From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Aug 14 19:33:06 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 TAA04812 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:33:05 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA07037 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:54:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:54:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199708142054.PAA07037@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 #293 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, August 14 1997 Volume 01 : Number 293 In this digest: IN> Re: Superior Appearances IN> Daddy, where do angels come from? Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) Re: IN> Demon Prince Re: IN> Heaven & Hell Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> Re: Superiors appearance Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Demon Prince Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Corporeal Vessels Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music IN> Words of God and Satan Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Daddy, where do angels come from? Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) FW: IN> Immortal soldiers. IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 06:16:38 -0400 From: dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org Subject: IN> Re: Superior Appearances I'll start off by mentioning that there are three very good reason for archangels to mask their appearance when briefing their servitors. 1. Demons, who pose little threat to the superiors themselves, but in sufficient numbers could make mincemeat of the beings they're talking to. 2. Humans, some of which just might be perceptive enough to realize that something weird is going on. 3. Other archangels and their servitors. Michael, for instance, might not want to let on that he's been in the area if he knows there's a servitor of Dominic or Yves nearby. There are so many other pairings it's a wonder there isn't more infighting in Heaven. And then I'll launch into the reply segment: Previously, from the desktop of Elizabeth McCoy >I've always figured that they look like both their "human" and >non-human forms. At once. (It's just harder to tell with Dommie, >because of the cloak.) I play it a little more subtly than that. I just let them know what it is they see (a little girl picking flowers and asking "Why?" every time someone says something), but then to the celestials, I will drop hints ("you feel that there is some sort of vast, inquisitive wisdom, that the question 'why?' is intended as much on the spiritual level as on any other") or beat them over the head with hints ("but you feel on your gut level that you're addressing *Dominic,* gathering evidence on someone's actions"). They've got the power; they can feel the presence of a superior and perhaps even identify which one without actually "seeing" who it is. This not only 1. adds to the mystique and intrigue of the superior, but 2. makes it marginally easier to perform a gypsy switch like above. Admittedly, Dominic might not do something as deceitful as that, but then again, you never asked the little girl's name; she might very well have said Dominique. And if it was Vapula, gathering scientific data for whatever reason, then she'll say whatever the hell she wants. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 06:16:35 -0400 From: dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org Subject: IN> Daddy, where do angels come from? Previously, from the desktop of in_nomine-digest... >From: Casca >Subject: Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! > >On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org wrote: >> The servitors of any Archangel are also somewhat bound by that >> Archangel's word, and may exhibit some of the Archangel's behaviors. You >> could even look at the servitors as an extension of sorts of the >> archangel. >> >> (It does kind of suggest a 'sins of the father' relationship, I suppose.) >Funny you should phrase it that way. I've been pondering the "Where do >new angels come from?" question for a while now and the idea came to me >last night: their archangels make them. All they have to do is splinter >off 9 of their own Forces, shape them as they wish, and *bing* an angel >is made (ringing of bell is optional). That's one way, and I suppose in an emergency they would do it that way, but the other way is hinted at right in the book (which is in the car and unavailable right now, dagnabbit). The "classical" angel has 9 forces, but there are a great many lesser beings in both Heaven and Hell. These beings have less than 9, and may have special powers of their own related to whatever duties they might have. Imps, relievers, familiars, etc. are all working toward the day they get extra forces, attract the attention of a superior, and enter service as full-fledged angels and demons. This is precedented, too. Remember Haagenti, Prince of Gluttony? He started out as a frequently abused familiar. He got elevated through demon right to prince on one swell foop. His is something of a cinderella story (one which Kobal still gets chuckles out of once in a while, I bet), but the fact that it did happen says it could happen again. >Doubtless each archangel has its own preferred means. Michael probably >hacks off one of his limbs, which becomes a new Servitor of War. Laurence >might imbue one of his swords with Forces, while Yves might just find a >new Servitor of Destiny wandering around in his library. Novalis, I am >certain, undergoes pregnancy (9 Forces...9 months?Hmm....); not only does >it fit with her fertility concept, I get the feeling she'd enjoy >maternity. :) There we're getting into the respective natures of each of the Archangels, and