From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jun 5 12:59:57 2000 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 MAA18364 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:59:56 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA24654 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:55:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:55:37 -0500 Message-Id: <200006051755.MAA24654@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 #1659 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, June 5 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1659 In this digest: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Re: IN> Do Angels party? Re: IN> Angel movies RE: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Dominic and Destiny Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree... Re: IN> Next Playtest? IN> Daedalus returns from Hibernation Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Daedalus returns from Hibernation Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Next Playtest? IN> Dark Fiction (Re: Love amongst Superiors) Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:19:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Philip J. Moyer" Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Maurice Lane wrote: >What's Serendipity (I >remember a children's book by that name, but it was >about a female sea monster that went after polluters, >so I don't think that was it)? >Petitioner for the Word of ... heck, I _loved_ that >kid's book, let's make it Serendipity. ;) ... Ironically (but in a good way), I read that book too. And various of its sister-books. Heck, I think I still HAVE it. *makes note to check his bookshelves tonight* And wether or not it was a direct contributing factor to my later fanfic writing (Serendipity, et. al.), no doubt the title had lodged in my mind in that way things do, and came back up when I was looking for a title... quite a roundabout way of finding things. One might even say... "Serendipitous". [Philip's cast groans...] [...Save for IN2070 Eli, who slips his Angel of Serendipity ten Essence. "Good work, kiddo. Get back on the job, and we might see Ser 3 before the end of next year!"] At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:08:19 -0400, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>Serendipity is a work of fiction written by Philip Moyer. It can be found >>at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/Serendip.html - it doesn't have much IN >>content, though it does include the Golden Lego. ^_^ >"Yet." >It doesn't have much IN content *yet.* But I have faith in Philip. >Which should be worth a Rite, darn it. *Philip blinks much at this. And coughs. And blushes.* [Arisa blinkblinks at Eric.] [Arisa] What, me getting catapulted into a universe where my magic doesn't work nearly as well, where angels and demons run about clad in human flesh, where Archangels and Demon Princes have Words and whatnot, and where Shedim are pound-for-pound the best source of corrupt soul energy I've ever seen in decades doesn't count? Where've you -been- the past few years, Eric? [Ayrie] That's because your author hasn't gotten to that point in - -writing- that yet, dear; just the plotting. *slight smile* [Arisa] *mutter* bloodyprocrastinatoryworkandartandlifedistractedneedtobloodyclonetheguy ormakehimakyriotate'causehesureisn'tgettingenoughdoneNOW... *mutter* [Ayrie looks wry, and patpats the nice half-succubus on the back with one of her Cherubic wings (this follows because she is, you see, a Cherub.) "Now now, one day he'll write the Ascention Cycle... until then, we can just content ourselves with roleplaying logs..."] - --- Philip (FWIW, the events in IN2070 ( http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/IN2070/ ) count as a part of Serendipity... it's just that they aren't that visible to the average character or reader... Yet. But that will change. Oh yes. That will change...) Philip Moyer----------------Qapla'-------------pmoyer@jurai.net "To boldly go where no one has gone before!"-Capt. J. L. Picard "Roads? Where we're going we don't NEED roads!"-Dr. E. L. Brown "If it can be dreamed, It can be done."- ReRob Mandeville "Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection, The Lovers, - ---------- The Dreamers, and Me."- Kermit The Frog ------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Guy Royse Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine << Does anyone out there have character generation program available, shareware, freeware, or otherwise out there? I know there's one by Tom Converse available on the SJG website. I'm curious if there are others available as well?