From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jan 27 19:38:08 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 TAA15059 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:38:08 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id TAA31836 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:33:39 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:33:39 -0600 Message-Id: <199801280133.TAA31836@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 #597 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 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 597 In this digest: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Lilith a human? RE: IN> (FLUFF) Fallen Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Word-bound Humans (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) Re: IN> Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) IN> Doing something behind his DP's back IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking Re: IN> Sloth Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty Re: IN> DP of Nitpicking (Re: Raphael) Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking Re: IN> A few scattered questions Re: IN> Lilith a human? Re: IN> Some questions Re: IN> Some questions Re: Word-bound Humans (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) IN> Role Problems Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:13:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 8:48 PM -0500 1/26/98, Dan Ozdowski wrote: >According to Emily Dresner: > >>>And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to >>>your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. The holy >>>inquisition . . . Outcast angels, and renegade GMs are the biggest >>>targets, and believe me-- you dont wanna be caught :) >> >>Which explains the barbed wire and the 6-barrelled rotary assault cannon >>loaded with 1000 rounds of explosive ammunition (66 or 100 shots/second, >>depending on the rating of the barrel) mounted on my couch. > >Oooh, a Shadowrun crossover! :) >Haha - beware or the Canon fiends will have Jean deck into your >PC and give it the ickies! Jean doesn't *need* to "deck into" a computer. Jean just spares a neuron to instantiate whatever it is he wants your computer to do. And really, Em, why do you mount all that on your couch if not to keep the players from getting restless? You know that you have special dispensation.... - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:12:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a human? At 8:37 PM -0500 1/26/98, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>According to IN, Lilith, Demon Princess of Freedom, was created a >human (the "Eden Experiment" doesn't make any sense otherwise). >This mortal is now a Demon Princess: not only Word-bound, but one of the >major powers who transcend the game's mechanics entirely. > >It thus would appear to be possible in principle for a mortal's soul to >become Word-bound.<<< > >Actually, no -- Lilith was created as Lilith. Not necessarily human, but >not exactly a celestial. As the book says, she is unique. And she was >immortal from the beginning....[...] >official canon, as far as I know, has not absolutely established whether or >not Lilith was truly human, and this may turn out to be one of those >permanent "gray areas".) Bingo. My *personal* take on it is that she *is* human -- a created, immortal (or just unaging?) human. Perhaps a "Saint" from the start, with whatever additions to her nature that allows Saints to go celestial, use Celestial Songs, etc. Of course, by this time, she's kicked around in the celestial realms so long that exactly *what* she is and was is a mystery. (Could the Seraphim Council give a Word to a Saint? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe they're forbidden. Maybe only a Balseraph as powerful as Lucifer can impose his truth of "I can give a human (semi-human?) a Word if I wanna" on the universe...) But she was created before Eve, to be Adam's mate, and skipped out. That makes her at least quasi human. No telling what it makes Adam and Eve, though, now is there? Canonical on Lilith's nature has not yet been entirely established. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:00:28 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: RE: IN> (FLUFF) Fallen Casca (Seraph of Archives, freelancing for Judgement) writes: >> -sigh- >> >> *sniffle* >> >> >> >> I just can't win against Ultimate Truth... > >No, you can't, and it's Dissonant to try. Would you mind listing your >reasons for trying? Speak slowly and clearly, please. "Ummmm..." ** small, tenor voice resounds in the great Hall of Judgement ** >And stop dripping on the microphone. Dominic hates it when his >surveillance gear gets wet. "Well..." [OOC: LOL, I can't even remember what the hell we were talking about!] - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd Check out the PBEM In Nomine: Soldiers of Linn webpage! "And all the time the joke is that the word 'mine' in its fully possessive sense cannot be uttered by a human being about anything. In the long run either Our Father or the Enemy will say 'mine' of each thing that exits, and specially of