From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jan 16 08:13:47 1998 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 IAA14232 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:13:47 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id IAA30419 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:06:49 -0600 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:06:49 -0600 Message-Id: <199801161406.IAA30419@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 #569 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, January 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 569 In this digest: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) IN> Fair exchange -- act 1 (long) Re: IN> Who's God now? Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! IN> Definitions, please Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! IN> Heavenly Purges! Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS Re: IN> Heavenly Purges! Re: IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... IN> Raphael IN> Infernal Player's Guide IN> Raphael IN> Archangel Canon Fodder Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Archangel Canon Fodder Re: IN> Definitions, please Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> Who's God now? IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> Who's God now? Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:48:49 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) At 13:38 15/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Well, the thing is that I haven't had quite this bad of a problem with my >other favorite games - Amber, Shadowrun, Kult, Cthulhu... sometimes canon >changes, but it's getting to be too difficult for me to change every three >weeks. Even AD&D isn't this bad, although the WW stuff certainly is. (Is it ever!? ;) ). I infer that I should have spent more of my time playing Amber (if the background didn't throw me for so much of a loop) and CoC because it could be that I've gotten used to the WW style which means having to borrow the books from someone and decide whether you'd need to ignore more than 50% before shelling out ;-) Good move to stop buying the books. >I >just can't redo everything from scratch all the time, and I won't, and >that's that. Thats a fair point. I think the rule with errata should be the same as engineering principle #3[2] which is 'if something isn't broken, don't fix it'. My feeling is that errata should be kept to an absolute minimum (ie. the default should always be 'how can we work around what is already in print'), mainly for rules fixes or blatent inconsistencies. I think this is why people are arguing about Raphael in some ways. He's dead. It doesn't matter. He could have been a clear-headed, people-loving, self-sacrificing ANYTHING, so why change it? ;) jo Principles of Electrical Engineering 1. If all else fails, turn up the power. 2. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. 3. V=IR Axiom: Everything worthwhile in this world has some connection with electricity! - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 05:01:37 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: IN> Fair exchange -- act 1 (long) NB. I know this is long and I don't want to keep spamming ... could just post the rest on the web as it's written, if that suits better. Fair Exchange (another play in 3 acts -- act 1) ** A gleaming office in a high tower block. Fluffy clouds can be seen outside a window and tasteful modern art is framed on the walls. A bookcase contains 17 copies of 'How to win friends and influence people.' Marc, who bears a striking resemblence to Richard Branson, has rolled up the sleeves of his hand-knitted jumper whilst he fiddles with a kettle. An androgynous seraph secretary watches, pen in hand. ** SERAPH: I cannot help feeling that removing the fuse may prove to be a bad idea, sir. MARC: Lighten up, Patricia. All I ask for out of life is a decent cup of tea in the afternoon, I've done this before and it always worked. SERAPH: I could order a new kettle. MARC: There's nothing wrong with this one! Do you think I'm made of money? ** he turns before she answers and waves her to silence ** Don't answer that. What was so urgent that it needed to interrupt my tea break? SERAPH: There is a visitor waiting outside who wishes to see you. MARC: Could you be a little more specific? SERAPH: She says she has come to arrange some insurance. MARC: Thats cool. Tell her to make an appointment and wait in line then. I really would have thought you'd have learned to deal with these minor procedural matters on your own by now. SERAPH: The receptionist would be very grateful if you could make time to see her /urgently/, sir. She is disturbing some of the other clients. MARC: ** Flops into a leather-covered swivel chair behind the desk and sets a Newton's Cradle into motion ** I