From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed May 6 05:20:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA08046 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 05:20:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id FAA24929 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 05:16:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:16:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199805061016.FAA24929@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 #757 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, May 6 1998 Volume 01 : Number 757 In this digest: Re: IN> Baal and Michael Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal Re: IN> Baal and Michael Re: IN> Baal and Michael Re: IN> Baal and Michael IN> Abortion in IN Re: IN> Rasta Angel IN> Fluff: A Soldier for Micheal Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal Re: IN> Baal and Michael Re: IN> Writing Canon Re: IN> Dominic (..or a Dark Lord of the Sith?) Re: The falling begins...(was Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition ) Re: Grand'ma is toast (was Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment) Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN> Claudia Christian as Michael? [none] Re: IN> Various IN> Re: your mail Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN> Beleth Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition SV: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Jordi's big move Re: IN> Baal and Michael Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Matt 'Badger' Rossi III" Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael > > Jesse wrote: > > > But Beleth was a full Archangel > > No. It states quite clearly in "The Marches" that Beleth was the > Angel of Fear, and not an Archangel. I think it also says the same > in her write up in the main rulebook. I'm a little unclear as to whether or not ANYONE was a 'full Archangel' before the fall. After all, things were simpler then. > > Leath. > Badger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:25:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal On Tue, 5 May 1998, Twila Oxley Price wrote: > So, if anyone would be kind enough to tell me if I've gotten anything > *really horribly* wrong, or even made them interesting characters, I'd > appreciate it. I think both characters are very interesting and well done. Just two things... (1) No one can have skills above 6, except Superiors. Just as no non-Superiors can have attributes above 12. If your group has a house rule that makes it legal, cool, but I wanted to let you know it's *definitely* non-canon. (2) There really aren't 'male' and 'female' Lilim...it's just that since Lilith made them, and she's female, most Lilim identify with female; many, however, couldn't care less about gender, and some consider themselves male. This is just a minor nit, which comes down to a suggestion to change "one of the few male Lilim" to "one of the few Lilim who considers himself male". Good work. 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: Tue, 05 May 1998 23:13:52 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael On Wed, 6 May 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > > What was Baal's Word as an Archangel? Obviously, he wasn't the Archangel > > of the War at the time, so what did he resonate? > > He probably wasn't an Archangel. More likely he would only have been > an ordinary angel. Not all angels (including those who did and > didn't fall) were archangels at that time. Well, you have a point. I think he was, though. He was one of the first seven angels created. APG, page 6: "God then created many more celestial creatures, which were called angels. Michael was the first. Lucifer the second. The other early celestials were Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel and Uriel." Six out of the seven were Archangels. I doubt Baal was the odd man out. > Andrealphus, the Angel of Love in Service to Eli The IPG officially states he was the Archangel of Love before the Fall. Beleth was also an Archangel originally--see The Marches. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 23:25:34 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael On Wed, 6 May 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > > But Beleth was a full Archangel > > No. It states quite clearly in "The Marches" that Beleth was the > Angel of Fear, and not an Archangel. I think it also says the same > in her write up in the main rulebook. Hmmmm...a discrepancy. _The Marches_, page 7 says: "Beleth was, in those days, the angel of Fear, working in tandem with Blandine's Word of Dream...". But on page 28, it says: "As the then-Archangel of Fear, Beleth had learned the ins and outs of the field of dreamscapes along with her lover and partner, Blandine." So, you official types out there, which was she? Word-bound angel or Archangel? And what about Baal (the original point of my first post)? Was he an Archangel, and (if so) what was his Word? I could make it up myself, but I prefer to get canon answers. Especially since it's for a near-canonical project I'm putting together for my campaign... Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 14:45:04 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael Richard gant wrote: > Hmmmm...a discrepancy. _The Marches_, page 7 says: "Beleth was, in those > days, the angel of Fear, working in tandem with Blandine's Word of > Dream...". But on page 28, it says: "As the then-Archangel of Fear, > Beleth had learned the ins and outs of the field of dreamscapes along with > her lover and partner, Blandine." So, you official types out there, which > was she? Word-bound angel or Archangel? Yes. I've had a chance to go back over the books now and there are several discrepancies. The 2 examples you cite above in "The Marches", p164 in the IN rulebook says she was the "angel of Fear", and p9 of the APG again says she was the "Archangel of Fear". So people can't decide. Also, I can't argue with the IPG since I don't have it (yet), but the APG describes Andrealphus as the "dark angel of Love" (p9). Since it specifically mentions Beleth as the Archangel of Fear on that page (which is also incontention), we can say that this is an argument against, since they didn't bother to define Andre as an Archangel. I still stick by a non-Archangel Belial. > And what about Baal (the original point of my first post)? Was he an > Archangel, and (if so) what was his Word? I could make it up myself, but > I prefer to get canon answers. Especially since it's for a near-canonical > project I'm putting together for my campaign... Can't help you there. I've always had a problem wiith Baal being listed as a first generation angel. In my mind, Lucifer was unuable to get any of the first generation to join him, because they understood the love of God better. I know this doesn't mesh with canon, but it sits better in my mind. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 00:12:06 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Abortion in IN >>>The problem with that argument is that the direct object of abortion has no choice in the matter at all. Abortion can be regarded as the ultimate deprivation of Freedom. The other problem with this argument is that many of us are just taking their own personal stances of abortion and mapping them onto the IN universe. I include myself in this category.<<< Exactly. So in your IN universe, maybe fetuses have free will and souls, etc. However, that's not something that can be objectively determined in the real world (no matter how loudly people on both sides scream). Therefore it's fair game for that "gray area" where angels and demons fear to tread but do anyway. IOW, it's still possible for angels and demons to both fall on either side of the argument. _Unless_ you specify in _your_ campaign that it's been settled by God already. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 00:24:46 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Rasta Angel >>Actually, the patron of Rastafarianism is (IMC) Eli. One of his Mercurians, >>would be my guess. (Possibly in service to wind...) > >Why is that? How does Rastafarianism serve Creation? > >-Jesse Probably because of his Bob Marley-style 'do. :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | 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, 6 May 1998 00:27:18 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: IN> Fluff: A Soldier for Micheal Saw the Austin Powers movie again recently and this line sticks in my mind. "This is Frau Brecca, founder of the militant wing of the Salvation Army." --Dr. Evil to his henchmen "Austin Powers, Man of Mystery" - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | 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, 6 May 1998 00:33:01 -0400 From: eswhanu@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal >(1) No one can have skills above 6, except Superiors. Just as no >non-Superiors can have attributes above 12. If your group has a house >rule>that makes it legal, cool, but I wanted to let you know it's >*definitely*>non-canon. OK, these are all the celestials I found that break with canon then, out of the books: - - Furfur (Pre Demon Prince, NM) 14 Strength, Will 13 - - Staciel, Countess of the Game (H&H) 14 Intelligence, - - Triel, Baron of the Game (H&H), 16 Strength - - Karne, Baron of Gluttony, 16 Strength, 14 Will - - Beartador, Inspector of Technology (H&H) 16 Strength Granted, may not seem like a lot, but it does violate the supposed 'Canon' Brian Ward On Tue, 5 May 1998 22:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Pee Kitty writes: >On Tue, 5 May 1998, Twila Oxley Price wrote: > >> So, if anyone would be kind enough to tell me if I've gotten >anything >> *really horribly* wrong, or even made them interesting characters, >I'd >> appreciate it.