From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Sep 25 03:45:22 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 DAA04897 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:45:22 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id DAA29746 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:44:06 -0500 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:44:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199909250844.DAA29746@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 #1339 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 Saturday, September 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1339 In this digest: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Submitted for you approval. IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) RE: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers IN> Asmodeus RE: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers IN> Re: Andrealphus Re: IN> Asmodeus Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers IN> Saminga (WAS: Andrealphus) Re: IN> Re: IN- A Disturbance in the Force Re: IN> Asmodeus Re: IN> Asmodeus Re: IN> APG question (forces/damage) IN> Soldier of Jordi? Re: IN> cannon and your game (Fluffy) Re: IN> Re: IN- A Disturbance in the Force Re: IN> Soldier of Jordi? Re: IN> Soldier of Jordi? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:42:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . At 8:40 PM -0500 9/22/99, Trent wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jace +ADw-mmc+AEA-cybcon.com+AD4- >To: +ADw-in+AF8-nomine-l+AEA-lists.io.com+AD4- >Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 8:24 PM >Subject: Re: IN+AD4- Questions galore . . . >+AD4- >+AD4- I hate to interject reality into this but some religions theorize that >each >+AD4- solar system has it's own god. Their are a lot of other interesting >idea's >+AD4- from real religions, that could be transposed easily into IN. > >Which ones specificaly? Not any of the christian or jewish or islamic >relegions. Mabe some +ACI-new age+ACI- religions but not any i've heard of. Though >i could belive the scientologists saying somthing like that. They don't. (If you're really curious, ask me off-list.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:46:04 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers At 10:19 AM -0400 9/23/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 2:04 -0400 9/23/99, Derek K. wrote: >>You can set the mailing list to only accept posts by email addresses >>contained in a certain file, and then point that file to the subscription >>list, so that only subscribed list members can send mail to the list. >>Right now that's not set up, but it's fairly easy to do. I dunno if the >>list as a whole would agree to this or not, but it's a pretty good fix for >>the most part. > >I believe the main problem with that is that some people post from variable >addresses. I know I've had that problem with exclusive mailing lists in >the past. Bingo. (Hey, love, don' use my admin tag! ) This is a problem that, last time I discussed putting the list on "you not subscribe, you not post" status, I got many pitiful pleas to find some other way. I believe I did have a spousal mutter of some kind of filter, once... (Heck, if it could filter for "first names" from a list of "approved" posters...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:46:36 -0700 From: "Jace" Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) > This last character is the reason my interest was piqued. My understanding > was that Adonai (a.k.a. Heavenly Father) was the physical father of Jesus > Christ (who may or may not have been Yahweh of the old testament), and that > *he* (Adonai) was the God of this solar system and that Jesus was his chief > lieutenant. This led to the question of whether Yves was an aspect of Adonai > or Jesus (driving the Destiny Qabbalist out of his gourd...). Now I'm > discovering that it may not be that simple. Anyone ever wonder why In-Nomine never mentions "Jesus". I Believe that Yves, IS Jesus (at least for the context of the game). The book say's that Michael was the first angel created by god. It also say's Yves is the first soul created by god. Which means 1 of 2 possible things. Either Michael has no soul or Yves isn't exactly an angel. And Since Yves named god, I suspect he was created before Michael. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:55:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Jace wrote: > The book say's that Michael was the first angel created by god. > It also say's Yves is the first soul created by god. Which means > 1 of 2 possible things. Either Michael has no soul or Yves isn't > exactly an angel. And Since Yves named god, I suspect he was > created before Michael. The main book is quite explicit: it's number 2 -- Yves is the first creature, not exactly an angel, and Michael is the first angel. Construing Yves as Jesus works pretty well in Christian theology, since, elsewhere in canon, Yves is said to be an aspect of God. (Call him a creature instead of an aspect and you switch your theology from Athanasian to Arian.) 