From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jun 18 16:24:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30863 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:24:55 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA17703 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:21:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:21:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199806182121.QAA17703@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 #830 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, June 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 830 In this digest: IN> Israel in IN Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty RE: IN> Judaism and the Fall (was Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity?) Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty Re: IN> Jews and others Re: IN> Servitors of Eli [none] IN> Lower Hells (And you!) IN> Jews and others IN> Tethers and San Francisco IN> "Pagan" Christianity? Re: IN> Jews and others Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty IN> Servitors of Eli IN> Another take on Grigori IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? Angels are no tougher than Demons (was Re: IN> Calabim... resonance?) Re: IN> Jews and others IN> Poster Campaign from Hell IN> Angels are no tougher than Demons Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? Re: IN> Angels are no tougher than Demons Re: IN> Ethereals Re: IN> Subject: Nature of Ethereals (was Re: IN> Native Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco Re: IN> Ethereals Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:57:01 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Israel in IN Said Casca: >Actually, the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God, the Almighty >Creator. All subsequent claims of ownership are pretty much irrelevant in >this light. So say (some) Jews and (some) Christians. But that's only valid if the Promise passed through *Isaac's* descendants, as Genesis records. The Muslim claim is that the Promise descended through Ishmael, ancestor of the Arab peoples. I don't know if that is in the Qur'an, or whether it's taken from other sources, though. I also don't know if the Muslim inhabitants of Palestine actually use that as a reason for claiming the land, or whether they're more concerned about having been the ones living there in the 40s. And of course, those who believe in no divine Promise at all must find some other basis on which to resolve the issue. >Let's keep this IN-specific, folks. OK...if the Muslim claim cited above is from the Qur'an, then an interesting situation obtains in the IN universe. It is IN canon that Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, as Muslims in the real world claim. It is possible that Gabriel had some hand in the composition of Genesis as well, but there is no canon support for that. Also, only some who hold that Genesis is divinely inspired actually believe it was dictated word-for-word from the Top. So in the IN universe, the Arab/Muslim claim to the land might actually be stronger on theological grounds than the Jewish claim. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:00:33 -0400 From: Afterburner Subject: Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty > - The Black and Blue Bull - A seedy bar downtown on 6th street. Men of > all sorts walk into the bar. Some leave on their feet, some leave > being dragged by chains about their neck, some leave on an ambulance > stretcher. Almost all leave with a smile on their masocistic faces. > (This place does not exist but is an embodiment of the number of S&M > joints around the city) (Tether to Andrealphus Prince of Lust and > Magog, Prince of Cruelty) So you define consensual BDSM as "cruel?" Just curious. AB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:15:57 -0400 From: "Robb Kidd" Subject: RE: IN> Judaism and the Fall (was Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity?) Neel Krishnaswami > Andrew Frades wrote: > > What makes me wonder is that there are times that Lucifer does not > > seem to be on the up and up in Jewish Scripture. It just makes me > > wonder if Yves was letting humans know his prophesy before he let the > > others in Heaven in on it. > > Or possibly if even Yves didn't know what the whole story with the > > Lightbringer was, how did the humans? Leaves a bit to the wondering mind. > > There are plenty of cases where he seems, well, not kosher. Think > of him as the tough DA out to prove man's sinfulness in God's court, and > you have Satan at his best. At his worst, well, he's a pretty darn nasty guy > restrained only by divine power. Quite so. The satan (variously, "lo-sa-tan-lo" or "ha-sa-tan") was a title or function early on. Etymologically, the word means "obstacle". Ah, but do we *hate* obstacles, don't we? The story of Balaam in Numbers 22 describes an angel of YHWH coming down to obstruct Balaam from disobeying a command YHWH had given him in dream. The original Hebrew reads that the angel "had come down as a satan..." and even once when the angel addresses Balaam it reads, "...and the satan said to Balaam...". Gradually, the satan was considered a particular member of the heavenly court and acquired that reputation as the "tough DA". (Court? DA? Hello!) Honestly, the Old Testament really presents "satan" along the line of how the IN universe presents Dominic. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:48:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shumaker Subject: Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Afterburner wrote: #> - The Black and Blue Bull - A seedy bar downtown on 6th street. Men of #> all sorts walk into the bar. Some leave on their feet, some leave #> being dragged by chains about their neck, some leave on an ambulance #> stretcher. Almost all leave with a smile on their masocistic faces. #> (This place does not exist but is an embodiment of the number of S&M #> joints around the city) (Tether to Andrealphus Prince of Lust and #> Magog, Prince of Cruelty) # # So you define consensual BDSM as "cruel?" # # Just curious. # # AB No not really. I was hoping for a Demon of Pain...but I thought that one could make an arguement for cruelty. For instance, it could be the desire to be cruel that drives some sadists to do what they do. Many things are open for interpretation. Perhaps the installament in man to want to have things done to them and beg for more is a cruel act instilled by demons as some form of punishment. There are really no judgement calls here. I personally do not have any interest in it, but I do not presume to judge others for what they want to do on their time off ;) - -Jim Shumaker ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:33:10 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Jews and others On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Casca wrote: > > Actually, most of their land was stolen for them by the United Nations. > > Actually, the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God, the Almighty > Creator. All subsequent claims of ownership are pretty much irrelevant in > this light. Okay, good nitpick. I was referring specifically to the creation of the modern-day nation of Israel, however (which is what I think the original poster was talking about as well). If we want to talk about the biblical land-grant given to Israel by God, then we have to talk about more land (IIRC). > Let's keep this IN-specific, folks. Okay, lets. I think that the creation of the modern state of Israel was influenced by Yves and David working together. David decided that the people he had adopted had demonstrated their strength and solidarity well enough, and it was time to reward them. Yves saw this as an opportunity to begin fulfilling prophecy, thereby inspiring large numbers of people to seek their Destinies. Dominic and Laurence remained neutral, as they were torn between wanting the Catholic church to recognize this as fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, and not wanting to put Judaism in a place where it could claim to be the one way to Heaven (thereby challenging their pet religion). Novalis was a rather disappointed neutral; she liked the way they were given a homeland without bloodshed, but knew that it would not be peaceful very long. Oddly enough, Michael (the historical patron of Israel) was against the plan. First, he was against it because Yves brought the plan foreward (a fact which immediatly made it suspect to Michael). Secondly, he still waits for word from God as to whether or not he is to be the Messiah the Jews are waiting for. Until he finds knew, and knew that the Jews would return to their homeland in the manner that God had planned, he did not want to see them return. Michael was overruled, however. Malphas was overjoyed by the creation of modern Israel. It let him sow dissension by encouraging a frenzy of anti-Semitism. Baal liked it, because it would foster war (even though his Word is The War, war on earth is still a popular pastime). Kronos remained neutral. He could see that an atempt to fulfill prophecy would lead many to their fates as well (blind fanatics, no matter which side they think they are on, are always welcome in Hell), but knew that prophecy is a dangerous tool to use. Kobal had no comment. He just looked at a map of the region, and laughed. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am returned from the grave! Let this day be hereafter known as Easter, and stuff your kids with sugar and caffeine in thanks!" -Spider Jerusalem - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:32:56 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Servitors of Eli > If your Superior makes you a new Corporeal Vessel when you get killed and > appear in Heaven, how do angels of Eli, not serving anyone else, get new > vessels since Eli no longer goes to Heaven? The superior they work for gives it to them. If they are unattached, I guess they aren't allowed to make a different looking vessel. It evens out the fact that they also don't have an extra way of gaining dissonance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:51:55 +0100 From: Simon Killingray Subject: [none] If this goes to the list someone write back and tell me about it - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Killingray "I know you miss the Wainrights, Bobby, but they were weak and stupid people-and that's why we have wolves and other large predators." - Gary Larson. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- See my site on the Web at: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~smu96spk/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 56 21:03:46 -0000 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Lower Hells (And you!) Greetings, > Some talk a while back about Celestial beasts brought to mind a long >standing question of mine. What besides Lucifer and a company of >unfortunate demons and damned, resides in the Lower Hells? You can't tell It's the Pit, right? Does that mean the Serpent of Chaos resides there? >complete and Utter oblivion, the Void. And maybe, just maybe, Anti-God If God is that harlot beast the Unicorn (which really throws a wrench into Uriel's crusade), then perhaps it is true after all... - - J. (He who hath played WAY too much Amber in spare time.) (You can guess which side I picked.) - - Blaseraph Marquis of Fate, the Demon of Delusions of Grandeur = shadowstar@centuryinter.net P.S. I want my Rebma sourbook dammit! *sniff* - - J. - - Blaseraph Marquis of Fate, the Demon of Delusions of Grandeur = shadowstar@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:07:05 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Jews and others >>>Wrong, Turkey and Egypt have much more open markets than Israel.<<< Though both are being threatened by Islamic fundamentalists. But Israel is at a strategic location to open up the rest of the Middle East -- it *could* become the ideal gateway for trade routes thoughout the area. >>>Greed for land prehaps? Valefor should have a place too, consdiering Israel stole all of its land.<<< That's a bit simplistic, but I did mention Valefor in my previous post, for precisely that reason: land in that area has been stolen back and forth multiple times, and caused untold misery as a result. It's probably Valefor's favorite piece of corporeal real estate. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:16:26 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Tethers and San Francisco >>>I see SF in different light then. San Fransisco has many places of diabolical and I see a number of different Tethers as possibilities.<<< Oh, certainly there are places in San Francisco that would be appropriate as diabolical Tethers (you gave some good examples). Just as there are places in Los Angeles that would be appropriate as angelic Tethers. But for strategic and plot purposes, I like keeping San Francisco as an angelic stronghold -- that's not to say demons aren't alive and well and stirring up trouble in SF, but the angels have, for the moment, gained the upper hand by clearing out most of the infernal Tethers. Just my (not canon yet) take on it. Every city, really, can be made as angelic or as diabolical as you like, depending on what parts you emphasize. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:16:31 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? >>>Ah sorry, wrong. The concept of original sin is still a driving force in Christianity.<<< In _some_ denominations of Christianity. In others, it's kind of there in the background but certainly not a "driving force," and in others it's not mentioned at all. >>>The whole concept of the Crucifixion is built around the idea that mankind suffered from the mark of original sin and could not achieve heaven. Christ supposedly died to remove that sin from man. So you might think that the idea of original sin is no longer used because of that. However many and most Protestant faith's use the concept that if you do not get baptised you can not go to Heaven (minus the little caveat that children who die get that free ticket through the pearly gates). This idea is that man is inheritly sinful and has to ask forgiveness of his sins daily. There is a verse somewhere in the New Testament that says, "If a man says that he does not sin, then he has sinned." Something like that.<<< I believe you are wrong that most Protestant faiths believe you can't go to Heaven if you're not baptized. I know for a fact that not all of them do. >>>There are some faiths that say, "If you lead a good life, God will call you home." Most faiths say, "If you lead a good life, believe his word, confess that Jesus is the son of God, and be baptised into the church then God will call you home."<<< Again, I am not sure "most" is an accurate term here. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:53:31 -0400 (EDT) From: jonesm@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Jews and others On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Jesse L. Rooney wrote: > > > > I don't see how Mammon is more influential in Israel than in any other > > > country, though.... > > > > Greed for land prehaps? Valefor should have a place too, consdiering > > Israel stole all of its land. > > Actually, most of their land was stolen for them by the United Nations. > > Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "I am returned from the grave! Let this day be hereafter known as Easter, > and stuff your kids with sugar and caffeine in thanks!" > -Spider Jerusalem > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > More to effect the turks stole it. Then the british. The the un Rebecca Gant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:12:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> [OT] Cruelty On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Afterburner wrote: > > - The Black and Blue Bull - A seedy bar downtown on 6th street. Men of > > all sorts walk into the bar. Some leave on their feet, some leave > > being dragged by chains about their neck, some leave on an ambulance > > stretcher. Almost all leave with a smile on their masocistic faces. > > (This place does not exist but is an embodiment of the number of S&M > > joints around the city) (Tether to Andrealphus Prince of Lust and > > Magog, Prince of Cruelty) > > So you define consensual BDSM as "cruel?" > > Just curious. Now, there