From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 26 08:18:50 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 IAA11387; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:18:36 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA11360 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:21:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:21:40 -0600 Message-Id: <199702261421.IAA11360@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 #41 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 Wednesday, February 26 1997 Volume 01 : Number 041 In this digest: IN> Re: Archangels and stuff Re: IN> What's this list about, anyway? Re: IN> The Four Horsemen IN> The Bible as Text and IN NOMINE IN> Re: Sitri IN> Ralph, Demon of Ragweed Re: IN> Ralph, Demon of Ragweed IN> [ADMIN] No Free Passes IN> A few contrarian points... Re: IN> A few contrarian points... IN> [Q] Hearts & Celestials IN> [Q] Various Qs Re: IN> Check my math Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality IN> Michael/Lucifer Re: IN> Evil is/not cool. (was: Michael/Lucifer) Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer Re: IN> Check my math IN> Malakim Oaths IN> Coolness ;) Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> [Q] Hearts & Celestials Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer Re: IN> Penicillin Re: IN> The Four Horsemen IN> First Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:55:05 -0600 From: jimmie@io.com Subject: IN> Re: Archangels and stuff Someone wrote: > > for that moldy old Fantasy Wargaming book... It touches on these kinds of > Good Lord. I thought I was the only surviving person in the world who > still had a copy of that book. Galloway, right? Yeek. I have one of these in a dark corner somewhere as well. I actually found it at a bookstore here in Austin a few years back. I cant remember which one, but they had a stack of about 40 of them that they were selling for $1 each. Looked like it might be useful someday...going to have to dig it out now :) -TheRaven, Demon of Procrastination, Shedim Knight of Fate, whose Rite is "Hitting the snooze alarm just one more time" ========================================================== // Jimmie Bragdon | jimmie@io.com | /\ \\ \\ User Administrator | www.io.com/~jimmie | / \ // // Illuminati Online | | / () \ \\ \\ ============================================= / \ // /________\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:21:47 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> What's this list about, anyway? On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Raoul Duke wrote: > (anyone know if we can get past digests through the list? The SJG > website archive hasn't been updated in a while) ftp://ftp.io.com/pub/mailing-lists/in_nomine-digest/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 20:40:46 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen >How many American versions have you read? Do you think >that every American version is full of inner-city slang? I know that my >New American Standard Bible is a direct word-for-word translation, nothing >added, nothing taken away. Why don't you get ahold of one, read it, and >tell me what you think. Well, like I said before, this is not true. Does your Bible say apple in it? If it does, it's not word for word. >If you want a nice version that still keeps the King James English but >taken from the earlier texts without the errors, get a New King James. I have a King James, and thats all I have. No need for anything else. I just noticed this has nothing to do with In Nomine, so I'll shut up now. Been working on some characters though, namely the Demon of Ragweed. You see, he makes you get this really hacking cough... *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:13:10 -0500 (EST) From: rbarrett@dept.english.upenn.edu (Robert Barrett) Subject: IN> The Bible as Text and IN NOMINE To the list: Bear with me--Scott is right on several issues concerning Biblical textuality, but I feel that there also are a number of inaccuracies that need correction. Sic scribit Q: > On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Deathdog wrote: > > > >Excuse me? You're saying that the next best thing to reading the original > > >Greek or Hebrew is to read the King James Version? FYI, the King James > > >Version wasn't even translated from the original Greek, but from the much > > >later Latin texts which were in turn translated from the Greek. The more > > >modern versions, otoh, are all translated directly from some of the > > >earliest Greek manuscripts available to get them as close to the original > > >as possible. (source: the introduction to my NASB study bible) > > > > Yeah, I know , but considering that the Latin texts are based on > > *original* > > Greek texts, and this is indeed