From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri May 12 09:09:35 2000 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 JAA21129 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:09:35 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA13985 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:07:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:07:13 -0500 Message-Id: <200005121407.JAA13985@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 #1623 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 Friday, May 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1623 In this digest: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Angels IN> Speaking of updates needed on the SJG IN web pages.... Re: IN> Jack Chick In Nomine Re: IN> Jack Chick In Nomine Re: IN> Quick Question Re: IN> Quick Question Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue IN> Novalis' Celestial Form Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) IN> Red Roses Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Re: IN> New Angels Re: IN> S3's Cover Art (Funky Mushrooms? You decide!) Re: IN> Quick Question IN> translation Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) Re: IN> Oh Wow! 'New' IN Products? Re: IN> translation Re: IN> Quick Question Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) Re: IN> translation Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Re: IN> translation Re: IN> Quick Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:41:03 -0400 From: neelk@cswcasa.com Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > The image of Malakite Novalis's new celestial form, with black > wings, brings up the question of her current celestial form. > It isn't described. (Nor is that of almost any other Superior.) > > Since she's a cherub, it's presumably an animal-based form. > Since she's the AA of Flowers, I proposed that Novalis's > celestial form is a bumble-bee the size of a cart horse, > wreathed about with green and pink haloes. IMC, Novalis's celestial form was a lion about the size of an elephant, with flowers blooming wherever one of her feet touched the ground, followed by a great host of wild beasts of all types. Anyone looking at her can tell that she's obviously strong enough to rip apart continents, and ferocious enough that no one could stop her if she wanted to -- but she -chooses- otherwise. One thing that's always bugged me is the portrayal of angels of flowers as fragile, ethereal beings who couldn't possibibly cope with the rigours of Real Life. I prefer thinking of them as Tolstoyan pacifists, crazy-faithful idealists who are just as capable of a valiant martyrdom as any angel of Michael -- except that instead of charging machine gun nests they lie down in front of tanks and sing spirituals as the war machines roll over them. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:25:26 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) At 2:42 PM -0400 5/11/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 12:18 PM -0500 5/11/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Since she's the AA of Flowers, I proposed that Novalis's > >celestial form is a bumble-bee the size of a cart horse, > >wreathed about with green and pink haloes. > > I liked the idea of a predator, though... >Giant ladybug! Do people here read Kevin and Kell? They have this domesticated Daisy that wags its back leaf as a tail -- make it twenty feet tall with leaves for wings.... - -- 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: 11 May 2000 23:18:51 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) you raise an interesting point, Earl, and prompt a question, too: your phrases "since [Novalis] is a cherub" and "since she's the AA of Flowers" got me thinking: does the Word of a Superior influence how the Superior appears? percieving Novalis as a huge bumble bee sounds eminently reasonable to me, when she's not appearing as a human; your evaluations of Blandine (i'm favoring the luna moth) and Christopher seem pretty spot on, too. we know Gabriel prefers appearing as a human female, and Dominic shrouds himself in his cloak; David goes about naked. beyond these snippets, we're not given much information about how the Superiors appear, though i recall from the playtest version that Michael would never countenance appearing as human or being thought of in human terms--something i personally miss in the canon version of the game, since it makes so much sense from a celestial point of view. -=|horsefly|=- God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:35:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) At 3:41 PM -0400 5/11/00, neelk@cswcasa.com wrote: >One thing that's always bugged me is the portrayal of angels of >flowers as fragile, ethereal beings who couldn't possibibly cope >with the rigours of Real Life. Tried http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html ? O:> - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:26:41 -0500 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> New Angels > >Come to think of it do we have any ideas as to the ratio of newly > >created angels to fledged relievers as they are being created now? > > I sure don't, anf I;m probably going to (officially) keep it that > way... O;> So y'all have fun with the notion... Yeah, it's one of those really interesting bits of background... Kiara's maijn campaign has all the angels as newly created 9 Force Angels sent to earth for an "unbiased" view of the War... and things rapidly went downhill. I *think* that Kiara has fledging as the