From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Sep 28 12:28:30 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 MAA27234 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:28:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA13429 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:22:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:22:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199909281722.MAA13429@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 #1343 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 Tuesday, September 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1343 In this digest: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Re: IN> White Wolf Re: IN> Stopping Spammers Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Re: IN> White Wolf Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> Malakim IN> funny comic about angels Re: IN> White-wolf's WoD Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Re: IN> Stopping Spammers Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Re: IN> Stopping Spammers IN> Balseraphs and lying Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying RE: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying RE: IN> Balseraphs and lying IN> Plug for Pyramid Playtest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:36:58 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer actually, it in the Dark Victory Net.Book section, right above Fan Fiction. - -Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11340261 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, ACF - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 5:59 PM Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer >At 6:38 AM -0500 9/26/99, Kris Overstreet wrote: > >>This reminds me... is Dark Victory still on the INC webpage? > >Yup. Far as I know, it's still in the Settings link... > > >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:56:14 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> White Wolf Oops, >Malakites I meant Malakim. Malakim. Repeat.... Sorry Beth. Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:08:17 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Stopping Spammers At 2:15 PM -0500 9/27/99, Derek K. wrote: >On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >-=>From: David Edelstein >-=>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) >-=>X-Accept-Language: en >-=>MIME-Version: 1.0 >-=>To: In Nomine >-=>Subject: Stopping Spammers >-=>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >-=>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-=> >-=>>>>This is a problem that, last time I discussed putting the list on >-="you not s u b s c r i b e, you not post" status, I got many >pitiful pleas to find some other way.<<< >-=> >-=>Well, here's the thing. People can decide to choose one e-mail address >-=>and stick to it for their In Nomine list-ing. Nobody can decide to not >-=>get spam on the list, except you. >-=> >-=>So a few people will whine pitifully that they want to be able to >-=>download the list at home but post to it from work, or whatever. >-=>Meanwhile, LOTS of people are extremely annoyed at having half the >-=>messages often turn out to be spam. I think there is clearly a choice >-=>between "annoy a few people or annoy a lot of people" here. What's best >-=>for the greatest number of list members? >-=> >-=>-David >-= >-= > >I'm voting for kill the spam, myself. And my offer of adding in extra >emails for people that have a range so they can post from multiple >accounts still stands. > Kill the spam! Kill it! If people *must* use multiple accounts, to my knowledge Majordomo will allow a person to "subscribe" to the list from an address, but specify 'no mail delivery' to that account. We did that with a fiction mailing list I was on for a long time. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:17:16 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer At 3:33 PM -0600 9/27/99, Tim Groth wrote: >Just remembered something, Lucifer could probably take down Hell on his way >out. I mean he can just un-Word all the demons, redeem and Hell has to >find a way to give Words out again. I'd imagine this would make Kronos the >most likely ruler of Hell in Lucifer's abscence, because Kronos probably >knows how to give out infernal Words (personally i think its either a >unique power of Lucifers, or at least an obscenly powerful application of >the Balseraph resonance). What if it's the latter? What if *every* Demonic word is a Lie, and slowly as Lucifer returns to Seraphdom the Demonic words begin to lose power in the Symphony. Remember, Demons themselves are focused on their own *personal* Symphony, so even if the word remains written in them, it may simply become a totally selfish obsession on the topic, without any Word-Forces. And have it take time -- say, all Word-Bound lose a Word Force every three days, and when they're out rather than keeping one and losing another Force the Word just fades away? It would take a while for the major Demon Princes to reach the point where their power fades on them, but the clock would be ticking for them to find another source of Word-Forces -- another leader capable of telling such a grand Lie to the Symphony. Which implies another Balseraph.