closer than the current texts available to > > scholars today. My source (the Westminster Study Edition of the Authorized text of the KJV) is quite clear on the translators' reliance on not only the Latin Vulgate Bible, but on earlier English translations (e.g., Tyndale) and on Greek and Hebrew texts as well. So the KJV text does derive in large extent from the "original language" versions of the Bible. I can also talk to my father, a Presbyterian minister, about this issue if people want a professional opinion. :) > Ok, now we're getting into the question of which is more recent, the Latin > texts used when translating the KJV or the Greek texts used for at > least one of the new versions. First of all, where do errors in ancient > texts come from, anyways? From the copying. You see, back then, the only > way to have more than one copy of a text was to copy it, painstakingly, by > hand. Well, humans are only fallible, so, somewhere along the line, > mistakes are bound to be made, and the more copies you make, the more > mistakes. The only way to have new texts was to copy them from old texts. True, but it's also a known fact in scholarly editing that, b/c gaps exist in lines of textual transmission, no copy that is not an autograph can ever be considered truly infallible. Older does not necessarily equal more accurate--newer texts may be copies of a no longer extant text that was "truer" to the original text than existing old copies we might possess. My sources here include editors such as W. W. Greg, a large number of 19th century German philologists like Wolf and Lachmann, and modern scholars like Jerome McGann (I'm an English Ph.D. with an interest in textual criticism and editing). > If this wasn't done on a regular basis, the old copies would rot, fall > apart, and the text would be lost. The job of many monasteries was > exactly that, copying the old texts. Now, I don't know about the rest of > the church heirarchy, but monks were laymen, hardly any of them actually > spoke Latin (those Gregorian chants were learned completely from rote > memorization) and many of them couldn't even read. They didn't know what > they were copying. All of these factors added together equate to a group > of texts far from being directly from the original Greek. While there were monks who were no doubt illiterate rote copyists, they are the exception to the rule. Most medieval scribes (monastic or secular) are notorious for their attempts to correct what they consider textual "errors" or "imperfections". They were quite proficient in Latin and felt it their duty to fix the text. Moreover, monastics were often great scholars--it was in their cells, abbeys, and monasteries that the classical heritage of Greece and Rome was transmitted to the early modern era and modernity. Nearly all classical texts are extant in medieval copies only, and a number of the important Biblical manuscripts are medieval and Latin in origin (we should note that the Catholic Church still uses the Latin Vulgate as the core of its current Biblical text, augmenting the Latin with Greek and Hebrew texts). My speciality in English is medieval studies, so I can provide sources if anyone wants them. Finally, medieval monks were not laymen by anyone's historical account: they were legally and culturally religious (irrespective of how ignorant or licentious individual monks may have been). > Now, where do the modern texts come from? Archeology. Every once in a > while(well, a lot more often than that, actually), excavations uncover a > complete, or almost complete, text in the original Greek. These texts > have not been subject to the continuous copying, and are undeniably older. > It is from these texts that the more modern versions are translated. It is indeed true that archeology has greatly influenced Biblical textual scholarship. It is also true that the attention paid to Greek and Hebrew texts has done so as well. Those are definitely the major developments of the last several centuries. But the Latin tradition has not been tossed aside either. The history of the Bible's text is a complicated one--the texts we have today are an amalgam of what has come before. > How many American versions have you read? Do you think > that every American version is full of inner-city slang? I know that my > New American Standard Bible is a direct word-for-word translation, nothing > added, nothing taken away. Why don't you get ahold of one, read it, and > tell me what you think. I have no problem with the NASB as a Biblical text; however, I do feel that it is stretching things to suggest it is an unmediated translation of the authentic Biblical texts. There are no such things, only a large number of different, often conflicting texts in several languages. It is an act of human mediation to assemble