From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Apr 27 10:55:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.io.com (root@mx2.io.com [199.170.88.18]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03499 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:55:48 -0500 Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by mx2.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22419 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:03:34 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA00188 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:59:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:59:48 -0500 Message-Id: <200004271459.JAA00188@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 #1596 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, April 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1596 In this digest: IN> Theurgy Re: IN> Question about Attunments Re: IN> DC Tethers... Re: IN> Angels of Destruction (Long) Re: IN> Question about Attunments Re: IN> Genealogy Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) Re: Ethereal Song of Tongues artifact (was Re: IN> Animal Language's) IN> Angel of Pain Writeup? Re: IN> Angel of Pain Writeup? Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Re: Ethereal Song of Tongues artifact (was Re: IN> Animal Language's) Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) IN> The Kentucky Story vs. Roanoake Re: IN> Animal Language's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:59:46 +0100 From: "Christopher Lee" Subject: IN> Theurgy Does anyone know anything about Theurgy? I am planning to put together some work on the subject, some historical information and some ideas for In Nomine mechanics. Would people be interested in something like this if it was made available over the Net? I have some pretty serious pagan friends who are intellectual and extremely well-read on pagan subjects who are rooting out information now, anyone know anything else or know anywhere I can go? Christopher Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:01:30 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Question about Attunments At 12:26 -0400 4/26/00, A.Hamilton wrote: >Okay, working on the Angel of Pain, and I've got a question about >Attunements. Say the angel switches servitors, and for whatever reason is >allowed to keep Servitor and Choir attunments for their old Superior, do >they also keep the Dissonance conditions? No. At least, not if they've truly become a Servitor of the new Superior. If they're "in service to" the new one, then they keep their old dissonance, but *don't* get the new one. (Though the new Superior may be greatly annoyed if they violate it, anyway....) Elizabeth's theory (not quite canon yet, as I recall) is that dissonance is tied to a Servitor's Heart. When he switches Superiors, his Heart goes to his new one and is re-attuned, binding him the Superior's dissonance condition, and (normally) giving him his normal Choir/Band attunement. Something I don't think is in canon, but probably should be, is that if you change Superiors, and have Choir/Band Attunements other than your own Choir/Band, these are lost when you are attuned to your new Superior. Servitor Attunements and your own Choir/Band Attunement *may* be kept. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:12:17 -0400 From: "Galen G. Silversmith" Subject: Re: IN> DC Tethers... > Return-Path: Christopher.Lee@virgin.net > >Canonically, there are a lot of tethers in and around Washington, D.C. > >Twelve, at my count. While I guess we all expect a lot of tethers around a > >capitol, it seems like this is a lot... > > Is there any reason why this is a lot? Is there some rule of thumb about > the number of tethers there ought to be in a locality? Is it linked to the > local human population? For example might we expect one per million > people? It is, as you say, entirely based on significance, belief, and age. if a lot of significant things happen in a locailty, there will be a lot of tethers there, if nothing happens, there won;t be many. (as DC has around 1 mil with the surrounding populates, 1 per 100k is more likely. OTOH, if I was running DC, I'd add a lot more tethers, albeit mostly small ones, all over the place. The smithsonian has lots of potential tethers (Air and Space - Jean, National Building Museum to David, the mall to Novalis, National Zoo to Jordi, the national Arboritum to Novalis, various museums to Eli, Kronos, Yves, Kobal, Beleth and Baladine, etc), as do other fixtures (the Pentagon, Bethesda medical center, Naval Surface Weapon Center, Andrew's AFB, White House, congressional office buildings, the Westinghouse/(Intel? motorolla) science competions (transient), the National Institute of Standards in Technology, NIH, lots of colleges, biomed companies, the metro (subway) system, ... the list goes on and on) ). > I want to have around 7 tethers in my In Nomine city, which has around > 750,000 people and is about 1200 years old. Any comments? I'd say too few. its about the size of DC, much older, and probably much more historical import. