From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Sep 15 22:47:44 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 WAA11678 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:47:44 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id WAA27722 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:28:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:28:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199709160328.WAA27722@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 #343 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, September 15 1997 Volume 01 : Number 343 In this digest: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) Re: IN> A Few Questions Re: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] RE: IN> A Few Questions IN> IN and Real Theology Re: IN> IN and Real Theology IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #342 Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] IN> New-ish toy Re: IN> Superior Intervention Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #339 Songfluff (Re: IN> Homosexuality in In Nomine) Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) IN> Malakim as Warriors Re: IN> A Few Questions Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #342 Re: IN> Beth of the Archives Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) Re: IN> New-ish toy Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling Re: IN> A Few Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:21:58 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) > >>>Karakash mentioned it, yes. It's canon. Lilim cannot trade Geases. They > >>>can *promise* "I'll only invoke this Geas the way you tell me to" to > >>>someone, or use a Geas to get a sister to invoke a Geas to your specifics. > > I can't find this. Could you perhaps repost the canon ruling, please? (It > also needs to go to the FAQ.) It's coming, it's coming... =) I have a list of about fifty canon things to put in the FAQ, so I'm just going to do it there rather than put them on the list individually. (Another dozen or so Possession things included!) > >>That changes things. Not even with Lilith herself? Lilith can trade _away_ Geases with no problem. (A pretty good trick, in and of itself!) Trading an already-established Geas _to_ Lilith is still somewhat difficult. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:28:52 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> A Few Questions > First off, is it allowable to make a character who serves a word-bound > celestial who is not an AA or DP? You'd be missing out on attunements (I > assume only AAs and DPs can grant attunements) but you'd have a much wider > range of words to serve. I'm mainly asking because I'm writing up Mihr, the > Angel of Friendship, and thought he would make a neat superior for PCs; > he's not powerful enough to be an AA though...perhaps he serves the > Archangel of Love. (That's another question...is such a superior > forthcoming from SJG?) Definitely, yes! Several AA/DP's maintain elaborate hierarchies to keep things under control while others meet all their Servitors much more often. If you serve a word-bound celestial, that's where your orders come from most of the time, but you can still get the attunements and distinctions of the your _ultimate_ superior (the AA or DP). > On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the > Archangel of Healing. I don't recall... he might be lurking around somewhere. AA and DP's are going to be added very carefully (and somewhat sparingly). > Finally, I was wondering about the Pseudo-Dionysian choir scheme as it > relates to IN...we have seraphim, cherubim, thrones, powers, virtues, and > dominations. We have archangels, although not as a choir. I'm assuming the > Mercurians are the plain ol' angels. So where are the principalities? Don't take the congruences too literally. Humans see patterns where there are none and sometimes misunderstand the patterns that they _do_ see. While In Nomine is drawn from literature and biblical source, it doesn't follow any one source, ahem, religiously. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:32:22 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo On Sep 13, 3:39am, Michael C. Nutt wrote: > Subject: Re:IN> INRI Tattoo > >> Supposedly, there is a picture of a demon with an INRI tattoo in the > >> basic book, but for the life of me, I can't find it. Anybody know where > >> it is? > >> > >I don't know about the main book, but there is such a thing (if that's a > >demon, of course; you know you can't tell in this game :-) on the GMs > >Screen. If memory serves me aright, there is such an angel on the poster that was in an issue of Pyramid. That picture was slated to be in the main rulebook, but got lost (along with the computer copy!) The substitute was the picture on p.4. