From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jun 30 01:58:12 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 BAA05989 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:58:11 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id BAA16474 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:57:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:57:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199906300657.BAA16474@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 #1270 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, June 30 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1270 In this digest: Re: IN> IN: New GM questions Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Superiors Re: IN> modifiers IN> Blow the Lid Off! (was Superiors) Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> modifiers IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... Re: IN> IN: New GM questions IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... IN> Grigori Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> Superiors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:57:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN: New GM questions At 5:23 PM +0100 6/25/99, Sam Kington wrote: >Kevin Walsh wrote: >My point isn't that any bunch of angels will be an automatic holy man >detector; merely that it's unlikely that nobody will pick up on it when >observing a holy man in church. They can pick up that he _is_ holy, but surely not the Holiest Man on Earth. That's in the realm of ineffable. A Seraph with a 6 CD and a lucky statement _might_ approach it, but as a GM, I'd only allow that on a 111 on a resonance roll... (Maybe for demons, too, though they'd probably be much less happy about the means by which this might happen. ) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:11:58 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Kevin Walsh wrote: > Ah, but then you're likely to get instant kills with firearms, which isn't > terribly realistic. > > (I got converted to this position by reading things about real life > assassination attempts. The one that stuck with me was when a group of 4 > people were attacked with submachine guns. Each of them took at least a > dozen bullets. One of the two survivors even took one in the eye.) The problem here is that *no* RPG accurately simulates combat, and doing so would most likely make for a lousier game. The level of sheer randomness in real-life combat doesn't model well in a game system in a couple of different ways. It is often said that the In Nomine skill system leaves people incapable with rolls so low that they couldn't tie their shoes. Depending on how the GM runs it, this might be true in a number of non-combat situations. However, like all RPGs, characters hit far, far more often with any sort of attack than happens in real life. This is true at all levels of fighting; check out the statistics from a boxing match some time and note how low a percentage of punches thrown are deemed "effective". Even in the bare knuckles era, fights generally lasted quite a while. Things get even more drastic when one examines gun fights. During World War II, roughly 70,000 bullets were fired for every one that actually hit someone. Casualty rates go up in something like a police firefight, since they usually involve nuts whose deficient sense of self-preservation is what got them into this mess in the first place, but they're still well under what you get in an RPG. Part of the problem is that real people take defensive actions far more frequently than RPG characters do. Generally, this means putting something solid, like a wall, between you and the other guy. While effective, this makes aiming a lot harder. Since most bullets are just fired off semi-randomly, armies invented machine guns to increase the number a stray bullets in the air, which made soldiers even more conscious of cover. And, yes, human beings can often take a lot of punishment before they get killed. The key word there is "often." While there are cases where a dozen .45 rounds won't kill someone, the Robert Kennedy assassination shows that even one .22 caliber bullet can do the job. Throw on top of this that I've never found an RPG that has a good system for simulating being wounded and impaired, and it gets muddled. In short, an accurate system for RPG firefights would included the following: 1) Characters' chances to hit with an aimed shot would go down; 2) The chances of being hit by unaimed bullets would go up drastically if you don't dig in. Basically, this would probably involve a system of determining the total number of shots taken into a given area and using this to assign a general chance to be hit by anyone in it, modified by how much risk you're trying to avoid. In a lot of ways, you'd turn most systems upside down and determine a "To Not Get Hit" number; 3) There would be a much greater range of damage that any given hit might cause. When hitting a person, any bullet could run the whole gamut from just being a nick (though this is less common than often portrayed) to killing them instantly. You'd assign differently likelihoods along the spectrum for different ammunition. This would be modified for the constitution of the target, though perhaps in ways that don't resemble many (any?) systems out there. Instant kills, for instance, have a lot more to do with where it hits rather than how tough the victim is; when compared to the kinetic energy transferred from a bullet, the difference in protective value between my skull and Arnold Schwarzenegger's is marginal. 