From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Aug 23 13:59:10 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 NAA05053 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 13:59:10 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA23693 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 23:50:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 23:50:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199708230450.XAA23693@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 #307 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 Friday, August 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number 307 In this digest: IN> Religious Patrons Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? IN> Why more superiors? IN> Re:Tony DeGeorge's Vacations Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> New Drugs Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con Re: IN> Jordi and Domestic Pets. Re: IN> Why more superiors? Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con IN> The Words of God, Lucifer and Man Re: IN> Re: Smut (and nothing but) Re: IN> Re:Tony DeGeorge's Vacations IN> Kyriotates IN> Demon becomes an angel? Re: IN> What happened to the Light (was Lucy's Word) Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat IN> Re: (Another) Q about Lilim Re: IN> Tony DeGeorge's Vacantions Re: IN> Recorporation Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> noise in the symphony Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> What happened to the Light (was Lucy's Word) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:04:47 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Religious Patrons From: Casca >I thought it was the angel Moroni that appeared and gave Joseph Smith a pair of glasses that allowed him to read the writing of the golden book. (Assuming I rememeber correctly; I'm not Mormon.) < From the Introduction to the Book of Mormon An Account Written by THE HAND OF MORMON upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites -- Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile -- Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation -- Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed -- To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof -- Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile -- The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. Words of Mormon 1:1 And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites. The only refernces I can find in the copy of the Book of Mormon to angels are as follows The Testimony of three Witnesses And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. 2 Nephi 32:2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? 2 Nephi 32:3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. However I thought it was tradition that The Angel mentioned by the Three witnesses[ but not the Eight?] was Gabriel. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:51:41 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? > >Kyrio's don't have Strength or Agility ratings, only Corporeal > >Forces. For the purpose of possessing a host, all that is counted > >are the corporeal forces. So a Kyrio with 3 corporeal forces can > >possess 3 cats (Corporeal 1), an average human (Corp 2) and a cat, or > >an average human and a weak human (Corp 1). > ... > >Comments/abuse? > > Sorry: abuse. No need to apologize. > Complicated with a fair amount of bookkeeping for the attribute > raising, I don't think it really has any advantage over the canon > system, Well, my main problem with that system was this - all the Kyriotate's vessels were the same power, no matter how many forces the Kyriotate had to invest in the first place. > with the exception that you seem to have nailed down > *everything*. You get +2 essence for performing that Rite of the > AA of Gaming. :) I'm looking for the Word of Examples in Technical Writing... > My thought is that since exceptional humans exist with 6 or more forces, > also, deficient humans exist with under 5 forces: children, sick old men, > etc. So my thought is also to give a beginning Kyrio an opportunity to > possess two humans, but through a different mechanism with less change to > the base system. But again, the 4 force human is just as strong and tough as the 5 force human. Or, for that matter, the two force cat. The only reason I can see for even possessing humans is because of their social position. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:53:13 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: IN> Why more superiors? It seems that upcoming releases for In Nomine will have more superior expansions than before. Night Music had 2 - Laurence and Saminga. The Marches has Blandine, Gabriel, Beleth and Belial while Heaven and Hell has Dominic, Yves, Asmodeus and Kronos. What gives? P.S. I'm delighted! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:42:56 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: IN> Re:Tony DeGeorge's Vacations >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:28:10 -0300 >From: Andre Ribeiro > Someone *else* can't stand it anymore or it's just me?? Ah, we all can't stand it. And I'm sure he's going to find a lot of complaints in his mailbox when the 25th rolls around. Though, there is a bright side to this... At least he's not subscribed to the direct-mail version. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 16:21 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat >I'm having trouble understanding the way that the Kyriotate resonance -- >multiplicity -- is an aspect of the Divine in the way that truth or honor >are. All the other bands and choirs I can wrap my head around, but I can't >quite grasp the Kyrios. The closest I could come was: "Kyrios represent the >divine quality of Omnipresence, being multiple places at once," but that's >not quite it. I think it's more tied into the experience of being *everyone*, seeing the Symphony from myriad viewpoints. That explains the Kyrio leaning toward subjectivity, they are the Symphony *experiencing* the Symphony. >Is there anyone out there on the list who feels an affinity towards the >Dominions the way that Archangel Beth does toward the Lilim? I'd appreciate >someone to bounce ideas off. I don't know if I've got as good a handle on Kyrios as Elizabeth does toward Lilim, but I'd certainly be happy to discuss them. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 17:08 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases >>Not the Free ones! They've got 9 Geas/3's on them (which can add up >>to 3 Geas/6's...), and have utterly no say about what happens with >>them! > >Um...care to try that math again, Beth? ;) She's an English major, not a math major.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:22:38 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:54:40 -0400, David Edelstein wrote: >Here's how I think Geases should work: > >a) Only Lilim (or a Superior) can put Geases on someone >b) Geases can be freely traded. >c) When someone holds a Geas on someone, they can go to that person and >announce what they want. >d) He may choose to obey without resisting, in which case he performs his >service, and the Geas evaporates. >e) If he decides he wants to resist, and it's not a Lilim invoking >it...nothing happens. The bearer still holds the Geas, it hasn't >evaporated, but he has no way to force the subject to obey it. >f) If it's a Lilim holding the Geas, go through the usual resistance >mechanics. I like this, though Archangel Beth will have kittens. :) In point (e) the target isn't really Resisting, he's just refusing. As such, it doesn't count against the two chances to invoke the Geas. And... >What this means in effect is that Geases *are* freely tradeable, but if a >non-Lilim is buying/bartering for a Geas, he'll have to take into account >the fact that he can't enforce it if the subject chooses to resist. So >Geases would only be valuable to non-Lilim in the case of a subject who's >not expected to resist, otherwise he'll also have to contract for the >services of the Lilim (or another Lilim) to invoke it. This reduces the >trading aspects somewhat, but doesn't close them off completely, keeps >Lilim as the valuable purveyors of Geases, and preserves the element of >chance that makes Geases risky. Exactly. >(A non-Lilim can always tell the subject of the Geas, "Obey it or I'll >rearrange your corporeal form", of course, but if they're able and willing >to use that method of persuasion, why do they need a Geas?... Easy: he doesn't have the time to supervise the Geasee to make sure he doesn't bug out before the job is done. The Geas might be, "Guard my home while I'm on vacation." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:22:44 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> New Drugs On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:33:03 +1000 (EST), peterf@wr.com.au (Peter Frederick) wrote: >got my hands on a copy of Night Music at the begining of the week. Still >looking it over and working out what I like and what I don't. One thing I >thought was quite well done was the section on drugs, especially as it >included alcohol, caffeine and tabacco. I agree with your latter comment, though I thought some of the specs on drugs were way off: Alcohol: Maybe four beers=two glasses of wine in Texas (some states have low alcohol limits on beer), but generally 1 beer=1 glass of wine=1 shot. A - -1 to a stat is a pretty serious thing. I think we're talking having to be at the legal drunk limit, 0.08 to 0.10% alcohol in the blood stream. Depending on body weight two (100 lbs) to four (200 lbs) drinks taken *within one hour* will get to this level. Alcohol burns off very fast, at one drink per hour for a 200 pounder. At that level of drunkenness, I generally agree with the -1 to everything, except strength--agility goes down, but strength remains until you don't have any agility left to apply the strength. Alcohol is not generally addictive, just addictive for a small proportion of people. I'd be tempted to have an Discord Vulnerable/1 where drinking will convert this to Addicted/1. LSD ought to have a chance of inflicting a random Ethereal or Celestial Discord. Very dangerous stuff. Likewise PCP. Pot is no way such a drastic drug--the author must have just watched, "Reefer