in_nomine-digest Friday, May 24 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2651 In this digest: Re: IN> The Angel of Hate Re: IN> New Relic Re: IN> New Relic IN> The Angel of Hate IN> Furfur in Hell IN> New Relic IN> 1984 IN> In Nomine Anime seed Re: IN> Problems with IN Re: IN> The Angel of Hate IN> Malakim of canon (OT) Re: IN> Words for Angels Re: IN> Words for Angels Re: IN> Words for Angels IN> quick question Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> quick question IN> Ssssshh!! Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> Ssssshh!! Re: IN> Ssssshh!! Re: IN> Problems with IN Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> quick question Re: IN> Furfur in Hell Re: IN> Furfur in Hell RE: IN> Words for Angels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:04:41 -0400 From: Cameron McCurry Subject: Re: IN> The Angel of Hate Elizabeth McCoy said unto us: > It's not like the Malakim of Canon are going to come after you! Oh? Did it get to expensive to reimburse them for mileage? -:-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:31:29 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> New Relic 1. I like it. 2. I'm not sure I'd have it in my game except as a very rare, carefully controlled thing. 3. Is there one that works against Lilim? Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:58:45 +0000 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> New Relic >From: "Janet Anderson" >Subject: Re: IN> New Relic >Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:31:29 +0000 [snip] >3. Is there one that works against Lilim? With what Lilith would do to get such a thing repressed? If Lilim can't trade favors and get Geasa, they're *fish food*. - -- Chuckg _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:48:53 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> The Angel of Hate >>It wasn't until the advent of Christianity and its "Love Thy Neighbor" >>message that hatred became a sort of pariah emotion. It may be this >>(relatively) new enlightenment that is causing The Angel of Hate so much >>trouble. Not so much from dissonance, but from the slow death of his Word. >You're assuming that angelic attitudes changed as human attitudes did. I thought Words drew their power from human activity, much like tethers. If humans stop doing it the Word looses force and eventually fails. I _can_ see how broadening the interpretation of the Word, like Stone = steadfastness or Flowers = peace & kindness. But it was also my understanding that this was driven by humans as well. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From the MainFAQ, under Words: () "Archangels and Princes seem to have much shorter names, is this because they are more powerful?" "No, cooler. They got the world to call their abstract causes by one Word. Sort of like Cher." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I'm having trouble thinking how Hate (capital H) fits in the world _now_, in an Angelical sense. Perhaps Ones was given his Word for the same reason Belial was, "Confusion to the Enemy." "Procrastination is a bad thing because you are treating *yourself* like an underappreciated secretary." -Pete Pete, Demon of Misinformation http://www15.brinkster.com/ugwump/IN/pete.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:49:10 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> Furfur in Hell >Am I the only one who thinks the writers missed a perfect opportunity to use >Pandemonium? *lol* Only if Furfur gets his own Principality. He can be neighbors with Baal. If Furfur's Principality abuts Belial's there will be hell to pay. "Filmore, some capers you /have/ to pull, whether you want to or not." -Dr. Tod, "Thirty Minutes Over Broadway", Wild Cards, Vol. 1 Pete, Demon of Misinformation http://www15.brinkster.com/ugwump/IN/pete.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:49:16 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> New Relic NOT IN MY CAMPAIGN! I can see it now... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= NPC Lilim approaches PC. PC: *PING!* NPC Lilim: "I want you to do me a favor." PC, giggling like an idiot: "Ask away, Greenjeans!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Hey! You're mean!" -Squeakers, Reliever of Flowers "Yeah. But I'm cute, so I get away with it." -MacNorma (Free Lilim) Pete, Demon of Misinformation http://www15.brinkster.com/ugwump/IN/pete.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:49:41 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> 1984 Don't forget Beleth. Fear the Dream Police. Yours in FNORD, BC Petery http://www15.brinkster.com/ugwump/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 03:18:09 +0800 From: Manny Nepomuceno Subject: IN> In Nomine Anime seed Hey, I just ran a demo game for an anime convention, using the In Nomine Anime rules variants. If anyone's interested in the seed, it's available on my site at http://www.geocities.com/angeloffools/stuff/animehellhigh.html The seed is entitled "Hell Is A High School of Beautiful People". If you decide to run it, let me know how it goes. Let me gush once more over the game and over Ms. Cogman's work. It was the most well-received demo game at the convention. ;) Manny Neps http://www.geocities.com/angeloffools ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:12:03 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Problems with IN At 1:31 PM +0000 5/23/02, Fallen Seraph wrote: [...] >Summing up: I have personally found that the Worst thing to do in an IN game >is have a party with wildly cross purposes or divergent (not differing) >abilities. [...] the secret is, Tailor >your game to your players and characters, not try to mold your players to >your game. And do note the _to players_ part of that -- some players might be perfectly happy to have a War-Servitor who's laid back enough that they can go for many sessions with minimal pounding. (Cherub or Mercurian, probably. Maybe Kyriotate.) Give the occasional Hellsworn or annoying bouncer to, er, bounce, and hey -- happy player. O:> Of course, a gun-bunny War angel is going to need lots of guns to bunny with, and won't be happy unless there's some demon-bashing every game; different player expectations. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:16:44 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Angel of Hate At 10:04 AM -0400 5/23/02, Cameron McCurry wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy said unto us: > >> It's not like the Malakim of Canon are going to come after you! > > Oh? Did it get to expensive to reimburse them for mileage? -:-) Nah. I only send them after people who _claim_ to be canonical, and aren't. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:55:38 +0000 From: "cassandra benner" Subject: IN> Malakim of canon (OT) >At 10:04 AM -0400 5/23/02, Cameron McCurry wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy said unto us: > > > >> It's not like the Malakim of Canon are going to come after you! > > > > Oh? Did it get to expensive to reimburse them for mileage? -:-) > >Nah. I only send them after people who _claim_ to be canonical, and >aren't. *waves from her full on body plaster caste in the hospital bed via a video link* "yup its true too... And by the way, the deamon of Hospital Food sends his regards" Cas *Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be Evil.* In Nomine @ http://www.angelfire.com/goth/psyber/i-n.html In Nomine yahoo @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inveritas ADnD forum @ http://www.drunkendwarfinn.co.uk ADnD stuff @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ADandD_Stuff _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:37:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Shih Subject: Re: IN> Words for Angels - --- Michael Walton wrote: > --- "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" > wrote: > > is a word like "Eugenics" something that as a > > concept supported or eroded the symphony strongly > enough > > for either side to care about putting a Celestial > on it? > > > I can certainly see Factions having a use for that > Word; > the Demon of Eugenics could be subordinate to the > Demon of > Racism. Technology might also want it -- the Demon > of > Biotechnology could use a Demon of Eugenics to erode > resistance to human experimentation. I don't see > Heaven > having much use for Eugenics, though. Word-shift has infiltrated the list, I see. Eugenics is simply the practice of selective breeding for desirable traits. (Literally, it is "good genes".) Eugenics is not a synonym for Racism, any more than Faith is. Both have been abused as excuses to justify racism, which is not the same thing. Eugenics can be as benign as saying, "I am a hemophiliac. Therefore, I will not sire children. Instead, I will adopt if I reach a place in life where I want to raise kids." (I have a friend who has made this decision. I do not see how he is in any way furthering racism.) Jennifer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:57:09 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Words for Angels >Word-shift has infiltrated the list, I see. Eugenics >is simply the practice of selective breeding for >desirable traits. (Literally, it is "good genes".) In IN terms, the Demon of Eugenics is very powerful and the Angel of Eugenics is very weak (and probably suffering horribly from Word Friction). While the Angel of Eugenics is encouraging people with genetically-inherited diseases not to have children, and dog breeders not to breed the brains and mental stability out of their dogs in favor of predetermined "show points" - -- and not having much luck with the latter, from what I hear -- the Demon of Eugenics is being fueled by the "racial purity" people, the "defective individuals should be sterilized" people, the "babies with birth defects should not be allowed to live" people ... Both celestials, I think, started out with most of their essence coming from farmers who wanted fruitful trees and healthy farm animals. (Note that the flaws in their science would make no difference to the flow of essence; Mendel and Lysenko were both positive forces for the Angel.) Unfortunately, Darwin's more or less neutral teachings were pre-empted by the Demon. And then Huxley wrote *Brave New World.* And then Hitler came along. The unfortunate Angel of Eugenics is now not only weak and suffering Word-Friction but also has to deal with the fact that most people nowadays think of her word *only* with its demonic overtones. I do myself, which is why I wrote this partially to clarify my own instinctive "Yich!" when I read the word. Janet Anderson (And it doesn't help that I saw *Attack of the Clones* on Sunday.) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:08:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Words for Angels - --- Jennifer Shih wrote: > Word-shift has infiltrated the list, I see. Infiltrated? I thought it barged boldly in. 0;> > Eugenics > is simply the practice of selective breeding for > desirable traits. (Literally, it is "good genes".) > Eugenics is not a synonym for Racism, any more than > Faith is. Both have been abused as excuses to justify > racism, which is not the same thing. Quite so. In fact, we all practice eugenics to an extent simply by our choice of mates; science tells us that much of what we think of as physical attractiveness is mainly a display of good genes. That's the denotation of eugenics. The connotation -- at least since WWII -- is that eugenics is linked to "master race" theories and ideas of "this kind of people is better than the other kinds." Racism is only one manifestation of that (though certainly the one that we'd all be most familiar with). The kind of genetic discrimination practiced in the movie Gattaca is another. I but gave one example of how that Word could be made to serve Hell. If you have an example of how Eugenics can serve Heaven (noting the requirement that it have enough impact to justify assigning an angel to that Word), I'd be happy to see it. ===== Michael Walton, #US2002023848 If your principles don't inconvenience you from time to time, you don't really have any. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:03:17 +0000 From: "carson young" Subject: IN> quick question I'm just about to start my first game session of in nomine, and I wanted to clear something up before I actually started. GURPS In nomine says that servitors of David have pacifism: self defence only. In contrast, other IN books and writings seem to imply that Stoners :-) can beat someone to death if the other person throws the first punch. I just wanted to check exactly what this dissonance condtion entails. Any answer would be great. My first Post, Wheee! Carson, Demon of.... Gotta think of a good word! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:13:58 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> quick question At 01:03 AM 5/24/02 +0000, you wrote: >GURPS In nomine says that servitors of David have pacifism: self defence >only. In contrast, other IN books and writings seem to imply that Stoners >:-) can beat someone to death if the other person throws the first punch. >I just wanted to check exactly what this dissonance condtion entails. Any >answer would be great. As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what Pacifism: Self-Defense Only means - - they become dissonant if they start fighting before someone attacks them. I'm not exactly a GURPShead, so I may be wrong, but that's what the phrase implies to me. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:38:57 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> quick question >At 01:03 AM 5/24/02 +0000, you wrote: >>GURPS In nomine says that servitors of David have pacifism: self defence >>only. In contrast, other IN books and writings seem to imply that Stoners >>:-) can beat someone to death if the other person throws the first punch. >>I just wanted to check exactly what this dissonance condtion entails. Any >>answer would be great. > >As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what Pacifism: Self-Defense Only means >- they become dissonant if they start fighting before someone attacks them. > >I'm not exactly a GURPShead, so I may be wrong, but that's what the phrase >implies to me. > >-EDG The difference between the two is curious, and frankly I like the notion of its being actual self-defense -- that is, that a Trog can't go on pounding a demon on someone once the threat has been neutralized. The spirit of a Dissonance Condition is what matters, and in the case of Stone there are two motivating factors: one is David's Oath to keep faith, even in the Fallen, until there is no choice, and the other the passive nature of Stone's strength. "No choice," to me, means exactly that. If a whiny, physically weak demon slaps a Stonie across the face in a fit of pique, then yes, the Stonie's been hit. However, unless by some stretch of the imagination the demon was actually attacking, the Stone angel isn't really in a position where he needs to defend himself, and I would be leaning towards giving him Dissonance if he attacked. For that matter, it's interesting to consider how this would affect Stone's larger strategies. It may be a great image to picture a gang of Delvers donning their gear, psyching up, and then pile into the Demonic Tether roaring battle cries... but then the Seneschal looks at them and goes, "May I help you?" and you get a bunch of angels with big weapons standing around looking a bit sheepish. ;^) At the very least, they'd plan for such a contingency by being ready to drag the demon off to Interrogation somewhere. More likely, though, violence wouldn't be their *first* option. Instead, they'd try a different tactic, and be ready for a fight just in case things got nasty. In fact, I'd call that a cornerstone (no pun intended) of Stone's military philosophy. "Be Ready" -- train, be strong, be tough. You won't get to strike the first blow, but you need to survive it to strike the last. I am still experimenting with all of this in my game -- it's fairly low combat, and the PCs are human, so we haven't had a lot of opportunity to see Stone's angels in action. William ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:48:13 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> quick question >If a whiny, physically weak demon >slaps a Stonie across the face in a fit of pique, then yes, the Stonie's >been hit. However, unless by some stretch of the imagination the demon was >actually attacking, the Stone angel isn't really in a position where he >needs to defend himself, and I would be leaning towards giving him >Dissonance if he attacked. > *blinks* Okay, it's your campaign. But I don't remember anywhere in either the main rule book or Superiors 1 (I do love that book) where it says it has to be a *successful* attack, that the attack has to land, that it has to do harm to the Stone angel or how much, etc. It just says that they can't strike the first blow. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:41:29 -0400 From: Michael Nutt Subject: IN> Ssssshh!! People have been talking for some time about the problem of celestials being cavalier about the amount of disturbance they generate. Here's an idea that I thought I'd throw out to see what people think of it. It'll make celestials a lot more careful about generating disturbance, and not just for the "Someone might hear you!" factor, either. Munchkins will hate it... but that just might be a selling point. I haven't playtested these rules, not even to the point of trying them out as one-shot "house rules". If they warp your game, don't come crying to me. Keep the current rules about what causes points of disturbance... including the one on p. 55 that says when multiple disturbance-producing effects happen close together, they add the disturbances together. Then, have the Symphony lash back on the offending celestial. For every 10 points of disturbance, the noisy celestial gets a -1 to any and all rolls for the next hour... and it's cumulative, dissipating at 1 level per hour. Here's an example: Calabite X proceeds to tear up a room and its occupants, producing a grand total of 50 points of disturbance. For the next hour, any roll he makes, be it a Will roll, Dodge roll, resonance roll, or whatever, is at -5... and for the next hour after *that*, he's at -4, and for the hour after *that* he's at -3. If you feel like being *really* nasty, rule that any disturbance generated during the lashback period resets the clock, and counts as extra disturbance on top of what was already generated. Returning to the earlier example, if Calabite X manages to generate 13 points of disturbance by killing a human 4 hours after his earlier rampage... he just set himself back to -6 on any rolls. The GM can portray this however he likes; you might say that the throbbing of the wounded Symphony in your mind is distracting you, or that God's Plan is striking back. Ineffability seems to fit well with this. Better hope nobody hears you that wants to hurt you... - -- Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:51:39 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> quick question EDG wrote: > > At 01:03 AM 5/24/02 +0000, you wrote: > >GURPS In nomine says that servitors of David have pacifism: self defence > >only. In contrast, other IN books and writings seem to imply that Stoners > >:-) can beat someone to death if the other person throws the first punch. > >I just wanted to check exactly what this dissonance condtion entails. Any > >answer would be great. > > As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what Pacifism: Self-Defense Only means > - they become dissonant if they start fighting before someone attacks them. > > I'm not exactly a GURPShead, so I may be wrong, but that's what the phrase > implies to me. I believe that's correct -- in GURPS, Pacifism: Self Defense and Bloodlust are not mutually exclusive. ("I won't hit first, but I will hit last...") I would urge people not to become too hung up on GURPS IN definitions, however. It's a decent conversion, but it is a CONVERSION, and no game translates perfectly into another system, especially when you are starting with a system that has "dedicated" mechanics, like IN. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:35:05 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> quick question >*blinks* > >Okay, it's your campaign. But I don't remember anywhere in either the main >rule book or Superiors 1 (I do love that book) where it says it has to be a >*successful* attack, that the attack has to land, that it has to do harm to >the Stone angel or how much, etc. It just says that they can't strike the >first blow. > > >Janet Anderson Oh, true enough -- and no one's playing an angel of Stone right now, so I don't have to worry about it except for NPCs. ;^) Even if I were of a mind to hand out Dissonance for that kind of thing, I'd likely do it in a situation where it was an egregious example of what is *supposed* to give you Dissonance, which is "violating the nature of the Word or Choir." For example, the point here is Stone's passive strength -- therefore, if the angel went out trying to pick a fight, provoking his target into a light attack and then taking advantage of that to whale on him... well, that's not really passive or reactive, is it? That's more along the lines of looking for a technical out, and an angel in good standing shouldn't be doing that anyway. LIS, this is all low on play experience so far. YMMV. William ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:04:14 +0200 From: "Donato Ranzato" Subject: Re: IN> Ssssshh!! From: "Michael Nutt" > Better hope nobody hears you that wants to hurt you... I love it. Maybe the effects are too strong but they can be adjusted by the GM. It also makes sense as disturbing the perfect Symphony should be distracting for celestials. Maybe make the penalty so that it effects (to a lesser effect) all celestials within a certain radius. Players could "abuse" this possibility as some kind of weak Song of Thunder but it would be more like a loud celestial scream. I will introduce the idea in my next campaign with my players permission. Donato ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 