see. Anything else you think you should tell me? SERAPH: ** fiddles with its pencil ** Um... she's a , sir. MARC: Alright. Show her in, but tell her this had better be good. Make sure you get a decent favour from her for talking me into it. ** The seraph leaves through a polished mahogany door and returns a moment later with another woman. A lilim in a business suit, with a tight skirt. ** LILIM: My lord, I realise this is somewhat irregular but on behalf of my sponsor I am very grateful for your time. MARC: Lets not talk about my time, cutie. Lets talk about.. insurance? Take a seat. LILIM: ** bows and perches on a seat, showing lots of green thigh ** As you wish. I've been asked to arrange some insurance for an object which is currently in my liege's possession. It is shortly to be put on public display and he is concerned as to its safety. Money is no object. MARC: So its in hell? LILIM: Currently, yes. But he wishes it insured only for the duration of its time in the corporeal realm. MARC: Mmm-hmm. I'll need to know what it is, how much you'd like it insured for, where its going and for how long, what kind of security arrangements you have figured out for it, an independent valuation.. ** kettle starts to spout smoke, until he presses a couple of buttons on it ** Dratted thing. Sorry about that. LILIM: ** passes a file across the table, showing lots of cleavage ** I think you'll find all you need in there, my lord. I'm quite good with my hands, I could have a look at that? MARC: Sure, have a look, have several. ** flips through the file ** Interesting. The premiums on this may be quite high, you realise? ** takes out a calculator and some blank forms and starts to tap away ** LILIM: Thats quite alright, sir. I've been authorised to sign for as much as it takes. MARC: Right. So you'd like it insured against what? The usual I imagine. Theft? LILIM: *nod* MARC: Fire? LILIM: *nod* MARC: War? LILIM: ** nods -- she fiddles some more with the kettle which bursts into flames ** Err... it isn't quite like the one I'm used to... MARC: ** presses the intercom ** Patricia, could you bring in a fire extinguisher? ** turns back to Lilim in a businesslike manner ** Technology? LILIM: * rueful nod * Definitely! And Acts of God. ** Patricia enters and nervously sprays foam at the kettle ** MARC: My dear, you are asking me to take a bet against myself. Shall we call it Fate instead? Or Acts of Lucifer? LILIM: I think he was thinking more of bolts of lightning and earthquakes, sir. MARC: Alright. Earthquakes.. that we can do. I'll have one of my people draw up the contract for you; do feel free to enjoy my hospitality while you're waiting. LILIM: ** automatic reaction ** That'll cost you. MARC: You broke my favourite kettle, adorable. Lets not make an issue of it. ** walks around the desk and strokes her hair ** Think of it as an unofficial pre-interview, you never know when you might want to switch employers. SERAPH: ** sprays foam 'accidentally' over Marc's desk ** Sorry, sir. Would you like me to contact Yves' office to work out the odds? MARC: Patricia, you're an angel. Sort it out. And cancel my appointments for the next hour or so. ** he escorts the lilim into a private office ** - ----- ** Kobal's private office, in Hell. A lilim in a bikini is sprawled on a sheepskin rug, trying to teach a gerbil to do tricks. A poster pinned to the far wall reads 'Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Communism'. A damned soul is trying to build a house of cards out of CDs. The lilim in the business suit prances in, looking dishevelled. ** LIL2: Come on Noel[1], you can do it... ** glances up ** So. What kept you? LIL1: A little respect please! What do you have to say to your clever sister who's just set up stage one without a hitch? Not to mention getting to know a certain archangel very closely indeed... ** retrieves a white feather from a pocket and waves it knowingly ** LIL2: Did he pull the exploding cigarette lighter trick on you? LIL1: I don't know what you might mean. Some of us don't need tricks. LIL2: Or was it the kettle? LIL1: ** crestfallen ** LIL2: Theres one born every minute. I s'pose I could have warned you about that. LIL1: ** sniff ** He was.. kinda sweet though. You know? Gentlemanly. LIL2: Uh-huh. You mean he asked your name afterwards. Oh come /on/ Noel! If you don't figure this out soon I swear I'll teach you to play dead with a sledgehammer. LIL1: ** pouts and tosses her jacket onto the sofa. ** I don't know why you still bother with those stupid gerbils. Liam is even worse! ** Kobal enters the room silently behind Lilim1 and lounges in the doorframe, watching ** LIL1: ... Maybe we should expand a bit and get a canary, or pigeons, parakeets, mynah birds... LIL2: Someone's on the fast track to nowhere. LIL1: ** dreamily ** Something with feathers... KOBAL: I do hope I'm not interrupting