those pieces into a coherent text, and that process necessarily involves (limited) human taste and judgement. Considering the number of variant Biblical editions and their continuing production, I would suggest that the authentic text of the Bible is an ongoing discussion. Certainly we shouldn't have to establish one as more valid than the others for the purposes of this list and the playing of IN NOMINE. If immensely learned Biblical scholars can collegially disagree on the nature of the Biblical text, I think we can as well. Best, Rob - -- Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-mail: rbarrett@dept.english.upenn.edu * World Wide Web: http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/index.html * "He ran," the unicorn said. "You must never run from anything immortal. It attracts their attention." - Peter S. Beagle, _The Last Unicorn_, 1968 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:20:17 -0500 From: John Everett Till Subject: IN> Re: Sitri I can see Heaven has a surfeit of Angels of Heterosexism and Homophobia: In contrast to them, was Sintri > resonance for emotion and utter > impartiality would be required to understand that the love held by these men > and women was real, and that judgment should not be passed Boy, do some heavens suck. Especially the Straight Heaven, which *after all* is a lower realm. Valentine Angel of Bashing Back Ofanite Friend of Wind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 00:21:53 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: IN> Ralph, Demon of Ragweed Here he is...my first attempt. Disclaimer: This is *really* stupid. Coporeal-3 Str 1 Agl 11 Ethereal-1 Int 1 Pre 3 Celestial-3 Wil 9 Per 3 Vessel: a cloud of pollen/6 (only form he may take) Skills: Make People Sneeze/10, Not Take Damage from any attack/10 Songs: What songs? Attunements: Shedim of Dark Humor, adds Ethereal forces to making people hack, sneeze, cough and wheeze whenever it'd be inappropriate and funny. Note: He is almost impossbile to hurt. In fact, it is rumored that Lucifer personally did some stuff to him that makes him invulnerable...Why? Who the *hell* knows. Background: Ralph was a bad jokster in the Pits of Hell, but he wasn't very smart, strong, or anything else. If anything, he was a Real Loser. But one day while getting Asmodeus some coffee, he stumbled across a plant he'd never seen before. It seemed that whenever someone inhaled it, they would have violent fits of sneezing and coughing. He took the opportunity to test it out on the Prince of the Game himself, and was quite pleased when it worked wonderfully. Of course, he was immediately turned into a pile of burning ash, but his life was basically worthless anyways. Kobal thought the plant was cool, and since Ralph had the balls to try it out on one of the most power Princes in Hell, Kobal decided to make Ralph the Demon of Ragweed. Only thing is, Ralph really *is* ragweed, in every way, shape and form. For some reason the Song Kobal used was really a modified Mummy incantation, and it got messed up. At any rate, Ralph is now and indestructible cloud of pollen that roams the world looking for victims, planting ragweed plants all about. Kobal couldn't be more pleased. Asmodeus was rather pissed at a mere go-fer in the Department of Really Nasty Things getting a Word outta nowhere, but Lucifer himself approved of the idea simply because he thought it was funny, too. Goals: Since Ralph is basically a moron, he just roams around making people sneeze. He does have an agenda besides this, but it mostly consists of getting some cheese and making it moldy. Not too swift... Conflicts/Enemies: Novalis hates him, obviously. None of the other Archangels could care less. Asmodeus is ploting to kill the creep, and Haagenti wants to put him on a tossed salad because he heard ragweed went good with romaine lettuce. Yummmm, Caesar Salad ala Ralph. *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 00:27:22 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: Re: IN> Ralph, Demon of Ragweed I just reread this...it is awful :) Forgive me *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 97 01:38:31 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> [ADMIN] No Free Passes >Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet >today so all our voices may be heard! IF THIS PASSES, YOU WILL >BE PAYING PER MINUTE LONG DISTANCE RATES FOR YOUR INTER-NET >CONNECTION!!! Please send an e-mail to the FCC and have your >friends do the same. YOU CAN make a difference!!! No, no, no! It is *bad* netiquette to pass on *any* type of message, no matter how good or worthy the cause, without first *checking* the **source** **PERSONALLY**. Even if the message is legit (and this one isn't [1]), blindly passing on a message simply because the message says