From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jul 20 21:29:37 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 VAA22636 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:29:36 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id VAA30976 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:27:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:27:54 -0500 Message-Id: <200007210227.VAA30976@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 #1725 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 Thursday, July 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1725 In this digest: Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) Re: IN> Dead Superiors Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) IN> You love me! You really. . .(Was Trailer 1) IN> Servitors and obeying orders IN> Blandine's attuned Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Dead Superiors Re: IN> Dead Superiors Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) Fwd: Re: IN> Dead Superiors IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question Re: IN> Remanants and Words and Ressurection Re: IN> Kronos/Tethers/Hell Re: IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) IN> Cherub of Stone Attunement Re: IN> In your dreams ... Re: IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question Honey, I Blew Up the Bethlehem (Was: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:15:56 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) Charles Phipps wrote: > > This is an odd question but if a Malakim started losing faith in his > superior would he turn back into a Cherub, Seraphim, etc in sort of a > reverse from what happened during the fall? (Assuming he somehow avoided his > fellows killing him). Nope. Once a Malakite always a Malakite. > After the War is over will the Malakim cease to exist? Honor and Purity will still exist, so Malakim will probably be around. And, honestly, wouldn't Heaven have been in much better shape before and during the first rebellion if the Malakim had already existed? Best to keep 'em... > Also is it possible for a person to still be so fanatical that they do > become Malakim or is this a one time Fall thing (and could it be repeated in > Corporeal times with a sufficently weird enough event). One time event. Of course, relievers fledge as Malakim all the time. > Plus is it possible over time that other angels have undergone the > transformation into other choirs by adopting some other aspect of the > Symphony? Nope. As always, your particular campaign can break canon any way you wish it to. Have fun! - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:16:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Campbell Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors OOOOH! I'd buy it, even if I didn't run any. Angelic/Demonic forensics, the distinctions between the detectively and scholarly approaches, Hardboiled Private Dick scenario (be still my thumping heart) the possibilities are endless as to what you could cram in a book like that. Only making one and not, like, 4 would be the problem! Jennifer - --- Walter Milliken wrote: > >Wouldn't it be cool to have a book with some (say > 5) completely unrelated scenarios whose only common > factor is that they are all mysteries/investigations > .. PLUS a few pages to discuss the problems and > issues of running that sort of game for IN and lots > of advice for novice GMs... ===== "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - -William Clayton ICQ UIN: 14514495 AIM: Pepper2540 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:57:42 EDT From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... >There's just one twist that I would personally add, >if it actually happens. Since Michael and David are >going to be personally involved in this (I believe >your phrasing was "in the thick of things"), I might >have them run into Beleth. >And she crushes them. Soundly defeating both of >them, if not destroying one or maybe even both. Amusing thought, but realistically, if Beleth was that powerful, then Dave and Mike would never have _dared_ to try butting into Blandine's turf. After all, B & B fight each other to a standstill every single night... :) Besides, David couldn't attack Beleth even if he wanted to. "Not suffering an evil to live" doesn't quite cover "destroying a helpless Cherub mind-raped into believing that she's a Princess"*... ;) Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Your Kung Fu Is Weak, *Of _course_ that's so non-canonical that the heresy trial starts tomorrow. Funny to think about, though. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:20:00 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) >From: Walter Milliken >> >Not from any formal survey, certainly, but comic campaigns (as opposed to >occasional comic episodes) seem to be in a distinct minority on this list. > I suspect that the list may be atypical in this respect, purely from the two or three people I know off-list who have run IN, and from the way people talk about it on uk.games.roleplay. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Campbell Subject: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) You know. . .If anybody actually does get the wild hair to write Choirbooks or Bandbooks for the net, could I volunteer to write some of the vignettes? Hintingly yours, Jenni - --- Whistling in the Dark wrote: > At 11:26 AM -0700 7/20/00, sw@haven.eyrie.org wrote: > >On the other hand, even if SJG never wanted to > publish such a beastie, > >I bet it would make a groovy Net.Book. > > I'm a big proponent of Net.Books. I think we should > do lots of them. ===== "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - -William Clayton ICQ UIN: 14514495 AIM: Pepper2540 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:28:22 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... >From: Maurice Lane > >From: Samovar3@aol.com >Subject: Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... > > >There's just one twist that I would personally add, > >if it actually happens. Since Michael and David are > >going to be personally involved in this (I believe > >your phrasing was "in the thick of things"), I might > >have them run into Beleth. > I suspect that if Michael & David started disturbing the dreams of humanity in force, Blandine would call on Laurence to help her throw them out of the Marches -- which would be an interesting juxtaposition on his escapades with the crusade. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:36:41 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) At 15:27 -0400 7/20/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >This is an odd question but if a Malakim started losing faith in his >superior would he turn back into a Cherub, Seraphim, etc in sort of a >reverse from what happened during the fall? (Assuming he somehow avoided his >fellows killing him). I doubt it. I suspect some have gone through this (possibly Eli's). >After the War is over will the Malakim cease to exist? Interesting question. Up to God, I suppose. >Also is it possible for a person to still be so fanatical that they do >become Malakim Not in canon -- it was a one-time thing. All subsequent Malakim have either been created as such, or fledged that way. > (and could it be repeated in >Corporeal times with a sufficently weird enough event). In theory, God could do it (since He did it before, presumably), and it's therefore possible as an Intervention, I suppose. But it's never happened in canon history, I believe. >Plus is it possible over time that other angels have undergone the >transformation into other choirs by adopting some other aspect of the >Symphony? Not in canon, no. In fact, I think that sort of change may be on the "can't do that" list for Superiors in the GMG, too. >(For instance the Menumine might have once been relievers who decided that >they wanted to be different than the other choirs Relievers are unfledged, and can presumably turn into anything. They don't yet have a fixed nature. > or a seraph who begins >acting almost exactly like the heart of the Mercurians and indeed embraces >their message more than his own choir?) No -- celestials are inflexible; this is just one of the ways that crops up. Essentially, they're like different species -- their Forces are coded to be one thing, and not another. The only difference is that they differentiate as they grow up (fledge) from a common "larval stage" as relievers. Note that imps and gremlins are partially-differentiated, though, since each can only become certain Bands, and they're mutually exclusive. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Campbell Subject: IN> You love me! You really. . .(Was Trailer 1) Thanks, guys! And I wrote another two in the waiting room at the doctor's and waiting for the tutor. I can't stop. It's a full fledged obsession now. But I appreciate the kind words. I'm glad I made you giggle or guffaw or whatever big manly men like you do when you're amused. . . Jenni - --- Whistling in the Dark wrote: > At 3:52 PM -0400 7/20/00, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 7/20/00 9:57:32 AM, > pisces_blue@yahoo.com writes: > > > > >In Nomine - The Agony and The Ecstasy > >> > >I'd just like to point out that this was really > fun. Thank you. > > Agreed there. > -- > Eric Alfred Burns - > > Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ===== "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - -William Clayton ICQ UIN: 14514495 AIM: Pepper2540 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:36:48 GMT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Servitors and obeying orders In the course of a discussion on Malakim required to work with demons, Walter Milliken observed: >Note, however, that a Stony Malakite isn't required (by a >>dissonance >>condition, anyway) that he obey orders.... Well, *no* Servitors are required to obey orders by a dissonance condition except Laurence's. (Dominic's? My books are at home.) But in theory they all want to, at least most of the time, or they'd either switch Superiors or Fall. More to the point, Malakim can be permitted to do otherwise dissonant things (like letting demons live) if ordered to do so by someone who has a right to order them, including but not limited to Superiors. In Superiors 1, this is expanded to *any* Servitor of Michael (not just Malakim) who