>> I wasn't aware that there was any IN software at all. Altho I have been considering developing a character generator/editor or some other piece of IN software myself and would be curious what everyone would like to see in said vaporware. Guy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 09:48:10 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Do Angels party? Laurencians could very plausibly party for any Catholic holiday, which includes all the generically Christian ones and a whole slew more. ("And what's the excuse *this* time?" "St. Swivven's Day?" "And St. Swivven would be--?" "Here!") Dominic's group might, if they had nothing pressing, knock off to attend a High Mass on holidays. Similarly, Khalid's group could celebrate Moslem holidays. If you, er, canonize any particular religion, then the holidays of that religion can be celebrated on Heaven as well as on Earth. Earl ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jun 2000 10:12:10 -0400 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Angel movies >>>>> "DE" == David Edelstein writes: DE> Charles Phipps wrote: >> Though if you ever want to see what gal an Elohim falls for (yes it does >> happen) look at Nicholas Cage's City of Angel-Drab Dreary servants of Yves >> live in a library. DE> I think he was a Mercurian. I also think the movie sucked, but then, I DE> can barely tolerate Meg Ryan. _City of Angels_ /was/ awful. If you took the basic idea of _Wings of Desire_ and made it into a typical 'merkin schlock-fest full of shallow sentimentality, you would get _City of Angels_. Oh wait, that's what they did. I watched the two of them back to back once. I might have had more tolerance for _City of Angels_ if I hadn't just seen _Wings of Desire_. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:17:05 -0500 From: Andrew Hackard Subject: RE: IN> Next Playtest? >And, frankly, I'm not sure there's that much publicity -- I can attest that there hasn't been. We had occasion to pull the sell sheet for In Nomine this weekend, and it had evidently not been updated since *before* the core book came out. It's much better now, really. (For those of you who left your marketing-to-English decoder rings at home, a "sell sheet" is the one-page flyer that goes to the distributors and retailers to tell them about our games and why they rock the house and why they should stock them. That the IN sell sheet hadn't been updated in three years was not a good sign.) Suffice to say that I plan to instigate a full audit of our marketing materials this week -- I don't want to be here until midnight again updating things that should have been kept up-to-date in the first place. >the Line Editor Interregnum probably hurt a lot, I suspect this was the main reason the IN promotional material was *not* kept up to date, that and a lamentable lack of focus on good marketing material and strategies overall. Show of hands: Who here reads GAMES Magazine? OK, put your hands down. They've reviewed our stuff favorably in the past, including reviews of Tile Chess and Chez Geek in the last two issues. So why don't we advertise with them? (Answer: I don't know either. But we plan to, as soon as we get their rate sheet.) Second show of hands: Who here thinks Etrigan would make a cool IN Prince? Hands down again. I can easily see building an IN ad, for the comic, around Etrigan's character writeup, with enough cool stuff in it to get the comic readers interested. All we would need is someone who knows "The Demon" well enough to do a good job, one that the readers of the comic won't hiss off the stage. Ditto Spawn, if McFarlane is interested. These are the kinds of promotional things that *haven't* been done, either because of time or money or because they didn't occur to anyone. It's a BIG part of my job to be creative and think of these things. >Which means that everyone who likes >the line and wants to see the books sooner rather than later should > write reviews for magazines or at least >RPG.net! Something else -- if you write a review, try to include one or two "sound bite" sentences. If they're good enough, and you post the URL here so I can check it out (hint hint), then those sound bites might end up on the SJ Games page -- and, if they're *really* good and we do start an advertising push, we may even include them in the print ads. >Or write articles for Pyramid, or any other gaming magazine/webzine >that you like! You get the idea. That would help a lot, too. This mailing list is active, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared with Pyramid and the other online zines. If they don't see IN support there, they're going to assume that the game doesn't have a huge following. BTW, this hasn't been formally announced yet (but *has* been approved), but we're going to do a month of Warehouse 23 specials on IN stuff in support of GURPS IN. If you've been thinking about getting a group copy of the Player's Guides, for instance, you may want to wait a week or so. What we're hoping is that people are going to get GIN *and* pick up a bundle of the supplements at the same time, find out how cool In Nomine is, and then they'll be hooked. (We're also throwing in GIN posters, and I think there's a plan to make them available for sale on the page as well. Have to check with Brendon about that one.) If you've got friends who haven't tried the game, or who are new to the game and are a bit daunted by the variety of supplements out there, this may be a good time to point