'Course, I think the same book says or hints that Kronos is an equal and opposite aspect of God, which is certainly NOT Christian theology (not of any normal stripe). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:32:54 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) At 14:46 -0400 9/23/99, Jace wrote:> I Believe that >Yves, IS Jesus (at least for the context of the game). I don't think there's any canon support for this. Of course, there's no canon argument against it, either. > The book say's that >Michael was the first angel created by god. It also say's Yves is the first >soul created by god. Which means 1 of 2 possible things. Either Michael >has no soul or Yves isn't exactly an angel. The latter is correct, I believe. I think this is all explained in Yves extended writeup (in Heaven and Hell, if I recall right). > And Since Yves named god, I >suspect he was created before Michael. This is definitely the case -- I think this is explicitly stated in two or three places in canon. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:18:59 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Submitted for you approval. In a message dated 9/23/99 4:00:01 PM, paranial@creighton.edu writes: > >A Malakite of Dreams is about to head for bed a little early. He seems >somewhat pissed as through he had it up to here with something. > (snip great vignette...) I hate to admit this, but any time I read "Submitted for your approval..." I hear Rod (?) Sterling and The Twilight Zone theme. Which makes me wonder, especially in connection with a Malakite of Dreams? Pleasant dreams, everyone... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:19:45 -0400 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? Here's an interesting problem. I'm adding Malakim oaths to my Character Generator, and I've suddenly realized there's no place in my generator to specify sex, because there are no game-mechanics that depend on it. Which is fine *except* the Malakim's oaths are all phrased in the third-person. How should I phrase them in my generator? Options: * Add a field to indicate gender -- possible, but only useful in getting the pronouns right. Plus, what to do about angels with more than one gender? I don't like this one. * Rephrase them in the first-person; thus: "Never suffer an evil to live, if it's *my* choice; Never surrender or allow *myself* to be captured by the armies of Lucifer". OK, but non-standard for existing sources. * Rephrase them in gender-neutral terms: "Never suffer an evil to live, if it's *one's* choice; Never surrender or allow *oneself* to be captured by the armies of Lucifer". Clunky and stilted. I'd like to do this, but can't come up with a phrasing I like * Phrase them using the male pronoun, as a "gender-neutral" alternative. I hate this one. * "Never suffer an evil to live, if it's *his or her* choice" The less said the better. Is this a sufficient ritual for summoning the In Nomine line editor? - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:35:35 -0600 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) > At 14:46 -0400 9/23/99, Jace wrote:> I Believe that > >Yves, IS Jesus (at least for the context of the game). Depends on your worldview coming into the game. If you merely examine the rules, Jesus could be construed as a very powerful soldier of God working directly for Eli. "Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me?" Yves ain't Jesus. Or do you forget who sponsered Islam in the rulebooks? 'twas Yves. Insight into why or why Jesus wasn't included may be garned from the French version of the game -- wasn't Jesus translated into In Nomine as Eli? > ---Walter Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:43:40 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? At 4:19 PM -0400 9/23/99, Chris Bergstresser wrote: > * Rephrase them in the first-person; thus: "Never suffer an evil to live, >if it's *my* choice; Never surrender or allow *myself* to be captured by the >armies of Lucifer". OK, but non-standard for existing sources. For a character sheet, that's probably the best option. > Is this a sufficient ritual for summoning the In Nomine line editor? Hm. I'm opinionated and loud-mouthed. But this is as a personal opinion, not one with my LE hat on. So you got me, but not necessarily the INLE... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:39:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? I think the "oneself" sounds fine, myself. Solemn oaths are allowed to sound a little stilted. It aids the solemnity. Second person has possibilities: "Never suffer an evil to live if it is your choice." But if you really want third person and want something more colloquial, use "they" as the indefinite pronoun. It has been sneaking in as a simgular pronoun (though with plural construction) for more than a century, often by quite respectable writers. Thus: "Never suffer an evil to live if it is their choice." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:16:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) At 2:35 PM -0600 9/23/99, Ben Glickler wrote: > Yves ain't Jesus. Or do you forget who sponsered Islam in the > rulebooks? 