From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 29 23:10:46 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 XAA32626 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:10:46 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id XAA14494 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:02:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:02:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199804300402.XAA14494@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 #737 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 Wednesday, April 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 737 In this digest: Re: IN> IN Mapboard Combat Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) IN> how many Words have Angels Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Re: IN> Origins '98 IN> Abortion IN> Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat IN> Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat IN> Re:abortion Re: IN> Double Agents Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> how many Words have Angels Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> Abortion in IN Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> A possibly stupid question... IN> Angels and Dicey Words IN> Where angels should feat to thread..... Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Re: IN> The Fall, Dinosaurs, and Eden Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> how many Words have Angels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:32:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> IN Mapboard Combat David - if the latte passes muster, let me know - geas shmeas, this is coffee we're discussing here!!! Enosh Malakim of Creation in Service to Wind On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>(David Edelstein - Sorry, you owe a favour or two to some of my Lilim. > That will teach you to have a Latte at Washington DC airport :-)<<< > > > Well, was it a _good_ Latte at least? > > -David (who hasn't actually been to Dulles, but I probably would take a > Geas if I could find really GOOD coffee in Korea...) > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:39:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Matt 'Badger' Rossi III" Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control > > On 30 Apr, Julian Breen wrote: > > Don't wish to sound like I'm raving, but I sincerely feel that there > > have to be some areas in the game strongly seen *as* Black and White. > > Otherwise, Heaven isn't really Heaven anymore. Admittance becomes > > desirable over that to Hell simply because you don't get tortured when > > you go there. > > I'm not going to start on this one. Really I'm not. I will merely > observe that since both sides of this argument can (and do regularly) put > forward examples where their position is not just appropriate but Right, > abortion cannot possibly be a clear cut moral matter. You need to qualify > it much harder than that in order get your Black and White distinction. Besides, as a friend of mine stole from the Simpsons, I aint touching that with a thirty foot clown pole. > Badger ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:41:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) Julian - although I enjoyed reading your arguements, do you really think its an appropriate post on this list? How about "I think abortion is wrong, period" or something equally succint? No offense to your views, but I don't think the post was appropriate. Enosh Malakite of Creation In service to Vale...ummm...Wind On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > David Edelstein writes: > > >>>>It was a response to my "Demon of the Second Amendment". As requested. > >Either that or the biggest coincidence I've encountered for a while.<<< > > > > > >The former. My "rebuttal" wasn't so much because I disagreed with your > >politics (though I do ), but because I disagreed with the way you framed > >them in In Nomine terms. Very few things are so black and white, either in > >the real world or in the In Nomine world, that you can state as a fact that > >one position or another is the Heavenly or Infernal one. Thus, I found > >labeling the 2nd Amendment as a diabolical contrivance to engineer > >bloodshed to be simplistic. > > > >I could do the same with any topic -- even, say abortion. I can easily > >imagine both demons and angels who are on the pro-life and the pro-choice > >side. > > > >- -David > > > I cannot agree. Not *any* topic. For my tastes, that's liberalising > Heaven a little too much. In the example of abortion, any angel > advocating the pro-choice approach should be well on his way to Falling, > IMHO. Although IN is played in various shades, there are some things > that are seen by Heaven as simply being 'wrong', and abortion has to be > one of them. Its murder after all. The ability of one human to knowingly > and willingly extinguish the life of another, and, even more, a complete > innocent at that (unless you believe in Original Sin). > I can't think of any Superior either that would condone the pro-choice > approach in his servitors. Any angel going around openly supporting it > would (IMC) attract the immediate attention of Judgement, Armisael (The > Angel of the Womb), Christopher (and his Malakim), and quite possibly; > Eli. And Maybe more. And none of them would be in Good Moods. > > > Don't wish to sound like I'm raving, but I sincerely feel that there > have to be some areas in the game strongly seen *as* Black and White. > Otherwise, Heaven isn't really Heaven anymore. Admittance becomes > desirable over that to Hell simply because you don't get tortured when > you go there. > > > (Incidentally; Abortion, for those unaware. was originally attributed to > Kasdeja, or Kasdaye, originally a Watcher, who quite possibly has now > thrown his