From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jul 19 15:02:12 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 PAA30552 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:02:10 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA08944 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:00:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:00:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200007192000.PAA08944@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 #1720 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 Wednesday, July 19 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1720 In this digest: Re: Pushing Malakim (was Re: IN> A fun little thought, with hairyimplications.) Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Re: Pushing Malakim (was Re: IN> A fun little thought, with hairyimplications.) IN> Questions about Servitors of Stone Re: IN> Ranting [was:A fun little thought, with hairy implications] Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Re: IN> Questions about Servitors of Stone Re: IN> Kronos/Tethers/Hell Re: IN> Ranting [was:A fun little thought, with hairyimplications] Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic Re: IN> Re: Deeply Heretical Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic Re: Grigori stuff (was Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations)) Re: Re:IN> A fun little thought, with hairy implications. Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore IN> Legion Re: IN> Outcast Kyriotates of Michael. Re: IN> GURPS-IN and material for IN Re: IN> Dead Superiors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:50:33 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: Pushing Malakim (was Re: IN> A fun little thought, with hairyimplications.) Tim Groth wrote: > The more probable way that a Malakim could Fall is if they never > swear their oaths. Even created Malakim have to swear the oaths, they > can't be imposed. So they choose to give up the possibility of Falling so > they can better serve. A newly fledged or created Malakite can go, "Nope, > I swear to serve Lucifer." or "I promise to only give a damn about myself." > or even "I promise to eat 10 cheese doodles a day." Of course such a > Malakite would probably be bashed out of existance on the spot. So they > get to choose, either they never Fall or they don't exist. Unless you > believe in that life-after-soul death mumbo jumbo. IMC, it's the oaths that MAKE the Malakite. No oaths, no Malakite. They are an essential part of their being and are inextricable. Of course a case can be made that only the _original_ oaths are strictly necessary and the rest are filler detail... =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:03:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas J Howell Subject: Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, David Edelstein wrote: > > They can always be given a Feature (per the Liber Reliquarum) to make > that so. > > -David > True, but I like the idea of temptation that my house rule allows. "Gosh, I could REALLY use some of that extra firepower...but it gets me closer to Falling..." Perhaps its just the Luciferian side of me... - - TJ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:16:01 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy Thomas J Howell wrote: > True, but I like the idea of temptation that my house rule allows. > "Gosh, I could REALLY use some of that extra firepower...but it gets > me closer to Falling..." The problem with this is (as I pointed out in LR), artifacts that inflict dissonance for using them can be easily abused as "Falling" traps. (Demon creates a Relic with the Feature "Generates 8 points of dissonance per use," and then tricks an unsuspecting angel into using it.) Used in the manner you suggest (where the celestial has to KNOW that using the artifact will cause dissonance, and chooses to do so), it could be balanced, but it's not generally a good idea. Besides, conceptually, dissonance is what happens when a celestial goes against his resonance and thus violates his core principles. Using an evil artifact might qualify, but not just because someone happened to tack a Feature onto it. If it's because the evil artifact is fueled with the blood of murdered babies, that's another story.