From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Oct 2 12:53:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04789 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:53:08 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA29472 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:51:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:51:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199710021551.KAA29472@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #375 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, October 2 1997 Volume 01 : Number 375 In this digest: Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Re: IN> On playing demons IN> Whatever happened to Mr Uriel ? (Was : What's the Revelation) IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo IN> New Product Idea Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> On playing demons Re: IN> On playing demons IN> On playing demons Re: IN> Casca's Conversion - part 2 Re: IN> Re: IN White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine Re: IN> Multitasking Superiors Re: IN> LARPS - resolving actions Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? Re: IN> Jordi Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo IN> Short Jean Thought Re: Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:09:51 +1000 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Christopher Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action > > Easier, but not cooler. I mean, really. An neat little >electronic device or a _baby food bottle_? ;) >/ \ >|John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | Hmm. Or angelic/demonic dice in a suitably anachronistic container? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 04:51:13 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) > {Y'know, Andre really needs Knight of Wanton Pleasure as a Distinction.} Oh, dear. I'm going to have to work on a In Nomine/IOU game - there's just too much fun stuff that wouldn't fit into my serious game. > > > > So what if.... Lilim are actually divine beings who live out their lives > > > > in Hell, like the Malakim being infernal living out their lives in heaven? > > > Oooh..symmetry! > > Yep. My little engineering brain demands that the universe has order, > > even when it doesn't. I would point out that the Universe has order, but it has it at such a low level as to seem chaotic. (actually, that's not quite right, once you get into the subatomic, but I have a feeling that it chaos at that level, but just order we haven't understood) If the same is even moderately true of the Celestial and Ethereal in your ( In Nomine game (it is in mine) then symmetry at that level is not a given. In essence, you're looking for true symmetry like the Greeks did with earth, air, fire, and water - at the totally wrong level. > ('Course, as a devout Mortijinglist, I firmly believe that the > universe exists for the sole reason that it's so darned unlikely, > but..) I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but...Mortijinglist? > Though it has, I believe, been shown that symmetry is a > significant factor in many species' mating preferences... Because it implies physical health, and thus "strong" genes. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Go to hell!" "Heaven, heaven. At least get the zip code right." - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:24:13 -0700 (PDT) From: lugaid@seanet.com Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) On 1997-10-01 in_nomine-l@lists.io.com said to lugaid@seanet.com >{Y'know, Andre really needs Knight of Wanton Pleasure as a >Distinction.} well, s/he's got "Knight of Infernal Pleasures"... is that good enough? ;) >{Which, now that I think about it, >would fit, since the Fall has to have happened before Lucifer >offered that apple to Eve and bolluxed the whole Garden gig... >though, just from a GMs standpoint, I could see that he might have >done that BEFORE the Fall, to show the other Angels that these >humans really AREN'T so great, thereby rallying that third of the >Host that he ended up with..} not according to _Paradise Lost_... the Fall takes place before the creation of humans (i think before the Creation, but i'll have to check on that)... Lucifer's Rebellion occurs because Lucifer thought that he was more suited to run things than God, not because of humans... the Serpent pushes the Fruit on Adam and Eve because, as some of the original ads put it, "Why should we be the only ones to Fall?" >(F'rinstance, there were obviously Seraphim before Balseraphs >without upsetting the grand balance of things...but, for every >Seraphim, there was the POTENTIAL of a Balseraph. Malakim and >Lilim just take a slightly less direct route for it.) depends... one of the reasons that i made the suggestion that Angels were Demons with the addition of Grace (instead of Demons being Angels who had lost Grace) was to clear up some logical problems involved with the issue of Falling... Slan agus Beannachtai, Lugaid MacRobert Jesus to Multitude: What, 5000 of you and no one brought a sandwich? Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 06:46:37 -0400 From: dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons Previously, from the desktop of Alexander Shearer... >The recent burst of WW/IN discussion prompts me to ask this: > > How do y'all deal well with playing demons? I've considered it, but >looking at each option, I just don't like them. More to the point, I just >don't want to spend my free time pretending to screw people over left and >right. Good grief, you actually feel a need to *pretend?!* They're working for Hell, after all, not a cocktail lounge in New Jersey at 3 AM... > Obviously, I don't have to (and I'd also have to be /playing/ IN to >have that choice, but school prevails), but I'm curious about this. Is this >a problem for anyone else? > I've run games with an evil tilt in the past, from the initial >Shadowrun games (far too many random guards getting shot) to a Sabbat game >and a an all-Setite game (both V:tM). Toward the end of the Sabbat campaign, >I was a bit sick of wanton killing by the characters, but neither the Sabbat >campaign nor the Setite one featured a whole lot of interaction with >non-supernatural types (the Setite game was a particularly fun bit of >intra-kindred twistedness). I'm running an angelic campaign at the moment, and I did so with a very special trick: I told them that to understand the behaviors of the Fallen, it helps if they understand the behaviors of the choirs they've fallen from. In the angelic campaign, they're finding superiors that seem to know instantly what they've done, have specific needs and goals, and missions that don't quite seem to make sense. What they don't know (or maybe they suspect) is that I'm holding back. If they think it's bad now, wait 'til they start playing characters on the other side... > Anyway, returning to topic, I just can't get over the unpleasantries >involved in actually playing a demon. The basic problem seems to be that a >lot of what the demons do can work on anyone, regardless of their moral >character, etc. The whole idea of playing a Shedim who can just waltz in and >instantly make a random person do something more hideous than they've ever >done...well, it doesn't appeal to me. Not instantly. The victim needs to make a Will roll to resist doing anything out of character. Albeit, on a bad day, the victim needs to roll as much as 4 or less... (a 1 in 6 chance of success) > That said, I'm not trying to rag on people who do play demons. >Hmmm...I might try playing a Lilim sometime, should I ever get the chance. I >can deal with people digging their own holes... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 07:36:18 -0400 From: Luc Tremblay ou Natacha =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=E9chard?= Subject: IN> Whatever happened to Mr Uriel ? (Was : What's the Revelation) At 16:04 97-09-30 -0400, Jens, wrote: >Am I the only one who has been wondering about the implied Revelations >in the first IN Cycle? Probably not. > >As I see it through my distorted lenses of hope (Relic containing the >Corporeal Song of Vision), the first couple of sups have been leading >up to the restoration of Uriel, AA of Purity. >Yes, that's right! Uriel will return in the fifth sup as a new and less >destructive force. Laurence will be delighted but he will still retain >his title as Chief Strategist. Uriel will see that what he did wasn't >Good (capital G) as it brought the Pagan Gods into Beleth's domain. He >will be tasked to help Demons redeem themselves and (once again) become >pure in heart and mind. > > In the French version, Uriel has been called up by God and now works in the complaints department of Heaven. Aegrir the Red, Last of the Great Dragons has a vision of things to come for Uriel (Called George in French) and sees him as a disgrunteled servant in a menial job and just starts to laugh as Uriel puts him to the sword. When questionned about Aegrir's demise Laurence always answers : "With a smile, as if he knew" Luc Tremblay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:42:58 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo We're doing logos for all seven major Angelic Choirs; they'll get their first use as graphic elements in the Angelic Player's Guide, but that's just the beginning -- we have all sorts of plans for the future, including t-shirts, jewelry, patches, etc. And we'll be doing the same thing for the Demon Bands, too. Anyway, these logos are supposed to be symbols the Choirs use themselves, perhaps as a tasteful pin or pendant for recognition purposes, or to mark property, or to warn others -- we're not sure of all the gameworld uses, but they all predate the major human religions, so no Christian symbiology (or Islamic, or Jewish, or whatever). We have six designs that rock. We're stuck on one, though -- Mercurians, Friends of Man. We need some ideas for a simple figure or logo that just jumps up and says, "Mercurians." And we need it soon. Today would be nice. I know that this is a words-only medium, but if you can't describe it in words, it's probably too complicated for us, anyway. An example or two of logos we already have: Cherubim -- a sphinx-like winged guard dog, seated. Ofanim -- a stylized wheel of fire. Malakim -- a great sword, point down, with bat-like wings. You get the idea. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:11:59 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: IN> New Product Idea > Hmm. Or angelic/demonic dice in a suitably anachronistic container? This goes straight to SJGames Marketing Division... :-) Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:11:47 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine Walter Milliken wrote: > On the other hand, *anyone* can play evil characters (not necessarily > *want to*, but would know how). Perhaps a distressing aspect of the > human mind, now that I think of it. C. S. Lewis, author of "The Screwtape Letters" and other works recently referenced on this list, remarked on this in an essay on literary criticism. He said it was much harder to write for characters better than oneself than to write for those worse, because to write for the baddies, all you have to do is let some of your more regretable impulses off their leashes, imaginatively - -- to imagine you stop doing something you are rather tired of doing anyway. On the other hand, to imagine the good characters, you have to multiply and expand your best moments and impulses, extending them into areas of life where (ahem) you may not have actually used them. You may also have to imagine the good guys *enjoy* doing, or *want* to do, something you do only under the pricks of conscience. This is a more difficult act of imagination. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:22:52 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action > > YES, PLEASE. I would pay to see this... > > Hey, Karakash, think we should tell SJ to do up the Archangel of > Archives postcard set? Think it'd sell? Hrm. _I'd_ buy a set! Along those lines, I'm struggling madly to find time to continue work on a completely non-official IN card game. Want to be in it? ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:25:47 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action > >Hey, Karakash, think we should tell SJ to do up the Archangel of > >Archives postcard set? Think it'd sell? > > Maybe you should pose for the Lilith illustration when she gets her > expanded Superior write-up.... (Hmmm... there *isn't* a Lilith picture > in the basic IN book, is there? If I were her, I'd be annoyed that I > was the only Superior who didn't get one....) Steve probably couldn't afford the licensing fees that Lilith wanted... nothing is free, of course! ;) ("Awww, c'mon Stevie, it's just a _little_ Geas. Really.") - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:29:13 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > We need some ideas for a simple figure or logo that just > jumps up and says, "Mercurians." And we need it soon. Today would be nice. "In their celestial forms, Mercurian look like the traditional western image of an angel: a winged human with smooth skin, a bright smile and an open heart." ~ IN, pg. 104 What about a winged heart? It strikes me as a symbol of friendship ('Friends of Man') and it has the classic angel wings too... Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:30:06 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Kingsley Lintz wrote: > Em notes: [...] > > The only problem I see here is continuity on a global scale. Now, > > did God create Adam + Lilith then the Rebellion, or did God put up > > his Project > Hmm...I think we may have to hope someone more knowledgeable in > the area is paying attention to us can clarify this; MY understanding > was that Lilith split and went her own way, and that her children > were noted from then on as being `monstrosities', whatever she mated > with (and I gather she tried out a number of possibilities.) MaBarry > suggests the Fall would logically have been before this, happening > soon after Adam's initial creation, which would provide for an evil > Lucifer to be around for her to hook up with. I don't know that I'm "more knowledgable" (I found this out using a search engine on the Web), but... The medieval tale of Lilith from "The Alphabet of Ben Sira," which is the source of the Lilith-as-Adam's-first-wife theme, has it that, between her leaving Adam and the creation of Eve, she was found by the angelic go-betweens consorting with the "demons of the Red Sea," bearing them oodles of children. So there were demons before the creation of Eve, according to the original tale. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:23:59 -0500 From: "Joshua Knorr" Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Gee, when I heard about the Choir/Band logos the Mercurians were the first ones to come to mind... An human figure, arms upstretched towards the sky, wings unfolding out to either side... Joshua Knorr A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has just been booked. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:53:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo How abou the symbol for the planet Mercury? This looks like the Venus symbol, but with a curve at the top, like, uh, well, horns. In ASCII, approximately: )O+ only sideways. Or you could use other symbols of the god Mercury/Hermes/Thoth, such as: a cadeusus (the snakes-and-stick doctor's symbol) winged helmet Egyptian hieroglyph of an ibis (a bird) It might torque out some of the starchier AAs to have a choir symbol based on a pagan god, but (1) the choir is already *named* after a pagan god, and (2) being the soul of diplomacy, Mercurians might like the boundary-blurring effect. Failing the above, how about a silver drop-shape, representing a drop of liquid mercury, a.k.a. quicksilver? Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:54:27 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons >Previously, from the desktop of Alexander Shearer... > >>The recent burst of WW/IN discussion prompts me to ask this: >> >> How do y'all deal well with playing demons? I've considered it, but >>looking at each option, I just don't like them. More to the point, I just >>don't want to spend my free time pretending to screw people over left and >>right. > >Good grief, you actually feel a need to *pretend?!* They're working for >Hell, after all, not a cocktail lounge in New Jersey at 3 AM... Uh...I meant /I'm/ pretending. You know - playing a demon as a character. [Snip!] >> Anyway, returning to topic, I just can't get over the unpleasantries >>involved in actually playing a demon. The basic problem seems to be that a >>lot of what the demons do can work on anyone, regardless of their moral >>character, etc. The whole idea of playing a Shedim who can just waltz in and >>instantly make a random person do something more hideous than they've ever >>done...well, it doesn't appeal to me. > >Not instantly. The victim needs to make a Will roll to resist doing >anything out of character. Albeit, on a bad day, the victim needs to roll >as much as 4 or less... (a 1 in 6 chance of success) Ah...my point was more general. The demons are written up in such a way that a lot of what they do seems to just be "direct evil" rather than needing to corrupt/convince/talk people into it. You can just make someone do evil acts, regardless of their natural state. I don't want to play that game (hence my comment below). I was just wondering how others see that. > >> That said, I'm not trying to rag on people who do play demons. >>Hmmm...I might try playing a Lilim sometime, should I ever get the chance. I >>can deal with people digging their own holes... > > >-David > Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:54:29 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons > Honestly, I have to say, this doesn't immediately strike me as a >"demonic", or even "evil", problem. Playing demons who just go around >mucking up humans would get boring fast...but so would playing angels who >just go around helping old ladies across the street and offering games of >chess to lonely looking guys at the park. True. I'm not saying the whole game is simply "screw with the humans." [Snip excellent point about good not sitting on its rear waiting for evil to happen] > > My own attraction to demons is just that I see a LOT more >potential for moral quandary with them. Angels, on the whole, KNOW >they're on the right side. (Whatever the GM may have planned about the >subject...) Demons, on the other hand, have to operate under the weight >of the assumption that they're NOT...[It's HARD to rebel against someone >strongly rumored to be omnipotent.] > I didn't see the moral quandry there for demons in the IN texts, to date. Though several of the angels show real moral problems (Druel, etc.), the demons largely seem to be pretty content with being demons. This isn't what bugs me, however. What gets me is the ease with which demons can take down a person, no matter who they are (barring the occasional high-Will case). Maybe it's a particularly disturbing version of the WW "normals don't matter" problem. As written, the demons seem like they'll be spending a notable portion of their time corrupting people, and they'll do it with ease. The former is logical, the latter is what gets me. I could see playing a demon who convinces a person to listen to their worse judgement...but IN demons don't seem to operate that way. They don't need to have the human's help to get them doing bad stuff. So yes, I realize every game probably isn't going to involve humans. It's just that every time I've looked at the demon section and pondered playing one, I balk because of that. Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:17:54 -0400 From: "C Lee Davis" Subject: IN> On playing demons Actually, I'm in the process of kicking off an all-demonic campaign right now. (Documentation at http://imagen.home.mindspring.com/fgs/ptb/bu.html, if you're interested). My solution was (a) careful selection of PCs; as usual, I reject two or three for every one I accept, and (b) even more careful selection of Princes. By excluding people like Belial (who we call Haborim), Baal, and Kronos, I got rid of the kinds of evil that bugged me worst. What I've ended up with is a demonic vice campaign - a Shedite of Lust, an Impudite of the Media, two servitors of Technology (a Lil and a Balseraph), and a Calabite of Drugs. All of them have their redeeming features - two are "choir boys" - and all are interesting. _______________________________________________Not the opinions of: Lee Davis APAC Information Services Dept. cldavis@ashland.com (770) 392-5456 "Nobody ever listens to Zathras. It is good that Zathras does not mind. He has even grown to like it." Zathras, War without End, Babylon 5 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:53:38 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Casca's Conversion - part 2 > > Er... Maybe I won't be able to use it at all... :-) > > Don't worry. When I post stuff for general consumption, I don't use house > rules. I'll make sure it all adheres to WW standard. :) Just kidding...! I'd love to see your work... Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:26:08 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine > >>Assuming the GM allows demonic PCs, he/she'll probably have plots > >>in place for them, yes? Kind of like allowing Sabbat into MET. > >I would think so, but my concern is still the disturbed individuals > >who cause problems, not the hard-core roleplayers who like the > >chalenge. Well, we have a whole city playing a Sabbat MET game for...two years now. And no-one was killed as far as I know... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:54:48 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Multitasking Superiors > And he's in the corridor back there, third door on the right, the > mud bath." Mud bath... hmmm.... *Hot* mud bath... Hmmmmmm.... Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> LARPS - resolving actions > In the non-commercial sense, I'd be surprised, though it may > depend a little on how broadly you're willing to define "LARP"... > (honestly, it's something almost every 6 year old does spontaneously, but > it seems silly to count it without SOME kinds of rules.) Besides, that's exactly what WW says of LARP: "Cops&Robbers with rules". Of course we have C&R here, but I was referring to the commercial ones... Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:35:34 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine > I recall a furor in the early 80s about how Dungeons & Dragons was satanic > because it encouraged kids to engage in human sacrifice and worship dark > gods in exchange for power and magic. > If you don't like White Wolf games, fine. But hating them because of the > folks who play their games is silly....that's a case of hating the > gamers, not the games themselves. Yeah... Imagine these morons with a copy of IN in their hands: "Wow! Now I can *be* a Demon ?!? Cool...! " ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:05:32 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > With the advances in electronics, they could probably > >be the size of a keychain now, but would they sell? > I think they'd sell if they were very, very cheap -- cheap enough that the > average (poor) LARP player could be required to buy one. No more than ten > bucks. The point is: I'm not fond of *forcing* people to buy something just to play a session of LARP... You see, *every* player would have to have one - no last minute entries, no 'let me just play once to see what is it'... I'm not talking as a marketing strategist, but as a player... If I was selling the product, of course I'd found it a great idea (hundreds of people playing - hundreds of angelic/demonic dice in neat translucid boxes...), but as a player - and Director of an association of players -, I don't like the idea at all. Andre, D.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:57:27 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Jordi > Jordi holds the > roaches... {Though personally, I think they deserve a Demon Prince > quite in themselves.}] Ohmygod...! 'Barata, Demon Prince of Roaches' has just jumped out of my mind...!! You're lucky I don't have the time to design it up... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:41:46 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo On Oct 2, 9:53am, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo > How abou the symbol for the planet Mercury? This looks like > the Venus symbol, but with a curve at the top, like, uh, well, > horns. In ASCII, approximately: )O+ only sideways. > > Or you could use other symbols of the god Mercury/Hermes/Thoth, > such as: In general, I think they are going to avoid "in-use" symbols since we might need to use the appropriate god in an upcoming supplement and their symbol should be available if so! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:23:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Short Jean Thought Something to ponder: Jean knows the Secrets of the Symphony. (As does Yves, who taught him.) This translates as *theoretical*, *scientific* (or perhaps intuitive) understanding. This is not necessarily *technological* understanding. Otherwise, Jeans already knows how to make any gadget than *can* be made, (In GURPS terms, he's TL infinity) which requires all sorts of dodgy explanations about why he doesn't just nuke Hell. This also puts Jean and Vapula on a more even footing, IMO. Jean's tech comes from engineering applications of scientific principles, while Vapula's comes from good old fashioned trial and error. Neither is massively ahead of the other. Regards, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:28:54 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: Re: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine >Right, key connections, I knew I was missing something. ISS was based on the >"Mirror, Mirror" episode of Star Trek. "We aren't Starfleet, we're Imperial >Starfleet, we're evil." This attitude led to a *lot* of problems for the >leaders caused by a minority of players, which is my concern. You know, you're right. I've NEVER met any jerks that play anything but WoD. White Wolf obviously manufactures idiots. >This past year, in