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:00:15 -0500 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Destruction (Long) > Very nice. Is Cassiel, the Outcast Elohite of Purity, a member > of the Tsayadim -- the die-hards still serving Purity? I thought > those were the only Outcasts of Purity there are, since Uriel > destroyed his servitors when they got too dissonant (never mind > discordant) rather than cast any out. Though I suppose some could > have smashed their Hearts and run away. Cassiel, Elohite of ???? turned Malakite of Purity. We haven't really decided who he served before the Fall, when he turn Mal and joined with Uriel. Possibly no-one, we sort of see Heaven before the Fall as being alot less rigid in terms of strictly defined Superior to Servitor relationships. However he left the service of Purity at the start of the Purity Crusade. No one knows if he associates with the Tsyadim or not but they probably don't like him much. However, Uriel did not strip him of his Distinctions or other attunements. This may have been a matter of priorities at the time or simple an agreement to disagree... A Mal cannot Fall and Uriel may not have wanted to rock the boat at the beginning of the Crusade. (Which none of the AoDe. participated in BTW) I (and Kiara and I are still mulling this one over since it is *her* campaign, I just do alot of footwork) envision him as really almost being at a Superior level in Power but refusing to return to Heaven. Most of the other Superiors assume that he is dead but the other AoDe's know he's not and just don't talk about it. There is also a certain argument among themselves if he *is* still an AoDe or not. Rogziel (The default leader) says he is and Sui'el holds the opinion that he is not. Since they havn't acted as a group in a "Formal Capacity" since before he went Outcast the matter is still up for grabs. The AoDe. are a strange group in Heaven. Almost everyone has forgotten that are still around. Most of the 4th and all of the 5th Gen celestials have never even seen one in action let alone met one (or known that they had) and the old Superiors respect them greatly. Laurence really wants them to start acting in the War again but the AoDe. really seem to be of the opinion that unless direct word from God appears they will not act as a group. Ie. they take thier orders from the Metatron, mayby Gabriel, or the Almighty himself... Not Laurence, not thier Superiors, not the Council. At least, that is, in thier capacity as AoDe. all of them are otherwise well-respected and highly valued members of thier Superiors Words. Saving Cassiel of course and Rogziel... Rogziel and Micheal have had an agreement to disagree for a long time now, and Rogziel has been quietly teaching onn Earth for a long time. As a former Servitor of Yves he is stongly of the opinion that redemption is the way to go in the War, not combat. Aside from training and general support Rogziel has taken himself out the War, and hasn't been seen in Heaven much more often than Gabriel lately. Very-well respected by all of War, but not part of the machine anymore... Micheal is just waiting BTW, he knows Rogziel and figures it's just a matter of time before something peaks his interest enough to make him start to move again. And a new Choir would do just that... David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:20:40 -0400 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Question about Attunments - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: Re: IN> Question about Attunments >Something I don't think is in canon, but probably should be, is that if >you change Superiors, and have Choir/Band Attunements other than your >own Choir/Band, these are lost when you are attuned to your new Superior. >Servitor Attunements and your own Choir/Band Attunement *may* be kept. Well, if the FAQ/Errat is considered Canon then it is. While writing up Ka'ab I got quite familiar with those files. And that was one thing that was clear. Thanks for the reply. >---Walter A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:18:44 -0500 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> Genealogy > Speaking of "firstborn" and generations of angels, who exactly > created the various Superiors? I get the impression from the > GMG that only a handful of angels were actually created directly > by God, but it isn't entirely clear I sort of take the view that only the First Generation were all pretty much created directly by God. In fact that is probably also the defining charactweristic between the 1st and 2nd Gen other than time. I would say that there have been other (very rare) angels that have spontaneously fledged. Another