them to Warehouse 23 and push the game. I mean, since they're going to end up buying it all anyway, they may as well get a discount, right? ;-) (Please note that I am not saying "BUY THIS OR THE LINE IS DOOMED!" I'm just pointing out that we are using GIN to help support sales of the IN line.) Brendon and I are working closely together to promote the hell out of these specials -- expect to see announcements on the W23 main page and the Daily Illuminator. - -- Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University" andrew@sjgames.com /______\ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:47:45 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic and Destiny At 8:53 PM -0400 6/4/00, Charles Phipps wrote: [...] >>Sympathy does not equal tolerance. I honestly feel Dominic personally >>mourns every angel that Falls, but he >does not allow that sympathy to come >>between him and his Word. > >True and yet I believe there is little balance to it. > >Judgement does not equal Justice. In _In Nomine_, it does, for some value of Justice. Look at the Dissonance Conditions of Judgment. >Or Temperance. Only if you're one of the "Mercy faction" of Judgment. >>Isn't that what Novalis has been trying to do for the past million years? >The thing is, Dominic won't let >ANYONE get close. It's his job, his sin, >his penance. He can't forgive himself, so how can he let anyone else >>forgive him? > >God but Dominic I doubt doesn't want to hear him at this point sya what he >wants...of course none of the angels do either-that's why he's shut up here. Eh? I'm not parsing this either... In canon, God doesn't _talk_ to the angels anymore, and the last time He made His wishes known in no uncertain terms, Uriel was yanked upstairs, and Laurence was plopped down with the General of the Armies of God title. (And Khalid got kind of snitty about that and went off to sulk for a while.) >On a sobering note I think I figured out what Dominic fears most about the >Uriel incident: Uriel was discorporated instead of rewarded-his energy used >to fill in the holes of the Symphony his destruction caused. Actually, in canon, no one knows what happend to Uriel. (Which results in some entertaining rumors for S3...) He was yanked into the Higher Heavens -- and that could be a reward, a punishment, both... What a particular celestial (or non-celestial, for that matter) thinks the "verdict from on high" was, is up to the particular celestial (and the GM, in the case of NPCs). (One hopes I'm parsing this correctly, mind.) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:54:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) At 11:03 PM -0700 6/4/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:09:08 -0400 >From: Elizabeth McCoy >Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors [..] >Maybe not. Is Laurence the "It is better to marry >than to burn" type Christian, the "O Lord, give me >chastity and self restraint. But not yet, O Lord. >Not yet" type, or somewhere in between? >According to his writeup, Laurence swore to the >_Nicene_Creed_: a document that says much about the >nature of the Trinity, but nothing about celibacy >(seeing as priestly celibacy was not mandatory at the >time said Creed was worked out). Hmmmm....... I think I have been assuming that he'd have been following what the Popes said ever since. Which may be erronious of me. >[...] Larry could have a (UNMARRIED) >celestial girlfriend in every Tether, and it wouldn't >violate his Malakim oaths or his Word's dissonance >conditions. You have just given me more fodder for Dark And Vile Rumors a la BalProp, you know! Muwhahahah! (For those who are curious, BalProp is my Dark Heaven work of fiction, and if you want to see it, send me private email with a statement that you are over 18. I think those who have read it will agree that it's Not For Kiddies.) >**Of course, applying human moral values on sexuality >to a entity that can remove parts of its "body" to >create a new, free-willed, unique offspring (that is >_not_ a carbon copy of the "parent") is absurd, >anyway: one could be lead to the conclusion, that, by >mortal standards, Laurence would be committing the >mis-named sin of "Onanism" every time he created a new >angel... :) Details, details... It's the notion that he might _try_ that amuses me. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:56:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. At 2:50 PM -0700 6/4/00, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:48:11 -0400From: "EDG" > >Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and >raise you.. >>> Nope, I just got steeped in the Lego mystique that >>> pervades SJG's web page. What's Serendipity [...] >Ahh. Much is now explained. BTW, Beth, I _do_ know >what the definition of serendipity is. A BA in >English should be good for something*... ;P~ But you _ASKED_ what Serendipity was! Without underscores, how am I supposed to know you meant a work of fiction and not the word? (Okay, so I get asked for the meanings of "big words" a _lot_ and I'm punchy, what can I say?) Well, maybe someone _else_ will have benefited. O:> - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:56:36 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree... At 5:36 PM -0400 6/4/00, Charles Phipps wrote: [...] >>Now, this is all well and good, but the other thing to remember about >>Laurence is that he's a good Christian. For some value of that, since >>he knows that there is biblical errancy. O:> > >Problem is that in In Nomine there is no contradiction between the >interpretation of God and the timelines.... Huh? I'm not parsing that... [Laurence doing confession after, ah, well, you know.] >I can just see this. Heh. Poor Dom - nobody gives him an even break. (Truth be told, one of the _hardest_ parts about doing Dominic (as in, writing him in a story or having him appear in a game), for me, is merging his Absolute Sternness with his angelic caring nature. I mean, he's _scary_, and stern, and aloof, and distant... and if the only just thing to do is let a Servitor bury its face in his cloak and weep, then he'll do it. But man, ya gotta have extenuating circumstances for that. [...] >>(One can also assume that Superiors can make Servitors conjointly >>(is that a word?) _without_ it qualifying precisely as what humans >>would consider "intimate" in a sexual sense. Which definitely does >>open the door to lots of cross-Word creations, as needed to fit a >>niche. Though for some reason, if Laurence got married, I think >>he'd eschew this -- "forsaking all others.") [snip] >Creating children is not exactly part of the equation and more like working >on art... This is where one starts trying to figure out which parts of the "sex is for procreation" ethos it is that Laurence accepts as pertaining to angels. And it depends a lot on how one views the creation process for angels. In our games, there's really two ways that Superiors can cooperate to produce a new celestial -- one involves handing over strongly "flavored" Forces from one, for the other to merge into his/her "flavored" Forces, thus producing a new celestial with elements of both Words reflected in its nascent personality. The other is more intimate, involving close cuddling and Force interweavings. Thus, really only the second would count as "sexual" in the sense humans think of it, but I still think that a married Laurence wouldn't do the first method either. O:> Which is totally IMOO. (First O= Obnoxious, of course.) (Sort of a "if sex is for procreation, does procreation = sex?" question.) >Thus in Heaven Celestial Sex and Procreation are two different things I see >that can be related but were ultimately just combined by God who had time >and budget constraints. On Earth, you mean? - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:36:18 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? Andrew Hackard wrote: > Something else -- if you write a review, try to include one or two "sound > bite" sentences. If they're good enough, and you post the URL here so I can > check it out (hint hint), then those sound bites might end up on the SJ > Games page -- and, if they're *really* good and we do start an advertising > push, we may even include them in the print ads. You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these requests to write "reviews" which are pretty blatantly advertisements for the books. A review should be a review, period. If it's a GOOD review, great. But repeatedly urging fans to write (good) reviews ("and don't forget your sound bites which will look real purdy in our advertisements!") strikes me as just a little bit sleazy. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:51:31 EDT From: Daedalus3D@aol.com Subject: IN> Daedalus returns from Hibernation Hey Everyone, Sorry I've been out for a while and not been able to put my $0.02 in, but exams, graduation, etc. came along. Hope you understand. I'm sure you all missed me terribly :) I had 32 digests worth of posts to read as well which also kept me off the list a while. You guys just don't quit. To speak on the long dead IN dice issue: I agree totally with the Powers-That-Be in doing the same design on both sets of dice, doing different colored CD dice, using the cross for the 1, pips for the rest, and doing some kind of funky demonic 6. As for the rest, I have faith the aforementioned PTB that the dice will be cool enough to warrant purchasing a set. By the way, wouldn't just having a IN-font style 6 be different enough from the pips without having to go into all that demon-tail, curling serpent nonsense? Simplicity it the mother of success, after-all. And rolling a 666 would still be obviously demonic (currently, rolling 18 pips just doesn't have the same effect). Anyway, enough kicking the dead horse. Moving on to the Marxism debate. I think Marx would be a boddhisatva at least (that's if he actually made it to heaven, which is up for debate), just because he couldn't stand hanging around with all the religious icons in the lower heavens and he definately wouldn't want to ascend to the higher heavens. Any AA would be happy to reincarnate him, since heaven would actually be punishing