in_nomine-digest Wednesday, October 9 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2810 In this digest: Re: IN> The Glory of Islam RE: IN> The Glory of Islam Re: IN> The Glory of Islam Re: IN> Is this an overenthusiastic Cherub or what? Re: IN> The Glory of Islam Re: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> INverse Superior- Michael, Demon King of War Re: IN> An appropriate punishment? RE: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> Firemen Questions RE: IN> Firemen Questions edit-1 Re: IN> Firemen Questions Re: IN> word reach (was Re: IN> Word-bound reliever) IN> word reach Re: IN> An appropriate punishment? Re: IN> word reach Re: IN> Firemen Questions RE: IN> Firemen Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 09 Oct 2002 15:27:24 +0200 From: Rens Houben Subject: Re: IN> The Glory of Islam On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:49, Michael Walton wrote: > > And rather then lots of > > complex ritualism, it has just five pillars: Declaration > > of Faith, Daily > > Prayer, the Ramadan Fast, Giving Alms to the Poor, and > > the pilgrimage to Mecca. > There's also the unofficial fifth pillar of Jihad. Not > strictly in the Koran, true, but something that many > Muslims practice nonetheless (hence our current political situation). Bearing in mind that the proper translation of "Jihad" would be "Moral struggle", more commonly mental or even introspective than violence-driven. Every terrorist that uses the term to sanctify the atrocities he commits is as much a hypocrite as Jerry Falwell -- or in fact everyone else who has ever let "god/allah/the supreme being wills it, I am merely His servant!" rule as an excuse for atrocity. I've forgotten the exact placement, but doesn't the Qoran say "The best kind of Jihad is a truthful word to an unjust ruler" or something to that effect at one point? > ===== >

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

>

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

- -- Rens Houben | opinions are mine Resident linux guru and sysadmin | if my employers have one Systemec Internet Services. |they'll tell you themselves PGP public key at http://suzaku.systemec.nl/shadur.key.asc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:06:12 -0400 From: "Wajenberg, Earl" Subject: RE: IN> The Glory of Islam Rolland Therrien wrote: "The Muslims had a culture of science, litterature and discovery that preserved much of greek civilisation's works, gave the seeds to the renaissance 600 years before Leonardo DeVinci, and generally created a magnificent civilisation that remained a powerful influence on the world until the fall of the Ottoman Empire around the 1900s." Well... The high culture of classical Greece did circulate in the Moslem world, but the connection between this an Islam is complicated. The Moslem conquests did create a cultural unity that allowed for free circulation of ideas, but that was the main positive contribution. The ideas themselves -- the philosophy and science and math -- already had wide circulation in the Byzantine and Parthian empires. They did not reach western Christendom because (1) that area was in political turmoil and (2) the Catholic West was on the outs, politically and religiously, with the Orthodox East. When Islam took over the Parthian empire and started carving chunks off the Byzantine, the literature came along with the rest of the loot. Inside the Moslem territories, the relationship between the philosophers and the religious teachers was generally antagonism. This is best shown by one great religious teacher (an ex-philosopher) writing a book entitled "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and a great philosopher retorting by writing a critique entitled "The Incoherence of 'The Incoherence.'" The West was saved from this by St. Thomas Aquinas, more than any other single person. When he was starting his career, the ancient classics, especially Aristotle, had only recently started to circulate again, thanks to copies coming through from re-conquered Spain and from academic refugees fleeing the Crusades. There was conflict between the philosophers and the preachers, rather as in Islam. One popular way of reconciling them was to claim there was "philosophical truth" and then there was "theological truth," and never the twain should meet. (Similiar solutions have been put forward for modern conflicts of science and faith.) Aquinas insisted that all truth was God's truth and could not be compartmentalized. The result was not an instant harmony by any means, but the dialectic produced was fruitful. Bringing this around to IN, Khalid's Word may have wound up being a bit self-limiting, at least in the way he chose to administer it. Being Faith, it is natural that he had to be faithful, and it is hard to be faithful to a least-common-denominator set of generalizations when there are full-blooded religions in the world. He picked Islam, and being Faith, had to be faithful to it -- which may have meant he could not then readily draw strength from faith in other quarters, like Christendom, Buddhism, etc. Also, as David Edelstein pointed out, if he did not accept God passing him over in favor of Laurence, this implies some LACK of faith -- in God, but also in his own Word; he was unfaithful to Faith. Plus, he's an Elohite, and Elohim shouldn't let personal feelings cloud their judgement, but it seems he did. