From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Feb 23 18:12:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA19899; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:11:59 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA21048 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:15:41 -0600 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:15:41 -0600 Message-Id: <199702240015.SAA21048@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 #36 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 Sunday, February 23 1997 Volume 01 : Number 036 In this digest: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd IN> Ziggy... possible fix? Re: IN> Ziggy... possible fix? IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #33 Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Re: IN> Lilim IN> There's more than ONE way to eat In Nomine Peices Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Re: IN> Ziggy... possible fix? Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Re: IN> 2nd Adventure Idea Re: IN> 2nd Adventure Idea Re: IN> Ziggy... Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd Calabim, was re:IN>Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Re: Calabim, was re:IN>Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism IN> Soldier's Attunements and Distinctions Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Re: IN> Calabim Re: IN> "A Story of Lucifer" Re: IN> Incubus, by Reebok! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:02:22 -0500 From: unseelie@warwick.net (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd >On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Mark Kinney wrote: > >> We should also keep in mind that "drugs" are not always necessarily bad. >> Most of the "bad" ones we have today had legitimate medical uses at some >> point in time; some still do, even. If you must have a "proper" Word for >> your Archangel, you can always go with Medicine. From th'Fish: > Good point. I'll agree that an angel of, say, penicillin would work; >I just don't think that there'd be an angel of some addictive and/or >harmful substance. I'll leave it open to debate whether or not marijuana >falls under that category. Ooh. Just had an idea: the Angel of Morphine vs. the Demon of Heroin. As a sidenote: how widespread does a word have to be before it requires a Superior to administrate, as opposed to a Word-bound celestial. Most of the examples are common to all human societies, but then there's the (upcoming) Princedom of Rock'N'Roll. Any suggestions? yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:27:17 +0000 From: "Robert Wolff" Subject: IN> Ziggy... possible fix? I never realized that a little adventure idea could spawn such a plethora of bandwidth-occupying discussion about "whether or nots", "ifs and hows", etc. Seeing as I more or less started the whole rather silly mess, and it's weighing heavy on my Karmic debt, how about if I propose a fix? :) Sincy Ziggy never did get his Word, and instead it was only proposed, the whole thing reads a little easier if you have him... a. Fascinated with Rastafarianism, b. Work under Novalis ... forget what division, word, subject, etc. c. Simply come to Doubt the same way every Idealistic Hippy of the '60s comes to doubt... through looking at their neighbourhood and seeing the decline from the Aquarian Ideal they struggled to attain. d. Work in his bookstore, and the Antiquarians still send marijuana to terminally ill patients ... this reflects the Novalis angle, as well as Rastafarianism. People, People, People, ... I never intended to portray Ziggy as a Stoner, a Loser, a Slacker, or a Dope-head, but rather the focus was on him as a lost Idealist. I guess I'd better refrain from painting my Extremists as Extremists, lest they be taken as TOO Extreme! :) If you can't find something salvagable in the entire thing simply by removing the one, silly, stupid, ridiculous little SUGGESTION of his POSSIBLY EVENTUALLY taking a word, ... well, aren't we being a little too Literal, which is exactly what caused Ziggy to fall... his inability to see the world as shades of Gray... not all Black and White? Sorry. I'm just wondering if anybody else is seeing how the focus seems to be on a couple of the trees instead of the forest. I'm a little disappointed. I guess I expected responses more along the lines of "Cute idea for an adventure; here's mine..." For those who are comfortable with it as is, great. For others, just remove the little reference. Keep the rest, it still works, it's still palatable, and it steps on nobody's toes. If you don't like Angels who smoke Marijuana, or demons who promote Rock and Roll over Speed Metal, or whether or not Mutilitating Small Animals is a legitimate Word for the style of campaign you want to play, or whatever silly focus happens to be the main thrust of a Celestial's Anal-Obsessive Focus, just change it! Strip it down and