From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 17 15:56:26 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 PAA02281 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:56:26 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA18003 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:55:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:55:04 -0500 Message-Id: <200007172055.PAA18003@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 #1716 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 Monday, July 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1716 In this digest: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store IN> More Grigori speculations (was: News from the Gaming Store) Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> Hearts (And a little bit more) Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Fwd: Re: IN> Undead in In Nomine Fwd: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Fwd: Re: IN>News from the Gamming store front Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> Hearts (And a little bit more) Re: Fwd: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> GURPS-IN and material for IN Re: IN> Hearts. Re: IN> Master of Divine Knowledge (WAS: in_nomine-digest V1 #1709) Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> In nomine timeline IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> In nomine timeline Re: IN> Master of Divine Knowledge (WAS: in_nomine-digest V1#1709) Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store IN> In Nomine timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:18:43 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store At 7:40 +0000 7/17/00, Jo Hart wrote: >> >> >Da*n, I just reread it, and my eyes bugged out >> >_again_. It's just too freaking weird. :) >> >>I think several people noted that in playtest. > > >But you chose to ignore the playtesters. No. This was a case where the playtesters didn't have enough information to really make an informed comment -- this wasn't something for GURPS IN, but a bit of unrevealed canon for the main IN line, related to some of the Grigori background that's been worked out, stuff that will hopefully make it out someday. I suppose we could have chosen not to mention it, but I don't think the actual fact is likely to change. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:21:43 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store > _can_ even the SC strip a Word from a mere Outcast > Superior? It'd be something to see them try ... from I'm pretty sure the angel must be present to have his Word stripped. Unless this nameless Grigori Archangel of Song submitted to the Seraphim Council, lost his Word (and Superior status, presumably), and *then* submitted to being cast out, he still has his Word. What does this mean? It means Israfel knows something about this Grigori that other people do not. It means this Grigori is one of the most gentle creatures ever to walk the other. Even two beings in near-perfect understanding of each other can't adequately support the same word -- so this Grigori Archangel must be deceased or perfect. I know where my money is. Israfel's sanity and contentment tell a long and telling story about this Grigori Archangel. Why would the Seraphim Council let such a powerful being wander free? Simply put, they can't stop it. The Grigori have been established as the Watchers, able to observe disturbances in ways other angels can't begin to comprehend. Could *you* sneak up on such a being? There's another reason why they can't kill him. The death of a Superior almost always is reflected in the Corporeal Realm (and other realms) by a diminishing of their Word. Who, in their right mind, *really* wants to see Songs diminish? That's part of the Symphony itself. Is the death of the Grigori Archangel worth it? > Morgan (FAW) Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:27:42 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> More Grigori speculations (was: News from the Gaming Store) At 21:41 -0700 7/16/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Hmm. I know that Fallen or Redeemed Superiors lose >their Words, and that regular Word-bound can be >stripped of their Word by the Seraphim Council, but >_can_ even the SC strip a Word from a mere Outcast >Superior? Probably not without said Superior standing in front of them. There's certainly no reason why an Outcast Superior should lose his Word (since regular Word-bound don't, if Outcast, if I recall right). And don't forget that the Grigori are technically *exiled*, not Outcast. Though angels tend to treat that as meaning the same thing, and often refer to them as Outcast. > It'd be something to see them try ... from >a safe distance. Like another plane. :) Which isn't likely to work -- I don't think they can give a Word remotely, so there's no reason to believe they could take it away that way. Unless they had his heart. Which is an interesting question -- just what *did* happen to the Grigori's Hearts? (And it also raises the question of whether Superiors *have* Hearts in the normal sense.) Since the Host seems/seemed to think they were all dead, obviously there are no intact Grigori Hearts in Heaven. At least, where anyone can find them.