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:12:52 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] >I apologize for not being clear. What I meant was more like a quote from >some unnamed movie I saw on a trailer on the same tape as BOUND last >night. And since my memory is like a sieve, I paraphrase, as said by >James Woods, "God maintains Demons as the Tools of His Vengence." God is, >at least in my pantheon, neither Good nor Evil, and maintains the proper >tools to keep the balance. As an NPC explained, without Good or Evil, the >humans might well just go pfft, and THEN where would everyone be? I would have to say, IN seems to make the assumption that God and Lucifer are working against each other, hence the War. On the other hand, no one really seems to understand Lucy and Yawn-way anyhow. Perhaps they're off playing poker while the rest fight among themselves. >It makes perfect sense to me in sort of a twisted way. There was no need >for honor or vengance against evil until the Fall, because it simply >didn't exist. Thus, the Malakim did not exist until the Fall - a retained >number of demons kept bound by oaths in the service of Heaven. An >interesting paradox - the Malakim fight the Fallen because they were >created to do so, but they will not exist after the Fallen have been >destroyed, since not only will they have cause to destroy themselves, but >the justification for their continued existance will be nullified. Thus, >they must continue to Fight the War, but not Win the War - in a most >honorable fashion. > I really like this idea, however it does force one to make some different basic assumptions about the war. >There is, if one thinks about it, no real such thing as "Selfless Honor" >or "Selfless Vengence". Honor is you, yourself, trying to live up to your >own personal code. And since Demons are the essense of Selfishness... >it's a back feeding cycle. Ahhh... but are the Malakim defending their own honor, or the honor of heaven? An interesting question: "Each Malakite has his own seperate code of honor, based on his personal principles of right and wrong, that he expects those around him to follow..." - IN pg 100 I can really see what you're putting forth with the demon/angel thing. Perhaps the Malakim were designed by the Lord ot see how angels might behave interms of selfishness before falling? >2. honor or honour \-(*-)rin\ \'a:n-*r-*r\ vt or hon.or.ing chiefly Brit > 1a: to regard or treat with honor or respect 1b: to confer honor on 2: > to live up to or fulfill the terms of; specif : to accept and pay when > due {~a draft} 3: to salute with a bow in square dancing - hon.or.er > >Although I can't imagine Malakim square dancing. :) I see a Malakim square dancing, but then again, I'm currently playing with a Malak who like to hug people! Go figure... - -Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:24:46 -0700 From: Steven Feldon Subject: RE: IN> A Few Questions > On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the > Archangel of Healing. I don't recall... he might be lurking around somewhere. AA and DP's are going to be added very carefully (and somewhat sparingly). Trying to be vague to avoid copyright problems, but Raphael was detailed in the Designer's Notes for In Nomine in Pyramid #26. In short, Raphael, the Archangel of Knowledge, died in the Middle Ages in the (bi-partisan) fight against Legion, the Demon Prince of Corruption. Supposedly, Michaelangelo was his Remnant. steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:20:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> IN and Real Theology Jo Hart wrote: > There is very little in the Torah to back up the God-Satan conflict. ... > There is a certain amount of commentary about angels, but basically > Judaism doesn't preach the heaven/ hell dichotomy in any consistent > way. Although the New Testament talks much more about the devil and demons, it doesn't present the dichotomy we've grown used to, either. The general picture presented in the New Testament is that the forces of good have already won, that the forces of evil have just recently sufferen a major setback (because of the Redemption) and are on the verge of annihilation. All the equal-but-opposite imagery we are used to goes back to the single mention of the battle between Michael and Satan in Revelation. Elsewhere, even in Revelation, as soon as The Time Has Come, the heavenly forces move in and mop up. Satan is carried helplessly to the Abyss, and later to the Lake of Fire. In the rest of the New Testament, individual human souls are at risk and walk the razor-edge between Heaven and Hell, but in the big picture, Hell is on the defensive. Exorcised demons beg Christ for mercy. Christ says that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against his church -- implying that the church is storming hell, not the other way around, and the church is winning. The general picture is not of two enemy nation-states, but of the law-enforcers vs. the criminals. Satan stands to God not as king to king, but as crime-boss to king. So that's one way in which IN is in conflict with the Bible. But it's a matter of emphasis and tone, not fact. And anyway, the fight against crime looks plenty dualistic when viewed from up close. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:21:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew C. Johnson" Subject: Re: IN> IN and Real Theology Earl brings some good points. The current Evangelical Christian outlook is of a war of attrition that's outcome in inevitable. Now, different authors from that sub-culture have different bents on the War as well; Frank Peretti (the first of the Christian suspense writers) thought of the War as a great battle that the Forces of God will win, but the question remains how each skirmish will end. In this model, the forces of Darkness are absolutely no match for Christian mysticism. There is nothing, in this model, that a strong faith cannot acheive against demonic forces. This is a very bad model for role-playing this war. GM: All right. Your Soldier has just completely pissed off Baal by calling an entire regiment of screaming, relentless djinns a bunch of smoke-colored pansies. You feel the reverberations of the Symphony as Baal gathers Essence to Entropy your ass into its component molecules. Mother Theresa: I pray that God bind this foul malignance away from the Corporeal realm deep into the deepest of abysses. GM: Erm... Mother Theresa: I pray really hard. A lot of my fellow believers join me in the sentiment. GM: [shit] Well, so much for Baal. I oversimplify like mad (any of you who have actually read these books know this), but that's the general idea. The other line is that of a slightly more equal footing where Celestials can do much in the way of keeping each other in line. This tends to go with those who have been heavily influenced (again, this is in the Evangelical community) by the writings concerning the Prophet Daniel, where an angel is a month late in coming to the prophet because he was waylaid by a demon. Incidentally, coming from this background has occasionally made me wonder how badly some of my brothers and sisters might react to this game...I think it would be interesting to inflict IN on a youth group. I get the feeling I might get thrown out kinda quickly... - -Drew Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:37:30 -0500 From: Christopher Scott Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #342 >> I'm mainly asking because I'm writing up Mihr, the >>Angel of Friendship, and thought he would make a neat superior for PCs; >>he's not powerful enough to be an AA though...perhaps he serves the >>Archangel of Love. (That's another question...is such a superior >>forthcoming from SJG?) > >I believe Love falls under Eli's Word, at least in some forms (look at >his Rites). However, Friendship probably more properly falls under >Novalis' Word. Hmmm. I'm not sure I really agree here. It seems like a lot of Words get shoehorned into Eli's and Novalis' hierarchies because they really don't fit with any of the other Archangels we've been given. I might just as easily say Friendship falls under David's Word; he encourages humans to band together and be loyal. As for Eli, I'd say his Word definitely covers Reproduction, but not necessarily Love. Love seems like a universal and powerful Word that would have its own Archangel. >>On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the >>Archangel of Healing. > >Raphael's dead -- the latest Pyramid (I think it is) describes how it >happened. Eek. I don't live in an area where Pyramid is easily findable...can anyone email me a Reader's Digest version of this story? =) In case anyone's interested, I might post what I've got for Mihr and for Anael, my idea of the Archangel of Love. >- ---Walter Christopher Scott iago@ozarks.net Evil Manipulator and Fake Redhead UIN 668360 www.geocities.com/~topherscott ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Bright Malakim [Longish] > >I apologize for not being clear. What I meant was more like a quote from > >some unnamed movie I saw on a trailer on the same tape as BOUND last > >night. And since my memory is like a sieve, I paraphrase, as said by > >James Woods, "God maintains Demons as the Tools of His Vengence." God is, > >at least in my pantheon, neither Good nor Evil, and maintains the proper > >tools to keep the balance. As an NPC explained, without Good or Evil, the > >humans might well just go pfft, and THEN where would everyone be? (I should follow this with the answer, which is "probably much happier", but that's another story.) > I would have to say, IN seems to make the assumption that God and Lucifer are > working against each other, hence the War. On the other hand, no one > really seems to understand Lucy and Yawn-way anyhow. Perhaps they're > off playing poker while the rest fight among themselves. That is, in fact, entirely possible. "I see you 6 souls and raise you 10." As I see it, IN makes that assumption From the Point Of View of Players, and NPC Celestials, including ArchAngels and Demon Princes. An important distinction, as they all can hardly claim to know everything that is going on, save Eli as the Voice and Word of God - and Eli is sort of off in his own happy fairyland. It is possible, in fact, that Lucifer is running the whole show. No one knows, because they aren't exactly hosting their own call in talk shows. As I see it, the GM can monkey with the mechanics of the universe as much as he/she/it sees fit. The benefits, I see, of being the Demiurge. > >It makes perfect sense to me in sort of a twisted way. There was no need > >for honor or vengance against evil until the Fall, because it simply > >didn't exist. Thus, the Malakim did not exist until the Fall - a retained > >number of demons kept bound by oaths in the service of Heaven. An > >interesting paradox - the Malakim fight the Fallen because they were > >created to do so, but they will not exist after the Fallen have been > >destroyed, since not only will they have cause to destroy themselves, but > >the justification for their continued existance will be nullified. Thus, > >they must continue to Fight the War, but not Win the War - in a most > >honorable fashion. > > > I really like this idea, however it does force one to make some different > basic assumptions about the war. Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. IN has enough holes in the system right now that the GM can take some creative license. (If I didn't want creative license, I'd go play Vampire.) It makes a Malakim a paradoxial creature, who needs to destroy Evil to sustain itself, but if it succeeds in destroying Evil, it will, in turn, ultimatly end it's own continued existance. So it must exact bloody vengance, to generate more misery and more pain, to justify more Evil, so it can destroy more Evil. And it doesn't even suffer trauma - if it gets wacked down, it can go foster more pain and torment on other "evil" beings - - humans, demons, your friendly neighborhood Messiah, you name it. Think, for a second, how much destruction to vehicles, buildings, people's lives, whathaveyou, a Malakim ultimately DOES in it's quest for blood? There are always secondary victims, one way or another. God works in mysterious ways. Or some not so mysterious. > >There is, if one thinks about it, no real such thing as "Selfless Honor" > >or "Selfless Vengence". Honor is you, yourself, trying to live up to your > >own personal code. And since Demons are the essense of Selfishness... > >it's a back feeding cycle. > > Ahhh... but are the Malakim defending their own honor, or the honor of heaven? > An interesting question: > > "Each Malakite has his own seperate code of honor, based on his personal > principles of right and wrong, that he expects those around him to > follow..." > - IN pg 100 Well, that quote is clearly their own personal codes of honor, on personal takes on Good and Evil. He's Selfish. And he damn well wants everyone around him to be Selfish as well, in his own way. That sort of personal choice and personal freedom are the road to Falling. Lilith isn't a demon princess because Freedom is all fun and roses. It's that personal choice to have your own way of thinking. You know... while my mind wanders, this solves the "How does Dominic the Balseraph have Malakim?" Well, now that's answered, isn't it? > > I can really see what you're putting forth with the demon/angel thing. > Perhaps the Malakim were designed by the Lord ot see how angels might > behave interms of selfishness before falling? Yes! I have direction! My meandering thoughts aren't just taking me down the road to hell! It's very possible that is what God had in mind. Here's a model of some angels gone hideously screwy, and they're retained in Heaven as an instrument of Vengence, and a good solid object lesson. They kill, they maim, they destroy, all in the name of their own personal codes and the good of... someone. They are supremely useful, but they need the chains to restrain them. In fact, this is why Malakim go so insane over Demons they meet. Here is a reminder of what they could be - what they SHOULD be, embodied and running around free, making their own choices. (As a matter of fact, we can sew a bit of Kingsley's idea into this as well. How many Malakim that exist today were... something else entirely before the war?) - - Em, Demiurge ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:16:23 +0900 From: Dave Conrad Subject: IN> New-ish toy Capitalizing on the tamagotchi craze, Japanese and other manufactureres are coming out with other creatures to virtually parent. One of the new items is an Angel-gotchi (cleverly combining the angel and gotchi fads) which goes to the holy city to pray for you and your loved ones if you care for it well, and becomes a demon if you neglect it. - -- Dave C. iN*T*x "To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:43:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superior Intervention At 5:35 PM -0400 9/13/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>So he's the Imp of the Perverse[1], then?<<< > >I am sure I've graduated beyond mere Imphood! Impudite of the Perverse? Nah, that sounds like Andre... >-David (I'm a *Prince*, dammit!) (That's right. Hm. I'm going to have to draw up a chart, like in the GM screen...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:59:40 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #339 At 10:24 PM -0700 9/14/97, Dennis C Hwang wrote: >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jo Hart wrote: >>>From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) >>> >>>Who has the Word Evolution? Eli? >> >> Vapula, surely. >> >Umm......why? Simple -- the smart people stay away from Vap's stuff, and the dumb ones don't. So the smart ones breed, which evolves the entire race... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:34:33 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Songfluff (Re: IN> Homosexuality in In Nomine) At 12:02 PM -0500 9/13/97, tom timberlake wrote: >> >What I AM going to cast asparagus [sic] upon is the stuff below... >> >> "Gus is the cat, by the theater door..." Sorry, sorry... > >Okay, _we_ accept your apology, but the question is, will "Old >Deuteronomy, just before dawn, through a silence you feel you could cut >with a knife?" >{dueling song verses, anyone?