From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 23 10:35:14 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 KAA15033 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:35:14 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id KAA10822 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:31:38 -0600 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:31:38 -0600 Message-Id: <199903231631.KAA10822@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 #1172 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 Tuesday, March 23 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1172 In this digest: IN> Question: This list and Pyramid IN> clarification Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Question of Appropriateness Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> re: malakim IN> Anti-Spamming Re: IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting Re: IN> Question: This list and Pyramid Re: IN> clarification IN> In Principio Re: IN> In Principio Re: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> In Principio [none] Re: IN> In Principio Re: IN> New Running Gag Re: IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting Re: IN> New Running Gag Re: IN> New Running Gag IN> The Purity Crusade and archives Re: IN> In Principio IN> Historical Religious References Re: IN> In Principio Re: IN> In Principio Re: IN> The Purity Crusade and archives IN> Going to the Celestial Plane Re: IN> Archives ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:14:28 -0500 From: EDG Subject: IN> Question: This list and Pyramid Okay, time for a list-mechanics question which I've never seen an answer to. What is official policy regarding this list and Pyramid? If I were to submit something to the list and to Pyramid at once, would this be violating regulations I'm not aware of? How about submitting to the list, modifying the submission as per the C&C I get, then submitting the finished product to Pyramid? - -a curious EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:37:38 -0500 From: "Galliard" Subject: IN> clarification This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE748A.ADA47E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can a celestial being in corporeal form choose to selectively leave = corporeal items behind when he takes celestial form? In a game I was = playing, my character was doused in napalm, I asked if I could go = celestial, but leave my napalm soaked clothes behind. After a 5 minute = debate, the GM ruled that I couldn't. Now I realize the GM's word is law = (no pun intended), but I was curious as to what the official cannon = might be. Thanks. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE748A.ADA47E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Can a celestial being in corporeal form choose to = selectively=20 leave corporeal items behind when he takes celestial form? In a = game I was=20 playing, my character was doused in napalm, I asked if I could go = celestial, but=20 leave my napalm soaked clothes behind. After a 5 minute debate, the GM = ruled=20 that I couldn't. Now I realize the GM's word is law (no pun intended), = but I was=20 curious as to what the official cannon might be.=20 Thanks.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE748A.ADA47E20-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:13 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 9:56 PM -0500 3/19/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >At 2:28 PM -0500 3/19/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >In my campaign, Uriel was called in from the showers because he was >wrong, and he refused to agree to anything anyone would say. So God >pulled him in and the bitchslapping began, and Uriel can't very >easily return because it's hard to fly when your wings have been >clipped and you've been sent to clean the Divine Toilets with your >toothbrush for ten millenia. Punishment or reward? No one knows save God and Uriel and maybe (MAYBE) Yves... >The Purity Crusade is a great historical point, but I simply can't >reconcile genocide with any interpretation of Purity that isn't >lodged directly in Hell. Genocide, to kill off soulless parasites who arise from human dreams, have no more meaning than a dream (and should have vanished with that dream in the first place!), and who, in some semblance of self-awareness, seek to draw humanity from the path of destiny and Heaven, and into a subserviant role as Essence-cattle for ethereals? There's more than one take on the Purity Crusades... O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Question of Appropriateness At 2:36 AM -0500 3/20/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Should I drop the article or keep going with a note in the front >'diverging' from Canon? What's appropriate in these situations? If there's a big fat header saying, "NOT CANON" (or something like that), then I won't fret too much. However, the person to ask would be Scott Haring, the editor of Pyramid... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 At 6:19 PM -0500 3/19/99, EDG wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> I say this, because I *would* allow a Lilim to self-geas to a >> Geas/1: The next thing I say will be true. (This would have a >> duration of 1 hour, and then would wink out if she'd kept her >> mouth shut.) Then the Geas/1 would be fulfilled and the Geas >> would vanish. > >Can a Lilim, therefore, effectively emulate the Seraph resonance? More like she can make someone else "emulate" the Seraph *dissonance*. She'll never get TRUTH out of the Symphony -- but she can make someone else speak what they believe to be true, or pledge that she will speak only what she believes to be true. >In >other words, could she Geas/2 (or 3) someone: Speak only truth for the >next hour? If the person fails the will roll to resist, or agrees . . . (And I'd make that a Geas/1, myself. *Compelling* truth would he higher, and it would only be able to be 'what the speaker believes to be true' and subject to weasle-wording (usually) like a Seraph of Janus.) >Could she use a high-level Geas to make someone Speak only Truth for the >next hour? Yup. She might even be able to compell it, with a high level geas, so that the person is stuck with, effectively, the dissonance conditions of a Servitor of Revelation. And she can self-geas herself into the dissonance conditions of a Seraph, no problem. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:27 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa At 10:46 PM -0800 3/20/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: >That reminds me. Um... I have a humble request here. WOuld someone >please inform me what a "hook" in someone is? > >I *thought* a Lilim gained a "hook" into someone once they'd sensed a >person's Need. Definitely not. >Is a hook what a Lilim has when she's sensed a Need and fulfilled that >Need, but hasn't yet called in the favor and extracted a Geas? Yes. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> re: malakim At 2:14 PM +0000 3/20/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Martin Arnold wrote: > > >>Ramesh: "I think the theory was something like the opposite of honour >>(The Res. of a Malakite) is Betrayal, and so the Fallen Malakite >>immediately Betrays the side of Hell and bounces. (Not a big fan of >>this theory myself)" >> >>I know it's an old thread, but ??????????? >> >>No demon automatically redeems do they? There are no self-redeeming demons. If the GM chooses, there is Divine Intervention or other amusing things which might make an interesting focus/climax for a campaign. >Would that mean that you could have Habbalah who know they are demons and >like being demons and so stay that way? Yes. See the Pyramid article, "Gray Renegades," which discusses such beings, among others. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:10:03 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Anti-Spamming >>Toll-free, that is, in the US. Some of us, happily, live in better countries (ducks flames).<<< Actually, I live in Korea right now. That's why I suggested this -- because I can't do it myself. - -David (not interesting in flaming trolls) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:21:59 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting From: Elizabeth McCoy >The word "a-p-p-r-o-v-e" in the first 7 lines, starting a sentence, apparently >makes things bounce. Yeesh. (I've edited it, just in case.) Modern technology... Gotta love it, huh? (Unless you want nasty surprises from Vapula, anyway.) >>From: "Janet Anderson" >> >>Incidentally, I see a lot of agitation on this list as to what a pain in >>the wazoo Dominic is, or Uriel, but does anyone beside me think Jordi >>should be added to this list? His political power is less than >>Dominic's, but it says in the APG (I think) that if he'd had his way he >>would have destroyed all humans, and had to be talked out of it. Excellent point! I never really thought of that before, but it makes perfect sense. This leads to a number of interesting potential storylines... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:27:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Question: This list and Pyramid At 5:14 PM -0500 3/22/99, EDG wrote: >Okay, time for a list-mechanics question which I've never seen an answer >to. > >What is official policy regarding this list and Pyramid? If I were to >submit something to the list and to Pyramid at once, would this be >violating regulations I'm not aware of? This is what I *belive* to be true, but I'm not the editor of Pyramid. I think it would be considered to have used up your first-publication rights, which might strongly affect both the amount you could get for it, and if you could sell it to Scott at all. >How about submitting to the >list, modifying the submission as per the C&C I get, then submitting the >finished product to Pyramid? Ask Scott Haring, the editor of Pyramid. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:30:37 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> clarification As a note, change your emailer to make unmodified ascii -- you've got some kind of funky formatting in here. At 5:37 PM -0500 3/22/99, Galliard wrote: >Can a celestial being in corporeal form choose to selectively leave corporeal >items behind when he takes celestial form? Canon is currently silent on this topic.

I'd allow a limited amount of this, possibly based on the check digit of a Will/Perception/Precision roll. If you're attached to something that's too heavy, you leave it behind.