the means they'd use. For each archangel, there are at least a dozen (a hundred?) different means they could use, and they could probably use any or all of them at a whim. Michael could cut himself and shape the blood. Laurence could elevate one of the boddhavistas to angelic status. Yves may have a book behind a particular desk which he tears pictures out of as he needs new servitors - -- don't even guess how many books he's gone through or how many he has left. And Novalis, Archangel of Flowers? Suppose the player characters hear that she's misplaced a paper envelope full of ...well, let's just call it an "adventure seed" and leave it at that, shall we wink wink nudge nudge say no more! I'd say that's pretty much up to the GM in question, who could use any or all of them. - -David http://www.bluecrab.org/members/dwood/ "And finally, in the disgusting objects international at Wembley tonight, England beat Spain by a plate of braised pus to a putrid heron." - -Monty Python's Flying Circus, episode 26 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:50:48 -0400 From: "Joel Mathis" Subject: Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) > > > > I've always figured that they look like both their "human" and > > non-human forms. At once. (It's just harder to tell with Dommie, > > because of the cloak.) So you see Gabriel, and she is at once > > whichever of her vessels she prefers *and* a firey wheel; > > I like this a lot, as it adds strangeness to the superiors. I think > there is a great danger in In Nomine of > Archangels losing their air of being something awesome. In my game, they > never show their faces at all. Novalis will manifest by a general > blooming of flowers nearby and a voice from nowhere in particular. I think that some of the supiors do need to have normal vessels on earth, Baal, Michael, Nybbas, and Laurance come immediately to mind, but I do like the idea of the superiors manifesting from something. Maybe they only take on somewhat human forms when they need to deal with humans... Joel Mathis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:59:50 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Demon Prince Greg Littmann wrote: > Personally, given that hatred is the most evil thing there is, I > would leave the word to Lucifer himself or just not give it to > anyone at all. Its too close to having a Demon of Evil. It may, in fact, be too general to be an interesting Word, but a lot of ethical theorists would disagree about hatred being the mopst evil thing -- as would Michael, David, and other aggressive archangels. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:20:24 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Heaven & Hell Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > It may have an > adventure for somewhere, but the only "city" settings will be > Heaven (hey, the Eternal City is there, right?) and Hell (I'm > sure something qualifies there). In Milton's "Paradise Lost," the capital of Hell is Pandemonium. In Dante's "Inferno," the capital (and apparently only) city of Hell is called "Dis," after an old Roman name for the underworld and/or its god. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:53:58 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases " One note from On High: The official plural for 'Geas' is 'Geases' in In Nomine. Some people, in character, use Geasa, however." As this is the seventh post I've seen on the topic...is there an official reason why 'geases' was chosen over 'geasa'? yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:35:35 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Re: Superiors appearance >Superiors undoubtedly have ways of avoiding that too, if they really want >to. Of course they won't always do so. ("You chose to invoke me in the >middle of New York City-- so, I assume you already took into account the >fact that half the celestial population of Manhattan will be converging on >this location after I leave....") The way I always played it was if you summoned your superior, then it disturbed the Symphony. If, however, your Superior wanted to drop in unexpectedly, well, you wouldn't hear a peep. Just wanted to state this again...LA is NOT in HnH....I misremembered, but after looking back to my 'source' realized that I have a bad short term memory...Todays my 20th b-day, and I'm ALREADY going senile... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:28:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) Greg Littmann wrote: > I think there is a great danger in In Nomine of Archangels losing > their air of being something awesome. In my game, they > never show their faces at all. Novalis will manifest by a general > blooming of flowers nearby and a voice from nowhere in particular. For additional inspiration, see the Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis. (He never named the trilogy. The individual titles are: - "Out of the Silent Planet" - "Perelandra" - "That Hideous Strength" set on Mars, Venus, and Earth, respectively.) The hero encounters angels on other planets, including face-to- ... um ... "face" encounters with what we'd have to call Superiors in IN terms. These Superiors, who have never met humans before, have to WORK to NOT stun a human with their appearance, or settle for being a silvery voice in the air. An example: One character comes on the Archangel (in IN terms) of Mars, unexpectedly, and sees a beam of colored light. Very simple. BUT: - the light is a color he's never seen before, and - the beam was vertical. But it was not perpendicular to the floor. As soon as he saw it, the human felt the floor to be aslant and could *feel* how the house was whirling through vast circles on the surface of the spinning Earth, made evendizzier by the Earth's movement around the Sun. The human is, shall we say, nonplussed. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:21:09 -0400 From: Charles Badger Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 00:46 08/14/97 -0400, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Geas the person to do it (it's a trade!). Get something "right now" >(perfectly valid!). Buy a servant -- a wimpy servant, very >loyal, and never experience dissonance again! Bad mechanic, no >donut. Dissonance goes somewhere.<<< > > >Sure, buy a wimpy, very loyal servant to invoke all your Geases for you. > >Unless your GM is just as wimpy, the servant will probably survive that >trick twice, max. ;) Wimpy servant invokes the geas on Malakim, human is obviously associated with demon. So the Malakim kills human or follows him back to the demon either way lots of trouble. - ----- Charles T. Badger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT) From: nightgaunt@earthlink.net (Alexander Shearer) Subject: Re: IN> Demon Prince >It may, in fact, be too general to be an interesting Word, but >a lot of ethical theorists would disagree about hatred being the >mopst evil thing -- as would Michael, David, and other aggressive >archangels. "Hate! Hate! Hate! An emotion as pure as it is deep! Hate! Hate! Hate! Let it flow, let it run free!" Bonus points to anyone who can identify the source of that one. Alexander Shearer nightgaunt@earthlink.net gaunt@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:15:27 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. On Aug 13, 8:39am, Steven Feldon wrote: > Subject: IN> Immortal soldiers. > One of my soldier players noticed that if a Soldier spends one point on > Corporeal Song of Entropy, he's immortal. Oh, sure, he can't control > his age exactly, and he has to spend a few points of essence a year, but > basically, if he wants to and doesn't get killed, he lives forever. > > Is this intentional? Is this a bug? As far as I know, no one thinks this is a bug. Mind you, the odds of intervention go up dramatically if you attempt this trick. As a house rule, I'd say that anyone who rolls the wrong intervention when using this Song to stay young forever regains all of their age, instantly. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:47:57 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd > OK, another NM Question: > > In the section on Soldiers, it says humans *must* have 2+ Corpreal > forces. No weak humans? Legit? (IDHNMIFOM, but I could look it up if you > need the reference.) Humans only need one force in each area. _ > > Note that there are example soldiers in NM that break this rule. > > On humans in general: > > Could a mundane human PC buy a sixth Force without becoming a soldier? A > seventh? Could there be twelve force mundanes wandering around out > there? (Now *that* would freak the PCs). > > Is there any limit to how many forces a human can have? > > If a human somehow gets six Forces in one one category, are his stats still > capped at 10? > > And a silly question to wrap up: > > Scoobiel the Angel buys a Servant/1 (2) for 1 CP. Making up stats for > that servant he uses 8 of it's 16 CP to buy two Servant/4 (2), and they > use their CP to buy a bunch of Servant 6 (3)... > > My question is this: How big a stick should the GM apply to Scoobiel's > Player? > > martinl > >-- End of excerpt from Martin Leslie Leuschen - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:27:41 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Corporeal Vessels On Aug 13, 1:19pm, Michael Stanley wrote: > Subject: IN> Corporeal Vessels > I have a guestion regarding the death of a Celestial's Corporeal Vessel. > > When a Vessel is killed, and the Celestial form goes off to recover from > Trauma, how does the angel/demon make a new Vessel once the Trauma is over? > Does he automatically get a new one equivalent to the one he bought at > character creation, or does he need to have some points saved up to buy a new > one fresh? If it's the latter, what happens if he doesn't have enough points > on hand? It does, in fact, cost points (YMMV depending on the campaign!). If the character doesn't have enough points, they can suck up to their Superior who will probably give them a new vessel if they were doing a good job and got unlucky or 'loan' them enough points that will have to paid back later. On the other hand it only takes one point to get a vessel (Human/1, low charisma/1). Even on a totally screwed-up adventure, people will have at least _one_ point! ;) > > In the story "A Bright Dream," there's mention of the Cherub making a new > vessel once he regains enough essence. I have found nothing in the book to > suggest Essence has anything to do with Vessels, am I overlooking something? The use of 'essence' in that sentence was figurative, not the literal game term use of essence. 'Character points' is a not a term that characters understand. Essence is the--well--essential energy of the universe. Non-canon stuff! ================ I'm toying with a new concept in my game, Quintessence. Quintessence is a higher, purer, form of essence that is rare and valuable. It's generated by striving and accomplishing feats (either good or bad) and is roughly equivalent to character points in game terms. During a session one point of quintessence can be converted immediately to five points of essence (the reverse is NOT true, however) but causes five disturbance (over and above whatever use the essence is put to). In all other ways they will be treated as character points in the book. Note that PC's can _never_ convert essence to quintessence (since this would be a free source of character points!). So, by this point of view, what they were actually referring to was quintessence, but the speaker probably didn't want to go into the metaphysical subtleties between essence and its purer form at that time. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:07:47 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS On Aug 13, 5:24pm, Walter Milliken wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS > [John Karakash, from on high:] > > Superiors have tricky ways of shielding their presence and > >do not have to follow the perception rules. > > As far as I know, no one has yet made this canon, though it makes sense. > > However, it does sort of conflict with the "appearance of a Superior" > Disturbance modifiers, as given in the book -- a Superior appearing is > pretty noticable, especially in celestial form.... Ah, but _arriving_ and merely existing are two different things. You are right that a Superior landing on the Corporeal plane is going to make a big splash (the Symphony is going to feel the shocks!), but afterwards they can probably take steps to shield their presence. Walter is right, however, that that is not canon. I should have said, "Superiors _probably_ have ways..." - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:04:24 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > I think it's a lot simpler to say that non-Lilim simply can't > get untested Geases. It just don't work. That's what makes Lilim > Lilim -- that they can pull this favor-trick. (Mind you, in > *your* game, you do what you please so long as you tell the > PCs first...) > > The other option would be to say that damage is inflicted instead, > if a Geas lashbacks on a non-Lilim, but it would probably have to > be something like Geas-level in hits. Mind-hits, maybe, or Soul-hits. > But I think that's more messy. I like the idea of damage a _lot_ more than non-Lilim getting Dissonance (or chaining the Dissonance back up to the last Lilim that held the Geas). It balances out nicely between Lilim and non-Lilim and doesn't involve bookkeeping. Imagine if you will a Geas/6 on someone that was comprised of six Geas/1 derived from various sources and put together... yech! To complete the picture using the damage rule: If a geas were embodied in an item, the item could take the hits and explode in the wielder's face... ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:56:29 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd > OK, another NM Question: > > In the section on Soldiers, it says humans *must* have 2+ Corpreal > forces. No weak humans? Legit? (IDHNMIFOM, but I could look it up if you > need the reference.) Humans only need one force in each area. _Soldiers_ need at least two Corporeal Forces. (NM p.31, IN p.36) > Note that there are example soldiers in NM that break this rule. Which ones? > On humans in general: > > Could a mundane human PC buy a sixth Force without becoming a soldier? A > seventh? Could there be twelve force mundanes wandering around out > there? (Now *that* would freak the PCs). A non-Soldier human can gain extra forces through either sheer grit and inspiration or by ancestry (being a descendant of the mysterious Grigori). This is _very_ rare. 6 force humans are actively recruited or destroyed. Ones above 6 forces are so rare as to be practically insignificant. Then again, there those Sorcerers... ;) > > Is there any limit to how many forces a human can have? The practical limit is 15 forces since the top attribute a human can have is 10. This is pretty rare, as you might imagine! > If a human somehow gets six Forces in one one category, are his stats still > capped at 10? Officially, six forces is impossible for a human in any one area. > > And a silly question to wrap up: > > Scoobiel the Angel buys a Servant/1 (2) for 1 CP. Making up stats for > that servant he uses 8 of it's 16 CP to buy two Servant/4 (2), and they > use their CP to buy a bunch of Servant 6 (3)... > > My question is this: How big a stick should the GM apply to Scoobiel's > Player? Use my patented Clue-by-Four(tm). Ten or twenty whacks should put _that_ player into shape and provide a fine example to other munchkins! Keep in mind that Servants are _NPCs_. It is up to the GM to generate them, so the problem shouldn't arise. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:42:08 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills On Aug 13, 1:09pm, Emily K. Dresner wrote: > Subject: IN> Humans and Skills > > This comes from one of my players, and I couldn't adequately answer this > question: > > You know. Something has been bothering me about skills. Has there been > any discussion of them on the mailing list? It seems like skills are > unnaturally difficult. How much study is a point of skill supposed to > equate to? Here's what I'm talking about: > [good examples snipped] > > It looks to me like skills are just too hard for humans to use > effectively. For most normal actions, the GM shouldn't have to roll dice at all. So, if someone is staying at an adequate hospital with a reasonably competent doctor under no unusual time constraint, the skill works automatically. Under stress situations (all combat qualifies as a stress situation!) rolls have to be made as given in the book. Examples of automatic successes: Acrobat doing a triple somersault for the hundreth time Artist making a sketch Chemist analyzing a common substance or producing a well-documented compound Climbing slowly and carefully up a non-slippery surface (especially with ropes and pitons!) Computer operator spending a week learning a new software package etc. Examples where a roll is needed: Acrobat trying new maneuver Artist experimenting with a new subject, technique or medium Chemist analyzing an unusual substance or trying to produce a new compound Climbing quickly or on a hazardous surface Computer operator trying to use a new piece of software with no manual or preparation etc. Other times when a roll is necessary is when there is a conflict or tension of some sort. Detect Lies is always a competition, so a roll is necessary. The same goes for most uses of Dodge, Fast-Talk, combat skills, Seduction, etc. Three-pronged example: Jill is Singing a song she knows well. No roll needed and her level of skill determines the general level of quality. Jill is trying out a new song. A roll is required. Jill is Singing a familiar song, but if she does poorly, a demon is going to throw her to a pack of rapid dogs. A roll is necessary. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 13:06 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music >> Isn't this character illegal? Mortals are supposed to have 2 >> corporeal forces. > >Sorry if I missed the resolution of this. > >As far as I can tell, mortals don't need 2 Corporeal Forces, but >Soldiers do. I couldn't find at a glance any absolute indication that >Ladislas is a Soldier. Isn't the whole section specifically on Soldiers? And wasn't the character supposed to be working with angels? (I don't have the book here to check.... This is the physicist, isn't it?) In any case, I can see no logic to requiring Soldiers to have 2 Corporeal Forces, except if their superior is planning to use them mostly for combat, and it's stated that not all Soldiers are combat-oriented. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:53:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: IN> Words of God and Satan Greg Littmann wrote: > Personally, given that hatred is the most evil thing there is, I > would leave the word to Lucifer himself or just not give it to > anyone at all. Its too close to having a Demon of Evil. I've done a lot of thinking about this sort of thing, and I've come to the conclusion that Satan's Word isn't anything overtly evil. That would be too obvious and too easy. To get a feel for what his Word is, we must look at the story of his fall. What do we know about Lucifer? He was a Seraph, this we know, and was called the Lightbringer. It is also reported that he was the highest angel, above even Michael and Yves. He must have had an incredibly important Word to merit such a distinction. But what made him different from the other angels? What caused him to rebel against God, instigating a battle he should have known he couldn't win? The answer is simple: he was fulfilling his Word. Lucifer's Word is Free Will. The ability to choose between Good and Evil is at once the greatest gift and the greatest curse of humanity. We can aspire to great heights of goodness, or plumb the depths of evil, all because we -choose- to. It is a subtle and powerful Word. Lucifer rebelled because he embodied Free Will. He realized that the other angels, by serving God, had subsumed their own will for God's. So he told them they had a choice, that they did not HAVE to follow God, that they could become their own masters. Of course Lucifer knew the rebellion would fail, but he rebelled anyway. Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven, as the saying goes. But he really had no choice in the matter....the rebellion was predetermined. You see, for good to exist, there must be an opposite choice. If there is no way to do Evil, then it is impossible to do Good; the concepts exist as negations of each other. Remove Evil, and you remove Good. So it was necessary for Lucifer to fall, to enable the creation of Good by being its opposite number. This, of course, leads to the question, "What is God's Word?" The answer is equally simple and subtle. Genesis 1:1 :"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God's word is -I AM-, the state of being which encompasses everything. Before Creation, the universe simply -wasn't-. Then God appeared and it -was-. This means two very important things: One, God is the universe, and the universe is God. That, if nothing else. should give a feel to just how powerful He is. Two, by encompassing everything that is, ever was, and ever will be (embodying the concept behind "to be" includes all variations on tense, mind you), everything everyone does furthers God's Word. Yes, even Satan furthers God's Word, if for no other reason than being the 'bad' which defines God's goodness by counterexample. That's why Satan is so pissed. He knows that whatever he does and whoever he is, his actions further the Plan no matter what. And for the embodiment of Free Will to be told that, ultimately, he has no choice... well, that's why it's called -Hell-, folks. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of this robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 13:40 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases >As has been said elsewhere, the best antidote to munchkinism is not more >rules, it's a good GM. A good GM is also the best antidote to bad rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the rules work right the first time.... On the other hand, complex rules are almost as bad as broken ones. The trick is to find something simple that makes sense and also doesn't lead to munchkinism. The notion that only Lilim (and Superiors) can actually impose Geases seems to fit all the criteia. Once a Geas is imposed, it can be traded off, if it's set up that way ("You will obey the holder of this lamp" or whatever). I agree with your other comment, that only Lilim should take dissonance from a failed Geas invocation. The Lilim-only invocation mechanic pretty much ensures this, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 13:50 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Daddy, where do angels come from? > Laurence could elevate one >of the boddhavistas to angelic status. This one is contrary to canon, humans *cannot* become celestials. I suppose he could dismantle one and build a new angel from the Forces, but it wouldn't be the same individual. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 14:09 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases >As this is the seventh post I've seen on the topic...is there an official >reason why 'geases' was chosen over 'geasa'? Apparently the Highest One prefers it.... It's also not clear that geasa is the correct English plural, my dictionary doesn't even list "geas" (but does have the spelling "geis", I think). A web source on ancient Ireland ("http://www.indigo.ie/alia/tirnanog/sochis/vc.html name=") does list geasa as the plural (presumably in Irish) and gives "geis" and "geas" as the singular. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:58:23 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Aug 14, 9:53am, IQJason@aol.com wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > " One note from On High: The official plural for 'Geas' is 'Geases' in In > Nomine. Some people, in character, use Geasa, however." > > As this is the seventh post I've seen on the topic...is there an official > reason why 'geases' was chosen over 'geasa'? Two reasons were given: It sounds better and it was... well... less Whitewolfish. ;) (Just kidding!) I think because 'geases' were used in the In Nomine rulebook and this avoids errata is the main reason. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:59:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. > > Is this intentional? Is this a bug? > > As far as I know, no one thinks this is a bug. Mind you, > the odds of intervention go up dramatically if you attempt this > trick. As a house rule, I'd say that anyone who rolls the wrong > intervention when using this Song to stay young forever regains > all of their age, instantly. > And I suddenly have this image from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when the guy drank out of the wrong Grail... oops. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:23:17 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) At 5:39 PM -0400 8/13/97, Greg Littmann wrote: >> >> I've always figured that they look like both their "human" and >> non-human forms. At once. (It's just harder to tell with Dommie, >> because of the cloak.) So you see Gabriel, and she is at once >> whichever of her vessels she prefers *and* a firey wheel; > > I like this a lot, as it adds strangeness to the superiors. I think >there is a great danger in In Nomine of >Archangels losing their air of being something awesome. In my game, they >never show their faces at all. Novalis will manifest by a general >blooming of flowers nearby and a voice from nowhere in particular. Even in human form, they can still be impressive -- Gaby showed up to turn a recently-rescued-from-a-den-of-Lust teenage girl into a Soldier (without telling anyone what was going on, of course), and she showed up *crying* for the pain the girl had gone through. Tears of flame, running down her cheeks. Impressed the heck out of *my* character... Little manifestations, even if they're only visible to those with celestial-level Perceptions, can add that touch of otherworldly glory... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:13:21 -0700 From: Steven Feldon Subject: FW: IN> Immortal soldiers. Still, with one bad intervention every 216 on average and an average of 3.5 years gained every time you use Corp Entropy, this will increase the average Soldier's lifespan from 70 to 826. So it's not immortality. It's still a really decent chance of living a Biblical lifespan.... steve - -----Original Message----- From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC [SMTP:johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 1997 8:15 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. On Aug 13, 8: 39am, Steven Feldon wrote: > Subject: IN> Immortal soldiers. > One of my soldier players noticed that if a Soldier spends one point on > Corporeal Song of Entropy, he's immortal. Oh, sure, he can't control > his age exactly, and he has to spend a few points of essence a year, but > basically, if he wants to and doesn't get killed, he lives forever. > > Is this intentional? Is this a bug? As far as I know, no one thinks this is a bug. Mind you, the odds of intervention go up dramatically if you attempt this trick. As a house rule, I'd say that anyone who rolls the wrong intervention when using this Song to stay young forever regains all of their age, instantly. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:33:08 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Humans and Skills > Automatic success begins at LVL 1 or 2. A man who repairs passenger jets only rolls to spot sabotage or do repairs under unusal penalties. If that's how and why you roll, 50% doesn't seem so bad. - - -Calabim@aol.com < seems fine with me, but then my nightlife character alwways seemed to spend a lot of time putting up professional skills like Police Detective, or Mafia Hitman. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:56:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! At 2:29 PM -0400 8/13/97, Jeff Miller wrote: >At 05:49 PM 8/13/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >>On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Casca wrote: >>>Novalis, I am certain, undergoes pregnancy (9 Forces... >>9 months? Hmm....) ;> not only does it fit with her fertility concept, >>>I get the feeling she'd enjoy maternity. :) >> >> I thought she found them under a cabbage leaf, and a stork brings >>Jordi's. ;-) >> >No, you hear Jordi making new Servators at night in the alley.... > > ...That *would* make throwing that bucket of water a much riskier task. The real reason Jordi hates humans? - --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 #293 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.