so (since when do you always do what you're told? :) ) gives life to a message as it is eternally passed along without thinking. Besides, it's the job of System Administrators to pass along this kind of info, not the users (unless it's a movement to overthrow the world's SysAdmins -- obviously, they won't cooperate). They know to check the appropriate sources (usually a website) before giving any warnings or reposting any important information. This goes for chain letters, pyramid schemes, joke lists, appeals for dying children who want postcards, virus warnings (GOOD TIMES!), etc... Peace, Moriah, List Manager [1] The FCC has already ruled against the increase/change in pricing. The appeal of the phone companies has little chance of passing. Check out the FCC website for more info. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:37:33 -0500 (EST) From: HarlinHirs@aol.com Subject: IN> A few contrarian points... While I agree that the Holy Writ (in any translation you prefer) can be a good source for "adventure seeds", I'd like to assert once again that the concept of a factional war between "Heaven" and "Hell" isn't, at core, a biblical one. Heck, look at the list of primary sources in the back of your copy of In Nomine and tell me which translation of the Bible is listed there. As to an adventure featuring the Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse... well, sure, but I hope your game is ending afterwards, neh? And, a few suggested sources: Davidson, Gustav _A Dictionary of Angels: including the fallen ones_ I know this is in the list in IN, but I can't recommend it highly enough. It'll give you a headache, for certain, but there are more angels here than one could easily shake a stick at, and a fair number of adventure seeds to be had, given some patience. Also has a huge bibliography. Robbins, Rossell Hope _The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology_ Doesn't have much use for finding out who "the Demon of Canker Sores" is, but reading the stories of supposed mass possessions and black masses can really give one some evil ideas for a "Things to Do Today" list for your infernal hosts. Roszak, Theodore _Flicker_ Not directly related to demons or angels, but if you ever want to run a campaign focused on Nybbas, I'd suggest reading it. Those crazy gnostics... I could list any number of in-print "grimoires", including particularly _The Magus_ of Francis Barrett, but they generally are hard reading and will net you little for game-use other than lists of names of angels and demons, and Davidson's already done most of the extraction for you in the Dictionary... More later, including a list, culled from Davidson and some other sources, of angels and demons traditionally associated with certain subjects, and a couple of adventure ideas, which will definitely not include Orael, Habbalah of Malphas, Demon of Biblical Translations. Paul. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 02:52:44 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: Re: IN> A few contrarian points... >Roszak, Theodore _Flicker_ > Not directly related to demons or angels, but if you ever want to run a >campaign focused on Nybbas, I'd suggest reading it. Those crazy gnostics... If I wanna do a campaign focused on Nybbas, I'd watch Poltergeist a few times. That damn tv with the girl in it was too cool. *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 97 03:46:42 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> [Q] Hearts & Celestials >So my questions are about Hearts. > >a) Can a Heart be moved from Heaven to Hell? (like you WANT to fall so you >take your Heart from Heaven before Dominic's pals get it and you move it to >Hell... I don't say it has to be easy... just want to know if it's possible >or completely impossible) Hearts are something your Superior provides so that you have a celestial home. When you Fall/Repent your heart self-destructs since you have broken a metaphysical contact with your Superior, and your Superior no longer supports your heart. You can swipe (or be given) your heart from your Superior and put it anywhere you want, except for the Celestial Realm of the Other Side -- as long as your Superior supports it. Eli gave all his servants their hearts to do with as they please. Beleth and Blandine keep their servants' hearts in their respective towers. When the rules give restrictions about hearts not leaving the Celestial Realms, that's only because the Superior will stop supporting your heart if you go that far (as with the Archangels). BTW, If you swipe your heart, your Superior will be swiping the floor with your downy butt, plus you'll get a note of Dissonance. Also, keep in mind, there is no advantage to having a heart on earth, except for becoming very hard to locate by your Superior (yes, with