From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 29 10:45:03 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 KAA11972 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:45:02 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA04299 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:32:51 -0600 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:32:51 -0600 Message-Id: <199712291632.KAA04299@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 #535 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 Monday, December 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 535 In this digest: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Song of Stability Re: IN> Zina, Free Lilim Re: IN> Song of Stability IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods Re: IN> In Nomine Christian Mods Re: IN> Christian In Nomine IN> The Marches...or...a Campaign Setting (Parts 1-2) IN> What 'he' finally did... IN> Christian In Nomine Re: IN> A review and a quibble... IN> New Resource for Demons IN> That guy and Derek the Balseraph Re: IN> Christian In Nomine Re: IN> New Resource for Demons Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:13:26 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > << ....a religious zealot type has gotten a hold of a copy of In > Nomine.>> > > Yup. Read the post. He also posted his "mods" for DragonLance. Oh, lord. How bad are they? > < and commentary, including calling Derek Pearsy a Balseraph for his > flagrant lies in the descriptions of the choirs and archangels>> > > Now, now, now. That was a joke, I think. More along the lines that > the descriptions of the archangels couldn't be accurate and > reconciled with his faith. Therefore, they must be lies. Who has > more reason to lie about angels than a demon? Well, kinda. His tone was just enough that at first I thought he might have been joking, but he did it a little too feverently. He definately didn't like Derek's intepretation of things very much: : The Balseraph makes a sharp attempt at defaming Christ by writing : about "Eli" as having "dropped out". He will surely be punished : most sever (sic). > < perspective>> > > Forgive my lack of eloquence, but...well, duh. The title of the > piece was "Christian Mods for In Nomine." It was designed for > Christians who *wanted* a more strictly faithful game. And some of his ideas (okay, one) were actually thought provoking enough to share: : Role of Lucifer : ------------------- : The articles from Steve Jackson Games and in the book suggest that : Lucifer is running around doing his own thing, but still in charge : of the Infernals. And this IS true in Christian theology as well. : But Lucifer also has access to Heaven (cf. Job 1), where he lays : accusations before the throne of God against Christians. 'Twould be an interesting thing at least - have somebody who knows Lucifer's celestial form glimpse him through a door to the Seraphim Council. Whether he is there when they check depends entirely on how paranoid the GM want's his players. > < Archangels should be male (Two bucks says this twit's a Baptist; I > think Archangel Beth should send him E-mail), that Jesus Christ be > mentioned much more prominently, and that a good substitute for > combat is a system of quoting scripture from memory to defeat > demons.>> The male insistance thing *is* annoying, stupid, and fairly baseless from almost any Christian sect I can see. It is, IMO, the most blatantly obvious bit of bigotry in the post. > The scripture thing was mentioned as a sub for songs, actually. Not really. It was mentioned as a way to subdue an opponent, and can be used in place of a song. It's an interesting idea, anyway. > << Isn't there some anti-RPG group we could report this wanker > to...?>> > > I'm gonna cry foul, here. This guy is obviously *pro* RPGs. He's not > saying 'don't play,' he's saying "If you wanna play IN in with a > Christian mindset, here's a way how." I wish *more* people were like > him. Yes - as a raving fundie, he's a good choice. I still can't say I liked his tone, his opinions, or his post very much. > < With coaxing, I could post it here, or I could send it to someone > for public posting>> > > I've sent him an e-mail asking if that'd be cool by him. I was > waiting for a reply before posting it to the list. AFAIK, unless the author specifies otherwise, anything posted to a public forum can be reposted elsewhere with the attribution. > << Frankly, I don't think that even I can ridicule this enough > myself... >> > > Frankly, I'm not sure that it's ridicule worthy. Well, there *are* a couple choice lines, which almost speak for themselves: : Malakim are NEVER cruel! A vicious lie from the Balseraph. Like I said, speaks for itself. : Janus: He is not a Theif!! And neither are his Angels! They may : MOVE something... Janus, the kender of the Celestial Kingdom. (I wasn't stealing it! I was just moving it. God's will, honest.) Re Yves: : The Balseraph who wrote him up, was trying to get the reader to : think that Yves is the powerful manipulator. A being near : omniscience who invents religions for humans to follow, and who is : a dark background for the light to show up on...gee...who does : that sound like? Could it be...hmmm...SATAN! Anybody else getting shades of SNL here? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:13:27 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Song of Stability > >>>Subjectively: Hell yes, I'm saying AD&D is bad.....Go ahead. Try > telling me it's good. I *dare* yah...<<< > > No, you missed my point. I don't disagree with you about AD&D. I didn't think you would, but I was hoping some people would. I haven't had a good rant in a little while. > (God help you if you express an opinion like that about White Wolf, > though. ;) Not that I'd disagree -- but I find the double-standard > amusing.) Well, White Wolf stuff isn't wonderful, but it is a damn-sight better. At the very worst, it's mineable. The most I can mine from most AD&D stuff is good art (and that's a long shot, too). > >>>Yes, it wouldn't be official. But it would fit the spirit of > things, at least - humans, as parts of the symphony, can use their > connection to subdue the changes to it.<<< > > No -- that would fit the spirit of the World of Darkness. The > Symphony confirming to the will of mundanes is not a part of In > Nomine. Note that I wasn't saying that the Symphony bent to the almightly Will. I was saying that by virtue of their connection to the Symphony, a human can reinforce it. > And a Soldier singing a Song is *not* "using his connection" to > the Symphony to subdue changes to it. He's creating a disturbance > himself to oppose another one. Well, I thought the choice of ability was a little wrong, too - if anything, I'd up the effectiveness and make it an attunement. In fact, I'll do that now: Stability - --------- This is a queer attunement, in that not only can it only be had by humans, but it can only be taught by humans or saints. It allows the user to flex his connection with the Symphony to stop changes to it. To activate, the user must hear the noise caused by a Song or essence expenditure. By spending an essence and making a Will roll, the user can reduce the effects of the effect. The check digit of the Will roll is subtracted from the check digit of a successful Song - if this reduces the CD of the Song to zero or less, the song fizzles. Alternately, the user can nullify the effects of CD/2 essence - if this essence is powering a song or attunement, it fizzles unless it is paid for again. The user must choose what he is doing before he activates the ability. A Soldier (from any side) can use this attunement fully. Of the undead, only the mummy can use it fully; the connection of the vampire to the Symphony is weakened, and so they cannot use the essence-nullification ability. A Saint, due to his contact with the Divine, cannot use this ability, but he *can* teach it. Comments (other than the obvious "this will change the world", because that was the point)? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:13:26 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Zina, Free Lilim > : Well, it's potentially unbalancing, as beauty is worth > : character points. A way around it is to say that "true beauty" > : isn't something that can be just given - the most a demon could > : hope to grant is a +2 opposite sex beauty, and only if the > : person doesn't already have it. I'd say a high power version > : of Celestial Form should do. > > Heh. I am of the opinion that a Balseraph of Kobal wrote the > character generation rules in IN -- "Come on, there's a point > system, so it's got to be balanced, right?" Good point, and one that I should pay more attention to. I even used it as an arguement for something in another post, so I should have thought of that myself. Oh well... > But seriously, if it only works on humans, then it's not too > unbalancing, since a) humans are so wimpy that any benefit is > automatically balanced, and b) typically only demons would be > willing to do this sort of thing for you. Most characters, I think, > would be properly leery of trading their immortal soul for a couple > of plusses. Well, for it to fit in with the other In Nomine rules nicely, it shouldn't be limited to humans, and it shouldn't *require* an immortal soul to pull off. Which is what I was thinking about when I said it would be unbalancing. > : Optionally, if you use the rule for Quintessence that somebody > : suggested (which, in brief, suggests that character points are > : actually a special type of essence, which may be broken down for > : regular essence at a 5:1 rate), maybe paying the cost for > : Celestial Form in quintessence could make it permanent. > > Hmm. I think I'd run it at 