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 99 10:23:41 PDT From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim > And your point is? Being a combat monster doesn't require a combat > resonance. > > -David > I never claimed it did. But I did of course forget their invulnerability to trauma. Throughout my posts I was merely trying to express what I saw as inequalities between the Malakims write-ups aand fluff and the actual game mechanics. As well as bemusement at the fact that in the word of War Ofanite and Seraphim have more combat orientated attunements. Throughout the book I got the impression that Malakim were more warlike than the other choirs (reflected in rules) and that they were naturally better at combat i.e. strength bonus etc.. (not reflected). I think that Proficiency would have been a more fitting Malakite of War attunement. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:09:01 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Now here's a fun idea...do you think -most- Celestials would like having Lucifer up there, -especially- if he got some special treatment for having been lost so long and having found the strength to Redeem? I think a LOT of angels would be seriously irked at an 'all is forgiven' attitude. Lucifer BROKE the Symphony in the view of a lot of angels, if he can just slip back in and be treated well...I think the idea of punishment would come up. The most fitting punishment is Disbanding, but then, Heaven loses its edge...so which does Heaven choose, efiicacy or principle? We probably know the answer, if Michael's trial was any indicator. I could see hordes of angels going Renegade or petitioning for Lucifer to be Disbanded. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:13:41 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> White Wolf Omentide wrote: > > > On another note Hilary and I did a VtM In Nomine crossover LARP some months > back. It was a great laugh. Antedeluvians, Archangels and Demon Princes. > Complete paralysis from each group, if one starts fighting the other two > may join together. All worked wonderfully until someone poisoned Blandine > and an eclectic group decided to try taking out the combined war faction. > That's funny actually, assuming the vamp elders are anywhere -near- the level of Princes and Archangels. Just doesn't fit in my view at all, considering that Superiors have a direct line into facets of the Symphony that'd make magi shrivel up and die. But I have to agree, considering GURPS converted -both- systems...just use that and it should be easy. BTW, since Saminga 'invented' vampires, I wonder if the average Archangel even 'registers' antes on the ol' power meter, or just see them as somewhat mightier undead? - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:24:32 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Azrael wrote: Throughout my posts I was merely trying to express what I saw as inequalities between the Malakims write-ups aand fluff and the actual game mechanics. > As well as bemusement at the fact that in the word of War Ofanite and Seraphim have more combat orientated attunements. > Throughout the book I got the impression that Malakim were more warlike than the other choirs (reflected in rules) and that they were naturally better at combat i.e. strength bonus etc.. (not reflected). > I think that Proficiency would have been a more fitting Malakite of War attunement. Again, it comes down to two things: Malakim -tend- to pick up a lot of Corporeal and Celestial combat stuff...skills, Songs, Relics...they don't have to, but they have a strong tendency to. Malakim -can't be bargained with-. Ever. Nothing a demon can say outside of siccing them on a bigger demon (and this'll get them in trouble with that demon -and- the Malakite after it finishes up) will hold it off. Oh yes, and it could be lying, too. It's like dealing with a Terminator. It won't -ever- give up, and as long as it loses a Vessel for a -good- reason, odds are it'll get another one. Archangels - -expect- Malakim to run through Vessels if they have to fight. Imagine knowing that it is Dissonant, DISSONANT for this -thing- to stop coming after you. That thought terrifies demons since they understand how hard most Celestials try to avoid Dissonance. It's not that they're any more overtly dangerous, they're -implacable-. Which would you rather face? Some guy with a grenade that comes after you once? or some guy with a knife who's going to be after you until you or he is dead? - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:27:43 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Malakim > >But I did of course forget their invulnerability to trauma. > >Throughout my posts I was merely trying to express what I saw as inequalities between the Malakims write-ups aand fluff and the actual game mechanics. >As well as bemusement at the fact that in the word of War Ofanite and Seraphim have more combat orientated attunements. >Throughout the book I got the impression that Malakim were more warlike than the other choirs (reflected in rules) and that they were naturally better at combat i.e. strength bonus etc.. (not reflected). >I think that Proficiency would have been a more fitting Malakite of War attunement. > I think it was more a sort of character thing. Mercurians are talked about as the friendliest of choirs, that doesn't mean every mercurian is as nice as mr rogers or necessarily nicer than a given seraph. It is just general info. The guidelines are given as stereotypes so that players can have something to expect and GMs have good ways to suprise the player. