From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Dec 29 14:19:46 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 OAA13263 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:19:45 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA10017 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:18:44 -0600 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:18:44 -0600 Message-Id: <199912292018.OAA10017@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 #1477 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, December 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1477 In this digest: IN> Vessels & Injections IN> Raphael, Archangel of Knowledge IN> Happy Holidays!!! Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) IN> [ADMIN] Taking it OFFLIST IN> [ADMIN] Off-topic posts IN> Lilim and Words (Re: Genubath, Demon Prince of Rapine) Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Vessels & Injections Re: IN> Michael's Proficiency Attunement and another rules question Re: IN> Most troublesome bands/choirs/servitors Re: IN> Khalid and Religion Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor Re: IN> Beliefs in RL IN> ICQ Re: IN> Israfel, Archangel of Music Superiors on New Years Eve (WasRe: IN> Times Square?) Re: IN> Most troublesome bands/choirs/servitorservi IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Re: IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) IN> In Nomine themed tarot deck (WAS: Mercurians & Tarot Decks) Re: IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty IN> Genubath and Raphael Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Re: IN> In Nomine themed tarot deck (WAS: Mercurians & Tarot Decks) Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:05:01 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Vessels & Injections >>>Also, what about poisons and/or various medicines? Obviously, a vessel has a greating healing capacity than a mortal's body, but to what extent is the vessel subject to drugs.<<< See the Corporeal Player's Guide for drug and poison rules (the rules in Night Music are obselete). Celestial vessels aren't immune to drugs and poison, but they're more resistant, adding their Corporeal Forces to resistance rolls. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:06:33 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Raphael, Archangel of Knowledge >>>Does this work in the libraries of Yves and Kronos as well?<<< If they can get in. (Actually, it's "divide the normal time by the check digit," and the normal time for an angel to find something in Kronos' Archives might be considerable....) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:37:19 -0500 From: "Perry Lloyd" (by way of Elizabeth McCoy) Subject: IN> Happy Holidays!!! From: "Perry Lloyd" To: [enough places to make the thing bounce!] Subject: Happy Holidays!!! Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:11:40 PST Hello!!! May each and every one of you have a happy holidays! To everyone on egl-l, to everyone on in_nomine-l, to all of my fellow gamers, and to family and friends (and foes) alike. Enjoy your games, your puzzles, your oranges and your chocolate. May your character points be plentiful and your research yield significant results. :) Pour vous qui me connaissez comme "Damien", a vous je dois dire, JOYEUX NOEL!!!! (did I spell that right? :P ) - -Perry/Damien (apologies to Rob Knop, while your character is named Damien, it also happens to be my "alternate identity" as well. :) perrylloyd@hotmail.com Never touch a butterfly's wing. - --Colette ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:45:57 -0500 From: Doctor TOC Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Emily Dresner wrote: > > My crazy sense of the useless and the pointless is setting off alarms > up in my bean filled head and saying: if yer gonna game with tarot cards, > _don't_ game with someone's personal, live deck. Think of it as deck > etiquette. Seconded. Touching someone else's tarot deck is generally considered a *serious* no-no. Pee Kitty, if your room-mate is serious about the Tarot, she/he would probably be rather upset. Best to get your own, or ask first. Doctor TOC - -- The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" ICQ # 4814586 Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:50:45 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Taking it OFFLIST If anyone makes potshots EITHER DIRECTION about taking things offlist, they're going to _BE_ offlist. (Yes, this means everyone in a thread who's been contributing fuel to a fire. Everyone.) So if you're taking something off-list, and have this odd but human urge to say you're going off-list so that everyone else doesn't think you surrendered, just say, "I'm going off-list; I still disagree, but the disagreeing is going off-topic and/or getting repetitive." That will inform all the rest of us all that you're not going to be posting to that topic anymore but you haven't surrendered and showed throat. Geeze, I go on vacation for a few days... - --Beth, Grinch Princess of List Admin (Hmmmm... That might be a way to avoid flamewars. Take _all_ parties who seem to be in the thread off the list, not just the one who posted the last annoying message that broke the camel's back. No going back onto the list until a private promise not to contribute to the thread again...) Oh, yeah, and anyone contributing to a jerky thread, in public, is going to get the same treatment. Got me? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:50:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Off-topic posts Now, I know that I've been away for a while, and people really should be careful about whether they stay on-topic or not, but I already have a couple of people who I usually agree with (though not always) who will netcop for me while I'm gone (or even if I'm not, or even if I don't really want them to, now and again... O:> ). But can people _please_ not netcop on this list when they don't have permission, even implicitly? I'll get to it, I'll get to it. If you don't think something's on-topic and you want to gripe about it, then send me, and me alone, private email. (And no, don't bother posting to the list how you're doing this.) - --Beth, Grinch Princess of List Admin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:20:51 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Lilim and Words (Re: Genubath, Demon Prince of Rapine) At 2:46 PM -0500 12/26/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >On Sat, 25 Dec 1999, David Edelstein wrote: [...] >> Lilim don't have any trouble reconciling their natures with any other >> diabolical Word, why this one?[...] > >H'm, do Lilim have trouble with those Superiors because of their >personalities or because of their Words? Dunno -- I seem to recall that the original writeup of Fleurity said they didn't like his Word and/or modus operandi. And "Death is no fun." (Fleurity may or may not change -- I gave his expansion's author a bit of free rein on that, since Fleurity himself defines his Word as a form of "freedom." So we'll see.) Malphas seems to have no problem getting Lilim, despite being a Shedite. Of course, instead of a servant, he gives his Lilim the ability to be the spotlight for a moment. Ah, bribery. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:51:24 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth At 11:04 AM -0500 12/27/99, John Karakash wrote: > Hmmm... I've always assumed that a celestial could >just die at will. I have no evidence for this, but it >doesn't seem unreasonable. Well, _I_ sure wouldn't allow it. What a cop-out when the Prince shows up! O:p If they paid the points to have a vessel with an incorporated "suicide pill," then that's a different matter, but otherwise -- no, I don't think most celestials have conscious control over their hearts, for instance. (Now, demons of _Lust_ probably have conscious control over certain, um, muscle groups... But that's more a petit morte leadin, really. Ahem.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:44:30 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Vessels & Injections At 10:34 PM -0500 12/27/99, Gregory Gietzen wrote: >I've searched for the answer on this, rooting through all the books I have >(everything except GMG) and on the web page, and I can't find it anywhere. >I was watching _La Femme Nikita_ (movie, not the TV show) and I wondered: do >injections work on vessels? Yes. They may, however, be more likely to resist the effects of what they injest/are injected with/inhale/absorb through the intestine (figure that one out yourselves)/etc., since they have high Strengths (often) and Strength rolls seem to serve the same function in IN that HT (Health) rolls or Constitution rolls serve in other systems. I.e., your Strength has a large effect on your hit points, and therefore on how hardy you are. >Also, what about poisons and/or various medicines? See above. I'm pretty sure this was elaborated upon somewhere. If not the GMG, then in the Corporeal Player's Guide... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:52:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Michael's Proficiency Attunement and another rules question At 7:38 PM -0600 12/24/99, Greg Bilbruck wrote: >One angel IMC asked if Michael could award his proficiency attunement more >than once... in other words, can Michael grant a servitor proficiency in one >type of weapon and then grant that same servitor proficiency in another type >in addition? Hm. I wouldn't see a problem with that -- it _would_ cost 10 points per Proficiency, so I don't _think_ it would break anything too badly. Remember to charge those points, though. If you give it as a "freebie" (or if you give out points too generously!), then it _will_ get silly quickly. I strongly suggest checking out the GMG and its guidelines on when to give PCs bennies, and how to use points, etc. >Some questions about the Proficiency attunement: >Observation: "including styles of unarmed combat" (text take from >Proficiency attunement) must mean the 'style' of Fighting chosen (IN, p.75: >"crushing blows of a boxer or cunning grips of an Oriental master"). >Question: Does this apply to the Celestial Fighting skill as well as >Corporeal Fighting skill? I'd be inclined to say yes, for simplicity's sake, though depending on how this worked out, I might be _really_ tempted to say it only works with _that_ technique of unarmed combat -- so if you're a Seraph and you know kickboxing, um..... Then there's the Pyramid article a while back which had various types of Celestial Martial Arts in it; if you have a subscription [plug: $15 per year, and you get to check backissues], you can probably find it easily enough. >Observation: "gives a special expertise with one type of weapon" >Question: Does this imply that proficiency is gained in broad weapon >categories (large weapon, small weapon, ranged weapon, etc.)