some Superiors, that's a blessing). >b) Can you have more than one Heart? (like in: oooops Dominic got my Heart >and keep it locked somewhere to track and now my Demon Prince made me a new >one?...) If you can convince more than one Superior that your are their faithful Servitor, sure. Good luck. The Symphony will be happy to accept your disbanded Forces once one of your Superiors find out. >c) What is the process for creating a Heart? Can an Angel/Demon with >his/her own Word create a Heart for him/herself? for other? Or is that the >exlusive realm of ArchAngel & Demon Princes? The Latter. There are no rules, the GM makes the call since the mechanics of being a Superior are outside the scope of the PCs. >d) Hearts can't leave the Celestial plane... where are the Hearts of >Beleth/Blandine servitors? See above. The hearts of their servants were created in the Marches, and thus, never have the opportunity to *leave* the Celestial Realm. Obviously, B/B might stop supporting your heart if you (try) to remove it from their Towers. Oh and while I'm at it... a few questions about Celestials shapes :) e) Can someone disguise while on the celestial plane? (e.g. looking like a Lilim when you are en Balseraph?) or change your shape temporary or permanently? In Heaven, no... unless you're a demon. But demons can't go to heaven... or can they? Anyway, this is more a GM call for the purposes of their campaign. I'd make any PC with the power to disguise their Celestial Form pay for it. f) when an Angel fall, I guess his/her celestial appearance change, what cause that change? can it be somewhat controlled? Metaphysics. Angel are creatures whose *nature* is attuned to some part of the Symphony - their Choir, their Superior, their own Word. By rejecting that nature, their Resonances change... they strike a new chord. Their outward appearance reflects the Resonance of a Dark Angel. Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 97 03:46:49 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> [Q] Various Qs >cainan: >Two questions: > This IN> thing on the subject line, do you need this or is it added >automatically? It is added automagically. Now, if we can get people to stop adding the RE: to the subject line... we all know that a subject line tells us what the message is in REgards to. > What sort of words are there? > In the 'Dark Dream' story at the beginning it gives the example of 'He >who mutilates small animals'. I realize this is put jokingly but is this the >sort of word demons are likely to have (It may only be one word in the >demonic tongue). Vices, virtues, ideas, ideologies, causes, things of the world. There will be in an upcoming supplement an outline of Words I have compiled based on Scholastic/Aristotelian theo/philosophy. > Archangels and Princes seem to have much shorter names, is this because >they are more powerful? No, cooler. They got the world to call their abstract causes by one Word. Sort of like Cher. And you've asked more than two questions. > Do words get shorter (and more abstract) as the celestials influence >increases? Possibly, but not necessarily. Celestials don't lightly change Words. They're more likely to be stripped of a Word than to change it. The Word you first get is you. You are uniquely tuned to it. To try to change it on your own goes against nature. You must promote the Word which is yours, not shop around for cooler one. Peace, Moriah IN NOMINE Line Editor ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 97 03:47:01 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: IN> Check my math >Hunter: > >>On Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:11:41 -0800 (PST), Michael Bowman >> said: >> >> Actually I think there's an erratum here: >> >> p. 43 says that roles cost (Status * Role Level)/2; but p. 72 says >> roles cost (Role Level + [Status - 1])*2. Which one is right? > >Did a resolution to this one appear, and I just missed it? I saw the >discussion, but no "This is the way:". What appears on p. 72 is screwed up in several ways. What appears on p. 43 is consistent within itself, and thus, we'll use it. To recap: Humans don't buy a Role. They can buy levels of Status/x at the cost of [(Status - 1) * 2] with the first level automatically added free. Celestials buy a Role (listed as Role/x). The Level of the Role times the Status Level divided by 2 [(Role Level * Status Level) / 2] is the correct price of both (Status Level is 'paid for' when one buys the Role). Keep in mind that this formula also gives the first level of Status free. Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 05:27:30 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality At 01:40 PM 2/25/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >"I'm not too sure about pre-Fall politics, but we do know for a fact that >Beleth and Blandine were lovers before Beleth chose to follow Lucifer, and >both are explicitly referred to as female..." > >This is true. Howeverx > >1. Gender among angels is a matter of self-conception. Gabriel and Dominic >have, after all, changed theirs to suit their whims. So, I'm troubled by >labelling their relationship "homosexual", except that all celestials are >equally male, female and other all at once. Can be. Gabriel and Dominic are the only Angels listed that can change genders, while none of the other Angels or any Demon has been listed with such a power (you'd think Andrealphus would be into it). >2. Although the book does describe sex between angels/demons and mortals,. it >mentions nothing about sex between celestials, themselves. This in >conjunction with... > >3. The problem with Sitri, from the Divine perspective, was not that he >encouraged homosexual love, but that he refused to *discourage* homosexual >acts. These last two points are tenuous, since it relies on what's not explicitly stated. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1997 11:35:23 U From: "Andy Butcher" Subject: IN> Michael/Lucifer Subject: Time: 11:10 OFFICE MEMO IN> Michael/Lucifer Date: 26/02/97 >Well, no. Unless I missed a post, angels initially >outnumbered demons by 2 to 1 in the Fall. If I recall, >that is even canon. I am sure that Hell is trying to >recruit as many Nephalliam, undead and human stooges >as they can to bolster ranks, but good can recruit also. The key word here is _initially_. As soon as he got kicked outta Heaven, Lucifer started creating new demons as fast as he could, as described on page 155. The current situation seems to be that there are more demons than angels, but demons are generally weaker. Andy Butcher arcane - the roleplaying magazine - ----------------------------------------------------- abutcher@futurenet.co.uk http://www.futurenet.co.uk/ - ----------------------------------------------------- There are only twenty-seven ways to kill somebody with a toothbrush... Rorschach knew them all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:21:42 +2 From: "Ella Lynoure Rajamaki" Subject: Re: IN> Evil is/not cool. (was: Michael/Lucifer) > > >>Evil is not cool. > > >On the contrary, Evil can be _very_ cool - it's all a matter of > > >perspective ;) > > No, evil is not cool. I wanted to say "it is cool" or "it is not cool" but then I realized I cannot even tell the absolute definition for evil (other than "This/that is evil IMO). *sigh* It's not easy to fight 100% on either side, I think. Lynoure "Even the demons stray." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:31:52 +2 From: "Ella Lynoure Rajamaki" Subject: Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer On 25 Feb 97 at 16:20, JOHN C DYE wrote: > >On the contrary, Evil can be _very_ cool - it's all a matter of > >perspective ;) > > Cool. Next time a partner cheats on you, a friend lies to you, you get > robbed beaten, mugged, or someone decides to indulge in some hate or > genocide, just smile and repeat the mantra "This is SO cool." See, hating them for hurting you is probably also evil and cool. *grin* - ------------------- Lynoure ---------------------- - -----"Just like the twilight I come to you."------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:33:44 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Check my math > >> p. 43 says that roles cost (Status * Role Level)/2; but p. 72 says > >> roles cost (Role Level + [Status - 1])*2. Which one is right? > > > What appears on p. 72 is screwed up in several ways. What appears on p. > 43 is consistent within itself, and thus, we'll use it. > > To recap: > > Humans don't buy a Role. They can buy levels of Status/x at the > cost of [(Status - 1) * 2] with the first level automatically added free. > > Celestials buy a Role (listed as Role/x). The Level of the Role times the > Status Level divided by 2 [(Role Level * Status Level) / 2] is the correct > price of both (Status Level is 'paid for' when one buys the Role). Keep in > mind that this formula also gives the first level of Status free. I posted this to the web-errata page, but a note should be made that you round up, not down after dividing. It says so on the Servant section, but doesn't mention it on the Role section. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:41:52 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: IN> Malakim Oaths A friend of mine made up a malakim (waaaaay back during the original playtest of the rules) and asked me what were some reasonable oaths. Not having any extensive examples, I made up a dozen or so. I'd like to try to collect a list of them and post them to the web so that other GMs and players out there can have a start to choose from. Depending on how many I get, I may sort them by category for easier reference. Please send me your ideas! Combat Limitations - ------------------ Always let his opponent strike the first blow (this includes against a third party such as his comrades or an innocent). Always let opponent take first swing (not the same as the above!) Never use X weapons (where X could be any category from edged weapons, ranged weapons, large weapons, ANY weapons, etc) Never use a weapon that belonged to an enemy Never wear armor of any sort (or other limits. e.g. never wear armor heavier than leather) Only use X weapon Only use X armor Additional duties - ----------------- Seek out and destroy at least one evildoer a week Teach at least a dozen people a year how to protect themselves Quirks - ------ Always tell victims, in detail, the crime for which they are being punished Offer any truly borderline human who begs for mercy exactly one year to straighten up - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1997 13:43:51 U From: "Andy Butcher" Subject: IN> Coolness ;) Subject: Time: 13:25 OFFICE MEMO Coolness ;) Date: 26/02/97 >>On the contrary, Evil can be _very_ cool - it's all a matter of >>perspective ;) >Cool. Next time a partner cheats on you, a friend lies to you, >you get robbed beaten, mugged, or someone decides to >indulge in some hate or genocide, just smile and repeat the >mantra "This is SO cool." As I said, it's all a matter of perspective (and I also said 'can be', not 'always is'). Cool is a matter of style and attitude, not a morality judgement. Take Good Omens (the book) as an example. Crowley (the demon) is very cool. Aziraphel (the angel), on the other hand, is something of an old-fashioned prude. Other good examples are the vast majority of 'gangster' movies - nearly all of Quentin Tarantino's main characters are cool, for example (George Clooney in From Dusk Til Dawn is a great example - he's an armed robber, with several unpleasant character traits, but he's _very_ cool.) It's pretty clear that Demons can be cool in In Nomine, at least by their own standards (and the standards of their peers), and the story about the devil on the SJG web site gives the definite impression that many Demons think Lucifer is utterly cool. Like I said, morality doesn't come into it. Andy Butcher arcane - the roleplaying magazine - ----------------------------------------------------- abutcher@futurenet.co.uk http://www.futurenet.co.uk/ - ----------------------------------------------------- There are only twenty-seven ways to kill somebody with a toothbrush... Rorschach knew them all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:41:18 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Deathdog wrote: > >Well, seeing how I'm an American in America, probably. Lesse, it's.... > >King James, published by The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New > >York. The verses mentioning the horsemen are Rev 6:1-8, and only Death is > >actually named. > > > >Which bible gives the more popular names? > > I'd like to answer this...Any Bible that names them all is full of shit. > :) > If they translated the book the way it was meant to be, the 4 Horsemen > are unnamed except for Death. Anything else is poetic liscense, which I > think is bad when dealing with something like a religious text. I think it's perfectly find when dealing with a religious text. I think it's bac when dealing with a historical text. > Yeah, wacky American is right. Those "New American Text" or whatever > are very very bad. You're better off struggling through a King James Don Fnordlioni is reading from a King James. That's what he says above. > because it's about as good as you can get in a language kinda close to > English. Better yet, learn classical Greek or Hewbrew and read the > original texts. Two Words: Oxford Bible And it's in elglish. ;) -DeltaS The Angel of Posturing, Cheribum of Janus. Rite: Soul of the Poseur ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:45:44 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> [Q] Hearts & Celestials On 26 Feb 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > Also, keep in mind, there is no advantage to having a heart on earth, > except for becoming very hard to locate by your Superior (yes, with some > Superiors, that's a blessing). Hmm. I presume this means that Demonic Hearts can exist on Earth? Because under Angels' Hearts on p137, "Hearts cannot be removed from Heaven." Demons' Hearts on p185 doesn't say any such thing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:49:10 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> Re:Sitri, Demon of Homosexuality On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 HarlinHirs@aol.com wrote: > I'm not too sure about pre-Fall politics, but we do know for a fact that > Beleth and Blandine