} Oh, Mystical Divinity, of Unashemed Felinity! (Feline, fearless, faithful and true, to others who -- do! -- what! Jelicles can and Jelicles do!) Ahem. Right, right, time for me to slink away... (I own the CD, and it has The Words. I'll take ya all on... And Phantom, and any number of filk tapes...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:41:33 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) At 4:08 PM -0400 9/13/97, Casca wrote: >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Kingsley Lintz wrote: > >> That I don't see so much; Lucifer was Seraphim, so he didn't HAVE >> the Vows. (I still like Casca's thought - I'm pretty sure it was Casca's, >> anyway - that Lucifer went because Light included free will...which is >> essentially what you're saying here as well, but without making Lucifer a >> Dark Malakim.) > >Yup, that was me. :) Rather proud of that post, and slightly puzzled as >to why it hasn't made it onto AA Beth's website.....ah well. Don't try to >eff the ineffable, and all that. ;) I thought it was an interesting view, and one that might spark ideas for GMs. ("Ineffable? Teri, you are the *most* effable Seraph I know! You *love* effing!" --paraquote from a game, regarding a Seraph of Creation...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:42:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Malakim as Warriors >>>To argue that Malakim are better at combat than any other Choir is I believe not supportable. However, they are still Heaven's Premier Warriors because their focus is on the main issue of the War. Seraphs deal with Truth, Cherubs deal with individuals, Ofanim change focus when things get boring. Malakim never give in and when Evil comes to their attention they pursue it to a final conclusion. Other Choirs deal with important issues within God's Plan, but Malakim are made for the War.<<< Exactly. Malakim don't have special powers that make them better at fighting-- they are fantastic warriors because they all devote themselves to it. Kind of like certain human groups who have acquired a reputation for being ferocious fighters...like the Gurkas. Gurkas aren't physically different from anyone else, they don't have special weapons...but there's a reason no one wanted to mess with them for centuries. Malakim are bad-asses because it's what they LIKE.... - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:25:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A Few Questions At 12:01 AM -0500 9/13/97, Christopher Scott wrote: >First off, is it allowable to make a character who serves a word-bound >celestial who is not an AA or DP? You'd be missing out on attunements (I >assume only AAs and DPs can grant attunements) but you'd have a much wider >range of words to serve. I *believe* that the way it works, you can serve a Word-Bound, but it's more a "chain of command" -- you still take orders from the Superior above, and have that Choir/Band Attunement. But you might get your Word-Bound's Rite, if you do good work. If your Word-Bound superior ever makes it to Superior status, you'll probably get Distinctions and other bennies. (Look at the people helping Furfur, for instance. Getting in on the ground floor.) >I'm mainly asking because I'm writing up Mihr, the >Angel of Friendship, and thought he would make a neat superior for PCs; >he's not powerful enough to be an AA though...perhaps he serves the >Archangel of Love. (That's another question...is such a superior >forthcoming from SJG?) You're not cleared for that information. O;> Currently, either Eli or Novalis seems to have taken that Word underwing. >On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the >Archangel of Healing. Raphael was the Archangel of Knowledge, and was killed in the fight against Legion. According to the Pyramid article Derek wrote. >Finally, I was wondering about the Pseudo-Dionysian choir scheme as it >relates to IN...we have seraphim, cherubim, thrones, powers, virtues, and >dominations. We have archangels, although not as a choir. I'm assuming the >Mercurians are the plain ol' angels. So where are the principalities? In Hell. (That's what a Demon Prince's domain is called...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:20:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #342 At 5:37 PM -0500 9/15/97, Christopher Scott wrote: >>>On a related topic, are we going to see Raphael? I'm thinking he'd be the >>>Archangel of Healing. >> >>Raphael's dead -- the latest Pyramid (I think it is) describes how it >>happened. > >Eek. I don't live in an area where Pyramid is easily findable...can anyone >email me a Reader's Digest version of this story? =) There was once a Shedite named Legion who discovered how to inhabit many bodies, like an infernal Kyrio. Lucifer made him a Prince. Bad idea. It went to his heads. All the AAs and DPs banded together to fight Legion, destroying his bodies so that he would be forced celestial where he could be destroyed. It toasted a lot of Superior vessels, and nearly got Michael mushed celestially. Raphael dove into the center of the Shedite Prince and sort of self-destructed. Later, Michael found a remnant boy, and apprenticed him to Art, the Angel of Art, whose Word is his name. The boy grew into Michaelangelo, and ever after, Art swore that the boy was the remnant of Raphael. The end. >In case anyone's interested, I might post what I've got for Mihr and for >Anael, my idea of the Archangel of Love. Note that Anael is also a Malakite of Creation, in service to Fire, from a Pyramid. Just so you know.