From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 21 03:39:17 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 DAA17702 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:39:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA29945 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:35:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:35:50 -0600 Message-Id: <199801210935.DAA29945@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 #579 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 Wednesday, January 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 579 In this digest: Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) Re: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! Re: IN> A few scattered questions Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Raphael IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) Re: IN> A few scattered questions Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. Re: IN> Evil Idea Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN>Heavenly Judgement attunement IN> Buddhist In Nomine Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN> Buddhist In Nomine Re: IN> Fair Exchange Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Re: IN> Raphael Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:14:31 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) At 3:23 PM -0500 1/20/98, David Edelstein wrote: [Beth wrote:] >>>>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.) Okay. Good 'nuff. [running a fever after 3 days on panels at a SF Con...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:09:40 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Re: IN> Rapael and Oannes and Uriel- oh my! At 11:12 AM -0500 1/20/98, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >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. ;) Yeah, I'm sorry we missed you as well -- our panel ran to 2:30, not 2, and when we got out... No Jason. O:< Oh, well -- at least you didn't get too much of a chance to catch whateverit is that I've got. [running a fever after 3 days on panels at a SF Con...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:02:54 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions At 5:15 PM -0500 1/20/98, Raoul Duke wrote: >Soldiers and Undead cannot hear the Symphony, yes? Can. That's what distinguishes a Soldier from a servant. (At least, Soldiers can. Undead... I think they can. I think anyone who can use Essence consciously can hear the Symphony.) >Does a celestial damaging a Saint or Undead cause noise? Yes. That's one of the creepy things about them. >What exactly happens to a celestial who loses a vessel, but has a spare? Depends on how it happens -- generally, the celestial winds up back at his Heart (or in Limbo, for the Heartless), in Trauma (except for Malakim). However, check the FAQ -- if someone changes in time, they can switch vessels and leave the wounded one "in potentialty". The wounded one might even be dead if it got hit in the middle of the round it was being swapped in! As soon as they get out of Trauma, the Hearted can use any spare vessels they had to go back down (presumably to the spot they "ascended" from -- where their other vessel was killed). Malakim can do this immediately. (Eeep!) If they're in Limbo, they have to use Essence to generate a new vessel, escape in that, and swap to any other preferred vessels afterwards. (Someone in Limbo a lot may have a mouse vessel or six kicking around.) >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) If you want to do it that way, that's cool too. >A modified check digit can go above 6, right? Yes. >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... Hrm. I have no problem with that, no. [running a fever after 3 days on panels at a SF Con...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:18:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Raphael At 5:45 AM -0500 1/20/98, Raoul Duke wrote: >On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> Something I did for the IPG, I double-checked, and found *that* >> slip of paper had been eaten by something, too -- last minute >> fix got done, thank somebody. Otherwise, you might have seen >> K.K. in canon, along with Kobal Kamera's Malakim Blooper Reels. >> (Instead, you'll see "I'm Going To Hell," prizewinning racehorse, >> Lilim of Mammon and Demon of Gambling Debts.) > >Why would this have necessarily been a bad thing? The horse does sound >fun tho. SJ thought K.K. was a little silly for canon In Nomine. Maybe some other book... The horse was David Edelstein's idea. I (and SJ) thought it wonderful... At 7:37 AM -0800 1/20/98, Querent wrote: >Like I said, Raph's an Elohite. [...] >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. It most definitely was *not* made in response to reader input. It was decided at the highest levels of The Powers That Be. So leeseen to de Line Editor when she sez tings, eh? She gots reezons, most times, yah. >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. Ah, but with my Line Editor hat on, I become the Demon Princess of Nitpicking. Djinn, of course. (And very good friends -- in as much as Djinn have friends -- with Asmodeus. He does the Game, and Demon Princess Beth makes sure the rules are only inconsistant when he wants them that way...) Or were you thinking I was a Habbalite? At 1:59 PM -0500 1/20/98, York H. Dobyns wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy writes: >(hope you recover soon from the nasty sore throat, by the way) Thanks. So do I. I've been whispering all day... >>[...] 