From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Mar 17 16:43:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA05715; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:33:06 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA03386 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:35:35 -0600 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:35:35 -0600 Message-Id: <199703172035.OAA03386@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 #75 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, March 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 075 In this digest: IN> Anime Fluff (Re: IN> Religion) IN> A Lesson we need? IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! Re: IN> Random questions. Re: IN> Demon Prince Suggestion... Re: IN> Remnant restoration Re: IN> New Archangel. (Long) Part 1 Re: IN> A Tiny Problem Re: IN> Angel of Music Re: IN> Character Archive ? Re: IN> Redemption of Undead Re: IN> Re: Magic Re: IN> The Marches Canon(?) Re: IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! Re: IN>Roles?? Re: IN> hello Re: IN> Ponderables Re: IN> Secret Bible Re: IN> Safe Houses Re: IN> Fae Lands Re: IN> Totems and Angels Sophia (Re: IN> [THEO] OT and the Jews) Re: IN> Anime Re: IN> Anime Re: IN> Character Archive ? Re: IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! Re: IN> hello IN> Astaroth: quote ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:09:26 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> Anime >I also had a thought one time fo doing an IN game based in Japanese >folklore and theology; probably Shinto for the most part. Maybe call it >'In Anime'. :) Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that In Nomine's epic feel makes it perfect to be run Anime-style? Most Anime RPGs that are out there are bound up with either mecha or comedy, but In Nomine has the potential to be something different, while still maintaining that Anime feel. Larger-tan-life characters, with their own faults and fiobles, but a good conception of Good and Evil. I'm filled with images of cute, wide-eyed Mercurians (and Impudites and Lilim), large, burly Malakites, and an Elohim with his/her hair sweepoing over one eye... -Loki (and if you want Mecha, one word: Jean) - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:18:35 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fluff (Re: IN> Religion) At 8:40 AM -0500 3/16/97, John Maurer wrote: > >Judeism is a wonderfully living and organic religion. It >allows for lots of diferent interpretations. A jew once said the jewish >idea of heaven is to be able to argue the meaning of the torah with God. Dear stars... Playtesting/rules-interpreting a religious text with its Creator. I *like* that... Just think, a whole wing of Yves' Library set aside for those who might otherwise be called "rules-lawyers"! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:22:07 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: IN> A Lesson we need? Here is a little note that I got directly sent to me. I've edited it, leaving out the irrelevant compliments to me, and the even more irrelevant poster's identity. > Way cool post on totems. I am not posting this back to the list, cause it > is going to cause some waves. I am a bit surprised at the heat that issues > on this list are raising. I feel like saying "It's only a game." This is by FAR not the only message of this type I've received. However, the subtext of this message bothered me to such an extent that I became deeply disturbed, and I felt I needed to do something about this. Now, I know that I've posted some 'out-there, envelope-pushing' stuff in the past, but what bothers me is that some poor people are so afraid of public disagreement, heated argument over NON-issues, and other immature,flame-oriented, 'acting-out' behaviour that they are reluctant to even say something like..."I like this/I'll use this/keep up the good work." Now, some people would be tempted to say, "If he/she can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I've got every right to react however I want, whenever I want, and nobody can stop me." You may be right. However, just because you have a right to knee-jerk reactions doesn't mean that they become more appropriate. If we all act honourably, perhaps we can gain the respect and trust of the 'lurkers' out there. When we act dishonourably, without forethought, caring, or mindfullness, we lose the trust and respect of those potential friends out there. In more 'mercenary' terms, we lose the valuable input of potential creators, posters, and editors who are too afraid to put their ideas up on the list. I seem to remember that quite a few of our greatest artists and writers were typical 'shy-type' personalities. What if we've got In Nomine's version of Van Gogh 'lurking', simply too afraid to post their ideas to the list? Why do we need to preface our ideas with, 'Don't Laugh'? Well, maybe I'm having a knee-jerk reaction to all of these 'hidden posts'. I don't think so... but I've been wrong before... Therefore, to all the 