... or does it >imply narrower categories (axes, swords, small blades, handguns, bows, >shotguns and rifles, machine guns, etc.)? Narrow. For some funky reason, weapons skills _MUST_ specialize. You have "Large Weapon (Sword)" skill, not skill in all large weapons. >Question: Must a Celestial buy both Fighting skills (Celestial and >Corporeal), As far as I know, no -- it's the same one. "Fighting" without a specialization (and _it_ only has optional specializations that don't do anything but give flavor and possibly a bonus to Fast-Talk rolls on the GM for certain tricks) works both celestially and corporeally (and ethereally!) without extra points. Unless your games are really combat happy and it's the only way the GM has to keep control of things. O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:53:00 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Most troublesome bands/choirs/servitors At 7:05 PM -0500 12/24/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >Question for all you GMs: which bands/choirs/Servitors do you find most >difficult to run, or to have active around your PCs? Mercurians are EVIL for resonances. Mercurians of Judgment (or anyone else with a "rider" on their resonance that gives Mercurians additional information) are even more so. Kyriotates of Lightning are gibbersome. Other Kyriotates are interesting enough -- though the Rat with Barbs trick is evilevilevilevil. >Servitors of Revelations, Speaking as a PC in another game that has an Ofanite of Revelations PC, these guys are really useful for the attunement, but if he weren't a newbie to Earth, he'd be a _REAL_ pain. Seraph on steroids and _speed_! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:53:22 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Khalid and Religion At 11:28 PM -0800 12/25/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>First thing I did when I saw Khalid's write-up was swear to completely rewrite him, perhaps as a Seraph or Malakite.<<< > >I protested bitterly when I first saw the writeup of Khalid. The >Archangel of Faith should *obviously* be a Malakite. But he was made an >Elohite because "there aren't enough Elohite Archangels." I wanted him to be a Cherub at the time, myself -- one who'd gone obsessive... (This was before I was LE. I thought making him an Elohite was odd myself, though Adam Gieseler's (and others) commentary about how it actually works (especially now that there's a rewrite) is interesting.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:55:32 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) At 5:45 PM -0500 12/28/99, Doctor TOC wrote: >Emily Dresner wrote: >> >> My crazy sense of the useless and the pointless is setting off alarms >> up in my bean filled head and saying: if yer gonna game with tarot cards, >> _don't_ game with someone's personal, live deck. Think of it as deck >> etiquette. > >Seconded. Touching someone else's tarot deck is generally considered a >*serious* no-no. [...] Thirded. Messing with a deck's vibes is a bad no-no -- that's why they stay in the box, or even in a hardwood box with silk wrapped 'round them. (Why, yes, I learned this from my mother, who doesn't entirely believe in it.) The only time someone besides the owner should be touching a serious Tarot deck is when the owner says, "Shuffle" or "cut the deck." And now, unless this aspect can be wrenched back on-topic.... O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:11:44 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor With the expanded writeup of Valefor immentantly on the horizon (in Superiors 4, barring Intervention of course). . . I've decided to consider the topic carefully. What you ask? His true nature of course! As many of you are aware, Valefor and Janus are the same being in the French INS/MV (The story goes along the lines that Janus got bored, decided to try something new, disguised himself, and wound up becoming a Demon Prince)! However, the SJGames version leaves this firmly set in CDaU (please email me _privately_, if you don't know what this word is by now). Still, there's the little unanswered question on why Janus and Valefor's attunements are _nearly_ identical. Even the dissonance conditions, Rites, and Invocation modifiers are closely matched. One pet theory (though the origin is muddled), is that Valefor is an Ethereal who has managed to side with Janus. . . And together they went about their plan to add some mayhem in Hell as well. This falls apart when you consider how badly hurt the Ethereals are after the Purity Crusade, and that AFAIK Ethereals cannot enter the celestial realm. Ah, but the most _amusing_ idea is thus: Valefor is a Malakite of the Wind. Given specific orders and/or Oaths to prevent dissonance from his main Oath 'not to suffer an Evil to live'. His second Oath to 'never be captured by the forces of Lucifer', also explains why he is so hostile to Asmodeus and the Game. . . Think about it, what's the one Angel that you know _won't_ fall? A Malakite of course. Then there's their love of explosives. Hey, don't Calabim blow things up