From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jul 18 14:33:20 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 OAA07287 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:33:19 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA09898 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:31:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:31:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200007181931.OAA09898@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 #1717 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, July 18 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1717 In this digest: IN>News from the Gamming store front Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store IN> Superiors books Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Re: IN> In nomine timeline IN> Greetings from someone new.. Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) IN> Malakim & Balseraphs (WAS: Master of Divine Knowledge) Re: IN>News from the Gamming store front Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) IN> Michael beating Lucifer Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:56:27 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN>News from the Gamming store front Walter wrote: >Though I certainly wouldn't mind you buying it, I'd agree that it's probably >not worth buying it for that reason. A slightly more compelling reason >might be that the *reverse* GURPS->IN conversion rules are intended to >allow GURPS supplements to be used in IN. Mostly that's probably useful >for historical supplements, though; Who's Who, and the like. >But my own opinion would be that buying Superiors books first would make >sense. Agreed on that end truly. Though it makes for an interesting take of using GURPs other supplements to perhaps be reverse engineered into In nomine....finally after all this time we know how to have Vampires, Werewolves, and IOU in In N...well we already have the latter (thank you Archdean). >Eric's already asked that question -- that's a question for SJ, probably. >It's in the "borderline" area. Hmmm true but I wish I did know more about this Grigori of Song and the Resonance of the Nephilim and G personally. I don't mind that GURPS In has information that has not been published before (thanks David for taking the time to answer the troubles)-I don't consider it bait or an insult...but it does make me darn curious. >It has a hot babe on the cover.... True enough. All hail Gabrielle queen of wrathful good looks and appearing "Hot". Plus as someone mentioned before the book gives honest to God religeous themes which while not being the central focus of In Nomine is something I've been looking for for some time to add. >Superiors 4 is already listed on the web site. I don't think Superiors 6 >(probably the next DP book) has actually been decided. The breakup into >books is known, but the order of publication hasn't been set yet for some >of the later books. I saw truth be told I'm not sure I'll buy it. Valefor, Vapula, and Fleuturity really don't interest me that much (though Mammon is curious to me). I'll probably buy Nybblas, Andre, Kobal, and Haagenti first personally. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:00:06 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> News from the Gaming Store Can we _not_ revive the "GURPS IN/canon/the Grigori" thread, please? It was tedious the first time around, and would be insufferable on the rebound. Thank you. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:06:06 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Superiors books >I saw truth be told I'm not sure I'll buy it. Valefor, Vapula, and >Fleuturity really don't interest me that much (though Mammon is curious to >me). I'll probably buy Nybblas, Andre, Kobal, and Haagenti first >personally. My favorite of the three so far, with several fun little bits (I especially like the Andre/Novalis connection, and Lucifer's comment on the invention of television). Possibly Princes are just more entertaining than AAs? Too soon to tell. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:32:56 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) At 14:18 -0500 7/17/00, Matt Walsh wrote: >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? Well, it's theoretically possible for a wild Tether to persist for a long time, especially if it doesn't have much affinity for an existing Superior. Frankly, I'm not sure if such a thing would even be perceptible as a Tether at all -- there would be no other endpoint. On the other hand, one could argue that the Rubicon Tether would probably have landed under Malphas, prior to Kronos' appearance, so that may not really help. Of course, Kronos may have gotten it from Malphas somehow.... There's also the question, if I recall correctly, of exactly where (or what) Kronos *was* before Lucifer found him. >Also, was there such a thing as fate before the Fall? Probably in a theoretical sense, at least. > If Hell didn't >exist before Lucifer & Co. ended up there, what happened to humans who met >their fate in the old days? Most likely dissipated or reincarnated, would be my guess. I don't think there's canon on this. If Heaven & Hell ever gets revised, this is certainly a useful question for it to look into. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:47:14 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> In nomine timeline Charles Phipps wrote: > 1. [Malphas] as the First [Kyriotate]: I found this an interesting idea that > just sort of occured when I was writing, given he's so early mentioned in > the creation of angels (right up there with Kobal, Beleth, and Blandine). > After all he is the Demon Prince of Factions. Apropos of nothing, really, in the backwards IN game I play (backwards in that the demons are pretty much the good guys, given that Angels or neo-fascist bloody-minded automatons) Malphas seems to have retained some manner of his Kyriotate resonance. After all, what better way to represent the Word of Factions than to be divided unto yourself, sorta thing? (although it makes it *really* difficult to be one of his servitors, what with the conflicting orders and the being punished for doing what one of less popular Malphas manifestations orders you to do.) Cheers, Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:08:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas J Howell Subject: IN> Greetings from someone new.. Hello all! I've been a lurker here for awhile, trying to get practical tips and suggestions for the game. I thought I'd jump in with one of my own creations... Malakite Resonances I've always had problems with Malakim players who want to resonate on nearly everyone they see - it's difficult to come up with lots of honorable/dishonorable ideas on the fly without disappointing the players. So I came up with this jump-start chart to help me out. Just roll a d666 normally and use the CD to determine extent. Roll (CD for extent) Noble Deed Ignoble Deed 2 Faith Blasphemy 3 Sacrifice Greed 4 Kindness Sloth 5 Charity Envy 6 Love Hate 7 Mercy Lust 8 Forgiveness Cowardice 9 Justice Betrayal 10 Honesty Deceit 11 Courage Pride 12 Humility Cruelty Example: Your Malakite is resonating on Joe Average. You roll a 8 with a CD of 1. Perhaps Joe Average has just felt sorry for yelling at a bad driver (noble, forgiveness), or he's not asked his boss for a raise (ignoble, cowardice). If the CD had been a 6, perhaps Joe Average has just forgiven his mother for abandoning him as a child or stood there doing nothing as he saw a man approach and murder an innocent person (when he was clearly in a position to take action). Enjoy - I hope this is of some help to taxed Game Masters! - ---------------------------- TJ Howell thowell@classics.umass.edu - ---------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:34:40 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: 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? 1) The Rubicon is not a Tether to Kronos. It's a Tether to Fate. QED. ^_^ 2) Consider what happened to /make/ the Rubicon a Tether. Natural formations that happen to be Tethers aren't necessarily Tethers from the instant they're created... > 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.) Odds are that Fate (and Destiny) didn't really exist pre-Fall. IMC, IMO, YMMV. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:17:16 -0500 From: "Tafka J." Subject: IN> Malakim & Balseraphs (WAS: Master of Divine Knowledge) At 3:00 PM -0500 07/17/00, Prodigal wrote: > Since the Old Guy's tether is in Austin, those snakeskin boots he wears take > on interesting connotations... ;;;) I'm quite certain he's going to make himself a pair of Druial shaped boots soon too. . . Malphus would be proud! Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = tafkaj@thrifty.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:26:11 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN>News from the Gamming store front At 4:56 PM -0400 7/17/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >Walter wrote: > >I saw truth be told I'm not sure I'll buy it. Valefor, Vapula, and >Fleuturity really don't interest me that much (though Mammon is curious to >me). Alaemon being, as usual, mysterious. >I'll probably buy Nybblas, Andre, Kobal, and Haagenti first >personally. Might be a long wait. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:52:09 -0500 From: "Michael Neal" Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "EDG" To: Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:34 PM Subject: Re: 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? > > 1) The Rubicon is not a Tether to Kronos. It's a Tether to Fate. QED. ^_^ > 2) Consider what happened to /make/ the Rubicon a Tether. Natural > formations that happen to be Tethers aren't necessarily Tethers from the > instant they're created... In the case of purely natural formations, this would be true. However, the Rubicon would not be a Tether to Fate because of anything concerning its natural presence. It would be a Tether to Fate solely because of a decision made by an individual long before Kronos was in a position to claim the tether. This argument would imply that the cathedral in Aachen might become a tether tomorrow because Charlemagne was coronated there. I'm not buying this. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:05:26 -0700 From: Casca Subject: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) On Mon, 17 July 2000, Walter Milliken wrote: > 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. Because I'm feeling puckish, I ask that all players of GURPS In Nomine delete this message now. ;) Let us examine the facts of the matter. 1) The Grigori are the only choir of angels capable of unassisted, unartifical reproduction. 2) No one can find them, which suggests Roles in excess of 6, or some inherent ability to avoid generating Disturbance. 3) The entire choir was Cast Out, instead of being destroyed. This, frankly, is a STUPID thing to do, especially so soon after the Fall. I mean, what was the Council thinking? Wouldn't it have been tactically sounder, not to mention kinder (at least to Dominic's way of thinking) to soul-kill them all instead? The last thing Heaven needs is to lose an -entire- Choir to Hell. Conclusion: "Humanity is the 18th Angel." -- Misato, _Neon Genesis Evangelion: Rebirth_ The Grigori are Humans. Or, to be more precise, Humans are Fallen Grigori. Point: It is generally accepted (Catholic) church dogma that Humans were closer to the Divine (and therefore perfection) before Original Sin. Point: After the whole deplorable Apple Incident, Humanity was Cast Out(!) of Paradise. Point: Humans were commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply," which complements the Grigori reproductive ability quite nicely. Point: Humanity frequently (though not in any great numbers) produces 6+ Force Humans. Demons fledge at 7 Forces... Point: Lilith never ate the Apple, and she has a Word. And can create Lilim. Point: More is known about the Fall (22,000 BC) than is known about the Grigori Outcasting (11,600 BC). Conclusion: It's all a coverup. Angels are forbidden to speak of the Grigori because A) a Seraph might accidentally uncover the Truth, and B) you can't lie in Angelic. Ever wonder where Cain and Abel and Seth got their wives? Grigori. They're the missing link between hominid and Homo Sapiens. (Creationism and Evolutionism are BOTH right!) Paranoid notion: Did the G.O. happen by accident? Or was it a -controlled experiment- by God (or Yves) to accurately measure the precise nature of Falling? More on this later. - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:23:27 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) Casca wrote: > The Grigori are Humans. Or, to be more precise, Humans are Fallen Grigori. > > Conclusion: It's all a coverup. Angels are forbidden to speak of the Grigori because A) a Seraph might accidentally uncover the Truth, and B) you can't lie in Angelic. Hmm. Nifty idea! - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:17:28 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) From: "Michael Neal" > > In the case of purely natural formations, this would be true. However, the > Rubicon would not be a Tether to Fate because of anything concerning its > natural presence. It would be a Tether to Fate solely because of a decision > made by an individual long before Kronos was in a position to claim the > tether. Only if Lucifer waited from the moment he found Kronos (not long after the Fall) until about the year 40BCE to give Kronos the Word of Fate, Michael. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:27:22 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) At 8:52 PM -0500 7/17/00, Michael Neal wrote: > >In the case of purely natural formations, this would be true. However, the >Rubicon would not be a Tether to Fate because of anything concerning its >natural presence. It would be a Tether to Fate solely because of a decision >made by an individual long before Kronos was in a position to claim the >tether. > >This argument would imply that the cathedral in Aachen might become a tether >tomorrow because Charlemagne was coronated there. I'm not buying this. I would say it was a Tether to the War, but when Kronos was announced to the Hordes by Lucifer, Baal was "asked" by the First of the Fallen to give up his Tether to the new Prince (as others were). Which may have been the seeds of Baal being hostile to Kronos while Kronos is associated with Baal. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:51:42 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) >>Paranoid notion: Did the G.O. happen by accident? Or was it a -controlled experiment- by God (or Yves) to accurately measure the precise nature of Falling? More on this later. << Is it later yet? Casca, this is absolutely marvelous. Of course, I now hate you, because you've just made me have to think about reworking my game world to incorporate this concept... Ooohhhhh, the possibilities.... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:32:15 -0400 From: Tim Groth Subject: IN> Michael beating Lucifer If Michael could beat Lucifer why didn't he just destroy him? I'm sure a lot of angels and demons ask this question. Lucifer is capable of doing things Michael can't, the only apparent difference after his defeat is that he Fell. Does becoming a Balseraph mean such an increase in power? I think that the issue is actually confused. Michael didn't *beat* Lucifer, he was fighting him when Lucifer fell from Heaven. I don't think that Michael actually did anything more than battle Lucifer, and then God decided that he was going to make the part of Heaven underneith Lucifer giveway. Lucifer landed rather surprised in Hell, trying to figure out how he'd just been tossed out of Heaven. The others arrived, and assumed that he had been bested by Michael. After they tried to fight him they realized that he was stronger than all of them, but that might change. Essentially God undermined the perception of Lucifers power. Michael wasn't, and still isn't, able to beat Lucifer. None of the Princes can either, but thanks to God conviently shifting around Heaven Lucifer set things up so that the Princes were against eachother in fear of them overthrowing him. All of this was neccesary because God couldn't use the Metatron to command Lucifer to leave. It was a move motivated by a, "Fine cut out my tongue, now its going to be that much worse for you." sort of mentality. God's anger was probably compounded by the fact Lucifer took some of the Metatron's Forces to empower himself. Then again its entirely possible that Lucifer is just an awful fighter and Michael managed to get him off balance and then knock him off the edge of Heaven. Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:27:03 +1200 (NZST) From: Keith Bolland Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, EDG wrote: > Odds are that Fate (and Destiny) didn't really exist pre-Fall. IMC, IMO, > YMMV. Do you mean the Words, or the actual concepts of highest and lowest potential achievement? Given God's standing edict on not tampering with Humanity pre-Fall (...does this mean the Grigori sat around on their appendages until after the Fall? Head hurts...) an A(A) of Fate would have had precious little to do, as leading humans to their Destinies was a no-no... but I think Fate and Destiny qua concepts[*] surely existed pre-Fall, for two reasons: (1) If not Fate, what the devil (pardon the pun) happened to Lucifer? And Eve? And that poor Servitor of Baal who stuck his nose in and mucked the whole Eden experiment up? (2) If humans have free choice, then Fate and Destiny are just expressions of that choice; a human capable of taking any road is logically going to find a fork that leads to a result higher and more noble than any other, and a fork that leads to the depths of the Pit. Which begs the question... where did souls who found their Fate go? There was no Hell, which is where they wind up nowadays. I personally speculated that they wound up as Kronos, but I just got shown a quote from H&H that would seem to disprove it. (unless it's one of Lucifer's lies... ow... head hurts...) [*] I wish there was an easy word to describe the pair of them. "Auguries"? //-- <*> Keith Bolland --------------------------------------- // "Life isn't fair. But the root password helps." -- The BOFH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:47:47 EDT From: Daedalus3D@aol.com Subject: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti From Walter--- << The whole Legion thing begs to have a really detailed history done for it, someday. Another thing for the wish list.... >> To add something to that which may have been overlooked . . . According to the GMG, Haagenti's rise to power (and his much-discussed swallowing of Meserach and Mariel) supposedly happened the year after the Legion business. Coincidence? I think not. My guess is Haagenti probably took advantage of how shaken up both sides were by the loss of two powerful Superiors (Legion and Raphael). Doing a book about the events around the year 1000 A.D. would be a great excuse to give expanded write ups on Mariel, Meserach, Legion, and Raphael. Hey, a new idea just hit me that I think has some serious merit. How about a 2 Superiors books focusing on the deceased Superiors on both sides? They could look like this: AA: Raphael, Urial, Metatron, Oannes DP: Mariel, Meserach, Gebbeleth, Vephar, Makatiel, Legion, Genubath, Beelzebub Okay, so you'd probably have to do two books on the dead DP's, but I wouldn't complain :) Anyway, just a thought. If other people like this idea (and say so) maybe we can create a large enough desire for it that it might actually happen. The books would also be a great place to include some suggestions on how to run games during other points of IN history (like what the overall feel of the War was at different time periods). Also, you could include suggestions on how to include historical bits in an ongoing campaign (Highlander-style flashbacks, etc.). Okay, enough from me. What do you guys think of this? Daedalus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:53:15 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti In a message dated 7/18/00 8:49:36 AM Central Daylight Time, Daedalus3D@aol.com writes: << How about a 2 Superiors books focusing on the deceased Superiors on both sides? They could look like this: AA: Raphael, Urial, Metatron, Oannes DP: Mariel, Meserach, Gebbeleth, Vephar, Makatiel, Legion, Genubath, Beelzebub >> I like it! They could be Superiors Books -1, -2, and -3! Seriously, that's a cool idea, either for a historical campaign, or for a nonstandard modern one where everyone is still around. Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:14:48 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti At 9:47 AM -0400 7/18/00, Daedalus3D@aol.com wrote: > >They could look like this: >AA: Raphael, Urial, Metatron, Oannes >DP: Mariel, Meserach, Gebbeleth, Vephar, Makatiel, Legion, Genubath, Beelzebub > >Okay, so you'd probably have to do two books on the dead DP's, but I wouldn't >complain :) Frankly, I'd settle for the 2 page writeups that match the Main Book's initial writeups, plus a third page each detailing their history in microcosm. Put them in order of destruction, and have a fourth and fifth page each devoted to how the course of history proceded between these events and how more modern AAs and DPs rose. That's sixty pages out of 128. Giving plenty of room for prominant historical Word-bound (Demogorgon leaps immediately to mind) and some fun pre-Superior bits for some other types. (Laurence as a new Angel or as the newly Word-bound Angel of the Sword, for instance. Or perhaps a bit on Magog the Angel of Fortitude. Or Nybbas's writeup. Or the pre-Legion-fight writeup of Haagenti, and how he distinguished himself so much during the big fight. All of that would *still* leave enough wordcount on how to run a Superiors game with even the chance to have boxed text that upsells different historical GURPS books. Call it the Liber Temporum, and we're in business. Right? Right? Anyone? Anyone? Sigh. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:37:54 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti > >Okay, enough from me. What do you guys think of this? > I don't know about that, but you could run a seriously funky game in which PCs are each remnants of a Superior which was commonly thought to have been dead, that had been patched back together by the flaky but wellmeaningGrigori Archangel of Song, to keep her company in her exile... (Pauses to imagine the player in my group who always plays Paladins/ Noble Knights finding out that in a former existance, his PC was the demon prince of corruption ...) jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:58:33 +0100 From: "Laurent" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti <<< Pauses to imagine the player in my group who always plays Paladins/ Noble Knights finding out that in a former existance, his PC was the demon prince of corruption ... >>> Don't forget the camera!! Hmm, is it dissonant for GM's to give your players heart attacks?? :) Laurent. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:51:58 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti At 2:37 PM +0000 7/18/00, Jo Hart wrote: >>Okay, enough from me. What do you guys think of this? >> > > >I don't know about that, but you could run a seriously funky game in >which PCs are each remnants of a Superior which was commonly thought >to have been dead, that had been patched back together by the flaky >but wellmeaningGrigori Archangel of Song, to keep her company in her >exile... > >(Pauses to imagine the player in my group who always plays Paladins/ >Noble Knights finding out that in a former existance, his PC was the >demon prince of corruption ...) That's something I've wondered, by the by. Let's say an Archangel grafts some Celestial Forces onto a Remnant. Let's say that in a previous life, the Remnant was a Demon. Does the Archangel need to redeem the Remnant as the Forces are added? Does the new soul in effect supercede the old, demonic Forces? Does the new Angel become a mass of Dissonance? We know Remnants keep their Words. So, would that flaky Archangel of Song patch together an Angel with the Demonic Word of Corruption, or would the Word get stripped? If so, *is* it through Redemption? Inquiring minds want to know. (*I* have a theory, of course -- but I'll spout it off later, wanting to see the take of others.