From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 15 12:19:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11622 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:19:41 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id LAA11514 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:57:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:57:05 -0600 Message-Id: <199801151757.LAA11514@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 #566 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 Thursday, January 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 566 In this digest: RE: IN> Faith & Celestials Re: IN> Who's God now? Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry IN> Malakim Vows IN> Faith & Celestials IN> Habbalah Strategem Unmasked! Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance RE: IN> Faith & Celestials Re: IN> Faith & Celestials Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... RE: IN> WWW Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Faith & Celestials Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Remnants IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> Faith & Celestials Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Faith & Celestials IN> Faith & Celestials RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Re: IN> Faith & Celestials ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:51:09 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: RE: IN> Faith & Celestials > >2) Book of Tobit? I'm assuming it's not one of the books in the >Bible - what is it, and is there any way to look at it online? (Why >pay money for a book when I'm already paying $15 a month to rent >access to thousands?) The Book of Tobit is part of the Apocrypha, a selection of books traditionally included in the Bible, but not considered cannonical. There's some interesting stuff there, like the prophet Daniel taking out a Dragon. It's all the more interesting because the books are often grouped between the two testaments, so you come out of a wasteland of moaning minor prophets into some odd little stories. I'd be surprised if there weren't a version of it on the internet somewhere. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:57:17 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Who's God now? >> >> So who is God now? Who, indeed? >> >> > >Kobal. :) No, no. It was Kobal FIRST. Now he's sitting back, enjoying a very private running joke. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:01:59 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry At 23:39 14/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>I don't know. If her main goal is 'eradicate evil' then being honorable >>isn't necessary to accomplishing that. It /is/ necessary for her to be true >>to herself.. but that needn't apply to a non-Malakite. > > But the malakite loses her abilities to fight evil if she's not >honourable. In fact, she starts becoming evil herself. So that isn't >practical for her. So being honorable is logical if you are a malakite. That won't apply to elohites though. > I haven't seen Spiceworld, so I have no opinion about the logic >involved in liking it. > Experience everything, then make your judgements ;) jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:35:54 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Malakim Vows >>>Now that the APG has been brought into the discussion, perhaps we should recall that it says in black and white that any Malakite oath of limited duration *must be replaced* by another oath as soon as its term has expired. While the example they gave was "Slay all dragons" now that Uriel has already exterminated them, presumably any oath with a built-in time-clause fits that category as well.<<< Yes, if a Malakite made a limited duration Oath (i.e. a true, permanent, binding Oath, as opposed to a promise that he may mean seriously, but will not impose dissonance), he'd have to replace it as soon as the duration expires. Which is why he's certainly not going to swear such an Oath as "I promise to let you go..." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:35:52 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Faith & Celestials >>>Woah. Maybe my translation of the Book of Tobit is different then the author's, but I'd like to know where that came from and what the logic is. I realize my conception of the guy has got to be different then other conceptions for various reasons, but I'm having serious problems buying that.<<< He's not. He's an Elohite. He was originally listed as a Cherub, 'cause I asked Derek what Choir Raphael was (since Derek wrote the story where Raphael first appears), and he told me Cherub.... In Nomine hasn't made a point of sticking to traditional angelology anyway. (I happen to own several books about angel lore, but the Book of Tobit isn't one of them.) Usually a given Superior will be made a part of a particular story, then a Choir or Band chosen based on their role in the story. I can't tell you why Derek originally made Raphael a Cherub, but don't expect that named angels and demons will necessarily conform to their descriptions in the Book of Tobit or any other traditional source. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:14:27 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: IN> Habbalah Strategem Unmasked! Naturally, in a game so heavenly as In Nomine, there will be infernal plots to subvert it. And the demons got a line into the original rules designed to further their diabolical cause. It is on page 33, where Western Civilisation is referred to as a Balseraph plot. At first, I thought a Balseraph might be responsible for this, but obviously that's not the case. A Balseraph would never accuse her own band of being liars. So I'm guessing that it's a habbalah in the service of Kobal involved. Afraid that you guys might not recognise the plot for what it was, I polled the Archangels to see what they thought about Western Civ. Blandine: Never before has a civilisation been so much the product of ideas and dreams. Democracy, Human Rights, Equality of the Sexes--all these ideas were born in Marches, and it is in the West that they are closest to seeing fruition. Christopher: They have better child labour laws and a lower infant mortality rate than anywhere. Good education for children, too. David: They've improved mining more than other civilisations, but I'm suspicious of this constant harping on change and progress. They don't understand that too much freedom means not enough loyalty. Dominic: Like any place, there is an intolerable amount of injustice. But if for nothing else, it is here that the concept that even the law-makers and givers must be subject to the law has taken strongest root. If only they'd trouble themselve to enforce it... Eli: You know something kind of funny? Everyone in the West thinks of themselves as a non-comformist. They can't all be right, of course, but it says something I like. They all value creativity, even if they aren't always good at it. And it's the thought that counts. Gabriel: No other culture has been as opposed to cruelty as such. But these anti-smoking lobbies are starting to get on my nerves. Janus: These guys understand change. They revel in it. If society isn't changing fast enough, they take to the streets. Like it's causing them dissonance or something. It's all wrapped up in two very western notions: Progress and Evolution. Besides, where are you going to find better highways? Jean: The telephone, electricity in every house, the internet. Jordi: It took them a while to catch on that animals are valuable. But they're learning fast: World Wildlife Fund, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act. Did you know that Mao Tse Tung tried to kill every sparrow in China through exhaustion? Merely because they were idle and he didn't like their noise. Well, Asmodeus is teaching old Mao some things about noise these days, I imagine. Heh heh. Laurence: At one time, I was heartily for Western Civilisation, for that was the where Christianity had waxed strongest. Now I'm not so sure... Marc: Someone's giving the Balseraphim credit for the stock market? For capitalism? For the social contract? For copyright laws? I'm calling my lawyer. Michael: They certainly have taken war to a high pitch, and applied a lot of ingenuity to it. But now it seems like they're trying to abolish the whole idea. Don't they realise how necessary war is? Novalis: Flower-children. FTD. I'm a little cold on Agent Orange, but they never could have gotten away with using it in the West. The people wouldn't have put up with it. Yves: Where else could the worthy writers and artists of In Nomine reached such a dazzling destiny? Overall, pretty positive. Let's hear what the other side says: Andrealphus: They've always been a bit clumsy and repressed about lust, which has worked in my favour. It's a feeling they simply can't avoid, and they feel so dirty about it. The stronger the repression, the darker the expression. Asmodeus: The police state was invented on the edge of the West. 19C Russia, as a matter of fact. But it's never really flourished in the West. The Western mind is intrinsically opposed to the notion. No matter. I'm not that concern with what they want, if you can imagine. Baal: Used to be you could get them to go to war over nothing. A beautiful woman, a disputed border. Now you have to invent all sorts of atrocities and such to get them feeling belicose. Not that I mind, but sometimes I long for the simpler days. Beleth: But Hollywood produces such lovely, dark dreams. And wasn't National Socialism one long, waking nightmare? Western Civilisation offers many opportunities to the enterprising demon of dreams, though it is hardly unique. Belial: Atomic bombs. I LOVE atomic bombs. Dresden and Tokyo were hot, too. I'm for it. Fleurity: Just say no, baby! Hahaha, I love it! Free needles down at St. John's Hospital, kids! Furfur: I was BO-O-O-RN in the U S A! Haagenti: Sanctimonious do-gooders would put diet clinics on the moon. It's a plot against me. I know it. Kobal: Timing is everything, and I'm not sure the punchline's been told. I'll wait before passing judgment. Though I loved Pulp Fiction. Kronos: And where did this notion of the unique value of the individual come from? *I* didn't authorise it. Malphas: Now which of you little snotlings let the idea of a Constitutional Government get through? And which of you did I assign to sabotage the creation of the UN? I hope you haven't made special plans for Christmas. Nybbas: Western Civilisation is the very coolest, the prettiest, the brightest. If you don't live in California and have capped teeth, obviously you're nothing. Saminga: Too many doctors and not enough famine. Though I can't complain about legalised abortion. They're so small, but there're so MANY of them... Valefor: What do I think of Western Civilisation? Why? Do you want me to get it for you? Hmmm. A lot of them like it, too. Still, it seems like the Angels' case is stronger, and we can feel fairly certain they're telling the truth. I guess maybe Western Civilisation is a good thing with some serious flaws to correct, and not the product of diabolical plotting, after all. Well, that's one demonic ploy exposed. Whew! Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:21:39 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry >So being honorable is logical if you are a malakite. That won't apply to >elohites though. Honor is *practical* to the Malakites, and maybe not as practical to Elohites. But my point was that we can't just logic by how practical it is. In a sense, logic and honour are very similar. They're both about adhering to unbending rules. Logic is the rules that govern concept, honour the rules that govern behaviour. Most people are fairly comfortable crossing either set. I'll bear your recommendation of Spice World in mind. Anyone with a signature tag from GKC can't have ALL bad taste. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:05:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance > >I discovered yesterday that it had been in Dublin ( I presume > >it was bought in Dublin anyway) for a couple of days before being sold > >out. Given the speed with which both the places which sell rpgs in Dublin > >get new stock, I confidently expect it to be in tomorrow, or maybe next > >year, or not at all. > > Ugh. SJG Mail-order? > No. I reckon I'll repeatedly borrow it from my friend until I've memorised it. Mail orders are too much work. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:10:46 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: RE: IN> Faith & Celestials > >2) Book of Tobit? I'm assuming it's not one of the books in the > >Bible - what is it, and is there any way to look at it online? (Why > >pay money for a book when I'm already paying $15 a month to rent > >access to thousands?) > > The Book of Tobit is part of the Apocrypha, a selection of books > traditionally included in the Bible, but not considered cannonical. > There's some interesting stuff there, like the prophet Daniel taking out a > Dragon. It's all the more interesting because the books are often grouped > between the two testaments, so you come out of a wasteland of moaning minor > prophets into some odd little stories. And a war. And all sorts of martyrs. And all sorts of other wackiness. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:21:16 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Faith & Celestials > He's not. He's an Elohite. He was originally listed as a Cherub, 'cause I > asked Derek what Choir Raphael was (since Derek wrote the story where > Raphael first appears), and he told me Cherub.... In Nomine hasn't > made a point of sticking to traditional angelology anyway. (I happen to own > several books about angel lore, but the Book of Tobit isn't one of them.) > Usually a given Superior will be made a part of a particular story, then a > Choir or Band chosen based on their role in the story. I can't tell you why > Derek originally made Raphael a Cherub, but don't expect that named angels > and demons will necessarily conform to their descriptions in the Book of > Tobit or any other traditional source. Well, everything else in the game seems to do OK with conforming to outside sources, even loosely. The choice seems to be pretty random here, and now I can't post anything without it being 'totally non-canon' and getting pounced for it being 'wrong'. I disagree with Elohite even stronger then I disagree with Cherub. Granted, I don't get Pyramid, and I don't know if everyone else does or not, so I've only briefly seen the story once. But it simply isn't correct, even with just a cursory look over something like Paradise Lost. Raphael always, in modern and Biblical literature and art, comes across as a teacher and a very human oriented sort of guy. Taking away his emotions kind of kills him. And frankly, it's not difficult to at least do a little back research. I suppose it doesn't matter, since the author killed him as well. A dead Archangel is a dead Archangel. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:43:41 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... >>>Malakim are NEVER cruel! A vicious lie from the Balseraph. >>>Like I said, speaks for itself. > >>Does it? I'm quite prepared to believe that some Malakim are cruel, but >>all of them? I suppose they're all combat monsters as well, too. > >i don't think malakim are cruel. sure they can be vicious, or ruthless. but >cruelty is taking pleasure in inlicting pain. that doesn't seem very >honourable to me. (unless of course it's against diabolicals, in which case >it's admirable :) ) > >liam Ohhh... Imagine Gabriel's Angels running into a cruel Malakite... "Awww, chriskies, whadda we do now?" - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "The humans do not start from that direct perception of Him which we, unhappily, cannot avoid. They have never known that ghastly luminosity, that stabbing and searing glare which makes background of permanent pain to our lives." -Screwtape (From "The Screwtape Letters", by C.S. Lewis) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:03:08 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: RE: IN> WWW Hey, jo, Just checked out http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN.html Pretty cool stuff. I especially like the Yaldot. Heh, heh... "Who's afraid of the big bad Vap?" - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "The humans do not start from that direct perception of Him which we, unhappily, cannot avoid. They have never known that ghastly luminosity, that stabbing and searing glare which makes background of permanent pain to our lives." -Screwtape (From "The Screwtape Letters", by C.S. Lewis) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:17:21 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > >i don't think malakim are cruel. sure they can be vicious, or ruthless. but > >cruelty is taking pleasure in inlicting pain. that doesn't seem very > >honourable to me. (unless of course it's against diabolicals, in which case > >it's admirable :) ) > > > Ohhh... Imagine Gabriel's Angels running into a cruel Malakite... > "Awww, chriskies, whadda we do now?" > Heh. My players would burn him anyway, just on the off chance he was the One Fallen Malakim. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:21:54 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Remnants AA Beth writes: >At 11:14 PM -0500 1/4/98, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: >>Remnants are not affected by celestial perceptions. I assume this >>means that an Angel's ability to peer into a person's soul does not >>function on Remnants (e.g. Angelic Resonances of Perception have no >>affect, such as the Cherub's and the Mercurian). >> >>But what about the Demonic Resonances? I assume the Lilim's would not >>function. > > That's right. Okay. Cool. >>What about the others'? > >I think they would -- they are not related to *perceiving*, >after all. (Except Djinn, though you could make a case that >instead of self-tuning to a perceived theme of the Symphony >that corresponds with the attuned person, they *force* a link...) Kevin Walsh snippit: >> >> I'm guessing that the Djinn resonance doesn't work on Remnants, nor >> does the Lilims', since there's no Soul in there to sense. > >Djinns don't sense the Soul. They sense the body. Cherubim sense the soul, Djinn sense the body? Is this canon? "...a Djinn's resonance is for the set of patterns he's attuned himself to through physical contact." Guess that would rule out souls, eh? But... "These patterns can be anything..." [IN pg 142] The Cherubim also attune themselves to something "with a touch" Would this rule out a person's soul? If so, that'd prevent such wonderful adventures such as tracking a soul through the Marches! Of course, "as long as it [the object of attunement] exists on the corporeal plane [the cherub can feel its location and condition]" [IN pg 95] So, I guess following people on the Celestial and Ethereal plane doesn't hold water canon-wise. Pity. Back to AA Beth: >However, I could see a GM saying "No celestial abilities work >on them" as a personal "not far off" sort of thing. > >This (the canon one) would mean remnants can be possessed by >Kyrios and Shedim (a Shedite might be able to figure out what >it was in, too, and would hopefully be squicked! [Yow, squicking >Shedim...]). That makes sense. There's no real soul in the body to resist the intruder. >>Also, with no Will characteristic, does this mean that it would be an >>automatic success for the Demonic Resonance, or an automatic failure, >>since there's no Soul/Will to twist. > >There's still a chance to spend Essence to affect the roll, and >for Divine/Infernal interventions. [OOC: "I'm spending SIX essence to boost my Will of N/A to resist the possession."] >>I'm guessing that the Djinn resonance doesn't work on Remnants, nor >>does the Lilims', since there's no Soul in there to sense. > >More GM-call stuff, I think. Hmmm... Cool, thanks! This is good stuff. :) >And more things for me to tuck away! O:> Hey, I'm a little late on the ball, too. I've got about 350 message. Then again, I have classes, too... :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "The humans do not start from that direct perception of Him which we, unhappily, cannot avoid. They have never known that ghastly luminosity, that stabbing and searing glare which makes background of permanent pain to our lives." -Screwtape (From "The Screwtape Letters", by C.S. Lewis) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:40:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Faith & Celestials I agree with Emily's criticisms of the IN depiction of Raphael. For anyone who might be interested, a very true-to-lore depiction of him appears in the "Trio for Lute" trilogy by R. A. MacAvoy, three fantasy novels set in Italy during the High Middle Ages. The three titles are: Damiano Damiano's Lute Raphael Raphael is the protagonist of the last book. The protagonist in the first two is Damiano, a young wizard who is at least as interested in music as in magic. His dog, Machiatta, is a perfect role model for a familiar. In all three, Raphael is warm, wise, friendly, and yet august and celestial. MacAvoy's depiction has become one of my two literary models for angelic characters, the other being the "eldila" in the SF of C. S. Lewis. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:40:19 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Remnants >Cherubim sense the soul, Djinn sense the body? Is this canon? I don't know but I quite like it ;-) It does mean a Djinn couldn't track a Kyrio or Shedite past its current host, and it implies an angel could get rid of a tracker-djinn by killing itself. (A bit drastic perhaps) Poor old djinn. They don't seem to get much out of falling really. jo - --------------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G.K. Chesterton http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:47:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > > > > > Ohhh... Imagine Gabriel's Angels running into a cruel Malakite... > > "Awww, chriskies, whadda we do now?" > > > > Heh. My players would burn him anyway, just on the off chance he was the > One Fallen Malakim. > Even before I saw that there was going to be a book called "Fall of the Malakim", I reckoned there had to be some way to do it. Having flicked through my friend's APG, I'm even confident of the method I reckoned would be used to do it. A damn difficult thing to arrange, though. But I'd imagine most people would try to bump said Malakite off. Certainly, I reckon the average Malakite would do so in a heartbeat. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:54:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > > > >I think they would -- they are not related to *perceiving*, > >after all. (Except Djinn, though you could make a case that > >instead of self-tuning to a perceived theme of the Symphony > >that corresponds with the attuned person, they *force* a link...) > Except that that would be silly. The roll is based on Perception, after all. (An image enters my head of Kyriotates simply perceiving the theme in the Symphony of the unfortunate bastard they're kicking out of his/her body.) > Kevin Walsh snippit: > >> > >> I'm guessing that the Djinn resonance doesn't work on Remnants, nor > >> does the Lilims', since there's no Soul in there to sense. > > > >Djinns don't sense the Soul. They sense the body. > > Cherubim sense the soul, Djinn sense the body? Is this canon? I wasn't saying that Cherubim sense the soul either. Just to clarify. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:57:48 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN> Re: Raphael It seems a lot of people are making a fuss over an extinct archangel. On the one hand, we have gamers who need a definition to stick Raphael in. On the other, we have gamers who've researched the subject and come to different conclusions. So, was Raphael Elohite or Cherub? The APG says cherub. This was the first gut feeling of the author, and probably closest. BUT, the errata says Elohite and after all, errata supercedes the printed text. What do we know about Raphael? He obtained the word of knowledge, he sacrificed himself to destroy Legion. That's it. The rest of the documentation about Raphael may be true, mostly true, partially true, or completely false. My rule of thumb is this: If the man who wrote the game, wrote the story, and developed the concept for Raphael says he's a Cherub, quit nitpicking and take it. He's an unusual Cherub. One who borders on Elohim-like dedication to his work. If he's so unusual, maybe that would explain why he did what no other archangel did... Was his decision a rationally defined move to thwart Legion? Possibly, what does that prove? Are Elohim gifted as the only ones who can make rational decisions? Is someone possessed of a deep passionate love for knowledge so incapable of making the decision to sacrifice himself lest the western world fall into ruin? No one likes errata. Many times, it's unavoidable. When it's just a squabble over an individual's position within a category of stereotypes, it's all academic. - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Where is he listed as an Elohite? He's not, yet. But there is some > material that works much better with him being an Elohite -- he > knew that Legion was going to take everything out, and that there > was only one way, one *utterly self-sacrificing* way, to take > the Demon Prince of Corruption out. And he did it, like a good > Elohite should. > > The material would lose a lot of impact, if it were just him > doing that Cherub thang. > == --Querent USELESS FACT: The Seattle edition of Monopoly sets Boeing as Boardwalk, and Starbucks as Park Place. Microsoft, a leading business in the area and the target of many monopoly accusations does not appear on the game. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:27:49 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Faith & Celestials >I agree with Emily's criticisms of the IN depiction of Raphael. >For anyone who might be interested, a very true-to-lore depiction >of him appears in the "Trio for Lute" trilogy by R. A. MacAvoy, This is one of the things that I have to disagree with in any rpg that deals with a cast of people that have a well known back ground. There are people out there (like my wife) who can tell you all the stories of all the angels and how you could be running the game the wrong way because your interpretation doesn't meet "biblical" lore. Although there may be thousands of grounds upon which to disagree with the IN depiction of Raphael or any other Angel/Demon, we all need a base from which to start to make our NPC's believeable; not just "historically accurate". Just speaking as one of the little guys, it is nice to know that when you read about and choose an Archangel/Demon Prince from the IN book the superior you summon is the same. End of rant, Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Remnants I've always thought the Djinn and Cherubim both sense the *being*, not the soul or the body. If a being has at least one force, it's still a being. Maybe it's a remnant, or a week mortal, it doesn't matter. Certainly a soul is NOT what's being detected in the case of a Cherub, as a Cherub is easily able to attune to objects as well as beings. - ---Kevin Walsh wrote: > > >Djinns don't sense the Soul. They sense the body. > > > > Cherubim sense the soul, Djinn sense the body? Is this canon? > > I wasn't saying that Cherubim sense the soul either. > Just to clarify. == --Querent USELESS FACT: The Seattle edition of Monopoly sets Boeing as Boardwalk, and Starbucks as Park Place. Microsoft, a leading business in the area and the target of many monopoly accusations does not appear on the game. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:28:40 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Remnants "Perry M. Lloyd" writes: >>>Also, with no Will characteristic, does this mean that it would be an >>>automatic success for the Demonic Resonance, or an automatic failure, >>>since there's no Soul/Will to twist. >> >>There's still a chance to spend Essence to affect the roll, and >>for Divine/Infernal interventions. > >[OOC: "I'm spending SIX essence to boost my Will of N/A to resist the >possession."] IIRC a Remnant could have up to 3 points split between Will and Perception, if it had been buying up individual characteristics and hadn't worked its way up to a full Force. This, at least, fits the general description for what happens when somebody loses all of their forces in a category but has leftover attribute points from in-play improvement. Also, while a Remnant has either no or very weak Will, it is inaccurate to say that it has no "soul", as I understand the game description. Your Corporeal Forces != your physical body (else getting a vessel killed would be *real* bad trouble). The three forces describe how your *spirit* interacts with the various aspects of reality. Being "soul-killed" would, from this description, require *all* forces to be stripped; merely stripping Celestial forces destroys the soul's ability to exist in the celestial realms or interact with celestial manifestations. I don't recall the rules saying anything special about character point expenditures if, for masochistic or other reasons, a player is playing a Remnant. Does anything prevent such a player from buying up Will or Perception (especially if it's an in-play Remnant with points left) until they regenerate a Celestial Force? Or from saving up 10 points and just buying a new Force outright? If this is possible, what happens to the partially-healed Remnant? Is it a celestial being again? If so, is it the same "person" as before, or a different identity with some shared memories? If *not*, what is it? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:52:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Remnants York H. Dobyns wrote: > Also, while a Remnant has either no or very weak Will, it is > inaccurate to say that it has no "soul", as I understand the game > description. Back when Moriah was working on IN, he said it was "canon" that any conscious being had *some* kind of soul, though he declined to say what happened to the souls of Remnants on corporeal death. (That was the topic under consideration.) (Also, Moriah's day job is priest, so maybe I mis-remember what he meant by "canon" in this context!) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:21:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > > Back when Moriah was working on IN, he said it was "canon" that any > conscious being had *some* kind of soul, though he declined to > say what happened to the souls of Remnants on corporeal death. Indeed. I think I saw stuff that suggested that zombis didn't have souls in Night Music (which I also don't own). Does this mean they aren't truly conscious? If so, it's make them rather less valuable as pawns. (It's a dodgy tactic anyway, but you can be assured of complete obedience, so long as noone else messes with their head.) I came up with the idea in connection with the zombi attunement, since zombis made with it are no stupider than the humans they were made from, and could conceivably execute quite complex instructions. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:25:53 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael > It seems a lot of people are making a fuss over an extinct archangel. > On the one hand, we have gamers who need a definition to stick Raphael > in. On the other, we have gamers who've researched the subject and > come to different conclusions. > > So, was Raphael Elohite or Cherub? The APG says cherub. This was the > first gut feeling of the author, and probably closest. BUT, the > errata says Elohite and after all, errata supercedes the printed text. > [clip] Let me make myself perfectly clear, and I believe this is a symptom of a problem with the game itself, and not Raphael in particular. In June 1997 I built a campaign from scratch, as I do not believe in modules. Because Raphael was up for grabs (not in Pyramid, not in supplements, not in the rule book) he was fair game. I grabbed him because I rather like him in literature, did some research, and wrote a campaign, which granted still evolves on me but there's some major themes that stay the same. He was and still is of MAJOR importance to my campaign, and to my worldview. Now here it is January 1998. In 9 months there have been two rule books (source and APG), three supplements, and a GM screen. Some of it has been good and some of it has been bad. But the worst of it is that I have to ban my players from buying new In Nomine stuff, because in every single supplement that comes out disagrees or changes something fundamentally in the universe in some way. Don't get me started on the Fall of the Malakim supplement, I've foamed at the mouth on that point plenty. Right now, I don't feel like I can go ahead and build onto the universe on