more common method of creating new celestials. But I'm not sure and the idea appeals to me so I'm biased. I just thought it was a rather interesting question. The Other David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:18:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Speaking of updates needed on the SJG IN web pages.... On : http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/upcoming.html is the elucidating text:a Each year will bring a different In Nomine Cycle, and each Cycle is a new storyline. I suspect that this is not strictly true :) (I remember reading this very same bit of text right after "Night Music" was released.) - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:36:24 -0500 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Jack Chick In Nomine Heh...that is sorta like a thought I had last Halloween...I leaned over to a friend of mine during service and said, "wouldn't it be funny as heck if some dude walked in dressed up like the Devil?" Then I leaned over and sat there straight faced while he tried to keep from busting out laughing *g*. But I figure if I asked the preacher that he'd probably stage an intervention or something *G*. As to why I still go there, I'm brainwashed by them *G* Of course we are right! Don't you want to have a nice long discussion about it...I'm sure I could get you to see that my way is right *G*! It's not quite as bad as I first made it seem *G* The preacher is the main one, and he gets easier to ignore day by day *LOL*(what's funnier...he looks just like Newman from Seinfeild...only his hair is different *G*). Plus, somebody has to fight the good fight, Right? I've seriously considered writing my Preacher up as a Habbalite of Malphas just for the heck of it *G*....Heh...I guess I'd have a ready made char for him to play *LOL* Ben Chism Balseraph of Malphas (see I do fit in *G*) > I'd like to see your preacher's reaction when you ask him if he wants to play an > IN game... "hem... is it okay if you play a demon?" > > ~:D > > Laurent. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:58:31 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Jack Chick In Nomine Driving through the lovely city of Dover today, I passed by a van. A moving consultants van. "Jack Chick Moving Consultants," to be exact. This is truth. Its meaning, I do not know. Unless, of course, Kobal has invested in the moving industry. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:46:51 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Quick Question Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Hmmmm... I could have sworn answer was "no" in APG, but can't find the > ref on a once-over. I don't recall any such thing. I believe John is right; undead are humans, ergo, Kyriotates can possess them. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:47:33 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Quick Question Our spies report that on 09:46 PM 5/11/00 -0500, David Edelstein said: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > Hmmmm... I could have sworn answer was "no" in APG, but can't find the > > ref on a once-over. > >I don't recall any such thing. I believe John is right; undead are >humans, ergo, Kyriotates can possess them. > >-David It might be interesting in a campaign to speculate that the binding of spirit to flesh is to tight in the case of undead to allow it. That's completely speculative and not at all related to published rules. Of course, you have to be very careful...leaving someone in a worse position than you found them can be very easy when it's another PC! Dissonance...ouch....and then you end up with a Shedite. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:07:28 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) From: Jo Hart > > I suspect Sexism might be quite a new word. For most of human existence, the > concept of it being bad to treat different genders differently just didn't > really exist. It just happened and was accepted. > i'd agree that it's a probably a new word, but i'd still argue it's a powerful one. not demon-prince-powerful, but powerful all the same (i suspect the various -isms all have demons of malphas attached to them, they're probably the young turks of the organisation) liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:15:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Okay, Beth; you got me. I laughed. > wooden sword and piping, 'die, evil!'> Ow. I think I got > your anurism from yesterday. > > And _baby pictures_... Owowowowowow. > Every now and again, Michael would drag him to the Groves, to try to teach him how to smoke cigars and swear... O. ===== ** Lead Playtester for Storyteller: The Colon ** ** I minored in behavioral psychology. Tragic irony and human suffering are just hobbies. ** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:18:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: IN> Novalis' Celestial Form > IMC, Novalis's celestial form was a lion about the size of > an elephant, with flowers blooming wherever one of her feet > touched the ground, followed by a great host of wild beasts > of all types. Anyone looking at her can tell that she's > obviously strong enough to rip apart continents, and ferocious > enough that no one could stop her if she wanted to -- but > she -chooses- otherwise. Just a guess, but have you ever read any C.S. Lewis...? :) O. ===== ** Lead Playtester for Storyteller: The Colon ** ** I minored in behavioral psychology. Tragic irony and human suffering are just hobbies. ** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:43:11 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) > Novalis's celestial form is a bumble-bee the size of a cart horse > I liked the idea of a predator, though... Giant ladybug! What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: IN> Red Roses > Tried http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html ? > O:> > Excellent. Thanks for the heads-up. O. ===== ** Lead Playtester for Storyteller: The Colon ** ** I minored in behavioral psychology. Tragic irony and human suffering are just hobbies. ** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:15:44 -0500 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue Can't you just see Novalis breaking out the Baby pics to piss Laurence off...