> >I think both characters are very interesting and well done. Just two >things... > >(1) No one can have skills above 6, except Superiors. Just as no >non-Superiors can have attributes above 12. If your group has a house >rule>that makes it legal, cool, but I wanted to let you know it's >*definitely* >non-canon. > >(2) There really aren't 'male' and 'female' Lilim...it's just that >since >Lilith made them, and she's female, most Lilim identify with female; >many,>however, couldn't care less about gender, and some consider themselves>male. This is just a minor nit, which comes down to a suggestion to >change>"one of the few male Lilim" to "one of the few Lilim who considers >himself>male". > >Good work. > > >Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 03:23:45 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael At 07:10 PM 5/05/98 -0700, you wrote: >> >> Jesse wrote: >> >> > But Beleth was a full Archangel >> >> No. It states quite clearly in "The Marches" that Beleth was the >> Angel of Fear, and not an Archangel. I think it also says the same >> in her write up in the main rulebook. > >I'm a little unclear as to whether or not ANYONE was a 'full Archangel' >before the fall. After all, things were simpler then. > >> >> There were Archangels, but things were simpler and the job and title didn't have quite the same meaning, remember however that Lucifer was described as the Archangel of Light, and in the A.P.G. it says during the Revolt Lucifer slew an Archangel named Metatron, about the latter some have discussed before, he was the Voice of God right? Simon, Spellbound sorceror of salacious wit ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 03:34:19 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon To my chagrin i still don't own the I.P.G. but I did peruse it at my local gamestore, and low and behold, do I not see a lot of familiar names. David Edelstein of course, he has writter for In Nomine before, but Elizabeth McCoy too, and Walter Milliken, all fellow list buddies (we can discuss the last term later). At first that made me proud, I'd talked with these people, heard them speak, but it also made me curious, just how could I get my name in a future In Nomine sourcebook? Well I guess that is the question, how do I, or indeed anyone else, get to do what these individuals did, write Canon!!!!!! I slaver at the thought of doing so (not really but you get the idea) who makes the final decisions, who sets the standards, just what exactly is Steve Jackson asking for at the moment? That's enough from me, but if those in the know could kindly tell me I would sleep easier. Simon, amateur writer looking for fame ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 01:24:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Dominic (..or a Dark Lord of the Sith?) On Tue, 5 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > > > > > > ---Titus 3 11 wrote: > > <> > > "Lord Dominic, this is an unexpected pleasure. We are honored by your > > presence." > > "You may dispense with the pleasantries, Seneschal. I'm here to put > you > > back on schedule." > > "I assure you Lord Dominic, my men are working as fast as they can." > > "Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them." > > "I tell you, this tether will be operationial as planned." > > "God does not share your optomistic appraisal of the situation." > > "But he asks the impossible. I need more men!" > > "Then perhaps you can tell him when he arrives." > > "God's coming here?" > > "That is correct, Seneschal. And He is most displeased with your > apparent > > lack of progress." > > "We shall double our efforts." > > "I hope so Seneschal. For your sake. God is not as forgiving as I > am." > > > > > > -enosh > LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! > > Why am I picturing Khlaid, archangel of faith, saying "I find your > lack of faith disturbing"? > > Good one, enosh! You get the Golden Feather Award! arigato... (yes, I know my romanji is probably spelt wrong. Bugger.) Enosh > > Graveyard Greg > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 01:27:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: The falling begins...(was Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition ) On Tue, 5 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > > > > > > ---Titus 3 11 wrote: > > > > I speak for many fans here > > "Grrr..." > > Enosh > > > I've noticed a disturbing decline here....You were a Malikite of > Creation in service to Dominic, then in service to Dar.....Dominic, > THEN to a Malakite of...?, following to just a Malakite, and now? > NOTHING! > > Face it, Enosh...you've fallen...And Kobal is waiting for you. > Congrats, The Brass Forked Tongue Award is yours! If any representatives of the Demon Prince of Dark Humor would like to make an offical offer, they know where to reach me. At the McDonalds play land, showing people why I took a five year old vessel... ("Why did you jump from the top of the swing set Timmy?" "The other boy did...he was okay..." <> "oh Timmy!!!!") For everyone who is firm about angelic intervention encopmpassing assination and abortion, keep in mind that the aforementioned would be a fine *angelic* tactic. Enosh > > Graveyard Greg, Angel of "The Envelope, Please..." > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 01:29:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: Grand'ma is toast (was Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment) > >All hail the Allfather > > Odin? Why would we hail Odin? > > -Jesse > Poor, confused Jesse...and taken in context of a Preacher discussion... poor, confused Jesse... Enosh (who doesn't dig red ties ONE BIT!