From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri May 1 12:14:46 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 MAA01258 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 12:14:45 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA19731 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 12:01:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:01:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199805011701.MAA19731@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 #742 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, May 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 742 In this digest: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) Re: IN> how many Words have Angels IN> Poker Re: IN> Celestials of Abortion (was The Demon of Gun Control) Re: IN> num.corp. question Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Re: IN> Re: IN: Impregnation by demons - The Kingdom spoilers! Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Re: IN> how many Words have Angels Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings IN> How many Words have Angels? Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions Re: IN> Poker IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #741 Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:54:45 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN>abortion (formerly:The Demon of Gun Control) On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Steve Jessop 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!'. > Are you sure about that? Personally I think it likely that lot of people thought that. > > I tend to hit Seraphim who resonate 'That's the Wong Thing to Do. God > wouldn't like it.' Dominic included. > How could they possibly do that, unless it's the Balseraph resonance you're speaking of? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:59:59 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> how many Words have Angels On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > This brings up an aspect of the logic of Words that has given > me pause. It's this: There is a difference between PROMOTING > a Word and EXHIBITING a Word. > > So, for instance, to promote Wrath, I don't have to be angry > all the time myself. It could work that way, sure, since angry > people pick fights and thereby anger others. But I can also > spread wrath while in a perfectly good temper myself, by being > ANNOYING. Of course there is, but when you're bound to a Word, you embody it. I don't insert completely or partially irrelevant material into a discussion because I want to gain Essence, but as a part of my very nature. It's almost impossible for me not to do it. > > Similarly, a demon could promote Sloth by urging others not to > bother to do the things they know they ought, and REALLY HUSTLE > about doing all that urging. Then they're not doing their job properly and gaining dissonance, IMO. It's like a Servitor of Flowers who spends its life killing murderers in order to prevent violence. (I note at this point that it's also dissonant for Servitors of Flowers to allow violence, not just to use it.) In the particular case of Sloth, > it seems that promoting the Word *requires* not exhibiting it. > Have you ever heard of leading by example? In any event, Sloth and inaction are not the same thing. I exhibit one, but sometimes not the other. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary soft-heartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:21:13 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: IN> Poker A while back I did a story called Lust Fiction, and now I'm doing one in a similar vein, and indeed, set in the same place. Eventually, when I have enough scenes done, there'll be a story. Won't that be cool? If it's wanted by anyone they have permission to save it and put it up, so long as they acknowledge that I wrote it. And anyone who wants to guess Bands/Choirs and Superiors can e-mail me privately. Bonus points if you can put a name to any of them. POKER. Three men and a woman are sitting at a table. The woman is short and slim, with dark, almost black hair, which doesn't quite reach her shoulders. It is entirely unstyled, but is nevertheless quite clean. In contrast to her hair, her leather jacket and black jeans are neatly pressed. She's swinging slightly in her chair, and directs occasional smiles at the man to her left. His attire is similar to everyone else at the table, though more rumpled, and he has long brown hair which is just as untidy as his clothes. In contrast to the woman, he doesn't move his chair at all, but instead taps his feet and his hands against ground and table to a rhythm only he can hear. Across from him is an intense looking blond man with an empty bottle in his hands. He's spinning it slightly, and looking at it in a way which suggests that he finds a hidden meaning in it. He doesn't look drunk, but who can say? The other man is calmer than the rest of them, though not by very much. His hair is dyed an ugly pink, and a pair of sunglasses obscure his eyes. He's gazing around the room with an air of interest. Music Man: Come on, let's