From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 15 22:41:00 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 WAA07302 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:40:59 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id WAA23006 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:41:15 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:41:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199801160441.WAA23006@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 #568 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 568 In this digest: Re: IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) Re: IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) IN> Canon counter-rant Re: IN> Who's God now? IN> Raphael IN> Canon counter-counter-rant Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Re: IN> Remnants RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Raphael (Re: IN> Faith & Celestials) Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) Re: IN> Remnants Re: IN> Raphael IN> Angel of Drugs Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) Re: IN> Remnants IN> Archangel Canon Fodder Re: IN> Remnants IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #567 Re: IN> Remnants RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:43:03 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Querent wrote: > 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. "Ruined your game"? If you were worried about that, why not just drag a magic marker across that section? Or just ignore it? If your players read it, just say, "Don't trust the writeups too much--what you just read is maybe what you've HEARD, but in Hell things are rarely what they seem. Things are often MUCH darker....." A supplement or rules change can never throw a GM's game off track, because she always has the option of ignoring it. 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_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:16:24 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN>Reality shifts (was RE: Raphael) My bad, I should have clarified. It wasn't ruined per se, it still would have worked beuatifully. But, at the time I was trying to run a purely in Canon game because I was playtesting it for an upcoming game con. Granted, such experiments are begging to be thrown a curve, but it was still a bit odd. - ---Pee Kitty wrote: > > "Ruined your game"? If you were worried about that, why not just drag a > magic marker across that section? Or just ignore it? If your players read > it, just say, "Don't trust the writeups too much--what you just read is > maybe what you've HEARD, but in Hell things are rarely what they seem. > Things are often MUCH darker....." > > A supplement or rules change can never throw a GM's game off track, > because she always has the option of ignoring it. == --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 15:46:06 -0800 From: "David M. Barr" Subject: IN> Canon counter-rant Emily Dresner Wrote; 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 I just gave my wife, playing the Lilim of Eris a Golden Apple attainment (which amounts to the (trying to remember) Eth. Song of attraction, for an apple, on multiple targets.) I drew partly for list canon (after asking advice, thanks everyone who answered) and partly from my own research on mythology. Mostly, I made it up. Now, someday hence, when SJG does a pagan superiors source book and they decide that the Lilim attunment for Eris is something completely different, do I have to my my wife rewrite her character, from scratch, to match canon? even if my wife gets hold of that book, and points out that the attunement I gave her is the wrong one, do I have to change it to match canon? whose game is it, anyway? Derek Pearcy wrote it, SJ published it, But we play it. If your players Buy the book, knowing that You don't use the book, why is it dangerous? they should know that your canon is different, and anything they get from the book is subject to your approval. Hell, that should be true of anyone, anytime, any game. Before playing agree on/define the rules of the game; redefine or clarify as needed in the course of play. This is _good thing_; It allows, even encourages, you to be creative. The only problem I can foresee is if you are playing with rules lawyers. The thing is, freeform games like this were not designed for a rules lawyer. Nor should they be. - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:47:20 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Who's God now? On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: [Edit interesting speculation about which Archangels have filled the Role of God in the past.] > So who is God now? Who, indeed? Uriel? :) Rich Gant Malakim of Eli in service to Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:09:34 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Raphael [Em's rant snipped] All right, so I gather that a) You are not going to buy the Angelic Player's Guide because of a single line that names Raphael as a Cherub (and is subsequently errata'ed as an Elohite), and b) You are incensed because the writers of In Nomine have a vision for the game that is different from your own. It's been made clear from the start that In Nomine will be an evolving universe. Each book cycle will have a storyline, not just extra material. Every effort is being made to give GMs the