From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Mar 6 16:09:51 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 QAA11808 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:09:51 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA01866 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:39:16 -0600 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:39:16 -0600 Message-Id: <199803062139.PAA01866@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 #663 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, March 6 1998 Volume 01 : Number 663 In this digest: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim IN> Wording 101 Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> The SJG Daily Illuminator for today... Re: IN> Animal Sapience Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: FLUFF! (Re: IN> Cats) RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Cats RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 98 14:16 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim >> Personally I'm still all for the cloning Lilim thing though. > >I was under the impression that all Lilim were clones anyway. Doesn't it >say they're made in Lilith's image? As much as humans are in God's image, I think. My current understanding of canon (not yet *official* canon) is that Lilith is *not* a celestial, but Lilim are. They are not clones of Lilith any more than any celestials created by a servitor are clones. However, there *is* something about Lilith's nature that makes Lilim creation possible only to her. (If there were a Lilim Demon Princess, she might also be able to do it -- which is one possible explanation for why there isn't one....) An interesting question that I don't think has come up yet is whether Lilith can make any sort of celestials *except* Lilim. Elizabeth...? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:08:51 -0500 From: bruce dykes Subject: IN> Wording 101 >(2) Okay, listen, I know I am a flaming idiot, I have accepted >this, but can someone give me an idiot's version of the idea >behind the Words? I don't really understand the hierarchy >involved in it, which is to say, the structure of the Words. >I assume since Lucifer was the first created (Yves, pish :) >that he was given the Word of Light since light was one of >the first words uttered by God. But I don't really >understand how they went from there, how you determine which >Word an Archangel has, and so forth. Basically I need the >whole nine yards on the subject spelled out so that my >feeble mind can understand it. Please. :) Wording 101 - (with the caveat that this varies slightly from canon) Angels strive to embody concepts. In modern times, this manifests when an angel serves time on Earth, he may find himself drawn towards certain *kinds* of work, such as helping runaways get where they need to be, or helping childless couples adopt children. This is actually a kind of deep resonance with an element of the symphony. Other than God, and perhaps also Yves, humans are the only other creatures in the Symphony who can create Words (if you have a strong Jordi in your gameworld, you may want to include an "animal" culture that produces Words, but I don't). An angel may find himself resonating to such a Word, and serving that Word informally for many years while on Earth before petitioning his superior for that Word. Please note that this Word will always be related and subordinate to his superior's Word. A kyriotate serving Judgement may find himself in courts martial, either throwing the prosecution when they've charged an innocent person, or suborning the defense if they look like they're about to get a heinous criminal off. After many years of this, he may petition for the Word of Court Martial, or Dominic may nominate him for the Word. If there are other contenders for the Word, they also come forward at this time, and the Council uses whatever means to decide, either setting up a contest, or setting it to a vote, or something. It will vary by case, but the goal is to select the angel best able to serve the Word. Once the Council formally vests the angel with their new Word, their Superior fixes them with Rites of their own, and grants whatever staff or subordinates he deems appropriate. Note that an angel who petitions with other angels already commited to service, will stand a better chance of getting the Word. Also, any other claimants to the Word will be subordinate to the newly Word-bound. An item that highlights the quality/quantity difference between Heaven and Hell, is that only one angel can have any particular Word, so where a Word may fall under two Superiors, their original Superior will certainly have no qualms about lending them to the other as needed. Angelic Words are resonances with the Symphony , and metaphorical. An angel competently promoting his Word will notice when the literal meaning of his Word shifts to metaphor, and continues on his way, while an incompetent angel may only notice his influence and status dribbling away as his Word passes to obsolescence. A final note about angelic words, I feel that for the most part, Word bound angels are far too preoccupied with their words to perform the sort of work that PCs will generally be doing. To my mind, a Word-bound PC is tantamount to retirement, but they are more than suitable as an angel's immediate supervisor, and those sorts of low/medium level Word-bound angels are going to be the ones most frequently encountered by PCs. Now for demonic Wording. Demonic Words are simply assigned and exercised by force of Will. Whoever has the most will gets the Word, basically. One catch, however, the Word must actually exist in the Symphony. A demon can have a nosense Word imposed on him, but if it doesn't exist in the Symphony, there's nothing he can impose his will on. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:31:51 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim > I really want to see Dark Malakim. I don't think it's any sort of get-out > clause, it's more like having someone pick up your essential nature and > twist it around, making you someone completely different, without any > element of choice on your part. It's more like a Pandora's box, a license to change any other major parts of the system because 'it sounds cool'. That's why the mention of 'Anyone can create Lilim' and 'Redeem the Grigori' have popped up. Both of those have been made clear - the former far more the then latter - that these are hard, fast parts of the universe. But not anymore. Once one major rule gets violated, none of them are any good, and then, the rest of the continuity of the universe becomes suspect. Will it matter if the game world in the main rulebook gets changed radically? No. Because not only is there this moniker of 'it's an ever evolving universe' (ie, we WILL change the rules on you) but now there is precident. As one of my players put it - what did I expect? And if it sucks, it will be taken out of the second edition. That's pretty much that. There is jack I can do about it, except for not to buy the book and not to use the rules. But it's very White Wolf-y, with the universe changing sourcebook to sourcebook. The MARCHES and HEAVEN AND HELL are useful to me, because it helped to flesh out the world that was already there. Modules and things like this aren't. > Will the Malakite try to forget everything > (s)he used to be and concentrate on what (s)he is? That is, after all, the > honourable thing to do. Or will the Malakite attempt to remember, and > start slowly/quickly turning Discordant? Will Dark Malakim police > themselves as their Bright counterparts do? Surely they would be driven > to. How will angels react to them, with pity or with fear? After all, it > will certainly not have been by the Malakite's choice that they fell, if > my theories are correct. How will demons react to them? Balseraphs? > Habbalah? What will Malakim feel, when they resonate, getting the check > digit of 6, and find someone serving evil honourably and selflessly? What > will Seraphim feel, when their resonance tells them the impossible? This sounds exactly like the rationalizion for playing _any_ PC that is Falling. There is very little here which is unique to any choir working its way southward. I find it more interesting to work within the bounds of the game to explore this issue, instead of breaking some rules to find out what happens. > Think of it this way, if the idea disturbs you so much, what will your > characters feel? No, the idea doesn't _disturb_ me, like a plotline for a particularly wicked KULT game disturbs me. Changing the universe on me _annoys_ me. Besides, the general rule for a really good horror game is: no monsters. Nothing hits home faster then what is up inside a character's head, without doing anything special at all. I get bored with monster movies, but something like Se7en disturbed the hell out of me. Part of this is that I don't find it necessary, and it devalues the choir. For a group so difficult to play, I find it upsetting to take away their most interesting perk. I find plenty to work with in the main rulebook without having to change the universe. If you want to freak out players, there are very easy way to freak out players. And frankly, I find that one can get better, and far _longer_ milage out of something like Jo's Asmodean Pairs (recently posted) and a few bloody chainsaws. *shrug* The damage is done. I'm not going to use it. I won't use it. I can think up much better things to do then that, and none of them require new supplements or major rule changes. To each his own. If you want to put them in your game, more power to you. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:44:14 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too >In a word (ahem), no. In fact as fer as canon is concerned there is >only one Word with this duality, Fire. It is possible that this duality >has caused Gabriel to go insane. It is also possible that this is the >reason she loves dry white toast. Canon doesn't say specifically, and >Gabriel isn't talking. Besides War, Death, and Cities. Each of those have canonical infernal and heavenly duality. For War I cite the write ups on Baal and Michael For Death I cite Night Music pg 81 in which the write up on Druiel refers to a Archangel of Death and I futhure cite Saminga's word. For Cities I cite the 4th paragraph of the 2nd coloumn of pg 28, which also implies more duality in Words. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:18:56 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 02:31:51PM -0500, Emily Dresner wrote: > > Will the Malakite try to forget everything > > (s)he used to be and concentrate on what (s)he is? That is, after all, the > > honourable thing to do. Or will the Malakite attempt to remember, and > > start slowly/quickly turning Discordant? Will Dark Malakim police > > themselves as their Bright counterparts do? Surely they would be driven > > to. How will angels react to them, with pity or with fear? After all, it > > will certainly not have been by the Malakite's choice that they fell, if > > my theories are correct. How will demons react to them? Balseraphs? > > Habbalah? What will Malakim feel, when they resonate, getting the check > > digit of 6, and find someone serving evil honourably and selflessly? What > > will Seraphim feel, when their resonance tells them the impossible? > > This sounds exactly like the rationalizion for playing _any_ PC that is > Falling. There is very little here which is unique to any choir working > its way southward. At least 4 of the points up there are absolutely specific to Dark Malakim. The whole point in my view is that they will not be the same as other demons. Other angels can be pushed into falling, but there is almost always an element of choice. I don't think that's there for Dark Malakim. Also, all other demons are inherently selfish. I doubt that this will be the case for Dark Malakim. Their commitment to evil, if my theories are correct, is _pure_, untained by the rationalisations of Habbalah and Balseraphs, or the more obvious selfishness of other Bands. Both of these things make them entirely unique. I find it more interesting to work within the bounds > of the game to explore this issue, instead of breaking some rules to find > out what happens. > Hmm...this from the same person who had angels attuned to a demonic Word in her Holy War campaign? Or was it a demon attuned to an angelic Word? I might note that the former is dissonant, according to canon. Given that you had the unthinkable happen, and that much of the horror in that campaign derives from it (though certainly not all, or necessarily most), I fail to see how that is consistent with your sentiments above. > > No, the idea doesn't _disturb_ me, like a plotline for a particularly > wicked KULT game disturbs me. Changing the universe on me _annoys_ me. The Archangel of Judgement as a Balseraph. > Besides, the general rule for a really good horror game is: no monsters. What's his name again? Kezef? > Nothing hits home faster then what is up inside a character's head, > without doing anything special at all. It sounds to me like you did a lot of special stuff in order to get things into characters' heads. > > Part of this is that I don't find it necessary, and it devalues the choir. > For a group so difficult to play, I find it upsetting to take away their > most interesting perk. Difficult to play? I never noticed that _any_ of the angels were easy to play. I will note at this point that I never liked the idea of Malakim being unable to fall or being immune to Trauma. (The logic behind that rationalisation is dubious, given that it newly-fledged Malakim are clearly immune as well.) I think both of the above devalue the choir. Dissonance is what gives structure to a choir and makes them more interesting to play, not cool add-on extras. > To each his own. If you want to put them in your game, more power to you. > The same to you. I apologise for the intemperate tone of the above remarks, but I don't retract any of it. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:21:29 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 02:44:14PM -0500, Jesse wrote: > Besides War, Death, and Cities. Each of those have canonical infernal > and heavenly duality. > For War I cite the write ups on Baal and Michael Baal's Word is The War, not War. There is no Demon Prince of War. > For Death I cite Night Music pg 81 in which the write up on Druiel > refers to a Archangel of Death and I futhure cite Saminga's word. No one knows what the Archangel of Death is like, but I'm sure it doesn't involve making mummies and zombis. > For Cities I cite the 4th paragraph of the 2nd coloumn of pg 28, which also > implies more duality in Words. > Certain things are inevitably so important that Words will be assigned by both sides. I imagine that in all such cases, the spirit of the Words will be very different. If not, I would certainly be worried. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:29:46 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Some people have expressed the desire to see "The Fall of the > Malakim" followed by "Creation of the Lilim," so I'll take > the opportunity to put in a bid for "The Redemption of the Grigori." Conveniently... Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:46:04 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Andrew Frades wrote: > > Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > > Some people have expressed the desire to see "The Fall of the > > Malakim" followed by "Creation of the Lilim," so I'll take > > the opportunity to put in a bid for "The Redemption of the Grigori." > > Conveniently... > > Andrew Darn I've got to stop doing that. Sent before I was finished. Sorry. I forget who it was (sorry), but someone not too long ago suggested a non canon AA Oannes as a Grigori, who are now the leader of the third power in the Celectial triangle. Some real nice stuff, I took notes and it gave me lots of ideas. At any rate, the basic thing boils down to this: If you want to redeem the Grigori there are lots of ways to do it that wuld probably have much in common with any canon approach (anybody willing to guess if the Grigori are going to be part of a future cycle? my bet is yes.). I'm sure if you wanted to do this and discuss it there would be much response. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:55:38 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim >> I really want to see Dark Malakim. I don't think it's any sort of get-out >> clause, it's more like having someone pick up your essential nature and >> twist it around, making you someone completely different, without any >> element of choice on your part. > >It's more like a Pandora's box, a license to change any other major parts >of the system because 'it sounds cool'. >There is jack I can do about it, except for not to buy the book and not to >use the rules. But it's very White Wolf-y, with the universe changing >sourcebook to sourcebook. The MARCHES and HEAVEN AND HELL are useful to >me, because it helped to flesh out the world that was already there. >Modules and things like this aren't. I think that the Pandora's Box was opened the first time that any of us read the Golden Rule of gaming: It's our game, we can change the rules as we see fit. In your game, Malakim don't fall good enough. However, does that make a book that states the idea of that occuring as a bad idea? What if there is more intersting (in a way that meshes with your campaign) world fleshing in "Fall of the Malakim" (assuming that it will exist) ? Because it has an idea that any of us disagree with, does this mean we should boycott the system? I disagree with the whole one true god thing. That doesn't stop me from running a capaign where God exist in a solid and definite form. The sourcebooks, IMO, are like this list. It's all just opinions. Sure, the books are canon, and that means you have to play canon if you go over to Bob's to play, but you can still make a world for IN in the comforts of your group of players and say to Limbo with canon. >Besides, the general rule for a really good horror game is: no monsters. >Nothing hits home faster then what is up inside a character's head, >without doing anything special at all. I get bored with monster movies, >but something like Se7en disturbed the hell out of me. You need the monster. It has to be a mirror on the world. How does the monster act in comparison to the rest of the world. The problem that I find with horror campaigns and monsters are rules. If you take away the rules, (i.e. vampires and sunlight, werewolves and silver, etc.) then monster becomes a reflection of dreams and aspirations crossed with lack of mortal values. Then, it gets scary when the monsters are outdone by the humans. I think that I just had to rant there. Wasn't a big fan of Seven. I focussed mostly on the technicle aspects that were wrong with it. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:41:21 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The SJG Daily Illuminator for today... "March 6, 1998: Jumping the Gun, Part Deux Well, I have had quite a few responses to yesterday's Illuminator, but let me just add this followup: If you aren't willing to give me the name, city and phone number of your store, or the store where you saw the product early, don't bother contacting me. Breaking release dates is a serious problem. Stores suffer greatly because of it. We rely on their business, and don't WANT them to suffer. But my hands are tied if noone is willing to stand and be counted. Again, if you've seen Liber Reliquarum on the shelves before March 4, or are a store that was solicited for delivery before that date, and are willing to back it up, contact me and I'll take care of you. - -- Woody Eblom (woodysan@io.com)" - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:11:52 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Animal Sapience At 8:52 PM -0500 3/5/98, David Edelstein wrote: >>What about "wild children," who somehow survive in a non-human >>environment? They were obviously surviving well enough in a >>"natural" environment... A retarded human might be able to >>function perfectly well in a very simple environment -- they >>just can't interact with more socalized humans.< > >A "wild child" would have to be very lucky and _very_ adaptive to survive But there are records of such existing! >in the wild, since without our tools, humans aren't exactly the most >well-equipped species when it comes to hunting for food, finding shelter, >and avoiding predators. I doubt a retarded person would survive in such a >situation; he wouldn't have the adaptivity. There are islands where apparently food and shelter are so plentiful that the animals on them haven't evolved for a *loooong* time. (And when they meet humans and cats and rats, they get into trouble...) Note that I said "a very simple environment." It's just considered wrong to keep human beings in, say, a chimp zoo-cage... (Is it wrong? Well, *I'd* be uncomfortable with it....) (Of course, the degree of brain damage/retardation also comes into play. Someone in a coma is obviously incapable of surviving without help, period.) >>(And a feral child apparently doesn't have very "human" thought >>processes, from what I recall of the matter -- after a certain >>age, language is harder to learn, for instance. And sensibly, >>they don't think clothing is very comfortable.) > >Clothing is cultural. And language acquisition is a cognitive process all >its own, which is only loosely tied to intelligence. The younger you are, >the easier it is to learn languages; this is why children pick up languages >much faster than adults. Yes -- but if someone doesn't think in anything remotely resembling a language you understand, how do you know if they're self-aware? How do you know to what *degree* they're self-aware? How do you know where their hardwiring starts and stops, where their "learned but not reasoned" programming starts and stops? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:25:29 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim At 8:25 AM -0500 3/6/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >b) I already work for Asmodeus. See: >http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Balseraph.Em.html Except on Tuesdays. On Tuesdays, she works for me. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:24:19 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: FLUFF! (Re: IN> Cats) At 11:33 AM +0000 3/6/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Thu, Mar 05, 1998 at 01:55:59PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> And what are you doing in human mode, my Servitor? > >It was a conceit rather than a statement of fact. It indicated a desire >that nothing I said should be interpreted as an ungracious and >insubordinate attack on your majesty by one of your Servitors, but simply >as a parody of how an ignorant human might have responded to such a >message. Ahhhh... It wasn't a desire to attempt to hide after saying things that might have been ... misconstrued. Very well. I will not require you to catalog the incoming damned souls who are *supposed* to be finding all the comma-errors... in the Eye of Argon. >>Shouldn't that >> be just a vessel, or has my former Prince granted you his Humanity >> attunement for some reason? And what would that reason be? >> >I was under the impression that you were aware of the reasons why your >former Prince is not particularly enamoured of me. I deem it highly >unlikely that I will ever gain any of his attunements, and it has >certainly not occured in the past. As I suspected. However, if you had mended fences, there might have been some interesting information there. But as you are quite convinced that you meant no disrespect -- and I don't find dissonant servitors as useful -- I will simply mention that you might want to be careful in the future. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:47:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) At 9:07 AM -0800 3/6/98, Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: >>>> the fall. one of the angels to fall Remiroel, the angel of art, >>>>was > >>Isn't "Art" the angel of art? Or is he in pyramid, rather than canon? > >Both. Archangel Beth's take, which I had to pin her down on for the INdex, >is that everything in Pyramid after the Long Gap is canon. But lesser canon than in the books, if that makes any sense? (IOW, if it shows up in Pyramid, I'll *try* to keep it consistant with other stuff -- but I won't feel as bad about breaking it as I would with a "real book." You see, someone who doesn't know the forecasted future may come up with a wonderful adventure that has some throwaway line which would wreck up a wonderful *cycle* down the line. So I'll sacrifice the adventure for the cycle.) But I have a strong feeling that Art, the Angel of Art, whose Word is his name, will show up in the future. He's just too cool not to. (However, *plotlines* may or may not be. I heard someone make mention of submitting an adventure to Pyramid that depends on an alteration of canon (I'm not going to blab what it is, that would be rude). It makes for a good story, a good plot, but existing canon is going to rule in future books.) So... We have Hard Canon (the books, allowing for errata...). We have Canon Doubt And Uncertainty. And now we have Fuzzy Canon... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:34:28 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) At 1:53 PM +0000 3/6/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Thu, Mar 05, 1998 at 01:38:59PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>If something sounds like it might be prey or territory, though... >> >Her reaction, when confronted by a locked door as she's trying to call on >someone, is to pick the lock in order to verify that the person isn't in. .... Seraph of the Wind, perchance? >> And what emotions celestials have. What kinds of hardwiring a >> non-evolved species would have. Cherubim are easy -- they have >> the "Parental Love" emotion as their main drive; they protect >> and nuture. Mercurians are social creatures (put them in >> solitary confinement and they start breaking), while Ofanim >> are embodiments of drive and urges to *do*. > >I think Seraphim want to know things. Or, for emphasis, Know things... Yes. And a lie to them is like a rotting smelly corpse. Like tasting food and finding filth, or breathing in air and finding nothing but sulpher. It's like hearing a human has left their baby burning on the stove. >Balseraphs, on the other hand, rely on those frameworks completely. >Anything else that goes on around them has to be checked in relation to >their own particular framework before it's accepted. There's a reason >they're referred to as the most