From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 25 00:08:27 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 AAA19430 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:08:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA26336 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:59:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:59:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199707250259.VAA26336@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 #259 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 259 In this digest: Re: IN> Angels & Religion Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 IN> A small Highlander tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) IN> Secrets of the Universe Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) IN> Why Mix Superiors? Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Re: Gen Con Re: IN> Was: Truth of the Universe or something... IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Dark In Nomine IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Secrets of the Universe Re: IN> Angels & Religion IN> We are "them"... Re: IN> Gen Con Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Gen Con IN> Celestials Vs. Humans Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Secrets of the Universe Re: IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:02:03 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Angels & Religion At 11:55 PM -0400 7/23/97, Gregory Littmann wrote: >> >>>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. Why? I'd suspect there are *individual* tendencies, or Choiral tendencies, or Superior-based tendencies... But I don't think those are "culture" in that sense. The thing about angels and demons is that they don't just *believe* there's a God of some sort, they *KNOW* it. And they know the general likelihoods of It paying specific attention to them -- those Divine Interventions... They also know what their Archangels think about being bugged when it's not important, and may map that onto the Divine Spirit Itself... Angels probably *do* pray under stress -- "Oh, God, let me get this grenade *right* into that demon's car and not hit the school bus" -- but it's probably only the most heartfelt of prayers. What an angel in church is probably doing is sending up "good thoughts;" heavier on the "thanking the Symphony for the glory around us" than asking for stuff. Angels *give* stuff/luck, they don't ask. As for which religions are more True? That's individual taste again. Does God love and care about angels as much as humans? That's probably also individual opinion -- the demons think "no," and that's part of why they upped stakes and left. The ones who stayed think that the Way of Things is appropriate, but may or may not believe that they get seperate but equal Loving. Demons, on the other hand, probably have a little problem: they don't dare pray to anyone or anything. Someone might answer, and *then* they're in *real* trouble... - --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 14:09:05 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > 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) I am happy to say:NOT I! I don't think the house is insured against multiple direct-hit lightning strikes! tom timberlake ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:08:03 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) >>>> Of course, I'm -still- hacking at Precedence's _Immortal: the Invisible > War_, but it'll port over eventually. I can feel it. ;) I'm not really up on that one.<<< Cool concepts. Nice art. Incoherent setting. Unplayable rules. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 16:19 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #252 >>I can't see Yves doing this -- he seems least likely of all the >>Archangels to be petty. I see the whole Islam bit as being an example >>that even Yves makes mistakes -- *he's* not infallible. >> >I'm not so sure that Yves would consider it a mistake. Maybe I'm just reading between the lines, but that was my conclusion from the fact that he *used* to promote religion. It's not so much that Islam, per se, was a mistake, as that the fallout from its creation was a lot more than he wanted -- the Crusades, Gabriel's persecution, etc. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:08:06 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A small Highlander tangent (was Dark In Nomine) >>>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.<<< There are a couple of GURPS Highlanders net rules available too. (Including mine-- except I haven't put mine up on my web page yet.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:34:22 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) At 8:51 AM +0000 7/24/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >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. I suspect that they only gain the dissonance conditions if they are also able to invoke that Superior -- if they're just told to go work *with* somebody's group, they will follow their Archangel's orders, but don't have the dissonance conditions. Dissonance conditions would only apply to long-term loans, and maybe not even then. (Eli's do *not* get them, for instance; neither do they get freebie attunements from their temp AAs, though.) - --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 15:08:11 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Secrets of the Universe >>>Actually, the information on the Archangel of Revelation indicates strongly that secrets are Not Good. But of course it also indicates that the secret of the Symphony is one that *must* be kept for the safety of all.