option of using new developments in the official In Nomine universe or not, as they choose -- but the universe WILL change, at least in the official version. Unlike you, I think this is a Good Thing. Now, you make the point that anyone who diverges from canon -- such as by having Raphael still be alive, or making Malakim actually be demons, etc., will have a campaign that rapidly becomes quites different from the official universe. Well, yes. So what? Contrary to your claims that if you suggest anything contrary to canon, you'll be jumped on for being "wrong", it's been my impression that LOTS of GMs run non-canon campaigns, taking what they like from published materials and ignoring the rest. That's as it should be. Do you want the official universe to be a bland, never-changing set piece so that as many GMs as possible can imitate it exactly? So in your campaign, Raphael is a Mercurian and he's still alive. What has been published so far that makes it impossible for you to use that variant and still use SJ Games materials? You said yourself that you designed a campaign from scratch, so obviously you don't need all the work of world-design to be done for you, and improvising and doing your own campaign development yourself obviously does not bother you. So what's the problem? That Derek Pearcy doesn't agree with your personal conception of Raphael? How do you know he didn't do any research on Raphael? Isn't it possible that he DID read all the same materials you did, and simply came to a different conclusion? Or alternatively, that he had his own idea of Raphael and deliberately chose to make him radically different than his traditional representation? Just as you do not have to stay consistent with In Nomine canon, In Nomine canon does not have to stay consistent with the Book of Tobit or anything else. Now, if you feel like telling your players not to buy the APG because you're so pissed that Raphael was made an Elohite, that's your loss (and theirs), IMO, because the APG has tons of material useful for any In Nomine campaign, even something as radically non-canon as Dark Victory or Pagan Victory or In Nomine Backwards or whatever other variant you are running. Exactly what message are you trying to send -- "Don't write stuff I disagree with or I won't buy it"? The Infernal Player's Guide will also refer to some "big names" from traditional demonology sources... and I daresay that some of those references may also not quite match what you would have chosen. So I guess you'd better cross the IPG off your shopping list too. Really, for someone concerned about being told you're "wrong", you're awfully willing to not only tell other In Nomine players and writers that THEY are wrong, but to go on a screaming rant about it. Calm down, run In Nomine the way you like. I mean this: >>>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.<<< is just ridiculous. How many times has it been said on this list that every GM is free to do what they like with their campaigns, and that canon is meant to provide a "baseline" and a source of ideas, not a straight-jacketed storyline that everyone has to follow? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:45:25 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN> Canon counter-counter-rant Great theory. God what I wouldn't give to find an entire group of players like that. I agree at least partially with Em (that's Em, short for Emily, NOT Em like um, uh, or eh.) It is a bit of an inconvenience because then EVERY point of difference needs to be clarified. If not at the beginning, then when the player comes up with the nefarious save the day plan that conflicts with a week's worth of planning. On the other hand, I also think that In Nomine has been defined as an evolving universe. We knew up front new books were coming. We also knew the authors and publishers involved have made no promises whatsoever to adhere to religious texts. In the case of Raphael, all that we know for sure is: A: He's a Cherubic Archangel of Knowledge. This doesn't mean scholarly, or academic, it simply means he has knowledge. Maybe he comes off as Yves' mirror, maybe he's a rambunctious student of the symphony who simply learns all there is to learn. Everything traditionally attributed to the archangel *could* also be expressed as an attempt to learn, or an attempt to guide others to understanding. Maybe he's neither. B: He's got servants. Ok, no problems there I know of. C: He's dead. Or discorporated. Or whatever angels are. He sacrificed himself to avert the menace of a hellspawn. Maybe he rationalized it was best. Maybe he did it out of passionate devotion to a knowledge he was scared would be lost were Legion left unchecked. Maybe, he'd learned almost everything *except* what it was like to ascend into the higher levels of heaven! (Do angels really die? Is it possible a dead angel is brought back in a higher state of heaven? After all, it is only one who's faced his own destruction who can truly sympathize with the plight of human souls who've ascended.) I bet this is the kind of debates angels get into when they're bored. My point is this, although 3 facts are given as canon, I can not find an instance where any of these 3 directly contradict ancient lore. It simply explains why he's not in the modern line-up in In Nomine. After all, such a prominent figure surely wouldn't leave Gabriel and Michael alone if he'd had