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".) It's the official IN plural. Yes, I know, I know the plurals are wonky. *Those* are not my fault... If you want to change them in your personal games... You know the drill. O:> But whether they're wonky or not, I'm going to get them *standardized* so at least they'll all be wonky/wrong the canon way! >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. Oh, just use your own. I use Geasa for the plural of Geas, in my own stuff. For anything I write for publication, I use Geases. They're funky plurals, and that's all there is to them. But I memorized 'em, I did... (And how I remember that "Habbalah" is IN plural, and "Habbalite" is singular...? Man at bar: "Gimme a lite!" Person next to him SFX-explodes into Habbie-form and grins down at him nastily. Man at bar, tiny voice: "Uh, Bud lite?" Best excuse not to drink I ever thought of...) [running a fever after 3 days on panels at a SF Con...] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:17:08 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Raoul Duke 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... I've made Mammon very understated in my campaign. I use Mephistopheles from the INC page in my game...between Meph and Haagenti, I considered just writing off Mammon. Instead, I decided that there was a basic agreement...Mammon deals with monetary greed; Haagenti deals with consumption of food and other expendable, wasteful things; Mephistopheles is more into the wheeling and dealing--rather like a Lilim. It's working fine. 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:03:42 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Raphael At 15:10 20/01/98 -0500, you wrote: >York H. Dobyns wrote: >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've never heard of a lil either ;-) but if we want to be technical, lilot is probably a more appropriate plural because -ot is the feminine plural form, (-im is the masculine/ mixed plural) and all lilim are female. But who wants to be technical? I don't think elohim has a singular, but if it did it would be 'el' which just means god. 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:10:19 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Raphael At 21:09 20/01/98 +0000, you wrote: >> >> > 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? > > (Not to be boring but ..) Technically Habbalah is a singular feminine form, from the -ah ending, so the appropriate plural in hebrew would be 'habbalot'. Another (grammatically correct version) is the fluff-band on my web page in which a single member is a 'yaldah' but the name of the band is 'yaldot'. If using correct hebrew form is important to you then you could use that ;-) jo (ps. I don't know what you mean about it being traditional for evil things to have come out of Eastern Europe! Tats where my family is from ;-P ) - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:40:00 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: 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.<<< Well, Sophia is only mentioned in passing in the APG, she's not a fully written character. My take on "Enlightenment" was that it covers the diffusion of knowledge that replaces ignorance, particularly on a society-wide level (During THE Enlightenment was one of Sophia's heydays), as opposed to "Revelation" which is more the uncovering of secrets, a more sudden process. Or as someone else put it, Enlightenment means finding answers that weren't there before, whereas Revelation means uncovering the answers that were there but hidden. A subtle distinction, granted, with plenty of overlap. YMMV. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:40:54 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. I feel obliged to contest a few of the assertions made by Earl, regarding Christian views of In Nomine. Earl Wajenberg writes: [...] >Falling and Redeeming >--------------------- > >Christian tradition is solidly in favor of a totally final fate or doom, >contrary to the canon IN idea of any angel being in danger of falling or >any demon having the hope of redeeming. I have seen at least two conflicting renditions of the "Christian" attitude toward angels/demons. One version is that angels have free will only in the instant of their creation. Upon coming into being, an angel makes one free choice: to serve God, and thereby be an angel, or not, and thereby be a demon. After that single choice, the entity no longer has free will and is permanently part of the side it has chosen. There's one version, entirely compatible with Earl's comments. However, a devout and erudite Christian gamer of my acquaintance (whom I approached with the question of whether the concept of In Nomine bothered him) told me of the following, conflicting doctrine: Angels and demons must retain free will throughout their existence. Did they not, the actions of the angels would not be virtuous (for they have no alternative), nor would the actions of the demons be evil (for they, too, have no choice). Angels can rebel and fall at any time; they choose not to, for they serve God from direct knowledge of Him and His will. Demons, likewise, can at any time repent of their crimes and be redeemed; they