From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Apr 30 17:08:36 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 RAA04370 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:08:36 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id RAA02267 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:11:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:11:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199804302211.RAA02267@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 #740 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 Thursday, April 30 1998 Volume 01 : Number 740 In this digest: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... IN> Casting IN Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> Casting IN Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> num.corp. question IN> Appropos of nothing... Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words IN> Wording 101 (long) Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> Casting IN Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Abortion in IN Re: IN> how many Words have Angels IN> Identifying ensouled beings Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Casting IN Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) Re: IN> Appropos of nothing... Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Re: IN> Abortion Angels Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings IN> Re: IN: Impregnation by demons - The Kingdom spoilers! Re: IN> num.corp. question Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Re: IN> A possibly stupid question... Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:59:33 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > As an example, I could cite suicide ... There is to date no Angelic > Patron ... Should there be, or is suicide something that Heaven, en > masse, sees as being 'wrong'? The rightness or otherwise of suicide is *very* much a cultural thing. Even within a strongly Christian culture, no-one saw Romeo and Juliet when Shakespeare first wrote it, and thought 'That sucks! They're both going straight to Hell!'. I try to have room in Heaven for as many viewpoints as possible, because a) That's what the books say b) I don't want to work out the 'party line' on every little thing. c) It's more fun d) It leaves moral ambiguity for individual angels. > the Law of Heaven, and likely to bring you to the attention of The > Inquisition, if you were actively voicing your opinions. Dominic has his point of view, but your Superior can go a long way towards protecting you, through pressure politics if nothing else. I tend to hit Seraphim who resonate 'That's the Wong Thing to Do. God wouldn't like it.' Dominic included. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:03:57 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Matt 'Badger' Rossi III wrote: > Do you all use In Nomine to explore the nature of fredom, salvation and > damnation, or individual responsibility? I do. I also have a Demon of Big F***ing Guns. I don't see a contradiction. Serious world with laughable people in it, and witty people in it to take advantage. Bit like real life, really. > trenchcoat and a fedora who is known as the Blatant Stranger Cool! > Am I the only one who enjoys it when th servitors of Kobal show up? Depends. If they are played like a cross between Tom and Jerry and Friday the 13th, then I hate them. If they are cruelly ironic without having to set up the cruelty themselves, I enjoy it. Steve. Impudite of Kobal Not Being a Brainless Thug. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:38:00 -0500 From: "Bretz, Theron" Subject: IN> Casting IN <<> Vapula: Whoever it was who played Dr. Strangelove The late, great Peter Sellers.>> Hmmm, actually, Peter Sellers could play ALL the characters (ref. The Mouse That Roared, Dr Strangelove, the Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu, all of which starred him in multiple roles). Except Lilith, of course. theron houston ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:50:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Matt 'Badger' Rossi III wrote: > It just occurred to me, as I was reading through the discussion on > the nature o Words and Abortion that y'all breathe some > rareified air around here. It made me wonder what your games > are like: Do you all use In Nomine to explore the nature of fredom, > salvation and damnation, or individual responsibility? > Rumor has it, on the bottom of some of my game logs, I have written, "This Session was brought to you by the Kobalite Organization for a Better Gaming Experience." I am, in fact, a card carrying member. 'I'm not only the president, I'm a client!' When the hilarity is out of hand, the Kobalites have infested the game. It happens, although I do have a can of Kobaloff. *spritz* Two things: 1. My game is basically an Armageddon scenario. Let's face it, I get a big kick out of trashing the universe. Theoretically, this is very serious business. But, I also know that players keep coming back if the game is FUN. This being important, I let all sorts of wackiness slide, everything from crazed spontanious speeches about the Plight of the Black Man, brought on by an overdose of Valentine's Day Candy, to the origination of the HUG JUSTICE t-shirts (something I credit Susan for, even if it has cropped up in other games) to the Use and Subsequent Misuse of Prank, to endless conversations about Teraphim's Really Good Hair. Yeah, it's serious, but it's a game, and we're here to have a good time. As Dylan said in the last session, "Let's not go to hell, it is a silly place." 