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:28:28 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline > Saminga wasn't involved in the Fall. His writeup places him as a minor > demon when the Egyptians were around; he's actually a relatively young > Prince. Saminga was a Kyriotate before the Fall, I think, and nobody noticed when he Fell. That's in his expanded writeup in, ah, whichever Revelations Cycle book he's in. > Baal was not an Archangel at any point, and thus would have had difficulty Baal was Archangel of Valor. Or he wasn't. Thanks, Eric. ;-) > My 2c, > EDG Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:38:44 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Hearts (And a little bit more) At 20:13 -0700 7/14/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:12:19 -0400 >From: John Karakash Subject: >Re: IN> Hearts.ben wrote: >>>> Do Archangels and Demon Princes have hearts? What >>>>happens to a celestial's heart when he is elevated >>>>to Superior status? >> You're not cleared for that. O:;:) >Seriously, >though, nobody knows except for the >Superiors >themselves, and they ain't talking.- -- > >I've always presumed that they have _something_, if >only for the fact that otherwise they run the risk of >Limbo if someone/thing manages to pop all of their >corporeal vessels at the same time. Not necessarily -- Superiors have enough Essence to make vessels without much problem, so in theory could escape from Limbo fairly quickly. (Do Superiors even suffer Trauma? Possibly not, since they share some of the nature of all the Choirs.) I suppose a Superior in that situation might have also run out of Essence, though. >My only major objection to the Cathedrals or >Principalities theory is that it means that people are >walking around inside Superiors' Hearts. That HAS to >be distracting ... not to mention engendering a large >streak of paranoia. Would _you_ let your worst rival >touch your Heart, even with his shoes? _Especially_ >with his shoes? :) An alternative explanation might be Tethers.... Hearts are essentially the manifestation of the celestial's personal theme in the Symphony. For a Word-bound, his theme *is* his Word, to a very large extent. And Tethers are a manifestation of a Superior's Word. So maybe Superiors don't really *need* Hearts any more -- they're anchored solidly by their connections to their Tethers. >*Incidentially, the entire fight with Legion showed >remarkably poor utilization of resources all around. >The Host has, after all, an Archangel that has access >to the Secrets of the Physical Universe. Surely Jean >could have cobbled together a neutron bomb... There may have been some question whether simply killing the physical hosts would have stopped Legion. Or just set him loose to go elsewhere, *with* all the power of the dead souls at his disposal. After all, physical damage doesn't shred a celestial's Forces at all, and that was presumably what everyone was trying to do to Legion. The whole Legion thing begs to have a really detailed history done for it, someday. Another thing for the wish list.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:37:28 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store > >I suppose we could have chosen not to mention it > That was all I meant. If you had a product on the release schedule to hype up (ie. 'and the book which explains this cryptic comment will be on the shelves in 2 months time!'), that would have been different, but I just don't see the upside ... when pretty much every playtester who commented thought it was a bad thing to include. As it is, GURPS:IN will have lost its momentum after a couple of months -- so I just don't think it made sense to include teasers for anything which wasn't known to be in production. Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. And the book does look good :) jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:04:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> Undead in In Nomine >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:33:43 -0500 >From: Matt Trent >Reply-To: mtrent@bigfoot.com >Subject: Re: IN> Undead in In Nomine >Charles Phipps wrote: >> >> All something that can be explained by Discord perhaps but something I think >> that really needs to be examined in In nomine (of course whether or not it >> already has been). > >CPG my friend the CPG is calling to you. > >Trent > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:15:28 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store >Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:50:56 -0500 >From: Matt Trent >Reply-To: mtrent@bigfoot.