From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 21 10:26:45 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 KAA10157 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:26:45 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA02345 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:08:51 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:08:51 -0600 Message-Id: <199801211608.KAA02345@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 #580 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 580 In this digest: Re: IN> Raphael IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) IN> Re: Gluttony vs greed Re: IN> Re: Gluttony vs greed IN> Seven Re: IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Re: IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) Re: IN> Evil Idea Re: IN>Flowers Re: IN> Fair Exchange Re: IN> Seven IN> Gluttony vs. Greed Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) IN> Celestial Names Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> By Any Other Name Re: IN> Seven Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> By Any Other Name Re: IN> A few scattered questions Re: Re: IN> Raphael Re: IN> Seven Re: IN> By Any Other Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 04:36:41 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Raphael >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. In fact, the White Wolf itself was a Russian symbolisation of winter. But that doesn't mean that good things don't come out of the East, too. (In fact, the further east you go, the better they get). ;-) Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:16:49 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > 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. That reminds me; Magog's Prince of Cruelty in Final Trumpet, but when'll we get Gog? Don't tell me someone's broken up the act... > >but Haagenti's got a nice ring to it, for a demon. > A classy name, even if it just funny syllables with no meaning. I dunno, I haven't checked him specifically, but the others are usually 'real' figures. > 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. Words are neat. > Furfur, however, is a stupid name for anything, even a ball of fur. Stupid yes, but with a genuine pedigree. > > 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.) Is this some pun I'm missing, or do you have an allergy to the name? > The J would be like a zh. Les Keereeotatt, surely. Oh mais oui. > > 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." That's probably more likely, actually. Unless big brother points him in that direction... On a related note, I'm both looking forward to and dreading Kobal's big writeup. While he's one of my faves, I've found that most of the expanded Superior writeups really annoy me for some reason or other. I especially hate the ones in Heaven and Hell, since Yves & Kronos just seem so pedestrian now that they've spelled out what was going on, a mistake they'll hopefully avoid with Janus and Valefor. Dominic also didn't tell me anything I couldn't've inferred from the main book or give me a better handle on his personality, although the Asmodeus section did help me out a lot with his worldview. I guess my main problem is that the non-Pearcy stuff, for the most part, seems to play depressingly straight. I bought this stuff because I loved Good Omens, and I get a kick out of how banal the Celestial can be (for example, the stuff in H&H about the Grim Reaper was right on target for me. An NPC who takes himself seriously and can be played straight, but with a slightly satirical edge. The Lilim racehorse in the upcoming IPG also sounds good). Night Music and the APG are the only supplements I like the majority of. Playing IN too straight seems a little too dry for my tastes, and leads to claims of WoD-imitation (like when the Choir pins were announced... although I'll probably get a Kyrio one. I love the design, very Neon Genesis Evangelion). But hey, that's me. > 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? Well, there's single-minded and there's single-minded. Gluttony can be metaphorical too. Most of the other Words are providing things that can be consumed (the Media, for one, and some of Andrealphus's jams & jellies), therefore they're still useful. Though why I'm bothering to defend the lifestyle choice of someone who chooses to look like a fanged piece of toejam I'll never know. 