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:07:14 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore >Bull wrote: >> Anyways, I'm curious just how much of "Hardcore" does Furfur embody? While >> Night Music basically only discusses the Hardcore Music aspect of things, >> his Word is simply Hardcore, not Hardcore Music. Actually, NM strongly implies that other aspects of the Word are covered. Look at the dissonance conditions for Furfur's Servitors. >> So could it cover other things considered Hardcore? Oh my goodness yes. All *sorts* of things. >> Porn and Wrestling are >> the only two "major" aspects that come to mind. I've often heard "hardcore" used in other ways. Most recently, to describe a lawyer... a notoriously aggressive and uncompromising prosecutor. John Karakesh gives several good examples, and finishes: > If you plan a 'hardcore' action and you get the feeling, >'Ewwwww, that was unnecessary', then you've probably got it. >Harcore is obvious, very intense, and always breaks conventions. Right. Think of it as the Word of Overdoing it, Taking Things One Step Too Far. IMC Hardcore heavily overlaps with (and, Furfur says, includes) the Word of Excess. When roleplayed, Hardcore characters should be truculent, in-your-face, and very into massive retaliation. They should be ready, willing and able to escalate the most trivial situation into serious violence and destruction. Personally, I've had Furfur IMC, but have never had a Hardcore PC; the temptation to munchkinism is too obvious (in fact, the one munchkin player I had for a while used to whine about not being allowed to play a Servitor of Furfur). You'd want a very thoughtful non-munchkin player in charge of such a PC (unless you're running the kind of campaign where over-the-top munchkin-type behavior is common and OK. Which is fine, just not my cup of tea personally). They make _great_ NPCs, though. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:15:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Holy vs. Unholy In cinematic tradition, and in the older stories, evil spirits recoil from holy objects with what looks like pain or fear. The IN equivalent might be to have an artifact inflict damage (pain) or MAYBE inflict damage (fear) on a celestial of the opposite side. Use the acidic-holy-water/Wicked-Witch-melter effect for corporeal damage. Inflict panic attacks for ethereal or celestial damage. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:12:06 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore At 11:46 AM -0400 7/19/00, John Karakash wrote: >Bull wrote: > > Wrestling is actually a poor venue for 'hardcore' >characters. They are putting on an act that is very controlled. >A pro-wrestler that got out of control would quickly be >unemployed. Now a NON-pro wrestler is basically just a fighter. >The trick is to do 'shocking' things. Go to extremes. (Full-contact >martial arts is bordering on hardcore...) ECW, my friend, ECW. Yes, it's an act and it's controlled -- but it's designed to incite audiences into a frothing mass of blood hungry animals. And I say this as a Wrestling Fan. Furthermore, Hardcore Wrestling (an actual term) is seperated from traditional wrestling. Traditional Pro Wrestling involves aerial moves and mat work and brawling, with occasional "illegal foreign objects" that the heel wrestlers use to take advantage. Hardcore wrestling starts with tables, folding chairs, trash cans, clubs and the like set in the ring for use by the wrestlers, to beat the living hell out of each other. That it's fake doesn't mean it hurts, and it's *certainly* Hardcore to the fans. It's at least or *more* hardcore than hardcore music is. > The essence of 'hardcore' is breaking the normal >boundaries of convention, taste or generally accepted practices >of decency. Hardcore doesn't let itself be bound by the >usual restrictions... in fact it delights in breaking them >at every opportunity. That's Hardcore/ECW wrestling in a nutshell. And it's pretty popular. >Examples: >Normal porn: people having sex on the flimsiest of pretenses =) >Hardcore: people having sex in ways that would squick the mainstream > viewer (insert depravity of choice, here) Wrestling: Ric Flair and Sting put on a combination of acrobatics and dastardly tricks as the pair executes an exciting, almost Kabukiesque dance of good versus evil. Hardcore: New Jack jumps off a balcony, falling twenty feet straight down, landing abdomen first on a wrestler lying on a table, splitting the table down the middle (and hopefully breaking the fall somewhat) and legitimately breaking ribs, all to get the crowd screaming his name for ten minutes. (Or substitute Mick Foley finishing a match after A) he is accidentially slammed through the top of a steel cage, falling twenty-five feet to the ring or B) accidentially having his ear torn off his body.) All three examples are real, and held up as "icons of Hardcore Wrestling." Frightens the Hell out of me, but Furfur *loves* it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:29:25 -0400 From: "Krishnaswami, Neel" Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore John Karakash wrote: > > The essence of 'hardcore' is breaking the normal boundaries of > convention, taste or generally accepted practices of decency. Hardcore > doesn't let itself be bound by the usual restrictions... in fact it > delights in breaking them at every opportunity. > > Examples: > > Assassination: shoot the target > Hardcore: blow up building that contains the target using the > daughter of target as human bomb I have to say, this one example is good enough to convince me to play a demon of Hardcore. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:30:56 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Yes, it's an act and it's controlled -- but it's designed to incite > audiences into a frothing mass of blood hungry animals. And I say > this as a Wrestling Fan. Furthermore, Hardcore Wrestling (an actual > term) is seperated from traditional wrestling. Traditional Pro > Wrestling involves aerial moves and mat work and brawling, with > occasional "illegal foreign objects" that the heel wrestlers use to > take advantage. I hadn't heard of hardcore wrestling before. My universe has now been expanded. =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:34:05 -0700 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: Pushing Malakim (was Re: IN> A fun little thought, with hairyimplications.) Thus spoke the mighty NetRep > > IMC, it's the oaths that MAKE the Malakite. No oaths, > no Malakite. They are an essential part of their being and > are inextricable. Of course a case can be made that only > the _original_ oaths are strictly necessary and the rest are > filler detail... =) I have always seen it this way: Malakim, upon creation (fledging or whole-angel creation) are tied into the Symphony like all Angels. Their resonance, what they can sense out of the symphony, is for honor. At that moment of creation, they can sense the sour note in the Symphony that is The Bad Guys. Being creatures of pure honor, they swear the two required oaths reflexively. As to their other oaths, I tend to think IMC that young Malakim are prone to oath swearing, which is why PC Malakim have at least four oaths total. After a certain point, they have 'enough' Oaths and become more concerned with following their current code than refining it. One take is that until they hit four oaths total, they would be prone to swearing them on the spur of the moment, which is never good...and that's why they aren't let out unsupervised until then. Having to swear all four immediately upon creation is, IMHO, kind of boring, because then the Oaths are either going to relate to purely Celestial matters or whatever knowledge their Superior has granted them. Excepting of course Relievers who Fledge.... I speculated some time ago on the list that perhaps...just maybe...a Superior could find a way or a place to create a Malakite and somehow prevent them from sensing Hell, Lucifer, the Dark Pull Of Fate and all that. Not forever, just long enough to have a sensible talk with them and perhaps get them to swear Oaths that are of the "Never give up the fight against evil" sort. Then perhaps you would have a Malakite with less stringent oaths. I can see (possibly) Eli, Novalis or Yves trying it. It could make a good plot with Eli-as-Loose-Cannon creating the Strange Malakite. Could the Strange Malakite actually Fall? Inquiring minds on both sides want to know. Is it really a Malakite, or just a Mercurian with spraypainted wings? Just random thoughts. Sean _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:44:42 GMT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Questions about Servitors of Stone I may be designing a Servitor of Stone shortly (alliteration's artful aid!) and I would like the following matters clarified by a reliable rules person: 1. Does attacking the attuned of a Cherub of Stone count as attacking the Cherub? 2. If a Malakite of Stone is ordered to work with a particular demon, and the demon does not attack him, then the Malakite is off the hook as far as his Oaths and his Servitor obligations are concerned (it's not his choice, and he doesn't attack). But what happens if the demon attacks someone else, or performs a visibly evil action? Would he then take dissonance if he didn't take action against the demon, since the demon had actually done something evil, even if the action wasn't against the Malakite directly? (Come to think of it, do demonic, or other, actions against innocent bystanders, noncombatants, attuneds, etc. count as attacks for the purpose of Stone dissonance conditions?) Janet ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:01:03 -0400 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Ranting [was:A fun little thought, with hairy implications] >> Matt Trent wrote: >> > Sometimes I just get tired of many people casting angles as perfect >> > being without doubt or fear or any other flaw that isn't expressed as >> > outright discord. >> >> They have doubt and fear, but they are angels, and choosing to "jump" >> would be the equivalent of a human spontaneously choosing to gouge his >> own eyes out. Not likely unless you're suffering from severe mental >> illness...which in celestials manifests as Discord. I don't think this has