From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 6 16:55:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26192 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:55:34 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id QAA09663 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:34:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:34:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199901062234.QAA09663@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1082 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 6 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1082 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> New Member IN> Re:Elizabeth Bartley Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Re:Elizabeth Bartley Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? Re: IN> New Member Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions Re: IN> Liber S. Contest updates... Re: IN> Gabrielite questions Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead IN> Hebrew words Re: IN> Hebrew words Re: IN> Gabriel's servants RE: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Hebrew words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 13:18 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? >I think your critique of Lilim is spot-on. Impudites are the >ones cut out to be seducers; Lilim have that role because of >bleedover from their mother's femme fatale image. Perhaps >Impudites and Lilim should switch game mechanics. I think I heard that at one point in the early drafts of the game, Lilim *did* have a charm ability of some sort -- I believe one of the main-book errata on one of their Band attunements is due to this. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:36:28 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Walter Milliken wrote: > > >(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) > > > >Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? I'm > >thinking specifically of Loki. If an Ofanite of Gabriel catches sight of > >him in one of his many disguised forms, will they know he is the cruel > >one? Or does this only apply to mortals? > > Interesting question. Ordinarily, I'd say yes, they could tell he was > cruel (but not who or what he is). However, it's verging on proto-canon > that Superiors can mask themselves from lesser beings' resonances, > attunements, etc. While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, > he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a > fairly important pantheon). > Er... I'd have to disagree. He's a fifteen-force ethereal with some abilities and a highly effective, repeatable Rite. There are regular angels more powerful than he is. As he stands currently, he is more powerful than the average PC's, but no where near the class of an Archangel or Demon Prince- let alone the Senschal of a powerful Tether. Doesn't Dominic have one in DC with 21 forces or something? > So it might go either way -- he might still have the ability to mask > himself from lesser beings, or he might have lost it. Or canon may He might have had one at the peak of his power, as a part of his shapeshifting and 'trickster' stuff, but I don't think he has it now. However, he's not human- his emotions and motivations might be different enough to cause "static" in the detection. > never establish this masking ability.... I'd say that one is a GM call > right now, though it might wind up conflicting with future canon > someday. IMHO, as of canon he doesn't, but a GM can do anything, and a logical justification is that even though created out of human thought he is sufficiently alien to both Celestial and Corporeal minds that there is some interference- which may be suspicious in and of itself. Besides, if they CAN'T detect him as cruel it might be a dead give away that he's something- the leader of a bunch of skinheads as nasty as his would almost have to be cruel. > > ---Walter - -- Brian A.H. "I am Don Arturo de Los Angeles. I am the greatest reader of all time. I have read over a million books in my lifetime, and their pages flow through my mind like summer days..." Phoenix Clan Purifier*Gaijin*Shugenja*ABC Geeky Shugenja Man*Totoroan L5R(1.1) PX+ S(LA) G++ R Y+ C+ E+ M-- T-- D++ K U+++ L5R(R1.3) GP++ (PR+++ CC++) RP+ GT:! P+ PX/LN+ S++ G+++ R Y+ C++ CG++ U+++ J---- ABC(1.0) PX/ABC++(ic, anyways. =)) S(LA) Y+ A++ D++ BO/OC!N!++++(nosebleed) P+++ U++ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 13:25 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> New Member > I -do- have one little question that >I can't find the answer to in the rules books (okay, more than one): > Shedim (my favourite lil' Band): -Can- they possess animal vessels? >Nothing I've seen says they -can't-, like it does with Celestial >Vessels. Let me point you to the IN FAQ, which contains a lot of useful answers to questions like this: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/faq/ From the FAQ: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can a Shedim possess a celestial or an animal? Shedim can only possess humans (In Nomine, p. 151). - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > More on that note: What happens when a Shedite with Song of Poessession >tries to possess a Celestial's vessel? Does the original host human >vessel fall unconscious and wait for the Shedite to return, I would assume yes, since that's the way the Song normally works. > or does it >snap out of its possession and this Song is the only way a Shedite -can- >possess a Celestial's vessel? Yes to the latter (also in the FAQ, along with related questions on possession). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:30:46 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> Re:Elizabeth Bartley Elizabeth writes: "How would we know if the Tether book contradicts your London campaign without any information about Your London campaign?" Fair comment, but I had been posting my write up of London's tethers to the list since I started. I haven't finished yet (nearly, nearly!). Another member of this list who has published them as part of his website has also taken them on board. The chap's name is Donato Ronzato; his site is on the IN Resource page. Of course I don't expect everyone on the list to pay attention to my work like a soul in Perdition, but it has been mentioned. The information is this (some of which has been revised since Donato put it up!): Tethers of London: Christopher - Great Ormond St. Hospital Asmodeus - Westminster Palace David - Wembley Stadium Baal - Tower of London Dominic - The Temple Belial - The Monument Janus - Heathrow Airport Kobal - Madam Tussauds Jean - Science Museum Kronos - Big Ben & Royal Observatory Laurence - St Pauls Cathedral & Westminster Abbey Malphas - Speakers Corner (and my house!) Marc - Bank of England Nybbas - Broadcasting House Michael - Cenotaph Valefor - Sotheby's Novalis -RBG Kew Yves - British Museum & Library So, in the context of this my question was (supposed to be) does the tetherbook (of which I knew nothing) contradict some/all of this. If it does then I know it's not for me. In fact the only tether I share with canon - so far - as I know is Dominic's one. I apologise for taking up space in repeating this, really, but in light of Miss Bartley's post - I felt it justified. "You ignored the parts of posts (two posts, iirc) which answered the one specific question about how many Forces a Seneschal would have, and you complained that nobody had answered your questions." I didn't ignore it - I saw what Walter wrote. But the question still remained. It has just been answered so file that under 'closed' J On a more serious note, many people have said that the rules for IN are pretty broken in places. Especially with regard to the combat and experience systems. My question regarding Force Levels addresses something I feel strongly about: at what point does a game company draw the line at releasing a 'too broken' game. A lot's been made about IN in the context of it's production time in light of some of these rules. This is a part of that debate. Many games companies (or writers I should say) are guilty of this; but information that needs to be in the basic book that is left out should be made to fit somehow. When dealing with fictional concepts (like forces and all the rest of it) I need all the help I can get J. Too many games companies are guilty of leaving essential stuff out of rulebooks and then come across like sharks as they release this stuff in sourcebook after sourcebook (witness a recent post that 'didn't' mention white-wolf in this context). For the record IN isn't as bad as a lot o other games in this respect, but there are still things which I question; this is one of them. And I would argue that it is 'wrong' for games companies to charge players for what they should already have. "…nobody *could* answer that except by sending you a copy of the Tether book." No; that's untrue. By summarising the contents of the book (I certainly didn't expect anyone to copy out the entire book and post it here!) I could decide for myself. For instance a book that was 99% tethers in the way that LR was mainly artefacts wouldn't appeal to me. A book that was instead 99% rules for tethers how to create tethers the seneschal info and so on (you get the picture) would be more my cup of tea. But even if all the tethers for London that are in the book - if any - are posted, just like above, that still wouldn't reveal any more saleable material than is already on the net. "This interpretation is only strengthened by your repeated request to playtest the In Nomine books over the mailing list you're a part of…" No, I'm afraid you are mistaken in saying that. As I have mentioned privately I am not really too bothered about playtesting anything personally. I haven't specifically asked to playtest anything. What I said was that perhaps the playtest option could be made available to the list as a whole. I'd say theses guys are suitable as IN playtesters - some already are, maybe everyone is! As far as that little topic goes; let me just close it by saying that in opening the playtests up in this way it would still be kept just as secure. If this is not possible then obviously don't do it. That would be unfortunate but, believe it or not, I don't want anyone's creative work stolen - not by anyone or me. In making that initial comment I assumed that SJG would take the necessary steps to ensure that still didn't happen. "Why don't you let it rest for a couple of days, then go back and reread the thread in the archives…" The thread needn't be continued as far as I'm concerned. I'm posting this because I wanted to answer you. I post it publicly because I feel it's more suited to the forum than privately. I posted in response to eeyore's statement, as I have said, because I wanted to correct