too? But how does he disguise his Celestial Form? Relic (or three) containing the Celestial Song of Deception of course! Just about the only sticky points in this theory are how did this slip by Lucifer? How _can_ he _create_ Demons? How _did_ he steal Genubath's word? Who knows. Maybe Lucifer _does_ know, and is just giggling maddly because of it (as I recall God knew in INS/MV what Valefor _really_ was). Maybe, _just_ maybe it's within the power of an Archangel to create Bands (but why would they want too?). . . Almost as it's probably possible for Demon Princes to create Choirs (though I suspect that these possibilities may have been answered in the GMG, and that they cannot). Janus knows how to 'steal', so it's certainly within his knowledge and abilities to figure out how to 'steal' a word is it not? In the end, sending a Malakite to Hell to create mayhem and change ultimately serves Janus' word. This just makes too much damned sense for it to be anything else! (Alas, though, this is just _my_ theory on it. . . Certainly the author of Valefor will hopefully come up with something equally plausible.) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://home.centurytel.net/shdwstar/in-nomine/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:07:12 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Beliefs in RL At 1:11 -0500 12/24/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: >I think its interesting that a writer who's agnostic/atheist would be drawn >to writing about angels and demons. Then again, I can't imagine persuing >anything seriously if I didn't believe in it. At least in my case, it's probably *more* interesting to write about fantasy than what I consider "reality" (i.e., what I believe in, more or less). I've played, and written, about wizards (they are in fact my preferred characters in classical "fantasy" genre games) -- but I have no belief whatsoever in "magic", in the usual sense. Likewise, I've written In Nomine stuff, and I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist on the religious front. I think writing about something means that one finds it *interesting*, but does not necessarily *believe* in it. I happen to like games with high tech, high magic, and/or supernatural powers, and I tend not to believe in any of these things. But all would be *fun* to play with.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:06:52 +1100 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> ICQ If anyone has ICQ, my ICQ number is 38379078 Kris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:06:52 +1100 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: Re: IN> Israfel, Archangel of Music >> >Um... an Archangel who turns her angels into half-demons??? I can't see >> >that giving her any more job security than a narcoleptic airline pilot. >> >> Umm, I'm sorry, but how does music have anything to do with demons (barring some >black metal bands - note I'm saying black metal, there are also christian metal bands) >How in any way whatsoever does being the archangel of music mean that you're half >demonic? > >Apology accepted, since you must not have read the writeup that I was >referring to. (You can search the digests of the list on SJGames.com, BTW, >if you ever need to.) Sorry, but was this recently, or was it a while ago - it's just that I can't remember this coming up on the digest while I've been reading (then again I did forget my own birthday once) and I couldn't see the link to recent topics. although I could be wrong here and if I am, feel free to hurl kippers at me. >In the writeup, Israfel gives each of her angels a DEMONIC resonance to >use. E.g., her Mercurians can lie like Balseraphs, her Elohim can screw >with people's minds like Habbalah, and so on. That struck me as... well, >let's just say it struck me as something that wouldn't go over well in >Heaven. Seeing as they're based on a personal symphony, I can see what you're talking about. Wouldn't the archangel of music also have some kind of custodian role over the symphony - seeing that it wasn't completely stuffed up and stuff. If you wanted a slightly ffarcical adventure have the servitors of the archangel of music full in the pcs because they've been harming the symphony "Stop in the name of music!" kind of thing Didn't someone mention an archangel of confusion in INS/MV who did just that? Kris who's really puzzled now ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:24:54 -0600 (CST) From: Benjamin Acosta Subject: Superiors on New Years Eve (WasRe: IN> Times Square?) > NYC's security plans for the Millennial celebration in Times Square have >been code-named "Archangel". Well, I guess we know where Zadkiel will be this New Years Eve. Now what do you think the other Superiors will be doing? Bladine: Probably in the Marches, watching over the countless dreams of a brighter future. Christopher: Babysitting. David: Maybe in the midst of a survivalist camp, where a strong self sufficient community has been built to survive Y2K. Dominic: Out there making sure everything doesn't devolve into lawlessness and anarchy. Eli: He's throwing a big party. A really big party. Gabriel: The biggest fireworks displays. Janus: He'll be travelling, ringing in the new year in every time zone. Jean: Will be busy doing last minute fixes so that the Y2K bug is dealt with. Will