From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 6 12:07:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05843 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:07:43 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id LAA14949 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:57:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:57:57 -0600 Message-Id: <199901061757.LAA14949@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1081 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, January 6 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1081 In this digest: IN>Off-Topic IN> New Member IN> A (kind of sad) IN resource IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? IN> David's Kind Offer! Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions IN> Re: IN- Liber Canticorum - My pretty new toy! Re: IN> New Member Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead IN> Re: IN- the demon headmaster (NPC) Re: IN> Liber S. Contest updates... IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? Re: IN> Discord and Rites Re: R: R: IN> Baphomet und Templars + INRI Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:37:06 -0300 From: Jorge Antunes Subject: IN>Off-Topic Completely off topic, but do anyone know the adress of some list of discussion about AD&D, Forgotten Realms especified??? Thanks a lot. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:54:06 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: IN> New Member Well! I just started to get more into IN lately and found out about this list and, even though I started in the middle of a few discussions, I've been interested in what I see. So far, the only books I have are the main, and the APG and IPG. I've seen what others you recommend, so I'll probably be picking a few up. I -do- have one little question that I can't find the answer to in the rules books (okay, more than one): Shedim (my favourite lil' Band): -Can- they possess animal vessels? Nothing I've seen says they -can't-, like it does with Celestial Vessels. More on that note: What happens when a Shedite with Song of Poessession tries to possess a Celestial's vessel? Does the original host human vessel fall unconscious and wait for the Shedite to return, or does it snap out of its possession and this Song is the only way a Shedite -can- possess a Celestial's vessel? Finally, look for Balhoron, Prince of Wrath (a creation of mine I'm using RL) to be posted to this list. I figured since we have some of the 7 Deadly Sins, why not all of them? (Andre- Lust, Haagenti - Gluttony, Mammon - Greed, Sloth - Eaten :)) we need Pride, Envy, and Wrath. And BTW, what -exactly- is 'Hardcore' as defined by Furfur? - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:12:32 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: IN> A (kind of sad) IN resource Hi, I haven't posted in a (long) while, but I have been lurking. But now I've got something interesting to share. The postings in alt.christnet.demonology are, well, paranoid would be the clinical term, I suppose. These people earnestly believe that Habbalim are floating around looking to possess them. I did a search on 'nomine' and, luckily, they seem blissfully unaware of its existence. But, they do provide an image of what life might look like inside the IN universe. Bruce _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 18:10:33 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? I just had a thought: the books are full of references to the Lilim as being Hell's little sex-kittens (not in so many words, but just look at Andre's Attunement for them, the description of Bright Lilim, etc etc). Now, my question is this: -why-? Of all the Bands, Lilim have -far- less reason to act so because of their Resonance than the Impudites do. If - -anyone- is going to play Hell's game in that fashion, it would be the Takers, since physical contact and Charming people is their forte', and they just -so- enjoy humans. Lilim are deal-makers, typical Medieval soul-buyers (not -that- simple, I know, but I'm simplifying to make a point). To drag out a *gasp* AD&D reference. Lilim are the Glabrezu, the tempters of men of power, the Impudites are the Succubi, the tempters of men of passion. So, aside from the connotations the -name- 'Lilith' (whose origins are rather confusing, ranging from potentially Kabbalistic texts to a Middle Age origin, to a subset of demons that use young Jewish men for their seed to breed more of their kind, rather like the Mara, a type of Succubus-being in European legend), is there any -real- reason they're given this general sort of quality and not the Impudites, who are the real Incubi and Succubi? (Okay, so the Takers have more range, too, they can steal Essence from anyone) BTW, if anyone out there has some access or URLs to authoritative texts on the origin of 'Lilith', I'd be much obliged if you'd point me in the right direction? Comparative mythology is sort of a hobby of mine and she's been rather hard to solidly track down for me. I hear a lot of varying origins and I don't know which is the oldest authenticated mention of her. - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 23:21:36 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> David's Kind Offer! >>>Then perhaps you could explain how that is any different from your publicly and privately insulting me?