his mistaken assertion that I had publicly insulted someone. It's only fair that I do that. Martin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:38:08 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> INRI >Um, er. You need a really good explanation for why the Divine Inquisition >took years to catch up with a saint living openly on earth and saying some >of the things Jesus had been saying. And why all they did was pull him >off Earth duty. Or you can retcon the New Testament further. But the New Testament hadn't been written. If I was running a historical type game, I'd be tempted to have Jesus as a Che Guevara revolutionary anti-Roman type, and Paul as the angel who decided that it would be worth making a new religion up about it. Then he just adopted some of the traditional saintly/ prophetic miracles (as practiced by Elijah et al, such as raising the dead) and by the time the gospel writers got to work, the myths were very widespread. Just a thought. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 13:49 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >> >(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) >> > >> >Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? I'm >> >thinking specifically of Loki. If an Ofanite of Gabriel catches sight of >> >him in one of his many disguised forms, will they know he is the cruel >> >one? Or does this only apply to mortals? >> >> Interesting question. Ordinarily, I'd say yes, they could tell he was >> cruel (but not who or what he is). However, it's verging on proto-canon >> that Superiors can mask themselves from lesser beings' resonances, >> attunements, etc. While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, >> he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a >> fairly important pantheon). >> > >Er... I'd have to disagree. He's a fifteen-force ethereal with some >abilities and a highly effective, repeatable Rite. There are regular >angels more powerful than he is. Which is why I said "is now relatively weak". At one time, he was clearly *more* powerful than he is now -- probably not a match for a major Superior, but quite possibly close to a minor celestial Superior. And Superior have qualitative differences from regular Word-bound and more from non-Word-bound. In general, I assume that major ethereal pantheon figures have most, if not all, Superior abilities. They almost certainly can create servitors and bestow Rites (and attunements, I think). Hence my comments. I also believe they're in line with expected canon directions, but Elizabeth would have to speak to that. > As he stands currently, he is more >powerful than the average PC's, but no where near the class of an >Archangel or Demon Prince- let alone the Senschal of a powerful >Tether. Doesn't Dominic have one in DC with 21 forces or something? Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:48:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants B.H. wrote: > IMHO, as of canon he doesn't, but a GM can do anything, and a logical > justification is that even though created out of human thought he is > sufficiently alien to both Celestial and Corporeal minds that there > is some interference- which may be suspicious in and of itself. One way Loki might be alien enough is that he does NOT originate in *human* minds. It's canon that the Marches are older than humanity, at least as old as anything that dreams. Perhaps Loki has been recently *shaped* by humanity's imaginations, but he might *originate* far, far further back than that, in some amalgam of animal dreams of ambush, aggression, and deceit. That even fits with his myth, kinda. He's not an Aes by birth, but instead he just shows up and becomes Odin's blood brother. I believe he's vaguely said to be of Jotun stock, but no specific parents were given that I recall, and the Jotuns are, themselves, something in the way of personifications of unhuman nature. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:54:16 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> INRI At 11:02 AM 1/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >Please note: Jesus explicitly and repeatedly claimed that sins were >forgiven *through him*. And that no one reaches the Father save through >him. And other things a saint who *wasn't* the Messiah simply wouldn't >have said. There are, of course, many different interpretations of what was meant by that, too. Maybe he did mean no one reaches the father except by declaring oneself a Christian. Maybe he meant the only way to salvation was through living by Jesus' teachings and philosophy, and what church you were a member of doesn't matter. There are still many ways to interpret it. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 14:08 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re:Elizabeth Bartley >So, in the context of this my question was (supposed to be) does the >tetherbook (of which I knew nothing) contradict some/all of this. That's an almost virtual certainty -- the notion that the writers would pick the exact same set of Tethers you did is absurdly improbable. The question is roughly equivalent to "I made up a bunch of Songs for my campaign, and I want to know if they aren't in the Songbook." Do you see the absurdity here? I don't know any GM who expects that future publications are likely to correspond to his own campaign anywhere the details overlap. (Well, I suppose one hooked on the Great Big Nasty Publisher Conspiracy Theory might, and claim their stuff was stolen, but I don't think that's the case here.) > If it >does then I know it's not for me. Then you probably don't need to bother with any other future canon books, either, since they'll probably include things that contradict what you've done for your game. > In fact the only tether I share with >canon - so far - as I know is Dominic's one. I apologise for taking up >space in repeating this, really, but in light of Miss Bartley's post - I >felt it justified. OK, so you'd posted some stuff. But you didn't mention that in your post, and I suspect few of us associated your question with the author of those London Tether posts. I certainly didn't. If you'd mentioned that, and asked, "Did any of the London Tethers I posted match those in the Tether book?", you might have gotten a response that satisfied you better. >"You ignored the parts of posts (two posts, iirc) which answered the one >specific question about how many Forces a Seneschal would have, and you >complained that nobody had answered your questions." > >I didn't ignore it - I saw what Walter wrote. But the question still >remained. But you didn't ask for clarification -- just (much later) whined that no one answered. I think you need to polish your e-communications skills some more -- a lot of people aren't understanding what you're actually meaning when you ask questions. >On a more serious note, many people have said that the rules for IN are >pretty broken in places. Especially with regard to the combat and >experience systems. My question regarding Force Levels addresses >something I feel strongly about: at what point does a game company draw >the line at releasing a 'too broken' game. Which makes no sense to me -- what does not including explict, rigid rules for Force levels for high level NPCs have to do with being "broken"? That's a far cry from "essential information", and nowhere near on the level of "broken combat rules". >This is a part of that debate. Many games companies (or writers I should >say) are guilty of this; but information that needs to be in the basic >book that is left out should be made to fit somehow. Fine. Then you'll pay $100 (or local equivalent) for a 500+ page tome you can barely tote around? Or will you complain that it doesn't include the King's hair color? There's a level of detail that's essential, and one that's "frill". Sometimes it's hard to draw the line. But I think you're expecting far more than any company except maybe TSR or WW is willing to give you -- and that will be split into dozens of books. I think the IN rulebook wasn't as inclusive as it might have been, but I don't think there's anything in there that I'd want to cut, either. Which means a bigger and more expensive book (which are known not to sell well, which means no one will do one), or a lot of supplements to cover more specialized topics in more detail. 80,000 words is 80,000 words, and if it needs 250,000, well, it's *not* going to fit. Period. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:40:55 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? At 6:10 PM -0800 1/5/99, Steel Angel wrote: >I just had a thought: the books are full of references to the Lilim as >being Hell's little sex-kittens (not in so many words, but just look at >Andre's Attunement for them, the description of Bright Lilim, etc etc). >Now, my question is this: -why-? Because they partake of Lilith's nature, and Lilith is, in the IN universe, infernally charming. Also, for the dark ones, it's a really easy way to get hooks in people -- think of how many human males there are who'd do a lot for a date with a +3 Charisma Lilim? (Or how many women would go for the Lilim's male vessel. Or whatever gender-combination the Lilim wants.) Other reasons, more likely to be drawn from the real world, include one/some of the Lilith legends where she is basically a succubus, who comes to men when they sleep and steals their seed. Between that and the gobs of children that yet another legend says she had, sleeping with demons by the sea... > BTW, if anyone out there has some access or URLs to authoritative texts >on the origin of 'Lilith', I'd be much obliged if you'd point me in the >right direction? I think there are some useful references in the INC, or off the "Resources" page of www.sjgames.com/in-nomine (which is where the In Nomine Collection is also referenced: Resources). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:36:08 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> New Member At 5:54 PM -0800 1/5/99, Steel Angel wrote: >I can't find the answer to in the rules books (okay, more than one): > Shedim (my favourite lil' Band): -Can- they possess animal vessels? No -- they can only possess humans. Can't corrupt animals. (Animals only go to Heaven, after all -- or, possibly, get reincarnated and/or dissolved into the Symphony.) [And any Shedite who figured out how would probably get Jordi landing on them personally. (Do *you* want fifty elephants landing on you all at once, followed by a very angry Kyriotate Archangel?) Of course, if you want to be a mean little GM with some Jordi angels, you can make this your plot and send the PCs after the nasty Shedite. In Nomine Bunnies & Burrows, anyone?] >Nothing I've seen says they -can't-, like it does with Celestial >Vessels. The specific wording in their description says "humans." I'm sure this is in the FAQ -- right, Karakash? > More on that note: What happens when a Shedite with Song of Poessession >tries to possess a Celestial's vessel? Does the original host human >vessel fall unconscious and wait for the Shedite to return, or does it >snap out of its possession and this Song is the only way a Shedite -can- >possess a Celestial's vessel? The latter. But the celestial's mind is AWOL in the Marches, as in a typical Song-of-Possession. The Shedite does not get the ability to tap the celestial's memories, nor will any of its actions have the least chance of causing the owner of the possessed vessel any dissonance. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:57:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim: Hung up on the name? At 1:18 PM -0500 1/6/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >>I think your critique of Lilim is spot-on. Impudites are the >>ones cut out to be seducers; Lilim have that role because of >>bleedover from their mother's femme fatale image. Perhaps >>Impudites and Lilim should switch game mechanics. > >I think I heard that at one point in the early drafts of the game, Lilim >*did* have a charm ability of some sort -- I believe one of the >main-book errata on one of their Band attunements is due to this. Bingo. The Lilim resonance used to be Charm and Geas, like the Impudite one is Charm and Take, and they used Will both to Charm and to impose Geases. (Perhaps the notion was to have Incubi/Impudites and Succubi/Lilim?) I suspect that it was then decided that there needed to be someone who *could* do the "Okay, sign the contract and Hell owns your soul" trick? Not sure. Mind, if a Lilim of Lust starts specifically looking for what you want *now*, and *now* and *now*... That can be pretty seductive. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:24:46 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Gabrielite Questions At 12:04 AM -0500 1/6/99, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >I also assume that they can shell out character points to see other choirs >forms of cruelty, (i.e. a Seraph paying 5 pts. to be able to see betrayers >like the Cherubs can) Yes. >Taking this assumption a step further, I assume that a Gabrielite who can see >more that one form of cruelty can tell what type of cruel person they are >currently looking at. (i.e. Elohite's emotional bully or Cherub's betrayer) >Of course I may be assuming wrong. Nope, you're not wrong. At 10:08 PM -0700 1/5/99, Jason Corley wrote: >On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 1:53 PM -0700 1/5/99, Jason Corley wrote: >> >Must Gabrielites -witness- the cruel act which they are going to punish, >> >or do they have some ability to sense cruelty in a human soul? >> >> The latter. They are attuned to that kind of cruelty (as per >> Choir) and get to just *see* -- "That guy is a slumlord," "This >> person is a child abuser." Etc. > > >How specific is it? Probably as specific as your GM will allow. I suppose that I'm a meanie and actually, despite the examples above, I'd probably say, "Your attunement just went off, Seraph -- that person is cruel, and lies to himself that he isn't." Or "Your Elohite attunement just went off, Ofanite. You know that person may not be running from justice, but is prone to be psychologically cruel." >Can anyone think of any good reasons to pick one of these approaches over >another? How nice the GM wants to be, to the PCs? O:> At 9:44 AM -0500 1/6/99, Diane J. Donaldson wrote: >(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) > >Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? They still set off the "cruelty triggers," with no hint to the angel that the person is or is not human. Except Princes, who probably shield themselves most of the time with the equivalent of a long-term non-green Song of Ethereal Shields. Unless they feel like messing with some poor Fire Servitor's head. ("Let's see. I can either take a note of dissonance, or I can try to punish Andrealphus for being physically cruel. Ur...") Ethereals gods are more fuzzy -- up to the GM whether they still have enough "Superior" ranking to manage such shielding. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:49:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Liber S. Contest updates... At 7:40 AM -0500 1/6/99, dahak wrote: [etc.] People who want to put in all the information that dahak would like, in the descriptions of their submitted character, will be smiled upon. (The character still has to be good, though, of course.) People who want to update their previously submitted characters with this data can send me a paragraph or two, with a notation of which character they're submitting it for and what the total wordcount would be. And, as a note, I could use some more humans. For that matter, I could use a Malakite. My mind boggles. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:07:32 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Gabrielite questions Jason Corley wrote: > >Must Gabrielites -witness- the cruel act which they are going to punish, >or do they have some ability to sense cruelty in a human soul? I believe that by the book, they can simply sense the appropriate type of cruelty in the human soul. >If they need not witness the cruel act, must they investigate to find the >extent of the cruelty? I rule that the angel knows the general type of cruelty the person exhibits, but must actually investigate to get details. (Between celestial form, songs of dreams, and friends with info-gathering resonances, this usually isn't very hard.) One thing that I add (this is campaign-specific, and not by the book), is to rule that angels of Fire will simply /know/ who the next person they must punish is. They need to investigate to find out why and what a suitable retribution is, but they get their instructions on their targets straight from God. Angels of Dominic will worry that Gabriel's angels don't deliberate enough when deciding on punishments, but the choice of target is never under question -- if a Gabrielite tells a Triad that X needed to be punished, that's the end of the question as far as Dominic is concerned. (Modulo the Gabrielite telling the truth, of course.) >What about 'systemic cruelty' like unfeeling bureaucracies? Do Gabrielites >punish systems as the systems punish the people - impersonally? Or do >they punish the people involved in the system because they perpetuate the >cruel system? What if the people involved have no control over the cruel >policies of the system? I tend to run a demanding Heaven. If J. Random Human is faced faced with a choice between supporting a system that contravenes the Law of God, and dying a martyr, all else being equal the angels expect the human to go for the heroic sacrifice. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:16:28 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Walter Milliken wrote: > > >> >(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) > >> > > > >Er... I'd have to disagree. He's a fifteen-force ethereal with some > >abilities and a highly effective, repeatable Rite. There are regular > >angels more powerful than he is. > > Which is why I said "is now relatively weak". At one time, he was > clearly *more* powerful than he is now -- probably not a match for a > major Superior, but quite possibly close to a minor celestial Superior. > And Superior have qualitative differences from regular Word-bound and > more from non-Word-bound. You wrote: While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, > >> he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a > >> fairly important pantheon). It's the "is" part that I objected too. I also seriously doubt that even at the height of their power Ethereal Gods were the equivalent of Superiors- equivalent to powerful Word-Bounds with certain powers above and limitations below that based on their origins, but I suppose that depends on whether what the Celestials believe about the universe is true (God made everything, he's the Most Powerful, Numero Uno, One-And-Only Creator) or the theory of some Ethereals, that God is just a jumped up Ethereal God, is true. I personally believe (in In Nomine) that he's the Creator- non-opinion references seem to indicate this, but until a Canonical reference goes clear on that, it's up for discussion, and of course, a GM can make up whatever they want. ^_^ > > In general, I assume that major ethereal pantheon figures have most, if > not all, Superior abilities. They almost certainly can create servitors > and bestow Rites (and attunements, I think). > I wonder if they can create servitors or if Humanity creates the servitors (as a part of the worship, as a part of the formation of the Ethereal, etc.). As to Rites and attunements, servitors entrusted to a Word-Bound within a Superior's hierarchy can gain the attunements and Rites of that Word-bound as well. Furthermore, Ethereals function differently from Celestials, and we don't know how they acted in this respect- it may be that there were a limited number of Rites and attunements that they could grant, within the realm of powerful Word-bound with a little bit of extra because of the difference between Ethereals and Celestials... ooo... this gives me an idea... God originally commanded that the Angels leave Humanity strictly alone. He only rescinded this in order to deal with the Demons. What if the reason for this is that humans (and this would be why they don't cause disturbance) can actually "write" the notes for the symphony? It would make sense, too, in terms of Uriel's Crusade- he didn't get punished for supporting his Word- he just overstepped God's permission for interference in Human events- maybe we're /supposed/ to create Ethereals- maybe there is a way for us to /become/ them... After all, it only appears that humans have an upper limit of 5-7 forces, depending on Celestial interference... Maybe we can go the full fifteen (tens in all traits, maximum allowed for humans)- or beyond. It's possible that that was the function the Ethereals were supposed to perform- a kind of crutch or step-ladder to taking control of our own universe... In fact, Uriel might have actually been doing something he should have, but just went too far- if we became too dependant on the Ethereals for help, we'd never make the final jump ourselves, and there needed to be some scaling back of the Ethereal power- but not utter extinction, Purity-style. Or maybe I'm just blathering on. ^_^ > Hence my comments. I also believe they're in line with expected canon > directions, but Elizabeth would have to speak to that. I don't know. I read the references to them differently. Mind, I don't have the Tether or Songbook, nor Final Trumpet. I've got everything else that's out so far, but if there are references in those three books that I've missed, I'm