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:39:25 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Beth of the Archives At 2:10 PM +0000 9/13/97, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >> >> (Am too! Just look at my license plate: ARCNGL ! ) >> > >> >The fact that the car is completely white, and just the thing you >> >would think to see an unassuming angel driving, fits perfectly. >> >> It is *NOT* a white car! It's silver. > >My car is silver. Your car is silver-white. I simplified. The paint color is officially "quicksilver," according to the documents when we bought the car. >> (And the car bfore her was smooth black. Same plate.) > >Hmmm - unless it was one of those really badass power cars, I can't >see it having the same amount of feel. A sweet little Nissan Sentra. >>>I think Novalis was put in there to be a "goody-two-shoes", not >>>because she had any real justification. >> >>Hey, she's got to have *some* political savvy... > >Nothing seems to indicate it, and her real power overlaps with Eli's >too much. She won't be a AA in *my* IN, let me assure you. High >ranked word-bound of Eli, at best. Well, she *is* around, so, to quote I forget who, "not bad for a bit of shrubbery." She's just very subtle. Then there's Blandine... >> >So what powers do you have, now? (I got a vague sense from Kromm >> >of what a Line Editor does, but...) >> >> Pen-Penultimate power. Eventually, I get power over the list, >> apparently, but I haven't gotten any instructions about that yet. > >That doesn't tell me much... And I am supposed to maintain consistancy in the IN canon, make sure that everything agrees with the overarching vision, and try to get it made the official roleplaying system of the American Public School system. Or something like that. (This paragraph not smiley-captioned for the satire-impaired.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:20:11 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) At 11:43 PM +0000 9/12/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:02:52 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>>So she can keep hunting. Maybe pushing through a subway crowd, testing, >>>testing, testing... >> >>Yes. (And eventually she gets a 111, and the GM decides how annoyed >>he is...) My Lil does a lot of "just checking" (and a fair amount >>of failing, *sigh*, I gotta boost her Perception). I don't think >>that's much worse than Elohim and Seraphim doing similar things. > >Oh, but an AA causing all that disturbance in a subway crowd! Tsk, tsk! That's okay, New Yorkers see weirder things than Laurence in their breakfast cereal. >>>Ok. So this is a different issue from the basic rule that sensing is off >>>perception and doing is off will. >> >> Yeah. It *would* be cleaner if imposing the Geas were Will, in >>concept, but messier in mechanics. > >Ok, but the sensing is off perception and doing is off will, *is* canon, >right? The non-canonical part is any modifications to Lilim Resonance. Right. >>>Hm. It does seem logical that a Lilim doing something ought to require a >>>will roll. Maybe a comparison on invoking Geases would help: >>> >>> Lilim Victim Comment >>>Old: free resist Will-geas >>>Proposed: Will resist Will-geas Well the Lilim >>> definitely loses by the >>> change >>>How about: Will+geas resist Will Makes the Lilim less likely >>> to fail and less needing to >>> put points in will; simple >>> resistance roll >>> >>>> The second way is more complicated. Icky. >>> >>>It does add a roll, but it does make some sense. It also gives a Lilim a >>>better chance of Geasing a Celestial: she can't add essence if she can't >>>roll. >> >>It's not just adding a roll -- I could handle that -- but it puts in >>the question of "does the Geas vanish if she fails?" It also gives her >>three chances to fail -- Perception, Will, and Resistance. > >Well, the first and last were always there: the first fails to sense >conditions for a Geas, and the last was imposing the Geas. Actually, I'd >look at it as the second changing from a passive, resistance only thing to >an actual Lilim action. It's still just two chances to fail, only the >mechanics of the second have changed. So the Geas isn't burned unless the person resists, twice? >>Will+Geaslevel helps her *try* to impose the Geas, but the victim >>becomes much more likely to resist and cause her dissonance. > >Some points: >1. Will+Geaslevel will let high Will=12 Lilim unconditionally Geas most >humans. The humans will have at most a CD of 6 while the Lilim will have a >minimum CD of Geas+1, and she can spend Essence, which she couldn't before. Vicious. >2. It lets her have a good chance of Geasing a Celestial--maybe too good a >chance. With the Geas plus, she'll be able to outspend another Celestial >boosting their CDs. Hmmmmm.... Sounds fun... I could see this, as a Ye Generic Player. But I'm not sure I want to set my mark to it as a