From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Mar 23 02:37:34 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 CAA01834; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:37:14 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA14054 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:40:17 -0600 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:40:17 -0600 Message-Id: <199703230840.CAA14054@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 #87 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 Sunday, March 23 1997 Volume 01 : Number 087 In this digest: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions Re: IN> Yet another inspiration thought!!!! Re: IN> Angelic Font IN> re: St. Brigid Re:IN>Magick (WARNING LOTS OF OPINONS and LONG) IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #84 Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions Re:IN>Magick (WARNING LOTS OF OPINONS and LONG) Re: IN>Magick Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces Re: IN> The Nature of the Marches Re: IN> Which Bible? Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions Re: IN> re: St. Brigid IN> Remnants IN> Which Bible? IN> Remnants Re: IN>Magick Re: IN>In Nomine: Rules Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:25:53 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions At 4:14 PM -0800 3/21/97, Raven wrote: >On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> I would use the Impudite restriction on "no more forces than you >> possess yourself," but probably let a Shedite try... And if a >> ridden angel wanders into a Tether and goes celestial... > >One word: Ow. I identify with Lilim; they hate the Fleshless. They'd probably think the Shedite deserved as much... (First treatment for suspected possession. Go to nearest Divine Tether. If he won't go, knock him out and have a celestial Malakim squad waiting nearby...) >> Hmmm.... Yes. On the other hand, the dissonance, if it were >> realized to have been partly instigated by a Shedite, might be >> easier to get rid of. Maybe. If you can put right what you >> messed up while Under The Influence. > >This seems really bad to me. Think about it: If a Shedite can possess an >angel's vessel, and can then make the angel do things that cause him >dissonance, then the Shedite can /force/ an angel to fall! Good point. Don't want that. But it shouldn't be a walk in the park for the angel, either -- Shedim aren't just taking over, they're explaining why it's such a "Good Idea" to do such evil, selfish things. That's gotta get your soul all icky... Perhaps, like some attunement or other, a Shedim can't manage to do that one final bit of dissonant behavior that would result in a fall, or even in being Outcast? But just makes life rough for the angel in question? >[...] Once he's been freed, he'll >know what was up; both by sensing the Shedite as it departs (entering >celestial form and the resulting noise at /point blank range/), and by >the fact that, despite the lies he told, the time he wasted, or the >fights he picked, he has gained no dissonance from it. Or at least certainly not as much as could have happened -- perhaps a note of it, for not being of strong enough will to resist? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:53:53 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions At 6:55 PM -0800 3/21/97, Clinton Wolf wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy writes: > > >>The rest *is* more convoluted (you want to play a Shedite? One of >>those icky Fleshless? Or are you just working on baddies for the >>PCs to chase?), > > Aww, they're not that icky... just ask my buddy Brian here... Brian, > are Shedites icky? > > "Shedites? What are you tal- *urk* NO... SHE-DITES ARE CUTE... AND > CUDDLY... TRUST... THE SHEDITES... NOW EXCUSE ME I MUST GO TAKE MILK > MONEY FROM SCHOOLCHILDREN..." Remind me to avoid this Brian guy.... And hang around with the Claws attunement. You'd be surprised what Favors you can get out of schoolkids; though sometimes you have to wait for them to grow up and invent a software company. > That Brian, what a card! See? Shedim aren't that bad... The angels > and Lilim and Djinn, well, they're just jealous... We Lilim prefer people with the skin *on*, that's all... >Raven wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >>>[...] And if a >>> ridden angel wanders into a Tether and goes celestial... >> >>One word: Ow. >> > Hm, there's actually no hard and fast rules for what happens to demons who > try to go to hell or that would convert to Celestial form in a tether (after > approaching it in a vessel), just that they "can't"... No, but net-rep people think that it's gotta be mondo icky if a Shedim is somehow tricked into "infiltrating" the tether, and then has the host knocked out for the requisite 30 minutes... It generally doesn't kill them, but they take damage and get ejected, I think Karakesh and Moriah decided... (I sense a FAQ entry...) >now in the first place, any Shedite with half a brain isn't going to >let an angel walk into the tether and/or go celestial... This is why you have them come along and knock them out when they resist. You can't be too careful