I'd rule that a celestial could go to his Heart, hunt up his Boss and ask his Superior to help, and the Superior could, with but a moment, fix the problem. (Insta-drycleaning!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:19:00 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> In Principio >>>[David, your creation story is nice, but deadly dull (IMHO)] Here is an alternate take :)<<< I'm better at concepts than writing fiction. I haven't had any great inspirations for In Nomine fiction since the vignettes I wrote for The Marches and Heaven & Hell (and I don't think either of those were my best work, frankly). Also, I was trying to write it in a vaguely Biblical/mythic style, which tends to be full of repetitive phrases. Mostly this was an experiment in creating an alternative cosmology for In Nomine, drawing on a few actual theological concepts (been doing some light reading on historical religion lately) that answers some of the Big Questions. This in preparation for another supplement I'm writing now -- but don't worry, there won't be any of this in the supplement. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:57:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> In Principio > I'm better at concepts than writing fiction. I haven't had any great > inspirations for In Nomine fiction since the vignettes I wrote for The > Marches and Heaven & Hell (and I don't think either of those were my best > work, frankly). Also, I was trying to write it in a vaguely Biblical/mythic > style, which tends to be full of repetitive phrases. It's the Hebrew verb construction, which is extremely straight forward and lends itself to the "And he said... and she spoke... And God smote unto the stinky people which were in the valley" that you read in English. It's not actually there, that's just how the tense was translated in your Bible. (Okay, it IS there, but yeah. It's tense.) I wrote a real (9 sentence) short goofy Uriel chunk for some other thought exercise elsewhere, keeping the construction in mind. Hebrew is not exactly the most complicated language on the planet. If I can learn it.... - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:06:54 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade David Edelstein wrote: > >>>In what way were the unicorns harmful? This isn't a rhetorical > question -- I honestly want to know the IN past on this. Some > creatures I could see as being harmful. Others I can't.<<< > > In the older myths, unicorns weren't pretty white ponies with candy-striped > horns who give rides to cute little girls. They were nasty, evil beasts. Well, not -quite-. Unicorns were -wild-, which is different than being nasty and evil. They didn't go rampaging through human towns and such unless thay had good reason (good reason from -their- perspective, like being hunted). But yes, approaching one was supposedly as stupid as approaching -any- dangerous, wild animal. It was later on that they came to represent Christ, and before that, they had started to take on a less menacing aspect, with the whole, purifying village wells things (and getting killed for it, I have -got- to find the first source for that tale ;) ). But yes, I do agree that the candy-striped horn little-girl ride-giving things are rather a perversion of the original idea of what a unicorn was supposed to be and represent. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:54:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Re: Janus In article <3.0.6.32.19990319142748.007e4830@mail.earthlink.net>, Sean McCarthy wrote: > Yes! Angels of the Wind are too easily seen as comic relief, IMHO. I > think of them as being possibly quite scary, attuned to such a primal > Word. You seem to be under the impression that these two things are mutually incompatible. A Malakite of the Wind in the campaign I play in is the light relief. He is also exceedingly deadly with a rifle. Combine this with his energy, enthusiasm, and complete disregard for physical limitations, and you have a really scary character! - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:24:28 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> In Principio - -----Original Message----- From: Emily K. Dresner >It's the Hebrew verb construction, which is extremely straight forward >and lends itself to the "And he said... and she spoke... And God smote >unto the stinky people which were in the valley" that you read >in English. It's not actually there, that's just how the tense was >translated in your Bible. In Classical Hebrew, past tenses are often written with a preceding 'and'. It isn't actually compulsary to translate that, but common in old fashioned English versions. > (Okay, it IS there, but yeah. It's tense.) terse ;) jo jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:35:11 -0300 From: "Ricardo de Oliveira Ferreira" Subject: [none] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE74CD.64BEDBE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi ! First I would like to congratulate all you for the quality of = In Nomine (Satanis Magna Veritas). I have been reading The Books for some time and now I'm thinking = about "GMing" to my group, I would like to ask about some rules. In = case of a Celestial in Earth, going to his plane (Up or Down) to do = something, or involved in a combat. - Is he abble to go any time? Does = he just say "Tchau" to his opponent when he knows that he will lose the = figth? I would like to know the game mechanical when this kind of = situation happens=20 Ricardo =20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE74CD.64BEDBE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi ! = First I would=20 like to congratulate all you for the quality of In Nomine (Satanis Magna = Veritas).