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store > >Maurice Lane wrote: >> Sorry: trying to avoid spoilers for the people who >> haven't gotten the book yet. Page 57, Column 2, >> Paragraph 3, Line 7 (Word 8) to Line 8 (Word 2)* is >> the cause of my unusual physical reaction. >> >> Da*n, I just reread it, and my eyes bugged out >> _again_. It's just too freaking weird. :) > >Must resist urge to buy book. Must resist urge to buy book... Must buy >book! Arrg! Curses. > >Trent > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:16:11 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN>News from the Gamming store front >Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:02:58 -0500 >From: Matt Trent >Reply-To: mtrent@bigfoot.com >Subject: Re: IN>News from the Gamming store front > > > >Charles Phipps wrote: >> >> Anyone else have some theories why Superiors 3 is selling so well? > >I'm an advocate of the hot chick on cover phenomena myself. > >Trent Ofanite of Doubt* > >*Currenty doubting the maturity level of roleplaying males > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:13:34 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store At 16:37 +0000 7/17/00, Jo Hart wrote: > As it is, GURPS:IN will have lost its momentum after a couple of months -- so I just don't think it made sense to include teasers for anything which wasn't known to be in production. The same comment could be made for the main IN book, in spades.... Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a *good* idea. As I recall, it wasn't done so much as a teaser (though it does have that effect), but more or less because it didn't make a lot of sense to *not* mention that there was once a Grigori Archangel, since that's now pretty solid proto-canon, and it's a rather significant fact about the Choir. > And the book does look good :) Thanks. That probably has a lot more to do with the SJGames production and layout people, than with Elizabeth and I, though. Our main contribution to the "look" was the new organization, which to a large extent was drawn from Elizabeth's thoughts for reorganizing the main IN book. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:12:56 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline From: "EDG" > > > 2. Anyone have an idea which Archangels created which? (I put Jordi as > > Saminga's creator, Baal for [Malphas], Eli for Kobal, Beleth, and > > [Blandine], and David for Novalis). > > Baal was not an Archangel at any point, and thus would have had difficulty > creating Malphas. Myself, I would go with Jordi; I have strange notions > that perhaps Malphas was the first one to point out that humans had faith, > differentiating them from animals. Since Malphas was (IIRC) in charge of causing the tectonic plates to shift, I'd say he was one of David's. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:24:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Hearts (And a little bit more) At 12:38 PM -0400 7/17/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >There may have been some question whether simply killing the physical >hosts would have stopped Legion. Or just set him loose to go elsewhere, >*with* all the power of the dead souls at his disposal. IIRC, this is the legend told by one of Derek's two celestials (before he car-bombs them) in a Pyramid article. Legion's physical hosts were killed, forcing him into celestial form -- whereupon he had Mikey and Baal pinned down, Baal skipped out into Hell to strip mine some Essence, and Michael was about to get Seriously Hurt when Raphael (who'd been handling communications) did her kamikaze run. Or so the legend went. Is it true? Hey, ask someone who was there -- I wasn't. >The whole Legion thing begs to have a really detailed history done for it, >someday. Another thing for the wish list.... Amen. (No, I don't remember which Pyramid it was -- it may or may not have been HTML'ed yet. I'd go look, but A: Iolanthe is, as usual, sleeping on my chest (she's too jealous of the computer to let me type if she's _not_ sleeping, and she sleeps on my chest when I'm doing computer stuff because if I put her down without me, she will wake up within 15 minutes), and B: I don't know where the Pyramids are from the move. O:/ ) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:38:43 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store At 13:15 -0400 7/17/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>From: Matt Trent >>Must resist urge to buy book. Must resist urge to buy book... Must buy >>book! Arrg! Curses. Please don't buy it just for that -- you've already seen that bit of data here on the list, more or less complete. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:53:23 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store At 10:21 AM -0600 7/17/00, ben wrote: > > >There's another reason why they can't kill him. The death of a Superior >almost always is reflected in the Corporeal Realm (and other realms) by a >diminishing of their Word. Who, in their right mind, *really* wants to see >Songs diminish? That's part of the Symphony itself. Is the death of the >Grigori Archangel worth it? And the most pressing reason of all: The Judgement of the Grigori wasn't Word-stripping *or* death. It was Outcasting. To do more would be unfair. See Dominic's Dissonance conditions. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:17:32 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline > Saminga was a Kyriotate before the Fall, I think, and nobody noticed when he > Fell. That's in his expanded writeup in, ah, whichever Revelations Cycle > book he's in. That's what I get for having my books be in Arizona. > Baal was Archangel of Valor. Or he wasn't. Thanks, Eric. ;-) Baal was /Angel/ of Valor, wasn't he? Or is my brain going numb again? - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:44:25 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline At 2:17 PM -0400 7/17/00, EDG wrote: > > Saminga was a Kyriotate before the Fall, I think, and nobody noticed when >he >> Fell. That's in his expanded writeup in, ah, whichever Revelations Cycle >> book he's in. > >That's what I get for having my books be in Arizona. > >> Baal was Archangel of Valor. Or he wasn't. Thanks, Eric. ;-) > >Baal was /Angel/ of Valor, wasn't he? Or is my brain going numb again? I thought the expanded writeup in the Rev Cycle said Archangel. I'm not sure. *Those* I haven't replicated over here. Really, was there much Archangel versus Angel distinction before the Fall? I know Andrealphus was explicitly the Archangel of Love and Kobal was explicitly the Angel of Laughter, but I get the feeling that there's some lack of real difference in the good old pre-Fall days. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:05:03 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> GURPS-IN and material for IN At 11:37 PM -0400 7/16/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 1:05 +0100 7/17/00, Christopher Lee wrote: [...] > For the most part, these nitpicky >details can be thought of as pseudo-canon -- if, for some reason, the LE >*had* to make a ruling on them in the IN line, it would be the same as >what went into GURPS IN. Bingo. There are a few places (Seraphim of Michael, for instance) where the GURPS mechanics and the IN mechanics were _so_ different that the GURPS version had to be changed. These sorts of mechanics-based changes are HIGHLY unlikely to cross back, except maybe on an Intervention (hostile or favorable, YMMV). And I mean Intervention. >It *is* part of the line, as far as consistency goes. And also for other >reasons -- the supplements for GURPS IN *are* the In Nomine line. Right. When we had the GIN book "more GURPSy," we got told to go and change it to be "more INy." This is, far as I understand from SJ, so as to facilitate the conversions. GIN's not a "standalone" like most GURPS books are -- it's got all _kinds_ of support already. All the In Nomine books... >> and that IN users will not be expected to buy GURPS stuff too, > >This was never an expectation, to my knowledge. Yes, we knew some IN >players *would* buy it, but it was, and is, primarily a book for existing >GURPS players, not the current IN market base. And as far as I know, >everyone's been up front about that. (The only GURPS material that a IN user might _want_ to purchase, if they have GURPS IN for some reason, are the historical books - GIN has GURPS-to-IN conversion data expressly to allow someone to drop a GURPS background into IN relatively painlessly. If They Want To. (I once tried to convert a GURPS Werewolf:TA character into WW format. The result was not pretty.)) >Actually, that's a lot of what the Superiors books are about -- to give >expanded writeups to the Superiors who weren't going to get covered >in future Cycles (which format drew enough flack that it was decided that >wouldn't happen, if and when any future Cycles were done). As things >worked out, the first Superiors book wound up covering Superiors who >already had expanded writeups in the much-maligned Revelations Cycle. >However, Superiors 2 was all-new stuff, except for Kobal. And even those which were "already covered" include a _LOT_ of new material -- not just hints about being a Servitor of a given Superior, but detailed stuff. This was something that a lot of people said was lacking in the original "expanded writeups." >> I mean when will the Ethereal Handbook see the light of day? > >It's in the pipe. Print date? Who knows.... [...] > The exact date will be up to the Managing Editor, who is the person >who worries about production schedules. IOW, it's in the pipe, but Don't Hold Your Breath. And I have about zero influence over when she picks what for putting on the schedule. I would write more, or clip[ more coherent;ly, but the baby on my chest just woke up. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:05:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Hearts. At 5:30 PM -0600 7/13/00, ben wrote: >Do Archangels and Demon Princes have hearts? > >What happens to a celestial's heart when he is elevated to Superior status? Fnord. Or, more elaborately, what Karakash said. (More prosaically, the thought makes my head hurt, and I don't see any reason why I should have to generate canon on that... In my personal games, I'm inclined to use the "Cathedral = Heart" notion for Archangels, and possibly "seat of power in Principality = Heart" for Princes. And what of the Cathedrals of the Fallen? Well, Lucifer's has a hairline flaw -- maybe Superior Hearts just don't shatter the same way, but any Fallen Superior's old Cathedral (if Heaven doesn't eat it or something) has some flaw, obvious or subtle...) So far, the only canonical reference to a Prince's Heart is in Superiors 4, and the only thing canonical about it is that it's a canonical story/rumor told by demons. How's that for uncertain? O:> Mmmm, Heart. Tastee!* (* This spelling caused by talking far too much to Em. It's all her fault.) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:05:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Master of Divine Knowledge (WAS: in_nomine-digest V1 #1709) At 11:48 PM -0500 7/15/00, Tafka J. wrote: >At 6:51 PM -0700 07/15/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >>Petitioner for the Word of Say, If I Take The Malakite >>Resonance When I Get MDK, Am I Now Incapable Of Falling? > [...] > I believe it's something that only Malakim are born with, and most other >Angels (or Balseraphs) aren't. > Not Falling is part of Malakite _nature_, not Malakite _resonance_. A subtle division, but otherwise one suspects that Yves would be being pressured to give out that Distinction all the blessed day... In My Campaign (i.e., not canon, just my rambly ideas), I'd probably make a Malawhatsit angel _resistant_ to Falling in some way -- frequent reminders to convert dissonance at 3, maybe, or some kind of actual assessment of whether a new note of dissonance was "worth Falling over." Or something. Or maybe I'd decide it was too much trouble to worry about and ignore it cheerfully. > (**The Non-Canonical name for a Balseraph of Fate, with the pretty >black-'fleathery' wings. . . "Just like I do. . .") (Just think how those embossings make the wings more attractive -- and therefore more valuable to Malakim who wish to have a nice jacket or pair of pants or boots... ***) (***In our non-canon ramblings, we tend to presume that having a Bal-skin outfit is something that all Malakim aspire to. Preferably several changes of clothing, in fact. Impudite wing-leather is also used. How do they skin an Impudite or Balseraph? Well, both have to be celestial, clearly, and presumably the demon will be soul-killed first, but we'll just ignore the timing issues here, because the image is otherwise amusing.) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:05:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline At 11:00 PM -0400 7/16/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >2. Anyone have an idea which Archangels created which? (I put Jordi as >Saminga's creator, Baal for Malphus, Eli for Kobal, Beleth, and Bladine, and >David for Novalis). I have some _ideas_, but so far, I don't think any of them are canon... O;> (I figured Eli as being responsible for both Novalis and Jordi, for instance; but then I figure that Eli tends to drip relievers out from behind his feathers periodically, just walking around Heaven. I think I figured Yves sort of showed up with Jean and Raphael in tow, and everyone assumes that he was to blame for that Choir in general. (Yvim! Yvim! EWWWWWWWWW.)) And of course you know about Uriel and Laurence and Khalid, and David and Christopher. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:05:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline At 7:27 AM -0400 7/17/00, EDG wrote: [...] >I would expect that there were other Kyriotates before Malphas; I have a >feeling my judgment would be swayed depending on his pre-Fall Word (if he >did, in fact, have one). IIRC the writeup of Malphas in Final Trumpet, he didn't. But I'm a little vague on that myself... Oh, look, I have FT to hand and not across the room! Muwhahaha. No Word. >> Also he doesn't seem to >> possess any bodies but have his own in his write-up-maybe [Malphas] >> alone among the Demon princes rebbelled utterly against his nature as a >> possesor to seek something for himself and himself alone. > >Where do you see that? "Malphas... presents himself as an older man with a >mean disposition"? As far as I can tell, that's either how he prefers to >show up in the celestial plane (I don't recall whether demons can modify >their celestial form like angels can), or his preferred vessel-type. It's >easy enough to find a bitter old man these days. FotM, IIRC (it's _not_ to hand), says that he picks older men as hosts -- who quickly pick up "the Malphas Look," to paraphrase. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:18:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Walsh Subject: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Hey all. So I was flipping through the Liber Castellorum the other day, and noticed that one of Kronos' listed Tethers was the Rubicon river in northern Italy. How can a Prince have a Tether that formed almost a thousand years before that Prince's first appearance? Did Kronos take it from someone, or is... something else happening? Also, was there such a thing as fate before the Fall? If Hell didn't exist before Lucifer & Co. ended up there, what happened to humans who met their fate in the old days? (I'm assuming it didn't really exist... Yves hadn't named it, and you'ld think someone would have wondered why some human souls just went somewhere random upon death, and named that random place.) Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:30:09 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline > I thought the expanded writeup in the Rev Cycle said Archangel. I'm > not sure. *Those* I haven't replicated over here. > > Really, was there much Archangel versus Angel distinction before the > Fall? I know Andrealphus was explicitly the Archangel of Love and > Kobal was explicitly the Angel of Laughter, but I get the feeling > that there's some lack of real difference in the good old pre-Fall > days. Baal was Archangel of Valor before the Fall. (I much prefer your write-up, Eric, regarding Baal. It's sad and poignant and horrible all at the same time, and gets into the mind of the Balseraph who has to be better than Michael.) There doesn't appear to be much distinction between Archangel and Angel; Michael is the most prominent case, as he became an Archangel and got his Word *after* the Fall. Despite lacking Superior status, Michael was able to defeat Word-bound Lucifer -- who also seems to have been an Archangel. Back then, it seems being an Archangel didn't *really* mean that much. The entire need for heirarchy seems to have arisen due to the War. Or the death of the Metatron necessitated a brand new way to distribute power amongst the angels. But why, then, do we have Princes? I think Lucifer stole some of the power from God via the Metatron. That's why he's got so much fu, and why he can also distribute his power. > Eric Alfred Burns - Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:00:50 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Walter Milliken wrote: > No. This was a case where the playtesters didn't have enough information > to really make an informed comment -- this wasn't something for GURPS IN, but > a bit of unrevealed canon for the main IN line, related to some of the Grigori > background that's been worked out, stuff that will hopefully make it out > someday. The playtesters did, IIRC, say "This isn't something that should be introduced in GURPS IN." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:53:32 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline At 1:30 PM -0600 7/17/00, ben wrote: > > >Baal was Archangel of Valor before the Fall. Good. I remembered correctly. >(I much prefer your write-up, Eric, regarding Baal. It's sad and >poignant and horrible all at the same time, and gets into the mind >of the Balseraph who has to be better than Michael.) Well, thank you very much. I've had a miserable day which you've just brightened, somewhat. See? Life balances if you give it half a chance. >Despite lacking Superior status, Michael was >able to defeat Word-bound Lucifer -- who also seems to have been an >Archangel. That matches up with my memory as well. Of course, Michael was also the Ur-Angel, Firstborn and fancy free. The First of the Seraphim, who are themselves the Most Holy. I think Superior status wasn't a state change so much as a formality with him. Hm. I wonder if Lucifer was the first Archangel, and if perhaps he requested it to somehow 'equal' Michael's state. And then he took his position at the head of the Seraphim Council, for perhaps the same reasons. And yet despite it all, Michael won. Lucifer must spend a *lot* of time rewriting his view of that bit of history. >The entire need for heirarchy seems to have arisen due to the War. And due to God's distancing, I should think. >But why, then, do we have Princes? Well, Hell is based on Selfishness. It makes sense that they'd develop hierarchies. And Lucifer, being the First Balseraph, would likely craft a potent little lie saying he's the only one who can make Demons Superiors, and they believed him. David Edelstein does a good take on that with his Duke of Cities. He implies that said Duke could be a Superior whenever he would declare himself so, but because he believes Lucifer has to give the nod, he's not *quite* at that