From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 11 17:15:09 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 RAA00928 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:15:08 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id RAA21665 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:12:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:12:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199805112212.RAA21665@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 #772 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 Monday, May 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 772 In this digest: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. Re: IN> What is the War about? Re: IN> IN: Resonance/Wheel of Time parallell Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition IN> [darwin] Off Topic Today (fwd) Re: IN> Origins '98 Re: IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence Re: IN> Idle thoughts Re: IN> Idle thoughts IN> Good Story IN> book question. Re: IN> What is the War about? Re: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. Re: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. Re: IN> What is the War about? Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: IN> Writing Canon Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon IN> Re:Children of the Grigori and Angels of Purity Re: IN> Writing Canon Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> Name for the Songbook Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: Tethers and Essence (was Re: IN> Stat limits) Re: IN> What's the best source of info... Re: IN> Writing Canon Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? Re: IN> Writing Canon Re: IN> Ceilings and Superiors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shumaker Subject: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. I have been behind on my mail here since I am on more than one mailing lists for games (Digests are looking good!) As such, I have ALOT of mail that I am wading through and I am reading a number of posts that say, "You can't do blah." Pardon me? If you don't think I can, I just did. Rules are not there, or should not be there, to LIMIT you. They are there as guidelines. You want to make it so that your angel/demon changes their word? Change it or talk to your GM about a plotline to change it. I am sure that SJG is not going to take a stance that people that play their games have to follow their rules. In Nomine couldn't get Baal's word right for cying out loud. Baal was a God of Lust/Fertility, where War came into it was someone's decision. If I want to play Baal as the God of Lust and break Canon so what? I realize there are many people on the list that change things. IMG is a common thing to come across in a post. I am sure that most people agree with me. What I can't undestand/abide is someone coming along and drawing a line of, "You cant have ..." I know the definition of the word can. Believe me I can, anyone can, if they choose. I can see someone mentioning that Canon states one thing, but stating that someone "cant" do this or that, or what they did was wrong is very bad policy. Jim "First thing we do is kill all the rules lawyers" Shumaker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:18:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> What is the War about? > In Nomine seems to be implying that the end result of the War is not > known, i.e. Who knows who will win? In Revelations alone there are > several passages that state that God will be victorious. (This is of > course if you believe in the Trinity...otherwise Christ will be > victorious) The best known passage is, "I am the Alpha, the Omega..." > What am I missing? If I'm not missing anything then why the change? Pretty straightforward answer: In Nomine isn't a Christian game per se, and doesn't strive to reproduce the Christian tradition. Although the game uses Christaian, Islamic, Jewish, and other religious traditions as source material, you are probably best off thinking of it as a modern day fantasy game set in a fictional world all it's own. Trying to reconcile In Nomine Canon with any of the variants of the Christian tradition is probably as futile as trying to reconcile your typical swords-and-sorcery fantasy world with the realities of Earth's middle ages. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:57:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> IN: Resonance/Wheel of Time parallell On Tue, 5 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. > (I didn't know there were other WOT fans on the list, besides Adam.) Yo! (Though I have been somewhat inactive recently. Stuff *will* be forthcoming, when I can get my brain sufficiently skewed.) /cd, with a Haagenti-ish sig-quote. - -- "I find myself increasingly attracted to the succulent flesh (Mmmm. Flesh.) of my roommate's arm. (Mmmm. Arm. Mmmm. Room- mate.)" - Angela Furry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits Walter Milliken writes: >It's pretty much SJGames policy for In Nomine that Superiors Shall Not >Be Quantified. If this be the case, why does Liber Reliquarum bother with discussions of die roll outcomes for Vapula's Raygun, when fired by Vapula? If a Superior is on the scene and actively taking part, isn't combat a matter of "Poof, you're dead"? I guess that this can just be added to various other Game Mechanics Mysteries, such as "Given the way Celestial Combat works, how was it *possible* for Michael to *subdue* Lucifer, as opposed to soul-killing or Remnantizing him?