From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jan 26 17:12:01 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 RAA20109 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:12:00 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id RAA31022 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:06:39 -0600 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:06:39 -0600 Message-Id: <199801262306.RAA31022@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 #593 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, January 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 593 In this digest: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Angelic Words Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Sophia IN> Celestial Song of Motion question Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Suppliments? (was: Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Buddhist In Nomine Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Suppliments? (was: Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Angelic Words IN> Fallen IN> Doing something behind his DP's back IN> Sorcerors Ring Re: IN> Angelic Words SV: IN> Sophia Re: IN> Angelic Words Re: IN> Angelic Words Re: IN> Angelic Words IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:55:37 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Sophia I was sniffing around in the Apocryphia, and seeing there was a conversation on Sophia, I thought I would post what I dug up. Because sources are fun! Research is fun! We wouldn't want to be... incorrect, now would we? *resonante for nitpicking* This is from "The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach" (or Ecclesiasticus), chapter 24:1-34, a Pseudodeutercanonical book (say THAT three times real fast). It's apparently a good source for references on Sophia. The entire book can be found at: http://webpages.marshall.edu/~wiley6/apoc.txt Wisdom [Sophia] shall praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people. In the congregation of the most High shall she open her mouth, and triumph before his power: "I came out of the mouth of the most High, and covered the earth as a cloud. "I dwelt in high places, and my throne is in a cloudy pillar. "I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the bottom of the deep. "In the waves of the sea and in all the earth, and in every people and nation, I got a possession. "With all these I sought rest: and in whose inheritance shall I abide? "So the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and he that made me caused my tabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine inheritance in Israel. "He created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail. "In the holy tabernacle I served before him; and so was I established in Sion. "Likewise in the beloved city he gave me rest, and in Jerusalem was my power. "And I took root in an honourable people, even in the portion of the Lord's inheritance. "I was exalted like a cedar in Libanus, and as a cypress tree upon the mountains of Hermon. "I was exalted like a palm tree in En-gaddi, and as a rose plant in Jericho, as a fair olive tree in a pleasant field, and grew up as a plane tree by the water. "I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and aspalathus, and I yielded a pleasant odour like the best myrrh, as galbanum, and onyx, and sweet storax, and as the fume of frankincense in the tabernacle. "As the turpentine tree I stretched out my branches, and my branches are the branches of honour and grace. "As the vine brought I forth pleasant savour, and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches. "I am the mother of fair love, and fear, and knowledge, and holy hope: I therefore, being eternal, am given to all my children which are named of him. "Come unto me, all ye that be desirous of me, and fill yourselves with my fruits. "For my memorial is sweeter than honey, and mine inheritance than the honeycomb. "They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty. "He that obeyeth me shall never be confounded, and they that work by me shall not do amiss. "All these things are the book of the covenant of the most high God, even the law which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob. Faint not to be strong in the Lord; that he may confirm you, cleave unto him: for the Lord Almighty is God alone, and beside him there is no other Saviour. He filleth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris in the time of the new fruits. He maketh the understanding to abound like Euphrates, and as Jordan in the time of the harvest. He maketh the doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and as Geon in the time of vintage. The first man knew her not perfectly: no more shall the last find her out. For her thoughts are more than the sea, and her counsels profounder than the great deep. "I also came out as a brook from a river, and as a conduit into a garden. I said, I will water my best garden, and will water abundantly my garden bed: and, lo, my brook became a river, and my river became a sea. I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever. Behold that I have not laboured for myself only, but for all them that seek wisdom." A more canonical source can be found in Proverbs 8:22-31 (NIV translation, I believe), talking from Sophia first person: "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [2] [3] before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind." *waggle eyebrows* The canonical source reads very much like the Apocryphia, making me wonder which came first, or if they are variants on each other. So okay, I can relate Sophia as the female wisdom of God, a little bit of Gnostic Christianity left over in the original Bible that didn't get wiped away. But there's the legend of her own Fall, which I don't know too much about, so I went sniffing around. From Colin Low: "The female quality of Malkuth is often identified with the Shekhinah, the female spirit of God in the creation, and Kabbalistic literature