Marx by not letting him return to corpreality and punishment isn't what heaven is all about. Having the NPC's meet a reincarnating Marx, or having people like Che and others BE the reincarnation of Marx, would make for interesting plotlines. I think it would be silly for Marx to be an Ethereal because it would be going against the Symphony for there to exist Ethereal versions of real souls. The Symphony doesn't do duplicity, remember. If you go with the idea that Marx ended up in Hell, things get stranger. Most Demon Princes would enjoy pulling Marx's forces from his body while saying "So who doesn't exist?" until Marx himself was no longer part of the Symphony. Currently, I think only Asmodeus and Malphas (though possibly Kobal or Lilith too) would possibly want Marx intact. Who knows, maybe he could even work up to being a demon, but I don't know whether Marx would be willing to do favors for beings he didn't believe in. Besides, both Hell and Heaven are awfully bourgousie in their organization and heirarchy. Marx would more likely work to organise other human souls in a proletarian revolt against the Celestials. Ah, I see another plotline rearing it's ugly head. For myself, I'm currently working on an opposing pair of minor Superiors that I'll eventually need to post somewhere. I'd just stick them in an e-mail to the list, but they're really long and would clutter things up. If anyone's got some free webpage-space that they wouldn't mind me borrowing, I'd greatly appreciate it. My current project, which the two Superiors are a part of, is to flesh out In Nomine to include East Asia. Most of what's canon has ignored that part of the world and stuck to areas where Christianity and Islam reign supream (not complaining, that makes sense for the game, but a large area has been left undeveloped). Currently, I'm finishing the two Superiors who are the chief administrators for the War in East Asia: the Archangel of the Way, and the Demon Prince of Jade. They will be fairly unique in the Celestial realm in that most of their servitors will be Bodhisatvas, Saints, and Soldiers, rather than Celestials. Anyway, I'll save the rest until I finish them. Later. Daedalus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:57:56 -0400 From: Mason Kramer Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) > From: Elizabeth McCoy > (For those who are curious, BalProp is my Dark Heaven > work of fiction, and if you want to see it, send me > private email with a statement that you are over 18. > I think those who have read it will agree that it's > Not For Kiddies.) I very much agree. It's also not for squeemish adults. (Beth, you're sick as all get-out. I mean that in the best possible way.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:57:25 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. At 8:19 AM -0400 6/5/00, Philip J. Moyer wrote: >At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Maurice Lane > wrote: > > >What's Serendipity (I > >remember a children's book by that name, but it was > >about a female sea monster that went after polluters, > >so I don't think that was it)? > > >Petitioner for the Word of ... heck, I _loved_ that > >kid's book, let's make it Serendipity. ;) > >... > >Ironically (but in a good way), I read that book too. And various of its >sister-books. Heck, I think I still HAVE it. *makes note to check his >bookshelves tonight* And wether or not it was a direct contributing >factor to my later fanfic writing (Serendipity, et. al.), no doubt the >title had lodged in my mind in that way things do, and came back up when I >was looking for a title... quite a roundabout way of finding things. > >One might even say... "Serendipitous". > >[Philip's cast groans...] > >[...Save for IN2070 Eli, who slips his Angel of Serendipity ten Essence. >"Good work, kiddo. Get back on the job, and we might see Ser 3 before the >end of next year!"] > >At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:08:19 -0400, Whistling in the Dark > wrote: > > >>Serendipity is a work of fiction written by Philip Moyer. It can be found > >>at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/Serendip.html - it doesn't have much IN > >>content, though it does include the Golden Lego. ^_^ > > >"Yet." > > >It doesn't have much IN content *yet.* But I have faith in Philip. > >Which should be worth a Rite, darn it. > >*Philip blinks much at this. And coughs. And blushes.* [...] >Where've you -been- the past few >years, Eric? Now now, I never claimed Serendipity hadn't come to IN, I said I had faith IN would come to *Serendipity.