From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 11 03:55:54 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 DAA25812 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:55:54 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA05044 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:07:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 03:07:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199805110807.DAA05044@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 #770 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 Monday, May 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 770 In this digest: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? Re: IN> Re: IN- Stat limits IN> Wanted! Fans of the Weird West! Re: IN> Rites (was Stat Limits) Re: IN> Children of the Grigori Re: IN> Angels of Purity Re: IN> Tethers and Essence IN> Requests anyone (was Stat Limits a long time ago) IN> Re: IN- Rites (was Stat Limits) Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? Re: IN> Rites (was Stat Limits) Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? The Answer Discovered! (was Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial?) IN> A theory of The Archangel of Archives' Choir Re: IN> Re: IN- More Questions. IN> How can you bind a celestial? IN> Songbook Re: IN> Requests anyone (was Stat Limits a long time ago) IN> Re: IN- Discord IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: IN> words IN> Idle thoughts Re: IN> Songbook Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon Re: IN> Idle thoughts IN> Re: IN- Songbook Re: IN>Fallen malakim write up Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 05:17:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? - ---Userpan1 wrote: > > In old magic books you can invoke a demon so in In-nomine can you also bind > one? I need to know how to keep, in celestial form, a celestial from leaving > a room so we can beat on it. > > Thanks > Well, I'm sure there is a relic floating around that can prevent celestials from leaving...Hmmmm..... And servitors of the Game have a special attunement that can prevent anyone from leaving...At least I think it's an attunement. Could be a distinction--I don't have the Heaven and Hell supplement handy. Hmmm...Chains of Binding: The victim must make a Will roll, with the relic's level as the difficulty..or maybe even a modifier? Opinions, anyone? Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Stat limits - ---Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > > Me too. I'd much rather see one called "Hymns of the Symphony" (sorry, > couldn't resist). No problemo, dude--but a promise is a promise. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is kind of a pain to have to search through seven > (nine? which ones am I missing?) books to find all the songs I may > need. Yeah, you're right--I, too, would like to see a supplement devoted to Songs. But, please do NOT call it HYMNS OF THE SYMPHONY! :) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 05:22:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: IN> Wanted! Fans of the Weird West! Any fans of the Deadlands RPG? I am going to make crossover rules for that particular game and In Nomine...should be a hoot! Reason why I ask, is I'll need advice and opinions when I get the info...Anyone's 2 cents will be greatly appreciated! Just email me privately, if you wish...This may not necessarily be an appropriate discussion for the list, and I do not wish to cause any disturbance to the Symphony... ;) Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:53:52 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Rites (was Stat Limits) On Sat, 9 May 1998, Pee Kitty wrote: > > I like the idea that another person had...that Rites DO generate essence > for the user *and* for the giver of the Rite...but Rites cost the GIVER > character points to give away. It makes sense; after all, you're gaining > Essence from it, so it should cost you...and the recipient. I like this too. Another way to control it might be to let it cost a pretty big amount of Essence. A Superior won't do it unless it thinks it'll make some back on its investment, and a PC won't have all that much Essence to play with. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jesus hade skägg" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:25:47 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori >Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:53 EDT >From: Walter Milliken >Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori >That's really just an improved Soldier, not anything distinct. Also, >the writeup implies that they're not necessarily aware of the War, but >*can* sense celestials, with slightly different effects for the two >sides. I play a Child in one of my games, and we gave her a modified version of the Evil Warning Discord from the APG called Celestial Warning. It allows her to detect other Children at a 0 modifer, angels at -2 and demons at -4 However, Celestials can detect her at slightly greater modifers. Angels roll at -4, demons at -8 which is designed to make them harder to find, which is why they're not all dead. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:30:12 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Purity On Sat, 9 May 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > However, some Tsayadim lose faith and eventually relinquish their Word. > Usually this is to swear service to another Archangel and take on a new > Word. However, some Outcasts simply abandon the Word of Purity...by doing > so, they lose the Word's dissonance conditions, but they also lose its > protection. They cease to be Tsayadim, and become capable of Falling. These > are very rare, however. So the reason no Tsayadim has ever fallen is that they stop being Tsayadim when they go Outcast. In this definition of terms, surely no servitor of *any* AA has ever fallen (except on a 666 dissonance roll? I can't remember whether that is Outcast or Fallen). Am I right in thinking you mean that the Tsayadim only ever go Outcast voluntarily, rather than on a failed dissonance roll? Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:36:54 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and Essence On Fri, 8 May 1998, Sean McCarthy wrote: > Another option I've seen used to good effect is that Tethers simply > aren't loud. In fact, some property of being a Tether masks any noise > that does occur there. That can work as well, but I prefer the idea > of Tethers being big, powerful and in the face of the enemy. If the > other side erects a Tether in your back yard, it should be hard to put > it out of your mind. Night Music also mentions a Tether (of Vapula?) that 'no-one has noticed yet', or words to that effect. This implies that no-one ever goes within disturbance-sensing range, which can therefore be assumed to be reasonably low. Similarly, the Old Guy must be kept clear of the Austin Demonic tethers: it follows that none of them are audible from the Treaty Oak, or from anywhere else he has ever been. Unless he is being told that they are angelic. Hmmm. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 09:53:51 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Requests anyone (was Stat Limits a long time ago) Well... OK. Since demons can use the same songs as angels (with certain exceptions), how about? The Celestial Songbook -- posthumously translated by J.S.B. Songs from the Big Choir (with apologies to Tears for Fears) Song of the South (Marches) What to do with John Denver now that he's Dead (tentative title only) As a side comment on APG, I think Heinlein would be amused to know that he was placed in Heaven by Steve Jackson Games. He was a pretty diehard atheist. >From: Graveyard Greg > >---Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > It is kind of a pain to have to search through seven >> (nine? which ones am I missing?) books to find all the songs I may >> need. > >Yeah, you're right--I, too, would like to see a supplement devoted to >Songs. > >But, please do NOT call it HYMNS OF THE SYMPHONY! :) > >Graveyard Greg Bart Hammerly "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 10:02:17 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Rites (was Stat Limits) I like this concept of paying essence to give out a rite. Whoops, I can't remember if Word bound angels can give out rites. I know they can give out attunements (is that right? I'm not home right now. Mother's Day, you know.) Maybe we need some hard and fast rules for doing so. Make it like 30 essence to give out a rite. Impossible for a non-superior angel? That's where those Word Forces could come in handy. Plus a reliquary. Plus some help from a crowd of Soldiers (see the Relics tome). Yee hah. It's time to rumble. >From: Anders Gabrielsson >> I like the idea that another person had...that Rites DO generate essenc= >e >> for the user *and* for the giver of the Rite...but Rites cost the GIVER >> character points to give away. It makes sense; after all, you're gainin= >g >> Essence from it, so it should cost you...and the recipient. > >I like this too. Another way to control it might be to let it cost a >pretty big amount of Essence. A Superior won't do it unless it thinks >it'll make some back on its investment, and a PC won't have all that much >Essence to play with. :) Bart Hammerly "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:04:32 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? On Sun, 10 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > ---Userpan1 wrote: > > I need to know how to keep, in celestial form, a celestial from > > leaving a room so we can beat on it. You basically can't. Celestial grappling slows someone down, but takes all your attention, so your friends have to do the actual beating. Sorcery might help in some cases: depends on the power of the demon, and is no use on angels. Otherwise, you have two basic tactics available: 1) One of you blows *ALL* his essence summoning his Superior. Preferably Laurence or David, who will normally squash a demon, being Malakim. To kill an angel, Belial is your best bet. 2) You all hit him as hard as possible in the first round. If you don't have Claws yet, learn them asap. If you aren't spending 5 essence each on the attack, you're holding back too much. It won't kill him, but he probably won't be coming back in a hurry. If he does, do it again: you will almost certainly strip a Force by the second time. > Well, I'm sure there is a relic floating around that can prevent > celestials from leaving...Hmmmm..... Not sure. Flick through the Liber Reliq. Or invent one, of course, as Graveyard Greg did. > And servitors of the Game have a special attunement that can prevent > anyone from leaving...At least I think it's an attunement. Could be a > distinction--I don't have the Heaven and Hell supplement handy. Servitor attunement: Dissonance Binding, I think it's called. Requires that the subject have dissonance, and I can't remember what it actually does. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? - ---Steve Jessop wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > > And servitors of the Game have a special attunement that can prevent > > anyone from leaving...At least I think it's an attunement. Could be a > > distinction--I don't have the Heaven and Hell supplement handy. > > Servitor attunement: Dissonance Binding, I think it's called. Requires > that the subject have dissonance, and I can't remember what it actually > does. > > Steve. > > Hmmm...doesn't sound like the name, but if it is the one, it prevents the subject from leaving... Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:33:20 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? At 9:39 AM -0400 5/9/98, Userpan1 wrote: >In old magic books you can invoke a demon so in In-nomine can you also bind >one? I need to know how to keep, in celestial form, a celestial from leaving >a room so we can beat on it. > Easy way: Get one of your friends to grapple it, and then you may beat on it in an underhanded manner. Even that only halves his movement rate, and he can still jump to the Celestial, and he can continue to beat on you just fine. If you've got a Sorceror on your side who knows Focus Skill, and a quarter of an hour, Focus/1 will let him set up a Protective Ward that will keep the Demon in. It will also keep the Angels and Ethereals out, so you're either trapped in there with him, or can't touch him physically or celestially. (Cel Light might be helpful.) Barring that, there are very few ways on Earth, short of Artifacts and certain attunements, to stop a Celestial Form, and far, far fewer ways to get someone to the Celestial plane who doesn't want to go. Which, I imagine, makes things very tough on Gamers and Judgies. = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Johnathan, Habbalite Captain of the Game, The Demon of Jury Selection. ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:20:02 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Rites (was Stat Limits) At 7:50 PM -0400 5/9/98, Pee Kitty wrote: >I like the idea that another person had...that Rites DO generate essence >for the user *and* for the giver of the Rite...but Rites cost the GIVER >character points to give away. It makes sense; after all, you're gaining >Essence from it, so it should cost you...and the recipient. > >That would keep the flavor, make retroconning unnecessary, and prevent >Word-bound PCs from giving everyone and their grandmother a Rite. They'd >also see why other Superiors don't give out their Rites willy-nilly, even >though they are a common reward. I'd still scale things back a bit, though. I would prefer it not be prohibitively expensive for celestials to bestow Rites on people, but at a "One for you, one for me" ratio, it still becomes an efficient Essence source. I'd propose something like this: It costs 3 character points to bestow one of your Word-Related Rites upon someone else. Having someone else perform a Rite that supports your Word can funnel power to you, and the Word-Bound Celestial can periodically rewarded through the connecton to the rite. The stronger the Word, the fewer third-party rites it takes to give the Word-Bound Celestial his dividends. At the low end, where most PC Wordbound will be, ten third-party performances equal 1 Essence in dividends. At the AA/DP level, the coveted 1:1 ratio is possible. This gives Superiors shiploads of Essence to sling around, and the progression's rather geometric. More powerful your Word, the more servitors you're likely to have, and the easier it is to obtain Essence from the Rites themselves. And DPs may have hordes of imps and gremlins who do nothing but perform Rites. It's also a bit more leaning towards development of Easily-performable Rites by celestials, like Tomas' "Tell me a song Lyric.", Jean's "Plug in for 2 hours," or Asmodeus' "Stay alive for 24 hours." (Yeah, I know it's technically not a Rite, I just like to think of it that way. Makes, to me, a bit more sense than just "You get 2 Essence every sunset." It's a reward for Not Losing the Game yet.) = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Johnathan, Habbalite Captain of the Game, The Demon of Jury Selection. ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:00:47 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial? At 18:04 10/05/98 +0100, you wrote: > >On Sun, 10 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > >> ---Userpan1 wrote: >> > I need to know how to keep, in celestial form, a celestial from >> > leaving a room so we can beat on it. > >You basically can't. Celestial grappling slows someone down, but takes all >your attention, so your friends have to do the actual beating. Sorcery >might help in some cases: depends on the power of the demon, and is no use >on angels. > >Otherwise, you have two basic tactics available: > There are also some songs and resonances which might help here. 1. Song of Thunder. This will stun the affected party for a few combat rounds, which probably means they won't be going anywhere while you dispose of them. The downside is that it might stun your allies as well. 2. Celestial Song of Entropy. As above, although it lasts a bit longer, but is easier for celestials to resist. Prior use of the celestial song of charm will help with both of these. Another tack is that if you can take an opponent's mind hits down to zero, they will lose consciousness. I'm not sure what that precisely means if they are in celestial form but probably stuns them for longer. Handy songs for this are: 3. Ethereal Song of Entropy. 