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 10:24:06 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Re: Gluttony vs greed >(Maybe a Habbalah is imposing a desire to believe >everything people say on me.) I was thinking that balseraphs can be pretty nasty on their own but they get a lot nastier if teamed up with a habbalah ('you're feeling really gullible today'), a lilim (to advise on what kind of lie will fit in best with the victims needs ie. what sort of thing they are most likely to want to believe) or an impudite (to charm the victim and reinforce everything the bal says). Good job demons are such bad teamworkers really ;) >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. That is cool! >> 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. I think I'm getting a much clearer picture of greed from all this. I'm just thinking of chronic hoarders now, and chronic collectors, and people who have a completist urge to own everything even if they don't want it and can never use it. (Is Mammon a Djinn(i)? He oughta be). Patron demon of M:tG and collectible anythings. He must love Nybbas. >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." Why bother with Demon Prince when you can get your servants to keep sending you huge deliveries of fast food? And burgers dont stick to your teeth like the other stuff ;-) >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? Lust is awfully good at distracting people from trying to act against it by focussing them on.. other things. jo - --------------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G.K. Chesterton http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:50:05 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Re: Gluttony vs greed On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >(Maybe a Habbalah is imposing a desire to believe > >everything people say on me.) > I was thinking that balseraphs can be pretty nasty on their own but they get > a lot nastier if teamed up with a habbalah ('you're feeling really gullible > today'), a lilim (to advise on what kind of lie will fit in best with the > victims needs ie. what sort of thing they are most likely to want to > believe) or an impudite (to charm the victim and reinforce everything the > bal says). Good job demons are such bad teamworkers really ;) Gah, do Habs need the backup? I was stunned by just how vicious the little buggers can be in my pickup game Sunday when the Hab of Factions was overseeing a drive-by shooting at the hospital she was in, and two of Quentin Tarantino's bodyguards saw the car and were about to yell a warning when she blasted one with enough Emptiness to make him quit caring and his partner with a sudden flare of Disgust at his show of weakness. She also had great fun bedeviling the Malakite of Eli who was trying to calm the children's ward with a medley of Fugees songs, by filling random kids with Disgust towards him. And let's not mention her partner the Shedite who whiled away the hours making nurses place leeches on children's eyes and finished up by teleporting a homemade Claymore into the coma ward, with the intent of making the Cherub attuned to seven of the patients Fall... Joe, hadn't fully realized how *evil* the Infernals could be, strangely enough - ------ 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 05:23:25 -0600 From: ehp Subject: IN> Seven Some random speculations. Hope someone finds them interesting. Christianity, and In Nomine, owes quite a bit of its thought on angels to Zoroastrianism. I am not going into that one. But the more dualistic view of the whole mythology is interesting. One of the basic tenants was that the divine and its opposite were equal and diametrically opposed. And what grabbed me about it at the moment was that there were only seven archangels and seven opponents. Given the seven choirs and seven bands we can see that some of it survived. But I was interested in an alternate speculation... what if that were true in an In Nomine alternate universe? Who would you pick? Which seven would you make it? I find it hard in my own head to keep track of all the arches and lords, and even more so considering every time I turn around, someone is trying to make up a new one... good for game supplements, bad for games. Too many plotters to keep them all straight in my head. So, to get back to the point, which would I pick? Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Azrael, Israfil, Samael, Phanuel Would be my choices... I know, I know, many not of the canon, but I can't help it. If forced to keep canon, it would be; Yves, Michael, Blandine, Domenic, Gabriel, Eli, Jordi Probably. Or, with a pinch you could probably fit them in with the seven virtues... and the other side with the seven sins. Wrath, Baal (or Belial) Lust, Andrealphus Sloth, Kronos (?) Gluttony, Haagenti Pride, Azmodeus Envy, Malphas Greed Valefor Faith, Laurence Hope, Blandine Charity, Marc Prudence, Yves Fortitude, David Justice, Domenic Temperance Gabriel Was it ever a consideration to restrict the arches to seven in the original game concept, one wonders? Evan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:03:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) > > (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.) > Is this some pun I'm missing, or do you have an allergy to the name? > Another linguistic nitpick. That show is allegedly set in Ancient Greece, isn't it? Gabrielle is just a tad anachronistic. > I especially hate the ones in Heaven and Hell, since Yves & Kronos just > seem so pedestrian now that they've spelled out what was going on, a Hmm...I don't think I've read Yves' writeup but no matter which way they do it, he's still going to be ruthless and scary if I ever get 'round to GMing. Personally, I reckon his big obsession would