From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jan 20 18:34:09 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 SAA05098 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:34:09 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA22023 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:30:51 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:30:51 -0600 Message-Id: <199801210030.SAA22023@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 #578 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, January 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 578 In this digest: Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN>Flowers Re: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Re: IN>Heavenly Judgement attunement IN> Bob, Angel of Protest Music Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> In Nomine, sideways RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide Nitpicks Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Raphael RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting Re: IN> Raphael IN> Fair Exchange Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) Re: Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Raphael Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Sophia, Angel of Wisdom IN> A few scattered questions Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Rule Call... Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:13:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>Flowers Jesse wrote: > In the Buddhist tradition Flowers are defined as tethers to the > temporal world and tools of the Killer (bedevilment). As such they > are something to be avoided. I find that very strange, given all the use of the lotus in the Buddhist imagery I've encountered. Is there a special dispensation for lotuses? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:37:09 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Raphael Like I said, Raph's an Elohite. It's interesting how strongly dissent can become support when just one little tidbit of information is finally included in the debate. I love editors. I think author's work should be stuck under a microscope and pulled apart to keep it from missing things. I just got the distinct impression that this change was made in response to reader input rather than author input. That was probably my fault. Sometimes strange things can be inferred from mailing lists. I was wrong. My bad. {You should probably save that last line, it doesn't happen often.} Hey, what kind of Arcangel uses demons to enforce her will anyway? Wait a sec, I didn't ask that. It's not important. Please don't hurt me. [I hate silly smily faces. So to ease your pain, I will point out that the above was sarcasm.] - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: [SNIP] Derek agreed to this [SNIP] > Or do I have to send my Calabim and Habbalah after you? > == --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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:52:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN>Flowers > > Btw: The "Killer" is the Buddhist embodiment of desire, passion, and > attachment to this corporeal realm. Because attachment to the world is one > of the greatest sins in Buddhism the Killer is definitely something to be > avoided. > I'm reminded of an interpretation of Catharism aka the Albigensian Heresy, which had it that the world was the creation of the Evil God, and that it was attachment to the world which prevented people from being reunited with the good God when they died. I'm not sure how it is that souls strayed into the world, but once they did they were on the path of reincarnation. There were only two ways to get out: to become perfect, and go to Heaven, or to be damned, and go to Hell. Both were quite hard to do. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:12:57 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Archangel Beth: "[running a fever after 3 days on panels at a SF Con...]" I'm a little run down myself. Sorry to have missed you on Sunday - I'll owe you one at the next convention we're at. ;) yours, Jason Schneiderman Associate Editor, InQuest Magazine IQjason@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:11:00 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN>Heavenly Judgement attunement That brings up another interesting point... The sword attacks until the angel or the attacked is dead. For an attacked Celestial (angel or demon), is death defined as the destruction of the current vessel, or the final destruction of the Celestial's forces? If it's the destruction of the vessel, I can envision a demon simply taking Celestial form just to avoid further attacks. He would then drift to another part of town, take on his Corporeal vessel again and wander the streets with an unholy grin on his face. Meanwhile, the poor angel has spent 7 essence just to attack for only one round... If "death" of a celestial is defined as the destruction of his forces, then a Celestial's only escape would be to flee to the Celestial realm. If the attunement can be used when following that Celestial, the attack could continue. If the attacker pursues a demon into Hell, then an angel has just shot into Hell. That's