From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jan 19 10:59:47 1998 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 KAA20304 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:59:47 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA23043 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:57:13 -0600 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:57:13 -0600 Message-Id: <199801191657.KAA23043@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 #574 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, January 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 574 In this digest: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Sophia, Angel of Wisdom Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting Re: IN> Definitions, please Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> TNATC Movie Trailer (at last!) IN> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Re: IN> Definitions, please Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament RE: IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... IN> Re: [Do You Run IN?] Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Superiors: Old Testement or New Testement Re: IN> Other Rafael Stuff IN> Loss of Superior Re: IN> Definitions, please Re: IN> Superiors: Old Testement or New Testement Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:38:09 EST From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament In a message dated 98-01-18 04:34:06 EST, you write: << Dying for the world's sins was Jesus's take on it. Who knows what the other residence of Heaven are saying. I'd want Yves's explanation before I made a decision. >> I think this could be a rich source of plot that the creators neglected like a red headed stepchild and we as God....I mean GM's need to exploit like a third world nation ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:09:07 -0600 (CST) From: Dataweaver Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Heretic103 wrote: > In a message dated 98-01-18 04:34:06 EST, you write: > > << Dying for the world's sins was Jesus's take on it. Who knows what > the other residence of Heaven are saying. I'd want Yves's explanation > before I made a decision. > >> > I think this could be a rich source of plot that the creators neglected like a > red headed stepchild and we as God....I mean GM's need to exploit like a third > world nation OTOH, I can see why it was avoided so studiously; the most fundamental difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is in their views of Jesus. Judaism and Islam generally view him as a prophet (occasionally as a false prophet, depending on who you ask), while Christianity views him as God incarnate (and even there, you're likely to get a war going amongst different denominations of Christianity as to whether he actually was God, or the Son of God, or both, or neither). Keeping in mind the potential volatility of the subject matter, though, let me pose this question: In the IN universe, who was Jesus? Was he a prophet (read: Soldier)? or a sorcerer? or an angel? or an archangel? or God incarnate? (in which case, how does he relate, if at all, to Yves and Kronos?) For those who are working on the various Religion mods for IN, this is a vital question. - ---- Jonathan Lang ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver --------- Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing, FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer. submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:43:44 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament At 10:38 PM -0500 1/18/98, Heretic103 wrote: >In a message dated 98-01-18 04:34:06 EST, you write: > ><< Dying for the world's sins was Jesus's take on it. Who knows what > the other residence of Heaven are saying. I'd want Yves's explanation > before I made a decision. > >> >I think this could be a rich source of plot that the creators neglected like a >red headed stepchild and we as God....I mean GM's need to exploit like a third >world nation The first In Nomine campaign I heard about was on Compuserve, during that long, painful period between the announcement of the game and the actual delivery. It was called: "Hold On, I'll get a ladder." The GM was using the French rules, and the plot was that a handful of angels were travelling back in time to prevent the Crucifixion. Naturally, it was played for laughs. "Always look on the bright side of life..." Ni Ke Hsin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:07:19 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> New Archangel: Sophia >>>Ummm - Enlightenment belongs to Litheroy...<<< No, Litheroy is the Archangel of Revelation. >>>Is this official now? Or are you speculating?<<< See the APG. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:41:55 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> Sophia, Angel of Wisdom >Sophia went first to Michael, then Uriel. When the now-cursed angel >Lucifer, his former name never to be spoken again in Heaven, made his >attack, they were ready. > >Millenia later, Sophia has not yet been seen without tears on her cheeks. Good story. I would have hoped that wisdom would be a little more serene, but on second thought, why would it be. On third thought, the fact she's always marked by sadness doesn't mean she's not serene. The joys of wisdom should have a price. And that reminds me of an irreverent joke that isn't entirely off-topic. The pope dies and goes to heaven, and after much petitioning, is finally allowed to meet Mary, Mother of God. The interview won't be long, and the former head of the Church will only be allowed to ask one question. But he already knows what the question will be. "Your holiness, in every picture of you, you always seem so sad, as if your heart were breaking, as if you had suffered huge disappointment. But you gave birth to Jesus Christ, and are blessed above all women. Why are you always sad? Mary looked up with moist, sorrowful eyes and replied, "I always wanted a girl." ====================================================== Nik (Kobal made me do it) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:45:25 -0500 From: Ni Ke Hsin Subject: Re: IN> New Archangel: Sophia At 3:07 AM -0500 1/19/98, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Ummm - Enlightenment belongs to Litheroy...