From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 9 10:40:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA27358 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:40:34 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA29640 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:30:15 -0600 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:30:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199712091630.KAA29640@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 #506 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, December 9 1997 Volume 01 : Number 506 In this digest: Re: IN> Combat, Strength, and Damage Re: IN> Fluff: In Nomine Movie Trailers Re: IN> Fluff: In Nomine Movie Trailers Re: IN> Hellhounds IN> [FLUFF] Songs of HTML Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> Hellhounds Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha) Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha) IN> Superior FLUFF IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance IN> Not such [FLUFF]: Madonna and celestial tampering IN> Creativity IN> Lilith's Word Re: IN> Creativity Re: IN> Not such [FLUFF]: Madonna and celestial tampering Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> Hellhounds Re: IN> Superior FLUFF Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Re: IN> Hellhounds Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Re: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows IN> Origin of "Balseraph" Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance Re: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Re: IN> Origin of "Balseraph" Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 23:14:57 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Combat, Strength, and Damage From: gantr@NKU.EDU >On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > >> Believe it or not, I've had this discussion with the INgods >> already (with reference to VERY strong things like animals). The >> easiest solution I came up with was letting damage be based on >> Power, not Strength. So very large creatures might have a low >> Strength (basic physical ability to use muscles) but have a very >> high Power (to do more damage when they _do_ hit). Fer example >> that elephant might only have a 4 strength (as much as that >> boggles the imagination) but its mighty feet might have a Power >> of +7. > >Maybe combat should be based on Agility then, with the Strength of the >individual being a bonus to the Power of the attack. For instance: Ash >(Strength 12, Agility 8) needs to roll an 8 or lower to hit someone with a >motorcycle. However, he gets an extra +12 damage added to whatever the >Power of a thrown motorcycle is. > >This way, Strength could also be better related to lifting capacity. > >Richard Gant Seems messy. Well, it's all fuzzy anyway. Woah! Flash, okay, what if the "to-hit" were based upon Agility+Fighting and Str 1-4 gave a bonus of 0 to Power, Str of 5-7 gave a bonus of +1, 8-10 gave a bonus of +2, Str 11 gave a bonus of +3 and Str 12 gave a bonus of +4 (I assume that the GM would make it more and more difficult to achieve higher levels of Strength.) 11 and 12 could be lumped into one category giving a bonus of +3 This would mean that Crunchies did no more damage than otherwise, except up along the upper limit of human range, average Celestial would have a bonus of +1, which means that their punches would feel like kicks and their kicks would be powerful. A +2 bonus makes a swing with Short Sword feel like a battle axe in the hands of an angel. A +3 makes a dagger stab do as much as a shot in the gut with a .44, and a +4 is like an M-16. Woah! This certainly fits with my conception of celestial beings as being towers of whup-@ss compared to mortals. As for the Malakh of Fire attunement, I'd give it a bonus along the same lines, replacing Will for Str. That looks really good. To me. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "I saw a monster come with speed, Its face of grimmest green. On human beings it used to feed, Most dreadful to be seen. -Lewis Carroll (from "Horrors"-1850) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:37:32 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: In Nomine Movie Trailers > > >Indeed? In that case, I'll send the next barrage. Mustn't let > > >you sit idle now... ;;;) > > > > ACK! I'm gonna see if I can get you with a Song of HTML someday... > > I am but a lowly servitor, proofreading and editing as my Seraph of > Archives attunement requires. Learning HTML falls outside the > boundaries of my duties. You want more from me, then expand my > capabilities. ;;;) Archangel, I know all three Songs of HTML [OOFluff: bonus points to anyone who can think of what the Ethereal and Celestial might be]. I would be more than willing to help with some of the work, if you'll put in a good word with my boss. Nathaniel Elohim of Lightning in service to Archives "I swear - that far-pointer thing is Vapula's..." Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 23:46:04 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: In Nomine Movie Trailers >Archangel, I know all three Songs of HTML [OOFluff: bonus points to >anyone who can think of what the Ethereal and Celestial might be]. >I would be more than willing to help with some of the work, if you'll >put in a good word with my boss. Celestial: Java? Etheral: Those goddamn frames? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:34:29 -0600 (CST) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Hellhounds On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: [Huge cut of munchkin bait] > I think that it's legal enough, just as is the ability of the GM to > A: say no > or > B: say yes and provide proof in various ways as to why it's bad > for something big and mean and combat effective to have a low Will -- > you can order it around, but so can anyone with... Song of Charm, > various demonic resonances, Fast-Talk, Song of Possession, Kyrio > resonance, various fun attunements (something like that, try > Divine Logic)... Would the Hellhound give off noice in the symphony just for existing? I had origanaly thought it would but on later looks I'm not sure. Cat ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:09:01 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: IN> [FLUFF] Songs of HTML > >Archangel, I know all three Songs of HTML [OOFluff: bonus points > >to anyone who can think of what the Ethereal and Celestial might > >be]. I would be more than willing to help with some of the work, > >if you'll put in a good word with my boss. > > Celestial: Java? > Etheral: Those goddamn frames? Okay, Java I could buy as a seperate song. Frames really don't really warrant a Song of their own. Although making a complex page render the same way in both Expunger and Netscrape would make a good Ethereal... (Am I bitter about extensions? Nah...) Nathaniel Balseraph of Technology Pretender to the Word of Ignoring Standards temujin9@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:44:11 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > > Here's a campaign seed that might be of use. > A bit too dark and apocalyptic for my tastes, but a heck of a good idea nonetheless! > > I was wondering why Michael is so distrustful of Yves. There had to be > a good reason why Michael disliked Yves and a good reason why Heaven > seems to ignore him. (Hey, disbelieving the most powerful Seraph in > the universe when he tells you something seems like a singularly bad > plan to me!) I always kinda liked the idea presented that Dominic was a Balseraph and only Michael and Yves realize it. Michael wants to go public but Yves "knows better" and won't allow it. It explains the mistrust and Mike's quote re:Yves in H&H. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! - -= Windows 95 =- A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:46:14 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Hellhounds On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Shadowcat wrote: > Servants are an inexpensive way to multiply your forces. An idea I had was > for a REALLY POWERFUL servant, the Hellhound. Here's how it works: Servant > rules state that you create the Servant like you would a Character, complete > with Discord, if you want it...so: > > Buy a Familiar. Give it very low Will, so that it will > have a difficult time resisting your orders. Give it an animal Vessel, > usu. a large dog. Then, give it SIX levels of the Bound Discord. This > gives you 18 points to add to the Familiar's combat skills, tracking > skills, whatever...If you want to go really nuts, give it two levels of > Negative Charisma, so it looks really, really mean and scary. Oh yeah. Make a powerful combat monster and give it a really low Will. That's like BEGGING all the Bals and Habbs out there to turn this thing against you... Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! - -= Windows 95 =- A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha) On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 10:03 PM -0500 12/5/97, Pee Kitty wrote: > >no disturbance, taking one combat round to do so. Why the change? > > So -- a Shedite *can* do a quiet body hop, or a noisy one. Okay, I gotcha. Any change of getting a sneak preview of just how the rules are gonna work when they get finalized? I hate dropping changes on my players like that all sudden-like... Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! - -= Windows 95 =- A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 01:00:29 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha > Okay, I gotcha. Any change of getting a sneak preview of just how > the rules are gonna work when they get finalized? I hate dropping > changes on my players like that all sudden-like... If what I have seen of the APG is any guide, they'll probably have to make a Resonance roll at some minus, in addition to the given conditions (takes time, must have contact). Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:31:09 -0700 (MST) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer > answered this question earlier. Frankly, I liked that answer a lot > better...it might have made Shedim a little hard to handle, but the new > ruling makes them practically useless.<<< > I don't think so. It does mean they can't freely hop around between hosts > at will out in the open. It's also got cinematic support, for what that may be worth..