From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 31 13:44:42 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 NAA07595 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:44:41 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id NAA25979 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:46:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:46:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199903311946.NAA25979@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 #1186 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, March 31 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1186 In this digest: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? IN> Celestials and Diseases Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Second Edition Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> CDaU Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> CDaU IN> Gluttony Day (was CDaU) Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? IN> Kyriotates and Multiplicity Quasifluff (Was other stuff) Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:19:25 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions One doesn't have to feel sympathy or concern for a - oh, for a nice little lamb - to treat it sensibly. One can take care of it, make sure the food and water are changed regularly, brush its pretty little white coat, take it to shows and win prizes for it, and then have it for lunch on Sunday, in an aesthetic appreciation of its taste. Of course, in an _ideal_ world, Servitors of Lust could run rampant and entertain whatever perversion they felt like at the time. What a pity this isn't an ideal world. (And you might want, at this point, to consider what certain parts of Shal-Mari must be like for the humans employed there.) Servitors of Lust need to be careful and sensible, if they don't want to be caught by angels or by mortal law. Just remember, one human well-educated in why they should believe fanatically in Lust - however much self-restraint it may take the demon at the time - will be so much more useful later, as he helps tip the moral climate or cover up the demon's own excesses. Logically, therefore, Andrealphus tends to pick for work on the mortal world _demons who can control themselves_. (Okay, perhaps a little orgy and so on every once in a while... but within reason.) If he wants to increase the power of his Word, this means getting the humans to believe in it and act in accordance with it. If this means infiltrating and gently persuading, rather than going on widespread orgies and abuses... line up here all those who want to display their talents. A soul that's damned goes to Hell. A soul that enters Shal-Mari is there forever. There are all sorts of advantages to corrupting humans, rather than just abusing and destroying them. Besides, there's a certain _charm_ to watching the humans increase their own measure of Lust and destroying each other. It must make a Prince feel all warm and comfortable inside to see his _truth_ born out, to watch the humans demonstrating that he was right all along... Certainly a Servitor of Lust can fake affection and enthusiasm and empathy and all that - if necessary. He might even appreciate particular, "pet" servants, if they were useful to him, in the same way that a human might appreciate a good hairbrush, or a loyal guard-dog, or a reliable tool. After all -- and this is the dogma of Hell, after all -- demons are better than humans, aren't they? Use them, yes. Care for them? *Real* demons don't care. And don't ask Andrealphus about what it was like to be Archangel of Love. Once. Long ago. You wouldn't want to hear his answer. - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:20:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Do Celestials ever get tired? [...] > Nope. Ah, so even the feeblest wimp of a Mercurian *can* sprint non-stop from one side of the USA to the other. I'd wondered. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:21:30 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) At 9:39 PM +0200 3/30/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >[page-counting snipped] > >> No dictionaries. > >Hm. Couldn't you fiddle around a bit with the art and stuff like that? >Less art means more room for text means fewer pages per Supe. Still >impossible? You want a book with *no* art? Seriously? You'd pay some $17-$20 for a book with no art? (And even if you would, do you think that enough other people would to make it profitable enough to keep SJ Games from losing money on it?) >How about smaller type? :) Unfortunately, you can't include a magnifying glass with every book. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:33:13 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions At 11:43 AM -0800 3/30/99, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> At 3:58 PM -0800 3/29/99, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >> > Godspeed to quick recovery! Thanks... >> technically, can't even fake it...) However, if they take > SHEESH, that makes the impudites' lives... nah, i won't say it ;) An Impudite doesn't have to be *concerned* for his pets, beyond the minimum necessary to keep him from being dissonant, I'd say. He can just Charm them into worshiping him (or her) and wipe his feet on their backs. Or tongues, whatever. >> the right vessels, they can probably make sure they get lots >> of hooks just from the "want to have sex" Needs. (Since they >> *can* do that, without it counting as 'concern.') > one would think Andre simply doesn't assign or ALLOW >ordinary, bland, unattractive vessals. i'm frankly surprised his Band >Attunements don't include an automatic +1 Charisma (sex appeal effective >on both genders), and that as Andre's "favorite band," the Lilim don't get >+2 or +3 in addition to sensing Needs by touch of those they've had sex >with. His Lilim don't have to have had sex with their targets -- that's Impudites. The Lilim get needs by touch, period. If they make skin (or thin clothing) contact with you, they can need-read you to their cold little hearts' content. > also, the "show no concern" crops up again for further difficulty: >how attractive--no, i'm not going to bother asking and just go on record >as saying it doesn't strike me as attractive to have sex with a limp fish, >as it were. lying through body language and the sounds people make during >sex to indicate enjoyment... then again, this can be done purely >selfishly.... If they're not having fun, they don't have to fake having fun (though they can, if it's not showing sympathy or concern for the human). If they are having fun, hey, they're having fun! Time for happy noises. > another point: we have the stereotypical bondage den, with >accompanying S&M dungeon. everyone assumes Lusties would be great as >hosts, right? yet a primary concern of bondage as well as most mainstream >S/M (an oxymoron if i ever coined one) is *concern* for the submissive. In good S/M/B/D, sure. In Lust-fantasies? Nope. Lusties push their slaves to the limits and only stop when they feel like it. (Safewords? What are safewords, to a Lustie? Especially a Lust-Balseraph! Or a Lust-Habbalite! (LOVE-resonance! Or a Lust-Impudite...) Of course, if they don't want to have problems with the cops, they sensibly stop just short of what would cause problems. Because *they* felt like it. I suspect that in most of his Servitors -- besides the Balseraphs and Habbalah -- they're actually more into submission-fantasies instead of straight sensation-games. They'd rather have the dressed-up businessmen-French Maids polishing their boots with their tongues, than have to worry about doing a whipping scene. After all, they like sensation too! They probably don't *want* to tie up some submissive unless they can get their kicks on the tied-up-person's helpless body. > i can't remember the rites >ver batim, but between 'have sex for half an hour' (which can possibly >garner LOTS of Essence just in one day!) One use per Rite per day, unless the Rite says otherwise. >> > huh? Short for /proably not canon because I'm sick, with a spurious q. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:57:06 -0800 (PST) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 9:39 PM +0200 3/30/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> No dictionaries. > >Hm. Couldn't you fiddle around a bit with the art and stuff like that? > >Less art means more room for text means fewer pages per Supe. Still > >impossible? > You want a book with *no* art? Seriously? You'd pay some $17-$20 > for a book with no art? (And even if you would, do you think that well, one illo per superior, so considerably *less* art, and maybe i could live with no interior art just for the Superior books. we've already seen pictures of 'em in the rulebook, after all. would we make sure it was profitable? just about anything to see those compiled Superior Books in print. *just about* anything ;) -=|horsefly|=- "Ambush yourselves some Girl Scouts." --Fenris Lorsrai ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:55:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 9:39 PM +0200 3/30/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > >[page-counting snipped] > > > >> No dictionaries. > > > >Hm. Couldn't you fiddle around a bit with the art and stuff like that? > >Less art means more room for text means fewer pages per Supe. Still > >impossible? > > You want a book with *no* art? Seriously? You'd pay some $17-$20 > for a book with no art? (And even if you would, do you think that > enough other people would to make it profitable enough to keep > SJ Games from losing money on it?) I don't pay for the art, at least not with stuff from SJG. Apart from the covers, I think most of the art in the IN books is pretty... well, not very good. Much of it doesn't say anything, isn't meaningful to the text it accompanies... it feels a lot like filler. *shrugs* And some examples: David, FotM: 8 pages, ~2.5 pages of art Lilith, FotM: 8 pages, ~2 pages of art Laurence, NM: 9 pages, ~2 pages of art Saminga, NM: 7 pages, ~1 page of art Blandine, tM: 8 pages, ~2.5 pages of art Gabriel, tM: 10 pages, ~2.5 pages of art Beleth, tM: 8 pages, ~2.5 pages of art Belial, tM: 10 pages, ~3.5 