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:37:45 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: IN> funny comic about angels http://www.uexpress.com/ups/comics/bz/ Ben, Elohite of Anthropology in service to Flowers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:47:29 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> White-wolf's WoD >At 16:49 -0400 9/26/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >Only the *frequency* of success has to do with skill/song/resonance level >. > >. . (am I wrong?) > >Yes and no. At higher skill and attribute levels, celestials' target >numbers >often go over 12, giving them CD bonuses. So skill *does* affect degree of >success, to some extent. It is a bit granular, though. heh... it affects degree of success once you're uber-powerful... >In GURPS IN, we abandoned the CD mechanic (since it has no equivalent in >GURPS), and used the degree of success in the skill roll to replace the >CD, pretty much everywhere. I figured as much. > >I know that for low-level humans (thus low-level characteristics) steps >have > >been taken in the CPG, but . . . this is to correct a flaw in the system > >rather than to correct the system. > >I believe the system was never really intended to handle humans and >similarly >low-powered beings very well -- this is a common scale problem in RPGs that >span a wide range of power levels. Converting IN to GURPS resulted in >the opposite effect -- celestials are relatively weaker than in IN, >compared to humans. This happened because GURPS is humanocentric, and >a strict interpretation of attribute conversion would have resulted in >celestials pretty much succeeding at die rolls *all the time*, with the >exception of critical failures. So I put them at a significantly higher >level than humans, but not so high as IN would suggest. Typical celestials >in GURPS IN are roughly on a par with medium-powerful superheros, if >you cross the genre boundaries. Okay, cool. I'm looking forward to purchasing a copy! - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "It says here that ninjas can read people's minds! Gad! I never knew they could do so much. I just thought they hung around airports and got sucked up into jet engines." - The Tick The Tick, The Naked City ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:12:15 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer Amo Nympham wrote: > >out of curiosity, has anyone else out there changed Saminga any in their >games? personally, I don't like the idea of a buffoon for a Prince, >especially with such a powerful word. I changed him, but to redefine "Death" as a very /weak/ word. Sure, humans obsess about death nearly 24/7 -- but there's an afterlife. Even if you die there's no destruction of personal continuity (though in Hell you may wish there was). So Saminga -was- a pitiful buffoon, with a pathetically weak word (almost as weak as Lilith's, in fact). The other Princes didn't destroy him because he was comically easy to manipulate. Sure the other Princes could try to manipulate him, but it's easy enough to remanipulate him, right? I used Earl Wajenberg's Dis campaign seed IMC, and when the Princes rebelled against Satan, Saminga was chosen as the "ruler" of the dissident faction, because he could be played like a violin. >...because in IMG, Lucifer is teetering on the edge of redemption. Over >the millennia he has grown forlorn at the stalemate, and has grown >personally beyond the petty envy of humanity that originally caused the >Fall. You should read Michael Moorcock's _The War Hound and the World's Pain_. The devil wants to redeem, but the other dukes of hell are trying to stop him only because they have no idea how to continue without him. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:30:51 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer >now this brings me to my last point (for now). what kind of >powers would Servitors of Light have... And the wise will shine as brightly As the heavenly firmament, And those who have instructed many in virtue Will be as stars for ever and ever. Daniel 12, 3 It seemed appropriate. I can't see Domonic (if he's not a Bal), or Khalid actually having any trouble with Lucifer redeeming. After all they both believe very strongly in God's plan, and having the major leader of the opposite side come over would, I presume, be taken as a fairly strong sign that He exists, and is taking a benevolent, active stance towards the evil that exists in the world. I can see this strengthening them, but not really harming them. The Archangels I can see this having the greatest possible effect on are Gabe, who it'll either break or start bringing her back, Novalis, who's going to give him a very stern earful about how what he was doing wasn't nice. After she's finished hugging him, and crying for joy - I can see a lot more people joining the redemptionists following this (after all, if Lucifer redeemed), and