one of Seattle's suburbs, a family was killed by a badly >disturbed pair of young men who had been hanging out with World of Darkness >LARPers. And about ten years ago, there were a bunch of kids who killed people because AD&D told them to. >I'm not talking about an "on the whole" situation, I'm talking >about one or two bad fruit ruining the game for a whole lot of people. To be perfectly honest, I don't really believe you. Someone who tries to equate murder and gaming isn't someone I find particularly trustworthy. >>"But this is where my concerns for In Nomine come in. With the potential to >>have Demons as PC's, these same "I'm more evil than you are" types could >>overrun any GM's plans in a LARP or tabletop game." >> >>Assuming the GM allows demonic PCs, he/she'll probably have plots in place >>for them, yes? Kind of like allowing Sabbat into MET. > >I would think so, but my concern is still the disturbed individuals who cause >problems, not the hard-core roleplayers who like the chalenge. I've run several WoD games with many players. None of them were druggies, jerks, or psychopathic killers. I'm sure most of them would resent being labelled as such, or having their favorite games linked to those activities. I know I do. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:28:53 -0500 (CDT) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons At 10:29 PM 10/1/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Well, gee Donald, here I was gonna back off the whole "WW vs. In Nomine" >thing after you threatened my digits with digital harm, but you kinda blew >your credibility by jumping in yourself. ;) >But White Wolf practically wallows in amorality. Oh sure, they make a big >thing out of trying to restrain the Beast, protect humans, yadda yadda >yadda, and what books are the best-sellers? The ones that lovingly detail >how you can play a Sabbat campaign, Out of print, last I heard. With a pointed reminder every few pages that the Sabbat are VILLAINS. >or be a Settite Badly written, and few people I know bought it. >or Giovanni Recent, and only Giovanni players I know play the Vincent Price-ish villains in the LARP. Very well. >or Ghoul, The victims. >etc. They started Black Dog specifically to pander to that segment of the >market. ("Black Dog books will be Art", they pompously declared, >capitalization included. Sure, about as artistic as a train wreck.) Yep. That Shoah book was gratuitous. IOW, I'm not sure you know these books well enough to say anything about them. >I hope I don't need to say this, but I suspect I do: no, I don't think all >(or even most) WW players/fans are amoral vampire-wannabes. Heck, I *have* >played WW games on occasion. But there is a self-righteous snootiness to WW >that is particularly grating when you consider that what they are holding >up as "moral" is basically a total lack of morality. "Killing people is >cool. Drinking blood is cool. Look at those hooters. Hunh hunh. Hunh hunh. >I wish I was a vampire, Beavis." BS. First, showing morality by showing a lack of it is as old as Faust, if not older. Second, that kind of attitude costs, even in Sabbat games (a good portion of the Sabbat have Paths that involve no killing w/o necessity, and some derangements like puking at the sight of blood). Third, WW's "self-righteous snootiness" is something they try to avoid these days. A glance through some of the more recent books would show you. >Pretentious, amoral and poorly-written. Funny. I'm beginning to think of this post like that. >And that's without even getting >into game mechanics. Even with all that, WW wouldn't bug me so much. But >the self-righteous indignation of its adherents, who take their World of >Darkness so dang *seriously* (we've seen some of it on this list: dire scowl...falsetto screech:> "How dare you criticize my favorite >game!?") really irritates me. No, it's not the criticism, it's the method. If I said something along the lines of "GURPS just sucks, face it", I would probably (and deservedly) get flamed. When "GURPS" was exchanged for "White Wolf" in the above sentence, nobody even thought about flaming. It's a double-standard. I do not outright dismiss games as some people do. I don't even take the WoD seriously (I helped create the Elfpants bloodline on the ng earlier this year). What really irritates -ME- is how people will bash WW on an IN list, especially just in passing and with snide remarks. What really irritates -ME- is how people connect WW games with psychpaths in a manner which all RPG players should know by now. What really irritates -ME- is how people pretend to be experts on WW's "amorality" without reading the damned books. >It's a game, it's not a way of life. And assorted deities help us if anyone >really thinks the World of Darkness would be "cool" as a reality (and I >fear there are a fair number who do). They're idiots, then. While, yes, some of the stuff is snazzy, I wouldn't want to trade it in. (Okay, I can see the merit in an occasional "vent your >frustrations with Real Life by playing a twisted SOB and cutting loose" >session. But to do that regularly-- as I see a lot of WW players doing-- >strikes me as sad and a little scary.) Then you don't see a lot of WW players. If the above post seems a little pissy, it probably is. I am NOT on this list to have my favorite games bashed. We had this conversation when In Nomine first came out, and everyone decided to kill it. If you want to criticize anything but IN stuff, do it somewhere else. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:07:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons > Well, gee Donald, here I was gonna back off the whole "WW vs. In Nomine" > thing after you threatened my digits with digital harm, but you kinda blew > your credibility by jumping in yourself. ;) Well, I was curious about some of what the poster had to say and I thought that I didn't get into any of the irrelevant stuff. I think that someone being uncomfortable with the idea of playing someone "evil" is a subject relevant to IN. People shouting "WW sux!", on the other hand, does not appear to have much to do with In Nomine to me. If this somehow makes me a hypocrite, so be it. > Sick and twisted. I'd want nothing to do with people who'd play a game like > that. But if that's what they think is fun, there's no law against it. Neither would I, but I wanted to make sure that I didn't give the impression of saying "You need to roleplay like this to be doing it right." That attitude tends to annoy me to no end. > I do reserve the right to CRITICIZE such behavior however, or a game that > encourages such anti-social attitudes. Now, Champions doesn't-- these guys > (if the event actually happened as it was reported to me) were just plain > demented. I have said nothing against criticism. I was simply tring to make sure that I didn't come across as sounding like heavy-handed moralizing. I prefer character-based role-playing, but not everyone does. Since that seemed to perhaps be part of the post in question, I wished to clarify my position. [Snip anti-WW bit- I'm not getting involved as per my previous comments] > Now, to make this relevant to In Nomine: We face something of a dilemma > with the fact that demons can be very, very nasty, and they can be player > characters, don't we? I do not favor banning demons as PCs (in fact, in my > online campaign, several players are playing demons). However, it would > distress me a bit if SJG decided to start putting out a lot of support for > all-demon campaigns. There is an Infernal Players Guide coming out-- and I > wrote some of it. I see it as clarifying the whole aspect of the War from > the infernal viewpoint, and mostly giving the GM material to make > diabolical NPCs more interesting. Yes, it's also useful for demonic PCs, > but I *hope* it is not going to encourage the mindset that "demons are > cooler than angels". More importantly, as someone pointed out earlier, in > In Nomine, sometimes the DEMONS are nicer than the angels. To me, playing a > demon who is struggling with what he sees as a fight to liberate the > Symphony from a divine dictator, and keep a bunch of semi-sentient monkeys > from being elevated above clearly superior beings, is interesting. Playing > a Shedite who goes around seeing how many lives he can destroy and has no > inner struggles more sophisticated than "What can I make this guy do now > that's worse than what I made him do yesterday?" is not interesting. And > someone who thinks that's *cool* is someone whom I would probably not want > to game with. (Okay, I can see the merit in an occasional "vent your > frustrations with Real Life by playing a twisted SOB and cutting loose" > session. But to do that regularly-- as I see a lot of WW players doing-- > strikes me as sad and a little scary.) Funny. I don't play demons that way. Some of them feel as you stated above above their relative station WRT humans, others are more concerned about encouraging free will, some just don't like the system in Heaven, and some just want to be left alone. Admittedly, this is a very condensed version of the attitudes and certainly not all-encompassing, but it seems to indicate a (big surprise!) difference in view about demons. My take on demons isn't everyone's, but likewise, neither is yours. I've been waiting for more information on demonic campaigns, but haven't been too concerned because, hey, most people prefer angels, so it stands to reason that most of the stuff is geared towards them. However, if even the demonic player's guide is going to center on demonic NPCs instead of help for players in demonic games or campaigns, I think that the title should be changed and perhaps IN isn't quite the game I thought it was. > Demons make fun PCs in heavily political games, and in games where there is > a lot of moral turmoil (I hesitate to use the "a" word). But an all-demon > game that just consisted of "Let's screw with humans and try to bag some > angels" would be pretty pathetic, and I for one aspire to make In Nomine > better than that. So do I. However, I don't see "Let's screw with humans and try to bag some angels" as being any less pathetic than "Let's be Malakim and go kick demonic hinder." The latter, seeming to be a rather popular choice among IN players, is not very appealing to me either. Of course, it may just be that I find the idea of lying, torturing, and killing in the name of God rather apalling and most people don't mind. > -David Donald G. Bixler mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #375 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.