makes much of the (carnal) relationship of God and the Shekhinah. Waite [7] mentions that the relationship between God and Shekhinah is mirrored in the relationship between man and woman, and provides a great deal of information on both the Shekhinah and what he quaintly calls "The Mystery of Sex". After the exile of the Jews from Spain in 1492, Kabbalists identified their own plight with the fate of the Shekhinah, and she is pictured as being cast out into matter in much the same way as the Gnostics pictured Sophia, the outcast divine wisdom. The doctrine of the Shekhinah within Kabbalah and within Judaism as a whole is complex and it is something I don't feel competent to comment further on; more information can be found in [3] & [7]." [3] is Gershom Sholem's "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism", so now I need to order it from Amazon.com. I little farther reading down gets into the Self contradiction of the tsimtsum, in which god broke the vessels of the Sephiroth and cast them into the Abyss, creating the Qlippoth. As far as I know of Gnostism, seeing the 'back of God', the 'shell' gives the evil side of God himself. In a very simplified view: Sephiroth Qlippoth Malkuth/Sophia Lilith With alot of wavings of hands, Sophia is the opposite, or light side of Lilith even though both have Fallen and are in exile. Hmmm... interesting. So anyway... I'm going on in a direction with no real lead. Just alot of thoughts for building some very strange varient universes. The Pistia Sophia (or at least the first book thereof) is available on the Gnostic Archive, http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis. I just happened to run into it over the weekend and just thought I would share. I doubt the In Nomine Sophia is going to be much more then an 'Angel of Wisdom', but if people are interested in doing some very strange and bizarre things to their campaigns, then be free... it looks like one can start to make a clean link between the canon universe and a much darker one, or at least a Kabbalistic one. (Oooh... fun with secret cults, Templars, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Alchemical societies, the Occult, and Demons. Fun fun for the whole family.) There is plenty of material available to do some very bizarre things. Hmmmm.... *ponder* - - Em, Balseraph of the Blackest IN This Side of the Mississippi ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:06:56 -0600 From: "Micah T.J. Jackson" Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words >Neel Krishnaswami writes: > >[...] >>Human beings, whether in life or in Heaven, seem incapable of gaining >>words; the reasons for this remain obscure to the angels. Possibly only >>Michael and Yves know for certain, and they aren't talking. > >According to IN, Lilith, Demon Princess of Freedom, was created a >human (the "Eden Experiment" doesn't make any sense otherwise). >This mortal is now a Demon Princess: not only Word-bound, but one of the >major powers who transcend the game's mechanics entirely. > >It thus would appear to be possible in principle for a mortal's soul to >become Word-bound. Note: The following argument is IMHO only. Nothing official should be inferred. No. Not possible. Lilith is clearly not "mortal." She was created before the end of the experiment. She has not tasted of the apple and therefore has not suffered the punishment that Adam and Eve (and by extension, their children) were subject to. She is the only remaining "true" human. Interesting thought to ponder: If she didn't taste the apple (which came from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) perhaps she *doesn't know* the difference. That puts a new perspective on the Demon Princess of Freedom, doesn't it? <--Micah. __________ __________ Micah T.J. Jackson micahj@io.com __________ __________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:22:03 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Sophia At 13:55 26/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I was sniffing around in the Apocryphia, and seeing there was a >conversation on Sophia, I thought I would post what I dug up. Because >sources are fun! Research is fun! We wouldn't want to be... incorrect, >now would we? *resonante for nitpicking* The Shekhina is viewed roughly like the holy ghost in Xtian writing. The sex metaphor is something that ran very strongly through hebrew poetical writing -- check out Song of Songs for what is probably the most famous (and beautiful) example. Bear in mind that sex was never really seen as evil or sinful in the culture that produced it, so its more a symbol of things joining together or intimate knowledge. They do use the ideal relationship between man & woman as a really strong analogy -- Song of Songs does that to show the relationship between God and the people of Israel. So in that context its not that unusual. >So okay, I can relate Sophia as the female wisdom of God, a little bit of >Gnostic Christianity left over in the original Bible that didn't get wiped >away. But there's the legend of her own Fall, which I don't know too much >about, so I went sniffing around. Hello? Original bible has nothing to do with christianity. It came first. jo (Angel of being wary of popular writings on Jewish Mysticism unless you're prepared to really understand the culture it came from) - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:23:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sophia Running on my own memories of long-ago research into Gnosticism, the figure of Sophia almost always appears in their theologies, but, if memory serves me, not usually as exactly *fallen*, as in having defected to the side of evil. Usually, Sophia is held captive by the evil archons, a prisoner. If she has a fault, it is usually having created the unenlightened spirit that goes on to become the evil demiurge, the creator of the material world. She is usually described as repenting of this, I think. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:47:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Sophia > >So okay, I can relate Sophia as the female wisdom of God, a little bit of > >Gnostic Christianity left over in the original Bible that didn't get wiped > >away. But there's the legend of her own Fall, which I don't know too much > >about, so I went sniffing around. > > > Hello? Original bible has nothing to do with christianity. It came first. > Sorry, poor wording. Much of the Apocryphica got left out of canonized works, and there are little bits and pieces left in places like the Proverbs and Psalms. > > jo > (Angel of being wary of popular writings on Jewish Mysticism unless you're > prepared to really understand the culture it came from) *raise eyebrow* Granted the local Rabbi at the Synagogue can wipe my face on the mat down on Hill St., but come on. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:50:58 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Sophia > Running on my own memories of long-ago research into Gnosticism, > the figure of Sophia almost always appears in their theologies, > but, if memory serves me, not usually as exactly *fallen*, as > in having defected to the side of evil. I found some sources (I can't remember where, just bear with me) which were _NOT_ pop culture but regular stuff that she had Fallen and *she* was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. I absolutely don't remember the source, but that's what I get for standing around in Religion sections of bookstores too long. And I have seen it the other way, as well. Of course, this being theology, nothing is exactly cut and dry. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:54:44 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Nutt Subject: IN> Celestial Song of Motion question A few questions on how people would handle this in their own games... First, what happens if the singer attempts to teleport to a spot that he doesn't get a high enough CD to get to? Does he get partway to his destination, or does it just fizzle? Since your skill level with the Song gives you a *range* of distances, I'm sure that this ought to at least be a possible occurrence... Second, the character is allowed to teleport himself and some extra weight... but what if he'd rather just teleport another person, and stay right where he is? Should that count as extra weight, and just require a bunch more Essence to power? It's pretty clear that the description envisions celestials using it on items that may or may not be held by others. Third... the destination must be someplace on Earth that the singer has been before. Could this mean inside a particular vehicle... or just the location in three dimensions that the vehicle was occupying at some point in time? For example, could you teleport someone into the middle of the approach pattern at your local airport, and just hope he's got Wings (or hope he *doesn't*, if you're trying to kill him...)? Or instead, could you send him into seat 13-F on TWA Flight 7704, wherever that aircraft might be right now? Michael Xena/Gabrielle in 2000... Because women are so tactful and diplomatic! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:03:32 -0500 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > SJG publications for IN form the "canon" of IN, compared to which > GM variations and alternatives like "Dark Victory" are non-canonical. And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. The holy inquisition . . . Outcast angels, and renegade GMs are the biggest targets, and believe me-- you dont wanna be caught :) Brandon, Habbalah of Nitpicking ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:12:17 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Suppliments? (was: Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > There seems to be an ongoing assumption that "non-canon" is, by > definition, a "Bad Thing (tm)'. > If so, I guess I'm bad. I assume that the point of any "official" shared > game world is to facilitate > play between comparative strangers (for instance, convention play), > giving them a starting point that > everyone can agree upon (or, for another example, the "Basic Rule Book > only" gamers). In most cases, > your home campaign is going to diverge from the "party line"; there is > simply no way to avoid it. My > home campaign is so far off-canon, it's practically a different game > (required to make my particular > setting work, as it happens, not because I dislike IN especially). > However, I can get away with that > because I set the ground rules for the campaign and my players abide by > them. Of all the people that work on In Nomine that are currently running campaigns, not a SINGLE ONE is running a strictly canon campaign (and this includes me, Beth and Derek!) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:13:02 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Buddhist In Nomine - -Perry Wrote- >Hell yeah! I'd love to see a Buddhist interpretation of In Nomine. It is very hard to describe In Nomine in Buddhist terms. A major tenant of Buddhism is that of divorcement from being subjectively devoted to anything. This is quite the opposite of the idea of Words. Elohim would be the closest to Buddhists as they attempt to divorce themselves from subjective emotion; removing yourself from emotion and controlling your mind are important in Buddhism. Ofanim, Kyriotates and Djinn would follow as the closest to Buddhist. Every other choir and band are too attached to things to be Buddhist in outlook with out going against their nature (dissonance). In addition the Buddhist "struggle" is quite different from Zoroastrian religious struggles. Buddhists struggle against their mind and emotions to control their mind; where as other religions have celestial struggles of good and evil. So a Buddhist In Nomine conversation would be real difficult to do. It would be a real trip to do it though. I am looking into it. The thing in my past "Buddhist In Nomine" post was regarding a campaign inspired by the titles and quotes from