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:31:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Two NPCS for your perusal On Wed, 6 May 1998 eswhanu@juno.com wrote: > >(1) No one can have skills above 6, except Superiors. Just as no > >non-Superiors can have attributes above 12. If your group has a house > >rule>that makes it legal, cool, but I wanted to let you know it's > >*definitely*>non-canon. > > OK, these are all the celestials I found that break with canon then, out > of the books: > > - Furfur (Pre Demon Prince, NM) 14 Strength, Will 13 > - Staciel, Countess of the Game (H&H) 14 Intelligence, > - Triel, Baron of the Game (H&H), 16 Strength > - Karne, Baron of Gluttony, 16 Strength, 14 Will > - Beartador, Inspector of Technology (H&H) 16 Strength They've all been errata'd. Check the errata pages and see. 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, 6 May 1998 01:31:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Casca wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 1998, Titus 3 11 wrote: > > > anyone who thinks that ivanova, after four years of running Babylon 5 (the > > capitan was always an accesory), could not, while sleeping, run "the War," > > deserves a smiting. Her skills as a Demon Prince would be exceptional... > > I'm not saying she couldn't do the job, I'm saying she shouldn't be a DP. > Ivanova as Michael, on the other hand.... This would be one of those few things where I just sit back, hit myself upside the head, and moan about how stupid I am... Very good call. (with sheridan as Laurence...) (Sinclair - Sinclair is God!) Enosh > > -- Casca, Seraph of Archives > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) > > "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of > His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: > with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their > feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the > doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." > -- Isaiah 6:2,4 > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 01:32:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Claudia Christian as Michael? Oh yes...the movement begins... I'm highly tempted to paste a picture of her over Micheal's picture in the IN core book... Enosh On Tue, 5 May 1998, Stacy Stroud wrote: > Quoth Casca: > >I'm not saying she couldn't do the job, I'm saying she shouldn't be a DP. > >Ivanova as Michael, on the other hand.... > > > "Who am I? I am Susan Ivanova, Commander, Earthforce; daughter of Andrei > and Sophie Ivanov. I am the right hand of Vengeance, and the boot that is > going to kick your sorry butt all the way back to Earth, sweetheart. I am > Death Incarnate, and the last living thing you will ever see. *God* sent > me." > > Yup, I can see it.... > > > Stacy Stroud > sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:38:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: [none] I"m a little confused as to the playablity of servitors of Jordi...just what are they allowed to do? Enosh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 10:00:51 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Various On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 04:48:10PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >Cool. Will you give my Seraphim dodge bonuses when they resonate on their > >opponents with a check digit of 6? > > I realize this is probably a joke, but I'll take it seriously anyway. > It's only partly a joke. I've been meditating on combat tactics for a while. > The answer is a qualified yes. If your opponent announced his intentions > and you divined the Truth of what he was going to do before he actually > carried it out, then I'd probably give you a Precision roll to see if > you could react quickly enough to get out of the way. > Actually, intentions don't have to be announced verbally. The expanded rules on the Seraphic resonance state clearly that they can resonate on actions directed toward them. So if somebody makes a feint (directed at the Seraph), and they're resonating on that person, they should pick it up. On a check digit of 4, they should pick up what the other person actually intends to do. One would also assume that Seraphim serving the military archangels get taught how to do this, and how to react quickly to it, as a matter of course. > Note that this means that you could only dodge a physical attack, since > the combat timing says supernatural powers go before physical ones; Not that I have the rules on me, or have had them on me for the past several weeks, but where does it say this? The only one I remember says that attunements which aren't always on take effect the turn after they're invoked, unless otherwise specified. your > opponent actually has to say something relevant for you Has to _do_ something relevant. This point bears repeating. to resonate on > it; and you've used your action for the turn resonating instead of > smiting. > No, you can resonate on someone before the combat begins and the resonance effect lasts for several minutes. This also means, of course, that in most combats, you'll only be able to pull this trick off against one person. 