<<< Except for this, I'd have let your latest whine pass without response, since it seems obvious that everyone but you Gets It. However, the implication that I have been privately harrassing you (stop screaming, I know you didn't claim that explicitly, but it _is_ implied by the tone and context of the above statement) is sleazy and something I can't ignore. You sent me unsolicited e-mail off-list that demanded a response. I responded. You didn't like my response, and continued sending me e-mails. In public, I feel some obligation to refrain from *really* letting people have it -- I'm under no such obligation to "play nice" in personal correspondence, especially correspondence initiated and continued by the other party. Each time I replied to your latest litany of whines and claims of being misunderstood, I gave you the opportunity to cut your losses and drop it; I never asked you to continue the exchange, but you did, until you couldn't take it any more. No skin off my nose, but don't then bring your grievances to the list and complain publically about being insulted privately. You initiated that private exchange, you continued it as long as it suited the needs of YOUR wounded ego to do so, and you slung your share of insults as well....which I am NOT complaining about, other than that it is hypocritical and disingenuous to start a fight in private and then try to paint the other party as the instigator in public. I'm sure everyone else would be very happy if this flamewar would die now. If you want to keep snivelling about how mean and unjust I've been, here's an _invitation_ to send me more private e-mail, and I'll be happy to give you more of the same. But keep private stuff off-list, unless you're really eager to get flamed again on the list. >>>I never said you did - guess I lose!<<< You implied it, by whining that I didn't flame someone who posted a review of a product (as opposed to flaming someone who demands specific information from a product to be summarized and detailed for him). If you _review_ a book, I won't flame you. I never flame people for reviewing books. What you got flamed for asking for was nothing remotely like a review. Do you Get It yet? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:04:20 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions In a message dated 1/5/99 3:01:34 PM Central Standard Time, corleyj@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu writes: > Must Gabrielites -witness- the cruel act which they are going to punish, > or do they have some ability to sense cruelty in a human soul? > > If they need to witness the cruel act, can they detect things like > emotionally cruel relationships? Is witnessing them together sufficient > or do they need to see the cruel behaviour actually take place? > > If they need not witness the cruel act, must they investigate to find the > extent of the cruelty? > > What about 'systemic cruelty' like unfeeling bureaucracies? Do Gabrielites > punish systems as the systems punish the people - impersonally? Or do > they punish the people involved in the system because they perpetuate the > cruel system? What if the people involved have no control over the cruel > policies of the system? > > If someone is cruel to themselves, clearly this is something terrible > which Heaven would like to discourage. But is 'punishment' a response an > angel would think of in this case, Gabrielite or not? Does punishment > always have to be the causing of pain or loss of some kind? > > > > Check out the main rulebook, Jase. "Most of Gabriel's angels are attuned to specific kinds of cruelty, which they can detect at a glance." They can look at a person and instantly see if they are a cruel person, within their choir's parameters, though I doubt they can see any specific acts of cruelty that said cruel person performed. I also assume that they can shell out character points to see other choirs forms of cruelty, (i.e. a Seraph paying 5 pts. to be able to see betrayers like the Cherubs can) Taking this assumption a step further, I assume that a Gabrielite who can see more that one form of cruelty can tell what type of cruel person they are currently looking at. (i.e. Elohite's emotional bully or Cherub's betrayer) Of course I may be assuming wrong. Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:08:09 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 1:53 PM -0700 1/5/99, Jason Corley wrote: > >Must Gabrielites -witness- the cruel act which they are going to punish, > >or do they have some ability to sense cruelty in a human soul? > > The latter. They are attuned to that kind of cruelty (as per > Choir) and get to just *see* -- "That guy is a slumlord," "This > person is a child abuser." Etc. How specific is it? David has another thought, that they only get the specific sort of -damage caused- by the cruelty. I can think of still a third way, which is just a generalized: that person has cruelty in their soul and something in them makes them ripe for your punishment - beyond that they would have to investigate. Can anyone think of any good reasons to pick one of these approaches over another? Jason onwards ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:03:13 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Liber Canticorum - My pretty new toy! >>>>>I probably wouldn't make him the editor of any book like those of the >>Revelations Cycle; there are too many opportunities for him to make >>explicit things that are best left Canon Doubt and Uncertainty.