From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jun 16 23:15:50 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 XAA15145 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:15:50 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA00084 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:55:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:55:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199706170155.UAA00084@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 #212 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, June 16 1997 Volume 01 : Number 212 In this digest: Re: IN> Smif IN>Litheroy? IN> PBeM question type thingy about something someone once said on this list just the other day. Yesterday or even today perhaps it was. Re: IN> Smif Re: IN> Body Bagging IN> Re: Choirs and Bands IN> Making up names for Celestials Re: IN> How You Know You've Got In Nomine On The Brain Re: IN> Re: Choirs and Bands IN> ...And I Thought I'd Never Ask a Kyrio Question... Re: IN> How You Know You've Got In Nomine On The Brain Re: IN> Shedim Plot Seed Re: IN> Loose thoughts on Gotham City... (Pt 1) Re: IN> Loose thoughts on Gotham City... (Pt 1) Re: IN> A Couple of Questions Rules vs Story (Re: IN> Body Bagging) Re: IN> Smif Re: IN> Playing musical vessels. Re: IN> Smif ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:57:12 +0930 From: "Damian O'Dea" Subject: Re: IN> Smif Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > And, a bit more seriously, Kaja Foglio -- her own, personal style, > especially when seen in some of her Magic cards, would probably > fit great. Phil's style would be best reserved for sexy demon chicks > without much in the way of clothes -- Lilim and Impudites. ;-) Heck, why not some sexy angel chicks too? Why should the demons get all the fun? Eli might not have respect, but he's probably being v. cool somewhere ;p ODie... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:27:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: IN>Litheroy? ******AND NOW FOR THE TYPICAL INTRODUCTION TO A MAILING LIST****** Hi! I'm new to this list, so forgive me if this question has been asked before... but... Who is Litheroy? I know s/he's some kind of Superior, but what is his/her Word? Which Side is s/he on? Where can I find information on him/her? (Come to think of it... that intro wasn't very typical, was it?) B-) Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us "I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed A wound that will not heal A heart that cannot feel Hoping that the horror will recede Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be free." --Rush, "Red Sector A" (Lee/Lifeson/Peart) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:08:51 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> PBeM question type thingy about something someone once said on this list just the other day. Yesterday or even today perhaps it was. >From: Charybdis GreyDragon > Yes, I know this is a blatant plug, but *I* want to play, and I can't >until we get some more players... :) Just a question...do you do your response on Email, and send it to yourself then.....or just do it on paper or in person? As a side note...really Glad Night Music went off to the printer. I'm sure it'll be great, and can't wait for my copy. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:53:15 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Smif Damian O'Dea wrote: > > Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > And, a bit more seriously, Kaja Foglio -- her own, personal style, > > especially when seen in some of her Magic cards, would probably > > fit great. Phil's style would be best reserved for sexy demon chicks > > without much in the way of clothes -- Lilim and Impudites. ;-) > > Heck, why not some sexy angel chicks too? Why should the demons get > all the fun? Eli might not have respect, but he's probably being v. > cool somewhere ;p > > ODie... And we all know Gabrielle is one Hot chick! --tom t. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:09:31 +0930 From: "Damian O'Dea" Subject: Re: IN> Body Bagging IQJason@aol.com wrote: > ODie... wrote: > > "Is it just me or is the need for "canon" answers a little too > > much like all those CCGs where the rules and being able to use > > or abuse them becomes more important than the game?" > > IMO, it's perfectly legitimate to want to explore the 'game' aspect > of IN as well as the 'roleplaying' aspect. Canon answers provide one > interpretation of the rules, with the extra 'oomph' of it being the > *designers'* interpretation. > That's fine, until something that looks to me like a good story opportunity gets a direct quashing by someone. After all, where is the fun in setting up the story and then having one of the players turn around and say 'He can't be in my body, he should be expelled to the Marches for the interim'? Such arguments break the flow of the game, and erode a necessary trust between GM and players. Other attitudes start to smack of competition or one-upmanship, that doesn't help the roleplaying. > > "Personally I prefer a v. fast and loose game, setting and style, > > where the story is paramount, there's no such thing as precedent > > unless I choose to allow it, and hang what the book says, what > > Moriah says, what anyone says if it gets in my way ;p Anything > > else smacks of an obsessiveness that I have other outlets for." > > *sigh* I'd like to call an official moratorium on the phrases > "Whatever makes for the best story" and "The object of the game > is to have fun." > Go for it. When you have "official" status, I'll ignore that too ;p Actually, you might have more luck requesting _unofficial_ restraint by the list users to avoid using such phrases. I'd be inclined to listen to that. > Not that they're not useful concepts, but they're > so often used to squelch discussions that the participants are > enjoying... > That