also insist that the Millenium doesn't end till next year. Jordi: Really doesn't care about this whole human mesurement of time. Khalid: Where he always is. He goes by a different calendar. Laurence: At the Vatican, attending the Pope's mass. Marc: Helping Jean deal with financial records for Y2K. Michael: Using the celebrations and confusion on Earth as cover for an offensive on infernal operations. Or toasting the New Year in with Baal, reflecting on old times. Novalis: Conflict areas of the world, trying to make the New Year ring in with at least one day of World Peace. Yves: Using the new millenium and the emotions, aspirations, and hope such a major turning point generates to lead people to their Destinies. I'll let someone else do the Demon Princes. I wonder if Vapula's equipment is Y2K compliant. Ben, Elohite of Eli Angel of Neat Ideas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:34:29 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Most troublesome bands/choirs/servitorservi At 19:05 -0500 12/24/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >Question for all you GMs: which bands/choirs/Servitors do you find most >difficult to run, or to have active around your PCs? I haven't had all that much trouble with running NPCs of any type; *PCs* are another issue entirely. Bad PC Superiors: Blandine and Jordi (both for having Servitors with interests that are orthogonal to the main action of the game), Janus and Valefor (the dissonance condition is a pain), Dominic and Asmodeus (no one likes to deal with known Servitors of either on a long-term basis -- or a short-term one, either). *Annoying* PC Superiors: Yves (too many nasty attunements); Dominic (Seraphim, primarily). Michael's dissonance condition could cause some trouble, if I had War Servitors in my game; I'd probably make Michael one of the Superiors who's free with vessels to compensate, but a PC could be out of action in Trauma for a while. I think I can cope fairly well with all the Choirs and Bands; the most notable difficulty I have there is with mixed parties including Malakim. I should note, though, that my GMing style is almost entirely improv, so I don't mind making up details on the spot for the information resonances and attunements. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:14:32 -0800 From: "Glenn D. Brown" Subject: IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music I decided that Israfel should give her Servitors demonic resonances in addition ot their angelic ones because it seemed to me a logical extension of the Word power described in the Liber Canticorum, namely Israfel's ability to use any Song she knows, even Demonic Songs other angels can't use. I presume the term 'any Song' includes Songs that require a demonic resonance, though perhaps this is something the author of the canon description of Israfel didn't consider. Rev. Pee Kitty's suggestion that the Seraphim Council would never allow such an experiment is interesting. She may be right, though it seemed to me there might be multiple reasons why they might. If one were playing a low contrast game, for instance, or if Yves and/or God supported Israfel strongly. Or if the angels were losing the War badly enough to make them desperate to try any scheme that might work. At any rate, I would like to know if any of you who read my submission would like to suggest any changes to my version of Archangel Israfel that would improve the character. Do you think the dissonance rules I had her give her Servitors are workable? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:45:34 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Emily wrote: > >BUT... you CAN get perfectly good decks off of amazon.com. Go hit >http://www.aeclectic.net/ first to preview decks. (170 decks! Reviewed!) >There's all kinds of goofiness available. > Hmm. What about the possibility of an In Nomine themed deck? Jack Elmy for the artwork anyone? - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:52:17 -0600 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music >> I decided that Israfel should give her Servitors demonic resonances in > addition ot their angelic ones because it seemed to me a logical extension > of the Word power described in the Liber Canticorum, namely Israfel's > ability to use any Song she knows, even Demonic Songs other angels can't > use.<< Not a bad thought but she doesn't have the resonances in her non-AA status with no hint that she does. I would think that what is a reasonable ability tied to a distinction would be the ability to learn Songs that would normally reqire being a demon, ethereal, or human etc. (Ie your Master of Melody rank) Using the Songs and having a demonic res. seems to be two *very* different things to me. I also tend to read her ability the same way as you do, though would be inclined to *not* allow her the human-only songs. (She would have the knowlege of how they "work", and be able to teach them, but the not the ability to perform - perhaps only on a DI.) >> Rev. Pee Kitty's suggestion that the Seraphim Council would never allow > such an experiment is interesting. She may be right, though it seemed to me > there might be multiple reasons why they might. If one were playing a low > contrast game, for instance, or if Yves and/or God supported Israfel > strongly. Or if the angels were losing the War badly enough to make them > desperate to try any scheme that might work.