From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jul 24 19:20:27 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 TAA32661 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:20:26 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA03080 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:03:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:03:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199707242003.PAA03080@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 #258 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, July 24 1997 Volume 01 : Number 258 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Angels & Religion Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Angels and Religion Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dominic, Again Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Fonts and Things Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Was: Truth of the Universe or something... Re: IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:59:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > >This is the problem I have with Dominic. He claims to support > >Christianity, yet--if you ask me--neither he *nor* Laurence seem to act > >much like Christians. > > That's because they're angels, and not humans. Angels have their own moral > code, their own resonance that was was set down by God, either directly or > indirectly through a Superior. That's fine, but they are going to *have* a moral code and take it very seriously. We really don't have much detail on what Heaven thinks is good or bad. I know that there is going to be disagreement, but even there, we don't really know what the big disagreements are other than in very vague terms. Perhaps this is inevitable in a game of this sort, but it does make playing an Angel more confusing. If nothing else, we should know how seriously a servitor of Laurence chould take the 10 commandments insofar as their *own* behaviour is concerned. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:55:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Angels & Religion > >>>In Nomine should clear up the whole question of how Angels relate to > religion. The main book mentions who supports which, but mainly, it seems, > in terms of wanting humans to believe one or the other. Do Angels pray? > Do they ever go to church for any reason other than to watch over the > congregation? Do they even *believe* the religions they support, or just > think that they are useful tools? Do they think God loves them and cares > about them as much as He cares about humans?<<< > > In Nomine isn't going to clear these things up because angels don't have > definitive answers to most of those questions, any more than humans do. But humans *do* have practices that they associate with thier beliefs in God and Heaven. Humans pray, go to church, (usually) believe the religions they foster and think God loves and cares about them. Even if there are no absolute answers for angels, there must be cultural tendencies. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:28:39 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) > Walk up to the thug, for instance, insult his momma, and then > possess someone else in the area, leaving the demon standing > and blinking in front of this 300lb (all muscle) guy in leather, > chains and tattoos. That smacks of cheating - I'd say that leaving a host in a bad situation has a chance of being dissonant for a Kyriotate, as well. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:28:39 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) > >Bright Lilim may be > >rare, but I think Redeemed Shedim are at least as uncommon. > > Lessee... Asmodeus' (!!) don't have to "wear out their welcome" > by corrupting the host. Betraying Asmodeus - why does this not sound like a good idea? OTOH, I have it in the backstory of Saphreal (a Kyriotate of mine) that she used to be a Servitor of Baal with something similar. Even with that, her Redemption was not easy... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:46:03 +0500 From: "James Rand" Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > > Of course, I'm -still- hacking at Precedence's _Immortal: the Invisible > > War_, but it'll port over eventually. I can feel it. ;) > > If I do Immortals (which I think I'll avoid - they are really cool > only by themselves), I'll hack at the Highland: the Gathering > netrules. Immortal: tIW has little, if anything, do with "Highlander"-style immortals (although I agree with you that "Highlander" immortals are best left to themselves, although I also think that each of the WW games is meant to stand by itself with little or no crossover). While I haven't gotten my hands on a copy of Immortal yet, I do know that Precendence's Immortals can use magical abilities called Serenades and write their character sheet on the fly as they recall abilities learned during past lives throughout the course of the adventure, neither of which is something we've seen Duncan do... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:06:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > >>>It can go either way. Either they're all held strictly to > Dominic's view (whatever the GM decides that may be), or, like the Malakim > choosing their Oaths, each Servitor of Judgment has their own standard.