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:17:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Wed, 6 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 05:18:08AM -0400, Casca wrote: >>>> *wields flaming sword menacingly* >> Of course. It's a -metaphorical- flaming sword. > What do metaphorical flaming swords do, or do I really want to know? Why, cut through metaphors, of course. For use vs. people who don't have metaphor licenses. Very useful for Seraphim. 'You used a metaphor without a metaphor license. I shall bap your inane metaphor with my metaphorical flaming sword.' cd - -- "And it has come to pass that the Lord of the Woods, being ...Seven and Nine, down the onyx steps ...(Tri)butes to him in the Gulf, Aza- thoth, He of Whom Thou has taught us marv(els)..." -H. P. Lovecraft cd skogsberg | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:26:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: IN> [darwin] Off Topic Today (fwd) This is just too fun. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:25:15 +0100 From: Catweasel To: Darwin and Natural Selection Subject: [darwin] Off Topic Today Whilst it is decidedly non-Darwinian, I would like to announce a new mailing list. Yesterday saw the birth of Off Topic Today, the mailing list which is, like myself, OTT. Briefly: Please bear in mind that this is Off Topic Today. Members will be warned and/or flamed for being ON topic. Repeat offenders may be hung, drawn and quartered, flogged, tarred and feathered, sold off into slavery, boiled in oil, eviscerated or ejected, depending on my mood. So what is ON topic?. Well you may ask. I will periodically declare a topic ON at the request of none or more members. My call. Initially there is only one ON topic, World Cup football. So what is OFF topic? Well, you know all those discussions which got cut off in their prime? Yup, them's the ones. Just remember, if it got thrown off another list for being off-topic then bring it here. It will probably be at home. To subscribe send a message to list-thing@catweasel.org with the subject OTT-subscribe (your name). Trust me, I'm a list-thing. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:32:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Origins '98 On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Jesse wrote: > > Is anyone planning on coming to Gen-Con? > > Gee, I don't know, when is it and how much does it cost for tix and rooms? Ticket prices for Gen-Con, can be found at the WOTC web sight. As for Hotel rooms, they tend to be a bit high in Millwaukee, and you have to get them as far in advance as possable. On the other hand, if you are driving in, and don't mind a slight commute, The rooms in Racine, and Kenosha are not that much. As a matter of fact if you call the Days Inn in Kenosha (45 minute commute) on Mon-Wed. from 11pm till 7AM I will set you uip with a good room rate. I work as the night auditor there. Shadowcat P.S. the # for the Days inn is (414)857-2311. All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence Kevin Walsh writes: >I believe rites performed by the worshippers of Ethereals send Essence >from the worshipper to the Ethereal. While the "Worship Rites" described in _The Marches_ have this effect, the writeup also says in the same place that Ethereals can also grant their servants the standard kind of Rite as well -- it just doesn't bother detailing them because the concept is already familiar from the main rulebook. >I think there has to be an element of >zero-sumness in the whole Essence business because otherwise the Demon >Princes would have infinite Servitors by this stage. Not really. Technological progress and industrial development are both examples of non-zero-sum processes, and they show no signs of exploding to infinity in either the past or in the foreseeable future. "Limited by availability of resources" is not the same as "zero-sum". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:29:15 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Idle thoughts Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Congratulations. You have reconstructed something very similar >to the escatology called "post-tribulation dispensationalism," >in which the faithful have to endure all the horrors of Armageddon >before God strikes back. I am not a dispensationalist, myself, but >if I were, that is the flavor I would be. (The other two main >flavors are "pre-trib" and "mid-trib." Details upon request.) Okay, I request. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:45:01 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Idle thoughts Neel Krishnaswami asked for descriptions of "pre-trib" and "mid-trib" dispensationalism. Okay... Dispensationalism is a branch of conservative Protestant theology primarily concerned with the end of the world (called "eschatology"). It divides the spiritual history of humanity into several qualitatively distinct periods and sub-periods called "dispensations." Examples would be the period from Adam's creation to the expulsion from Eden, from there to the Flood, from the Flood to Abraham, etc. The life of Christ initiated the current dispensation, of course. But the focus of attention is on the end of the world and the Rapture. The Rapture is an event predicted by Christ and mentioned also by Paul, in which all the faithful on Earth are swept up into Heaven. ("Snatched," which is "raptus" or something in Latin.) It happens *sometime* around the end of the world, but when *exactly*? Dispensationalism usually believes that the "End Times," also called "the Tribulation," will take seven years, broken into two equal halves of three and a half years. (The Antichrist goes public at the beginning and takes over the world at the mid-point.) "Pre-tribulationists" (or "pre-tribbers") believe the Rapture will happen at the beginning of the Tribulation. The "mid-trib" position is that the Rapture will happen at the 3.5-year mark. The "post-trib" position is that the Rapture happens at the very end. The popularity of the three positions is just what you would expect from an invitation to suffer through the worst years of history. Pre-trib leads and post-trib trails. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:27:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: IN> Good Story I just read a story in "Xanadu" edited by Jane Yolen. The story is titled 'the pale thin God' by Mike Resnick. It is Yhvh being put on trial for crimes against godhood, by some of the anchient African dieties. Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:34:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: IN> book question. # I just saw a copy of "Angels from A-Z" in a local bookstore for $6.00, is it a good reference source? What are some of the sources you folks would recomend? Shadowcat All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:57:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> What is the War about? On Mon, 11 May 1998, Jim Shumaker wrote: > In Nomine seems to be implying that the end result of the War is not > known, i.e. Who knows who will win? In Revelations alone there are > several passages that state that God will be victorious. Simple. What you're reading is Heaven's PoV. Obviously they're sure that they're going to win. Hell has a different PoV altogether, as you can imagine. How can you know which is right? None of the superiors can see the future (except Yves and Kronos, but they ain't talking), so it all comes down to faith in your side. Faith, an important component of most religions. I mean, you don't have any scientic proof that there's a god or afterlife, but you have faith, and that's good enough. And you know that the good guys are gonna win, because the bible says so, and you have faith in the bible. So you can see how someone who had faith in something *else* (like Lucifer's teachings), which said something different (like, the bible is full of it, and the demons have a good chance of winning), would believe in that just as strongly. Since neither can be proven to happen, and it's all just being taken on faith, no one can really know for SURE what's gonna happen. 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: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:03:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. On Mon, 11 May 1998, Jim Shumaker wrote: > I have been behind on my mail here since I am on more than one mailing > lists for games (Digests are looking good!) As such, I have ALOT of mail > that I am wading through and I am reading a number of posts that say, "You > can't do blah." Pardon me? If you don't think I can, I just did. Relax, Jim. When someone on the list says, "You can't change your Word," for example, what they mean is, "According to pure canon, you can't change your Word; of course, you are free to rule whatever you wish in your game." I thought that was fairly obvious...I mean, in what way would it make *any* sense for a person to actually SAY, "You can't change your Word, even if you have a house rule that says you can"? It's assumed that anyone reading a line like "You can't..." understands that the writer is referring to *pure canon* rules, not trying to bind anyone into anything. Jim, do you really think we need to preface EVERY such sentence with the words "according to pure canon" and then sticking the words "of course, you are free to rule whatever you wish in your game" in the middle or end somewhere? I'm not about to do that, so if you see me telling another person that they can't have characteristic above 12, before you get upset, just mentally stick those two clauses into the sentence, reread it like that, and everything'll be cool. 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: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:02:19 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Can't do this or Can't do that. On Mon, May 11, 1998 at 09:23:48AM -0700, Jim Shumaker wrote: > Rules are not there, or should not be there, to LIMIT you. They are there > as guidelines. You want to make it so that your angel/demon changes > their word? Change it or talk to your GM about a plotline to change it. > I'm not sure what this post refers to specifically, so I'll take this example. The question is, not whether you can change your Word, but why you want to. So once upon a time you were happy being the Angel of Capture by Storm*, but it just isn't satisfying any longer. Why isn't it satisfying? a) Maybe it's just getting old. You're sick of being stuck in the same rut. The problem with this reason is that Word-bound Celestials tend (and I use the word tend advisedly) to focus on their Word to the point of obsession, and have no problem with getting stuck in ruts. But if you can make this convincing, go for it. b) Your Word is waning in importance, despite everything you've done to promote it. Why is this? Is it those damned Servitors of Flowers, trying to make raids into other countries politically unacceptable? Is it improvements in defensive technology, pushing your attacks past the