in_nomine-digest Friday, October 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2801 In this digest: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> The Event Re: IN> Lilim and stuff (Was: the Event) Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> The Event Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> The Event RE: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Lilith, Queen of Hell (Was Re: IN> Where the Darkness...) Re: IN> The Event Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? IN> Word-bound reliever Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Re: IN> Word-bound reliever IN> Lilim, Minor Ensembles and Attunements Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Re: IN> Adventure Ideas III. Re: IN> The Event Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn IN> New Superior (I'm feeling QUITE silly today) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 23:05:20 -0700 From: Kish Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Rampaging Crypto-Man wrote: > > > "Uriel was in the wrong to persecute all of them" > > Why was Uriel wrong to persecute all of them? > > Sure, some of 'em acted nice, but they're still ethereals. Killing 'em was > about as evil as 'killing' things in a computer game. This...is an interpretation of ethereals that I've never seen any support for in canon. They're ethereals--which is to say, they're as much people as celestials and more people than Remnants. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:39:37 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 01:45 AM, Julian Mensch wrote: > Whistling, forgive me if I'm misanalysing your work. > You've nailed it pretty much, I think. The marriage did not lead to the Terrible Dawn. It was the *unity* which did. Well, in this piece, anyway. > In many Brighter vignettes, I've noticed, the Mike/ > Novy 'ship heats up without the competitive aspect between > them going away. Moe's "Michael's Challenges" entry is > a good example here, showing them flirting while still > pushing their Words and maintaining their duty. Actually, I wrote the Novalis Challenge of Michael, unless we're talking about two different things. Which is funny, if you think about it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:52:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Unni Solaas Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Thank you -- my intent *is* to continue, unless a good number of people > are disturbed by Ein Darkness. I don't think anyone's asked me to stop, > per se -- I'm just making it clear that if this stuff is a problem, > it's a resolvable one. *relieved sigh* Good. We're glad you're back, so shut-up-and-write already! ;P I'm one of the people who enjoy reading all sorts of nuances. All the way from Very Silly Ultrabright down to Dealy Serious Pitch Black. If what I read makes me feel something, than it's a good read - simple as that. (Others might not agree, but that would be boring anyway.:) I wouldn't want to _play_ in a Pitch Black setting, though. I like my stuff lightish gray.:) IN fanfic that's had me bawling bucketloads of salty liquid are for instance Blackwing Novalis and the story about the broken balseraph of Kronos who thinks he's a malakite of Destiny (author's name escapes me <:|). Fanfic that's had me reaching for my hankie because of laughing too hard would be stuff like Moe's Game Log Fragments and uncounted volumes of Fiat Justitia logs. OK, that's not fanfic but they /are/ a story. :) There's quite a lot of Happy Stuff on the INML, so getting this Dark & Disturbing stuff you're doing now makes a nice and exciting contrast. I don't mind bawling my eyes out as long as there is stuff that'll make me reach for a hernia belt to balance it out. ;P So keep writing in all sorts of light conditions. Or battle it out with a writer's duel and see who manages to crank the brighness knob to the most extreme point of bright and dark. :) - -- language, n; an intangible artificial construct for obscuring one's meanings and intentions to others. -ppint. Unni Solaas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 06:31:02 -0400 From: "S.D." Subject: Re: IN> The Event >Rather, you might, as a GM, want to divide the number of Geasa a starting >Free Lilim has to Lilith by some number (Discord? Experience points >spent?), and have that be the starting Geasa of Brights, with the player >being able to divide who the Geasa are owed to (Lilith, maybe Hostile AA's?, >maybe a few demonic entities). > >Thus, the Bright has to deal with a bit of the same problem as their >sisters. ...'a bit'? Try 'twice as much'. ^^ See, I play Lilim a *lot* - usually Frees and Brights (the latter because I'm usually in angelic campaigns.) This is for a couple reasons. 