anything, girls. ** The lilim bound to their feet, both surprised ** LIL2: Not at all, Boss. We were getting worried about you. LIL1: ** blushing green ** LIL2: I /said/ 'we were getting worried about you' LIL1: ** takes the hint and nods enthusiastically ** And .. um.. training the gerbils, Boss. KOBAL: I'm sure you were. I'm touched by the show of affection. ** he casually knocks over the house of CDs, and plucks the feather from the floor ** Dare I ask what this is? Some new rodent-toy perhaps, or an exploding cigarette lighter... LIL1: ** blushes greener ** KOBAL: ... or perhaps a pen with invisible ink? Oh no, its a feather. Do gerbils have feathers? LIL2: ** nervous twitch ** Not that I've seen, Boss. Unless you stick them on. LIL1: We were trying to teach them to fly! ** everyone stares at her ** LIL1: Fly, Noel! Be free! KOBAL: Nice try, Dizzy. ** sighs and sits on the table ** Is it me? LIL2: No Boss, of course not! She can't help being a method actress. Its just some minor prank we were setting up, you'll love it, and Dozey got a bit too into it. LIL1: ** contrite nod -- Kobal walks across and strokes her hair ** KOBAL: That's what worries me. I suppose I could ask Andre to take you in hand a bit. ** sighs ** LIL1: Um. Thats really not necessary, boss. Its just that you're always busy and a girl gets kinda.. KOBAL: ** gently ** Au contraire. I think maybe it is. Kizz, looks like you might have to work this prank alone. LIL2: ** opens mouth to protest ** KOBAL: Unless you'd like to ride shotgun with her, as it were. LIL2: ** closes mouth tightly ** KOBAL: No? ** strokes Lil1's hair, then winds it around his hand with a yank ** Looks as though the joke's on you this time then. I hope it was worth it. ** Kobal releases the lilim who falls to her knees, and lights the end of the feather with a cigarette lighter .. it burns to ash and the scene fades to black ** - ----- ** A seedy cafe in South London. A tubby man in a stained raincoat is sitting at a table with Lilim2, who isn't at all green ** LIL2: So what do you think, Sam? SAM: Yeah, it could be done. Won't be easy though. LIL2: ** purrs ** Oh nothing worth doing is easy. Apart from me of course. SAM: You're sure it's going to be there in the vaults on the Sunday? Don't much fancy my chances once its on display. LIL2: Don't worry darling, I absolutely guarantee it will be there. All you boys need to do is slip into the museum and replace it with a fake. I'm getting one of the guards to help. SAM: I guess we have a deal then. ** raises a plastic cup to her ** Here's to us! LIL2: To the spirit of free enterprise! - ----- [1] Liam & Noel are the first names of the Gallagher brothers of 'Oasis' fame. Why the names might have been thought suitable for a pair of stupid, badly-behaved rodents is anyones guess. - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:17:09 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Who's God now? On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > So who is God now? Who, indeed? > > Uriel? Not in my game. Uriel is something slightly more interesting (from a GM point of view.) (Garrett, if you're reading this, go away.) Hint: it has to do with Laurence's basement. What does one do with a fanatical Archangel who slaughters the impure like a rabid pitbull on speed? You do what any governemnt would do with a highly-trained killer that cannot be controlled, yet is too useful to destroy: you lock him away until such time as he is needed again. Yes, Uriel is Laurence's Secret Weapon. Do Not Open Before Armageddon, and all that. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His 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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:13:42 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS >>isn't faith beleif without knowledge? if so, then angels don't have faith >>that God is real, they truly know it. > >Hey now! Are you saying that the world's masses who have faith in God >don't know anything? Futhure more, why would faith be described as belif >w/out knowledge? It seems prefectly natural to have faith in God with >knowledge that He is out there. Proof of that often -increases- a person's >faith and God. > >-Jesse Pedants raise their hands: 'faith' being belief without 'proof'. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:22:13 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... >I also don't think that Malakim are able to reinterpret their oaths >without Balseraphic intervention, and that would probably still be dissonant >for them. The Word of Purity is a restraint as much as a protection. Would a Malakite WANT to reinterpret their oath? If they did, it would either be because the oath conflicted with a higher commitment, and therefore wouldn't necessarily cause dissonance, or because it conflicted with some sort of self-interest, in which the reinterpretation WOULD cause dissonance. For example, a Malakite swears to "protect my friend Agog". It later turns out that Agog is a demon, and the Malakite has a higher commitment to slay demons. Okay, she starts looking her oath, and realises that Agog has been deceiving her and thus isn't much of a friend, and therefore doesn't get protection. I'd still rule for dissonance in this case, but I've got that oriental tragic-sense-of-honour happening, so take it for what it's worth. On the other hand, suppose the Malakite vows to protect his friend Agog and then realises that that is going to entail a lot of really tedious labour that the Malakite doesn't want to perfrom. If she starts looking for legalistic ways to get out of the drudgery involved in the oath ("But if I let Agog step in front of a bus, then she'll be protected from potential temptation to become a Soldier of Hell...")--This type of thinking isn't honourable. Instant dissonance. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:13:26 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael >I prefer more mythological accuracy in these things myself, though I know >very little angelology or, indeed, faerie lore, because it annoys me when >the game ignores stuff I do know, or stuff that seems to contradict basic >game reality. (Stuff like having an Archangel called Eli, calling a kith >so asocial the Sluagh, etc. And I foam at the mouth when hearing that >Mages can be ghouled, something now firmly entrenched in canon.). I >sympathise with Em. a lot, because having your work overturned by canon >when canon seems ill-advised is very annoying. I prefer the mythologically accurate, as well, and thus, I hated Changeling [this looks off topic, but is really only tangental]. Here's one of my points against: you refer to the Sluagh as an asocial kith, but in fairy lore, the term Sluagh are the Host of the Unforgiven Dead. They were the army of the Unseelie court, and not a species of fairy. Where did the Changeling writers get that idea? Even worse is the Eshu kith. Eshu was a Yoruban god, not a class of beings, a punisher of sins, later associated with Satan (once Christianity came to Nigeria.) Not only is a singular made plural, but the personality of the singular doesn't resemble the plural in any way. But worse still is how Changeling completely fails to capture the *mood* of fairy lore. There's a lot of horror and angst in fairy lore, but it was overlooked in favour of a sort of terminal ennui (which is what I feel whenever I pick up the book). Fairies were never enchanted with youth. And the two most important characteristics of all fairy species (their jealous guarding of their privacy and their insistence on good manners) were completely neglected. The books associated with the game feel as though the writers never read a fairy tale. And Mage is even worse, though the writer openly admits that when he started, he'd knew nothing about the occult. In Nomine is similar in that it doesn't pay any special attention to the details of Angelology or Demonology. But this isn't such a problem because it has something of the feel of Celestial lore. It's been exagerated to fit an RPG context, but it feels to me more like a creative development of celestial lore than an gross distortion of it. I was a little disappointed at the lack of authentic lore, but I think the authors have more than made up for the lack. Nik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:54:19 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! At 4:38 PM -0600 1/15/98, rogue@ez-net.com wrote: >Here's a fun question- > >We know Uriel was recalled to the High heavens in AD 745. We know Raphael >sacrificed himself to defeat Legion. We know Oannes was killed by Belial. > >Do we know dates on those last two? Even rough ones (i.e.- before/after >Uriel, and by approximately how much)? If the amswer is out there already, >I missed it. Here's a related question: Why 745? I've searched my knowledge of Western history and folklore for something important relating to that year, and I can't come up with anything. (If it's too obvious, let me down easy, okay?) Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:01:56 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: IN> Definitions, please At 8:43 PM -0500 1/15/98, Jesse wrote: >>isn't faith beleif without knowledge? if so, then angels don't have faith >>that God is real, they truly know it. > >Hey now! Are you saying that the world's masses who have faith in God >don't know anything? Futhure more, why would faith be described as belif >w/out knowledge? It seems prefectly natural to have faith in God with >knowledge that He is out there. Proof of that often -increases- a person's >faith and God. There are a lot of different definitions of knowledge, faith, etc. If you want to resolve a debate like this, the first step is to define the terms. Once you've reached an agreement on the definition of terms, you may find that the debate has resolved itself. Of course, sometimes it's fun to talk at cross-purposes, too. Though I'm still not sure why we're trying to resolve how In Nomine Angels relate to WoD Vampires. I suspect Malphas is at work or we've got some Malkavians with complementary obsessions/paranoid delusions. Maybe both. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:27:18 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry >I think my point is that personal honour, like personal taste, is very >subjective. Hence doesn't fit into the Elohim mindset. Even if people can >agree some general rules for honour (such as 'keep your word') someone has >already said that Malakim won't do that unless it is their personal oath. I wondered why you mentioned the Elohim particularly. Now I understand and it's a good point. For example, most people's code of honour (whether adhered to or not) forbids them to lie. Mine allows me to lie in non-self serving ways, for example, to take blame for something to protect someone under my responsibility. But the Elohim might have their own sense of honour, involving remaining objective and not allowing emotions to sway them. In fact, I generally think of dissonance as the spritual result of breaking one's own code of honour. But that's just my own take on it. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:15:05 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS > >Pedants raise their hands: 'faith' being belief without 'proof'. Would an unfaithful husband be lacking belief or would he have proof? Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:44:11 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Here's a related question: Why 745? I've searched my knowledge of Western history and folklore for something important relating to that year, and I can't come up with anything. (If it's too obvious, let me down easy, okay?) Ni Ke Hsin I think that in that year the Pope ruled that Uriel wasnīt an Archangel but just a Saint. I donīt know why the Catholic Church made that decision (maybe Dominic is behind this), but it was part of an investigation to find out who were true angels and who were just saints. Raphael was also labelled as just a saint. Strange but True. Donato Ranzato PS. This info comes from a book called "Angels: An endangered species". A very good book about the history of the angels. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:48:32 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! >At 4:38 PM -0600 1/15/98, rogue@ez-net.com wrote: >>Here's a fun question- >> >>We know Uriel was recalled to the High heavens in AD 745. We know Raphael >>sacrificed himself to defeat Legion. We know Oannes was killed by Belial. >> >>Do we know dates on those last two? Even rough ones (i.e.- before/after >>Uriel, and by approximately how much)? If the amswer is out there already, >>I missed it. > > Here's a related question: Why 745? I've searched my knowledge of >Western history and folklore for something important relating to that year, >and I can't come up with anything. (If it's too obvious, let me down easy, >okay?) My guess was, it was originally meant to be 475 (about the time of the Roman Empire's final collapse), but there was a print typo and the error became canon. }:-{D Other than that, to my knowledge there's no special significance to 745. Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.antarctic-press.com/ - Antarctic Press Web Site http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/acupunct/ - Anatomical Acupuncture http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:21:23 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: IN> Heavenly Purges! > I think that in that year the Pope ruled that Uriel wasnīt an >Archangel but just a Saint. I donīt know why the Catholic Church made that >decision (maybe Dominic is behind this), but it was part of an >investigation to find out who were true angels and who were just saints. >Raphael was also labelled as just a saint. >Strange but True. > >Donato Ranzato > >PS. This info comes from a book called "Angels: An endangered species". A >very good book about the history of the angels. Thanks for the answer and the source tip. Who is the author and is it still in print? I had read somewhere, maybe in the R. A. MacAvoy books mentioned somewhere else, that Rafael was the angel of that slew the all the first-born in the final plague on Egypt. Anyone out there know anything about this? Here's a bit of heavenly history that everyone might find interesting, non-canonical, but "authentic" angelology. When God proposed making humanity, two angels were opposed to the idea: the angel of truth (sometimes called Amitiel) and the angel of peace (unnamed). For that bit of constructive criticism, God incinerated