From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Sep 26 09:31:52 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 JAA11022 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:31:52 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA19002 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:30:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:30:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200009261430.JAA19002@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 #1831 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, September 26 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1831 In this digest: IN> Some PAges of Interest IN> Lilith as Human Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. Re: IN> Disturbance Re: IN> Superiors 4.... Re: IN> Swipe IN> Mercurians or Man Re: IN> Superiors 4.... Re: IN> Mercurians or Man Re: IN> Lilith as Human Re: IN> Mercurians or Man Re: IN> Lilith as Human Re: IN> Lilith as Human Re: IN> Mercurians or Man IN> Questions, questions..... Re: IN> Lilith as Human Re: IN> Questions, questions..... Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:02:40 +1000 From: "Azrael" Subject: IN> Some PAges of Interest For names and there meanings coming out of your ears: http://www.angelicartistry.com/names.htm For Names of Word Bound http://www.angelicartistry.com/patron.htm Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:38:07 -0500 From: "Cthulhu" Subject: IN> Lilith as Human That whole discussion on lilith as a human/ once human has gotten me thinking... presenting an idea on why Lilith is so powerful, yet not human (as we know it) (It's been a while since I read much theology [sad , I know], so bear with me if things are a bit off. A lot of this is based on the creation stories as recounted in _Sandman_) In the beginning (as they say) God created Adam from the dust. And things were grand, but Adam was lonesome, so God created a mate for him; Lilith. Only she was the _first_ rebel against God, and left the garden to walk alone. So eventually God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (I'm ignoring his second, nameless wife here), and from these two spread the whole human race. Now the point here is that Adam was created from dust, and Eve from Adam; so all of humanity (even Eve) is descended from one being - Adam. Lilith was not made from Adam, or from dust, she was sung out of nothingness. She was not necessarily human as we now know it. It is possible that she was the original cast for woman, only when she left did God (for some reason) ditch the concept and just changed part of Man to become Woman. By this view Lilith both is and is not human - she is like the earliest prototype, before things were set in stone, and this is why she has powers beyond those of modern humans, and yet is still one of them. Comments, raves, flames? The Sleepy One _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:07:04 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. At 3:58 PM -0500 9/21/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Marc Bowden wrote: >I believe he's referring to Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, >the hosts of "VeggieTales," a series of Christian kid-videos. [...] >Upcoming releases include the tale of Esther, played by an >asparagus. > >Imagine that Novalis redeemed some Media demons. ......... Are you _sure_ they were _redeemed_?????? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:54:43 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance At 6:42 PM +0100 9/21/00, Omentide wrote: [...] >So, why does the death of a mortal cause so much disturbance if, and only >if, it's caused by a celestial being? I don't know. I didn't write >canon. I guess it's just a game mechanic to stop munchkins from using >celestial powers to kill mortals in an indiscriminate manner. It was like that when I got it, but I have a suspicion that you're right -- though of course my goal tends to be to try to justify (or at least hand-wave entertainingly) the decisions that were originally dictated by play-balance (or other forms of "meta-reasons"). (And since this started in a fuzzygrayarea, I'm sitting back and listening to what everyone else thinks before I make up my own mind. Muwhahahah!) >Please note, my partner (who posts from the same address) and I are having >a minor disagreement over this one. I saw the different .sigs. Entertaining! At 2:08 PM -0400 9/21/00, Marc Bowden wrote: > And so is the current discussion. Rather than adhering to the >spirit of the thing, munchkins look at this as simply having to >indiscriminately kill mortals in a more creative way. At least they're being creative, no da? >(What are you doing, Dave?) ("Your helmet you left in the pod bay / If I had a mouth I would grin / Now you'll have to risk decompression / 'Cause I'm not gonna let you back in!") Ahem. It was on one of my first filk tapes. Hardwired it into my brain over 10 years ago. Can't help it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:54:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superiors 4.... At 2:00 PM -0400 9/22/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >All right, screwing up my byline name is wonky, but it's a simple >mistake so I'm not complaining really. (Though if they got it right >on my contract, and always got it right in *playtest....