deeply selfish of all diabolicals. And dishonorable -- a Balseraph's sense of "what is right" will *always* change to "what benefits me the most". And thus Malakim hate them. >It isn't the motivations of Habbalah that is usually the most interesting >part of them, but their rationalisations. There are, of course, individual >exceptions, but I love the almost infinite number of rationalisations you >can make up, especially when they parallel the rationalisations of those >on Heaven's side of the War. I love them for that as well! [In Limbo] >> Seraphim veg out -- no truth, no lies, nothing but self-knowledge. > >Self-knowledge is as important for Seraphim as it is for Elohim. If a >Seraph doesn't know what the reasons they're doing something are, then >they're falsifying themselves every time they attempt to explain it. That >isn't good. Well, it depends on if the Seraph *has* started lying to himself about himself, or has hidden things. A good Seraph won't *need* to discover his reasons for things -- he *Knows*, as easily as a human breathes. (And thus, Seraphim have very *pure* emotions. When they are sad, they are truly sad with a grief that goes almost beyond words. When they are happy, their joy is dizzying. When their emotions are mixed, it can be almost incapacitating, as each pure emotion is not diluted by the other.) So if he's in Limbo, there's nothing to *discover*. He can go over his memories and see if there was anything that he ever missed of interest there, but if he already Knows himself, there is nothing new there to think about. >> Elohim love Limbo. >> No distractions from intellectulizing and thinking and following >> the paths of actions down like a chess-program. > >Depending on how Discordant they are, of course. Oh, well, there is that. Though unless it's a Need (oooog! A celestial with a Need in Limbo is *not* getting much Essence! Evil!), or something that isn't amenible to rest and quiet, they're probably perfectly happy to be able to simply *think* without the distraction of the Discord. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:38:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim At 4:00 PM +0000 3/6/98, Steve Jessop wrote: > >If FotM says 'OK, we admit it, there are Fallen Malakim really, but we >forgot to mention it', then I agree that is poor, and I personally would >ignore it. Unless something *really* strange happens, this is *not* the tack that the book will take. No "Oh, right, they do Fall but we lied and didn't tell you about it" kinds of things. Definitely not. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:04:21 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > But lesser canon than in the books, if that makes any sense? > We have Canon Doubt And Uncertainty. And now we have Fuzzy Canon... I believe the books of the Apocrypha are sometimes called "deutero-canonical," meaning roughly "second-string canon." You could use that, to continue the Biblical analogy. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:06:40 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 03:46:04PM -0500, Andrew Frades wrote: > At any rate, the basic thing boils down to this: If you want to redeem > the Grigori there are lots of ways to do it that wuld probably have much > in common with any canon approach (anybody willing to guess if the > Grigori are going to be part of a future cycle? my bet is yes.). I'm > sure if you wanted to do this and discuss it there would be much > response. > I think it's going to happen, and I think one of the people working on In Nomine said as much on a page whose url I don't, alas, remember. I think it was said a while back, so it might be vapourware. On the other hand, it was strongly implied in the book that something would happen concerning the Grigori, though whether there is any redemption involved is unclear. And there's the question of the Nephallim, who don't have to be the children of Grigori if my memory of the APG is correct. What are their abilities, and how likely are they to avoid detection? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:09:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Cats On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 gibsonc@NKU.EDU wrote: > Dogs can learn tricks because they are smarter than cats, Dog: "Oh, boy! He threw the stick! Again! I get to fetch, again!" Cat: "What? You want the stick back? Why on earth did you throw it in the first place, then? If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm busy." I dunno. Cat sounds smarter to me... > Cats are the spawn of satan and the root of all evil, next to murder and > things like that. Cats? Root of all evil? Naah. Root of all sarcasm, maybe, but not evil. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:16:02 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) >At 9:07 AM -0800 3/6/98, Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: >So... We have Hard Canon (the books, allowing for errata...). >We have Canon Doubt And Uncertainty. And now we have Fuzzy Canon... Fuzzy Canon? Isn't that what Jordi's writeup is? And if we send in writeups for In Nomine Babies, do we get Warm Fuzzy Canon? Or maybe we should talk about Kyriotates of Jean's sex lives- that would be SCSI Canon. What about Beelzebub, Demon Prince of Flies? Is he Buzzy Canon? Inquiring minds want to know! }:-{D Redneck (was he Canon?) 