02:51:23 -0700 From: Arovyn Subject: Re: IN> Ssssshh!! This is pretty good. There's also some really good ideas on things like this in the GMG. I didn't like the bounce one much, but the damaging one was pretty nice. It's also fun to combine more than one. Perhaps the damage plus this penalty. You then have good sound reasoning for it. The Symphony has punished you for disturbing it. My two cents. Arovyn "Perception is 9/10 of Reality. Be careful what you perceive." - ---Christopher J. King ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:14:31 +0200 From: "Donato Ranzato" Subject: Re: IN> Problems with IN From: "Elizabeth McCoy" > Why do I have an urge to suggest you should get a Pyramid account and > check out the EPG....? O;> I just did :-) Donato ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:21:59 +0000 From: "carson young" Subject: Re: IN> quick question >I believe that's correct -- in GURPS, Pacifism: Self Defense and >Bloodlust are not mutually exclusive. ("I won't hit first, but I will >hit last...") > >I would urge people not to become too hung up on GURPS IN definitions, >however. It's a decent conversion, but it is a CONVERSION, and no game >translates perfectly into another system, especially when you are >starting with a system that has "dedicated" mechanics, like IN. > >-David I don't have the actual IN basic set, so that's exactly what I was checking. I was hoping someone could say what the official basic set or superiors 1 says about that dissonance condition. While I'm at it, servitors of Janus/Valefor have to go to another location every three days. Do they have to stay away from the place they came from for three days, or do they get to leave to another location, then immediately return to the place they spent three days at? Yet again, looking for a canon answer... Carson, demon of.... Being Unable to Think of a Good Name P.S. sorry if I'm getting annoying. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 04:28:42 -0700 (PDT) From: W S Subject: Re: IN> quick question > I don't have the actual IN basic set, so that's > exactly what I was checking. > I was hoping someone could say what the official > basic set or superiors 1 > says about that dissonance condition. > While I'm at it, servitors of Janus/Valefor > have to go to another > location every three days. Do they have to stay away > from the place they > came from for three days, or do they get to leave to > another location, then > immediately return to the place they spent three > days at? I sorta doubt it. Were a Windy or a Thief try that in one of my games, I'd give them dissonance- only Asmo's boys should be able to try and legalize their way out of violating the spirit of the condition. One thing to note, however, is that in large metropolitin areas, different chunks of the city will count as different locations. > P.S. sorry if I'm getting annoying. Nono, annoying is having an awful idea and then arguing about it for several days :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:34:35 -0400 From: "Eric Bertish" Subject: Re: IN> Furfur in Hell > Only if Furfur gets his own Principality. He does, in my game. That's because he killed Belial with the players' help and took his place. Did I mention they were playing angels? > He can be neighbors with Baal. If Furfur's Principality abuts Belial's there will be hell to pay. He took over Sheol and renamed it. The Lake of Fire has been turned into a gigantic mosh pit. >:) - -- Casca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:44:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Unni Solaas Subject: Re: IN> Furfur in Hell On Fri, 24 May 2002, Eric Bertish wrote: > He does, in my game. That's because he killed Belial with the players' help > and took his place. > > Did I mention they were playing angels? > Erk! Do you have a webpage or something for that campaign? I'd love to see those logs... This sounds too sick to belive.:) Of course it is a Good Thing(tm) to get rid of Belial, at the very least it should help Gabriel. But Furfur as a not-so-minor-prince-anymore..? Umm. I'm not sure if Hardcore is all that much better than (infernal) Fire when it comes to senseless violence. *considers* Plague - colera....Colera - plague...difficult choice...:) - -- Stercus, stercus, stercus, moriturus sum! Unni Solaas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:55:13 -0400 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Words for Angels - -----Original Message----- From: Janet Anderson [mailto:dorigen@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:57 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Words for Angels >>Word-shift has infiltrated the list, I see. Eugenics >>is simply the practice of selective breeding for >>desirable traits. (Literally, it is "good genes".) >In IN terms, the Demon of Eugenics is very powerful and the Angel of >Eugenics is very weak (and probably suffering horribly from Word Friction). My point was, does a word with as little impact on society as Eugenics has really deserve a full time Celestial supporting it? Maybe now that World Wars and strife have made it something for demons to cheer for, but prior to WWI, did it have Celestial support? Were enough farmers using the word in such a way as to promote the symphony? Were enough evil scientists doing enough with it to rend the symphony? Certainly any word (and not only English ones) could have a Celestial bound to it, but should every word have one? I don't think so. DS1 ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2651 ********************************