lot in with Hell (Saminga - in service to Kronos?). > > > -- > Julian > jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> how many Words have Angels > I really and fully see an Angel of Abortion. ... I'm not going to discuss abortion. The tangential issue this raises, though, is the "filling factor" for angels and words. Specifically, what fraction of Words have Angels assigned to them? Or, perhaps to avoid discussions over whether there is an "Angel of The", what fraction of words for which the host might conceivably be willing to see an Angel bound to that word as useful actually do have Angels assigned to them? I suspect that it's one of those things that will simply vary from campaign to campaign, left up to each GM, rather than part of canon. It greatly affects the game world in a couple of ways. For one, if there are angels Word-bound to most worthy words, then any angels moving about Earth would have a hard time going far without stepping on _someone's_ toes. For two, angels who aspired to be word bound would be like physics post-docs of today aspiring to a tenure track position: all the good Words might be taken. You'd have to be pretty creative to come up with a good inane word that nobody thought of before, but which you could convince the Seraphim Council is one that needs to be bound to an angel. My personal take is that most of the basic, significant words probably do have angels, and are frequnently represented by archangels. OTOH, it's very spotty which other words have angels bound to them. While there is an Angel of Catchy Tunes, probably only a small fraction of concepts of equal importance or lack thereof actually have an angel bound to them. This would mean that the field is probably still pretty wide open for angels seeking a word of their own. Thoughts? - -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: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:51:13 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) >> C) Can you teleport something into someone? > >IANANR, but no, I don't believe you can. That's WAY too deadly. Is it? What if the teleported object intergrated itself into the person's body? Say if the television set in the Balseraph didn't affect the vessal much but may be still operational. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:59:34 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Origins '98 > Is anyone planning on coming to Gen-Con? Gee, I don't know, when is it and how much does it cost for tix and rooms? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:13:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Abortion Of course there are topics on which all angels agree. Every single angel in Heaven agrees that a father raping his five-year-old daughter is wrong. As for abortion -- Yves undoubtedly knows when the soul enters the body, and presumably has told the angels this. Whether this moment is fertilization, implantation, quickening, some other psychological step, viability, or birth is something that will have to be determined by the GM. (Personally, I recommend myelination if you're a scientific sort, quickening if you're a mystical sort.) If the fetus gains a soul at some time other than birth, I imagine that the _In Nomine_ heavenly hosts have some disagreement about exactly how much risk the mother must be in before she can justify killing her baby to save herself. (It is self-defense, if at the hands of an unknowing agent. If it's generally unacceptable to protect yourself at the expense of an unknowing agent, then it wouldn't be acceptable to kill a human possessed by a demon.) If the fetus gains a soul at some time other than conception, I imagine there is disagreement in Heaven about the general morality of abortion before then -- how important it is to bring a potential soul into being. I also imagine that the _In Nomine_ angels are bright enough to realize that the humans on Earth don't have the advantage of indisputable evidence about when the fetus gains a soul. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:18:55 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat >I think non-mapboard is better because of the Fog of War. Most of the time >you don't have the luxury of picking optimum range and so forth, though >mapboards are obviously appropriate when you have time to plan, or are in >a Mexican standoff. I find for any significant combat (more than three or four participants), a mapboard is essential for combat to be exciting or colorful at all. There's no chance for players to role-play tactics or skill in off-map combat. >Damage is simultaneous in standard IN, as is movement. The only exception >is the Ofanim of War attunement. Simultaneous damage I can understand, but how do you work simultaneous movement?? Each character moves a hex at a time? Slow! >> Another thing I noticed: being stunned is BAD. >> >Isn't that cool? (I've suffered from it on more than a few occasions. It's >worse when you're the only effective Corporeal Combat character in the >group and you're against two Malakim of War.) Yeah >:-D SurturZ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:20:45 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat >>>>(David Edelstein - Sorry, you owe a favour or two to some of my Lilim. >That will teach you to have a Latte at Washington DC airport :-)<<< > > >Well, was it a _good_ Latte at least? "Divine" :-) >-David (who hasn't actually been to Dulles, but I probably would take a >Geas if I could find really GOOD coffee in Korea...) > Ah. Washington DC Airport is called Dulles Airport. I'll have to remember that. The other David ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:25:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: IN> Re:abortion Elizabeth - I agree on most points,but as a player and a GM I would be wary of Yves telling everyone