'twas Yves. (And then there's that Balseraph of Fate in the Servitorum who thinks Kronos was Jesus...) > Insight into why or why Jesus wasn't included may be garned from > the French version of the game -- wasn't Jesus translated into In > Nomine as Eli? No. Not exactly. There may be some similarities, but he wouldn't have been the _same_. He might have been a conflation, though, like the IN/SJG Asmodeus is a conflation of the INS/MV Asmodeus and Andromalius. Of course, I'd have to call upon my Sources to tell... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:10:58 -0400 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: RE: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > But if you really want third person and want something more > colloquial, use "they" as the indefinite pronoun. It has been > sneaking in as a simgular pronoun (though with plural construction) > for more than a century, often by quite respectable writers. > Thus: "Never suffer an evil to live if it is their choice." This is how I personally write, and regularly have arguments with my brother over whether it's correct or not. Frankly, I'm not going to write "he or she" when I am unsure as to the gender of the person I'm referring to, and think "they" has plenty of linguistic support (the formal plural in French and other languages, for example). Despite that, for the purpose of Malakim oaths I just dislike it. I've no idea why. I'm leaning towards first person, currently. I really think that's the way they should have been phrased for all the source materials; they're pretty personal things, after all. - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:27:00 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) > > Yves ain't Jesus. Or do you forget who sponsered Islam in the > rulebooks? 'twas Yves. > you forget that Jesus is included in Islam as a prophet. He is viewed as the prophet preceeding Mohammed Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:35:06 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -----Original Message----- From: Chris Bergstresser To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 3:26 PM Subject: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? > > * Add a field to indicate gender -- possible, but only useful in getting >the pronouns right. Plus, what to do about angels with more than one >gender? I don't like this one. from a programmer standpoint, i don't like it either. just more useless code to generate and debug. but don't forget celestials do *not* have a gender, although their vessels may. celestials can, however, come to identify themselves with a certain gender, but that's just a psychological thing. > * Rephrase them in the first-person; thus: "Never suffer an evil to live, >if it's *my* choice; Never surrender or allow *myself* to be captured by the >armies of Lucifer". OK, but non-standard for existing sources. sounds fine to me. nice, plain english, not very ambigious. > * Rephrase them in gender-neutral terms: "Never suffer an evil to live, >if it's *one's* choice; Never surrender or allow *oneself* to be captured by >the armies of Lucifer". Clunky and stilted. I'd like to do this, but can't >come up with a phrasing I like a more traditional sounding and gender-neutral Oath, but it may be miss-interpreted to possibly apply to other people (i've seen some rather skewed logic that will result in this) > * Phrase them using the male pronoun, as a "gender-neutral" alternative. >I hate this one. not very PC (i personally don't care, i'm Pollitically Incorect) > * "Never suffer an evil to live, if it's *his or her* choice" The less >said the better. > seems like just more text to say the same thing, but that may be the non-PC part of me speaking > Is this a sufficient ritual for summoning the In Nomine line editor? > yes, but I don't think you'll like it...try some Spam or an attachment... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:38:28 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? this made think of something...what if an Oath is someway slanted to not harm a certain gender, such as women, or perhaps not to harm children and a demon has a female or child vessel. does the Malakim start taking Dissonance from contradiction? myself, I'd say no on the female part because demons are genderless, it's only their vessels that have gender. and I'd say no for a child vessel as well... ..but what about a young demon? they are created fully functional adults, but what about imp, gremlins, etc.? could they be considered demons in child form? - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:33:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers The On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: - -=At 10:19 AM -0400 9/23/99, Walter Milliken wrote: - -=>I believe the main problem with that is that some people post from variable - -=>addresses. I know I've had that problem with exclusive mailing lists in - -=>the past. That was what I was wondering - I guess it comes down to whether people