. Then playing games isn't violent unless you break the controller. Steve. - ------ "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it." - - The Blues Brothers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:09:38 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > If it continued under the belief that it had killed the humans, yes. > If it found out that it had been decieved, I think so - interesting > question: if the Mercurian didn't gain dissonance and knew it hadn't gained > dissonance it would know the Balseraph was lying so surely the Serpent > would gain the dissonace. I think I need to point out here that the Mercurian dissonance condition is NOT for killing. That's the Impudites. The Mercurians take dissonance when they _hurt something_ through violence. Their nature is to be calm and friendly; when they're violent, they're going against their nature. Hence, a Mercurian walking over and pushing a button that lets gas into a room with humans in it will NOT take dissonance, unless he punches the button. Likewise, I can see a Mercurian taking no dissonance from lacing someone's burger with cyanide, the way the rules are written. > Ramesh aka Balserph of Fiddling - -EDG on the other hand, said Mercurian would need a very good reason to push the button or lay the cyanide. - -- 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:12:43 PST From: "Steve Marco" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1127 In my campagin, there was created a word bound Angel of Redemption. I made him a Seraphim of Destiny who, upon reaching his Master of Divine Knowledge Distinction, took the resonance of a Mecurian. I felt it very necessary for the Angel to be able to understand the interactions between people, as well as have an affinity for finding the Truth. Just a thought... Steve Marco ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:32:31 -0800 From: Jeff Heinen Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim At 11:53 AM -0800 2/26/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Ben Aldred >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Date: 26 February 1999 15:36 >Subject: Re: IN> mercurians and balseraphim > > >>alright, let me rephrase my original question somewhat. If the balseraph >>tells the mercurian that pushing the button will kill the humans(it >>actually is a harmless button with a small lightbulb attached) and the >>mercurian presses the button and the humans die from other means(they >would >>have died anyway due to Balseraphic machinations) would the mercurian then >>take dissonance because it chose to kill the humans? > >If it continued under the belief that it had killed the humans, yes. >If it found out that it had been decieved, I think so - If he found out, would the dissonance be removed? Or would that require an attitude adjustment on the Balseraph? And what about no-win situtions? Say the button closes a launch door to a rocket. If the door is open, the rocket takes out a city, if closed it destroys only its silo, and the people the Balseraph locked in the (CCTV enabled) broom closet. Altho, would this work better against a Renegade Impudite? > interesting >question: if the Mercurian didn't gain dissonance and knew it hadn't gained >dissonance it would know the Balseraph was lying so surely the Serpent >would gain the dissonace. What about the (lack of) disturbance in the Symphony? Would that give it away as well? - -Jeff, Newbie at Large - -- Jeff Heinen jeffh@spiretech.com ICQ: 12029912 ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1128 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.