10:1 myself -- it takes 10 points of > essence to remove a note of dissonance, and 3 notes of dissonance > come out to one level of Discord, which usually is worth 3 character > points a level. Okay, I simplified too much. Quintessence *is* character points, and it only flows one way. You can break one quintessence into five essence (which would be a great butt-saver technique) but it won't go back. So by paying for Celestial Form with Quintessence, you are paying in character points. How I would run it, mechanically: Celestial Form can be used to increase attractiveness without really changing appearance. It can increase same-sex only appearance by the lesser of the check digit of the roll, or twice the essence spent in addition to the cost. Celestial Form can be used to *permanently* change somebodies looks. To do so, the base cost of the Song must be paid in character points (Quintessence). The actual roll may still be affected by essence use as normal, and spending a lot of essence in this way is a good idea, because the character points are spent whether or not the roll succeeds. How's that look, folks? > Of course, then you need a good reason why 10 Force angels don't > just raise their abilities continuously.... This is *exactly* the reason why I was saying that using Celestial Form for it would be unbalancing. But by forcing them to pay with Quintessence, you stop this - to pull it off in the first place, they need to spend essence. So they're back where they started. > : > Discord: Jaded/3 > : > : Pretty good, but you're forgetting something... > > The 9 Geas/3's all free Lilim start out with? I don't list that > under Discords, because you don't get character points from them. Okay - just checking. I'd point out that she's a little bit of a hypocrite in sneering at her geas bound sisters. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 05:50:18 +0000 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Song of Stability [snip] > Stability > --------- > This is a queer attunement, in that not only can it only be had by > humans, but it can only be taught by humans or saints. It allows the > user to flex his connection with the Symphony to stop changes to it. > > To activate, the user must hear the noise caused by a Song or essence > expenditure. By spending an essence and making a Will roll, the user > can reduce the effects of the effect. The check digit of the Will > roll is subtracted from the check digit of a successful Song - if > this reduces the CD of the Song to zero or less, the song fizzles. > Alternately, the user can nullify the effects of CD/2 essence - if > this essence is powering a song or attunement, it fizzles unless it > is paid for again. The user must choose what he is doing before he > activates the ability. > > A Soldier (from any side) can use this attunement fully. Of the > undead, only the mummy can use it fully; the connection of the > vampire to the Symphony is weakened, and so they cannot use the > essence-nullification ability. A Saint, due to his contact with the > Divine, cannot use this ability, but he *can* teach it. > > Comments (other than the obvious "this will change the world", > because that was the point)? > > Nathaniel Eliot > temujin9@ix.netcom.com Nobody says this often enough, so I will say it about this: I like the stripped down, ready for the road version of the Song of Stability presented above. You usually only hear from those who disagree or don't like something, while the folks who like [whatever--fill in topic of discussion] sit on the sidelines, running their printer so they have a _hard_ copy of "it", leaving the author wondering whether any one liked it. So hear you go Nathaniel--one official "Atta boy". tom timberlake, role of James the Stone Malakim Quai Chang Cain-- "I am James; I will help you." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:37:55 EST From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods Redneck, I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your post is one of the more eloquent of the type that has been dominating this discussion. Redneck Gaijin wrote: : I have better things to do with my time than encourage someone who is either : a troll or a radical religous follower (7th-Day Adventist? Your guess is as : good as mine) who, by my reading of his post, slandered Derek Pearcy, : spouted a time-wasting series of inconsistencies which only make sense to a : conservative Christian seeking a tool to use to indoctrinate the young or : easily influenced. You should read more closely, then. In accusing this guy of humorless close- mindedness, you come very close to it yourself; what I read was the work of someone with a real love for RPGs, a desire to refit the game into a more explicitly Christian worldview, and a healthy sense of balance about the whole enterprise. Does it really bother you that someone would want to run a