From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Apr 19 08:44:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08476 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:44:51 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id IAA14318 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:50:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:50:54 -0500 Message-Id: <200104191350.IAA14318@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 #2168 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, April 19 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2168 In this digest: IN> Elements and Path (was: Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council ) Re: IN> Elements and Path (was: Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council ) Re: IN> Celestial "matter" Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." IN> Rings Re: IN> Massively OT: (is "Hi, my name is Chuckg...") Re: Soul-killing Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion -- Vessels and DR... Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #2145 IN> Re: Ummm...Ms. Line Editor? Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." IN> A Discussion of Celestial Sex (Rated R) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:12:45 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Elements and Path (was: Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council ) > >Earth - David > >Water - Oannes (pity he's dead) > >Air - Janus > >Fire - Gabriel > >'Zactly. I was using characteristics of their elements to describe the >progression within the group. > >Personally, I think there Needs to be a major adventure published for IN >describing the raising of a new Archangel of Water. Never needs to enter >the core storyline, but "restoring balance to the Elements" is a theme with >real possibilities for exploration of the elemental archetypes and >outlooks. It's a modern-day setting of an adventure with a primeval flavor >to it -- before there was *life*, there were the Elements. I agree here. I think that would a fine fine thing. I'm not sure that a mere description of the rise would be enough. Perhaps an adventure packet. :) > >>The Conflicters > >> > >>Laurence -- the internal struggle for self-discipline > >>Marc -- the external conflict of interests > >>Michael -- the eternal fight for righteousness > >> > >>(on occasion, Zadkiel -- the defense of those in need) > > > >/very/ interesting . . . I see the Purity aspect as reflected in >Laurence > >here. Not too sure about Marc, though. And, Michael in the eternal >fight > >for righteousness?? I suppose so, though he has slipped into Pride >before > >and probably still now. I see Michael in terms of struggle againts those > >things attempting to extinguish us, and Marc having to do with the >struggle > >find agreement with others. > > > >Or perhaps Zadkiel is more representative of the struggle against those >who > >would snuff us out, and Michael as the struggle to defend those things >which > >cannot defend themselves (the helpless, ideas/ideals). > >Yeah, Marc was a quandary. His Word *does* have something to do with >conflict, but I wasn't able to pin it down as well as I might have liked. >There's a lot of unity in his Word too. Almost the only reason I didn't >switch him and Zadkiel is because I didn't want a minor Archangel above a >major one (and her Word is a bit more passive than the others, which are >very active in their realms of interest). I find it odd that Zadkiel is a minor Archangel, quite frankly. (Though obviously it would be because she's presented in a supplement and not the core rules, I suppose.) I think she's more important than say, oh, David, for instance. > >> The mind reaching for the Divine will encounter conflict. At the > >>fourth rung stand those who understand the various phases (in the case >of > >>Zadkiel, the application) of conflict on this journey. Its internal > >>structure is the necessary order of battle -- first master yourself, >then > >>learn to face others, and the highest mastery is the fight for the >right. > > > >Assuming that one has not reached a post-modern belief structure in which > >you realize that "right" is subjective and cannot be a universal or >constant > >(and seeing at how much Michel and Dominique are at odd, desite the fact > >both are Seraph Archangels and presumably score CD6 or higher most of the > >time . . . ) > >You've just named two Archangels who see Truth as very universal, and in >particular consider themselves Right nigh on constantly.... ;^) I'd like >to think they're both Right, and they're just feeling the elephant. CDaU, >of course -- these are the fun questions that make the game. ha ha ha - yeah > >>The Celestial > > > >(I humbly suggest renaming this The Journey) > >As you like. It's totaly personal preference. > > >>Eli -- the beginnings of all things > >>Litheroy -- the past and present Revelation of the future > >>Dominic -- the inevitable judgment and consequence > >>Yves -- the