Madness." See Chocolate, below. Speed is not all positive: I suspect that was suppose to be -2 Precision--essentially, super-caffeine. Tobacco is more like +1 Int, -1 Precision: there's a reason smokers get into far more car accidents than non-smokers. >Chocolate (+1 Int, max of 6) > >Legally and freely available in the US, and most other countries. >Third of the Big C drugs of South American origin (the others being Cocaine >and Caffeine) it is derived from the beans of the cacao bush. I would say coffee instead of caffeine; caffeine is in many products: coffee, tea (from Asia), chocolate, soft drinks (kola nuts), etc. As to chocolate, recent research has revealed that chocolate is an extremely complex drug. The caffeine and theobromine (a caffeine analog) both stimulate, but you can get stronger effects from coffee, tea, or soda. However, chocolate also has a natural hormone, anandamide. This is the hormone that normally, naturally binds to the so-called "cannibinoid receptors"--called that because they were first discovered doing cannibis research. Additionally, two anadamide analogs inhibit unbinding from those receptors, giving a longer high--whence putting pot in brownies, I suppose. Anandamide is in a sense a THC (cannibis) analog. Amusingly, were it to be *legally* such an analog--I have no idea what the exact rules are--then chocolate would be a Schedule I Controlled Substance, subject to the same possession and sales penalties as Heroin or cocaine. For authoritative details see: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/10_12_96/food.htm By the way, the caffeine analog in chocolate is named theobromine because the Latin name for chocolate is Theobroma. Broma means food; most people on this list should know what Theo means. Chocolate is God's Food, or so its namer thought. As far as putting chocolate or cannibis in game terms, the stimulatant properties of chocolate aren't that great, but with the euphoric effect, you feel better and more able to handle the world, +1 Will, I'd say. It's only psychologically addicting AFAIK, so you need to make a Will roll to stop eating chocolate regularly, but maybe at significant plusses. Cannibis, without the stimulants of chocolate might be best taken as a -1 Int and -1 Will to do anything internally motivated, but +1 Will to resist anything imposed; IOW, deep complacency: don't want to think, don't want to do anything. >Television (see description) Naw. People get addicted to all sorts of things: TV, gaming, computers, the Internet, gambling--best to just handle them all under the general addiction discord. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:29:44 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con At 12:17 AM -0500 8/22/97, Shadowcat wrote: >Wich issue will this be in?? I want this. (So do I...) >P.S. Archbeth just hoe many list folk DO owe you Geasa?? I dunno. At least 3-4, I'd say. I stopped paying as much attention to those when I went Bright. O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:02:22 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Jordi and Domestic Pets. At 11:16 AM +0000 8/22/97, Leathal Weapon wrote: >In reply to Elizabeth: > >>>I wonder how Jordi feels about spaying and neutering pets. >> >>Probably hates it, along with breeding things like the smushed- >>in nose of the Persian that causes the breed so much trouble... >> >>Me, well, I'll spay and neuter my cats no matter what Jordi likes. I >>do draw the line at declawing, though. > >Speaking from an Australian point of view, I'd say that Jordi may >agree with spaying pets. Here, especially in the country areas, feral >cats are a major problem, breeding in the wild and killing native >wildlife at an alarming rate. He probably would have been furious that cats are there at all, really -- humans brought them... >IMO, Jordi would probably encourage >spaying in these instances, since cats aren't exactly an endangered >species, and besides, they've been so domesticated they're probably >seen as "Too human" for the likes of the AA of Animals. Of course, he >wouldn't like seeing any animal 'interfered with' without good >reason. In a situation like that... Hm! Something that can conflict Jordi! On the one hand, he must be concerned with survival of the fittest, so if cats are out-competing the native wildlife, So Be It. On the other hand, cats didn't get there naturally! Humans brought them, so perhaps the optimal thing would be to kill off all the cats in Australia (!!). On another hand (this is the good thing about being a Kyrio -- you never run out of hands), one works with the situation one has. Compromise between allowing the natives to be wiped out by the (unnaturally supplied) superior predator might well be to spay and neuter, which might at least slow down the carnage enough to give the natives a chance to evolve... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:43:01 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Why more superiors? At 1:53 PM -0400 8/22/97, Greg wrote: >It seems that upcoming releases for In Nomine will have more superior >expansions than before. Night Music had 2 - Laurence and Saminga. The >Marches has Blandine, Gabriel, Beleth and Belial while Heaven and Hell has >Dominic, Yves, Asmodeus and Kronos. What gives? Night Music had 2 expansions, and 2 *new* Superiors, along with a bunch of material on drugs (to help out Fleurity, probably), etc. The next two probably don't have new Superiors, or other stuff was trimmed. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:48:53 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con Shadowcat: "Which issue will this be in?? I want this." Thomas Davidson "Yeesh... Now I'm curious, too. :-)" Geez....you're going to make me turn this into an ad, aren't you? Okay. The Tour of GenCon will be in InQuest #32 -- hits store shelves in November. And, for those of you who aren't InQuest readers already, it's a decent place to start. ;) yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:04:49 -0400 (EDT) From: JosephMoon@aol.com Subject: IN> The Words of God, Lucifer and Man The Lurker de-lurks. I know this topic has kinda come and gone, but I wanted to get my $.02 in, hopefully with some fresh input on the issue. It has been suggested that Lucifer's Word is somehow tied to the concept of Free-Will, either as his actual word, or as a concept he realized because of his more precedented Word, Lightbringer, and that his Word somehow lead to the Fall. I reject the idea that Lucifer's Word is Free-Will itself, for reasons given at the end of this post. It has also been suggested that as Lightbringer (Light being metaphorically defined to include knowledge and understanding), Lucifer saw that the angels could choose NOT to blindly follow God's commands, and then decided to act on this choice. But knowing you can rebel and choosing to rebel are completely different things, especially for the highest of the ArchAngels. (I don't buy Milton's rationale either.) So why did Lucifer make the choice? To answer that, we must look closer at Lucifer's original nature and place in the angelic hierarchy. I submit that before the Fall (and a while after), Free-Will was not yet a Word. God created the angels as tools, reflections of the Symphony, and Free-Will was an unneccessary concept for tools. (Hey, you think all the Words have always been around? What did the Demon of Nuclear Warfare do until the 20th century, then?) The best and brightest of these tools was Lucifer. According to IN, the choir of Seraphim are closest to the Divine, so we could infer that the ArchAngel Lucifer was the highest of the Seraphim. Having such a resonance with the Divine Truth, what do you think Lucifer saw? He saw the Will of God, understanding the Plan almost as well as the Creator himself. And what do you think he saw in that Plan? He saw his own rebellion. God's Plan needed a portion of his creation to oppose him, and who better to play that role than the one who knew the Plan best? Lucifer was caught in a divine Catch-22. If he didn't rebel, then he was opposing God's Will, and therefore he was rebelling, but if he followed God's Will, then he MUST rebel. The War in Heaven was it's own cause. And so he Fell, taking a third of the Host with him, each according to Plan. (God would make a hell of a domino champion.) Cast down, Lucifer tried to reconcile himself with his new role, and, as the first and greatest of the Balseraph, he bought into his own lie. He believed he had rebelled of his own choice. I also suggest that Lucifer's Word is STILL Lightbringer. He still knows God's Plan, he just now believes he can change it. I think this is why Lucifer is so terrifying and mysterious to all of his charges; he's the only one that really knows What's Going On. Knowledge is power, and Lucifer is, by far, the most powerful of the Fallen. What else did Lucifer glimpse before he fell? He saw the creation of a new Word: Free-Will. And he saw that Word given to God's new creation: Man. Mankind's Word is Free-Will. It is, afterall, what the War is about. Thanks for you indulgence. I obviously have a serious/dark slant on the In Nomine game, but trust me, my players will more than make up for it ;) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:53:10 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Smut (and nothing but) At 10:11 PM +0000 8/21/97, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >> "Not necessarily. Not having seen many pornos, I couldn't name a movie, but >> something along the lines of Lady Chatterly's Lover," >> >> Not a correction, just a comment -- jeez, what a lousy piece of >> erotica that was. > >Well, yeah, but at least it wasn't treating sex like most porn pieces >do. As far as I read (not far - you are right about lousy) the >characters seemed fairly loving. Do *not* get me started on the "No means yes and you'll *enjoy* your submission" rape scene in that lousy piece of... ("Loving"? *LOVING*? Gods, don't get me started...) It's Andre's, definitely. Cloaking lust with enough trappings of "love" that people don't notice -- and these days, adding in "PC" "green" aspects. I can just see both Eli and Novalis gritting their teeth about that book. If you want non-Lust smut... I most like XXXenophile stuff. Consensual, with *real* tenderness... (Any fans of LCL may write that the author *intended* it to be tender. Fine, I might even accept that. But what he wrote was the woman saying, "No, I don't want this," and the man pushing her onto her back in the bushes anyway -- and this becomes "okay" because she doesn't fight and has a wonderful orgasm and falls in love with him and leaves her crippled husband. Woman as victim and submissive, Man as dominant brute. Andrealphus smiles and files it next to the _Gor_ books.) >> "or other well written smut might be very good for the soul. Andy >> deals with stuff like Dolly Does Dallas." >> >> Debbie. > >Geez...can't do anything right. I never really saw all that much in >porn films - by the time I was able to get to them consistantly (a >year ago, just about) I had had better experiences. But magazines... >they may be Andre's, but I'd like to think Eli is just a little happy >about what I learned from them. One takes the good parts where one can find them... (Though all those "gynocologist" scenes really really shouldn't be watched by anyone under the age of getting a pap smear...) >> And I think that Andre's oevure might be more of the non-con porn >> productions...if Linda Lovelace's stories about the making of >> "Deep Throat" are to be believed, that'd be an example. > >I think any type of porn that promotes the image of sex being a >commodity or something to simply be taken is his area. Non-con porn >is just an icing on the cake compared to the effects a "women as >objects" film has on some men... I'm sure that Andre likes some of the backlash, "*Men* as objects" kinds of things that can crop up as well. :-p Consensual, non-consensual -- Andre doesn't care, so long as it's sex as self-oriented only, without feeling for the other person as a person. The orgasm is within one's mind only, and post-cuddling is tidily swept under the rug. After all, it's boring. Nothing's happening. Yech. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:41:00 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re:Tony DeGeorge's Vacations At 1:42 PM -0400 8/22/97, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: >>Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:28:10 -0300 >>From: Andre Ribeiro > >> Someone *else* can't stand it anymore or it's just me?? > > Ah, we all can't stand it. And I'm sure he's going to find a lot of >complaints in his mailbox when the 25th rolls around. Though, there is a >bright side to this... > > At least he's not subscribed to the direct-mail version. Gods... Please, don't even *think* that... (Though he probably would have found himself unsubscribed pretty quick that way...) I emailed what I hoped would be "Cindy Achar", and asked her to tell him about this little thing... Now, if I'd only quit getting the bounces from IMCEAMS-MARITZ_FENTON_POSTMASTER@Maritz.com, I'd be all set. :-p - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:35:04 GMT From: dsarrazin@cyberus.ca (Denis Sarrazin) Subject: IN> Kyriotates In the rules, they mention that Kyriotates can control a total of Forces equal to their own. A human is 5 forces, and a starting angel has 9. So this mean that an angel can control a single human, plus optionally some animals and such. My question is: how many forces do animals have? Or, to put it another way, how do I determine how many of various kinds of animals can be "controlled" in addition, or in stead of, a human? Is there some info in the book (I didn't find any but the way things are organized in there makes it hard to find anything when I'm looking for it so I may have missed it)? Thanks, D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:35:02 GMT From: dsarrazin@cyberus.ca (Denis Sarrazin) Subject: IN> Demon becomes an angel? Hi, I'm in the process of starting an In Nomine game on Compuserve, and one of the player submitted a rather unusual and interesting character. Basically, her PC used to be a Demon, but then something happened and she now only does good, following the advice of an angel. What exactly does that make her character? A demon still? A renegade? An angel? How would one create such as character, then? What does the process of converting demons to angels normally involve, if it is even possible to do so? What about a renegade: can they do good if they used to be a demon? Would an angel actually "use" and trust one such? Any other thoughts on the issues involved? Thanks, D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:47:36 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> What happened to the Light (was Lucy's Word) On Aug 21, 9:30am, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> What happened to the Light (was Lucy's Word) > Then there's St. Lucile (or St. Lucy), patron saint of light > and vision. Can a human soul be given a Word? As far as _I_ know, the answer is no. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:46:51 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Walt Mazur: "Works for me. 