Line Editor yet. I'll let Karakash think about it. >>>Per person. Unless they're very gullible. Hm. P.T. Barnum... >> >> If they're *that* dumb, then evolution action... > >Who has the Word Evolution? Eli? Or Jordi. Or Kobal... (Platypus!) >>>>Karakash mentioned it, yes. It's canon. Lilim cannot trade Geases. They >>>>can *promise* "I'll only invoke this Geas the way you tell me to" to >>>>someone, or use a Geas to get a sister to invoke a Geas to your specifics. > >I can't find this. Could you perhaps repost the canon ruling, please? (It >also needs to go to the FAQ.) I'm not sure which one it was myself, where Karakash first mentioned it. However, SJ has so ruled. And yes, it needs to go in the FAQ. >>>That changes things. Not even with Lilith herself? >> >>I've proposed that they can, but that trasferring a Geas earned by a Lilim >>to Lilith without breaking it is at least as tricky a task as removing >>Discord -- Lilith will only do that for Geasa that interest her, and >>the effort of getting it reduces its value. (So there's a certain amount >>of "Okay, that's a nice Geas, and I'll trade you this if you promise not >>to use it up except as I dictate," even with Lilith.) > >The problem I'm seeing is Lilith with all her Geas/3's with no real way for >a PC Lilim to get out from under them without her doing at least 5 major >tasks for Lilim. That's likely to bore the rest of the group. OTOH, if the >Lilim can get some juicy Geases Lilith would like, she can trade them to >Lilith and get out from under Lilith's thumb without boring the PCs to >death. I'm seeing not just a balance issue, but a campaign issue here. I'm actually just the opposite -- those 5 major tasks are probably made easier if the Lilim PC can convince the other PCs to go along with her on it. So what the GM does is string them out as plot hooks (and sometimes sneaking them in to get a "mole" in the party!). I would anticipate that very few Free Lilim are going to actually get all their Geases called in during play. >>>Is that possible? I though you essentially teleported to your heart. Or is >>>this new stuff? >> >>It's what I'd have a Superior say to a demon (or angel...) who was >>doing the "kill my vessel, I don't care!" scam. And I'd have it >>work, too, if the demon/angel were being too much of a twit about it. >> >>I mean, they do end up staring at their Heart, so they've obviously >>"gone celestial"? It's just in such a diffuse form that they don't >>make disturbance... (Hm. Maybe it's making matter vanish that >>makes the noise when one goes celestial?) > >Well, the Superior has other options, like stunning them and taking them to >H or H. I don't have a real feel for answers on the other questions--sorry. True, the Superior can also kidnap them. Basically, I'd figure that if someone's mouthing off to a Superior, they should Regret It. >>>I don't have a problem with that. The human set himself up for the >>>situation, and he can still stop taking the drug. >> >>Heh. I don't see much difference between crack (or M:TG?) and Dark >>Desire, myself... > >The difference I see is that the human had a choice: he decided to Need >something. DD is just mind control. If someone held a human down and injected him with heroin against his will? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:36:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Dorothy Bixler Subject: Re: IN> New-ish toy On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Dave Conrad wrote: > Capitalizing on the tamagotchi craze, Japanese and other manufactureres > are coming out with other creatures to virtually parent. One of the new > items is an Angel-gotchi (cleverly combining the angel and gotchi fads) > which goes to the holy city to pray for you and your loved ones if you > care for it well, and becomes a demon if you neglect it. > -- > Dave C. > iN*T*x > "To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch > Hrm... looks like it's time to get Donald to send in the write up of Vapula's Infernal Tamagotchi that we started writing up after we got ours. *Dorothy Michelle Bixler * mudmh10@ecom.ecn.bgu.edu* "Gidget, have you been laying with the Horned One again?" -MST3K's Mike from "The Thing the Couldn't Die" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:40:01 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling > ("Ineffable? Teri, you are the *most* effable Seraph I know! You > *love* effing!" > --paraquote from a game, regarding a Seraph of Creation...) Ow. That's just painful. Good, though. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:40:01 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> A Few Questions > >Finally, I was wondering about the Pseudo-Dionysian choir scheme as it > >relates to IN...we have seraphim, cherubim, thrones, powers, virtues, and > >dominations. We have archangels, although not as a choir. I'm assuming the > >Mercurians are the plain ol' angels. So where are the principalities? > > In Hell. (That's what a Demon Prince's domain is called...) I'm getting this image of Satan killing and carving up Celestial corpses to build hell in, like the Norse creation myths. I *know* that's not what you meant, but... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #343 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.