game where God is the omnipotent and benevolent author of Creation? Really, that's no more "wrong" than someone who tries to run a knights 'n dragons game with an authentically medieval setting. : This get did not say, in any polite or socially acceptable fashion, "Here's : an idea if you'd like a more Christian-focused game." He basically said that : Derek and SJG were WRONG, and he was right, and that Derek was a demon for : not getting the story 'right.' I hate to break this to you, but *I've* accused Derek Pearcy of being a Balseraph of Kobal in regards to the character generation rules. And you know what? It was a joke; i.e. a comment intended for humorous effect. It's also a pretty elegant way of not having to throw out the whole rule book when running a Christian game: "Take the stuff in the rulebook as written by a Balseraph; it will be a mix of truth and lies designed to make the angels look as bad as possible." /No one/ who makes references to the SNL Church Lady is a close-minded fanatic! (Didn't catch it? Go look at his writeup of Yves.) : This person frightens me a lot. Either he's a troll, in which case we will : definitely see him again, or he is a true believer, and since it appears : that the Gumby has taken the IN Rulebook as the Third Testament (Fourth for : you Mormons out there), I have serious fears about this gent's ties to : reality. You have been trolled, but it definitely wasn't intended as such. I mean, sure, this guy isn't a great writer, but is it really so hard to pay a little attention to the actual words on the page? - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:22:58 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods > >Redneck, I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your post is one of the >more eloquent of the type that has been dominating this discussion. > >Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >: I have better things to do with my time than encourage someone who is either >: a troll or a radical religous follower (7th-Day Adventist? Your guess is as >: good as mine) who, by my reading of his post, slandered Derek Pearcy, >: spouted a time-wasting series of inconsistencies which only make sense to a >: conservative Christian seeking a tool to use to indoctrinate the young or >: easily influenced. > >You should read more closely, then. In accusing this guy of humorless close- >mindedness, you come very close to it yourself; what I read was the work of >someone with a real love for RPGs, a desire to refit the game into a more >explicitly Christian worldview, and a healthy sense of balance about the whole >enterprise. Going through the original post at 3 AM does not lend itself to good humor. My beef was more with the poster's tone than his content. He could have made a suggestion for the alterations. He didn't. He posted what amounted to a rant about how Derek was wrong and evil, and I saw no indication that he was joking in any way (aside from the SNL riff). This person may love RPGs, true, and I have no problems with someone posting an 'IN Christian-wards' setting, but the sense of balance you saw in the post just plain didn't appear to my eyes when I read it. What I saw, to repeat, was either a troll or a nut. >Does it really bother you that someone would want to run a game where God is >the omnipotent and benevolent author of Creation? Really, that's no more >"wrong" than someone who tries to run a knights 'n dragons game with an >authentically medieval setting. Doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I've actually considered writing up the American Civil War as an AD&D setting on occasion. What I object to is someone picking out the person who defines the core game and saying, 'This guy is WRONG, he's a LIAR, and he's going to burn in hell.' >: This get did not say, in any polite or socially acceptable fashion, "Here's >: an idea if you'd like a more Christian-focused game." He basically said that >: Derek and SJG were WRONG, and he was right, and that Derek was a demon for >: not getting the story 'right.' > >I hate to break this to you, but *I've* accused Derek Pearcy of being a >Balseraph of Kobal in regards to the character generation rules. And you >know what? It was a joke; i.e. a comment intended for humorous effect. With you, yes. This guy did not seem to me to be joking at all. >It's also a pretty elegant way of not having to throw out the whole rule >book when running a Christian game: "Take the stuff in the rulebook as >written by a Balseraph; it will be a mix of truth and lies designed to >make the angels look as bad as possible." Again, this would be nice if I could see any joking or humor content in the guy's post at all. Unfortunately, he seems to be in absolute earnest about what he's saying, and that scares me. >/No one/ who makes references to the SNL Church Lady is a close-minded >fanatic! (Didn't catch it? Go