choose not to, for the same reason that they originally fell: pride. While somewhat more sternly phrased, this is obviously quite compatible with the IN approach. Having been given two completely different views on the matter by self-identified Christians, I am forced to conclude that the "Christian" view of the matter is not uniform. I suspect that the doctrine may split approximately on Catholic/Protestant lines, given the identities of my sources. >Other Religions >--------------- > >Obviously, if Christianity is true, or the truest of the available >religions, the others are not as true, or simply false. This is simply not correct. I commend to your attention the book _Encountering God_, by Diane Eck, for a Christian viewpoint that favors religious pluralism. Eck and other like-minded theologians have mustered strong arguments for the view that the Christian faith does not require one to dismiss all other religions as false. In Nomine canon appears to be that the God served by the angels is the one true creator of all things; that He is the deity jointly, though differently, worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims; and that pagan deities, though real (at least such of them as survived Uriel's purge) are lesser beings with much more limited abilities. This is actually *less* radical than the view being promoted in real life by Christian pluralists; it corresponds to the attitude that Eck calls "inclusivism", which might be boiled down as "Your religion is true, but mine is truer." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:40:02 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) >>>Do they get other stuff instead? (No, I'm not going to pester you about what that might be.)<<< Wouldn't be fair to give the angels nifty new resonance tricks and not do the same for demons, now would it? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 22:48:03 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) >>>>Do they get other stuff instead? (No, I'm not going to pester you about >what that might be.)<<< > > >Wouldn't be fair to give the angels nifty new resonance tricks and not do >the same for demons, now would it? > >-David Who said In Nomine, or SJ Games, were fair? It would be greaT if instead of tricky tricks for demons if they got something else. - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 22:48:37 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 5:15 PM -0500 1/20/98, Raoul Duke wrote: > >What exactly happens to a celestial who loses a vessel, but has a spare? > Depends on how it happens -- generally, the celestial winds up > back at his Heart (or in Limbo, for the Heartless), in Trauma > (except for Malakim). However, check the FAQ -- if someone changes > in time, they can switch vessels and leave the wounded one "in potentialty". > The wounded one might even be dead if it got hit in the middle of the > round it was being swapped in! > > As soon as they get out of Trauma, the Hearted can use any spare vessels > they had to go back down (presumably to the spot they "ascended" from -- > where their other vessel was killed). Malakim can do this immediately. > (Eeep!) If they're in Limbo, they have to use Essence to generate > a new vessel, escape in that, and swap to any other preferred vessels > afterwards. (Someone in Limbo a lot may have a mouse vessel or six > kicking around.) Well, see, the reason I asked was that in the Corp Death section in the base book, it says something like, "if the celestial has another vessel to go to *right then*, he cheats death." I don't think 'right then' is ever defined that I can see, and I was wondering if a spare vessel to reincarnate into would qualify, or if it would have to already be corporeal via a Body Bag or similar. I guess that would make the Bag more useful, now that I think about it. 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 21:29:12 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > There's one version, entirely compatible with Earl's comments. However, > a devout and erudite Christian gamer of my acquaintance (whom I > approached with the question of whether the concept of In Nomine > bothered him) told me of the following, conflicting doctrine: > > Angels and demons must retain free will throughout their existence. Did > they not, the actions of the angels would not be virtuous (for they have > no alternative), nor would the actions of the demons be evil (for they, > too, have no choice). Angels can rebel and fall at any time; they choose > not to, for they serve God from direct knowledge of Him and His will. > Demons, likewise, can at any time repent of their crimes and be > redeemed; they choose not to, for the same reason that they originally > fell: pride. While somewhat more sternly phrased, this is obviously > quite compatible with the IN approach. > > Having been given two completely different views on the matter by > self-identified Christians, I am forced to conclude that the "Christian" > view of the matter is not uniform. I suspect that the doctrine may split > approximately on Catholic/Protestant lines, given the identities of my > sources. > You're right, but even within specific Protestant sects there is disagreement. I was raised Southern Baptist, and belief in the literal existence of angels and demons is really only held by the hardcore anymore, and even the hardcore don't think the angels -really- have free will when you come right down to it, and any virtue that comes from their actions comes because the action is originated by God (who does have free will). Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:32:40 EST From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> Evil Idea In a message dated 98-01-19 15:13:05 EST, you write: << He controls the Armies of God with a ruthless fist, and attempts to extend the Catholic Church upon Earth to sway the hearts and minds of the humans. >> God is Power Power for the sake of Power 1984 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:48:50 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Raphael At 3:43 PM -0500 1/20/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >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. "If I lose ten pounds, what will you do for me?" Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:38:06 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament >> Oh no! it is the arab suicide brigade! >> >ObNitpick. They weren't Arabs, they were the Judaean People's Front. >Great film that, it's wonderful to see Kobal's work at it's best. >(Especially the ads he did for Malphas in it.) Now wait a minute! Kobal didn't do that one. It was purely the work of the seraphim! Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:53:58 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Raphael >I've never heard of a lil either ;-) but if we want to be technical, lilot >is probably a more appropriate plural because -ot is the feminine plural >form, (-im is the masculine/ mixed plural) and all lilim are female. But >who wants to be technical? > >I don't think elohim has a singular, but if it did it would be 'el' which >just means god. I believe that the singular of lilim is lili, though I can't remember where I came across that. One of the traditional names of Lilith was Ardad Lili, which (again, my memory is cloudy here) I believe was something like "Great Demon" in translation. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:59:31 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. >>Other Religions >>--------------- >> >>Obviously, if Christianity is true, or the truest of the available >>religions, the others are not as true, or simply false. > >This is simply not correct. I commend to your attention the book >_Encountering God_, by Diane Eck, for a Christian viewpoint that favors >religious pluralism. Eck and other like-minded theologians have mustered >strong arguments for the view that the Christian faith does not require >one to dismiss all other religions as false. There has been a more pluralistic and syncretistic bent to much Christian writing in this century. Still, this is at this point an experimental and unorthodox (though not necessarily heterodox) approach. It may win out and become orthodoxy. There is no reason from within orthodoxy to "dismiss" other religions, but wherever there is a conflict (and there always is) Christianity would be the one favoured. I'm not a Christian myself, but that is pretty standard Christian thinking. Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:21:32 From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: IN>Flowers At 10:13 AM 20/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >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 from what I understand it comes from the stroy of how the Buddha first taught Zen. He got up for one of his lessons in front of all his disciples and simply held out a lotus blossom. The disciples sat waiting for him to explain, Buddha just stood there holding out the flower. The disciples waited and waited and waited and Buddha just stood there holding out the lotus. Eventually the disciple who founded Zen Buddhism looked up at the Buddha and smiled and the Buddha smiled back because they both knew that the disciple had understood. Now is that Zen or what :) . Thanking you for your indulgence. Regards, Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:27:13 From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: IN>Heavenly Judgement attunement At 08:11 AM 20/1/98 -0800, Querent wrote: >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? Hmm thought I had made this distinction but ... >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... The way I rule it if you change to Celestial form the Sword starts doing Celestial damage. Your better off taking the loss of vessel. OTOH if I thought that the target was just going to drift away then become Corporeal then I might suspend the damage and then start it up again when he became Corporeal. >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. IMC fleeing to Heaven or Hell is no escape. However you might be able to get your Superior to dispell the Judgement, who knows the bounds of an AA or DP's powers. Another point is that IIRC the attacker doesn't have to be anywhere near the target, except to invoke the power. Once it starts it is up to the target to catch and kill the attacker. The attacker is free to wander off, go Celestial, teleport away or continue attacking. Regards, Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:44:36 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> Buddhist In Nomine Dear List, I was reading my copy of the Dhammapada when a revelation occurred to me. Or maybe it was enlightenment? No matter. I thought that by taking the titles and quotes from the Dhammapada, I