4) People get wounded. This doesn't just mean that their upcoming actions are impaired, though that's true. (Actually, as has been pointed out, they tend to just decline to take their future actions even if not "Stunned" and a truly accurate system would force characters to do this.) It also means that those who have been shot are going to get worse without medical attention. That flesh wound in the arm that doesn't really push a character below 0 Body Hits is probably still bleeding all over the place and may well drop them unconscious in a few minutes if no one stops it. And, if you've ever tried to administer emergency care to yourself, you'll know that it's much easier if someone will give you a hand; 5) Confusion, lots of confusion. A firefight is loud, smoky and chaotic. No one has any really good idea of what's going on. An accurate combat system would clear all of those battlemats and figs off of the table. The GM gives really quick descriptions of what you see; this will probably lead to inconsistencies, but that would be a better simulation anyways. If you want to shoot that guy coming around the corner, great; if you want to make sure that you shoot him before he shoots you, you won't have time to make sure that he isn't on your side. And if you want to have a firefight in the dark, you get what you deserve. You'd also have to figure out a way to change the psychology of all of the characters such that they become interested in saving their ass. Make them run away. Have them surrender. Cower a lot. And don't forget to panic. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:46:58 -0400 From: IceHeart EvenFall Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 03:44 AM 6/29/99 , you wrote: >My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to >suffer from someone else's mistakes? >What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori >1000s of years ago that caused the problem. >You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? To forgive is divine, yes. But Angels aren't humans, They have far more rigid patterns they fall into based on the notes in the symphony that they resonate with. Allowing a reliever to fledge Grig would basically DOOM them to repeating the mistakes of their predecessors due to the fact that they resonate with humans in a way that sparks divine wrath. Of course I may be off base, but that's how I've been looking at it. Ice. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:08:01 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Superiors In a message dated 6/29/99 10:44:36 AM Central Daylight Time, anthoch@earlham.edu writes: << (However, it's my personal theory that Saminga is the only Superior on either side with only 2 Ethereal Forces.) >> Hey, Saminga's cool! I agree with the opinion (I forgot who said it) that Saminga is not stupid, just hopelessly, hopelessly insane. He was probably quite stupid before his promotion to Superior status. But now he's probably quite intelligent. In matters relating to Death. Nothing else. He could be, perhaps, but he refuses to think of anything else. So his great insanity makes him, for all intents and purposes, stupid. Of course, there's always the notion that Saminga is actually quite brilliant, and is only feigning stupidity while he enacts his Amazing Master Plan to create Zombi Earth that will catch every Superior on both side totally flat-footed. Nahhhhh! Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:17:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> modifiers On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > has anyone here used or had players use the option to make roll less or more > risky? my players never seem to want to do that even when their target > number is high enough that they stand to make a rather remarkable roll. Once in a while they use risk; it's not too common in my game. You bring up a good point, however - if their target number is 13+, there's no reason NOT to use Risk just to get a free +1 to the check digit! My house rule cures this; IMG, any roll of 12 is always an automatic failure, regardless of your target number. Even the best fencer in the world can slip on a bad patch of dirt or something, afterall. This fixes the Risk rules: Even with a target number of 21, if you take extra Risk, it brings your autofailure from 12 to 11-12. If you want to go less Risky, then it eliminates your autofailure altogether (this is the ONLY way to eliminate autofailure completely IMG). I find that it makes perfect sense. Rev. Pee Kitty (BTW, this is my new address, y'all - cris.com is no more) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:22:34 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Blow the Lid Off! (was Superiors) In a message dated 6/29/99 10:44:36 AM Central Daylight Time, anthoch@earlham.edu writes: << >Also, could one take a vessel that is an exact *representation* of his >celestial form (for example a mercurian with his wings)? Would those wings >be functional? On the upside, they may enjoy being in *their true form* >but on the down side, it would be hard for many of them to explain exactly >who or what they are if spotted by mundanes (with the exeption of October 31 >where everyone say you have the coolest of costumes). I think it could do >for many interesting role-playing opportunities. What do you think about >this? One could. Now how likely is it that your Superior will give you one? Part of the War is keeping it away from the notice of the mundanes - and a seventeen-eyed serpent wandering the streets is going to alert _someone_. Also, how desirable is it? If your vessel is exactly the same as your celestial form, every celestial that sees you will know exactly what you are... >> That reminds me of a campaign idea I had. It starts off like a regular campaign, except that fairly early on, the lid gets blown off the whole thing and the War becomes common knowledge among the public. I haven't fleshed out the details yet. I'm considering it be a rather maverick plan by Nybbas. He figures he can use the panic and paranoia created to bring the general population over to his side. Heaven would freak of course. They'd have to do something fast, so I'm thinking they'd appoint an Archangel of the Media (or a similar Word) to try and compete against Nybbas. I imagine that Nybbas' plan would work in part though not quite as well as he expected. People don't want to go to Hell, especially now that they've been given a little proof. I just came up with this because I like the silly idea of angels being interviewed on TV. Or maybe throwing chairs at a demon on Jerry Springer. "Today in our studio we have the Balseraph of Fate called John Stank and the Malakite of War named..." BOOM! SMASH!!! "ARRRGGH" I think that some angels in this situation would take vessels that resemble their celestial form. Though I don't know how functional they'd be. Would a Seraph, Malakite, or Mercurian vessel be able to fly without the Corporeal Song of Motion or Numinous Corpus: Wings to help? I have trouble picturing an Ofanite in the real world. A Kyrio would just be weird. Would they still get their "freak-out" ability against humans? Would Blandine or Beleth allow such vessels at all, given their dissonance conditions? Something to think about, anyway. I'm still trying to figure out what an Archangel of the Media would be like. :) Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:24:30 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine In a message dated 6/29/99 11:24:24 AM Central Daylight Time, hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie writes: << Ah, but then you're likely to get instant kills with firearms, which isn't terribly realistic. (I got converted to this position by reading things about real life assassination attempts. The one that stuck with me was when a group of 4 people were attacked with submachine guns. Each of them took at least a dozen bullets. One of the two survivors even took one in the eye.) >> There have also been cases of people dying from a single bullet wound to the foot. Shock, you know. Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:32:38 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> modifiers At 3:17 PM -0400 6/29/99, Rev. Pee Kitty wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > >> has anyone here used or had players use the option to make roll less or more >> risky? my players never seem to want to do that even when their target >> number is high enough that they stand to make a rather remarkable roll. > >Once in a while they use risk; it's not too common in my game. You bring >up a good point, however - if their target number is 13+, there's no >reason NOT to use Risk just to get a free +1 to the check digit! But you already get a +1 to the CD, with target 13... Anything over a target of 12 goes into the CD anyway... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:39:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... From another list, I'm informed that >[...] Yahoo has decided to claim copyright in >all material carried on any Yahoo web site. >The wording is: > >8. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO >By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, >or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo >the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully >sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, >publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform >and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to >incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now >known or later developed." Basically, this means that anyone who's got a web-page there with any original material probably wants to take it down. _Especially_ if it's got stuff regarding published games. (Like, well, In Nomine? O:> ) I also hear that Geocities is merging with Yahoo, which could bring that policy over there. http://geocities.yahoo.com/help/infocenter.html - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:46:04 +0000 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> IN: New GM questions Sam Kington wrote: > > Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > My favourite was the bit where an entire party of Celestials is supposed > > > to witness the death of the holiest man on Earth, after having spent > > > time with him and not realised he was exceptionally, almost > > > supernaturally holy. (They're supposed to witness him in prayer at the > > > Mosque, as well.) I went through all the Angelic resonances, and the > > > only ones that would have problems in detecting that would be Cherubim > > > and Kyriotates; the rest would see it as a matter of course. > > > > > Have you ever played a Seraph? You can't just look at people and find > > things out. I'm not convinced an Elohite or Mercurian