cannibalize it for parts! Learn, Adapt, Grow. ...Unless of course you can't see an angel ever sending Marijuana to AIDs patients. In which case I'll just nip off somewhere and shoot myself. This is getting a little silly. :) AND... you can always just delete the story and never use it. No harm, no foul, no mess, no fuss. I'm sorry I ever started the whole thing. I'd really just rather see "Hated your adventure idea, how do you like mine..." Sincerely, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:00:19 -0500 From: unseelie@warwick.net (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: IN> Ziggy... possible fix? >Seeing as I more or less started the whole rather silly mess, and >it's weighing heavy on my Karmic debt, how about if I propose a >fix? :) Now, hold on a second. We're not exactly burning up the electron highway with flames, here. The discussions you've helped engender are *good* things; they spur thought and have, at least for me, given rise to several other good adventure ideas. If anything, we owe you for starting an interesting thread. What on earth are you apologizing for? >Sorry. I'm just wondering if anybody else is seeing how the focus >seems to be on a couple of the trees instead of the forest. Maybe. But the fact that people are exampining the trees means that they're interested in being in the forest; they're just looking for Dutch Elm Disease (A common discord for servants of Novalis, but I digress...) > I'm a >little disappointed. I guess I expected responses more along the >lines of "Cute idea for an adventure; here's mine..." They'll come. But the first step is getting people to think about your work. You've provoked thought; be proud. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:19:08 -0800 From: Aaron Harmon Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #33 Hell(o), Thanks Moriah for the explanation of the Lilim resonance. Could I ask one more teensy weesey widdle bitty question? :-) You said: >All things are simultaneous in a round. The Olafim(sp?) of Michael go first in a round. Since Initiative is kind of not used normally, does this mean that the effects of an Ofanim's actions happen before everyone elses? EXAMPLE: Joe, Ofanim of Michael, knocks Sam, Shedim of Kobol, unconcious. Does this mean that Sam doesn't get to hit Joe back like he would be able to if Joe were, say, working for Eli? Or should it be used more like a predetermined winner in a descision of who did the incredibly-important thing first (Did Joe throw the switch before Sam pushed the button?) ALSO: (I know it would be easier if I would just read the rules.) How then does being stunned work? Being stunned makes you lose your actions for this round and next round, right? I could have misread the rule (I don't sleep much.) Being that everything is simultaneous, how do I apply the effects of this fairly to everyone? INCREDIBLY WELL WRITTEN EXAMPLE: Even though everything happens simultaneaously (and at the same time, for that matter), lets assume that I always resolve the PC's actions first, for ease of play. Dramatis Personae: Fred (played by Josh, my roomate) Sam (NPC) Fred, Cherub of Eli, smacks the aforementioned Sam for 10 points of corporeal damage, which doesn't stun him. Sam smacks Fred for 15 points of damage and stuns him. Do I retract the 10 points that Fred did to Sam? Doesn't sound cool. I don't know why I care, I'm moving out of state next week anyway, which is going to put the kabosh of this campaign. Anyone in the Sacramento Area wanna play? ____________________________________________________________ Aaron M. Harmon aaron@longsword.com http://www.longsword.com ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:25:55 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, ...jason schneiderman... wrote: > Ooh. Just had an idea: the Angel of Morphine vs. the Demon of Heroin. Love this idea! And, I'd love the idea of a demon with the word "Cannibis" or however you spell it. I personally think it would fit a demon better. And if it were my character, I would never have the demon partake of it. It would be something he would use to make folks more 'pliable'. ;) DeltaS - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:40:07 -0500 From: unseelie@warwick.net (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd >On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, ...jason schneiderman... wrote: > >> Ooh. Just had an idea: the Angel of Morphine vs. the Demon of Heroin. > >Love this idea! Thanks. :) >And, I'd love the idea of a demon with the word "Cannibis" or however you >spell it. I personally think it would fit a demon better. There are a lot of aspects where it would. But there are several indigenous cultures where it *was* used as a ritual device. And it appears to have some medicinal uses. So, I'd say that there could be an Angel of Cannabis. It's just that, thanks to Haagenti's support, the Demon of Marijuana is stronger