4. Numinous Corpus/ Tongue at a high level. Also, some demonic resonances might have the desired effect. It might be possible to Habbalate an opponent with enough emptiness that they cease to care about escaping, or to Balseraph someone into not wanting to leave, or to geas someone into staying. If staying in the room is very obviously going to lead to souldeath, these might be a bit tricky. The only reason I can think of for not summoning your superior is that it might give them the same idea... or your superior might be Janus in which case you are probably on your own (and possibly better off on your own :) ) jo "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." - -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: The Answer Discovered! (was Re: IN> How can you bind a celestial?) - ---Jo Hart wrote: > 1. Song of Thunder. This will stun the affected party for a few combat > rounds, which probably means they won't be going anywhere while you dispose > of them. The downside is that it might stun your allies as well. > 2. Celestial Song of Entropy. As above, although it lasts a bit longer, but > is easier for celestials to resist. Prior use of the celestial song of > charm will help with both of these. Huh...good ideas! I have Heaven and Hell with me, so let's look up the proper term for that particular attunement for the Game... (leafs thru pages) Found it! Page 25, called RULE OF LAW: "Some of Asmodeus' Servitors actually have the ability to force celestials in the corporeal world to play by the rules, whether they want to or not!" Of course, you have to have the Humanity attunement (see In Nomine, p. 161), but what RoL does is it forces the target celestial to become like a normal example of his/her corporeal vessel. Which also means No Assuming Celestial Form, since humans can't do that! Hope that helps! Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:37:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: IN> A theory of The Archangel of Archives' Choir I believe that I know the Secret of Archangel Beth's choir... She doesn't have one. Beth is, instead, the Library Manifest. Just a theory... Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:22:30 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- More Questions. Bartholomew wrote: > I always went with Ives, as in "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man > with seven wives." However, Yves is pretty kind, so he probably doesn't > care which way you pronounce it. IMG, one fo the few things that can really get Yves upset is mispronouncing names (especially his). This is because he originally named everything (and now his angels help him), and to chaneg the way you say it is to change the name. IMO, this bugs him. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:26:32 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> How can you bind a celestial? >>>In old magic books you can invoke a demon so in In-nomine can you also bind one? I need to know how to keep, in celestial form, a celestial from leaving a room so we can beat on it.<<< Wait for the Songbook to come out and use one of the Songs that will appear there. (Or alternatively and probably more useful to you at this point, invent your own Song. :)) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:26:36 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Songbook >>>Me too. I'd much rather see one called "Hymns of the Symphony" (sorry, couldn't resist). It is kind of a pain to have to search through seven (nine? which ones am I missing?) books to find all the songs I may need.<<< I dunno about "Hymns of the Symphony" (the working title right now is just "The Songbook,") but it _will_ have all the Songs from previous supplements included. - -David, Songbook Editor ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:51:58 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Requests anyone (was Stat Limits a long time ago) On 10 May, Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > As a side comment on APG, I think Heinlein would be amused to know that > he was placed in Heaven by Steve Jackson Games. He was a pretty diehard > atheist. Since when has that been a bar to anyone? ;-) - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:18:55 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Discord >>you. If, for instance, you have a very high or very low Perception, you >>can (due to the d666 bell curve) take several levels of Celestial >>Blindness without it affecting your chance of perceiving someone in >>celestial form. Keep in mind that celestial discord also interferes with essence regeneration! I think you have to roll d666 against your cel. discord. If you roll your cel. discord level