question: Were the Grigori a result of Angelic creation Songs of Creation (implied) or was this a direct Act of God? David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:44:08 +0100 From: "Christopher Lee" Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) The verb forms quoted are all first person singular, present tenses, e.g: cadeo = I fall/I am falling (it is a second conjugation 'E' stem verb). In English we would probably say "a Fallen Angel", rendering fallen by the use of the adjective. This format would work well for Latin, although it is likely it would be slightly modified. It would likely be rendered "angel of the fall". In Latin this would use the noun for fall in the genitive and the noun for an angel in the nominative, so probably Angelus Casi, or Angelus Lapsi. This essentially means "Angel belonging to the Fall". The alternative is to use the adjective. The only adjective for fall I can find is Casus. This might then be Angelus Casus, or Fallen Angel. In terms of verbs I would favour the verb cadere as this has been used variously for fall down, to fall in such as way that one is broken or perishes, to fall as in failing and to fall out. The gerund form (as in the Falling, or the Fall) would be Cadendum. We want the perfect tense third person singular 'he/she/it has fallen'. This is Caduit. So a Fallen Angel would be rendered "Angelus Caduit", meaning "an Angel who has Fallen". Of course there are dozens of other potential words to use but these are a few ideas (and I have added the thinking for any interested parties!) Christopher Lee >At 15:23 -0400 4/25/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>The term "Firstborn" is a title Angels use when describing Michael, >>IMC. It's an honorific and a way to refer to him in the third person. >>I haven't got a good term for pre-fall Angels. I wonder what the >>Latin for "Falling" is.... > >I use the Perseus database (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) which has, among >other things, Greek<->English and Latin<->English databases (look under >"Search Tools"). The Perseus dictionary lookup turned up 295 Latin words >that included "fall" in their definitions. A lot of these aren't relevant, >of course, but there are probably a dozen or so words that would work well. > >Ones I like include "descendo" (from which "descend" comes in English), and >"jaceo" (from which "eject" comes in English). "Jaceo" is especially good >since it includes connotations of being cast out or away, which is true >of the First-Fallen. > >"Cado", which someone else turned up, is also a good choice. The normal >Latin phrase for "sunset" uses that, so it has nice connotations, also, >and it also is used for people falling from a height, from some of the >samples given. > >I'd have to go grub around the Perseus online Latin grammar to get the >correct form for "Fallen" for any of these, though, and I don't have time >for that right now.... > > >---Walter > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:49:24 +0100 From: "Genevieve Cogman" Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) >The gerund form (as in the Falling, or the Fall) would be Cadendum. We want the perfect tense third person singular 'he/she/it has fallen'. This is Caduit. So a Fallen Angel would be rendered "Angelus Caduit", meaning "an Angel who has Fallen". To be pernickety -- not quite. That is the active form of the verb, so you are saying, "the angel has fallen" or "the angel fell" which isn't quite the same as "the angel who has fallen" -- for that you'd probably use the past participle, which just happens to be, yes, casus, meaning "having fallen" or "in a state of having fallen". So we return to your previous "angelus casus". Genevieve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:24:31 -0700 From: "Robert Veneman-Hughes" Subject: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... I was thinking about the state of ethereals and worshippers... Canonically, Ethereals are a lot less powerful today than they once were. What gives? Sure, a much smaller percentage of the population worships Ethereal gods, but is the Essence gods (and archangels, for that matter) recieve based on a proportion? Otherwise, Ethereal Gods should be more powerful now than they ever were. Think about it this way. The first date I could find for a population in Norway was about 850,000 people in 1800. Backtracking a thousand years to the time of the Vikings, it is unlikely that there could have been more than 250,000 people in the whole of the Norse lands - And I think that is a rather high estimate. Now, I'm told that worship of the Norse Gods is relatively popular among the New Age crowd. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than 250,000 people who engage in some sort of Norse-worship today - and thats not to mention things like the 'Mother Goddess.' God almighty, I would expect she personally has several million worshippers - *twice* the population of Ancient Egypt, who supported an entire pantheon. The books say that in the old days Ethereal Gods could take on Archangels with a fraction of the worshippers they may have today... And I'm not even getting into the 1 BILLION some-odd Hindus and *their* gods... Thoughts? Comments? How does this all work out? Fixes? Or is it just some divine arms race? - -Robert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:18:38 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) At 5:27 PM -0400 4/26/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >Ones I like include "descendo" (from which "descend" comes in English), and >"jaceo" (from which "eject" comes in English). "Jaceo" is especially good >since it includes connotations of being cast out or away, which is true >of the First-Fallen. > >"Cado", which someone else turned up, is also a good choice. The normal >Latin phrase for "sunset" uses that, so it has nice connotations, also, >and it also is used for people falling from a height, from some of the >samples given. These are the two I like the best of what you listed, which (if I remember how to maim Latin correctly) could give us Antejaceodian or Antecadodian for our "before the Fall" elder angelic folks. That has a nice ring. And, sadly, sounds like a White Wolf term I just realized. Sigh... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:30:45 -0700 From: "Robert Veneman-Hughes" Subject: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Perhaps someone has noticed this before; I don't know. Canonically, the Purity Crusade ended rather abrubtly around 750 AD when Uriel got hauled to the Higher Heavens. Also canonically, for it says so in the Marches, the Aztec pantheon was one of the most powerful pantheons and one of the hardest hit. Now, I was reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I happened to notice that the people that founded the Aztec Empire didn't even appear until the decline of the Toltecs around the 12th Century, and that it wasn't until 1325 that Tenochtitlán was founded where Mexico City now is. The Britannica tells us that the Aztecs - and presumably their gods - were at the height of their power around 1500, right before everything came crashing down with the arrival of Cortez. So what's going on? Could Uriel travel through time? How could a pantheon that didn't exist be targets of the Purity Crusade? Or, rather, did a tiny bunch of outcasts bring down what the Marches describes as one of the most powerful Ethereal Pantheons? While a time-traveling Uriel is neat, I'm really rather confused... Someone help me clear up this paradox, if you will, either with explanation of something I missed or with a stopgap justification for the destruction of the Aztec gods. - -Robert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:22:19 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... >I was thinking about the state of ethereals and worshippers... > >Canonically, Ethereals are a lot less powerful today than they once were. >What gives? Sure, a much smaller percentage of the population worships >Ethereal gods, but is the Essence gods (and archangels, for that matter) >recieve based on a proportion? Otherwise, Ethereal Gods should be more >powerful now than they ever were. Not to mention the new ethereal gods, personalities based upon perceptions of modern myths, like movie stars for example, and radio personalities especially, I'd say. Is there isn't an Ethereal Elvis (who yet lives), then, man, something's messed up. I really like the post a year or so ago (or something like that) about the Ethereals known as "Jesus Christ", "Mary, Mother of Christ", and "Yahweh", or something like that. Fun stuff. >Think about it this way. The first date I could find for a population in >Norway was about 850,000 people in 1800. Backtracking a thousand years to >the time of the Vikings, it is unlikely that there could have been more >than >250,000 people in the whole of the Norse lands - And I think that is a >rather high estimate. Now, I'm told that worship of the Norse Gods is >relatively popular among the New Age crowd. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised >if there are more than 250,000 people who engage in some sort of >Norse-worship today - Hrm... and thats not to mention things like the 'Mother >Goddess.' God almighty, I would expect she personally has several million >worshippers - *twice* the population of Ancient Egypt, who supported an >entire pantheon. This I believe and support from my personal experience. I'd met *so* many Goddess worshippers. (And I'm dating one too, actually. Probably how I know so many, huh . . . :) The books say that in the old days Ethereal Gods could take >on Archangels with a fraction of the worshippers they may have today... And >I'm not even getting into the 1 BILLION some-odd Hindus and *their* gods... > >Thoughts? Comments? How does this all work out? Fixes? Or is it just some >divine arms race? Of course, many could say that because the Goddess rush is being fueled and supported by the publication of books and other materials, it's a Nybbian plot. I disagree, because the books just don't reek of that "mass media" taint which pervades so many things, at least so far as I can tell. :) I'd say that there's even a new elemental spirit: Money. Some people just *do* seem to be made of it, you know. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/6045/index.html "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Guy Royse Subject: Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... - --- Robert Veneman-Hughes wrote: > Canonically, Ethereals are a lot less powerful today than they once > were. What gives? Sure, a much smaller percentage of the population > worships Ethereal gods, but is the Essence gods (and archangels, for > that matter) recieve based on a proportion? Otherwise, Ethereal Gods > should be more powerful now than they ever were. I agree. By that arguement Ethereals should be more powerful than ever. However, the various forces of Heaven and Hell would also have respectively higher power due to the population growth. Perhaps it is mearly a matter of power ratios.? As far as the Hindu and Buddist thing goes, isn't there a refernce in one of the other books, I can't remeber which, about how those religions confound Celestial because they provide Essence to Ethereals, but allow souls to go to Heaven and Hell? Guy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:29:59 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade >now is. The Britannica tells us that the Aztecs - and presumably their >gods - were at the height of their power around 1500, right before >everything came crashing down with the arrival of Cortez. >So what's going on? Could Uriel travel through time? How could a pantheon >that didn't exist be targets of the Purity Crusade? Poor editing and history checking, I imagine. Hey, I'm guilty of it, too. Or, rather, did a tiny >bunch of outcasts bring down what the Marches describes as one of the most >powerful Ethereal Pantheons? While a time-traveling Uriel is neat, I'm >really rather confused... Bah, humans are falliable, chalk it up to the producers and recognize that the Core Book is wrong, not to mention The Marches and a few others. Hell, the Indians? Hello? Not to mention the Native Americans, Middle and Southern Africans and the entire Eastern Half of the globe. I believe that a large part of the problem is that this game is based upon a French game which is tends to be Franco-centric. In France the 750 date is well suited to describing the local celestial/ethereal interaction. Once you get outside of Europe, however . . . >Someone help me clear up this paradox, if you will, either with explanation >of something I missed or with a stopgap justification for the destruction >of >the Aztec gods. They weren't destroyed by Uriel. They weren't destroyed by Celestials, in fact, but by Essence starvation through lack of direct worship. In fact, they may not be destroyed, especially if they're found new people to worship them, on *other planets* perhaps. Heh heh heh, In Nomine in Space. Alien Life baby, it's why we don't venture beyond the Vale boys and girls. Journeys in the Far Marches can be a *very* bad ideaa. :) Heh heh heh . . . - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/6045/index.html "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:36:32 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... > > Canonically, Ethereals are a lot less powerful today than they once > > were. What gives? Sure, a much smaller percentage of the population > > worships Ethereal gods, but is the Essence gods (and archangels, for > > that matter) recieve based on a proportion? Otherwise, Ethereal Gods > > should be more powerful now than they ever were. > >I agree. By that arguement Ethereals should be more powerful than >ever. However, the various forces of Heaven and Hell would also have >respectively higher power due to the population growth. Perhaps it is >mearly a matter of power ratios.? > >As far as the Hindu and Buddist thing goes, isn't there a refernce in >one of the other books, I can't remeber which, about how those >religions confound Celestial because they provide Essence to Ethereals, >but allow souls to go to Heaven and Hell? IMC, I've considered making Buddhists part of Heaven's forces. As for the Vedic Gods, I've considered pairing them up with AA's, Gabriel/Shiva, Laurence/Vishnu, Brahma/Eli . . . still unsure about Vishnu though. As for the "thousands of Gods", that's just a misnomer for Angels . . . and then there are the Asuras, demons or titans who are sworn enemies of the Vedic Gods. :) - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/6045/index.html "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:43:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Martin Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Whistling in the Dark wrote: [Antecadodian] > And, sadly, sounds like a White Wolf term I just realized. Sigh... You mean, Antediluvian? Most of my "knowledge" is picked up at random and is of dubious quality, but I always thought that antediluvian meant "before the Flood." Also nicely biblical, if so, and actual English too (though somewhat rare nowadays). No reason to be ashamed. - -- I remain, Michael Martin "It is commonly the case with technologies that you can get the best insight about how they work by watching them fail." -- Neal Stephenson, "In the Beginning... Was the Command Line" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:42:54 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade At 6:29 PM -0700 4/26/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >>now is. The Britannica tells us that the Aztecs - and presumably their >>gods - were at the height of their power around 1500, right before >>everything came crashing down with the arrival of Cortez. >>So what's going on? Could Uriel travel through time? How could a pantheon >>that didn't exist be targets of the Purity Crusade? > >Poor editing and history checking, I imagine. Hey, I'm guilty of it, too. Actually, there's a seed that's a potential fix. Granted, it doesn't fully fit, but it *is* there. It was mentioned that Uriel was actually able to find a way to travel the Far Marches and destroy the Protogods who were about to rise, as well as the ones who had. So it's possible there never *was* a complete Aztec pantheon thanks to Uriel's intercession. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:55:28 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) At 6:43 PM -0700 4/26/00, Michael Martin wrote: >On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >[Antecadodian] > > And, sadly, sounds like a White Wolf term I just realized. Sigh... > >You mean, Antediluvian? Most of my "knowledge" is picked up at random and >is of dubious quality, but I always thought that antediluvian meant >"before the Flood." Also nicely biblical, if so, and actual English too >(though somewhat rare nowadays). No reason to be ashamed. I was actually going for something along the lines of "Antebellium," which I just misspelled, and which refers to the pre-Civil War South. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:17:42 +1000 From: Brent McCartney Subject: Re: Ethereal Song of Tongues artifact (was Re: IN> Animal Language's) I think that an intelligence roll would be much more appropriate, especially one made behind the GMs screen so that the players aren't aware whether they have misunderstood or not. This would require some good role playing on behalf of the panther player but it could be amusing. Our GM for a long running Deadlands campaign does this kind of thing all the time for sneak rolls and the like so we have no idea whether or not we have succeeded, we just think we have. Let me assure you in some situations this leads to the dreaded phrases (at least for me) of "High Jinks abound" or "Mayhem Ensues" Gets very scary sometimes Brent >Now that I think about >it, would an Intelligence roll be more appropriate? Misunderstandings can lead >to funny situations, believe me! Again, it is NOT CANON. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:23:18 +1000 From: Brent McCartney Subject: IN> Angel of Pain Writeup? I forgot who did the original post about the Angel of Pain but would it be possible to post a complete writeup on the angel cause I definitely like Laurent's idea for the campaign seeds and want to see if I can get a group together to play this one through. Any help would be appreciated Brent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:44:25 -0400 From: "A.Hamilton" Subject: Re: IN> Angel of Pain Writeup? >I forgot who did the original post about the Angel of Pain but would it be >possible to post a complete writeup on the angel cause I definitely like >Laurent's idea for the campaign seeds and want to see if I can get a group >together to play this one through. > >Any help would be appreciated *Grin* Done. I sent the complete writeup to the list about..oh about 5 hours ago. Look for the title: Ka'ab, Angel of Pain (Long). OF course that's my 'first draft' of the angel. And the firs time I've tried my hand at making powerful NPC for the IN game so criticism would be /really/ appreciated. Oh, and I'd love to know what changes you make for your campaign and how things go. > >Brent A.Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:54:30 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Aztecs and the Purity Crusade Robert Veneman-Hughes wrote: > > Perhaps someone has noticed this before; I don't know. Yup. > Someone help me clear up this paradox, if you will, either with explanation > of something I missed or with a stopgap justification for the destruction of > the Aztec gods. The Aztec gods were around for a long time before the height of the Aztec empire. The Purity Crusade wiped them out (for the most part), but the survivors sought refuge with Beleth. This had two effects: (1) A lot of Aztecs were worshipping long-dead deities (and perhaps creating shadow spirits with their worship). (2) The deities who were still around were a pretty nasty lot, hence the nastiness of the Aztec empire. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:56:32 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Suggestions for adjucating Ethereals... Robert Veneman-Hughes wrote: > > Canonically, Ethereals are a lot less powerful today than they once > > were. What gives? Sure, a much smaller percentage of the population > > worships Ethereal gods, but is the Essence gods (and archangels, for > > that matter) recieve based on a proportion? Otherwise, Ethereal Gods > > should be more powerful now than they ever were. It's not a simple mathematical equation. More worshippers does help, but the power of a god (or a celestial Word) won't necessarily increase at the same geometric curve as a population increase. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:55:33 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: Ethereal Song of Tongues artifact (was Re: IN> Animal Language's) > I think that an intelligence roll would be much more appropriate I agree. I'll do that, then. Thanks. <<< especially one made behind the GMs screen so that the players aren't aware whether they have isunderstood or not. This would require some good role playing on behalf of the panther player but it could be amusing. >>> Yeah, something like that happened the last time: failed roll with a CD of 6!!! There was a BIG misunderstanding, believe me... > this leads to the dreaded phrases (at least for me) of "High Jinks abound" or "Mayhem Ensues" Have to write these down. It's not the kind of stuff you learn in school (more like "Do you speak French?" and "your flowers are beautiful") or even talk about at work... Thanks, Laurent (learning new words every day). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:03:01 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) >> The gerund form (as in the Falling, or the Fall) would be Cadendum. > To be pernickety -- not quite. (...) So we return to your previous "angelus casus". hrm, am I the only person on this list who doesn't speak Latin?!? If yes, I have a piece of text that I would like to translate in Latin. Help, anybody? The text in question is a part of the Book of Nod (Vampire). It's the one game I'd really like to mix with IN. Whistling in the Dark will probably not like it... sorry. Laurent. PS: Genevieve, how many languages do you speak?!? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:13:10 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Firstborn (was Angel of Pain) At 10:03 AM +0100 4/27/00, Laurent wrote: > >> The gerund form (as in the Falling, or the Fall) would be Cadendum. > > To be pernickety -- not quite. (...) So we return to your previous "angelus >casus". > >hrm, am I the only person on this list who doesn't speak Latin?!? If >yes, I have >a piece of text that I would like to translate in Latin. Help, >anybody? The text >in question is a part of the Book of Nod (Vampire). It's the one >game I'd really >like to mix with IN. Whistling in the Dark will probably not like it... sorry. Er? I have no agenda for mixing your games, sir. Enjoy -- mix and match! Let loose the Dogs of War (and Flowers!) I just realized that the term I was trying to develop for the most ancient of Angels was very close to the term that WW had for its most ancient of Vampires, and decided that wasn't the best direction to go, personally. So, the quest for terminology proceeds apace. >Laurent. > >PS: Genevieve, how many languages do you speak?!? Genevieve is all knowing. She is the Fount from which good things spring. And somehow, if you put her, Em and Beth into the same room, Neil Gaiman appears and starts doing deep level Triple Goddess imagry. But then, Neil Gaiman's been known to spontaneously evoke deep level Triple Goddess imagry while at a Maple Leafs game. Clearly, I didn't get enough sleep last night. - -- 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: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:54:59 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: IN> The Kentucky Story vs. Roanoake In a message dated 4/18/00 8:40:30 AM, amadan@amadan.org writes: >Guy Royse wrote: >> Actualy the citizens of Roankoke were force marched by Native Americans >> to Kentucky where they were executed. That's why many Native >> American's during colonial times stayed away from Kentucky, it was haunted. > >Where did you get this? > >-David > (This