*G* See here he is with his little sword taking a bath *LOL*. Then imagine Kobal getting ahold of them...... Ben Chism > > > wooden sword and piping, 'die, evil!'> Ow. I think I got > > your anurism from yesterday. > > > > And _baby pictures_... Owowowowowow. > > > > Every now and again, Michael would drag him to the Groves, > to try to teach him how to smoke cigars and swear... > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:39:08 EDT From: "Angela Smythe" Subject: Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > Hmmmm... I could have sworn answer was "no" in APG, but can't find the > > ref on a once-over. > >I don't recall any such thing. I believe John is right; undead are >humans, ergo, Kyriotates can possess them. > >-David > Does that mean that Kyriotates (and by extension Shedim) could possess saints? They have vessels, but are still Human. They have dreamscapes, but are Celestial Spirits. Thanks again for all the replies. Angela ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:40:04 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue - --On Fri, May 12, 2000 1:15 AM -0700 "O. S. Kerr" wrote: > Okay, Beth; you got me. I laughed. > >> > wooden sword and piping, 'die, evil!'> Ow. I think I got >> your anurism from yesterday. >> >> And _baby pictures_... Owowowowowow. >> > > Every now and again, Michael would drag him to the Groves, > to try to teach him how to smoke cigars and swear... > Always two, there are. A master, and an apprentice.... Marc. Just Marc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:40:51 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) - --On Fri, May 12, 2000 9:43 AM +0100 Laurent wrote: >> Novalis's celestial form is a bumble-bee the size of a cart horse >> I liked the idea of a predator, though... Giant ladybug! > > What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. > I'd just taken it for granted that all AAs knew the Words. Marc. Just Marc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:53:35 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue - --On Fri, May 12, 2000 4:15 AM -0500 Ben Chism wrote: > Can't you just see Novalis breaking out the Baby pics to piss > Laurence off...*G* > See here he is with his little sword taking a bath *LOL*. Then > imagine Kobal getting ahold of them...... > "Hey, Laurence, have you seen these new billboards for the Fisher-Price baby essentials line?" Marc. Just Marc. (Oh, like Kobal *wouldn't*.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:28:15 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> New Angels >Question: Can Angels be newly created with more than 9 Forces? I'd say yes. But it probably costs a LOT of Essence to begin with, so just isn't -done- all that often. >How common would everyone think such angels would be? >> Your game, your numbers. (I believe the GMG has some stuff about the numbers of angels in a campaign. Yes, I NEED that book badly. . . I'm going on mostly the playtest info.)<< Actually, my game, my numbers. And most of the angels in my game fledge. It's rare to have them crated whole cloth. Ki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:34:54 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> S3's Cover Art (Funky Mushrooms? You decide!) At 2:08 PM -0700 5/11/00, Matthew W. wrote: >>Still, it is my dream that someday a cover will have _IN_ demons >>on it, instesd of "ugly suckers" demons. *sigh* > >To be fair, none of the books have featured IN angels correctly either, >if I remember correctly. The Cycle books did okay -- sort of. I mean, where they had Malakim, they had black wings... And I suppose the IPG had a decent IN Calabite. (If you discount the bodybuilder suit. *twitch* ) And anybody can crank out something that looks like a Mercurian. >On the other hand, those guys look like pretty good candidates for >Calabim in my book. Mmmmm... Not my model of them, I guess. Now, what I'd really like to see would be some Djinn, or Habbalah, or a Balseraph. Oh, mm, a Shedite. That would make me happy. - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:34:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Quick Question At 9:46 PM -0500 5/11/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> Hmmmm... I could have sworn answer was "no" in APG, but can't find the >> ref on a once-over. > >I don't recall any such thing. I believe John is right; undead are >humans, ergo, Kyriotates can possess them. Hm. Except that there's a comment that, physically, undead _are_ dead. No metabolic processes at all. (That's the CPG.) If a Kyriotate can't possess a corpse, then why an undead? Or does it get wonkier -- do they get to take over mummies and vampires, but not zombis? (Note: I'm not making a ruling either way, since I can't find that snippet that I thought existed. Man, I hate it when my books get side-shifted in