From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Mar 7 10:48:27 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 KAA28892 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:48:27 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA15770 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:10:33 -0600 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:10:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199803071610.KAA15770@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 #664 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 Saturday, March 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 664 In this digest: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) IN> (no subject) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) IN> Duality in Words Re: Celestials & "pets" (Re: IN> Cats) Re: IN> Re: IN- [Fluff] David? RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Re: IN> Cloned Lilim Re: IN> Duality in Words IN> IN Canon and what-not (used to be Cloned Lilim) Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Falling Malakim Re: IN> Duality in Words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:33:39 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) Emily Dresner wrote: > I think labelling things: > 'Canonical/Deutercanonical/Apocrypha/Pseudo-Apocrapha' > in that order of 'Most relavant -> Least Relavant' would be most keen. Don't forget the pseudepigrapha! Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:42:55 -0500 (EST) From: Wildcard Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Emily Dresner 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. > > > > I think labelling things: > 'Canonical/Deutercanonical/Apocrypha/Pseudo-Apocrapha' > in that order of 'Most relavant -> Least Relavant' would be most keen. But aren't the Apocrypha themselves deuterocanonical, as Earl explains them? Keep in mind it's been a long time since I set foot around a Bible; the one I saw last said "Includes Apocrypha and Deuterocanonicals," so I have equal information for both cases being true. Gack. Love the spelling of "pseudo-apocrypha," though... ;) > - Em WC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:55:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) At 9:30 PM +0000 3/6/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 02:34:28PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> 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?" This is where the Seraph starts answering different questions... "It hurt to do it. I regret the need." >> 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. Ah, but she's a Windy! () Besides, it's a Choir generality, like "Malakim don't have a sense of humor that doesn't involve demons and power tools"... >> 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. Mmmmm, point. >As for Cowardly Celestials...it's hard to envision them leaving the >comfort of Limbo unless they also have the Paranoia Discord. Or even if they *do*! "Everyone is out to get me! But if I stay here, they can't *touch* me!" And then there's the Bals who self-resonate themselves into gods of their little resonace-based *universes* in their heads. God is a balseraph in limbo. Obviously. - --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 16:52:05 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) > > I think labelling things: > > 'Canonical/Deutercanonical/Apocrypha/Pseudo-Apocrapha' > > in that order of 'Most relavant -> Least Relavant' would be most keen. > > Don't forget the pseudepigrapha! > Stick it on the end! STICK IT ON THE END! I like this rating system. I love it. I think it's totally swell. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:09:05 -0500 From: "Mark McKenzie" Subject: Re: IN> Cats gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 gibsonc@NKU.EDU wrote: > > > 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. > Played with a ball, and wearing ugly pants, this is called "golf". - -- Mark McKenzie E-mail: markadv@kinekom.com ICQ 7946364 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:04:35 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) > > I think labelling things: > > 'Canonical/Deutercanonical/Apocrypha/Pseudo-Apocrapha' > > in that order of 'Most relavant -> Least Relavant' would be most keen. > > But aren't the Apocrypha themselves deuterocanonical, as Earl explains > them? Keep in mind it's been a long time since I set foot around a Bible; > the one I saw last said "Includes Apocrypha and Deuterocanonicals," so I > have equal information for both cases being true. Gack. > > Love the spelling of "pseudo-apocrypha," though... ;) I'm surprisingly unpicky, for once. I think the words in and of themselves TOTALLY rock, and anyone using them gets automatic bennie points and a gold star. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:05:13 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) > >As for Cowardly Celestials...it's hard to envision them leaving the > >comfort of Limbo unless they also have the Paranoia Discord. > > Or even if they *do*! "Everyone is out to get me! But > if I stay here, they can't *touch* me!" > > And then there's the Bals who self-resonate themselves into gods of > their little resonace-based *universes* in their heads. > > God is a balseraph in limbo. Obviously. > Play KULT much? :) :) - - EM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:12:56 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 04:55:43PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > >As for Cowardly Celestials...it's hard to envision them leaving the > >comfort of Limbo unless they also have the Paranoia Discord. > > Or