right now. > And if it were >my character, I would never have the demon partake of it. It would be >something he would use to make folks more 'pliable'. ;) But of course. The demon of Marijuana's job is to promote the use of the plant as an escape from reality: forget your troubles and zone out. Neglect your responsibilities. Oh, and grab some snacks while you're at it. (The Demon's version of Consume gives you the munchies. ;)) yours, just a devil's advocate, not a user, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:00:58 -0600 From: dpearcy@io.com (Derek Patton Pearcy) Subject: Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Jason Schneiderman wrote: >The example I'll use is Christopher, whose been mentioned as the Archangel >of Children here on the list. Now, I was under the impression that there >was a Saint Christopher, who was the patron of children. (Or is that St. >Joseph? He's the one with the chewable aspirin.) It was my inference that >somehow St. Christopher became the archangel, and that the same thing >happened to St. Laurence. Are the names in common simply coincidence, then? Conveniently, Saints are covered in NIGHT MUSIC. Now if I can only finish my own contribution to the book, we'll be on our way to the printers. From what I remember -- and Moriah, please correct me if I'm wrong -- interest in angels among the common people of Christian-controlled Europe used to be fantastically high, almost on the same level as mythological figures in Thebes at the height of Greek culture. Most of this "angelology" was passed verbally, so we only have a few small tomes from which to reconstruct the previous millennia's angel-worship, and contradictary tomes at that. The church was nervous about all the reverence applied to the angels, God's messengers -- after all, it wouldn't do to have people worshipping the power of the angel of headaches when it'd really be God Himself who'd take care of your headache. Church higher-ups abolished worship of the angels in favor of Saints, who at least used to be human. The Saints became the intercessionary spirits who carried prayers to the ear of God. Of course, while this caused us to lose an entire subculture of information on what people once believed about the world of angels, many of the "characters" formerly ascribed to the celestial host were simply converted (or attributed) to Saints. What I'm getting at is that some appeals to Saints (while not technically idolatry) originally grew from appeals to their angelic analogs. The angel Michael, St. Michael; the angel Gabriel, St. Gabriel, etc. At least, this is what I recall from my voodoo research (which led me into angel research). So some character traits traditionally thought of as Saintly are angelic in origin. And St. Christopher was the patron Saint of Travellers. As far as I know, he doesn't bear any resemblance to our Archangel. I don't recall St. Joseph's forte, but perhaps it was, as you suggest, Tasty Chewy Pink Pills. >2) What does it look like to observers when one of the Calabim uses his >resonance on an object? Does the target implode? Decay? Burst into flames? >The Calabite in the introduction mentions what he's thinking about, and the >final result, but nothing about the in-between. I'd say it depends on who the angel is working for. The resonance of Belial's demons burns its targets, or appears to -- neither flame nor heat is actually created, that's just the closest that the Symphony can come to representing the effect. Saminga's Calabim cause materials to rust, rot, shrink away into nothingness. Nybbas' Calabim . . . er, okay, I don't know what Nybbas' destroyers do. Anyone? Derek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:01:06 -0600 From: dpearcy@io.com (Derek Patton Pearcy) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim >>>If my players were willing to do that, I'd buy them dinner. >> >>Uh oh, Elizabeth is on the list now.... > >I'm a vegitarian (ovo-lacto), and like Spaghetti Warehouse in >Austin. Sounds like fun. Hey, next time y'all swing on through, let me know. >What *does* a "newborn" Lilim (or any celestial, for that matter) know >about her situation and universe? Do they find out the hard way that >Asmodeus/Dominic have starched jock-straps? Or is there a "basic >knowledge" package that Lilith (or any creating celestial Superior) >gives to the newborn? I'd been assuming that most angels and demons knew almost as much about the other side as was represented in the core rules, perhaps a little less. They have a crude understanding of how the other side's politics work -- the better to manipulate them. I've also been assuming that angels and demons spend a lot of time in their respective celestial realms learning about all sorts of things, not the least of which would be, "Oh yeah, and there're these other beings similar to us, but they're BAD." (And yes, I see the same statement being spoken by angels and