when the Fleshless are around. [Shedite is in control, Will rolls *only* when the Shedite tries to get the host to do something "evil" so until a] >system revision is later published that allows for hosts to make >contests to actually take actions on their own rather than just >trying to hang onto their morality until the Shedite goes away. Good point. I'd been thinking that it was a sort of "both ways" kind of thing, where whoever was in control depended on what was going on, but you're right. I might give angels a few extra rolls, though -- don't want Shedim getting cocky, and angels are usually low-Will and high-Perception. I don't want to think of a Will-12 Shedite trying for a poor lil' Will-5 angel. Owchies! It ought to be harder than that to take over an angel -- though not impossible. [On seeing a Shedite leave a host, at point-blank range] >K's and S's operate under special rules for perception of their >celestial forms leaving a body (p. 53) which looks like a perception >roll with a target number of the K's or S's celestial forces +2, so >your average fleshless would only be perceived on a 5 or less even >by the body it was leaving... It's Perception +Shedite's Celestial Forces+2 . Perception: "when a being in celestial form is within "sight," let each possible viewer make a perception roll" + Shedite's CelForces: "make a perception roll plus the spiritual being's Celestial Forces." +2: "Give a +2 to see a celestial form leaving a *mortal host*." So the dead-average angel who's around, with a Perception 6, will spot the average Shedite on an 11. And if the Angel is Perception 7 or the Shedite has 4 celestial forces, that's automatic -- for any angel in the area! And that's if you *don't* take the Leaving Host to be a case of "Leaving the Corporeal Plane" (p. 55), which would be an additional disturbance equal to the Shedite's total Forces! >Speaking of Forces, has anyone considered the point that the "Average >Human" can't possibly be average? With 5 forces to distribute it means >at least one category is going to have only 1 force allocated, [etc] Usually Celestial, from what I've been able to gather. Yeah, it was mildly bemusing to me as well that "average" wasn't an even number -- 4 or 6. I guess that "average" is supposed to include some variety beyond the standard GURPS 10, 10, 10, 10? I think that the rationale is a mix of both -- "average" can include some low stats here and there, and that the low stats will usually be Celestial. Humans have low Wills and Perceptions. This is why they generally don't see Shedim moving out of hosts, and why they're so pathetically easy for Kyrios and Shedim to possess. And why they fall prey to even Geas/1's and Geas/2's. At 8:04 PM -0800 3/21/97, Raven wrote: >On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Clinton Wolf wrote: > >>remember the Shedite is in charge even though >>it lets the host think it is... > >The comments I was replying to seemed to suggest the possibility of the >Shedite trying to possess an angel with (unknown to him) more forces than >he has. The guy's idea was that the Shedite can enter, and depending on >the cruelty of the GM, may /think/ he's in control, but isn't... So the >angel heads to a tether and goes celestial. Oooooh, no, I hadn't thought of that -- I'd been assuming, for some reason, that the angel would behave "normally" *except* when the Shedim tried to exert control (requiring a Will roll to sway to a new course of action). [and the rules don't seem to bear this out.] I'd been thinking they'd just "bounce" off a higher-force celestial. But I like your idea better! ("Oh, my, what's this crawling around my psyche? Looks like a Shedite. I thought we sprayed for those last week. Oh, well. Let's go walk the Shedite. It needs its exorcise.") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:56:00 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Yet another inspiration thought!!!! At 8:53 PM -0500 3/21/97, Gregory Littmann wrote: >On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > >> Hmmmm, I smell a silly plot coming on... Six Mecurians sucker a Seraph into >> playing Diplomacy, thinking he'll be easy to beat if he can't lie, but >> remember too late that it's hard for _them_ to lie as well... > > Actually, it wouldn't be much of a plan anyway. If someone in a game of >diplomacy is *known* not to be able to lie, *that* is the guy that >everyone is going to want to ally with. But just think of playing Illuminati: New World Order with a Lilim. "What do you want to help me fend off the Network?" "How about a Geas/1?" "Okay, but only for INWO games." "Deal." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:13:38 -0500 From: Dave Conrad Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Font Hatcher Rhanyr wrote: Please send me a copy too. Thanks! - -- Dave C. iN*T*x "To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:37:52 -0600 (CST) From: Corey Subject: IN> re: St. Brigid Well after a little scouring of the web, including www.catholic.org, I have arrived at the conclusion that yes St. Brigd exists, her feast day is feb 1, and she is another patron saint of Ireland. I heard the tongues of angels And the tongues of men Wasn't any differences to me Bob Dylan "Dignity" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:27:31 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re:IN>Magick (WARNING LOTS OF OPINONS and LONG) On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Hatcher Rhanyr wrote: >[snip] > A Few Minor Notes: > - -Enochian Magick (A Hermetic Tradition) uses angelic summoning as a > method of practice. As a practitioner of this "art" I doubt that these > beings would like being talked to be "evil" magius (by the way...sorcery > is a black magick and there is a distinction between Hermetic Magick and > Sorcery) > Other than the fact that Sorcery is evil and Hermetic Magick is neutral, what do you believe is the difference between the two? How do you define "Sorcery" that would make it evil? My definition of Sorcery is simply Magick through visualization. Do our two def's jive? If so, then what's so evil about that? Also, what would the difference be with Enochian Magicks? All Enochian Magicks use visualization to achieve their goals, so what makes the visualization of Sorcery "evil," but the visualization of Enochian Magick "neutral?" > Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us "I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed A wound that will not heal A heart that cannot feel Hoping that the horror will recede Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be free." --Rush, "Red Sector A" (Lee/Lifeson/Peart) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:53:41 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #84 > > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:00:14 -0500 > From: Turhan Herder > Subject: IN> Re: Fundamentalists > > I noticed the thread on Fundamentalists while looking through the list > messages. What if they are not always wrong in IN? I mean, many > Fundamentalists don't like the media because it's "satanic" but in IN > who controls media? Isn't Andrealphus working to create further > feelings of lust in the people by working with Nybbas? Look at MTV, > Melrose Place and all the similar types of programs. Fundamentalists > can be very wrong but it's easy to write them off as "under Diabolical > influence". I think many players would automatically assume > Fundamentalists were under the thumb of Hell and it would surprise them > to find out that this isn't always true... > If this is true, and TV is under the influence of Nybbas and Andre, then doesn't that mean that televangelists are servants of the very Devil they are supposedly opposing? :-) Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us "I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed A wound that will not heal A heart that cannot feel Hoping that the horror will recede Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be free." --Rush, "Red Sector A" (Lee/Lifeson/Peart) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:15:41 +0500 From: Daiv Barr Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces Raven wrote: > > On 21 Mar 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > > > A zombi made through Saminga's Attunement is a soulless creature. All > > other sentient life forms have a soul, even if their Forces of a particular > > type have gone to zero. There is a scrap of Celestial Force there, but it > > doesn't register on the map. Don't forget that people can 'buy up' > > characteristics... so, even if all Celestial Forces are practically gone, one > > can still have a noticeable rating in Will and Perception. > > > > Basically, a Remnant still has a celestial soul though it has no > > noticeable power to effect Things Celestial. > > If you didn't work for SJG, I'd say it was a matter of opinion... What > the hell, I'll still say it. :) uhm...Not to put too fine a point on it, raven; But Moriah doesn't just work for SJG; Hes the line editor in charge of IN stuff. So, his "opinions" might possibly carry a little more weight than you seem to be givin them. (yes, Derek Wrote this game, brought i to life, (and, as an aside, did a damn fine job) but he's gone now, poof. see you later, nice knowing you. :=0 > Moriah is the big guy now.) - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:21:45 -0800 From: Clinton Wolf Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions [ perception debate on Shedite leaving angel... ] > > If you're referring to the Symphonic disturbance for assuming celestial > form, it's not celestial forces. It's TOTAL forces, as for any other > angel. A +9 disturbance, unmodified for range, an average angel (Per. 6) > will automatically sense the disturbance with a +3 to the check digit. > And once he knows what to look for (both from the disturbance and the > possible realization that he's suddenly in control again), he can roll > Per. again, with +2 for the shedite leaving a host, and assume +3 for his > celestial forces (this is where that comes in, /seeing/ the celestial > form), this gives the angel an 11 or less to roll to see the bugger. > That's a 35/36 chance, or a 97.2% chance, of success. He'll see him. > Count on it. Hm, hadn't thought of there being two separate rolls... makes sense if you do think of it as one being for noticing