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:24:06 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti * >From: "Laurent" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:58:33 +0100 > ><<< Pauses to imagine the player in my group who always plays Paladins/ >Noble Knights finding out >that in a former existance, his PC was the demon prince of corruption ... > >>> > >Don't forget the camera!! >Hmm, is it dissonant for GM's to give your players heart attacks?? :) > Nah. It's dissonant for GMs to introduce their beloved pet-NPCs into a game, but scaring players? That could earn you a distinction! (Oh no, beware the GMim, a new band created by Asmodeus & Beleth. I can feel the writeup coming on.) jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:51:50 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Let's say an Archangel grafts some Celestial Forces onto a Remnant. > Let's say that in a previous life, the Remnant was a Demon. Does > the Archangel need to redeem the Remnant as the Forces are added? According tocanon, Superiors *can't* create celestials of the opposite side, so the Archangel goes an angel, if anything. > Does the new soul in effect supercede the old, demonic Forces? I'd say so. > Does the new Angel become a mass of Dissonance? I don't see why it would. > We know Remnants keep their Words. So, would that flaky Archangel > of Song patch together an Angel with the Demonic Word of > Corruption, or would the Word get stripped? If so, *is* it > through Redemption? I'd say that the Word would either fall off in the process of creating the new angel, or get very reduced, unless it was a Word with a lot of Heavenly potential. So, if Michael builds an angel on top of the ruins of a Demon of Havoc, he might get a really good warrior out of it, with little or no Word-weakening. But if Novalis builds an angel on the ruins of the Demon of Corruption, she might find herself with a rather weak Angel of Mulch, and if she tried it on Havoc, the Word would probably just fall off. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:18:26 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti From: "Laurent" > <<< Pauses to imagine the player in my group who always plays Paladins/ Noble Knights finding out > that in a former existance, his PC was the demon prince of corruption ... >>> > > Don't forget the camera!! > Hmm, is it dissonant for GM's to give your players heart attacks?? :) Judging from my lack of dissonance from my tenure as co-GM on the GURPS Supers campaign I was running awhile back, I would say "No." };;;) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:27:39 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti At 11:51 AM -0500 7/18/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >> Let's say an Archangel grafts some Celestial Forces onto a Remnant. >> Let's say that in a previous life, the Remnant was a Demon. Does >> the Archangel need to redeem the Remnant as the Forces are added? > >According tocanon, Superiors *can't* create celestials of the >opposite side, so the Archangel goes an angel, if anything. But is this an act of creation? It depends on how this is looked at. Let's say a tree is shorn off of its root, but a new tree branch is grafted onto the old root. This is a common practice in Horticulture. If you graft a lemon tree branch onto an Orange tree's roots, you get a lemon tree growing. By this analogy, the Celestial Forces *are* the Angel, with the Corporeal and Ethereal Forces merely providing the foundation. Alternately, assume that a man is in a horrible car accident, which damages his liver and heart. Both need to be replaced for the man to live. Surgery is performed when donor organs are found. The man goes from being hospitalized and unable to fend for himself, to again becoming mobile and (with therapy) can look forward to years of life. The new organs don't change the man. He is himself, just with a new heart and liver. Assuming the Archangel doesn't tear the Forces apart and re-put them together, it becomes a question of whether the Remnant is a foundation, or the new Forces are a transplant. > > Does the new Angel become a mass of Dissonance? > >I don't see why it would. Because in the redemption process, every Force is cleansed and scoured and made clean. In this process, the old, dirty Forces are being left alone. Which would seem like a recipe for dissonance, since body and mind would be at war with the soul's nature. >I'd say that the Word would either fall off in the process of >creating the new angel, or get very reduced, unless it was a >Word with a lot of Heavenly potential. So, if Michael builds an >angel on top of the ruins of a Demon of Havoc, he might get a >really good warrior out of it, with little or no Word-weakening. >But if Novalis builds an angel on the ruins of the Demon of >Corruption, she might find herself with a rather weak Angel of >Mulch, and if she tried it on Havoc, the Word would probably >just fall off. Are Words in Demonic also Words in Celestial? Or would your War Servitor of the Demon of Havoc become the Angel of What Translates Into 'Havoc' In Helltongue? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:45:56 +0100 From: "Christopher Lee" 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. Can I suggest that if the material is really minor, and a side detail, could it go direct onto the website along with any other material that isn't in the original book. Should be a few minutes job if you know exactly what the differences are (Walter and Elizabeth) and have an electronic copy. It could go in with the IN materials on the SJG site and being that is so minor and just a side detail it won't adversely affect sales of GIN... Just a thought Chris Lee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:57:46 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti Whistling in the Dark wrote: > But is this an act of creation? It depends on how this is looked > at. I would call it an act of creation, since it creates a new angel. The celestial forces are the raw material for awareness and will. The authors on this list and, I think, canon, have always insisted that even Superiors can't restore Remnants; the result of putting new celestial forces in is simply a new celestial. Ergo, creation. It would follow that Ramnants aren't really ANYBODY any more; they're on autopilot, following their Roles, totally lacking in consciousness or volition. > Because in the redemption process, every Force is cleansed and > scoured and made clean. In this process, the old, dirty Forces are > being left alone. Which would seem like a recipe for dissonance, > since body and mind would be at war with the soul's nature. GM call, at this point. Canon says that forces can acquire "flavors" of some sort -- this is part of how Lilith creates Lilim - -- but I don't know that there's a ruling that this includes goodness or evil. There's a published instance of a Balseraph Remnant that is now doing considerable good as a preacher, since that's what the late Balseraph's Role was. (Liber Servitorum.) > Are Words in Demonic also Words in Celestial? Or would your War > Servitor of the Demon of Havoc become the Angel of What Translates > Into 'Havoc' In Helltongue? I don't think Words are really words as in elements in a language. They are aspects of the Symphony. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:19:19 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations) At 19:05 -0700 7/17/00, Casca wrote: >Paranoid notion: Did the G.O. happen by accident? Or was it a -controlled experiment- by God (or Yves) to accurately measure the precise nature of Falling? Or was it part of a long-term move by God -- partially sacrificing one of his forces as part of some sort of deep strategy? After all, angels are there to serve His purposes. *Whatever* those really are. Note too, that most Grigori apparently didn't actually Fall. Rather, they were really just disobeying policy. (And it may be that the implications of this -- that disobeying God's (or the Council's) policies *isn't* dissonant -- is something the Seraphim Council really didn't want people thinking about....) No matter which way I look at it, the whole Grigori mess stinks like week-old dead Shedim. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:22:59 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Questions about fate (or Fate) At 23:27 +1200 7/18/00, Keith Bolland wrote: > (...does this mean the Grigori sat around on their >appendages until after the Fall? Head hurts...) I believe canon says the Grigori were created post-Fall. (Both like and unlike the Malakim, who were first converted at the time of the Fall.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:25:51 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti At 14:37 +0000 7/18/00, Jo Hart wrote: >I don't know about that, but you could run a seriously funky game in which PCs are each remnants of a Superior which was commonly thought to have been dead, that had been patched back together by the flaky but wellmeaningGrigori Archangel of Song, to keep her company in her exile... That's *really* sick and twisted, Jo. Nice work.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:32:05 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: Legion & Haagenti At 10:51 -0400 7/18/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Let's say an Archangel grafts some Celestial Forces onto a Remnant. Let's say that in a previous life, the Remnant was a Demon. Does the Archangel need to redeem the Remnant as the Forces are added? Does the new soul in effect supercede the old, demonic Forces? Does the new Angel become a mass of Dissonance? I would guess that either: a) the Forces wouldn't stick well to stay or b) the result would be a demon unless the Superior redeemed it as part of the process. I'd probably go for b, personally. I think there's some implication in canon that Superiors can graft Forces on someone on the other side, if they consent to it. I'd say any such graft would be likely to cause dissonance, though. >We know Remnants keep their Words. So, would that flaky Archangel of Song patch together an Angel with the Demonic Word of Corruption, or would the Word get stripped? If so, *is* it through Redemption? I don't think the Word could be kept if the result were an angel; and I think redemption would be necessary to get an angel this way (which would automatically result in the Word being stripped). - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1717 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.