demons.) >What do any celestials know about the Other Side, either? Do they know >that Dominic's servitors will be tough cases, whereas Novalis is a bit >of a softy? Or is it a case of, "So you guys serve somebody called >David -- does this mean we can't make a deal here?" Well, if my demon players wanted to deal with an angel, I wouldn't let them reference their books, but they'd be welcome to try and swing a deal with what they held in their heads. If they were mistaken about some subtlety of celestial politics, the angels might use that to their advantage -- or assume that they were just having their chains jerked and break off negotiations. Derek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:12:57 -0800 From: Aaron Harmon Subject: IN> There's more than ONE way to eat In Nomine Peices I should think Derek's > happy with the fact that his baby's being enjoyed and played, regardless > of *how* we enjoy it. > > How do you play IN, then? Very Seriously (but with horrible spelling) with brownie points for making the GM roll on the floor laughing (hold on, that's how I play everything). Like this (tell me if you find this as funny as my players did). There is this company, Balsom Technologies Inc., that manufactures weapons, as a matter of fact, their new assault rifle, the M-31, has been accepted by the USArmy as a replacement for the M-16. They know that the army is about to send troops into Nicaragua(sp?) because of the governments alleged protection of members of a cartel, and they want to see if BTI, who they think is run by Baal, is in on it. It does turn out that Baal is in on the escalating tensions in South and Central America. The PC's break into BTI after discovering that it is run by demons and break into the head of R&D's office, who's username on the recently-hacked network is pbailey (very subtle humor) and find that he has his office decorated thus. Movie posters of Pulp Fiction, Eating Raoul, Schindler's List, and a whole bunch of Mel Brooks stuff (pre-Spaceballs). After slapping around a Djinn and a Calabite (take me awayyyyyy...) they find the plans for the gun and figure out that ,although its great in testing, it should fall to pieces in the field. Simply put, the gun doesn't work. Only at this point do they figure out who is behind this demonic company. And I grin broadly at what I have created. Does anyone else get it? ____________________________________________________________ Aaron "Don't hate me because I'm subtle" Harmon aaron@longsword.com http://www.longsword.com ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:34:34 -0500 From: unseelie@warwick.net (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism Cool! Derek's back! >And St. Christopher was the patron Saint of Travellers. As far as I know, >he doesn't bear any resemblance to our Archangel. I don't recall St. >Joseph's forte, but perhaps it was, as you suggest, Tasty Chewy Pink Pills. Tasty? Man, is your memory poor. St. Joseph's aspirin was this nasty orangesque flavor. >Nybbas' Calabim . . . er, okay, I don't know >what Nybbas' destroyers do. Anyone? Here's my thought -- when the media "destroys" something, it's generally just consigned to obscurity. Gary Hart, for example. Or Milli Vanilli (now that was a brilliant Kobal-Nybbas tag team). So, when a Calabite of Nybbas uses his resonance on something, the Symphony "forgets" about it. It fades away, like static. And, although this is hardly canon, perhaps when his Calabim use their resonance on people, their *Role* decreases, along with their Status. Instead of bodyguards and bouncers, make their servants gossip columnists and critics! I'm liking this more and more. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 97 12:49:42 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism At 12:00 PM 2/23/97 -0600, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>2) What does it look like to observers when one of the Calabim uses his >>resonance on an object? Does the target implode? Decay? Burst into flames? >>The Calabite in the introduction mentions what he's thinking about, and the >>final result, but nothing about the in-between. > >I'd say it depends on who the angel is working for. The resonance of >Belial's demons burns its targets, or appears to -- neither flame nor heat >is actually created, that's just the closest that the Symphony can come to >representing the effect. Saminga's Calabim cause materials to rust, rot, >shrink away into nothingness. Nybbas' Calabim . . . er, okay, I don't know >what Nybbas' destroyers do. Anyone? Personally, I would have changed the Calabite resonance of Nybbas so that it can attack Ethereally, leaving their victims brain-dead. ;> Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 97 12:49:55 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd At 02:59 AM 2/23/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Sven Skoog wrote: >> >> Yeah; I tend to walk a middle line