are different ways to look at this. Most of these clubs, in reality, are anything but 'cruel'; they're just ways for people to indulge in their normal, natural fetishes - nothing evil or cruel there. However, I can imagine a club in which the people are urged to submit to more and worse punishments, degraded and given hints of being kicked out if they don't regularly step to a lower level of abuse and debasement, until they're not longer indulging in the level of fetishism that they wanted, but instead are being kept in an unpleasant situation, without any easy way out of it. "What room shall we be going into today, Mr. Jones?" "I thought we'd just go into the normal dungeon, like always..." "The dungeon? Again? But you've been going into the dungeon for almost two months now! Are you serious about this, or has this just been a little 'side trip' in your sex life?" "I...uh, no I'm very serious about this. This is what I enjoy! I just like the dungeon...I never felt the need for anything more than what we've been doing in there." "But that would make you the ONLY person to try NOTHING but the dungeon for so long. All the people who've known you in there have also tried the more serious rooms here. I, and the rest of us actually, had hoped that you really WERE serious about this!" "Um...well...what did you have in mind?" A person without any other outlet (in their P.O.V., even if not in reality) for their fetish becomes reliant on such a club, and the demonic influence at that club would certainly push them into experiences that they don't find enjoyable, but feel that they "should", and thus continue, trying to find the pleasure in something that they don't really enjoy, instead of having the Will to go back to just indulging at the level that they TRULY wish to. A Balseraph of Andre would be very useful here, of course. Hmm...this might make a good adventure..... Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:19:45 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: IN> Servitors of Eli Perhaps the question is "When do Eli's servitors go shopping for another Superior" can be answered by "When he runs out of vessels of his own". I can imagine just before Eli left, they had a little "vessel making" party (kinda like egg decorating, but bigger) so they had plenty of spares. So initially, the angels didn't stray from their groovin boss until they needed a vessel. Or better yet, have a Word bound Servitor of Eli, Danny the Cherubim of Vessel Creation. Why can't he delegate the task, like Gabby does her chores? John Dye "It is a strange thing about determined seekers of wisdom, that, no matter where they happen to be, they'll always seek wisdom that is a long way off. Wisdom is one of the few things that look bigger the further away it is" Witches Abroad Terry Pratchett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:36:27 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: IN> Another take on Grigori I have started seeing the Grigori, not as a seperate choir, but more as a group of angels sent to earth specifically to live with man to guard and teach them. I am tempted in this direction by a few statements. David's angels taught early man. Ergo they were in the area at the time. Can anyone imagine the Grigori of Dominic falling (getting stepped on yes, but falling)? Did all of the Archangels just loose their Grigori servitors, or were the Grigori the only choir with only one choir specific Archangel? If so, that shows why no current Archangel only has one class of servitor. Anyway, because they were "denied" connection to Heaven by being on a long tour of duty on earth, they lost their angelic reference point and were led into a "Fallen" state by identifying too much with their charges, much as hostage takers can develop strong relationships with their hostages. (Mind you, in my world, Lilith had a LOT to do with this. Let's just say she earned her wings this way). So you would have a Grigori Cheribum, Seraph etc (but no Malakim). Perhaps their Archangel was named Grigori? Mind you, I don't have the APG and have hopped off the list for a while, so if this is a dead topic, please avert your eyes and change the subject. John Dye "It is a strange thing about determined seekers-of-wisdom, that, no matter where they happen to be, they'll always seek wisdom that is a long way off. Wisdom is one of the few things that look bigger the further away it is" Witches Abroad Terry Pratchett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:00:57 GMT From: Michael Tarr Subject: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? On page 167 of IN, under Calabim, it says, "...and the Calabim of Fire do not disturb the symphony when they use their powerful resonance!" Does this mean that a Calabim of Fire can wantonly and merrily destroy anything/everything and cause no disturbance, or that just the use of their resonance does not cause disturbance, but the effects of using it do? And if the latter, do other resonances cause disturbances in the Symphony is used (I don't think so)? What exactly makes an individual Angel more powerful than an individual Demon? Looking at a newly-created Angel versus a newly-created Demon (as per the book), I can't see a real advantage of an Angel over a Demon, apart from the fact that an Infernal resonance can be resisted, being Will-based, whereas a Divine resonance is nigh impossible to resist but sensory in nature. Thanks Mike Tarr