From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed May 19 12:04:57 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 MAA13131 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:04:56 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA25149 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:03:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:03:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199905191703.MAA25149@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 #1230 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, May 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1230 In this digest: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1229 Re: IN> Origins, Plural Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Origins, Plural Re: IN> Origins, Plural Re: IN> Re: Holy prescences Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Re: IN> Origins, Plural ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:04:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1229 > Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:55:40 -0400 > From: David Edelstein > Subject: IN> Loose Canons > > >>>This is actually from terminology Beth (McCoy) uses. Contrast is the > amount of difference between Good and Evil. Brightness is the quotient of > Good in the world as a whole.<<< > > Good terminology, too. It's going into the GMG. (So is a whole chapter > about how Words work, btw.) > > - -David > Sigh. It came from a description of my campaign, "Holy War", and the flamewar which followed in mid-1997 about people not liking "dark campaigns" and people discussing the different types of campaigns and how far I would go to give players nightmares. It was a very lively conversation, you can go look it up in the archives, it's all there. I believe it was Kingsley Lintz who coined the term, but I could be wrong, it could have been me. Either way, it ended up with me taking the word "The Demon of Playing In Nomine Backwards", from the joke on the inside cover of the IN core book. It's in the INC in the demons section for anyone who cares to look at URL http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Balseraph.Em.html. Here's the quote off that page which was the final ending product: "There are no good guys in your game!" the player said after the session. I grinned. "Of course there are. You just aren't looking hard enough." "But..." the player replied, "but... but I need to feel like a I fit. Right now you have me trying to kill all the other players! I think they're all Heretics! And I can't see a way out!" "Well, it's all your choice. Besides, it's all part of the Game. Trust me, it'll get better. Really. All you need to do is Get With Dominic's Program..." I'm a tried and true Balseraph when it comes to actually being a GM. I'll lie, I'll scheme, I'll screw, all in the name of an interesting gaming session. That's the ultimate - when the player walks away wondering what happened, and all they know is that the poor Renegade demon they were trying to protect just got splattered all over the walls by people they thought were friendlies. Makes you just want to chuckle. **** I feel very goofy about what is essentially a _running joke_ making it into a book. Even if people who have come on since most of us have left see it as some sort of an official term, a section devoted to it is just... bizarre. But whatever, ya know. - - Em Current Quote: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." - Dostoevsky ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:18:11 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Origins, Plural Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >In Nomine invites some kind of interweave between the Genesis >accounts and the scientific view of human origins. For people >who would like to make variations on the canonical version, or >add detail to it, here are some menus of choices one can make >composing your own interweave: [snip extremely amusing multiple-choice] Here's what the story was in my campaign: Adam was formed from clay, and was the first member of homo sapiens sapiens. There were some trivial differences physiological differences between sapiens and the other hominids around at the time, small enough that it would have been perfectly reasonable for sapiens to have evolved from the existing hominid stock. All the hominids were (in game) clever animals, like modern chimpanzees, but not actually ensouled. However, God chose to create Adam from unliving clay to emphasize the momentous nature of the *nonphysical* change he was making: to whit, He was giving this physical animal a soul. This all happened about 25-30,000 years ago, and marked the shift from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic. Exactly the time, you will note, that humans began producing art in large quantities -- this is a consequence of humans gaining souls. (I'm playing fast and loose with paleoanthropology here, but not making any impossible claims, I think.) Eden was in the Middle East; in fact quite close to where Jerusalem is today. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were cast out of Eden, and it was eventually removed from Earth and taken up to Heaven. Eden is now part of low Heaven -- in fact, it is now Novalis's Cathedral. The dating system invented by Bishop Usher is, of course, completely bogus, though I admit that I was really strongly tempted to have the Earth be created in 4004 BC and evolution and the Big Bang be the result of an evil conspiracy between demons and secular humanists. But unfortunately that was just too goofy for the game I wanted to run. :( Some other random facts: after human beings were created, many other intelligent species were created throughout the universe. This is part of the solution to the Fermi paradox -- ensouled, intelligent beings are new to the universe and haven't explored very much of it. The other part of it is that humans are the only material race that Fell; consequently other species have been instructed by God to avoid us, for their own safety. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:47:54 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism Cool. What would Tchort's stage name be? Or is that left as an exercise to the reader? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:50:44 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? At 12:18 AM 5/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >Can a Remnant regain its previous Celestial status by applying earned >character points towards Celestial >characteristics or Forces? I don't believe so. As per my understanding of the rules, Remnants may not spend character points to purchase Celestial characteristics. However, if the situation is right - say, a Superior finds you and decides to spend the time, effort, and Forces to repair you - then you'd probably be allowed to gain a Celestial Force, and the four characteristic points it grants. (Keep in mind, though, that although demons emerge at 7 Forces, angels fledge at 9! An "average" angelic Remnant, therefore - 3/3/0 - still needs two more Forces to actually be an angel. Adding a Force this way creates a Reliever with some scattered memories of being an Angel once. IIRC.) - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:54:34 -0500 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >Nani? What's that?<<< >I don't know, what is "nani"? It means "what" in japanese/ >This is a fun existential game to play, but the speed of light or the >boiling point of water does not change based on the labels humans use. >There IS an objective reality external to human minds. (Some people may >disagree, and that's their right. Personally, I think it's amazingly >arrogant to believe that the universe conforms to our expectations.) >Subjectivity can distort our perceptions of that external reality, but the >fact that we misinterpret something doesn't mean the reality has changed. There are about 40 different arguments that are as valid logically that disagree with the concept of a 'independent, objective reality.' Many many philosophers will happily argue for hours on this point, as it is one of the primary UNRESOLVED disputes- objectivism vs. relativism (or subjectivism). just as a 'fer instance, to get the massive OT subject going... prove anyone other than yourself exists. Use logic. Good luck. :) >-David - -Seth Who really wishes he never took philosophy, as he was a nice, happy objectivist, and now he wonders what the heck he should believe in. :) Just FYI, if you really actually want to pursue this, I recommend talking to a friendly philosophy major/professor. I am a poor substitute, as I dont really understand all the stuff they talk about. But the position that they are either arrogant or egocentric should be examined carefully, as that is a trap that you dont want to fall into. - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:27:12 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality - -----Original Message----- From: Seth Buntain >>Nani? What's that?<<< > >>I don't know, what is "nani"? > >It means "what" in japanese/ That's what *we* were asking *you*! (Sorry, couldn't pass up a "Who's On First" allusion...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 07:23:05 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? Our spies report that on 09:50 AM 5/18/99 -0400, EDG said: > >(Keep in mind, though, that although demons emerge at 7 Forces, angels >fledge at 9! An "average" angelic Remnant, therefore - 3/3/0 - still needs >two more Forces to actually be an angel. Adding a Force this way creates a >Reliever with some scattered memories of being an Angel once. IIRC.) > >-EDG > > AFAIK, Celestials do not unfledge. An angel who loses all but one celestial and one ethereal force is still an angel, just a sucky one. Therefore I would submit that patching one celestial force to a remnant makes them an angel again, as appropriate. Now, here's another issue altogether... Game mechanics aside, could a Remnant of an angel have been 'bad' enough that they aren't an angel anymore when you fix them? Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:09:17 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality In a message dated 5/18/99 6:56:16 AM, enthar@nwu.edu writes: >There are about 40 different arguments that are as valid logically that >disagree with the concept of a 'independent, objective reality.' Many >many >philosophers will happily argue for hours on this point, as it is one of >the primary UNRESOLVED disputes- objectivism vs. relativism (or >subjectivism). > I know what you mean. While I was growing up, my father (a member of the American Philosophical Association) dragged me to numerous philosophy colloquia. I still remember walking out of one trying to figure out (at 12 years old) why the lecturer was insisting that there was no such thing as a bunch of bananas. One of the more interesting current questions is ontology naturalized in biochemistry, and the hives that it gives the relativists. >Just as a 'fer instance, to get the massive OT subject going ... prove >anyone other than yourself exists. Use logic. Good luck. :) > I can conceive of myself. Everything which is conceivable has something which is not itself. Therefore something which is not myself must exist. The problem is that this syllogism is based on assumptions. Good luck testing those assumptions. (But maybe I'm getting Decartes before the horse...) >>-David > > >-Seth > >Who really wishes he never took philosophy, as he was a nice, happy >objectivist, and now he wonders what the heck he should believe in. :) > >Just FYI, if you really actually want to pursue this, I recommend talking >to a friendly philosophy major/professor. I am a poor substitute, as I >don't really understand all the stuff they talk about. But the position >that they are either arrogant or egocentric should be examined carefully, >as that is a trap that you don't want to fall into. > Seconded. >-- >Seth Buntain >Northwestern University >enthar@nwu.edu >"Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." >-from the program 'fortune'. > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:25:19 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) In a message dated 5/18/99 12:39:06 AM, anders@strindberg.ling.uu.se writes: >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >> >But people who understand what science claims know that they are wearing >> >those glasses [you know, the ones that tell you how to interpret >reality], which makes all the difference. >> >> In theory, yes. In practice? > >In practice it's at least not worse than religion, which claims that their >glasses are the only ones that exist -- everyone else is just plain wrong. > How many scientists do you know? Especially those who primarily do research, and don't teach or deal with the public. Most of the members of Academic science that I know are more hidebound than the priests I know. And the grad students are worse. My favorite story is the atheist who, once I admitted that there was no objective proof of God, bellowed at the top of his lungs "I've killed the old bastard at last!" I didn't point out that his statement proved that he had a closer personal relationship with God than most self-proclaimed Christians. To sum up, I know plenty of 'scientists' who, in practice, are convinced that 'everyone else is just wrong,' as you say so succinctly above. Now, *please*, let's take this private. Perry, Anders, David, anyone else? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:17:12 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 4:36 PM -0500 5/14/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Could the GMs and GM-wannabe's on the list post their variations >and additions to canon, everything in one message, instead of >mentioning the variations individually under various threads? Most of my alterations to Canon are pretty much cosmetic. 1) Relievers, Gremlins, and Imps all can have Hearts. Relievers almost always do, though it's significantly less common among Demonic Spirits. In my opinion, it's important to Archangels that the spirits they send to Earth at least be able to retreat to a safe place should danger significantly threaten. And those that have Vessels are risking Trauma, which can last six months or more for low-Will Celestials. If they wind up in Limbo after that, their Master has no idea when they'll snap out of it, and are capable of accepting Essence to build a new Vessel. This will probably mean that they'll go stark raving mad and accept heaping handfuls of Discord to get the heck out. While Demon Princes probably wouldn't find that too troubling, I'd think most Archangels would. 2) Disturbance echoes come from the person or object affected. Hack off a guy's leg, and the Disturbance emanates from the stump. Cel Move yourself, and the disturbance emanates from you. If a Symphonically-Aware person tracks the disturbance to its center, he then gets a Perception Roll to target the entity responsible, if said entity is on the same plane, as if he were emitting a Disturbance of that magnitude. You can strip off a Disturbance by completely switching planes, in which case, the tracking echoes center on where you were when you left. 3) Normal Disturbance Rules are in effect in the Marches. The Alternate Rules given in The Marches(-5 to perception for each boundary a Disturbance Crosses), would have the Ethereal Plane /constantly/ ringing with a horrible cacophony of Disturbances that would deafen any Symphonically Aware entity who took a jaunt there, and make it virtually impossible to do anything secretly. I typically run games with Brightness at the factory settings, Contrast turned a little low, and Volume (seemed like a good name for campaign scale to me) turned way down. ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Johnathan, Habbalite Captain of the Game, The Demon of Jury Selection. Triad317@mypad.com | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@flashmail.com | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1999 11:13:07 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Origins, Plural >>>>> "NK" == Neel Krishnaswami writes: NK> Here's what the story was in my campaign: NK> All the hominids were (in game) clever animals, like modern NK> chimpanzees, but not actually ensouled. So are there extinct hominids on Jordi's Savannah in your game? NK> However, God chose to create Adam from unliving clay to emphasize NK> the momentous nature of the *nonphysical* change he was making: to NK> whit, He was giving this physical animal a soul. This all happened NK> about 25-30,000 years ago, and marked the shift from the Paleolithic NK> to the Neolithic. Rite of Nitpicking: that marks the shift from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic, beginning about 35-40,000 years ago in Europe, somewhat earlier in Africa (the UP in Europe is much more well known because it was recognized earlier). The Neolithic didn't start anywhere until the Holocene, the current interglacial, was well underway, around 10,000 years ago. The Neolithic refers to a lifeway based on the domestication of plants and animals, and the use of ground-stone tools and pottery. (Rush of Essence) NK> Exactly the time, you will note, that humans began producing art NK> in large quantities -- this is a consequence of humans gaining NK> souls. (I'm playing fast and loose with paleoanthropology here, NK> but not making any impossible claims, I think.) No, except for the terminology nitpick, that's pretty reasonable. There's a lot of debate over whether archaic Homo sapiens (exemplified by Neanderthals) used language or symbolic behavior like art. Nothing wrong with picking one side and saying "this is how it was" for a game setting. NK> Some other random facts: after human beings were created, many other NK> intelligent species were created throughout the universe. This is NK> part of the solution to the Fermi paradox -- ensouled, intelligent NK> beings are new to the universe and haven't explored very much of NK> it. The other part of it is that humans are the only material race NK> that Fell; consequently other species have been instructed by God NK> to avoid us, for their own safety. Shads of C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. That's certainly a resonable way to go. I haven't given any real thought to how to handle the question of whether the Symphony extends beyond Earth in my (likely to never materialize) campaign setting. It's not likely to ever come up, but it would be nice to have an idea, for neatness' sake. A diametrically opposed way of handling aliens would be to have (some?) other worlds have no connection to the Celestial realm. No tethers, no dealings with Celestials, no religion. The inhabitants of such worlds would deal with Ethereals as a natural phenomenon, one to be manipulated with technology that operationalizes the principles used in Sorcery on Earth. Yes, I do have the Fungi from Yuggoth in mind here... - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:38:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Origins, Plural Neel Krishnaswami writes: > Some other random facts: after human beings were created, many > other intelligent species were created throughout the universe. > This is part of the solution to the Fermi paradox -- ensouled, > intelligent beings are new to the universe and haven't explored > very much of it. The other part of it is that humans are the only > material race that Fell; consequently other species have been > instructed by God to avoid us, for their own safety. Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > Shades of C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. That's certainly a resonable > way to go. I haven't given any real thought to how to handle the > question of whether the Symphony extends beyond Earth in my > (likely to never materialize) campaign setting. Here's my own theoretical set-up, which occasionally impinges on our (non-IN) space-fantasy campaign: Different races exhibit different degrees of fallenness. Think of the races of Tolkien's Middle Earth -- elves are nicer than hobbits, who are nicer than humans, who are nicer than orcs. Dwarves rant somewhere around hobbits, give or take. In the SF setting, humans rank below middle but not at the bottom. The middle resembles hobbits, in that their societies typically don't need police or soliders for intraspecific matters. On the celestial plane, Satan and his hordes are a local phenomenon, affecting humanity and other closely-connected races. There are presumably other, similar groups of fallen spirits elsewhere. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:30:20 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: Holy prescences At 9:03 -0400 5/16/99, Hydrax 59 wrote: >What happens to people who claim (and get people believeing) that they are >divine/have special powers or whatever (eg.Egyptian Pharohs, Aztec >Tlatloani, Chinese and Roman emperors) . Most of them probably wind up in Kronos' domain, I'd say. However, you might get ethereal "clones" as well, both during their life and afterward. > Also, what happens to people who >live extremely remarkable lives and are later (claimed to be) deified. Does >the actual person become an ethereal? Or if still living, do they gain the >powers that they supposedly have? If the person in question is generally "good", I'd say there's a good chance they'd wind up as a Saint. I wouldn't ever allow belief to convey powers, per se, in my campaign -- too Mage-ish. I suppose there's some chance such a person might transition to being an ethereal, if they had more affinity for the Marches than the celestial realms at death. And an "ethereal clone" might encourage such affinity. My take on the Marches is that what exists there is the manifestation of themes that dominate the human conscious and subconscious. Anything that is sufficiently widespread in human consciousness might show up there, but if it reflects something "real" (corporeal), then it's exactly that -- a reflection, possibly idealized and distorted. And ethereals mutate and adapt as their image changes in the human realm. However, in my game, it takes a long time for an ethereal to gain much power, so modern or recent historical ethereals are basically very shadowy, weak creatures, with perhaps a few exceptions who are almost universally recognized by humans anywhere on Earth. (These are mostly media figures these days.) Actual belief or worship greatly strengthens the ethereal, but they can exist independent of that. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:40:56 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality At 22:02 -0400 5/16/99, David Edelstein wrote: >In Nomine tie in: I have never been that fond of the "ethereal spirits are >created by human belief" premise, because there really should be a big >honkin' Jesus-ethereal with as much power as an Archangel...actually, >probably several, reflecting various interpretations of the dude from >Galilee. Unless somehow the existence of a "real" celestial one siphons the power away from the Marches. That's how I've been explaining it in my campaign, anyway. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:40:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality At 8:54 AM -0500 5/18/99, Seth Buntain wrote: >just as a 'fer instance, to get the massive OT subject going... prove >anyone other than yourself exists. Use logic. Good luck. :) While at it, prove that the entire universe -- with all your memories and with everything 'aged' suitably -- wasn't created three minutes ago. (Then, as my mother's test went, sit quietly for ten minutes and you can leave class.) (I got really freaked by my mom's description of that test, for a while. Then I decided that it didn't matter.) Angels, on the other hand, probably _can_ prove that others exist, because they are connected with the greater Symphony, as are all other beings -- especially other angels... However, though you might be able to get one of them to explain it in celestial, the terminology is likely such that translating it to English reads, "Other people exist. You can feel them. You know they're there and not inside your head. Yes, that _is_ logic!" - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:53:13 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? At 12:18 AM -0700 5/18/99, Daniel Sublett wrote: >Can a Remnant regain its previous Celestial status by applying earned character points towards Celestial >characteristics or Forces? Isn't this in the FAQ yet? Generally, NO. If the GM says so, then yes. If a remnant gets more Celestial Forces, it isn't really the same being it used to be -- it's a being with the _memories_ the remnant had, but it's not the angel or demon it was. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:53:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness At 9:04 AM -0400 5/18/99, Emily Dresner wrote: [About "brightness" and "contrast."] >I feel very goofy about what is essentially a _running joke_ making it >into a book. Even if people who have come on since most of us have left >see it as some sort of an official term, a section devoted to it is >just... bizarre. But whatever, ya know. It's just too _useful_ for describing, in shorthand, the concepts of: "There's this spectrum, see, about whether angels and demons are really distinct with hyper-good angels and hyper-bad demons, or if they're all kind of muddled along and you can have demons who are pretty nice and angels who are pretty awful." and "And then there's this other spectrum, and on one end, Hell is winning and the world is awful, while the other end has Heaven obviously in control of the field and Hell's just fighting a losing action to make the Host's victory as pyrric as possible." Contrast, and Brightness. And the color-control is what you use when you want to make things really twisted, like adding in the Archangel of Archives or having Falling Malakim, or deciding that Lilim are made of Green Beans (talk about a running joke) or that Haagenti's Servitors can't resist singing "Two Bits!" when you tap out "Shave and a Haircut"... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? On Tue, 18 May 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 12:18 AM -0700 5/18/99, Daniel Sublett wrote: > >Can a Remnant regain its previous Celestial status by applying earned > >character points towards Celestial characteristics or Forces? > Isn't this in the FAQ yet? eliphino (a friend gave me that one). > Generally, NO. If the GM says so, then yes. If a remnant gets more > Celestial Forces, it isn't really the same being it used to be -- it's > a being with the _memories_ the remnant had, but it's not the angel or > demon it was. i keep forgetting: if a demonic remnant were for some Yves-only- known reason given heavenly Celestial Forces, would it then be an angel who remembers being a demon (and vice versa)? -=|horsefly|=- "I'm all right.... Nothing hurt but my pride.... Nothing broken... but my heart." --Dr. Harleen Quinzel, aka Harley Quinn, BATMAN Gotham Adventures, #10 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:25:57 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? At 11:03 AM -0700 5/18/99, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >> Generally, NO. If the GM says so, then yes. If a remnant gets more >> Celestial Forces, it isn't really the same being it used to be -- it's >> a being with the _memories_ the remnant had, but it's not the angel or >> demon it was. > i keep forgetting: if a demonic remnant were for some Yves-only- >known reason given heavenly Celestial Forces, would it then be an angel >who remembers being a demon (and vice versa)? GM decision. It's arguable both ways, though it gets more likely that a Prince could _only_ produce a demon, while an AA might produce either. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:35:39 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? At 02:25 PM 5/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >GM decision. It's arguable both ways, though it gets more likely that >a Prince could _only_ produce a demon, while an AA might produce either. Hee hee... that's got to warp them. A demon that _knows_ it was restored to its full non-Remnant status by an Archangel... I can see Eli doing that and then just letting them go. "No, really, for an Archangel he's a nice guy!" - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? On Tue, 18 May 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 11:03 AM -0700 5/18/99, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: > > i keep forgetting: if a demonic remnant were for some Yves-only- > >known reason given heavenly Celestial Forces, would it then be an angel > >who remembers being a demon (and vice versa)? > GM decision. It's arguable both ways, though it gets more likely that > a Prince could _only_ produce a demon, while an AA might produce either. ah, no canon. that's fine, since this makes perfect sense anyway. thanks :) i agree that Princes wouldn't be able to create angels, and i can't think of an AA who would *want* to create a demon, but i can see Archangels scouting for demonic remnants looking for possible Secrets of the Other Side and thus restoring them to angelic status--generally Michael's and Dominic's angels, but possibly Yves' as well. heh, no wonder remnants are sought after... it's hard to find a reason to shun them, apart from their zombi-like nature. -=|horsefly|=- "I'm all right.... Nothing hurt but my pride.... Nothing broken... but my heart." --Dr. Harleen Quinzel, aka Harley Quinn, BATMAN Gotham Adventures, #10 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:51:40 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness ...and vertical hold, which determines how much you flip from one plane to another, while horizontal hold determines which plane you favor. If hue controls how twisted things get, tint is the level of flashy special effects. But what does it mean that reception gets better if you hold the antenna? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:13:17 -0500 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness >But what does it mean that reception gets better if you hold the >antenna? its _attention_ and your reception is always better if you hold their attention. :):) (duck and cover!) >Earl - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:26:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness At 2:51 PM -0500 5/18/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >...and vertical hold, which determines how much you flip from >one plane to another, while horizontal hold determines which >plane you favor. > >If hue controls how twisted things get, tint is the level of flashy >special effects. > >But what does it mean that reception gets better if you hold the >antenna? Actually, I have another term I'd throw in -- this one from the computer world. Resolution. In low Resolution campaigns, you're only seeing a tiny fragment of the big picture. Your primary purpose is keeping Mrs. Thomas from snapping at the Rap music players down the block. In high Resolution campaigns, the world is your playground, and Archangels and Demon Princes are sending you out to joust over the fates of entire countries. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:07:27 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >>>Umm... I hope you realize that both examples you gave are variable depending on circumstances.<<< Of course I realize that. They're variable depending on *physical circumstances*, not on what the observer believes about them. >>>Also, why does it matter what the boiling point of water (at STP) or the speed of light (in a hard vacuum) are? Because they are useful reference points for humans to use.<<< Yes, the relevance of these facts is entirely subjective...the nature of the facts is not. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:46:53 +0000 From: lsheal01@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? EDG wrote: > (Keep in mind, though, that although demons emerge at 7 Forces, angels > fledge at 9! An "average" angelic Remnant, therefore - 3/3/0 - still needs > two more Forces to actually be an angel. Adding a Force this way creates a > Reliever with some scattered memories of being an Angel once. IIRC.) IMG, I play it that once an angel/demon has fledged, they can't go back. So even if our angelic remnant gets an additional Celestial force, he will be a very weak 'whatever-he-was', but will still belong to a choir. The weakest example I have is a three force Kyriotate (1 of each) that the other PCs just finished rescuing from Hell. (They rolled a 666 when trying to escape Perdition, and are now *very* nervous because apparently nothing *bad* happened to them.) Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:46:50 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism great NPC except for one thing, and I bet everyone here can guess what my problem is...immune to Divine Intervention?!?! That seems _extremely_ too powerful for a rather weak Wordbound Demon. Even Superiors are not immune to Divine Intervention, Dennis H. Groome V -- "Amo Nympham" Web Developer, AN Consulting nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11340261 http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9651 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" - -Stabbing Westward, ACF - -----Original Message----- From: David Edelstein To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 7:07 PM Subject: IN> The Demon of Atheism ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:17:08 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Remnant Experience? I would play this something akin to redemption. IMC, the remnant cannot add the celestial forces himself. when he lost his heart he lost the connection to the celestial part of himself. the remnant must find an AA willing to sponsor and repair him, and then prove himself worthy to get his attunements back. here's the way I look at being a remnant: first, almost all celestials avoid them because they are reminders of what can happen to them; second, most remnants want nothing to do with celestials as they are constant reminders of what they were...that is if they remember anything about being a celestial; third, in order to wind up like this they must have either been _very_ unlucky or have screwed up somehow to let themselves get to that point. this makes for excellent role-playing opportunities, especially with players sick of playing regular celestials or have done the demon-seeking-redemption. Dennis H. Groome V -- "Amo Nympham" Web Developer, AN Consulting nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11340261 http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9651 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" - -Stabbing Westward, ACF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:05:22 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Origins, Plural At 11:41 -0400 5/17/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Adam was created by: > >a) being formed from clay This, BTW, was the inspiration for Primordial Clay in the LR. But only God (or maybe Eli) could create an actual being from it. >Pre-Adamite hominids: > >a) went extinct naturally >b) were exterminated by the children of Adam >c) interbred with the children of Adam, so that in short order > all humanity had Adamite ancestry >d) some combination of the above e) there were no children of Adam, or they died off before intermixing into the population as a whole, so there's no Adamite ancestry at all, and the parts of Genesis past the Eden section are a total fabrication. A minor objection to c) and a possible plot notion: the assumption that if you go back far enough, that all living humans are descended from everyone of that period is only approximately true. Yes, it's statistically likely, but if the sample size is large enough, you get some pretty improbable outliers. And that notion also assumes interbreeding is random, and not biased by something that would cause a segmentation in the sample. (On the other hand, there may be some actual biochemical bias towards out-breeding in a population, from something I saw in a magazine (Discover?) a while back.) So you could have a few people who were *not* descended from Adam. What if there's some way to tell (Vapulan DNA-analysis?), and someone is going around collecting them. Or killing them...? Note also that option c) implies interesting things about the Children of the Grigori -- if all of them didn't get killed off, then a *lot* of living humans might have Grigori ancestry.... What that means won't become clear until we have a definition of what Children of the Grigori *are*, but I believe the main book implies that it's an inheritable condition. >Essay question: What relationship do pre-Adamit human/hominid races >have to Ethereals? I would think "roughly similar to the post-Adamite humans", unless there was something about Eden and/or the Fall that triggered worship of the ethereals (as opposed to just making up stories about them, or dreaming them). - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1230 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.