final Destiny of all things > > > >Eli - the beginning of the journey > >Litheroy - the discovery of the path > >Dominic - the walking of the path > >Yves - the final destination of the journey > >A good interpretation in the Journey metaphor. Perhaps Dominic - the >decision at the forks in the road? Oh, precisely what I'm thinking. Also the Judgement to stay on the path, or to stray from it. > >> The highest grouping, concerned with matters spiritual instead of > >>earthbound. Its internal structure is the flow of Time. > > > >thus Krono's obession with Time and its flow. > >I thought about doing a Demonic grouping, but besides the fact that they're >all so self-centered that a greater unity for them seems out of character >to me, I hesitated to dive into the warped notion of the Symphony that such >symbolism would require. Hrm. I believe that it could be done, but only as a warped reflection, a perversion of the harmony mentioned above. Perhaps more appropriately the should be grouped by what they twist, warp, and attempt to destroy. Demons, grouped by perversion Perversion of Nature Belial - Fire (it can only burn, not light your way) Vephar - Oceans (they wish to swallow you, not move you) Saminga - Death (as a state of being, not a state of transition) Makatiel - Disease (disease for its own sake, not to aid life) Perversion of the Body (using the Body for selfish pleasure) Haagenti - Gluttony Fleurity - Drugs Andrealphulus - Lust Perversion of the Mind Lilith - Freedom Magog - Cruelty Furfur - Hardcore Kobal - Dark Humor Beleth - Nightmares Perversion of the Soul Mammon - Greed Meserach - Sloth Valefor - Theft Genubath - Rapine (I placed Lust and Gluttony with the Body, since they felt better there.) Perversion of Society Asmodeus - The Game Nybbas - The Media Vapula - Technology Malphas - Factions Ba'al - The War Perversion of the Truth Kronos - Fate Alaemon - Secrets Mariel - Oblivion Legion - Corruption comments? - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/llloyd.geo "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:56:26 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Elements and Path (was: Re: IN> Inner Workings of the Seraphim Council ) > >Perversion of Society >Asmodeus - The Game >Nybbas - The Media >Vapula - Technology >Malphas - Factions >Ba'al - The War > > Vapula should be in 'perversion of nature' -- if tech has any effect on society, it's purely a byproduct. jo _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:57:55 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Celestial "matter" - --On Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:14 PM -0700 Daiv wrote: > > Am i the only one wondering what an (apparently) unarmed > Malakite of Eli would come up with, in celestial form? > A bottle of seltzer water and four oranges. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation (DON'T ASK.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:18:28 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Forgive me if I sound a wee bit bitter, Jo. It's not you. It's just that your response gave me an opening. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Hart" To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:44 AM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > It is _perfectly OK_ to play a gothic, gloomy game of IN where ruin & > damnation may be inevitable and all PCs can do is try to bring as much light Aka "turn the dial to Dark". Yes, some people do play that way. And as has already been long since been known, I'm not oe of them. My opinions on cranking the brightness level all the way down aren't exactly unknown here, so I'm wondering why anybody else could possibly have been surprised. [snip] > It might not be your favoured style, which is fine. But it's totally legit > to play the game that way. And if that's the kind of game I find myself in, then I leave, precisely because I don't like that. Please note that I said 'And this is the point at which I get up and leave', not 'And this is the point at which I get up and demand that the campaign be utterly ended'. And what did I get in return when I said that? "You quit when one of your ideas doesn't work?" "Are you really, honestly so unwilling to accept that other game masters might have a different, equally valid interpretation of In Nomine's God than yours? Honestly?" And then, on top of that... "But you do. Consistantly. You make discussing things on this list less fun, because you don't show respect for other peoples' viewpoints." I mention this to show that you, Jo, are perhaps the first person here who *did* respect the differing viewpoint of "You know, I think that Dark games are absolutely no bloody fun." OK. Maybe they are fun to some people. But they weren't arguing that. Instead, they were trying to tell me that it really wasn't Dark, and that I was wrong in my evaluation of it as a hopeless situation. Thank you. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:21:52 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Walton" To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:38 AM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > On the One Ring: > > I think you guys are missing the biggest danger of the whole "Jacob's > Ladder" solution. After all, what would happen if the Almighty himself > decided to pop that little baby onto one of his cosmic fingers? :) > > *Shudder* An intriguing possibility... ... but IMO, I don't think it can happen, as written. After all, the danger of that thing is that it's composed of millions and millions of Forces, all backed up by their own obsessed sentience. To anybody else, even a Superior, millions of Forces worth of angry consciousness screaming in his ears is a force way bigger than he is, and he gets overwhelmed. To God, who has the entire Symphony ringing in his ears, it would most likely be just another Discordant note. Relatively speaking. I mean, I thought the whole point of this Ring was that it was bigger than everybody *except* God. If it's bigger than God, then what precisely can anybody possibly be expected to do about it? (OTOH, thinking about what would happen if *Yves* put this sucker on, now there's something I hadn't considered...) - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:31:35 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Rings >ObIN: If there is a One Ring, there have to be the Other Rings, right? >Three for the elv...ethereals, five for the dwar...demon princes, and >seven for humans, IIRC. > >So who's got them? > >GM's, you may begin to smile evil little smiles. Oh, I am. I do *like* this. Janet P.S. In the words of another list, "Don't feed the troll and he'll go away." _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:37:37 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Massively OT: (is "Hi, my name is Chuckg...") Charles Glasgow wrote: > Honestly, I find it mind-boggling that I can be accused of always possessing> obstinancy beyond reason using the very same example that shows that I> *don't* always possess such. When there's a near-universal reaction indicating that everyone who's bothered to respond to you feels the same way, it just MIGHT be possible that you're wrong. Just something to think about. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:46:46 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: Soul-killing Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion -- Vessels and DR... [snip] > Sweet Jesus, it that even fair? That means that the MORE Soul hits you > have, the MORE likely you are to take Permanent attribute loss. That's > crazy! No, because as I originally intended it, it wasn't how many Soul hits you *have* that's the penalty, it's how many Soul hits of damage you *take that turn* that's the penalty. IOW, if the hit that finally took you low enough to make you roll 'aging' was a 1-hit scrape, you roll at -1. If the hit that took you low enough was a 200-point celestial Atomic Death Smash from an enraged Duke of Technology holding Vaputech's latest version of the Celestial Wave Motion Gun [1]... well, roll at -200 and pray for a Divine Intervention. Of course, the canon interpretation of CC got ruled on yesterday, and it turns out I was wrong in my basic postulate re: temporary IQ penalties affecting Will rolls, so the point's moot anyway. [snip] > Yeah, you could probably do that. But, I dunno how well Judo works when > your opponant is a ten-foot long dragon (Balseraph). I think it was mentioned in GURPS Aliens or Martial Arts that martial arts skills in a "multi-species" setting where the different species have long since attained familiarity with each other's anatomy are assumed to, for game purposes, function just fine even if the anatomy is different from human. IOW, while maybe you can't aikido-throw a ten-foot long dragon the same way you would a human, there *is* a move for redirecting his own momentum against him that has equivalent game effects, even if it looks entirely different. > >With that in mind, plus the fact that the corporeally wimpy Malakite of > >Judgement is also a celestial combat machine (IQ 20!!! Good God, even with > >his measly ST, he's still wrecking things really awfully in celestial > >combat... largely because of his liberal use of called shots to places that > >really hurt...) > > > >Errr, > > "called shots" in Celestial combat? Called shots to what? The Ofanite's > head? It has no head, it's a spinning wheel of celestial flames. To whatever it uses in place of a head. Remember, being an alien species doesn't mean that you're automatically totally decentralized... unless you paid for all the various Injury Tolerance advantages like "No Vitals", etc., or the DM makes a house rule to pass 'em all out for free in celestial form, then you have *somewhere* you can be hit, even if it's not kept in the same place that humans keep theirs. However, since those basic self-defense courses taught in both Heaven & Hell give the students familiarity with all the known Choirs & Bands