2. I suspect that how we talk and how we GM are two different things entirely. I'll eventually get off my butt and post some more of my black gaming add-ons, because I like black, and nasty, and depressing. I like the universe to be a nasty place. But there comes to be a time when enough is enough. I have no idea what my game actually explores, really. When issues come up, they're talked about. We're big on Freedom, Predestination, Death, War, Sinning, Redemption, and Pain. But we're also big on giant Pez dispensers, the Amazing Ketchup Bottle, Magic Hash, and The Greatest Hits of Olivia Newton-John. It's all a matter of balance. - - Em, Happy Fun Balseraph! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:53:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Gun Control Oh joy, another of the Great Debates of Our Time makes its way onto the list. Given a game about angels and demons, I can't say I'm surprised. I will attempt to restrict myself to facts without promulgating one particular viewpoint (suddenly I get a better realization of how Elohim are supposed to function.) Julian Breen wrote: >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). >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. Whether or not abortion is murder depends entirely on when human life begins. Given Celestial biases, one presumes that from the Celestial viewpoint this occurs when the constellation of Forces that comprises a human soul first animates the flesh of the infant-to-be. The problem with painting one particular assumption from a specific human position in the debate onto the Celestial stand is that the Celestials presumably *know* when this key event happens, and humans (even in In Nomine, let alone in the so-called real world) don't. If, as certain belief systems propose, ensoulment happens at conception, then Julian's view is essentially correct and it is difficult to envision pro-choice angels. (Although some really *strange* Words have shown up with Angelic personifcations. Since an Angel of Teenage Death has been inflicted on us, *in canon*, why *not* an Angel of Abortion, even in this view?) On the other hand, other human religions or subdivisions thereof hold that ensoulment happens at birth. If *this* is correct, then abortion is no more than a medical procedure like any other mildly-invasive surgery, and there is (or at least could be) a Word-bound angel to further its beneficial aspects and a demon to encourage its abuse and harmful potential. The Real Truth as known to Celestials could, of course, lie anywhere between those extremes. Canon is wisely silent on the matter, since the issue is emotionally highly divisive and it is probably better for individual GMs to work the matter out for themselves. One should be aware, however, that your players may not necessarily agree with your own slant on the matter -- this is a problem for the individual gaming group to resolve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... > Depends. If they are played like a cross between Tom and Jerry and Friday > the 13th, then I hate them. If they are cruelly ironic without having to > set up the cruelty themselves, I enjoy it. > Prank, man. I've been stripped of my precious Prank as a PC, but I can make do. My favorite so far was the game show, quickly followed by Attack of the 2 Ton Block of Raspberry Finger JELLO. *Daimon Pranks. It goes off. The two Malphasians find themselves in a spotlight behind a podium on a gaudy set.* "You two are the big winners in This is the Time of Your Life! Congratulations! And what have you won? You have won.... two all expenses paid one way trips to TRAUMA! That's right, Trauma, where you lose your vessel, appear in Hell, curl around your Heart, staring at it, wondering if you are going to be stuck there for all eternity! Let's give our winners a big hand." I suspect that came from the three large mugs of coffee I drank while GMing, but you never know these things. - - Em, who has drank waaaaaaaaaay too much caffiene today, actually. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:01:12 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Casting IN >Hmmm, actually, Peter Sellers could play ALL the characters (ref. The Mouse >That Roared, Dr Strangelove, the Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu, all of which >starred him in multiple roles). Except Lilith, of course. Why not Lilith? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:07:05 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > I do. I also have a Demon of Big F***ing Guns. I don't see a > contradiction. Serious world with laughable people in it, and witty people > in it to take advantage. Bit like real life, really. All right! The perfect adversary for my campaign's PC Angel of Strength (Malak of War). Could we see him, if he has stats? Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:17:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> num.corp. question On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Titus 3 11 wrote: > Being a new, overly-enthused IN player/GM, I have been reading and > pondering to what could be considered an obsessive level. This has lead > me to the belief that follows: > Acid is, from a rule-mongering perspective, the best combat song, with Yes, we've heard it before. It's true. Compared to any of the other songs, Acid can do far more damage than any other song. Tongue and Feet are still useful, but Acid is overpowered. Why? Damned if I know. Maybe no one noticed it...maybe the playtesters were tired that day. Dunno. What to do about it? Well, several people have suggested that we change the description to "Split the level of this Song between Power and Accuracy when used to attack; neither can be made negative." So if you have Acid/4 you could fire a Power +4, Accuracy +0 attack, or a Power +1, ACcuracy +3 attack. I go one step further...I've increased the range to 10xCF yards, but the characters roll against Precision + Spray Liquid (a new skill, default - -1). So they get better range, but now they have to buy the song AND the skill to use the acid well. I've found it to be very balanced. 