even if they *do*! "Everyone is out to get me! But > if I stay here, they can't *touch* me!" > I made that character. She left Limbo because she was worried about the possibility of being found there. After all, it seems so entirely safe and comforting, there has to be something wrong with that setup. Angus Thermopyle from the Gap Series, in addition to being the classic Djinn of Fire, is an illustration of a Paranoid Coward who, because of those same Discords, does insanely stupid and risky things. The 1st book opens with him scanning a ship coming into dock, finding out that it has very expensive armour, leaping to the conclusion that it's come after him, and leaving station immediately without fresh food, water, or air filters... > And then there's the Bals who self-resonate themselves into gods of > their little resonace-based *universes* in their heads. > > God is a balseraph in limbo. Obviously. > You see, it isn't just failing the Will rolls that leaves so many Celestials stuck in Limbo. 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 17:30:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) At 10:12 PM +0000 3/6/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 04:55:43PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >> >As for Cowardly Celestials...it's hard to envision them leaving the >> >comfort of Limbo unless they also have the Paranoia Discord. >> >> Or even if they *do*! "Everyone is out to get me! But >> if I stay here, they can't *touch* me!" >> >I made that character. She left Limbo because she was worried about the >possibility of being found there. After all, it seems so entirely safe >and comforting, there has to be something wrong with that setup. AHHHHHHH! Okay, point. Paranoia above and beyond the call of Balseraphdom. >Angus Thermopyle from the Gap Series, in addition to being the classic >Djinn of Fire, is an illustration of a Paranoid Coward who, because of >those same Discords, does insanely stupid and risky things. That makes sense. How appalling........ Are you using your resonance? >>And then there's the Bals who self-resonate themselves into gods of >>their little resonace-based *universes* in their heads. >> >>God is a balseraph in limbo. Obviously. >> >You see, it isn't just failing the Will rolls that leaves so many >Celestials stuck in Limbo. And I don't even *read* KULT. - --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 17:26:09 -0500 (EST) From: Wildcard Subject: Re: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: [WRT deuterocanonical, apocryphal, etc. etc.] > I'm surprisingly unpicky, for once. I think the words in and of > themselves TOTALLY rock, and anyone using them gets automatic bennie > points and a gold star. Remind me *never* to introduce you to my unofficial IN consultant-- my SO, currently working her way towards an M.Div. at a Presbyterian seminary in Pittsburgh... Phrases like "I have to analyze Jeremiah as part of my final for Old Testament Exegesis" pop up in our conversations far too frequently for me... ;) WC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 98 17:38 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim >>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? Is it actually stated anywhere in canon that Lilith *can* make any demons except Lilim? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 18:02:32 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim At 5:38 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? > >Is it actually stated anywhere in canon that Lilith *can* make any >demons except Lilim? Oh, that. No. Nor is it stated that she can't. If it comes out the way I think it will, what she can and cannot create (besides sweet selfish Lilim) is a mystery. So it is a very intersting question. And I'm not going to provide the answer. - --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 22:51:57 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 05:30:33PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >Angus Thermopyle from the Gap Series, in addition to being the classic > >Djinn of Fire, is an illustration of a Paranoid Coward who, because of > >those same Discords, does insanely stupid and risky things. > > That makes sense. How appalling........ > > Are you using your resonance? > No. I didn't make that character. He came from the severely twisted mind of Stephen Donaldson, also responsible for the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever, and the Mordant's Need duology. Other notable characters in that series who map readily to Celestials are Morn Hyland, a Cherub who had the severe misfortune to become Angus' fixation, Hashi Lebwohl, a massively dissonant Elohite of Factions (or something like that), Nick Succorso: lustful Habbalite, pirate captain and self-publicist, Holt Fasner, an obvious Lucifer figure, and Warden Dios, a sort of combination of Dominic and Michael, except he's a Renegade Habbalite. Dios' guilt complex is incredible, and it moves him on very strange, and in many ways quite evil paths. All of the above series are very much recommended, though if you have the Chronicles of TC and the Gap Series, it's questionable how much insights you'll get out of Mordant's Need, which was the middle group. 