* Sorry. Ego >burst through for a second there.) Argh. Goto www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata and fix. *sigh( >The sections look really nice on first, hurried passes. Looking at >the sigils (one of my favorite things, always), I find that Alaemon's >is seriously cool, Fleurity's is beautifully iconic but obscure (it >put me more in mind of a thistle than cannibis), I figured it was a poppy or lotus... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "She's either babbling, or summoning Elder Gods. I'm not sure which." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:22:38 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Swipe At 3:46 PM -0400 9/23/00, William J. Keith wrote: >Some clarifications on the Janus/Valefor's Swipe attunement as printed in >G:IN, please: Eek. (As a note for the non-GURPSians, the text in GIN for that attunement is essentially unchanged, except for the terminology of "Celestial Power" for "Celestial Forces," and substituting ST for Total Forces as the weight limit in pounds. Chime in at will.) >1.) The grammar is unclear. The way that seems most logical to interpret >this is the the celestial can swipe the object regardless of whether he/she >is being watched, with disturbance happening if someone sees the >disappearance or reappearance. Yes. > If I have this right, how much disturbance is generated? At least 2, for the 2 Essence spent to power the attunement. Anything further is up to the GM to decide, at the moment. IIRC. (Hey, Karakash, is this in the FAQ yet?) >2.) What if the celestial swipes a corporeal object and then ascends to >their Heart? The GM throws dice. > Does the object (deep breath) >appear in some celestial or ethereal form, possibly with functionality >seriously altered, as part of the celestial's image? (The attunement does >say "wherever" the celestial is... ;^) ) Oh, man, you're sick... I like you. I wish I could justify using this one, but I think that... >stay held in potentiality, inacessible, until the celestial returns to >Earth, whereupon the object immediately reappears if the requisite time has >passed? ...is closer to the feel of things. >3.) What about a Kyriotate using this attunement? Sick, sick, sick. Remind me to play a Kyriotate of the Wind sometime, so I can abuse my GM. >Can they "pass" the >object from one host to another while it is in potentiality? It appears with the angel, not the host of the moment, so serial hosts are no problem. If there are multiple hosts.... Ow, my brain hurts. A GM _could_ make a case that the object should stay with the host who did the Swipe, but I think that allowing it to be "dropped" next to any host is more in line with the Kyrio nature. >What about >all the above questions regarding a Kyriotate who swipes an object in one >host which they then dispossess, possibly or possibly not having another >host still available? If the Kyrio is in celform or cloudform, I would have the object pop out next to it, in the nearest clear space. (If the Kyrio happens to be in a wall, in Celform, or oozing through an air filter or something.) >4.) There's a usual limitation on most such powers which is absent in this >Attunement's description: namely, whether or not it can be used on living >objects. After all, while "lving being" and "potentiality" seem fairly >exclusive to me, a Cherub protecting a newborn baby, a small animal, or a >valuable medicinal plant might find this Attunement *highly* useful, so >it'd be good to know if this was possible. Eeeg! No! Object, not "object or being"! (When I say "object," I _usually_ mean an inanimate one. Though that specification gets lost sometimes with Cherubim, since they can attune to lots of things... O:p ) I need to get Walter to tidy up the appendix... sometime when he isn't sick, curseit. That's the sort of thing that the cost breakdowns should fix. - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "She's either babbling, or summoning Elder Gods. I'm not sure which." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:09:26 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Mercurians or Man This is an odd question but which came first? Mercurians to Gaurd Man that they were made in the image of (since God knows the future) or Mercurians and mankind was made to resemble the cuddliest of Angels? Or were they different in appearence than vessels (which didn't exist in early Eli's time)? I'd appreciate some input from ya'll. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:25:19 -0700 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Superiors 4.... At 04:54 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote: >>The sections look really nice on first, hurried passes. Looking at >>the sigils (one of my favorite things, always), I find that Alaemon's >>is seriously cool, Fleurity's is beautifully iconic but obscure (it >>put me more in mind of a thistle than cannibis), > >I figured it was a poppy or lotus... Lotus sounds good to me. Redneck (any word on schedule for S5?) Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:47:26 -0600 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians or Man Don't forget Yves, he looks entirely human. I'd imagine they did look human, as do the Elohim (vaguely). Most likely the other angels didn't give it much thought, considering the other shapes they could take what did it matter. Then God being lazy decided, hell why not have things in the corporeal realm kind of look like angels. You know, cut down on the work. Someone a while ago proposed that angels looked all fuzzy and sort of choirish until Corporeal analogs started to appear at which point they came into focus with their celestial form matching the corporeal templates. I'm not a big fan of this idea, but its bounced around a bit and does address the issue. - -- Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus If you have time to kill, why not kill it at http://ucsub.Colorado.edu/~grothtp/In.