are more annoyed by spam or by restricted email addresses. Although I would be willing to take all the currently subbed email addys, then add whatever extra emails people wanted to be posting to the list from . . . . This is entirely possible, and another option if the list is interested. If not, I'll just hush up. ;) - -=I believe I did have a spousal mutter of some kind of filter, once... - -=(Heck, if it could filter for "first names" from a list of "approved" - -=posters...) Not as such. Of course the IO spam filters do apply to all mailing lists, but majordomo doesn't allow individual spam filters for individual mailing lists, sadly. Ah well. If you folks are interested, lemme know. Cheers, Derek K. Ofanite of Networks, in Service to the Illuminati. Hey, we can't all follow the Arch-angels. Habbalite of Sluggy, in Service to Bun-Bun. Ka-Click. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:42:47 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: IN> Asmodeus anyone bother to take apart the Latin roots of "Asmodeus" ? my Latin has long since left my brain for the most part, and I no longer have a Latin dictionary. just from memory, "Asmodeus" breaks into Asmo (sounds like a verb, or at least a verb form. possibly a second or third declension noun) and Deus is a reference to God (usually by or from God). - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:01:40 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? At 5:10 PM -0400 9/23/99, Chris Bergstresser wrote: [plural for singular-neuter...] >Despite that, for the purpose of >Malakim oaths I just dislike it. I've no idea why. It's the orbital mind control lasers. You see, the SJ Games policy is STRICTLY "he" for the "gender neutral" singular. Use of "they" as a "singular" is forbidden. (Use it in email or other works all you want, but don't submit anything that uses it to _me_.) I try to balance this bias with examples that use female characters. O:> > I'm leaning towards first person, currently. I really think that's the >way they should have been phrased for all the source materials; they're >pretty personal things, after all. (I surely wouldn't carp about it. 2nd person reads funky in NPC writeups, but for PCs? Hey, looks good.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:50:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: - -=I think the "oneself" sounds fine, myself. Solemn oaths - -=are allowed to sound a little stilted. It aids the solemnity. Plus, the One and One have a bit of Biblical backing - I have no problem with angels using the Royal one. For more information, see Terry Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies" (Not really relevant, but I'm reading it, and it's quite good, so I'm plugging it. ;) ). Angels could have the arrogance to refer to themselves this way all the time, even, esp. some of the more divine . . . . - -=But if you really want third person and want something more - -=colloquial, use "they" as the indefinite pronoun. It has been - -=sneaking in as a simgular pronoun (though with plural construction) - -=for more than a century, often by quite respectable writers. - -=Thus: "Never suffer an evil to live if it is their choice." I have to agree here, though. I use this a lot, and get yelled at a lot, but it seems to me to ignore all the problems with he/she. And most other languages have singular forms that are gender neutral - french has on, which has no gender, but is singular. Perhaps they is taking this role. Cheers, Derek K. Ofanite of Networks, in Service to the Illuminati. Hey, we can't all follow the Arch-angels. Habbalite of Sluggy, in Service to Bun-Bun. Ka-Click. "Thirty day no computer use penalty for being stupid!" - UF ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:00:06 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? At 17:38 -0400 9/23/99, Amo Nympham wrote: >this made think of something...what if an Oath is someway slanted to not >harm a certain gender, such as women, or perhaps not to harm children and a >demon has a female or child vessel. does the Malakim start taking >Dissonance from contradiction? I would tend to say that such oaths, referring to corporeal aspects, would apply only to natural humans. I.e., a demon in a female or child vessel is not *primarily* a female or a child, but a demon; a female mummy would be an undead, not a female in the meaning of "natural human female". A Hellsworn, however, *would* be covered by such an oath. I think it's possible that a Malakite *could* swear an oath that would cover all such entities ("not to harm anything with a female form"), but would not normally do so. Malakim have enough trouble with oaths -- I don't see being this restrictive about interpretation as beneficial. There's also the translation problem: in celestial, the word used for "female" may have explicit connotations of "female human", since such distinctions are relevant and important to celestials. I would expect there to be words for "female human", "female animal", "female vessel", "female-aspected celestial", and possibly "any entity with a female aspect or