1. Resonance/dissonance. I like the Need-reading, and the Lilim outlook is one I know I can *play*, *well*, *without* slipping dissonant. (That's the reason I tend to avoid Elohim - I don't think I can RP objectivity that well - and Kyrios - they confuse me. ^^;; ) Though I have to say, I usually *don't* invoke Geas-hooks - I focus on the Needs. 2. They're walking plot hooks. My current Bright Lilim PC is an angel of Fire, formerly of the Game. (Partially inspired by Beth McCoy's Betharan, I admit, only she's not a yo-yo.) So far, she's run into Alaemon (who *knows* her, and has thus dragged the (all-angel) party into a plot of his), and Asmodeus (who's just called in the Geas she owes him.) She *also* owes a Geas to a Swordie - and we all know how badly Laurence wants Brights under *his* control; calling that in as something Useful would be a good second best, at least... 3. It's *fun* to play 'em. Mainly because they're the *easiest* to give whatever personality I want - I can have a fluffy pacifist Lilim easier than a fluffy pacifist Malakite; likewise an arrogant ice-queen Lilim easier than an arrogant ice-queen Mercurian. (Yes, I know, Malakite of Flowers and Redeemed Mercurian now serving Stone. I'm tryin' to make a point here. ^_~) Add in how the Frees can theoretically serve any Prince, how the Brights are regarded by Heaven (read: *valuable*), and it gets more fun. 4. For demonic Lilim - they're the only demons you can play IST a Prince but not actually bound to that Word. There are Princes I *love* working for (Kobal, Nybbas, Valefor) - but their Band Attunement/dissonance condition tradeoff annoys me too much to make characters as actual Servitors of them. So I make Free Lilim seriously considering binding. And just incidentally get a couple more plot/geas-hooks on the character into the bargain. Now, I'd *love* to play something like an Impudite of Freedom IST Dark Humor, but as long as Lilith only has her Daughters (and yes, I usually play reasonably canonical games), I can't. I think that's about all. Just my $0.02 on the matter. ^^; ~S.D. Ryukage ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:16:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Unni Solaas Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and stuff (Was: the Event) On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, S.D. wrote: [Many good points snipped] > 3. It's *fun* to play 'em. Mainly because they're the *easiest* to give > whatever personality I want - I can have a fluffy pacifist Lilim easier > than a fluffy pacifist Malakite; likewise an arrogant ice-queen Lilim Ok... Am I the only person in the world who thinks that /balseraphs/ are just about the most adaptable celestials one can play? A player can take his little snake and make it belive /anything/, which means that they can be used for all sorts of fun. You just have to track the bal's frame of mind and be careful how you structure it. You'll probably want to be careful with what Superior you choose. I just cannot manage to see Baal having a "benevolent" balseraph in his service. I'm not twisted ehough yet..;) [You did notive the quotation marks around the word 'benevolent', yes? Good.] Yes, I know angelic groups don't want to be caught dead cooperating with a bal. But they don't necessarily /know/ that their new friend is one, do they? Not all balseraphs slime and ooze. Not all balseraphs insists that the One True Way to World Domination is to out-arrogance and out-power all others. Some swear blind that being Nice and Clever gets you there quicker and safer. And it's more fun that way. And there are those that firmly belive that they are there to Help Humanity(tm) escape the clutches of this horrible and abusive God-dude.:) As long as you don't use your ressonance on other PC's they won't know. (Barring the malakite and his blasted CD 6...) And when they do get suspicious of the accidents that happen in your wake. The unfortunate stuff that happen, well... The balseraphic brain has a wonderful way of adapting itself step by step as you rearrange your world. Being around angels for a while might just lead you to end up as wanting to do Heaven's work because it's Right. Or because you now firmly Know that Hell has gone too far, the revolution is dead and This Was Not Supposed To Be. So you must go on a mission to Put Things Right? (This is were you're supposed to go Renegade.) Or you just plain and simple like to have fun and be Kewl. The war is a tedious business that is best left to the grunts - /you/ have far more rewarding and important stuff to do. Like having Fun. (Okay - /this/ bal migh actually ooze quite a bit, but hey!:) Actually - I think the UCN (United Celestial Nations) should declare a "Hug a Balseraph Day"! They don't get enough hugs and acnowledgement at all. :) - -- language, n; an intangible artificial construct for obscuring one's meanings and intentions to others. -ppint. Unni Solaas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:12:36 -0400 From: "Eric Bertish" Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn > Actually, I wrote the Novalis Challenge of Michael, unless we're > talking about two different things. Which is funny, if you think about > it. He is. See http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine/stories/Novchal.htm for details. - -- Casca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 08:30:26 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn > (And, if people are truly unhappy/depressed about this stuff to date, > I'll stop immediately. I'm not doing this to bug people or bum them > out.) Don't worry about me. I use the Howard Stern defense, "If you don't like it, don't listen." Honestly, any post that doesn't fit into my e-mail's text window is a cnadidate for the "page down" button. But that's me. Some people are masochists. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:38:47 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Mensch" To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: RE: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn [snip] > When you truly, passionately care about something, > you /have/ to fight for it. "Supreme excellence in War is to subdue the enemy without fighting." Sorry, had to be said. *g* > You _can't_ just take the road of least resistance and > put aside your values in the interests of harmony, > cooperation and unity. Whoa... isn't this the exact same line of reasoning that the Lightbringer followed to his Fall? > Conflict is not inherantly evil, and sometimes cooperation > can be a horrible, blasphemous thing. The ironic thing is that in this very same sentence, you just laid out the reasons why Michael and Novalis *could* possibly cooperate... because from this seed can grow the idea that both their Words have a place in the universe, and that both of them could come to realize that. Remember that it's already canonical (Mercurian of War attunement and Sup1) that the Word of War also encompasses within it, as a sub-facet, the concept of peace. And that Flowers (the "show her thorns" portion of every writeup Novalis gets) encompasses within her word, the concept of conflict. [snip] > It's like Michael is a prosecutor and Novalis a defense > attourney: he must always make sure Heaven wins > militarily -- i.e., that they use enough violence, Actually, no -- his word is not Violence, it's War. Before the Fall, Michael embodied (and still does embody) /all/ forms of competition -- violent and non-violent, friendly and otherwise. When two people run a footrace, that's his Word. When they play checkers, that's his Word. When they have a friendly and passionate debate, with deep mutual respect on both sides even as both jockey for rhetorical position with all their might, that's his Word. Michael is not necessarily "he who fights", Michael is "he who wins". *Baal* is "he who fights". Yes, Michael is the biggest hammer in the Symphony and yes, he really likes any chance to go pound some nails. It's what he's best at, and Michael loves doing what he's best at, because he loves the winning. But that doesn't mean he has to think that the entire Symphony is nothing but nails. [snip] > IOW, the lion is not evil for being a predator, but > when it lies down with the lamb, it's betraying it's > own nature, the core of what it is, for a cheap fix of > shallow harmony. That's Earth logic. This is Heaven, where it's supposed to be possible for such things to occur and yet not betray anyone. Personally, I consider the idea that War and Flowers could eventually find mutual love and respect for each other, to synchronize so closely that they can move as one in the War between Heaven and Hell without any conflict between them and without any betrayal of self either, to be a great shining vision of hope. As in, some day the real world will be like that, where both warriors for good and workers of peace can both thrive and flourish as they move in unison vs. the common foe, evil. Indeed, the idea that it might be *wrong* for such a thing to happen... now *that's* horror to me. I'm not saying that you can't have this opinion... but I do wonder about your trying to label it 'Bright'. It ain't Bright, not at all. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> The Event - --- Eric Bertish wrote: > Unlike Mssr. Edelstein, my disagreement is somewhere > between game balance > and theme, rather than internal logic. [snip] You already > get one of the most useful Resonances in the game Game balance is precisely why I think that Bright Lilim should get Choir Attunements; 1) Every other Choir has them, and major Choirs have them for every Word. 2) The usefulness of a Resonance is largely a matter of individual taste and playing style. The Ofanite Resonance is extremely useful for physical characters, yet they get Choir Attunements. The Seraph and Mercurian Resonances are just as useful for social characters (not unlike the Lilim Resonance) -- they, too, get Choir Attunements for every Word. To deny Bright Lilim Choir Attunements on the grounds that Casca gave is, in my opinion, making them second-class angels. Now, having them _treated_ like second-class angels is another matter entirely. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn - --- Whistling in the Dark wrote: > (And, if people are truly unhappy/depressed about this > stuff to date, > I'll stop immediately. I'm not doing this to bug people > or bum them out.) Oh, by all means keep going. I, for one, find this stuff interesting even if it's not my preferred style of play. > The Lion and the > Lamb don't actually lie down together anywhere in the > bible. But that's neither here nor there.) You might want to recheck Revelations on that one. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 21:07:52 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? I really ought to sit down and write this up more completely. Joe I think you should. It was a nice bit of reasoning and I know I intend on keeping a copy of the email just to refer to and stimulate my own thinking with IN. Thank you for sharing this on the list. Jeff =) - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:50:03 -0400 From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Chuckg wrote: > Not only did Uriel not consult Blandine as to what the > effect upon Human dreamers would be, but he didn't > consult Michael as to what the effect upon the War > would be. Granted, since Uriel was Commander of the > Host at the time, it was his rightful prerogative to > make the decision without consulting anyone. > It just wasn't all that wise. Is this canon that he didn't? I don't remember anything written saying one way or the other. Actually, it occurred to me while coming to work (thank you for the time and place where all these thoughts come to me, DC Metro!) that it's entirely possible that Uriel may have decided on the Purity Crusade from hearing one of Gabriel's prophecies. If one of her (or maybe at the time, his) prophecies was that the Ethereals would ally themselves with Hell, it may be that a combination of his Word's driving force to purify and his responsibilites at General of the Host, to deny Hell allies, led him to start the Purity Crusade and try to invalidate the prophecy. Then it would be a dark irony worthy of Kobal that his actions pushed the Ethereals into Hell's side. Perhaps he even brought this up at his trial and this led to the split of the Host on the subject. All non-canon speculation of course. As a side question, which superiors were on Uriel's side in this or against him? I have Blandine, Novalis, and Jordi on the anti-Purity Crusade side (I think canonically), and I can easily see Raphael and Eli on it too. Michael's been mentioned as being against it, but whether he'd actually be against it is another thing. I imagine that David would be on Uriel's side. I'm not sure who else would be on it, though. Dominic may have had sympathies leaning towards him, but he wasn't prepared to make a ruling in the trial. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 22:11:18 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn > I only wanted to make things happy I only wanted to make things happy I only > wanted to make things happy I only wanted to make things happy I only wanted > to make things happy I only wanted to make things happy I only wanted to > make things happy... > > Josh Same....It was well written, but I purposefully didn't write a comment becuase it was soooo disturbing. >The meme that War and Peace could not reconcile without Fate *immediately* punishing them and all the innocents of the world along with them for it horribly is *very* depressing to me. It's like saying that the lion can never lie down with the lamb.< Oh yes...though as many have commented, the list is for those who love the dark knob as well as those of us who love the Bright setting. *huddles in corner until dark cloud passes* But I do want to say it was well written. >But unless you're playing with the Darkness knob cranked up to the peg stop (1), the lion is *supposed* to lie down with the lamb eventually... that's what having a Heaven is /for/, innit?< Yeppers--on a personal note, it was interesting that my studes were in Isiah this week and over that particular passage. Now back to IN comments... - -- >Chuckg (1) Which is what I'm saying here, really -- "I find high-Darkness IN to be extremely depressing and it makes me feel very 'down', even while I can simultaneously admire the artistry with which parts of it have been written."< You've said it better than I could have ever composed. Thank you. I will say that some of the writing of such is usually very good. I STILL remember the post from last year (maybe two) when someone wrote how Lillith talked a blessed soul out from going up Jacob's Ladder...