<<< >> >>What, you mean never let me introduce Jesus Christ as Lilith and Laurence's >>love-child? > > > >David! How did you know about that plot? (And the original notion had >to do with getting Uriel *really* dru... Uh, is this thing on? Oops.) > > >*ahem* > > >Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. > > [stunned shock] Man. Right, I *hate* it when people steal my ideas! %*$#! I'm going to have to COMPLETELY REWRITE THIS NEXT SEMESTERS GAME. crap. so much for "introducing the real j.c." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:11:36 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> New Member >Well! I just started to get more into IN lately and found out about >this list and, even though I started in the middle of a few discussions, >I've been interested in what I see. So far, the only books I have are >the main, and the APG and IPG. I've seen what others you recommend, so >I'll probably be picking a few up. I -do- have one little question that >I can't find the answer to in the rules books (okay, more than one): Whee-hee!! I'm not even sure I'm qualified to answer the question, but: > Shedim (my favourite lil' Band): -Can- they possess animal vessels? >Nothing I've seen says they -can't-, like it does with Celestial >Vessels. No animals. Not with their Resonance. IMC, neither Celestial vessels, not with their Resonance. With the Song of Possession, sure. > More on that note: What happens when a Shedite with Song of Poessession >tries to possess a Celestial's vessel? Does the original host human >vessel fall unconscious and wait for the Shedite to return, or does it >snap out of its possession and this Song is the only way a Shedite - -can- >possess a Celestial's vessel? Woah, good question. Me, I'd say the Host where the Shedite *was* is no longer possessed, but I'm not a canon-master, just a crazy GM. No longer possessed and conscious. The demon voluntarily left his Host. Only way to possesses the vessel of a celestial, IMC. > Finally, look for Balhoron, Prince of Wrath (a creation of mine I'm >using RL) to be posted to this list. I figured since we have some of the >7 Deadly Sins, why not all of them? (Andre- Lust, Haagenti - Gluttony, >Mammon - Greed, Sloth - Eaten :)) we need Pride, Envy, and Wrath. And >BTW, what -exactly- is 'Hardcore' as defined by Furfur? > > - Abracax: Shedite of Riots Oooooo wrath... Nice. - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:23:16 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead >>Hmmm... In _Night Music_: Amanda Dearling (soldier) has the Balseraph >>Attunement of Lust (pg 56), Mal Barker (mummy) has the Calabite of >>Saminga attunement (pg 61) Neither of those are included in the >>(on-line) errata as being incorrect. > >Possibly they should be, though... that's up to Elizabeth. It wouldn't >be the first case of needing to correct attunement problems in early >characters.... Ah... pity if it were, it'd limit very much the abilities human/mortal/undead/saint PC's could choose from. >That said, it's probably *possible* for a Superior to give a human a >servitor attunement that closely mimics a Choir/Band one. But I don't >think it would be at all common. In fact, I believe attunements aren't >supposed to be very common in Soldiers, at all, but I can't quote you >where I get that impression from. Well, the game *does* seem a bit celestial-orientated. >>Page 31 states "Not being angels, soldiers and other mortals cannot >>purchase Choir Attunements." >> >>One could argue that if one is not an angel, one cannot have a Choir >>Attunement. Period. > >I assume this is from the Soldiers of God description, which probably >explains "angels" and "Choir" instead of "celestials" and "Choir/Band". Yes. >Unfortunately, Night Music and The Marches contain a lot of fuzzy stuff >that needs to be clarified/corrected. At least in my opinion.... Yes.... sigh >>However, this sentence defines soldiers as being "mortals", comparing >>them to Angels (therefor "not-mortals"). But Saints and Undead are no >>longer considered "mortal" in game terms. > >I don't think "mortal" has an actual accepted canon definition. I think >it's generally been used loosely as a synonym for "living human", >possibly for no better reason than avoiding word repetition. >> Mortals have to purchase >>Toughness, rather than raise their Vessel level, as can the Undead (and >>Celestials and presumably Saints, NMpg31), Saints and Undead may use any >>kind of Song, not just Corporeal as "mortals" are limited to (w/o the >>required Attunement)(NMpp45,61,63), Undead regenerate Essence at the >>same time as Demons (INpg) though I do not know when Saints do. > >Given the normal meaning of the word "mortal", I'd generally classify >undead under that term -- they can definitely be killed. In fact, >they're more dead when killed than regular humans.... > >Similarly, it can be argued that Saints are still "mortal" in the sense >that any human is -- they eventually wind up in the higher Heavens (or >Hell, if they "Fall"). > >Lacking a precise canon definition, I don't think "mortal" is a useful >word to use in game mechanics. Probably not, for the above reasons. >>I'm not trying to build up evidence to attack anyone's position, merely >>to get to the root of what is established canon, and what isn't. :) > >No problem, I agree with that