the universes. It's almost as bad as when _I_ get side-shifted.) I guess I'm reacting to the notion that they could take a zombi -- especially one created via the Zombi attunement, like Marcus' cat. On the other other hand, being inside a zombi would probably be about as disgusting to the Kyriotate as the time the Kyrio of Destiny possessed a Remnant! (I ruled (*), for the twitch-value, that the Kyrio of Destiny attunement doesn't work on Remnants. (Izzit canon? No. It's just my suggestion.) It was quite nicely freaked out and in fact depossessed the person quickly. It did possss him again later, but with much in-character "ick!"ing.) (* Maya was co-GMing and I don't remember which of us suggested that the attunement shouldn't work on a Remnant, but I think we were both fairly enthusiastic about it... (Maya, am I right, or am I side-slipped again?)) - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:28:20 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: IN> translation Among all the linguists on the list, would anybody know how to translate a "Tether" in French ? The best I could come up with was "Temple"... Laurent. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:48:37 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue At 1:15 AM -0700 5/12/00, O. S. Kerr wrote: >Okay, Beth; you got me. I laughed. >> > wooden sword and piping, 'die, evil!'> Ow. I think I got >> your anurism from yesterday. >> And _baby pictures_... Owowowowowow. > >Every now and again, Michael would drag him to the Groves, >to try to teach him how to smoke cigars and swear... Owwwww. (Or, to quote a .sig -- "Ow. Quit it. Ow. Quit it. Ow.") You know, even if Laurence was created a Malakite, Kobal _still_ ought to spread the rumor that he wasn't, precisely so he could get together with Nybbas and manufacture babypictures. Hm. They'd probably have to kidnap a reliever to get the pictures looking right, and convince the reliever to want to fledge Malakite (if it didn't already, and if you're using the highly optional notion that relievers begin to manifest elements of their Choir-to-be before they fledge)... Um, is this turning into a potential plot seed? - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:42:02 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) At 7:40 AM -0400 5/12/00, Marc Bowden wrote: > >>> Novalis's celestial form is a bumble-bee the size of a cart horse >> What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. > > I'd just taken it for granted that all AAs knew the Words. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Curse it, where are the Habbalah when one needs them??? - --Beth, in PAIN, I tell you, PAIN! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:43:14 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) At 7:39 AM -0400 5/12/00, Angela Smythe wrote: >Does that mean that Kyriotates (and by extension Shedim) could possess >saints? Oh, them, sure. They're not celestial spirits -- they're human souls who've been to Heaven. Big difference. (And Kyriotates can definitely possess other celestials' vessels -- that _is_ in the APG!) - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:46:01 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Oh Wow! 'New' IN Products? At 1:26 PM -0400 5/11/00, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: [Re the IN demonic jewelry] >I also note there's no Habbalah pin.. Yeah, it's not finished yet -- it was very complex and apparently the pin-izer is having trouble coming up with a version of the icon in the IPG that both is capable of being done in metal and looks good. The Mercurian pin was similiarly delayed for quite some time. - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:10:35 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> translation - --On Fri, May 12, 2000 1:28 PM +0100 Laurent wrote: > Among all the linguists on the list, would anybody know how to > translate a "Tether" in French ? > The best I could come up with was "Temple"... > > Laurent. > > How close in sense would "conduit" be? Marc. Just Marc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:15:51 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Quick Question Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 9:46 PM -0500 5/11/00, David Edelstein wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> Hmmmm... I could have sworn answer was "no" in APG, but can't find the > >> ref on a once-over. > > > >I don't recall any such thing. I believe John is right; undead are > >humans, ergo, Kyriotates can possess them. > > Hm. Except that there's a comment that, physically, undead _are_ dead. > No metabolic processes at all. (That's the CPG.) If a Kyriotate can't > possess a corpse, then why an undead? Or does it get wonkier -- do > they get to take over mummies and vampires, but not zombis? Well, yes, they are technically dead. But they are still human in that their body can still house a (admittedly twisted) human soul. Only the truly dead bodies are incapable of this. Of course, this brings up the question of what happens to their soul when possessed? I can go one of several ways on this one: 1) They go 'unconscious' since undead don't have dreamscapes... but then again, neither do celestials 2) They wind up in the Marches, except the undead is naked (i.e. without the protection of a dreamscape)... essentially using the same rules as a celestial but without the possibility of exiting the Ethereal plane in another vessel 3) They are still in the body, unable to affect things, but are still conscious of what is going on since they are too tightly bound to the flesh. This seems the least acceptable, since it presumes a lot of stuff. I could go for either 1 or 2, tending toward 1. 