three day limit? Has the word come down from Above that Capture by Storm just isn't as useful as it used to be? If it's the latter, then your petition is more likely to meet with success. They may even try to push you into it. If it's a problem with technology, then maybe you can try to develop ways to work around it. You've done it before, after all, in hundreds of different arms races. But maybe you just can't do it this time, and you feel you should be doing something different. c) You're having doubts. What good has your Word done? What purpose has it served? Despite all your efforts, War tends to be stuck into siege moulds that purposelessly drag out human suffering with no issue. You have failed not just in execution, but in intent. d) It's something else. Your boss isn't understanding, or you lost your true love, or you were inquisited. Anything. And you don't want to admit it, so you project your problems onto your Word. If your Word were changed, everything would be better. So you're unhappy. Are you really going to try to have your Word changed? Maybe changing Superiors would be a better idea; less drastic, and it would have some of the same effects. Do you have anything in mind for your new Word, or are you ready to do anything? Is there anything else for you to do on this side of the War? If not, how about the other side? And how are you going to present this to the appropriate authorities? What do you do if they say no? * It's an example, one of my unwritten NPCs. He's a Malakite of the Wind in service to War, if you're interested. Nothing that I write here should be taken as meaning that the Angel of Capture by Storm is unhappy with his Word. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. (and I resent that crack about ruleslawyers) - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:08:03 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> What is the War about? On Mon, May 11, 1998 at 08:42:21AM -0700, Jim Shumaker wrote: > Before I really get into this I should note that I am new to In Nomine, so > I expect to be wrong :) Hmm...I always start off on the assumption that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, although I hedge against the possibility that I might make a mistake. Having grown up in a church I have seen many > things wrong with the Canon of Angels and Demons so this could be just > another difference. My question is this... > It is likely that the more of the game you see, the more heretical it will seem. Is it too personal a question to ask what church you grew up in and what its beliefs concerning Angels and Demons are? > In Nomine seems to be implying that the end result of the War is not > known, i.e. Who knows who will win? In Revelations alone there are > several passages that state that God will be victorious. (This is of > course if you believe in the Trinity...otherwise Christ will be > victorious) The best known passage is, "I am the Alpha, the Omega..." > What am I missing? If I'm not missing anything then why the change? > It's one of those "Canon Doubt and Uncertainty" issues. No-one knows what God will do (except perhaps the usual suspects), so if God doesn't do anything, then it is certainly conceivable that Lucifer will take the Lower Heavens, and maybe the Upper Heavens, and remake the Universe in his image. It is also conceivable that Laurence (or someone else) will unveil a grand strategy which brings Hell down without God's intervention. Or that the Cold War will continue for all eternity, or that something else will win. > I personally don't get the feel from Christianity, Judism, or Islam that > the strive between Heaven and Hell is over anything but the souls of > mankind. I see the eternal conflict rage over who gets the souls. The > Game (as one might call it) is all up when Gabriel gets around to blowing > her horn. > It's certainly a viable in-character theory, as well as OOC, and is correct for most variants of Christianity and Islam. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:35:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Iglesias Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Mon, 11 May 1998, cd skogsberg wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 05:18:08AM -0400, Casca wrote: > >>>> *wields flaming sword menacingly* > >> Of course. It's a -metaphorical- flaming sword. > > What do metaphorical flaming swords do, or do I really want to know? > Why, cut through metaphors, of course. For use vs. people who don't have > metaphor licenses. Very useful for Seraphim. I feel compelled to point out that several Bodhisattvas (the Buddhist kind, not the IN kind) have such swords. I love Buddhism... obIN: so, the Metaphorical Flaming Sword. Perhaps a relic that lets you cut the delusions out of someone, so that he's incapable of lying for X amount of time? How much would that cost, d'you think? Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "To fall in love is to create a religion that has a fallible god."-- Jorge-Luis Borges How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:58:01 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits On Mon, 11 May 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > I guess that this can just be added to various other Game Mechanics > Mysteries, such as "Given the way Celestial Combat works, how was it > *possible* for Michael to *subdue* Lucifer, as opposed to soul-killing > or Remnantizing him?" It's been my impression that Michael -didn't- subdue Lucifer, but either made him flee, or just threw him out. "personally kicked his red ass out of Heaven", is the quote, I think. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:07 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits [Me:] >>I'm pretty sure that current canon (unpublished, I think) has it that >>only AAs and DPs can grant attunements, though the Word-bound will >>probably develop several that *he* can use. But he can't give them to >>others. After checking the books, it's pretty clear that Word-bound *can* grant attunements to others (it's in the core book, and other places). What they *can't* do is grant Choir/Band attunements (they don't have any unique to their Word). Elizabeth also had the same impression I did, but we'd have to errata a bunch of places to fix this, and it may not be worthwhile (or important) to fix. So you're right on this one. [York:] >Please note that I assumed "bestowability" to apply to attunements you >get from *your own* Word, only. Attunements from your Superior's Word, >including its Choir/Band attunements, remain exclusively your Superior's >to grant, even though you personally may have them. This appears to be correct in curent canon, as published. >When a Word-bound performs one of its *own* Rites, where is the Essence >coming from? Can't be the Superior, it's not the Superior's Word or Rite. Actually, it is, according to the new canon -- the Word-bound's Word is merely a conduit to the Superior. I mis-stated the new canon in that respect. (I checked it with Elizabeth....) >Another small headache: in the Canon definition, if you hold a Rite from >a non-superior Word-bound, and perform it at a moment when that >particular celestial is running on empty, the implication is that you >get nothing. This problem is fixed by getting the Essence from the Superior. > One obvious possibility >is that granting somebody one of your Rites costs *you* character >points; after all, you'll benefit from their practice of it. This doesn't work for Superiors, though, since cp represent (mostly) credit with your Superior.... Also, cp aren't "real" objects in the game-world -- there needs to be a game-world explanation. Thus, the cost would have to be in Essence, Forces, or some other property that *does* have a "real" existance in the IN world. >I hope it doesn't sound like I'm attacking you, Walter; I'm arguing at >length and in detail because I have the impression that this feature is >not yet frozen into published canon and I would *really* prefer a >mechanic I liked over one that made no sense to me. Not quite, no, but it came down from On High (i.e., SJ), and changing it requires consistency with the desired results, existing canon, and it must be plausible within the IN game world itself. > Essence is evidently >the sine-qua-non of supernatural existence, and it would bother me >intensely to see it become a zero-sum resource ("the only way I can gain >more Essence, beyond my daily ration, is by taking it away from someone >else.") If I get my model approved, Superiors get most of it from Tethers, and not by taking it from others. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon - ---David Streeter wrote: > > I wouldn't buy In Nomine Novels (I can barely tolerate the voluminous > fiction posted to the list - I wish people would put a [FICTION] tag in > the subject to make it easier for me to delete). > > In Nomine COMICS, on the other hand... > > SurturZ I will take that as a hint...I didn't post "Are You Ready For Some Football" as FICTION, though I did warn you guys... In Nomine Comics? YES! Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:12 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon >A question for you, Walter...I don't have my books handy, so: Did you >write any of the "story" text? No... I'm not all that good with fiction, actually. > I like the stories >in the In Nomine books... Many of them were written by Derek, one or two by Matt Grau, and I think David Edelstein and John Karakesh both did a few. Elizabeth did the vignette at the front of Redemption in the IPG. I agree, most of them are quite good. >WHEN will we see In Nomine Novels? When SJGames can negotiate rights for fiction with the original French owners of the INS/MV game.... I know Elizabeth wants this herself -- she's got at least 1-2 books worth of IN fiction already. Which she can't spread around generally, I believe, before someone asks. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:12:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon - ---Pee Kitty wrote: > I would buy novels if they came out, assuming they were well done. I've > seen some VERY good IN fiction on the web and on here...and some bad > stuff, too...but mainly good. Redneck's DV stories were among the best I'd > read in a while No arguement there--Love Dark Victory...but I want MORE!!! > > In Nomine COMICS, on the other hand... > > Yuck. Watch it, Kitty! I collect comics... ;) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:17:36 PDT From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Re:Children of the Grigori and Angels of Purity i think i remember reading somewhere, i think it was in _night music_, that some 'natural born' Soldiers have the extra Force because of their Grigori lineage. thus, children of the grigori would be Soldiers or Sorcerors. humans with more than the average allocation of Forces. as for the angels of Purity. we've had many nice (and not so nice) discussons about that section of _heaven and hell_. i believe that the Tsayadim are a lesser choir specific to Uriel, and i wrote them up that