do something. Calm Man: We could always play poker. Slim Woman: I have no intention of playing poker against you. Calm Man: Why not? Slim Woman: Because I don't trust you not to rob everything I own if given the opportunity. Calm Man: Would I do a thing like that? Blond Man: Actually, money is only used to keep score. Almost anything else could do the same thing. Even matchsticks. Music Man: But do we trust him with our matchsticks? Slim Woman: Do we trust you with our matchsticks? Blond Man: Does anyone here trust anyone here with anything? There is silence for a moment. Slim Woman: Yes. The Blond Man sweeps his left arm expansively around the table, before pointing it at her. Blond Man: In that spirit, I shall make some of my very own matches available. The Blond Man reaches into a pocket and takes out five boxes of matches. The Slim Woman reaches over to take one of the boxes. Slim Woman: Don't you have any safety matches? Blond Man: What's the point of safety matches? Slim Woman: It's almost always nice to have a variety. In this instance, a variety of types of matches assists in the objective of using them in a scoring system. Fortunately, I have safety matches. She turns around and opens a small black bag hanging on her chair, opens it, and takes out a box of matches. Safety matches, in fact. She opens the box and tips them out on the table. She divides them into two piles and starts breaking the matches in one of the pile in half. She does the same with the Blond Man's matches. Blond Man: Do we trust you with our matchsticks? Slim Woman: Behold! Half of one of these is worth one point. An unbroken one is worth 5. Half a safety match is worth ten points. And an unbroken safety match is worth 50. Is that acceptable to you? Music Man: I see you've given this a lot of consideration. Slim Woman: Of course. Don't I always? The matches are shared out. No one complains about how they're divided. Calm Man: Since it was my suggestion, I think I should be dealer. Slim Woman: The absence of logic in that sentence is striking and unusual, even by your standards. Calm Man: I strive to better myself at all times. Music Man: I think I trust my girlfriend's honesty in this matter... Slim Woman: Do you have another girlfriend whose existence I was previously unaware of? Music Man: ...so long as we come up with an acceptable form of words. Blond Man: How about "I have not tampered with this deck in any fashion." Calm Man: But she'll have shuffled it, so that wouldn't be true. Music Man: We should make her say it before she shuffles in that case. And after she shuffles she promises that there are 52 cards in the deck, each one different from all the others, that she hasn't marked them in any fashion, and that she will deal them fairly, and without tampering with the deck other than true dealing fairly. Slim Woman: I'll have to check the cards first, of course. Are we playing with jokers? Which cards are wild? Calm Man: Wild cards destroy the integrity of the game. They must be avoided at all costs. Especially jokers. Blond Man: All in favour of jokers? The Blond Man, the Slim Woman and the Music Man all raise their hands. Blond Man: The motion is carried. Slim Woman: I don't have a deck. The Music Man provides one. The Slim Woman examines the deck carefully on all sides, before pronouncing it to be fine. Slim Woman: I don't believe that the deck was rigged before I got it and I haven't tampered with it in any fashion. Calm Man: You should be ashamed of yourself. Music Man: I don't need to alter the deck in order to win. Calm Man: That's not the point. You should do it anyway. By this stage the Slim Woman has dealt out all the cards. Slim Woman: There are 54 cards in the deck, each one different from all the others, I have dealt them fairly, and have not tampered with the deck other than by shuffling and dealing them fairly. Jokers are wild. People look at their cards, buy cards off the dealer, and consider them. The Music Man ponders his cards and folds. The Calm Man shakes his head in apparent disgust when seeing this. The Slim Woman seems to be pleased by her cards. Slim Woman: This is a fine hand. Calm Man: You're bluffing. I can tell. Slim Woman: Why would I bluff? Blond Man: Why does anyone bluff? Calm Man: Are you in or not? The Calm Man smirks, and for some reason the Blond Man is hesitating. Blond Man: I cannot tell a lie. It was the Mexican Border Patrol. The Blond Man throws a match into the centre. Blond Man: If you wish, you can take it that I'm in. Slim Woman: I'll see that, and raise it five. Calm Man: And I'll see that, and raise it ten. Music Man: It's too hot here. I'm getting one of those fans from over there. Slim Woman: So you should. It's not right that there are two fans over there and none over here. Blond Man: It is a symbol of the oppression of the working classes in the society of today. The Music Man gets up while they're talking, hugs the Slim Woman, and goes in search of a fan. Calm Man: Stop procrastinating and get on with it. Blond Man: It's people like you who impede the class struggle. You are too fixated on poker games to think of the wider issues. Slim Woman: I think a deadline is in order. Calm Man: Five seconds should do, and you're still bluffing. Blond Man: I'll see the fifteen, and it shall be raised to 20. Slim Woman: Likewise. And the question is whether you're bluffing. Calm Man: I'm not bluffing. Look. For the second time running I raise the stakes more than either of you. Isn't that an indication of confidence on my part? Slim Woman: Who do you believe, me or him? Blond Man: That is a difficult question to answer, and not as simple as you make out. Calm Man: Which question is difficult to answer? Blond Man: In a sense, all questions are difficult to answer, in that no matter how hard you try to create the perfect answer, it is an impossibility to do so. Life is imperfect, and answers even more so. And I'm seeing that and raising it ten. Slim Woman: I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a good hand. Don't you believe me when I say that? Calm Man: Oh, I believe you, but you're still bluffing. Slim Woman: I see it, and raise it a further ten. Calm Man: That's right. Soon I'll have all the matches. I see it, and raise it twenty. Blond Man: I fold, and ask what is wanted for drink. Slim Woman: Coffee, unspiked. Calm Man: That's just asking for it. Blond Man: And you? Calm Man: Bacardi. The Blond Man leaves the table. The Slim Woman looks behind her. Slim Woman: What's taking him so long? It's not like him. Calm Man: It seems that he's engaged in a dispute over the proper disposition of the fans. Slim Woman: It isn't like him to stop for an argument either. Calm Man: He is outnumbered, and he has quite a good view of that woman from where he's standing. She is quite attractive. Slim Woman: Blondes. How stereotypical. Calm Man: I appreciate women of all hair colours and none, as you well know. Now are you finally going to fold? Slim Woman: No, but I'll see it. Calm Man: Oh, look, he's taking a fan and he's going to the bar. Slim Woman: Will all be revealed? Calm Man: Will our drinks be served? Slim Woman: Will you show me your cards? Calm Man: There. High card ace. Slim Woman: Pair of twos. Calm Man: You were bluffing. I was right. Slim Woman: It's still a good hand. Calm Man: And for how many years has it been a good hand? Slim Woman: Approximately nine. The Music Man arrives at the table, sans fan. The Slim Woman grabs him by the waist as he passes by with one hand while taking the matchsticks she won with the other. They kiss. Slim Woman: Why no fan? Music Man: The Calabite broke the spare one. Calm Man: Typical. And because of your useless excursion you're not going to get a drink bought for you either. Slim Woman: Do you have an address? Music Man: No, but I know where I can find them. Slim Woman: You mean apart from at that table? The Blond Man arrives, bearing drinks. He gives them out. Blond Man: What's this I hear? Have you taken up stalking, young man? Music Man: One of those people over there is a Calabite. Probably the one with the torn up papers beside him. The Blond Man looks enormously pleased by this information. Blond Man: You see? I told you. Sometimes you have to waste time in order to save it. Calm Man: Perhaps discussing this where they can hear is not a good idea. Nods all around. Drinks are drunk, and they leave all together, without taking the matchsticks. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:06:31 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Celestials of Abortion (was The Demon of Gun Control) On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 10:20:28PM -0400, Pee Kitty wrote: > > 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? > > > An Impudite is a possibility, but I'd go for a Habbalite myself. The > unborn are, after all, the ultimate in physical weakness, and I think most > Habbalah find the idea of pregnancy revolting. Also, it makes for more > edginess to have corresponding Words held by members of the corresponding > Choir/Band. Yes, all that caring for someone else more than for yourself... Habbalah must be really into breaking up families. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:18:01 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> num.corp. question Many of the NC Songs are pretty useless - not only compared to Acid. If you take any two of them, chances are one of them will be "better". I've been thinking of streamlining the whole NC "cluster", and letting the player choose the benefits according to some scale. Each level in the song adds one to Acc or Power, less if it's got some special ability, or something along those lines. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:43:43 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > (Ah, it's the Anvil trick!) I'm not sure how well this would work. (Well, it would work just as well as the GM wants it to...:) The anvil (or other heavy object) would have to be dropped from at least a few feet to be really dangerous to a celestial. And I imagine the teleportation might cause disturbance at the "point of entry", which would make the celestial look up... which might be good or bad, depending on how far up the object is. ;) Experienced celestials might just jump aside when they feel disturbance straight overhead. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:56:58 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN: Impregnation by demons - The Kingdom spoilers! On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Matthias Mueller wrote: > 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 ? They've shown the second installment in movie theaters here in Sweden, and this one too ends in multiple cliffhangers. ;) Well, after a while they find out that the doctor wasn't a ghost, but rather a demon - Mrs. Drusse sees him in something like celestial form, with huge horns on his head... At first the baby is really scary - he is born with a fully grown head, though the rest of him is still like a normal baby. He starts growing -really- fast, in spurts - first his arms, which lets him crawl around... *shudder* Anyway, mrs. Drusse is told that he acts like a beacon to all the ghosts who have been released, that his innate goodness draws them to him, but that the demon will try to turn him evil. The son (who is called "Lilleman", which I really can't translate to English, much less to German, though I suppose it might be understandable anyway) doesn't want to be turned evil, and so convinces his mother to kill him - by this time he's so big he has to be supported by ropes and pulleys to keep his bones from breaking under his own weight. She wants to kill him through an injection, but he is too afraid of the shot, so she has to cut the ropes... That's a really strong scene - him telling her he loves her, that she has to continue cutting him loose, and then screaming in pain as she does so, while she is crying... That was really rambling, I suppose. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:03:49 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings >Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:38:38 +0100 >From: Kevin Walsh >Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings > >On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >> 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. > >Whether they have one waking is irrelevant since to the best of anyone's >knowledge only Blandine and Beleth can access waking dreamscapes. Now if >you want to approach one of them and ask them if they could check out a >certain foetus to see if it has a dreamscape and therefore a soul, you can >be my guest. Er, no -- when you enter the vale of dreams, you are in a place where all the dreamscapes of every person, waking or sleeping, are visible. You can't *enter* the dreamscape of a waking person, but there's certainly nothing stopping you from watching it from the outside. >And how do you know that the foetus is asleep? How do you make the contact >necessary to find the dreamscape? And if you can't find the dreamscape, it >proves _nothing_ except that you haven't found it. It is arguable that the >soul can exist but that the brain isn't physically developed enough to >allow REM sleep. The point is that you don't need to enter the dreamscape; you just need to find it -- and this means doesn't matter whether the person is awake or asleep. And all that takes is a Cherub or a Song of Attraction. This seems like the sort of project thoughtful angels would have done millenia ago, if God hasn't already told the angels the answer. Digression: I don't think the type of sleep is relevant in the Marches, since dreamscapes open as soon as a human is asleep. This seems to have been done for reasons of gameplay -- REM sleep isn't actually all that big a percentage of time spent sleeping, and it would suck for the player of Dream/Nightmare servitor to have to wait around even more than they already do. Though it might be worth changing, because then a human could drown him or herself in booze/sleeping pills to suppress REM sleep, and keep demons out of her head. This would be a nasty, nasty way for a demon to permanently ruin someone's life -- they haunt the dreamscapes until the human is addicted, and then they can leave... >And of course, it's possible that if a foetus doesn't have a soul, >it's because it's a Remnant, and it is possible to soul kill a human >in his/her dreams. Honestly, I'm not sure of this, since one of the first things I did was rule that human souls are genuinely immortal, or at least beyond the power of even archangels and demon princes to destroy. So I haven't paid much attention to rules about humans and celestial combat. >> [*] 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, > >I say no. I think that the only thing required to avoid detection of the >soul is a physical form, any physical form. In canon, yes. But this is a change I've made. Spiritual essence is identifiable to any spirit, and celestials use human vessels because humans also have a spiritual component, and thus make good camouflage. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:24:09 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) Rhodri said:- > > 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. > What, prey tell, does IANANR stand for? > > 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.... > Or a very warped Servitor of vapula. :-) Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:37:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> how many Words have Angels Kevin Walsh wrote: > Of course there is, but when you're bound to a Word, you > embody it. You are describing the way Wording works in canon. I should have made it clear that I was not speaking in canon, but was making an analysis OF canon -- to wit, sometimes embodying a Word gets in the way of promoting the Word. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:41:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings Okay, i 'm shootin' from the hip here, I haven't slept for a few days (see one of my previous posts about being willing to take a geas for a good coffee...I wasn't being "cute") so I really don't feel up to double-checking the good ol' IN text - feel free to mock me w/o mercy for inaccurate details...anyway, here's what I have to say to Neel. Neel - On Fri, 1 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:38:38 +0100 > >From: Kevin Walsh > >Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings > > > >On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > >Whether they have one waking is irrelevant since to the best of anyone's > >knowledge only Blandine and Beleth can access waking dreamscapes. Now if > >you want to approach one of them and ask them if they could check out a > >certain foetus to see if it has a dreamscape and therefore a soul, you can > >be my guest. > > Er, no -- when you enter the vale of dreams, you are in a place where > all the dreamscapes of every person, waking or sleeping, are visible. > You can't *enter* the dreamscape of a waking person, but there's > certainly nothing stopping you from watching it from the outside. I thought that dreams appeared as globes or similiar shapes - silvery and such...not peeping glasses into the persons dreams...if you are correct, then I will be spending a lot more time in the Marches gathering dirty dirt on folks... > > >And how do you know that the foetus is asleep? How do you make the contact > >necessary to find the dreamscape? And if you can't find the dreamscape, it > >proves _nothing_ except that you haven't found it. It is arguable that the > >soul can exist but that the brain isn't physically developed enough to > >allow REM sleep. > > The point is that you don't need to enter the dreamscape; you just > need to find it -- and this means doesn't matter whether the person > is awake or asleep. And all that takes is a Cherub or a Song of > Attraction. A Cherub? I can see it - "Umm, Mike? Buddy? would you please attune to this fetus? So I can find its dreams?" Beyond getting in physical contact! Song of Attraction - does that work across plains of existance? > > This seems like the sort of project thoughtful angels would have done > millenia ago, if God hasn't already told the angels the answer. > > Digression: I don't think the type of sleep is relevant in the Marches, > since dreamscapes open as soon as a human is asleep. This seems to have > been done for reasons of gameplay -- REM sleep isn't actually all that > big a percentage of time spent sleeping, and it would suck for the > player of Dream/Nightmare servitor to have to wait around even more > than they already do. REM is when dreaming occurs. The phase involved is VERY IMPORTANT for those of you(us? them?) who like to keep our game as realistic as possible (yes, I realize 1) i have too many of these () sorry. and 2)It is a game where you play an angel or devil...). If players don't have to ask me whether some piece of science is true or not when its true in the real world, its that much easier. > > Though it might be worth changing, because then a human could drown > him or herself in booze/sleeping pills to suppress REM sleep, and > keep demons out of her head. This would be a nasty, nasty way for > a demon to permanently ruin someone's life -- they haunt the > dreamscapes until the human is addicted, and then they can leave... No need to wait for an addiction - no REM sleep, no dreams, no sanity - real fast. Not dreaming = not sane. Say it with me - niiice malakim of dreams...good lurker in the marches killing demons left and right....nicee... > > >And of course, it's possible that if a foetus doesn't have a soul, > >it's because it's a Remnant, and it is possible to soul kill a human > >in his/her dreams. > > Honestly, I'm not sure of this, since one of the first things I did > was rule that human souls are genuinely immortal, or at least beyond > the power of even archangels and demon princes to destroy. So I haven't > paid much attention to rules about humans and celestial combat. Tell Saminga that - the canon write-up of his realm sure seems to indicate total destruction is possible...you're welcome to rule that, but I'm pretty sure canon says otherwise. > > >> [*] 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, > > > >I say no. I think that the only thing required to avoid detection of the > >soul is a physical form, any physical form. > > In canon, yes. But this is a change I've made. Spiritual essence > is identifiable to any spirit, and celestials use human vessels > because humans also have a spiritual component, and thus make > good camouflage. > If my vessel is shaped as a duck, it works just as well. Or a mobile rock (Kyroi of David). Tell Jordi that animals spirits are lesser then humans (that applies to the whole invinci- soul issue also, doesn't it?). I don't think canon states that animals have souls - oh well. I think they do. > -- > Neel Krishnaswami > neelk@alum.mit.edu > Very tired Enosh Malakim of Creation In service to Flowers Looking forward to looking w/ Dreams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 07:24:43 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: IN> How many Words have Angels? I would say that all of them do, even the really trivial ones, but that not all of the Angels are full-fledged Angels which a PC could be, but in some cases not-even-conscious protectors of a certain natural process. Some Christian myth says that "every time you move your hand, you displace thousands of angels". While I wouldn't go so far as to say that every blade of grass needs an Angel to make sure that it's growing properly, you could certainly say that there's at least a Celestial of Photosynthesis happily making things burble right along. It just doesn't affect the War, since neither side is really disputing it. So my answer, for my game, would be "All words have Angels, but so what?" Having a -conscious- Angel in charge of a Word is much, much different and shows the Word is a much more important part of The Big Plan. Jason i really need to get this damn thing in digest form ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:42:03 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Frank Lazar wrote: > A nice thought perhaps, but it's almost impossible to name a war that > was explicitly fought for the "right" reasons? Debateable, and debated for millenia, so I won't comment further. The part I really disagree with in what you say is this: > Virtually everyone involved in the first "Great War" was looking for > something to gain in terms of territory or other "selfish" aims. No. 'Virtually everyone' involved in the First World War was a foot soldier in a muddy trench, miles from home, suffering shell-shock, and praying that he will be injured so that he can get home. That applies to both sides. As I read it, Michael doesn't care about the politics attached to human wars, but he *does* care about the motives and lives of individual fighters. He's a tactical genius, but that isn't his main strength. He is the patron of soldiers, not generals. (Dunno if that's Catholic canon, but it would sure help my argument if it was.) When he talks about pride, he doesn't mean the pride of the general: 'wasn't I clever, telling that scruffy lot where to stand?'. He doesn't mean the pride of the politician: 'wasn't I clever, winning that trade agreement by threatening to kill people'. He means the pride of the soldier: 'you bastards sent me in there to die, but I didn't, I won. And I know you are going to take the credit.' He doesn't start wars. He finishes them. Btw, the expanded Michael write-up: who, when and where? As some people may have noticed, I kind of care about this one. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:39:01 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions >about mighty Princess Beth (played by Elizabeth McCoy of course :)) does >she have any preferences for the roles of Andrealphus, Asmodeus and Beleth >(I left out Baal I'm aware, but three at a time I think). Pee Kity, Mr >Edelstein, Jo, Jesse what about you guys? How about Fabio as Andre, Brainy Smurf as Asmodeus and Neve Campbell as Beleth? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:44:20 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Poker >POKER. Interesting, it is writen like a screeplay, any reason for that? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:11:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #741 <\lurk> >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:04:58 -0400 >From: Frank Lazar > > any empire, the Crown was seeking to profit, but Canada and others > worked its way out of colonial indenture in the fullness of time.) "worked" ? Not quite. Canada's independance is a somewhat wierd and convoluted story, but the short form is roughly this: Post Civil War: USA has a big, experienced army for the first time in history, a whole lot of surplus guns, and a large, rabidly anti-english Irish minority which loudly advocated the invasion of Canada. (Certain groups even staged a few raids, IIRC.) Soon after that: Britain decides Canada should be an independant country, in the hope this will calm the radicals in the USA. Defending it would cost more than cutting it loose. British agents are dispatched to organize the several British colonies that are now Eastern Canada to get them to unite and request independance as a single country. Embarassingly, this effort fails. (The colonies are contentious, and full of Loyalists...) Several attempts and incentives later, Canada becomes a "Dominion" instead of a colony, with it's own government. (Note that Newfoundland opts out of the deal and stays a British colony.) This seems to work. There are no serious hostilities with the US. Still Later: Canada learns the hard way that "Dominion" doesn't exactly mean independent, but that's another story. <\nit> Apologies for any minor inaccuracies, but I'm sure it's substantially correct, assuming my high school history teacher and text weren't lying to me. ObIN: What if King really was getting heavenly advice through the spirits of his dead mother and dog? Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:35:30 -0400 From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions Armand wrote: > > >>I'm tempted to send the Game after you for the Leonard diCaprio casting. > >>That would be like casting Barney as Saminga, and we all know how bad that > >>would be. > > > >Hey, people really do lust after diCaprio. If you want a good diCaprio > >movie to see, skip Titanic, the ship sinks sorry I ruined it for you, > >and rent the Basketball Diaries. > > > >-Jesse > > Of course, most of the people lusting after good ol' Leo are pre pubescent > girls; maybe Andrealphus is downsizing. > I hate to disgust anybody.... but Andrealphus (in my view) doesn't discriminate based on age... the object of Lust can be absolutely *any* age. In other words, yes that sixth grade teacher who "fell in love" with the thirteen year old student belongs to Andre. In all the joking about Andre being the DP of Lust (and its implicit silliness), we seem to forget that Andre is a *DP*, and is, by definition, *EVIL*. No, I wouldn't let Andre or any of his Servitors anywhere *near* my children... or my grandmother, for that matter. What sent a chill up my spine when I read the entry on Andre in IN was the first word I thought of to associate with Andre was "Children". > Nah! > > I'd cast Jack Nicolson, then you start tapping into the adult market. Of > course, I think that the most ideal DP of Lust would be Kevin Bacon. Not > because people would be lusting after him, just the fact that he's been in > movies with nigh on everyone, "So, you like Michelle Pfeifer? Look, I did > a film with Bob, and he and her go way back..." > Nope. Neither Jack nor Kevin are androgynous enough. Jaye Davidson (Ra from "Stargate" and Dill from "The Crying Game") would be the best, I think. Or perhaps even Tim Curry (Dr. Frank N. Furter from "Rocky Horror Picture Show"). > That's just my take, > Armand > Ofanim of the Further From Leo, the Better! - -- Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7789233/ UIN: 7789233 http://www.accessdenied.net/cgi-bin/main.cgi?userid=326&newuser=profile MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:46:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Steve - Well - written and well - thought. I thought of it as Laurence being any of the "Great Generals" you see on A and E; Micheal as being the main character of All Quiet on the Western Front ( or the French guy he killed in a Trench). <> And I would think that he Micheal (if he were the main character from AQWF) would see Laurence as a competent but too-green commander, and Yves as <> Hitler. If you "get" the limited comparison I'm making - I know (Hope?) Yves doesn't go about attempting to genocide (verbing weirds the language). Anyway. Great post Steve. Enosh Malakim of Creation In Service to Fire Card-carring MiVDC, Founding member of the KANCIP (Keep Acid Numinous Corpus Insanly Powerful) coalition On Fri, 1 May 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Frank Lazar wrote: > > > A nice thought perhaps, but it's almost impossible to name a war that > > was explicitly fought for the "right" reasons? > > Debateable, and debated for millenia, so I won't comment further. The part > I really disagree with in what you say is this: > > > Virtually everyone involved in the first "Great War" was looking for > > something to gain in terms of territory or other "selfish" aims. > > No. 'Virtually everyone' involved in the First World War was a foot > soldier in a muddy trench, miles from home, suffering shell-shock, and > praying that he will be injured so that he can get home. That applies to > both sides. > > As I read it, Michael doesn't care about the politics attached to human > wars, but he *does* care about the motives and lives of individual > fighters. > > He's a tactical genius, but that isn't his main strength. He is the patron > of soldiers, not generals. (Dunno if that's Catholic canon, but it would > sure help my argument if it was.) > > When he talks about pride, he doesn't mean the pride of the general: > 'wasn't I clever, telling that scruffy lot where to stand?'. He doesn't > mean the pride of the politician: 'wasn't I clever, winning that trade > agreement by threatening to kill people'. He means the pride of the > soldier: 'you bastards sent me in there to die, but I didn't, I won. And > I know you are going to take the credit.' > > He doesn't start wars. He finishes them. > > Btw, the expanded Michael write-up: who, when and where? As some people > may have noticed, I kind of care about this one. > > Steve. > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #742 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.