each man." -Screwtape (from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:04:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Armand wrote: > One question: What is a clearly transitory word? > > IMO, a superior wouldn't grant such a word to begin with. The only thing > that I could even think to come up with would be the Angel of the '98 > olympic games, but is that really a reward for good service? Well, Janus might grant a clearly transitory Word. He wouldn't want his servitors locked into doing the same thing all the time, after all. :) Transitory Words could be a reward for good service. Sort of like recieving a knighthood, or a medal. It could also be a test, to see if the angel is ready for the responsibilities inherent in having a permanent Word. If he is willing to put the effort required into promoting his transitory Word, then it is a good indicator that he can handle a more important Word. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:13:42 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Word-bound Humans (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > (Could the Seraphim Council give a Word to a Saint? Maybe. Maybe not. > Maybe they're forbidden. Maybe only a Balseraph as powerful as Lucifer > can impose his truth of "I can give a human (semi-human?) a Word if I > wanna" on the universe...) Is it canon that Saints cannot have Words? I don't remember seeing it if it is, although I could have missed it. I've been assuming that Saints can be Word-bound, although the nature of their Words will be different. Angelic and Archangelic Words tend to deal with concepts. Saintly words tend to deal with things. As an exapmle, I was going to introduce Adam and Eve as ArchSaints, with the respective Words of Fathers and Mothers. Their Words deal with the concrete issues of being a Father or Mother; things like proper discipline, caring for children. The idea is that since humans have a different perspective on the War, what their Words mean will also be different. Of course, Word-bound Saints are rare. Very rare. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:29:28 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) > Free will is another biggie... Either >for humans or for celestials! Of course, the beauty of the big Free Will question is that SJG can adopt a perfectly firm canon answer *and* leave it completely undetermined as well. "Characters in the game, whether human, Celestial, have Free Will to precisely the extent that their human players and GM do, neither more nor less." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:47:47 -0500 From: Brandon Quina Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > >And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to > >your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. [...] > [...] > >Brandon, > >Habbalah of Nitpicking > Ah, my Servitor, what are you doing letting the Judgment angels > get to him *FIRST*? Hmmmmmmm???? > --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking Simple, Your Grace. I, a simple lawyer n' nit-picker in hell am ill-suited for tracking down and apprehending enemys of the state.. Thus, I defer some of the responcibilitys to the other angels.. Perhaps if her grace would supply me with a corporeal vessel I would be better suited to pass legal action against those who dare to play In Nomine *incorrectly* (imagine that, the nerve).. Brandon, Habbalite of Nitpicking ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:53:32 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) >On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Armand wrote: > >> One question: What is a clearly transitory word? >> >> IMO, a superior wouldn't grant such a word to begin with. The only thing >> that I could even think to come up with would be the Angel of the '98 >> olympic games, but is that really a reward for good service? > >Well, Janus might grant a clearly transitory Word. He wouldn't want his >servitors locked into doing the same thing all the time, after all. :) I don't look at this from the same angle I guess. I think Janus would reward with a motion oriented word: stream, good tires, joggers, comets, etc. After all, a word is a reward. It is good to serve your word. > >Transitory Words could be a reward for good service. Sort of like >recieving a knighthood, or a medal. It could also be a test, to see if >the angel is ready for the responsibilities inherent in having a permanent >Word. If he is willing to put the effort required into promoting his >transitory Word, then it is a good indicator that he can handle a more >important Word. > >Rich Gant Again, I would like a clear example of some clearly transitory words. Knighthoods last until death as do medals. So why would such a word even be considered a worthy prize? Armand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:58:36 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition [David Edelstein ] >>>>Since _The Marches_ had a significant *lack* of description of >the Gods that over 900 million people follow (and they're quite good about >it for the most part, I'm told)<<< > > >Which is a good reason _not_ to try describing the Hindu deities