way, and that Baal and Kronos are speaking of that choir and not all servitors of purity. Krowe Malakim of Destiny, Angel of Redemption Lord of XAOZ "What good fortune for those in power, that people do not think." -- Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945 "Love is a dirty trick played upon us to achieve the continuation of the species." -- novelist W.Somerset Maugham, 1874-1965 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:15 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon [David:] >Some got cut by SJ because he didn't like them (like the B'lixteroth, which >I did like, actually, but oh well), some got cut by me because I had to cut >something and I had to make editorial decisions about which items would add >greater value to the game. And I think you did a good job, for the record -- I was mostly pointing out that editors can *appear* to be arbitrary and cut "good" stuff, simply because it's necessary. An editor's lot is not a happy one.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon - ---Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I agree. There are lots of really good comics out there, but they're often > difficult to find. Astro City, Bone, Strangers in Paradise and Cerebus are > only four examples. (Well, at least -I- like them.:) > > Anders Gabrielsson Those four are good books, particularly Astro City! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:25 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits [Jo:] >So, assuming that rites actually do generate essence for the relevant >word-bound who returns some to the one who did the rite, what other reasons >might there be for superiors not just teaching them to all comers? [list clipped] The problem, as such, with this list is that it assumes teaching Rites to *other* Superior's Servitors. Most Superiors will have other Rites than the ones listed, so there's a problem with their *own* Servitors -- why doesn't the Superior grant every right they know? SJ's interpretation is that there must be a cost to granting a Rite, so they are only granted when there's a positive cost/benefit situation. >Hmm. This business with redeemed being able to use demonic rites where >renegades can't makes no sense to me. If a prince could turn off someone's >rites like that, then how come he couldn't just track them down? Instead >you could assume that a superior knows when someone has used one of their >rites -- so a renegade could technically use the rite but it would be >insanely risky, but it would be in the prince's interest to try and get >them to do so... That's actually the IPG interpretation, I think -- you actually *could* try to use the Rite, but (a) your former Prince might deny you the Essence and (b) he could track you down by the use of the Rite. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Name for the Songbook - ---Stacy Stroud wrote: > > But you folks beat me to the recommendation (well, counter-recommendation > in G.G.'s case). > > So I'll just second you. > > Give us a Hymnal, SJG! > > > Stacy Stroud LOL! I have been counter-recommended..Wouldn't it be wild if they DID use "Hymns of the Symphony"? I can just see it now... G.G.: Hey look! They took my suggestion! Innocent Bystander: Didn't you say you hated that idea? G.G.: GRRRRRRRRR! (fwaps Innocent Bystander with a large trout) Wow! That would be cool...especially the trout part! ;) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon - ---Patrick O'Duffy wrote: Since I plan (hope?) to be writing some of it > (and will be campaigning real hard for dibs on the comics), I have strong hopes > that we'll see some quality work coming one of these days. > > -- > Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia I, too, hope to write some comics, eh? Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:29 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Tethers and Essence (was Re: IN> Stat limits) [Sean:] > "It's hardly a Tether anymore - it generates only a trickle of power >for Laurence and no longer aids travel to the Celestial realm." > >Now, with that in mind, could that power be Essence? That's my interpretation, and will probably be canonized (I hope). > I also think that a constant flow of Essence would make noise. Not if it's "natural" to the Symphony -- note that humans using Essence unconsciously do *not* make noise. Noise is a result of doing something "unnatural" to the Symphony. > Are they noisy because people are popping in and out of the >Celestial realm? Is the noise from people assuming celestial form? Yes, in my interpretation. Plus maybe other things. Partly because celestials don't *care* if they make noise there -- Tethers are fortresses, and it doesn't matter much if the other side knows you're doing things there. However, there are also probably "stealth" Tethers. >None of that can be so constant, I would think. Doesn't have to be -- it's all part of one on-going thing (the Tether), so the echoes remain for a *long* time. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:35 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> What's the best source of info... >I'm looking for just basic info like "How quickly will PC's be aware of >other celestials?" They don't, except through their actions, and in some cases via other means. There's a good list on the INC (In Nomine Collection) pages somewhere; go to the In Nomine home page at SJGames, follow the Resources link, and then the "Unofficial..." collections link. >"How do others percieve songs?" etc. This is in the disturbance rules, mostly, plus the Song descriptions. >I'm also planning on running some mortals to start off with - that way the >group can sort of learn together. Is this wise? This is one way to start, whether it's a good one depends on your group. Don't pit humans against celestials, though, without major firepower (maybe a few relics) -- humans die too easily in such situations.