the Dhammapada, not really a Buddhist conversation. >There're Angels and Demons in Buddhism, too, right? There are three major branches of Buddhism: Mayahana, Theravada, and Zen. I follow a Theravada branch. Theravada Buddhism, which is portent in South East Asia and Sri Lanka, generally rejects the help of other beings in the pursuit of enlightenment. Neither your teacher, the bohdisatvvas, nor the Buddhas can directly assist you in your quest for enlightenment. Thus Theravada does not generally concern itself with angels and demons as they may be out there, but it does not matter. Mayahana Buddhism, concerned in India and Tibet, does accept the help of other beings. This is taken to the extent of Mayahana practitioners praying to Jesus, Buddha and Siva one after the other. I am not sure if Mayahana believes in demons, but I do know that there are a plethora of good beings trying to help us. Zen Buddhism, popular in Japan, does not concern itself with otherworldly beings. Zen practitioners attempt to control their minds by thinking about nothing and do not generally accept otherworldly help. This is not to say that "heaven" and "hell" are not mention by the Buddha, I belive this refeers to different stopovers on the red-eye to Nirvana, rather than endpoints. A Hindu In Nomine would be interesting, though. >One of the characters in my pbem (SOL: Soldiers of Linn see http: >below) is a Zen Buddhist monk (Than Duc Lo). I'd be very, very >interested in your interpretation, since I don't have much background >at all in Zen Buddhism. Zen is quite different from Theravada. Theravada's desire to control the mind "consciously" where as Zen's goal is to control the mind by eliminating all thoughts. The premise of Zen is that one should control the mind by directing it to no-mind. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tounge-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:23:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sophia Emily Dresner wrote: > I found some sources (I can't remember where, just bear with me) which > were _NOT_ pop culture but regular stuff that she had Fallen and *she* was > the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. I absolutely don't remember the > source, but that's what I get for standing around in Religion sections of > bookstores too long. Okay. You may well have. But with Gnosticism, keeping track of who's "fallen" can be tricky, since they view the creator of the world as evil and fallen himself. I recall Gnostic gospels in which the serpent is an agent for the true, ultra-cosmic god, so that being identified with it would be a badge of honor. So I remain a bit uncertain. > Of course, this being theology, nothing is exactly cut and dry. Oh, yes. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:35:32 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to > your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. The holy > inquisition . . . Outcast angels, and renegade GMs are the biggest > targets, and believe me-- you dont wanna be caught :) Which explains the barbed wire and the 6-barrelled rotary assault cannon loaded with 1000 rounds of explosive ammunition (66 or 100 shots/second, depending on the rating of the barrel) mounted on my couch. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:44:38 -0500 From: "Mark McKenzie" Subject: Re: IN> Suppliments? (was: Re: IN> By Any Other Name) John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > > There seems to be an ongoing assumption that "non-canon" is, by > > definition, a "Bad Thing (tm)'. > > If so, I guess I'm bad. I assume that the point of any "official" shared > > game world is to facilitate > > play between comparative strangers (for instance, convention play), > > giving them a starting point that > > everyone can agree upon (or, for another example, the "Basic Rule Book > > only" gamers). In most cases, > > your home campaign is going to diverge from the "party line"; there is > > simply no way to avoid it. My > > home campaign is so far off-canon, it's practically a different game > > (required to make my particular > > setting work, as it happens, not because I dislike IN especially). > > However, I can get away with that > > because I set the ground rules for the campaign and my players abide by > > them. > > Of all the people that work on In Nomine > that are currently running campaigns, not a SINGLE > ONE is running a strictly canon campaign (and this > includes me, Beth and Derek!) > Well, and I guess I overlooked the biggest reason, that being so that diverse developers all work from the same starting point, and remain (in theory) internally consistent. - -- Mark McKenzie E-mail: markadv@kinekom.com Imp of Kobal, whose word is "Making the Waitress Earn Her Tip" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:45:39 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Sophia > Okay. You may well have. But with Gnosticism, keeping track of who's > "fallen" can be tricky, since they view the creator of the world as > evil and fallen himself. I recall Gnostic gospels in which the serpent > is an agent for the true, ultra-cosmic god, so that being identified > with it would be a badge of honor. So I remain a bit uncertain. Cool beans. I'm assuming that I'm working on only a small modicum of a clue. If you have some readily attainable sources via Borders Books and Music, Barnes and Noble, or a handy online mail order service, can you post a hatful of titles with authors? I'm big on littering my apartment full of scary-looking titles, and then leaving them out where they can be easily perused by player characters right before the game, for some reason. :) That, and I read them. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:05:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sophia I'll look up some authors. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:22:09 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 15:35 26/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >Which explains the barbed wire and the 6-barrelled rotary assault cannon >loaded with 1000 rounds of explosive ammunition (66 or 100 shots/second, >depending on the rating of the barrel) mounted on my couch. > > Oh I just play my ABBA CDs ;-) Has the same effect. jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:24:49 -0500 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words >From: "Hart, Joanna" > >Very nice! Thanks. (you might want to catch the APG for comparison). Thanks for the kind words. :) I have the APG, but it didn't *feel* quite right for my game, which is a lot more strictly Christian. (That was my major problem with the APG -- it just seemed kind of bland to me. On the upside, it didn't dramatically increase the power level of the game, which makes it pretty much unique among player's guides.) >I don't know if you'd thought about what happens if there is more than one >applicant for a word? An adventure. :) >Also not entirely sure about whether all saints have demonstrated a love of >their fellow man. Well, the Catholic Church isn't *always* right, you know... Seriously, I take the view that the set of saints chosen by Heaven and by humans overlap but aren't the same. There are some martyrs who got overlooked by the Church, as well as some bad guys who got good PR. Heaven doesn't overlook anyone or bless wrongly. Anyway, I felt kind of leery on this point since part of the Christian dogma I'm using says that everyone gets perfected after death, and that makes it hard to tell saints from anyone else. I think I'll claim that they get listened to extra hard because they are now unfallen humans who have seen the Earth with eyes blessed by grace, or somesuch. >I also don't see why you say that mortal men are fallen from divine grace, >but I guess thats a personal spin. I think it'd be quite cool for a mortal >to be summoned to a meeting of the seraphim council in the marches to give >testimony in their dreams. So do I, but I have players who attack the underlying assumptions of a game with buzz saws and dynamite, so I figured that theological consistency was a useful thing to pay attention to. So mankind is separated from God, and the full reunion (or full separation) doesn't happen until the after- life. OTOH, I also like the image of all these seraphim forced to wait around for an old woman who clings stubbornly to life, so it all comes out in the wash. ("She's not quite dead yet, Adbiel.") - ---- Neel Krisnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:29:05 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Fallen >>>It was worth the $4.50 (w/ student discount). Any of you see it yet and if so, what did ya think of it?<<< Above average for a supernatural thriller -- I was actually surprised by the ending. What I liked best about it was that it was internally consistent -- that's a big thing for me, most supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi flicks end up violating the rules they establish for that setting. "Fallen" did not have any logic holes that I can think of. And as far as In Nomine goes, it's a *great* depiction of a Shedite. (Obviously the rules under which this "Shedite" operates are a bit different than in IN, but the similarities are enough that making the leap is not difficult.) Definitely worth seeing. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:29:04 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back >>>Anybody have any idea how one might attempt aquiring an attunement without the knowledge or consent of a superior?<<< There is precedent for celestials "discovering" new tricks, i.e. attunements, but usually it's after spending a great deal of time doing something. And it should be something that fits the celestial's Word. Easy answer: PCs can't do it, at least not within the timespan of a typical campaign. More complicated answer: Sure, a PC can do it, but it should take a long, long time, and be very difficult, and he should come up with really creative ways to describe how he learns to manipulate the Symphony in that manner on his own. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:29:02 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Sorcerors Ring >>>Can I safely assume that the creation process for artifacts, relics, talismans, et al will be in the Liber Requiem? ( I assume the creation process for any of them is not trivial).<<< Yes, to both. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:51:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Anyway, I felt kind of leery on this point since part of the > Christian dogma I'm using says that everyone gets perfected after > death, and that makes it hard to tell saints from anyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Catholic idea of saints was that anyone who goes to heaven is, technically, a saint, but *these* guys and gals *here* on the calendar are the ones we have specific evidence for being in heaven -- i.e. the record of their lives and works and at least three post mortem miracles and whatever else the criteria are. So, no, there *isn't* any difference between saints and anyone else (or anyone else human in heaven). As for the game consideration, there's saints and there's saints, just as not all angels are equal. We might suppose that the Archangel of the Archives maintains a list of the top-rated saints for the consultation of the Seraphim Council, along with specialty lists for various topics. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:07:51 +0100 From: " Daniel Jacobsson" Subject: SV: IN> Sophia > > >> Okay. You may well have. But with Gnosticism, keeping track of who's >> "fallen" can be tricky, since they view the creator of the world as >> evil and fallen himself. I recall Gnostic gospels in which the serpent >> is an agent for the true, ultra-cosmic god, so that being identified >> with it would be a badge of honor. So I remain a bit uncertain. > >Cool beans. I'm assuming that I'm working on only a small modicum of a >clue. If you have some readily attainable sources via Borders Books >and Music, Barnes and Noble, or a handy online mail order service, can you >post a hatful of titles with authors? If your interested in Gnostisism in general that you are interested in you should try to find the Nag Hammadi library (Gnostics texts uncovered in 1945 in Egypt). You should also look at: http://www.gnosis.org/~gnosis/ Daniel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:12:14 -0500 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words >From: Earl Wajenberg > >Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> Human beings, whether in life or in Heaven, seem incapable of gaining >> words; the reasons for this remain obscure to the angels. > >And yet there are lots of patron saints of this and that, e.g. St. Jude >is patron of the impossible, and of course St. Nicholas is patron of >children (and sailors and pawnbrokers). Perhaps this is a social >convention established as a sort of substitute for Words. That makes sense. I'm not sure I want to establish a large human contingent in the player-accessible part of Heaven, though. I can barely justify imperfect angels, since they are largely ignored in the various Biblical texts, and I thus have relatively free reign in deciding what they are like. But, obviously, they all spend a great deal of time explaining what Heaven is like for humans, and their is a very strong belief that there man is restored to his pre-Fall condition. Since I am really not up to the challenge of portraying millions of unfallen humans, I am taking the out the rulebook offers and shunting humans up to the higher Heavens. (I am less happily making the in-game God a distant, deistic one, though. The charm of IN lies in gaming in the familiar Abrahamic conceptual universe, and taking God out of the picture clearly robs the game of much of its flavor. But if I can't handle an unfallen human, I doubt I can do a good job with the Lord Himself. ) >As to why humans don't get Words: [C.S. Lewis] suggested that this >"tang of the particular" was the peculiarly human contribution to >the celestial life, which, in IN terms, would make it counter- >productive for a human to become a personification of a Word. Thanks -- this rings a bell, but I hadn't thought of it. It does remind me of an idea I have been toying with. I was inspired by Tolkien in Lord of the Rings, where the Elves were bound into the world, and thus immortal while the world lasted, but who would die at the end of time. (Versus humans, who got one life in Middle-Earth but had immortal souls.) Thus the difference between an angel and a human would be that a human's ultimate end is to achieve *communion* with God -- eternal life in Heaven -- whereas an angel's ultimate end is to reestablish *union* with God -- that is, when Creation is done, they would be made once more a part of God and lose personal identity. (Yes, this is pretty far off from conventional theology about angels.) It explains the fallen angels' envy of humanity and offers an explanation of where Words come from; they are tied intimately with Creation in a way humans are not. >Why not Words with planned obsolenscence? It means the >Archangels may have to hustle, but the occasion might warrant it. >"Excuse me, my lords, I petition to be the Angel of World War Two. >Michael and Novalis both back me up. But could we, um, hurry? >I mean, this is one with some really clear Good Guys vs Bad Guys, >and the Good Guys could sure use some luck, er, grace. Now." I will make this change, simply on the strength of this joke. :) - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:23:41 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words At 16:51 26/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > We might suppose that the >Archangel of the Archives maintains a list of the top-rated saints >for the consultation of the Seraphim Council, along with specialty >lists for various topics. > And hourly rates! jo (Cheap at half the price) - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:49:31 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Words On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Micah T.J. Jackson wrote: > >Neel Krishnaswami writes: > >>Human beings, whether in life or in Heaven, seem incapable of gaining > >>words; the reasons for this remain obscure to the angels. Possibly only > >>Michael and Yves know for certain, and they aren't talking. > >According to IN, Lilith, Demon Princess of Freedom, was created a > >human (the "Eden Experiment" doesn't make any sense otherwise). > >This mortal is now a Demon Princess: not only Word-bound, but one of the > >major powers who transcend the game's mechanics entirely. > >It thus would appear to be possible in principle for a mortal's soul to > >become Word-bound. > Note: The following argument is IMHO only. Nothing official should be > inferred. > No. Not possible. Lilith is clearly not "mortal." She was created before > the end of the experiment. She has not tasted of the apple and therefore > has not suffered the punishment that Adam and Eve (and by extension, their > children) were subject to. She is the only remaining "true" human. Unless I'm misreading the APG, that's not strictly true in IN. Adam, Lilith, and Eve *were not* the first humans; they were merely specifically created and put into a paradise setting as a test of humanity's inherent goodness (and also of the angels' inherent desire to meddle with humans). It doesn't say anything either way about their special divinity or abilities. They may be special due to being directly created by God out of thin air as opposed to being created by him by means of other humans, as is the usual way, but the APG doesn't specify. This puts a new slant on Lucifer's recruitment of her: instead of wanting to gain a powerful ally, it now seems he just wanted to thumb his nose as Heaven some more. I'm looking forward to Fall of the Malakim now, just so I can figure out what the hell's up with Lilith in canon (and how she picked up that interesting trick of making Lilim...). Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "We prefer our metaphysics with a money-back guarantee."-- Penn & Teller How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:15:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking [[ I'll think about merging various things later. I got bit by an inspiration bug. ]] Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking (Note that in the demonic, Nitpicking could also be translated as "Rules Nazism" or "Line Editing.") "The world can't be like that; it would contradict with three separate references, no, four. Here, let me quote the page numbers..." Band-sister to Asmodeus, her celestial form looking something like a scorpion crossed with a beaver who could take down a redwood, this Beth was once the Angel of Evolving Consistency, a Cherub who served Archives. ("Yes, I know I have the same name as *her*. But that doesn't mean anything -- she's a Kyrio or Bright or something, and I'm a Djinn.") After foolishly attuning herself to the _Oz_ books by Baum and gaining dissonance for every internal inconsistency he wrote, she plummeted like a rock, convinced that humans were sloppy, uncaring, and generally contrary. She wound up working in Asmodeus' records for a while, attuning herself to various case-files and -- possessive as a Djinn in fixation mode -- collecting them to her and not letting anyone mess with them. Asmodeus came upon her in this state and threatened to have her questioned. Her reply was... unusual... "I'm a Djinn, and I simply don't care, so you can't frighten me. You ought to know that, you're one yourself. Besides, I'm not dissonant, or Discordant, and I'm serving the causes of Hell very nicely, thank you. Now, why *is* it that all your Servitors are supposed to seek out the Discordant, when that and dissonance are really only results of bad luck with one's resonance nine times out of ten, and not a case of defying one's nature? It's inconsistent." Not deigning to answer the question, but more thoughtful now, the Prince inquired as to why she hadn't been reported before this. "They're all afraid of me. I understand the triplicate forms and they don't." So Asmodeus hauled her out of her cozy little nest and dragged her to one of the larger courtrooms and indulged in a nice, public trial, during which Beth proceeded to demolish the opposing lawyer's arguments with their internal inconsistencies (all the while dodging the main issue: she'd mouthed off to a Prince). And Lucifer showed up, smiling slightly. "Asmodeus?" the Prince among Princes asked. "Do you really want her destroyed?" And the Djinn Beth pointed out, "If he *wants* anything, then he's not acting as a proper Djinn, you know." While Asmodeus held his forehead in his hands, torn between fury and admiration and uncaring, Lucifer smiled and patted him on the shoulder. "I'm sure Princess Beth will make a good ally." The Demon Princess of Nitpicking is an exacting task-mistress. *Nobody* can ever complete a mission to her utter and total satisfaction -- though those who come close enough are rewarded anyway. She has an uncanny ability to dole out exactly enough praise (and punishment) to keep Servitors motivated without being discouraged. Even her Djinn are surprisingly pro-active. Dissonance: Servitors of Nitpicking cannot ignore anything that they believe to be inconsistent or Just Plain Wrong. They must inform the perpetrator of inconsistencies of his (or her, or its) error, preferably backing it up with references. Detailed page references are best. Not entirely surprisingly, they can get along with Judgment-angels rather well Band Attunements Balseraphs: With their flexible world-views, a Balseraph can see *anything* as inconsistent. Anyone resisting their lies rolls at a penalty to Will equal to the Balseraph's Celestial Forces -- but *any* successful resistance will cause the Liar a note of dissonance (as if the subjected had resisted with a 6). Djinn: Djinn of Nitpicking would be Beth's favorite Servitors, if she cared. They can attune themselves to something, and be able to find the inconsistencies within the work with a successful Perception roll. This applies to people, as well -- if an attuned subject says one thing and does another (or vice versa) or has said two different things to different people, the Djinn will know (with a Perception roll). This makes them rather good at spotting lies, much to the disgust of Seraphim. Calabim: These demons trash things that don't agree with their sources -- if the Calabite's target somehow contradicts something the Calabite has read or heard (preferably from an authoritative source, like the Princess), the Calabite adds his Ethereal Forces to his resonance roll. They are very dangerous to argue with... Habbalah: Punishers of the inconsistent (whom they consider weak; after all, Perfection is next to Godliness, right?), Beth's Habbalah may inflict embarrassment and shame on a target, reducing Celestial characteristics (instead of Ethereal) for minutes equal to the check digit; during this time, the subject will either be too embarrassed by his (or her) perceived gaffe to notice much else (loss of Perception), or so ashamed that he (or she) will do almost anything to make up for it (loss of Will). The target can resist normally, possibly causing the Habbalite backlash, as per pp. IN146-147. Lilim: Hell's proofreaders, Lilim of Nitpicking can scan a document (at a number of 550-word pages per minute equal to their Ethereal Forces) and correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, word-choice and internal inconsistencies. Upon receipt of the corrected (or at least red-inked) material, the target owes the Lilim a Geas, level equal to the time she spent on it (round up), and will not get a Will roll to resist when she calls it in. These Daughters can expand into painting, cooking, or sculpture, but they have to make a successful Artistry roll for the alternate medium before they can nitpick it and the check digit is the