wasn't the intent, and I don't think it killed the discussion. If people want to discuss rules and how the game system works, then great. I'm only one voice and certainly consider myself unlikely to be able to prevent two people who _really_ want to talk about some aspect of the game from doing so. Leaping to their defence before I even look like infringing on their conversation is perhaps overeager. > it's shorthand for "Anyone who's interested in rules or > setting discussion is a roll-playing munchkin out to kill RPGs." > Whoa! Them's not my words! Particularly not the setting discussions which are more important to my POV than the rules discussions. Do try to be a little more careful; you're making me sound like a real bugbear. I meant what I said. If you need to read it again it's quoted above by you yourself. If I need to insult somebody by calling them a munchkin, then I'll do it directly. After all, a munchkin isn't all that capable of picking up a subtly delivered insult. ;p > Plus, these lists, those statements are pretty redundant -- is > there anyone here who thinks that the rules should *not* bend to > the story? > I don't know. I don't know everyone on the list, for starters. Some of the more vocal posters don't strike me as such, but I'm not so presumptive that I'm going to generalise the list based on these few voices - enlightened though they be. In that light, perhaps a cautionary word or dangerous trod into evil (ie. banned phraseology) is not unwarranted. It would be a waste of potential for someone to take John's words (of canon) to light and simply write off the story with the "Oh, then I can't do that." Not that I expect that most GMs wouldn't give two hoots and just go and tell the stories / run the adventures they want to anyway. Still... Actually, I'm wondering if your reaction to what I'm saying isn't a form of kneejerk reaction to something perceived about my gaming style. Possibly so? > Jason Schneiderman (associate editor for InQuest Magazine) ODie... (no distinctions, no attunements, no resonance neither ;p ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 02:13:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: IN> Re: Choirs and Bands On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, in_nomine-digest wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, Charybdis GreyDragon sent me the following Celestial Song of Tongues: > Subject: > > > Looking at Superiors, I found Eli, Janus, and Litheroy most appealing > angelically, and Vapula, and Nybbas most appealing demonically. > > I was most turned off by Dominic and Novalis angelically and by Asomodeus > demonically. > You were most turned off by *Novalis*?! The universe's ultimate "Hippy Chick"? How could you not love an angel who actually knew whom Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin were? And is actually...well... nice? (with the *possible* exception of Yves and Eli). I mean, Dominic I understand... he isn't exactly fun at parties (I know he won't be invited to any more of /mine/ after the mess he made of the last one ;) ... and we won't even talk about what Michael did...). Show of hands of anyone who didn't look at Novalis's picture in the Rulebook and say, "Cool! Janis Joplin!" Sheesh. Young people these days... > Actually, looking at the trends, I think I lean towards chaos over order, > regardless of the side... > Chaos over order? So. You think Novalis represents the forces of Order. Hmmm... very interesting, because that's not how I interpret her. I seriously don't think she concerns herself in such matters. "Be good to one another," is one of her 'rules' certainly (if you can call it such), but this is more a matter of Compassion for her, not a 'rule'. She feels people should be good to one another because that's the Way Things Should Be, not because some rule said so. > And in certain combinations I think my initial impressions have shifted. > Though I was at first turned off by Malakites, the concept of playing a > Malakim of Eli appealed... Though Seraphs in generally did not appeal, a > Seraph of Janus did... I always did like roleplaying internal conflict... > It's that chaos thing again, I guess... > I have a serious dislike of Seraphs, mostly because of their snooty attitudes, and of Malakites, because I try to avoid combat if possible. If I had a choice, it would be Cherubim and Mercurians that I'd like to play the most -- mostly because they fit my personality the best. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us "I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed A wound that will not heal A heart that cannot feel Hoping that the horror will recede Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be free." --Rush, "Red Sector A" (Lee/Lifeson/Peart) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:46:13 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Making up names for Celestials Dear List I was trying to come up with some names for the ten to twelve 6 and 7 Force minor celestials I wanted to work for my local Seneschals and to fill out my City's Celestial population when two things occurred to me. First when an angel speaks his name to another angel does the other angel just hear the name or the meaning as well? Would it be redundant to say I am Abana servitor of David when Abana means "made of stone". If you use the names from the Bible Names list (which can be found through either of the main IN web sites) then all your celestials can (and I think should) have names that give a clue as to their choir, superior and outlook. This could be useful to Characters who hear that a demon named Paphos (that which is very hot) is coming to town, as they might be able to guess that they are looking for a servitor of Belial. This could lead to celestials being referred to more by the meaning of their names and led me to a second thought. Why not just give the minor celestial spirits "meaning" names? This avoids having to make up "angelic" sounding names, and could be used as an indicator to when a spirit is promoted from minor assistant to full angel. You can still give them names which give clues to their nature and function, but not have to translate that to the angelic language. Thus "Sings praises of the Lord to the four corners of the world" was created, whom I am sure many players are going to call "Sings" or "Corners". Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours, Peter. Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Whoso loveth God truely must not expect to be loved by Him in return." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:47:22 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> How You Know You've Got In Nomine On The Brain Yeah, I noticed it on the brain last night as the worst instance yet I was watching Poltergeist: The Legacy... "Hmmm, I wonder why Rachel is playing the piano," said person entering the room. "She's regenerating Essence," said me, instinctively. Then we watched "Spawn" on HBO - hmmmm...maybe a Calabite, with several levels of Discord, trying for a chance to redeem himself? Hmmmm...he seems to have a problem regenerating essence, too... SPOILER (for the episode, in case any of you care.) Actually, Rebecca, the antagonist of the story, reminded me a lot of a Shedim, but she wasn't necessarily making Rachel do things repugnant to her - - yet. Oh well. SeanMike - -- We were put on this Earth to suffer; we each have our own private pain. We must pass this pain onto our brother, a neverending cycle starts again. - Techno Destructo, "The Private Pain of Techno Destructo" I'm locked and loaded, and you'll have to pay - "Back to Iraq" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:14:44 -0400 (EDT) From: The Quixotic Ninja Subject: Re: IN> Re: Choirs and Bands > > I was most turned off by Dominic and Novalis angelically and by Asomodeus > > demonically. > > > You were most turned off by *Novalis*?! The universe's ultimate "Hippy > Chick"? How could you not love an angel who actually knew whom Jimi > Hendrix and Janis Joplin were? And is actually...well... nice? Ok, granted -- Novalis is sweet. Then again, so is saccharin. ;) - -- John Trussell truss@gweep.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:51:13 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> ...And I Thought I'd Never Ask a Kyrio Question... > I don't know... I think the players deserve the type of fun they >want - and if they want this or that character, that's okay: it's their >game after all. At least IMHO. Of course, I seldom got complete >adventures *before* knowing all my player's characters. Instead, I do >prefer moulding the story around them, sort of thinking 'What kinda >troble can this bunch get themselves into??' It's a challenge, I know, >but that's one of my pleasures as a GM. Sure, I think we all do that, to a greater or lesser extent. But note the plural: "players". The problem is sometimes one will have a couple of players who are going to want to play something that is going to ruin the fun for everyone else. This is one of the cases where the "Rule of NO" comes into play. Also, the GM deserves to have fun, too -- (s)he's putting an awful lot of work into the game, after all, and it would be nice if it was the sort of game that the GM enjoys. The idea is for *everyone* to have fun, and if the GM has to ban certain things to ensure it, then that's what the GM should do. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:05:21 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: Re: IN> How You Know You've Got In Nomine On The Brain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:52:52 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Shedim Plot Seed >Charmed Life >============ > Heh heh. I *love* it. -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:12:43 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Loose thoughts on Gotham City... (Pt 1) > Well... okay, let's look at this. Now, if you're maintaining a Role, >you have to tell lies occasionally - even if only to the extent that you >say "My name is Bob Simth", rather than "My name is Arglebeth, Seraph of >Yves". Now, that kind of lie doesn't net you dissonance, I assume, >unless you worked for Litheroy (in which case you couldn'y have a Role, >so the point is moot). You can maintain a Role without lying. To use your example, you can say something droll like "It says Bob Smith on my driver's license". As a GM, I would definitely start giving a Seraph dissonance if they were too loose about what they were saying. No one said being a Seraph was easy. IMHO Litheroy's angels can't have Roles because that would be hiding something -- their nature. > If Bruce Wayne is asked "Are you Batman", he'd possibly be entitled to >say 'no' simply because _he's_ not Batman - Batman is another Role he >maintains. As a GM, I'd probably allow something similar if a PC wanted >to maintain multiple Roles. Now, this I can see. It's just that "little white lies" are still lies, and cause Dissonance. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:24:33 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Loose thoughts on Gotham City... (Pt 1) > Of course, any GM is free to adjudicate these things for >their campaign. It's more fun to watch the Seraphs squirm if you >treat them more strictly. Most Seraph-players seem to enjoy >walking that fine line between creative truth-telling and >outright lies. As the player of a Seraph, I'll second that. This, of course, starts to range into the "everyone likes two Chiors, hates two, and can leave the rest" issue, but I'll forge ahead anyway. The thing I like about Seraphs is that same thing I like about In Nomine in general -- the concept of an absolute Truth. Seraphs embody what I think of when I think 'angel' -- an otherworldly being that embodies the virtue of God. (Mercurians embody the other thing I think of when I think 'angel' -- an otherworldly being that loves humans more than they love themselves.) While I'm talking about myself, a very selfish (i.e. demonic) thing to do, I'd like to go on-record as a Seraph-lover who also likes Blaseraphs. Balseraphs and Habbalah, actually. There is nothing more fun, villian-wise, than someone who can look a Malakite in the eye and say, "I work for God as well." -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:27:10 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> A Couple of Questions > The Kyriotate question I'll leave to the official folk, > though...