and exactly which spots hurts which the most... well, that's just like trying to play GURPS Space and firing called shots at a Zenobian Octopus-Man. Never mind that his heart is behind his left nostril and his external genitalia are at the tip of his third left tentacle [2]... if you know where they are, hitting them is just as difficult as hitting a human's vital organs, only you aim at a different place. >SFIAK, there should be no called shots in celestial combat, it's not fair to those > creatures who actually /do/ have "heads" and "vitals." Unless they paid for Injury Tolerance as an advantage, *every* species has "heads" and "vitals"... even if it's not kept in the same place that humans are. For an Ofanite, for example, you could say that the "head" is in the wheel's hub, etc. You haven't lived until you've tried to adjudicate exactly what a "called shot to the heart" means on a giant space amoeba. I ended up ruling "OK, lining up carefully, you shoot through the protoplasm directly at the nucleus...". [snip] > But it sounds like your players are more interesting in combat than > intrigue. Actually, no -- while one of them is a combat monster, another is an intrigue and human-relations monster (her Vessel is going to be a little girl, and she's an Elohite of Destiny), and the third wants to play a Heavenly detective. The fourth is still deciding. The reason I'm trying to do this with combat is because in my experience, nothing encourages roleplaying like a combat system where death can come really, really fast. The more likely it is that your life will be nasty, bloody, and short if you *do* fight, the more you're encouraged to *not* fight. Just like the real world. [snip] Thanks for the Will/Perception mechanic. Sounds handy. - -- Chuckg [1] An artifact that exists solely for illustration purposes, because there is no way I'd allow anything like that in a game. [2] Yet another hypothetical example. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:56:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #2145 - --- John Dallman wrote: > Resistance to damage? > > Vessels are biologically human (or whatever animal) and > take damage off > the same things as humans (less a few immunities because > of the different nature of the inhabiting spirit). Yes, but they can withstand a good deal more punishment than the average Human. If that toughness extends to the cellular level, they probably don't sunburn. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "Holding a grudge is like being stung to death by one bee." -- William Walton (no relation) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> Re: Ummm...Ms. Line Editor? Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:11:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Eng Subject: IN> Ummm...Ms. Line Editor? >...ma'am? > >Would you be so kind as to KABONG the thread that >spawned from Moe's treatment of the One Ring? I think >it's reached the limit of civil discussion. Seconded. I've just waded through the posts, and now pretty much wish that I had never written the damned thing. The intent was to spark some light and lively LotR/IN conversation, _not_ start a fight over the nature of God and the Higher Heavens and... Oh, never mind. Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 04/01/01(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:18:15 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William J. Keith" To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:39 AM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > >> Lucifer doesn't exist in your In Nomine campaign? How quaint. Because > >> he's certainly an Insoluble Problem, at least at the PC's level and at the > >> level of all the combined Archangels, for the foreseeable future. > > > >Hardly. The foreseeable future runs out to the foretold Armageddon, where > >Heaven will either win or lose. The possibility of a victory over Lucifer, > >a victory unaided by God's intervention, isn't just there, it's been bloody > >*prophesied*. > > Are you assuming that Lucifer won't be Intervening on behalf of his own > side? Hardly. I'm only assuming that it's possible for Heaven to win it. As written, the setting acknowledges that the theoretical possibility exists of a final victory over Lucifer, unaided by direct intervention from God. With that, Lucifer is no longer an "insoluble" problem. He's merely an Extremely Difficult Problem That Will Take Eons To Solve, And There's The Distinct Possbility That We'll Lose. Which is OK. Fights at *long* odds are heroic, epic, inspiring, the lot. It's just fights at *no* odds that are "Hi, I'm the omnipotent maker and shaper of all your destinies and fates, and I'm here to hose you today." >I'm not. And if the Devil's taking an active hand... well, not > everybody's betting on Michael in a rematch, and even Mike's going to admit > that he can't do it without God on a number of levels. Divine > Interventions on their current scale are nice, but you're going to need > some serious power when The Day comes. > > Maybe. Well, if that's the case, then that's still fine. Remember the basic thesis -- "Any problem you could possibly solve alone, you should solve alone. Any problem where your *only* hope is a direct bail-out from God, God should provide the bail-out." Either way, your proposed scenario qualifies... either Armageddon is winnable without God's direct help, or it isn't... but if you pull your own weight, then God will help you pull the rest. Neither scenario is a hose job. OTOH, a scenario of "You know, you have no possible hope of winning Armageddon without God's direct intervention... and he's not going to give it to you no matter how nicely you ask..." ... well then. At *that* point, Lucifer *does* become an 'insoluble' problem. Because God is hosing you. Totally insoluble problems are hose-jobs from either God or his master, the DM, by definition. > See, Armageddon may have been foretold, but nobody except maybe Yves and > Kronos (and Gabriel) can call it the "foreseeable" future, because nobody > knows when, where, or how it will happen. There are a few sketchy details, > but a lot of it is still up to us. Hence the War. > > >> And if it gets out of containment? Fine. Deal with the current > >> Megalomaniac and bring it back. Certainly not a Universe-breaker. > > > >*blink* > > > >As specified in Moe's post, the Ring's most well-known major manifestation > >was *Legion*, who required the combined opposition of the Superiors of both > >sides *and* the sacrifice of Raphael to stop. Another possible major > >manifestation of the Ring was Uriel, which required God's own hand on the > >brake lever. > > > >And you say that the Ring is "certainly not a Universe-breaker?" > > Sure it is... if you've missed the signs for so long that someone has used > the Ring long enough to gain the massive levels of power that Legion had > reached before he was stopped. And is there any guarantee that this won't happen? Or isn't happening even now, as we speak? Kee-ripes. Just now, two thoughts hit me -- has anybody yet noticed that this thing was disposed of by being chucked into *Gabriel's* Volcano, and that Gabriel has been going more and more nuts over the past centuries? Or that nobody's seen Eli lately? >On the other hand, a perfectly reasonable scenario, one of a number of adventures built > around this McGuffin, is "early detection." OK, so you've done that. Now you've got a hot potato of a Ring, and... where do you put it? I mean, given that the very existence of this adventures has just proven that the Ring can escape being bound by bindings that took the combined power and skill of all the Archangels in Heaven to forge *and* being buried at the bottom of Gabriel's Volcano, where *can* you put it that it won't get out of? The problem needs a permanent solution, because when you're the immortal caretakers of the universe then temporary solutions don't really solve anything -- over the long run. > >> To use a pop culture reference, it's the Kobayashi Maru scenario. > >> Sometimes they happen, and it's interesting to see how players (we or > >> they) deal with it. > > > >Yeah, but when the Kobayashi Maru *isn't* a simulation? > > > >Inescapable loss only makes for a good game when the players aren't really > >losing any skin off their noses, and ditto for the cause they're fighting > >for. That covers both dying Remnants (it's a personal loss, but *only* > >personal, it's not going to lose the War for you) and starship simulators. > > And in this case, regarding the original exposition of the Ring, you said > that problems required solutions. ... for it to be a fair game. >Well, they don't, which INHO is what's > driving Dominic up the bloody wall, and problems without solutions make for > interesting role-playing games every once in a while, purely for the > purpose of seeing how you deal with it. Yes, but the "problem without a solution" really ought not to blow up the world in the process of failure. The 'inescapable dilmena' really ought to be saved for scenarios where the maximum damage *isn't* the end of the world as you know it. If the players cannot win, then you can at least keep their losses down to the point where they can afford them. > When the problem is only that you have a temporary solution rather than a > permanent one, the angst level drops by an order of magnitude. Only if you're not trying to really think like an angel... i.e., somebody who feels personal responsibility for doing everything he can to maintain the continued good health of the universe. Being an angel is like being a Gray Lensman... you *can't* sit back and let George take care of it later, because you are George. > >Good. Now show that the probability *is* decreasing over time. Not "may > >be", but "is". [snip] > >Only if I spot you that initial postulate you made... which I don't have to, > >'cause it's not grounded. [snip] > Don't have to. *Do* have to. Remember, in prudent strategic planning, if you don't know for