them. "Anybody ELSE got a problem with dis idea?" Unpublished Scriptures, 9: 14 Ni Ke Hsin Angel of Caffea Arabica, Mercurian in service of Novalis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:27:11 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS >> >>Pedants raise their hands: 'faith' being belief without 'proof'. > > Would an unfaithful husband be lacking belief or would he have proof? > >Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:49:42 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Heavenly Purges! >PS. This info comes from a book called "Angels: An endangered species". A >very good book about the history of the angels. Thanks for the answer and the source tip. Who is the author and is it still in print? I donīt know the exact name of the author but it was something like MacDowel Goodwin. I bought the book at a second-hand bookshop, so I donīt know if it is still in print. Maybe you can check Amazon.com (the largest Internet bookshop) to see if it is still available. Mucho success. Donato Ranzato ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:47:09 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > At 03:27 PM 1/15/98 -0500, you wrote: > > > >> Em...it strongly implies in the Marches that Malakim are the way they are > >> because they're still protected by the Word of Purity. > > > >Huh? I didn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm confused. > > Okay, this is the second time I've been mistaken for a prominent female > list-member. I guess I'll just nip off and give birth to an eight-legged > horse, then. > -Loki (anyone remember that myth?) I do! (Of course, I read that one as a child, and one of my first thoughts was 'wow, that must have hurt like hell'.) Loki (or Loke - YSMV[1]) was one of the more interesting figures in Norse myth; father of Jormungandr[2], Hel (queen of Hel, a nice inspiration for IN hell, especially Nifel- (or Nifl-) hel), and Fenris the original big bad wolf. And then he went on to cause the death of Balder, and the Aesir hunted him down. Odin/Wotan turned one of his (non-monstrous) sons into a wolf, and had him devour Lokis other (non-monstrous) son, and then they used the non-wolf sons' guts to tie down Loki under a mountain, on two sharp rocks. To top things off, they hung an adder over his face, letting the venom drip into his eyes. Loki's wife holds a bown to collect the venom, but when she empties it, he shakes with pain, and thus comes the earthquakes. This little mythology lesson brought to you by 2 litres of Coca-Cola (tm) and a programming test tomorrow morning that I'm desperately trying not to think of. cd [1]: Your Spelling May Vary. [2]: A.k.a. The Midgard Serpent. - -- d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se | cd skogsberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:03:54 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Raphael >>>Jeez David there is no need to get emotional over this.<<< Huh? Why people assume that disagreement constitutes emotionality, I'll never understand. - -David (there's a reason why I settled on calling myself an Elohite) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:03:52 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Infernal Player's Guide >>>Actually, the famous Choir members was one of my favorite bits, and I hope it survives to the Infernals Guide.<<< Mine too, and it will. - -David (oops, now my Habbalite alter-ego is manifesting...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:03:55 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Raphael Everyone is saying Raphael is a Cherub, incidentally, because Derek Pearcy said so. I realize this is what's in the APG, but if you check the APG errata now online, you'll see that he has been changed -- Raphael was an Elohite. That is, if you happen to choose to follow SJG canon. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:03:51 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Archangel Canon Fodder >>>Am I alone in thinking the Words of the Archangels aren't quite right? That their descriptions don't necessarily mesh cleanly with their Words? Probably, but I'm going to post the ones that irk me anyway for comment and observation.<<< Well, remember that a lot of Archangel Words are metaphorical, moreso than those of Demon Princes. That's why Belial's Word of Fire mostly covers literal fire, destructiveness, etc., whereas for Gabriel, it also covers inspiration and illumination. Jean's Word of "Lightning" refers not just to electricity, but (somewhat like Gabriel) inspiration and illumination, but the kind that comes in flashes of insight and causes great transformations. "Flowers" refers not just to plants, but the healing properties of plants, and the peace and beauty flowers represent. >>>Now for Jordi. I just don't get the whole Word of Animals concept, and the choir attunements just seem to be pressed to fit. Instead, I think Jordi should be the Archangel of Wilderness,<<< He focuses on all God's *other* creatures. Don't tell Jordi that angels' Words change according to how humans perceive them. >>>and add a new high ranking archangel, Julius, Archangel of Civilisation.