(it IS traditional, with a successful exorcism or otherwise convincing of the possessing demon to leave, for there to be some kind of special effect; eg. the people around seeing, if only for a moment, the Shedim going into his Celestial form around his erstwhile host...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:55:09 -0700 (MST) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels > >>>Okay, so I'm having a hard time seeing why he can possess ONE Vessel > owned by his friend, but still can't form one of his own.<<< > Because Kyriotates don't have vessels naturally. David..I KNOW you're a Demon Prince of something I don't think ever got quite determined, but I KNOW that you, of all people, know better than to think that restating the fact does anything to explain it. > needs is a pal with a spare, and he can use that. It's not like it even > inconveniences their pal much, since he just pops back from the Marches and > uses his other one.<<< > With the exception of certain tricks like the Body Bag, a celestial _can't_ > manifest more than one vessel at a time. Again, this seriously doesn't follow if a Kyriotate is possessing a Vessel. When a human is taken over by a Kyrio, their mind bumps off to the Marches for the duration. Humans, almost without exception, not only don't have another body they might go to, but also don't have any particular way of getting out of the Marches on their own.. Celestials, also almost without exception, -DO-. They can skip out of the Marches and to Heaven/Hell, which doesn't require `waking up'...if anything, it's particularly difficult for Celestials TO stay in the Marches, under normal circumstances. {Which, incidentally, is another problem with it; if it works as you're presenting, it's an easy ticket to get a pal into the Marches who apparently -cannot- be bounced out, which is going to get very obnoxious...} So...give me just one logical reason why a Celestial who has a Vessel taken over by a Kyriotate CAN'T just ascend back to Heaven and come back down in their other Vessel? > Bingo. Kyriotates are inherently non-corporeal -- unlike other celestials, > it is not in their nature to anchor themselves to and identify with one > form at a time for an indefinite period. This is true of Shedim also, but > even more so for Kyriotates. Sooo....why are Kyriotates, even less able to anchor to a single Vessel than Shedim, able to anchor to a single Vessel, which Shedim can't? > As for why possessing a vessel is based on the owner's Forces, mostly it's > a game balance thing, but it does make sense. Remember that Forces -- at Yes, I -know- this. None of this is my problem. My problem is with all of this being true (Vessels and humans being different on a quite fundamental level), Kyriotates being able to possess Vessels makes no sense, and causes a whole mess of new holes in both the system and the cosmology. And it PARTICULARLY doesn't make sense with Kyrios being able to do it, despite the fact that it goes all against their basic nature and their mechanics, while Shedim can't, even though it's only even partially difficult with their nature. Bear in mind in this that I'm -not- arguing that Shedim should be able to do it...I just REALLY don't like it for Kyrios. > only because of the affinity their Superior's Word gives them. In other > words, they are still not really forming a vessel, they just get to possess > a certain kind of host permanently. Precisely. Kyrio/Shedim are fundamentally, by their basic nature and the very way they interact with the Symphony, incompatible with Vessels. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:10:25 -0700 (MST) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> An Awful Noise in the Name of the Lord (was Re: Achmetha) > At 8:18 PM -0700 12/5/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: > >> Kyrios specifically say "multiple vessels," and so they are allowed > >> to take over vessels. I think. > > I don't. I'm having a hard time rationalizing why they can > >handle, say, six Vessels owned by their friends, but still can't form ANY > >of their own. > It's their nature. They simply don't have the ability to form them, > without special attunements. Just like Seraphim can fast-talk, but Too easy, and it doesn't answer any of the problems. A Seraph can't lie because their Resonance is for Truth. A Kyriotate's Resonance isn't for Not-Having-A-Vessel. (It IS for multiplicity, and I'll restate that one of my problems with Kyrios taking over Celestials is that, as you note here, most of the time that's going to require them being all in one place.) > >Kyrio can be in at a time is determined by how many Forces it has...and > >Vessels don't -HAVE- intrinsic Forces the way Symphonic creatures (animals > >and humans) do. > No, but to *displace* the current occupant, they have to use all those > Forces. Okay, so you displace them one at a time; logically, if a Kyrio can do it, there's nothing to reasonably say they have to KEEP all their Forces there, because Vessels aren't built like humans that way - it'll be the same Vessel even after its Celestial gains 6 Forces. (Granting Edelstein's note that there is some interaction, the Kyrio logically may have to keep in a number equal to CorpF, so okay...he can take over THREE of his friends Vessels, but still can't have one of his own.) It's one of those things that falls apart from both sides...either they have to stay all in one place, which isn't Kyrio nature, or they don't, and, well, so far I'm happy to note that no one's suggesting that's a -good- way of handling it. And, well, there's still that half dozen or so other holes that letting Kyrios take over Vessels creates, but I don't want to list 'em all again. Glargh. I don't like it. I just hope it gets a rethink or three before the APG comes out - Kyrios and Shedim have enough internal conflicts as it is. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:35:02 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Superior FLUFF >>>So what HAPPENS when a Shedite Superior decides to have fun in the Waking World?<<< Spice Girls go platinum. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:35:04 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance >>>I never thought about it that way, but it does make you wonder. After all, a Seraph can't even lie to _himself_, so Michael must have good reason for distrusting Yves.<<< Always being truthful doesn't mean you're always right.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:35:01 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Not such [FLUFF]: Madonna and celestial tampering >>>Actually my GM made them soilders, I would rather not have them involved at all. I was just ranting about WOD messy histroy. For example, in WOD canon Rapstuin (the Mad Monk) is a vampire. Havving so many historical figures as supernatural just makes it seem less realtistic and more like a comic book or a Robert Anton Williams novel. Not that RAW's writting is bad, just the opposite but to often the designers and GM's writting is poor.<<< Well, as far as that goes, judge In Nomine by the "official" universe, not by what individual GMs may do with it. Certainly some GMs may succumb to WOD syndrome, but I don't think we have. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:34:59 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Creativity >>>>>Okay, here's the point of my post. Why does everyone have to be involved with the celestials? Every single celebrity seems to be a soldier. I like the idea that Hitler and Mother Theresa never saw a damn angel in their life, just did their uniquely human thing. Why does Dylan have to be a soldier for Eli?<<< As far as I know, in "official" In Nomine, Hitler and Mother Theresa were acting totally of their own free will (though celestials certainly took advantage of their actions and the people who were inspired by them). >>>And another thing: I think Gary Larson and Bill Waterson retiring would cheese off Nybbas to no end. He'd want them to be like Charles Schultz(peanuts), losing their creativity and still cranking out product. Instead, they went out on top, telling other cartoonists that their art(and it is art) matters more than their money.<<<< GMTA. :) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 02:55:08 -0500 From: "bruce dykes" Subject: IN> Lilith's Word > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:12:46 -0500 > From: Elizabeth McCoy > Subject: Re: IN> Strange Question--A little long(winded?) :) > > > > Which *implies* that if God or the Seraphim Council wanted to, they > could invest J. Random Human Soul with a divine Word (unless it's > only the qualitative/"broken" nature of infernal Words that allowed > Lucifer to give Freedom to Lilith). Operating from the example of Sorry for the late interjection, but I've been kind of busy as of late. Em, did you see my Note on Divine/Infernal Wording? My take is that Infernal Words are simply the imposition of Will (with varying degrees of success) on the Symphony, while Divine Words are *Resonances* with specific parts of the Symphony (not exactly canon, I know, but it works better), while the final hearing by the Council is a formal confirmation and vesting of the resonance. Lucifer can certainly impose Freedom the Word on Lilith, and that will be only as effective as he can impose his Will on the Symphony (which is not insignificant). While most demons are too disconnected from the Symphony to resonate in any fashion with any part of it, Lilith *is* unique, and it's certainly likely that she's connected enough with the Symphony to resonate the Word of Freedom as well... Bruce Impudite Captain of Cross-Licensing bdykes@intac.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:08:47 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> Creativity On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >I thought Alien 4 was great. Beautiful, interesting, so much better > >than Alien 3. Besides, after seeing Starship Troopers, any halfway > >decent sci-fi looks great. > > Being better than Alien 3 isn't that big a leap. I believe the English phrase is "Damning with faint praise." cd - -- cd skogsberg | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se Starving Freshthing at Chalmers University, Dept. of Computer Science and Technology ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Not such [FLUFF]: Madonna and celestial tampering > >YOU made Dylan and Hitler and half the presidents Soldiers in your