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:35:18 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> The Glory of Islam Rens Houben wrote: >> There's also the unofficial fifth pillar of Jihad. Not >>strictly in the Koran, true, but something that many >>Muslims practice nonetheless (hence our current political situation). >> >> > >Bearing in mind that the proper translation of "Jihad" would be "Moral >struggle", more commonly mental or even introspective than >violence-driven. Every terrorist that uses the term to sanctify the >atrocities he commits is as much a hypocrite as Jerry Falwell -- or in >fact everyone else who has ever let "god/allah/the supreme being wills >it, I am merely His servant!" rule as an excuse for atrocity. > > Urrr.....this is gonna get off-topic fast, but while modern Muslims in the West are pushing that particular Politically Correct argument (that "jihad" actually means a spiritual struggle and not violence), that's a very recent trope and has little to do with historical reality. ObIN: Khalid could be pushing this new viewpoint, though, trying to "redeem" Islam and nudge it forward into a more enlightened way of thinking. (Really, what Islam needs -- and probably will not get -- is an Enlightenment akin to what happened in the Western world. Prior to the Enlightenment, Christendom was just as benighted as Islam is today.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:58:10 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Is this an overenthusiastic Cherub or what? At 2:03 AM +0800 10/9/02, Janet Anderson wrote: >http://news1.iwon.com/odd/article/id/200095|oddlyenough|10-08-2002::09:09|reuters.html >It's definitely a Cherub, but what is her Word? Creation IST Animals? >Protection? Flowers? Remnant of Animals, I'd say. Assigned to protect Oryx from poachers, at least at one time (mmm, lions attack poachers!), but somehow made into a Remnant. Still trying to protect, though... - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:07:55 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Glory of Islam At 12:05 AM -0600 10/9/02, David Edelstein wrote: >Rolland Therrien wrote: >> wisdom of God's judgement, which would obviously be against >> Khalid's word. Khalid should've accepted God's decision without question, >> and turn his attention to the duties of his Word. > >Yes, he should have. That he didn't showed that he was flawed in spirit >-- which led to his near-Fall, and may well be the reason he was not >chosen in the first place. Also, unlike Nobilis Imperators (if I understand that correctly), a Superior still _holds_ a Word. The older they get, the more they embody the Word and tend to move in harmony with it -- but they aren't immediately subsumed by every aspect of it. It was probably mildly dissonant (or the Superior equivalent) for Khalid not to have accepted Laurence's elevation. But he is not +just+ the embodiment of Faith. He is also a (theoretically?) Free Willed angel. And even an Elohite can doubt. >IN wouldn't have as much drama if Superiors always behaved the way they >"should." That too. I mean, we'd have had a much different Fall, no? O:> - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:28:53 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 04:56 AM, Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW) wrote: > DS1 >> What's the deal with the Firemen? Why are they both Cherub? > > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Keith [mailto:wjk150@email.psu.edu] > Well, Cherubim are there to protect -- the humans around her, and > Gabriel > herself. They are both Attuned to her, I daresay so that if she does > leave > their sight they can track her. I would hazard that there is some > supernatural or ineffable reason that the two of them are so closely > paired, since Yves sees fit not to answer the question. > > DS1 > Okay. That exactly answers nothing. This seems unreasonably harsh.... > I can read so I already know they are > Cherubs, I even mentioned it in my question. The fact that Cherubs can > attune to things is covered already. The entire reason for their > being is > to protect Gabriel from herself, which implies protecting the humans > around > her. In fact "The Marches" states that they are "nearly always > attuned to > Gabriel", as well as mentioning that Yves isn't talking about why they > are > so closely matched. I wasn't asking Yves, I was asking the list. > You're also answering your own question. They're Cherubim so they can be constantly attuned to Gabriel, protect her and protect innocents from her. That's what a Cherub *is.