Marc, who it's going to annoy, because he's going to have to try to figure out deals for the next ruler of hell. I have a problem with Kobal trying to redeem Lucifer though - he fell. Do you think he really is going to keep following His orders after Kobal becomes an Impudite, a Taker? If so, it'll have to be because Kobal either didn't fall, half fell, or sees a really major benefit in getting Lucifer to redeem. Maybe he gets given the crown? Now that's a scary thought - Hell run by Dark Humor, who for many millenia was holding his own half decently against Yves. We now return you to your regular reality, Kris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:31:22 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Steel Angel wrote: > I think a LOT of angels would be seriously irked at an 'all is > forgiven' attitude. On the other hand, a redeemed Lucifer should logically be repentant to the Nth degree and throw himself into the War effort against his former subjects with a dedication and self-sacrifice that ought to stun even the Seraphim Council, and would constitute a massive act of penance sufficient to satisfy any angel that didn't have its own major spiritual problems. In Dorothy L. Sayer's notes on her translation of Dante's "Purgatory," she quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on the theory of penance, so to speak. There are three parts to any GENUNINE act of contrition: First, Repentance: saying you're sorry. This restores proper relations between you and the offended party (God, or your neighbor). Second, Restitution: doing what you can to repair the damage you've caused. This is something a GENUINE penitent will WANT to do. If the penitent were the Devil, it should be pretty spectactular. Third, Reformation: modifying your own personality so that you do not fall into the same sin again. This, too, could result in some fairly spectacular spiritual exercises on Lucifer's part. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:41:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> Stopping Spammers On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: I work for Illuminati Online, which runs the IN list. I may not have mentioned this, but I'm not just rambling. Well, not in this respect, at least. We can set up such a file, which would include this without much problem. Our majordomo software can automatically update this list with subscription addresses, as far as I know - I'm not the majordomo guru, but I've looked at the .config file, and it seems to work, and one of our engineers confirmed it. Just to establish what is technically possible. It's possible to have multiple addresses with permission to post, but only one which actually gets mail. And people who only read online and post could just send an email to the person upkeeping that list to be added as well. Cheers, Derek K. Ofanite of Networks, in Service to Illuminati Online. Hey, we can't all follow the Arch-Angels. Habbalite of Sluggy, in Service to Bun-Bun. Ka-Click. - -=Kill the spam! Kill it! - -= - -=If people *must* use multiple accounts, to my knowledge Majordomo - -=will allow a person to "subscribe" to the list from an address, but - -=specify 'no mail delivery' to that account. We did that with a - -=fiction mailing list I was on for a long time. - -= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:04:38 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer - - 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: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 7:33 AM Subject: Re: IN> Saminga and the Lightbringer >I can't see Domonic (if he's not a Bal), or Khalid actually having any >trouble with Lucifer redeeming. After all they both believe very >strongly in God's plan, and having the major leader of the opposite >side come over would, I presume, be taken as a fairly strong sign >that He exists, and is taking a benevolent, active stance towards the >evil that exists in the world. I can see this strengthening them, but not >really harming them. The way i've always seen Dominic (even after his write-up in the Superiors 1 playtest) would, yes, have him believe strongly in God's plan, but I don't see that as his initial reaction. I think he would first have a field day trying to put Lucifer on trial; millenia of fighting agianst something tends to put an initial bias on the way you do things. after the initial outrage he would probably calm down and realize what's going on. of course, in this campaing, Dominic is secretly a Balseraph (i've decided his Cloak is strong enough to shield this from others and to protect him from the Light of Heaven) or at the very least extremely close. now the return of Light would either reveal this to the others if he is a Demon in disguise, or his initial and immediate attempt at a trial would force him to Fall. Dominic wants to much to destroy Lucifer that he refuses to acknowlege the Truth that he has redeemed. as for Khalid, this game is currently set before any of the Revelations Cycle (which i may or may not run) so he's still hiding in the desert suffering from doubt. >The Archangels I can see this having the greatest possible effect on >are Gabe, who it'll either break or start bringing her back, Novalis, >who's going to give him a very stern earful