<<< > >No, Litheroy is the Archangel of Revelation. > >>>>Is this official now? Or are you speculating?<<< > >See the APG. I thought Litheroy was the angel of mood regulation. No, I guess that's his twin brother Lithium. =================================================== Goombert strikes again! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:16:51 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Querent wrote: 745 can also be written as 7:45 7:45 is sometimes referred to as "A quarter to Eight", but occasionally you'll find those people that use "a quarter of" instead of "a quarter to". Nice try, but it is all part of an Illuminati Plot. 745 should be written as 7x4-5 (7 x 4) -5 = 28 - 5 = 23!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This proofs that The Catholic Church is but a puppet in the hands of the Illuminati. I wonder if Laurence and Dominic know this. Donato "the Paranoid Android" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:58:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN: Wolf Baiting > >(Sluagh is a slightly archaic form of the Irish word slua, meaning crowd or > >host. Conceivably, in Scots Gaelic, it is still spelt sluagh. ObTrivia: > >the word slogan is derived from it. A slua-ghairm was a war-cry chanted > >by a crowd.) > > Either way, they don't seem asocial. The term refers to a group. > To refer to an individual creature as a sluagh is like referring to an > individual drunk as a party. > I was referring to the kith as defined in the game. It pissed me off that a kith so defined was given that name. > My point still stands: it isn't authentic folklore. If they just > wanted an African name to go with their idea, they would have down better > with Anansi. True, Anansi is a spider, not a fairy, and an individual not > a species. But he did like to tell stories and he didn't stick around when > there was work to be done. > Unfortunately, the name was already taken. > It was only in the late 19C that the association of "childlike > wonder" and the fairy realm was made, when it was assumed that children and > animals were better able to see fairies (or ghosts, or angels) because > their minds had not yet been stuffed into the suffocating corset of > civilisation. > True, this is a 19th Century stereotype, and I personally disliked the romanticisation of childhood implicit (and indeed explicit) in a lot of Changeling stuff. To a limited extent, though, it is true that children have a lesser grasp on reality. And it could be argued that if the consensus in the Western world believes this, that it becomes true. :) Personally, I reckon this should make childlings more alien and frightening, given their lack of connection to the reality around them. > I can't give you one that will stand up to Socratic scrutiny, but > as something off the top of my head I'd say a fairy tale is a story > belonging to traditional folklore involving supernatural agents, > instruments, or events though not directly relating to religion; or any > story consciously derived from such folklore. A more inclusive definition might say that modern stereotypes of fairies are just as valid as traditional folkloric definitions (given that fairies don't actually exist). But this, I think, is the real problem with Changeling. (Apart from the fact that Rein*Hagen was involved with it at any stage.) It doesn't know what direction to pull in, so individual GMs have to do much more work to define the feel of the game than in others where the theme is more explicit. > My primary objection to Mage was the metaphysics. A lot of > attention is giving to explaining the way the world *really* works > (paradigms, paradox, spheres, etc). Is this a paradigm or is it some sort > of super-paradigm? Spheres are certainly paradigm based. But it was necessary to have something of that kind there for game-mechanics purposes. Paradox will tend to react in a manner appropriate to the botcher's paradigm, but is a part of the base reality, and has been since the Sundering. Paradigms are an expression of the Mage's beliefs, and serve only to focus his/her Will. They have no reality other than what the Mage gives them, but since most people don't really believe they can get something for nothing, the more limited a paradigm, the easier it is to get things done within that paradigm. The cumbersome magic system implies that the traditions > all believe in the spheres, quintessence, paradox, etc. Not to me, it doesn't. Except maybe the Order of Hermes. It has their stamp all over it. And I like the magic system. Making a system that allows someone to do almost anything, given the knowledge, is somewhat difficult. My main quarrel is with the looseness of the definition of the Entropy Sphere. In fact, in the > Book of Crafts, they mention that the Kopa Loei explain magic differently. > So we have all of these traditions with markedly different goals, methods > and beliefs, but who all agree on the underlying metaphysics of the > universe. Which just happens to conform to the spirit of late 20th Century > California-style New Age magic. Tubular, dude. I got the impression of disparate groups which were held together only by common hatreds, and which hardly agreed on anything (beliefs, basic strategy, goals, priority of enemies). I mean, the allegedly highest decision making body hasn't met in 25+ years! Even given the lifespans of the Masters and Archmages likely to sit on such a body, it's hardly an insignificant amount of time. And the Order of Hermes and Euthanatoi are falling apart due to internal politicking. Insufficient attention is given to this in the main rulebook, but