From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 24 14:52:05 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 OAA11122 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:52:05 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA19453 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:24:11 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:24:11 -0600 Message-Id: <199803242024.OAA19453@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 #693 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 Tuesday, March 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 693 In this digest: IN> unofficial rules of an IN Larp Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? Re: IN> Eli Question Re: IN> Kyrio Question Re: IN> Eli Question Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out Re: IN> IN- Holt Ghost Re: IN> IN- Holt Ghost Re: IN> Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Free Lilim) Re: IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? Re: IN> Dameron, the Demon Prince of Slavery Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? IN> More Purity Crusade Stuff IN> More Purity Crusade Stuff Re: IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out Re: IN> IN Slang, Take Two Re: IN> IN- Holy Ghost Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? Re: IN> An apology for Uriel Re: IN> IN Slang, Take Two Re: IN> Uriel v. Anti-Puritans: round 1 scores. Re: IN> NC: Acid ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:02:24 +0100 From: Tony Valle Garcia Subject: IN> unofficial rules of an IN Larp English: Have anyone unofficial rules of an IN Larp ? Please send me a copy (if possible) or an email. Español: ¿ Tiene alguien reglas no oficiales de IN en vivo ? Por favor, mandadme una copia (si es posible) o un email. ***************************************************************** * * * TONY "BLACK HAWK" VALLE * * * * i52vagaa@lucano.uco.es * * * * Universidad de Cordoba * * * ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:17:27 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim >> >> The Resonance of the Seraphim is Truth, no? >> >> How can the Seraphim know all of The Truth? >> When asked basic questions about the nature of God, how can they respnd? >> Is this choir basically a direct link to the GM? > >At times yes. Well you asked. When asked a question about the true >nature of God by a mortal they can answer completely truthfully that >they are not ready to know that. If asked by another angel they can >answer just as truthfully that the angel should already know that. > >Seraphim don't necessarily know all the Truth, just an awful lot of it. > >Andrew Ahhh.... Good point. - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "Your balls are mellifluous, sir!" - Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:17:21 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? Without having any canonical authority, I offer the following: Sounds like the dragons and other myth creatures were made by God but, in Uriel's opinion, ceased to be "of God" when they "consorted with Evil" and thereby became fair game. (Dragons, after all, and most other myth creatures, are generally pretty hostile to humans. Even unicorns and fays are at best ambivalent.) It is moderately common theology for something to be "made by God" even if the immediate cause is something else, presumably used as God's instrument. Thus each individual human is "made by God" despite the intervening role of parents, grandparents, etc. Some Ethereals, at least, could be dreamed up by humans or other corporeals, but count as God's creations because we were *supposed* to dream them up. Any Jungian would certainly agree that lots of myth images are produced in the dreams of individual humans but are not just our own ideas; rather they come from the "collective unconscious," which we did not design any more than we desgined our own livers. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 11:49 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Eli Question >On IN117, the description of Abracadabra is a bit vague. I was wondering >how other people interpreted this. What form is given to the "base >matter"? I have a Malakite of Eli who wants to use this attunement to >make swords, or at least pipes. I'm not sure if this fits within the >intended interpretation. I would say that the matter would be in a relatively disorganized "raw" state. I.e., for steel, you'd get a big lump of steel. If the character has some skill relevant to turning the matter into something more useful, I might let them make a skill roll to do that in conjunction with the attunement. So your Malakite would need some sort of skill in sword-making, if I were allowing this at all. Transubstantiation, on the other hand, clearly allows the result to be something with a complex organization, given the examples. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:20:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kyrio Question At 11:49 PM -0600 3/22/98, Ziggy wrote: >Ok, I know there haen't been many of these, and I'm sorry if this one's >been explained somewhere, but: > >What is the difference between skills and abilities? Kyrios of Jean get >to use their hosts skills, while Kyrios of Zadkiel (AA of Protection from >H&H) get tose their hosts abilities. Is there a difference? Kyrios of Jean don't get to use their host's skills -- they get to possess objects. Kyrios of *Destiny* get skills and memories. It looks like Kyrios of Protection do as well, the better to protect their hosts. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 12:05 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Eli Question >Basically anything that is unshaped by the hand of man is considered >'base matter'. You can make a lump of iron ore, not finished steel. >BTW, since these are Servitor's of Eli here, and it came up in my live >action game: cocaine no, marijuana yes (as for making it with >Abracadabra). The first is processed, the second isn't. As I recall, you can't make organics of any sort with Abracadabra, you need Transubstantiation for that. I'm fairly lenient on what I allow that to do, though if the Creationer is trying to make "finished goods" of some sort, I require a skill roll to correctly visualize the proper result, unless it's simply copying something. I had an Elohite of Eli make a leather jacket that way one time -- but it wasn't a very good fit, nor particularly stylish. (And, of course, he couldn't make zippers, snaps, or anything similar.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 12:01 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim >How can the Seraphim know all of The Truth? >When asked basic questions about the nature of God, how can they respnd? >Is this choir basically a direct link to the GM? I think some of this is addressed in the APG. (I thought it was also in the FAQ, but it isn't.) I believe the general notion is that the person the Seraph is talking to has to have some direct relation to the question at hand. E.g., you can't stop a kid on the street and ask him about God's plans, succeed on a resonance roll with a CD of 6, and get the full scoop. I.e., the GM can limit how much Truth a Seraph gets, based on the relevance of the person to that Truth. Thus, you can get an amazing amount of detail about the person you're questioning, or events he's witnessed, but as the connection attenuates, so does what the resonance can get. Personally, I would probably apply a penalty to the roll based on relevance, but I don't know if that's in the APG. (None of the above may be -- I haven't yet read the APG cover-to-cover.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:27:34 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out WARNING!!! THIS POST MAY CONTAIN MATERIAL OFFENSE TO AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO SUFFER FROM SELF-ESTEEM, CANCER, ANAL RETENTION, AND/OR NO SENSE OF HUMOR. gantr@NKU.EDU writes: >In short, kindly remember that some of us on this list really do believe >in God. If you're going to make wild accusations about Him (or anyone >else someone might care for/about), kindly back them up. Or better yet, >don't troll by making the statement in the first place. > >Thank you, >Rich Gant Dear Rich, Please do not insult those of us who believe that God is a really dumb idea by implying that God really does exist. We all know that it's just a big government conspiracy. Thank you, Perry M. Lloyd PS: Scripture makes for a good read, but I can write stuff about God, too. And if the CHURCH likes it, then it becomes TRUTH and the Word of the Lord. Religion is a political institution and scripture is their leverage. People will believe anything if it presented in the right way. (AND I know the church helps lots of people, does a lot of good works, and is in general perhaps a lesser evil than it's been made out to be, plus people who go to church tend to live longer, happier, illusion-filled lives.) (Note that illusions are NOT a bad thing, they help us get through the day and help us understand the world. "Democrats are the root of all evil." "I have cancer because I didn't take care of my body." "I will recover from this illness." "I can do this!") Second, I propose that the Demons also believe in God. Doesn't mean that they like, love, honor, appreciate, or feel well towards Him, though. So, belief in a deity does not automatically equate reverance for that deity. Personally, I believe that Yahweh exists and may very well be the Uber-God. But, that doesn't mean I think that somehow I know more than anybody else or that anyone else has a better, clearer, faster line to the divine than I, including the people who wrote the King James. And finally, I accuse Elvis of being dead, God of being a big know-it-all, and my mother of raising me to be a free-thinker. (And anyone who says otherwise is stepping outside!) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "The Cursed One is choking on sorbet!" - - said Sumner as Perry(GM) attempted to communicate his inability to breathe. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:29:48 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> IN- Holt Ghost On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Jesse wrote: > We have in the past discussed the nature of Jesus the Son of Man and the > nature of the Father God, but what about the last, and in my mind most > interesting, person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost? Anyone want to take a > stab at an In Nomine interpretation of that? Perhaps it is a Seraph of Eli > with the ear of God, running around and making soldiers of apostles. First we need to decide what the Holy Spirit -is-, and I don't think that's ever been formally determined. From what I've read and seen, the description I have for it is "the will of God made manifest upon the earth." Which, to my mind, describes the purpose of angels quite nicely. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 12:41 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> IN- Holt Ghost >We have in the past discussed the nature of Jesus the Son of Man and the >nature of the Father God, but what about the last, and in my mind most >interesting, person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost? I think canon implies somewhere that the Holy Ghost is somehow related to divine interventions. Which implies that in some sense it may be the Symphony as a whole. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 12:58 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Free Lilim) >Personally, I have always wondered why you get to add your relevant >forces to combat rolls and yet not to skill rolls. If clobbering >somebody corporeally (for example) = Fighting + Str + Corp Forces >then why shouldn't Climbing (for example) = Climbing + Agl + Corp >Forces? > >Is this simply the reward mechanic of a combat-based game? ;) I think it may have been to speed up combat, since it tends to put most combat-oriented celestials into the range where they get auto-success and CD boosts. This seems to be important if they run into an opponent with high body hits. It also allows humans *some* chance of succeeding in combat.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 12:53 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? >I'd suggest the original poster was suggesting there are two types of >rewards - permanent and transitory. [stuff deleted] >In RP terms, permanent rewards represent character growth and "learning >by doing", whereas transitory rewards are gained from plot devices. I don't see the distinction between GM rewards and Superior rewards as being permanent and transitory, respectively -- the Superior can *always* remove something they don't like from a Servitor, no matter how the offender got it. I tend to view the difference as more of "discretionary" and "game-driven", i.e., the discretionary points (the "GM rewards") are favors the PC can ask of his Superior, or things he can acquire himself, while the "game-driven" rewards ("Superior rewards") are those things the PC's Superior feels he (a) needs and (b) has earned. The balance may differ by Superior -- some Superiors may give their Servitors relative carte blanche on rewards, which would result in more points and fewer specific rewards. Other Superiors may tightly control how their Servitors evolve, so that the PC would get few points (representing mostly what the PC can sneak in through experience/self-study/et.c), but a lot of specific rewards from his Superior. As a GM, I'm lazy, so far I've just given out points, and told the players that they could ask for what they wanted and I'd rule on what they could get. That's worked fine so far, since my players are generally pretty good about sticking to what makes sense for the character. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:08:35 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Dameron, the Demon Prince of Slavery >And one day it changed. Vapula and Dameron's grandest plan, the Industrial >Revolution, started as a way to make more people into virtual slaves to >poverty >and danger, but eventually, something went wrong. The work got easier, and >social changes made it less dangerous to work in a factory. People >began . . . living. Not in fear. Without terror. The humans were >unbroken. >And the economies that rode this wave were strong enough that they threw off > >Dameron's shackles. > >Dameron, an Impudite, is a shadow of his former self. Just three hundred >years ago, he held a Word which was powerful worldwide. Now, only tiny >pockets >of influence remain. Thailand. Togo. Scattered sweatshops and houses of >prostituation. Even South Africa has reformed, and Slavery's Demons no >longer call it home. Of course, being a fromerly powerful DP, he up-graded. Now, men and women chain themselves to their jobs in industrialized nations around the world. The shackles are not iron nor steel, but silicon and radio waves. Young people entering the corporate work pyramid take this shackles with pride (I'll show the boss that I've got what it takes), but this fades. (Sorry kids, I can't take you to the zoo, I have to type this report for work.) Dameron has shifted gears. Yeah, I think that he still likes his ops in third world nations, but I think he's moved on. Also, before you start thinking that he's given up on the third world nations, I give you the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These orginazations loan money to poor countries so that they can get their feet back on the ground. When the country in question faults on their interest payment (as is almost always the case), these organizations move in and start relegating where the country may spend money and allocate resources. Often, these allocations are soley for production. Oh yeah, slavery is alive and well, just no longer so blatant. Armand Ofanim with eyes on the fries and the other bad guys ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:11:36 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Chris Crowe wrote: >> No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but >> Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory >> serves correctly. > >It's pretty ambiguous, actually. Here are the references. > [references snipped] > >Within about 4 paragraphs, The Marches manages to say that they are >creations of God and Ethereal spirits at the same time. > >Is there some way we can get a canon ruling on this? Keep the framing story in mind. This is what *Kronos* told Baal happened. I think you are free to declare whatever you want to be the truth and still remain in canon. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:16:57 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> More Purity Crusade Stuff >> << God doesn't destroy angels >> Funny but the selfish bastard kills numbers of humans at a whim and leaves nothing but broken dreams when he feels like it.<< Amen, my brother. Not that i want to start an intense religious discussion on this list (off list is fine), but agree completely with you. >> > No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory serves correctly.< It's pretty ambiguous, actually. Here are the references. _The Marches_, page 4: 'And Uriel said, "Thou hast forgotten that God gave Men dominion over the animals. He made the dragons, verily, they and their ilk, and He made them mortal that they might die when their time was over. They consorted with Evil, and were slain to the las, and thou shouldst rejoice in that cleansing."'<< the key part there is 'He made them mortal'. >> _The Marches_, page 5: 'But Uriel stood proud and held his sword aloft and said, "With this sword I will destroy all things that are not of God, and if thou permittest creations of Man, and Ethereal spirits, and dreams that become real, to live and thrive in thy Marches, I will slay them."'<< this was in response to Blandine telling him off for chasing the creatues of myth into the Marches and killing them there as well as killing the spirits and ethereals once he got there. >>Within about 4 paragraphs, The Marches manages to say that they are creations of God and Ethereal spirits at the same time. Is there some way we can get a canon ruling on this?<< Agreed. Beth? Dave? Someone? Come on guys, we need other input here. Oh, and by the way. I have some of my In Nomine stuff uploaded onto my webpage now. It includes a write-up on the Tsayadim (i'd like some input on them please, particularly from you, Gant, as you're Mr. Uriel around here) and some new songs (doesn't everyone have some of these?). I'm also working on Elementals (Celestial ones, not Ethereal) and I've come across the names of some other Choirs which aren't detailed too much, so i'm just itching to write them up too. it's at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/9870/ (sorry, i have no clue how to send links in my E-mail) Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:17:31 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> More Purity Crusade Stuff >> << God doesn't destroy angels >> Funny but the selfish bastard kills numbers of humans at a whim and leaves nothing but broken dreams when he feels like it.<< Amen, my brother. Not that i want to start an intense religious discussion on this list (off list is fine), but agree completely with you. >> > No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory serves correctly.< It's pretty ambiguous, actually. Here are the references. _The Marches_, page 4: 'And Uriel said, "Thou hast forgotten that God gave Men dominion over the animals. He made the dragons, verily, they and their ilk, and He made them mortal that they might die when their time was over. They consorted with Evil, and were slain to the las, and thou shouldst rejoice in that cleansing."'<< the key part there is 'He made them mortal'. >> _The Marches_, page 5: 'But Uriel stood proud and held his sword aloft and said, "With this sword I will destroy all things that are not of God, and if thou permittest creations of Man, and Ethereal spirits, and dreams that become real, to live and thrive in thy Marches, I will slay them."'<< this was in response to Blandine telling him off for chasing the creatues of myth into the Marches and killing them there as well as killing the spirits and ethereals once he got there. >>Within about 4 paragraphs, The Marches manages to say that they are creations of God and Ethereal spirits at the same time. Is there some way we can get a canon ruling on this?<< Agreed. Beth? Dave? Someone? Come on guys, we need other input here. Oh, and by the way. I have some of my In Nomine stuff uploaded onto my webpage now. It includes a write-up on the Tsayadim (i'd like some input on them please, particularly from you, Gant, as you're Mr. Uriel around here) and some new songs (doesn't everyone have some of these?). I'm also working on Elementals (Celestial ones, not Ethereal) and I've come across the names of some other Choirs which aren't detailed too much, so i'm just itching to write them up too. it's at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/9870/ (sorry, i have no clue how to send links in my E-mail) Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:24:04 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? > As a GM, I'm lazy, so far I've just given out points, and told the > players that they could ask for what they wanted and I'd rule on what > they could get. That's worked fine so far, since my players are > generally pretty good about sticking to what makes sense for the > character. Sounds like what I've done, and yeah, they've been pretty good about it. I had out points... and on our 18th full FTF session, people are starting to get around to picking up Forces. I hand out points in bulk about once every 5-6 sessions. I don't have 'adventures' I have 'the Plot'. So it's arbitary. People pass what they want before me, and 9 times out of 10 I say, 'sure'. I also hand out points for player contributions. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:04:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim At 9:12 PM -0500 3/23/98, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: >The Resonance of the Seraphim is Truth, no? Yes. >How can the Seraphim know all of The Truth? They get a blinding burst and most of it fades instantly. Otherwise their heads would explode. >When asked basic questions about the nature of God, how can they respnd? "WOW. Um. I can't explain it." And if they try, you get Exploding Seraph Bombs. (Unless the GM wishes to feed information through...) >Is this choir basically a direct link to the GM? Sometimes. I generally have the Truth start fuzzing out the closer it gets to a Superior, and there has to be some kind of "link" between the speaker and the Truth known. A statement by J Random Person about J Random Other Person that they don't know anything about -- won't get anything useful except "He doesn't know." A statement about a person that the speaker *knows* something about (or thinks he knows something about) *can* potentially access some degree of the Truth. However, even a Servitor of Kobal cannot make a statement about Kobal with any degree of complexity, and expect a Seraph to get the Truth. (More likely, there will be *backlash*! [this is an game-reference, to someone who was resonated on by two different angels... who each got a 666. OW! The Seraph is Deaf!]) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:31:45 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER, I AM NOT SJ GAMES LEGAL STAFF. IF YOU WANT REAL ANSWERS, GO TO THEIR WEBSITE AND ASK -- THERE ARE CONTACT ADDRESSES THERE. At 12:55 AM -0500 3/24/98, Jesse wrote: >>SJ Games *could* be mean and say *NO IN FICTION AT ALL*, but they >>don't, because that would be mean and kind of silly. They let people >>do up web-pages. But don't *EVEN* try selling it to anyone. I don't >>care if you're the best erotical author in the world and can sell >>something to Circlet Press, if it's IN, it's SJ Games owned, and to >>try to sell it without their permission is illegal. > >Yes but does SJG have a legal monopoly on In Nomine? The SJ Games version, in English? Yes. They do. Croc also has a monopoly on it (there is a legal contract between Croc & SJ Games). This is not contradictory. Do anything with In Nomine that hasn't gotten prior permission, and they will be *obligated* to bring out lawyers and protect their copyright. Lest that copyright be lost! >Does SJG have a right to the names of angels like Cherubim, Seraphim >and to traditional demon names like Furfur and Baal? They have a right to the concepts. If you write a story that has six-eyed Seraphim in it who can detect truth and lies and Fall if they lie, you had best be *very* sure you are using other resources besides the SJ Games book to use those concepts. If you call Baal a Balseraph whose Word is The War, then you had better have some other source besides the SJ Games _In Nomine_ book. If you take from the prime sources, then you're fine. You can write about angels and demons named Baal, Gabriel, Furfur, etc., to your heart's content. Or if you get permission ahead of time. >And how does this >relate to publishing articles in other publications like Dragon? Frankly, I don't know. I suspect that this may be one of the things that the *generally* give blanket permission for. But that's not IN fiction, that's IN gaming resources. That's different. (Furthermore, they do have the matching program, as you noted.) Also furthermore, articles "based on the game" are different than fiction based on the game. There is less chance that someone will think an article is "official" than they might think a story is "official." Yes, they *can*, I do believe, say "This use of our material is 'fair use,' that we believe does not infringe" and also say, "That use would be infringement." If you Really Want To Do Something Fictional With IN Material, ask first. It's polite, and it's probably the only legal way to do it. [ DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER, I AM NOT SJ GAMES LEGAL STAFF. IF YOU WANT REAL ANSWERS, GO TO THEIR WEBSITE AND ASK -- THERE ARE CONTACT ADDRESSES THERE. ] >If I publish an erotica story about angels today >assuming I do not mention things which SJG may have an exclusive right too >such as Orc the angel, but do include things which In Nomine mentions >but are in the public domain, such as I assume Lilith and Seraphim, >would it be a copyright violation? Of course that's not a copyright violation. Lilith exists in other sources. Now, if you call her the Demon Princess of Freedom, you're infringing. If you write about Seraphim (there's actually an interesting book with Seraphim in the title...), then so long as you have a concept of them that's drawn from non-SJ Games references, you are free and clear. It's if you write *In Nomine* fiction, and *sell it for money* *without permission* that you start getting in trouble. >What if I had never posted on the list? If you used concepts that are unique to In Nomine, without permission, you would