sure then you have to plan for the worst case. The worst case is that it *isn't* decreasing over time. Your postulate is a best-case scenario. You can't base future plans, especially ones where the stakes are as large as the continued existence of the world, on best case. If you with assert that somebody should do so, please try to explain why, 'cause I simply don't get the point of doing that at all. Pessmism may be less fun, but at least you're never caught gambling more than you can afford to lose. Optimism should be saved only for when you *can* afford to lose. For this problem, you can't afford to lose. > My postulate's possible, so is one indicating that you're > likely to lose it in a finite time. Different interpretations of the > scenario are possible, which is exactly what everyone has been trying to > say. And some of those interpretations require the characters to be optimistic to the point of Pollyanna-ism, which is what I've been trying to say. I do not think that a scenario where the only way I can role-play my character as *not* being ultimately alarmed about it is if I give him the personality trait of "Overly foolish optimist" is a scenario that I can, or should, enjoy playing. > From the point of view of the characters, you take the best you can do, and > you try to make it better if it's not enough yet. Maybe some day, you'll > figure it out, and maybe not. Yes, which is why the instant the need for the existence of a possible solution is acknowledged, everything's fine. It's when people are in the mode of "No, nothing can possibly unmake it, no, nothing can ever really contain it, and no, God doesn't want to help you on it" that it's all hopeless in the long run. [snip] > >Did they make the prophecy of Armageddon non-IN-canon while my attention was > >elsewhere? > > First off, with regards to the Ring, an inevitable Armageddon only > strengthens my argument. You only have to guard the Ring for a finite > time. Putting myself into the POV of my character (any one of them, really, except the total idiots)... "A finite *but indefinite* time. I have no assurance, no reason to believe, that it will be a short enough time. So I must plan on the basis that it will not." I state this not as opinion, but as fact (which invites attempts to disprove) -- when the prize for guessing wrong is the loss of everything you hold dear, you can't afford *not* to plan for worst case. > Then if Heaven wins Armageddon, the Ring's no worry because the > survivors, by definition, aren't that type. If Heaven loses, the Ring is > only one of a number of equally Bad Things about to happen to you. > > Second, this last part was addressing your entire notion of problems and > solutions over eternity. Or, if you care to stipulate Armageddon, an > indeterminately large finite time, which so near you can shave with the > difference. That's the point. > The point, which is tangential to the whole Ring affair, is > that your notion of solving the problem is limited to a single incidence of > destruction of its source, whereas a broader notion of "solution" can be > introduced which is justifiable both from the characters' point of view Such as what, temporary containment? Given where the Ring was stuffed the first time, if it manages to get out of *that* then the players can have *no* reasonable expectation that any containment it is within their powers to contrive could possibly hope to last the distance. What are they supposed to achieve that the combined forces of all the Archangels in Heaven have demonstrably been unable to do? Remember, any adventure that posits that the Ring got out of the Volcano just posited that the entire bloody Seraphim Council took a swing at solving the problem... and missed. > and the omniscient point of view in the original presentation of the scenario. [snip] > The points being discussed are beginning to diverge from the original > IN-related article. I propose that if you wish to continue the discussion > we move it to private email. I make it a policy to accept requests to take a discussion to private e-mail under only two circumstances. a) When they arrive by private e-mail. b) When they are posted to the list unaccompanied by a continuation of the argument. You see, if I accept c) the other guy has his full say and *then* requests it to be taken to private e-mail, what he's just done is arrange it so that he gets the last word. Even if I somehow managed to successfully refute every single point he made in my private e-mail discussion, nobody else would see that... they'd only see that somebody else got the last word, which I was 'unable to refute'. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:03:04 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> A Discussion of Celestial Sex (Rated R) A Discussion of Celestial Sex [totally, screamingly non-canon] [Also probably rated R, or at least PG-13, so if you don't like that concept, skip to the next message now. I won't mind.] Now, without corporeal nervous systems, the term "sex" can often be misleading. However, for whatever reason, the Almighty does seem to have ensured that there are themes of pleasure for each realm in the Symphony. In Heaven, and particularly for angels, these themes are less parallel to corporeal ones. The object is to get each participant's Forces resonating to a common, shared theme together. This can be accomplished by overlapping one's Forces in an extended cuddle (which can look -- or at least feel -- as much like the "vapor sex" described in some C.S. Lewis books as it might look like normal, corporeal copulation), or by other means such as singing a duet or playing musical instruments together. It's said that Servitors of certain Words have other means: duels for angels of Michael or Laurence, very good legal debates (or research) for those of Judgment, etc. Naturally, Servitors of Creation are likely to engage in behavior that mimics the act of creation -- but are hardly adverse to using the means of shared artistic creation as well. There are still erogenous zones in most angels, though -- places where the Forces mesh or fold in ways that are more sensitive to "touch." Besides the obvious ones, for human-like angels (Mercurians and Malakim, primarily), the wings are also typically sensitive in all Choirs who have them. (This is true corporeally, for that matter; feathers are supposed to be sensitive to sense wind currents, and, well...) As for the non-human-like ones: * Kyriotates can manifest whatever erogenous zones they wish; it's said a lot of them enjoy a good hand massage, but you generally need a Kyriotate or several other beings to give them one, celestially, if you want to reduce them to purring puddles on the ground. * Seraphim often consider stroking down their forehead and nose (between the eyes) to be incitement to inciting things; most also have sensitive tails. (How do you tell where the body ends and the tail begins? Stroke down and watch for the quiver.) Don't forget the wings. * Ofanim are hard to pin down (pun sort-of intended), but when in the mood, generally indicate that the inner curves of their rings make them go "Whee" in even more enthusiastic ways. * Elohim often use their resonance while giving backrubs (or wingrubs, or handrubs, or whatever) to serve the same purpose; some of them have admitted to an objective tendency to go all gooey when given scalp massages or footrubs, themselves. (Foot tickling may be the Choir fetish, but not enough of them will say.) (As a note, since so many of them A: have wings and B: have sensitive wings, the typical demonic threats of "plucking scenes" are a form of rape. To make that linkage even more disturbing to angels, it's said that some Andrealphans not only can, but _do_, cause the "plucking scene" to be... darkly exciting.) On the demonic side, however, each demon resonates to its own personal symphony, and the pleasure comes more from enforcing those personal harmonics on other beings. (This is one reason why many demons go for the torture gig -- by instilling enough pain and fear into another being, that other being tends to vibrate to the themes of "That Demon Is Scary And Powerful," which gives the torturing demon a rush.) For some, adapting to the personal symphony of another being gives them a feeling of being protected or more than they are alone; not that they'd admit that, mind you. They're likely to be seen as masochists. Many, many demons buy into what would, in the corporeal realm, be a form of extreme feminazism: the concept that male-female sex is innately violent and that the male is always the aggressor. This is why a lot of humanoid demons favor male aspects -- it gives them the equipment to be aggressive, which clearly is going to help them cause their partner(s) to harmonize with _them_ rather than the other way around. Indeed, sufficient, ah, metaphoric impressiveness might force a partner to "loosen its Forces" to adapt, or actually take soul damage! There are, of course, demons who reject that idea -- particularly Lilim, who cough mildly and point out that their Mother is hardly, ah, "femininely submissive." (Yes, Lilim like to be on top. Mind, they'll do nearly everything if you _need_ it...) These demons (not _just_ Lilim) tend to use the concept of "surrounding" to impose their personal symphonies upon others. And, also of course, there are the more "masochistic" ones, who _want_ to alter their own harmonies. (Though those can be either male or female aspected; they'll seek out the more dominant examples of whichever gender turns them on.) As with angels, demons have extra erogenous zones, usually pertaining to those surface features that they feel make them uniquely SELF: horns and wings. (Lilim, Impudites, and Calabim all appreciate the value of a good horn-job.) Because of the wing-sensitivities, Malakite threats to make leather outfits out of demon wing-leather tend to strike home nearly as badly as the threats of "plucking scenes" hit angels. Aggressive angels have also been