'No sparrow shall fall...' Kyrios are representative of being everywhere and seeing everything, protecting all; the opposite of a guardian angel who protects just one person." David Edelstein "In my opinion, Kyriotates are THE most powerful Choir, and that's what they represent-- the sheer power of God. Kyriotates are Dominations. God reigns absolute over all of creation, and Kyriotates share a small part of that terrible power, being able to embody and usurp small pieces of the Symphony." Hmm. These are helpful. David: "I think this is what makes them the most alien Choir-- because their resonance, unlike those of the other Choirs, is not even necessarily "good" as humans think of it. In In Nomine, God is not always the warm & cuddly, benevolent father-figure so beloved by modern Christians-- take a look at the Old Testament, sometimes He's capricious and downright cruel. Likewise, the things Kyriotates can do-- taking over a mortal's body, without his permission, and doing whatever they choose with it-- can be capricious and cruel, no matter how well they take care of it." See...I'm having trouble understanding how it's ever considered 'good' to hijack a human body. With the Shedim, it's corruption -- exposing the mortal to the horrible things that people are capable of so that they'll learn to enjoy them. But a Kyrio's vessel is essentially out-of-the-picture when he's being ridden. He's being used out of expedience. The only other option I could think of is this...what got humans cast out from Eden (if I understand it correctly) is choosing to have the knowledge of Good and Evil, and the ability to make that choice. Through their possession, the Kyrio's remove that choice, that taint, that knowledge. (I'm not expressing this as well as I'd like. Damn.) That sounds a little too dark for the angels, though, like the divine equivalent of Habbalah. yours, still wondering, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:55:08 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat > I'm having trouble understanding the way that the Kyriotate resonance -- > multiplicity -- is an aspect of the Divine in the way that truth or honor > are. All the other bands and choirs I can wrap my head around, but I can't > quite grasp the Kyrios. The closest I could come was: "Kyrios represent the > divine quality of Omnipresence, being multiple places at once," but that's > not quite it. Kyriotates are very subjective in their perceptions. They actually get down and _live_ in a human or animal host. Kyrios cherish the different points of view they get from trying all those different vessels, even to the point of blurring their own self-identity. This makes their conversational styles.... errr... interesting. If you imagine objectivity/subjectivity on a pyramid with objectivity at the apex and subjectivity at the base, Kyriotates are trying to sample every part of the base, sometimes multiple parts at once! The Elohim try as hard as they can to get to the apex. The problem with being way up there is that you might lose sight of the base altogether (there is the converse problem that you might miss the apex completely when you are mucking around at the bottom). - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:43:46 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: IN> Re: (Another) Q about Lilim >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:53:09 -0400 >From: David Edelstein >Subject: IN> (Another) Q about Lilim > >>>>In general, I agree with you, but just the existance of the >Role does not preclude getting a Geas as well. A Lilim with a >Doctor role doesn't have an agreement with every person they >meet on the street who might need medical attention. "Hey >man, you look like you've been shot! Want some help?" On the >other hand, as you say, if you working in a hospital, you >have already been recompensed for your efforts when a patient >shows up.<<< > > >I guess that would preclude the trick that Lilim of Fate used, collecting >Geases on babies with her Role as a maternity ward nurse, then. > >- -David Mmm, not necessarily. For one, I think that the pay you get as a materny ward nurse is significantly less than one could get as a private nurse/nanny looking after only one or two children and doing mostly the same thing. For two, I don't think that the pay fully recompenses the favor done by health care personnell. I think most people would agree that the value of a human life is more than the Emergency Room doctor gets paid for saving it. For three, Nadine (The Lilim in Question) if working under these strictures, could easily get around the pay problem with anonymous donations of every bit of her pay that she doesn't absolutely need to the hospital she works at. By doing that, she's no longer getting fully recompensed for the job she is doing, and with some mental gymnastics, the fraction of her pay that she does return is equivalent to the fraction of babies that she's helping for "free".b = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Legion, Party of six thousand. Smoking or Non? ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:14:02 -0400 () From: Greg Subject: Re: IN> Tony DeGeorge's Vacantions > Tony DeGeorge wrote: > > > I'll be out of the office from August 15th through the 24th, back > > again on > > August 25th. If you have publishing business that can't wait until I > > return, > > please contact Cindy Achar. > > Someone *else* can't stand it anymore or it's just me?? > Actually, I find that I'm just happy to know where he is. I don't worry that way. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:58:58 -0500 From: Colin Fredericks Subject: Re: IN> Recorporation Hail. >> I have a question for everyone, which may have already been answered, >> but isn't in the official FAQ's or errata. When a Celestial gets >> killed, they get shocked back to their home plane - heaven or hell. >> How long does it take to recorporate? > > It's all detailed on page 67 under Trauma. It's a bit complicated. I think that deals more with overcoming Trauma than actually recreating your physical body. Since one can argue that the corporeal vessel was destroyed, and you can't get back to Earth without one unless you're a body-snatcher (pg. 53), it must take something more than that... Thanks to Casca for pointing out the "6 days and a rest" thing. I had forgotten that. Stay Cool; -Sir Colin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:06:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 9:22 PM +0000 8/22/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:54:40 -0400, David Edelstein > wrote: > >>Here's how I think Geases should work: >> >>a) Only Lilim (or a Superior) can put Geases on someone >>b) Geases can be freely traded. >>c) When someone holds a Geas on someone, they can go to that person and >>announce what they want. >>d) He may choose to obey without resisting, in which case he performs his >>service, and the Geas evaporates. >>e) If he decides he wants to resist, and it's not a Lilim invoking >>it...nothing happens. The bearer still holds the Geas, it hasn't >>evaporated, but he has no way to force the subject to obey it. >>f) If it's a Lilim holding the Geas, go through the usual resistance >>mechanics. > >I like this, though Archangel Beth will have kittens. :) If someone wants to use a token/hook to convince a target to self-Geas... (The option I like best -- that having a token present will let the target self-Geas to what the holder says. It goes poof upon completion, and being a *self*-Geas, will inflict dissonance if disobeyed. So there.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:50:21 +0100 (BST) From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat CJ Hunter wrote:- > IQJason@aol.com wrote: > > Is there anyone out there on the list who feels an affinity towards the > > Dominions the way that Archangel Beth does toward the Lilim? I'd appreciate > > someone to bounce ideas off. > > Judging from the amount of traffic (i.e. confusion) about the Kyriotates, I'd > guess that we're all equally confused... :) Let's face it, Celstials (especially angelic ones) are inherently beyond our own mortal ken; they think and act differently, have adgendas waaaaay over the heads of the majority of us, and have veiwpoints that can be, well, skewed. Besides, well... Kyrios are *WEIRD*. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:04:04 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> noise in the symphony On Aug 21, 7:23pm, Alex Helm wrote: > Subject: IN> noise in the symphony > If a human is saved from harm or a natural death eg rescueing a mortal from > the path of an on rushing truck does this cause a disturbance in the > symphony? if so how much? None. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:51:24 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > Actually that is 9 favours you owe Lilith [which when called in become Geas > 3's] and one of the only two mentions of trading favours or Geases in the > rules is the next sentance > And you can get 4 geas/6's out of 27 points of geas [or 1 Geas/27] > > However there is a good arguement that these are Normal Discord Geases and > therefore not Cumulative or divisible. Now this is an interesting theory... one I hadn't heard before. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:11:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kinney Subject: Re: IN> What happened to the Light (was Lucy's Word) On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > On Aug 21, 9:30am, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Then there's St. Lucile (or St. Lucy), patron saint of light > > and vision. Can a human soul be given a Word? > As far as _I_ know, the answer is no. > Gee, it's so often I get to post to *any* list anymore... :-) If not, this makes the saint situation rather interesting. My response to this: perhaps, by working for a particular angelic superior, they can get some sort of "unofficial" status as an agent of that Angel's Word, sort of like a very minor distinction? This would get us around the discussion from early on when we were working out which saint did what and so forth, and trying to reconcile that with some of the Superiors. Just a thought. alberich@iglou.com | Mark Kinney | http://www.iglou.com/nations "When Heaven's in the music, Hell is in control; The angels got the voices, but the Devil's got the Rock and Roll..." -- "Look What I Did To My Id", from "Shock Treatment" by Richard O'Brien ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #307 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.