in_nomine-digest Monday, January 28 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2530 In this digest: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Episode I, Part I (No, worse) (Crossposted to Pyramid) IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) IN> [ADMIN] Socks, people. (Re: Is there an official bit in canon...) Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels IN> Duet for two voices Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels & Restricted attunements Re: IN> Duet for two voices Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Duet for two voices Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Duet for two voices Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:56:17 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... From: "David Edelstein" > > I'd like to point out that threatening to insult ALL atheists/agnostics > because you don't like what ONE atheist/agnostic said hardly strikes me > as "Christian" behavior. I didn't see it as a threat to insult anybody; to me, it looked like a call for insults on the other side of the discussion to stop. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:16:59 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... >From: "Prodigal" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... >Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:56:17 -0600 >I didn't see it as a threat to insult anybody; to me, it looked like a call >for insults on the other side of the discussion to stop. Especially given that none of the Christians here have actually flamed away with the term "hellbound godless sinner"... - -- Chuckg _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:47:02 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Episode I, Part I (No, worse) (Crossposted to Pyramid) - --- Maurice Lane wrote: > Every time a gap opened up in the lines for > a moment, six or eight humanoids dressed all in black > would dart through. Oddly, their appearance would go > unnoticed by Nybbas' defenders... until the raiders > uncrossed their arms from across their chest and > ripped out someone's jugular from behind. That's just _wrong_, Moe. The Malacammies have been alerted. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:12:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Suffragan Archangels For those tired of the Word game, here are the Suffragan Archangels. A "suffragan bishop" is an assistant bishop without a diocese of his own. Suffragen Archangels have no Words. (The title comes from the Latin "suffragari," to support, to help.) There are, you see, some really good angels out there that don't happen to yearn for Words. They work diligently to Do Good, but they like a variety of approaches. Such beings often wind up working for several Archangels, over the ages, acquiring distinctions and attunements, and such, just not Words. And, once in a while, such generalists become Archangels, either through election by the Seraphim Coucil or (more often) by Divine Intervention. The resulting Archangel is definitely a second-stringer -- it can't draw on a chunk of the Symphony for Word-power, it has no neat Word or Choir attunements to hand out -- but it is still a Superior. It *can* juggle Forces, create angels, be in several places at once, use any standard Choir resonnance, generally be beyond the range of PC quantification, and so on. A Suffragan can also take *any* attunement of any Choir, any Word, even if it is "restricted," and such attunements are often the payment a Suffragan asks for specific services. It can then hand out these attunements to its own angels, as long as they are of the right Choir and the attunement isn't restricted. Suffragans acquire and pass along Rites in the same way. Besides collecting attunements, Suffragans work harder than most Archangels at acquiring Songs and creating artifacts. They also hand out Songs and artifacts more freely than most Archangels. The Vassal, Friend, and Master distinctions of a Suffragan only give +1 to the chance to invoke the Suffragan, for each level of distinction. (This a Master has +3 to invoke.) The base chance to invoke varies with the individual Suffragan, but they are, on average, easier to invoke than Worded Archangels, in large part because they usually have fewer servitors. Suffragans can have Worded servitors. (It's not like they have anything *against* Words; they're just not their style.) Servitors, Worded and otherwise, can circulate much more freely among Suffragans than among other Archangels, since there is no change of Word mechanics on changing Superiors. This makes servitors feel freer to ask for such changes, though it does nothing to make the Suffragans more likely to grant them. Most Suffragens work for a more powerful, Worded Archangel. But only because they want to. All they have to do is change their mind and maybe move office furniture. (They tend to have very modest "cathedrals," if you can call them that at all.) As a result, they often get wooed for their services and support. They are all members of the Seraphim Council, and can be swing votes at times. There are "suffragan princes," too, though they prefer to be styled "Grand Dukes." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:21:00 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels From: "Earl Wajenberg" > > A Suffragan can also take *any* attunement of any Choir, any Word, even > if it is "restricted," and such attunements are often the payment a > Suffragan asks for specific services. It can then hand out these > attunements to its own angels, as long as they are of the right Choir > and the attunement isn't restricted. Suffragans acquire and pass along > Rites in the same way. I would have them be unable to take restricted attunements, and be unable to grant attunements for Words they are not directly serving, but I think this concept shows promise. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:40:05 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels >From: "Prodigal" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels >Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:21:00 -0600 >I would have them be unable to take restricted attunements, If I understand correctly, the normal reason that an attunement is 'restricted' is because it requires the angel in question to have the proper Choir (or Band) resonance in order to be able to make it work. Given that Superiors have /all/ Choir (or Band) resonances, at will... >and be unable to grant attunements for Words they are not directly serving, OTOH, this I would support. As I understand attunement granting, it's re-aligning a celestial's Forces so that they more closely resonate with a certain Word. It would make sense that only an approriate Word-bound would be able to so 'realign' things. >but I think this concept shows promise. One other thought -- while I can see Heaven creating Archangels-without-portfolio, I can't quite see Hell creating Grand Dukes. Princes tend to be greedy little monopolists... and Asmodeus would have embolisms at the thought of non-Word-bound Superiors out there potentially able to create new demons, remove dissonance or Discord, enable celestial reproduction, and all the other things you can do with a Superiors' ability to manipulate loose Forces. The Word-bound Superiors are bad enough, but at least their respective monomanias help make them more predictable. (Dominic would have similar embolisms, granted, but barring a Dark setting Heaven is at least /slightly/ more willing to trust people...) - -- Chuckg _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:53:46 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels From: "Charles Glasgow" > > >I would have them be unable to take restricted attunements, > > Given that Superiors have /all/ Choir (or Band) resonances, at > will... To me, that is a product of the combination of Word and superior statehood, with both being necessary before a celestial can overcome choir limitations. > The Word-bound Superiors are bad enough, but at > least their respective monomanias help make them more predictable. And those same monomania would lead the vast majority of Princes to view non-Worded superiors as threats, especially in light of how Valefor gained his Word. This leads to interesting ideas about Valefor and Asmodeus setting aside their differences to deal with one of these upstarts. Hmmmmm......... > (Dominic would have similar embolisms, granted, but barring a Dark setting > Heaven is at least /slightly/ more willing to trust people...) I don't know that Dominic would necessarily have a problem with the idea, but he would definitely be aggressive in policing the ranks of any Suffragen AAs. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:13:00 EST From: CsHoneyman@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery In a message dated 27/01/02 22:58:44 GMT Standard Time, thunderdog_sa@yahoo.com writes: > A request for a miracle. The difference is between > bending the universe to your own will and asking a higher > power to work its will. Yeah, maybe, but historically, most magic has been spirit-based rather than predicate upon the caster's own abilities. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:12:41 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels I think the paranoia over Suffragans and Grand Dukes would be mitigated by their relatively low level of power, but Grand Dukes might well be a lot rarer than Suffragans. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:15:25 EST From: CsHoneyman@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... In a message dated 28/01/02 06:12:53 GMT Standard Time, eeves@erskine.edu writes: > Any Christians (or other theists) here here use the terms "atheist" or > "agnostic"* instead of "hellbound godless sinner," and you use the the > term "Christian" instead of xian. Why should I not use it? It's been an acceptable abbreviation for more than 250 years - the x is the Christ- part. It's a shorthand variant, basically, and has historically been endorsed even by priests, pastors and the like. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:18:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Charles Glasgow wrote: > If I understand correctly, the normal reason that an attunement is > 'restricted' is because it requires the angel in question to have the > proper Choir (or Band) resonance in order to be able to make it work. I thought restricted attunements were restricted by Word, so that, say, the restricted seraph attunement of the Word of Lint could not be given to other seraphim. Or does the restriction run on the other axis, so that, if the Lint seraph attunement is restricted, other Lint angels can't get it? Anyway, I wanted to mitigate the wimpishness of Suffragans a little, so I said they could *take* restricted attunements (however the restriction runs) but couldn't *give* them (so as to prevent the restrictions leaking all over the Host). Are restrictions supposed to be by Archangelic decree or by Word mechanics? Or is it specified? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:01:35 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Well, Abrahamic magic, such as Hermetica and Kabbalah, usually revolves around divination, the creation of amulets, and the invoking/commanding of spirits. In most cases, this is done in the name of God (you command spirits through the power of JHVH, Christ, the saints and angels, etc.), but you are still exerting your will on reality as a whole. The question is, does God want you to exert your will in this matter? In Nomine says no, at least canonically. But I think there's room in the framework for a little tweaking if you want sorcery to be a little less demonic. And in style and flavor, In Nomine sorcery is actually pretty close to real-world ritual magic (at least for an RPG). >Yeah, maybe, but historically, most magic has been spirit-based rather than >predicate upon the caster's own abilities. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:04:48 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... >Why should I not use it? It's been an acceptable abbreviation for more than >250 years I think that now at least it's favored by people with a dislike for Christianity, who are using it in mockery, and so has developed negative connotations for Christians. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:07:19 EST From: CsHoneyman@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... In a message dated 28/01/02 21:06:07 GMT Standard Time, bthomasa@hotmail.com writes: > I think that now at least it's favored by people with a dislike for > Christianity, who are using it in mockery, and so has developed negative > connotations for Christians. *shrug* I use it because it's easier than typing out Christian every single time. There's nothing inherently pejorative about it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:10:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery My own impression of ritual magic as practiced by those (non-modern) people who believed in it, is that it was heavily *bureaucratic*. You compelled an inferior spirit by issuing commands in the name of a superior spirit, or by issuing threats to bring down the wrath of a superior spirit. You, yourself, the human magician, didn't have any particular power over the inferior spirit. Of course, this presumes you DO have some "in" with the superior spirit whose name you're using. In the demonic case, you get this "in," establish this covenant, by making the classic deal with the devil. I'm not familiar with IN sorcery, but I gather it emulates this side of the street fairly well. To emulate the theurgical, white-magic side, it may only be necessary for an Archangel to grant a Soldier command authority over some angels. Add to this something like Celestial Song of Tongues to "conjure" with, and you're done. It's just that it requires a bit of a shake-up in the command structure. The angels getting bossed around by the human are, perhaps, very young, very new to Earth, relievers, or angels doing penance. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:25:33 -0500 From: "S.D." Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery >> > A request for a miracle. The difference is between >> >bending the universe to your own will and asking a higher >> >power to work its will. >> >> Exactly. C. S. Lewis, in *The Silver Chair*, expressed it elegantly when >he >> described magic as "trying to make God do things" and went on to explain >> that what you're supposed to do is *ask.