noise and the other for noticing the form. On the other hand, if the intent of "make a Perception roll, plus the Spiritual Being's Celestial Forces" means (as it indeed looks like on a reread of the passage) that it is the viewer's perception PLUS the target's CF rating, well... hrm. Guess I thought not adding in the perception better fit the description of how things worked in the rest of the paragraph ("even Angels and Demons, while corporeal, can easily overlook a celestial form nearby")... an average roll of 9 or less to spot doesn't sound like the average celestial form is going to be easily overlooked... heck, even a human of low average perception (3) is going to have a 6 or less... this is not even counting the +2 "bugging out of the mortal host" bonus. The game system would seem not to mesh with the concepts regarding this... any thoughts? I personally just never considered bringing the viewer's perception stat into play... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 02:38:50 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Kinney Subject: Re:IN>Magick (WARNING LOTS OF OPINONS and LONG) On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Thomas Davidson wrote: > Other than the fact that Sorcery is evil and Hermetic Magick is neutral, > what do you believe is the difference between the two? How do you define > "Sorcery" that would make it evil? > I remember hearing something about a translation of the particular word used there... IIRC in Greek it became pharmacos (or something like that; I'm no expert on ancient Greek :-), which referred to *drugs* (to unintentionally dredge up an old thread...). Surely someone else can fill in the blanks here? Mark Kinney | alberich@iglou.com | http://www.iglou.com/nations/ "...and they made a very satisfying *thump* when they hit the ground!" -- G'kar, "Babylon 5: A Late Arrival From Avalon" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 08:19:41 -0500 From: Hatcher Rhanyr Subject: Re: IN>Magick Thomas Davidson wrote: > Other than the fact that Sorcery is evil and Hermetic Magick is neutral, > what do you believe is the difference between the two? How do you define > "Sorcery" that would make it evil? > > My definition of Sorcery is simply Magick through visualization. Do our > two def's jive? If so, then what's so evil about that? Also, what would > the difference be with Enochian Magicks? All Enochian Magicks use > visualization to achieve their goals, so what makes the visualization of > Sorcery "evil," but the visualization of Enochian Magick "neutral?" As far as I know Enochian magick only uses angelic entities in their magic or at least the tradition I practice. You are true that Sorcery and Enochian Magick both use visualization but then so does 90% of all forms of Magick....most of these for all intense and purpose are Neutral. The Difference is the application of the magick...i.e. for selfish or for ill gain (Black Magick). As far as I know most Sorcery Rituals/Invocations are for ill gain but this might be just a personal opinion. If there are any practioners of Sorcery on the list I'd like to hear from you to see the differences spelled out further in black and white. Hatcher Rhanyr "The Angel of Colgate" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 09:00:19 +0000 From: "Captain Nemo" Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces Daiv wrote, in reply to Raven's mentioning he was ignoring Moriah-- > uhm...Not to put too fine a point on it, raven; But Moriah doesn't just work > for SJG; Hes the line editor in charge of IN stuff. So, his "opinions" might > possibly carry a little more weight than you seem to be givin them. > (yes, Derek Wrote this game, brought i to life, (and, as an aside, did a > damn fine job) but he's gone now, poof. see you later, nice knowing you. > :=0 > Moriah is the big guy now.) In the "I shouldn't have to say this but I'm going to anyway" department: "...the rules provide guidelines to provide what /might/ happen in a variety of circumstances" --IN, p. 25 (emphasis mine) "This book is background for the Game Master--guidelines and a little advice. The game is what he puts into it." --IN, p. 27 IMHO, this goes double for official net-opinions not yet codified into the FAQ, much less into a book. I respect Moriah a lot. I even agree with him on this point, mostly. However, having paid my $24.95 plus tax for my copy of the rules, SJG's essential contribution to my game is over. Anything above and beyond that is my choice, including parts of the book itself. Call me a follower of Lilith, but no one can tell me how things will and will not be in the games that I run. If I'm running an angels-only game and decide that Shedites forced to go Celestial in a Tether die, then that's the way the world works. So long as it's relatively rational, or at the *very* least consistent, it's my world. (Well, it's my world anyways, but the players will likely and rightly complain if it's not consistent.) I'll listen to Moriah not because he is Line Editor, but because he has well-thought-out reasons for what he does and says, and generally explains why he thinks the way he does, or says 'wait, that's coming in a later supplement,' which I can respect. And, IMHO, he's been very good about this. Very rarely has he used the "I'm Line Editor" club, with the exceptions being necessary ones (e.g., the case of copyright). This is, perhaps, a little too long of a mini-rant, though it's intended to encorage people to think for themselves. Sorry, Daiv, but you managed to touch a minorly sore point. :) - --John Nunn nemo@vic.com // nemo@io.com // Nemo here & there across the 'net... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:47:44 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> The Nature of the Marches On Mar 21, 3:57pm, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Subject: IN> The Nature of the Marches > Are we sure the Marches are just the totality of human dreaming > and imagination? Mightn't it be that the Marches have their > own nature, but that they are just where our souls go when we dream, > just as Heaven and Hell are where our souls go when we die? The Marches exists without human dreamers. Some aspects of it, however, are dependent on the energies (i.e. Essence) of humans and would collapse without them. Indeed the Far Marches and Farthest Marches hardly ever see a human dreamer. -john 'Archangel of Nee(d)ful Consistency' karakash- - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:51:47 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Which Bible? > > The King James Version is the official Bible of IN. Mostly (OK, > > completely) because it's public domain and we don't have to pay a royalty. > > > It may be the official Bible of IN, but I take it that you are not > saying that in IN, everything in the King James is officially *true*. Am > I mistaken? Exactly. We will not limit ourselves to this one source! There's a _lot_ of stuff out there, and forgive us if we 'cherry pick' and only go for the best. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:58:48 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces On Mar 21, 12:44pm, Raven wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces > On 21 Mar 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > > > A zombi made through Saminga's Attunement is a soulless creature. All > > other sentient life forms have a soul, even if their Forces of a particular > > type have gone to zero. There is a scrap of Celestial Force there, but it > > doesn't register on the map. Don't forget that people can 'buy up' > > characteristics... so, even if all Celestial Forces are practically gone, one > > can still have a noticeable rating in Will and Perception. > > > > Basically, a Remnant still has a celestial soul though it has no > > noticeable power to effect Things Celestial. > > If you didn't work for SJG, I'd say it was a matter of opinion... What > the hell, I'll still say it. :) ANYway, it seems to me that when a > celestial becomes a remnant, his celestial soul has been destroyed. Poof. > Gone. Nice knowin' ya. My reason for saying this is that, Will and Perc. > scores aside, remember that the guy has lost the ability to exist > celestially at all, as well as all memories of what it's like to be > celestial. Any time they're exposed to something celestial, it makes them > uncomfortable, maybe like a 'phantom limb' effect. They don't exist > celestially anymore, but the part of their being that connected to their > celestial forces is still an open wound, and is subject to irritation. > > If SJG publishes something official that contradicts this, I'll probably > use it. Until then, I think my take on it makes more sense than anything > else I've seen on this list regarding it. Moriah is about as official as you can get. One step below God (i.e. SJ) and one step above me (a mere netrep/Archangel). ;) The line editor is the guy that's supposed to keep all those writers and whatnot in line (sorta like trying to corral cats... in the dark). Of course, he does change his mind at times, or is overruled _very_ occasionally. He is not immune to reason or logic and, in fact, has been finely trained in both. All that aside, my opinion is that the Remnant retains some part of his Celestial nature (the ability to use songs, for example), but doesn't have a human soul in any sense of the word. He still has a Celestial soul -- broken, shredded, defiled -- but still Celestial. A zombi, for example, doesn't even have the tattered shreds of a Celestial nature. So if you give Celestial Forces to a Remnant, you would get a Celestial creature that had very vague ties to its past, but with a new personality and new self-image. The foundation is still there, but the magnificent building that used to be there has been demolished. Removing the wreckage and rebuilding is an enormous task, however. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:09:01 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions On Mar 21, 4:52pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Rules Questions > At 12:04 PM -0800 3/21/97, Clinton Wolf wrote: > >Greetings, > > >1) Shedim "have full knowledge of their hosts' thoughts, feelings, and > > memories" (p. 151)... does this include Skills? What about songs > > and attunements? > > I would say yes. It might have trouble with Basic Rites, though. I would say no on attunements and I'm wavering on Songs. Attunements are new strings in a person's soul, if you will. In other words, the only way to access those abilities is to _be_ that person. Songs are trickier since they act sorta like skills, but, at their basis, they are more like Attunements. I would say no for Songs as well. > >2) Since it never mentions otherwise in either the Shedim or Kyriotate > > descriptions, I assume that they may possess celestial vessels as > > well as "mortal" ones, with the only limitations (barring superior > > attunements) being a living host (for Kyriotates) or a human-shaped > > vessel (for Shedites)... My personal opinion, separate from my netrep position, is that they can't. It may take awhile for me to reason out what my gut instinct is telling me, though. > >3) Another question linked to the above... Kyriotates are specifically > > limited to possessing hosts whose combined Celestial Forces are > > equal to or less than the Kyrio's rating in same. Similarly, the > > Song of Possession limits targets to those of equal or less CF > > than the singer. Shedim apparently don't suffer from this limi- > > tation, or was the mention of it inadvertantly left out? > > Shedim can only possess one person at a time, so it might have > been left out for that reason. But it should probably be in effect: > only a person who has the same number of Forces or less (and it's > the total of all Forces, not just the Celestial ones) can be possessed. Don't have my book with me, but I believe the Shedim description says their attunement works like Kyriotates, except that they can only possess one vessel. Must look this up... IMO, they have the same Forces restriction. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |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: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:55:27 -0500 (EST) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> re: St. Brigid On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Corey wrote: > > Well after a little scouring of the web, including > www.catholic.org, I have arrived at the conclusion that yes St. Brigd > exists, her feast day is feb 1, and she is another patron saint of > Ireland. > PUtting aside the fact that almost all the facts about Brigid are not facts at all but wild fantasies, these are the "facts" about ST Brigid. She was born into a peasant family near DUndalk in Ireland at around 453 A.D., or parents baptized by St Patrick himself. She became a nun at an early age and around 470 A.D. she founded the first convent in Ireland at Kildare. She was the abbess there and in time it became a centre for Irish spirituality and learning around which grew the cathedral towl of Kildare. She is also credited with the founding of a school of art there. She died in about 523 A.D.. There are loads of miricles associated with her. Particularly impressive is that the Bishop of Ibor saw a vision of the VIrgin the day before seeing Brigid and prounounced them identical. She is the patron saint of Ireland (after St. Patrick), of poets, blacksmiths, healers, cattle, dairymaids, midwives, newborn babies and fugitives. Her myths are frequently descendents of the myths of the Celtic godess Brigid. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 97 13:08:02 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> Remnants >From: Earl Wajenberg >Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces > >If a Remnant still has a soul, what happens to it when the Remnant >suffers physical death? Normally, when an angel's physical vessel >dies, the angel appears in Heaven, suffering Trauma for some variable >length of time. Do Remnants go into Trauma for geological epochs, >or permanent Trauma (at least permanent so far...), or do they >dissolve in soul as well as body, like an undead? Or do they come >back as one of those sub-angelic little celestials? Or appear in the >Marches? Or what? No one knows since the number of Remnants are few and few of them are ever found and kept track of. They're not hanging out in the lower heavens. Which means that their Forces disband upon Corporeal death, or, they wind up in one of the upper heavens. The angels don't like to talk about it. Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 97 13:08:10 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> Which Bible? >From: Gregory Littmann >Subject: Re: IN> Which Bible? > > It [the KJV] may be the official Bible of IN, but I take it that you are >not saying that in IN, everything in the King James is officially *true*. Am >I mistaken? What? You have a problem with God creating light before he created light sources? Or that there was day and night without a sun and earth? You're a stickler for details, all right. ;> Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 97 13:08:07 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> Remnants >From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> >Subject: Re: IN> Souls and 0 Forces > >If you didn't work for SJG, I'd say it was a matter of opinion... What >the hell, I'll still say it. :) > >If SJG publishes something official that contradicts this, I'll probably >use