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: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:25:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Matt 'Badger' Rossi III" Subject: IN> Appropos of nothing... > > I tend to hit Seraphim who resonate 'That's the Wong Thing to Do. God > wouldn't like it.' Dominic included. Dr. Strange is coming after you, man... Seriously, I actually, in a session of unbelievable carnage, began shouting 'Wong! Where are my garden weasels?' which lightened it up somewhat. My problem is, I play a big Malakite with all sorts of attunements and even a distinction..but he's a nice guy. He's friendly. He's EVEN friendly to demons. (And yes, he still tries to kill them wheneverhe can...he's just friendly about it.) Good ol' Warden has a hard time taking _anything_ seriously...although that time he had to fight the Calabim of Screams, there was remarkably less mirth than usual. > > Steve. > > Badger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:26:20 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words >From: "Hart, Joanna" > [Novalis] > >Not only does Michael find this over-optimistic in the extreme, but it is a >point of view that is also _blinkered_ and dangerously wrong. Worse than >that, it is very appealing to the less military minded superiors. Like a >balseraph, she is preaching what they so badly would like to believe; that a >little love will make everything right. Michael would like to believe that >too, but he knows better and he also knows that he must ensure that the >seraphim council is not swayed by her arguments. He tells his angels to keep >a close eye on servitors of flowers because they will _in all innocence_ >fraternise with the enemy and leave themselves open to manipulation. Er. This is exactly what I was thinking, only with a better prose style. Thanks. In order to keep this from being a "me too" post, I will point out that a similar argument can be used to explain Michael's disagreement with Yves as well, if you posit that Yves believes that at the end of days every soul in Creation will be redeemed. (Michael: But what if someone absolutely refuses grace? What do you propose we do then?) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: IN> Wording 101 (long) With all the recent talk of Wording, it seems an opportune time repost my take on celestial Wording. It's not canonical, but it does provide a framework which highlights a difference between humans and celestials, removes the temptation of selfishness from angels attempting to gain a word, and makes a good background theory that complements canon nicely. Let me know what you think... Starting with the Symphony, only God and humans (and perhaps Yves, perhaps Eli, but I feel that Eli would rather inspire humans to make their own Words) can make Words in the Symphony. God can make them by fiat, and the Words from humanity arise from whatever ideas, concepts, social constructs, or whatever humanity creates. The only way an angel can get a Word is by serving that Word first. During his tenure of service, most likely on Earth, an angel may find himself resonating with a particular human concept, for whatever reason. Why do some relievers fledge to cherubim and others to mercurians? It's just a part of their nature. Some angels don't ever resonate to a Word. There may be other angels resonating to the same Word, but it's only through diligent and competent service to that Word that will get an angel bound to the Word. Contrary to canon, the Seraphim Council doesn't actually grant Words, but only formally binds a Word to an angel who has already shown himself capable and desirous of promoting the Word. The Council attempts to bind only those angels who resonate to the concept.. In cases where you have more than one angel resonating with a Word the Council first looks at service records, listens to arguments from the Superiors, and if there still isn't a clearly appropriate servitor, they may either postpone binding and readdress the issue in a decade or so, or establish a test for the angels in question, or there may be other avenues they follow. After binding, an angel's duties are now almost exclusively focused on promoting his Word. Any other angels who were acting on behalf of that Word, may now be formally assigned as servitors to the Wordbound angel, or simply providing extreme degrees assistance on their own initiative. Just because an angel is bound to a Word you're resonant with, doesn't break your resonance, but only one angel can be bound to a Word at any time, and it's expected to be a permanent affair. Once an angel is Wordbound, he must pay close attention to his Word's presence in the Symphony. Unless the angel is closely tracking the concept behind his Word, if he misses any changes in meaning or importance, his resonance with his Word may fade to a faint echo. Demons are different fettle of kish entirely. Because they're cut off from the Symphony, they can't actually be bound to a Word in the Symphony (the only exception is Kronos, and Lucifer may actually have kept his Word of Light, depending on if you've made the Rebellion part of God's ineffable plan in your campaign). Demonic Words are imposed by will (their will, or a superior's will) upon whatever private symphony they're listening to. Even though diabolical Words are disconnected from the Symphony, the Word must already exist in the Symphony for a diabolical Word to have any influence at all. A demon can be bound to nonexistent/nonsense Word, but if the Word doesn't exist in the Symphony, then there's nothing there for the demon to influence. Because diabolical Words are impositions of Will, more than one Demon can hold a Word, but it's the demon with the highest Will, or the most influential superior who imposed the Word, that will have the greatest impact. Also, having more than Word out there dilutes a