or less, you don't regenerate essence. (I guess you also have the chance of interventions, although I would limit a favourable intervention to 2 essence instead of 1). >And even though Discords are not GURPS disads, you can still use the >well-known GURPS maxim to deal with meaningless levels of Celestial >Blindness and the like: if it doesn't cause a problem, it's not worth any >points. That's actually a Champions maxim that GURPS sto... errr... liberated. (Actually, Champions disads were the inspiration for GURPS disads, IIRC) SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:32:31 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon >WHEN will we see In Nomine Novels? I want to read them! I feel very >strongly that they would be successful. I understand the reasons why >there are none out now, but I will say for the record that I will buy >them when I see them! > >And I feel that I am not alone in this, right people? > >Graveyard Greg I wouldn't buy In Nomine Novels (I can barely tolerate the voluminous fiction posted to the list - I wish people would put a [FICTION] tag in the subject to make it easier for me to delete). In Nomine COMICS, on the other hand... SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:58:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon On Sun, 10 May 1998, David Streeter wrote: > >WHEN will we see In Nomine Novels? I want to read them! I feel very > >strongly that they would be successful. I understand the reasons why > >there are none out now, but I will say for the record that I will buy > >them when I see them! > > I wouldn't buy In Nomine Novels (I can barely tolerate the voluminous > fiction posted to the list - I wish people would put a [FICTION] tag in > the subject to make it easier for me to delete). I would buy novels if they came out, assuming they were well done. I've seen some VERY good IN fiction on the web and on here...and some bad stuff, too...but mainly good. Redneck's DV stories were among the best I'd read in a while, and I stop by Ben Hutchin's web page once in a while, hoping he's done another chapter of Angel With a .45. > In Nomine COMICS, on the other hand... Yuck. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 08:59:28 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> words At 02:58 AM +0000 05/09/1998, The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather wrote: >wonder if the word word could be a word. (follow that?) > >Starsurfer, wannabe angel of words Is this under the category of Celestial in the 'Hood? :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:27:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Idle thoughts I've had some _In Nomine_ thoughts kicking around since reading the "Dark Victory" setting. What if the following things are true: 1. God can resurrect apparently destroyed (reduced to 0 Forces) celestials and humans. Frankly, this doesn't seem much of a stretch for Someone Who created the entire world. 2. God *cannot* force a free-willed being to choose redemption. It seems to me that this makes would make it logical for God to want the Heavenly Forces active on Earth to put up a valiant, inspiring effort, and then to _lose_. Then the worst of the demons to then overrun Earth to the point where everything worth anything - all beauty, all joy, all pleasure - - is wiped out. And finally to have every demon who believes in *anything* not utterly evil, until everybody salvagable has defied Hell and/or turned to God in desperation. Heh. This sounds like a Habbalite rationalization -- even if true. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:00:21 -0500 From: "Scott Weber" Subject: Re: IN> Songbook *giggle* I think something with the word "Hymnal" would be cool... "The Celestial Hymnal," or something to that effect. :) - ---------- > From: David Edelstein > To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com > Subject: IN> Songbook > Date: Sunday, May 10, 1998 6:26 PM > > I dunno about "Hymns of the Symphony" (the working title right now is just > "The Songbook,") but it _will_ have all the Songs from previous supplements > included. > > -David, Songbook Editor ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:07:36 -0500 From: "Scott Weber" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon I agree to some extent... we've all seen those "Magic: The Gathering" cheeseballs at the bookstore, and it'd be a shame to see a repeat of that with In Nomine. What I /would/ like to see, however, is a novel or two that would be loosely based on this particular interpretation of religious themes... such that they were merely their own story, and not stamped with "In Nomine:" at the top. But not necessarily a series (those Star Wars books are getting old, fast!) and nothing that would require SJG's stamp of approval. As for comics... ugh. Comics aren't the same as they used to be when I was a kid... it's one of those industries that has fallen victim to the common marketing ploy, (Can you say "Death of Superman" boys and girls?) and I seriously doubt that anyone could make a good comic of In Nomine without making it excessively cheesy, unless it were an independent comic company, like Aardvark-Vanaheim, or something. - ---------- > From: David Streeter > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon > Date: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:32 PM > > >WHEN will we see In Nomine Novels? I want to read them! I feel very > >strongly that they would be successful. I understand the reasons why > >there are none out now, but I will say for the record that I will buy > >them when I see them! > > > >And I feel that I am not alone in this, right people? > > > >Graveyard Greg > > I wouldn't buy In Nomine Novels (I can barely tolerate the voluminous > fiction posted to the list - I wish people would put a [FICTION] tag in > the subject to make it easier for me to delete). > > In Nomine COMICS, on the other hand... > > SurturZ > Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:24:04 -0500 From: "Scott Weber" Subject: Re: IN> Idle thoughts Just a few things in response to this... I've always had a certain view of God (and this is just my own opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt...) and His ability to function as a higher power - I mean, supposedly the guy created /everything/, including time and space... that in itself is a pretty heavy thing, considering that no human being really has the expansion of consciousness to fathom what would exist outside that reality, if anything. When it comes to God, I always liked how the core book went about talking about Him... the core book doesn't really say much, but it seems to imply that He has the power to do literally *anything*... He just chooses not to. That line from the Prophecy always stands out in my mind... "Why doesn't God just get rid of the bad angels?" "Maybe He can't... maybe He won't." I mean, really - if He created Lucifer, why wouldn't He have the ability to destroy him as well, just as easily? Perhaps this is an agnostic or DADAist view of things, but I've sometimes thought maybe life itself is merely a form of entertainment for God - we struggle through life trying to make sense of the senseless, and why? What does He get out of it? Entertainment seems like the only likely answer, sometimes. This, again, is of course just the personal thoughts of someone with way too much time on his hands... Whether or not that's truly the case, it'd make a pretty cool game scenario, though, wouldn't it? None of the Archangels, except *maybe* Yves, would even know... and if Yves did know, he'd never tell anybody... it'd make for the explanation of why God doesn't just appear to kill off Lucifer and the demons. - ---------- > From: Elizabeth Bartley > To: In Nomine Mailing List > Subject: IN> Idle thoughts > Date: Sunday, May 10, 1998 10:27 PM > > I've had some _In Nomine_ thoughts kicking around since reading the "Dark > Victory" setting. What if the following things are true: > > 1. God can resurrect apparently destroyed (reduced to 0 Forces) celestials > and humans. Frankly, this doesn't seem much of a stretch for Someone Who > created the entire world. > > 2. God *cannot* force a free-willed being to choose redemption. > > It seems to me that this makes would make it logical for God to want the > Heavenly Forces active on Earth to put up a valiant, inspiring effort, and > then to _lose_. Then the worst of the demons to then overrun Earth to the > point where everything worth anything - all beauty, all joy, all pleasure > - is wiped out. And finally to have every demon who believes in > *anything* not utterly evil, until everybody salvagable has defied Hell > and/or turned to God in desperation. > > Heh. This sounds like a Habbalite rationalization -- even if true. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:41:04 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Songbook >*giggle* I think something with the word "Hymnal" would be cool... "The >Celestial Hymnal," or something to that effect. :) Celestial Hymen? (I know, I know, ) Can songs be "demon only" or "angel only"? Say, the Trisagionist Song. Are songs actually in the celestial languages, or something else? If this has been asked before (and I'm almost certain it would have been) some old-timer please email me directly. SurturZ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 05:19:04 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN>Fallen malakim write up Now i know the Fallen Malakim is coming out and will most probably have the most definite canon rules we will ever see on this subject but I have my own take, Non-Canonical version of how Malakim Fall and what they become afterwards. Do not read ahead those who value the purity of this choir and would like to think them invincible... Warlocks- Now the title of Warlock for a Fallen Malakim at first seems strange, more like something to call a human sorceror, unless one considers the actual meaning of this word. Warlock means oath-breaker, and since Malakim are highly honlorable and oath driven beings, indeed they must take at least four, then one who is Fallen must have somehow broken all their oaths, until they have become meaningless to it. The Malakim were created as Pure uncorruptible beings to thwart Lucifer's rebellion, and they did their job well, but even God is not perfect and neither were exactly the malakim. The One Above knew that one day one of these Pure Ones would fall in to Hell, it would be as inevitable as some demons redeeming, but She wanted to stave this day off as long as possible. however the Malakim proved reliable and well for millennia, not a one even came close