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: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:05:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Doubting Eric Subject: IN> Re: your mail On Wed, 6 May 1998, Titus 3 11 wrote: > I"m a little confused as to the playablity of servitors of Jordi...just > what are they allowed to do? > Enosh Note that their dissonance condition states that "Jordi's angels cannot allow themselves to be swayed by the concerns of human society, its rules or its expectations of behavior." So the answer is, pretty much anything /except/ concern themselves with humanity over animal life (or be messy and cruel when they kill, but angels are /never/ messy and cruel. :) This says /nothing/ about valuing Heavenly matters above animalkind, or the celestial aspects of the War. Keep this in mind, and they can do quite a bit.[*] Eric, Elohite of Orc [*] cf: Hitherby in Fiat Justitia. YABP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:06:41 +0200 From: "Jens Alm" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment >On Mon, 4 May 1998, Bob the Dancing Monkey wrote: > >> Which brings me to something I've been thinking about - has anyone >> attempted to pull Illuminati resources into In Nomine? One interesting >> twist on the Secret Society concept is conspiracies being an attempt by >> certain mortals to wrest control of the Great War from the celestials. Of >> course, Malphas has had his finger in it for a long time... > >I've thought about doing this with Sorcerers, but I haven't gotten around >to doing anything concrete yet. I've got some ideas for an occult society >in my IN version of Uppsala... founded by that Saminga Renegade I've >mentioned before. ;) > I have an idea for a secret society yet to come IMC (I want my players to get a grasp of Illuminati reality before I go and change it :). They call themselves the Templars and they have a very intricate and far-reaching powerstructure, including the governments of several western countries. Their mission seems to be to rid the world of demons, so far so good, however, they seem to have their philosophies all mixed up, as they don't differentiate between diabolics and angels. All celestials are their target, although they will only try to kill angels who step in their way, demons they hunt. Dominics official take on this is of course that the organization is twisted by the diabolics. The "demon killings" are all arranged for appearance only, probably its Asmodeus who's behind it all and the killed demons are renegades. Recently however, a triad searching for an angel fallen to Asmodeus found some information, indicating that Asmodeus believes this organization to be founded and supported by Michael. Dominic of course knows better than to believe anything found in the lairs of Asmodeus, but somewhere inside, suspicion is rising. What is the real power behind the organization? Nobody knows. What is known is that it is immensely powerful. These humans are not Soldiers of God or Hell, yet they are able to take on celestials and they are frighteningly successful. They have in their possession several very powerful relics (included, according to rumor, the holy Grail). They are somehow able to use Songs, whether by artifacts or by their own will. One templar will not stand a chance against a celestial in fair combat. However, they are never alone and they never fight fair, indeed they are sometimes more cunning than the demons they fight. Also, they have support in a powerstructure of unknown size and quality. Somehow these soldiers never get caught alive to be interrogated by a Seraph, they never become possessed by a Shedite or Kyriotate. If they try, the celestial is temporarily blinded by a golden light and then expelled, often stunned. Rumors and whispers in the celestial realms talk of some ancient Etherial spirit behind the Templars, some say its Toth, from ancient Egypt, some certify that it is Tiamat, the dragon of time. Another power mentioned is Uriel, unable to work with the angelic host, he now uses his own forces. /Jens ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:18:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > You're walking on thin ice, Jo... > > Shouldn't you specify that it's metaphorical thin ice? Of course, Michael > does go around calling Dominic a hyena. Some things are considered understood and therefore need not be said, such as the implied subject "you" in the statement "Go take a flying leap." >> *wields flaming sword menacingly* > > > Be careful about where you wave that thing. Do you really want to do it in > the Library? Of course. It's a -metaphorical- flaming sword. > > Beth likes Malakim with Good Views. I like Ivanova for the same reasons. > > Frankly, if not for the fact that by this stage I don't expect anything > better from the forces of Heaven, I would be dismayed. Imagine allowing > your objectivity, which should be sacred, to be influenced by the sight of > some woman's curves. It just goes to show how false their claims of moral > superiority really are. Do I LOOK like an Elohite? No. I'm a Seraph, and we're entitled to be as opinionated as we damn well please. And I will be forwarding a copy of of your deleterious statement regarding the objectivity of your Princess to the requisite authorities. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 10:23:12 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 11:57:35PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > And Seraphim of the Wind do that endemically. It's what their Choir > > attunement makes them do. It's not dissonant for Seraphim to deceive > > people in that fashion, because it's still truth. And some Seraphim think > > of very creative ways to make sure what they say will be misinterpreted. > > To get another WoT parallell into this, this is how the Aes Sedai get > around their magically enforced vow to not lie. > I go to the WoT for inspiration on this sometimes. Don't forget that Galad does it as well, and has provided a classic of the genre. "When I came to this table, I thought I knew these people, etc.", and conveniently omitting to mention the fact that he had been absolutely correct. > I can well imagine that a Seraph with a few centuries of practice will be > good enough at this that he can say things that almost everyone would take > to mean something quite different. :) > Oh, yes. A lot of them wouldn't like doing it, of course. > Another problem with this is that there really aren't any uniform > languages - every person has his/her own personal language, that usually > has a pretty big overlap with most people around him/her, but may also > have significant differences, due to, for example, misunderstandings of > the general usage of a word. What it comes down to is this. Most people don't speak the Truth, even when they think they are. A lot of expressions don't literally mean what people think they mean, or mean the opposite to what people think they mean. So a Seraph can use the literal meaning of one of those expressions to deceive someone. The corollary is that they can't use them in the normal way without adding disclaimers such as "so to speak" and "as the saying goes". Seraphim do not speak the same language as anyone except other Seraphim. How does this affect Seraphim? Can they use this to consciously > decieve people? ("He seems to think that this word means X while I take it > to mean Y, so I can make him believe that I am saying something I am > not.") I'd say no - this is "active" deception, and that should not be > allowed, or any Seraph could create his own language and go around lying > left, right and center. I'd say yes, provided the use of that word is supported by the language as a whole. A Seraph can't invent a meaning for a word with intent to deceive, but can take advantage of alternate meanings that already exist. There's an example in the story I posted up not too long ago, where a Seraph is playing poker, and bluffing. The Seraph said explicitly that she has a good hand, referring, in fact, to one of the hands that are on the ends of her arms. IMO, this sort of thing isn't dissonant. My general test is that if it can be understood, given a logical analysis of what something means, that it doesn't mean what you might think it means, that it's all right for a Seraph to say it. Other Seraph tricks are demonic inconsistency (which is a bit dubious), and disconnected statements, eg "I love In Nomine. It has a system which is really easy to abuse.", which conveys the impression that the speaker loves In Nomine because the system is open to abuse, but doesn't necessarily mean that. 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: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:25:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Jesse wrote: > Hasn't this Nit-picking thing gone far enough? Of course it has. One week into it was far enough. We are now so far past far enough that we have crossed into the realm of screamingly annoying, and I believe the topic will linger there until someone -- most likely me -- snaps and flames someone. This will result in my chastisement and general censure from the list, and the guilty parties will lie low for about a week before starting the whole madding process up again. If, however, you would like to sign a petition I have just now created, called "Please make the Servitors of Nitpicking shut up NOW", I would be more than happy to add your name to the list. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives and founder of the PMtSoNSUN! crusade (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:26:05 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Beleth On Tue, 5 May 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 1998, Leath Sheales wrote: > > > > But Beleth was a full Archangel > > > > No. It states quite clearly in "The Marches" that Beleth was the > > Angel of Fear, and not an Archangel. I think it also says the same > > in her write up in the main rulebook. > > Hmmmm...a discrepancy. _The Marches_, page 7 says: "Beleth was, in those > days, the angel of Fear, working in tandem with Blandine's Word of > Dream...". But on page 28, it says: "As the then-Archangel of Fear, > Beleth had learned the ins and outs of the field of dreamscapes along with > her lover and partner, Blandine." So, you official types out there, which > was she? Word-bound angel or Archangel? Nowhere nere official, just a suggestion. Aren't AA:s angels? If they are, then being the Archangel of X also means you're the Angel of X. No more discrepancy. I'm not sure how clearly the terminology is defined here, so please don't hit me too hard if I'm wrong. :) Anders Gabrielsson, Angel of [SNIP]ping 