<< That would work, but I really don't like the idea. It seems to be a bit too game breaking... I also have a real hard time seeing the Seraphim Council going along with this one also. >>At any rate, I would like to > know if any of you who read my submission would like to suggest any changes > to my version of Archangel Israfel that would improve the character. Do you > think the dissonance rules I had her give her Servitors are workable?<< The double dissonance really doesn't seem that bad to me, except that she is going to have a lot of former servitors who are now Outcasts... Perhaps they can remove Dis. by singing in a Theme? I don't think that putting such heavy restrictions on what songs her various servitors can learn w/out Distinctions makes much sense. It seems way too heavy handed compared to all the other AA's. (Why isn't Lawrence, Dominic, or David doing this?) And Collaborative Composition seems too complicated and is contrary to the Canon position on Songs being really, really, really hard to discover. What might make sense would be to allow her Angels the Expanded Resonance Rules from the APG as their Choir Res., and give them the Choir Specific Song from LC at a free level 1. Angels of Music being in better tune with their personal nature within the Symphony after all... All in all, I liked the flavor text of the write-up but the mechanics don't seem to work real well. Pax, David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:09:22 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) In a message dated 12/28/99 5:47:02 PM Central Standard Time, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: << Thirded. Messing with a deck's vibes is a bad no-no -- that's why they stay in the box, or even in a hardwood box with silk wrapped 'round them. (Why, yes, I learned this from my mother, who doesn't entirely believe in it.) The only time someone besides the owner should be touching a serious Tarot deck is when the owner says, "Shuffle" or "cut the deck." And now, unless this aspect can be wrenched back on-topic.... >> I wonder if there is a Demon of Touching Other People's Tarot Decks. :p Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 21:45:03 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> In Nomine themed tarot deck (WAS: Mercurians & Tarot Decks) At 1:45 AM +0000 12/29/99, Julian Breen wrote: >Hmm. What about the possibility of an In Nomine themed deck? Now, that would be keen. . . (BTW, isn't their already one available for INS/MV?!?) >Jack Elmy for the artwork anyone? Blasphemy!! Use John Zeleznik (Burning Feathers Cover), Ramo'n Pe'rez (Notebly: Gabriel, Michael & Baal's expanded writeup pictures*), & Michael Kucharski (**Amber DRPG Trumps) instead!!! (* Yes, the same artist responsible for Malakite -B U N S- for S1.) (** Slightly off-topic, but of interest to IN players: If anyone's got a copy of Shadow Knight, the suppliment for the Amber DRPG, Take a close look at Sand's Trump. I'm not the _only_ one who swears that's Lilith, as seen in Fall of the Malakim. . .) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://home.centurytel.net/shdwstar/in-nomine/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:30:37 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Israfel, Archangel of Music At 5:14 PM -0800 12/28/99, Glenn D. Brown wrote: >I decided that Israfel should give her Servitors demonic resonances in >addition ot their angelic ones because it seemed to me a logical extension >of the Word power described in the Liber Canticorum, namely Israfel's >ability to use any Song she knows, even Demonic Songs other angels can't >use. But the same description describes the pain that such discordant Songs inflict upon Israfel. I can't see so pure and perfect an Angel inflicting such discordant tones upon her beloved Servitors. It would be an offense against the Symphony. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:08:38 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) To some (sane?) people, they're just cards -- and he did say he was going to ask. Honestly. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 04:04:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Jo Hart wrote: > To some (sane?) people, they're just cards -- and he did say he was going to > ask. Honestly. Thank you, jo. :) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Conspiracy religions CONvert, the Subgenius SUBverts! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:42:24 MST From: "Christopher King" Subject: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty I have a question about this. I seem to recall reading the GMG that Khalid was to be relegated to the realms of Canon Doubt, but he's got a write up in Superiors 3. Did this change? Also speaking of Canon Doubt, did Magog survive the Trumpet Cycle? There is no definitive yes or no, just speculation that he most likely didn't survive. Is there any canon on what happened to him? Arovyn ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:46:17 MST From: "Christopher King" Subject: IN> Genubath and Raphael I would like to say, THANK YOU! for sending these to the list! These are great! The synchronicity on Raphael is fairly amusing as well. One of my players is the Angel of the