game. If > >you don't like it, why make so many pivotal figures celestial pawns? > Actually my GM made them soilders, I would rather not have them involved at > all. I was just ranting about WOD messy histroy. For example, in WOD > canon Rapstuin (the Mad Monk) is a vampire. No he's not. He's a Shadow Lord werewolf, or maybe a Cult of Ecstacy Mage. Or all of them at once. (Rasputin has been described as belonging to every major supernatural group in the WOD, bar Changelings. The most recent and credible is that he is a ghost.) Personally, I'd be more worried about the likes of Himmler and Aleister Crowley being Vampires. Token on-topic bid. Given that in two weeks we've had two occasions where people were confused by people referring to campaigns they were playing, rather than those they were GMing, as their campaigns, should we come up with some sort of accepted terminology for this? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:10:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows > > > >Back to the Shedim. So, anyone notice that Dominic has a striking > > >resemblance to a Balseraph? > > > > > Or maybe Malphas has been possessing the poor old man, hm? }:-{D > > > But Shedites can't possess Celestials! It says it right there in the rules! :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:25:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance About that Greatest Destiny ~= Worst Fate thing. How does this work, exactly? In what circumstances do you envision such a thing being true? I'm just curious, not being deliberately nasty. > Yves is Falling. The Archangel of Destiny has been privy to God's > plans for so long that he has come to believe that any of his plans > must also be God's plans, and acts out of pride. And the angels of > the Host accept Yves's words as God's, and thus sin against Him, and > lead mankind to the Pit. Hmm...I had a Habbalah of Fate who had a version of this story, except that Yves was being deliberately malicious and that Kronos was the only person who had any hope of forestalling his mad plans. Does anyone have any opinions on how someone like that would react to this adventure seed should they learn the truth about it. How would it fit into her world-view? Would she assume that Yves was turning to the true path, or that Kronos was being treacherous? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:30:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance > Start an IN campaign just like any other, with the PCs being mainly > angels (demon's woudn't experience the real "shock value" of SF/SC). Have Demons who don't serve Kronos would just laugh, actually. And throw parties. And rush to be the first to get convincing evidence to hand to their Superiors in the hope of being rewarded as the bearers of glad tidings (at least they will if they have any ambition). And then if you're really cruel you can reveal it all to be a fake cooked up by Michael and Yves many centuries ago as part of a gambit that was Destined to win the War. (And maybe Michael is Falling under the Dissonance provoked by being deceitful for so long. And it was all part of Yves' plan to do this. And Dominic is a Balseraph. And every paranoid looney theory everyone's Habbalah have come up with is true.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:44:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Hellhounds > > Buy a Familiar. Give it very low Will, so that it will > > have a difficult time resisting your orders. Give it an animal Vessel, > > usu. a large dog. Then, give it SIX levels of the Bound Discord. This > > gives you 18 points to add to the Familiar's combat skills, tracking > > skills, whatever...If you want to go really nuts, give it two levels of > > Negative Charisma, so it looks really, really mean and scary. > > Oh yeah. Make a powerful combat monster and give it a really low Will. > That's like BEGGING all the Bals and Habbs out there to turn this thing > against you... > That was my first thought. And then I realised something. You can make the dog very angry at its master, but as soon as it moves to attack the master says "Stop" and it stops. (Unless the GM's decided it's ripped the master's throat out with its attack. How stupid were we saying this familiar was again?) Maybe the check digit of the resonance roll should be added to its Will roll to resist in these circumstances. But you can't fight against a Habbalah with that, or anyone with Celestial Entropy/Song of Thunder. And there are more mundane problems, like why hasn't the damn thing been impounded by the police as a threat to society? That's how I see Balseraphs taking it out, to be honest (they hardly need a resonance roll for that either). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:32:47 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Superior FLUFF On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>So what HAPPENS when a Shedite Superior decides to have fun in the > Waking World?<<< > > Spice Girls go platinum. I'm inclined to think that the Spice Girls have more to do with Kobal than Malphas. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:53:33 -0500 (EST) From: Ozmodeus Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows According to Kevin Walsh: > > > >Back to the Shedim. So, anyone notice that Dominic has a striking > > > >resemblance to a Balseraph? > > > > > > > Or maybe Malphas has been possessing the poor old man, hm? }:-{D > > > > > > But Shedites can't possess Celestials! It says it right there in the > rules! :) He's a Demon Prince. He could be: a) breaking the rules or b) using a really high level of the song of possession - which he's almost certain to have as a DP.... With some of the wacky stuff tiptoeing through this list, I wouldn't be surprised to find a Superior doing ANYTHING in a game I played. Laurence flouncing through a battlefield in a tutu (while laying about him left and right) as Kobal drops giant ACME anvils on people comes to mind.... Dan Ozdowski - will really f@ck with his players minds one day by running a game right out of the book - "That can't be David, it LOOKS like David and he behaves like the AA of Stone. David indeed...." - -- You had that "I'm not necessarily telling the truth" look on your face.... Emily Franklin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:01:56 -0500 From: johnk@lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Hellhounds On Dec 9, 1:55am, Shadowcat wrote: > Subject: IN> Hellhounds > I found this on WEB-RPG and my first responce was "This ain't legel." Can > I get a second opinion on this? Servants are NPCs and should be created as such. Also low-Will servants are just begging to be taken over by a Kyrio and used to mangle you from surprise! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:14:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows > According to Kevin Walsh: > > > > Or maybe Malphas has been possessing the poor old man, hm? }:-{D > > > > > But Shedites can't possess Celestials! It says it right there in the > > rules! :) > > He's a Demon Prince. He could be: > > a) breaking the rules > or > b) using a really high level of the song of possession - which > he's almost certain to have as a DP.... > I included the smiley for no other reason than to show that I wasn't assuming that Malphas can't possess Celestials. After all, saying that Shedites can't possess Celestials doesn't count, in my opinion, as much of a joke. YMMV, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:16:35 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows Emily writes: "Back to the Shedim. So, anyone notice that Dominic has a striking resemblance to a Balseraph?" Speaking of the bal/seraphim...isn't it strange that all six eyes face front the way they do, and in the typical predator pairs? I'd think they'd circle the head like a crown (or a halo) as to see the truth from all sides... yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:32:31 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Origin of "Balseraph" Does anyone know where the name "balseraph" came from? From looking at it, I'm fairly sure it is a combination of "baal" and "seraph," but what was the source? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:36:55 +0000 From: "David Chart" Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance - --On Mon, Dec 8, 1997 5:00 pm +0000 "Neel Krishnaswami" wrote: > > Here's a campaign seed that might be of use. > Wow. That is really very good indeed. However, I am opposed to having my Superior Fall. So... Michael is the Archangel of War. Not *the* War, but close. He might be mightiest of the Seraphim, but he is also very, very wordbound. (Also, is it just me, or is the picture very reminiscent of Highlander from the series? I digress.) Michael's resonance is for Truth, and for War. He knows the Truth about War. He knows that the angels are going to lose if things continue as they are. The Archangel of War cannot believe that this is God's Will. Neither, come to that, could any of the other Superiors. Except Yves. Yves knows that Heaven must lose the War, that otherwise the universe will never reach its Destiny. When Heaven loses, it won't involve the destruction of the earth. No, most of the Superiors will Fall. Michael will go soon, Laurence's obsession with the Catholic Church will help *him* along, and so on. Dominic is so close that Yves can taste it. Of course, most of the Host will also Fall. Not all of it, true, but the overwhelming majority. However, the Soldiers of God will not. They will continue fighting, and, with a little help from the few remaining angels, they can redeem the demons. All of them. Unless Heaven Falls, however, the older demons, and especially Lucifer, will never Redeem. They must cease to see their Fallen state as a virtue, and they cannot do that while they need it to contrast themselves to the unfallen Host. Yves plans for everyone to Redeem. Eventually. A few sidelights: Uriel was recalled because the Angel of Purity would not Fall. He had to be taken out of circulation somehow, and that was it. Eli deserted in an attempt to start training some angels to pay less attention to their Superiors, after he found out about the destiny. He reckons it'll be more comfortable sliding slowly into Hell's grasp. (Yves thinks that Eli will be the last Superior to Fall, because at the moment he is trying to Fall because that is God's will. It doesn't work.) And Janus is the first success of the new policy. This would, obviously, work best in a Soldiers campaign, where the Soldiers find themselves fighting to redeem their erstwhile Superiors. It could also work for a group of Angels who find themselves among the Remnant, dodging demons all over the place while fighting the uphill struggle. And there remains the possibility that Yves will fail. David Chart Seraph of Destiny ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>I never thought about it that way, but it does make you wonder. After > all, a Seraph can't even lie to _himself_, so Michael must have good reason > for distrusting Yves.