appearance". - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:08:37 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Gender neutral Malakite oaths? At 4:38 PM -0500 9/23/99, Amo Nympham wrote: >this made think of something...what if an Oath is someway slanted to not >harm a certain gender, such as women, or perhaps not to harm children and a >demon has a female or child vessel. does the Malakim start taking >Dissonance from contradiction? Can, I'd say. Though it might depend on circumstances, the demon, the Malakite, the precise wording of the oath, and whether the Malakite thinks that he can go around preventing the demon from doing evil until he can convince the demon to A: redeem, or B: stop being the thing that the Malakite can't harm. Also what the GM rules, which the player and GM should discuss ahead of time. And yes, a demonling might well register as a "child." Stars know that little children are selfish things... (I remember being _quite_ selfish!) (Mind, all Lilim then count as female, pretty much... Wise Malakim will add a word like, "not harm any _mortal_ woman". This, cleverly, also clears them to take out undead ones, and attempt to cause Lilith to break a nail should they run into her.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:12:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers At 4:33 PM -0500 9/23/99, Derek K. wrote: >The On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >That was what I was wondering - I guess it comes down to whether people >are more annoyed by spam or by restricted email addresses. Although > I would be willing >to take all the currently subbed email addys, then add whatever extra >emails people wanted to be posting to the list from . . . . The current majordomo stuff that _I_ know of will send email to all the extra addresses, otherwise I'd do that in a flash. It uses the "who is subscribed" as it's "who is allowed to post" list. (There are a few people who only read the archives, and then post occasionally...) >Not as such. Of course the IO spam filters do apply to all mailing lists, >but majordomo doesn't allow individual spam filters for individual mailing >lists, sadly. Darnit it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:22:25 PDT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Re: Andrealphus >Also, taking your argument, shouldn't Andrealpheus' Word have flared up in >him like Dominic's did? In this case, it would have been his love of God >that would keep him on the side of Heaven. Well, yes, of course it should have. But it didn't. That's why he's a demon. :) I see your point about him being "one-dimensional," but I'm not sure this is an error on the part of the IN writers. I think they are correct; lust *is* shallower than love. Love has an infinite span of growth (at least if you are an angel); lust is by definition limited. Servitors of Lust are so limited that they take dissonance if they even *think* about a different point of view, i.e. if they feel anything for their victims. (If you think about it, that's pretty rough. Most celestials, on either side, only take dissonance for what they *do.*) I very much enjoy the vision of Nybbas replaying demons' pasts, but I am pretty sure Nybbas wasn't even a gleam in some demon's eye when Andrealphus fell, so how would he get the footage? And about Saminga -- Andrealphus avoided being destroyed by him the only way anyone avoids destruction in Hell. Either being more powerful than your enemy, smarter than your enemy (I'd bet on this one), or getting the protection of Lucifer. Janet Anderson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:24:56 -0500 (CDT) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> Asmodeus On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: - -=anyone bother to take apart the Latin roots of "Asmodeus" ? my Latin has - -=long since left my brain for the most part, and I no longer have a Latin - -=dictionary. just from memory, "Asmodeus" breaks into Asmo (sounds like a - -=verb, or at least a verb form. possibly a second or third declension noun) - -=and Deus is a reference to God (usually by or from God). - -= - -=- Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" - -=ICQ: 11430261 - -="I think I woke up screaming - -='cause I had a dream that you still loved me" - -= -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -= Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia says this about asmodeus: Asmodeus The name of the demon mentioned in the Book of Tobias (iii, 8). The name is most probably derived from the Hebrew root meaning "to destroy": so that the being would correspond to the demon called Abaddon, the Destroyer in the Apocalypse, ix, 11. Some random webpages I found list the following: http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-52032/engelsk/demon.htm - Asmodeus: The Hebreic name Ashmedai (Destroyer), probably has it's origin from the persian word Aesham dev. The "Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary" : http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ard-asr.htm Asmodeus 'ashmedai (Hebrew) [cf Zend aeshma-daeva from daeva