myself. It's unrealistic to have a >> Demon Prince devoted to 'Drugs' without a corresponding Archangel (or, >> if drugs are downplayed in Heaven, perhaps just an Angel) of some >> equivalent. An 'Archangel of Ecstasy' comes most immediately to mind -- >> 'ecstasy' possibly including sex, drugs, food binges, what have you. ;) >> >We should also keep in mind that "drugs" are not always necessarily bad. >Most of the "bad" ones we have today had legitimate medical uses at some >point in time; some still do, even. If you must have a "proper" Word for >your Archangel, you can always go with Medicine. Actually, both aspects already have Archangels. Novalis, Archangel of Flowers (AKA the Hippie Angel) for exstacy, and Jean for medicine (he is the techno-angel). >While on the subject of the higher celestials... I've found another use >for that moldy old Fantasy Wargaming book... It touches on these kinds of >things, after all, and had a listing of various divine and infernal >beings. It even lists Furfur, although I don't remember offhand what he >does. Mind you, unless you find it for, like, three bucks or something, I >don't recommend buying it just for these lists, but it is handy if you >can't find an actual Angelology/Demonology text. :-) Also, a word on the Dictionary of Angels: the book makes no differentiation between Angels and Demons (the mentioned "Angel of Abortion" in IN is actually a demon, according to the dictionary's descrip), and a goodly number of the Archangels aren't in the book. While this is to be expected, the book's still damned good for character names. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 97 12:50:23 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd At 11:02 AM 2/23/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Mark Kinney wrote: >> >>> We should also keep in mind that "drugs" are not always necessarily bad. >>> Most of the "bad" ones we have today had legitimate medical uses at some >>> point in time; some still do, even. If you must have a "proper" Word for >>> your Archangel, you can always go with Medicine. > >>From th'Fish: > >> Good point. I'll agree that an angel of, say, penicillin would work; >>I just don't think that there'd be an angel of some addictive and/or >>harmful substance. I'll leave it open to debate whether or not marijuana >>falls under that category. > >Ooh. Just had an idea: the Angel of Morphine vs. the Demon of Heroin. > >As a sidenote: how widespread does a word have to be before it requires a >Superior to administrate, as opposed to a Word-bound celestial. Most of the >examples are common to all human societies, but then there's the (upcoming) >Princedom of Rock'N'Roll. Any suggestions? They detail it in the book. The demon of unexpectedly short fuses, of pipe bombs, etc. The more far-reaching the effect (you better believe the Demon of Nuclear Annihilation reports directly to Baal and Belial), the closer to a Demon Prince you are. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:50:36 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Sheppard Subject: Re: IN> Ziggy... possible fix? On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Robert Wolff wrote: > I never realized that a little adventure idea could spawn such a > plethora of bandwidth-occupying discussion about "whether or nots", > "ifs and hows", etc. I thought it was a good and moving piece of work, and that overreaction about the fact that Ziggy's Word involved a drug was more or less, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous. First: Thank God Uriel killed the Angel of Peyote, and the Angel of the Sacraments is hanging by his thumbs in Dominic's torture chambers. Second: It's just a game. Drugs have a fine and honourable tradition of being used in ritual and as a spur to creativity and just plain to have fun or be social. I don't see the problem with there being an Angel of Cannabis any more than I see a problem with the Demon Prince of Rock 'n' Roll or Nybbas' Servitors being able to create subliminal messages. Besides which, the book *does* state that it's possible for both sides to have a Word - if Ziggy can be the patron of New Age mystics who get stoned for good things, then surely Lucifer has picked someone to become the Demon of Reefer Madness, He Who Kills Brain Cells And Causes Homosexuality And Makes People RIP OUT THEIR EYES As They Stare At the UNBLINKING EYE OF THE SUN!!!! (Sorry, got carried away there.) And if there's no Angel of Cannabis, maybe that explains the way society's been going lately.... I thought this was an incredibly good look at what it means to be Word-bound and carrying a Word that's somewhat controversial and prone to doubt and ethical dilemmas. It seemed to be a rich experience for the players, and a challenge for the GM to properly portray Ziggy's slow slide. Guess it was just me. > Seeing as I more or less started the whole rather silly mess, and > it's weighing heavy on