a choice. So, in this campaign, he's not dead. Ok. That is different, but I'm not sure the argument that it doesn't correspond to mundane literature is justified quite so strongly. The In Nomine universe is literally a comprehensive adjustment of the perceived reality of the universe. As that psuedo-universe is fleshed out, it *will* differ from what we recognize, especially our concept of angels, demons, Heaven, and Hell. - ---"David M. Barr" wrote: they should know that your canon is > different, and anything they get from the book is subject to your > approval. Hell, that should be true of anyone, anytime, any game. == --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 20:10:42 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... At 9:43 AM -0500 1/15/98, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: [...] >>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?" Well, cruelty to demons is okay. Unless he's lying to himself about it. Hm. They probably jump on him, tie him up, and call for Da Boss Lady. [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:05:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remnants At 3:54 PM +0000 1/15/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >> > >> >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. With Djinn, it's based on Will. Thus the concept of "forcing" a link, an artificial "theme" in the Symphony that they use to track. (Which is why it tends to not last very long -- the True Symphony washes it away.) Or at least that's how I justify the Djinn resonance being based on Will, while the Cherub one is Perception. >(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.) Kyrios are another resonance based on Will... [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:17:26 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! > We know Oannes was killed by Belial. We do? Who was Oannes? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:17:26 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > 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? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:17:26 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? > > Nathanael ("gift of God") > > Elohim of Creation in service to Lightning > > Sorry, that name's taken. . . . :/ > > Nathanael > Angel of Punishment > Seraph of Gabriel He lost it in a gambling match with a sneaky little Reliever with more Ethereal Forces than any Reliever has business having. He now goes by Goombert, and is now the Angel of Pun-ishment, one of Eli's folks (though Kobal would *love* to get his hands on him). Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel. Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - The Prophecy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:43:59 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > 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 think most Malakim would smite the Demon in this situation as soon as they could find it. It's just a standard Malakim response. Heck, the two Malakim in my campaign would also commence to smighting the *Angels* involved in the situation as well. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:43:59 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> Re: White Wolf LARPS >isn't faith beleif without knowledge? if so, then angels don't have faith >that God is real, they truly know it. Hey now! Are you saying that the world's masses who have faith in God don't know anything? Futhure more, why would faith be described as belif w/out knowledge? It seems prefectly natural to have faith in God with knowledge that He is out there. Proof of that often -increases- a person's faith and God. - -Jesse I ain't got no shame, But I got my pride, I am just trying to get along, On the upper, upper, upper, West Side! PDQ Bach, "Classical Rap" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:35:20 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! At 4:38 PM -0600 1/15/98, rogue@ez-net.com wrote: >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. Legion is in a time of peasants. Oannes was killed... "the island of Thera was destroyed in the battle, and the cataclysm helped bring down the Minoan civilization." [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:44:50 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Raphael (Re: IN> Faith & Celestials) At 8:21 AM -0500 1/15/98, Emily Dresner wrote: [Rafe as Elohite] >Taking away his emotions kind of kills him. And frankly, it's not >difficult to at least do a little back research. Hey, whoa, Elohite defense league coming in here... Elohim *aren't* emotionless. They are *usually* restrained, but that doesn't mean that they don't love and care as much as any Cherub. It just means that if they must, they can put all that aside and act as will benefit the greater good of all. If they've worked out all the logical reasons for allowing their feelings to show, then there's no problem with them acting in a friendly manner and seeming like "just folks." (Many Elohim *do* look like "just folks," and behave like somebody with GURPS Unfazable most of the time. Calm, not necessarily emotionless.) I mean, Jean gets away with being proud. Probably because he deserves to be... Anyway, if the greater good of all means poking around and chumming with Mercurians, hey, Elohim can chum with the best of them. But I have seen some future material that