* > >Also seen in Elizabeth Moon's "Paksenarrion" series > >"Who did you see in the fire? What powers did you name? Remember now, >you're a paladin, not a mage. You don't command -- you ask." > >-- Master Oakhallow speaking to paladin-candidate Paksenarrion, from >Elizabeth Moon's _Oath Of Gold_ *Also* also described rather well in David Eddings' 'Tamuli' trilogy. Basically, there are two major races of magic-wielders. One does it themselves, but for the most part can only *affect* themselves. The other can affect anyone and anything, but they need to ask their Gods' assistance - - they can't do anything alone. (And, of course, requesting assistance requires long, complicated, formal prayers in their native language.) ~S.D. Ryukage ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "And lo, he did raise the holy hand grenade on high and said, 'Oh Lord, bless this thy hand grenade so with it I may blow thy enemies into tiny bits, en masse.'" Monty Python ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:01:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) At 7:12 PM -0500 1/27/02, Josh Moger wrote: [I & Sean McCarthy wrote: >>> No EPG playtest yet. >> >>Should be relatively soonish, though. >These words... they conjure in my mind the belief that such a book is, if >not finished, in the works to be done so... [...] The EPG is, far as I know and subject to Interventions, in a stage of "Some minor tweaks, some extra chrome, and we can do playtest." Getting the extra chrome shouldn't take too long. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:43:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Socks, people. (Re: Is there an official bit in canon...) Now, I didn't see where the 'xian' thing went bad, and am a tad grouchy about this because it implies I am not getting all the posts. (I missed the first bit of Moe's Nybbas-Creation thing, too, drat it!) BUT! I can see this one is going down hill, in a handbasket. Christianity isn't for flaming any more than other religions. So this discussion can die NOW. On _both_ sides. - --Beth, List Admin http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/listrules.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:49:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels At 2:12 PM -0500 1/28/02, Earl Wajenberg wrote: [...] >A Suffragan can also take *any* attunement of any Choir, any Word, even >if it is "restricted," and such attunements are often the payment a >Suffragan asks for specific services. It can then hand out these >attunements to its own angels, as long as they are of the right Choir >and the attunement isn't restricted. Suffragans acquire and pass along >Rites in the same way. Note that this activity is likely to be closely monitored by the Archangels who're giving out the attunements and Rites -- because attunements and Rites which are "misused" will _weaken_ the Archangel whose Word they "tap into." (See the GMG.) Aside from that, entertaining. One wonders how many of them are, essentially, holding down an important post in some Word-Archangel's organization, as, er, the "spare." I.e., if something were to happen to that Superior, the Suffragan would almost certainly be granted _that_ Word and dropped into position to keep the organization running as smoothly as possible... (Unlike raising a non-Wordbound Servitor, who will then need some time practicing with Superior abilities.) Oooo, if you're going to use Suffragans, then perhaps there are the "Heirs and the Spares" -- the Spares work as described, with the potential to up stakes and leave. The Heirs are in place as, literally, heirs. Understudies, if one prefers. In such a situation, one would be strongly tempted to elevate Soldekai to Suggragan status -- though if the Council tried to get him to do it, he might refuse out of loyalty. (If the Divine did it, well, he'd have a harder time getting out of the status. Maybe he already is, and just masks Real Well.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:20:02 -0000 From: "Genevieve Cogman" Subject: IN> Duet for two voices *static* Voice 1: I hope you realise that I wouldn't normally do this sort of thing. Voice 2: It's a one-off arrangement. I quite understand. Don't worry, I'm not going to get unreasonable. We're simply finding a work-around which suits both our people. Voice 1: Thanks. Voice 2: No problem. I can sympathise. Voice 1: Okay, so... you say that the Asmodeans have got evidence of treasonable activity on Jeru's part, and they're passing it to the Dominicans? Voice 2: Well, what do you expect? Stiff-assed self-righteous prigs, the lot of them. Of course, I'm being a bit self-serving here -- they'll be cracking down on me next if I don't do something. Voice 1: It's all right. Nobody expects you to, ah... Voice 2: I think I'm insulted. Voice 1: Look, I didn't mean it that way, all right? I'm grateful. I'll be able to use this information to keep Jeru's neck off the chopping-block for a while. It's difficult enough as it is, what with Eli on walkabout. Voice 2: Oh yes. That. Do any of you really know what he's up to? Voice 1: If only we did. Of course, we have faith that it's for a higher purpose, but ... Voice 2: Of course. Voice 1: You know, if you ever wanted to consider ... that is, if you started thinking about different ways of living... Voice 2: I appreciate the offer. I appreciate that you're making it in a ... selfless sort of way. I'll think about it, all right? Voice 1: Just think