I have = been=20 reading The Books for some time and now I'm thinking about = "GMing" to=20 my group, I would like to ask about some rules. In case of a = Celestial in=20 Earth, going to his plane (Up or Down) to do something, or involved in a = combat.=20 - - Is he abble to go any time? Does he just say "Tchau" to his = opponent=20 when he knows that he will lose the figth? I would like to know = the game=20 mechanical when this kind of situation happens

&nbs= p; = ; = =20 Ricardo

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE74CD.64BEDBE0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:41:57 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> In Principio At 7:19 PM -0500 3/22/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>[David, your creation story is nice, but deadly dull (IMHO)] Here is an > alternate take :)<<< > > > I'm better at concepts than writing fiction. I haven't had any great > inspirations for In Nomine fiction since the vignettes I wrote for The > Marches and Heaven & Hell (and I don't think either of those were my best > work, frankly). Also, I was trying to write it in a vaguely Biblical/mythic > style, which tends to be full of repetitive phrases. > > Mostly this was an experiment in creating an alternative cosmology for In > Nomine, drawing on a few actual theological concepts (been doing some light > reading on historical religion lately) that answers some of the Big > Questions. This in preparation for another supplement I'm writing now -- > but don't worry, there won't be any of this in the supplement. ;) > > -David I'd rather like to see more of the Creation Story, because I like the evolution of it so far. But I also get into myth structure something fierce. - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a 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.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:32:24 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> New Running Gag At 08:08 PM 3/15/99 -0700, you wrote: > > > >A man had become an Ethereal "echo chamber" when his dream-self was >accidentally really-killed in the Marches, making him appear as whatever >the viewer most highly prized and trusted - to the angelic PCs, of course, >this was God. So, Elohim of Michael, in hawk vessel form, flies over >downtown LA when suddenly he notices God, in all His glory, standing on a >platform, surrounded by an adoring crowd. Quickly he finds a place to >shift back and gets on a cell phone to the rest of the group. > >The following transpired without my interference: > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: You gotta get down here! > >OFANIM OF MARC: What? Why? > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: God's down here!! > >OFANIM OF MARC: What? God? > >MALAKIM OF ELI (riding in car w/Ofanim, no phone): What? > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: Yeah, God's here! > >OFAMIN OF MARC: It's really God? > >ELOHIM OF MIKE (to GM): It's really God? > >GM: It's really God. > >ELOHIM OF MIKE (in phone): It's really God! > >OFAMIN OF MARC: Hang on. (to Malakim) God is downtown! > >MALAKIM OF ELI: What? God is downtown? > >OFAMIN OF MARC: God is downtown! (GM goes to refill coffee. Ofanim >continues, into phone) Are you sure it's Him? > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: Yeah, I'm sure! It's definitely Him! > >MALAKIM OF ELI: Is he sure it's Him? > >OFANIM OF MARC: Hang on. (to Malakim) He's sure it's Him! (into phone) >Does He do that...y'know...does He do that *thing* God does? Y'know, that >sort of annoying little... > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: Yeah, that sort of nervous tic, except kind of... > >OFAMIN OF MARC: Yeah, sort of...that *thing* He does... > >(GM returns with cup of coffee.) > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: Just a minute, let me check. (To GM) Does he do that >*thing* God does? > >GM: Oh, definitely. > >ELOHIM OF MIKE (into phone): Yeah! He does that *thing*. > >OFANIM OF MARC: Whoa. > >MALAKIM OF ELI: Does he do that thing God does? > >OFANIM OF MARC: Hang on. (to Malakim) Yeah! Y'know, that sort of... > >MALAKIM OF ELI: Yeah, that kind of...he does that! > >OFANIM OF MARC: Yeah! (to phone) We're on our way. > > > >-------------------------- > > >So of course all of the NPC angels he tells the story to immediately ask >about 'that thing'... > this is honestly one of the most impressive pieces of roleplaying i have seen to be quite honest. I love it when my players just make stuff up so that I don't have to do all the work. Ben, Elohite of Stone ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:59:26 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Prodigal wrote: > >>From: "Janet Anderson" > >> > >>Incidentally, I see a lot of agitation on this list as to what a pain in > >>the wazoo Dominic is, or Uriel, but does anyone beside me think Jordi > >>should be added to this list? His political power is less than > >>Dominic's, but it says in the APG (I think) that if he'd had his way he > >>would have destroyed all humans, and had to be talked out of it. > > Excellent point! I never really thought of that before, but it makes perfect > sense. This leads to a number of interesting potential storylines... OTOH, to play the Devil's... er, the Archangel's Advocate, he kinda has a point. Humanity has (nearly or completely) exterminated a lot of animal species, most of those we keep in captivity aren't treated very well, and we kill them for fun. I think his part of creation is the one humanity has the least respect for (for lack of a better word), and he's quite justified in his anger against humanity. Wiping us out might be going a bit too far since in IN humanity is the most important part of creation, so I don't think it would go over well with the Big Guy Upstairs. I don't want to start a big debate over animals' rights here, I just wanted to say that Jordi has some justification for being less than completely happy with us. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:02:29 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> New Running Gag Ben Aldred wrote: > > At 08:08 PM 3/15/99 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > > >A man had become an Ethereal "echo chamber" when his dream-self was > >accidentally really-killed in the Marches, making him appear as whatever > >the viewer most highly prized and trusted - to the angelic PCs, of course, > >this was God. So, Elohim of Michael, in hawk vessel form, flies over > >downtown LA when suddenly he notices God, in all His glory, standing on a > >platform, surrounded by an adoring crowd. Quickly he finds a place to > >shift back and gets on a cell phone to the rest of the group. > > > >The following transpired without my interference: > > > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: You gotta get down here! > > > >OFANIM OF MARC: What? Why? > > > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: God's down here!! Oh this is definitely some fine RP, but there's one lil' detail I'd fire in there as a GM. See those exclamtion points after the Elohite's sentence? *evil grin*. Dissonance!! - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:55:52 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> New Running Gag On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Steel Angel wrote: > > >ELOHIM OF MIKE: God's down here!! > Oh this is definitely some fine RP, but there's one lil' detail I'd > fire in there as a GM. See those exclamtion points after the Elohite's > sentence? *evil grin*. Dissonance!! Er, no. Elohim are allowed to have emotions, and even express them, they're just not allowed to consider those emotions when making decisions. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:06:32 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> The Purity Crusade and archives First, I'd like to know what Beth - er, list Djinn Beth - thinks. I'm not sure whether I'm pro or con having FAQ-like writeups from the mailing list, and I don't have time to type in my vague thoughts at the moment. But if we're going to do it I think the only way to capture the flavor of actually having a *discussion* of the matter as opposed to a bunch of essays is to actually discuss the matter again, with people aware that their posts are being archived, and make a compliation of the whole thing. I also think that having a single compliation which people are asked to read before posting on a subject is *less* exclusionary than the current common 'oh, we've done that, read the archives' take on it. And all that being said, someone who's read an archive of two weeks' discussion on a topic is less likely to feel that a subject's been beaten to death than someone who actually *discussed* a topic for two weeks, or even read about that topic every day for two weeks. Sometimes you have your own opinion and want feedback on it. And I'm running late, gotta go. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:34:14 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> In Principio > In Classical Hebrew, past tenses are often written with a preceding 'and'. > It isn't actually compulsary to translate that, but common in old fashioned > English versions. > > > (Okay, it IS there, but yeah. It's tense.) > > terse ;) *THPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPT* Back to the peanut gallery, you. :) So I had a thought about this, and in the shower this morning I came up with an "Amazingly Bad Primer To Writing Amazingly Bad Biblical-Like Fanfic". All it takes is knowing how to translate what into what. 1. For all verbs in the past tense, precede them with "And pronoun verb". This will give your text that good unreadable flavor. For better classical happiness, make all of your verbs past tense. 2. Exchange "to" to "unto". So a sentence which is "God said to Moses, "Hey." Comes out to being "And God sayth unto Moses, and He spoke, "Hey"." 3. Toss in the word "which" whenever you can. "And The Word of the Lord did come, which it spoke, and said unto Hosea, "Go get me some chips."" 4. Translate all possessives as "noun1 of the noun2". This is a particular favorite of bad translators of dead languages like EA Wallis Budge who try hard to sound cool. So Jeremiah's Additude becomes "Additude of Jeremiah". You get, "And the Additude of Jeremiah did smite the Hebrews, for they were indeed being jerks." 