From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu May 20 23:08:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA26376 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 23:08:12 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id XAA07288 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 23:03:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 23:03:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199905210403.XAA07288@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 #1232 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 Thursday, May 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1232 In this digest: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Re: IN> "Brightness Settings," et al IN> Happy Families IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1231 IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1231 Re: IN> Balserakim (WAS: Azariel the Habbalakite) Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> [Beth screams] Michael/David/Dominic/Laurence assignments Re: IN> [Beth screams] Michael/David/Dominic/Laurence assignments Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) Re: IN> [Beth screams] Sneak Previews Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:52:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Too cool. Consider him stolen for my game. - -- 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: Thu, 20 May 1999 00:48:27 -0500 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> "Brightness Settings," et al At 7:26 PM -0400 5/19/99, David Edelstein wrote: >Now if I can just get my really cool campaign idea about Jesus Christ being >Laurence and Lilith's love child into canon... > >-David (that was a joke, put down that hammer....) Now, keep in mind that Dominque currently holds control over the Mighty Squeaky Hammer of Smitting !!! (Okay, it's semi-obscure. Hey, what can I say. . . That damned hammer has a life of its own. . .) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 04:59:44 PDT From: "Hydrax 59" Subject: IN> Happy Families >If you want to through really weird twist into that, consider the >possibility >that Lilith has *human* children somewhere.... (giggle) Actually, this isn't as twisted as it sounds. In teh WOD universe EVERYTHING is related to to teh frist family. Not that many of teh five races would ever acknowledge that, but you know... Not even that they got it together very well, but... Let's see if I can get this correct: Caine became Lord of The Vampires, Master of The First City (enoch), who was for a short while Lillith's apprentice, and led him to awaken his "Path Of Blood" Adam became Charon, Lord of the Underworld Lillith became the first mage, and gave birth to quadruplets who were given to "the beasts of the wild" (and is still around being immortal One of the Quadruplets (let's call her G shall we?) interbred with her foster tribe of animals the wolves, giving rise to those 9 foot hairy bastards. She then went back among the children of Seth and interbred with them leading to her swarthy children (the rom). She then wandered for a while, met up with one of her grandchildren (call him R) got embraced, then diablerised the poor sucker (giggle) Enoch, Caine's first "born" created two children, one toreador, teh other a member of teh moonbeasts who started the clan of teh moon (teh abomination we'll call M) The two parents of this story got fed up and decided to go away from this world with a bunch of friends, to this litlle place called Arcadia. See, It's easy! I could go on, but I've made my point. Now that's what happened when she was an artificially created thinhg by god who learnt how to manipulate reality. imagine what could happen now that she's a Demon Princess! "Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true, Jerry Lee Lewis was the Devil, and Jesus was an architect prior to his career as an architect, and I realised the only thing I could do was Ding a Ding Dang my Dang Along Ling Long" Ministry, Jesus built my Hot Rod ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:07:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1231 > And "In Nomine backwards," as a term for an In Nomine campaign in which the > angels are the bad guys and the demons are the good guys. (You can't take > sole credit for that, Emily, since as you pointed out, it IS on the inside > cover the main rulebook.) > > Is there something you find particularly objectionable about the terms, or > just that you think it's strange for stuff that appears on this list to > make it into print? I'd think most people would appreciate the latter, > since it demonstrates that In Nomine writers DO read this list, and ideas > that are good enough might eventually become part of the game world. I generally object on the issue of adding more terms to anything, anywhere, unnecessarily. And I find it odd to take terms off the mailing list and put them into writing. It feels a bit like digging, especially if it's expanded upon. I suppose I feel like there's no real need. Do people honestly need spelled out to them that they can run the game any way they please? Maybe they really do, but I find it a bit childish. (Not using the term -- needing it spelled out.) I find myself thinking about the game master's companion for CoCthulhu, and wondering, because that's a quasi-useful book. Once again, I dream of more Dostoevsky than Disney in In Nomine, what I get is more Disney. On the other hand, I'm having a _really_ hard time caring either way, so do whatever you see fit. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:47:13 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Minimal Spirit David Edelstein wrote: > Theoretically, a celestial could be > reduced to 3 Forces (1 in each realm) and still be an angel or > demon...albeit an extremely weak one. You don't automatically > turn into a celestial spirit upon having your Forces reduced > below a certain threshold. I know the main rulebook says a sentient being needs at least one force in each realm, but we also have an instance of an angel (the Mercurian in the trial scene in, I think, "Heaven and Hell") who is stripped of all her corporeal forces, albeit temporarily. Does one just need one of each to *become* a sentient being? It would appear one can retain sentience after losing corporeal forces. Can you make a rudimentary sentient being out of one celestial force and one ethereal force? Out of a single force? (If so, which kind? Celestial?) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:53:48 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite "Ben, Elohite of Eli, Angel of Neat Ideas" servers his Word well. Very ingenious! Do you think the other delusional band, Balseraphs, could also produce faux (?) Malakim? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:01:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1231 Emily Dresner wrote: > Do people honestly need spelled out to them that they can run the > game any way they please? Maybe they really do, but I find it a > bit childish. (1) I thought that, even now, the market for RPGs was still pretty youthful, albeit less so for IN, or so the warning label would like to imply... But mainly: (2) People may not need to know that they can run it any way they please, but it might help to see a listing of lots of ways, in case there were some that they'd like but hadn't thought of, And: (3) It could be handy to have some details on HOW to play a campaign lighter, darker, more contrasty, etc. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:19:29 -0500 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Balserakim (WAS: Azariel the Habbalakite) At 9:53 AM -0500 5/20/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Do you think the other delusional band, Balseraphs, could also >produce faux (?) Malakim? "As a card carrying Malakite of Fate, I can honestly say that Balseraphs can never delude themselves into thinking they are part of our majestic Choir. The idea in and of itself just sickens me greatly." "You know I speak the truth. . ." "These are not the Balseraphs you are looking for. . ." "Move along." Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:40:25 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons > > Third change: Disturbance is a plot device, not a mechanic. (I, as game > master, determine who hears what, without relying on perception rolls.) A darn fine idea that I use myself. An excellent optional rule for IN2. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:53:49 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 6:14 AM -0400 5/17/99, David Edelstein wrote: > > >Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it > >into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the > >Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all > >would go in the LS. Hmmph!) > > The response I got back from playtesters was uniformly _bad_ regarding > _all_ the Word-bound. (I lost a Word-bound of my own. *sniff*) I > hadn't expected that, but when we wound up with the Wordbound being > almost universally hated, and without enough _space_ to give them > the sort of background they needed... *sigh* I was one of the chief proponents of removing 'em for most of the reasons that Beth cited. <*dodges rotten fruit*> Word-bound need at least two pages each and that means losing two or more 'street-level' characters. Besides, this is a book about SERVITORS, not little-s superiors. The whole word-bound stuff deserves a whole book on its own, not as a shoehorn in another place. Some of the word-bound were very, very good, but you don't have room for all the cool stuff they need. Like how they were formed, some past history, their servitors and places of strength, etc. The more powerful ones were totally impossible because once you got past their (long) list of stats/skills/new Rites/etc, there was little room left for the character! > I'm sorta down 'cause the 'People to See' book of Wordbound concept > didn't fly in the survey. (Lessee, _2_ pages per character, maybe > a 'patron Saint' or two...) Oh, well. Maybe people will change their > minds someday. I'd like to see some of the submissions revived for another book once 'Wording' canon is worked out, but waaaaaay after some of the current projects. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:55:23 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality David Edelstein wrote: > > >>>Man, I hate White Wolf philosophizing. > > Nani? What's that?<<< > > I don't know, what is "nani"? Nani? (japanese)= What? Huh? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:01:41 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit - -----Original Message----- From: Earl Wajenberg > >Can you make a rudimentary sentient >being out of one celestial force and one ethereal force? Out of >a single force? (If so, which kind? Celestial?) I think a sentient being would have to have at least one Etherial force... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:04:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > The whole word-bound stuff deserves a whole book on its own, > not as a shoehorn in another place. The Liber Verbi. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:18:17 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Earl Wajenberg wrote: > I know the main rulebook says a sentient being needs at least > one force in each realm, but we also have an instance of > an angel (the Mercurian in the trial scene in, I think, "Heaven > and Hell") who is stripped of all her corporeal forces, albeit > temporarily. Does one just need one of each to *become* a > sentient being? It would appear one can retain sentience after > losing corporeal forces. Can you make a rudimentary sentient > being out of one celestial force and one ethereal force? Out of > a single force? (If so, which kind? Celestial?) That canon might be going bye-bye since we have several counter-examples. Heck, I made THREE counter-examples in Liber Servitorum. Do you think we should axe that sentence Beth? What page was that on Earl? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:21:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Do you think we should axe that sentence Beth? What > page was that on Earl? Um, near the front. In the first explanation of the three flavors of Forces, I think. I'm running on in-skull memory. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:33:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > That canon might be going bye-bye since we have several > counter-examples. Heck, I made THREE counter-examples in Liber > Servitorum. If I can make a suggestion, make this the new rule: "A sentient being must be composed of at least two Forces, including at least one Celestial Force." That keeps single "atoms" of Celestial Forces from being characters, and using Celestial as the required force is justified because Celestial Forces power Perception and Will, which are the central features of sentience. A thing without Celestial Forces, e.g. a Remnant, is not really aware, awake. Yes, a Remnant has "Intelligence," but it's on autopilot, running the program of its Role, in a position similar to a real-world computer that "thinks" without being aware, or to a sleepwalker, or to one's subconscious mind, which can be quite clever but is, definitionally, not conscious. A being of one Celestial and one Ethereal force can't take a vessel, though it might be bound into a artifact. A being of one Celestial and one Corporeal force is just about literally dumb as a brick, but it can have a vessel or body, in which it can be aware of its surroundings and try to do what it wants to do, albeit with no smarts whatever. Some animals like frogs or fish might be examples. A being of two Celestial Forces is a sort of celestial lower animal. No smarts whatever and incapable of taking a vessel. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:43:29 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> [Beth screams] Michael/David/Dominic/Laurence assignments Steve Feldon wrote: > > So we're expanding the expansions? Is the expansion more historical or > mechanics related? :) More STUFF! All the things about the Superior that have been written get rolled into one book for easy access. Plus, as you say, more history, plans, plots and other fun things. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:44:30 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> [Beth screams] Michael/David/Dominic/Laurence assignments BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/19/99 12:31:17 PM Central Daylight Time, > emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: > > << Alain already spilled the beans in her chat, so I guess it's okay for > me to do it here. They're getting _bigger_ writeups. > >> > > Mikey, Davey, Dommie, and Larry are getting bigbig writeups? Cool. But. What > about the others? I for one have been w-a-i-t-i-n-g to see Eli and Novalis > expanded write-ups. Not to mention Nybbas, Vapula, and Andre. Will they be > getting bigbig write-ups, too? Or just the regular ones? Everyone important is getting bigbig writeups. I have my eye on two, but they haven't been parcelled out yet. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:59:42 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Benjamin Acosta wrote: > > Azariel the "Malakite"; Former Elohite of Fire, Now Renegade Angel [snip] > This habit, and the mindset he has makes it extremely > unlikely that he would be percieved as anything other than a Malakite. > And you know, maybe he is a Malakite. Can you tell the difference? First of all, let me say that I *love* this character, and he'll be appearing in my game at some point. One question, though: how does he rationalise his resonance, both having the Habbalah resonance (which incorporates parts of his old Elohite resonance, which he should have lost), and not having the Malakite resonance for honour? Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:17:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit At 9:47 AM -0500 5/20/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >David Edelstein wrote: > >> Theoretically, a celestial could be >> reduced to 3 Forces (1 in each realm) and still be an angel or >> demon...albeit an extremely weak one. You don't automatically >> turn into a celestial spirit upon having your Forces reduced >> below a certain threshold. > >I know the main rulebook says a sentient being needs at least >one force in each realm, but we also have an instance of >an angel (the Mercurian in the trial scene in, I think, "Heaven >and Hell") who is stripped of all her corporeal forces, albeit >temporarily. Does one just need one of each to *become* a >sentient being? It would appear one can retain sentience after >losing corporeal forces. Can you make a rudimentary sentient >being out of one celestial force and one ethereal force? Out of >a single force? (If so, which kind? Celestial?) Since _The Marches_ had a "1d6 Forces" entry for demonlings (and ethereal spirits?), I pondered upon this and have kind of run with it, figuring that demonlings can come in 1 Force packages (Celestial). There are three demonlings in the Liber Servitorum who aren't 1/1/1 -- I think they're 1/0/2, 0/2/1, and 0/1/2, if memory serves me. I'd say that relievers need 3 Forces to "come together," but that the kinked and twisted Forces of demonlings can convolute themselves with even 1 Force into a stable (if not what you'd call self-aware!) creature. (Human souls in Abaddon can be stripped down to 1 Force, after all...) I'd reserve vague inklings of intelligence for a 2-Force (1 eth, 1 cel), and only give real self-awareness at 3, though -- call 3 some kind of 'quantum jump' like 6 Forces is for humans? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:19:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Demon of Atheism At 7:48 PM -0400 5/19/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>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,<<< > >Like I said, he stretches canon a bit, and that's probably why Elizabeth >rejected him. I remember that "immunity" bugging me a lot, now. >But he's not necessarily immune to Divine Interventions. >Maybe God's just saying "Fine, you don't believe in me? I don't believe in >you!" And thus denying him the possibility of ever redeeming... That would say some interesting things about the Deity in a campaign... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:24:47 -0500 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit >A being of one Celestial and one Corporeal force is just about >literally dumb as a brick, but it can have a vessel or body, >in which it can be aware of its surroundings and try to do what >it wants to do, albeit with no smarts whatever. Some animals >like frogs or fish might be examples. Cats are not usually considered this stupid... but things break down when you get that low on the force scale anyway (hard to differentiate between 5 force humans, let alone 2 force cats/fish/whatever) >A being of two Celestial Forces is a sort of celestial lower animal. >No smarts whatever and incapable of taking a vessel. > >Earl - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:27:13 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit At 11:18 AM -0400 5/20/99, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > I know the main rulebook says a sentient being needs at least > > one force in each realm, but we also have an instance of > > an angel (the Mercurian in the trial scene in, I think, "Heaven > > and Hell") who is stripped of all her corporeal forces, albeit > > temporarily. Does one just need one of each to *become* a > > sentient being? It would appear one can retain sentience after > > losing corporeal forces. Can you make a rudimentary sentient > > being out of one celestial force and one ethereal force? Out of > > a single force? (If so, which kind? Celestial?) > > That canon might be going bye-bye since we have several >counter-examples. Heck, I made THREE counter-examples in Liber >Servitorum. > Do you think we should axe that sentence Beth? What >page was that on Earl? I personally think the loss of any one realm of Forces leads to a Remnant. The loss of all Celestial Forces leads to the Remnants we all know and love. The loss of all Ethereal Forces leads to a gibbering man-child with no capacity for memory retention. The loss of all Corporeal Forces leads to (IMC) a Celestial being of no substance -- ephemeral and indistinct, unfocused in any realm, and largely incapable of caring about anything. And *no* sense of time. So I didn't like that scene with the Trial. It seemed like they were sentencing her to be maimed and lobotomized, and then untreated for thirty years. Better just to kill her, but both she and her Archangel were relieved. Forces are self. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:00:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit Seth Buntain wrote: > Cats are not usually considered this stupid... but things break > down when you get that low on the force scale anyway (hard to > differentiate between 5 force humans, let alone 2 force cats/fish/ > whatever) Are cats listed as 0 Ethereal forces? I didn't know, and I'd object if it mattered in a game I was in. Yes, the coarse granularity of IN stats really gets in the way here. Whistling in the Dark wrote: > So I didn't like that scene with the Trial. It seemed like they > were sentencing her to be maimed and lobotomized, and then > untreated for thirty years. Better just to kill her, but both > she and her Archangel were relieved. Well if you're ultimately going to get the forces BACK, it seems to me very different from permanent maiming, much less being killed. And 30 years isn't necessarily that long to a celestial. I liked your description of a 0-Corp Remnant. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 00:12:39 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) In article <37443281.3E5C@mc.com>, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > The whole word-bound stuff deserves a whole book on its own, > > not as a shoehorn in another place. > The Liber Verbi. Liber Verborum, surely? "Let us now consult the Book of Words..." - -- 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: Thu, 20 May 1999 19:19:03 -0700 (PDT) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> [Beth screams] Sneak Previews okay, so Night Music and The Marches are destined for obsolesence... does that mean Gabriel, Beliel, and Furfur will be getting further expanded write-ups, too? will these be done in terms of "things happening since last time," or just a retcon deal? further question: is The Marches going to be revised and revamped in its entirety so the locale will be more fully explained and explored? if not, i'm keeping that book and selling Night Music, but if so, i'll sell both of 'em so i'll have money for the Superior Books (hey, i asked for 'em anyway, so i won't complain about making other books i've bought obsolete). -=|horsefly|=- _Illegitimi non corborundum._ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:35:55 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite yes. and no. when a Balseraph says something, he utterly believes it to be true, and in his own personal symphony it is true...until he changes his mind. so he would believe himself to be a Malakim until he decided to recreate himself with the next group of people he encountered. of course, the question really lies (no pun intended) in how long he wishes to continue this charade. IMC, I don't think a Balseraph's conviction would last long enough to generate Geas on him to simulate Malakim Oaths, but he would be able to pass as one for quite a while, either by performance or resonance. 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: Earl Wajenberg To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 9:02 AM Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite >"Ben, Elohite of Eli, Angel of Neat Ideas" servers his Word well. >Very ingenious! Do you think the other delusional band, >Balseraphs, could also produce faux (?) Malakim? > >Earl > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1232 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.