could construct very interesting In Nomine adventures. These adventures would proceed along from a minor event to a full class apocalypse and re-birth forming a sort of "mini-campaign." I was curious if there would be any interest on the list in this project. It would be long (25+ installments) and I probably will not finish it before the end of February. If there is interest I will probably print it here on the list. If not, I may post it on the web or publish it. Thank you, - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:07:03 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN>Flowers >Now is that Zen or what :) . What. Since there is no such thing as Zen it has to be "or what." - -Jesse remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:11:31 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Buddhist In Nomine On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Jesse wrote: > Dear List, > I was reading my copy of the Dhammapada when a revelation occurred to me. > Or maybe it was enlightenment? No matter. I thought that by taking the > titles and quotes from the Dhammapada, I could construct very interesting > In Nomine adventures. These adventures would proceed along from a minor > event to a full class apocalypse and re-birth forming a sort of > "mini-campaign." > I was curious if there would be any interest on the list in this project. > It would be long (25+ installments) and I probably will not finish it > before the end of February. If there is interest I will probably print it > here on the list. If not, I may post it on the web or publish it. Do it, by all means. Reminds me; whatever happened to Rob Wolff/Bodhi? He just sorta vanished somewhere before Night Music came out. Now there was a happenin' cat. 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:27:56 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Fair Exchange At 15:23 20/01/98 -0500, you wrote: >Oh man, this stuff is priceless, even if I don't get half the Brit jokes. Thanks! Thanks also (or blame if you prefer) to Maya for the initial encouragement/nudge. 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:45:26 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) >> 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. I've got another take... Greed is Acquisition; Gluttony is Consumption. Greed buys an Alpha Black Lotus as an investment or as a collectible; Gluttony buys it to play with until it falls apart. Gluttony is the ox who eats all the hay he can find; Greed is the dog who lays in the manger, even though he can't eat the hay. Greed would never max out his credit cards -- the interest rates are too high, and he doesn't want to spend that kind of money. Gluttony would go right ahead so he could consume right now. Gluttony is a spendthrift; Greed is a miser. Greed is Gordon Gecko, who bought paintings as investments; Gluttony is a billionaire playboy who buys the Mona Lisa for the pleasure of drawing a moustache on it. Neither is inherently either selective or undiscriminating. The secret hunger that "Consume" unleashes might be for caviar to swallow by the pound or $1,000 dollar bottles of wine to chug; the Greedy might be after the orginal prints of every 50's Sci-fi B-movie, to be vacuum sealed and stored in a dark, moisture-controlled, ultra-secure vault. IMHO, of course. And there's enough overlap that I think a rivalry does exist -- Mammon just knows he isn't powerful enough to make any open moves to acquire Haagenti's power, while Haagenti thinks Mammon is still too small to be worth the expenditure of energy to consume. Steven Ehrbar ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:10:52 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Ehrbar wrote: > >> 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. > I've got another take... > > Greed is Acquisition; Gluttony is Consumption. Greed buys an Alpha Black > Lotus as an investment or as a collectible; Gluttony buys it to play with > until it falls apart. Gluttony is the ox who eats all the hay he can find; > Greed is the dog who lays in the manger, even though he can't eat the hay. > Greed would never max out his credit cards -- the interest rates are too > high, and he doesn't want to spend that kind of money. Gluttony would go > right ahead so he could consume right now. Gluttony is a spendthrift; > Greed is a miser. Greed is Gordon Gecko, who bought paintings as > investments; Gluttony is a billionaire playboy who buys the Mona Lisa for > the pleasure of drawing a moustache on it. > > Neither is inherently either selective or undiscriminating. The secret > hunger that "Consume" unleashes might be for caviar to swallow by the > pound or $1,000 dollar bottles of wine to chug; the Greedy might be after > the orginal prints of every 50's Sci-fi B-movie, to be vacuum sealed and > stored in a dark, moisture-controlled, ultra-secure vault. Actually, after listening to you and Em, I've decided that Greed is quality while Gluttony is quantity. While that's still a little thin of a distinction for me, I don't feel Mammon is totally extraneous now. Actually, if I junked one, I don't know which name I'd keep. Mammon is classic, but Haagenti's got a nice ring to it, for a demon. Lots of Princes have neat names, like Fleurity. That means something to do with flowers in French, right? Likely poppies. Fleurity Fleurity Fleurity. Rolls right off the tongue, that