be infringing on copyright and as soon as they found out, they'd have to send a lawyer after you, lest the copyright be declared legally invalid. >These questions should be answered since they deal with the possibility >of the In Nomine universe expanding and because of SJG's reputation for >going after people, and Ulitima Online clans, which SJG views as >threatening their copyright. Reputation for going after people? I didn't know they had that. Perhaps you mean TSR? White Wolf? SJ Games could do similar stuff, but they generally don't. If you try to publish fiction, though... You'll have to get permission, if it's obviously drawn from SJ Games material. (Which is, BTW, potentially very easy to get. Meander to my homepage, check out PawPrints. I have several stories in there that draw on GURPS books -- and I asked and got permission to use those references.) Basically, the thing about erotica is that it's highly charged in people's minds. I believe that SJ Games has *every* right to know if someone's doing Michael-Dominique porn and trying to sell it somewhere, and I'm pretty sure every right to say, "No. You can write an adventure where this romance is a key aspect, but you can't sell this to a porn magazine." DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER, I AM NOT SJ GAMES LEGAL STAFF. IF YOU WANT REAL ANSWERS, GO TO THEIR WEBSITE AND ASK -- THERE ARE CONTACT ADDRESSES THERE. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:37:54 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out At 10:23 AM -0400 3/24/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >Or better yet, >don't troll by making the statement in the first place. Actually, best yet, don't bother doing *too* much discussion of RL God (if any exists, since there are probably some on the list who *don't* so believe). If it's not pertaining to IN, then it's not appropriate. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:52:07 -0600 (CST) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: Re: IN> IN Slang, Take Two > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia, > scrived: > > BALSERAPH HAIR: Term for a, well, Bal's hair, which is always good. > > Trust me. "Your hair is so good it could be Balseraph Hair!" > > > My hair is desperate, as is my attire, and I am most definitely a > Balseraph. I don't believe you. ;^) Regards, Martinl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:02:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> IN- Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost, like Christ, is a Christian-specific concept, and so not likely to get any coverage in canon. For what it's worth, though, here are some snippets about the Holy Spirit: According to Christian theology, the Holy Spirit dwells in every baptized Christian, in some mode. On the one hand, this has to be distinguished from the general divine property of omnipresence. On the other, it obviously doesn't constitute divine possession or inspiration. The Hebrew word for "spirit" is feminine in grammatical gender. The Greek word is neuter. There is thus a certain amount of pressure in the less traditional sections of Christendom to refer to the Spirit as "She." There is a major split in theology between Orthodox Christianity on the one hand and Western (Catholic and Protestant) Christianity on the other, concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit. According to the West, the Spirit arises from the joint activity of the Father and the Son. According to the East, the Son and the Spirit are both produced by the Father alone. How this could possibly relate to gaming is one heck of an exercise for the reader. In one Christian heresy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the successive modes of God. God was the Father through the times of the Old Testament, was the Son from Jesus's conception through his Ascension and the first Pentecost of the Church, and since Pentecost has been the Holy Spirit. A fainter, more orthodox version of this heresy divides history into an age of the Father, an age of the Son (from the birth of Christ through the present), and an age of the Spirit (usually beginning right now, with whatever additional revelation the heresiarch in question wants to put forward). Christ said that sinning against the Father or the Son was forgivable, but not sinning against the Spirit. This has led to a lot of (anxious) wondering of what the sin against the Holy Spirit is. Answers vary. The most reasonable one I've heard is that it is deliberately destroying your own conscience. In some heretical branches of Christianity, the Spirit is not one of the three persons of the Trinity, but is instead simply the active energy of God in the world. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:58:22 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? gant writes: >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Chris Crowe wrote: > >> No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but >> Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory >> serves correctly. > >It's pretty ambiguous, actually. Here are the references. > >_The Marches_, page 4: 'And Uriel said, "Thou hast forgotten that God >gave Men dominion over the animals. He made the dragons, verily, they and >their ilk, and He made them mortal that they might die when their time was >over. They consorted with Evil, and were slain to the las, and thou >shouldst rejoice in that cleansing."' > >_The Marches_, page 5: 'But Uriel stood proud and held his sword aloft >and said, "With this sword I will destroy all things that are not of God, >and if thou permittest creations of Man, and Ethereal spirits, and dreams >that become real, to live and thrive in thy Marches, I will slay them."' > >Within about 4 paragraphs, The Marches manages to say that they are >creations of God and Ethereal spirits at the same time. > No it doesn't! The first paragraph specifically states that God *did* make the dragons and their ilk. The second paragraph states that Uriel vows to destroy things not *of* God, such as creations of Man, ethereal spirits, and living dreams. How does this contradict the first statement??? - -- Jules ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:17:50 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> An apology for Uriel >But, there has been no real explanation of why uriel was taken or what is >hapening to him (or her, whatever; I just seem to visualize him as Rutger >Hauer for some reason). In what? "The Hitcher" ? };> - -- Jules ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:50:46 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN Slang, Take Two On Tue, Mar 24, 1998 at 12:52:07PM -0600, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > > > BALSERAPH HAIR: Term for a, well, Bal's hair, which is always good. > > > Trust me. "Your hair is so good it could be Balseraph Hair!" > > > > > My hair is desperate, as is my attire, and I am most definitely a > > Balseraph. > > I don't believe you. ;^) > Which part don't you believe? That I have desperate hair, desperate attire, or that I am a Balseraph? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "He was wont moreover to complain openly of the condition of the times wherein he lived, as not being renowned by any public calamities...And, at times, he wished for some terrible carnage of his armies, a famine, a pestilence, conflagrations, or an earthquake." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:57:15 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Uriel v. Anti-Puritans: round 1 scores. On Sat 21 Mar David Edelstein wrote: >>These were living, corporeal creations of God (and it pissed Jordi off a >great deal when Uriel slew them). I believe in the intro to the Marches he >(Uriel) gave his reason for destroying them, but i don't remember it now. >< > > >Basically, Uriel claimed that they were _not_ creations of God, but the >result of celestials and ethereals meddling with natural creatures to >create magical beasts. Jordi may in fact have been one of the culprits. > >- -David > Huh? Not according to *my* copy of The Marches. Page 4... Uriel acknowledges that they were the creations of God yet destroyed them because they had consorted with Evil. - -- Jules - Demon of Canon Balls ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:05:53 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> NC: Acid >Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:42:55 +0000 >From: Kevin Walsh >Subject: Re: IN> NC: Acid \ >Essentially, I rationalised it thus. Your level with the Song indicates >the Power and how good you are at directing it. It makes sense that as you >practice with the Song your aim would improve at the same time. It >combines the attributes of a Song and a Skill. And I don't particularly >like the idea of boosting range because it makes guns less useful. >Our fixes are actually pretty similar. What I don't understand is what NC: >Horns is for. > >I don't agree with the division of NC into demonic and angelic types >myself. I dislike overeasy identification of Celestials, and I think it's >also a sign of speciesist prejudice. Does anyone here really think Jordi's >Servitors have a problem with Acid and Claws? Or Fangs, for that matter... I'm leaning towards Demonic and Angelic types myself, but they don't change with sides. If you learn Feet from a Demon, you'll still be toting cloven hooves when you're an Angel. Which makes it very hard to explain to the mundanes. "Yes, I know I had horns and was spitting acid all over that guy. I'm still an Angel, though. Trust me." There are "Angelic" and various "Ethereal" versions floating around, but it's just that the "Demonic" versions (which showed up first) are much more popular with everybody, Angels, Demons, and Ethereals alike. Wings may or may not be the sole exception, I haven't decided yet. I just get a kick out of imagining people fluttering over downtown Seattle on butterfly wings... As for my choices forthe "Angelic" versions... Acid => Eyes: Short-range beams of holy light pouring from your sockets. Claws => Fists: White-hot energy nimbuses surrounding the hands. Fangs: Don't have one yet. Feet: => Talons. Rather than cloven hooves, you grow eagle-like talons, complete with legs bending backwards at the knee, and feathers from the knee down.. Looks really, really odd when you're running with this song active. Horns: => Halo. Think circular saw blade above your head. Tail: Don't have one for this song either. Tongue => Word. Rather than smacking people around with your tongye, you speak a rather forcefuul (and loud) Word that is so holy-yet-terrible that it has the potential of doing Mind Damage. Wings: Doesn't really need one, does it? ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #693 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.