would do much > > better, either, even with CD6. > > Beth pointed out an Ofanite wouldn't do much good in this situation - > fair enough. But consider the holiest man on Earth at prayer. The > Malakite has known for a while he's amazingly holy. The Mercurian will > probably pick up his vast network of relations with other people in the > church/mosque, and at least know he's a regular; pick up the nature of > his relation with the priest, and you're pretty much there. The Elohite > will pick up that he's unusually calm and content. The Seraph may well > overhear him saying prayers along the lines of "I exist only to serve", > or suchlike, and realise that he *means* it. If you have such giveaway > lines in prayers, the Seraph's in there on a CD1. > > My point isn't that any bunch of angels will be an automatic holy man > detector; merely that it's unlikely that nobody will pick up on it when > observing a holy man in church. But who ever said that one of the holiest men on earth could be found in a church? Jesus was usually found ministering to the unforgiven and the outcast, to whores and lepers and people inhabited by demons [Legion, whom he cast into a herd of pigs, not a single pig -- IN's own Legion, maybe?] The Temple was built well after Moses left the scene, likewise The Patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; this never seemed to stop God from getting His Message through to them. Elijah spent much of his time running from the royally appointed Priest of Baal, but this didn't stand in the way of him resurrecting the widow's son. In fact, he and Enoch, another who walked the earth well before the Temple of Solomon was built, are the only two recorded cases of humans who went straight to Heaven without dying, first. So why do you suppose that one of the holiest men on earth would be found in a church? Tom Timberlake, cadre Cherub of Heaven - -- "Not a dog... Not a wolf... All he knows is what he is _not_ ... If only he could see what he _is_." -Boris, "Balto" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:45:52 -0600 From: "Dostal, Brian" Subject: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? From: "Eddie" Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? >My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to >suffer from someone else's mistakes? >What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori >1000s of years ago that caused the problem. >You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? Well, you're sort of falling into the trap many people do today. There is a big difference between 'forgiving' and 'forgetting'! From what I've seen on this list, the fledger wouldn't necessarily have to be forgiven in this case, but Heaven cannot & will not FORGET the Grigori incident experience. Essentially, they cannot let it happen again. So, it really isn't that the fledger is being punished by not allowing them to fledge as a Grigori, but for the sake of all in Heaven they are simply directed in another direction (right?). I haven't delved into IN hardly at all but it sounds like that is what is occurring. On another track, maybe the punishment dealt out to the Grigori wasn't really simply 'to punish the Grigori' but rather to punish those with the Grigori tendencies/habits/attitudes. Thus, those who wish to fledge as a Grigori should fall into the realm of needing punishment. So, the fledger may not have been involved in the incident 1000 years ago, but they are exhibiting the same tendencies as those involved and thus are just as worthy to be punished. Maybe I'm just way off, but those trains of thought seemed to fit the discussions anyway. Brian Dostal wasichu@in-tch.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 18:04:56 -0400 From: Hilary Hayes Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) From Ashley, Having given the matter some thought. A Bright that became an Archangel would as we have agreed not produce Bright Lillim. So what would be produced? My take is that the resonance would be similar, and quite possibly the dissonance, but the word would shift. Lillith is about freedom, there is very little in heaven about freedom, and if I get it right the desire for freedom was a major part in the revolt. A word such as control seems to fit rather well, and would certainly be approved of by more than one Archangel. Control is in many ways the opposition to freedom and would bind such Angels very closely to the heavenly perception of the symphony. Anyway this is all conjecture, I find it rather hard to imagine a Bright achieving such status in the first place. Ashley. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:07:12 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: I'll try desperately to keep this IN relevant. From http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms > >8. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO > >By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, > >or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, That's dumb. What that basically says is that you can't submit *anything* to Yahoo unless either you wrote it yourself, and you're giving up your rights to it, or else you know for a fact that whoever did write it, does. Yahoo is therefore expressly denying their users permission to discuss In Nomine (and Star Wars, and Bab 5) on Yahoo. For instance, I write about the Archangel Michael. I cannot give Yahoo > >the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully > >sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, > >publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform > >and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide because I don't have that right myself, because my work is thoroughly derivative of something owned by SJ Games. The 'non-exclusive' is interesting, because it means you can still use your own work, even though they can use it to. I'd suggest a boycott of buying anything from Yahoo, favouring tracing the original authors. Perhaps SJ Games would like to start one? :-) > Basically, this means that anyone who's got a web-page there with > any original material probably wants to take it down. _Especially_ > if it's got stuff regarding published games. (Like, well, In Nomine? O:> ) Anything about a published game is safe - I don't have to defend it myself because SJGames will do it for me. If Yahoo ever invoke this for anything about IN (or Bab 5, or *especially* Star Wars), they'll lose. Lucas Arts has better lawyers that Yahoo, and they'll set the precedent :-) In any case, a disclaimer something like the following might save you (I'm not a lawyer, especially not an American intellectual property lawyer, so if you're serious, speak to one): 'This material remains the sole property of the author, and permission is expressly denied to Yahoo, or any other party, to reproduce, adapt, or create derivative works from this material for any commercial purpose. Commercial use of this material will invoke a fee of 50% of gross returns, or $1000, whichever is the greater.' If you also mail that statement to help@yahoo (or whatever), they can't claim you gave implicit permission. In fact I have a feeling that intellectual property *cannot* be transferred implicitly. If anyone can quote a precedent on that I'd be grateful. > I also hear that Geocities is merging with Yahoo, which could bring > that policy over there. http://geocities.yahoo.com/help/infocenter.html Less of a merger, more of a buyout, but yes. Geocities is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yahoo. Geocities terms of service apparently do now basically include those of Yahoo. Finally, there is an advantage to all this. European Union legislation recently decided that local web-caching is an instance of reproduction of material, for the purpose of any copyright issues. Yahoo could therefore use this clause (if they can defend it) to give everyone permission to cache any material on Yahoo, irrespective of the desires of the owner. Steve. - ------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:46:46 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: IN> Grigori is there an official view from God on the Grigori, or is it just the judgment of the Seraphim Council? - - Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -"ACF", Stabbing Westward ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:18:07 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... At 11:07 PM +0100 6/29/99, Steve Jessop wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >I'll try desperately to keep this IN relevant. You've basically hit the nail on the head -- whether the language was intended so that they could re-sell the _right to host the web- pages_ and fix the HTML on them so they work (as I can actually see), it takes away not just your right to control who does and does not use your material, but also the right (allegedly) of anyone you're making a derivative work from. Or so I, and many others, read it. (The right to move stuff around as needed to run the place, yeah, fine. But what they wrote is not limited to that.) >I'd suggest a boycott of buying anything from Yahoo, >favouring tracing the original authors. Perhaps SJ Games would like to >start one? :-) One's already started, though not by SJ Games. http://www.sitepowerup.com/boycottyahoo.htm >> Basically, this means that anyone who's got a web-page there with >> any original material probably wants to take it down. _Especially_ >> if it's got stuff regarding published games. (Like, well, In Nomine? O:> ) > >Anything about a published game is safe - I don't have to defend it myself >because SJGames will do it for me. Yeah, but it's expensive! O:> We don't want to _have_ to do it... Hopefully, this silly policy will change soon. If not... Well, there are other places that offer web pages and email. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:06:01 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... Okay, time to play Advocate for The Game... << comments so enclosed >> 8. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO << Web pages they host. >> By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable,<< No submit and withdraw lawsuit tricks>> non-exclusive << You can still use it >> and fully sublicensable << They can contract another company to run or mirror their collection of web pages >> right and license to use, reproduce, <> modify, adapt, << Stick in annoying banner ads or GeoCities-style watermarks >> publish, << Serve as web content and use as an example in their magazine >> translate << Publish said magazine in different languages and/or have a babelfish-like interface for the pages >>, create derivative works from << Such as a version with banner ads or watermarks >>, distribute, perform and display such Content << Serve it as web pages >> (in whole or part) << Small previews in a directory >> worldwide << What does WWW mean again> >> and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. << Maybe this is just more TV show, magazine stuff. Plus, if the web as a whole converts from present form to an advanced on, they're covered. >> So as you can see, everything they asked for is in the spirit of it all and only there to shield them from lawsuits, which a company providing free web space shouldn't have to worry about. Of course ... It's so wide as to completely shield them from lawsuit...even if they did something malicious. But I'll let someone else argue that side...I'm assuming it's an innocent mistake. Not because I feel it's totally innocent, but because I feel it's not an Evil Conspiracy. And someone has to present the opposing view. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:24:10 -0500 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Not-Quite-Topic: A potential copyright problem... At 05:06 PM 6/29/99 -0700, you wrote: >Okay, time to play Advocate for The Game... << comments so enclosed >> Countering as an advocate for Trade: >8. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO << Web pages they host. >> >By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or >warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the >royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable,<< No submit and withdraw lawsuit >tricks>> non-exclusive << You can still use it >> and fully sublicensable ><< They can contract another company to run or mirror their collection of >web pages >> right and license to use, reproduce, <themselves >> modify, adapt, << Stick in annoying banner ads or >GeoCities-style watermarks >> publish, << Serve as web content and use as >an example in their magazine >> translate << Publish said magazine in >different languages and/or have a babelfish-like interface for the pages >>>, create derivative works from << Such as a version with banner ads or >watermarks >>, distribute, perform and display such Content << Serve it as >web pages >> (in whole or part) << Small previews in a directory >> >worldwide << What does WWW mean again> >> and/or to incorporate it in >other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. > << Maybe this is just more TV show, magazine stuff. Plus, if the web as a >whole converts from present form to an advanced on, they're covered. >> > > So as you can see, everything they asked for is in the spirit of it all >and only there to shield them from lawsuits, which a company providing free >web space shouldn't have to worry about. It also does the following: (1) Makes any content unsaleable (can't sign a contract without them to publish the work) (2) Prohibits your moving the content to another server (they are part owners of the rights) (3) They can do just about anything they like with the work (no moral right of artistic control). All in all, this is so patently unfair to the site creator that it deserves to be shouted from the highest towers: YAHOO ARE THIEVES. Redneck Kris Overstreet, too many websites.... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Personal homepage http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - Business webpage http://www.antarctic-press.com/ - Someone else's page ... not enough time ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:51:42 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Hilary Hayes wrote: > A Bright that became an Archangel would as we have agreed not produce > Bright Lillim. So what would be produced? My take is that the resonance > would be similar, and quite possibly the dissonance, but the word would > shift. Lillith is about freedom, there is very little in heaven about > freedom, and if I get it right the desire for freedom was a major part in > the revolt. IIRC it was specifically a desire for *selfish* freedom. Lilith wanted to be free to do what Lilith wanted to do, when Lilith wanted to do it, and damn the consequences to anyone else. > A word such as control seems to fit rather well, and would certainly be > approved of by more than one Archangel. Control is in many ways the > opposition to freedom and would bind such Angels very closely to the > heavenly perception of the symphony. I don't think that Control would be the right Word, unless the contrast has been turned way down in your campaign. Demonic propaganda aside, I don't think that Heaven (in most campaigns, anyway) wants or thinks in term of controling the humans. That's the stock-in-trade of Hell (Balseraphim, Habbalim, Lilim, Shedim, and Impudites all have Resonances based on controlling others). If our hypothetical Bright Lilim Archangel was given a Word similar to Lilith's, I would vote for Liberty ("The world was created free, and all must be guaranteed the liberty to choose their eternal destination"). Her Servitors would be charged with preserving human liberty, ensuring that they have a chance to make their own decisions. It would be dissonant for a Servitor of Liberty to force another to act against their will (this could probably be tweaked - I know what I'm trying to say, but it's not coming out right). Hmmm... This is turning into notes for a non-Canon Superior very quickly. Our hypothetical Bright Lilim Archangel would get along well with Novalis, and would probably get along surprisingly well with Dominic ("You have the liberty to choose as you will, but you do not have the liberty to choose to ignore the consequences of your acts") - she'd probably have liked him better before the Fall, however. As for the "anti-Lilim" (the unique Choir created