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:23:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Lilith as Human - --- Cthulhu wrote: > > That whole discussion on lilith as a human/ once human has gotten me > thinking... presenting an idea on why Lilith is so powerful, yet not > human > (as we know it) > > (It's been a while since I read much theology [sad , I know], so bear > with > me if things are a bit off. A lot of this is based on the creation > stories > as recounted in _Sandman_) > > In the beginning (as they say) God created Adam from the dust. And > things > were grand, but Adam was lonesome, so God created a mate for him; > Lilith. > Only she was the _first_ rebel against God, and left the garden to > walk > alone. So eventually God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (I'm > ignoring > his second, nameless wife here), and from these two spread the whole > human > race. > > Now the point here is that Adam was created from dust, and Eve from > Adam; > so all of humanity (even Eve) is descended from one being - Adam. > Lilith > was not made from Adam, or from dust, she was sung out of > nothingness. She > was not necessarily human as we now know it. The problem with this theory is that it makes Lilith an entirely different order of being from Adam -- and therefore unable to reproduce with him without a Song of Fruition. In canon, only the Grigori could commit that sort of miscegination and make it bear fruit. If God's plan was for humans to "be fruitful and multiply," he would at least have made them genetically compatible. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians or Man - --- Charles Phipps wrote: > This is an odd question but which came first? Mercurians to Gaurd Man > that > they were made in the image of (since God knows the future) or > Mercurians > and mankind was made to resemble the cuddliest of Angels? Considering that Eli created most of creation and he's a Mercurian... ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 2000 02:35:45 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith as Human On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael Walton wrote: >--- Cthulhu wrote: [snip] > The problem with this theory is that it makes Lilith an entirely >different order of being from Adam -- and therefore unable to reproduce >with him without a Song of Fruition. In canon, only the Grigori could >commit that sort of miscegination and make it bear fruit. If God's >plan was for humans to "be fruitful and multiply," he would at least >have made them genetically compatible. my own thoughts are somewhere on the order of 'Adam and Lilith were of a completely different order of human; Lilith left and retained this unusual nature, while Adam and Eve (also unusual) fell from God's grace, and the differences in their (Adam's and Eve's) natures was aligned to those of normal humans. they were, after all, an experiment of (paraquoting) "human nature at maximum potential," neh? -=|horsefly|=- God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:12:43 -0500 From: "Tafka J." Subject: Re: IN> Lilith as Human At 7:23 PM -0700 09/25/00, Michael Walton wrote: > The problem with this theory is that it makes Lilith an entirely >different order of being from Adam -- and therefore unable to reproduce >with him without a Song of Fruition. In canon, only the Grigori could >commit that sort of miscegination and make it bear fruit. If God's >plan was for humans to "be fruitful and multiply," he would at least >have made them genetically compatible. Hold on a second. Think about this a second. Grigori _are_ Celestials. They also are able to reproduce with Humans. What if Lilith was the prototype for the Grigori? I mean, she'd be more from the human side of the equation, but you never know. . . Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = tafkaj@thrifty.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:55:17 NZST From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: IN> Mercurians or Man >--- Charles Phipps wrote: > > This is an odd question but which came first? Mercurians to Gaurd Man > > that > > they were made in the image of (since God knows the future) or > > Mercurians > > and mankind was made to resemble the cuddliest of Angels? > > Considering that Eli created most of creation and he's a Mercurian... The Choirs' natures revealed themselves after the act of creation. So it seems... at least they must have, Mercurian nature would not have revealed itself without humans to model it on. God stripped himself of his memories of the future according to the Yves. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:51:00 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Questions, questions..... Just some random questions I've been meaning to ask but never remembered: 1) Skill Mastery: Humans can do it, celestials can't. Sort of a method of leveling the playing field. No problem. But I can only assume that a Kyriotate of Destiny has full access to those Mastered skills? 2) Fast Eddie the Ofanite of Destiny gains the rank of Friend of the Sages. Fast Eddie has four Celestial Forces. Does Fast Eddie get to add four to his general knowledge rolls, thus giving him an overall score of 15 in every subject? 