when the actual "life occurs." I am sure he knows, if anyone does. But I don't want to tell my players, or have my GM telling me, that "this is when life begins." If it works in your games,I think that you are well off. Enosh Malakim of Destiny in service to Wind On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > > Of course there are topics on which all angels agree. Every single angel > in Heaven agrees that a father raping his five-year-old daughter is wrong. > > As for abortion -- Yves undoubtedly knows when the soul enters the body, > and presumably has told the angels this. Whether this moment is > fertilization, implantation, quickening, some other psychological step, > viability, or birth is something that will have to be determined by the > GM. (Personally, I recommend myelination if you're a scientific sort, > quickening if you're a mystical sort.) > > If the fetus gains a soul at some time other than birth, I imagine that > the _In Nomine_ heavenly hosts have some disagreement about exactly how > much risk the mother must be in before she can justify killing her baby to > save herself. (It is self-defense, if at the hands of an unknowing agent. > If it's generally unacceptable to protect yourself at the expense of > an unknowing agent, then it wouldn't be acceptable to kill a human > possessed by a demon.) > > If the fetus gains a soul at some time other than conception, I imagine > there is disagreement in Heaven about the general morality of abortion > before then -- how important it is to bring a potential soul into being. > > I also imagine that the _In Nomine_ angels are bright enough to realize > that the humans on Earth don't have the advantage of indisputable evidence > about when the fetus gains a soul. > > Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Double Agents - ---Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I thought Gabriel noticed that the Essence used in summoning her was > generated by a non-Fire Rite. Of course, Gabriel always seemed to embody intuition and random insight; she might not have been able to tell that about the essence...she might have just KNOWN it. She's weird like that...brilliant and crazy. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:31:54 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control In a message dated 4/29/98 4:17:42 PM, you wrote: >>>>It hardly seems logical to me that any angel would support the existance > >of guns. Of course I am a pacifist, a condition viewed almost like > >mental illness here in America.<<< > > > > > >And by Malakim. ;) > > > >-David Unless, of course, you're AA David, or one of his Malakim. Then it's no guns. Note that a tetsubo is fine, just no ranged weapons. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > I cannot agree. Not *any* topic. For my tastes, that's liberalising > Heaven a little too much. In the example of abortion, any angel > advocating the pro-choice approach should be well on his way to Falling, I am NOT going to let a debate get started about this; if anyone wants to know what my views are on abortion, simply email me and I'll be glad to answer, discuss, perhaps debate (but not argue) them until the cows come home. And don't assume anything about me from what you read below; this is what I think *from an In Nomine perspective*, not necessarily MY views. I would just like to say that that is just IYHO, but not all of us feel the same way. I personally agree that an angel who supports abortion as birth control or stricty for convenience is very hard to justify, since both of those things are a loss of (potential or actual)* life for purely selfish reasons. But that doesn't mean there can't be angels who support abortion, when used properly, and try to educate the public so that it can be yet another normal medical procedure, done for the right reasons; such an angel would work against the casual, "I can just abort" attitude that is prevalent among some people, and try to stop all the kneejerk reactions that the topic brings up (so far I haven't seen any flamebait from this, but you know it just takes ONE mail to get it started...people seem to be so FANATICAL about this issue). *Depending on your views/beliefs, and I ain't goin' there, either. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:45:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> how many Words have Angels On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Robert Knop wrote: > The tangential issue this raises, though, is the "filling factor" for > angels and words. Specifically, what fraction of Words have Angels > assigned to them? Or, perhaps to avoid discussions over whether there > is an "Angel of The", what fraction of words for which the host might > conceivably be willing to see an Angel bound to that word as useful > actually do have Angels assigned to them? It's tempting to just assume that any reasonably interesting or well known concept has a celestial for it...but that's something I'm trying to stop myself from doing. After all, even important Biblical words, like Sloth, don't have anyone to represent them right now. Sure, Sloth DID, but now Meserach (? - don't have my books with me) is dead and gone. No more Demon of Sloth. When the player of a Shedite of Kobal mentions that he might aspire to be the Demon of Slapstick, for example, my first thought is, "Nah, there's already one." But is there? Not necessarily...either one was never assigned, or the old holder died, or said demon exists. You've got to carefully think about which of the three options is most likely, and go from there. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:45:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Jesse wrote: > >> C) Can you teleport something into someone? > > > >IANANR, but no, I don't believe you can. That's WAY too deadly. > > Is it? What if the teleported object intergrated itself into the person's > body? Say if the television set in the Balseraph didn't affect the vessal > much but may be still operational. Celestial Song of Motion. Hand Grenade. One-round win against ANYONE, barring most Superiors. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:58:20 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Demon of Gun Control >>>I cannot agree. Not *any* topic. For my tastes, that's liberalising Heaven a little too much. In the example of abortion, any angel advocating the pro-choice approach should be well on his way to Falling, IMHO. Although IN is played in various shades, there are some things that are seen by Heaven as simply being 'wrong', and abortion has to be one of them. Its murder after all. The ability of one human to knowingly and willingly extinguish the life of another, and, even more, a complete innocent at that (unless you believe in Original Sin).<<< That's all very interesting....and your subjective opinion. You're basically quoting the pro-life position and then stating for a fact that it must be correct (or seen by Heaven as being correct). The Angels and Demons of Abortion will be appearing shortly.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:06:13 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Abortion in IN >From: Julian Breen >David Edelstein writes: >> >>I could do the same with any topic -- even, say abortion. I can easily >>imagine both demons and angels who are on the pro-life and the pro-choice >>side. >> >I cannot agree. Not *any* topic. For my tastes, that's liberalising >Heaven a little too much. In the example of abortion, any angel >advocating the pro-choice approach should be well on his way to Falling, >IMHO. Although IN is played in various shades, there are some things >that are seen by Heaven as simply being 'wrong', and abortion has to be >one of them. Its murder after all. The ability of one human to knowingly >and willingly extinguish the life of another, and, even more, a complete >innocent at that (unless you believe in Original Sin). Does the soul attach to the body at the moment of conception in your game? This is something the Catholic Church, f'ex, has changed its position on -- at one time it was that a fetus became a person at quickening (when the mother could first start feeling the baby move) and later it was decided that they could be wrong and so it was moved back to conception to eliminate the possibility of error. An angel (or a demon) could simply *look* and tell if an abortion is a murder or not, by checking to see if there is a soul attached to the fetus. In my own game, a soul does not join to the body until several months after conception, though honestly it's a detail I never expect to come up in play. This does raise the question as to how intention and action are weighed against each other, but it's a more general issue raised by many other issues as well. >Don't wish to sound like I'm raving, but I sincerely feel that there >have to be some areas in the game strongly seen *as* Black and White. >Otherwise, Heaven isn't really Heaven anymore. Admittance becomes >desirable over that to Hell simply because you don't get tortured when >you go there. I agree with this point, but abortion isn't really a Big Question for an In Nomine game, simply because the PCs can trivially resolve the major ethical issue by checking to see if there is a soul present or not. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > The Angels and Demons of Abortion will be appearing shortly.... Lemme posit...an Elohite of Destiny and an Impudite of Saminga? Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:04:30 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control >That's all very interesting....and your subjective opinion. You're >basically quoting the pro-life position and then stating for a fact that it >must be correct (or seen by Heaven as being correct). > >The Angels and Demons of Abortion will be appearing shortly.... I don't want to see any angels or demons at all, esp. in canon. Such a topic is way too hot a topic for something like In Nomine to deal with. If you do want to talk about political hot topics please move it to a different forum. I really, really don't want to see any such issues tear apart the relative decorum we have on this list. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:18:07 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> A possibly stupid question... On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Human is human. You can't even toast a Saint without disturbance. > This is why they're obnoxious. Could we have a reference on that? I got from Night Music that they don't cause disturbance by their actions, but as far as I knew, Saints live in 'growable' vessels, which a celestial can therefore blow up with impunity. Right near the start it says that for game purposes a Saint is a celestial being, so if it doesn't state that a disturbance *is* caused by killing them, surely it isn't? And I thought they were obnoxious almost entirely due to being so smug. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:19:44 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: IN> Angels and Dicey Words >Jesse replied: > >>>Who said there wasn't an Angel as well? The demon used the Amendment to >>>provoke masses of bloodshed, the angel uses it to keep government aggression >>>in check. >> >>It hardly seems logical to me that any angel would support the existance >>of guns. > >Interesting. So how do you view Words such as Swords, and War? > > It's made quite clear in Laurence's description that his Word as Archangel was the Sword, in this case symbolising the weapon that he is charged in forging the Host (and certain mortals) to become in combating Lucifer's forces. Michael on the other hand walks a fine line. Unlike Baal whose Word is specifically, The War, Micheal's is more encompassing. And there lies his danger. If Micheal promotes his Word in areas that don't serve the relatively narrow bounds of defeating the Rebellion, he serves Lucifer's cause, not Heaven's. This would be the justification for his trial by Domminic, in which he was not acquitted on his own merits but by fiat from the Upper Front Office. And there are some words which are real landmines for Angels to serve. Teenage Death is an example which comes to mind. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | 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 | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:09:33 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: IN> Where angels should feat to thread..... At 09:39 PM -0400 04/29/1998, Pee Kitty wrote: >but you know it just takes ONE mail to get it started...people seem to be >so FANATICAL about this issue). > If there's ever been a game with such potential minefields, few are as laden as this one. Then again, I also remember Underground, the only RPG which actually advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. (in an offhand, futuristic dystopic scenario) The only way that the sanity of this list will EVER be maintained is to acknowledge that many of us have passionate beliefs about certain ethical and moral issues, (I"m an exception, I'm fairly amoral, but strongly ethical) and that we all converge from wide divergence.) Lets remember these key things. InNominee, is NOT, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, any of the others. It's a fictional work which borrows widely and invents even more. Anyone who plays this game or corresponds on this list should be prepared to hear something that might set them off. I would only ask that we get into the habit of mentally counting to ten when it comes to discussing game context that overlaps with socialy-divisive real-world issues. And I would strongly suggest that anyone who submits material in those veins be sensitive to the eggshells they walk upon. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | 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 | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:19:59 -0400 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control > one of them. Its murder after all. The ability of one human to > knowingly and willingly extinguish the life of another, and, even > more, a I have to disagree. Night Music, pg 80. Druiel. The angel of 'TEENAGE DEATH'. A seraph, admittingly on the verge of falling. He kills teenagers, trying to do a greater good. His superior, CHRISTOPHER-- the archangel of children --knows what he does, and hasnt outcast him yet. There is undoubtably a angel of abortion (or what-ever word you perfer). - -- (lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz Brandon Lance Quina (- -) ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo--- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:24:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) > > Is it? What if the teleported object intergrated itself into the person's > > body? Say if the television set in the Balseraph didn't affect the vessal > > much but may be still operational. > > Celestial Song of Motion. Hand Grenade. One-round win against ANYONE, > barring most Superiors. > It was a stereo, actually. The player wants to go back and find out if it still plays CDs after being in the Balseraph's body. Being that the Bal served Dark Humor, I let him keel over and die. Although what I might rule is that this has sporadic results. This time it worked, because it was the Bal's nature to die funny. The next time they try to, say, teleport a metal plate through the neck of a servant of the game, he might just get pissed. I dunno. Depends on how whimsical I'm feeling at any one time. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:32:49 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> The Fall, Dinosaurs, and Eden >>> B: It is actually guarded by cherubim with a flamming sword, seems Heaven >>> had a shortage of weapons. >> >>If there's a joke being made here, I don't get it. > >Nope. The Bible says that there were stationed mutiple Cherubim, but only >refeers to one flaming sword. > Ars Magica from the days of White Wolf had a multi-part Saga that culminated in a battle at the hidden Garden of Eden. In that secnario, there were the angels and the flaming Sword which took care of it's end of the business without the neccessity of a wielder. (kind of like a large two-handed dancing sword) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | 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 | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:40:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Jesse wrote: > >The Angels and Demons of Abortion will be appearing shortly.... > > I don't want to see any angels or demons at all, esp. in canon. Such > a topic is way too hot a topic for something like In Nomine to deal with. > If you do want to talk about political hot topics please move it to a > different forum. I really, really don't want to see any such issues tear > apart the relative decorum we have on this list. In canon, I agree. Out of canon, I don't see why. I mean, I see what you mean, but don't agree. We're all mature enough to play this game, so I think we can deal with someone's ideas on a couple of Worded celestials without freaking out. It's VERY IN-relevant, and might help inspire someone in a game...his ANgel of Abortion may inspire a character, or an adventure for me. That makes it worth posting to the list, especially since it's only TWO posts and anyone who's offended can just skip the two clearly labeled emails. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:45:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Frank Lazar wrote: > Michael on the other hand walks a fine line. Unlike Baal whose Word is > specifically, The War, Micheal's is more encompassing. And there lies his > danger. If Micheal promotes his Word in areas that don't serve the > relatively narrow bounds of defeating the Rebellion, he serves Lucifer's > cause, not Heaven's. This would be the justification for his trial by > Domminic, in which he was not acquitted on his own merits but by fiat from > the Upper Front Office. I couldn't disagree more. You're saying that if Michael supports a war that isn't celestially related, that he's serving Lucifer. IMHO, there are many times when war is definitely for good...when one country is oppressing another, ruining the lives of the citizens...or even when one class of a country is oppressing another. When words fail, and peace fails, what do you do? You either accept it and let them grind you down, or you fight back. Michael is an angel, and no doubt favors the good guy in such a conflict, and tries to keep all sides playing fair, to prevent each war from becoming more bloody and needlesly deadly or one-sided than it need be. For more similar lines of thinking, read Wielding a Red Sword, by Piers Anthony. The devil has a very nice speech along the same lines here. (Yes, I just paraphrased the devil, but he was using reverse psychology anyways; read the book. :) Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:46:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Brandon Quina wrote: NIGHT MUSIC SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > one of them. Its murder after all. The ability of one human to > > knowingly and willingly extinguish the life of another, and, even > > more, a > > > I have to disagree. Night Music, pg 80. Druiel. The angel of > 'TEENAGE DEATH'. A seraph, admittingly on the verge of falling. > He kills teenagers, trying to do a greater good. His superior, > CHRISTOPHER-- the archangel of children --knows what he does, > and hasnt outcast him yet. Psst...you should throw a spoiler notice up there just in case a GM is using Austin in a game and doesn't want her players knowing any of the celestials there yet. Anyways, Christopher does NOT knwo what Drew is doing...it says so clearly. It says that if any archangel found out what he was up to he would get "walloped" by said archangel. Chris just hasn't talked to him in a long while. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:46:06 -0400 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> how many Words have Angels > It's tempting to just assume that any reasonably interesting or well > known concept has a celestial for it...but that's something I'm > trying to stop myself from doing. After all, even important Biblical > words, like Sloth, don't have anyone to represent them right now. My general view is that, at one point, every word you can imagine did have a word. However, afew factors limit the availability of words.. 1) There are only a finate number of angels at any one time. Not counting relievers and other minor celestial spirits-- there arnt enough celestials in existance for them to have every word in existance-- expecially since not all celestials *have* their own words. 2) A good many words just arnt assigned by heaven. There arnt any angels of lint, or angels of tweasers. I can imagine their being demons of 'useless' words, as its a way that lucifer punishes demons who step out of bounds. Still, thats hardly a good thing. I doubt the demon of asskissers would get much respect in hell, afterall. 3) Its *hard* to get a word. The more important the word is, the harder it is to get. I have yet to have a player actually earn a word, though all of them have tried to earn them at various points. Currently, I have a prospective Angels of Freedom and Recovering Addicts. Heaven is more true to this, but in hell its hard to get a USEFUL word-- you might really want to become the demon of lawyers, but if you ask too soon you might end up the demon of lint. Add this to the fact that there is lots of compition, and its not easy at all. 4) Its hard to *keep* a word. In heaven, you have just made yourself a target. Demons will try to target your word, and even perhaps target you directly. In hell, its even worse. Not only do you have to worry about the forces of heaven-- but your own side is out to get you. Other people will try to take you down, so that they can take your word. I doubt the Demon Princes are worried about a servitor taking over their word for no reason, afterall. Just look at Haagenti, im sure he's not the ONLY story of that kind. I could go on, but I believe ive made my point.. > Sure, Sloth DID, but now Meserach (? - don't have my books with me) > is dead and gone. No more Demon of Sloth. I wonder how one would try to become the Demon of Sloth. I mean, if you tried to actually DO ANYTHING to 'earn' the word, you wouldnt really be worthy of it. Assigning the word would pretty much have to be entirly on lucifers initiative. > When the player of a Shedite of Kobal mentions that he might aspire to > be the Demon of Slapstick, for example, my first thought is, "Nah, > there's already one." But is there? Not necessarily...either one was > never assigned, or the old holder died, or said demon exists. You've > got to carefully think about which of the three options is most > likely, and go from there. Even if said demon does exist, thats no reason not to fancy yourself as one day being the Demon of Slapstick. Just find a funny slapstick-esq way to dispose of the current word-bound demon, and hope for the best. - -- (lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz Brandon Lance Quina (- -) ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo--- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #737 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.