look at his writeup of Yves.) Sir, you would be surprised. I'm sorry to say I've met quite a few hypocrites who could quote the Church Lady in defense of their fundie beliefs without an ounce of humor involved. :( >: This person frightens me a lot. Either he's a troll, in which case we will >: definitely see him again, or he is a true believer, and since it appears >: that the Gumby has taken the IN Rulebook as the Third Testament (Fourth for >: you Mormons out there), I have serious fears about this gent's ties to >: reality. > >You have been trolled, but it definitely wasn't intended as such. I mean, >sure, this guy isn't a great writer, but is it really so hard to pay a >little attention to the actual words on the page? > The actual words, to my eye, obviously mean something different than they do to you. If this -was- meant as a joke, it was far too realistic for me to laugh at. Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:54:31 EST From: Gruzzle Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Christian Mods I just have one question. I'm randomly snipping: >> When a demon is "destroyed", he is being sent there [The Pit] to >> wait with the Locust Demons for the eventual release and then >> judgement (cf. Rev. 18-20). Demons do not return to their "heart" >> in Hell, but go to The Pit. and >> Marc: Marc DOES NOT USE SLAVES!! A vicious lie!! The treasures >> of heaven are GOOD WORKS and the SAINTS themselves! Marc is the Question: How can anyone be *so sure* as to what actually goes on in the celestial realm (or whatever you want to call heaven and hell)? None of us have ever been there, so why is it that *anyone* could ever say "Marc DOES NOT USE SLAVES!!". I mean, it's not like anyone knows Marc personally or anthing...(i think?) - -greg P.S. Lets lay off the subject a little... until this guy tries to ruin *our* games by *forcing* us to play his way, who really cares whether or not he plays his way? Ranting about it won't change his mind..... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:00:32 EST From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Christian In Nomine OK, I've now slept on the "Christian Mods for In Nomine" post, and re-read it. And I've come to a conclusion that it was actually satire. Whether it was intentional, anti-Christian, satire, or unintentional self-satire, I'm not sure. But the post itself is entirely too over the top for me to take seriously. I was intially going to say that "rebarnes" was unlikely to be a Christian, because he had an almost total lack of understanding of any of the schools of theological thought I've heard about. But then I remembered some of my communications with members of "Christian Fandom," and decided that was going too far. On the entire "Derek Pearcy will Burn In Hell (tm)" line, I think that the original complaint wasn't directed at Derek Pearcy the game designer, but at whoever made the decision to make Heaven a hotbed of internecine politics. (Which would probably be Croc, yes?) I'm currently thinking about a counterproposal for (minor!) modifications to the In Nomine system to reflect a more "moderate Christian" world-view, and I'd like to know if anyone else would like to see it. Mark(Still the most liberal Fundamentallist you'll ever meet...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:05:40 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Marches...or...a Campaign Setting (Parts 1-2) This is interesting. Just to warn you, In Nomine Los Angeles will be detailed in "Fall of the Malakim." Not to discourage you from creating your own version, but there will definitely be an "official" writeup of L.A. that differs considerably from this.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:05:39 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> What 'he' finally did... >>>This get did not say, in any polite or socially acceptable fashion, "Here's an idea if you'd like a more Christian-focused game." He basically said that Derek and SJG were WRONG, and he was right, and that Derek was a demon for not getting the story 'right.'<<< Lighten up, Kris. You know, the more I read it, the more I think he was being tongue-in-cheek. I don't think this person *really* believes Derek Pearcy is a Balseraph -- someone that fanatical and irrational wouldn't have bothered reading In Nomine all the way through in the first place, much less going to all this trouble to write up an alternative interpretation. Obviously he finds the game worthwhile, he's just putting his own spin on it. As for "socially acceptable"; heh, OK, so maybe some of his attempts at humor are a miss. (I have to wonder if he's *really* serious about Jordi liking "cute cuddlies"...and using Hoffa and Carter as analogies for Archangels!? LOL!) But c'mon, Kris, I think you're totally overreacting. This guy isn't scary. Fundamentalists who want to adapt an RPG for their own worldview at least have the ability and willingness to adapt! Fundamentalists who want to BURN RPGs are the scary ones. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:05:42 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Christian In Nomine >>>That depends largely on your definition of "conservative". There are some Fundamentalists who would have *serious* problems with this gentleman's post, besides the fact that it is about an RPG (a tool of the Devil, they'll be more than happy to tell you).<<< Well, yes. I said *a* Christian interpretation. Obviously, there are Christians out there who would find a game about angels and demons (or indeed, any RPG) unacceptable no matter how you interpreted it. His notion of quoting Bible verses instead of rolling dice is not unique, btw; he cribbed that from an RPG that *was* designed explicitedly for Christians, called "Dragonraid". - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 07:27:14 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> A review and a quibble... > > First, has anyone noticed that once you get your Fighting level to > > above a 12, kicks are exactly the same as punches? You get a -1 to > > the roll (which is still an autosuccess), and +1 damage - but you > > lose 1 point from the check digit due to the skill reduction. > > Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A really skilled fighter is > going to be about as dangerous with hands as with feet. Granted, it > isn't *really* realistic for the kick to do more than the punch, but > then the combat never was. > > > This isn't meant to resurrect the combat system arguments (I like > > the system as written, since I don't care much about combat), but > > it's a silly glitch. The alternative is just to let the player do > > +1 damage for a kick with no skill reduction - but you'll get some > > players who just kick constantly... > > Better to just leave it lie, IMO. It's no horrible thing. > Alternately, say that an autosuccess kick does +1 damage. That's what I'm planning to do. I take my cue from Feng Shui, where all attacks have equal difficulty, and a kick just does one point more damage. Decent players will use whatever manuever is most in keeping with the PC's style, not just what does the most damage. > > Second, a quick recommendation for reading - JLA: PARADISE LOST by > > DC Comics. > > > > Worth checking out. > > Hmm - maybe. I'll look at it in the store, at least. If your store lets you do that (far too many don't), good thinking. > > PS - having just won $500 for one of my short stories, I'm off to > > buy The Marches. Finally, enough money to buy gaming stuff! > > Congrats! Who'd did you get the $500 from? Local shire council. Right now, I'm still waiting to see if SJG is going to accept my IN fiction submissions... they were supposed to respond in early December... - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Your God drinks peach nectar Eats boiled fruit, can't fart out loud My God arm wrestled Khruschev Eats meat, farts with pride DOUG ANTHONY ALLSTARS, "Commies For Christ" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:44:49 EST From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: IN> New Resource for Demons Here's a new Resource for demons... - ---- Famous Name A demon with a famous name has his name prominently mentioned in sorcerous texts, and will sometimes be summoned at inconvenient times. At level 1, the demon's name is only found in the most obscure and unholy texts, and at level 6, even cheap paperback books on the occult will contain the rituals for summoning the demon. See page 59 of _The Marches_ for details on the summoning of demons. This resource gives a demon 3 character points per level. Since angels cannot be summoned, they cannot take this resource. - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:31:13 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> That guy and Derek the Balseraph OK, my thoughts on that guy who posted the Christian mods to IN on rgfm: First, the guy is obviously a gamer. He's not anti-RPG at all. He *doesn't* make it very clear, but I think what he's trying to say is "Here's a variant setting I use in my campaign," not "This is the actual, Biblical truth, as opposed to what that demon Pearcy wrote." He *is* trying to bring the game closer to his particular version of Christianity, but he's obviously still treating it as a game. Surely he doesn't actually believe in Derek's "extra" Archangels and the functions attributed to them in the game. He's taking what the game offers and modifying it to suit his tastes, as plenty of us have. And he's posting the result to a public forum, as we also do. Granted, he should have added a lot more "in my game"s, and cut back on the capital letters and exclamation points. But I don't think he was taking the game as a "Third (or Fourth) Testament," as someone said. As far as