in >official In Nomine publications (though doing it in unofficial writeups >like yours is fine). The small number of pagans who actually worship the >Olympians, Asgardians, etc., are usually understanding of seeing their gods >treated as fictional characters, since they have been for centuries. Heck, >a fair number of pagans are gamers themselves. But 900 million people >might be a little offended by seeing the objects of their very real >veneration quantified as game characters. Michael Gabriel Lucifer God Jesse >So how many people pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels and >Holy Mother on a daily basis? > >This kind of strikes me as a double standard, you can represent the >dominant culture in publications and you can represent minor cultures and >sects, but you cannot represent the stuff in between? > >Am I missing something? I'd say that's pretty on target. This game has a problem with reality, namely that it's complete Western orietated. Was of the Chinese Gods, the African Gods? Can we expect to see how much Uriel damaged them in future supplements? [Jo Hart ] >Its one thing to lampoon your own culture & religion, a bit of another to >rip off someone else's IMO. I actually think IN owes more to literature >such as Paradise Lost, Dante et al than any one religious interpretation >but it does tend to assume that the monotheistic traditions are more right >than others. For the record, and I should have mentioned this earlier, my friend Madhu, whom I mention in the original post, is Hindu. WIthout his guidance we never would have come up with what we did. He was a bit offended to hear that his Gods could have possibly been pushed from earth, as he put it "the Hindus outnumber the Christians by sheer volume." Of course, he was even MORE offended by the treatment of the Shinto kami spirits. "They would never [sell out to modern media]." He happens to be a Japanese Studies major. This game can be very offensive. I'd like to help smooth these things out. What I've posted was one attempt to do that. [Jo Hart] >At the moment it has managed (neatly, I think) to avoid the question of >'who is right?', but if there was to be a canon view on where something >like the Hindu pantheon fits in, it would be really difficult to avoid >facing that (unless you can do something clever and find a way to make the >archangels into avatars of hindu deities or vice versa). What we did was place the Hindu Gods, which would be demeaned in the game as it now stands (God versus "Ethereal Spirit"), on equal par with the Archangels. Well, okay, we MADE them Archangels. Archangels lead busy lives, maybe Eli, Gabriel and Yves HAVE been working on India for a long time. Why not? Under different names, Brahma, Siva and Vishnu. This would keep Hinduism in the game, it complicates issues, but it also makes the GOD of In Nomine a bit more than just the God of Judasim (sp?), Christianity and Islam. More of a universal God. Madhu was really pleased with the Gabriel - Sive parallel and Eli - Brahma as well. He was happy. When I get around to running In Nomine table top I can almost guarentee that Madhu's character will be serving one of those three. [David] >(OK, granted, the number of Hindus that would ever see it would be much >smaller than 900 million. But the point is, it's a matter of respect more >than fear of repercussions -- when you're dealing with real religions, it's >not a good idea to treat them in a cavalier manner for a game. That's one >of the reasons why In Nomine avoids making canonical declarations about >many issues that are at the heart of Islamic-Judeo-Christian theology.) [Earl Wajenberg ] >Or tries to. The theology implied in Yves's lecture to young angels >in the Angelic Player's Guide has strong suggestion of several >heresies, of which the easiest to name is pantheism. > >(See http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/Angelic/excerpts.html#lk1) As for treating "real religions with a cavalier manner", I haven't seen that much on this list at all. I'd say that we're all pretty much decent folks that are pretty careful about who me might offend. Granted, for the most part I don't give a damn, I do if I'm trying to be somewhat accurate (like presenting Siva, Vishnu and Brahma). Frankly, I find the entire GAME a bit "ahem" heretical anyways... Not that I really mind. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd Check out the PBEM In Nomine: Soldiers of Linn webpage! "And all the time the joke is that the word 'mine' in its fully possessive sense cannot be uttered by a human being about anything. In the long run either Our Father or the Enemy will say 'mine' of each thing that exits, and specially of each man." -Screwtape (from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:59:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Armand wrote: > One question: What is a clearly transitory word? The example I gave was the Angel of World War Two. I gather the Senechal of a Tether has the Tether as its Word. Do you expect a Tether to *really* last for*ever*? Centuries, maybe, but that's not long on many celestial timescales. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:12:40 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Armand wrote: > >Well, Janus might grant a clearly transitory Word. He wouldn't want his > >servitors locked into doing the same thing all the time, after all. :) > > I don't look at this from the same angle I guess. I think Janus would > reward with a motion oriented word: stream, good tires, joggers, comets, > etc. After all, a word is a reward. It is good to serve your word. That was a joke, actually. I guess it didn't come across as well as I had hoped it would. > >Transitory Words could be a reward for good service. Sort of like > >recieving a knighthood, or a medal. It could also be a test, to see if > >the angel is ready for the responsibilities inherent in having a permanent > >Word. If he is willing to put the effort required into promoting his > >transitory Word, then it is a good indicator that he can handle a more > >important Word. > > Again, I would like a clear example of some clearly transitory words. > Knighthoods last until death as do medals. So why would such a word even > be considered a worthy prize? I guess a clearly transitory Word would be a Word that was bound by time, or that only needed to exist until certain conditions were fulfilled. As an example, look at the Word of War. If war was to still end tomorrow, Michael would still be Archangel of War. Granted the Word would no longer be needed, but it would still be Michael's. An unlikely example, perhaps, but there you are. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:25:19 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back >>>There is another way. The NPC could trade favors with Lilith. This probably would be a worse idea than making the power on his own but would be alot easier and quicker. It would not be without the rival Prince's knowledge but it may be with out his consent. That is he would be under Geas.<<< How would Lilith be able to grant another Prince's attunement? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:25:18 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition >>>This kind of strikes me as a double standard, you can represent the dominant culture in publications and you can represent minor cultures and sects, but you cannot represent the stuff in between? Am I missing something?<<< Yes. I didn't say Hinduism couldn't be represented -- just that absolute canonical statements about the "true" nature of Hinduism in In Nomine (eg., all Hindu deities are just ethereal spirits, or they are all actually Archangels in disguise) are unlikely. In fact, due to the nature of the Marches, some ethereal spirits probably *have* been created as a result of the beliefs and dreams of Hindus, while some Archangels may have manifested in a form suitable for Indian culture and thus become Hindu "gods". But one should also keep in mind that Hinduism is not exactly like other "pantheistic" religions -- being a Hindu would not be incompatible with being a Soldier of God, for example. (Maybe not a Soldier of Dominic, but many other Archangels would probably have no problem with the Hindu perspective of the Supreme Being.) Of course In Nomine does essentially say that every real-world religion is wrong at least in part, since no real religion actually matches In Nomine's cosmology in its dogma. But thus far, In Nomine has not stated outright that any religion is absolutely *wrong* and based on completely false premises. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:01:15 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking At 9:17 PM -0500 1/26/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> >>it, this distinction lets a demon to a "master copy" of a work and correct >> > >> >Lets a demon do what to a master copy? >> >> take a master copy. What Baron was messing with my work!!!? > >*slink away into the inky darkness* > >"Ah, the Game goes on..." > >- Em, Balseraph of Being Mean ("Asmodeus, *dear*, do you suppose you could send less... *helpful* Servitors next time?") [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:05:49 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sloth At 10:52 PM +0000 1/26/98, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >Is there any canon on the name of the Prince of Sloth? Failing that, >are there any good *serious* suggestions? I've read the Ralph piece >in the INC, and it's funny, but not what I wanted. Heaven & Hell, p. 97, Perdition, paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Perdition was once the Principality of Meserach, Prince of Sloth." Mmmmm, essence! - --Beth, Superior of Somethingorother. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:12:42 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Canon Doubt and Uncertainty At 8:19 AM -0500 1/27/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >Sure -- I'd like to see that Michael's distrust of Yves remain at >least plausible in canon. The APG was helpful in this, as it mentioned >that Yves did nothing when his Servitors became dissonant. Sorely >needed, too, after _Heaven & Hell_. ( I dunno -- wouldn't you be suspicious of the avatar of the Symphony who *wasn't doing anything* while the demons seemed to be winning? "He's got no Choir-form, how would we know if he'd Fallen?") Everyone is, however, aware that *some* of the "teasers" in the main book were there to use in cycle-books? (Though some weren't, necessarily...) [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:14:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> DP of Nitpicking (Re: Raphael) At 8:39 AM -0500 1/27/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> >Oh, the angst can be arranged, no sweat. Angst is no problem, really. >> >K.K. will be taking things a tad more seriously in NO TIME. :) >> >> Uh, that wasn't a request... I meant that she was turing out to >> be deep because she didn't have enough angst, so she was self- >> generating... Um... > >No, no, really. I have no problems. Look at the rest of my players. Are >they complaining from 'Lack of Angst'? Nope. Does this mean I don't have to self-generate my own angst, then? >>>Hello, do I play too much SUPERS or what? >> >>Yes. > >That was actually a rhetorical question. :) Oh, okay. If you insist. >>And there's just one problem with your evil plot. I don't care >>about the lawn (the groundskeepers already trashed it once and it's >>only just recovered to slightly worse than before they "fixed" it), >>and I don't have any petunias. >> >>So the hat is MINE. > >How come, when I see 'evil plot', all I can think of is a patch of really >nasty crab grass. "My GOD! That patch on the lawn! It's an... EVIL >PLOT!" > >*wring hands* "You may have foiled my plot this time, but I'll get you. >Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow... but soon! Muhahahaha!" > >- Em, feeling really goofy Ah, yeah... Now I'm going to think of a patch of lawn with tinfoil all over it. A foiled plot. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:16:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking At 8:49 AM -0500 1/27/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> foolishly attuning herself to the _Oz_ books by Baum and gaining dissonance >> for every internal inconsistency he wrote, she plummeted like a rock, >> convinced that humans were sloppy, uncaring, and generally contrary. > >If _OZ_ was what caused her to Fall, it's a good thing she didn't attune >herself to Zelazny's Amber series - especially the second five books. She >might have outright exploded. *boom* Well, I didn't write a 20-page paper on Amber. I wrote a 20-page paper on Oz, and read all of Baum's originals. Including the sad pleas for people to read his *other* books (so he could stop writing these ones and do something different). Finally he stopped trying. >>Balseraphs: >>With their flexible world-views, a Balseraph can see *anything* as >>inconsistent. Anyone resisting their lies rolls at a penalty to Will equal >>to the Balseraph's Celestial Forces -- but *any* successful resistance will >>cause the Liar a note of dissonance (as if the subjected had resisted with >>a 6). > >AUGH. How come I feel this band attunement is based on my emails? :) I don't know? How come? >*resonate* >This is cool. Into the "Beth" folder it goes. >- Em, Bal of the Game in the service to Nitpicking - but only on Tuesdays Glad to have you. I think. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:24:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions At 11:46 AM -0500 1/27/98, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: >At 10:55 AM 1/21/98 -0500, you 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.) >> >> 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.) > >Hello, I just saw this going over my backlog... Is this canon? If so, what >part of the rulebook did I miss? IN: p. 54: Perceiving the Symphony. "Humans who serve celestials directly, having become aware of the Symphony, may also detect celestial goings-on, but since their Perceptions tend to be very low, it's far less likely." (I, personally, think that this should be primarily for 6-Force humans who have learned how to control their Essence. A non-Soldier servant is really only a mundane with a clue...) [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:27:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a human? At 12:40 PM -0500 1/27/98, Raoul Duke wrote: >Maybe that's why Hell has more troops than Heaven (another factoid buried >in the APG); Lucifer's been upgrading humans (yes, I know that canon says >this ain't done. Canon has been known to change). Humans cannot become celestials. If Lilith *is* a human, she's a Superior-level human ("UberSaint!"), not a celestial. Not really. So long as I'm LE, human souls and celestial souls *will* remain distinct. On the other hand, Hell is apparently full of little demonlings and such... [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:30:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Some questions At 9:55 AM -0800 1/27/98, Michael Bowman wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> I know... About half of them, I could weasle around that he got *some* >> part of it. (Like taking the Lilim of Gluttony attunement -- you >> don't get the Geas, but you can still cook stuff that people have to >> make a Will roll to refuse.) > >Hmmm. That seems reasonable for someone like Duke Hamet, but I would be >reluctant to say