about it. That's all I ask. Voice 2: Here's the transcript. That's what you wanted. *static* Voice 1: Thank God. It's good to see you. It's been a hell of a week. Voice 2: It's good to see you too. (pause) I'll take that as a non-deliberate insult. Voice 1: Oh, sorry. Wasn't thinking. Voice 2: It's okay. Here, have some of this coffee. Voice 1: It's good to be able to talk to someone who isn't as ... as involved as some of the others are. They keep on insisting on seeing things in terms of black and white. It's a strain. Voice 2: I can imagine. We have a fair number of those too. Voice 1: Yes, I'm not surprised. Voice 2: We're not that dissimilar, you know. I mean, you work for your guy, and I work for mine, but it's not as if either of them want to harm humans. Voice 1: One hears stories ... Voice 2: Of course one hears stories. The Boss isn't like War or Lust or that sort, though. We're the only laughter in Hell. Give us some credit. Voice 1: Okay, okay. I admit that from what I know of you personally ... Voice 2: You're sweet. Voice 1: Ahem. Voice 2: So are there any actual crises today? Voice 1: Well, not as such. But there is something that I'd be grateful if you could look into. Voice 2: Sure. You only have to ask. What is it? Voice 1: Well -- it's those damn Dominicans. They're still watching Jeru. The boy just needs a little time on his own to sort things out. He doesn't need that sort of heavy-handed interference. If you could keep an eye on him, or them, and let me know if anything looks like coming to a head? Voice 2: No problem. You're very protective. Voice 1: It's my job. By the way, about that thing we were discussing ... Voice 2: No. I'm sort of interested, but... no. I'm not leaving yet. But I promise I'll keep thinking about it. Voice 1: That's all I ask. *static* Voice 1: Oh God, oh dear God. Voice 2: Sit down. Take a few deep breaths. What happened? Voice 1: Jeru... I'd let him know that they were coming so that he could get away quietly. He decided to be a moron and shoot his way out. Voice 2: Was anybody seriously hurt? Voice 1: The Seraph's in Trauma. The Malakite has a shattered shoulder. Oh, and a Soldier who was with them died too. Voice 2: I can imagine they did the usual stormtrooper bit, going in all guns blazing. Voice 1: Probably. Voice 2: No wonder your friend panicked. Voice 1: You think that was what it was? Voice 2: I know I'd panic if I saw the Game turning up. It'd be just the same for him. At least you did your best for him. Voice 1: You think so? Voice 2: I'm sure of it. You told him they were coming, didn't you? You tried to get him away safely, didn't you? Voice 1: Yes. Yes, that's true. Voice 2: And you just wanted to give him a bit of time to sort himself out. Not like those damn hounds of Judgment with their virtue and vice, white and black, good and evil mentality. They'd have made it worse. Voice 1: Yes. They did make it worse. Voice 2: You shouldn't blame yourself. Voice 1: I ... thanks. I needed that. Voice 2: Did Jeru get out safely? Voice 1: Yes. I'll be able to help him. Voice 2: Good. *static* Voice 1: I ... I don't believe I did that. Voice 2: Is he alive? Voice 1: Yes. Just unconscious. Voice 2: How did you get followed here by a Malakite? Voice 1: I don't know! I've been careful for a while now. He shouldn't have known. Voice 2: You know ... Voice 1: Yes? Voice 2: This could be a wonderful opportunity. Voice 1: What?!? Voice 2: Seriously. You know you've been doing what you had to do, what was necessary, to protect your people. You've acted with honour. Voice 1: Well, yes, when you put it that way. Voice 2: And he's a Malakite. They're supposed to be the ones who know honour, right? So wake him up, look him in the eyes, and explain. Voice 1: I can see one major potential problem here. Voice 2: What, my safety? Voice 1: No, besides that. What if he doesn't see it? They don't always see properly, especially the younger ones. Voice 2: Don't look at it that way. Trust God. This is a chance to explain what's going on, to bring someone else in. I know that others among you think that working round the Dominicans is a good idea. He could actually help us in this. Think about it. Voice 1: You have a point. Voice 2: I know I do. Voice 1: Okay, I'll wake him up. Stand back. *static* Voice 2: Hush now. Our third actor has played his role and left the stage, and now only the protagonist and antagonist remain. The chorus is silent, as they have always been, and so we are spared the closing hymn of subjection to the will of Heaven. Lie still, lie still, and let us admire the stage blood splashed across the walls in bright creative red, and listen to the final breaths which close our little drama. But it would be a pity if I did not have the final word, and so: take this with you. You were wrong when you said we were similar. You had lost sight of your job. But I, I am a Tempter, I serve Dark Humor, and I never forgot mine. *static* - --- Genevieve Cogman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:57:00 