not a friendly place. If the attacker is chasing an angel to Heaven, he risks pissing off other Arcangels. If the attacked is an Outcast or a Renegade, it sucks to be him. Ordinarily I'd say this is pretty strict, but then, so is a 7 essence point cost for an attunement. - ---Peter Frederick wrote: > My policy would be NO, if the vessel was destroyed, but YES, if the > Celestial tried to move to another Plane to avoid the Sword. Basically the > "death" of the vessel ends the attack, if the Celestial tries to dodge > somewhere else the Sword follows. I know it is a bit odd, since for > Celestials the destruction of a vessel is more an inconvienience than > anything else, but it was a ruling made to try to make the power not > instant Soul Death, which I don't believe the designers meant it to be. > > > > >---Lee Davis wrote: > >> > >> >The question hasn't been asked yet, but I think I would rule that > >if the > >> >target fled from one Plane to another that the Sword followed him > >doing the > >> >appropriate damage for the new Plane. Also that if called by a > >Celestial in > >> >Celestial form on the Corporeal Plane targeting another Celestial in > >> >Celestial form then it would do Celestial damage. > >> > > >> Ouch! My understanding was that a vessel pretty much protected > >> someone from any form of celestial damage. Or do you mean to say that > >> Heavenly Judgement is not useful when called by an angel in celestial > >> form against a foe in his vessel? > > Hmmm, for 7 Essence he better get something so I would have it do Corporeal > damage, that is the type of damage which was most normal to the target. If > they are both in Celestial form _then_ it does Celestial damage. == --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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:08:44 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> Bob, Angel of Protest Music Just an angel and some plot ideas. Robert, Angel of Protest Music Cherub of Stone Forces: 12 Corporeal: 3 Strength, 6; Agility, 6 Ethereal: 5 Intelligence, 10; Precession, 10 Celestial: 4 Will, 8; Perception, 10. Vessal/3; Role/2 (Roadie) Skills: Artistry: Music/6, Driving/3, Emote/3, Knowledge: Music/4, Knowledge: Counterculture/4, Savior-Faire/4, Singing/2 Songs: Dreams: Corpreal/4, Celestial/3; Harmony: Corporeal/4; Discord: Bond/2, Discolored/1 Attunements: Cherub of Stone, Friend of the Subterranean World, Cold Touch, Divine Destiny (but only to a musician he is attuned to) Rites: Listen to a protest song, Get someone to write a protest song (+2 Essence) History: Robert (or Bob as he likes to be called now) is not an old angel. He was fledged about 500 years ago and has served under David for his entire career. Bob stayed a rather inconspicuous angel until recently. While on a mission he bumped into Bob Dylan he was taken by the young musician's skill and ability to write good protest songs. Once Dylan became a star on Earth the Seraph Council determined that they needed to appoint an angel to guard the musician against Nybbas's and Malphas's minions. David purposed that Robert be placed to help Dylan. The Seraph Council agreed. After Woodstock the Seraph Council decided that Protest Music deserved its own Word and an angel to see over it. The Council decided that the best soul to place in charge of this was the angel who was already in charge, Robert. The Cherub got a promotion and new authority over people such as Hendrix, the Who, Lennon, and Marley. Robert always favored Dylan, though. For years Robert watched over Dylan. The Cherub suffered extreme dissidence from Dylan drug addictions but David was pleased with his servant and removed most of it. Today Robert has a Role touring with Dylan as a roadie. Since the death of many protest singers in the 70's and 80's Robert has had to expand his Word to punk, ska, rap, and industrial music. When not fulfilling his Role, Bob can be seen at George Clinton shows, among the throngs of Marilyn Manson fans and of course in the coffeehouses of the NorthEast. Bob has little to do with the other angels of music. His Word is focused on protest, not necessarily music. He rarely talks about the future. Robert fears that when Dylan dies his Word will die too. This fear has recently manifested itself as Bond Discord. Campaign Ideas: If there is another angel of music in your group Bob might come to him seeking help. The problem would be one, which Bob feels he could not tell David about or it may be a Diabolic plot against the holy aspects of music or Dylan in particular. Demons of Nybbas and Malphas would both -love- to corrupt Dylan. The PC's could be demons assigned to corrupt the singer or angels helping Robert protect Dylan. - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:15:39 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>Flowers Kevin Walsh wrote: > I'm reminded of an interpretation of Catharism aka the Albigensian > Heresy, which had it that the world was the creation of the Evil God, > .... I'm not sure how it is that > souls strayed into the world, but once they did they were on the > path of reincarnation. If memory serves me, Catharism/the Albigensians were late versions of the gnostics. According to many versions of gnosticism, human souls are sparks of divine fire stolen from Heaven by the Evil God to animate his earthly creations, so that Albigensians may have believed something similar. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:28:25 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN>Flowers >> In the Buddhist tradition Flowers are defined as tethers to the >> temporal world and tools of the Killer (bedevilment). As such they >> are something to be avoided. > >I find that very strange, given all the use of the lotus in the >Buddhist imagery I've encountered. Is there a special dispensation >for lotuses? > >Earl "Flowers" should be taken allegorically. Buddhists don't go around trampling flowerbeds of course! In the Dhammapada Flowers reefers to pretty things of this world that don't amount to much, in contrast with Fruit which is the end result of your actions, for better or worse. Since all the Words in In Nomine are taken allegorically to some extent I felt justified in writing this about Novalis and all that. Why lotus flowers? I don't know. It is probably a hold over from Hinduism in which the lotus is a symbol of the Divine or the God-Head (Brahamma). - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:24:20 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament > << In the IN universe, who was Jesus? >> > > This is the question I directly propose that we ask as GM's to our > hapless players. I think this is a rich source of plot that S.J. > ignored and that leaves it up to us to go there with an extermly > vast source of imagination My feeling is that Jesus is one of those anticanon subjects Beth refered to. There will never be a canon made on Jesus, because it is something that should be the sole providence of the GM. 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:24:20 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia > >>>Though you have to admit, there is more than a bit of overlap between > the words.<<< > > Certainly. A lot of Words could conceivably fall under the > jurisdiction of more than one Superior. It's more than that. It seems like the Words are almost identical. I don't think both Sophia and Litheroy are going to make it into my campaigns at the same time. > >>>For those of us who are waiting patiently for our stores to make it > available?<<< > > The APG, p. 9: "Yes," replied Andrealphus, dark angel of Love, later > to be Demon Prince of Lust.... Ah. Thank you. 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:24:20 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine, sideways > > Beyond that, I'm not sure: I'm willing to answer any and all > > questions. > > Souls seem the best place to start from what you've written. > Do mundane humans have souls now? > Do Soldiers? Yes, though not quite like souls in IN canon. This will be described better in Genesis 2. > Do Sorcerors? If so, does this mean that Sorcerors pass information > from incarnation to incarnation if the soul somehow avoids going to > Hell (assuming any souls go there)? Souls do go to Heaven and Hell, but at a much lower rate than one would expect. Sorcerers are *not* the same as ba'al shem - that breed lost much of it's power in Genesis 2. But yes, they can pass information between incarnations, if they gain some true Ethereal Forces. > Can humans become celestial, or has Yahweh prevented others > following his path? After a fashion. Most celestials are created, but there is definately precident for humans gaining celestial type power: Lilith and Saints. > Are souls an integral part of people, or external entities, sort of > like bound Shedites/Mage Avatars? Kinda both. All will become clearer in Genesis 2. 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:44:22 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia > >>>Though you have to admit, there is more than a bit of overlap between > the words.<<< > > Certainly. A lot of Words could conceivably fall under the > jurisdiction of more than one Superior. It's more than that. It seems like the Words are almost identical. I don't think both Sophia and Litheroy are going to make it into my campaigns at the same time. I might be able to disagree more, but it would take work. Litheroy's Revelation isn't the same at all as Sophia's Enlightenment, imho. Revelation doesn't produce, it doesn't create. It simply brings that which was hidden to a place where it's obvious. It also has no specific meaning to knowledge. My take on Enlightenment is that it refers specifically to new knowledge, particularly of the soul or the self or religion, and doesn't refer to that which was simply uncovered. Enlightenment is a kind of creation. Revelation is simply undirected detective work. Buddha would understand Sophia, while Sherlock Holmes would be much more comfortable with Litheroy. steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:06:30 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament > > << In the IN universe, who was Jesus? >> > > > > This is the question I directly propose that we ask as GM's to our > > hapless players. I think this is a rich source of plot that S.J. > > ignored and that leaves it up to us to go there with an extermly > > vast source of imagination > > My feeling is that Jesus is one of those anticanon subjects Beth > refered to. There will never be a canon made on Jesus, because it is > something that should be the sole providence of the GM. > That, and it could very well offend some people who actually play and run the game. Not to say me (I'm about as bad about religion as one can get) but I can certainly see others, no sweat. There's a stand up bit with Rowan Atkinson. He's being a demon down in hell, and sending people along to their tortures for eternity. He keeps calling out the groups, and he finally says, "Christians... Christians... ah, yes, the Jews were right. This way, please." It sort of reminds me of that. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:48:14 -0600 (CST) From: Dorothy Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide Nitpicks On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Brandon Quina wrote: Okay, cut me a little slack, I'm a _little_ behind, but hey, break has been a real pain. (snip) > > Question Everybody.. If you were a non-mundane thing in > the In Nomine universe, what would you be?? > Freelance Pagan Soldier.... (Imagine an overlay of a hard-broiled 40's gumshoe, Sam Spade for example) I was sitting in my office nursing the last glass of ritual wine when she walked in. She was a beautiful dame, but I could tell she was real black-hearted by the way she moved. She slinked across the room and sat on my desk. "I need your help and I heard you work cheap," she purred in a heavy French accent as she ran her fingers through her ebony hair." "Well, Honey, for you the price just got lower," I said putting down my glass. "Good," she replied, sliding an envelope across the desk. "Follow the instructions enclosed." She paused as she was heading out the door and looked seductively over her shoulder. "And Dorothy, if you ever need me just put your lips together and blow." Here's hoping Ezulie doesn't take this the wrong way, *Dorothy Michelle Bixler * mudmh10@ecom.ecn.bgu.edu* "Gidget, have you been laying with the Horned One again?" -MST3K's Mike from "The Thing the Couldn't Die" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 05:18:51 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting >I was referring to the kith as defined in the game. It pissed me off that >a kith so defined was given that name. Another amusing aspect of this kith is that they were described as having originated in Russia. Odd that there isn't anything like them in Russian folklore, and that they decided on a Scots Gaelic name. > >> My point still stands: it isn't authentic folklore. If they just >> wanted an African name to go with their idea, they would have down better >> with Anansi. True, Anansi is a spider, not a fairy, and an individual not >> a species. But he did like to tell stories and he didn't stick around when >> there was work to be done. >> >Unfortunately, the name was already taken. I wasn't aware of that. Don't tell me that they chose that name for the Weaver of garou cosmology? Please. >A more inclusive definition might say that modern stereotypes of fairies >are just as valid as traditional folkloric definitions (given that >fairies don't actually exist). I'm not sure inclusive is what we're after. Standard folklore studies differentiate between fairy-tales that are a part of folklore and literary use of fairy themes, such as Spencer's Fairy Queen, which owed nothing to folklore. I was being pretty inclusive with my definition. I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" in this context. I never claimed that people shouldn't used fairy lore to their own ends. I merely claimed that I don't enjoy it when they do. So far, no one has agreed that they need to order the world to my liking. Hard to imagine, isn't it? > >But this, I think, is the real problem with Changeling. (Apart from the >fact that Rein*Hagen was involved with it at any stage.) Whatever else we may disagree on, we won't be disagreeing on this. >> Expand on which? That In Nomine isn't true to the details of >> Angelology/Demonology, or that it has the feel of the genre? >> >That it has the feel of the genre. Actually, I should say that it allows you the feel of many genres regarding angels and demons. It has the flavour of some ancient angelology of the OT based religions (and really, of Zoroastrianism, too), the ability to evoke the awe and majesty, the foreignness of the angelic hosts. It allows you the very sinister demonic action revealed through things like the Screwtape Letters. And it has a LOT of the flavour of modern theological storytelling, like the Sandman or the Preacher. In Changeling, I get the feeling that the authors read about fairy tales, if at all, because they had a game to write, in In Nomine, I get the feelings that the authors read a lot of angel lore and liked it, and the game came out of respect for the lore. I may be wrong, but I hope not. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:29:28 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia > My take on Enlightenment is that it refers specifically to new >knowledge, particularly of the soul or the self or religion, and doesn't >refer to that which was simply uncovered. > > Enlightenment is a kind of creation. Revelation is simply >undirected detective work. Buddha would understand Sophia, while >Sherlock Holmes would be much more comfortable with Litheroy. > > steve Interesting. I have always seen enlightenment that coming in an epiphany all of the sudden whereas revelation is the "revealing" of otherwise hidden knowledge by some god or some such. Buddhism sees Enlightenment (with a capital E) as not just new knowledge but -all- knowledge. Having a Word like Enlightenment would defiantly be a role-playing challenge as the angel would be incapable (in my game) of actually being enlightened. Something to look into. - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:59:42 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Raphael Elizabeth McCoy writes: (hope you recover soon from the nasty sore throat, by the way) >[...] Surely you don't want to see everything exactly as it >was written the very first time? Even by Derek; the guy's good, >but even *he* says "a Shedim" half the time, drat him.) This raises a point that has bothered me since first reading the rules. Seraph/Seraphim and Cherub/Cherubim are perfectly legitimate, if Anglicized, Hebrew words in both singular and plural. (Although I've noticed some people seem to pluralize "Balseraph" as "Balseraphs" rather than "Balseraphim".) Ofanim, Elohim, and Malakim are also forming Hebraic plurals -- so the singular really ought to be something like Ofan, Eloh, and Malak respectively. Ditto for Calabim and Shedim on the Fallen side. (Djinn, incidentally, is a genuine plural, the singular is "djinni" -- Arabic has *weird* plural formations.) Now, I grant that the inferred singulars are awkward, truncated, and in some cases silly-sounding ("Look out, he's been possessed by a Shed!") But in all honesty the "-ite" endings that are used to singularize the names in canon don't sound all that much better. (Though there's some hilarious appropriateness that the Archangel of Stone should be a Malakite.) The Latinate suffix really clashes with the Hebraic-sounding names, and it seems an especially awkward fit given the Seraph/Cherub example to make it clear that "-im" is supposed to be a pluralizing suffix that works just like "-s" in English. I guess, at this late date, it's too late to fix the problem, even if other people find the alleged singular forms as ugly-sounding as I do. I may end up using the circumlocution "of the" or "one of the" whenever referring to Choir/Band membership, just so I can always use the plural form. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:50:33 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Well, remember, in this case, we have canon on how one Word is interpreted by its Archangel: while your meaning of Revelation isn't wrong, it also isn't how Litheroy pursues his word. To him, it's the opposite of Secrets, not the opposite of Ignorance. steve -----Original Message----- From: Jesse [SMTP:jrooney@moose.uvm.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 11:29 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: RE: IN> New Archangel: Sophia > My take on Enlightenment is that it refers specifically to new >knowledge, particularly of the soul or the self or religion, and doesn't >refer to that which was simply uncovered. > > Enlightenment is a kind of creation. Revelation is simply >undirected detective work. Buddha would understand Sophia, while >Sherlock Holmes would be much more comfortable with Litheroy. > > steve Interesting. I have always seen enlightenment that coming in an epiphany all of the sudden whereas revelation is the "revealing" of otherwise hidden knowledge by some god or some such. Buddhism sees Enlightenment (with a capital E) as not just new knowledge but -all- knowledge. Having a Word like Enlightenment would defiantly be a role-playing challenge as the angel would be incapable (in my game) of actually being enlightened. Something to look into. -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:00:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting > Another amusing aspect of this kith is that they were described as > having originated in Russia. Odd that there isn't anything like them in > Russian folklore, and that they decided on a Scots Gaelic name. > That struck me too. It's the "everything evil comes out of Russia/Eastern Europe" syndrome. > > I wasn't aware of that. Don't tell me that they chose that name > for the Weaver of garou cosmology? Please. > Nope. The Ananasi are the werespiders. And this post is now off-topic, so I'll stop. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:10:24 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Raphael York H. Dobyns wrote: > I guess, at this late date, it's too late to fix the problem, even if > other people find the alleged singular forms as ugly-sounding as I do. I think the "-ite" ending is Greek. To me, it sounds appropriately Biblical because of words like "Israelite," "Levite," "Benjaminite," etc. But I see your point. If I recall my father's remarks correctly (he studied Hebrew), the Hebrew singulars really are "malak," "shed," and "ofan." I think the singular of "elohim" is "eloah." I have never been able to locate the singular of "Lilim." I encountered "Lilot," which my father disbelieved, and he never heard of a "lil." I tried suggesting "Lilite" to the list, but it fell on deaf ears. I'm afraid it probably *is* too late to fix the plurals, though I can always hope I'm wrong. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:23:14 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Fair Exchange Oh man, this stuff is priceless, even if I don't get half the Brit jokes. Keep it up, Jo! - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:23:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) >>>If I weren't sick, I'd go look at what the drafts said.<<< The last draft I saw (namely, the one I wrote) says that Djinn *don't* get the special Perception-based abilities listed in the APG for Cherubim, which I don't use in my own campaign. (I wrote them, but I don't agree with them -- long story.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:35:43 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> Raphael Earl: "If I recall my father's remarks correctly (he studied Hebrew), the Hebrew singulars really are 'malak,' 'shed,' and 'ofan.'" I think "shed" would be less goofy if it were pronounced more like "shade". "I have never been able to locate the singular of 'Lilim.' I encountered 'Lilot,' which my father disbelieved, and he never heard of a 'lil.'" The -ot suffix is the feminine plural. The 'daughters' might be 'lilot' or maybe 'lilitot' "I tried suggesting 'Lilite' to the list, but it fell on deaf ears." 30% less fat than regular li, no doubt. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:43:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Raphael IQJason@aol.com wrote: > "I tried suggesting 'Lilite' to the list, but it fell on deaf ears." > > 30% less fat than regular li, no doubt. Well, you *know* they're the sort who would watch their figures. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:48:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) > >>>If I weren't sick, I'd go look at what the drafts said.<<< > > > The last draft I saw (namely, the one I wrote) says that Djinn *don't* get > the special Perception-based abilities listed in the APG for Cherubim, > which I don't use in my own campaign. (I wrote them, but I don't agree with > them -- long story.) > Do they get other stuff instead? (No, I'm not going to pester you about what that might be.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:48:42 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Raphael > If I recall my father's remarks correctly (he studied Hebrew), the > Hebrew singulars really are "malak," "shed," and "ofan." I think the > singular of "elohim" is "eloah." I have never been able to locate the > singular of "Lilim." I encountered "Lilot," which my father > disbelieved, and he never heard of a "lil." I tried suggesting > "Lilite" to the list, but it fell on deaf ears. > > I'm afraid it probably *is* too late to fix the plurals, though I can > always hope I'm wrong. > > Earl Lilite suddenly makes me think of Termite. And Elomite (you don't wanna know). Maybe it's my Lilim. Maybe it's because they get under the skin. *shrug* - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:09:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Raphael > > > If I recall my father's remarks correctly (he studied Hebrew), the > > Hebrew singulars really are "malak," "shed," and "ofan." I think the > > singular of "elohim" is "eloah." I have never been able to locate the What about Habbalah? Has that suddenly become the singular form as well? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:24:50 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > >>>Though you have to admit, there is more than a bit of overlap between > > the words.<<< > > Certainly. A lot of Words could conceivably fall under the > > jurisdiction of more than one Superior. > It's more than that. It seems like the Words are almost identical. > I don't think both Sophia and Litheroy are going to make it into my > campaigns at the same time. You think that's bad? What about Haagenti/Gluttony and Mammon/Greed? Far as I can tell, the difference between their words is that Haagenti's action while Mammon is intent. While Mammon seems to be higher-class than Haagenti, that doesn't mean Kobal's Bro doesn't reserve the right to go after the finer things, and I can see Mammon getting eaten right quick given Gluttony's track record... 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:31:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Raphael Kevin Walsh wrote: > What about Habbalah? Has that suddenly become the singular form as > well? I thought it was one Habbalah, two Habbalim (or maybe two Habbaloth). But I have no idea. I am dependent on others for information on Hebrew. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:55:32 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia > > It's more than that. It seems like the Words are almost identical. > > I don't think both Sophia and Litheroy are going to make it into my > > campaigns at the same time. > You think that's bad? What about Haagenti/Gluttony and Mammon/Greed? > Far as I can tell, the difference between their words is that Haagenti's > action while Mammon is intent. While Mammon seems to be higher-class than > Haagenti, that doesn't mean Kobal's Bro doesn't reserve the right to go > after the finer things, and I can see Mammon getting eaten right quick > given Gluttony's track record... > Technically, they are two different 'deadly sins', if you change Mammon to 'covetousness' instead of 'greed': From webster, the definition of "covet" is 'To wish for enviously' or 'To desire (another's possession) inordinately or culpably.' On the other hand, the definition of "gluttony" is "excess in eating or drinking". In the strict definitions of the words, I can see where they do not overlap. On the other hand, if you interpret "gluttony" as "to want in excess", they do. It depends on how you want to define your Words. I don't really use any Superiors that appeared outside of the main rulebook, so I haven't run into that problem. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:02:49 EST From: DSChenin Subject: Re: IN> Sophia, Angel of Wisdom In a message dated 98-01-20 02:26:49 EST, you write: << << Sophia is one of the very oldest of the Seraphim: she was created before even Dominic and the younger archangels >> I find a problem with this because 1 without man there really wasn't love and 2 I think personally there should be only the demon of love but that is my own twisted view of the whole thing >> If there was no love without man. are you saying that befor God created man, the angels did not love God? Obsidian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:15:11 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: IN> A few scattered questions Despite having had the game since the day it came out, I just got around to running it for the first time Sunday, using a modified version of Patrick O'Duffy's (I think) great Too Too Solid Flesh adventure. As a result of shaking down the system, I have a few questions, some of which I'm pretty sure about but want reinforcement: Soldiers and Undead cannot hear the Symphony, yes? Does a celestial damaging a Saint or Undead cause noise? What exactly happens to a celestial who loses a vessel, but has a spare? I ruled that they go celestial, and have 10xCorpForces minutes to change vessels (since changing into a new vessel in front of the thing that killed you might just equal a new dead vessel) A modified check digit can go above 6, right? Can Eli give his Kyrio attunement to his other choirs? I ruled yes, since it isn't directly based on reseonance, but it does say host and not vessel... 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:30:40 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > You think that's bad? What about Haagenti/Gluttony and Mammon/Greed? > > Far as I can tell, the difference between their words is that Haagenti's > > action while Mammon is intent. While Mammon seems to be higher-class than > > Haagenti, that doesn't mean Kobal's Bro doesn't reserve the right to go > > after the finer things, and I can see Mammon getting eaten right quick > > given Gluttony's track record... > Technically, they are two different 'deadly sins', if you change Mammon to > 'covetousness' instead of 'greed': > >From webster, the definition of "covet" is 'To wish for enviously' or 'To > desire (another's possession) inordinately or culpably.' On the other > hand, the definition of "gluttony" is "excess in eating or drinking". In > the strict definitions of the words, I can see where they do not overlap. > On the other hand, if you interpret "gluttony" as "to want in excess", > they do. This is true, but the way Haagenti's portrayed is more Greedy than strictly Gluttonous (frex, Consume can make people max out their credit cards). > It depends on how you want to define your Words. I don't really use any > Superiors that appeared outside of the main rulebook, so I haven't run > into that problem. I don't even like Mammon all that much, it just kinda bugged me. Zadkiel and Fleurity are kind of neat, and I like Furfur even though I think 'Hardcore's a silly Word for a Prince. A question as long as we're talking minor Superiors: Last I heard, Khalid took on stewardship of Islam as a snub to Laurence over being passed over to head Heaven's Army. Now I hear he's an Elohite. Do they act out of spite, especially over something this big? Mind you, I think it's very neat if he does, but considering the flap over appropriate behavior re: Raphael and choirs, I was wondering if they'd change his motivation. 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:45:36 -0600 From: Jaeden Subject: Re: IN> Rule Call... Querent wrote: > > Playing devil's advocate (a balseraph of the game): > > King Arthur can not be proven to ever have existed, but he's got an > awful lot of status. Arthur did exist, though in that time there were two. Plus the catholic church changed the legend to make it unbelievable. The real Arthur never got the title of Pendragon I don't believe, though he was a, I think, general ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:20:55 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia I'm still stuck at work on the 10:30 hour mark, so I'll sort of answer and think out loud. > > Technically, they are two different 'deadly sins', if you change Mammon to > > 'covetousness' instead of 'greed': > > >From webster, the definition of "covet" is 'To wish for