'lurkers' and 'shadow-posters' out there, I'd like to say ... I'm sorry. I'm sorry you don't get to participate fully. I'm sorry that you feel uncomfortable. I'm sorry that this is the sort of atmosphere _we've_ generated (note: If all things are interrelated, then I'm involved in creating the atmosphere, too!) Even if this is a misperception on all of your parts, the misperception must be based on SOME sort of anomalous criteria... As well, to EVERY person who posts to this list, who puts an idea of theirs up for public scrutiny, who posts even the smallest message, idea, or question, I'd like to say THANK YOU!!!! We never seem to show our appreciation enough. I'd like you all to know that I have collected EVERY SINGLE rules-supplement/idea since I joined the list. I think EVERYBODY who has posted has had something good to say. I also think that some of _US_ (note:... I'm in here, too!) may have given the lurkers the wrong impression. Perhaps it isn't our fault. Perhaps they've got the wrong idea. Perhaps we've acted justly and honourably, and have nothing to feel guilty about. I don't think so, though. So... Thanks to everybody for their hard work in the face of adversity, and under the shadow of undue public ridicule. Buy yourselves a coffee on me, today. I appreciate everything you've done. I've gained a new appreciation for the wherewithall you people show when you put your head into the noose every time you put an 'out-there' idea up for discussion. I just wish it didn't have to be so adversarial... Rob Wolff (who maybe some day will be a Bodhi...) NO SIG FILE TODAY... instead, a thank you to all the people who've worked so hard on this list. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:22:35 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! > Astaroth > Demon of Ignorance > Balseraph > Well tell me what you think, this is my first attempt at such things, so > please phrase any and all comments in the form of constructive crticism. > I hope you like him, i think he would make a good side character in any > campaign... > > Brian Emord Well, Brian, I'd like to thank you for all the work you put into this. Effort like this is NOT to be laughed at. He'll _definitely_ go into my binder. If you have more ideas, keep them coming!! Walk in Beauty, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com Nicholas Copernicus, Master Astronomer Stood up and Shouted, addressing the throng, "Abandon poor Ptolomy, Stand up and follow me, Heliocentrically, Ptolomy's Wrong!!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:50:19 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Random questions. On Mar 13, 2:06pm, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Random questions. > If there is, theoretically, any way at all of restoring a > remnant, wouldn't angels and Archangels sometimes attempt > it? Simply out of charity and mercy? It seems to me that > the angels of In Nomine are in danger of turning into little > more than secret agents with an amusing set of superpowers > and eccentric bosses, unless they sometimes just haul off > and Do Good because it's the right thing to do and thus actually > act angelic. This may sound a bit cold, but the angels-- ALL of them-- are in a war with the Ultimate Enemy. There are many, many drains on an Archangel's time and Essence. If the energy could be better spent in some other part of the war, it _will_ be spent there. And if the cost is high enough an archangel might simply refuse to allow any of his/her servitors from helping the unfortunate. Also, it is very likely that the Remnant is viewed as a failure. Why spend all that effort on a failure? It's sort of like a Celestial Triage. Some angels get better from wounds without care. Some angels need help, but will be fine afterwards. And some aren't worth the time. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:52:15 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Demon Prince Suggestion... > > I liked the idea of the Archangel of Patience, and thought that she worked > very well as a superior, but as to a Demon Prince of Procrastination? I > think that would be even funnier if he was no more than a Word-Bound Demon > (which is powerful enough), and in conjunction with his Word, he can just > never seem to reach Princedom...thought? He'd probably be a former servitor to the (now-destroyed) Demon Prince of Sloth. That's the problem with a lot of Demonic Words... they can work against you sometimes! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:56:55 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Remnant restoration On Mar 14, 9:45am, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > Subject: IN> Remnant restoration > God forbid it from ever happening, but imagine someone you love in a bad > accident. They loose a good portion of the cerebellum. They walk around > like a zombie, a mere shadow of what they once were, hardly able to remember > you from one moment to the next, let alone from the long history you two have. > > That is what a Remnant is like to a celestial. > > Now, imagine (as in Flowers for Algernon), a treatment that grows new > cerebellum. Your loved one starts to become alert, active, and intelligent > again. BUT... they don't grow back to their old self, they develop a new > personality from the new blank slate they have. There may be a few haunting > reminders of the old life, but now they are a new person looking at > everything fresh. > > This is what a Remnant who regains Forces (however that happens) back up > to Forces/9 is like. > > Now, I hope you all see why restoring a Remnant is problematic, at best, > for a celestial. Good point! Also, as Moriah implies, everyone should remember that Remnants only have _five_ forces. To get up to the trusted servitor level, they need _nine_. Four forces ain't nothing to sneeze at! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:58:26 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel. (Long) Part 1 On Mar 14, 9:56am, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel. (Long) Part 1 > I like the description of Charon very much. Only I don't see > much purpose to his being the second Angel of Death and the > vanishment of Azrael. If it were up to me, I'd let him be > the first and only, named "Azrael," and only slightly younger than > Yves and Eli. > > (There's a practice called "syncretism," whereby people from one > religion identify figures in another religion with figures in > their own. The commonest example is the match-up between Greek > and Roman gods, where Zeus = Jupiter, Aphrodite = Venus, and so > on. Anyone wanting to play the syncretism game with angels could > readily cast Eli (creation), Yves (destiny), and Azrael/Charon (death) > as Bramha (creator), Vishnu (sustainer), and Shiva (destroyer and > renewer) of Hinduism, or Clotho (spinner), Lachesis (measurer), > and Atropos (cutter), the three Fates of Greek mythology -- who > have clear matches with the three Norns of Norse myth.) I thought the Hatian Voodoo/Christian mix was a lot more fun! Heh. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:05:14 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> A Tiny Problem On Mar 14, 3:33pm, Derek Patton Pearcy wrote: > Subject: IN> A Tiny Problem > Here's a bit of text I wrote a few years ago, back when we were going to be > discussing the subject in the core rules. I've been fairly busy, and > admittedly haven't been paying as much attention to the list as I used to, > but I thought you'd all get a kick out of this. > > Derek > > -------- [Cute story snipped...] What? Have I been channeling you, Derek? ;) BTW, did you get a copy of that proposed article? Any suggestions? (If ya have time that is... believe I Understand about time!) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:07:26 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Angel of Music On Mar 15, 8:07am, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Angel of Music > Hatcher Rhanyr wrote: > > > > Right now one of my pet projects is adapting the Realm of Faery for use > > with In Nomine. If anyone would like to help me on this project feel > > free to send your thoughts and ideas to me. > > Also I was thinking about the musical Phantom of the Opera and recalled > > on of the songs being "Angel of Music" I thought that maybe this would > > be an interesting individual so here's my thoughts.Would he/she be an > > Archangel or a Word-Bound Celestial? Also as far as things go how would > > he/she fit in the grand scheme of things. Just a few thoughts for > > everyone to ponder. > > Interesting question. I like the idea of Archangels getting the > really _major_ Words, like Destiny or War. Music seems like a possible > subset of Art, so perhaps it's too small for an Archangel. That seems a > shame, though, since )in my opinion) music is the most important artform > in the world - heck, one of the most important _things_ in the world. > God, I wish I could sing or play an instrument. Don't forget there are angels and then there are Angels. >From the least powerful to the most, there is a continuum of angels that stops at (and possibly even slightly exceeds) the weakest of archangels. An Angel of Music can be extrodinarily influential and powerful without being an Archangel. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:08:19 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Character Archive ? On Mar 14, 4:53pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Character Archive ? > At 8:09 AM -0600 3/14/97, Donald G Bixler wrote: > >> I am searching a archive, where I can > >> find all posted characters and superiors. > >> Because the in every other part marvelous > >> INC did not provide any of them. > > > > I'm planning on doing that with my web page. (Hopefully next > >week, Spring Break here) > > And I'm working on something like that of my own... Heck, I'll just > ask right now -- is it okay with people if I put up pages with > the various Superiors and other folk who have been posted to the > list? > > [Whoever wants to see what little pathetic bits I've got can follow > the links in my .sig...] Heh. Fine with me, though I may edit slightly. You did an _awfully_ impressive job with the GURPS stuff. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:09:47 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Redemption of Undead On Mar 14, 2:26pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Subject: IN> Redemption of Undead > Is this possible? (We were talking to someone who was thinking of > a Renegade Vampire.) > > Our take was that it might get the person unbound to the corporeal > vessel -- i.e., loosing the soul to go wherever the soul deserves to > go (Heaven, if the redemption was successful)... So while it would > be a roleplaying challenge to atone for past evils, success would > kind of toast the character... It might make for an interesting character who _knew_ that their forces could never be unbound, yet still chose to work for the Good. Tragic? Yes, of course. But a _great_ roleplaying opportunity! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:12:15 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Magic On Mar 14, 2:33pm, Raven wrote: > Subject: IN> Re: Magic > I've been reading people's various comments about magic and human > magicians, and I've decided that, with songs, we don't really /need/ a > new system for magic. In my campaign, I allowed one of my players to make > a sorceror character as an unaligned soldier (6 Forces, doesn't work for > either side). I also had an idea for non-corporeal songs, allowing some > characters to buy Ethereal songs at 2 pts. per level, and Celestial songs > at 3 pts. per level. (He only bought 1 Eth. song, so it's no big deal.) > The circumstances under which a human may be able to learn these songs is > up to the GM, as I see it. > > As for rituals, just make generous use of the 'extra time' rule. It has _tenatively_ been decided that spells are just what humans call Songs. They are just ways to influence the Symphony directly. This is not to say they will all be the SAME Songs, just that they will _probably_ use the same mechanics. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:23:10 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> The Marches Canon(?) On Mar 14, 8:25pm, Robert Barrett wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> The Marches Canon(?) > Oopsie. Well, I guess everyone else saw that message as soon as Moriah > did. :) Forgot that this list defaults all replies to the list itself and > not to the original posters. > > In any event, there you have it, my take on the Faeries in IN NOMINE. I'm > not sure how badly I've just screwed up my publication rights or my > chances at a PYRAMID article--sigh. > > Information does want to be free, doesn't it? :) You posted it, so that part's yours. Anything you can show authorship of between now and whenever can probably be easily proven to be yours. You've rather informally published your outline, I must say, but that doesn't mean you _lost_ it! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:23:50 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Emord Subject: Re: IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Bodhi wrote: > > Astaroth > > Demon of Ignorance > > Balseraph > > Well, Brian, I'd like to thank you for all the work you put into this. > Effort like this is NOT to be laughed at. He'll _definitely_ go into > my binder. > > If you have more ideas, keep them coming!! > Well I wasn't sure how this would be accepted, so I was a little hesitant to post, but I have been thinking about it since the first of the Archangel posts... Thank you for the compliments, and thanks for the inspirational message that preceded this, I think it will inspire more semi-lurkers like myself to venture out here to give ideas... I would just like to ask anyone if they have any other comments about Astaroth and how he relates to the system??? Again, Thanks in Advance... Brian Calabim of Belial Whose word is Rioting ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:25:44 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN>Roles?? On Mar 15, 2:43am, Thomas Davidson wrote: > Subject: IN>Roles?? > I am very new to the list/digest, so forgive me if the question has > already been answered... > > There seems to be two versions of the cost of a Role. > > p. 43, 4th paragraph under "Roles": "multiply status by level, and divide > the result by two. So, for instance, a Status 4 Role, at Level 6, costs > 12 points." > > p. 72, very first paragraph: "All roles cost 2 character points per > Resource level, plus 2 points per level (above Level 1) for the > appropriate Status (p.43)." [Stuff snipped!] An explanation is in the FAQ, repeated here for general enlightenment... (sorry about the html tags)

How do humans buy Roles? The rules on p. 72 seem to be wrong.

They are indeed inconsistent; please use the following (some repeated from p. 43):
Humans don't buy a Role. They can buy levels of Status/x at the cost of [(Status - 1) * 2] with the first level of Status being automatically added for free. In other words, each level of Status beyond the free one costs two points.