(well, or whoever else feels like dealing with it, of course. My > only comment on it is the general note that I'd handle the smaller ones - > grasses and regular flowers and whatnot - under a similar aspect to the > `swarm' rule on insects...eg. they possess not a blade, but a clump of > grass equal to a couple square feet for every Force worth of grass they're > inhabiting.) {Hehe..though it does bring up the question - do flowers (or > stone, for Kyrios of David) dream?} Good point! I was assuming that, but didn't state it explicitly (most grass is an extended 'plant' that is mostly underground with many leaves poking above the ground). I'd have to think what would be an appropriate size per force, though. A square yard might be more reasonable (heck, it's GRASS, for Pete's sake!) ;) Flowers are _always_ dreaming... they are in bed all day! (Ow! Stop throwing things! Hey quit it!) ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:12:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Rules vs Story (Re: IN> Body Bagging) At 2:09 PM +0930 6/16/97, Damian O'Dea wrote: >IQJason@aol.com wrote: >> ODie... wrote: [...] >Actually, I'm wondering if your reaction to what I'm saying isn't a >form of kneejerk reaction to something perceived about my gaming >style. Possibly so? It may be a kneejerk reaction to other things that you didn't intend when you said, "story should be above rules" -- there *are* a lot of people (some quite good GMs, some railroad "who needs characters, I just need actors for my plot" GMs, and many in-between) who *will* use "who needs rules, I just want to tell a story here" as an excuse to slam everyone who likes clear rules as a "munchkin/rules-lawyer." I've been accused of being a rules-lawyer myself. Since I don't do it to *abuse* the rules too often (), I now go "So?" Anyway, one reason to settle rules-debates of "Okay, I try to do [x], what happens?" is so that the flow of the story *isn't* disrupted by the GM going "duh...." and trying to think of things while the players argue for what *they* want to happen. If the GM has an idea for what he *wants* to happen (even if it's just a "canon" answer), then he can move on before the players fall out of character and start jockying for position on what should happen. And/or he knows where the odd places are, that he's going to have to institute House Rules on which he should tell his players ASAP. So there are good story reasons to want to know canon as well -- it helps establish expectations, which can keep the story flowing! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:37:36 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Smif At 7:35 PM -0400 6/14/97, David Edelstein wrote: >Would someone kindly refresh my memory and tell me who Robin Wood is and >what game stuff she's done? A lot of Dragon Magazine covers, the _People of Pern_ art book, various card games (in "Dragon Storm", and others (not MtG, I think?) that I'm blanking on... Oh, yeah, some stuff in Fantasy Adventures; silly game, nice art), and, hm.... I think that may be about it that I know of or can think of at the moment. But she's really good, and we've got some of her originals, so there. O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:20:51 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Playing musical vessels. > In my game, (and I think in others') a will roll tends to represent an actual > effort to resist. If I try to use a song on you and for some reason you don't > want to resist, then you don't get a roll. > > If I follow these rulings then you can't steal a vessel unless you had the > song of possession. But if you can sing the song of possession at what point > would a resistance roll be made? I wouldn't think an empty vessel would put > up a fight, and so it doesn't seem likely to get a role. But would it get a > roll when the owner returns? I gave no roll for the vessel since it didn't currently have an inhabitant. Another poster went the opposite route and let the empty vessel get a roll as if it were 'occupied'. By my way of thinking, when the owner returns their natural route of entry is blocked, so they get bounced to the plane where displaced souls go (i.e. the marches). If they have another vessel, though, they can use that. I based this decision on the Song of Possession text and the story at the beginning of the main rulebook. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:39:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Smif At 9:57 AM +0930 6/16/97, Damian O'Dea wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> And, a bit more seriously, Kaja Foglio -- her own, personal style, >> especially when seen in some of her Magic cards, would probably >> fit great. Phil's style would be best reserved for sexy demon chicks >> without much in the way of clothes -- Lilim and Impudites. ;-) > >Heck, why not some sexy angel chicks too? Why should the demons get >all the fun? Eli might not have respect, but he's probably being v. >cool somewhere ;p I just think he does horns better than halos, I guess... And then there's that angel in XXXenophile... (Just a single-page illo, but hey...) Seraphim in white latex... Yeah. Yum. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #212 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.