* > > DS1 >> capacity? Surely it would be useful to have an Ofanite on hand. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Keith [mailto:wjk150@email.psu.edu] > They are Masters of Divine Knowledge, giving them the Ofanite > Resonance. > This is as good as a regular Ofanite would be in that capacity. > > DS1 > Where does it state they have the Ofanite Resonance? Superiors 3, Page 46. Which also addresses their identical nature as a mystery of Yves. > It implies the > Malakite Resonance in the fact that they have the Malakite Attunement > for > Yves. No where did I see the Ofanite Resonance listed. Well, now you know where to look. And having Yves's Malakite attunement does not imply they have the Malakite Resonance. The Firemen are Servitors of Destiny, and the Malakim of Destiny attunement is not restricted, so any Destiny angels can possess it. > DS1 >> And for that matter, it doesn't list them as having the Cherub of >> Destiny >> attunement. Does becoming a Master of Divine Knowledge remove your >> base >> Choir Attunement? > Nope. Clearly that was either an oversight or it was felt that their very nature of being Cherubim of Destiny implied it. There are some formatting errors throughout the Revelations Cycle (part of the problem of a cycle of books coming out during the interregnum between Line Editors) and this might well be one of them. I think we can safely add that in. In fact, checking the Errata for "The Marches" (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/ is your friend) we find "Alurial and Mordekial have the Cherub of Destiny Choir attunement." So there you go. > DS1 > I'd like to know why you think they have the Ofanite Resonance. Did I > just > totally miss a line last night? I'll agree I misread Yves' Master > Distinction, but it still doesn't list what they gained with it. > Again, check Superiors 3. In general, the Superiors line has much more up to date (and better edited) information about the Superiors. Now, there aren't full descriptions of the Firemen in there, though it does note they have the Ofanite resonance. Between that and the errata for the Marches, it's pretty complete. - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:10:31 -0600 From: sirea@softhome.net Subject: Re: IN> INverse Superior- Michael, Demon King of War > These Songs are powerful and useful, enough so that they > need to be restricted. Having a starting PC with access to > all three, well... Well, Darkness is actually a common Song. War is not restricted, it's only Secret, and available to all Servitors of War in canon. Songs of Self are resricted to demons only, but yes, they are relatively powerful. But note that the Balseraph can only take one level (that can be bought up) in ONE of the Three Realms for that Song- he must earn the trust that he can master all three realms for War and Self, until then he is limited to one of the realms. If you got a idea for a better attunement, please feel free to throw it in. > will spark a conflict between the two of them. > > I was inquiring about specific bonuses, for example a > bonus of (demon's Celestial Forces) to the TN of any > attempt to provoke a fight. Ah, no, he doesn't get any bonuses. He can only look at two people he knows himself, and know the one thing that might lead them to conflict. Not just fighting, but any sort of conflict. > >> Would a resistance of the Captains Celestial Forces plus >> Will to demonic >> resonance, and subtracting the Captains Celestial Forces >> from the roll of >> all angelic resonances be better? > > Yes, it would. It is done :D > A more focused automatic dodge works, as does a constant > bonus to dodge any physical attack. I wouldn't let them > dodge mental attacks or Attunements, though. > Originally, no, they could not dodge those types of attacks. But any melee attack against the demon on any of the three planes can be dodged, so he cant just be killed by simple Fiery Swords and high Strength scores. He's not immune to damage- he just cant be hit by mere hand-to-hand attacks. --- Sirea, Free Cherub IST Destiny, Angel who Wanders, petitioner for the Word of Eternity ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:21:27 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> An appropriate punishment? At 11:49 AM -0500 10/8/02, Joe Reimers wrote: >Gaping plot holes aside, should I have charged them with that much >Disturbance if they had Roles as researchers there? Is it within their Roles as researchers to blow things up? Probably not in that way. If they'd had Roles as terrorists, or saboteurs, then yes, they should have had a roll against Role (that's in the core rules somewhere...). Roles are explicated more in the Liber Servitorum. Five pages of tight- packed Role goodness! O:> - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:10:32 +0300 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Firemen Questions > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Keith [mailto:wjk150@email.psu.edu] You're also answering your own question. They're Cherubim so they can be constantly attuned to Gabriel, protect her and protect innocents from her. That's what a Cherub *is.