The cost of a Role for Celestials is the [(Role's Status * Role's Level) / 2], rounded up if necessary. The cost for an Celestial is exactly as stated on p. 43. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:27:00 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> hello On Mar 15, 10:35am, Neil Goldman wrote: > Subject: IN> hello > well I've been on the list for awile but I never bothered to write a > message so now I am hello everyone. Silence is a virtue that is oft-neglected in these busy times. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:34:23 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Ponderables > What do we have established so far? The Grigori mated with humans, > producing both the monstrous Nephallim and the human+ (read: > human plus) Children of Grigori. Some official SJG guy (Moriah?) posted a > theory on celestial-human interbreeding in which the offspring are born > either as enhanced humans, or as 'chrysalids', a normal human body housing a > developing celestial soul. That was me in a _proposed_ In Nomine article. The Seraphim Council is still looking at it... ;) > Now it seems pretty clear (to me at least) the Nephallim weren't just > human+'s, which leaves the other option that they were chrysalids. And in > the IN playtest, they are treated as a fully-capable band of demons. So, > it seems to me that the Nephallim could actually be Fallen Grigori, or at > least the chrysalid stage of such. The whole mess happened pretty early > is the Choir's history, as I understand it, so maybe no Grigori had > Fallen before then, but the Nephallim wound up Falling even before they > 'hatched'. Not only that, but it was the first time celestials had bred > with humans, so no one on either side really knew what to make of the > situation. My take was that the Nephallim were the _demonic_ celestials produced from the crossbreeding. There may have been non-demonic crosses as well (plus the human+ children, of course). - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:38:27 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Secret Bible On Mar 16, 7:15pm, Raven wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Secret Bible > On 16 Mar 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > > > Sorry to rant on about my pet peeve of how there is/was a conspiracy to > > suppress 'secret' parts of the Bible. :) > > Whoah whoah whoah there... I never said anything about any conspiracy. I > put in that last paranthetical comment so that my statement wouldn't be > interpreted as a cospiracy theory. > > Sorry if I wasn't semantically precise there; true, if it was left out > then it never was part of the Bible, and so describing it as 'a part of > the bible that was cut' is inaccurate. Oh well. I was just pointing it > out as another example of why the Oxford Study Bible is so nifty. You > just don't get to see those other parts much, and even if they weren't > 'official', there's still some interesting stuff in them. > > > However, it does make a good adventure seed; in fact, it was used in "The > > Prophecy" -- a must see movie for all IN NOMINE fans. > > I agree. Much more useful a video-sourcebook than a movie. :) Plot was > bretty bare, but the ideas about the nature of angels rocked. And Satan > had some of the BEST lines... Though we loved the movie, the fourth or fifth time we saw it, we did the MST3K bit with some of it. My favorite line was when the woman was traumatized after meeting lucifer. "I met the devil tonight" Pause. "He likes flowers." ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:04:32 -0600 (CST) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Safe Houses On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Very cool idea. I started a bit dubious, but your arguments convinced > me. I like the 'safe house' concept, because I like the idea of not > having every angel/devil meeting end in a fight. > The only problem for me is that you rarely have bars or coffeeshops in > a museum! I mean, if you're going to talk with someone on the other > side of the Big Fence, you want to do it over a Guiness or a espresso. You haven't been to Chicago have you? I can't think of one Museum/Art Galery/Zoo/etc. in town that doesn't have one. Then there is Millwaukee, where even the malls have pubs 8-) Shadowcat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:19:25 -0600 (CST) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Fae Lands On 16 Mar 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > THE MARCHES will most certainly deal with the creatures of myth and legend > (those who've survived the Purge). I'm sure many of you will be happy to > know that -- so far (no promises at this stage) -- some of the old Celtic > pantheon is still around with maybe an Ethereal Tether intact to some magic > rings in Northern Europe. > > Again, no promises -- we never know what will have to be cut in the end. > But things that do get cut often make their way to Pyramid articles. I ask no promise, but please please please, try and keep them in the book. I have some players who would love to see this. And I have to admit I am chomping at the bit for this data. Caitscath (Gaelic Shadowcat) "Faigheann an cat cead amharc ar ri is ni fhagheann an ri cead e a chaitheamh" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Totems and Angels At 6:27 PM +0000 3/16/97, Bodhi wrote: >__Totemism and Shamanism__ I like the Concept and Choir selections, though it's perhaps a slight pity that you didn't manage to fit the Choir-animals with Choir. But Dog is much better as a Cherub, and Eagle as a Seraph, so I won't kick. They're Concept-Bound anyway, and follow slightly different rules. (Though *how* they managed to get concept-bound when they're usually hanging around with other critters...) [...] >____________________________________ > >Well, there it is. It is not for everybody, but it provides a nice >way to move shamanism and totemism into the sphere of In Nomine. >Thus, all "wise-men" and "medicine men" are truly HOLY, as they are >all merely passing on the lessons learned through their ultimate >benifactor Jordi. I like this. I severely love the "all aspects of Truth" stuff that one can do with In Nomine. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:51:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Sophia (Re: IN> [THEO] OT and the Jews) At 1:50 AM -0500 3/17/97, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: [...] >>They also had great reverence for "Sophia" the >>goddess of wisdom who was the only real rival to "YHVH". > > Ack! Sophia was not a goddess, but a manifestation of Yahweh's wisdom, >personified as female. Why *did* she drop out of modern views? I mean, we've got the "Father, Son, and Ghost" trinity -- why is a female Wisdom left out in the cold? And, ObNomine, should there be an Archangel Sophia of Wisdom? (Or would that just be Yves' female vessel?) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:59:13 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Anime At 11:09 AM -0500 3/17/97, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: >>I also had a thought one time fo doing an IN game based in Japanese >>folklore and theology; probably Shinto for the most part. Maybe call it >>'In Anime'. :) [...] >I'm filled with images of cute, wide-eyed Mercurians (and Impudites and >Lilim), Nah, most of us'd be the tall, willowy ones with the long, half-lidded eyes -- like B-Ko on the cutest end, or any number of the stylish villianesses with the great wardrobes... Or some of the good gals, like Rune Venus... >large, burly Malakites, and an Elohim with his/her hair sweepoing >over one eye... I love it... Ofanites with ruffled hair nearly into a mohawk crest... Hey, does this mean that Cutey Honey is a Mercurian or a Malakite? > -Loki (and if you want Mecha, one word: Jean) Three words: "...and Vapula." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:10:39 -0600 (CST) From: Thany Subject: Re: IN> Anime On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > I'm filled with images of cute, wide-eyed Mercurians (and Impudites and > Lilim), large, burly Malakites, and an Elohim with his/her hair sweepoing > over one eye... This would only really happen if you got people from the "Saturday Morning Cartoon" lot. I can't give you a real example, I don't watch as much as I want to... > -Loki (and if you want Mecha, one word: Jean) Vapula as Boomers! I'm getting a bit carried away, though. - -- "FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC" - _Guards! Guards!_, Terry Pratchett Disclaimer: I babble. A lot. If you don't understand something I said, don't worry, I probably don't, either. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:22:48 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Character Archive ? At 12:08 PM -0500 3/17/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >On Mar 14, 4:53pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> And I'm working on something like that of my own... Heck, I'll just >> ask right now -- is it okay with people if I put up pages with >> the various Superiors and other folk who have been posted to the >> list? >> >> [Whoever wants to see what little pathetic bits I've got can follow >> the links in my .sig...] > > Heh. Fine with me, though I may edit slightly. Well, if you want to submit an *edited* version of something... Sooner is easier on me than later, BTW -- if it's not up yet, I don't have to worry about "what changed"... (Or if you put it up on your page, I could just put in a link, and then *you* could maintain it in the style to which it will become accustomed...) > You did an _awfully_ impressive job with the GURPS stuff. Thank you. My motto: "You have GURPS characters; prepare to be assimilated." I'll try to do the same with the In Nomie stuff. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:21:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Astaroth, HARDLY laughable!! At 11:23 AM -0600 3/17/97, Brian Emord wrote: >On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Bodhi wrote: >> > Astaroth >> > Demon of Ignorance >> > Balseraph > [...] >I would just like to ask anyone if they have any other comments about >Astaroth and how he relates to the system??? >Again, Thanks in Advance... Sounds like someone my ArchLilim of Knowledge (well, nominally, if you take that option) would be at serious odds with. I *like* it. Can I put him up on my web-pages, please, please? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:25:38 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> hello At 12:27 PM -0500 3/17/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >On Mar 15, 10:35am, Neil Goldman wrote: >> Subject: IN> hello >> well I've been on the list for awile but I never bothered to write a >> message so now I am hello everyone. > > Silence is a virtue that is oft-neglected in these busy >times. ;) The Elohite Angel of Silence Knowing when to speak and when to listen is a facet of some of the greatest wisdom. A Servitor of Patience, the Angel of Silence encourages quiet thought, contemplation, and listening to others. The Angel of Silence is rarely heard from, but is very busy, as "actions speak louder than words." He/she also has Move Silently/6 or higher. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:31:37 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Emord Subject: IN> Astaroth: quote I forgot to include a quote for him, how's this: Knowledge is truly a powerful weapon, without which you cannot fight the War. Sound good??? comments? Thanks again in Advance...:) Brian Emord Calabim of Belial Whose Word is Rioting - --* BEGIN GEEKCODE BLOCK *-- GCS/E d(+)>++ s+:+ a? C+++(++++)$ UBLAHS++$ P+++$ L++ E W++ N o K++ w O++ M-->--- V-- PS(++) PE(+)(-) Y+ PGP- t+@ 5+@ X R+(+++)* tv b++>+++ DI+++$ D G++ e(*)>++++ h+(*) r++>+++ y+ - --* END GEEKCODE BLOCK *-- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #75 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.