<<< > > Always being truthful doesn't mean you're always right....> Well, true. What I trying to say (poorly) is that he must have some good reason, at least from his own point of view. Whatever the reason is, it must be true as far as it goes. Michael, being a Seraph, would know if the reasons he distrusts Yves are true. He wouldn't know if he has all the information, though. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:55:05 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 IQJason@aol.com wrote: > "Back to the Shedim. So, anyone notice that Dominic has a striking > resemblance to a Balseraph?" > > Speaking of the bal/seraphim...isn't it strange that all six eyes face front > the way they do, and in the typical predator pairs? I'd think they'd circle > the head like a crown (or a halo) as to see the truth from all sides... I'm more interested in knowing why they look like 6-eyed winged snakes. All the other choirs look pretty much the way they are described in traditional angel lore, but the Seraphim just came out of nowhere. I haven't been able to find a description of them as winged snakes anywhere but In Nomine; everywhere else they are described as 6-winged humanoids. What gives? Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:08:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Red Dwarf/"Intellectual" shows gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > I'm more interested in knowing why they look like 6-eyed winged > snakes. ... I haven't been able to find a description of them as > winged snakes anywhere but In Nomine; everywhere else they are > described as 6-winged humanoids. The multiple eyes are probably bleed-over from the descriptions given of the Four Living Creatures who appear attending the Throne of God in Revelation and in some of the visions of Ezekiel. Their anatomies are different in the two books, but in both there are lots of eyes around. Ditto the multiple wings. Seraphim appear in the Bible only once, in a vision of Isaiah's, where they are described as having six wings (and FEET, which rather rules out snakes). The Four Living Creatures have four wings each in Ezekiel, six in Revelation. The connection to snakes comes from the fact that a word *like* "seraph" appears in the Bible, in Exodus for one place, where it means "serpent." So angel dictionaries often mention this, though very little art before IN actually depicted seraphs as snakes. Another word that sounds like "seraph" means "prince," which may be likelier. I expect Derek chose the serpentine shape to (1) assist in the horror potential of IN, and (2) help make seraphim seem less human, since IN does describe them as the most divine and least human choir. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:11:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jamie Wilmoth Subject: Re: IN> Origin of "Balseraph" Mousie bets that the fine folks at our favorite game company combined the two terms themselves; I've never heard of any outside source that classifies demons in the same way angels often are. Bal Seraph= Bad Seraph. Mouse, Que Seraph Seraph ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:23:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Campaign Seed: Second Fall/Second Chance David Chart wrote: > Yves plans for everyone to Redeem. Eventually. It might interest some list members to know that this idea has been knocking around Christian theology for almost as long as there has BEEN Christian theology. (Of course, it has never been *orthodox*, but, hey...) The first exponent I know of was the early Christian scholar Origen (185-254, pronounced "origin" almost). He was widely respected by many Church scholars, condemned by others, because his theological speculations were often kinda wild -- largely because he speculated long before much theology had been formalized. One of his ideas was that all souls, human and angelic, were forever free of will and consequently would fall and redeem over and over, indefinitely, with no final state. More recently, there is the doctrine of Universalism, which was the central tenent of the Universalist Church, which later merged with the Unitarians. This is that all will be saved, period, even the devils. George MacDonald, a favorite author of and seminal influence on C. S. Lewis, was a universalist, though not a member of the church of that name. One of his fantasy novels, "Lilith," concerns the eventual redemption of Lilith and, in a hint, ultimately of Satan. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #506 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.