wholeheartedly. The problem is that canon >is often very fuzzy in the early books, often to the point of obscurity >and confusion. (You can tell I'm a GURPS player, probably....) Whee-hee! Confusion. Unfortunately, no, I can't tell you're a GURPS player simply because, while it has always been my favorite game system, I (a) started with 3rd edition, (b) have never really met another serious GURPS players and (c) never worried about what would be "canon" in GURPS. :) Heck, GURPS was my first RPG that I was *happy* with. This is >now being cleared up, slowly. The APG and IPG do a fair amount of >cleanup for the Choirs, Bands and Superior attunements, as does >L.Canticorum for Song canon. But there are still big fuzzy holes around >humans.... WHich is a pity, since I *love* humans, undead, saints, etc... I lok the idea of playing from the point of view of a human in the In Nomine game world. I mean... Here's Heaven and Hell, real and out in the world. What do you do? How do view life once some very basic questions about life have been answered? Meaning of life? to achieve one's destiny Life after death? certainly, heaven or hell Should I believe in God? Well, God beleives in you... And, for me, the interaction between humans and celestials is always interesting. How do you have a conversation with a being that's possibly older than everything you know about? Anyway... - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:37:02 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- the demon headmaster (NPC) >[This is based on a character from a set of children's books/ TV series. I >liked it too much not to share :)] > >Mr. Peach >Balseraph of Nightmares This is terrific! Exactly what a cool campaign (IMHO) needs. :) Very cool. - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:40:43 -0500 From: dahak Subject: Re: IN> Liber S. Contest updates... General descriptions would be nice but some of the major uses for this book is to give the Referee 1) ready to run NPC he has to do little though on when needed in a hurry for which these items are useful 2) a set of things to spark the imagination when creating scenarios. 3) a lot of examples of realistic [as far as the game world has such things] characters. While low level 1-4 or so needs are subject to rapid change 5's and 6's are not [any objective that will take a months work to achieve is unlikely to be thrown away at the drop of a hat.] And even so having a set of low level needs gives me something when I am reaching for an encounter in a hurry or am short on imagination. Destiny and Fate are both fixed for a given character and of interest to anyone who can find out what they are. Most an least honourable acts aren't going to change that frequently unless the character has spent much of the recent past [or his life] as a blamange. The feel that characters have pasts is one of the more valuable ones a referee can generate. Being able to tell the almost inevitable Malakim what she is interested in about that character is almost as useful as the insight into the characters morals that choice of the particular items gives. I agree that if I don't like the printed versions I will come up with my own but that is more work and either a less rich encounter [my thought processes cannot match lots of peoples well especially in a hurry] or a larger break in the playing session while I come up with such. Either way makes the characters in such a volume less valuable except as paper cut out targets [even for that there seems to be a lack of calculated Body, Mind and Spirit hits.]. The thought of lots of examples of these particular traits to spark ideas and plots and give some idea what is likely or possible is also I admit appealing. I would also like a general description of the characters personality, but these are discernible factoids the characters in the game have to ascertain such things and possibly can replace some of such things. Adam Canning - -----Original Message----- >>After all stats are nice but personality and motivations are what make >>characters live and these are one of the tools the games gives the referee. > >That's what the descriptions are for! > >>>What about Needs? Most and Least Honourable Acts? Destiny and Fate >>>[to name the most frequently resonated long term information about >>>characters] I'd rather have more general description, frankly, though including hints about these things in the descriptions is useful. (E.g., general goals, and a couple high or low points in the character's history -- these are both more generally useful in seeing how to run the character.) Needs and Most/Least Honorable acts are much too likely to change with what the GM wants to do with the character, and the current situation (especially Needs). Destiny and Fate are more fixed, but are probably most important for humans. It would certainly be useful if there was something on potentials either way in the description for ordinary humans. - - ---Walter - ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:44:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Diane J. Donaldson" Subject: IN> Gabriel's servants (* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? I'm thinking specifically of Loki. If an Ofanite of Gabriel catches sight of him in one of his many disguised forms, will they know he is the cruel one? Or does this only apply to mortals? djd ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:06:52 