benefits *immensely* from reference to Rafe, and it does work better with a socialized Elohite. Trust me? (At the least, it doesn't work with Cherub all that well, and I don't know if it works that well with Mercurian.) >I suppose it doesn't matter, since the author killed him as well. A dead >Archangel is a dead Archangel. True. And, MOST IMPORANTLY, whatever somebody wants to do with their campaign, they get to do. The GM *always* gets to change things around. [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:47:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) At 1:38 PM -0500 1/15/98, Emily Dresner wrote: [...] >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. I hope to the gods not. Contradict outside sources, maybe, but contradict itself? I am doing my *BEST* to catch errata (caught some the other day, praise the ethereal gods) before it happens. It's hard. We've got over a dozen authors, sometimes in the same book! But it's my job, and I love it, and contradictions are dissonant for me. APG was going to the printers around the time when I was gathering up the reins -- some stuff managed to fall on the floor, I fear. If you find more... Well, I'll do some frothing Discord. >> 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. Knew those "famous [Choir]" segments were a dubious idea, I just knew it... Oh, well, I wasn't LE when the formatting was decided. Tell them to ignore any names and just look at the other parts. (But clear the Kyriotate expanded resonance cruft first... Trust me, as a GM, you'll want to squint at it.) But those and the "Words of [Choir]" are the only "dangerous" parts (and nicely enough, many of the "Words of [Choir]" *did* get changed to "*Appropriate* Words for [Choir]" instead of canonizing them). There are a *lot* of good things in the APG. Really. There's only a couple of pages (if you squushed it all together) of "canon." At least *look* at the APG before you drop-kick it? *sniffle* [ And, um, Em? You play IN backwards anyway? Tell your players this and that anything "canon" they find in the books might be true, or might have been planted in the records by agents of Kobal. And if they argue, give them bad hair. Then tell them that's a canon way of dealing with annoying players. The Line Editor said so. O:> ] [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:10:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remnants At 11:28 AM -0500 1/15/98, York H. Dobyns wrote: >"Perry M. Lloyd" writes: [...] >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? Unless things get changed, once someone's a Remnant, they're effectively soul-killed. Yes, they can have up to 3 points in celestial characteristics, but should their vessel be killed, their remaining Forces and all self-awareness dissipate into the Symphony. There might be rare instances -- relics, Divine/Infernal Intervantion, Superiors doing funky things (Eli), or ethereal McGuffins -- where something happens to regenerate a remnant's Celestial Forces... ...but it ain't common. I think the FAQ said something about that? If someone is playing a Remnant masochistically, then they should consider the Will 1 Percpetion 2 (or vice versa) to be part of the masochism... If someone wants to be recovered... GM call. Do what you want. [Now summoning up energy to update the INC...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:08:45 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Raphael >All right, so I gather that > >a) You are not going to buy the Angelic Player's Guide because of a single >line that names Raphael as a Cherub (and is subsequently errata'ed as an >Elohite), and etc. etc. Jeez David there is no need to get emotional over this. There seems to be no pressing need to start flames. It is not like anyone's life is at stake. > >-David Sheesh! - -Jesse X-Disclaimer: The DCUNS is not responsible for the content of this message ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:10:21 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> Angel of Drugs The frist of two unlikaly Words for Angels Green, angel of Drugs Mercurian of Flowers Forces: 14 Corporeal: 4 Strength 6 Agility 10 Ethereal: 5 Intelligence 8, Precision 12 Celestial: 5 Will 10, Perception 10 Vessal/3 Role/3 (College Student) Skills: Artisty/4, Chemistry/2, Detect Lies/4, Driving/2, Emote/2, Fighting/2, Knowledge (Drugs)/4, Savior-Faire/6, Seduction/3 Songs: Dreams: Corporeal/4, Celestial/4; Charm: Celestial/4. Background: Off and on there has been an angel of drugs since man first became agriculturally based. For the most part the angel was responsible for ensuring man had new medicinal drugs. Once man discovered the healing power of the bread mold the power of the Word of Drugs, and the angel who held that Word, jumped enormously. Once penicillin was developed the angel of Drugs was able to spread its influence into other realms. At that time Lucifer saw fit to eliminate the angel and sent Fleurity to kill the angel. Green is the successor of that angel. Green was first an Impudite in the service to Fleurity. She does not often talk of her past as the demon of Psychedelics but it is well know that she was held in high regard by both Fleurity and Beleth before she defected. She was redeemed by Novalis who saw that Green heart had really repented. Eagerly awaiting the chance to foil her old master, Green entered into service for the Archangel of