is ordered to withdraw from battle. And Michael gives standing orders to his Servitors to retreat promptly if they encounter a Demon Prince. So obviously a rightfully given, and obeyed, order has an effect on the Symphony since it prevents dissonance where it would otherwise be inflicted. I think this is because in the individual instance it removes the "choice" aspect that makes angels dissonant when they *voluntarily* go against their nature. It's the wrong choosing -- the stuff that goes on inside an angel's head -- that produces dissonance. (And I have never felt right about the fact that according to canon, Ofanim can Fall without having any choice whatever.) Janet Anderson ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:46:00 GMT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Blandine's attuned >>Janet Janet Janet. You're brilliant. Thank you very much. >>It never really hit me before (maybe I need to reread the Blandine >>description in Sup3 again). But Blandine *is* a Cherub. So... we're >>discussing someone attacking her attuned, since it seems likely her >>entire *side* of the Vale is her attuned... Much though I hate to disagree with you after such flattering words, I don't think so, because: 1) Michael and company are not attacking either the Vale or Blandine's Servitors, but Beleth's demons. 2) If attacking Blandine's Servitors *were* the equivalent of attacking a Cherub's Attuned, Blandine would be much more active about fighting Beleth's Servitors, and would probably not object much to all the help she could get. 3) I don't think Blandine is attuned to her side of the Vale the way your average Cherub could be attuned to a specific person or church or hospital. Her "attuned" is the Word of Dreams, and therefore she is aware of its welfare and protects it. If anything, the Michael/David project will strengthen her Word by weakening Beleth's. Janet Anderson ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:54:37 -0700 (PDT) From: sw@haven.eyrie.org Subject: Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) They'd be a dandy way to collate existing net.stuff into one handy batch, and coax out new stuff. One convenient way to do this would be (instead of running drafts through the list, and possibly clogging it) to use "blogger", at www.blogger.com. It's essentially a convenient widget for posting messages on the web in instant format, and can support plenty of people using any given "blog" at once (I won't explain how it works, here, but suffice to say it does). This would allow people who don't have web access to just throw stuff out (and even go back and edit it when it's done) or post links to bits that they've edited locally, or post messages about what ought to be worked on... and the complete stuff could be accessed at any given time by anyone with a browser. All you'd need is someone to start the things up and handle coordinating passwords and explaining how to use it and such; thus avoiding the choke point of a single editor up until the very end when someone has to turn it all into a coherent bundle. And you could give anyone who even considered writing a password to edit, so they could just throw things in whenever the inspiration struck. Well, you'd also need people *writing* stuff, but that's another matter. Did any of that make any sense? Gah. Six o'clock. Need more caffeine. Wurgh. Anyway, since the person who mentioned blogger to me for stuff like that was Eric, I think *he* should do it. - --JT > You know. . .If anybody actually does get the wild > hair to write Choirbooks or Bandbooks for the net, > could I volunteer to write some of the vignettes? > > Hintingly yours, > > Jenni > --- Whistling in the Dark > wrote: > > At 11:26 AM -0700 7/20/00, sw@haven.eyrie.org wrote: > > > >On the other hand, even if SJG never wanted to > > publish such a beastie, > > >I bet it would make a groovy Net.Book. > > > > I'm a big proponent of Net.Books. I think we should > > do lots of them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:00:36 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) Walter Milliken wrote: > Not from any formal survey, certainly, but comic campaigns (as opposed to > occasional comic episodes) seem to be in a distinct minority on this list. In what way do you think this list necessarily represents the majority of IN players (or potential IN players)? I think one of the biggest mistakes that's been made is repeatedly equating the IN list with the IN customer base. > Or are you saying that people might still buy a lot of comic adventures > even though most people run "serious" campaigns. I'm saying that all of the satirical humor that was present in the original rulebook has pretty much been bleached out of the line. And I think that Derek Pearcy's tongue-in-cheek attitude was a lot of what originally attracted people to IN. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:10:27 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Thirty seconds over the Vale... At 9:28 PM +0000 7/20/00, Jo Hart wrote: >I suspect that if Michael & David started disturbing the dreams of >humanity in force, Blandine would call on Laurence to help her throw >them out of the Marches -- which would be an interesting >juxtaposition on his escapades with the crusade. Which could dovetail nicely with the Laurence/Blandine Courtly Love theory... "Back off, Laurence. I beat you before." "I didn't have a good reason to fight that time, Michael. Yield." - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:09:15 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) At 2:25 PM -0700 7/20/00, Jennifer Campbell wrote: >You know. . .If anybody actually does get the wild >hair to write Choirbooks or Bandbooks for the net, >could I volunteer to write some of the vignettes? I don't see why not... All right, so clearly we need just four things to do an effective Net.Book. 1) A topic. 2) An editor/collator. 3) Committed folks to write. 4) A place to put it. I have the latter, as does the INC and probably half the list. So, it's points one through three we need to address. With one probably at the top of the list. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:11:47 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) At 2:54 PM -0700 7/20/00, sw@haven.eyrie.org wrote: >Anyway, since the person who mentioned blogger to me >for stuff like that was Eric, I think *he* should do >it. Damn your green skin! - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:12:49 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) At 5:00 PM -0500 7/20/00, David Edelstein wrote: > >I'm saying that all of the satirical humor that was present in the >original rulebook has pretty much been bleached out of the line. And I >think that Derek Pearcy's tongue-in-cheek attitude was a lot of what >originally attracted people to IN. Or at least attracted you. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:35:41 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors At 11:46 AM -0600 7/20/00, ben wrote: >See, Superiors I, I prolly would not buy if I were merely a player. It's >kind of a GM book, since the GM plays the Superiors. Oh, but there's a _lot_ more player-oriented data in those now! > But "Liber Seraphim", >"The Complete Impudite", or "Everything You Never Wanted To Know About >Djinn" would get snatched up in a heartbeat. This is the Need the APG was _supposed- to fill... - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:35:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors At 4:23 PM -0400 7/20/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >[...] Obviously everyone's favorite 3-4 Superiors >can't be in a single volume, so the two obvious organizations are: a) >alphabetical (boooring!) or b) some kind of common theme. And some of >the themes are a bit of a reach... Superiors 4 is an example of that. >It's a knapsack-packing problem with no really good answers, unfortunately. >Elizabeth went through a half-dozen different organizational concepts, as >I recall, and this was the one that seemed most coherent. Actually, this one only worked out with two "stretch" books. The rest of the SUperiors fit tight and sensibly (for someone's taste in sensible) the way I've gotem. i figurednot bad -- all otherws wound up with a pair of "grabbags" that i copuldn't think of a theme for at -all-. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:28:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Campbell Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) I dunno. I liked sodas and backrubs and thrown crockery. In that same vein, I wrote for an online game "If you gave Haagenti a cookie" and made it a distinction with attunements and the whole bit. I'll post it with the slew of stuff you'll get tomorrow. I think one of the ways the Celestials don't go nuts (Poor Gabe. . .) is humor. It is for all my C's anyways. Love, Jenni - --- Whistling in the Dark wrote: > At 5:00 PM -0500 7/20/00, David Edelstein wrote: > > > > >I'm saying that all of the satirical humor that was > present in the > >original rulebook has pretty much been bleached out > of the line. And I > >think that Derek Pearcy's tongue-in-cheek attitude > was a lot of what > >originally attracted people to IN. > > Or at least attracted you. > -- > Eric Alfred Burns - > > Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ===== "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - -William Clayton ICQ UIN: 14514495 AIM: Pepper2540 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:48:46 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) In a message dated 7/20/00 3:03:02 PM, amadan@amadan.org writes: >I'm saying that all of the satirical humor that was present in the >original rulebook has pretty much been bleached out of the line. And I >think that Derek Pearcy's tongue-in-cheek attitude was a lot of what >originally attracted people to IN. > >-David > I'll confess that *I* play IN for laughs about 75% of the time... For instance, the pair of 7-force Gamesters that my players most recently went up against were a Djinn and a Calabite. The Djinn was small, weasel-faced, and spoke with a whiny Brooklyn accent. The Calabite was huge, broken-nosed, and spoke in a dim-witted Bronx. Now add to this a Bright Lilim of Creation, a reliever IST Gusto (Thanks to the Oops material...), a Kyriotate of Jean, and a pair of Mercurians, one of Destiny (bucking for the Word Understanding), and one of Archives (Hi, Beth! - looking for the Word of Narnians). Not to mention a 0 Ethereal forces Archangel of Knowledge, the skull of Philip of Macedon, joints rolled by Creation himself, and Dominique getting tipsy.... All in all, I *like* comedy. You just need the right players. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:57:02 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) From: > > In a message dated 7/20/00 3:03:02 PM, amadan@amadan.org writes: > > >I'm saying that all of the satirical humor that was present in the > >original rulebook has pretty much been bleached out of the line. And I > >think that Derek Pearcy's tongue-in-cheek attitude was a lot of what > >originally attracted people to IN. > > > I'll confess that *I* play IN for laughs about 75% of the time... And I don't think it would have been possible to run what my group still refers to as the "Nuke the Baby Jesus" adventure without the attitude Pearcy brought to the material... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:02:17 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Transformation (was a fun little thought) At 5:15 PM -0400 7/20/00, John Karakash wrote: >Charles Phipps wrote: >> After the War is over will the Malakim cease to exist? > > Honor and Purity will still exist, so Malakim will >probably be around. And, honestly, wouldn't Heaven have been >in much better shape before and during the first rebellion if >the Malakim had already existed? Best to keep 'em... Though note that _probably_. If you cap a campaign with the _real_ Armegeddon, and there is a decisive "all demons kaput" result, it might be cool to have a Divine SWOOSH and have all the Malakim standing around as other Choirs now... But I'd call that something for GMs. >> Also is it possible for a person to still be so fanatical that they do >> become Malakim or is this a one time Fall thing (and could it be repeated in >> Corporeal times with a sufficently weird enough event). > > One time event. Of course, relievers fledge as Malakim all >the time. Ayup. There was, in the "IN Sliders" universe, a "Purity Heaven" where angels could still change over to Malakite if they wanted -- totally non-canon, but an intersting look at how it might work. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:07:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Net Books (Was Re: IN> Dead Superiors) At 2:54 PM -0700 7/20/00, sw@haven.eyrie.org wrote: >They'd be a dandy way to collate existing net.stuff >into one handy batch, and coax out new stuff. > >One convenient way to do this would be (instead of >running drafts through the list, and possibly clogging >it) [...] ...And being killed by the Djinn List Admin, with many snide and angry comments... >Anyway, since the person who mentioned blogger to me >for stuff like that was Eric, I think *he* should do >it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:21:45 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> Dead Superiors Remember, s-u-b-s-c-r-i-b-e to in_nomine_posters-l if you have multiple addresses! >From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:09:42 -0500 >To: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Non-member submission from ["John J. Maurer, Esq." ] > >From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." >Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:05:30 -0400 > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Edelstein >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Date: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:04 PM >Subject: Re: IN> Dead Superiors > > >>Jo Hart wrote: >>> So I don't see that a successful game must have all those things. >> >> >>Y'all should make a distinction between successful _games_ and >>successful game _lines_. By many standards, Amber Diceless RPG could be >>considered a highly successful game, since it still has a huge following >>-- even though there were only two books ever published, and those years >>and years ago. > >But David, Rebma is going to be out any day now, right? > >Speaks > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:37:55 +0800 (PST) From: "Angelo Bautista (Wyrm Puff)" Subject: IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question Can anyone out there on the list help me translate the phrase "We who are destined to die" into Latin? The help would be very much appreciated. - -- Angelo Bautista (Wyrm Puff) =========================================================================== Wyrm Puff's Lair http://www.geocities.com/wyrm_puff/ A.E.G.I.S. Web Page http://aegis.web.ph/ =========================================================================== "ALEA IACTA EST" - Julius Caesar ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:07:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Remanants and Words and Ressurection At 4:01 PM -0400 7/18/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >B:) When he dies (be it auto-accident or the like) the basic summation of >the idea is that he will either cease to exist utterly or go where his >destiny or fate may lead him (Yves after all said everyone had a destiny and >fate) in this situation. Technically, he will cease to exist utterly, just as an undead would. His soul is destroyed, and therefore his "fate" and "destiny" effectively meaningless. All good Destiny Servitors should spare a moment to mourn, while all proper Fate Servitors should spare a moment to curse and spit. >In the latter case it would mean that a Remanant who has Forces grafted onto >him will become whatever the angel/demon that creates him makes him but it >has to be the type matching his soul. "Repairing" Remnants is done so rarely that I'd rather keep CDaU on whether he has to be what he was before (or the Fallen/redeemed version of same) or if a Superior could make him something new. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:07:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kronos/Tethers/Hell At 4:16 PM -0400 7/18/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >3:) Some event other than the intial caused it: Always possible. Also: 4) It's ineffable. O:> >4:) Tethers form to words that are even unclaimed: Corruption (Beezlebub) >might have dozens of tethers but when he, Legion, and the rest were off they >had to be divided up but corruption tethers might still be forming. Generally not. >5:) Superiors can spend essence to create tethers on areas that are >infamous... No, see the GMG and Liber Castellorum -- no celestial (save perhaps God) can _create_ a Tether. Even Lucifer can only manage the _conditions_ that could quickly _lead_ to one if not thwarted. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:57:37 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question Unless my memory fails me, it translates as "Moriturite." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angelo Bautista (Wyrm Puff)" > Can anyone out there on the list help me translate the phrase "We who > are destined to die" into Latin? The help would be very much appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:06:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Gant Subject: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors) On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Prodigal wrote: > And I don't think it would have been possible to run what my group still > refers to as the "Nuke the Baby Jesus" adventure without the attitude Pearcy > brought to the material... Could you elaborate? Please? Pretty please? Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4656/ The Returners Final Fantasy Role-Playing Game Site: http://returners.simplenet.com/ or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Matrix/5758/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:44:08 GMT From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Cherub of Stone Attunement Suppose you were a Cherub of Stone who had a Role as a construction worker, and you spent a lot of time many, many feet in the air balancing on steel beams. If for some reason you fell off, could you invoke your Attunement to draw some free-swinging girder, scaffolding chain, hook, crane, etc. to you and save yourself? Could you use it to draw *yourself* to the nearest beam? And lastly, can you use the Attunement to (adversely) affect machinery such as computers, compasses, and electronic devices? Janet Anderson (As you may have guessed, I've decided on a Cherub of Stone rather than a Malakite of Stone for my new character.) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:03:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> In your dreams ... Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:10:01 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> In your dreams ... At 4:31 PM +0000 7/20/00, Janet Anderson wrote: >>An infuriated Cherub is not a good thing. >I love it.Oo. >Janet Janet Janet. You're brilliant. >It never really hit me before (maybe I need to reread >the Blandine description in Sup3 again). But Blandine >*is* a Cherub. So... we're discussing someone >attacking her attuned, since it seems likely her >entire *side* of the Vale is her attuned... Yup. You know, that gives me a thought... How does Heaven/Hell know, precisely, that there's actually a battle going on in the Vale? Consider: The battle in the Vale is very much a closed shop. The demons and angels there spend virtually all of their time in the ethereal plane, fighting each other and herding dreamscapes. They're the only ones who know the terrain: everybody else is advised to get a guide if they want to play tourist. Now, both Blandine and Beleth's crew tend to be very, very close-knit. This usually translates to "highly suspicious of anybody who isn't getting the same kind of sh*t shoveled on them". Both sides are stuck with a duty that nobody else quite understands or really appreciates, overworked and responsible for regulating titanic forces that often seem impervious to control. Now, sensible entities might soon decide that, if there's (bleep)-all they can do to change the stalemate anyway, there's no real reason to just ... take a step back. You control this side, I'll control that one. You need to drag a specific person's dreamscape over the line, call me first and we'll make the arrangements. You'll owe me one. Certain people stay off limits, of course (Soldiers would be a good example here, on both