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: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:29:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Jo Hart wrote: > Maybe Malakim with Good Views can't act either ;-) [Then again, maybe they > don't need to!] No, they don't, but I hold that Claudia Christian -cna- act, thank you very much, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't cast disparaging remarks at my One True Love. > You want to be careful with that flaming sword near all that thin ice... I didn't say -I- was on the ice, now did I? ;;;) - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:44:29 +0200 From: "Jens Alm" Subject: SV: IN> Uriel's next assignment >grasp of Illuminati reality before I go and change it :). They call themselves ^^^^^^^^^^ Hmm, I can see that Kobal has played a trick on me, I meant "In Nomine reality" of course! /Jens, Impudite Captain of the Broken Promise, Demon of Copyright Issues. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 10:44:45 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Jordi's big move On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 09:31:57PM -0400, Pee Kitty wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > Dissonant. A Djinn can't ask someone else to get rid of an object of their > > attunement, though they can make hints, like "I'm really sick of being > > attuned to X, and if you do me a favour, I'll give you this relic." > > "What sort of favour?" > > "I can't say." > > Says who? Me. And, I believe, canon as well. It says a Djinn cannot being himself to harm the object, but the > netreps on this list have made it QUITE clear that he can stand by and let > his friends do the whomping. It's not dissonant at all. > The example I gave was an example of standing by and letting someone else do the whomping, if a bit dubious. However, saying "I want you to kill this guy" is not standing by, it is instigating direct harm to the object of attunement. Djinn can tell someone that the fixation is somewhere in the sure knowledge that that person will take out the fixation, but can't say "I want you to go to wherever in order to take out the fixation." It's a thin line, but it's there. 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: Wed, 06 May 1998 10:48:30 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Baal and Michael On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 11:13:52PM -0400, gantr@nku.edu wrote: > Well, you have a point. I think he was, though. He was one of the first > seven angels created. APG, page 6: > > "God then created many more celestial creatures, which were called angels. > Michael was the first. Lucifer the second. The other early celestials > were Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel and Uriel." > > Six out of the seven were Archangels. I doubt Baal was the odd man out. > Given that Baal is the only Superior on either side that we know of with a Word based solely on a single event, is it reasonable to assume that before he Fell he had a similarly time-limited Word? And was it, perhaps, the fear that his role might soon be over that drove him, alone among that generation (excluding Lucifer) to rebel against God? 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: Wed, 06 May 1998 11:01:44 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 05:18:08AM -0400, Casca wrote: > > Shouldn't you specify that it's metaphorical thin ice? Of course, Michael > > does go around calling Dominic a hyena. > > Some things are considered understood and therefore need not be said, > such as the implied subject "you" in the statement "Go take a flying leap." > I don't think that the analogy is a good one. An imperative statement without an object is frankly ridiculous. But thin ice can certainly literally exist, and is not necessarily metaphorical. > >> *wields flaming sword menacingly* > > > > > Be careful about where you wave that thing. Do you really want to do it in > > the Library? > > Of course. It's a -metaphorical- flaming sword. > What do metaphorical flaming swords do, or do I really want to know? > > > Beth likes Malakim with Good Views. I like Ivanova for the same reasons. > > > > Frankly, if not for the fact that by this stage I don't expect anything > > better from the forces of Heaven, I would be dismayed. Imagine allowing > > your objectivity, which should be sacred, to be influenced by the sight of > > some woman's curves. It just goes to show how false their claims of moral > > superiority really are. > > Do I LOOK like an Elohite? No. I'm a Seraph, and we're entitled to be as > opinionated as we damn well please. > But you shouldn't allow extraneous facts to interfere with your judgement of the Truth. Are you suggesting that the truth is not objective? > And I will be forwarding a copy of of your deleterious statement > regarding the objectivity of your Princess to the requisite authorities. > Are you sure it was my Princess and not your Archangel I was referring to? And it was not a statement, nor was it even an inference. IIRC, Beth never said that Malakim should be played because they're sexy, though it might have been implied. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #757 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.