Flowers. Once she had proved herself against Fluerity's thugs, Novalis pensioned the Seraph Council to bestow upon Green the Word of Drugs. The Council was hesitant to give anyone Drugs; they still remembered the fate of the last Angel of Drugs. Dominic, who still was unconvinced of Green's loyalty, supported Green's bid for the Word. The Archangel of Judgement supported Green because Dominic figured that Green would either die or return to the Dark Side. If she Fell, it would be an embarrassment for Novalis which Dominic figured he could use to his advantage. If she died than Dominic would be relived of watching her. With the Archangel of Judgement's support Green soon had the Word of Drugs. Green turned out to be more devoted and cunning than Dominic thought. Using a combination of Songs, Attunements and old relations, not to mention liberal uses of her Resonance, Green and a select few underlings went undercover and exposed hive after stinking hive of Fluerity's minnions. Much to Dominic's chagrin, Green gained great praise by the Seraph Council. Green gradually delegated much of the battle against Fleurity to various angels of Fire and Trade. She is a Mercuian after all; violence is not in her nature. Today Green spends much of her time teaching mortals of the benefits of all drugs. She especially enjoys promoting a faster FDA and promoting the good effects of illegal drugs. In her ideally suited role as a college student Green enjoys spreading cannabis around for the purposes of enlightenment. She tries not to push anyone too far, but mistakes happen. Fortunately Dominic could not suggest any wrong doing on Green's part with out making a fool of himself in front of the Council. Christopher hates all servants of Fleurity, even Redeemed ones. Story Ideas: 1.) Fleurity may require any Demon PC's to take down his old lover. If Green dies that is good but Falling is much, much better. This would basically be a search and destroy mission ending in Green's death at the hands of the PC's. Fleurity would much prefer that she Fall though. This goal requires stealth, cunning and a good Savior-Faire rating. Detective work in opium dens Fleurity awaits the capture of his prize. 2.) Perhaps Fleurity has seen to eliminate many of Green's old friends. Seeing no other option, these Demons want to Redeem. Are they all really true? Is that Balseraph using her Resonance when she says she wants to Redeem? And isn't this just a trap for Green? PC's will have to investigate. 3.) Dominic is really sick of Green. Your PC's are "suggested" by Dominic to dig up dirt on Green. What will your Seraph do when it comes down to telling the truth to the Seraph Council or obeying your Archangel? And if Green didn't do it, which one of her underlings did, or was she set up? Angel of Inquisition coming up! - -Jesse X-Disclaimer: The DCUNS is not responsible for the content of this message ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:35:00 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: Staying in canon (was Re: IN> Re: Raphael ) On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 1:38 PM -0500 1/15/98, Emily Dresner wrote: > >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. > Knew those "famous [Choir]" segments were a dubious idea, I just > knew it... Oh, well, I wasn't LE when the formatting was > decided. Tell them to ignore any names and just look at the other > parts. (But clear the Kyriotate expanded resonance cruft first... > Trust me, as a GM, you'll want to squint at it.) Actually, the famous Choir members was one of my favorite bits, and I hope it survives to the Infernals Guide. When is the IPG due out? Is it still in editing, or do we have an ETA? Joe, realizing he's asked a timeliness question about *In Nomine*, of all games - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "Superheroes are a virus that needs to be exterminated."-- Mark Hughes How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:37:54 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Remnants On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Unless things get changed, once someone's a Remnant, they're > effectively soul-killed. Yes, they can have up to 3 points > in celestial characteristics, but should their vessel be > killed, their remaining Forces and all self-awareness dissipate > into the Symphony. Thanks, I was wondering about that. Makes the stakes just a bit higher for the remnant in my upcoming one-shot this weekend (she's the cutest little thing, a Remnant of the Elohite Angel of Entropy, one of Janus's, based quite a bit on Rei from Evangelion) > If someone is playing a Remnant masochistically, then they should consider > the Will 1 Percpetion 2 (or vice versa) to be part of the masochism... Actually, I gave the rem 0 in both characteristics, but I tossed in a Vessel/2 and Janus's second distinction for free... Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "Superheroes are a virus that needs to be exterminated."