ethereal being, cosmic spirit] And finally, http://members.xoom.com/Cosmotopia/demon.html : Asmodeus seems to be Persian in origin and may be identical to the demon Aeshma, one of the seven archdemons of Persian mythology. According to that tradition, he visited heaven every day to eavesdrop on the angels' conversations. The Latinized version of his name may be derived from the Hebrew, Ashmedai or Shamad ('to destroy'), and it is among the Jews that Asmodeus achieved his highest degree of power. Way too much information, and yet not quite answering the question, eh? If I knew Latin, I'd help directly, but it looks like it may just be a Latinization of the Hebrew word. Cheers, Derek K. Ofanite of Networks, in Service to the Illuminati. Hey, we can't all follow the Arch-angels. Habbalite of Sluggy, in Service to Bun-Bun. Ka-Click. "Heisenberg may have slept here." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:31:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: - -=At 4:33 PM -0500 9/23/99, Derek K. wrote: - -=>The On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: - -= - -=The current majordomo stuff that _I_ know of will send email to all the - -=extra addresses, otherwise I'd do that in a flash. It uses the "who - -=is subscribed" as it's "who is allowed to post" list. Nope - just asked the engineers about this - you can set up a file of people who can post but are not subscribed - in_nomine-l.closed, I think it would be called, and then point it there. - -=(There are a few people who only read the archives, and then post - -=occasionally...) Hmm. Well, if this did get setup, would these people (if they are reading now) mind sending in their email to be added to such a list? Hmm. Should this go private now, or izzit still a list issue? I dunno, so I'll send to the list. Reply as desired. Cheers, Derek K. Ofanite of Networks, in Service to the Illuminati. Hey, we can't all follow the Arch-angels. Habbalite of Sluggy, in Service to Bun-Bun. Ka-Click. "Any technology which is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:17:50 -0500 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Saminga (WAS: Andrealphus) At 3:22 PM -0700 9/23/99, Janet Anderson wrote: >And about Saminga -- Andrealphus avoided being destroyed by him the only way >anyone avoids destruction in Hell. Either being more powerful than your >enemy, smarter than your enemy (I'd bet on this one), or getting the >protection of Lucifer. From what I recall, Saminga didn't actually come into power until long after the Fall. Learning the secrets of Mummification from the Egyptians, then coming to the attentions of Lucifer. So by the time Saminga was handed a Principlality, Adnrealphus already had been a Prince for at least a dozen millenia. Andre (to his friends of course), also seems smarter by leaps and bounds by the single-minded Prince of Death. Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 20:03:45 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A Disturbance in the Force In a message dated 9/23/99 1:15:36 AM Central Daylight Time, aldrebe@earlham.edu writes: << >Oooh! Can I be Really Cool People? > > only if I can be ansaphones Ben >> I'm People Covered in Fish!! Okay, that's enough. Back to real In Nomine stuff before Beth steps on us. :) Rev. B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:28:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Asmodeus On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > anyone bother to take apart the Latin roots of "Asmodeus" ? my Latin has > long since left my brain for the most part, and I no longer have a Latin > dictionary. just from memory, "Asmodeus" breaks into Asmo (sounds like a > verb, or at least a verb form. possibly a second or third declension noun) > and Deus is a reference to God (usually by or from God). My Latin's left my brain too -- but neither of my Latin dictionaries has any word starting with "Asmo." Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:37:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Asmodeus On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > My Latin's left my brain too -- but neither of my Latin dictionaries has > any word starting with "Asmo." I meant to say, no work beginning with "Asm" or "Asn." Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:35:40 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> APG question (forces/damage) > >At 10:38 PM -0700 9/20/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >On page 32 of the APG under "Life-linked Attunement", it speaks of the >loss > >of Forces and its relationship to the Cherub. >[...] > >More specifically, is there any relationship between Corporeal Combat and > >loss of Forces?? Generally, no. As far as I know, there's no way for a corporeal being (human or celestial in a vessel) to lose Forces, though they can lose Soul hits under some very specific circumstances (typically to demonic attunements). - ---Walter [McCoy] >Ummmmmmm..... No. Blast. I'm going to have to figure out what this was >_intended_ to mean and do some errata. 