about how what he was >doing wasn't nice. After she's finished hugging him, and crying for >joy Gabriel in my campaigns has alway been more lucid than mad; i just like her way too much to let her be crazy. now that you bring it up, she probably will come back from the edge and return to Heaven once Dominic stops persecuting her...hmm...interesting idea...Gabriel was persecuted because she somehow was near the Truth about Dominic being a Balseraph because of her Divine inspiration...she's been plagued with visions and hints but hasn't been able to make sense of them until now. > I can see a lot more people joining the redemptionists following this >(after all, if Lucifer redeemed), and Marc, who it's going to annoy, >because he's going to have to try to figure out deals for the next ruler >of hell. yes, Lucifer redeems, but i'm going to have it balanced out by Dominic falling, Saminga rising to the Granite Throne and possibly Faust assuming some power, but i'm thinking about throwing that out and re-doing a little of it. > >I have a problem with Kobal trying to redeem Lucifer though - he fell. >Do you think he really is going to keep following His orders after >Kobal becomes an Impudite, a Taker? If so, it'll have to be because >Kobal either didn't fall, half fell, or sees a really major benefit in >getting Lucifer to redeem. God works in mysterious ways... what's more funny than the Fist Demon redeeming? Kobal's Secret Mission was simple. God forsaw what was to happen and instructed Kobal to return Lucifer to Heaven. and when Kobal fell, he still kept his mission but decided to put his own dark twist on it. of course, he's been having so much fun and is so used to beng a Demon that he's not leaving just yet... >Maybe he gets given the crown? Now >that's a scary thought - Hell >run by Dark Humor, who for many >millenia was holding his own half >decently against Yves. > which is exactly why I constantly argue that there's more to Kobal than meets the eye... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:11:02 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) - - 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: Earl Wajenberg To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 8:47 AM Subject: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) >Steel Angel wrote: > >> I think a LOT of angels would be seriously irked at an 'all is >> forgiven' attitude. > >On the other hand, a redeemed Lucifer should logically be >repentant to the Nth degree and throw himself into the War >effort against his former subjects with a dedication and >self-sacrifice that ought to stun even the Seraphim Council, >and would constitute a massive act of penance sufficient to >satisfy any angel that didn't have its own major spiritual >problems. yes, my Bright Lucifer is repentant, but not exactly like that... > > >First, Repentance: saying you're sorry. This restores proper >relations between you and the offended party (God, or your >neighbor). that's easily covered., and the first step to being Redeemed. > >Second, Restitution: doing what you can to repair the damage >you've caused. This is something a GENUINE penitent will WANT >to do. If the penitent were the Devil, it should be pretty >spectactular. i don't think even Lucifer has the power to repair all the damage. Hell is a giant evil engine with millenia of momentum behind it. > >Third, Reformation: modifying your own personality so that you >do not fall into the same sin again. This, too, could result in >some fairly spectacular spiritual exercises on Lucifer's part. > which is why my Bright Lucifer will NOT take an active part in smiting evil. he will most likely me similar to Yves, not a warrior. to Lucifer, to throw himself into the fight and begin to really fight against Hell becomes the first step to falling to Pride again (let's not forget the Trial of Michael). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:41:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) Amo Nympham wrote: > i don't think even Lucifer has the power to repair all the damage. > Hell is a giant evil engine with millenia of momentum behind it. I'm sure you're right, but he should still want to do all he can. > >Third, Reformation: modifying your own personality so that you > >do not fall into the same sin again. This, too, could result in > >some fairly spectacular spiritual exercises on Lucifer's part. > > > > which is why my Bright Lucifer will NOT take an active part in > smiting evil. he will most likely me similar to Yves, not a > warrior. to Lucifer, to throw himself into the fight and begin to > really fight against Hell becomes the first step to falling to > Pride again (let's not forget the Trial of Michael). Sounds plausible. He might also take on a function similar to Dominic's, Light being a revealer of truth, like the Inquisition. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:05:17 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Stopping Spammers just adding my support to the idea of stopping the spam however possible. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:09:32 -0400 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: IN> Balseraphs and lying In the description of the lying skill, it says Balseraphs don't need it. Does this mean everything they say can be taken as if they had succeeded at a skill roll, or do they have to invoke their resonance every time they lie? If the former, what's the check digit? - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:29:37 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) - - 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: Earl Wajenberg To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 9:49 AM Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer Repentant (was Saminga and the Lightbringer) >Amo Nympham wrote: >> >Third, Reformation: modifying your own personality so that you >> >do not fall into the same sin again. This, too, could result in >> >some fairly spectacular spiritual exercises on Lucifer's part. >> > >> >> which is why my Bright Lucifer will NOT take an active part in >> smiting evil. he will most likely me similar to Yves, not a >> warrior. to Lucifer, to throw himself into the fight and begin to >> really fight against Hell becomes the first step to falling to >> Pride again (let's not forget the Trial of Michael). > >Sounds plausible. He might also take on a function similar to >Dominic's, Light being a revealer of truth, like the Inquisition. actually, I was thinking of having him assume the position after Dominic falls. of course, this will lead to great reformation in the Inquisition (which, IMG, is rather nasty) and probably a much nicer, gentler Inquisition on the whole. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:36:11 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying At 11:09 AM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: > In the description of the lying skill, it says Balseraphs don't need it. >Does this mean everything they say can be taken as if they had succeeded at >a skill roll, or do they have to invoke their resonance every time they lie? >If the former, what's the check digit? > Balseraphs don't ever lie. everything they say is the complete truth to them, thus they don't need the skill. If they say something that another being may think is untrue then they resonate. But a balseraph will no more lie to you (from their "perspective") than a seraph will. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:38:33 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying Balseraphs do not LIE. when they speak they fervently believe what they say is true (until they change their mind), and thus a detect lies skill will not reveal them. - - 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: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:15 AM Subject: IN> Balseraphs and lying > In the description of the lying skill, it says Balseraphs don't need it. >Does this mean everything they say can be taken as if they had succeeded at >a skill roll, or do they have to invoke their resonance every time they lie? >If the former, what's the check digit? > >-- Chris > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:05:43 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> [ADMIN] Stopping spammers At 3:56 PM -0400 9/27/99, Chris Bergstresser wrote: >> it does, however, catch anyone who sends an u n s u b s c r i b e command >> to the list instead of to the right address.) >> > That "feature" needs to go. Maybe not for u n s u b s c r i b e, but >frankly, I'm never going to remember the prohibition about s u b s c r i b >e. The amuing thing is that a would-be spammer just bounced, because he wanted people to s u b s c r i b e to a spam newsletter.... O;> (Yes, if someone who knows majordomo can talk to me about having an "approved posters" list that is different from the "s u b s c ribers" list, send me some private email. Make sure this is in the headers very clearly -- if I'm having a Bad Nausea Day, sometimes I can't cope with anything that requires much in the way of conscious thinking.) (Also bear in mind that I'll be needing Really Clear Details on how to manage the feat, since the &^(^&%^% manual I've read is *&^*&^ unclear.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:06:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying At 11:09 AM -0400 9/28/99, Chris Bergstresser wrote: > In the description of the lying skill, it says Balseraphs don't need it. >Does this mean everything they say can be taken as if they had succeeded at >a skill roll, or do they have to invoke their resonance every time they lie? >If the former, what's the check digit? The latter. If they make their resonance and the victim(s) fail their Will, then the victim is _convinced_ that what the Balseraph just said is the utter truth. Unless it's contradicted by provable fact. (You can say the Moon is made of white cheese, but not that it's purple, if the Moon is out and visible.) This _certainty_ on the part of the victim lasts for the Bal's CD minutes. The victim will not _use_ Detect Lies. A Seraph who somehow fails will get very confused if his resonance conflicts with the Bal's reality -- but that would take a high CD on the Seraph's resonance. Some victims, especially of _plausible_ lies, may continue to believe in the absence of any other proof, but this is up to the GM (or player) for the most part. Even if the victim makes his Will roll to resist, if the Balseraph made his resonance roll, the _Balseraph_ believes the lie -- any use of Detect