* There *is* a difference.... (Or am I digging myself deeper?) - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:03:54 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Daedalus returns from Hibernation At 12:51 PM -0400 6/5/00, Daedalus3D@aol.com wrote: >Hey Everyone, > >Sorry I've been out for a while and not been able to put my $0.02 in, but >exams, graduation, etc. came along. Hope you understand. Good to have you back, Daedalus. > >Moving on to the Marxism debate. I think Marx would be a boddhisatva at >least (that's if he actually made it to heaven, which is up for debate), just >because he couldn't stand hanging around with all the religious icons in the >lower heavens and he definately wouldn't want to ascend to the higher >heavens. Any AA would be happy to reincarnate him, since heaven would >actually be punishing Marx by not letting him return to corpreality and >punishment isn't what heaven is all about. I'm not sure that's strictly accurate. After all, Karl Marx was an intellectual first and foremost. Confronted with the existence of Heaven and of Heavenly Values (particularly the dichotomy of Angelic Selflessness/Group versus Demonic Selfishness/Individual), I have "faith" (if you will) that Marx would reevaluate his belief systems, or at the least reinterpret based upon the new things he'd learned. I agree he wouldn't ascend to the Higher Heavens, but I could see him remaining in the Lower Heavens because there's so much work to do bringing Heaven back into line with its own Communal Ideal. If made a Saint and Corporeal, I imagine Marx would be in Service to Stone (which is the closest to the Communist Ideal) and sent to sow the seeds of community over selfish self-interest, whether that be following the Communist Manifesto or not. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:10:51 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine At 22:04 -0400 6/4/00, Thomas R Phillips wrote: > My name is Tom and I've got a simple question. Does anyone out >there have character generation program available, shareware, freeware, >or otherwise out there? I know there's one by Tom Converse available on >the SJG website. I'm curious if there are others available as well? If >possible, send any replies back to my e-mail address. Thanks I don't know of any offhand; we use a fairly simple Excel spreadsheet for our characters. (And a *very* complex one for GURPS characters; I was just hacking on it last night to do a bunch of GURPS IN characters to use in demo games.) I once started hacking one up in Java, but it simply wasn't worth the effort -- the spreadsheet does pretty well, and is a lot simpler. I suspect other potential software authors have found the same thing. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:57:25 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you.. At 8:19 AM -0400 6/5/00, Philip J. Moyer wrote: >At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Maurice Lane > wrote: > > >What's Serendipity (I > >remember a children's book by that name, but it was > >about a female sea monster that went after polluters, > >so I don't think that was it)? > > >Petitioner for the Word of ... heck, I _loved_ that > >kid's book, let's make it Serendipity. ;) > >... > >Ironically (but in a good way), I read that book too. And various of its >sister-books. Heck, I think I still HAVE it. *makes note to check his >bookshelves tonight* And wether or not it was a direct contributing >factor to my later fanfic writing (Serendipity, et. al.), no doubt the >title had lodged in my mind in that way things do, and came back up when I >was looking for a title... quite a roundabout way of finding things. > >One might even say... "Serendipitous". > >[Philip's cast groans...] > >[...Save for IN2070 Eli, who slips his Angel of Serendipity ten Essence. >"Good work, kiddo. Get back on the job, and we might see Ser 3 before the >end of next year!"] > >At Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:08:19 -0400, Whistling in the Dark > wrote: > > >>Serendipity is a work of fiction written by Philip Moyer. It can be found > >>at http://www.jurai.net/~pmoyer/Serendip.html - it doesn't have much IN > >>content, though it does include the Golden Lego. ^_^ > > >"Yet." > > >It doesn't have much IN content *yet.* But I have faith in Philip. > >Which should be worth a Rite, darn it. > >*Philip blinks much at this. And coughs. And blushes.* [...] >Where've you -been- the past few >years, Eric? Now now, I never claimed Serendipity hadn't come to IN, I said I had faith IN would come to *Serendipity.* There *is* a difference.... (Or am I digging myself deeper?) - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:18:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) > >According to his writeup, Laurence swore to the > >_Nicene_Creed_: a document that says much about the > >nature of the Trinity, but nothing about celibacy > >(seeing as priestly celibacy was not mandatory at the > >time said Creed was worked out). > > Hmmmm....... I think I have been assuming that he'd > have been following what the Popes said ever since. > Which may be erronious of me. Popes, no. There is no Papal Bull on chastity, only the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. On the other hand, there's plenty of _Scripture_ on the topic of chastity, and I'm sure that is what Laurence follows. I would assume he believes something along the lines of: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." - Hebrews 13:4 The catholic doctrine on chastity is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:28:38 -0500 