5. Don't ever make anything explicitly negative, always put in the "nors" and "nots" instead, and make sure they're dangling at the ends of your sentences. To start off a sentence as a contraction to the previous one before it, start it with "But". "And Hosea brought unto the Lord his bag of Frito Lay, and God saw it not." 6. Toss in enclitics everywhere. In English, we only have the word "such", and that isn't much fun to use, and generally they don't translate at all. But that doesn't stop us from tossing them in willy-nilly, just to sound good. These untranslateable filler words are usually translated as "Behold". "Behold! God saw the chips, and he did say unto Hosea, "Not too bad." And it was good." 7. Have fun. Example: Let's translate some perfectly bad English into some perfectly bad Biblical-like prose. The sentences in question are: "Dick threw Spot, his dog, an old bone. Spot retrieved a femur from the newspaper boy instead." Using the above rules, you can make this into Spiffy Biblical Prose very easily. It reads something like this: 1. And the dog of Dick was named Spot. 2. And Dick did throw unto Spot a bone, which was an old bone, and Spot did like it. 3. Behold! Spot does chase after it! 4. But Spot found the bone not. 5. And Spot did return, and unto Dick did he return a bone, but it was the original bone not. 6. And the paper boy did sue. See? Simple. Now you try it at home. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Historical Religious References So I thought about this too, and came up with a real short list. I don't expect anyone to take a class in Jewish Civilization - but _boy_ would that make me happy. * The best place to start is the Bible and the Koran. If you haven't read the Bible, then alot of what follows in research isn't going to make huge amounts of sense. * If you're going to get an overview with some detail, the best book to read (that I've come across so far) is Karen Armstrong's "The History of God". It's not as in depth as anyone would like, but it does a nice job following the genesis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I particularly like the chapter with the Gnostics. There's another book I haven't read yet but it lives on my shelf called "Jews, God and History" by Max Dimont, which is supposed to be very good but is buried under paperbacks at the moment. * There have been a few shows on TV. As an A&E junky, I recommended watching (if it's on tape) their series "Christianity - The First 1000 Years". And of course, "Mysteries of the Bible", which runs every Sunday. * I recently acquired a good book, "The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil" by Dr. Paul Carus. A nice solid backgrounder for writing In Nomine references. * Almost anything on Zoroastarianism. I don't have any books offhand, but Amazon.Com has a search engine. It would be nice if a little bit of it could be right, because none has been yet. (Check errata on APG for worst offenders). And you have to read more then "Also Spach Zarathrustra" by Nietzsche. :) * Neel had reviewed a book of Jewish Myth by Louis Ginzberg. Jewish Myth is the source of 90% of this game, and learning it would make everyone's lives happier. * PHILOSOPHY! Get a basic philosophy text, and read it! Know the arguments of the masters! You don't have to sit on the floor of B&N and read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (although it's an awesome book). You should know the very basic arguments to the Big Questions: - The Existence of God and Why. St Augustine and St. Anselm shouldn't be big surprises. - Predestination and Free Will. - The Existence of Good and Evil. - Basic Ethics and Morality. - Mind and Body, known also as Consciousness and Thought. - Basic Existentialism. I say this because it's nice to know who and why someone is poking holes in all your lovely cosmos. Besides, the Brothers Karamazov tells you all you need to know in life... just read Solzhenitsyn, he'll tell you so. :) Knowing the arguments allows one to not make really obvious mistakes (re: Lilith and the ethics of Freedom) in the text which leads to endless, neverending flamewar. I know that there are some basic books out there... I wouldn't be surprised if there were "Philosophy for Dummies" books. And that should be enough to get anyone started in the right direction. After this, it might be best to consult a Professor of ABS, a Priest or a local Rabbi, who might have suggestions on more in depth research. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:09:23 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> In Principio Em wrote: >So I had a thought about this, and in the shower this morning I came up >with an "Amazingly Bad Primer To Writing Amazingly Bad Biblical-Like >Fanfic". All it takes is knowing how to translate what into what. *laugh* jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:25:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> In Principio Emily Dresner wrote: > This is a particular favorite of bad translators of dead languages > like EA Wallis Budge who try hard to sound cool. Emily, Have you ever read any of the Amelia Peabody mysteries by Elizabeth Peters? You might enjoy them. The protagonists appear to hate Budge as much as you do. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:02:10 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade and archives At 7:06 AM -0600 3/23/99, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >First, I'd like to know what Beth - er, list Djinn Beth - thinks. If there were a summary of the points available somewhere (and possibly updated as to the number of times the topic came up, with dates...), I can see it as being very useful. Mind, I'm thinking of it as a place where one could go to get the canon -- if any! -- answer for some things, and a general idea of what's come up before, and how long ago (to tell how many people are likely to groan), not a monument to permanently dead threads. That would be another file, leading directly to the music and casting call archives that someone might see fit to compile OFF-LIST . O;> A summary of positions with links to good articles/discussions which were archived might satisfy some people, who are starting a discussion to gather information that many people have already posted once or twice before. (Instead of looking for feedback on their own neat idea.) It would also probably help the people who have *been* posting those, since they can say, "go to this URL, and that's where I stand on the issue." This probably wouldn't be suitable for any topic that hasn't arisen at least 2-3 times, too. IOW, as with many things, it could be a useful time-saver (and finger-saver), or it could stifle discussions, depending on how it were done. - --Beth, Archangel of Archives http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Angels/Arcangel.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:02:08 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Going to the Celestial Plane As a reminder to everyone else using Microsoft Outlook -- make sure you are not sending in HTML or MIME, but only plain ascii. At 1:35 AM -0300 3/23/99, Ricardo de Oliveira Ferreira wrote: >I would like to ask about some rules. In case of a Celestial in Earth, >going to his plane (Up or Down) to do something, or involved in a >combat. - Is he abble to go any time? A celestial in the corporeal plane must first "go celestial." He must then make a Will roll to ascend. Unless he is restrained by special artifacts (such as Force Catchers, or things created by the GM), special Songs (there are probably some in the Liber Canticorum), or the power of a Superior, he can go to his Heart (or the other end of a Tether he happens to be in) any time he wants to. If he's being celestially grappled, his opponent need only spend a little Essence and can follow him automatically... Demons going to Heaven get fried very quickly by the Light of Heaven. (This is in the errata for Heaven & Hell, off the www.sjgames.com/in-nomine errata link.) >Does he >just say "Tchau" to his opponent when he knows that he will lose the figth? Often that happens, yes. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:26:04 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Archives > A summary of positions with links to good articles/discussions > which were archived might satisfy some people, who are starting > a discussion to gather information that many people have already > posted once or twice before. (Instead of looking for feedback on > their own neat idea.) It would also probably help the people who > have *been* posting those, since they can say, "go to this URL, > and that's where I stand on the issue." > > This probably wouldn't be suitable for any topic that hasn't > arisen at least 2-3 times, too. > > IOW, as with many things, it could be a useful time-saver (and > finger-saver), or it could stifle discussions, depending on how > it were done. Likely stifle discussions, I would say, because every time the topic rears its heads, there will be five people who will say "go read this web page" in disgust. While I am very half and half about this, there's a certain part of me which is repulsed and driven to occasional long bouts of silence by the constant screaming of "It's not canon!" on a fan based mailing list (where canon is, in reality, hardly an issue except in the context of questions looking for clarification), and this is just going to exasperate the problem. The other half welcomes new topics, and would want any way to open the list up to such. The problem may not be the certain cliquishness on this list (of which there is much), and it may not even be that people keep bringing up their pet topics. It might simply be, like Amber Diceless, there is a pretty slim number of topics and after three years, the list has simply exhausted them. [How many times can you talk about if Brand is really alive anyway? Same problem.] The constant ending of threads by whipping out the Heavy Mallet of Canon has stifled a good many discussions: everything from Malakim and Lilim on to the roles of various demons. This archive is going to just exasperate the problem --- now instead of even letting new ideas seep in through the old threads, people will post to the new archive and dismisss new people with a wave of the hand when their old questions raise their weary heads. Is it a good idea? I don't know, I don't think so. I don't like anything which basically screws the new guy. Yes, summaries are nice. No, crutches are not. Like the #startrek channel, this will become like a sort of Kafkaian mail list where the topic is clearly In Nomine but In Nomine is the forbidden topic because it has, essentially, been "done to death." But not my problem, ya know? - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1172 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.