<<< Remember Vertigo's Cain & Abel (from "Sandman")? There's a subtle difference between "Secrets" and "Mysteries". - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:29:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) At 12:28 AM +0000 7/24/97, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >> 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. Normally, yes, but with a demon the rules probably *will* bend a little. At 1:53 AM -0600 7/24/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: >> > 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) Singularity as a habit would be dangerous -- but Kyrios can be sequentially multiple as well as concurrently multiple. More is better, but sometimes you just have to concentrate yourself. They probably think it's boring, though. The other main distinguishing feature between Kyrios and Shedim is that Kyrios must care for their hosts, while Shedim must destroy them. > 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.) It counts as noise, I believe has been stated by Karakash. This is why it's hard to deal with the &^%^&## bodyhoppers. OTOH, anything *they* do also counts as noise, so at least you can spot them... - --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 15:08:07 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Why Mix Superiors? >>>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.<<< It's actually a sort of "loan" system, like when military officers are temporarily detailed to other agencies. They are still members of the service to which they belong, but for the length of their assignment, they take orders and report to the chain of command, and follow the regulations, of the host agency. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 14:04:33 CDT From: Oscar Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >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. I think this qualifies under the let the Archangels do their jobs as best they understand and let God worry about the plan as a whole. Dominic may be the one chosen by God to interpret the rules, but that doesn't mean that even his interpretation is what God meant. Part of what I currently enjoy about the game is that noone knows for sure (except maybe Yves) and if they do they certainly aren't talking. >This, of course, brings up the question: can God gain Dissonance? And if >so, who's gonna call him on it? ;) If he does, he probably just sends himself to bed without dinner. Heck, maybe he's still up in his room and that's why noone has heard from him directly. =) Oscar ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:46:45 -0500 From: "Dr Kromm" Subject: IN> Re: Gen Con On 24 Jul 97 at 8:56, Shadowcat wrote: > 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'll be in Milwaukee from setup on Wednesday (August 6) until the Monday after (August 11). Look for me behind/under/in front of/in the general vicinity of the SJ Games booth. Kromm. Sean M. Punch o E-mail: o 4122 rue Rivard (a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | At SJG: kromm@io.com | Montreal, Quebec =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=o Local POP: kromm@cam.org o Canada H2L 4H9 GURPS Line Editor | WWW: | Home: (514) 288-9600 and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:54:54 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Was: Truth of the Universe or something... 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.... Malakim in Black (MiB - what a coincidence!): "Would you please look at this flaming sword? Sorry..." A bright flashing light... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:08:04 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: 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.<<< Fortunately, In Nomine is presented in a way that allows each GM to tailor the campaign to suit his mood. That's why the "official" universe doesn't establish exactly what the celestial population density is, for example, or for that matter, try to explain every significant person and event in the history of mankind as the result of celestial meddling. The GM can easily say that celestials outnumber humans on Earth, and rewrite history so that every famous person who ever lived was actually a celestial or a Soldier, and everything that's ever happened has been a direct result of diabolical or divine interference-- but the official canon doesn't portray it that way, because it's easier for GMs who want it that way to add it than for GMs who *don't* want it that way to try to filter out such an altered worldview. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:51:35 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Gregory Littmann wrote: > 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. Well, they should be aware of it when they decided to give us a game which could be played as 'Let's save the world!' as much as 'Let's screw it!'... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:08:09 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>I'll persecute you then when they stop me from doing that, I'll persecute you for being pissed off that I persecuted you. Sounds like someone *I* want in charge of Judgement.<<< That's a rather simple-minded interpretation of the sequence of events, but feel free to go with it. The reality is, at each step in the process, Dominic had what he believed, based on his best judgment, to be legitimate reason for inquiring into Gabriel's activities. That this led to a cycle of events in which Gabriel became further alienated from Heaven and thus put under a greater cloud of suspicion is an epic tragedy. But it's not merely the result of Dominic "persecuting" her. There is no doubt some fault on both their parts, and much that neither of them could have done differently. >>>Beyond redemption?<<< Dominic hasn't said Gabriel's beyond redemption-- he hasn't even said she's in NEED of redemption. He's just suspicious. >>>Has he ever tried apologizing?<<< For what? >>>OTOH, maybe that puts her beyond redemption since he doesn't seem likely to fix his mistakes or even acknowledge them.<<< It hasn't been established that he's made a mistake. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:48:09 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Gregory Littmann wrote: > > > Gabriel IS Fire. > > > > At least, the heavenly concept of them. Gabriel is God's > idea of > > Fire - but Belial is what Lucifer thinks Fire should be. > > > They had better have at least *some* free will apart from God's > concepts > because God is perfect and archangels are sometimes wrong. If Dominic > was > God's idea of Judgement, I don't think he would ever lose a case. Dominic *is* God's idea of Judgement - but he (Dominic) is the one who get the work done and who fails sometimes. If Dominic wasn't performing like God wanted him to perform, you'd think he'd still get his job?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Gregory Littmann wrote: > Cool! I hope you have discovered GURPS, because you may need it. Heh. I've got three years of Hero System under my belt. Compared to that, GURPS is child's play. > > Of course, I'm -still- hacking at Precedence's _Immortal: the Invisible > > War_, but it'll port over eventually. I can feel it. ;) > > I'm not really up on that one. Give it a miss unless you like doing a lot of conversion work. On the other hand, the game concept fairly screams "Grigori PCs". > > (I detect a tanget regarding "do angels have/need souls" approaching, but > > I'll save that for later.) > > Its worth thinking about, I agree. Remind me to bring it up sometime. > Well, its a bit contrived as written, but any group that is similar > enough to mages but more powerful will ruin the atmosphere, IMHO. High > powered mages are not *much* like angles, but they are similar *enough*. > There isn't the difference between say, mages and paradox spirits. I know you say you've GM'd mages, but have you ever played them? Believe me, there's quite a lot of difference on the other side of the table. I don't think a mage could present a serious challenge for a single celestial until arete and sphere reach 3 or 4. Now let us consider a typical PC group of celestials.... > Here you use the word "balance", but its a lack of the proper balance > that is exactly what I fear. The Order of Hermes could take on the > servants of Marc and win, Technocracy allowing. Well, of course. This is Marc we're talking about, after all. ;) Seriously, why do questions of balance always operate on the assumption that there's going to be a big-ass fight? Using this logic, I could similarly argue that Werewolves are detrimental to Vampire because garou are combat machines. This fails to take into account the manipulative abilities of the kindred, who not only shouldn't be getting into stand-up fights with fuzzies, but have much more subtle means of defeating them....the least of which is simply fading from view for a hundred years and outliving your enemies. > This feels as destructive > of atmosphere to me as having a group much like mages (call 'em shmages) > that could take on the Order of Hermes and win. Suddenly the Order just > doesn't feel the same. Heck, give your Celestials as much inherent countermagick as you feel appropriate. Justify this by saying that since they're not part of the Symphony, then Symphonic magick has less of an effect on them. > Now, its true that vampires are at least as similar to mages as mages > are to celestials, but it doesn't spoil the feel of Vampire so much if > there are individuals out there of much greater power. I'm reminded of the ubiquitous Correspondence rote designed to obliterate all vampires: "I find where they all are, and open a gate above them during High Noon." Yes, at high levels it's possible. Talk about character emasculation.... Of course, possible does not mean likely. Said feat would require tons of successes, be an extended effort and have a HUGE difficulty. It's more likely Paradox would squish 'em flat first. > > But I don't see where you're going with the notion that mages are > > UberPCs. > > They don't *have* to be UberPCs, but mages *can* be so Uber that they > dwarf celestials. Even NPCs with this sort of power bug me if they > aren't celestial. I lose the feel of the game. I reiterate my point above. > > I think they're balanced, if used properly. > > Personally, I don't want balance. In my world, there is no doubt that > celestials are stronger. Oh, okay. Now I see where you're coming from. I don't agree with you, of course, but now I understand why you don't want mages. > All this is, of course, MHO. I'm just trying to express why this > doesn't float my boat. I don't want to give the impression that I think > there is something *wrong* with what you are doing - its a game after all. > Whatever works for you is just what you should do. Of course. :) No need to say this....I've been on mailing lists long enough to know such things. Still, the thought is appreciated. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 17:09 EDT From: Walter Milliken 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. Elizabeth and I will be there Thursday through Sunday. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:52:12 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Secrets of the Universe Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > And yes, they can just go and > >ask a bunch of people at random and the law of averages says they're > >going to get the secrets of the universe real quick, according to the > > >rules. > > I think this comes down to a GM call sort of thing to stop such > things. One > possibility: > > "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.'" I like it!! Maybe they *can* know the Truth, but they won't. The voice in the head sounds just perfect to me - it resolves the problem yet keeps the mistery. Who spoke? A Superior? God?? Be sure I'll use it when GMing a case like that... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:44:42 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Angels & Religion David Edelstein wrote: > >>>In Nomine should clear up the whole question of how Angels relate > to > religion. > 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. > They DO have certain knowledge that God and Heaven exist, but beyond > than > that, the other stuff is a matter of faith for them too. I think - and it concerns Dominic and Lawrence actions too - that religion is intended to be a human's thing. It's a code on how humans could behave properly - but we can't assume angels follow it, because we can't assume angels behave the same way as humans. They are not even expected to. And besides, they *know* God exists - they do not have *faith* in it. It spoils the whole concept of a religious figure... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:15:58 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: IN> We are "them"... Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >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...) But I can see a GiB - Grigori in Black... Someone has already thought on them being MiBs, hasn't?? I can see the "flashy device" as a relic of sorts, to protect the Earth from the scum of the Celestial Plane... > > > --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net > GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 17:44 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con > As a side note, we finally finished fighting with the >Milwaukee Tourism Bureau and ended up in Holiday Inn South. ;'{ Take a dehumidifier with you, unless you like breathing water.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:59:11 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > >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. I've just responded a mail similar to this one, so I'll let it pass... > Certainly humans > should "judge not, lest they be judged". Who will judge humans who > judge? > God. And who does that job for God? Dominic. You mean religion is something like a course - humans "study" it to become something else (a being spiritually more elevated, or something...) - and the angels don't need it because they've already graduated. Now they teach. Hmmm, it's kinda interesting... If so, are Saints humans graduated?? I'd like to put my hands on Night Music soon... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:15:55 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Walter Milliken wrote: > >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? > > > By the book the answer is yes, but my feeling is otherwise. > The only justification for the negative side that I can see is that a > vessel is not part of the Symphony. I think that's exactly why the answer should be 'no'. You don't disturb the Sym when you damage a demon, so the Kyrio doesn't need to worry about it. I think they normally get their Dissonances because humans are part of the Sym - just like Joe Angel causes riples if he damaged a person. But I'd let he go a little more far on a demon... > 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. > Well, maybe not *that* far! :-) Betty, you're sick!! Andre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:59:22 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Gen Con On Jul 24, 12:03pm, Donald G Bixler wrote: > 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. There's an all-night gaming room at one of the hotels (it's open til about 5AM, I think). - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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 17:33:40 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: IN> Celestials Vs. Humans Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > I'd been thinking about this too. To me, it seems virtually > impossible for a Shedim to get Redeemed. > 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. Well, he could do just that... See: Good Sheddim spots some men hunting endangered species of animal just for fun - He goes, possess them and makes one shoot another, making the other one do things with the corpse, run from the police and get shot. "Hi", says Jordi, smiling broadly, "We need to talk." There are variations for every Superior, but that is the general idea. What leads me to a question: Do Celestials get involved with humans if they threaten theis word (even if there are no infernal forces involved, as above)?? I mean, do servitors of Jordi, for example, work to mess humans plans of deforestation or something? And how?? Werewolf style - blaming the humans and whipping them?? Or are they allowed to do everything - since it doesn't mess with the Sym? You see, humans do a pretty lot of mess by themselves - the angels, specificaly, just watch it happen?? Or do they interfere? Would it be like disturbing the Sym?? Even if it was for a good cause??? Andre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:10:57 +0500 From: "James Rand" Subject: Re: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) > Cool concepts. Nice art. Incoherent setting. Unplayable rules. I just got it today, so I can't really comment on it in-depth, but from what I've read so far the setting makes sense once you've translated it from Immortal-ese to English. (You thought White Wolf games had a lot of game-jargon? They don't even come close to Immortal...) (I'm absolutely in love with the Attention (magical power) Looking Glass... it lets you do stuff with the 'memories' of mirrors... transport yourself to rooms the mirror has reflected, hold conversations with people who've looked into the mirror in the past, pull things out of the mirror that it has reflected, etc...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:59:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. Coon" Subject: Re: IN> Secrets of the Universe On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Actually, the information on the Archangel of Revelation indicates > strongly that secrets are Not Good. But of course it also indicates that > the secret of the Symphony is one that *must* be kept for the safety of > all.<<< > > Remember Vertigo's Cain & Abel (from "Sandman")? There's a subtle > difference between "Secrets" and "Mysteries". > Errm... I've never read them. Nor any Sandman. Always looked kind of interesting... just never been a comic book reader. Does this mean immediate expulsion from the list or something? (Umm... I've read the Paranoia comics? Does that get me back into the club?) I suppose, though, if I sat down and thought about it for a while, I could see the point here. The problem very well could be differentiating the two. Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:10:03 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Jul 24, 10:45am, Kingsley Lintz wrote: > 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. IMO, non-canon, the MoE has the ability to make the most out his surroundings. They see and can bring out the hidden potential of everyday objects. This may even require some quick 'fixing' of the object to bring out its true power. To an untrained observer (i.e. nearly everyone else in the universe) it might seem that he is picking the items randomly, but what he is really doing is perceiving the potential of everything around him in terms of weaponry. In my campaign it goes something like this: The MoE picks out an item and makes the roll (sometimes I have them make the roll and I pick the item for them). If they pick something inappropriate, I say 'get real' and they pick something more suitable. No wet noodles! So the MoE then starts whacking away with whatever at whatever Power the check digit told us. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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 21:07:35 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Marriage I could see, to an extent...there are too many herbal abortificants, though.<<< There are herbal drugs and poisons too....Novalis isn't automatically in favor of every purpose to which a plant can be put. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:20:04 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) At 5:15 PM -0300 7/24/97, Andre Ribeiro wrote: [about what a Kyrio can do if it possesses(*) a demon's vessel.] >>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. >> > Well, maybe not *that* far! :-) Betty, you're sick!! Beth. Archangel Beth, actually... (Better than "Liz," at least. Only fencing teachers get to call me that.) Archangel of Archives... And what's wrong with leaving some poor demon in such a situation? Sounds like a good joke to me... Have I been hanging around K.K., Lilim of Dark Humor, too much recently? (* another word that it's hard to *stop* spelling...) - --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 21:07:38 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>> I thought YOU were saying Dominic wasn't so closed minded...where'd we get turned around?<<< I didn't say Dominic was open-minded. I said he's fair. Or at least, consistent. >>>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.<<< No, he's saying he doesn't agree it SHOULD be the prevailing standard. Much like someone who drives as fast as they damn well please on the freeway because they think speed limits are stupid. (And if you're important enough, you can probably get away with it.) >>>But he DOES say Dominic is the hyena of Heaven, refuses to FOLLOW that law,<<< He's refused to follow some of Dominic's edicts....that doesn't mean he goes around defying Judgment's laws at every turn. >>>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.<<< Everyone knows that Dominic doesn't always have the final say on matters. Michael is one of the few who has the clout to push it when he doesn't like what Dominic says on a particular subject. This is not the same thing as Michael believing Dominic has no authority and can or should be freely ignored. To use another analogy- a lot of people dislike the current Supreme Court, or many of their rulings, and may even agitate for change, but most don't want the Supreme Court to be disbanded or see their rulings ignored. >>>there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and being `in the right'.<<< Well, first of all, he wasn't 'in the wrong' with Michael. God overruled him for a higher reason-- that didn't mean Dominic's judgment was faulty, it meant he didn't see the Big Picture the way only God can. Secondly, as you say, we don't know what other incidents have occurred in the past several thousand years. Not to mention, Archangels probably don't get charged very often. If Dominic was regularly finding cause to bring other Archangels to trial, there would be considerable distress in Heaven, from all sides. >>>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...<<< No, it's suggested that Michael protects his own, and doesn't LIKE Dominic. That doesn't mean Michael wants a free-for-all. (You can bet that anyone Michael shields from Dominic still has to answer to Michael himself, and THAT won't be pretty....) >>>and, just to reemphasize, every time Dominic has accused another Archangel, Michael's opposed it.<<< We know of five Archangels that Dominic has accused, or at least expressed doubts about: * Michael: Obviously, Michael's still a bit peeved about his own trial. (One would think he'd get over it.) * Gabriel: Michael has sided with her. * Eli, Janus & Novalis: Michael's never expressed much of an opinion on the first two, and there's not much indication he feels a need to defend them against Dominic's complaints. Michael isn't too fond of Novalis, so he's not jumping to her defense. (Though none of these three have been seriously charged by Dominic....yet.) The evidence suggests that Michael thinks Dominic is an overzealous twit, but not that he automatically leaps to the defense of every angel accused by the Inquisition. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:07:33 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>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.<<< But God didn't set the rules-- Dominic did, based on his understanding of God's will. And I'm sure Dominic knows he's not infallible...though he may not admit that to other angels. So now and then God corrects him. And Dominic says, "Oh." And gets on with things. - -David ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #259 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.