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels & Restricted attunements At 3:18 PM -0500 1/28/02, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >I thought restricted attunements were restricted by Word, so that, >say, the restricted seraph attunement of the Word of Lint could not >be given to other seraphim. > >Or does the restriction run on the other axis, so that, if the >Lint seraph attunement is restricted, other Lint angels can't get it? The other axis -- a restricted attunement is one that depends on the Choir/Band nature, and cannot be given to other Choirs/Bands. (_All_ Choir/Band Attunements are restricted to members of the same Choir, if given to those of other Words!) Some attunements are partly restricted -- see the Lilim of Gluttony Band Attunement. Any Gluttonly Servitor may take the "prepare a WONDERFUL dish, requiring a Will roll to refuse," but only a Lilim with that attunement will get a Geas-hook out of it. Others are entirely restricted -- the Seraphim of Judgment add their Celestial Forces to their resonance. That is shorthand for, "to their resonance for Truth." (If you want to be a Malakite and add to your resonance, work for Laurence.) Now, if you are a Seraph of Destiny, and you make Dominic very happy, he _could_ give you that attunement, because you are a Seraph. >Are restrictions supposed to be by Archangelic decree or by >Word mechanics? Or is it specified? Word mechanics, I believe it is heavily implied. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:15:46 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Duet for two voices From: "Genevieve Cogman" > > You were wrong when you said we were similar. You had lost sight > of your job. But I, I am a Tempter, I serve Dark Humor, and I > never forgot mine. You never fail to make me wish that SJG had the fiction rights, Genevieve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:41:09 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery - --- CsHoneyman@aol.com wrote: > Yeah, maybe, but historically, most magic has been > spirit-based rather than > predicate upon the caster's own abilities. Not so of hermetic magic, and not necessarily true of sympathetic magic. The former is based on formulae while the latter often relies mainly on the subject's (or victim's) belief. Where hermetic magic dealt with spirits, the goal was to extract a favor therefrom -- but only if the spirit was too powerful to compel. The presentation of Sorcery in IN mainly reflects the hermetic school of magic. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels - --- Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Are restrictions supposed to be by Archangelic decree or > by > Word mechanics? Or is it specified? Restricted Choir/Band Attunements are restricted because only Celestials who have the Resonance of that Choir/Band can take them. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:49:34 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Duet for two voices Niiiiice. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:59:20 -0500 From: "S.D." Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels >> Are restrictions supposed to be by Archangelic decree or >> by >> Word mechanics? Or is it specified? > > Restricted Choir/Band Attunements are restricted because >only Celestials who have the Resonance of that Choir/Band >can take them. So, say, a Master of Destiny could take one of Yves' Restricted Attunements for whatever other Choir's resonance he has. Could, say, a Malakite Master of Destiny with the Seraph Resonance take another Archangel's Seraph Choir Attunement? It's not his Word, so he should only be able to take the Malakite Attunement, but he *does* have the Seraph Resonance... Or, for that matter, Kronos' Balseraph Attunement does exactly the same thing. Assuming any Archangel would be willing (hello uber-Low Contrast), could a Balseraph of Fate take an appropriate *Choir* Attunement? ~S.D. Ryukage ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Don't throw the Morningstar at me. Then I'll just throw Beelzebub at you, and no one will be happy." "Azazel in the right-hand corner pocket." "Legions of Hell, off the backboard, nothing but net." 'Quotes Out Of Context' - Technomancy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:05:43 -0700 From: Timothy Groth Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels >Or, for that matter, Kronos' Balseraph Attunement does exactly the same >thing. Assuming any Archangel would be willing (hello uber-Low Contrast), >could a Balseraph of Fate take an appropriate *Choir* Attunement? Well I think being aligned even partially to an angelic Word would not be a good thing for a demon. Also even in uber-Low Contrast the Archangel is probably not going to be willing to give it to the demon. Unless that demon is working for them, because the attunement will siphon strength from the Superior as it is being used against their Word. If the demon is working for the Archangel, well Kronos probably won't be pleased. Now if there is an Archangel willing to go into business with Kronos I bet you could get a bunch of Balseraphs with angelic attunements. Their heads will probably explode eventually, being attuned to an angelic word is probably more cognitive dissonance than even a Balseraph can handle. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:14:06 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels At 5:59 PM -0500 1/28/02, S.D. wrote: [...] >Could, say, a Malakite Master of Destiny with the Seraph Resonance take >another Archangel's Seraph Choir Attunement? [...] Pretty much Fnord, IIRC what I said the last time this came up. >Or, for that matter, Kronos' Balseraph Attunement does exactly the same >thing. [...] could a Balseraph of Fate take an appropriate *Choir* Attunement? Fnord. (It would probably do iffily good things to the Bal. As in, a tendency to either cause dissonance if the Balseraph were sufficiently selfish, or otherwise be bad for the poor Bal's self-image.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:12:11 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels - --- "S.D." wrote: > So, say, a Master of Destiny could take one of Yves' > Restricted Attunements > for whatever other Choir's resonance he has. Yep. > Could, say, a Malakite Master of Destiny with the Seraph > Resonance take > another Archangel's Seraph Choir Attunement? I don't recall the canon ruling offhand, but I'd allow it. > Or, for that matter, Kronos' Balseraph Attunement does > exactly the same > thing. Assuming any Archangel would be willing (hello > uber-Low Contrast), > could a Balseraph of Fate take an appropriate *Choir* > Attunement? I doubt it. Considering that gaining an Attunement requires having one's Forces tweaked so as to be more in tune with the Word that the Attunement is bound to, any Celestial trying to get Attunements from the other side is sure to suffer for it. It may not be as painful as Redemption, but it's got to be close. And for angels, it's a great way to collect Dissonance. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:03:56 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Duet for two voices - --- Genevieve Cogman wrote: > *static* > > Voice 1: I hope you realise that I wouldn't normally > do this sort of thing. It's always a pleasure to hear from you, Genevieve. Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 01/01/02(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:22:09 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels - --- Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > Aside from that, entertaining. One wonders how many > of them are, essentially, > holding down an important post in some > Word-Archangel's organization, as, > er, the "spare." For the Other Side, too ... although I think that the spares would be kept in the metaphorical equivalent of 50 gallon drums until needed* (if ever). DPs have enough to be paranoid about. :) Moe *Obviously, Kobal's backup is named Albert. (pause) Think about it. ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 01/01/02(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:31:43 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels Hey! Adding Suffragan AA's to the mix gives that Saint of Creation, Sylvester the Cat, a new slogan: "Suffragan Sefiroth!" ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:32:58 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery - --- Earl Wajenberg wrote: > To emulate the theurgical, white-magic side, it may > only be necessary > for an Archangel to grant a Soldier command > authority over some > angels. Add to this something like Celestial Song > of Tongues to > "conjure" with, and you're done. > > It's just that it requires a bit of a shake-up in > the command > structure. The angels getting bossed around by the > human are, > perhaps, very young, very new to Earth, relievers, > or angels > doing penance. I could see this working fairly well. Obvious candidates (to me, at least) are Swordies (Larry's just the sort to hand this out as a penance for unseemly Pride - especially if the 'Theurgist' is the sort that needs a Heavenly bodyguard anyway) and Shielders (Zaddie's people just *love* hanging around the faithful, not least because it gives them opportunities to deal with the faith_less_). Other Words as necessary for flavoring. Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 01/01/02(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:35:59 -0700 From: Timothy Groth Subject: Re: IN> Suffragan Archangels >For the Other Side, too ... although I think that the >spares would be kept in the metaphorical equivalent of >50 gallon drums until needed* (if ever). DPs have >enough to be paranoid about. :) I'd assume that any spares are made by Lucifer and hidden throughout Hell's power structure without the consent of the Princes involved. He of course assures them that they are in the drums. Really. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2530 ********************************