<<< > No way. Dominic, Mr. "One Standard Fits All", is NOT going to let each and > every one of his Servitors make up their own standards of Judgment.... I thought YOU were saying Dominic wasn't so closed minded...where'd we get turned around? > >>>Well, yes, I'm sure that's HIS answer. I'm not so sure Michael, say, > would agree.<<< > Why wouldn't he? Michael isn't going to deny Dominic is the Archangel of > Judgment. He simply chose not to follow Dominic's rules-- in effect, Dominic insists that his law is the prevailing law. Michael, as you say, chooses not to follow that law...which, I think, is suggesting that he doesn't agree that that's THE prevailing standard. Obviously, he's not going to deny that Dominic is the Archangel of Judgment; Michael's a Seraph, after all, and Dominic IS. But he DOES say Dominic is the hyena of Heaven, refuses to FOLLOW that law, and not only thumbs his nose at it himself but steps in to defend other Archangels Dominic turns his harsh lights on...which I think is pretty strong evidence that Michael doesn't feel Dominic has the final say on such matters. > doesn't like the way Heaven is being run currently. But he does recognize > that this IS how it's being run currently. Not by any particular evidence. Now, you have a point - twice in thousands of years isn't much. But those are also the only two SIGNIFICANT cases known about at all...there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and being `in the right'. It's just assumed that lesser Angels have been picked up on the sidelines, and strongly suggested that Michael is at least generally against even that much...and, just to reemphasize, every time Dominic has accused another Archangel, Michael's opposed it. This doesn't suggest to me someone who's saying, "Well, okay, I may disagree, but hey, that's how things are," and letting it go at that... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:21:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Religion > > > > It'd seem that while angels outnumber demons all in all, demons may > > outnumber angels on Earth. Which to me, seems more appropriate. > It's generally accepted that there are more Demons than > Angels, though of lesser power, on the average. No one has an > official tally of the number of Demons though! It's my understanding that the Demon of the Census reported only ten demons active on Earth...but then, I gather he's a Balseraph. (The study also reported seventy two thousand four hundred and eighty six demons inactive on Earth, presumed to be Servitors of Sloth.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:11:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) > > He's also got to keep corrupting his hosts. Failing to do so gets > A Shedite of Belial might take up residence in some fire that > Shedim of Death can wander around in corpses... > And Shedim of Valefor don't *need* a host (if you really want to be > Shedim of Technology can stay in their laptop. Though, all of those assume that just having alternate `hosts' available can relieve the Shedim of the need for corruption, which I'd have some problem with myself...Asmodeus's don't, of course, since it's specified that, well, they just don't...but all those I think are just possible stopping points. If a Shedite of Valefor is really just hiding out in the laptop, I'd say that violates the, "Cannot falter in his constant drive for corruption" rule. {Deliberately hanging out in non-corruptable hosts is just as bad as just not corrupting a corruptable one, basically...I might let them get by with a day or two if they're doing it strategically, but..} ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:29:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic, Again MaBarry commented; > > You know, the more I think of it, the more I like > > my original interpretation of Dominic: > > > > He's young. To which Jeff Miller noted; > I like this version of Dominic. I don't think he'll get played this way > much but if he was, *I* might play a servator of Dominic (much as that Actually, I have to admit, that version, or at least something like it, is how I tend to hold Dominic..UNDERNEATH it all. But only Yves, if anyone, may ever be SHOWN this side of him; I think he deliberately positions himself as a bad guy because it's good for his job. (One thought I've had is that he may take some pains to give Angels something to fear more than Hell...so that they won't, if they start thinking that way, feel secure in figuring they can just go there and be protected.) On the other hand, MaBarry and I got talking the other night and decided it's actually Kobal. With little glue on glow-in-the-dark eyes stuck to his cheeks for that six-eyed look.. (Well, HAVE you ever seen them in the same room together? And Dark Humor could be taken as a KIND of Judgment..) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:37:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > And despite his generally laid-back attitude, he might actually dislike > > homosexuality slightly, but only because it doesn't create children. > This would certainly make him more interesting. There is a danger in In > Nomine to end up with a division between "Good" Archangels and "Bad" > Archangels. Politics is much more interesting when there is something to > be said for and against each. Definitely...we were going through it briefly last night, and realized that on the whole they're ALL pretty nasty. (And personally, I even see a couple of the Demon Princes as relatively nice...) >Giving Novalis an opposition to abortion might be interesting - as would >giving her an opposition to marriage... Marriage I could see, to an extent...there are too many herbal abortificants, though. Still, not all "bad" things about them have to be bad in that sense..Novalis and Eli can both be a little TOO relaxed. (Eli gets that the most, of course...Angels, by their nature, tend to NEED some direction. Just imagine if YOUR Boss said, "Hey, be cool..." Personally, I'd be nervous. Novalis, I think, can be VERY stubborn..) On a related note, look at Jean...more involved with his Servitors than any other Archangel. This COULD be taken as a good thing, but...micromanagement is bloody annoying when you DON'T need it. (And perfectionists are bad enough when they're NOT an Archangel with the potential to actually -BE- perfect...I can only imagine how annoying his, "Well, not bad, but you should have done ____" must get..) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:46:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) > > Though, I actually would think a Kyriotate would have trouble > >taking over a Demon of the same number of Forces... > Or less! Well, no...less I don't think would present much of a problem, since they'd still have at least a Force to possess a canary or somesuch...I DON'T see any intrinsic problem just in taking over a Demonic host, except the obvious (eg. that Celestials will tend to be just a -tad- more resistant..) > >concentrating the Kyrio all in one place. It's not specifically MENTIONED > >under their Dissonance, but that's a clear step towards Shedim... > I don't think so -- it's not an easy thing for them, mayhap, but > being "just one person" at a time probably isn't risking dissonance. I dunno...their Resonance is for "multiplicity". Now, in almost every other case, Dissonance is just the violation of Resonance..(eg. Seraphim Resonate for Truth; lies cause Disonance. Ditto Ophanim for motion vs. inaction, Malakim for honor vs. dishonor...) Not all of them are QUITE that direct, but..where it comes up, I do tend to think that breaking your Resonance qualifies. Perhaps not quite as strictly as the rules specifically given for Dissonance, but...I really wouldn't be inclined to let a Kyriotate hang out all in one `self' very often or for very long without getting some Dissonance from it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:53:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) > > concentrating the Kyrio all in one place. It's not specifically MENTIONED > > under their Dissonance, but that's a clear step towards Shedim... > How? Just because Shedim have lost their multiplicity doesn't mean > that the multiplicity is a necessary part of being a Kyriotate. Now Well, to go Canon, the very first sentence under Kyriotate Resonance is, "The Kyriotates' resonance is for multiplicity". Combined with the comment that the Shedim have lost the selflessness for that...personally, I very much think that singularity should be Dissonant for a Kyriotate. But, that IS just my opinion.. (Which means, of course, that it's ultimate Truth, but you may wallow in your ignorance if it makes you happier...heh) > I wonder - if a Kyriotate possesses a demon, picks a fight with it's > body, and then leaves it, bloody and damaged, does he get Dissonance? I think so, actually...it's not an overall-Symphonic thing in that case; it's the Kyrio's personal Symphony they have to deal with there, so the fact that demons are Celestial doesn't necessarily offer protection. Leaving their HOST, whatever it may be, in worse condition than they entered it in, causes them Dissonance...using their Resonance that way under any circumstances is corruptive and dangerous. Though that line DOES leave me with the question of, if someone hurts a Kyrio or Shedite host..does that cause a disturbance in the Symphony? (My thought is `no', as they seem to count as Celestial for the duration in almost all other respects...my alternate thought is yes, but the noise doesn't come until they leave the host, in which case there won't be the noise if the host has been patched up.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:51:12 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:16:41 -0400, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > Take the case of Joe Shedim. After being sent to Earth, he has >become extremely disgruntled, and gone renegade. Now he wants to be >redeemed. > > Unfortunately, while he's on Earth, he has to occupy a body. If he >doesn't he gets dragged back to Hell, which is the last place such a Demon >wants to go. > > He's also got to keep corrupting his hosts. Failing to do so gets >him Dissonance, and Dissonance lowers his chance of grabbing a New host >when time's up, unless it's converted to Discord, which has its own >problems. ... But what if he's careful about who he corrupts and how? Suppose he has been working with the Mob. He possesses the Mob's accountant. He starts corrupting the books in more and more serious ways; he leaks information to the police; as a finale, he mails the books to the FBI. Naturally, a hit man is sent to kill the accountant. He possesses the hit man and corrupts him so he decides to miss; further he has him lie and say the accountant is dead, stealing his fee; then he kills his boss and turns state's evidence. Now all he has to do is go to the local heavenly Tether and ask to talk to a Seraph. Dominic might even hire him. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:51:08 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:27:38, Jeff Miller wrote: >Granted but I was under the impression that he was talking about all angels >not just Servators of Eli. I was (and Beth gave several other examples). >I just don't see David saying to Michael, "can I have one of your angels >for a while." And Michael actually *giving* him one. I can see Michael >telling one of his Servitors to go work *with* David but not *for* David. You're splitting hairs. The end result is that for whatever political or practical reason, an angel of Michael ends up working on David's task. Metaphysically, this means the angel can gain dissonance from violating either's rules. That's just the way it works. >It seems too much like trading Servitors like cards in a Magic: the >Gathering game. They're angels, not pawns. They represent the angel they >serve. I would imagine that most Archangels would have propriatory >feelings toward their Servitors. Sure they do. You're not going to see Gaby loan an angel to Dominic. But it's like an MIS programmer being tasked to work for Sales to build a new computer system. Sure, he's still MIS's guy, but he better make Sales happy or everyone will be ticked off at him. OTOH, MIS isn't going to loan him to Sales to sell stuff and Sales wouldn't want him for that--they have better qualified people. Well, maybe he might be good at selling stuff to another MIS company: that might happen if MIS owed Sales a favor or someone higher up ordered it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:50:44 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:06:56, Jeff Miller wrote: >For how long. How long do you remember the poewr for every single thing he >gets his hands on? And that totally negates the situational aspects of the >objects. Sometimes, he might be able to see a way to use a letter opener as >a weapon/6 other times, in different situations, he may only be able to use >it as a weapon/1 (or not as a weapon at all). Agree. It's only true of non-situational weapons. >>Wood would be Novalis' domain. > > This isn't *Mage*. Besides look at those attunements a bit >harder. One of them allows the servant of Eli to change things into >organic or even living substances. But that's a different attunement. The creation one allows creation of *simple* substances. Wood is not simple, just natural. >You could create iron. I don't know if you >>can shape it well. The rules don't say, but improvising: It would depend on >>your skill in Artistry (scupting). I'd be tempted to give you the lower of >>the power of the weapon you perceived (crowbar, sword, whatever) and the >>check digit of the Artistry roll. Or, you could ask the demon nicely to >>wait while you go do a machine shop to get your metal shaped. Some demons >>might agree. :) >> >So, a MoE could create a weapon of a given Power? Why would he ever give >it up then? If that MoE finds a 2x4/6, why would he ever put it down? No, only a weapon comparable to a weapon he's seen. If he finds a power/6 weapon, it might not be portable, durable, or accurate. IAC, standard weapons have powers as high as 8. I can assure you that you will not find a 2x4/6. High powered weapons will almost always be situational, as you put it. >That's why the rules state that the MoE rolls for an object each time he >gets into combat. It's not to discover a bigger weapon it's to see how >creatively he can use an item as a weapon in a situation. Look, if you find a nail gun/6, I'm not going to make you keep it. Feel free to put it back where you found it. >I can see tweeking rules to get rid of exploitable situations but doing so >to create them? Just trying to keep things somewhat in tune with reality. >>Absolutely. Still, if demons pick the battleground, they may try to >>restrict your options; they may or may not succeed. I'll give you full use >>of your attunements within reason but not stupid demons that are going to >>ignore what they know of your capabilities (when and if they learn of >>them). "Be afraid. Be very afraid." :) >> >True. That would be their goal. The MoE's strength is that he might see >weapons where the demon might not. Exactly. >...and he can always create a big rock over it's head.... With the right Attunement, but remember that's not one you get free. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:50:59 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:26:58, Jeff Miller wrote: >>>Why would an Archangel *want* angels from another Arch? Their own way is >>>much better isn't it? >> >>Different capabilities. >> >How does that make anyone else different from Eli's Servators (or Lilim for >that matter)? Different attunements, dissonance, and goals. >To whom do the angels report? Does that mean that a Servator of Jordi must >follow an order that will devistate an area of wildlands just because >Michael who is hiring the Servator from Jordi spotted a nest of demons >hiding out in it? An angel (excepting outcasts and Grigori) report to their Superior (or his designee). This may be their Archangel, another Archangel, or a lesser angel. Whatever, their primary allegiance is supposed to remain with their own Archangel. Jordi's angel would probably have a problem (though it could be that devastating that wildland would prevent more damage to other areas). He should probably try to get the plan changed. Failing that, he might want to try to contact Jordi. It's definitely possible that an angel can have problems with his Superior or his teammates. >Aside from the Eli case, the only Archangel who has the athority to give >orders to another's servator is Lawrance. Well, he's the only Superior you'll directly gain dissonance form disobeying; but if the disobedience was crucially important to your Archangel, your own Archangel would probably dispell that dissonance and reward you for gaining it. But what's generally going to happen is that your Archangel will tell you to go serve on team X, under the auspices of another Archangel. You won't become dissonant for not working with the team, you'll just tick off at least two Archangels. This is not a way to get rewards; it's more a way to convince the Archangels to rearrange your Forces into something more useful to them. >Now I can see Jordi saying, "Go help Michael's group get rid of those >demons but make sure they behave themselves in the forrest." > >That is a far cry from Jordi saying, "You work for Michael for the time >being." Jordi is unlikely to manage at that level of detail. He'll say, "Go work for Michael on this project" (campaign), but that doesn't relieve you as an angel of Jordi of your duties to Jordi. You'll still get dissonance from valuing human life over animal life or killing painfully or slowly. It's just that you also get to gain dissonance from retreating. (BTW, this might be interpreted as giving you no choice but to fight the bad battle plan all the way to invoking Jordi to stop it.) >The first way makes much more sense since it gives the Archangels access to >angels of different capabilities but it lets them retain control of their >own angels. By everything I've read in the book, a Servator is a large >investment made by the Archangel. They shouldn't be so willing to give >them up. They don't give them up. An angel of Jordi's primary responsibility is to serve Jordi, even while he's working for Michael. But, Jordi isn't going to send his servants into projects against his own word; nor is Michael going to abuse Jordi's loan of a servant by putting him in a situation where he'll have to choose between them, because Michael will lose--Jordi's angels work for Jordi first. I think the problem you're having is that you're only looking at one side: For every angel of Jordi working as a scout for Michael's army, there's probably an angel of Michael patrolling a Tether of Jordi, ready to hit anything that threatens it. It's not giving; it's trading, politics. "Hey, Michael, remember that vote I gave you to give your angel the Word 'Air Cavalry'? Things are heating up in San Diego, so I'd like a couple of your Malakim or Ofanim to guard the Zoo. How about it?" "Ok, Jordi, but can I have a good sneaky Elohim for some desert recce?" "Deal!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:45:03 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Fonts and Things Dear List I was wandering the other week and came across some stuff I thought some people might find useful. A collection of "Magical Fonts" http://www.crl.com/~tzimon/topfont.html A bunch of odd exectuables related to Magical things. http://www.crl.com/~tzimon/topbinar.html More public domain fonts for gaming http://www.mpgn.com/Gaming/Fonts/ Odd Chaos rituals and stuff http://www.crl.com/~tzimon/topgener.html Since they interact with Angels so much, Enochian mages for WoD http://arcadia.buseco.monash.edu.au/~eccles/wod/mage/traditions/enochian And a Whole bunch of text files on occult stuff http://alternatives.com/relmagic.htm Please note I can give not report on what effect these files might have on your system, so use at your own discretion. 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: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:25:02 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) "A Shedite of Belial might take up residence in some fire that didn't ever get put out, but that's getting pretty dubious..." Plot Seed: Lee Harvey Oswald was under Shedistic control when he shot JFK...and now the demon is cooling out in the Eternal Flame trying to earn Redemption. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:56:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: IN> Gen Con With only a week to go, who all is going to be at Gen Con? I'll be there for sure Fri. Sat. and Sun. I'ld realy like to put faces with names of folks. Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:57:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >This is the problem I have with Dominic. He claims to support >Christianity, yet--if you ask me--neither he *nor* Laurence seem to act >much like Christians. Then again, a hell of a lot of Christian, aren't very Christian, or as my Grandmother used to say "Cold as a Christian's heart" and she was brought up in a SERIOUS christian household Shadowcat %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "I think there is only one church, and your membership button in it is your belly button" - Stephen Gaskin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:15:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > thumbing his nose at the younger Seraph. Dominic put him on trial, and > remember, God didn't say Dominic was *wrong*, just that, in effect, > Michael's virtues outweighed any alleged sins. Wait a minute...problem here. I remember a few posts back about how Dominic operated on Objective morality: mitigating circumstances be damned, if it's wrong then it's wrong. And then we have an example of God doing -just that- to acquit Michael. This bothers me, since I don't see God as the type to set rules and then break them. I'm certain this would irritate Dominic to no end. This, of course, brings up the question: can God gain Dissonance? And if so, who's gonna call him on it? ;) - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:15:38 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con Shadowcat querieth:- > > With only a week to go, who all is going to be at Gen Con? Err, not yours truly folks; it's a little out of my neck of the woods. However, I might be able to make it down to European GenCon at the end of August. Anyone gonna be going to that? > I'll be there > for sure Fri. Sat. and Sun. I'ld realy like to put faces with names of > folks. Likewise for me at Euro GenCon. See some of you there? Fnord. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:32:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... > > The other note to it is that that's very modern assembly-line > >style thinking. A lot of the Demon Princes are likely to still be going > >for the more old-fashioned craftsmanship approach of thoroughly corrupting > >a single person, not that kind of broad population-based effect... > I can sort of believe this for some, but I can't buy it for Baal (who's I'd suggest there's a shift in progress in the Demonic circles towards this line of thought...Nybbas, specifically, IS a definite sign that there's some movement towards this kind of mass-media corruption. {Though Baal I believe has other concerns, and Kronos I see as VERY old style..for one, he's the oldest, and for another, he's Fate; he believes in moving key pieces. Now, granted, that entails things like making sure Hitler reaches his Fate and ruins hundreds of millions of lives, but the focus of corruption is still on one man...} I DO see Belial and Saminga both becoming more interested in mass destruction, if not mass corruption per-se, and Malphas, of course, works best on organizations. > And even in older times, it would have made a *lot* more sense to > corrupt the king, and spread a lot of misery around, than Georges the > shoemaker. Presuming the king needs corruption...looking at it historically (and, admittedly, a bit cynically), I'd say Georges the shoemaker is more likely to need the attention. (Also consider who the Angels have `traditionally' worked through. Carpenters, slaves, et cetera...only a couple Kings.) > Remember that celestials are, on the whole, considerably smarter than > humans -- I'd assume they'd quickly see where the greatest benefits lay. Remember also that they think very differently...I don't see this so much as a matter of `stupidity' as one of alien thought process. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:03:14 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Was: Truth of the Universe or something... At 11:28 PM -0500 7/23/97, Grim88 wrote: >>"You divine the Truth of the Matter, and then, just as suddenly, you forget >>it. You here a voice in your head saying, 'Don't do that again.'" > >Either that, or the Malakim in Black show up.... Them and their "flashy thing," a very powerful enigmatic relic... (Can't you just see a Seraph in 3 pairs of celestial sunglasses?) (Or a Kyrio...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:03:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con > With only a week to go, who all is going to be at Gen Con? I'll be there > for sure Fri. Sat. and Sun. I'ld realy like to put faces with names of > folks. My wife, Dotti (mudmh10@Uxa.ecn.bgu.edu), and I will be there, of course. As a side note, we finally finished fighting with the Milwaukee Tourism Bureau and ended up in Holiday Inn South. ;'{ So unless someone else who's going to be in the Thrusday night In Nomine game wants to volunteer their room, we're going to have to take over some corner of the con, I guess, since the hotel is rather out of the way. > Shadowcat Oops da Ogre, PS- does anyone have any suggestions about how early you need to get downtown in the morning to get in the parking garages? Or would a taxi end up cheaper... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:45:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > > I tend to see the MoE Attunement as, in part, an empowerment > >thing, and not just a Perception thing...in that sense, not entirely > I still think that there has to be something there to boost (no wet > noodle/6). Plus, I think of it more as a Perception roll to see the way to > use an object effectively as a weapon. Remember that a MoE can use that I know it's not quite what you're saying here, but the other guy (I THINK it was Walter, but I'm not sure) has been going as far as to suggest that you can only pick up what's already there, and only at the Power it naturally has...at which point I don't see any Attunement. ANYONE should be able to do THAT, often without any Perception roll at all. So once we're over that (eg. you don't have to be a Malakim to use a Crowbar/2 as a Crowbar/2, since that's bloody well what they ARE), then we're back to the Malakim picking things up and using them considerably better than they naturally are...