point. >I think Lucifer stole some of the power from God via the Metatron. >That's why he's got so much fu, and why he can also distribute his >power. Very possible. As another (no better, but alternate) possibility... he *is* a Balseraph, who has 95% of the Demonic Horde agreeing with his lies. Including *all* the other Balseraphs, I'd think. That's a potent Symphonic rewriting. I think Lucifer's real power is his ability to convince the Symphony himself of his lies, bolstered by the masses of Hell (who he adds to with great amounts of new demons). So, his resonance and lies are so powerful, he can convince the Symphony that his Words are real and bind, and the Symphony is so convinced that true Word-Bound can feel it. (cf. Gabriel and Belial.) A third possibility is that God *wants* Lucifer to be able to create Word-Bound, of course.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:00:09 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Master of Divine Knowledge (WAS: in_nomine-digest V1#1709) From: "Elizabeth McCoy" > > (Just think how those embossings make the wings more attractive -- and > therefore more valuable to Malakim who wish to have a nice jacket or > pair of pants or boots... ***) Since the Old Guy's tether is in Austin, those snakeskin boots he wears take on interesting connotations... ;;;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:29:06 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store At 15:00 -0500 7/17/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: [AA of Song mentioned in GURPS IN] >The playtesters did, IIRC, say "This isn't something that should be >introduced in GURPS IN." I don't recall specifically, but that's possible. I think our reasoning was something like: "there's no reason it *shouldn't* be mentioned there, it's just a piece of background data that happens to be relevant here." As I said before, it could just as easily have been mentioned elsewhere. And presumably will be. (It may even have gotten into the IN main book reprint, in the equivalent section -- a few minor canon additions/changes are supposed to be in there. Now everyone can complain about that....) Other than the bare fact, there's precisely *zero* data there. Any really useful data will have to wait for a full writeup on the Grigori. Frankly, the alternative would have been to say "there may or may not have been Grigori Archangels, but you'll have to wait for future IN books to find out." To know there was such (and we did think at the time that this was going to be out in the IN line within a year or so), and not mention it would have been equally annoying to GURPS players, I suspect. It's there, it's not particularly important data at the moment, and the essence of it has been mentioned here. As far as I'm concerned, this particular issue is a tempest in a thimble. The complaints about the Grigori resonance mechanics have a bit of real merit, in my opinion. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:42:32 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Walter Milliken wrote: > Frankly, the alternative would have been to say "there may or may not have > been Grigori Archangels, but you'll have to wait for future IN books to > find out." Or to say exactly as much about the subject as the IN main book does. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:51:38 -0700 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Thus spoke David Edelstein > Walter Milliken wrote: > > Frankly, the alternative would have been to say "there may or may not have > > been Grigori Archangels, but you'll have to wait for future IN books to > > find out." > > Or to say exactly as much about the subject as the IN main book does. > > -David Come, come! These are GURPS players, You can't just string them along like that. Sean _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:46:40 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> In Nomine timeline >I would expect that there were other Kyriotates before Malphas; I have a >feeling my judgment would be swayed depending on his pre-Fall Word (if he >did, in fact, have one). Yeah you never can tell about that. After all Michael existed as the most holy of the holy for billions of years before he got his word. An especially lazy or bad choice in friends angel (demons pre-fall, grigori friend) might end up living same billions of years without getting a word. Especially if he mouths off at Dominic. Good words (with vastly different connotations) might be Unity, Factions, and Domination (which I think would make him the first Kyriorite). >Where do you see that? "Malphas... presents himself as an older man with a >mean disposition"? As far as I can tell, that's either how he prefers to >show up in the celestial plane (I don't recall whether demons can modify >their celestial form like angels can), or his preferred vessel-type. It's >easy enough to find a bitter old man these days. Well given I allow Michael to appear as a Four winged slightly gray haired man instead of a big Anaconda like snake most of the time, this makes a certain ammount of sense. If any Shedim could generate their own hosts it would certainly be the princes of them. Indeed it was stated in the Gamemaster's handbook Shedim Princes hate appearing in more than one place....I think Malphas exceptionally so. > Lucifer to [Malphas]: "Why be shattered, when you can be whole[?]" Interesting thought. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to expand upon it, though... In some ways I liken Lucifer to Socrates dashed with alittle of Dunanner from Apt Pupil (the old Nazi); he gets people to question things and thus open doors that once opened are not easily shut in. Basically I saw quite a few angels falling because they were jealous of things they did not have instead of the things they did....which they didn't want. >Again, an interesting take on things, but it doesn't make for a good >motivation for the Fall. "Hey, God lets bad things happen to good people. >It's not really nice of Him, I know, but hey, since he's letting it happen, >let's all go down and /make/ bad things happen to good people!" Perhaps but the old "the road to Hell is paved in best intentions line" however. Lucifer believing God doesn't have the best intentions (or just Metatron and Yves) might be the first step to believing that he/they need to be stopped. He might believe that he's rightfully tempting/punishing the wicked and cruel while building up his power base to take over Heaven and rule over a fully righteous heaven (according to his definations). "If Lucifer made humanity they wouldn't have the capacity to do evil" is a favorite quote of a friend of mine actually. >Do you mean leading his host /toward/ the Lightbringer? Yes. Whoops sorry about that. Baal initially refuses Lucifer's offer, becomes the word of Valor then slowly changes his mind in the first true great conflict. >Eli? No, no. This would have been Malphas at work. >As for Blandine and Beleth, their Towers - afaik - stretched simply from the >Ethereal to the Celestial, and didn't go anywhere /near/ the corporeal >plane. Eh I wasn't so sure about that because Eli the destroyer always struck me as the guy who beat down creation whenever it got out of control (probably why Dominic was so cheesed off-where was Eli during the Nuclear threat?) so removing humanity's ability to speak the celestial tongue maybe was a good idea. I was just thinking the Tower of Babel might be similar in design-a tower that reaches from Corporal through Marches to Heaven. >No idea. ^_^ No prob bob. >This is from memory: >Saminga wasn't involved in the Fall. His writeup places him as a minor >demon when the Egyptians were around; he's actually a relatively young >Prince. True I was under that impression from the main page however in the timeline it says Saminga while a small, weak, and utterly unpleasant Kyriorite-it does list him as witnessing the Dinosaur's extinction. Why I personally saw him as a creature of Jordi's...preumably kicked around there alot too. >Baal was not an Archangel at any point, and thus would have had difficulty >creating Malphas. Myself, I would go with Jordi; I have strange notions >that perhaps Malphas was the first one to point out that humans had faith, >differentiating them from animals. That makes a certain ammount of sense; Maphas might have been the one who encouraged animals to cull one another. >You might be spot-on with Eli and his coterie. I should suspect, though, >that if this were the case, Kobal is sort of a little brother to Beleth and >Blandine, by a factor of several eons. Agreed Kobal definately seems to have alittle other world weariness (rather than just world weariness) than Beleth and Blandine though that just may be his personality. >It would stun me to find out that David created Novalis. It creates a sense >of irony, yes, but that sort of coincidence is so rarely seen in reality >that I would be surprised to find it in In Nomine. In fact, I would suspect >that if anyone created Novalis, it would have been Eli; in turn, I wouldn't >object to seeing Beleth as a servitor of Stone Well you know Stone=Earth=Flowers whole Elemental thing (in my campaign David creates her in a contest with Eli to create the better gift to the world). Eli is a good catch all Archangel for Creation but one wonders if he should really be the father of so many with the possibility of Yves and God creating Elemental angels as well too. Tough call. I could see though the Angel of Fear being a David servitor however definately. Andrealphus I made in my timeline the product of Beleth and Blandine's feelings given life though more traditionally he's likely a creation of Eli or Yves...though it works for Gabriel too. This is very fun. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1716 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.