*shudders* No matter how disturbing it was on a personal level, it was presented well enough that even now I remember it. Its just another reason I love the list. Even when its something you might not have picked up on one's own, typically its always good reading here. *finishes rambling* - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:20:58 +0000 From: glasgowc1@attbi.com Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? [snip] > Is this canon that he didn't? I don't remember > anything written saying one way or the other. In Michael's expanded Sup1 writeup they spend a paragraph or so covering his reactions to the Purity Crusade, and his reaction was that he considered it to have been strategically unwise. In Blandine's expanded Sup3 writeup, we read that her reaction was vehemently negative. So either Uriel did not seek their opinions on the matter... or if he did, he disregarded them entirely. [snip] > As a side question, which superiors were on Uriel's > side in this or against him? I have Blandine, > Novalis, and Jordi on the anti-Purity Crusade side (I > think canonically), and I can easily see Raphael and > Eli on it too. IIRC... I think Eli is canonically on record as having been against it. (Given the close relation between Creation and Dreams, that wouldn't be surprising.) I think Jordi's reaction is non-canonical, but would most likely have been either neutral or standing mildly against. (Human dreamscapes are a matter of indifference to him, but more of his friends were on the 'anti' side than on the 'pro' side.) Novalis was canonically against, very. > Michael's been mentioned as being against it, but > whether he'd actually be against it is another thing. Canonically, Michael thought it was bad strategy because it was a waste of effort and resources that were needed to fight against Hell, and also led to the alienation/removal of many possible allies and the driving of many neutrals into Hell's camp. It's not that Michael objects to a good spot of genocide in the morning, but he prefers to be more specific about his target selection. [snip] > I imagine that David would be on Uriel's side. I believe he was. > I'm not sure who else would be on it, though. Dominic > may have had sympathies leaning towards him, but he > wasn't prepared to make a ruling in the trial. Given that one of Dominic's dissonance conditions is that no entity may be punished out of proportion to their individual crime(s), I don't think any but the most twisted versions of Dominic could possibly be written as supporting wholesale genocide. I *can* see Dominic wanting to line up every Ethereal and start going "Innocent, Innocent, Guilty, Innocent, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, etc.", individually handing over to Uriel all those he deems unfit to exist and letting the benign ones go back to their dreamscapes, but that's not what Uriel was doing. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 08:23:29 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> The Event Eric Bertish wrote: >Unlike Mssr. Edelstein, my disagreement is somewhere between game balance >and theme, rather than internal logic. > Actually, I agree with everything you said too. :) >So there are Menunite choir attunements for every Archangelic Word? *I* >haven't seen them.... > > No, Menunim are a Blandine-only Choir. If Blandine were to loan a Menunite out to another Archangel, that Archangel might be able to bestow a new Menunite Choir Attunement, but canonically there are no examples of such. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:22:46 -0400 From: "Adams, David" Subject: RE: IN> Uriel was wrong? From: Samovar3@aol.com Actually, it occurred to me while coming to work (thank you for the time and place where all these thoughts come to me, DC Metro!) Amen to that, nothing better to do on the subway than figure out IN. My personal favorite is trying to figure out who is a celestial or ethereal while waiting for the doors to fully close. Although whoever you are sharing a seat with tends to get uncomfortable when you start mumbling about how they need to rig the PA system with the Master of the Armies of God attunement. Just think of how much easier your commute would be if you didn't spend 5 minutes waiting for the doors to close fully. Dave Veteran of the never ending war to leave Gallery Place with the door closing only once. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 22:28:57 +0800 From: "Jeffery Watkins" Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn > I honestly, seriously don't want to depress you with all of this. And > bear in mind, it all comes back to me with this stuff. Moe's stuff has > been light, and Josh's stuff was very light and affirming. So blame me > for it, and I'm sorry. > > -- > Eric A. Burns Eric, there is room on this list for ALL points of views as long as they are tastefully presented and all I have seen have been tasteful. Even if I disagree with some, they've always (well, mostly) been well presented. My earlier reply aside, it was a VERY good story. Keep on writing good sir and please continue to post. - -- __________________________________________________________ Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 08:35:26 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? Kish wrote: >Rampaging Crypto-Man wrote: > > >>>"Uriel was in the wrong to persecute all of them" >>> >>> >>Why was Uriel wrong to persecute all of them? >> >>Sure, some of 'em acted nice, but they're still ethereals. Killing 'em was >>about as evil as 'killing' things in a computer game. >> >> > >This...is an interpretation of ethereals that I've never seen any >support for in canon. They're ethereals--which is to say, they're as >much people as celestials and more people than Remnants. > There are angels (and demons) who take the above view -- that ethereals are nothing more than animated dreams, and therefore not "real" in any meaningful sense. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:39:32 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Lilith, Queen of Hell (Was Re: IN> Where the Darkness...) At 11:20 PM 10/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Well, that's true. But if you remember all the way back to my old "Lilith, >Queen of Hell" stuff, I've always been about Yves and Kronos fighting a >war that had the rest of the War as an afterthought, and the other >participants as expendable.... As a side note: Much-belatedly, "Lilith, Queen of Hell" can be found here: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/new/GMs/Settings/lqoh-index.html Cheers, EDG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:03:27 -0600 From: ebertish@softhome.net Subject: Re: IN> The Event David Edelstein writes: > Actually, I agree with everything you said too. :) Dear God. This is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, isn't it? ;) > No, Menunim are a Blandine-only Choir. > > If Blandine were to loan a Menunite out to another Archangel, that > Archangel might be able to bestow a new Menunite Choir Attunement, but > canonically there are no examples of such. 'Zigactly my point. Someone brought up the argument that minor choirs got attunements, and I was pointing to a canonical example of "Not for every AA, they don't." -- Casca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:19:42 -0400 From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? In a lack of caffine haze, I wrote: > Michael's been mentioned as being against it, but whether > he'd actually be against it is another thing. Let me clarify (as in, make it understandable). Michael has been mentioned as being against the Purity Crusade. However, I think that it's a different issue on whether he supported Uriel during his trial or not. After all, he's shown a willingness to back Laurence, while harboring doubts about his ability. Granted, the two aren't as comparable, since Laurence was granted his position by direct intercession from God. Uriel got it after Michael quit. Tangential question: I guess Uriel got it from the Seraphim Council? Maybe it's in the GMG timeline. Anyone think there were there other candidates or was he the only one considered for it? Sam! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:40:16 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Uriel was wrong? At 12:19 PM 10/4/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Tangential question: I guess Uriel got it from the Seraphim >Council? Maybe it's in the GMG timeline. Anyone think there were there >other candidates or was he the only one considered for it? 1) The GMG isn't particularly enlightening here; it just says that "Michael steps down as leader of the Host. He is replaced by Uriel." This may be clarified in Superiors 1, which I don't have. (The GMG does state that this happened in 1580 BC, however, which - oddly enough, or perhaps deliberately - is the starting point for both the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Late Minoan Period, and is also the last date of continuous occupation of Jericho.) 2) I don't think we know here. IIRC, it's canon that Khalid was angry that Laurence was appointed as Uriel's successor instead of a more experienced angel (such as, say, Khalid himself), but I don't think there was any competition for Uriel, at least as stated in canon. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 11:44:54 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: IN> Word-bound reliever For your enjoyment, here is the only Word-bound reliever (to the best of my knowledge) Eck, Reliever of Dark Humor IST the Game; Reliever of Relievers Forces: Corporeal 3 (Strength 5, Agility 7); Ethereal 1 (Intelligence 1, Precision 3); Celestial 2 (Will 4, Perception 4) Vessel 2/Human Male; Role: Athlete Eck is the only known Reliever ever to have been granted his own Word. When he approached Kobal about the possibility of having his own Word, Kobal found the idea funny and sponsored him. For reasons beknownst only to Lucifer, the Word was granted. At first, Eck spent his time trying to figure out how to improve his Word's strength. During a brief foray onto Earth, it struck him like a ton of bricks. Again, he went back to Kobal, who in turn giggled and granted him both a Vessel and a Role. He immediately went back to Earth and suggested to some baseball coaches that there really needed to be backup pitchers who specialized in short-term stints toward the end of the game. The baseball coach was intrigued and gave it a try, using Eck as his first Reliever. The experiment went better than expected; he quickly attracted the attentions of Asmodeus, who LOVED the idea of more rules for a Corporeal Game and commissioned Eck to make some more rules for his newly-popular position. Eck soon found himself inspiring such other things as "Saves", "Blown Saves" and "Holds." (Note: anyone who has ever tried to figure out how to determine a Save in baseball will know it HAD to have been diabolically inspired!) Sadly, Eck's Word is also his undoing: because of his Word, he can never be more than a Reliever. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:49:08 -0700 From: cmccurry@earthlink.net Subject: Re: IN> Word-bound reliever OK. So what is a Reliever doing in Hell? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:10:12 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Details, details.... That's what happens why my brain becomes mottled from working with statistics too long. At 09:49 AM 10/4/2002 -0700, you wrote: >OK. So what is a Reliever doing in Hell? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:22:33 -0700 From: Kish Subject: Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Joe Reimers wrote: > > For your enjoyment, here is the only Word-bound reliever (to the best of my > knowledge) > > Eck, Reliever of Dark Humor IST the Game; I think you mean "imp," or possibly "gremlin". ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: IN> Lilim, Minor Ensembles and Attunements - --- David Edelstein wrote: > If Blandine were to loan a Menunite out to another > Archangel, that > Archangel might be able to bestow a new Menunite Choir > Attunement, but > canonically there are no examples of such. I'd rather not see that happen. Part of the fun of minor Ensembles (IMHO, of course) is that very focus; they are inherently bound to their Superior's Word and cannot be fully bound to another. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Word-bound reliever Interesting idea except for one thing. Relievers are Heavenly spirits, yet you've given Eck an Infernal Word and put him IST a DP. Did you perhaps mean Imp or Gremlin? If so, this is the second one; somebody posted a Word-bound Gremlin earlier (last year, I think). =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:38:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Ideas III. - --- Rampaging Crypto-Man wrote: > Any ideas for what Angels who have just been allowed to > go back to Earth can > do between 22,000 BCE and 16,000 BCE? IIRC, there's some major population building going down on all of the inhabitated continents -- plenty of nascent cultures to mold. Then there's the disposition of the descendents of Cain, if you used that detail IYC. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"If you succeed, you will make some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway." - -- Bishop David M. Copeland

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 13:52:39 -0400 From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> The Event Casca wrote: > But if you think I'm going to *reward* you for this by giving you a unique > attunement, you're insane. You already get one of the most useful Resonances > in the game: Need Sensing, Geas Laying, and if you can't track through > Geas-hooks as part of the package (don't remember right now, my books are > packed) then Songs of Attraction/Affiliation/Association/Whatever are easy > to learn in character generation. No freaking way. If you want the benefit > of playing an angelic Lilim, then you have to pay the price > of No Bright > Lilim Choir Attunements. Couldn't you make this same argument for some of the more game wrecking resonances out there? There has been much gnashing of teeth on the list in regards to the mercurian resonance. And comments to the effect of "forget playing a mystery if there's a seraph PC." And, that's leaving aside the dual resonances obtained by the Balseraph of Fate attunement. (Destiny has one too, but IIRC, it's a distinction, and a lot harder to get.) What I wouldn't mind seeing is some sort of limitation on the number of times a celestial could use their resonance (say, a number of times a day equal to the characters total Forces + any Word Forces, avoiding the "I resonate everyone" syndrome). Or, if not limiting the number of times it can be used, then perhaps there's a time delay in getting the results (say, 30 seconds * check digit result, working on the "information downloading now" principle). However, this may unduly penalize angelic characters and not work for all choirs (processing time for Ofanim would be really bad), so it's perhaps just a place to begin. And, it's taking more of a mechanical view of characters than is perhaps advisable. Sam! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:41:29 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Where the Darkness Knows No Dawn On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 08:12 AM, Eric Bertish wrote: >> Actually, I wrote the Novalis Challenge of Michael, unless we're >> talking about two different things. Which is funny, if you think about >> it. > > He is. See > http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine/stories/Novchal.htm > for > details. > > -- Casca > > Mmm... story time.... Thanks, Casca! - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 13:42:56 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: IN> New Superior (I'm feeling QUITE silly today) Feltonius*, Demon Prince of GMs In response to the direct threat of ULTIMUS MAXIMUS, Hell has banded together in a rare moment of unity to create Feltonius, Demon Prince of GMs. Feltonius combines the cruelty of Magog, lethality of Saminga, lust for battle of Baal, knowledge of Kronos, wry sense of humor of Kobal, ability to divide as Malphas, nightmarish dreamscapes of Beleth and rules lawyering abilities of Asmodeus. Feltonius's entire being is geared toward offsetting Ultimus Maximus's plusses. The original plan was to use minuses, but that didn't work out very well: his Servitors were getting clobbered left and right. And so Feltonius embarked on a new, different tack: rules lawyering. When Ultimus Maximus changes the Symphony on a grand scale, Feltonius reinterprets reality to be the least beneficial possible to Ultimus Maximus. Feltonius never engages the forces of Ultimus Maximus directly; he prefers to let others play Maximus's hand and then alter the outcome to his satisfaction. Feltonius belongs to whichever Band is best suited to offset U.M.'s advantages, but prefers being a Balseraph. Dissonance: It is dissonant for a Servitor of Feltonius to interpret reality the way a Munchkin intended. It is also dissonant to interpret the rules as written when another interpretation would prove to be more beneficial. Band Attunements: All Servitors of Feltonius always know the most beneficial rules interpretation for any given situation (provided, of course, that the rule has any room for interpretation.) Servitor Attunements: Know Weakness - Demons with Know Weakness always know what their opponents' weaknesses are and have an uncanny ability to exploit them. If an angel has no weakness, they know this as well (and therefore usually try to avoid engagement.) Lucky B#&^ard - Demons with this attunement can spend 3 Essense and automatically find themselves optimally equipped and armored to deal with the situation at hand. For instance, when chasing an Ofanite of the Wind, a Demon with the Lucky B#$@ard attunement may just find himself in a superfast racecar with GPS and a homing device on the angel's back; or the Demon may find himself wearing plate mail when dealing with a Malakite of the Sword. Distinctions: Knight of Technicalities - These Demons instinctively know all the negative side affects of a given improvised weapon or tool. Captain of Mulligans - These demons can, for the cost of 1 Essence, force any Angel or Soldier of God to reroll any die roll. This also offsets the bonus for Friends of Power. Master of Puppets - All NPCs in the area, regardless of how they were aligned, suddenly attack whoever the Master orders them to. Basic Rites: - -Convince your players that 7 Forces are perfectly adequate for most purposes for starting characters - -Add another character sheet to the "graveyard" of characters done in by rules technicalities. Relationships: No one in Hell will admit Feltonius is there, but word has it that he and Asmodeus are very, very, very close. Chance of Invocation: 3 Feltonius is always glad to show off. +1 A set of rigged dice, confiscated from a player and later secretly used behind the GM screen +2 A copy of any "GM Only" handbook. +3 A copy of any game rules book, with errata, rules clarifications and FAQs neatly organized +4 A group of at least 3 role players, informing another player that "The GM is Always Right" +5 An entire D&D party with at least 3 members of at least 5th level with no magic items +6 A Circuit, Superior, Appeals or Supreme Court hearing to overturn a case based purely on legal technicalities. (*With all due apologies to Jolly Blackburn) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2801 ********************************