(Again; how often are you likely to be in a room with ANYTHING just naturally more damaging than a battle axe?) So, what about this for an option...if the Malakim picks up something truly useless, their Attunement changes it, temporarily? (Eg. that pre-determined papier-mache bust becomes real marble...that wet noodle becomes a garotte...) If you must, charge an Essence for that...make it a little more difficult in the really stretched situations, but without completely nullifying the point of the Attunement... Besides, remember also that this is a rare Attunement that barely overbalances anything. Even Power +6 isn't going to make much difference in most battles between Celestials, who generally either are or are not well prepared for Corporeal combat... > >(Hehe...co-ed naked Malakim of Eli wrestling? Could be a very popular > >T-shirt phrase in certain circles..) > Until a MoE does something *really* nasty to that demon with the t-shirt/6. S'why you have to pay attention to the T-shirt and make sure you're naked going in. (I think Eli created this attunement just for such opportunities. Well...or maybe not.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:53:23 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine > Actually, judging from this list I think there are quite a *lot*. This > makes things difficult for SJG, because there is a much wider variety of > feels they need to cater to to keep In Nomine fans happy. I can't really > think of any other game that inspires such dispirate playing styles. From the ends of Creation, it looks like. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:59:57 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con On Jul 24, 8:56am, Shadowcat wrote: > Subject: IN> Gen Con > With only a week to go, who all is going to be at Gen Con? I'll be there > for sure Fri. Sat. and Sun. I'ld realy like to put faces with names of > folks. I'm going! Yow! Much fun! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:51:09 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) On Jul 23, 11:14pm, Casca wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) > On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > A Shedite of Belial might take up residence in some fire that > > didn't ever get put out, but that's getting pretty dubious... > > There's an Eternal Flame in Arlington Nation Cemetary, I believe. For the > Kennedy monument if momory serves. > > Then there's the sacred fire in Greece that lights all Olympic torches. > > Plus all those semi-active volcanos, if one allows lava. Why not... they have a hard enough time as it is! ;) "Don't go up there, senor! It ees rumored that a spirit lives in that volcano!" "Poppycock! I'll have none of this native superstition. Drive on!" - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:55:01 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Message text written by INTERNET:in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >At 5:16 PM -0400 7/23/97, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: [...] > I'd been thinking about this too. To me, it seems virtually >impossible for a Shedim to get Redeemed. [...] > He's also got to keep corrupting his hosts. Failing to do so gets >him Dissonance, and Dissonance lowers his chance of grabbing a New host >when time's up, unless it's converted to Discord, which has its own >problems. If he wants to stay on Earth, and be Redeemed, he has to >successfully balance the individual harm and the greater good that he does >long enough to attract the attention and gain the trust of an Archangel. No >other Band is forced by their nature to hurt people. Bright Lilim may be >rare, but I think Redeemed Shedim are at least as uncommon. < So the shedim aquires discord.So what unlike Kyriotates there is no limit to how long the Shedium possesses his host. From the box on redemptiomn gaining Discord is one of the prerequisites of redemption. [All the celestial discord is removed anyway by becoming an angel an just about all it takes is a decision to return to heaven and the ability to persuade an Archangel to talk to you. From that I would have said that Habalah who after all believe they are angels [ and therefore don't need redemption and Balseraphs who believe only those things which increase their paranoia [" No one defects to heaven Dominique has them ground up to power Jeans inventions"] are both more unlikely to change sideseven the Djinn with their Yesterday was bad, Today is worse tommorrow will be really miserable have less of an incentive to change sides than some one who if he isn't on top of his job every day is sliding up a slope towards heaven. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com Sacrifice is often the purest form of ascension... :- Virtual Cross Flavour Text: Heresy CCG ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #258 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.