Lies (or the Seraph resonance) will show that the Balseraph believes what he just said. (The Seraph resonance, at CD 5 and 6, will start giving really good hints, though a GM might rule that CD 3 gives the "the speaker is telling the truth as he sees it because he WANTS it to be true," depending on circumstances. Don't forget that Seraphim add their Celestial Forces to their Will when resisting Balseraphic resonances -- this can often raise a Celestial-Force-heavy Seraph's Will to the auto-success point or above. I generally rule that if a Seraph's thus-_modified_ CD is 6+, then the Balseraph takes dissonance. It seems a reasonable risk for Balseraphs, akin to the Elohite vulnerability to Habbalah.) If the Balseraph fails his resonance, then the GM could treat in one of two ways: * the more playable way is probably to say that the Balseraph believed it for the split second required to _say_ the lie, but then it was lost in the shifting realities of the Band's nature, where they can make and unmake truth on a whim. If called on it, the Balseraph shrugs and says, "I thought it was true then," or "It was true a moment ago, but it's not now. So?" * The second, non-canon, treatment would be to say that the Balseraph must make his resonance roll _first_ (to convince himself), and that if he fails, he either has to make another resonance roll for a _different_ lie than the one he intended, or he is as bound by (what he perceives to be) truth as any Seraph! After all -- Balseraphs _don't lie_ (in their own minds)! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:58:09 -0500 (CDT) From: paranial@creighton.edu Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying Balseraphs actually belive their BS. The have to. They get dissonance if they contradict themselves, or say some that they know "from their prespective" to be a lie. Accuse a Bal of lying to his face and you'll end they same way you would if you accused a Seraph. Bloody and on the Ground. Bradley Paranial. Mercurian Vassal of War ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:41 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying here's something about Dissonance. if a Balseraph tells a lie without using his resonance and then later tells a lie that's different would he take Dissonance? here's the applied case: one of my players is a Balseraph of Kobal, and he told the other players, without using his resonance, that he was a Djinn of Asmodeus. the players have no evidence at the time that he's lying and no reason to no believe him, so he didn't use his resonance. later it was discovered that was _not_ a Djinn of Asmodeus, to which he replied..."Ok, Ok, I'm a Balseraph of the War." would this constitute as Dissonant? on one hand I can see it not, he just changed what he believes (it was true then, now this is true), but on the other hand he did contradict what he said earlier. - - 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: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:35:36 -0400 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: RE: IN> Balseraphs and lying So *whenever* a Balseraph lies, they have to invoke their resonance? What happens if they're talking to a group of people -- do each of them get a will roll to resist? Since the resonance only applies to a number of people equal to the Balseraph's celestial forces at a time, are they prohibited from talking to more than that number at a time? If one resists but the others don't, is the Balseraph prohibited from lying to the group? - -- Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > [mailto:owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com]On Behalf Of Elizabeth McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 12:06 PM > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> Balseraphs and lying > > > At 11:09 AM -0400 9/28/99, Chris Bergstresser wrote: > > In the description of the lying skill, it says Balseraphs > don't need it. > >Does this mean everything they say can be taken as if they had > succeeded at > >a skill roll, or do they have to invoke their resonance every > time they lie? > > The latter. If they make their resonance and the victim(s) fail their > Will, then the victim is _convinced_ that what the Balseraph just said > is the utter truth. Unless it's contradicted by provable fact. (You > can say the Moon is made of white cheese, but not that it's purple, if > the Moon is out and visible.) > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:29:40 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Plug for Pyramid Playtest http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/login/playtest/ now lists Superiors 2... Yes, you have to be a Pyramid subscriber. ($15 a year -- and if you make enough useful (note: USEFUL) playtest comments, you get a book that retails for about $20...) Only 3 files are up right now, but I'm anticipating the others in a week or two. There's no playtest discussion board yet, which will hopefully encourage people to read the material in its entirety first and not post lots of "Hey, X is weird" and then "Oh, I see, X is explained 2 screens down, where that p. 00 reference must be pointing to..." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1343 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.