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? Steel Angel wrote: > BTW, if anyone out there has some access or URLs to authoritative > texts on the origin of 'Lilith', I'd be much obliged if you'd point > me in the right direction? Comparative mythology is sort of a hobby > of mine and she's been rather hard to solidly track down for me. > I hear a lot of varying origins and I don't know which is the > oldest authenticated mention of her. I've looked into her origins and once posted some material about her. Emily Dresner has been kind enough to include it in her In Nomine Collection. See: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/Theories/lilithorigin.html Very briefly, Lilith started out as a vampire/succubus demon, killing babies and women in childbed, and sexually vampirizing young men -- the dark, inverted feminine. In the middle ages, someone coined the idea that she was Adam's first wife. In the Kabbala, she often was portrayed with Samael as queen and king of demonas. More recently, she is sometimes identified with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. I think your critique of Lilim is spot-on. Impudites are the ones cut out to be seducers; Lilim have that role because of bleedover from their mother's femme fatale image. Perhaps Impudites and Lilim should switch game mechanics. Earl Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:08:46 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Discord and Rites On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 06:49:59PM -0500, dahak wrote: > Maybe I'm being dim but I thought you only suffered dissonance once > for each time you broke your dissonance conditions so If I disobey orders > and become a renegade that's one note of discord in either case > [possibly 2 if I was ordered not do go renegade as well as failing to carry > > out my current orders.] > plus one for being a servant of the game helping a renegade i.e. me. > 3 notes of dissonance is unpleasant, to say the least. > Bad news admittedly but making them unplayable [the fact that the > superior wants you stapled to a wall somewhere is what makes them > unplayable. Compared with avoiding your ex comrades in the game or > Laurence's Malakim death squads a little more dissonance isn't going > to hurt much. And how are you going to fight them? The way Asmodeus would set it up IMC is to send personal messages telling them to report back for duty within the hour every hour, which if disobeyed will inflict dissonance. Very shortly the Renegade will be a puddle of Discord, permanently unable to use its resonance. (Remember the secondary effects of gaining dissonance?) Especially as all renegades and outcasts have been playing > fast and loose with their dissonance conditions or they wouldn't be > renegades > and outcasts. It's true of most Outcasts, but it isn't necessarily true of Renegades at all. You can be made a Renegade for just about anything. As the quote goes, "There is no thought, step, action or lack of action under the heavens which cannot be punished under the heavy hand of Article 58." This can happen to them anyway, if they fail to break their Heart, but their should be some incentive for doing so. > Most of the above notes can be got rid of by either following your orders > again > if your that way inclined and if not well that's the cost for getting from > under the thumb of one of the universes top three or four micro managers. > No, it makes them unplayable. The Heart is the focus point of a Celestial's connection to a Word, and if it's cracked, the connection is gone. > PS on rites as far as I could find there are mentions of not being able to > use them but renegades who can't can become angels who can. I believe it's for instant redemption cases, rather than renegades on the run for X years who see the light. Anyway, Demon Princes have the option of letting Renegades use their Rites, but if they're used, the DP finds out where the Renegade is, so most Renegades aren't going to use that option. > Nothing about what happens to fully fledged angels with demonic rites. > If demonic rites are dissonant, demonic rites are dissonant. The normal dissonance rules apply. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:12:30 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: R: R: IN> Baphomet und Templars + INRI On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Peter Wiggin wrote: > Considering lots of connection between Albigesian Noble Families and the > Order... is not possible suspecting a join venture to make a nation? > Albigensian political power had been well and truly broken by the Crusade, which had been over for a generation, anyway. And the Master of the Temple had obvious reasons for not supporting the Crusade: since it drew attention from the one the Master of the Temple wanted to fight. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this argues against the corruption of the Templars rather than for it. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:02:34 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> INRI On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > I'm leaning towards making Yeshua a Saint, who had been working with an > Elohite of Destiny (Judas Iscariot). His first time around, he wasn't > really anybody of historic note, and really hadn't planned to the second > time, either. You can make an argument that Jesus personally never claimed to be the Son of God beyond the way Jews are all children of God. I think it's a weak argument, but you can interpret away such things as he says in the gospel, expecially if you're explaining away some of the miracles as exaggerations anyway. He *did* explicitly claim to be the cleansing Messiah, servant and sacrifice, who was prohecied in some obscure parts of the Old Testament. You have to twist the source material very implausibly to claim that he hadn't intended to be of historical note. Please note: Jesus explicitly and repeatedly claimed that sins were forgiven *through him*. And that no one reaches the Father save through him. And other things a saint who *wasn't* the Messiah simply wouldn't have said. > A lot of the more blatant miracles are exaggerated significantly (Such as > the feeding of the five thousand/ four thousand) (Trivia) These were two separate incidents, and he was annoyed after feeding the five thousand that his disciples were worried about his ability to feed four thousand. > or didn't happen at all > (Lazarus rising from the dead.) You could have Lazarus not as dead as people thought; it did happen. (You could have the same for Jesus, see below.) > He was crucified, died, and buried, came > out of Trauma rather quickly, and got a new Vessel. Mm. You could make an argument that Jesus didn't die much more plausibly than you could claim that he didn't intend to be a major figure. He said (paraphrased, I'm not looking it up), "Father, in your hands I command my spirit" and died. Well, reportedly and apparently died. He didn't seem to be breathing, and they pierced his leg and the blood behaved as it would if he had died. But commanding the functions of your body isn't unknown -- and he died on the cross very quickly for a man of his health, and as a result his legs weren't broken and he was hauled off the cross fairly quickly. And his followers grabbed him for burial as soon as they could. Also, Thomas demanded to see and was shown the wounds in his hands/wrists and side -- something that could have been included in a new Vessel but probably wouldn't have been. Added to the fact that his body disappeared, you'd probably do better to say that his old Vessel was repaired somehow. (I know, non-canon, but it seems plausible to me....) > About this time, the Divine Inquisition caught up with them, and there's a > brief trial. > The Saint gets pulled off earth Duty, and Um, er. You need a really good explanation for why the Divine Inquisition took years to catch up with a saint living openly on earth and saying some of the things Jesus had been saying. And why all they did was pull him off Earth duty. Or you can retcon the New Testament further. You might want to consider saying that Yves asked his saint to submit to amnesia and be reborn with a saint's personality but without memories -- yet retaining his abilities, including Songs? In In Nomine terms, all the miracles I can think of offhand save for the I think if I were trying to make Jesus human with powers I'd make him a prophet who badly misinterpreted what he sensed, somehow was granted the ability to Sing using the Essence of the recipient of the Song, and either never died or was turned into a saint and plonked back on Earth *very* quickly. The Divine Inquisition never touched him because he hadn't knowingly done anything wrong. In In Nomine terms, all the miracles I can think of offhand except for the resurrections are plausible with enough Essence. And if you're willing to posit the ability to use the Essence of consenting (insofar as they understand) recipients without gathering it to yourself, the Essence wouldn't be an issue. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:25:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> INRI Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > He said (paraphrased, I'm not looking it up), "Father, in your > hands I command my spirit" and died. A typo: I think you meant "commend," not "command." > Well, reportedly and apparently died. He didn't seem > to be breathing, and they pierced his leg and the blood behaved as it > would if he had died. They pierced his *side*, and blood and water came out. The idea of the piercing was to both test if he was dead and, if he wasn't, make him that way. A doctor has suggested that the spear pierced the pericardial sack, in which blood had pooled and begun to separate off the serum ("water"). > But commanding the functions of your body isn't unknown -- and he > died on the cross very quickly for a man of his health,.... It could take days to die of crucifixion, yes, but earlier that day, Jesus had received 39 lashes from a Roman whip. That amount of beating can, itself, kill a person, though not often. It would sure strip off quite a few hit points, though. He was very likely in shock or shocky from that point on. If you want Jesus' career to be substantially as recorded in the Gospels, yet still make him a mystery to the angels, I suggest that he was being shielded by Yves almost all his life. And of course Yves won't say what Jesus was, or why he was shielded, expect maybe to point out that, in order to shield him from Hell, the security also had to be tight enough to shield him from Heaven. Or maybe Yves *did* explain to, say, Dominic, and the logic was convincing enough to explain why Dominic (1) backs Christianity, and (2) won't reveal any evidence or details, any more than Yves does. Earl Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 12:43 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead >>Possibly they should be, though... that's up to Elizabeth. It wouldn't >>be the first case of needing to correct attunement problems in early >>characters.... > >Ah... pity if it were, it'd limit very much the abilities >human/mortal/undead/saint PC's could choose from. Well, as you mentioned later in your reply, IN *is* mostly oriented toward celestials.... >> The problem is that canon >>is often very fuzzy in the early books, often to the point of obscurity >>and confusion. (You can tell I'm a GURPS player, probably....) > >Whee-hee! Confusion. Unfortunately, no, I can't tell you're a GURPS >player simply because, while it has always been my favorite game system, >I (a) started with 3rd edition, (b) have never really met another >serious GURPS players and (c) never worried about what would be "canon" >in GURPS. :) Heck, GURPS was my first RPG that I was *happy* with. Well, there are a lot more GURPS players than IN players (somewhat unfortunately...). I run into a fair number at cons, as well as having local GURPS campaigns. And, stay tuned.... > I lok >the idea of playing from the point of view of a human in the In Nomine >game world. I mean... Here's Heaven and Hell, real and out in the >world. What do you do? How do view life once some very basic questions >about life have been answered? > >Meaning of life? to achieve one's destiny >Life after death? certainly, heaven or hell >Should I believe in God? Well, God beleives in you... > >And, for me, the interaction between humans and celestials is always >interesting. How do you have a conversation with a being that's >possibly older than everything you know about? Anyway... All of these are very good questions, and I think you'll see some of them addressed in near-future IN supplements. (Which aren't yet announced.) And I think it's all worthy fodder for this list, of course. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:44:56 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> INRI On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > They pierced his *side*, and blood and water came out. The idea > of the piercing was to both test if he was dead and, if he wasn't, > make him that way. A doctor has suggested that the spear pierced > the pericardial sack, in which blood had pooled and begun to separate > off the serum ("water"). Still, given the number and extent of the recorded healing miracles, I think you can rationalize survival without any particular difficulty if you're trying to find a way to make Jesus not much more miraculous than other In Nomine beings. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 12:48 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) > >Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? I'm >thinking specifically of Loki. If an Ofanite of Gabriel catches sight of >him in one of his many disguised forms, will they know he is the cruel >one? Or does this only apply to mortals? Interesting question. Ordinarily, I'd say yes, they could tell he was cruel (but not who or what he is). However, it's verging on proto-canon that Superiors can mask themselves from lesser beings' resonances, attunements, etc. While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a fairly important pantheon). So it might go either way -- he might still have the ability to mask himself from lesser beings, or he might have lost it. Or canon may never establish this masking ability.... I'd say that one is a GM call right now, though it might wind up conflicting with future canon someday. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 12:54 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions >> >Must Gabrielites -witness- the cruel act which they are going to punish, >> >or do they have some ability to sense cruelty in a human soul? >> >> The latter. They are attuned to that kind of cruelty (as per >> Choir) and get to just *see* -- "That guy is a slumlord," "This >> person is a child abuser." Etc. > > >How specific is it? David has another thought, that they only get the >specific sort of -damage caused- by the cruelty. I can think of still a >third way, which is just a generalized: that person has cruelty in their >soul and something in them makes them ripe for your punishment - beyond >that they would have to investigate. I'd generally go with the third way, I think. >Can anyone think of any good reasons to pick one of these approaches over >another? Personally, I think that just detecting cruelty at a glance is probably sufficiently powerful for a Choir attunement. I would also give the general degree of how cruel the person is. My main reason for this is that it gives them something to do -- if they instantly know what the person has been doing, and to whom, their job gets a little too easy, I think. Admittedly, this is a meta-reason, rather than a game-world one. In game-world context, any of the three is fairly plausible, though I'd expect the information-learning Choirs (Seraphim, Elohim, Malakim, and Mercurians) would tend to get more information from their attunements than the other three Choirs, if details were given by the attunement. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1081 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.