were lovers before Beleth chose to follow Lucifer, and > both are explicitly referred to as female... And as to Novalis, well... I've got a problem with this perception, just because, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Celestials do not have a gender. They are 'referred' to by a gender, but I think that's only because we and consequently they must somehow translate celestials into human terms. Male/Female is a human term, not celestial. As for what 'gender' god is... well I won't *even* go there, because it dosen't have a gender. heh. DeltaS - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:07:10 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> Michael/Lucifer On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, JOHN C DYE wrote: > On 25 Feb 1997 16:45:03 U "Andy Butcher" > writes: >>And someone who has been lost in the ether wrote: > >>Evil is not cool. > > > >On the contrary, Evil can be _very_ cool - it's all a matter of > >perspective ;) > > Cool. Next time a partner cheats on you, a friend lies to you, you get > robbed beaten, mugged, or someone decides to indulge in some hate or > genocide, just smile and repeat the mantra "This is SO cool." Evil is simply a matter of perspective. Just like reality. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:09:37 -0600 (CST) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Penicillin > > "Eureka! AIDS! Let's see the little bastids cure this little beauty" > > Huh. Is Nergal then allied with the demon of homosexuality, or working > against him? (And yes, I know, HIV is also within the heterosexual > community. Don't flame me for _that_ particular ignorance...) Huh? I don't see how Sirti would be allied with the creator of AIDS. "Hmmm... You say this is a contagious and very deadly disease? I know! Why don't we arrange it so that those of my Word are hit first and hardest while everyone ignores the problem until it reaches the heterosexuals?" I just don't see that happening. > -- fish. Oops da Ogre ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:00:03 -0500 (EST) From: DeltaS Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Ron Sago wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Don Fnordlioni wrote: > > > And who says the Apocalypse is a bad thing? > > It's a time when evil is destroyed, the Messiah returns, and all good > > christians go to their great reward to live happily ever after. [snip] > That stated, and considering I already mentioned using the 4 Horsemen idea > in an adventure, I have to wonder just what part do the 4 Horsemen play > in the scheme of "The War?" Is it truly a sign of predestiny that good is > fated to win, or is that just Divine propaganda? Obviously, Lucifer and > Co. must assume that the outcome isn't certain, or they wouldn't try. Heh. You know, the good Don and I had been discussing this a while ago, before In Nomine came out. I thought it would be cool if the Four Horsemen had already been here, and had failed. ;) My warped idea was that they were opposed by Hell itself. Lucifer realized that the earth was, for all practical purposes, his domain. If all the souls were either taken to heaven, or snuffed, he's out of business. I thought it might be a cool adventure idea. -DeltaS The Angel of Posturing, Cheribum of Janus. Rite: Soul of the Poseur ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 15:18 CET From: Marco Lambert Subject: IN> First Questions Hello everybody, At first to the IN staff: very good work. I knew the german version of the game, but yours is IMHO better. There are some differences, for example your game is more serious, but that is o.k. for me. Here are my questions, if they are already discussed just drop me a line where to find the answers. 1. Songs: Are there more to come ? I miss something to control humans or at least try to make posthypnotic commands or stuff like that, usually from the parapsychology departement. 2. New Bands of demons: I miss a little bit my "favorit" demons the incubi and succubi. What would they be like ? Or are this just human descriptions for some of the servitors of Andrealphus ? 3. Missing demon princes: In the german issue are for example demon princes for Cold, Ocean and Illness/Plagues. will they be introduced in the following material ? That for now, thank you for your help in advance. Bye and tschuess, Marco. ________________________________________________________________ Marco Lambert (Dipl.-Phys.) * Universitaet Kaiserslautern * Email:lambert@rhrk.uni-kl.de Fachbereich Elektrotechnik * Tel.:(+49) 631/205-3354 Lehrstuhl fuer Mikroelektronik * Fax.:(+49) 631/205-3616 Postfach 3049 * D-67653 Kaiserslautern * Geb.: 12 Raum:262 Germany * ________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #41 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.