highest level of Geas they can achieve. Shedim: Beth's Shedim have the ability to reside in computers, pens, pencils, typewriters, or other artifacts that could be used to create, possessing them in the same manner as a Kyriotate of Jean! This takes a resonance roll, and the duration of possession is up to check digit hours. They may, if they choose, automatically correct errors committed with their inanimate host: a typewriter will suddenly back up and strike out the offending typo, a computer will auto-correct, or the user will find himself (or herself) erasing something and re-doing it. Using the "silent possession" rules from the _Infernal Player's Guide_, Shedim of Nitpicking can move around rather quietly -- people will hold a pen much longer than a stranger's hand... Impudites: Takers of *ideas*, these demons point out the mistakes in a work, offer to correct them, and (with a successful resonance roll) steal away the guiding genius from the user for a number of days equal to the check digit. The resulting "co-authored" piece is technically perfect, but somehow lacking - -- without "soul" -- as are all other pieces attempted by the subject during the duration of the theft. The Impudite, meanwhile, is free to use the inspiration himself (or herself), receiving a bonus to Artistry equal to the check digit. However, anything created by the demon will "read" as if the original subject had done it, if viewed by other celestials, and if enough time goes by, the work can be mistaken for the original creator's. ("Ah! An unknown Van Gogh!") Impudites of Nitpicking who run into Servitors of Creation are usually in deep trouble. However none have reported running into Eli himself... At least, none have survived to report such... Servitor Attunements Eye of Argon The demon automatically knows which subjects within view are most vulnerable to his (or her) Band attunement or resonance. (Shedim of Nitpicking notice unattended items they are allowed to possess.) It's a GM-call, of course, especially if someone else's Servitor is gifted with this attunement. Distinctions Most of Beth's Distinctions are given to those who get away with spectacular nitpicks, though they can also be earned (grudgingly) with loyal service in other ways. Knight of Nitpicking This distinction is always granted to a Servitor of Beth who manages to correctly nitpick either a Seraph or an Elohite in pedantic mode. It grants technical excellence in all works; any "soul" to the work will have to be supplied by the Knight. (Game mechanics: for a technically perfect creation, roll against a target number of 11. How "moving" it is depends on if that roll *also* succeeded at the *true* skill level!) Even non-creative works may be written -- technical writing, for instance -- but if the true skill is too low, the work will be dry, disinteresting, and complex. Captain of Consistency This distinction is usually awarded to a Servitor of Nitpicking who has correctly nitpicked *both* a Seraph *and* an Elohite in pedantic mode. With a touch and the expenditure of 1 Essence, the Captain gains the ability to sense inconsistency like a Djinn of Nitpicking, until the subject leaves the Captain's sight and hearing. It does not, alas, work through mechanical media such as cameras, telephones or microphones. Djinn Captains of Consistency use this ability when they don't want to be unable to harm the subject. Baron(ess) of Retroactive Editing Given to those who have managed to nitpick a Superior and gotten away with it, this distinction lets a demon to a "master copy" of a work and correct it; for every point of Essence he (or she) spends while doing it, 100 copies will receive the same correction. Songs or relics may allow the Baron to use more Essence than he (or she) normally possesses. Note that the "correction" does not *have* to be accurate, or correcting a mistake... But introducing gratuitous inconsistencies into a work will not make Beth pleased. Beth has higher distinctions, but so far, none of her Servitors have managed to accurately nitpick Asmodeus, Baal, Kronos, Dominic, Laurence or Yves and reported back. Relations Kronos is highly amused by her (or as highly amused as he ever gets), and she does indeed get along well with her former Prince, Asmodeus. However, she much prefers the tidy, organized files in Hades to the horrible, messy Archives of Fate. Most of the other Princes regard her roughly the same as they regard the Prince of the Game -- especially since her Servitors are known to aid his. ("They have to follow the rules.") Vapula, however, detests her despite her avowed wish to help him keep his technical notes accurate -- she keeps pointing out little Habbie delusions and griping about his habits of going off on poorly-documented research tangents. Allied: Asmodeus Associated: Vapula Hostile: Belial, Kronos, Haagenti, Nybbas, Valefor Enemy: Kobal ("GET *OUT* OF MY ARCHIVES! THAT'S NOT FUNNY!") Basic Rites: * Three hours well spent nitpicking inconsistant materials. * An hour crafting a careful "flame" (email, usenet, letter to the editor, speech in a debate class, etc.) that will demolish someone else's position. * Demolishing an opponent's arguements with nitpicking, with references, live and on the spot. +3 Essence if done on a Servitor of Yves attempting Destiny's deep philosophical discussion Rite. Chance of Invocation: 0 (she's always busy nitpicking someone or something, somewhere) Invocation Modifiers: +1: The Eye of Argon, thoroughly corrected +2: A legal document +3: A lawyer splitting legal hairs +4: The errata pages printed out from the SJG website; *all* of them +5: A work of technical perfection that is unreadable because of it +6: Someone driven to atheism by being smacked in the face with inconsistencies +10: A Fallen angel, who was driven to it through discussion with a Servitor of Nitpicking who pointed out all the inconsistencies in Heaven's view. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #593 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.