* No. My question was not what does a Cherub do. My question was why have two Cherubs instead of broadening the capabilities by making them of different choirs? It would seem to me that maximizing their abilities would make more sense. A Cherub with Ofanite Resonance from his Master's Distinction and a Malakim with a Kyro Resonance seems to make much more sense to me. The Cherub can keep track of where she is, and get them there fastest, the Blackwing can sense the purity of humans in the danger zone and possess the ones most innocent and get them out of danger quickly. Having both of them attuned to her does absolutely nothing. What, they can't talk to one another? They can't use cell phones to keep in touch? They can't ride in the same car? Neither is going to be able to keep up with a AA who doesn't want to be caught or found so there's no sense in not keeping other options open. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Keith [mailto:wjk150@email.psu.edu] Superiors 3, Page 46. Which also addresses their identical nature as a mystery of Yves. DS1 Thank you. In my very first message I asked if a later supplement gave more information. But I guess you didn't read that part very well either. Eric A. Burns In fact, checking the Errata for "The Marches" (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/ is your friend) we find "Alurial and Mordekial have the Cherub of Destiny Choir attunement." So there you go. DS1 Thanks. But as I have stated several times this year, until my ship gets back to America I do not have reliable web service. I share this connection with 350+ other people on this ship so I don't do much web surfing. Oh and thanks, your smug "is your friend" remark is so much more gracious than my comments previously. Eric A. Burns Again, check Superiors 3. In general, the Superiors line has much more up to date (and better edited) information about the Superiors. Now, there aren't full descriptions of the Firemen in there, though it does note they have the Ofanite resonance. Between that and the errata for the Marches, it's pretty complete. - -- DS1 Again, thanks for answering the question I had two messages back. Now, to the question I have asked from the very beginning; Why two Cherubs? Does it not seem completely foolish to be so redundant? Are not the different Choirs made so that they complement one another? Does not the protection of humans from mortals deserve at least as much consideration as is given to hunting down Outcasts? Even Dominic sends his triads out because he knows their abilities complement one another. Would not two angels of different choirs with Master's Distinctions of two other, completely different, as in NOT the same, choirs sound more useful? Would it not maximize their usefulness without adding a huge parade of followers which we all know Gabriel would not allow? Why Two Cherubs? That is the question I posed. And if this sounds harsh, well I'm sorry. I tend to get a bit annoyed when I receive smug answers from people who didn't take the time to read the question I asked in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:21:43 -0400 From: Cameron McCurry Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions > What, they can't talk to one another? They can't use cell phones to keep in > touch? If one has been soul killed, no. > Neither is going to be able to keep up with a AA who doesn't want to be > caught or found so there's no sense in not keeping other options open. No other Choir is going to be able to keep up with an AA that doesn't want to be found either. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:27:03 -0400 From: Cameron McCurry Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions (Forgot to add this) The Firemen's purpose is simply to keep tabs on Gabriel (Which a Cherub can do better than any Choir) and minimize the damage she causes on Earth. Having two Cherubs attuned to her is just an extra safety valve in case one is killed (At least from what I read of it). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:30:12 +0300 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Firemen Questions edit-1 - -----Original Message----- From: Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW) [mailto:bergeronrf@radford.navy.mil] Does not the protection of humans from mortals deserve at least as much Grumblegrumblegrumble... protection of humans from immortals. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:33:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions At 9:32 PM +0300 10/8/02, Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW) wrote: >Okay, so I'm working on a bit of fanfic (aren't we all somewhere) and >looking at an encounter with Gabriel and I suddenly run into some questions. >What's the deal with the Firemen? Why are they both Cherub? In case one gets taken out, the other will be able to pursue. (And, IIRC, they have the Yves Master-of-Destiny Distinction, and both have the Ofanite resonance, as well.) >And for that matter, it doesn't list them as having the Cherub of Destiny >attunement. Does becoming a Master of Divine Knowledge remove your base >Choir Attunement? A: have you checked the errata? B: if it's not there, feel free to submit that as errata. O:> > The Ofanite has his Choir attunement specifically listed but the >Mercurian does not. I'm guessing it's a space saving thing, but I wouldn't >bet my house on it. Guess that it's a pre-line editor thing, and pre-stylesheet thing. O:p Submit more errata? O:> >If they have the Malakite of Destiny attunement from their Master of Destiny >Distinction, doesn't that mean they should have Malakim Oaths as well? No, they have that attunement because they can buy it as a Choir Attunement of Destiny. (The Fire attunements they have are for Ofanite (their Distinction resonance; even if normal Destiny Masters don't get it (and I don't recall what's been done on that), being fireproof is pretty well necessary for them and Extra Effort should have been taken) and Cherub natures.) - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:41:58 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> word reach (was Re: IN> Word-bound reliever) At 3:17 PM -0700 10/8/02, Jim Burzelic wrote: >> Cute, but remember: In Angelic or Demonic, the terms >> for an unfledged >> celestial and a relief pitcher for baseball are two >> totally different >> things. As mentioned in the GMG, the Angel of Coke >> (Stone) has the Word >> encompassing the mineral fuel... it has NO overlap >> with the soda or the >> drug, which are totally different Words. > >Man, that sucks then. I was hoping to have a demon in >my game steal an old word that has fallen out of >normal usage and abuse from the current demon that >holds it, then take one of the other meanings of the >word and become super-powerful. > >I thought this was what was done with words. Swords >becoming the military-stuff of heaven, flowers being >peace and passive-resistance(sort of), gluttony taking >over greed, lightning enveloping good technology-stuff >and progress, the game being internal affairs, Wind >counting as robin-hoody theft, stone encompassing >community, and hardcore being any form of extremism. Er, that's Word-promotion, and all fine. The thing is that the Word of Coke (written the same way in English) could be: the Word of Certain Petroleum Byproducts Called Coke In English the Word of a Brand of Pop (or, in some places, any brown fizzy beverage!) the casual form of the Word of Cocaine. Those three definitions are so broad as to not overlap; all three could be held without Word-friction. Now, Flowers can be _symbols_ of peace. Swords can be _symbols_ of military, the Game is Kipling's Great Game of spies and intrigue combined with the view of everyone as a playing piece. Wind is chaos inflicted on others... Each of the concepts arises out of the initial concept, the WHOLE of Stone, or Wind, or Hardcore. The concept of Petroleum Byproducts has nothing to do with the concept of Brown Fizzy Drink. Now, if you're going to have someone "steal" an old Word, you'll need Lucifer to re-grant that Word, and all the Word-friction that encompasses. You might want to acquire the Game Master's Guide, which has a chapter on Words... O:> - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:41:24 -0400 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> word reach > Man, that sucks then. I was hoping to have a demon in > my game steal an old word that has fallen out of > normal usage and abuse from the current demon that > holds it, then take one of the other meanings of the > word and become super-powerful. Have the new guy steal the Word by exemplifying the other meaning. The Newbie and the Fogey can wrestle over it for a while, and if Newbie makes a go of it there's a real possibility that Lucifer'll give him the Word. > I thought this was what was done ... gluttony taking > over greed Greed is DP Mammon's word. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:47:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: Re: IN> An appropriate punishment? On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Michael Walton wrote: > --- Walter Milliken wrote: > > it only takes > > a few grams of hydrogen to get a decent amount of energy > > out from fusion, > > *if* you can get it to fuse at all). > > They can. They just haven't succeeded in getting a > self-sustaining reaction yet. > > > If I recall right, most of the energy in those fusion > > test reactors > > isn't in the few grams of high-temp plasma inside, but in > > the huge > > superconducting magnets that hold the plasma in the > > correct shape. > > That's about right. The hurdle that everyone in the > field is trying to clear is called the "break-even point," > which is the point at which the energy coming out of the > reactor is at least equal to the energy going in. Nobody's > even close to doing it yet. Your information is a bit dated, Mr. Walton. I am currently attending Columbia University, and my department (Applied Physics/Applied Math) contains a rather large sub-department of Plasma Physics. They operate a couple of plasma experiments in the basement of the building. Since I joined the department (3 years ago) I was privy to a number of seminars on the current status of the field. There are small-scale fusion reactors in existance, right now, which generate enough heat on their own to maintain the reaction. They are generally referred to as 'burning plasma experiments' and the ones I've seen do not use the older Tokamak design (some are rather bizarre looking, actually). In addition, magnet design and cyro has improved, making plasma containment less power-intensive. The majority of all fusion research is being conducted right now on smaller reactors that universities can afford to maintain. Several of them are now of the burning type. However, because of their small scale, the reaction can't be maintained for long in most of them to generate any significant amount of power; they are used mainly for study and design refinement, and none are being used as proto-type power generators. If applied to a larger scale (after the techincal problems are resolved), such reactors would generate more than enough power to keep them running. The fusion research community has given up on trying to build large reactors for now, because they are too expensive, and there are still some issues that need to be resolved. The research has moved (is moving) from a scientific focus of trying to understand what works, to an engineering focus of trying to get things to work profitably. From what I understand, the main problems confronting the research now are 1) getting funding from government and industry when those agencies have come to associate fusion with the dangers of fission nuclear power and are somewhat content to use up all the available fossil fuels before worrying about alternatives, 2) developing better controls to correct plasma instabilities during the reaction, 3) refining the reactor designs to be more efficient, 4) coordinating research on the small scale reactors so that enough progress can be made to warrant larger systems, 5) better magnet design and cryogenics, and 6) better methods of plasma heating and tritium handling. I have seen timetables developed by experts in the field which predict commercial power-plant level fusion reactors being developed by 2040-2050 (IIRC), provided that governments and other funding bodies can be convinced to sponsor the technology (which is an open question, given that the initial costs involved will far exceed the cost of a convential power plant). I refer anyone who is interested to www.iter.org for a good FAQ on fusion development; I am sure there are plently of other resources available on the web as well. I am unaware of how the reactor is described in the adventure in question, but from what has been said here, it looks like the adventure author didn't have a firm grasp of the differences between fusion and fission reactions, and the dangers thereof (wouldn't have been the first time :) What happens to the reactor would depend very much on what exactly the PC's did to take it down. If they just turned off the juice to the coils while it was operating, the hot plama inside would at most burn through the vessel casing. This would mostly likely trash the reactor itself and start a few fires, but I don't think it would be reduced beyond all repair. Shutting down the cooling system of the magnets would be similar, except that there would be more heat generated within the magnets themselves, and you'd pretty much guarentee that the electronic controls are fried. As others have pointed out, whatever radiation is produced would be fairly localized, and much easier to handle that the waste produced by fission reactors. I really can't think of a situation where a huge explosion would result, unless it was due to secondary effects (like the university gas pipes blowing, or a large vessel of liquid hydrogen rupturing in an oxygen rich atmosphere). I am assuming that the reactor in question is a large-scale version; in most universities, the plasma reactors use very little plasma at all. In those cases, a bad shutdown is only going to cause damage to the reactor itself -- moreover, it is the kind of damage that the reactor designers expect to happen, and design for. So, in addition to all their other problems, your PC's may not have caused enough damage to render the reactor completely irrepairable, meaning that it is quite possible that the thing will be up and running again within a year or two. With better security. Ryan R. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:00:46 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> word reach At 12:41 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, BC Petery wrote: >Have the new guy steal the Word by exemplifying the other meaning. The >Newbie and the Fogey can wrestle over it for a while, and if Newbie makes a >go of it there's a real possibility that Lucifer'll give him the Word. If it's another meaning, it's a different Word. > > I thought this was what was done ... gluttony taking > > over greed > > Greed is DP Mammon's word. That was the point. Gluttony and Greed have a noted Word-conflict, with Mammon feeling (quite correctly) that Haagenti is trying to devalue and metaphorically swallow up Greed. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:08:31 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Firemen Questions On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 12:10 PM, Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW) wrote: > No. My question was not what does a Cherub do. > > My question was why have two Cherubs instead of broadening the > capabilities > by making them of different choirs? > H'okay. Let me be blunt then. Two Cherubim are used here, it seems to me, because they're being asked to do the thing CHERUBIM ARE USED FOR. Ofanim aren't good at focusing on one task to the exclusion of others -- that can be dissonant if they're not careful. Seraphim aren't meant to guard or track -- they're meant to divine truth from the Symphony. Malakim are the Holy Warriors - -- a Malakite would go insane not being able to go smite evil around himself because he's got to stay on-task and guard an off-her-nut Superior. There is a specific Choir of Angel designated by God and laid into the structure of the firmament of Heaven to be the Guardians, to be the Hunters, to be the Trackers and the Keepers. That's Cherubim. *That* is why two Cherubim are used here. > It would seem to me that maximizing their abilities would make more > sense. > A Cherub with Ofanite Resonance from his Master's Distinction and a > Malakim > with a Kyro Resonance seems to make much more sense to me. The Cherub > can > keep track of where she is, and get them there fastest, the Blackwing > can > sense the purity of humans in the danger zone and possess the ones most > innocent and get them out of danger quickly. > Then do it that way in your game. But that Malakite's going to have a pretty poor quality of life, running around shepharding people out of the way when they could be cutting off Demon heads. > Having both of them attuned to her does absolutely nothing. What, they > can't talk to one another? They can't use cell phones to keep in > touch? > They can't ride in the same car? Neither is going to be able to keep > up > with a AA who doesn't want to be caught or found so there's no sense > in not > keeping other options open. > Then change it for your game. And accept that other people might see things differently. > Superiors 3, Page 46. Which also addresses their identical nature as a > mystery of Yves. > > DS1 > Thank you. In my very first message I asked if a later supplement > gave more > information. But I guess you didn't read that part very well either. > I didn't respond to your earlier message, did I? I responded to this one, where you asked a question and I answered it. When I answer a post, I don't usually go through the archives to see how you phrased other questions. And congratulations, you've earned a ticket into the ol' Kill file. Please make yourself comfortable there. Remember, honey versus vinegar. > Eric A. Burns > In fact, checking the Errata for "The Marches" > (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/ is your friend) we find > "Alurial and Mordekial have the Cherub of Destiny Choir attunement." So > there you go. > > DS1 > Thanks. But as I have stated several times this year, until my ship > gets > back to America I do not have reliable web service. I share this > connection > with 350+ other people on this ship so I don't do much web surfing. > Your connection woes notwithstanding, your statement was that the attunements was missing. My response was that was probably a mistake, which I then confirmed by using the tool