by the Bright Lilim Archangel), their resonance would probably be similar to the Lilim. Instead of picking up Needs as desires (I Need $5 for dinner, I Need that SOB I work for to get off my back, I Need a new sports car) they would pick up physical, emotional and spiritual Needs (I Need the strength to care for my sick mother, I Need to find someone to love and share my life with, I Need to know that there is a reason to go on living). I imagine it would be similar to the Elohim resonance for usefulness, allowing this new Choir to determine what motivates an individual by extrapolating from their genuine Needs. There would be no ability like the Geas of the Lilim, however, since that would go against everything their Archangelic mother stands for. > Anyway this is all conjecture, I find it rather hard to imagine a Bright > achieving such status in the first place. Probably. But it's a lot of fun anyway. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:14:24 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 3:44 AM -0400 6/29/99, Eddie wrote: >My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to >suffer from someone else's mistakes? >What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori >1000s of years ago that caused the problem. >You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? From what I see it the reasons for the lack of Grigori in heaven are tied to the now present impossiblity to fledge as one. The Grigorim theme simply does not sound in Heaven. For a reliever to evolve into an angel it must aligm with a Symphonic theme present in heaven, there are quite a few, and there are other themes which are uniquely corporeal. The way I see it is that all the Grigori that ever existed were created on a one time basis by God itself, a creation very different from the self-transformations of the original Malakim. Thus, a reliever can no more fledge Grigorim any more than it can fledge to be a Balseraph. Considering that the Grigorim had the unique ability to reproduce themselves without the help of a Superior, I'd posit the theory that no reliever was ever fledge as one all of them being created full grown on a onetime basis or being direct descendents of a mated pair. However since the Earth is not overrun with full blooded Grigori descendants, that ability must have been lost when the Choir itself was declared celestial non grata. Since the Grigorim theme is absent, there is simply no inspiration for a reliever to harmonise too. The Hearts of the Outcast Grigorim are gone, not shattered, not crack, simply gone. The only way a Grigorim could theorectically be brought back into Heaven's fold is to literally be remade into another Choir, something which has destroyed everyone of those rare few who've ever convinced Eli to try it. (No other Archangel has even allowed one to approach. Yves apparantly has never been able to be found whenever the question came up.) Another real question is whether the Grigorim ever dwelled in Heaven to start with. There's a lot of things rather strangely anamolous about them, the hint that they were created to Trip, their unique reproductive abilities, the only major Choir not to be represented among Superiors... etc. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:53:22 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Amo Nympham wrote: > for me, more divine and less divine links into how distant the angel or > demon is from humanity, and how easy a time it will have interacting with > it. "How distant" is just as vague as "more/less divine". And are you saying Shedim have an easy time interacting with humans? Not without stolen memories they don't. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:58:32 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Superiors Yves Dorval wrote: > I wonder how many Forces a typical superior has... If you go by the book, > the maximum amount of forces a celestial can possess is 18 Forces (12 in all > their attributes). Is being a superior just on the other side of that (19, > 20+) or in a scale that cannot be measured (200-300) ?? > Considering that the books say more or less that Superiors are almost a different type of being than run of the mill Celestials (by virtue of being tied into a -major- hunk of the Symphony) if you -have- to give them Forces, I'd be more inclined to have them at the 50-300 range (50 for a relatively weak one, 300 for oh say...Michael) > > Also, could one take a vessel that is an exact *representation* of his > celestial form (for example a mercurian with his wings)? Would those wings > be functional? On the upside, they may enjoy being in *their true form* > but on the down side, it would be hard for many of them to explain exactly > who or what they are if spotted by mundanes (with the exeption of October 31 > where everyone say you have the coolest of costumes). I think it could do > for many interesting role-playing opportunities. What do you think about > this? > Well, the book says that Baal has many powerful, alien battle vessels. It's the word 'vessel' that gets me there. I'd say yes, a Superior can create a vessel in whatever shape he or she feels like, (note Belial, burned and crispy, or Saminga possessing a -corpse-) but then they lack the advantages of Celestial form. But most Superiors wouldn't do it because it draws attention and heats the War up. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1270 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.