it. Until then, I think my take on it makes more sense than anything >else I've seen on this list regarding it. It's impossible for a self-willed sentient being *not* to have a soul. Period. Canon est. The mythos of IN is Aristotelian/Thomistic at its heart. It's possible for a sentient's soul to disband upon death or under Celestial combat and thus that sentient is *no more*. It's also possible for sentients with no Celestial Forces to exist beyond death -- many humans have no Celestial Forces, and yet, they have a soul which goes to Paradise. This is all canon, though it hasn't been published yet. I have great sway in deciding these things, especially the things that touch upon the metaphysical. It's an authority that comes from both my jobs. :) Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 13:49:27 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN>Magick On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Hatcher Rhanyr wrote: > Thomas Davidson wrote: > > > Other than the fact that Sorcery is evil and Hermetic Magick is neutral, > > what do you believe is the difference between the two? How do you define > > "Sorcery" that would make it evil? > > > > My definition of Sorcery is simply Magick through visualization. Do our > > two def's jive? If so, then what's so evil about that? Also, what would > > the difference be with Enochian Magicks? All Enochian Magicks use > > visualization to achieve their goals, so what makes the visualization of > > Sorcery "evil," but the visualization of Enochian Magick "neutral?" > > As far as I know Enochian magick only uses angelic entities in their > magic or at least the tradition I practice. You are true that Sorcery > and Enochian Magick both use visualization but then so does 90% of all > forms of Magick....most of these for all intense and purpose are > Neutral. The Difference is the application of the magick...i.e. for > selfish or for ill gain (Black Magick). As far as I know most Sorcery > Rituals/Invocations are for ill gain but this might be just a personal > opinion. If there are any practioners of Sorcery on the list I'd like to > hear from you to see the differences spelled out further in black and > white. > If sorcery and Enochian Magicks are the same (in essence), then why is one inherently good, and the other inherently evil? I'm a Qabbalist, in actuality, and I'm for the most part ignorant of these other forms of magick. But to me, magick is magick. *No* form (or technique) of magick is inherently good or evil, because magick isn't inherently good, evil, neutral, but all these things at once. It transcends such limiting concepts as good and evil and neutral. Now, having said that, magickians have to be careful of performing Black Magick , even inadvertently. If you do perform a magick that harms another person, or his Destiny, even inadvertently , then you have to pay the consequences for that action (karma). This is just my opinion, of course (you can't be a magickian without having one:-). Everybody defines magick in a different manner, and I just wanted to be sure what your definition was before I stated my opinion. I apologize if I'm a little unclear, but I tried my best to explain my position. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us "I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed A wound that will not heal A heart that cannot feel Hoping that the horror will recede Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be free." --Rush, "Red Sector A" (Lee/Lifeson/Peart) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 03:36:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Michael C. Nutt" Subject: Re: IN>In Nomine: Rules Questions Well, here's *my* take on some of the questions you asked... >1) Shedim "have full knowledge of their hosts' thoughts, feelings, and > memories" (p. 151)... does this include Skills? What about songs > and attunements? I'd say yes to Skills that were Knowledge-based, but no to skills like Dodge, that were very physical in nature. Judgment call on GM's part. >2)[...] Following this heretical > thread, would a possessed angel gain dissonance from evil acts > the Shedim caused him to perpetrate? Would those possessed by a > Shedite of Malphas (that drives out the host mind entirely) be > subject to dissonance caused also? I'd say "no". It's not the *angel* doing it, after all. >5) VERY important: It implies in the book that a possessed host should > be considered a celestial vessel in game terms, so theoretically > a Kyriotate's wolf form throating a mortal would set off noise. How > does this work with Shedim, where the host consciousness is still > present and believes itself to be in control (assuming the host is > mortal)... if a Shedite riding a postal worker has him gun down his > fellow employees with an assault rifle, the noise created would be > astronomical if it used the standard rules for celestial inter- > ference... and yet this is implied to be a ho-hum all in a day's > work activity for the demons, not one that would bring every > angel in a tri-state radius down on his head. I don't get that implication at all, frankly. I didn't catch any reference at all to "angels not noticing