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 http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:23:55 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim At 2:16 PM -0500 3/6/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >An interesting question that I don't think has come up yet is whether >Lilith can make any sort of celestials *except* Lilim. > >Elizabeth...? What? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:28:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too At 2:44 PM -0500 3/6/98, Jesse wrote: >Besides War, Death, and Cities. Each of those have canonical infernal >and heavenly duality. >For War I cite the write ups on Baal and Michael Check errata. Baal is *the* War, Mikey is War. (And those writeups aren't published yet!!) >For Death I cite Night Music pg 81 in which the write up on Druiel >refers to a Archangel of Death and I futhure cite Saminga's word. >For Cities I cite the 4th paragraph of the 2nd coloumn of pg 28, which also >implies more duality in Words. There are dualities in Words possible, yes. But they are not required, they are not necessarily the rule. Nor are they necessarily major exceptions. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:31:22 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) At 4:04 PM -0500 3/6/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> But lesser canon than in the books, if that makes any sense? > >> We have Canon Doubt And Uncertainty. And now we have Fuzzy Canon... > >I believe the books of the Apocrypha are sometimes called >"deutero-canonical," meaning roughly "second-string canon." >You could use that, to continue the Biblical analogy. Yes, but you're talking to someone who uses, pardon the pun, "Elizabethean" spelling. If I can remember "deutero", I'll use it. Otherwise, I'll probably fall back on "fuzzy." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:21:06 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) > > But lesser canon than in the books, if that makes any sense? > > > We have Canon Doubt And Uncertainty. And now we have Fuzzy Canon... > > I believe the books of the Apocrypha are sometimes called > "deutero-canonical," meaning roughly "second-string canon." > You could use that, to continue the Biblical analogy. > I think labelling things: 'Canonical/Deutercanonical/Apocrypha/Pseudo-Apocrapha' in that order of 'Most relavant -> Least Relavant' would be most keen. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:30:14 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 02:34:28PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >Her reaction, when confronted by a locked door as she's trying to call on > >someone, is to pick the lock in order to verify that the person isn't in. > > .... Seraph of the Wind, perchance? > Yes. As a thought-experiment, I usually try to see where any of my characters who fell or redeemed would go. A lot of the time it doesn't work, because I can't imagine what would happen to the character that would make them want to fall or redeem. So in her case, I decided to think what other Words she'd be happy serving. It went Trade, Fire and bizarrely, Judgement, with none of the others being at all suitable. The big problem with Judgement is her difficulty with following orders. > > Well, it depends on if the Seraph *has* started lying to himself about > himself, or has hidden things. A good Seraph won't *need* to discover > his reasons for things -- he *Knows*, as easily as a human breathes. > > (And thus, Seraphim have very *pure* emotions. When they are sad, > they are truly sad with a grief that goes almost beyond words. When > they are happy, their joy is dizzying. When their emotions are > mixed, it can be almost incapacitating, as each pure emotion is not > diluted by the other.) > And that's a conflict. If a Seraph has mixed feelings over a certain action, if they think it was the right thing to do but were hurt by the consequences and deeply regret it, how can they explain themselves? Especially when other people demand simple answers, along the lines of "Are you sorry?" > So if he's in Limbo, there's nothing to *discover*. He can go over > his memories and see if there was anything that he ever missed of > interest there, but if he already Knows himself, there is nothing > new there to think about. > But sometimes there are things about other people and about events that only become clear in retrospect. Limbo would drive Mithredath mad, I think. Passivity doesn't suit her, even when she's waiting somewhere by her own choice. > > Oh, well, there is that. Though unless it's a Need (oooog! A celestial > with a Need in Limbo is *not* getting much Essence! Evil!), or something > that isn't amenible to rest and quiet, they're probably perfectly happy > to be able to simply *think* without the distraction of the Discord. > Hmm...Discords get triggered in certain circumstances, but I'd imagine that they leave certain tendencies in the Discordant Celestial at all times. An Angry or Lustful Celestial newly out of Limbo is almost certainly not going to be able to restrain their Discord until they've worked it out of their system. As for Cowardly Celestials...it's hard to envision them leaving the comfort of Limbo unless they also have the Paranoia Discord. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #663 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.