known to make comments about horns and hack-saws -- though this does somewhat backfire, in that demons tend to lose their horns when they redeem, which has about the same effect on them that the concept of losing an erogenous zone has on most humans. In the specifics... Shedim manifest whatever they want; a _lot_ of them go for the torture route, though, to get the target "softened up" to accept the Shedite's dominance. (Some Vapulans with an interest in such things, as well as some Lusties, have speculated that it's because the Shedim are Fleshless -- they're actually _more_ sensitive to non-harmonious personal symphonies, and would feel an insufficiently broken one as a painful irritant, not a pleasurable friction, much as if picking up someone's Heart in Hell.) Lust Shedim either accept the pain or have more subtle methods of softening up a target, or both, since many of _them_ are fond of demonstrating their ability to render another being down into a (usually temporarily) mindless metaphorical puddle via the Joys of Tentacle Sex. (Yes, Andrealphite Shedim love to watch hentaii.) Balseraphs mimic Seraphic sensitivities, with the addition that those with vessels will often manifest their vessel-torsos as well, for added pleasures and/or abilities to "thrust" their personal symphonies upon others. Djinn don't care enough, generally, to be other than neuter. (Those of Lust are exceptions, of course.) The ones who pick a gender usually have it concealed somewhere upon their weird bodies; rumor has it that the "male" Djinn tend to be, well, inflatable. The more you've been teasing the poor thing, the, er, _more_ you're going to get when you finally go looking. This may be a pure fiction spread by Lusties and anyone in Shal-Mari who wants to insist on the authenticity of a porn tape. Habbalah tend to be sadomasochists: they get a kick out of proving they can "take it" almost as much as they like dishing it out. Piercing scenes, whippings, and other SMBD elements (without safewords, naturally) are the most likely to get them all hot and bothered. (Then they'll get someone _else_ hot and bothered.) Their mutilations don't seem to cause them difficulty, but they may just be proving they can endure the pains of those while in the act. Andrealphites, naturally, do All Of The Above in any combination they can think of. They're more into the pleasurable "touch" of where Forces fold and resonate nicely, and getting their partner into that mode is generally enough to make the interaction mostly pleasurable for the Lustie. It is possible, though hard, to rape a Servitor of Lust; it requires a vastly different mindset about the whole situation and a lot of domination without acknowledging the Andrealphan's skills in the art of sex. Gamesters are all into the dominance parts; the acts themselves aren't all that interesting, but that the Gamester had the power to force the other person to _do_ them... Now that's entertainment. (They're the ones most capable -- should they exert themselves -- of abusing Andrealphans without letting the Lusties enjoy it.) Samingans, naturally, try not to let themselves be caught mimicking the act of creation; the lot of them espouse necrophilia when they think anyone's looking. So torture is the more popular method of getting one's frustrations relieved, in Abaddon. Interestingly enough, while one would _think_ that (since they're seeking two different things) angel-demon interactions would automatically be as unpleasant to the demon as being dumped into a Shedim pit... The angelic "embracing" of all themes of the Symphony acts the other way; the Game won't admit it, and cracks down on those who do, but angels are a good lay even without torturing them a bit first. Angelic opinions about demon lovers tend to vary with the demon; one who gets a kick out of ensuring that the partner is having fun too, at least on a superficial level (such as by tickling feathers just _right_), is far less objectionable than a brutal demon. (And there are some angels who would object to _any_ infernal liaisons.) And, just because it comes up, yes, Superiors do it too. (Andrealphus being a prime example.) They can even, despite their massive numbers of Forces, cavort with lesser Servitors, if they wish. This is either accomplished by "masking" their power somewhat, deliberately splitting off a "lesser" instantiation, or -- primarily used by Princes -- using their ability to manipulate Forces to, er, hold the lesser celestial together when the sheer Word-power permeating its being would otherwise sever the bindings between its personal Forces. (Superiors can also, with their ability of Force-manipulation, find sensitive zones that are _within_ other celestial beings. What they do while reaching "inside" depends on the Superior, of course.) [Just to reiterate: the above is all totally, utterly, screamingly, non-canon. It's just musings.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2168 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.