-- Mark Hughes How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 98 21:46:56 PST From: "bruce dykes" Subject: IN> Archangel Canon Fodder Am I alone in thinking the Words of the Archangels aren't quite right? That their descriptions don't necessarily mesh cleanly with their Words? Probably, but I'm going to post the ones that irk me anyway for comment and observation. The "elementals", Fire, Stone, and Wind, I can't really argue with. Ditto for Yves. The ones I have real problems with are Jean, Jordi, and Novalis. (Remember during this, that my view of angelic wording differs slightly from canon. In my view, an angel's word *will* change in response to its use by humans in the Symphony. A sharp angel can track this and change its word to match the concept, a dimmer angel will likely lose his word. We now return to our regularly scheduled posting) First, Novalis. Archangel of Healing. Second, Jean. Him I would recast as the Archangel of Science, after originally latching onto technology during the early days of weaponmaking, followed by agricultural tools, followed closely by humanity's attempt to explain the universe. In this new role, Jean's primary objective is to ensure that humanity learns the natural laws of the universe as God has written them, in due time and after diligent research, and also to ensure that the machines humanity creates to control the world around them obey only the natural laws of the universe that they are intended to work within. This, to me, provides a much more compelling conflict between Jean and Vapula, and provides a basis for a much greater interventionist attitude on the part of Jean. Now for Jordi. I just don't get the whole Word of Animals concept, and the choir attunements just seem to be pressed to fit. Instead, I think Jordi should be the Archangel of Wilderness, and add a new high ranking archangel, Julius, Archangel of Civilisation. Julius would be one of the oldest of the archangels, when the first seeds were planted by man, when the first brick was baked, when the first nomadic tribe quit moving, there was Julius. anything cultivated, ordered, is Julius. The cooked. Jordi is now the raw. Everything that's still left as God laid it out in the beginning, everything that's had all touches of man's order removed, and left to nature, is Jordi. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:14:14 -0500 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > There might be rare instances -- relics, Divine/Infernal Intervantion, > Superiors doing funky things (Eli), or ethereal > McGuffins -- where something happens to regenerate a remnant's > Celestial Forces... I had this question. I said the following. "Superiors cannot, even should they wish to, restore any of your celestial forces. They could provide the force, but adding it too you would destroy any of you that was left. The angel that was 'created' wouldnt be the same as the remnant. If you wish, you can wait until you get 10character points, and blow them all on a new force. Then you can roll a d666 and if you roll a demonic intervention you get a new celestial force and become an angel. If you roll a demonic intervention you get a new celestial force and immediatly fall (if you werent perviously a demon) and become a demon. Failure has no other side-effect other than the loss of a number of character points equal to the check digit." so if you spent your 10 character points, and rolled a 1+1 and a 5 for the check digit, you would loose 5 of the character points that you spent.. > If someone is playing a Remnant masochistically, then they should > consider the Will 1 Percpetion 2 (or vice versa) to be part of the > masochism... I simply give my remnants 0 in both of those. In my mean little GM mind, if you loose your LAST force in something you /loose the ability to have any points in its characteristics/. Even if you had 3 points in the characteristics, they would disappear. You cant have 3/4ths of a force. > If someone wants to be recovered... GM call. Do what you want. IMHO, any roleplaying a Remnant most likly A) Wouldnt want to recover B) wouldnt know that he /had/ anything to recover.. Afterall, if the mere mention of the word angel makes you scared, upset, and such forth-- what would the idea of BECOMING AN ANGEL again do to you?? - -- (lore@tmgbbs.com) \\/// Brandon Lance Quina (x x) ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo--- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:30:23 -0600 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #567 >I don't know if that's possible without killing Uriel first. Well, I do believe thats the best idea I've heard all day. :) Sorry, just never cared for the naz.....angel. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:24:43 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Remnants > > 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? > > > Nathaniel Eliot > temujin9@ix.netcom.com ObWince: Sorry folks - I was planning to write a long message, decided I needed to do other things, and forgot to remove it from my queue. Sorry... The original message may be done sometime, if I can summon the mental energy. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: RE: IN> Who are you, anyway? > He lost it in a gambling match with a sneaky little Reliever with > more Ethereal Forces than any Reliever has business having. He now > goes by Goombert, and is now the Angel of Pun-ishment, one of Eli's > folks (though Kobal would *love* to get his hands on him). > Yes, but then he would not last long. Do you know how 10,000 demons who all think they're very funny act around someone who puns all the time? Do you know how ironic it would be to slowly flay the punner? Yeah, I thought so. :) - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #568 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.