pages of art In these two books each expanded superior gets between 5.5 and 7.5 pages of actual text, including sample servitors and tethers. > >How about smaller type? :) > > Unfortunately, you can't include a magnifying glass with every book. Awww... are you sure? :) 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: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:13:44 -0800 (PST) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: [snip] > > You want a book with *no* art? Seriously? You'd pay some $17-$20 > > for a book with no art? (And even if you would, do you think that > > enough other people would to make it profitable enough to keep > > SJ Games from losing money on it?) > I don't pay for the art, at least not with stuff from SJG. Apart from the > covers, I think most of the art in the IN books is pretty... well, not > very good. Much of it doesn't say anything, isn't meaningful to the text > it accompanies... it feels a lot like filler. *shrugs* what he said. > And some examples: [snip] > In these two books each expanded superior gets between 5.5 and 7.5 pages > of actual text, including sample servitors and tethers. and the Superiors Books could excise these sample Servitors and tethers and not lose anything. that's another page or three that you can devote to unwritten Superiors or adding in the text from the main book. as a comment on the art, though, it would be nice to see a picture of Lilith. oh wait, that was in FotM. don't need it, then, since it's been printed. nah, give us one pic per Superior, or no illos at all in the SBs--it's all good either way :) pretty please, of course :::-) -=|horsefly|=- "All I am after is a just life, at the end of which I can laugh as I die." --ARCADIA OF MY YOUTH, end credits lyrics ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:05:57 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions Nothing like waking up in the afternoon and talking about Lust. Even if it's only a game. :) >> another point: we have the stereotypical bondage den, with >>accompanying S&M dungeon. everyone assumes Lusties would be great as >>hosts, right? yet a primary concern of bondage as well as most mainstream >>S/M (an oxymoron if i ever coined one) is *concern* for the submissive. In b/d/s/m/n/o/p/q, the *reality* is that the scene is driven by caring, aware people who have concern for their partners. The *desire*, however, is to be ravished and commanded by a cruel master/mistress, or to have a plaything that bends to your every whim. That's what the people involved *lust* after... it's just that the needs of the real world intervene. And Andre's demons don't have to be concerned with those. - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) Amalgam of the Day: Wesley Dodds and werther@hilander.com (play) Tom Servo in SANDMAN MYSTERY THEATRE jayafter12am@hotmail.com (late-night) 3000. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:53:00 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: > so kill one of the Demon Princes. > ...preferrably Beliel ;) IMC, Eli is up to several complicated plots and one very straightforward (in theory; execution gets complicated) plot. The straightforward plot is to get Belial to underestimate Eli enough that Eli can lure him into the Domain Eli created in the Far Marches and drown him. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:30:12 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions At 3:20 PM -0500 3/30/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > >> Do Celestials ever get tired? [...] >> Nope. > > Ah, so even the feeblest wimp of a Mercurian *can* sprint > non-stop from one side of the USA to the other. I'd wondered. > > Earl Wow. So Forrest Gump is really a Remnant? That puts that movie into *so* much perspective.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:43:17 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? > Perry Lloyd wrote: > > >>If every angel were a Malakite: > >> > >> - Heaven would be blind, because it would have no truth-seers. > > > >Except for those with the Songs of Symphony Which were no doubt discovered by Seraphim; not to mention being costly as Hell and not nearly as reliable. > >> - Heaven would more often lose track of those it set to guard. > > > >Except for those with the Songs of Attraction Which, in addition to probably being invented by Cherubim, do nothing to foster a need (and a bonus) to protect your charge, which is the true essence of Heaven's guardians. > >> - Heaven would be lame, because it would have no swift couriers. > > > >Except for those with the Songs of Motion But with no Ofanim to invent them*, how would they ever exist? Even considering that, what of finding your way through the Symphony swiftly, either locating places or accomplishing tasks faster? * This one is *expressely* stated in the IN book. > >> - Heaven would be headstrong, without balance and objectivity. > > > >Except for those with the Songs of Harmony Uh, those just stop fights and suspend discord. Nothing to do with balance and objectivity there. Plus no emotion-reading. > >> - Heaven would have no access to mortal bodies or multiple vessels. > > > >Except for those with the Song of Possession Which you *know* had to be invented by the Kyriotates in the first place; regardless, it does *nothing* for multiplicity, which is the true function of the Kyriotates. > >> - Heaven would have no insight into human hearts. > > > >For this, I see no substitute. I see no substitute for any of it, frankly. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:58:35 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Celestials and Diseases >>>The issue is not effects but carrying. Could there be a sort of celestial typhoid Mary.<<< Vessels can't normally contract diseases...but see the Liber Canticorum, specifically the Songs of Pestilence and Vulnerability. >>>Also how about Kyriotates or Shedim in this equation? Say a Shedite possesses someone with AIDS and has unprotected sex with an uninfected person. Can the uninfected person be infected or not?<<< I'd say so. >>>Also in this would their later death cause noise because the disease was given to them by a celestial(let's assume willfully)?<<< Since if a Shedite in a host body shoots someone, it will create a disturbance, I'd imagine the same occurs if he kills someone with poison or disease or something else with a delayed reaction. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:09:08 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions From: Whistling in the Dark > At 3:20 PM -0500 3/30/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > > >> Do Celestials ever get tired? [...] > >> Nope. > > > > Ah, so even the feeblest wimp of a Mercurian *can* sprint > > non-stop from one side of the USA to the other. I'd wondered. > > So Forrest Gump is really a Remnant? > > That puts that movie into *so* much perspective.... He just *had* to be a servant of Destiny... > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:35:15 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Second Edition At 16:05 +0100 3/30/99, Steve Jessop wrote: >I'd pay at least $75 or so for a CD containing an HTML 2/e of everything >significant that's come out so far (All the rules, the superior write-ups, >the songs and the McGuffins) - and I've got most of the books already. I >bet others would pay more - how much would it cost SJGames to sit >Archangel Beth down with a technical chap(pess) and just do it? Elizabeth already alluded to the GURPS CD-ROM project. As far as I know, it's on hold at the moment, but SJGames has shown *some* interest in such things. I know from discussions that SJ himself is very interested in net-based publishing. But I doubt if he'll cannibalize his existing book sales for a computer-media edition -- more likely he'll want to wait until the line is more mature, like GURPS. However, if you can convince him he'll make *more* money by publishing on the net/CD-ROM, then please go ahead. Just remember that the cost of printing isn't necessarily the major cost in production -- editorial and author time is a significant chunk of the costs. And editorial time, at least, isn't likely to go *down* for net-based publishing, from what I've seen.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 06:36:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Andre's dissonance conditions On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Jason Schneiderman wrote: > Nothing like waking up in the afternoon and talking about Lust. Even if > it's only a game. :) > > >> another point: we have the stereotypical bondage den, with > >>accompanying S&M dungeon. everyone assumes Lusties would be great as > >>hosts, right? yet a primary concern of bondage as well as most mainstream > >>S/M (an oxymoron if i ever coined one) is *concern* for the submissive. > > In b/d/s/m/n/o/p/q, the *reality* is that the scene is driven by caring, > aware people who have concern for their partners. The *desire*, however, is > to be ravished and commanded by a cruel master/mistress, or to have a > plaything that bends to your every whim. That's what the people involved > *lust* after... it's just that the needs of the real world intervene. And > Andre's demons don't have to be concerned with those. Not necessarily. Love-making with a D/s couple is just as much about caring and tenderness as it is for a "normal" couple - in other words, it varies all over the place. A Dominant/submissive could be driven as much by wanting to be what his/her partner desires as much as by his/her own desires, just like for other people. 