my Karmic debt, how about if I propose a > fix? :) > > Sincy Ziggy never did get his Word, and instead it was only proposed, > the whole thing reads a little easier if you have him... Don't you dare! These changes take a sweet and tragic adventure and turn it into just another "Highway to Heaven" episode, starring Michael Landon as a Mercurian serving Nielsen, Archangel of Vaguely Fuzzy Oatmealy Stories. > People, People, People, ... I never intended to portray Ziggy as a > Stoner, a Loser, a Slacker, or a Dope-head, but rather the focus was > on him as a lost Idealist. I guess I'd better refrain from > painting my Extremists as Extremists, lest they be taken as TOO > Extreme! :) Hm. I didn't see that; but then, even if I did, vive la difference. > Sorry. I'm just wondering if anybody else is seeing how the focus > seems to be on a couple of the trees instead of the forest. I'm a > little disappointed. I guess I expected responses more along the > lines of "Cute idea for an adventure; here's mine..." I'm sorry, too, for not speaking up earlier in your defense. > For those who are comfortable with it as is, great. For others, just > remove the little reference. Keep the rest, it still works, it's > still palatable, and it steps on nobody's toes. And not coincidentally, it's bland, uninteresting to play, and could be taken into nine hundred different other games, genres, and systems without even needing to do more than file the characters all to just being human beings. > I'm sorry I ever started the whole thing. I'd really just rather see > "Hated your adventure idea, how do you like mine..." *Loved* your adventure. Do more like it. Don't spare the controversy. Please. - - Sirilyan, who got all the oatmeal he wanted from TSR. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:05:36 -0500 From: unseelie@warwick.net (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd >They detail it in the book. The demon of unexpectedly short fuses, of pipe >bombs, etc. The more far-reaching the effect (you better believe the Demon >of Nuclear >Annihilation reports directly to Baal and Belial), the closer to a Demon >Prince you >are. *nod* I was just looking for guidance as to where the line might be drawn. But, I've made my decisions. I've made one an Archangel and the other a demon who's just reall close to his Superior. The list should see both of them soon. Speaking of which...what are the rights and limitationbs to posting to this list. Can I submit creations for publication in Pyramid or other IN supplements later? Are Derek and Mike prohibited from looking at creative posts for new songs, characters and the like? I know how it works on some lists, so I wanted to know the guidelines for this one, as well. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:41:28 GMT From: janowack@mtu.edu (Joshua 'A' Nowack) Subject: Re: IN> 2nd Adventure Idea On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:33:59 +0000, you wrote: I loved the story....and think it would work well either way. The fiction/intro story.....I loved the little touch about the angle getting his wings when the bell rang...nice. Keep up the good work....I hope to see more.....and even if some of the elements don't mesh exactly with the rules....well, rules were meant to be changed. > >Okay, that's the second adventure idea. > >I'm going to stop writing until/unless I get some positive feedback on >either one of these stories. I just can't invest the time unless I >know somebody finds these things useful. And if you don't find them >useful, let me know that too!! > >So talk to me, okay? >Sincerely, > >Rob Wolff / Bodhi - ----------------------------------------- Joshua 'A' Nowack janowack@mtu.edu Douglass Houghton Hall 203 (906)487-0280 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 02:38:38 -0500 From: weaver Subject: Re: IN> 2nd Adventure Idea Robert Wolff wrote: > > Well, since I got exactly TWO positive responses {thanks Deathdog and > Raoul for saving me from completely slashing my wrists ;) }directed > towards my last completed adventure idea (Turn on, Tune in, Drop out) > , I guess that people think it's more waste of space than anything > else. However, about FIVE people were kind enough to send me > supportive e-mail on the `premise' itself, before the completed > product. Therefore, I guess all that work was for nothing... people > prefer the premise of an adventure, and want to do the work > themselves. So here goes... > Myself I like `premise`, although I really enjoy the finsihed product so much more. And since I don't have a creative drop of blood in my body. I rather spounge off someone when I can, until I get a few of the ideas flowing myself and even then it is rough going. You have writen great stuff so fa and I would LOVE to see more of it. - -- And I looked and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was DEATH and Hell followed him. And power was given unto them over a fourth part of the earth to kill with SWORD with HUNGER and with DEATH. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:42:00 -0600 From: dpearcy@io.com (Derek Patton Pearcy) Subject: Re: IN> Ziggy... Doug Shepard wrote: [snip, snip] if Ziggy can be the patron of New Age mystics who get stoned >for good things, then surely Lucifer has picked someone to become the >Demon of Reefer Madness, He Who Kills Brain Cells And Causes >Homosexuality And Makes People RIP OUT THEIR EYES As They Stare At the >UNBLINKING EYE OF THE SUN!!!! My personal opinion is -- there certainly could be an angel of Cannabis, but the demon of Pot (or, as Doug suggested, "Reefer Madness") watches his movements closely. There's certainly a place for Ziggy in the IN NOMINE cosmology. The Prince of Drugs, as described in NIGHT MUSIC, represents the destructive facets of the Word -- and while there's not an Archangel of Drugs, there certainly are factions pushing for and against the use of different substances by humanity. Unlike our own society, I don't think most angels can get away with condoning alcohol and nicotine while railing against cannabis and heroin. I feel that some angels will be against mood- and mind-altering drugs of all kinds, while others allow humans to do whatever they want (regardless of how destructive it may be). Good diatribe, by the way, Doug. These are good thoughts for whoever'll be working on the Eli-Novalis/Andre-Haagenti supplement. >I thought this was an incredibly good look at what it means to be >Word-bound and carrying a Word that's somewhat controversial and prone to >doubt and ethical dilemmas. It seemed to be a rich experience for the >players, and a challenge for the GM to properly portray Ziggy's slow >slide. Guess it was just me. If drug-related Words for angels have you scratching your head, you might be interested to hear about the celestial character I love most, of all the angels and demons I've created: Druiel, the angel of Teenage Death. Talk about a celestial walking a fine line. I love this guy. You should run into him in NIGHT MUSIC. On a personal note: yes, I still read a lot of the messages flowing through the group, but I don't have a lot of time to put in my two cents. With any luck, I'll have my NM material done soon, then perhaps I can participate a little more. In the meantime, I'm glad you're all having fun. Derek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:42:48 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: Archangels and stuff (was Re: IN> ATTN Robert Wolff re: IN> 2nd > >From th'Fish > > > Good point. I'll agree that an angel of, say, penicillin would work; > >I just don't think that there'd be an angel of some addictive and/or > >harmful substance. I'll leave it open to debate whether or not marijuana > >falls under that category. I dunno. Almost every drug I can think of has originally been used for medicinal and/or ceremonial/religious purposes. It's only recently that I know of drugs that were invented/discovered/etc. merely for their "buzz factor", like crack. > Ooh. Just had an idea: the Angel of Morphine vs. the Demon of Heroin. It's a possibility, although Heroin is another drug that was initially medicinal. It was considered a Godsend for the treatment of soldiers... > As a sidenote: how widespread does a word have to be before it requires a > Superior to administrate, as opposed to a Word-bound celestial. Most of the > examples are common to all human societies, but then there's the (upcoming) > Princedom of Rock'N'Roll. Any suggestions? Hmm... You know, I can't really think of a good divider beyond a paraphrase of the Supreme Court. "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it." Although I have been debating whether the Word "Divination" would still have Celestials of rank Archangel and/or Prince, or whether they suffered demotion when their Word lost a large amount of its support. (Altohough, they seem to be experiencing a minor resurgence recently.) > yours, > -J Oops da Ogre, who's currently considering writing up an Angel with a very widely abused drug for a word- an Ofanim of Wind whose word is "Caffiene" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:16:52 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Calabim, was re:IN>Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism > I'd say it depends on who the angel is working for. The resonance of > Belial's demons burns its targets, or appears to -- neither flame nor heat > is actually created, that's just the closest that the Symphony can come to > representing the effect. Saminga's Calabim cause materials to rust, rot, > shrink away into nothingness. Nybbas' Calabim . . . er, okay, I don't know > what Nybbas' destroyers do. Anyone? Andrealphus- The Kiss of Death: The calabim kisses the subject, which causes minor trembling and blushing as capillaries burst and blood and certain other fluids erupt through the skin of living