it", or anything like that, and otherwise, Shedites become even *more* monstrous. I'd slap any Shedite with the same "noise" rules that any other celestial would have to deal with. > How about an even less clear cut issue? Busload of nuns... Shedite > possesses bus driver, has him stop for a few minutes to "check the > engine" and proceeds to cut the brake lines. Climbs back in, revs > the engine, points the bus at a cliff edge and abandons its host > as the bus is about to go over. Celestially noisy or not? Very > important distinction because a Shedite who possesses a pilot and > causes the crash of a jetliner (assuming 200 or so people on board) > would generate noise equal to a 6 or less perception roll still > almost 9600 miles from the event if it counts as the demon > performing the act! On the one hand the mortal's lives are ended > (presumably) prematurely... on the other, Nicole the Mercurian > causes a life to end prematurely by commanding her servant to kill, > and no ripple is caused. Does the penalty for killing or injuring > a human only come into play when the act is /directly/ dealt by > celestial hand? Also, what about the echoes caused... would they > lead to the host body, the Shedite, or both? If the Shedite > hopscotches through humans after a murder spree are there going > to be angels mistakenly skewering these "perpetrators" their senses > lead them to? Kobal would split his sides laughing if the Malakim > slaughter a girl scout troop that happened to be nearby... especially > given the precious looks that would be present on their faces after > realizing what they'd done... :) I'd *definitely* say "noisy". The difference in that situation and Nicole's is that Nicole didn't *force* anyone to do anything. OK, she *pushed* him... but he could have just said, "I ain't gonna do it", and that would have been that. For a massive whanging on the Symphony like the acts of slaughter you're talking about here, I'd also have the echoes lead straight to the Shedite, *and* have it be "distinctive" enough that any celestials listening know that it was done by someone who was possessing a body. And why would the Malakim slaughter the hypothetical Girl Scouts, when simply keeping them unconscious for 30 minutes would be good enough to "flush" the Shedite, if that was where he was? >P.S. An even more cunning thought on the vagaries of symphonic >disturbance. > Suppose any celestial were to crash a jetliner as above, but they >do it by just poking a pint sized hole in the fuel tanks before it >takes off, so that it goes empty and crashes five hours later in >midflight. Well, how are they going to remove the brains of the flight crew? "Tower, our fuel gauges are reading one-quarter full, but we know that's wrong, since we filled up just before takeoff... we don't need to divert, over." They might be able to somehow sabotage the plane in *other* ways, but keep in mind that airports have fairly tight security to prevent that exact thing from happening. > Noise? Leading back to him/her/it, or just the crash itself? How > about a demon who plants explosives and radio detonates them from a > mile away, collapsing some hospital in a fiery blast? If he /does/ > create noise from this, is it noise based on the entire structure > and all living things within, or just the parts directly affected > by the actual explosion, with the subsequent structural collapse > and all its mayhem being unrelated for symphony purposes? If it >/is/ all related, does that mean a worker clearing away the rubble days > later that gets injured by settling debris again causes noise > pointing to the demon, wherever the demon might now be? Since the demon was the direct cause of the sabotage, I'd say there would be "noise". As to whether it leads directly to him... hmmm. I'd have to say "no" in that case, since he wasn't in the immediate neighborhood. I'd say no "noise" for the "falling debris" situation, either, since the demon had nothing to do with that in any direct fashion. The one thing that does strike me about these situations, though, is *why* some demon might try them. He can probably get away with these stunts... once. Following which, angels and hostile demons will be all over him like ugly on an ape. *Maybe* Belial or Saminga would think it was a neat idea to be done once, but the inevitable fallout, both in the corporeal world and in the celestial, would dissuade them from trying it again. After all, these kinds of atrocities would *surely* bring squads of Malakim and other angels crawling all over the general areas, and just imagine how that would disrupt operations. Plus, what if some of the people killed on that airplane, hypothetically, were fated to strongly further the course of Evil sometime in the future? Kronos and the other directly affected Princes are going to *pissed*... and even Lucifer might not be happy about it. He's Prince of Evil, not of Slaughter. >Anyways, looking for some answers, or at least some good discussion. :) Hope this helps. :) Michael Decadence is its own reward. Decadence is its own reward. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #87 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.