provided to check these things. Having been indoctrinated at an early age to attribute my sources, I attributed my sources. > Oh and thanks, your smug "is your friend" remark is so much more > gracious > than my comments previously. > Actually, the "is your friend" remark was a cheerful way of pointing out the existence of the Errata page, not meant to be hostile. I apologize if it came off that way. I don't apologize if my tone seems blunt and unforgiving now, since I don't have much interest in being nice to trolls, but last post I was trying to be helpful. But, even if I had meant to be snarky, saying that the errata is your friend *is* in fact considerably more gracious than responding to someone trying to answer your questions in good faith with an unprovoked "Okay. That exactly answers nothing," which is what you did before. > Now, to the question I have asked from the very beginning; > > Why two Cherubs? Does it not seem completely foolish to be so > redundant? > Nope. Any more than it seems foolish to send two Malakim to wipe out a couple of Balseraphs or sending two Mercurians to befriend a school choir. The duty here is 'guard, report, and protect the innocent.' There's no reason, when two hammers are needed to complete a woodshed, to send a hammer and a socket wrench because the two hammers seem redundant. > Are not the different Choirs made so that they complement one another? > Does > not the protection of humans from mortals deserve at least as much > consideration as is given to hunting down Outcasts? Even Dominic > sends his > triads out because he knows their abilities complement one another. Apples and Oranges. The Triads are teams Judging angels. There is no Choir whose entire nature is "Judge." Instead, Dominic uses several Choirs to approximate it. When Dominic assigns angels to guard something or someone, he uses Cherubim (as per Superiors 1, page 53). > Would > not two angels of different choirs with Master's Distinctions of two > other, > completely different, as in NOT the same, choirs sound more useful? > Would > it not maximize their usefulness without adding a huge parade of > followers > which we all know Gabriel would not allow? > If you like that, go with it in your game, but no -- that doesn't sound more useful than using Cherubim to me. It sounds like using the wrong tool for the wrong job. > And if this sounds harsh, well I'm sorry. I tend to get a bit annoyed > when > I receive smug answers from people who didn't take the time to read the > question I asked in the first place. Yeah, well, all this does is ensure you won't get answers from people at all, the next time. I'm not sure how you're ahead on the transaction, but hey -- enjoy. - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:23:29 +0300 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Firemen Questions - -----Original Message----- From: Cameron McCurry [mailto:cmccurry@earthlink.net] > What, they can't talk to one another? They can't use cell phones to keep in > touch? If one has been soul killed, no. > Neither is going to be able to keep up with a AA who doesn't want to be > caught or found so there's no sense in not keeping other options open. No other Choir is going to be able to keep up with an AA that doesn't want to be found either. DS1 Yeh, well soul killing has a tendency to put a cramp in anyone's day. I think if everything was planned on the basis of "well, what if someone get's soul killed" it would be rather like planning your day along the lines of "Well, what if atomic bombs drop on my head" It's bad planning. You don't plan only for failure if you expect to succeed. You only plan that way if you expect to fail. And yes, my point exactly was NO CHOIR CAN KEEP UP WITH AN AA THAT DOESN'T WANT TO BE CAUGHT. Jeez, you managed to figure that out after what, five messages now? So, since you can't keep up with her if she doesn't want to let you, why are you only focused on trying to keep up with her? Seems kind'a stupid to me. Now, since we all agree that two Cherubs with Ofanite Resonances can't keep up with Gabriel unless she lets them keep up with her, perhaps you can answer the question of why do we have two Cherubs doing a job that one could do just as easily? AA Beth also pointed out that one might die, and the other could still keep tabs on her. I still think that is planning for failure. Who's going to kill them? Gabriel? If she wants them out of the picture, I'm pretty sure she can do it. If someone else tries to take one of them out of the picture, they are risking getting Gabriel's attention. This would be bad in anyone's definition of the word. So, is there something else escaping me here, or is this only because we plan on one of them getting soul killed by Gabby when she's pissed off? ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2810 ********************************