be the Destiny of the Symphony, which is generally achieved by allowing others to achieve their Destiny, but if bringing someone to their Fate aids the Destiny of the Symphony...well, he may note the fall of every sparrow, but that doesn't mean he didn't bring it about. > mistake they'll hopefully avoid with Janus and Valefor. Dominic also > didn't tell me anything I couldn't've inferred from the main book or give > me a better handle on his personality, although the Asmodeus section did > help me out a lot with his worldview. > I didn't understand Asmodeus' worldview at all from the main book. It wasn't terribly clear. I'd like to know what Janus' Servitors are supposed to do, what ways they make chaos, etc. But I don't want canon to say specifically that Janus and Valefor are/aren't the same person. ObTrivia someone has almost certainly pointed out already: Janus was the Roman God of the New Year and doorways (IIRC). He represented transitions and was portrayed as having two faces. > also sounds good). Night Music and the APG are the only supplements > I like the majority of. Playing IN too straight seems a little too dry > for my tastes, and leads to claims of WoD-imitation (like when the Choir > pins were announced... although I'll probably get a Kyrio one. I love the > design, very Neon Genesis Evangelion). But hey, that's me. > I thought the APG was pretty straight, actually. Damn good, though. I'm looking forward to the IPG and the depiction of my favourite choir, too. Night Music I've only flicked through. The Vampire was nice, though why they gave him an extra level 3 Discord I don't know. Aren't Vampires supposed to get 10 points of demonic abilities, anyway? Brilliant send-up. The zombi, I didn't like, especially because it didn't show properly why she was so mindless. Are zombis capable of following their Needs if they're not told to? Do they know what their Needs are? Is following their Needs their default behaviour? What does having no Will actually mean? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:35:45 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner 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. I felt it was a bit unbalanced as well. It's hard to make judgments on which Princes got into the main book at this late date, but I do agree that Mammon would have been appropriate to include. But, I can't really figure out which Prince to leave on the cutting room floor instead... probably Kobal, and I rather like him. Mammon may be enough reason to purchase Heaven and Hell, probably. The trick, I believe, is to add the appropriate Archangel to your Superior list. Which one is good, I'm not really positive. But I'm a big believer in symmetry, so someone would need to be. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:08:41 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Christianity in In Nomine. York H. Dobyns wrote: > 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. Quite true, at least regarding the status of angels and demons. There is very little in Christian creeds, catechisms, or statements of faith that says much about angels. Christianity is much more definite, however, on damnation and salvation being everlasting for human souls. Deviations from that idea are definitely off the mainstream. > I suspect that the doctrine may split > approximately on Catholic/Protestant lines, given the identities of my > sources. Perhaps, though spirits switching sides just isn't a possibility much considered by anybody, so far as I know. The "one decision at the beginning of time" model was endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas, and may perhaps be more widely accepted among Catholics for that reason. > >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. [...] it corresponds to the attitude > that Eck calls "inclusivism", which might be boiled down as "Your > religion is true, but mine is truer." If you will read what you just quoted from me, you will see the use of graded degrees of truth, just as in your description of Eck's "inclusivism." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:17:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) In an essay entitled "The Other Six Deadly Sins," Dorothy L. Sayers (the author of the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries) described Gluttony as one of the "warm-hearted, disreputable" sins and Avarice (~greed, sorta) as one of the "cold-hearted, respectable sins" that "the World and the Pharisees are in a conspiracy to call virtues." I tend to think of Avarice as involving relentless scheming, while Gluttony just involves relentless appetite. I think of Gluttony as a sin of the Flesh, while Avarice is a sin of the World (as in the famous trio, the World, the Flesh, and the Devil). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:22:43 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Gluttony vs. Greed (WAS: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia) Kevin Walsh wrote: > Personally, I was shocked to see Marc in the main book without Mammon. Yes, Mammon is clearly Marc's opposite number, besides being a VERY traditional and widely-known Demon Prince. He is even mentioned in the Bible, by Christ no less, in the famous line about "no man can serve two masters"; one of the masters was Mammon. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:27:47 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> By Any Other Name (was Re: Gluttony vs. Greed) > > 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. > That reminds me; Magog's Prince of Cruelty in Final Trumpet, but when'll > we get Gog? Don't tell me someone's broken up the act... Another Demon Prince? Is that absolutely necessary? *blink* If you ask me, Cruelty is more then covered by the other Princes, especially Belial. Well, if it comes down to buying the Final Trumpet or a copy of Jung's "Answers to Job", I'll go for the Christian mysticism. > On a related note, I'm both looking forward to and dreading Kobal's big > writeup. While he's one of my faves, I've found that most of the > expanded Superior writeups really annoy me for some reason or other. I'm in agreement with you 100%. I was rather pleased with the Laurence/Saminga write up, but I purchased Night Music when it first came out and hadn't really built all the individual backgrounds and politics of my Superiors yet. I was disappointed in Night Music for other reasons (go ahead and search through the old digests for my comments, which were a little more sugar coated then they are now) but those seemed to be half way decent. Later, I realized that the offhand treatment of Martin Luther and ignoring John Calvin in the background was in error, but I found I can repair the background of my own game just fine. A little metaphysical duct tape is my friend. As for Kobal, I have done fairly extensive work on him, his background, his personality, his Organization, role in running Shal-Mari, the whole nine yards. But I also know very well that nothing I have created as a GM in my universe is even going to resemble what is going to be in source books. So I fear the write up, and with the increased publication rate of source material I know that the point where I can freely talk about Superior politics outside of private email is coming to a very fast end. > I especially hate the ones in Heaven and Hell, since Yves & Kronos just > seem so pedestrian now that they've spelled out what was going on, a > mistake they'll hopefully avoid with Janus and Valefor. Dominic also > didn't tell me anything I couldn't've inferred from the main book or give > me a better handle on his personality, although the Asmodeus section did > help me out a lot with his worldview. I also agree with you on this point. Myself, I just inform my players that what they read and what is are two different things. > I guess my main problem is that the non-Pearcy stuff, for the most part, > seems to play depressingly straight. I bought this stuff because I loved > Good Omens, and I get a kick out of how banal the Celestial can be (for > example, the stuff in H&H about the Grim Reaper was right on target for > me. An NPC who takes himself seriously and can be played straight, but > with a slightly satirical edge. The Lilim racehorse in the upcoming IPG > also sounds good). Night Music and the APG are the only supplements > I like the majority of. Playing IN too straight seems a little too dry > for my tastes, and leads to claims of WoD-imitation (like when the Choir > pins were announced... although I'll probably get a Kyrio one. I love the > design, very Neon Genesis Evangelion). But hey, that's me. Also, I agree with you. Since I blend all sorts of stuff (KULT and IN, for example) I find that the banal straight "Just play it like Vampires with Wings" is not to my taste. I need to add some Razides, salt, and stir. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:42:05 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> Evil Idea On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Heretic103 wrote: > 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 No no no - God is an iron. cd - -- d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se | cd skogsberg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:43:37 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner 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." > A Parable: Walking along a crowded sidewalk a wanderer noticed an old man with a bottle in one hand and a wooden bowl in the other, sitting against a wall and shouting, "Alms for the thirsty!" As the wanderer approached, the man took a long drink and repeated his plea. Reaching into his pocket, the wanderer pulled out a coin and placed it in the bowl. Instead of the usual response - thank you, bless you, or mere silence - the man peered up and said, "Remember one thing, boy. Zen is not a philosophy. Zen is not a religion. Zen is just a damn attitude." The wanderer laughed and said, "Thank you." Heh. - - Em, Balseraph of Zen not Zen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:47:41 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Fair Exchange > >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 have determined that Maya is an endless source of faceless, nameless, drooling evil. I mean this is the best possible way. Trust me. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:52:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Seven Here are my sevens. There is, in fact, an old chunk of angel lore about their being seven archangels, going all the way back to Zoroastrianism, I think. Pseudo-Dionysius, the most popular angelologist of Christendom, named his own set of seven and they are the ones I'd use: Charity - Raphael ("Healing of God") Faith - Michael ("Who is like God?") Hope - Gabriel ("Strength of God") Justice - Zadkiel ("Righteousness of God") Courage - Uriel ("Fire of God") Wisdom - Chamuel ("Enlightenment of God") Temperance - Jophiel ("Beauty of God") Sticking to IN canon: Charity - Novalis Faith - Laurence Hope - Blandine Justice - Dominic Courage - Michael Wisdom - Yves Temperance - Marc (being the one most concerned with balance) For the seven deadly sins: Pride - Lucifer Avarice - Mammon Envy - Malphas Gluttony - Haagenti Lust - Andrealphus Sloth - Ralph Wrath - Belial (I think; the fire-bug, anyway) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:07:26 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Gluttony vs. Greed Gluttony is buying 300 packs of the latest CCG expansion just because you want to make sure you have every single card. Greed is buying 300 packs of the latest CCG expansion so you can put all the rare ones in plastic sleeves, hold onto them, and sell them a couple of years later at ridiculous prices to Gluttons who want to complete their collections. - -David (Just imagine a Lilim carrying a folder of rare Magic cards around at a gaming convention....) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:07:29 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Djinn (Re: IN> Remnants) >>>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.<<< Hmmm, like what? Health benefits? Stock options? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:07:27 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Celestial Names >>>Furfur, however, is a stupid name for anything, even a ball of fur.<<< Maybe, but it's also an authentic name from demonology. (Actually, most of the Demon Princes are named after real demons from lore. As a brief and highly entertaining reference book, I recommend "Who In Hell..." by Sean Kelly & Rosemary Rogers, ISBN 0-679-76484-4.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Raphael > >> 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... > I don't know. I think K. K. has her deep moments. She's sort of like the entire alt.buddha.short.fat.guy newsgroup - she's sort of deep and silly at the same time. > >Hey, what kind of Arcangel uses demons to enforce her will anyway? > > > 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...) Aaaaaaaaaaah but I have PLANS for that hat. Many plans, varied and multicolored. And they are all equally... pleasant. - - Em, grinnin' like a Balseraph loon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:15:48 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> By Any Other Name >Another Demon Prince? Is that absolutely necessary? *blink* I totally agree. Like, how many people are using any of the superiors who didn't appear in the original sourcebook? I think I'd be more interested to see write-ups on some of those 'famous examples of choirs/ bands' than superiors. They'd probably be more likely to get used as NPCs. As far as the expanded superior write-ups go, they're not at all useful if its a superior you feel you have pretty well defined in your own game (like Em & Kobal ;) ), its if the superior was one you had trouble getting a handle on that you can really use the ideas. I could write up Jean/ Vapula (I've spent too much of my life doing research in academic/ industrial labs) or Dominic (because I'd base the entire celestial inquisition on a parody of the French legal system,. but to be fair there wasn't anything in the expanded write-up that seemed too problematic to me). I do hope Kobal's final prank is one of the things that never gets defined in canon tho. As for cruelty, I actually think he is the one who probably has the best claim. Its in the nature of dark humour to /really/ enjoy other people's misfortune, and his impudites don't even pick up dissonance for killing people in a prank (which I guess includes torture as well) -- that sort of indicates the mindset -- they can shrug off anything as 'oh well, it was funny at the time'. Some of the other DPs (ie. Kronos) are extremely cruel, but none of them do it just for kicks except Andre. What I really liked about H&H was the write-up of hell. Esp liked the description of Gehenna & the 666th Flying Battalion (it makes me want to get some players together for some reruns of 'Dad's Army' playing squaddies in one of Baals more notoriously useless regiments -- I adore incompetent evil - -- all their mission briefings could begin with 'If this was at all important to the cause, you rabble would not have been assigned to it' and go on from there, and I could base all their NPC army officers on