not responsible for that. > > > As he stands currently, he is more > >powerful than the average PC's, but no where near the class of an > >Archangel or Demon Prince- let alone the Senschal of a powerful > >Tether. Doesn't Dominic have one in DC with 21 forces or something? > > Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 > Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. Hmm. Need to check the errata about that... but doesn't Thor have some mega-high Strength? Or was that errata'ed too? > > ---Walter - -- Brian A.H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:22:51 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Canon question: Saints and Undead >>>Possibly they should be, though... that's up to Elizabeth. It wouldn't >>>be the first case of needing to correct attunement problems in early >>>characters.... >> >>Ah... pity if it were, it'd limit very much the abilities >>human/mortal/undead/saint PC's could choose from. > >Well, as you mentioned later in your reply, IN *is* mostly oriented >toward celestials.... Of course, of course. ;) >>> The problem is that canon >>>is often very fuzzy in the early books, often to the point of obscurity >>>and confusion. (You can tell I'm a GURPS player, probably....) >> >>Whee-hee! Confusion. Unfortunately, no, I can't tell you're a GURPS >>player simply because, while it has always been my favorite game system, >>I (a) started with 3rd edition, (b) have never really met another >>serious GURPS players and (c) never worried about what would be "canon" >>in GURPS. :) Heck, GURPS was my first RPG that I was *happy* with. > >Well, there are a lot more GURPS players than IN players (somewhat >unfortunately...). I run into a fair number at cons, as well as having >local GURPS campaigns. > >And, stay tuned.... Of dear. :) >> I lok >>the idea of playing from the point of view of a human in the In Nomine >>game world. I mean... Here's Heaven and Hell, real and out in the >>world. What do you do? How do view life once some very basic questions >>about life have been answered? >> >>Meaning of life? to achieve one's destiny >>Life after death? certainly, heaven or hell >>Should I believe in God? Well, God beleives in you... >> >>And, for me, the interaction between humans and celestials is always >>interesting. How do you have a conversation with a being that's >>possibly older than everything you know about? Anyway... > >All of these are very good questions, and I think you'll see some of >them addressed in near-future IN supplements. (Which aren't yet >announced.) And I think it's all worthy fodder for this list, of >course. Oh, excellent. - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:23:02 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Hebrew words This is kind of a long shot, but does anyone out there know the Hebrew word for "abomination", or a place where I could look it up? I need it for something I am working on for my campaign. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:48:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Hebrew words At 4:23 PM -0400 1/6/99, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >This is kind of a long shot, but does anyone out there know the Hebrew >word for "abomination", or a place where I could look it up? I need it >for something I am working on for my campaign. From my Hebrew-English dictionary, it would seem that the noun is "to'eVA" (that's how it gives pronunciation; ascii doesn't support hebrew letters!) and "disgust, aversion, revulsion" is "seliDA." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 21:52:13 +0200 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants At 20:49 06/01/99 , you wrote: >Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 >Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. I seem to recall two Cherubs attuned to Gabriel, in the service of Yves, who were supposed to be 21-Forces monstrosities. Were they pruned down, too? Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:56:09 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Gabriel's servants Actually, they've always been fifteen Forces a piece. The Marches, p. 27 has details. -----Original Message----- From: Yossi Gurvitz [mailto:ygurvitz@netvision.net.il] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:52 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants At 20:49 06/01/99 , you wrote: >Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 >Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. I seem to recall two Cherubs attuned to Gabriel, in the service of Yves, who were supposed to be 21-Forces monstrosities. Were they pruned down, too? Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:31:12 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Hebrew words On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 4:23 PM -0400 1/6/99, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > >This is kind of a long shot, but does anyone out there know the Hebrew > >word for "abomination", or a place where I could look it up? I need it > >for something I am working on for my campaign. > > From my Hebrew-English dictionary, it would seem that the noun is > "to'eVA" (that's how it gives pronunciation; ascii doesn't support > hebrew letters!) and "disgust, aversion, revulsion" is "seliDA." Thank you very much. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1082 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.