enviously' or 'To > > desire (another's possession) inordinately or culpably.' On the other > > hand, the definition of "gluttony" is "excess in eating or drinking". In > > the strict definitions of the words, I can see where they do not overlap. > > On the other hand, if you interpret "gluttony" as "to want in excess", > > they do. > This is true, but the way Haagenti's portrayed is more Greedy than > strictly Gluttonous (frex, Consume can make people max out their credit > cards). No, I can see a clear distinction between Gluttony and Greed at this point. Greed/Covetousness is selective, wanting to possess certain items of great intrinsic value, usually belonging to someone else - cash, Rolex watches, $1000 suits, hot cars, that sort of thing. Gluttony, on the other hand, is more interested in consuming 500 lbs of 7-11 microwave burritos or hundreds of pairs of Hanes underwear. One is the HAVING, the other is the GETTING. > > It depends on how you want to define your Words. I don't really use any > > Superiors that appeared outside of the main rulebook, so I haven't run > > into that problem. > I don't even like Mammon all that much, it just kinda bugged me. Zadkiel > and Fleurity are kind of neat, and I like Furfur even though I think > 'Hardcore's a silly Word for a Prince. Mammon interests me passively, because I can imagine his servitors being very downright nasty, when combined with, say, Malphas. But, on the other hand I believe 'Faith' is sort of like kicking the puppy with the boot of Obviousness. Between Laurence, Gabriel, Yves, Novalis, Eli... he doesn't really fill any cracks. He feels like overkill, which is one of the big dangers with adding new Superiors. Then again, I probably haven't given him a fair shake. If someone can elucidate on him at length, it'll be appreciated. As for Fleurity, while Drugs are a big deal, I have trouble seeing him as a major mover and shaker. The War, Factions, Media vs... Drugs? I know Nancy Reagan and they rot your brain and all that, but they just aren't on the same global level. If you make a level of minor Princes with a very small servitor base, and give him some solid connections with the bigger boys for survival, he's useful in a limited capacity and as adding some good backup to your big NPCs for plot. I just don't use FurFur. I assume he's part of a module, and I don't run modules. > A question as long as we're talking minor Superiors: Last I heard, Khalid > took on stewardship of Islam as a snub to Laurence over being passed over > to head Heaven's Army. Now I hear he's an Elohite. Do they act out of > spite, especially over something this big? Mind you, I think it's very > neat if he does, but considering the flap over appropriate behavior re: > Raphael and choirs, I was wondering if they'd change his motivation. > *I've been working on this mail for two hours, and now my brain is really foggy* Somehow, the concept of an Archangel other then Gabriel having anything to do with Islam strikes me as very strange, sort of like someone shooting electricity up my left leg. It has to be all the Islamic history and doctrine I've been reading lately. Its sort of like if I logged in and found an Archangel taking stewardship of Judaism, a concept that I find rubbing me strangely the wrong way in an ugly manner so I won't think about it anymore. I know Khalid is a very 'Arabic' name, but it's still bugging me somehow, deep in my brain. Probably because of the Islamic doctrine of God not being an entity which has hair and toenails but something seperate, greater then Man, and that the Islamic peoples have a tendancy talk directly to God, and they can't take a shower without God having something to say about it. Inshallah. On the other hand *furrow brow* the Faylasufs of the Byzantine were an extremely philosophical group, and when I was reading about them a few weeks ago they struck me as very 'Elohite-ish'. Even Sufi mysticism has that ring of objectivity to it. I suppose it depends on one's resources. As for Larry, I'm not sure I would do that. It went from Philosophy -> Decline -> Fundamentalism -> the Age of Expansion and Westernizing. The French/British/Spanish did a good job of invading Northern Africa and much of the Middle East all the way through India. In some areas, especially Tehran, Islam was outlawed and only radical Sufism existed underground. Some places - Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, Islam that did exist became more twisted under Draconian regimes. I would not say that this was the work of Laurence trying to wipe out the opposite religion. If I was building a historic game universe focusing on the 19th century (and there is LOTS of material) I would had it to Baal and Malphas. Maybe Larry just didn't stop them. If my mind was to wander, and I was to build a campaign, in this day an age, and I had to use Khalid, I think I would make him Fall. I won't use him, I'm having trouble seeing his point and the Politik Mechanik isn't working all that great around him. But that is what I would do, because it seems reasonable. - - Em, Balseraphin' about but stuck at work for a really long time. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #578 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.