the guys from Blackadder Goes Forth. But I digress.). jo - --------------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G.K. Chesterton http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:23:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seven > > Sticking to IN canon: > > Sloth - Ralph He's not in my IN canon... Of course, Sloth is dead in IN canon, so who do we have to replace him? Nybbas inspires Sloth, but doesn't embody it in any way, shape or form. After all, his Servitors have to put in an entire hour every day working for the media. Hmm...how much do they actually have to achieve during that hour? Do they get coffee breaks? Bathroom breaks? If it's not Sloth, it's the next thing to it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:21:54 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Raphael Ni Ke Hsin wrote: > I believe that the singular of lilim is lili, though I can't > remember where I came across that. It's the most plausible suggestion so far. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:49:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> By Any Other Name > > I do hope Kobal's final prank is one of the things that never gets defined > in canon tho. As for cruelty, I actually think he is the one who probably > has the best claim. A good claim certainly. Some of the other DPs (ie. Kronos) are extremely > cruel, but none of them do it just for kicks except Andre. > Is everyone on this list forgetting Beleth? I'm terribly terribly disappointed in all of you. Beleth causes fear because it's fun. Her Servitors cause fear because it's fun. They do this in all sorts of ways, and any cruelty that they can think of will serve her Word in some fashion. After all, nightmares are metaphorical too, and cruelty cause nightmares in all except Celestials anyway. I mentioned this to people back home, but I can see a lot of similarity between the modus operandi of Servitors of Beleth and Servitors of Kobal. Voices in the head (through Ethereal Tongues) are great tools for both sides. The only difference is the motivation. Servitors of Beleth want to inspire fear, and Servitors of Kobal want to be amused. (it makes me want to get > some players together for some reruns of 'Dad's Army' playing squaddies in > one of Baals more notoriously useless regiments -- I adore incompetent evil If you have Servitors of Baal, assign command of a similar NPC group to them as punishment duty. They will deserve it some day. Unless I'm playing the Servitor of Baal, of course. > -- all their mission briefings could begin with 'If this was at all > important to the cause, you rabble would not have been assigned to it' and > go on from there, and I could base all their NPC army officers on the guys > from Blackadder Goes Forth. But I digress.). > Blackadder himself wasn't entirely incompetent, and neither was Darling(?). Or maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly. But Haig...that was special. "Right, we'll attack them here because this is where they've got their strongest troop coordination." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:55:32 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions > >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.) From a 'cause and effect' point of view, it probably works the other way around, but Beth has the essence of it. (i.e. being able to hear the Symphony implies that you can hear, and control, your own personal symphony.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:57:28 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> Raphael Ni Ke Hsin wrote: > I believe that the singular of lilim is lili, though I can't > remember where I came across that. Earl wrote: >It's the most plausible suggestion so far. And provides for all sorts of appropriate puns. Lili Langtree. Lili Munster. "Pictures of Lili" by the Who... and, if there's an appropriate Demon of Shopping Malls, she'd be the Lili of the Valley. yours, IQJ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:56:32 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Seven Kevin Walsh wrote: > > Sloth - Ralph > > He's not in my IN canon... Well, no, that was my little joke. For those who don't know, there was a funny write-up of Ralph, Demon Prince of Apathy, some months back. REALLY sticking to canon, Nybbas is about the best candidate. On the angelic side, it is very hard to find a candidate for Archangel of Temperance; all the Superiors are pretty much flaming whackos, a natural result of their Word-centered personalities. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> By Any Other Name > > >Another Demon Prince? Is that absolutely necessary? *blink* > > I totally agree. I'm glad to see I'm not just hallucinating. :) > Like, how many people are using any of the superiors who > didn't appear in the original sourcebook? I personally, use none of the new Superiors, not even from the GM screen. My reasons include: A) I don't feel like back-revving my game and redoing history just to take in a new supplement. B) I do extensive intra-Superior politics for my game, far more then what comes across in the supplements, and a subject I feel is extremely important for a cohesive game world. 