sides: otherwise, they'd all go mad with sleep deprivation in short order). Visiting Servitors from other Words could be easily diverted with a special-effects show that only the ethereal plane can put on. Stalemate continues, everybody stays alive, and the Servitors can get a freaking good night's sleep for a change. Now, bear in mind that I'm not saying that Beleth and Blandine cooked this up between them a couple of eons ago, and have been snickering at how everyone thinks that their mortal enemies (when, in reality, they spend alternate weekends at each other's place), but one does wonder. If this is too cynical and unangelic for your tastes, well, a limited version of this would work as well. Maybe, once a year (or decade, or century), the whole shebang closes down for a week and everybody just lets the damn dreamscapes go where they will. B & B wouldn't have to actually formally _know_ about this, but they might have a suspicion. Big scandal if it comes out, especially if their respective peers start wondering just why Blandine or Beleth isn't returning their calls...* Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Come On, It Has A Respectable Pedigree. Every Bloody Saturday Morning Cartoon Show Has At Least One "Enemies Jointly Blow The Cr*p Out Of A Common Threat" Show. *Insert Tsadayim (one hopes that one doesn't need to explain why) to taste, mix and let simmer. Serves 4 to 6 PCs. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:22:18 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> [slightly off-topic] Latin question In a message dated 7/20/00 5:58:29 PM, prodigal@ticnet.com writes: >Unless my memory fails me, it translates as "Moriturite." > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Angelo Bautista (Wyrm Puff)" > > > >> Can anyone out there on the list help me translate the phrase "We >who > >> are destined to die" into Latin? The help would be very much appreciated. > > Morituribus is 'we who are about to die' or 'we who are dead.' As in 'Ave Caesar, te morituribus salutant!' -- 'Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute thee!' the traditional gladiators' salute to the Emperor. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:27:05 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Honey, I Blew Up the Bethlehem (Was: Re: IN> Adventures in In Nomine (was Re: Dead Superiors)) From: "Richard Gant" > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Prodigal wrote: > > > And I don't think it would have been possible to run what my group still > > refers to as the "Nuke the Baby Jesus" adventure without the attitude Pearcy > > brought to the material... > > Could you elaborate? > > Please? > > Pretty please? My GM decided to commemerate Christmas by tossing us headfirst into the following adventure: Yves' Library has, among other things, a working time-travel device. One of his servitors steals it just before Falling, and then turns it over to Belial. Belial then gives his new servitor a small nuclear device, and sends it and a small group of other Fire servitors back to destroy the city of Jerusalem just before Jesus is born. This tilts the balance in favor of Hell. Cut to the present, when only five beings in all of reality are aware of Hell's victory not actually being the way things are meant to be: A Malakite of the Sword IST Protection (my character,) a Free Lilim, a human Soldier, an Ofanite whose Superior I can't recall, and Yves. Yves takes the only remaining copy of the time-travel device (being a good Librarian, he always keeps two copies,) and gives it to the three PCs, along with directions on its use and a stern reminder to the Malakite that he needs to leave the Free alive, as she is needed to complete the task of setting time to rights. During the course of the adventure, the Malakite made good use of his Scabbard attunement in dispatching a variety of imps and demonlings, the Free racked up Geases on the Soldier and Ofanite while the Malakite was not around (I kept hoping that her player would give my Malakite the excuse he needed to stomp her, but never got my wish,) and the Soldier wound up disarming the nuke before it could go off. That being done, the Malakite used Scabbard to put the bomb where it couldn't harm anybody (it was about the size of a football, so hey,) and then guarded Joseph and Mary until she could give birth. Once that was done, teh group vanished, then reappeared in 1960s Paris. At this point, all we had to do was figure out how to stop Yves' servitor from stealing the first time machine. So after a great deal of dithering on all our parts, my Malakite went to the nearest library and burned off all his remaining essence in a (thankfully successful) attempt to summon Yves. He explained what had happened, then turned over the time-travel device and the nuke to Yves, who then promised not to tell anybody about what happened and returned everybody back to the restored present. The *really* fun part of this for me was that I had established that my Malakite was created in 1967, so he wound up being responsible for his own creation. :::) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1725 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.