mtarr@diac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:23:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Michael Tarr wrote: > On page 167 of IN, under Calabim, it says, > "...and the Calabim of Fire do not disturb the symphony when they > use their powerful resonance!" This means they can damage things without causing disturbance. Resonances do not cause disturbance by themselves (exception: Shedim cause a disturbance unless they touch the victim and go slow). > What exactly makes an individual Angel more powerful than an individual > Demon? Looking at a newly-created Angel versus a newly-created Demon (as per > the book), I can't see a real advantage of an Angel over a Demon, apart from > the fact that an Infernal resonance can be resisted, being Will-based, whereas > a Divine resonance is nigh impossible to resist but sensory in nature. A beginning PLAYER CHARACTER demon has 9 forces by default. A beginning NORMAL DEMON has 7. Angels also work together...demons are full of much more backbiting and treachery. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:11:25 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Angels are no tougher than Demons (was Re: IN> Calabim... resonance?) Michael Tarr wrote: > What exactly makes an individual Angel more powerful than an individual > Demon? Looking at a newly-created Angel versus a newly-created Demon (as per > the book), I can't see a real advantage of an Angel over a Demon, apart from > the fact that an Infernal resonance can be resisted, being Will-based, whereas > a Divine resonance is nigh impossible to resist but sensory in nature. [Comments by Pee Kitty snipped] Pee Kitty is correct, but there is one other factor as to why angels are more powerful than demons. Its actually fairly simple and I beleive it is actually mentioned at some point but here it is: they aren't demons just think that they are. I have rather griown to like this take (as well as the others) and it leads many demons to be wary around angels that it knows about because they are afraid, even if they don't need to be. Until a demon has been around for a while on Earth, and has tangled with a number of angels they just don't know how tough angels are. After a few scrapes the demon's opinion may change, but it may not depending upon how powerful the angel actually is. Another thing to note is that many demons have never directly run into an angel at all even during many years of Earthly service. I believe that this is canon though my particular take is that there are certain celestial hot spots in which the number of celestials is highly above the norm. In my campaign Austin is one of these hot spots, as is Boston which is the nearest large city to where I live. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:12:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Jews and others jonesm@NKU.EDU wrote: > More to effect the turks stole it. Then the british. The the un > > Rebecca Gant I draw the list's attention to an old science fiction novel by jack Vance, "The Blue Prince," about the question of how far back it makes sense to trace "rightful" ownership. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:25:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Poster Campaign from Hell A poster campaign for the Seven Deadly Sins can be found at: http://www.mypages.com/dumbentia/sins.htm Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:25:38 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Angels are no tougher than Demons Andrew wrote: > Another thing to note is that many demons have never directly run into an angel > at all even during many years of Earthly service. Maybe this is highly correlated to demonic survival rates? ;-) jo (I can't believe I just used the word 'correlated' as proper English!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:33:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Michael Tarr wrote: > What exactly makes an individual Angel more powerful than an individual > Demon? Looking at a newly-created Angel versus a newly-created Demon (as per > the book), I can't see a real advantage of an Angel over a Demon, apart from > the fact that an Infernal resonance can be resisted, being Will-based, whereas > a Divine resonance is nigh impossible to resist but sensory in nature. Imps and gremlins become demons at 7 Forces, relievers become angels at 9 Forces. However, I believe PCs start at 9 Forces regardless. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:13:11 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Angels are no tougher than Demons I have a strong feeling that in most campaigns, the characters (either demonic or angelic) don't get a good idea about the relative strengths of angels and demons... this might be partially the fault of the GMs (myself included). Here's something that might help: New angels on earth should encounter a few 7-Force demons before they meet ones more comparable to themselves. It makes sense that newbies would get simpler tasks and, IMO, the majority of demons on Earth _are_ Force 7 or 8. When you get 9+ forces as a demon, you have entered the elite (the bottom rungs, thereof anyways...) If a challenge is desired, send more demons than angels! ;) Experienced angels should simply be told this as background, but should probably have a few encounters with weaker demons if the _player_ is new. New demons (9 Forcers) should have contacts with 7 Force demons either in Hell or on Earth that tell them how tough the angels are. To a 7-Force demon, ALL angels encountered would be pretty powerful! From his point of view, there are no really weak angels. Old demons should either have had experience with angels (possibly as a 7-Forcer) or they have been steeped with stories about angels. Angels are tough; angels are mean; don't get me started about those thrice-damned Malakim, etc. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 13:00 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals [Andrew:] >Walter Milliken wrote: > >> > In my understanding of the IN-verse, an >> >ethereal god isn't actually created by its worshippers. >> >> I don't think this is precisely true -- some of the ethereal gods are >> existing ethereal spirits who adapted themselves to play the role the >> humans were worshipping (so as to reap the Essence), but I believe they >> were also ultimately created by human thought. Some of them have moved >> from position to position over time, rather than dying off as their >> worship declined... *iff* they were adaptable enough to throw off their >> current role. > > All this of course assumes that you buy into the story as told by the >winners in what could only be called a war. If you were to believe the >losing side (which often has a more accurate portrayal of history, or at >least the other side so you can come up with a balance) then Yaweh was once >one of them who has moved on, some might say got uppity. None of what I said is actually incompatible with *either* side's version -- if "God" is an ethereal, then he's just another adaptable ethereal spirit who was probably first dreamed up as a storm god (or whatever) by a bunch of tribes in what is now the area of the Middle East. In my model, humans have to *think up* the god, not worship it, to create it. So some primitive storyteller, trying to answer "where do storms come from?", invents a story about this god, and the story is popular. This creates the ethereal, or another similar ethereal "attaches" itself to the story. Later, humans start worshiping this entity (with its encouragement). > IN is fairly secretive about which of these is true (i.e. are >ethereals made by the dreams of man or were they there all along) for a >reason: It keeps you guessing. It is officially "canon doubt and uncertainty", I beleive. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 13:26 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Subject: Nature of Ethereals (was Re: IN> Native >> - the neopagans keep creating a new Pan, but the older, more powerful >> ethereals keep eating him for the Essence he's got. > >I don't recall this from _The Marches_, but I'll take your word for >it that it's possible. This isn't actual canon, but speculation by the Line Editor that I'm tapping here. >> - a new Pan was created, and now exists. > >This model breaks when there are large groups of people worshipping >mututally incompatible versions of the same god. Happens all the time >IRL, at least in Hinduism (which happens to be the polytheistic >religion I am slightly knowledgeable about). If they're truly incompatible, then they're probably just different ethereal beings with the same name. >Can ethereals become schizophrenic? I don't see why not.... maybe they fission when beliefs about them diverge. >>The ethereals are initially created by human belief, but unlike Worded >>celestials, their natures can change and evolve. > >Hm? Wordbound angels change all the time, or otherwise Laurence couldn't >be an AA. But his basic nature didn't change, just his duties. (Jean is probably the most extreme example of this.) But in the ethereals, the same entity might have gone from being a lightning god to a fire god to a war god over time. Celestials don't have that degree of malleability, is what I was trying to say. Once they have a Word, that's what they are, though the Word itself can evolve somewhat. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 13:30 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco [David:] > But for >strategic and plot purposes, I like keeping San Francisco as an angelic >stronghold -- that's not to say demons aren't alive and well and stirring >up trouble in SF, but the angels have, for the moment, gained the upper >hand by clearing out most of the infernal Tethers. > >Just my (not canon yet) take on it. Actually, it's already canon that San Francisco is angel-controlled (I think it's not yet published, though -- FotM). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:37:32 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Ethereals At 13:00 18/06/98 EDT, you wrote: > >In my model, humans have to *think up* the god, not worship it, to >create it. So some primitive storyteller, trying to answer "where do >storms come from?", invents a story about this god, and the story is >popular. This creates the ethereal, or another similar ethereal >"attaches" itself to the story. This last part is similar to the way I've been thinking of things. Ethereals exist/ are created independently of humans, but their equivalent of becoming 'word bound' is to somehow attach to a mortal concept as if it were a suit of clothes or a mask. Any ethereal which hasn't grabbed a concept for itself is a fuzzy, neutral being which probably can't access the mortal world very well, even in dreams (ie. being 'dressed' in a mortal concept is a prerequisite for an ethereal to create vessels/ roles). I call them ethereal cuckoos, or parasites, even though some may be quite benign. They pretend to be what mortals