From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 15 16:54:43 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 QAA10611 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:54:42 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA16853 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:51:08 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:51:08 -0600 Message-Id: <199801152251.QAA16853@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 #567 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 567 In this digest: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? IN> IPG cover art Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> Who are you, anyway? Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Re: IN> Re: Raphael Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... IN> God as a Habbalah Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> RE: Querent's cast list Re: IN> RE: Querent's cast list IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Re: IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:58:00 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) >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. Come on now ;-) Surely you don't expect the developers to ring you up before they put pen to paper, or SJG to stop publishing books if people want to buy them. So you change canon in a few areas -- that happens with just about every published game there is. You tell your players that you're sticking with the theme but some of the details are subject to your personal interpretation. My civil service game only touched base in a few main areas but it didn't stop people enjoying it (or so I'm told ;) ). It happens with other games too -- slowly the canon-gameworld can get overdefined. So you read through the material that looked interesting enough for you to want to fork out hard cash for it and grab the bits that inspire you. When I run Vampire these days the players can own whatever books they like but I tell them that only the main one is canon in my game. Its really not a major problem. Its just one of those things. jo ps. Having read it, I'd be more inclined to advise people to go out and grab the APG because I enjoyed it a lot. I guess that could be because it must run fairly close to the theme I liked, and I can;t remember the last time I picked up a supplement I thought was such good value for money ( Kudos to the writers, but can we have more cutting satire in the next bunch? Pretty please ;-) ) - --------------- "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 18:09:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh 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 > No. It says somewhere that a Malakite's Superior can remove an Oath, but that the Malakite can't ask to do it. I presume that what happens is that Kronos learns how to do likewise, and gets Malakim into a position where he can actually do it. (Which is the tricky bit.) With the bits about not suffering evil to live and not surrendering to evil gone, there's nothing to prevent a Malakite honorably serving Hell. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:13:27 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) I've noticed similar problems. Whenever new source comes out, it seems that it's not so much *expanding* on the original, as it is *redifining* the original, and then expanding on that. I built three campaigns so far. The first based on an inferred rivalry between Kronos and Lucifer, based on the premise that Kronos was the most powerful and *everyone* in hell wants a bigger piece of the pie. Lo and behold, Kronos and Lucifer are all buddy buddy in H&H. This didn't affect me much as my players and I are having serious difficulty in getting together regularly. I would have hated it if it had ruined my game, as this seems to drasticly be affecting yours. My current rule of thumb is to be maleable, at least until the major archangels are outlined and the revelations cycle is complete. I'm not sure I at all like what was done with Raphael. My only strong argument is "now that it's done, quit muckin' with it!" The APG is definitely worth the money. It does dramaticly change the way angels are played, but for the better. Less human, more divine, and with a stronger sense of the angel's inherent resonance than before. Raphael is only mentioned twice. Once as a Cherub Archangel of Knowledge of notable mention, the other as the destroyed superior of an Elohite. I don't imagine it will affect your game at all to tell the players "He's not dead in my game, I played him first, and I have dibs." - ---Emily Dresner wrote: [Snip] 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. [Snip] 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. == --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 10:23:37 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael >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. Did you ever play White Wolf's Changeling? I ran that game since its inception. It seemed that just about every month, the new Changeling supplement would change the rules on cantrips (Changeling magic). The system did not start out very clear either. I haven't actually started an IN campaign yet, because I still recall having to change the rules for my players. I think it is cool to hear that there is someone out there who is willing to go against canon to