the "Balseraph" bit, I don't think he was insulting Derek Pearcy at all. Again, he forgot the "in my game," but I think his general intent was something like, "As a GM, for purposes of my Christianized campaign, I would take the descriptions of the Choirs and Archangels in the rulebook to be negative propaganda penned by a Balseraph." I don't think he was even thinking about the actual, real-world author of the book. Come on, guys. I know we gamers have had to endure a lot from the anti-gaming fundamentalist types, but in the process we should have learned to behave differently than they do. The immediate reactions to this guy were just as knee-jerk as anything I've seen an anti-gamer post. Fortunately, we seem to have come around to regarding the guy as just unskilled in expressing himself, and promoting a variant setting that maybe not all of us like, rather than as an outright attacker. Also, while his version of the game is *different*, I don't think it would be boring or Disney-fied, as some have charged. I'll probably play down the disagreements and politicking in Heaven myself, if I ever get around to actually running the game. There are still demons, humans, and ethereals to be dealt with, even if the Host is fairly united. (Heck, reading the APG's chapter on roleplaying the angelic mindset, I definitely got the impression that the canon Heaven is much nicer place than one might think from reading just the main rulebook. The Archangels may disagree about policy, and their servitors may come into conflict on occasion, but the whole lot is pretty strongly dedicated to the same overall goals. The Symphony always comes first . . . and those who start to forget that get visits from Judgment.) Just my opinion. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:43:36 -0600 (CST) From: Dataweaver Subject: Re: IN> Christian In Nomine On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, MarkDEddy wrote: > OK, I've now slept on the "Christian Mods for In Nomine" post, and re-read it. > > And I've come to a conclusion that it was actually satire. Whether it was > intentional, anti-Christian, satire, or unintentional self-satire, I'm not > sure. But the post itself is entirely too over the top for me to take > seriously. I was intially going to say that "rebarnes" was unlikely to be a > Christian, because he had an almost total lack of understanding of any of the > schools of theological thought I've heard about. But then I remembered some > of my communications with members of "Christian Fandom," and decided that was > going too far. I would have to agree here. IIRC, the golden rule of netiquette is "always assume the best of a post". - -snip- > I'm currently thinking about a counterproposal for (minor!) modifications to > the In Nomine system to reflect a more "moderate Christian" world-view, and > I'd like to know if anyone else would like to see it. Sounds good to me! =) - ---- Jonathan Lang ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver --------- Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing, FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer. submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:55:30 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> New Resource for Demons > Here's a new Resource for demons... Cool idea. One suggestion: > A demon with a famous name has his name prominently mentioned in > sorcerous texts, and will sometimes be summoned at inconvenient > times. At level 1, the demon's name is only found in the most > obscure and unholy texts, and at level 6, even cheap paperback books > on the occult will contain the rituals for summoning the demon. At the beginning of any gaming session, the GM may roll a d6 - if it is equal to or less than the level of Discord, the GM is free to have the character summoned or otherwise harrassed by Sorcerer. Of course, the GM can (and should) make this roll in secret, so nobody will know if you fudge it... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "From where do you come barbarian, Crow: You mean you're a prostitute and you don't know from where guys-- Mike: Don't make me wash your mouth out with soap. http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:55:30 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods > : This get did not say, in any polite or socially acceptable > : fashion, "Here's an idea if you'd like a more Christian-focused > : game." He basically said that Derek and SJG were WRONG, and he > : was right, and that Derek was a demon for not getting the story > : 'right.' > > I hate to break this to you, but *I've* accused Derek Pearcy of > being a Balseraph of Kobal in regards to the character generation > rules. And you know what? It was a joke; i.e. a comment intended for > humorous effect. The damn thing is, from any other source, I wouldn't look twice. And for a second I thought he was joking. But the