does. Speaking of French names, how do you pronounce some of the more esoteric ones? I know Yves sounds like Adam's wife, and I've been pronouncing Gabriel's name like Xena's sidekick (tho I can't bring myself to feminize Dominic... and wasn't Michael Michelle in INS?), but how does one do Jordi? I've been saying the J like a zh, but i have no earthly clue if that's right. Let alone Oaf-anim/Uf-anim or Keereeotaytes/Keereeotots... > IMHO, of course. And there's enough overlap that I think a rivalry does > exist -- Mammon just knows he isn't powerful enough to make any open > moves to acquire Haagenti's power, while Haagenti thinks Mammon is still > too small to be worth the expenditure of energy to consume. Oh c'mon. While Mammon is too small potatoes to take on the Mouth (that's what you get when you hide in the bathroom while the other Superiors are getting their base book pictures taken... you also get Ramon Perez art), Haagenti is sitting in some bistro in Hell right now eating breadsticks. *Breadsticks.* That strikes me as more inefficient than chowing on a minor Prince. He's even based in Shal-Mari, practically across the street. That's physical and metaphorical muscling in on turf. Were I Haagenti, I'd eat 'im. Then again, were I Haagenti, I'd spend more time eating inorganic objects, seeing as he's eating for taste and not necessity. Joe, dark tower, mmm - ------ 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:06:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Raphael > > (Not to be boring but ..) Technically Habbalah is a singular feminine form, > from the -ah ending, so the appropriate plural in hebrew would be > 'habbalot'. Brilliant stuff. Reminds me of how White Wolf Changelings who achieve a balance are called Siocha/in, though not quite as bad. (Explanation; Siocha/in is Irish for peace, but I can't see any conceivable way you can apply it to a person. The closest you can come is "daoine siocha/nta" ie peaceful people, which isn't what they mean. I can't think of any Irish term that fits what they're looking for, but that is most certainly not it.) So we have Balseraph, Djinni, Calab, Habbalah, Lil/Lilah?, Shed, and Impud. Or maybe not Impud, I've only ever seen Impudites written down. > > jo > (ps. I don't know what you mean about it being traditional for evil things > to have come out of Eastern Europe! Tats where my family is from ;-P ) The Shadow Lords. The Tzimisce. The Silver Fangs (originally). Baba Yaga, etc. etc. White Wolf stuff (I know Baba Yaga is a genuine legend). Oh, almost forgot the Tremere. Silly of me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:27:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) > Actually, if I junked one, I don't know which name I'd keep. Mammon is > classic, Personally, I was shocked to see Marc in the main book without Mammon. I remember when I first got the book and I was looking through the Demon Princes for Mammon and I couldn't find him. It was a terrifying experience. >but Haagenti's got a nice ring to it, for a demon. A classy name, even if it just funny syllables with no meaning. Lots of > Princes have neat names, like Fleurity. That means something to do with > flowers in French, right? Likely poppies. Fleurity Fleurity Fleurity. > Rolls right off the tongue, that does. > Fleur is French for flower, unless my mind has given up and I'm just running on autopilot. (Maybe a Habbalah is imposing a desire to believe everything people say on me.) Fleurity also sounds like the Irish word flu/irse (pronounced flure-sha), meaning plenty. I know that most likely this is entirely coincidental, but I still reckon it's cool. Furfur, however, is a stupid name for anything, even a ball of fur. > Speaking of French names, how do you pronounce some of the more esoteric > ones? I know Yves sounds like Adam's wife, and I've been pronouncing > Gabriel's name like Xena's sidekick (tho I can't bring myself to feminize > Dominic... and wasn't Michael Michelle in INS?), but how does one do > Jordi? I've been saying the J like a zh, but i have no earthly clue if > that's right. Let alone Oaf-anim/Uf-anim or Keereeotaytes/Keereeotots... > (Xena's sidekick is called Gabrielle? That's terrible. I knew the show was bad even without seeing any of it, but that's desperate.) The J would be like a zh. Les Keereeotatt, surely. > Oh c'mon. While Mammon is too small potatoes to take on the Mouth (that's > what you get when you hide in the bathroom while the other Superiors are > getting their base book pictures taken... you also get Ramon Perez art), > Haagenti is sitting in some bistro in Hell right now eating breadsticks. > *Breadsticks.* That strikes me as more inefficient than chowing on a > minor Prince. Haagenti probably doesn't care unless Mammon starts being irritating. It's the Belial syndrome, being focused on the Word to the exclusion of all else. Or maybe one day he'll wake up and say "Hmm, I haven't had a Demon Prince in X centuries. Mmmm, Demon Prince." He's even based in Shal-Mari, practically across the > street. That's physical and metaphorical muscling in on turf. Were I > Haagenti, I'd eat 'im. Were I Haagenti, I'd eat everything that could be a distraction to people instead of eating, like the Media, and Lust, but then again we're not Haagenti, are we? ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #579 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.