demon's influence, so he'll be quite likely to come hunting competitors. Of course, a demon can only be bound to one Word, and it's also expected to last a lifetime. In short, because they have demons to spare, Hell's attitude is bind first, and whoever can keep it, keeps it, and Heaven's attitude is that angels are too valuable, and Words are too powerful a tool for needless binding. Because humans vastly outnumber angels, the number of avilable Words is significantly larger than the pool of angels suitable for binding. So, for your campaign, if you need an angel of x for a story, make an angel of x. We're not likely to have a lot of overlap, unless great minds do indeed think alike. As far as the celestial population goes, in my campaign, Word bound angels make up about 1/6-1/3 of the terrestial divine population. I figure each Wordbound has at least two angelic servitors, and up to fifteen, depending on scope of the Word, competency, and experience. the rest of the angelic population are either Wordless or seneschals. Angels are concept motivated, and they will seek to expand their concept to the fullest extent possible, and Wording is the absolute extreme of this. For example, the Angel of the Unborn, the Angel of Adoption, and the Angel of Foster Parents, cannot see where their Words complement each other, a trivial task for humans. This narrowmindedness, along with the fact that promoting a Word is a fulltime job, makes it unlikely for PCs to ever get Wordbound in my campaign. Discuss. == bruce bdykes@intac.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:37:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Matt 'Badger' Rossi III" Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... Since this discussion seems to be taking off, I'd like to try and get some of these more amusing figures some exposure. For instance, I'd love to get a look at the Demon of Big F**king Guns, and I'm sure at least one other person would get a kick out of the Blatant Stranger. So I'd like to request that everybody who has one of these In Nomine Figures of fun either email them straight to me or send them to the list, so that I can steal your ideas for my game...I mean, use them to inspire me. Yeah, that's it, inspire me. Badger The Horse Shouter...because they just won't f##king listen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: Re: IN> Casting IN - ---Jesse wrote: > > >Hmmm, actually, Peter Sellers could play ALL the characters (ref. The Mouse > >That Roared, Dr Strangelove, the Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu, all of which > >starred him in multiple roles). Except Lilith, of course. > > Why not Lilith? > > > -Jesse I don't know why I didn't see it before -- Chance Gardener is Yves! == bruce bdykes@intac.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:43:33 -0400 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... > 2. I suspect that how we talk and how we GM are two different things > entirely. I'll eventually get off my butt and post some more of my > black gaming add-ons, because I like black, and nasty, and depressing. > I like the universe to be a nasty place. But there comes to be a time > when enough is enough. I agree here. How one talks and how one actually plays are two diffrent things. Believe it or not, a Mercurian of Judgement with a huge flaming sword and no concept of 'distrubance' can be quite comical at times. My games tend toward the more serious, and ive made players cower under bedposts before. However, they have their lighter sides as well. The demon of complex manuels, a servitor of kobal who commonly works for vapula, is one of my favorite demons. :) If you've ever gotten a 500 page manuel that looks like it was written by god himself, and happens to be in Japanese-- you know who to thank. The demon of lint actually is an NPC in my games as well. He is a Balseraph. His attunement is he can turn any small non-permanent item that is out of sight into lint by spending a point of essence. Mostly this works on buisness cards, money, magazines, socks, and other tiny small objects that are easy to destroy normally. The bigger the item, the more lint/dustbunnys/and such forth results. - -- (lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz Brandon Lance Quina (- -) ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo--- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:49:22 +0000 (GMT) From: "The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather" Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words >...read Wielding a Red Sword, by Piers Anthony. ... by an Amazing Coincidence, I use the incarnations books in my campaign. Then again, I also use Supergirl and Xena Hey, the game is In Austin, you can't expect me not to have Renee O'Connor apear in it at some point Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:36:50 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Abortion in IN Neel Krishnaswami writes >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. > IMC the soul would enter the body at the moment of conception, give or take a little while. This time would vary for each individual, yet it would be the time that it takes such a soul to descend from the seventh heaven and 'bond' with it's mortal flesh. >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. Do you have specific rules for this '*look*'? Is this something that all angels IYC can do? >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. It could well do. It might, for example, involve a celestial being squeezed into a vessel complete with attached role. > >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. > And if there is? Would agents of Heaven, IYC, then examine the circumstances of the impending abortion before denouncing it, e.g. the mother's life is in jeopardy, or would they just blatantly disagree with it, and try to stop it no matter what? - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:52:32 -0400 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> how many Words have Angels > But oh, my, would he be a very good asskisser, indeed. Hmm. I wonder what his attunements and rites would be?? :) I imagine that his prince would be fond of him, if he deserved his word in *any* capacity. - -- (lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz Brandon Lance Quina (- -) ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo--- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:58:00 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> Identifying ensouled beings >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:16:55 +0100 >From: Kevin Walsh >Subject: Re: IN> Abortion in IN > >On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 10:06:13PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> 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. > >How? Possibly Servitors of Fate and Destiny can do Divine Destiny or Fated >Future (and maybe the potential Fate/Destiny is there before the soul), >but the average Celestial can't know just by looking, though they can >attempt their resonances. I've been unconsciously assuming that angels and demons can see spiritual things, and that humans provide cover for a celestial in a vessel because they are also matter-spirit hybrids. On reflection, this is not an idea well-supported in canon, though it does make Kyrios of Jean a little less gross. [*] But there's still a way to tell: use the Song of Dreams. Every human, whether waking or sleeping has a dreamscape in the Marches. There don't seem to be any comments about the dreamscape going away for zero-ethereal-force humans, either, so it is probably safe to say that if the dreamscape for that person doesn't exist, then they aren't human. Shedim clearly have the easiest time of telling if a fetus has crossed the line from bundle-of-cells to human being, though I can't imagine how you would corrupt someone in the womb... [*] They can still take over a laptop, but now the victim has some way to tell. I would rule that a celestial can tell with a Per roll if an inanimate object is possessed, just like detecting a celestial form. The inanimate vessel part means you can't see it clearly, but you can tell somebody's there. Since animals are defined in canon (but not in my game) to have a spiritual bit, then it follows that you can't tell if an animal is possessed or not. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:01:15 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words At 13:26 30/04/98 -0400, you wrote: >>From: "Hart, Joanna" >> >[Novalis] >> > >Er. This is exactly what I was thinking, only with a better prose style. > *COFF* I can't believe you wrote that. I was trying to match up to that brilliant piece you write about Michael & Laurence! (Bring on the balseraph of false modesty and the malakite of pride in good workmanship, we're going for a dip in the hot tub of mutual admiration) jo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:19:36 +0000 (GMT) From: "The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather" Subject: Re: IN> Casting IN Michael Hurst for Lilith. Anyone who has seen the Hercules episisode "And Fancy Free" knows what I mean Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:20:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) Steve Jessop writes: [...] >I tend to hit Seraphim who resonate 'That's the Wong Thing to Do. God >wouldn't like it.' Dominic included. So what, exactly, does God *or* Dominic have against people named Wong? (Sorry. I *try* to ignore typos, but that one was just too silly...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:30:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Bryan Subject: Re: IN> Appropos of nothing... On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Matt 'Badger' Rossi III wrote: > > > > > I tend to hit Seraphim who resonate 'That's the Wong Thing to Do. God > > wouldn't like it.' Dominic included. Our funniest campaing yet has been playing the Cyrano Angel seed from INC. The Malakim of Creation telling the brand new Malakim of Laurence all about love in the 90's. "No no, it's bad to turn pale at the mention of her name!" "Really?" "Yeah, stand on your head and bark like a dog instead." Death is a low chemical trick played on everbody except sequoia trees. J.J. Furnas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:43:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Ozdowski Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... According to Emily Dresner: > Rumor has it, on the bottom of some of my game logs, I have written, "This > Session was brought to you by the Kobalite Organization for a Better > Gaming Experience." I am, in fact, a card carrying member. 'I'm not only > the president, I'm a client!' I claim Vice Pres!! Maker of the "I'm a Balseraph, but am I lying?" trick, I've also tried to inject zaniness into our games. Using SWIPE to steal items of clothing (ie belts) is a good one, so is calling a servitor of Marc a PINhead when they use their attunement. I also have serious moments, though the closest I come to angst is a Calabite of Belial that's never been used much... The best rule I've ever heard was from Damon Wayans who said, "In my house we got one rule: if it's funny, you ain't in trouble!" Later, Dan Ozdowski - -- I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain just to eat bunny food. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shumaker Subject: Re: IN> Playing IN for laughs... On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: #On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Matt 'Badger' Rossi III wrote: # #> Do you all use In Nomine to explore the nature of fredom, salvation and #> damnation, or individual responsibility? # #I do. I also have a Demon of Big F***ing Guns. I don't see a #contradiction. Serious world with laughable people in it, and witty people #in it to take advantage. Bit like real life, really. # # Well this is a good question. My group does have a player-type conflict. For the most part the campaign is seriously toned, with the lighthearted laugh undertoning that comes from the person trying maintain humor in the bad situtation. I have two players though that have a hard time grasping the concept of respecting the situation that the party is in. To control their urges to "pinch the demon's butt" I have to steer clear of many things I would like to put into the game. Sad really. To get around this we will play a night of TFOS or Toon so that they can work it all out....at least that is the idea. Jim "Angel of BeingNiceToFriends" Shumaker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:04:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Abortion Angels I liked both angels, but Shachim might also work as a sevitor of Eli, on lone to lawerence. Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:40:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) writes: >Shedim clearly have the easiest time of telling if a fetus has >crossed the line from bundle-of-cells to human being, though I >can't imagine how you would corrupt someone in the womb... Kick, kick, kick... 1st day: spasm as Mommy eats something that makes you uncomfortable. 2nd day: That funny bulgy thing down there is Mommy's bladder, isn't it? Doesn't Mommy make the most *interesting* noises & movements when you kick at it? .... Break Mommy's rib -- this has actually been known to happen from an overactive and unusually strong fetus. Since a Shedridden fetus would act with the demon's strength instead of its own, such is certainly within its capabilities. .... Eventually, the fetus can get worked up enough to rip some important tissues in a fit of selfish rage, and mother and fetus both die in a particularly gory late miscarriage. This of course assumes a fetus sufficiently physically developed to be *capable* of behavior. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:06:25 -0400 From: Matthias Mueller Subject: IN> Re: IN: Impregnation by demons - The Kingdom spoilers! Anders Gabrielsson writes: >> SPOILERS for Lars von Trier's excellent TV series "The Kingdom" which I think is completely unknown to people on this list, but you never know. :) << Hey, I completely agree, this series is superb ! That hospital would make a nice twin tether to Beleth and Saminga. >> In this series a child is born to a human who has been impregnated by a demon - a monstrous, but still incredibly kind and gentle soul. He asks his mother to kill him, so that he will not be tempted by the demon to become evil. Incredibly sad. << Unfortunately, they showed only the first part of it here in Germany, about five hours all in all, up to the birth scene. How much more does follow ? Anyway, wasn't that child really the damned soul of the murderous doctor who successfully tried to be reborn into the world of the living ? -Matthias Instant madness - just add brain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:20:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> num.corp. question At 5:15 AM -0500 4/30/98, Titus 3 11 wrote: >Acid is, from a rule-mongering perspective, the best combat song, with >accuracy and power equal to its level (compare to claws - power equal to >level, accuracy +1/+0). This song is getting errata'ed. David (*that* David, over there!), what was the fix for Acid? I think either its acc or its power got dropped to some fixed level (like 0?), but at the moment, I *cannot* recall which. Brainfry is a horrible thing to happen... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:31:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) At 11:45 AM +0100 4/30/98, Hart, Joanna wrote: >>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. > >Well, it _is_ funny ;-) But I'd say that if the PCs can do this, then the >NPCs can also. Let one of the PCs take a 'get back to your heart and don't >pass GO' next time. Thats how I usually interpret house rules or >rules-stretching cunning PC plans (well, if you could have thought of it, so >could someone else). Give the victim a Strength roll, much as he'd get if you tried to grab something away from him? I think canon is that you *can't* teleport yourself (or anything else) into a solid object. (It's just too much of a headache otherwise.) But for a house-rule... A Strength roll, a minimum check digit to make it work, or something like that ought to help. If the roll is made, then the object appears somewhere nearby... *Very* nearby. Maybe even overhead... (Ah, it's the Anvil trick!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:46:32 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A possibly stupid question... At 4:18 AM +0100 4/30/98, Steve Jessop wrote: >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. If they cause no disturbance by pounding things, then I'd figure that their vessels are no more "no disturbance to hit" than an undead's. Why? Because it's a blessed sight simpler to keep humans, humans. Besides, p. NM14 talks about Saints -- returning to Earth as infants, growing up in a human body, until they get exposed to something and remember their true natures. >Right near the start it says that for game purposes a Saint is a celestial >being, Ah, joy, something else to rephrase, besides the dissonance/disturbance word-error that plagues that section. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:17:47 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) On 30 Apr, 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. This explains the Tellytubbies completely. Only a Kobalite.... - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #740 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.