targets. Inanimate objects would just crumble to dust, I suppose. Asmodeus- The calabim's hand sends forth small chains with hooks on the end, which rip small chunks free. Baal- Cuts as from a knife and bruises. Beleth- The calabim lets loose a terrifying scream that shatters inanimate objects and causes bleeding ears and ruptured blood vessels. (An option would be that when the person is dropped to zero hits, instead of dying, they are knock unconcious for a number of minutes equal to the excess damage. When they wake up from their nightmare-ridden sleep, they have a Fear Discord equal to the check digit of the attack divided by two (rounded up).) Belial- Two words: Spontaneous Combustion. Haagenti- Bloody teethmarks and chunks gouged out of the victim. Kobal- The calabim perhaps pulls out a toonish-looking stick of dynamite, or perhaps an anvil falls on the subject. ;'} Kronos- Aging Lilith- The muscles, bones, bricks, whatever making up the structure loose all connection to one another and the victim goes to pieces. Malphas- Doesn't do physical damage. (See p 174) Nybbas- Since he seems to mainly deal with electronic media, the calabim's attack electrocutes the target. People fry, metal melts or short circuits, doors are blown off their hinges and/or burn, etc... Saminga- Rot and gangrene Valefor- The calabim's target just sort of disappears, or parts of it does, at any rate... (Got your nose!) Vapula- Acid burns... > Derek Oops da "Whaddya think, Sirs?" Ogre ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:26:34 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: Calabim, was re:IN>Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism > Lilith- The muscles, bones, bricks, whatever making up the > structure loose all connection to one another and the victim goes to ^^^^^ Ack! I can't believe I did that. Someone shoot me now... Oops da "Good, bad- I'm the guy with the gun" Ogre ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:43:30 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: IN> Soldier's Attunements and Distinctions I know that Night Music is coming out in a little bit, but my wife's campaign is going to start before that, so we have a question about Soldiers. Is the cost for attunements and distinctions the same for Soldiers as they are for Celestials? It seems to me that the choir/band attunements should cost a Soldier 10 points like a servitor attunement. (The ones that rely on celestial resonances, of course, aren't purchaseable...) Oops da "Derek? Moriah? Anyone?" Ogre ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:18:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Q (not from Star Trek)" Subject: Re: IN> Saints, Calabim and the joys of monotheism On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Derek Patton Pearcy wrote: > I'd say it depends on who the angel is working for. The resonance of > Belial's demons burns its targets, or appears to -- neither flame nor heat > is actually created, that's just the closest that the Symphony can come to > representing the effect. Saminga's Calabim cause materials to rust, rot, > shrink away into nothingness. Nybbas' Calabim . . . er, okay, I don't know > what Nybbas' destroyers do. Anyone? > > Derek Maybe they just blink out of existence, fading down to a single dot, as if you'd just switched off a tv. ok, it's a little corny. - -Q - --------------------------------------- "Only stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein Scott "Q" Meyer Scott.E.Meyer@wheaton.edu http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:22:01 -0600 From: dpearcy@io.com (Derek Patton Pearcy) Subject: Re: IN> Calabim >Oops da "Whaddya think, Sirs?" Ogre Very cool. Anyone want to come up with routine lies for Balseraphs serving each major Prince? In general, I've really liked most of the stuff I've seen posted to the list. It's very inventive stuff! Derek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:09:50 -0600 From: Ter Roshawk Subject: Re: IN> "A Story of Lucifer" Jason Newquist wrote: > I'll post the answer here in case anyone else hasn't seen it. It's linked > to off the IN homepage: > > http://www.io.com/sjgames/in-nomine/lucifer-tale.html This is one of the greatest pieces of literature on the matter of Good 'o Satan. I think that's the utimate way of presenting him in the In Nomine game.... As soon as I play, of course... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:14:36 -0600 From: Ter Roshawk Subject: Re: IN> Incubus, by Reebok! Bolie Williams IV wrote: > > So what do you think the Infernal powers had in mind when they > had Reebok name a women's athletic shoe 'Incubus'..? :) > > Bolie IV Even though thhey are womens' shoes, I'd still like a pair... size Men's 11 and a half, of course, but I'd still like a pair... Too bad they're discontinued. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #36 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.