'k. Thanks. :) [My fix was to change it to: "For every four points of damage the Cherub's object of attunement suffers, the Cherub take an amount of damage equal to one Body Hit plus the level of this Discord." This was based upon the Disturbance rules on IN pg 55. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "If you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough." - Allen R. Sandage ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:53:37 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> Soldier of Jordi? Is it just me, or is David Attenbrough a perfect example of a Soldier of Jordi? I mean, he's made thousands of children fall in love with the beauties of nature, he gets #$%^ing amazing shots of animals and insects, and he never seems to be harmed by any of them. Sorry for this, but I've just been watching one of his docos where he walks straight through a pride of lions on the Serangeti (?) who do nothing more than stare at him in a sort of bemused way. And there were heaps more amazing shots which I just cannot see how he got. Part of the reason why they're so good I suppose. Anyway, off the tangent, good example, or not? Actually after writing this, I've realised that most of the Jordites in my campaign have certain attenbroughish qualities. Strange. Kris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:53:32 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: Re: IN> cannon and your game (Fluffy) >>Jus once, i would like to see Beth say, in effect, no, you cannot do >>that. Not in canon, not even in your own game. > >No one has yet asked if they can summon the Demon Princess of Nitpicking. Nobody's been foolish enough to try. You miss out section 14 - G of the ritual, and the words blast radius can be applied. If she's feeling nice. If not, well, that doesn't bear thinking about, but teh last sorcerer to try it is locked in a padded room, screaming "It's all wrong!" Kris Bichwa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:53:36 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A Disturbance in the Force - - -= From: Whistling in the Dark - - -=> - - -=> At 1:32 AM -0400 9/17/99, JadePsion@aol.com wrote: - - -=> >....and who decides what good and evil is. - - -=> - - -=> I do. - - -=> - - -=> I called dibs. - - -= - - -=Ok, that's fair. But I get to decide what cool and lame is. - - -= - - -=And I also call shotgun. - - -= - - -=I originally was going to call dibs on who lives and who dies, but I - - -=believe that's the line editor's perogative. - - -= - - -=Ben, Elohite of Eli - - -=Angel of Neat Ideas - - -= > >Oooh! Can I be Really Cool People? > >Cheers, >Derek K. >Ofanite of Networks >Habbalit of Spammers So you want to be both really cool people, and habblite of spammers. You can't have it both ways, as they're pretty incompatible. Oh, and I got Furry Things At The Back Of The Fridge That Were Once Cocktail Frankfurts But Now Glow Chatruse, Move When You Shine Bright Light On Them, And Try To Swallow Anything That Touches Them. So basically Errol. Kris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Soldier of Jordi? About Attenborough never getting harmed: Yes, the bit with the lions is remarkable, but I saw a little segment at the end of one of his series, called "Once More Into the Termite Mound," showing a number of out-takes in which he gets variously bitten, pecked, or run away from. Not that this disqualifies him as a Soldier of Jordi; all those things are part of doing business in the Wild Kingdom; Attenborough accepts this and, um, soldiers on. By the way, I have to say that, starting with Derek Pearcy, IN seems to have written itself into a corner with Jordi. How do you involve his servants without either (1) representing them as alienated from him to some degree or another, or (2) confining yourself to adventures reminiscent of "Call of the Wild" or "The Jungle Book," or radical-environmentalist adventures? In the Liber Servitorium, there's a nice pair of write-ups about a little old lady, all her cats, and the Kyriotate of Flowers who hangs about in said cats. Together, they run a kind of safe-house for the local celestials. The Kyrio is an ex-Jordite. It needn't have been ex- if Jordi was written a little more flexibly. In Gustav Davidson's "Dictionary of Angels," he lists an Angel of Tame Animals and an Angel of Wild Animals. One way to bring Jordites into play better would be to create a "loyal opposition" faction within Jordi's own ranks, headed by the Angel of Tame Animals, who is supported by the Seraphim Council (against its own Superior, sometimes) and disagrees with Jordi's isolationist stance. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:42:25 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Soldier of Jordi? I would say if anyone is a servitor of Jordi it is Steve Irwin, the "crocodile hunter" from the animal channel. Steve is completely the epitome of the rough and tumble lover of animals and I think he has to be at least somehow supernatural. CHeck out the show and you'll see what i mean. BEn ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1339 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.