lines The Balseraph makes a sharp attempt at defaming Christ by writing about "Eli" as having "dropped out". He will surely be punished most sever (sic). made wonder, and the lack of *any* indication he was joking through-out has made me wonder even more. > It's also a pretty elegant way of not having to throw out the whole > rule book when running a Christian game: "Take the stuff in the > rulebook as written by a Balseraph; it will be a mix of truth and > lies designed to make the angels look as bad as possible." Yes, granted. His *work* was well done, for what it was trying to accomplish. > /No one/ who makes references to the SNL Church Lady is a > close-minded fanatic! (Didn't catch it? Go look at his writeup of > Yves.) I saw it. I commented on it. Anybody who knows usenet knows that burying your humor to that level is just inviting flames. Not making any indication you were being humorous in a post that slanders the author of the book - *when this type of reaction is exactly the one we would have expected from somebody with approximately his mindset* - is either a post for the sake of humor on it's own, very ill-informed (and he didn't seem that stupid), or *real*. At any rate, I didn't like the masculocentric bullshit he pulled with the Archangels, which IMO was worse than any innate "Christianising" in that there is no scriptural base for it. Only slightly less offensive was his insistance that angels are all moral upstanding guys who would never do anything nasty, which completely ignores all precident. Like my .sig says "all this time spent praising your lord, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever want to meet an angel?" The second is just hypocritical; the first is patently offensive and deserving (in mind) of the heaps of scorn that Redneck felt necessary to heap on him. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "From where do you come barbarian, Crow: You mean you're a prostitute and you don't know from where guys-- Mike: Don't make me wash your mouth out with soap. http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:23:45 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: In Nomine Christian Mods I think Stacy Stroud nailed it. The "balseraph" bit is not a reference to Derek, but the device he proposes to explain the differences between his version and the canon. The fact that he uses the term "balseraph" at all shows he's willing to play in the game's sandbox. For the rest, his "Christianizing" is clearly closer to "denominationalizing" in many instances, and the denomination in question is a conservative one. As to the crystaline certainty with which he speaks, and that some of you find so irritating -- (1) It may be no more than part of the literary device, a contrast to the "balseraph" bit; "*that* is the lie of the balseraph, but *this* is the Truth ('coz I'm the GM and I define truth for the game)." (2) That certainty can be a bleed-over from, say, a strict doctrine of verbal inerrantism. The Bible is taken as totally inerrant AND as literal as possible. Therefore anything you an deduce from it is certain. But actually, I think it's part of the literary device, just rather badly executed. He complains that angels should never be cruel, which provoked counter- complaints. Well, I'm not certain what he meant, and he isn't very good at expressing himself but there IS a difference between being cruel and being violent. Surgeons and soldiers are violent but not (necessarily) cruel. I don't blame him for wanting Heaven to show a little more solidarity. If I, a mere mortal twit, can see that perfect goodness must somehow accomodate BOTH mercy AND justice, I'd expect an Archangel -- even the Archangel of Justice -- to realize the same thing. The bit about all-male pronouns for all angels *is* irritating, but it is part of a much larger battle about gender language in religion. It is at least possible that this guy has himself been irritated by people pushing for inclusive language, and for referring to God as "Parent" or "Mother/Father" or some such New-Age squishery. (Oh, did that offend? Well...) And there is one thing he's right about: the game as presented has lots of colorful detail from several sources, mostly fringe-Jewish and fringe-Christian, but to him (and me) it has a vanilla, de-racinated, neutered feel to it because it deliberately won't be Christian or Jewish or Moslem or anything, just sorta theist. Now, I clearly understand the necessity for that -- probably he does, too -- but I think it would give the game a lot more punch if it were more specific. What we have here is one set of Christian mods. I'd love to see others -- even specifically Catholic or Mormon or Presbyterian mods, if that were possible. Ditto Jewish, Moslem, Zoroastrian, Bahai, etc. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #535 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.