From: Andrew Hackard Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >Andrew Hackard wrote: >> Something else -- if you write a review, try to include one or two "sound >> bite" sentences. If they're good enough, and you post the URL here so I can >> check it out (hint hint), then those sound bites might end up on the SJ >> Games page -- and, if they're *really* good and we do start an advertising >> push, we may even include them in the print ads. > >You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these requests to >write "reviews" which are pretty blatantly advertisements for the books. You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these misstatements of what I was saying. :-) Seriously, I'm not asking people to review stuff they hate just so I can clip a quote for the Web site. I'm not even asking people to review stuff they *like* just so I can clip a quote for the Web site. What I *am* asking is that, if they are so moved to write a review, that they post a pointer (or, hell, just e-mail me directly) so I can check it out. If the review includes a neat one- or two-line summary that I can clip, that's great, but I'm interested in the review regardless. Even if it's bad. Maybe especially if it's bad. >A review should be a review, period. If it's a GOOD review, great. But >repeatedly urging fans to write (good) reviews ("and don't forget your >sound bites which will look real purdy in our advertisements!") strikes >me as just a little bit sleazy. I'll be completely explicit then. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WRITE A REVIEW. THE CONTINUED SURVIVAL OF IN NOMINE DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOUR WRITING A REVIEW. IF YOU DO WRITE A REVIEW, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A GOOD REVIEW -- YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HATE WHAT WE DO. Sorry to shout, but I wanted to be absolutely clear that I was not being misunderstood. My first job, and my primary concern, is getting the books to the professional reviewers so that they can review them. However, there just aren't that many game magazines that run substantial numbers of reviews anymore, and the ones that do tend to be the smaller mags that aren't very well-known -- this limits the scope of what I can do. In any case, if there aren't any fans writing reviews for Web sites, the online gaming community may well conclude -- wrongly, as we know -- that there aren't any fans of IN at all. I don't see anything "sleazy" in pointing that out. - -- Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University" andrew@sjgames.com /______\ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:43:35 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Dark Fiction (Re: Love amongst Superiors) At 12:57 PM -0400 6/5/00, Mason Kramer wrote: >> From: Elizabeth McCoy > >> (For those who are curious, BalProp is my Dark Heaven >> work of fiction, and if you want to see it, send me >> private email with a statement that you are over 18. >> I think those who have read it will agree that it's >> Not For Kiddies.) > >I very much agree. It's also not for squeemish adults. (Beth, you're sick as >all get-out. I mean that in the best possible way.) _Thank_ you! It's not often I get to show off my Inner Shedite... Well, not as often as I'd like. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:40:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? At 10:36 AM -0500 6/5/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Andrew Hackard wrote: >You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these requests to >write "reviews" which are pretty blatantly advertisements for the books. Haven't heard those from _me_, I hope. You _did_ notice that I said that flaws should be included, if any are found... And if a bad review happens, well, so be it, and the only thing I sort of solicited was "put in some reference to a book you did like?" (Besides, I like reading reviews. Especially detailed, fair, point out where they are excellent _and_ where they could be better reviews that have had thought put into them. If I didn't, I'd quietly have this little web-page of pre-written reviews of all the books that I'd lovelingly crafted to showcase each book "reviewed." But I don't.) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:53:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Emily Dresner wrote: > On the other hand, there's plenty of _Scripture_ on the topic of > chastity, and I'm sure that is what Laurence follows. I would > assume he believes something along the lines of: > > "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept > pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually > immoral." - Hebrews 13:4 On the other hand, just to complicate matters, Laurence might take seriously Jesus' remark in the following: "That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." - Matthew 22:23-30 So Laurence might conclude that it's wrong for angels to marry. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1659 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.