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: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:52:55 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) At 22:55 +0200 3/30/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> You want a book with *no* art? Seriously? You'd pay some $17-$20 >> for a book with no art? (And even if you would, do you think that >> enough other people would to make it profitable enough to keep >> SJ Games from losing money on it?) > >I don't pay for the art, at least not with stuff from SJG. Apart from the >covers, I think most of the art in the IN books is pretty... well, not >very good. Much of it doesn't say anything, isn't meaningful to the text >it accompanies... it feels a lot like filler. *shrugs* While the original IN books were relatively "art-heavy", they're not *that* art-heavy. Pages of pure text are much more wearing on the reader, especially if you need to find things. Even without the art, you need headings a stuff to break up the pages. This is pretty much accepted practice, as far as I can tell, in technical writing, which gaming books are essentially a subset of. Dense text appears to be acceptible *only* in novels. In working on GURPS IN, we've got somewhat denser pages, but not a whole lot -- there's less art in the standard GURPS page, but still a lot of headings and other things to break up the pages visually. Interestingly, the standard GURPS page ("maintext+sidebar format") has more text on it than the 2-column page format used some places in GURPS, and exclusively in IN books -- I think this is because the sidebars are in a smaller font. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:19:12 -0700 From: "Andrew Bonham" Subject: Re: IN> CDaU EDG wrote: >Andrew Bonham wrote: > >> I always saw Haagenti as having dominion over such vices, based on his >> consume attunement that every servent of his must have (another VCR on your >> credit card? How about 50 more RPGs?) > >Honestly? I always found Consume to be way too wide-ranging - >especially with Mammon in the mix. > >I still think it should be Obsession, though. :) Hmm... the plot congeals.... I always saw Mammom as representing the "need" for ideas or abstractions (i.e. money is just paper, and you can't build anything out of gold), while Haagenti represented the "need" for more physical things. This may be totally of base, but I think it raises interesting questions... The Demon of Arsenals works for Gluttony, and the Demon of Fanaticism works for Greed... maybe I need clarification on what each of the DP represent.. anyone? > >-EDG > >-- >EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination >anthoch@earlham.edu >"Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort >of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} > Andrew J Bonham ParadoxPhilosopher@worldnet.att.net The Druid's Circle: http://home.att.net/~paradoxphilosopher/ "Imagination is more powerful than knowledge" -Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:12:48 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) >While the original IN books were relatively "art-heavy", they're not *that* >art-heavy. Pages of pure text are much more wearing on the reader, >especially if you need to find things. Even without the art, you need >headings a stuff to break up the pages. exactly, do you memorize where things are in the book by what page number they appear on? I know I don't. I could easily flip through and find you what you need based uon the artwork though. Besides the artwork gives a nice unified feel to what the AAs and DPs look like. Ben, Elohite of Flowers serving Stone ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:40:35 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 08:26:27PM -0800, thealien@dangerzone.org wrote: > Malakim aren't (by Choir alone) better fighters than everyone. Indeed, the Malakite resonance is the only one that can _never_ give a combat advantage to the angel. From the main rulebook it is plain that Elohim can pick out the waverers from the fighters, and with good tactics and high check digits can pull nastier stunts. Mercurians may be able to pick out favourite tactical styles using their resonance. Malakim can do neither of these things. In the APG, Cherubim are given a bonus to rolls for defending their charges, and Seraphim are given the ability to detect non-verbal deception that is directed at them, a trick which could be quite handy in a duel. I hardly need to comment on the usefulness of the Ofanite and Kyriotate resonances in combat. Malakim can do none of this. And in reference to such comments as the use of the Song of Motion, I might point out that you could never use it to scout for and outrun a speeding car (because you can't aim for the car, just a point in space which the car has likely left). An Ofanite can do this in Celestial Form, with comparative ease. Some of the individual Malakite attunements can make some difference, and the Malakite of Protection attunement is damn useful, as is the Malakite of Creation attunement. But other impressive attunements include the Mercurian of the Sword and Ofanite of War attunements. And it makes sense that it's easier to give an attunement to the target Choir than another Choir. There are all sorts of reasons to send non-Malakim to Earth, which I've hardly been touching on. But the fact that even in combat, a pure Malakite group isn't the optimum should make some of the exclusionists give pause for thought. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I shall stomp upon all who oppose me. The stomping shall be swift. The stomping shall be painful. And I shall show no mercy In all of my stomping. Amen." - Jeff Tidball philosophises. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:46:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> CDaU Andrew Bonham wrote: > I always saw Mammom as representing the "need" for ideas or > abstractions (i.e. money is just paper, and you can't build > anything out of gold), while Haagenti represented the "need" for > more physical things. This may be totally of base, but I think it > raises interesting questions... The Demon of Arsenals works for > Gluttony, and the Demon of Fanaticism works for Greed... maybe I > need clarification on what each of the DP represent.. anyone? I think IN has given too much area to Haagenti at the expense of Mammon. In normal usage, "Gluttony" is excessive desire to consume (food, in particular) and is a "fleshly" sin, like lust, while "Greed," aka "Avarice," is the excessive desire to possess. In her excellent essay, "The Other Six Deadly Sins," Dorothy L. Sayers describes Gluttony as one of the "warm-hearted," "disreputable" sins, along with Lust and Wrath, while Envy, Pride, and Avarice are "cold-hearted," "respectable" sins that "Caesar and the Pharisees are always in a conspiracy to call virtues." Gluttony wants a seven-course dinner, or three pizzas at one sitting, or the whole flaggon of wine (or hooch). It can involve excess quantity or excess fussiness. It can be reasonably extended from food and drink to other consumables, like addictive drugs or, I suppose, going to movies or watching soaps. Avarice wants a gold-plated dinner service, or a complete set of action figures, or to corner the market, or to have the most real estate in the county. It does not directly entertain with tastes or belly-comfort or pretty lights; it can be as cold and strict a task-master as any virtue. Not that the two vices can't work well together. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:53:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Gluttony Day (was CDaU) Speaking of gluttony, it just so happens that my word-for-the-day on my Calendar of Forgotten English is: - --- blowmaunger -- used by Exmoorians to denote a fat, blown-cheek'd person, as if blown up with fat by full feeding and juncketing; or perhaps it may be applied to one who puffs and blows while he is eating. Perhaps from the French _blankmanger_ ... a kind of _flummery_ [a tasty but insubstantial dish]. - -- Fredrick Elworthy's "Specimens of English Dialects," 1778 St. Renovatus's Day This seventheenth-century abbot is remembered chiefly for his treatment of a gluttonous monk at his monastery at Cauliana. After several unsuccessful attempts to moderate the monk's dietary habits, the monsignor allowed him unlimited intake of food and drink. The monk responded by consuming enormous meals until he "was conscience-struck." He confessed his abuses to the abbot and died a few days later. - --- Bon apetit. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:56:09 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? > On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 08:26:27PM -0800, thealien@dangerzone.org wrote: >> Malakim aren't (by Choir alone) better fighters than everyone. > > Indeed, the Malakite resonance is the only one that can _never_ give a > combat advantage to the angel. From the main rulebook it is plain that > Elohim can pick out the waverers from the fighters, and with good tactics > and high check digits can pull nastier stunts. Mercurians may be able > to pick out favourite tactical styles using their resonance. Malakim can > do neither of these things. Abso-freaking-lutely. Malakim are desperately feared by Demons for three basic reasons: 1) Malakim can't be reasoned with. They want Demons *dead,* period. They can be forced into situations where for the short term a greater evil can be contained by leaving a Demon alive, but that's a good way to get a Demon Prince mad at said Demon, since it means sacrificing the big picture for the short term life of the Demon. Most Demons, if they can blame it on someone else, will happily sacrifice the big picture for their own comfort of course. 2) Malakim don't fear Corporeal Death. Hey, that lack of Trauma means they're right up and running -- no fuss, no worries. They won't fight stupid but they also won't back down. If they have to die but can take out four of you in the meantime (remembering that according to theory the average Malakite is nine forces and the average demon is seven), they will without shedding a tear. And of course, you can take a Malakite out and if they went out in a way their Superior can respect, they'll be back by nine o'clock with a new clip. 3) Malakim can't fall. Which means they don't *understand.* To a Demon, it's as though they're already Fallen but they're allowed to work for Heaven (I know this has been brought up a bunch of times). They're worse than any other angel because there's no way to *reason* with them. You can't play the "walk a mile in my shoes" game with them. Capture one, and you can't push him over the edge. They're *psychos* for God, man. None of these things mean they're any better at combat than a Cherub (which to me are the Combat monsters, anyway). It just means that they'll squick any demon they come across. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:12:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Do you suppose that Malakite vessels tend to all look the same? I mean, they run through them pretty quickly, and are ready for the next one immediately. Maybe there's a Standard Laurencian Issue Malakite Vessel that Laurence runs off by the gross and wearhouses somewhere, with celestial quartermasters handing them out as needed. You can only distinguish them by serial numbers. (And if Laurence's don't have serial numbers, I bet Jean's or Marc's Malakim's do.) At the least, a Malakite's next vessel might tend to look a lot like his previous vessel. Why bother to do other than run off another copy? (Well, I suppose you don't want to give the mortals the impression that there are Secret Clone Wars going on, but aside from that...) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Book Breakdowns (Re: CDaU) On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ben Aldred wrote: > > >While the original IN books were relatively "art-heavy", they're not *that* > >art-heavy. Pages of pure text are much more wearing on the reader, > >especially if you need to find things. Even without the art, you need > >headings a stuff to break up the pages. > > exactly, do you memorize where things are in the book by what page number > they appear on? I know I don't. I could easily flip through and find you > what you need based uon the artwork though. Besides the artwork gives a > nice unified feel to what the AAs and DPs look like. > Ben, Elohite of Flowers serving Stone True. Still, I think it would be possible to cut at least a page of art from most of the Superiors. And personally I don't find the Sample Servitors very exciting, and they'll be less interesting after the Liber Servitorum is out, I think. 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, 31 Mar 1999 20:20:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Do you suppose that Malakite vessels tend to all look the same? > I mean, they run through them pretty quickly, and are ready for > the next one immediately. Maybe there's a Standard Laurencian > Issue Malakite Vessel that Laurence runs off by the gross and > wearhouses somewhere, with celestial quartermasters handing them > out as needed. You can only distinguish them by serial numbers. > (And if Laurence's don't have serial numbers, I bet Jean's or > Marc's Malakim's do.) You can recognize them by the tattoo on the neck. :) Or should that be bar codes? Hmmm... > At the least, a Malakite's next vessel might tend to look a lot > like his previous vessel. Why bother to do other than run off > another copy? (Well, I suppose you don't want to give the > mortals the impression that there are Secret Clone Wars going > on, but aside from that...) "-Another- identical dead body? Jus' what the Hell is goin' on here?!" It might be good to give them at least quite similar vessels, to make it easier for their comrades to recognize them, though. 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, 31 Mar 1999 14:26:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Kyriotates and Multiplicity Quasifluff (Was other stuff) At 9:43 PM -0500 3/30/99, Pee Kitty wrote: >> Perry Lloyd wrote: >> >> - Heaven would have no access to mortal bodies or multiple vessels. >> > >> >Except for those with the Song of Possession > >Which you *know* had to be invented by the Kyriotates in the first place; >regardless, it does *nothing* for multiplicity, which is the true function >of the Kyriotates. Kyriotates, the angelic equivalent of cell-phones, Trumps, or implant comms. Also gives new meaning to the term, "split the party"... - --Beth, Archangel of Archives http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Angels/Arcangel.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:32:53 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? At 8:20 PM +0200 3/31/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >> At the least, a Malakite's next vessel might tend to look a lot >> like his previous vessel. Why bother to do other than run off >> another copy? (Well, I suppose you don't want to give the >> mortals the impression that there are Secret Clone Wars going >> on, but aside from that...) > > "-Another- identical dead body? Jus' what the Hell is goin' on here?!" > > It might be good to give them at least quite similar vessels, to make it > easier for their comrades to recognize them, though. For Malakim, there's likely a good 'reserve.' As always, it depends on how fast you need your new one, how good a standing you have with your Superior, and why you died in the first place. For non-Malakim, for whom death should be a lot rarer... well, if a favored servitor died in a good cause, there's a couple of weeks of Trauma during which a vessal can be crafted. For non-favored servitors... I remember Adam coming back in a three-legged dog. Sometimes you have to take what's "on the shelf." - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1186 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.