<<< On my In Nomine web page, you'll find Bethanel, Archangel of Cities (non-canon, obviously.) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine/Bethanel.h tm - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:12:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > >> > >Except that that would be silly. The roll is based on Perception, after all. > > With Djinn, it's based on Will. Thus the concept of "forcing" a > link, an artificial "theme" in the Symphony that they use to > track. (Which is why it tends to not last very long -- the True > Symphony washes it away.) > > Or at least that's how I justify the Djinn resonance being based > on Will, while the Cherub one is Perception. > Is it? Since it didn't say specifically in the description of the Djinn resonance under the Djinn, I assumed that the mechanics of establishing the link were the same as for Cherubim. Certainly, any information gained by Djinn about the attuned person/object is gained by making Perception rolls. The only reference to Will is with regard to removing the attunement. > >(An image enters my head of Kyriotates simply perceiving the theme in the > >Symphony of the unfortunate bastard they're kicking out of his/her body.) > > Kyrios are another resonance based on Will... > That's what I was saying. I assumed that the Djinn resonance was based on Perception. Obviously, if the Djinn resonance is based on Will, it will have consequences for the special things they can do with their Resonance, when they're detailed in the IPG. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:35:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Archangel Canon Fodder > > "Flowers" refers not just to plants, but the healing properties of plants, > and the peace and beauty flowers represent. > I'm reminded of the bit in the Jurassic Park novel where whatshername the botanist is musing on the utter inaccuracy of this perception. Flowers are just a different means of taking part in the great evolutionary struggle, and plants are damned violent, and often poisonous. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:42:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Definitions, please > > There are a lot of different definitions of knowledge, faith, etc. > If you want to resolve a debate like this, the first step is to define the > terms. Once you've reached an agreement on the definition of terms, you may > find that the debate has resolved itself. But that would be sensible, so we won't do that. > Of course, sometimes it's fun to talk at cross-purposes, too. > Not when people ignore your purposes. I still don't reckon WOD True Faith is at all the same thing as faith, in any of its various definitions. > Though I'm still not sure why we're trying to resolve how In Nomine > Angels relate to WoD Vampires. Neither do I. The settings aren't terribly compatible. Of course, I may eventually write up the True Faith attunement, purchasable by humans, undead, and Habbalah. > I suspect Malphas is at work Malphas seems to be the most likely candidate. or we've got > some Malkavians with complementary obsessions/paranoid delusions. Maybe > both. > I'm neither deluded not obsessed. How could you think such a thing? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:04:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael > > I prefer the mythologically accurate, as well, and thus, I hated Changeling > [this looks off topic, but is really only tangental]. Here's one of my > points against: you refer to the Sluagh as an asocial kith, but in fairy > lore, the term Sluagh are the Host of the Unforgiven Dead. They were the > army of the Unseelie court, and not a species of fairy. Where did the > Changeling writers get that idea? I was making a linguistic nitpick as opposed to a mythological one. I genuinely don't know enough about the mythological Sluagh to make any generalisations about them. (Sluagh is a slightly archaic form of the Irish word slua, meaning crowd or host. Conceivably, in Scots Gaelic, it is still spelt sluagh. ObTrivia: the word slogan is derived from it. A slua-ghairm was a war-cry chanted by a crowd.) > Even worse is the Eshu kith. Eshu was a Yoruban god, not a class > of beings, a punisher of sins, later associated with Satan (once > Christianity came to Nigeria.) Not only is a singular made plural, but the > personality of the singular doesn't resemble the plural in any way. Personally, I reckon it was picking a nice idea and then giving it a cool name borrowed from folklore. > But worse still is how Changeling completely fails