to be the case. Was Lucifer riddled with Discord? I doubt that. Jumping can be a manifestation of madness, but it can also be the result of a shift in world view. Angels can come to agree with Hell's party line without suffering dissonance and/or Discord, enough contact with demonic friends can do this. They decide to Jump because they no longer believe in what Heaven tells them. Not believing what Heaven tells you isn't always dissonant, just like not following orders isn't always dissonant. Angels can choose to no longer be angels without being disturbed. Now if an angel Jumped without being worked over by demons (who I'm sure get a major status boost for a convincing an angel clean of D/D to Jump) they definetly have some serious problems. Falling is a state shift because the angel has been pushing against what they are and the tension finally resolves itself by changing what they are. Jumping is the angel excersing their free will to rebel against God and their natural state. Even in campaigns where Jumping isn't allowed an angel with that mind set is going to take ten seconds top to Fall. Demons have lost a bit of their free will, they can't just Redeem. They need to go through a potentially fatal proccess to change sides. Its probably something they really hate. Angels, slaves of the almighty, can jump ship anytime. But demons, supposidely liberated by Lucifer, can't. I wonder if spontanious Redemption serves as a sort of analog in Hell to stories of spontanious combustion from earth. "I saw it, well not it, but the results. Solid white beam just destroyed his room and there was an angel rising up from it. I never believed in spontanious Redemption until now. Oh, sure, I wouldn't mind giving my statement to the Game." Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:03:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore At 12:30 PM -0400 7/19/00, John Karakash wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > I hadn't heard of hardcore wrestling before. My universe >has now been expanded. =) In frightening, frightening ways. (Hardcore Wrestling *really* hit the mainstream at about the same time that Furfur became a Prince. I *swear* I'm not making that up.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:18:55 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Questions about Servitors of Stone At 4:44 PM +0000 7/19/00, Janet Anderson wrote: >I may be designing a Servitor of Stone shortly (alliteration's >artful aid!) and I would like the following matters clarified by a >reliable rules person: > >1. Does attacking the attuned of a Cherub of Stone count as >attacking the Cherub? I have always defined "being struck first" as the Stone Servitor's *group* being attacked. Which can get into the grey area of the War Servitors launching attacks against the demons, the demons fighting back, and Stone stepping in and pounding away. However, Stone is inclusive -- to strike a comrade is to strike the whole -- so die. An Attuned would *certainly* count for these purposes. >2. If a Malakite of Stone is ordered to work with a particular >demon, and the demon does not attack him, then the Malakite is off >the hook as far as his Oaths and his Servitor obligations are >concerned (it's not his choice, and he doesn't attack). But what >happens if the demon attacks someone else, or performs a visibly >evil action? Would he then take dissonance if he didn't take action >against the demon, since the demon had actually done something evil, >even if the action wasn't against the Malakite directly? No. He was ordered to work with the demon. He may make it clear that the Demon's at the top of the list, though. > (Come to think of it, do demonic, or other, actions against >innocent bystanders, noncombatants, attuneds, etc. count as attacks >for the purpose of Stone dissonance conditions?) IMC, and I believe in Canon, yes. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:21:11 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Kronos/Tethers/Hell At 16:16 -0400 7/18/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >5:) Superiors can spend essence to create tethers on areas that are >infamous...it just costs more. Theoretically this would mean if Michael >wanted Disneyworld to be a tether to war instead of Marc then during >construction he'd spend enough essence to make it... Uh, no. In canon, Tethers *cannot* be created by Superiors, or any celestial for that matter. Only natural corporeal occurrences can generate Tethers. (This is all covered in detail in L.Castellorum, but mentioned in other places.) The only thing a Superior can do with a Tether is *stabilize* it, which requires investment of personal Forces, and the Superior must be within the wild Tether to do this. Disneyworld may become a Tether to whatever its nature suggests (Media, Creation, Trade, and Greed would be my likely possibilities). It's almost certainly *not* going to become a Tether to War, no matter what Michael does. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:33:16 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Ranting [was:A fun little thought, with hairyimplications] Tim Groth wrote: > I don't think this has to be the case. Was Lucifer riddled with Discord? > I doubt that. I don't. He had convinced himself that he knew better than God. He was a Seraph and he was deceiving his fellow angels. They might not yet have had a name for dissonance and Discord, because Lucifer was the first angel to suffer from it. But he was clearly acting against his Seraphic nature. > Jumping can be a manifestation of madness, but it can also > be the result of a shift in world view. Only inasmuch as a shift in world view might convince a human that he wants to maim or disfigure himself. > Angels can come to agree with> Hell's party line without suffering dissonance and/or Discord, enough > contact with demonic friends can do this. Feeling sympathy for the demons' POV wouldn't in itself cause an angel to become selfish, which is what it takes to become dissonant and Fall. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:03:02 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic At 23:50 +0000 7/18/00, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: > or maybe Lucifer can still speak Celestial for >the purposes of granting Words, but in the granting, the Word is >tainted by his Balserephic nature, so the Hoarde can pronounce this >Word in Helltongue without any translation, I believe canon states somewhere that demons all can understand and speak "angelic", so that isn't an issue. > and angels can speak >the Word in Celestial (though most would probably like to wash their >mouthes out afterwards or avoid the issue entirely). The converse (angels understanding Helltongue) is *not* true, so a Word with a significant Helltongue aspect might be partly or totally opaque to angels, though they presumably could pronounce it by copying the sounds. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:16:27 +0100 From: "Genevieve Cogman" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Deeply Heretical - -----Original Message----- From: Earl Wajenberg >David Edelstein wrote: >> Daedalus3D@aol.com wrote: >> > I'd always assumed that the reason that humans have more than >> > 5-forces occasionally is due to the amount of Grigori blood >> > running through them. >> I believe that's something I even hinted at in the CPG. >Just to bring up a literary parallel, in "Many Waters" by >Madeline L'Engle (a sequel to her better-known "Wrinkle in Time"), >we learn that the wife of Japheth -- one of Noah's three sons -- >is, in IN terms, a Child of the Grigori. That would mean that, >taking Noah's sons as the forefathers of the whole human race, >humans are one twelfth Grigori by blood, on the average. >Earl In INS/MV, Adam and Eve (having been made as ideal human beings -- er, laboratory experiments -- by God) were both (a) psychics, (b) in perfect human condition, (c) could develop Weird Powers. The psychics now present among the normal human population are their direct descendants. (The psychics also do things like work with renegades and outcasts and ethereals and sorcerers, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.) Genevieve ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 2000 18:38:23 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:03:02 -0400 Walter Milliken wrote: >At 23:50 +0000 7/18/00, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >> or maybe Lucifer can still speak Celestial for >>the purposes of granting Words, but in the granting, the Word is >>tainted by his Balserephic nature, so the Hoarde can pronounce this >>Word in Helltongue without any translation, >I believe canon states somewhere that demons all can understand and speak >"angelic", so that isn't an issue. i disagree. canon most definitely states that demons recognize angelic/ celestial, but the Vassal of War Distinction emphatically states angels can hear and understand the Vassal, but only other Vassals of War can respond in kind; demons "will recognize the tongue, but will not understand." -=|horsefly|=- If I ever wanted to say 'gwrthwynebiad', I'd probably kill myself by choking on my own tongue. =) - --John Karakash ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:56:31 -0700 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic The Vassal of War bit is accelerated, divinely encoded High Celestial. Sean - ----- Original Message ----- From: -=|horsefly|=- To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:38 AM Subject: Re: IN> Words in Celestial vs Demonic > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:03:02 -0400 Walter Milliken wrote: > >At 23:50 +0000 7/18/00, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: > >> or maybe Lucifer can