think they are, and if they do it for long enough then.. that's more or less what they become. If one placeholder is killed then if the concept is still strong enough to be attractive, another ambitious ethereal will take it over. And this is why the characters of some 'gods' have changed so much. The actual ethereals behind the god-mask aren't the same... Sometimes ethereals might even fight or have formal challenges if more than one wants to play the same part. So there is never more than one unicorn, never more than one dragon, never more than one Pan; but how long any individual can hang onto the concept depends on the competition. Anyway, that was the way I was thinking... jo "Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was before hand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving HOW NOT TO DO IT." -- Dickens (Little Dorrit) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:08:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco > >Just my (not canon yet) take on it. > > Actually, it's already canon that San Francisco is angel-controlled (I > think it's not yet published, though -- FotM). > Clearly not written by people who live there. *grin* *tease* Man, I can just imagine In Nomine Detroit. You want someplace that's controlled by only scummy demons? There you go. Not even demons with good hair - those control, say, West Bloomfield. A city so bad that Elmore Leonard felt compelled to set several of his early books there. Personally, I can't see ANY major metropolitan area being either Angel or Demon controlled - except Detroit, and you'd have to have lived there to _Really_ appreciate it, like I have. I would think any live, teaming city would have plenty of opportunities for both sides, and the bigger the city, the more there are, and without open warfare it would probably be a big neutral zone. I don't think it's realistic to say one side or another completely runs or controls a city, without a significant chunk of history explaining _how_, and even then it's pretty dubious. Every place has it's crime and prostitution and drugs and slumlords, and usually far more then it's happy, bouncy bright spots. Then again, this is In Nomine, and my expectations for details on a major metropolitan area are undoubtedly way too high, considering doing a huge city in say, 10 pages. I give my advice that I use myself to others - if you want to run a city like Chicago or Los Angeles or New York, and do it WELL, go down to your local bookstore and invest in some of the Fodor's Travel Guides (www.fodors.com) for locations, and sniff around the 'net for history and landmarks and pictures of things. They are undoubtedly more useful a resource then a handful of pages and some art. (I mean LA is coming out, and I doubt we'll get any detail on the Mexican-American barrios in East LA, or the problems with immigration, or the bus schedule to Tijuana, or even one really good place to get tacos. I need sleazepits, not tourist attractions, as a GM.) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 14:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco >> Actually, it's already canon that San Francisco is angel-controlled (I >> think it's not yet published, though -- FotM). >> > >Clearly not written by people who live there. *grin* *tease* I don't know who's responsible for that one -- probably Derek. Don't know if he's lived there or not. I spent a year at Stanford, and could see SF as angel-controlled, though. Ditto for Boston (though there its partly due to recent history). My campaign is set in Boston, and I have it about 2:1 angel-controlled. There are some demonic Tethers around, and it's not an easy control, though.... >Man, I can just imagine In Nomine Detroit. You want someplace that's >controlled by only scummy demons? There you go. Not even demons with >good hair - those control, say, West Bloomfield. A city so bad that >Elmore Leonard felt compelled to set several of his early books there. They there's St. Louis (I spent 4 years there at Washington University). I don't think *either* side would be caught dead there.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:35:45 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Calabim of Belial's resonance? At 4:00 AM +0000 6/18/98, Michael Tarr wrote: >On page 167 of IN, under Calabim, it says, > "...and the Calabim of Fire do not disturb the symphony when they >use their powerful resonance!" > > Does this mean that a Calabim of Fire can wantonly and merrily destroy >anything/everything and cause no disturbance, or that just the use of their >resonance does not cause disturbance, but the effects of using it do? When they destroy something with their resonance, there is no disturbance. If they kicked it or lit it on fire with a match, there would be disturbance. > And if the latter, do other resonances cause disturbances in the >Symphony is used (I don't think so)? Other Calabim cause disturbance as per the rules about damaging corporeal objects, even if they use their resonance to do the damaging. (Most other resonances don't -- with the noted exception of Shedim.) > What exactly makes an individual Angel more powerful than an individual >Demon? The newest-fledged Angel is 9 Forces. The newest-fledged Demon is 7. *Player Character* celestials both start at 9 Forces -- but the demon has probably worked harder to get there! - --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 #830 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.