3) This is the most hypothetical of my questions, as it's hard to envision a situation where it would actually happen. Would a Balseraph of Fate who had (for example) the Mercurian resonance, be able to gain Mercurian choir resonances? The only place I could envision the last one is if the Bal in question were a Grey Renegade which was HIGHLY favored, and was being actively courted for Redemption. And even then I could not really see it. But that brings up another question: Can a Grey Renegade gain and use heavenly Rites? I forget if this was already written somewhere. But I could see that happening. Sort of a "See how nice we are letting you use our Rites? Want to Redeem now?" Plus using a Rite strengthens the Superior's Word, no matter who is using it, right? Reverend Brian A. Rogers BillionSix@aol.com ICQ# 22544590 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:18:23 -0500 From: "Cthulhu" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith as Human > Hold on a second. Think about this a second. Grigori _are_ Celestials. >They also are able to reproduce with Humans. What if Lilith was the >prototype for the Grigori? I mean, she'd be more from the human side of >the equation, but you never know. . . I'm not really sure about prototype, all the choirs (save the Malakim, I think) were created long before the experiment. But she could have been an _actual_ Grigori, set to the task by god. In which we now know what happens to Grigori who fall.... Sleepy Guy _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:09:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Questions, questions..... At 3:51 AM -0400 9/26/00, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >Just some random questions I've been meaning to ask but never remembered: > >1) Skill Mastery: Humans can do it, celestials can't. Sort of a method of >leveling the playing field. No problem. But I can only assume that a >Kyriotate of Destiny has full access to those Mastered skills? Oooo, good question. Yeah, I'd probably allow it. (Though if anyone does, please tell me if it's evil and abusive -- the theory says it should happen, but it's gray enough to swing the other way... >2) Fast Eddie the Ofanite of Destiny gains the rank of Friend of the Sages. >Fast Eddie has four Celestial Forces. Does Fast Eddie get to add four to his >general knowledge rolls, thus giving him an overall score of 15 in every >subject? Hrm. This depends on whether the Friend rank is read to be: "a target number of 11 or the actual target, whichever is higher," or if the Ofanite attunement modifies that default as it would any other. My first inclination would be that the _spirit_ of the Friend Distinction is "11 or actual, no mods" -- but the text seems more inclined towards allowing such an evil thing as a 15. FEAR OFANIM OF DESTINY! Well, if you want to make a Knowledge roll. >3) This is the most hypothetical of my questions, as it's hard to envision a >situation where it would actually happen. Would a Balseraph of Fate who had >(for example) the Mercurian resonance, be able to gain Mercurian choir >resonances? GM option. Might work, might expose the Balseraph's attunement as the lie it is and make him explode/become very dissonnant or just fail. Pick what you like and apply it as needed. > The only place I could envision the last one is if the Bal in question were >a Grey Renegade which was HIGHLY favored, and was being actively courted for >Redemption. And even then I could not really see it. But that brings up >another question: Can a Grey Renegade gain and use heavenly Rites? Yes. It is the GM's option whether this will cause dissonance in the demon, from the Pure Essence (or whatever handwaving you want to do). IMC, it would depend on the demon -- the lighter gray the demon, the less "painful" Heavenly Essence would be. >I forget >if this was already written somewhere. But I could see that happening. Sort >of a "See how nice we are letting you use our Rites? Want to Redeem now?" >Plus using a Rite strengthens the Superior's Word, no matter who is using it, >right? Not necessarily -- see the Words chapter in the GMG... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "She's either babbling, or summoning Elder Gods. I'm not sure which." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:57:13 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. Marc Bowden wrote: > Larry as commander of the Host. There's an image. Yes, though in "Josh and the Big Wall," we see Archibald Asparsgus playing the role of Michael. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:27:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> It's official. I have IN permanently hardwired into my brain. Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 3:58 PM -0500 9/21/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >I believe he's referring to Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, > >the hosts of "VeggieTales," a series of Christian kid-videos. [...] > >Imagine that Novalis redeemed some Media demons. > > ......... Are you _sure_ they were _redeemed_?????? I'm sure that my four-year-old daughter and a number of other kids in her Sunday-school class think that King David was a small asparagus and that Goliath was a large pickle. Oh, and then there's their SF episode, "The Gourds Must Be Crazy," set aboard the starship Applepies, with a deep-dish disc section. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1831 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.