maintain the integrity of the campaign in progress. However... > >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 can't find the above to be a helpful on the subject of the Higher powers. There needs to be some sort of agreement for the general IN player populace. I'm just waiting for all the ground to settle first (the Malakim are falling?). Oops, I ranted again, Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:38:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) Now that I've stopped frothing... > >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. > > Come on now ;-) Surely you don't expect the developers to ring you up before > they put pen to paper, or SJG to stop publishing books if people want to buy > them. So you change canon in a few areas -- that happens with just about > every published game there is. You tell your players that you're sticking > with the theme but some of the details are subject to your personal > interpretation. My civil service game only touched base in a few main areas > but it didn't stop people enjoying it (or so I'm told ;) ). Well, the thing is that I haven't had quite this bad of a problem with my other favorite games - Amber, Shadowrun, Kult, Cthulhu... sometimes canon changes, but it's getting to be too difficult for me to change every three weeks. Even AD&D isn't this bad, although the WW stuff certainly is. I just can't redo everything from scratch all the time, and I won't, and that's that. The players have to talk to me before stuff shows up. The entire group of us are old time gamers, some of us have been playing things like GURPS for years. And it's even bothering them, and they're not doing any of the plotting. On top of it none of us can keep up or afford the system any more. > It happens with other games too -- slowly the canon-gameworld can get > overdefined. So you read through the material that looked interesting enough > for you to want to fork out hard cash for it and grab the bits that inspire > you. When I run Vampire these days the players can own whatever books they > like but I tell them that only the main one is canon in my game. Its really > not a major problem. > > Its just one of those things. > Heh. I refuse to buy the Vampire sourcebooks even though I play a Malkavian every other week. But the fact is I won't buy the Vampire stuff because: A) The earlier stuff and the newer stuff differ. B) To stay in canon it requires buying $200 worth of books. Do I have $200? I had to get my laptop repaired. Hell, I can't afford food this month. The gameworld in Vampire is overdefined, over complicated, and ridiculously covoluted. It contradicts itself constantly. Is In Nomine going this same direction? It looks that way to me, personally. > > jo > > ps. Having read it, I'd be more inclined to advise people to go out and grab > the APG because I enjoyed it a lot. I guess that could be because it must > run fairly close to the theme I liked, and I can;t remember the last time I > picked up a supplement I thought was such good value for money ( Kudos to > the writers, but can we have more cutting satire in the next bunch? Pretty > please ;-) ) Well, now that there's a point that a PC can point to and say "Hey, why isn't it like this in your game" or a piece of canon that directly counters my world, I can't afford that. Even small details give players hooks to plan on which are not relevant. Good or not, it's too dangerous to have sitting on the living room table during gameplay. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Oh contrare! The name is NOT taken. The APG also says the *true name* is ONLY pronouncable in the angelic tongue. What you see in print is a close approximation of the angel's true name. I would venture that Nathanael, Angel of Punishment, and Nathanael, Elohim of Creation have different *true names*, but they are so similar, both translate to Nathanael when mortals are forced to interpret them. This is the rationale I use whenever I read that someone has given a name to an NPC that I've already been using in my games. By this rationale, there can literally be thousands of Nathanaels that each have different true names. Besides, Nathanael, Elohim of Creation has dibs as I can personally attest to his presence before the creation of the APG. - ---"Steven Feldon (Exchange)" wrote: > > > 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 > > > == --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 11:24:30 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? _Thank_ you. I'd been trying to come up with a happy rationale for the existence of my PC, Daniel, and a Daniel that's one of Dominic's guardians at Hellsmouth Gate. Do you mind if I lift that whole bit of theory bodily? steve -----Original Message----- From: Querent [SMTP:querent@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 11:06 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Oh contrare! The name is NOT taken. The APG also says the *true name* is ONLY pronouncable in the angelic tongue. What you see in print is a close approximation of the angel's true name. I would venture that Nathanael, Angel of Punishment, and Nathanael, Elohim of Creation have different *true names*, but they are so similar, both translate to Nathanael when mortals are forced to interpret them. This is the rationale I use whenever I read that someone has given a name to an NPC that I've