that a character could spend 5 points and get *part* of >a Band attunement, I'd probably go for all or none. The FAQ allows aspects of an attunement that aren't resonance-dependant to be used. The GM is, as always, allowed to do whatever he wants, yadda, yadda. O:> >> >How exactly does one resist something? >> Force of Will... >>[much snipped] >> >> That help? > >Oh yes, that was very useful. I knew that some resistances specifically >said they weren't Contests, which implies that a normal resistance is, I >just wanted to make sure and make a plug for a statement to that effect >in errata or the mythical 2nd ed. Gotcha. >Here's yet another question (can you tell I've just starting *running* IN >as opposed to playing it): >One of the PCs is a Mercurian and used his resonance on demons twice last >game. I'm wondering just how to present information to the player in a >way that doesn't immediately give away the individual is a demon >(geographic origin - Hell). One of the demons had a role, so I provided >information on the role, the other one didn't and I answered very >generally (had problems with his boss, etc.). Is this the right tack to >take or should the Mercurian resonance be a demon/angel detector? I think you took the right angle. (Of course, with a 6 CD or a Divine Intervention, the thing probably *will* be a demon-detector, though you can always say, "Has some problems with his immediate superior, Alush, but is doing fine with his Superior" and not give a name there.) [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:34:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Some questions At 2:13 PM -0500 1/27/98, The Baron Samedi wrote: [...] >Incidentally, this question came up. if a Cherub attunes to someone can >the person tell something is up? My ruling in my game had been no, but a >player pointed out the story section under cherubs, where the politician >was quite aware something was happening. It's not entirely clear whether that's the human or the Cherub who has the world fall away for a moment. In general, I'd be inclined to say the attuned person (the human or whatever) *doesn't* notice (unless he makes a spectacular Perception roll, maybe). The exception to this is Cherubim of the Wind -- *there*, I'd think the person might notice something had happened! (Ditto Djinn of Theft.) [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:38:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Word-bound Humans (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) At 5:13 PM -0400 1/27/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> (Could the Seraphim Council give a Word to a Saint? Maybe. Maybe not. >> Maybe they're forbidden. Maybe only a Balseraph as powerful as Lucifer >> can impose his truth of "I can give a human (semi-human?) a Word if I >> wanna" on the universe...) > >Is it canon that Saints cannot have Words? I don't remember seeing it if >it is, although I could have missed it. I coulda sworn I'd read somewhere that they didn't, but I can't find it off the top of my head. Mrfl! So I stand by my "Maybe. Maybe not." O;> [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:40:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 5:47 PM -0500 1/27/98, Brandon Quina wrote: >> >And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to >> >your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. [...] >> [...] >> >Brandon, >> >Habbalah of Nitpicking > >> Ah, my Servitor, what are you doing letting the Judgment angels >> get to him *FIRST*? Hmmmmmmm???? >> --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking > >the other angels have some fun, ohh well> (Care? Who cares? But it's disorganized to let them do stuff like that. That's not their jobs. That's *our* job.) >Simple, Your Grace. > >I, a simple lawyer n' nit-picker in hell am ill-suited for tracking >down and apprehending enemys of the state.. Thus, I defer some of >the responcibilitys to the other angels.. > >Perhaps if her grace would supply me with a corporeal vessel I would >be better suited to pass legal action against those who dare to play >In Nomine *incorrectly* (imagine that, the nerve).. > >Brandon, >Habbalite of Nitpicking A vessel. Hm. And exactly what sort of vessel do you want? I mean, I do have some stock of puppies over here... [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:57:05 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Role Problems Folks, I have a problem with the way that roles work. Namely, I don't see that they *do*. Vessels without roles - fine. Kyriotates and Shedim also fine ( they only possess whats already there ), but I can only see vessels with roles working in one of three ways , and I'm not that happy with any of them really. Firstly, there is the idea that when a celestial adopts a vessel with a role, it is retroactively *written in* to the Symphony. In other words, people suddenly *remember* this role as their friend/ child/ workmate/ etc. They have memories, photographs, momentos, of the role that go way back. This seems to be a terrible burden upon the Symphony if allowed (altering fabric of reality) and must create blasphemous amounts of noise! It can soon escalate to a *role