to the Pit, until Uriel's Crusade. Uriel's overzelousness in this conquest worried a lot of people, what had started as a clean-up turned in to a a complete quest for Ethereal Annihilation, Uriel and his servitors began slipping towards the Pit and Lucifer was pleased. God however in the interests of keeping the Malakim from disaster, pulled Uriel back to let off steam, then temporarily let the Word of Purity move back in importance. The irony of this was that by pulling Uriel back and doing this to stop the first malakim fallings, God had also set abput making it even easier for Malakim to be corrupted and Fall. Enter Samuel, a former servitor of Purity, now of the Sword, examining the demons and their society so as to better understand them. Gradually he came to tolerate them, then respect them, then to admire them, and he let his oaths and tasks fall by the wayside. He received dissonance for disobediance to Laurence, he gained dissonance for denying his nature, in time he became a pitiful discordant creature, hunted and hated by his own. It was in this dark state that a revelation occurred, the malakim could not fall because they were filled with the light of God, it shone brighter then in any other choir, the only way out for him was to make himself blind to God. So Samuel became Samael, Blind to God, and the First Warlock. Heaven was in uproar and Laurence was dragged before the Seraphim Council to explain, cowering under the joint gazes of Dominic and Michael, for one of the few times in agreement about angelic conduct. As it happened it also set about the creation of the Ronin, a League of Outcast Malakim, determined to be masterless and fight the war how they wish, or not fight it at all. To cover up his failure Laurence began an earnest hunt for Samael and the Ronin, that ended in failure. A squad of four Malakim caught up with Samael in the Corporeal Realm under the guard of four strong soldiers and two Calabim, by the end of the conflict the soldiers were dead, one of the Calabim had been soul killed the other had lost his vessel, and the four malakim had Fallen as well. Now Hell had five warlocks, and heaven's spirits dropped lower. Hell had never been able to duplicate an infernal version of the Malakim, but now they had prototypes to copy, however cloning warlocks proved more difficult then expected, and there are still only a few to each Prince. Needless to say Malakim hunt Warlocks with unparalled fervor, above even Shedim and balseraphs, and Warlocks return the hate in spades. Resonance-Being the ulitmate Oath Breakers themselves, they have the ability to see agreements between others, and tear them apart, they can make even the most dependable people dodgers, turn even the best of friends and lovers to betryal, cause priests to give up the faith, scientists to lose faith in logic. They perceive with a perception roll agreements and affirmations made by people, then use will to break them, the check didgit is the indicator of how important the oath they perceive, and how much damage is done to it, and how quickly. Dissonance-It is dissonant for a warlock to swear to do anything of an honorable nature, or to allow honorable inidividuals to continue with there dilusions. Appearance-Another irony is that the ebon shaded Malakim become bright white when they Fall, but not a healthy white, but rather likt the white of toxic fungi. Their eyes burn a brilliant and frightening red, gleaming with devilish evil. They take handsome vessels, with hidden flaws that they only reveal in secret, they like to be charming in public, monsters in secret. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 05:23:57 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Writing Canon At 02:07 AM 11/05/98 -0500, you wrote: >I agree to some extent... we've all seen those "Magic: The Gathering" >cheeseballs at the bookstore, and it'd be a shame to see a repeat of that >with In Nomine. What I /would/ like to see, however, is a novel or two that >would be loosely based on this particular interpretation of religious >themes... such that they were merely their own story, and not stamped with >"In Nomine:" at the top. But not necessarily a series (those Star Wars >books are getting old, fast!) and nothing that would require SJG's stamp of >approval. > >As for comics... ugh. Comics aren't the same as they used to be when I was >a kid... it's one of those industries that has fallen victim to the common >marketing ploy, (Can you say "Death of Superman" boys and girls?) and I >seriously doubt that anyone could make a good comic of In Nomine without >making it excessively cheesy, unless it were an independent comic company, >like Aardvark-Vanaheim, or something. > >---------- >> Arent we being just a little jaded? I think comics are just as good as ever, the old ones may fall by the wayside but there are always new and better ones coming out, some that are quite original and have Quality. As for your remark on Star wars novels, bite your tongue, bite it hard, then stand still as Chewbacca rips your arms off! If anything there aren;t enough of them. More, More, More! Simon, Demon of You can never get enough of Star Wars 'Didn't we just leave this party?' Han Solo, A New Hope ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #770 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.