already been using in my games. By this rationale, there can literally be thousands of Nathanaels that each have different true names. Besides, Nathanael, Elohim of Creation has dibs as I can personally attest to his presence before the creation of the APG. ---"Steven Feldon (Exchange)" wrote: > > > 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 > > > == --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 11:31:14 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN> IPG cover art I noticed that the IPG now has cover art. It's nifty looking. Go look. No, seriously, stop reading your email and go look. Fine, I'll give you the URL you lazy wuss. http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/Infernal/ Now close this and go look. == --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 14:33:38 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael > 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. Ummmm.... except in rare cases this happens in _any_ campaign based around a system that is still growing. I used to play VtM and the GM would accept or toss out any new supplement came along (he... ahem... _forcefully_ ejected the whole werewolf thing). =) Hell, _my_ campaign isn't canon (I've recently discovered one of the new Demon Princes has co-opted one of the positions where I had written my own... c'est la vie.) You don't like the 'official' Raphael? Well, just ignore it. Won't be a big problem, not really. In fact, I'm not using _any_ of the events of Revelations in my campaign because it changes some things I don't want to change (though I may mine those adventures for ideas...) > 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. This I don't understand. APG has 7 pages of history (which can be used or ignored as desired),74 pages of clarifications and extra details for angelic characters (useful stuff!), and 41 pages of miscellaneous stuff (everything from relievers, mixed campaign ideas, trying for a Word, switching Superiors, Outcasts, Falling and the long-awaited character creation guide.) None of this stuff, though Canon, is likely to invalidate anyone's campaign. Even the choirs' writeups don't touch upon any AAs but the ones in the main rulebook. The whole Revelations cycle has an extended campaign embodied into it, true, but no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Hey, this is your campaign! Get used to it!" The _only_ reason we have Canon is so that In Nomine writers, gamemasters and players have a common frame of reference on which to _base_ a campaign. NOT to precisely determine a campaign! As for comments on the mailing list, if someone isn't going strictly by canon, and it's relevant to the discussion, then it can cause nothing but confusion to speak as if one's own campaign is following the given rules. (Case in point, one of the most popular threads to hit this list is totally non-canon: the Dark Victory universe. Didn't stop people from having a good time with it, though.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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 14:35:24 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Who are you, anyway? On Jan 15, 9:43am, Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: > 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 Ah, but those are actually two different names that the crude Corporeal ear cannot distinguish between finely enough. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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 14:35:13 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... >No. It says somewhere that a Malakite's Superior can remove an Oath, but >that the Malakite can't ask to do it. I presume that what happens is that >Kronos learns how to do likewise, and gets Malakim into a position where >he can actually do it. (Which is the tricky bit.) Having a different definition of "evil" than most Malakim isn't removing the Oath -- it's re-interpreting it. And isn't that what Falling is all about, really? Changing your idea of what evil is. The Habbalah are the most obvious case, but aside from the Shedim, I think it occurs in most of the Bands... >With the bits about not suffering evil to live and not surrendering to >evil gone, there's nothing to prevent a Malakite honorably serving Hell. Right. And if a Malakite doesn't think demons are evil anymore...? For example, if I were the Old Man in Austin, and I found out that my friends had been hiding demons from me, I'd serious question how "good" my fellow angels are. I'd still probably smite the demons, given the Old Man's personality, but that's just that marticular Malakite. I could be wrong. That's why I said I was going out on the limb. But from where I'm sitting, it's possible. - -- Kirt "Loki" Dankmyer PGP key avail. My opinions are my own. love * Eris * RPGs * Anime * Magick * Carroll * techno * hats * cats * Dada I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night. --Milton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:49:02 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Lift away... - ---"Steven Feldon (Exchange)" wrote: > > _Thank_ you. I'd been trying to come up with a happy rationale for the > existence of my PC, Daniel, and a Daniel that's one of Dominic's > guardians at Hellsmouth Gate. Do you mind if I lift that whole bit of > theory bodily? > > Oh contrare! > The name is NOT taken. The APG also says the *true name* is > ONLY > pronouncable in the angelic tongue. What you see in print is a > close > approximation of the angel's true name. I would venture that > Nathanael, Angel of Punishment, and Nathanael, Elohim of > Creation have > different *true names*, but they are so similar, both translate > to > Nathanael when mortals are forced to interpret them. == --Querent USELESS FACT: The name Led Zeppelin was first coined by Keith Moon, drummer for The Who. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:54:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: Raphael > > >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. > > Did you ever play White Wolf's Changeling? I ran that game since its > inception. It seemed that just about every month, the new Changeling > supplement would change the rules on cantrips (Changeling magic). The > system did not start out very clear either. > I agree about both games, though I haven't yet had the chance to play Changeling (I'm the sort of person who buys sourcebooks for fun, it worries me too). They're pretty similar in some respects, though the setting is quite different. What annoyed me about the CPG was how they did guidelines for making up your own rituals for the old Arts, but not for the new ones they included in the book, even though it was clear that one of them was going to be regarded as open to starting characters. And when the Shadow Court came out, they failed to include guidelines, instead they provided examples, even though it manifestly didn't work. Changeling has settled down now, thank the Light. > I haven't actually started an IN campaign yet, because I still recall > having to change the rules for my players. I think it is cool to hear that > there is someone out there who is willing to go against canon to maintain > the integrity of the campaign in progress. > I haven't started one either, but I haven't had quite the same problems with rethinking my premises. I'm just lazy. I didn't reckon Kronos and Lucifer would have problems with each other, or that Saminga's Servitors had to be as unsubtle as he is. > However... > > > >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 can't find the above to be a helpful on the subject of the Higher powers. > There needs to be some sort of agreement for the general IN player > populace. I'm just waiting for all the ground to settle first (the Malakim > are falling?). > I prefer more mythological accuracy in these things myself, though I know very little angelology or, indeed, faerie lore, because it annoys me when the game ignores stuff I do know, or stuff that seems to contradict basic game reality. (Stuff like having an Archangel called Eli, calling a kith so asocial the Sluagh, etc. And I foam at the mouth when hearing that Mages can be ghouled, something now firmly entrenched in canon.). I sympathise with Em. a lot, because having your work overturned by canon when canon seems ill-advised is very annoying. My best advice is to put up with it. Keep what fits, throw out the rest. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:05:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > >No. It says somewhere that a Malakite's Superior can remove an Oath, but > >that the Malakite can't ask to do it. I presume that what happens is that > >Kronos learns how to do likewise, and gets Malakim into a position where > >he can actually do it. (Which is the tricky bit.) > > Having a different definition of "evil" than most Malakim isn't removing > the Oath -- it's re-interpreting it. And isn't that what Falling is all > about, really? Changing your idea of what evil is. The Habbalah are the > most obvious case, but aside from the Shedim, I think it occurs in most of > the Bands... > Em...it strongly implies in the Marches that Malakim are the way they are because they're still protected by the Word of Purity. The mandatory oaths seem designed to ensure that Malakim remain pure, so I reckon that the word in the angelic language which is translated as evil includes demons automatically (at least, those demons who aren't trying to Redeem). All IMHO, but I think canon will bear me out. I also don't think that Malakim are able to reinterpret their oaths without Balseraphic intervention, and that would probably still be dissonant for them. The Word of Purity is a restraint as much as a protection. > >With the bits about not suffering evil to live and not surrendering to > >evil gone, there's nothing to prevent a Malakite honorably serving Hell. > > Right. And if a Malakite doesn't think demons are evil anymore...? I don't know if that's possible without killing Uriel first. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:15:34 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Re: Re: IN> In Nomine Jewelry At 04:21 15/01/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>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. Gotcha. I think my point is that personal honour, like personal taste, is very subjective. Hence doesn't fit into the Elohim mindset. Even if people can agree some general rules for honour (such as 'keep your word') someone has already said that Malakim won't do that unless it is their personal oath. 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 15:27:17 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > Em...it strongly implies in the Marches that Malakim are the way they are > because they're still protected by the Word of Purity. Huh? I didn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm confused. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:32:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: IN> God as a Habbalah This isn't an argument stating that the Habbalah are correct. It's just an biblical quote which is very Habbalite in tone. I want to know where it's from, and whether it is in the Bible. I'm pretty confident of the author's integrity, but I like to know these things. It appears from the context that God is the speaker. "But if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments, but break my covenant, I will do this to you: I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it; those that hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursue you. I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like brass; and your strength shall be spent in vain, for your land shall not yield its increase, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit. "Then if you continue to walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring more plagues upon you, sevenfold as many as your sins. And I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number, so that your ways shall become desolate. I also will walk contrary to you, and I will bring a sword upon you, and shall execute vengenace for the covenant; and if you gather within your cities I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. "And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and chastise you myself sevenfold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and eat the flesh of your daughters. My soul will abhor you. I will lay your cities waste. I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you; and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. "Then the land shall pay for its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:51:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... > > > Em...it strongly implies in the Marches that Malakim are the way they are > > because they're still protected by the Word of Purity. > > Huh? I didn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm confused. > Em. I'm suffering from the nasty suspicion that you're being a Balseraph of Kobal, but I was using "Em..." as an indication of hesitation, along the lines of "Eh...". They basically mean the same thing. Trust my punctuation. If I address something to someone, it will have a comma after the name. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:53:47 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Leviticus 26 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:57:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> God as a Habbalah > This isn't an argument stating that the Habbalah are correct. It's just an > biblical quote which is very Habbalite in tone. I want to know where it's > from, and whether it is in the Bible. I'm pretty confident of the > author's integrity, but I like to know these things. It appears from the > context that God is the speaker. > To my extreme annoyance with myself, I have now discovered that it is identified a couple of pages later as the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus. Would anyone like to confirm this? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:14:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> God as a Habbalah > Leviticus 26 > Thank you. Can I take it that you are also a reader of Stephen Donaldson's books or are you just exceptionally familiar with the Bible? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:31:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> God as a Habbalah Kevin Walsh wrote: > > Leviticus 26 > > > Thank you. Can I take it that you are also a reader of Stephen > Donaldson's books or are you just exceptionally familiar with the > Bible? You're welcome. Neither. I know where to find a Bible search engine on the Web: http://www.gospelcom.net/bible/ It's pretty sophisticated and takes several different languages and translations. I searched for "heaven" and "iron" in the same verse. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:31:07 EST From: DSChenin Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) In a message dated 98-01-15 13:08:55 EST, you write: << >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. >> There is a very simple rule to follow concerning staying in Canon. If you don't like something change it. or throw it out the window, it doesn't matter. The game is what you make it. the fundimental rules are neccessary. the rest is just sorce material. do with it as you please. you are the GM it's your game. the book is just a framework Obsidian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:58:20 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... At 03:27 PM 1/15/98 -0500, you wrote: > >> Em...it strongly implies in the Marches that Malakim are the way they are >> because they're still protected by the Word of Purity. > >Huh? I didn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm confused. Okay, this is the second time I've been mistaken for a prominent female list-member. I guess I'll just nip off and give birth to an eight-legged horse, then. -Loki (anyone remember that myth?) - -- 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 13:34:24 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> RE: Querent's cast list >Max Headroom was played by Matt Frewer, a great actor, but getting a >bit older, and a little too cheesy for my taste. Granted, if anyone's >going to be cheesy, it'll be Nybbas, King of the Game Show Hosts... >> >> Not bad, but I kind of like Pat Sajak. >> >Pat Sajak? OUCH! It's hurting my brain. Medic! You obviously never saw him when he was the weatherman for the L.A. local news. Quite creative and willing to push things to see what he can get away with. He'd be a *fun* Nybbas, especially if any of his ad libs get in the movie. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:28:22 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> RE: Querent's cast list There are therapists drooling in anticipation of your call Jeff. I bet there's even some sort of Pat Sajak 12 step group. "Hi, I'm my name's Jeff, and I'm a Sajak fan." "Hi Jeff" I'm just kiddin' wit' ya. I have about 7 or 8 cast lists, and Pat just might make one of them. Different cast lists for different budgets and different genres. I went with the one that would be most likely to get me an Oscar, with a few others for blockbuster appeal, and Tom Petty because I thought he personified Eli in The Postman. - ---Jeff Miller wrote: > >> Not bad, but I kind of like Pat Sajak. > >> > >Pat Sajak? OUCH! It's hurting my brain. Medic! > > You obviously never saw him when he was the weatherman for the L.A. local > news. Quite creative and willing to push things to see what he can get away > with. > > He'd be a *fun* Nybbas, especially if any of his ad libs get in the movie. > > == --Querent USELESS FACT: The name Led Zeppelin was first coined by Keith Moon, drummer for The Who. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:38:41 -0600 (CST) From: rogue@ez-net.com Subject: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Here's a fun question- We know Uriel was recalled to the High heavens in AD 745. We know Raphael sacrificed himself to defeat Legion. We know Oannes was killed by Belial. Do we know dates on those last two? Even rough ones (i.e.- before/after Uriel, and by approximately how much)? If the amswer is out there already, I missed it. Rogue, Demon of Running Red Lights, Djinn Duke of Daredevils ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:35:57 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] It finally happened, damnit... Someone at school was trying to tell me that story, but I was aSLEIP NIRby in a bed of flowers. Pardon the spelling errors, but the bad joke demanded nothing less. - ---"Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" wrote: I guess I'll just nip off and give birth to an eight-legged > horse, then. > -Loki (anyone remember that myth?) == --Querent USELESS FACT: The name Led Zeppelin was first coined by Keith Moon, drummer for The Who. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:40:07 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >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. > > Come on now ;-) Surely you don't expect the developers to ring you up before > they put pen to paper, or SJG to stop publishing books if people want to buy > them. So you change canon in a few areas -- that happens with just about > every published game there is. You tell your players that you're sticking > with the theme but some of the details are subject to your personal > interpretation. My civil service game only touched base in a few main areas > but it didn't stop people enjoying it (or so I'm told ;) ). Ditto. I have more players serving noncanon Superiors than canon ones right now! In my game, Raphael is the Cherub Archangel of Healing (taken off the INC), and Charon is the Elohite Archangel of Death; the boatman in Hell is still named Charon (Kobal loves this), but no one gets the two confused. I've got a Balseraph of Nergal (Sickness) and an (AWOL) Calabite of Vagarog (Recklessness) working alongside the Shedite of Kobal and Lilim of Andre. And I've changed Mammon quite a bit so he doesn't overlap with Mephistopheles (also from INC) too much. Yes, that's right...when a noncanon and canon Prince overlapped, I changed the canon one because I liked the noncanon one better! What do my players think when my game contradicts something in the books? They don't care a bit. They just ask me which takes precedence. "Hey Jason...so, did Raphael go up against Legion?" "Nope, not in my game; it was Andarial, Archangel of Unity[*], who went up against him and died in that attack." ([*] Yup, another AA from the INC; one I liked but don't plan on ever using.) No player would ever be dumb enough to ARGUE that I'm doing something wrong...I'm the GM; it's my world. If they think that one of my ideas could be changed for the better, they offer some advice on it, but my word is always final, of course. I mean, hell, if I wanted to make Michael the leader of God's Armies, I could. If I want to make him a Mercurian, I can (but I wouldn't). I know what I'm doing, and my players know that...I make sure every change I make or addition I add is going to enhance the game, never detract from it. And that's a LOT more important than staying in canon. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! And finally, a special message to anyone who thinks I give a damn... \|/ ____ \|/ ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #567 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.