arms race* amongst celestials as well. Silly example. Angel discovers that new bully in the playground is a demon in a role. Sends fax to superior, superior sends new angel in role of bigger kid. Demon gets ear clipped. Demon whines to pal who's got some points spare... He creates new teacher! Teacher picks on bigger kid, etc, etc. The second approach is to assume that you've been living in the role for x amount of time and *cultivating* it. Yet for how long exactly? Have you been in the role since you were a child? If so, were you an immaculate/infernal conception to mortal parents? If you were, then certainly in the former case, why is your archangel being very naughty indeed going around impregnating womenfolk. This approach also implies that you have effectively been a sleeper agent until such a time that your superior deems you to awaken. This seems a trifle contrived. Can celestial consciousness be surpressed in this way? Can it be surplanted with a mortal one? What if you've witnessed evil/good deeds prior to beginning game play? Why weren't you awakened then? Third approach. Vessels with roles are *lived in* by a portion of your superior until such a time that he designates you to take over. In effect your superior invests his energies, essence, whatever, into creating lives within the Symphony that he micromanages until such a time that he deems a servitor suitable to the task of taking the role on himself. This seems to me to be the only legitimate way to go. It also gives the GM pause for thought on what sort of roles his various superiors would invest in, and maybe *how many*. But you again return to the problem of immaculate conceptions. Interesting idea suggested by one of my players on this topic was that perhaps these roles are those of humans that have met with death in some way. Car accidents, muggings, failed suicides etc, where the mortals soul is replaced at the last moment of life by a celestial of either side (did anyone see that Jeff Goldblum flick on these lines?). Maybe stillborn infants or conceptions that *just missed* fall into the same category. Whether or not these people could have had High Destinies or Terrible Fates may also matter. Perhaps *Cosmic Law* only allows superiors to use Middle of the Roaders? Also, a beginning PC can surely not start the game with multiple vessels each having seperate roles if at least one of the roles has a lot of social interaction. This arises from the fact that I recently had a beginning PC in my campaign that wanted two vessels, each with a role; a cop, and a schoolgirl. I thought that this was just a little too impractical, Unless the cop always works nights then the little girl is going to have to be a truant. Has this caused headaches for anybody else? Unless I get some kinda handle on this I'm tempted just to can roles altogether. Oh, BTW, I was wondering why Khalid got relegated to Fall/Trumpet. Wasn't he was supposed to turn up in the APG? - -- Jules - Demon of Dripping Taps. jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:04:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back At 7:25 PM -0500 1/27/98, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>There is another way. The NPC could trade favors with Lilith. This >probably would be a worse idea than making the power on his own but would >be alot easier and quicker. It would not be without the rival Prince's >knowledge but it may be with out his consent. That is he would be under >Geas.<<< > >How would Lilith be able to grant another Prince's attunement? ("Okay, Belial, we're here -- no, *don't* remove the blindfold. Right, here, hold out your hand...") *ahem* Yes, well... There's the other notion that you could perhaps find a "lookalike" attunement from the Ethereals... Lilith could probably help with *that*. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:23:49 +0000 From: "Patrick Chester" Subject: Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back > At 7:25 PM -0500 1/27/98, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>>There is another way. The NPC could trade favors with Lilith. This > >probably would be a worse idea than making the power on his own but would > >be alot easier and quicker. It would not be without the rival Prince's > >knowledge but it may be with out his consent. That is he would be under > >Geas.<<< > > > >How would Lilith be able to grant another Prince's attunement? > > ("Okay, Belial, we're here -- no, *don't* remove the blindfold. > Right, here, hold out your hand...") > > *ahem* Yes, well... There's the other notion that you could > perhaps find a "lookalike" attunement from the Ethereals... > Lilith could probably help with *that*. Or maybe said DP owes Lilith a small favor... (Am I the only one who thinks most of the DPs in Hell owe Geas/10 or so to Lilith? ;) - -- Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wolfone@io.com "Well Jim, that proves it. The Universe not made up of an endless vacuum of eternal nothingness like we once believed. The Universe is in fact made up of Fabio." -Cape Carbunkle bunch at work. :-) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #597 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.