2 has the advantage that it modifies canon much less. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:48:37 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Celestial blue At 1:15 AM -0700 5/12/00, O. S. Kerr wrote: >Okay, Beth; you got me. I laughed. >> > wooden sword and piping, 'die, evil!'> Ow. I think I got >> your anurism from yesterday. >> And _baby pictures_... Owowowowowow. > >Every now and again, Michael would drag him to the Groves, >to try to teach him how to smoke cigars and swear... Owwwww. (Or, to quote a .sig -- "Ow. Quit it. Ow. Quit it. Ow.") You know, even if Laurence was created a Malakite, Kobal _still_ ought to spread the rumor that he wasn't, precisely so he could get together with Nybbas and manufacture babypictures. Hm. They'd probably have to kidnap a reliever to get the pictures looking right, and convince the reliever to want to fledge Malakite (if it didn't already, and if you're using the highly optional notion that relievers begin to manifest elements of their Choir-to-be before they fledge)... Um, is this turning into a potential plot seed? - --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.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:22:23 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) At 7:07 PM +0100 5/11/00, Liam Astley wrote: >From: Jo Hart > > > > I suspect Sexism might be quite a new word. For most of human existence, >the > > concept of it being bad to treat different genders differently just didn't > > really exist. It just happened and was accepted. > > > >i'd agree that it's a probably a new word, but i'd still argue it's a >powerful one. not demon-prince-powerful, but powerful all the same (i >suspect the various -isms all have demons of malphas attached to them, >they're probably the young turks of the organisation) The other possibility is that the Infernal Word that means "To Treat Women Differently From Men Unfairly" has been around for quite a while. There have been Feminist Movements (of a sort or variety) for millenia -- it didn't start with Mary Wollstonecraft's essays or even Queen Elizabeth I's. I would argue that the Word of Sexism has become much *more* powerful in the last hundred and fifty to two hundred years, as widespread Western debate has grown. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:33:54 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> translation Laurent wrote: > > Among all the linguists on the list, would anybody know how to translate a > "Tether" in French ? > The best I could come up with was "Temple"... IIRC the Liber Castellorum mentioned translations. Can't remember what it suggested, though. Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:43:26 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) >From: Whistling in the Dark >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >I would argue that the Word of Sexism has become much *more* powerful >in the last hundred and fifty to two hundred years, as widespread >Western debate has grown. > But probably not as powerful as the word ofanti-sexism. Discuss :) jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:44:51 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) >>> What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. >> I'd just taken it for granted that all AAs knew the Words. > --Beth, in PAIN, I tell you, PAIN! That's it, you lost me guys. Your replies don't make any sense to me. I'm suddenly wondering wether or not I used the right word here. By "hummingbird", I meant this cute little bird that uses its long beak to gather pollen from flowers. If I'm wrong, what's the right name? And what does "hummingbird" mean? I NEED to watch more nature programs... Laurent. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:53:52 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Cool Lilith Quote (sociology rant - long) Whistling in the Dark wrote: > The other possibility is that the Infernal Word that means "To Treat > Women Differently From Men Unfairly" has been around for quite a > while. There have been Feminist Movements (of a sort or variety) for > millenia -- it didn't start with Mary Wollstonecraft's essays or even > Queen Elizabeth I's. This is the tack that I was suggesting. To point out a recent example in China, for centuries there has been a secret "Women's Language" with its own writing system and spoken form. It was invented by women to share ideas and to complain about oppression from men and society in general. The commies decided that any secret language was prima facie evidence that they were spies and had all the known speakers executed and burned all the writings they could find. One of the last speakers of the language died recently which is sending linguists into a tizzy as they try to study it and translate the remaining writings. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:02:26 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Possession (was Quick Question) Angela Smythe wrote: > Does that mean that Kyriotates (and by extension Shedim) could possess > saints? They have vessels, but are still Human. They have dreamscapes, but > are Celestial Spirits. Kyriotates, yes. Shedim are debatable. Shedim can't possess celestials (whereas Kyriotates can), and the resonance of a Shedite only allows it to possess something it can corrupt. I'd say a good argument can be made that anything that has a vessel is not subject to Shedite possession. This would be especially true of undead (with the exception of Shedim of Death), because their souls are already gone -- there's nothing to corrupt. Saints have already achieved their destinies and are Blessed souls (although there is CDaU speculation about whether or not a Saint can "Fall"), so I'd be inclined to say a Shedite can't possess them either. Even if Saints could be possessed, no Shedite is going to want such a resistant Host. (Remember they are all Blessed, which means they get to double their Will *every time* they resist the Shedite's urgings!) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:56:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Laurent wrote: > That's it, you lost me guys. Your replies don't make any sense to > me. I'm suddenly wondering wether or not I used the right word > here. Surely you've heard that hummingbirds hum because they don't know the Words? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:58:45 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) Laurent wrote: > > >>> What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. > >> I'd just taken it for granted that all AAs knew the Words. > > --Beth, in PAIN, I tell you, PAIN! > > That's it, you lost me guys. Your replies don't make any sense to me. I'm > suddenly wondering wether or not I used the right word here. > By "hummingbird", I meant this cute little bird that uses its long beak to > gather pollen from flowers. If I'm wrong, what's the right name? And what does > "hummingbird" mean? That's exactly what it means. But what's something people do when they can't remember enough of the words to a song to sing it properly, hmmmmm? =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:01:23 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) >From: "Laurent" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> New Heretic Superior (Yup, another one) >Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:44:51 +0100 > > >>> What about a hummingbird? Seems appropriate for a Cherub of Flowers. > >> I'd just taken it for granted that all AAs knew the Words. > > --Beth, in PAIN, I tell you, PAIN! > >That's it, you lost me guys. Your replies don't make any sense to me. I'm >suddenly wondering wether or not I used the right word here. >By "hummingbird", I meant this cute little bird that uses its long beak to >gather pollen from flowers. If I'm wrong, what's the right name? And what >does >"hummingbird" mean? > Laurent, you are quite right. A hummingbird is a small colourful tropical bird with a long bill -- some of them are so agile in the air that they can fly backwards. The humming sound is made by the very fast wingbeats. There is a very old pun that goes: Q: Why do humming birds hum? A: Because they don't know the words. That's what the others were referring to. ie. you didn't miss much :) jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:04:00 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: IN> translation >> Among all the linguists on the list, would anybody know how to >> translate a "Tether" in French ? >> The best I could come up with was "Temple"... > > How close in sense would "conduit" be? Well, "conduit" is usually a kind of big pipe an element from point A to point B. Stuff like air, water, petrol, etc. I've never really focused on what Tethers really are, but I would rather think of a kind of gateway inside a building. I thought "portail" (= gateway) would be good, but the "building" part is missing. Thus my current translation with "Temple". Actually, how does it work? Does a Celestial automatically take celestial form whenever it walks through the gate? (and ascend to Celestial plane)? Laurent. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:13:14 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Quick Question Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Hm. Except that there's a comment that, physically, undead _are_ dead. > No metabolic processes at all. (That's the CPG.) If a Kyriotate can't > possess a corpse, then why an undead? Or does it get wonkier -- do > they get to take over mummies and vampires, but not zombis? Neither Shedim nor Kyriotates are concerned with metabolic processes. They're concerned with the "animating spirit" of what they possess. The way I see it, Kyriotates can possess anything that can be animated by Will. Vessels and bodies are the same to them, just hosts waiting for them to fill them (and displace whatever is animating them at the time). An argument _could_ be made that this would exclude Zombis, yes, since a Zombi is essentially an inanimate object animated by necromancy, not Will. Essentially an organic robot. (That means a Kyriotate of Lightning could probably possess a Zombi -- "Eeeewwwww!!!!") Shedim can only possess things they can *corrupt* and push toward their fate, which requires a self-aware entity with free will. That's why animals are off-limits to them, and celestials as well (celestials *are* corruptible, but the process is more linear for them -- "dissonance" = corruption, and for a Shedite to just hop into their body and make them do dissonant things wouldn't constitute a truly dissonant action). So I'd say Shedim can't possess undead (except for Shedim of Death), and probably not Saints either. Nor ethereal spirits or anything else that is a vessel, not a true body. I think the simplest interpretation is to say that Shedim can possess MORTALS, period. - -David ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1623 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.