Funding Flowers

[Whitelaughter]

In Nomine borrows heavily from the Cold War - to the point where I want an IN Nomine/Le Carre crossover. But that's another topic, back to the point:

And during the cold war, the Soviet Union funded the peace movement to the tune of a billion dollars, creating and influencing organisations.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...peace_movement)

Now I've never had nor heard of a Novalite PC who didn't need to be shot in the head*, so I could well see Hell deciding that the most efficient way to hurt Heaven is to fund Flowers.

And it's easy - just send large slabs of essence of Novalis and/or her Seneschals, with messages such as 'good job' or 'fight on for peace!' The stuff can't be traced, even if it has a 'flavour' just send human essence stolen by Impudites, and it's easy for Hell to harvest huge amounts of essence.

Further, by funding the most obnoxious Seneschals, and starving the better ones, Hell can manipulate Flowers' culture, twisting it - the Seneschals they choose will be the ones who appear to be doing a good job, persuading the entire organisation that they are the ones to emulate.

======================================




*I will no longer permit a new player who wants a Novalite to play in my games: not just "can't have this character", they're banned. The misery they've caused in the past is incredible.

[William]

<Asmodeus> "You are sending large quantities of Essence to Flowers."

<CleverDemons> "Yeah! See, we think that-"

<Asmodeus> "You realize they share?"

[William]

Anyway. I am curious as to your bad experiences with Flowers angels. This sounds like a fruitful line of discussion regarding GMing In Nomine.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by William

Anyway. I am curious as to your bad experiences with Flowers angels. This sounds like a fruitful line of discussion regarding GMing In Nomine.

I'm curious, too. My second favorite PC that I ever ran in IN was a Flowers angel and she was not a drag on the party by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, I've known GMs who wouldn't let their players run Malakim because it seemed to limit their options in the opposite direction.

(I also consider the $1 billion claim pretty doubtful; the FBI found that Lunev's memoir exaggerated in quite a few areas, for example. But that's a debate for another thread.)

[Methariel]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, I've known GMs who wouldn't let their players run Malakim because it seemed to limit their options in the opposite direction.

That's something I'm pondering, too, if I should ever get the chance again to GM an IN campaign again. I'd like my angelic players to be able to talk to the opposition out of their own volition and not just because "If I keep them occupied long enough, X-iel will be able to attack them from behind, so we'll have them pinched". I hope it'd generate more options for genuine drama while leaving the "Now I'm totally acting against my Oaths, against my very being"-kind of drama away. As a plus, I could paint Malakim as real heavy-hitters - something that makes demons tremble (as they should, in my opinion) and more than one angel uneasy when thinking about calling them in.

Concering angels of Flowers, sometimes they can be a pain, yes, as well as the "Ah, I just shoot him"-Calabite/Malakite. In my experience, trouble with characters often is a player/player- or player/GM-issue. I have fond memories of a certain Mercurian of Flowers whose nonviolent way of getting things done was more than annoying for a certain Seraph of the Sword. But, oh, was it fun to play!

So, why do you think the angels of Flowers should be, ah, let's say, confined to Heaven?

M.

[Captain Midnight]

Originally Posted by Methariel

In my experience, trouble with characters often is a player/player- or player/GM-issue.

To me, this is generally the foundation of most troubles with an IN game. There are people who play it with a very "Cold War" feel, where open conflict is strongly discouraged... and there are folks who think of the game as "Legion of Super Heroes with FLAMING SWORDS!!!!!!"

I've played it both ways, and as long as everyone is clear on the sort of game they're playing, you can have a good time either way. You run into trouble when you have a mismatch between people's expectations, whether it's player/player or player/GM. I had good results with having a "pre-game" meeting with everyone to talk about what was expected, and making sure everyone was on the same page. I also had a very frustrating experience once when I was playing a Mercurian with healing and interpersonal skills in the middle of a party where the running competition was to see who could create the biggest explosions; the "mecha" subplot didn't help anything, either.

It did always strike me as interesting to envision situations where one side was doing something that either directly aided a faction on the other side, or was doing something else that caused dissension among other factions on their own side. It seemed especially interesting to see how this could play out in the lives of human NPCs, although that seems to work out better in fiction instead of actual games, as PCs will inevitably want to do *something* to interfere with the story.

[Omegonthesane]

Originally Posted by Methariel

That's something I'm pondering, too, if I should ever get the chance again to GM an IN campaign again. I'd like my angelic players to be able to talk to the opposition out of their own volition and not just because "If I keep them occupied long enough, X-iel will be able to attack them from behind, so we'll have them pinched". I hope it'd generate more options for genuine drama while leaving the "Now I'm totally acting against my Oaths, against my very being"-kind of drama away. As a plus, I could paint Malakim as real heavy-hitters - something that makes demons tremble (as they should, in my opinion) and more than one angel uneasy when thinking about calling them in.

Concering angels of Flowers, sometimes they can be a pain, yes, as well as the "Ah, I just shoot him"-Calabite/Malakite. In my experience, trouble with characters often is a player/player- or player/GM-issue. I have fond memories of a certain Mercurian of Flowers whose nonviolent way of getting things done was more than annoying for a certain Seraph of the Sword. But, oh, was it fun to play!

So, why do you think the angels of Flowers should be, ah, let's say, confined to Heaven?

M.

Blanket Novalis bans seem a bit extreme even in a "superheroes" IN game - my Malakite of (Creation in service to) Flowers was perfectly happy to scare people into talking and beat them down if they struck first, and technically his oath of "never initiate or escalate a conflict" would have allowed him to match lethal force with lethal force if it came to that.

Though, it did lead to tension with the more violent members when I deliberately outran them to a Traumatised and reforming ethereal's domain in order to deliver it into Eli's hands rather than let them kill it.

[Archangel Beth]

I have never actually played a Kyriotate of Flowers with the Seraph of Flowers attunement, but I dare say I could drive a GM slightly batty with it, if they weren't the sort who also looked at the idea of the grass making people Very Very Peaceful, stared for a while, and started giggling disturbingly.

(Mind, to be truly munchkin, you need to convince the GM to let you have Kyriotate of Animals. Then you can really "bug" people! Just put the Ants of Peace in everyone's pants, and there you go. PEACE FOREVER.)

*cough*

That said, I do tend to favor a concept of Flowers angels that understands that, sometimes, there is no other choice and you really do need to sniper-shoot the Calabite of the War from behind. Avoiding both treacle and stealing the other players' spotlight time... Important. Probably best not to have a Flowers angel amidst a group that enjoys a spot of combat.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

That said, I do tend to favor a concept of Flowers angels that understands that, sometimes, there is no other choice and you really do need to sniper-shoot the Calabite of the War from behind.

Yes. Even the most holistic gardeners know that some weeds need to be pulled.

And speaking more elementally, there is almost nothing more relentless than vegetation, given time. Stone would be proud of its ability to appear totally passive, yet completely overrun a territory.

[sir_pudding]

From a certain perspective plants are very violent. It's just too slow to see from an animals perspective. Trees aren't tall because they look impressive; they are tall because they kill everything growing in their shadows while they reach above the competition for the precious sunlight. The there's the shrub that employs ants to create a dead zone around it.