to capture the > *mood* of fairy lore. There's a lot of horror and angst in fairy lore, but > it was overlooked in favour of a sort of terminal ennui (which is what I > feel whenever I pick up the book). It surprised me, I have to say, after looking at all the other WOD stuff. Some restitution was made with the Shadow Court, and reading between the lines always makes things that seem innocuous very scary indeed (all childlings, for example), but methinks modern stereotypes got in the way. Fairies were never enchanted with > youth. What exactly do you mean by that statement? And the two most important characteristics of all fairy species > (their jealous guarding of their privacy and their insistence on good > manners) were completely neglected. Actually, it's just been entirely ascribed to one kith, the aforementioned Sluagh. The books associated with the game > feel as though the writers never read a fairy tale. Define a fairy tale :) > And Mage is even worse, though the writer openly admits that when > he started, he'd knew nothing about the occult. > Specific objections to Mage? Other than the Hollow Ones and Virtual Adepts? I thought it did a reasonable job of reconciling the fact that magic is thought of in different ways almost everywhere in the world. It depends an awful lot on player co-operation, of course. > In Nomine is similar in that it doesn't pay any special attention > to the details of Angelology or Demonology. But this isn't such a problem > because it has something of the feel of Celestial lore. I can't let you get away with that statement. Expand. It's been > exagerated to fit an RPG context, but it feels to me more like a creative > development of celestial lore than an gross distortion of it. I was a > little disappointed at the lack of authentic lore, but I think the authors > have more than made up for the lack. > Indeed. Let no statement of mine be taken to mean that I don't think it's a great game. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:06:29 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Who's God now? > Not in my game. Uriel is something slightly more interesting (from a GM > point of view.) > > (Garrett, if you're reading this, go away.) > > Hint: it has to do with Laurence's basement. > Actually, that's not a bad idea. *waggle finger* The only thing scarier then Larry's basement is Dommie's basement. Trust me. I had a player get lost in the Spires last night, saying 'I want to go down to the basement'. He walked down a very long, empty spiral staircase into the dark to come upon a large heavy metal door with scratches around the hinges... as if something very angry was trying to get out from the inside. He looked at my copy of KULT's 'Metropolis' sitting on my living room table, and wisely fled. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:15:32 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Last Night's Quotes I only have two really GOOD quotes from last night's game, but both come from the Ofanite: "The only angels who take action without thinking are the Ofanim." and "Time just files when months are rolling past." Deep, man. It's a good thing that I couldn't write down his on the spot generated fable on "Why it's good to burn sinners". I think I was just too afraid. - - Em, Balseraph of Plaid ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:32:35 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Who's God now? I always thought that the one and only God is the Gamesmaster. He is the only one that can make Raphael be both Elohim and Cherubim :-) Donato Ranzato ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:37:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes > > Deep, man. It's a good thing that I couldn't write down his on the spot > generated fable on "Why it's good to burn sinners". I think I was just > too afraid. > Here's a thought experiment. Attempt to tell the difference between a Habbalah and any random non-Mercurian Servitor of Gabriel without knowing who they're victimising, or using special powers to find out which is which. How about a Habbalah of Beleth and a Malakite of Gabriel? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:53:40 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes >Here's a thought experiment. Attempt to tell the difference between a >Habbalah and any random non-Mercurian Servitor of Gabriel without >knowing >who they're victimising, or using special powers to find out which is >which. Not to pick out specific NPCs but if the Habbie is Hobson then you can tell because he's probably more composed ;-) If the person being victimised is another Habbalah then its almost definitely him! jo - --------------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G.K. Chesterton http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #569 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.