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 18:43:33 -0500 From: Walter Plageman Subject: IN> (no subject) subcribe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:51:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > > 'Malakim cannot fall' is not a system mechanic. It is a game rule which > > reflects the game reality, because no Malakite has ever fallen. > > Hmm. No, I think it is a mechanic also. What do you do if the Malakite PC > fails disasterously on a dissonance roll? Does it fall? I think not. Well, to be pedantic, the system mechanic is that Malakim do not fall simply by the method of failing a dissonance roll. So if there are other ways of falling in a given campaign, then the canon _system_ has nothing to say about whether Malakim can fall that way. The generalised rule, if you keep it, is what says they can't. But then I think of falling as being an in-game event, with certain mechanics attached, rather than being purely a system device... That was the difference I was pointing to: you can have Malakim falling like autumn leaves without contradicting the existing mechanics. You just add to them creatively. Steve. Balseraph of the Game, applying for the word of Justifications. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:21:56 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) > And now we have Fuzzy Canon... This is the cat discussion? - -Rob === Rob Knop === rknop@crl.com ==== http://www.wco.com/~rknop === Amiga PGP information at http://www.wco.com/~rknop/amiga_pgp Visit the Dramatic Exchange at http://www.dramex.org/ ================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 20:01:23 -0500 From: Pete Overton Subject: IN> Duality in Words Oh wonderful list of friendly folk, let me clarify what I meant by this so that you may be boggled at my thought processes! Thusly did the dashing hero present a theory: When I talk about the duality of Words, I refer to each Word having both a positive and negative aspect. I will use the example of Death. The positive side of Death is a change in state and hopefully a transition to Heaven (or Hell but the transition itself remains just) and Angels of Death would ease the suffering of the dying and reassure them (Mercurians, anyways, and that is actually what Clarielle is). The flipside of this, the Prince of Death would represent the horror of Death, the pain and misery and unhappy deaths. If this duality of Words does exist, it causes a really intersting conclusion, which is this: Each Word has a pair of guardians, and they struggle against each other in vain for at the End of All they will be reunited and reformed (for they split during the First Heavenly Rebellion) into their whole self again, as Balance is restored. HOWEVER, the sole exception to this is Lucifer, who in leading the rebellion did not split and therefore is above the rest of the Archangels and Princes but below God still. The most interesting point of this theory is that with no "other" to pair off with, he finds himself against God Himself who also has no "other" since he is All. What does this mean? It means Lucifer is the loneliest creature in Existence. Kind of interesting, eh? ::smile:: Thank you for your kind replies, I am off to party tonight but I will respond to them in kind tomorrow. I must also add that this list is bar none the friendliest I have ever encountered and you should all take a bow on that. :) Pete E-Mail: pover@golden.net ICQ#:2192976 "Lord, you are merciless to your creations!" -- Memnoch, Memnoch the Devil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 21:08:54 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: Celestials & "pets" (Re: IN> Cats) > > The average celestial succeeds at a Intelligence roll about 42% of > > the time. The average human (3 Int) succeeds about 8% of the > > time. > > The average human actually has an Int of 20/6, which can't be > modelled on a 2d6 system. Actually, the chance of success for 20/6 (3.333) can be found by interpolation. It comes out to about 11%. That makes an average celestial 4 times as smart as an average human, and an average human is about 4 times as smart as the average dog... > And given the way stats in In Nomine work, most humans will be in > the 3-5 range. The system breaks down very badly when dealing with > non-celestial stats, so I don't use those probabilities when > conceptualising about them. Well, normally neither would I, but it was just too inviting to point out the way the system breaks... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 00:20:56 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- [Fluff] David? At 11:12 AM 6/03/98 +0000, you wrote: >>I guess it's one of those international misconceptions. Like, that we >>don't have skyscrapers here, and wild kangaroos roam the streets :-) >> >>Or that my country is in the middle of Europe somewhere :-) >> >Or that you're all descended from convicts... > > > >]:> > >-- >Jules - Demon Prince of Pommies >jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk > >Convicts from your country no doubt, and that was just in the beginning, most present Australains are descended from later settlers. Simon, Demon Prince of Pround Australians ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:41:02 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: RE: IN> Is Art canonical? (was Re: IN- Geometry) At 14:47 06/03/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>>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? 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. I had a neat idea about a couple of angels who'd been locked in conflict for millenia, engaged in a small contest that the seraphim council set them with the winner supposedly acquiring that word. Maybe I'll just work it into my game, if the PCs ever get as far as Paris ;-) 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: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 03:04:23 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) At 21:30 06/03/98 +0000, you wrote: > > >The big problem with Judgement is her difficulty with following orders. > I'm sure you'd find that difficulty wouldn't last long. 