still speak Celestial for > >>the purposes of granting Words, but in the granting, the Word is > >>tainted by his Balserephic nature, so the Hoarde can pronounce this > >>Word in Helltongue without any translation, > >I believe canon states somewhere that demons all can understand and speak > >"angelic", so that isn't an issue. > i disagree. canon most definitely states that demons recognize angelic/ celestial, but the Vassal of War Distinction emphatically states angels can hear and understand the Vassal, but only other Vassals of War can respond in kind; demons "will recognize the tongue, but will not understand." > > > -=|horsefly|=- > > If I ever wanted to say 'gwrthwynebiad', I'd probably kill myself by choking on my own tongue. =) > --John Karakash > _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:00:28 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Grigori stuff (was Re: Deeply Heretical (was Re: IN> More Grigori speculations)) At 16:51 -0700 7/18/00, Ryan Elias wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: >> 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....) >Was God personally involved in outcasting the Grigori? I seem to recall >the it was the Council's deal. That's my understanding -- this is certainly post-Metatron, so it's unlikely that it was done according to God's direct, explicit instructions in the matter. My reference to God was more about the issue of corporeal breeding, though that may, indeed, be an interpretation of the Seraphim Council's and not God's direct orders. > This is what the Grigori were meant >to be, not watchers and protectors of humanity (thats for Cherubim and >Malakim), but examples. Of course, calling their Choir "the Examples" >sounds silly, so "the Watchers" has become more popular. Or perhaps "the >Watchers" is a name for the Grigori thought up by other angels who >didn't understand why they (the Grigs, that is) were really down on >Earth. Actually, the Grigori resonance is part of the reason for the "Watchers" name -- they were ostensibly set up to detect and counter demonic influence on humanity, especially influences of the more subtle sort. >The Casting Out, then, wouldn't actually be a casting out of any sort. >The Seraphim Council might think that the Grigori were being punished, >but in reality they're just being installed where they're supposed to >be. The whole expulsion thing could even be a feint in the war >(instigated by the Council, Yves or even God) planting the Grigori where >they are unlikely to be disturbed by demons and can get on with the >business of guiding humanity without haveing to worry about the whole >war business. The main drawback to this theory is that many (originally thought to be all) the Grigori were hunted down and killed by Heaven. Unless that was all a sham, that's a fairly high price to pay to plant a *very* few agents. But then, maybe that *was* what God intended. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 2000 19:04:37 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: Re:IN> A fun little thought, with hairy implications. On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:16:22 -0700 David Rodemaker wrote: i'd scribed: >> i would distinguish between Falling and Jumping by >> degrees. the former creeps up on an angel as selfishness >> that wears away at the soul; the latter is a conscious >> choice made with or without a lot of thought behind it >> but generally no Discord or Dissonance. >I have a hard time reconciling the thought of an angel with no >D/D Jumping. It seems to me that while certainly within the >*rules* it sort of breaks the entire flavor of the game. Why >would an angel want to Jump if it didn't have any? generally i don't see Jumping without Discord or Dissonance as a spontaneous thing. as i said, it happens with or without a lot of thought, but there is some thought involved, and what's at the root of those thoughts is a conscious rebellion against God and the Symphony. the conditions have to be just right, and most of the time, those conditions include long conversations with Balseraphs who manage to convince the angel that the Balseraph speaking is right. Lucifer Fell (okay, so he was *thrown,* but the effect is the same ), but the rest of his followers Jumped. sometimes the conditions just require a rebellion from authority--going Outcast is a prelude to Jumping in these cases, where the angel has no Discord, but for some reason has taken it into its head to leave Heaven and the "oppressive weight of its Archangel." these days, and ever since the Fall, an angel Jumping is cause for grave concern--moreso than a mere Fall, and Dominic and Yves mourn them especially. -=|horsefly|=- God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:06:36 -0500 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Furfur and Hardcore At 09:02 PM 7/18/00 -0400, you wrote: >Here's a question that may have come up before. (In fact, I'd be willing >to bet it has, but... :)) > >Anyways, I'm curious just how much of "Hardcore" does Furfur embody? While >Night Music basically only discusses the Hardcore Music aspect of things, >his Word is simply Hardcore, not Hardcore Music. > >So could it cover other things considered Hardcore? Porn and Wrestling are >the only two "major" aspects that come to mind. 