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:19:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon On Mon, 11 May 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > > >WHEN will we see In Nomine Novels? > > When SJGames can negotiate rights for fiction with the original French > owners of the INS/MV game.... > > I know Elizabeth wants this herself -- she's got at least 1-2 books > worth of IN fiction already. Which she can't spread around generally, I > believe, before someone asks. Ifor one would like to see them, if not here, then on private e-mail Shadowcat > P.S. What volume on Sword & Sorceress was archbeths story in? All cats may look upon a king. No comment on the Queen ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 98 17:42 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? >Barring that, there are very few ways on Earth, short of Artifacts and >certain attunements, to stop a Celestial Form, and far, far fewer ways to >get someone to the Celestial plane who doesn't want to go. Which, I >imagine, makes things very tough on Gamers and Judgies. There are some relics in the Liber Reliquarum to fill exactly this need. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon - ---Walter Milliken wrote: Elizabeth did the > vignette at the front of Redemption in the IPG. > > I know Elizabeth wants this herself -- she's got at least 1-2 books > worth of IN fiction already. Which she can't spread around generally, I > believe, before someone asks. > > > ---Walter > ELIZABETH DID THE REDEMPTION VIGNETTE???? I love that one! I also read her take on Lilth during the Dark Victory, and liked that too... Since I'm running out of Redneck Gaijin stuff, I want more Elizabeth stuff! (and YES, I read the Archangel Beth during the Dark Victory...hope she survives!) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:49:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ceilings and Superiors At 1:51 PM -0400 5/8/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >[Casca:] >>On Wed, 6 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >>> The In Nomine Line Editor (that's me) says: No characteristics >>> above 12. No Forces over 6. No skill-levels over 6. Anything >>> else, please check errata and then tell me about it if it's >>> not there, so I can put it there. >> >>Then how do you account for the power gap between powerful-but-still-in- >>PC-range Masters/Barons and AAs/DPs? What makes Ambassadors/Dukes/etc so >>special? > >The highest-level Distinctions carry mostly command power over large >numbers of Servitors, I believe. Same sort of thing that makes >President Clinton powerful.... I suspect they also tend to have >moderately powerful Words. They are very powerful, very dangerous, skilled, experienced, etc. They can access the resources of many other celestials (and humans, probably). They can have their thugs rough you up. They are high-Force enough to power really nasty Songs and Attunements -- and have enough bodyguards and hangers-on around to give them Essence afterwards... But they aren't at the quantum-jump-in-personal-power level of Superiors. >>Or are you saying there -is- no difference? In which case, I must ask the >>question "What is the quantifiable difference between being an AA/DP and >>merely a powerful Wordbound?" > >Ability to create Servitors. Ability to grant attunements. Ability for >multiple presence in different locations. Ability to graft Forces. >Ability to create vessels outside of Limbo. Ability to fairly trivially >make artifacts. Probably deeper perceptions of the Symphony, especially >related to how Forces are put together, and how they are related to >themes in the Symphony (i.e., Words). Tendency to have cool abilities that don't *have* rules. Laurence and his Swords. Eli and his tendency to leave relics around behind him (heck, a granola bar in the bottom of his backpack turns into a relic after it's been there long enough...). If Novalis walks on the grass, flowers probably tend to spring up in her footsteps -- not immediately, but shortly thereafter... Talk to Jordi and you'll find yourself wanting to howl at the moon when it rises. Where Janus is, there is a distinct breeze. >> There -must- be one, or next you'll be >>telling me that AAs/DPs are bound by the same silly strictures. > >For basic stats, they may be. Mind you, for something that has enough Essence to use Healing Songs for a papercut, those "Strictures" get pretty loose... There are, indeed, some concept things kicking around. Or maybe they *aren't* bound by them. Maybe this will become canon doubt and uncertainty. (What *is* certain is that Superiors should never be something a group of semi-powerful PCs should hope to toast in a stand-up combat.) >>We need a middle class to differentiate between the upper (Superiors) and >>lower (PCs). > >That's the Word-bound, in my opinion. We don't really have rules for >them as PCs yet -- just the vaguest outlines. Exactly. All that's been shown so far, in general, have been low to mid-level WordBound, with a few exceptions. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #772 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.