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: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 03:27:03 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Celestials (Re: IN> Cats) At 17:08 06/03/98 +0000, you wrote: >On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 04:12:38PM -0000, Hart, Joanna wrote: >> >> (Does your character have a really bad sense of balance? The one thing I >> learned from keeping cats is that 'catlike balance' truly doesn't mean what >> most people think ;-) ) >> >Not really bad. Her Agility + Acrobatics is 7, and her Agility + Climbing >is 8, which is reasonable for someone with 2 Corporeal Forces. She's an >incredibly munchy lockpicker, though. Dice rolls are more or less there to >check for Infernal Intervention, or when she's trying to do it with only >her hairpin. (Now where are people like this when I really need them?!) > > >> On the other hand, a new seraph will probably be perfectly happy if it stays >> in heaven, and all that is required of it is to flit about, support its >> superior's word in appropriate seraphly ways and glorify God's name. >Hmm...maybe, generalising from Seraphim of the Wind (and, moreover, a very >"low divinity" Seraph who's spent a lot more time in human Vessels than >in her Celestial form) mightn't be a very good idea. But it seems >unsatisfactory to me, and I'm a very lazy person. Knowing that there's >knowledge out there makes me want to know it. Heaven has a very good library, you know ;-) >>Uncertainty is very disturbing for them. >> >I think that's what makes Seraphim so similar to Malakim, the search for >absolute answers. And they also expect others to live up to their >standards. I hadn't thought of that, but yep. Kind of scary to have people who look for absolute answers and can Find Them. > >The seraphim who get a bit too addicted to this form of >> power probably fall shortly afterwards -- > >Seraphim have another form of power. If people know that you're a Seraph, >they won't lie to you. It strikes me that an enterprising (and less scrupulous) celestial of another band/choir could use this ("Why yes, I am a seraph. Now give me the low down and don't even think about getting economical with the truth!") > > ditto for those who have a major >> problem with admitting that they don't know everything). >> >That is a bad personality trait for a Seraph. Very very bad. You can see now why Dominic /had/ to try Michael for hubris ;) Observers note that even after all this time, Michael has still not admitted he might have done anything wrong here... >It's also a bad personality trait for a Balseraph. Admitting that you were >genuinely mistaken is a good way to get out of dissonance. *nod* I think so. But a quick-witted Balseraph will be able to cover-up for itself and get clever at implying it knows more than it does. A seraph that tries that is on thin ice. > >> Earth can be upsetting for a lot of reasons, but it can be inspiring as >> well. Sometimes people can lie, but there will be a truth behind their >> words, even if they can't see it. >> >I don't understand this very well. (Trying to think now about what I meant when I wrote it ;) ). OK, let me try for an example. Lets say for some reason you have wandered into a church and when talking to the local cleric, you work out very quickly that they are a cynical, hard-bitten SOB who has no faith whatsoever and just went into the clergy because it looked like an easy sinecure -- from their own point of view, the congregation are mainly there to pay their salary and the ones who get a bit too enthusiastic about this God business are just naturally gullible. However, its part of his job to be able to give people the spiel so when you are talking to them, they tell you a lot of stuff about how people need something to believe in, in these troubled times etc etc. Now lets say you are a seraph who gets a decent check digit and figures out that this guy doesn't believe a word he is saying. Still, what he is saying might be true. In fact, you might even perceive that his dedication to keeping up the facade is giving a lot more to some members of his community than if he was an introspective angstful type. The seraph perceives that people can believe in something that is true, even if the mouthpiece is a fake -- and will go on its way, wondering at the strange nature of humanity an how truth may be found in the most unlikely places. Taking this to extremes, you might be giving some unworthy mortal the second degree ('So, where were you at 9pm last Friday night?'), pull out a stunning check digit and.. gain some new insight into the essential workings of the symphony. Truly, God moves in mysterious ways ;) >And maker of damn fine metaphors. Flatterer! ;) jo, seraph of judgement, guarding the long watches of the night - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:25:41 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: Re: IN> If Only Cows Could Fly Too >From: Pete Overton >(4) Has anyone archived a comprehensive history of Heaven >and Hell and the War in general? The history from the APG >seems a little thin. Comprehensive? The APG's history is the most comprehensive I've seen. >(5) Has anyone considered sort of alternate evil possibilities? >What I mean is, as opposed to Good God Bad Devil, something >maybe like Tyrannical God Different-Agenda'd Devil? Or any >information on what literally appears to be the evolution of >God (ie. starts off rather cold and cruel and grows to be >warm and loving)? I don't know, these probably aren't the best >first-time-on-the-list questions to ask. Try archive searches for "Dark Victory", "Pagan Victory", "Bright Victory" "In Nomine Backwards", "In Nomine Sideways"... Steve, Duke of Paperback Books ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:51:48 +0000 From: "Patrick Chester" 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? Would the In Anime version of that be Super Deformed? > Redneck (was he Canon?) Ohhh yes, you WILL be CANNONED.... - -- Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wolfone@io.com "Well Jim, that proves it. The Universe not made up of an endless vacuum of eternal nothingness like we once believed. The Universe is in fact made up of Fabio." -Cape Carbunkle bunch at work. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 00:04:44 -0500 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Cloned Lilim >From: Armand > >>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? In fact, yes, this is what is happening to me. As canon grows, new supplements are written assuming that previous canon is true. This means that if you do anything different from canon the amount of usable stuff per supplement will steadily decrease. At some point there won't be enough usable stuff to be worth the cash. This isn't a hypothetical; I've already seen it happening. Night Music is more useful than The Marches is more useful than Heaven & Hell is more useful than the APG -- because the number of locked-in assumptions in the earlier books are fewer, and thus they are easier to adapt for my own game. At the current rate, I predict that FoTM and the Infernal Player's Guide won't contain anything I can use off-the-rack. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet future purchases of IN stuff will be as random gaming stuff rather than as material that will actually help me run my IN game. - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:01:31 -0500 From: jesse Subject: Re: IN> Duality in Words Pete wrote: > When I talk about the duality of Words, I refer to each Word >having both a positive and negative aspect. I will use the >example of Death. The positive side of Death is a change in >state and hopefully a transition to Heaven (or Hell but the >transition itself remains just) and Angels of Death would ease >the suffering of the dying and reassure them (Mercurians, anyways, >and that is actually what Clarielle is). I take it that Clarielle is the AA of Death, how do we know this? What supplement is this in? The flipside of this, >the Prince of Death would represent the horror of Death, the >pain and misery and unhappy deaths. This assumes, prehaps wrongly, that pain, misery and unhappiness is good for the causes of the demons and conversly bad for angels. Clearly not all of the AA's are interested in man's pleasure and happiness. Only Blandine (and Novalis to a lesser degree) are intersested in man's pleasure as a goal in itself. Many AAs, esp. David, Dominic, and Jordi, don't give a crap about the pleasure of man, asuming it is not a tool to their goals. In the In Nomine universe it cannot and should not be assumed that helping man recieve the most pleasure out of life or death is the ulitmate goal of the angels. In fact the demons often have more to gain by pleasure than their opposite numbers. Andre, Haagenti, Mamnon, Nybbas and esp. Flurity would do well to work diligently to increase their power and words by increasing man's pleasure. I could easily see a hendoistic Saminga feeding off of the pleasure and joy created by the killers and the killed. In real lif of course: All life is suffering.-The first Noble Truth Suffering is caused by the pursuit of pleasure-Secound Noble Truth So, if the angels stop the demons from corrputing man through pleasure, all life ends. > > If this duality of Words does exist, it causes a really intersting >conclusion, which is this: Each Word has a pair of guardians, and >they struggle against each other in vain for at the End of All they >will be reunited and reformed (for they split during the First Heavenly >Rebellion) into their whole self again, as Balance is restored. 2 points: A: Why against each other? If the demon and angel of Cities struggled directly against each other they would be preverting themselves because the worded souls become that word, if the angel of cities fights against the demon of cities the angel is fighting against an embodiement of cities which means the angel is fighting against itself. Sorta. It is 1:49 am here, and I have been partying, bare with me. B: This eternal struggle of light side of the words vs. the dark side is interesting. We may have to assume that either all the words were given out at the begaining of strife and have been in conflict since or that the holders of the words are pre-determined. This secound idea kind of throws a wet blaknet on free will, which leads to very interesting gaming. > It means Lucifer is the loneliest creature in Existence. Where does that leave Lilith since she was not really a demon? Is Adam still around as the AA of Freedom? > Thank you for your kind replies, I am off to party tonight but >I will respond to them in kind tomorrow. I must also add that this >list is bar none the friendliest I have ever encountered and >you should all take a bow on that. :) I totally agree. This is a great list serve, much better than nasty Seth and the INWO lists. Plug: This weekend I finally plan on finishing Buddhist In Nomine. It got very weird recently. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:22:38 -0500 From: jesse Subject: IN> IN Canon and what-not (used to be Cloned Lilim) Neel wrote, in a different order than I am responding to: >At the current rate, I predict that FoTM and the Infernal Player's >Guide won't contain anything I can use off-the-rack. I hope I'm >wrong, but I bet future purchases of IN stuff will be as random >gaming stuff rather than as material that will actually help me >run my IN game. That is great. The more invidual our In Nomine campigns are the more information we share, the closer we are to enlightenment. Personally I would just as soon force all the RPG companies out of buisness and make people come up with orginal idea in role-playing (Lord knows my girlfriend can to do that, but that is another story :) Each time we see a new supplement a substainal part of the role-playing community rejects ideas contary to the new canon. This is really sad. We see less and less ideas being churned around the more we see "offical game materials" in print. Clearly this is not always the case, but it is with a large portion of role-players in my experience. I have thrown out the whole settings of campigns and games and left only the game mechanics in place. Since I have read Amber I am thinking of dispossing of most of those mechanics too. >This isn't a hypothetical; I've already seen it happening. Night Music >is more useful than The Marches is more useful than Heaven & Hell >is more useful than the APG -- because the number of locked-in >assumptions in the earlier books are fewer, and thus they are easier >to adapt for my own game. I should point out here that the APG is supposed to be indepedent of Night Music and the Marches. Night Music is, weirdly engough, not really "core" cannon but rather "revelations" canon that SJG can and probably will steam roll over in the next set of sourcebooks. The APG, on the other hand, is advertised as "core" cannon, that is something that can be used with just the In Nomine book. Of course this is not always the way things work out. The gripping hand is that all canon is mind rotting bunk. See above. Feel free to correct me Beth, David and any other employees of SJG, or anyone can correct me for all I care, it is a free world. I fully recognize that I am in rant mode, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I may calm down tomorrow. - -Jesse I think I am a mediator motie, but I am not sure who I am copying. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:46:03 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > It irks me that Fascism has an archanglic patron. I'm sure it does, and I'm sure his name is Dominic ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:49:46 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > David supports Fascism because of it's 'United We Stand' philosophy, > not because of the xenophobia that is often parcelled with it. Fascism still sounds more like a Dominic think to me, or at least one of his cronies ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 03:03:55 -0500 From: jesse Subject: Re: IN> Judaism >> It irks me that Fascism has an archanglic patron. >I'm sure it does, and I'm sure his name is Dominic I am just curious, but what gives you that idea? It seems to me that neither Judgement nor Stone have any direct connection to fascism. Sure Dominic's personality may be a little right wing but Judgement itself is not fascist. It would be an interesting exercise to switch the personalities and words of the IN superiors, What would it be like if tough-love David was in charge of Dreams or Flowers? And what if ditzy Novalis was the AA of the Sword? Man, this is weird. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:25:04 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Falling Malakim > Bear in mind that whether or not Malakim do in fact Fall in "Fall of the > Malakim," individual GMs have the freedom, _as always_, to *change anything > they don't like for their campaign*! IIRC Malakim always had the potential of falling, it was just that the other Malakim destroyed the ones that were close to falling. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:58:41 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Duality in Words >Pete wrote: > >> It means Lucifer is the loneliest creature in Existence. > >Where does that leave Lilith since she was not really a demon? >Is Adam still around as the AA of Freedom? > In the IN cantos, Lilith was one of the three humans created perfect without blemish. The other two Fell from Grace at Eden. They, either 1. Ultimately succumbed to their Fates and are roasting in the Principality of your preference. 2. Redeemed themselves (Eve especially is said to ultimately be "at emnity" with the serpent who caused her fall) through repentence, deeds, or both. I've read some so-called apocryphal text claiming to be the gospels of Adam and Eve. the only Words I see them embodying are the Archetypes of Man and Woman themselves, but I don't see them as Words that are within the purview of either Lucifer or the Seraphim Council to grant. The only thing definite about Lilith is that she checked herself out of the Garden volountarily. It's interesting to wonder how much of her later actions and her acceptance of Lucifer's patronage was a result of meeting humans from outside Eden. It would seem no matter what she does not regret nor repent her original decision to quit the place. So she is either, 1. An expression of the potential of UnFallen Humanity, or 2. An UnFallen human modified by the incorporation of Dark Essence. After all, accepting patronage at all, is a a compromise on the Word of Freedom itself. Duality is a useful concept, but remember the universe is a profusion of broken symmetries. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #664 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.