'Hardcore' is anything taken to destructive excess. Hardcore is anger for anger's sake, depression for depression's sake, ruin for the sake of ruin. Painting can be Hardcore. Driving can be Hardcore. Videogaming can be Hardcore. There is almost no activity which cannot be overdone, used to express contempt for the establishment, drawn into the destruction of all order and respected symbols of society and culture. One thing Hardcore -cannot- do is create: it is inherently a destructive process, capable of mockery and imitation at best. That which truly brings something new into the world runs wholly counter to the spirit of diabolic Hardcore. Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:04:54 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Legion Truth be told on David's site we already have some of the Superiors you may want to talk about (and the Superiors in the book likely would be very very similar to what is there) in this case Raphael and Uriel. Legion I think would be a very interesting demonic superior however and I can just personally imagine what his servitor attunements are (fragmentation another's personality and absorbing thoughts I think would be good ones-distinctions might include multiple actions per round and the ability to keep the memories of whoever you possess for a large essence cost) In all likelhood in my opinion Legion hated Hell more than anything (Biblically Legion was the collective name of a bunch of demons who possesed a man in Gallilee before they were driven out-not wanting to go back to the pit-but that might have been because he didn't want to face Saminga). My idea of how the Legion thing turned out was that Legion devoured/absorbed all the demons in his service in Hell (notice Legion has no principality in Hell) then on Earth began to add humanity's spirits to him in a terrible capochany intending to devour all of mankind.....then perhaps the Marches, Hell, heaven, God...who knows. Completely mad and possesing untold thousands of voices screaming in his head. Asmodeus took a look at the Legion incident; shuffled his papers for a few incidents and ran like an Olfalim to the nearest Judgement Tether to call in the Big guns while his subordinates gathered Baal, Kobal, Mariel, Belial, and even Sloth (they got him to carry a spear or something). Saminga I don't know about because no doubt he thought this (just like the Black Death later) was waay cool. Raphael was destroyed, perhaps absorbing most of Legion's power (she was the first Elohim in my mind) and Laurence laid the rest of the Shedim to waste while Michael, Baal, and a few other archangels/princes attacked Legion's other heads. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:27:35 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Outcast Kyriotates of Michael. At 18:24 -0600 7/18/00, ben wrote: >How can an Outcast Kyriotate of Michael get his vessel back if he's lost it? The only way he can lose his vessel is if he gets it killed. Since he's Outcast, he's now in Limbo, in Trauma. Eventually, he can regenerate a vessel (according to the normal Limbo rules), and get out of Limbo. (I seem to recall that Kyrios who have a host killed go into Trauma, even if they're in other hosts at the time, but I may be wrong on that. If so, then it's possible he won't wind up in Limbo; in that case, there's no way to get a new vessel, as far as I know.) >If he does lose it, does he basically become a normal Kyriotate? No. Normal Kyrios *can't* go to Limbo, and he can't get out of Limbo without creating a new vessel. >It talks about generating vessels and creating vessels in the attunement >description. The wording is a little weird, as I recall. The only place normal celestials (non-Superiors) can create their own vessels is in Limbo, as far I as know. > Does this mean the Kyriotate could -- theoretically -- start >without a vessel, and buy one when he gets 3 character points? Sure, if he starts play in Limbo.... Kind of hard to accumulate character points there.... It's also possible to have a Kyrio of War who simply didn't ever have a vessel, and then went Outcast. In that case, I'd probably let him get a vessel for 3 character points *if* he could find a Superior willing to do it for an Outcast, *and* the Superior was benefited by whatever action those character points represented. (Of course, Lilith might do it simply for a future favor. Might be better to go back and beg Michael's forgiveness, though....) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:49:36 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> GURPS-IN and material for IN At 18:05 -0700 7/18/00, Bruce Dykes wrote: >The suggestion I made that's since been lost in the >archives was that GURPS:IN should be used for >humanocentric campaigns, with just token celestial >rules/conversions, and IN should be used celestial >oriented campaigns with just token rules for human >players...in essence, the CPG should've been GURPS:IN, >but that would have been absolutely unworkable from a >marketing perspective. Doesn't stop me or you from >using it that way, though... I'd probably use GURPS IN for both, actually, if I were starting a new campaign. But then I'm a GURPS fan, primarily. From what I've seen, celestials work well enough in GURPS, at least at the starting level. I don't know how they'll do as they evolve, but IN doesn't handle that particularly gracefully, either. For me, the biggest difference in the feel between IN and GURPS IN (other than mechanics-related issues), is that the vessel rules feel really couldn't be carried over in any reasonable way that I could find. (At least, in any way that PCs could afford....) So, while the low-end non-combat celestials aren't very different, combat monsters with high-end vessels with huge numbers of Body Hits just aren't likely to show up in GURPS IN. The system simply makes them too expensive. They're not actually prohibited, but they'd require more points than a starting character normally has to play with. >Perhaps as a Pyramid article? In fact, unless it's the >IN Compendium, I don't know that there's enough >Grigori stuff to fill out a Liber Vigila. Maybe a >Liber Arcana as a catchall kind of thing? But that has >the problem of being a mixed bag supplement, and all >the marketing hassle that entails... I don't think it will be a Pyramid article (or if it is, it probably wouldn't be considered "official canon"). I can't really comment on how the Grigori are planned to be handled, and even if I could, there's no guarantee that it wouldn't change around as plans for the line evolve. >> And the Superiors books basically came out of player >> demand -- there >> weren't *any* plans originally to do such things. > >Yes, IN gamers prefer tools, not stories, seeds, not >adventures. 8-) Depends on the gamers, actually. Different audiences want different things from a game line. (Mostly, they don't want adventures, though... or exclusively adventure material. Apparently.) > The supplement I'd like to see is a Liber >Cartus(?), an expansion of the Heaven and Hell, I know a Heaven & Hell rewrite is fairly far up on the list of things people have been interested in. I suspect other things will get done first, though. >Overall, I'm pleased with GURPS:IN. It looks just like >IN, Thank SJ for that -- he decided to use the IN layout, rather than follow the GURPS layout. > and those cool conversion rules. I just hope they work well enough -- conversion is a tricky process, and can't really be done entirely mechanically. > But You lose >points for not including my favorite crossover, >IN:Lensman. 8-) I had thought we actually did something with that, mostly for grins, and then cut it, but no, I don't seem to have anything about it in the early drafts. It may have been a policy issue to not refer to books linked to licenses... I don't recall. Maybe Elizabeth and I just talked about it. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:01:53 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors At 10:32 -0400 7/19/00, Daedalus3D@aol.com wrote: >Superiors #?: The Quick and the Dead. (The "quick" being Uriel, Gebbeleth, >and any other Superiors who aren't really dead, just MIA. The "dead," well >that's everybody else.) A basic write up on each Superior that's much shorter >than a Superior book, but longer than just pure essentials. I'd say the >writeups in Revelations would be a good guide. Through reading the combined >history of those involved in certain historical events (Legion and Raphael >for the Legion Incident, Meserach, Mariel, and Haagenti for the Swallowing >Incident) GM's and players should be able to get enough of the basic idea to >run at least a few senarios around it. In the back, we could get David to >expound on running historical campaigns, fleshing out the bits from the GMG. >I also like the idea of including famous historical Word-bound (kudos to >Eric). There have been various proposals for a "Historical In Nomine" book of some sort, roughly similar to the above, though not with the specific slanting as a "Superiors" book, and thus with a somewhat different emphasis on different parts. Something like that is fairly high on peoples' wish lists, as far as I recall from the long-ago survey on possible projects. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1720 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.