Mind. I've been toying with making him into a full fledged Archangel and a lot of the ideas we had on attunements nearly completely match some of Raphael's. A bit spooky, but really cool nonetheless. I definately like seeing the older lost superiors. Do you think maybe you could post Uriel sometime? That would be pretty neat to see how he worked before he got recalled. Arovyn ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:31:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor Shadowstar wrote: > Just about the only sticky points in this theory are how did this > slip by Lucifer? How _can_ he _create_ Demons? How _did_ he steal > Genubath's word? Who knows. [...] > Maybe Lucifer _does_ know, and is just giggling maddly because of it I do like the idea of Valefor being Janus (or an angel of his). Maybe Lucifer is giggling, yes. Maybe Lucifer was blinded by a direct intervention from God. Maybe Lucifer knows that he was suckered into giving a Princedom to an angel and dares not let this get out because of the damage it would cause to infernal morale, his reputation, and his vanity, in ascending order of importance. (Remember that, however brilliant and powerful Lucifer may be, he can also be painted as proud, vain, and arrogant enough to supply plenty of fatal flaws.) Maybe the ability to make demons is tied to having an infernal Word or Princedom, even if one is an angel. Valefor would be the only angel with an infernal Word. Or maybe Genubath is the one who makes demons FOR Valefor, being totally enslaved by Valefor, including mind and will, and secreted away in the Bag of Holding Valefor carries in his left upper sinus, or in a customized part of Limbo or something. Such total enslavement might be central to how Valefor could steal a Word. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:37:21 -0500 From: Adam Thomas Gieseler Subject: Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor Maybe Valefor isn't Janus, but it's his gambit to make others think he is. Or maybe he isn't, but was fooled by Lucifer (or Kronos or any Balseraph) to think he is. Or maybe (for a purely fun campaign) all Celestials turn into their alter egos whenever they use their Rites, and they never notice. Later, Adam Gieseler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:57:09 -0500 From: Doctor TOC Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) Jo Hart wrote: > > To some (sane?) people, they're just cards -- and he did say he was going to > ask. Honestly. Unfair and inaccurate. 1. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make people who *do* insane. I thought we were above judging the beliefs of others. 2. "I hope my roomate doesn't mind me borrowing his tarot deck when we play..." Point out to me where it says he was going to ask. Given that he *didn't* say that he was going to ask, the comments made by others were entirely justified; an act of kindness aimed at preventing possible discord between room-mates, rather than bashing Pee Kitty. Honestly. Of course, if you'd rather we sit back and say nothing when someone is about to do something that could get them yelled at, that's fine. Doctor TOC - -- The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" ICQ # 4814586 Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 12:39:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians & Tarot Decks (WAS: Most troublesome. . .) On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Doctor TOC wrote: > 2. "I hope my roomate doesn't mind me borrowing his tarot deck when we > play..." Point out to me where it says he was going to ask. "...BORROWing..." You have to ask to borrow something, otherwise it's stealing. If I go over to your house and drive your car over to the store without asking you first, even if I returned it later, I doubt you'd consider that to have been 'borrowing'. Neither would the police. Besides, my roomate is one of my players, and I think he'd notice if I were using his tarot deck in the middle of a game without asking him first. :) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! Ummon asked: "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" (Zen Koan) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:32:43 -0500 From: CyberCat Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine themed tarot deck (WAS: Mercurians & Tarot Decks) > Now, that would be keen. . . (BTW, isn't their already one available > for INS/MV?!?) If this exists, anyone got a link for it? I'll snap it up! Eris Corax of Chaos ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:16:28 CST From: "Justin Buhler" Subject: Re: IN> My Personal Theories on Valefor I only have the Basic HB, so there's probably loads of evidence against me, but my views are that Valefore and Janus are two different things, Valefore just planned his Attunements, Dissonance, Rites, etc. the same to bug the hell out of Janus, and to perhaps even make him look a little iffy in the eyes of some other Archangels, maybe Valefore uses his resemblances to access Heaven every once and awhile, making out to be a Servitor of Janus, there's many reasons a Prince of Theft would "Steal" the Archangel of Winds' Attunements and what-nots, you just have to think about what they maybe. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1477 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.