came across the list a while ago, but I've been running behind): It's actually a corruption of two different stories, sort of comingled. The first, older story was told to me by a Native American friend, and I'm prettying it up for public consumption: Many years ago, before the dying times (read: Smallpox epidemics), the land of Kentucky was the most desireable land of all, with plentiful hunting, good soil for crops, and clean water. But it was inhabited by a strange people, unlike those of the Five Nations. Their hair was the color of corn silk, and their eyes were the color of the sky, and they spoke a strange tongue. The people of the Five Nations decided that it wasn't right that these strangers should have the best land, and conspired together to take it. All of the tribes of the nations participated, and things quickly got out of hand. Eventually, there were no survivors among the strangers, and their deaths were a great shame. In the end, the Nations decided that the land would be left empty, as a reminder that greed could destroy a nation, and the ghosts of the dead walked in the hills of Kentucky. Of course, this legend is placed *long* before Roanoake Colony was established, so I'm fairly certain that Guy's friend is mixing his stories. The Roanoake colony was actually a victim of disease, malnutrition, and settlers 'going native' according to the best interpretation I've seen recently. Of course, what does this have to do with In Nomine? I'm wondering if a dark version would have Yves taking a direct hand in the destruction of whoever it was in Kentucky, to ensure that the United States would eventually happen... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:12:05 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Animal Language's At 10:32 PM -0500 4/24/00, David Rodemaker wrote: >> Urm.... I think that I'm _really_ leaning to canon being: "Only Jordi's >> get to do the Dr. Doolittle trick." [...] >> I can't help but feel that if any old angel could do that, it would >> devalue the schtick of the Servitors of Animals. > >After some re-reading of the Rulebook I would have to agree myself. I, for >some reason, thought that Jordi's people had more than the communication >thing as thier Choir attunement. Nope -- only the Kyriotates get the extra bennie of being able to do insects. (Other Choirs might be able to get a bug vessel from Jordi, mind. If they served him, that is. But that's not really an attunement.) >[...] I also don't see Jordi being >real unwilling to hand this one out if the Angel in question is working with >the animal group alot, respects them, etc, etc. Big "if" there, actually! To hand it out to an angel of another Word, Jordi'd certainly want dedication to animals equal to that of his own Servitors... >How about for the Virtuoso? GM's call, utterly. The GM decides when a Virtuoso can modify a Song and when the proposed modifications are too great and should be a Song unto themselves. (I.e., I'd have to do a lot of reading of the Song to be modified, understand really well what the desired modifications were, and think about it... I'll let other people do that instead. O:> ) >What is the essence cost for Celestial Song of Form to change species? Well, for changing _apparent_ species... 1 for 10% of size difference, 1 for bone shape differences, 1 for fur, 1 for things like teeth and claws, 1 for a tail, and maybe another 1 thrown in for anything I forgot... Or so I'd probably rule, at least not reading the Song at the moment and working from memory. >Why? Doesn't seem to make much sense for Jordi to actively keep other >Celestials from being able to interact with animals. Does this seem as off >the wall to everyone else as it does to me? Jordi gets a lot of his power from being a "swing vote" -- mildly grouchy at almost everyone, but just approachable enough to play politics. Being too free with Songs he's discovered would weaken that stance (at least in his mind), and besides -- if it should fall into the hands of some of the more incomprehensibly-humanocentric Archangels, well, who _knows_ what perversions they might inflict on the Word of Animals?? For other reasonings, may I direct your attention to the GMG, where it discusses Word-shift. Whether Jordi's passed up opportunities to expand his Word or not (and really, when there are umpty billion different species of beetle, how can one say that Animals _needs_ expanding?), he certainly won't want to risk a Word-shift that he's not in total control of. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap and no computer desk -- the keyboard shares the lap, and the trackball sits on a pile of GURPS books. I want the computer desk back! Moving is a hassle. (PS: may be typing with 1 hand, or even toe! Please forgive capitalization.) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1596 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.