my own without the SJG stamp of approval, and this is NOT GOOD. Let me emphasize. This is NOT GOOD. Right now, if I want to stay anywhere near canon, I have to change my entire game, or scrap it completely, both of which I am not willing to do. That's fine, but now that the universe has changed in some large fundamental way, canon, errata or not, I have to be careful not to refer to any of it or else I'll get the exact same "It's not canon" speech. I can't change everything every time a new book comes out. I'm just not that agile mentally. On the point of Raphael, I don't feel there was even cursory research done for the background, and it's just not being done justice. I don't think it's fair to force us to subscribe to Pyramid and beg for back issues to even get close. I get very tired with everything else having to be perfect in a million ways until someone disagrees. The best I can do right now is say, "Hey, too bad", tell my players to NOT buy the Angelic Player's Guide, which is precisely what I'll do tonight, and go on with life. Hey, they'll be happy they can save the money. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:24:44 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... >Even before I saw that there was going to be a book called "Fall of the >Malakim", I reckoned there had to be some way to do it. Having flicked >through my friend's APG, I'm even confident of the method I reckoned >would be used to do it. A damn difficult thing to arrange, though. You wanna share with the group? Or did you mention it in an old post and now I have to go begging an Angel of Archives to tell me? Certainly, given the Lilim/Malakim parallelism, I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb to pedict that there will be no corresponding Band when a Malakite Falls -- they'll just be a Dark Malakite. And I suspect it might have something to do with one's personal definition of "evil". -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:29:15 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Faith & Celestials > I disagree with Elohite even stronger then I disagree with Cherub. > Granted, I don't get Pyramid, and I don't know if everyone else does or > not, so I've only briefly seen the story once. But it simply isn't > correct, even with just a cursory look over something like Paradise Lost. > Raphael always, in modern and Biblical literature and art, comes across as > a teacher and a very human oriented sort of guy. > > Taking away his emotions kind of kills him. And frankly, it's not > difficult to at least do a little back research. Actually, that makes Elohite all the _more_ appropriate. Elohim are _not_ emotionless, they just don't let their own personal emotions get in the way of their duty. A clear-eyed, level-headed Elohite that really likes people sounds like a perfect match. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:21:06 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> Faith & Celestials >a familiar. In all three, Raphael is warm, wise, friendly, and yet >august and celestial. MacAvoy's depiction has become one of my two I think y'all are missing a point here: An Elohite *can* be warm, wise, friendly, and yet august and celestial. Just so, as far as he can tell, it fits God's plan. In fact, it makes sense: most people learn (soak up Knowledge) much better under a tutor that they like. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:43:06 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? > Question Everybody: If you were a non-mundane thing in the In > Nomine universe, what would you be?? Nathanael ("gift of God") Elohim of Creation in service to Lightning currently working for Zephan(/being worked over by), the Cherub of Unfinished Ideas (Creation, in service to Dreams) Sorry, that name's taken. . . . :/ Nathanael Angel of Punishment Seraph of Gabriel Statistics: APG 22 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:44:53 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Faith & Celestials Good call! In Nomine routinely contradicts well known source material. When in doubt, refer back to the FAQ: Why doesn't this depiction agree with the Bible/Dante/The Book of Tobin... If Derek says Raph is a Cherub, Raph's a Cherub. If you want to nitpick, I would point out that he doesn't fit *either* choir precisely. It's entirely possible that he could have been of a less common choir, one of the many minorities of Heaven. Why not get picky and say he's not quite Cherub, and not quite Elohim, maybe he's Netscapim... Elohim is hebrew for god, not for any type of angel. No one protested. Seraphim here are not depicted as having 6 wings, as they are in the Bible. No one cared. In Nomine has a great many archangels, rather than a select few. People loved it. Now, when the author idly tosses a deceased character into the Cherub choir, suddenly cries of "that defies the source" ring out far and wide. Why is that do you suppose? - ---Armand wrote: Although there may be > thousands of grounds upon which to disagree with the IN depiction of > Raphael or any other Angel/Demon, we all need a base from which to start to > make our NPC's believeable; not just "historically accurate". == --Querent USELESS FACT: The Seattle edition of Monopoly sets Boeing as Boardwalk, and Starbucks as Park Place. Microsoft, a leading business in the area and the target of many monopoly accusations does not appear on the game. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #566 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.