26 Superiors is already extremely complicated, and just tossing a few into the mix makes things all the more difficult. C) I haven't seen any yet that really make a difference or cover any holes left by the other Superiors. I believe in broadening the original 26's Words instead of saying, "Oh, my, here's a small nitch, let's toss one in." Now granted, I posted two to the list, but that was in response to what I felt was lacking from THE MARCHES. I don't actually use them in my campaign, although Raziel made a guest appearance because I was feeling silly. But realistically, I would rather trim them down then add more. The 13 DP/13 Archangels are really fine and work out nicely. Some of them (Malphas) are quite brilliant. (But Em... do you really only have the originals? Heh. Go away. My secrets.) > I think I'd be more interested to > see write-ups on some of those 'famous examples of choirs/ bands' than > superiors. They'd probably be more likely to get used as NPCs. I agree, but not as NPCs. I have no real interest in using anything pregenerated except the Superiors themselves. I feel they are better used as examples for the players as what they can create/what they can do with their PCs/what they can run into. Even then, I feel that 'canon' characters detract from the GM's freedom. Settings are fabulous, (man, do we need settings something fierce) rule expansions are good. Superiors and to many NPCs are not. I would die for a 'New York at Night' sourcebook, because I've never been to New York and references are good, although I do my own research. On the other hand, I have no interest in pregenerated modules. > As far as the > expanded superior write-ups go, they're not at all useful if its a superior > you feel you have pretty well defined in your own game (like Em & Kobal ;) > ), its if the superior was one you had trouble getting a handle on that you > can really use the ideas. I could write up Jean/ Vapula (I've spent too > much of my life doing research in academic/ industrial labs) or Dominic > (because I'd base the entire celestial inquisition on a parody of the French > legal system,. but to be fair there wasn't anything in the expanded write-up > that seemed too problematic to me). I actually find them to be a a bit of a distraction. My players know that I don't use the Superior write-ups. Allen (Cherub of the Sword) liked Laurence, as did I, but on the other hand I like feeling things out for myself. I may be unique on this, I don't know. I wasn't that thrilled with the others. There are many things I would prefer just be left up to GM interpretation. We had this problem in Amber. The first sourcebook has it's share of problems, but it really is very good. The game, when done right, is a total mindblow for it's sheer role playing impact. The second sourcebook decided to toss in every NPC, Background writeup, expanded rules, you name it, into the system. So what happens? People advertise games with "Original Rules Only: No SHADOWKNIGHT." And because the backlash was so bad the third source book never made it to the shelves. This is something mimicked in some Vampire games I see around - people advertizing with 'Original Sourcebook Only'. That is how we play as far as I know. We find there are plenty of fun things to throw into a game without resorting to Deux Ex Expansion-Sourcebook. (Although with Susan, one can never tell these things.) I'm seeing the same thing happen here - people writing up their game, "Original Rules Only - No Revelations/APG/IPG/Whatever". It may just be me, but it's probably a lesson to be learned. > I do hope Kobal's final prank is one of the things that never gets defined > in canon tho. Me as well. Although I have my doubts. > As for cruelty, I actually think he is the one who probably > has the best claim. Its in the nature of dark humour to /really/ enjoy other > people's misfortune, and his impudites don't even pick up dissonance for > killing people in a prank (which I guess includes torture as well) -- that > sort of indicates the mindset -- they can shrug off anything as 'oh well, it > was funny at the time'. Some of the other DPs (ie. Kronos) are extremely > cruel, but none of them do it just for kicks except Andre. *contemplate* *contemplate deeply* I dug around in some PC conversations, and pulled up: Star: "You like to make people laugh, don't you? Isn't that like making them happy?" Daimon: "Making them laugh and mock things and making them happy are two different things. No, I don't make people happy, not the way you would want me to. I make people laugh at other people's pain, which gives them a certain measure of relief, and the sense that they are better then others around them. Generally, that is what good comedy is." So I believe you are correct in your assessment. Good comedy IS pain. It IS cruelty and torture and humiliation at other people's expense. - - Em, Balseraph contemplatin' Dark Comedy ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #580 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.