characters should not be referring to Spheres, let alone the Sphere of Forces. It's just as bad as assuming that the average Sabbat neonate knows that the Tzimisce antediluvian wasn't eaten at all. Assuming that the character knows everything the player does is bad. Inexperienced Orphans shouldn't even know that Paradox exists, IMO. > I find very little connection between Mage and any traditional > magic. Again, this doesn't mean the game can't be fun; it just means that > it isn't fun for me. > I don't see this as a problem, more of an inevitability (except in the case of bad bibliographies). It gives a system where you can customise your own style of magic, which may or may not resemble traditional magic in any of its forms. It also offers a field of conflict, providing player characters a reason to interact with the world. Personally, I think it does well in both cases. > > Expand on which? That In Nomine isn't true to the details of > Angelology/Demonology, or that it has the feel of the genre? > That it has the feel of the genre. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:09:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Definitions, please > > > Though I'm still not sure why we're trying to resolve how In > > > Nomine Angels relate to WoD Vampires. > > > > Neither do I. The settings aren't terribly compatible. > > Well, the WoD settings aren't terribly compatible with each other, at > least as written. Yes, you can fudge things here and there to make > them compatible, but it's far from easy. To do so without making at > least one of the cosmologies delusional bunk takes some careful > tiptoe-ing. > Mage, Changeling, and Werewolf are reasonably compatible. The main problem with integrating Wraith is the origin of the Lady of Fate, and the Caine mythos is in V:tM is something of a problem, but people were speculating on alternate origins for Caine and the Antes before Mage was ever invented, and the Caine mythos is supposed to be a tool of the Antediluvians in the Jyhad in any event. You're not supposed to believe it. But that's more or less it. > So, needless to say, you are going to have to break some of the eggs > to make such an omelet (who-boy; talk about your mixed metaphors). > For what I am doing, I broke just about all of the eggs; the > Celestials are off, the Werewolves are really off, the Changelings > were disassembeled and used for parts, and the Mages were weighed in > the balance and found wanting. About the only ones that were close > were the Camarillia vampires, and even they had the whole story > behind Cain all wrong... > It's simpler if you only make the Celestials delusional, or lying, bearing in mind that the Caine myth is a fabrication. (Probably better to have the Seraphs be delusional.) But would you mind e-mailing me your explanation of the nature of the universe? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:28:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes > Hmmm. *ponder* > > Here's some suggestions I can give you for your first session: > > 1) You don't know the rules. You THINK you do, but you don't. But don't > let that stop you, it's okay. Neither do your players. > Reminds me of the time I argued with the GM over how long I could stay in Celestial form. Scene: Aftermath of conflict. Malakite corpse is lying on floor. Symphony is screaming from the disturbance made by 3 Songs of Entropy, 3 changes to Celestial form, 1 ascension to the Celestial plane, various other Songs, and 1 Infernal intervention. Present: 1 Shedite-possessed Security guard and 1 Habbalah in Celestial form, 1 Israeli head of delegation quivering in fear under desk, 1 broken window. Kevin Walsh: Hmm...how much longer can I stay in Celestial form? GM: There's no limit, is there? Kevin Walsh: I'm pretty sure there is. Other players and GM: I think only Shedites and Kyriotates have a limit on how long they can stay in Celestial form. Kevin Walsh: That's definitely wrong. They get to stay longer. Give me that book. Damn, can't find the reference. GM: Right, you can stay up there as long as you want. Kevin Walsh: Feck it, I got an intervention anyway. The moral of this story being: prepare for interventions. The expression on the GM's face in the previous session when I rolled an intervention on a roll to change into Celestial form was something to behold. As was the time a Soldier of Hell rolled an intervention to notice me in Celestial form. (Is there some form of therapy for people as badly afflicted with rules-lawyering as me? I certainly need it.) > 2) Your players will do everything they possibly can to mess up your plot > and all your precious scenes and nasties and traps. They're players, > that's their job. Just roll with it and make up new stuff on the fly. > And keep a phonebook handy for Instant Humans. > Nah. Write about twenty names down beforehand and keep them on a sheet of paper. Then you can cross them out as you go along. Assume they have 2 Will and 2 Perception 'cos it's easier that way. > 3) Plot broadly and never expect it all to happen. I found plotting too > tight will not give you flexibility to keep the game, long term, on track. > No, you should have one predetermined track which the players aren't allowed to wander off without suffering terminal boredom. Really. > 4) Don't sweat the small stuff. > Em, what does this mean? (I mean Em in all senses of the word.) > 5) Have FUN! Get into your NPCs. Love them. Pet them. Unless they're faceless hordes, in which case you laugh at the expression on the players' faces when they're creamed. > Give them good > hair. What if they're Calabim? And occasionally kill them off. You're there to have a good time > too. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:54:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> TNATC Movie Trailer (at last!) > > ===== > [Fade from black, exterior shot of a medieval village, circa 9th century. > People are running around, roofs are on fire, and there are peasants, men > in abnormally bright and shiny armor, and animals lying dead in the > streets.] > > > FORREST: It's not safe here any more, we have to move on. > > DEIDRE: I ...can't, I have to remain here. This is where my ...family... > ObNitpick. Forrest is an almost certainly anachronous English name. Deirdre (note the 'r') is an Irish name, pronounced derr-druh. And they didn't have knights in England or Ireland in the 9th Century (or even 8th). Truth to tell, I don't think they had knights in France until the very end of Uriel's stay on Earth. I believe they were introduced by Charles Martel after the battle of Poitiers which drove back the Moorish invasion of France. I'm not quite sure when that was, but it could have been after the dread 745. Heavy cavalry did not exist as an institution at the time, and those Malakites wanted to blend in, right? Apart from that, it's nice. But I'm a chronic nitpicker. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:06:44 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: IN> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I found this little gem on another mailing list I'm on. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: >H Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic? (fwd) To: transhuman@logrus.org As for the qunatum-information-thermodynamics of theology, it should be noted that the Bekenstein Bound places an upper limit on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Since each angel presumably contains more than one bit of information (say, fallen or not fallen) the total number of bits of N angels are I >= N. The head of a pin has a finite size (let's say 1 millimeter across) and a finite energy density (let's say around molecular densities, one gram/cm^3), which means that according to the Bekenstein Bound: N <= I < (2 pi E R)/(hbar c ln2) = k M R = ~6.72e33 [where k is ~2.57e43 bits/(m kg)]. Hence the maximum number of angels that can dance on a pin in the low energy regime is less than 6.72*10^33. - ---------- End forwarded message --------- So there you have it, folks... cd - -- d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se | cd skogsberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:06:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Definitions, please > > > Well, I'd certainly hate to make any of them delusional bunk. grin> I'm with Uriel on this one: Torch them all, let God sort 'em out. > > > Ni Ke Hsin > Angel of Caffea Arabica, Mercurian in the service of Novalis > > Does that look dissonant to you? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:17:27 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament In the IN universe, who was Jesus? Was he a prophet (read: Soldier)? or a sorcerer? or an angel? or an archangel? or God incarnate? (in which case, how does he relate, if at all, to Yves and Kronos?) I still go along with the theory that Eli was Jesus. This explains a lot in terms of attunements and dissonance, and it is just a fun theory for scenario/campaign ideas. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes > The moral of this story being: prepare for interventions. The expression > on the GM's face in the previous session when I rolled an intervention on > a roll to change into Celestial form was something to behold. As was the > time a Soldier of Hell rolled an intervention to notice me in Celestial form. True enough, although I just make up stuff when an intervention happens. Randomness is fun. Randomness is happy. > (Is there some form of therapy for people as badly afflicted with > rules-lawyering as me? I certainly need it.) Yes. It's called the Rule of No. I believe someone already mentioned it, and I just recently used it on a player, just last friday. Maxwell (Allen) has been captured by Lust, and in my game, Lust is pretty damn evil. So what does Allen do? Instead of thinking up a dozen ways his character can escape, he attempts to get out via a loophole in the rules. "The Song of Charm only lasts a few seconds, and I'm under compulsion from Dark Desire. When the Song of Charm wears off, can I reroll my [very] failed Will roll to escape?" My answer? "No. Sorry. You don't get to twist the rules to your advantage." I had to explain my reasoning, but it basically came down to, just flat out, that doesn't work in my game. And sometimes you have to use that on your players. > > 2) Your players will do everything they possibly can to mess up your plot > > and all your precious scenes and nasties and traps. They're players, > > that's their job. Just roll with it and make up new stuff on the fly. > > And keep a phonebook handy for Instant Humans. > > > Nah. Write about twenty names down beforehand and keep them on a sheet of > paper. Then you can cross them out as you go along. Assume they have 2 > Will and 2 Perception 'cos it's easier that way. I tell you what: this doesn't always work, unless your players are always in the exact same town every single session. I have no interest in pre-generating the entire population of Alpena, then Saginaw, then Caro [actually generated there, for plot reasons], then Howell. I mean, HOWELL? The only thing there worth mention is the Schafer's Music shop, and the KKK. Since my players do random stuff and seem to be taking a backwoods tour of all the little dumpy towns of Michigan, the phone book works nicely. > > > 3) Plot broadly and never expect it all to happen. I found plotting too > > tight will not give you flexibility to keep the game, long term, on track. > > > No, you should have one predetermined track which the players aren't > allowed to wander off without suffering terminal boredom. Really. Heh. Sarcasm. :) > > > 4) Don't sweat the small stuff. > > > Em, what does this mean? (I mean Em in all senses of the word.) What I mean is that the first time GM might get flustered on little stuff: rules, characters doing completely random things, interventions, people arguing, no characters working together, the entire universe exploding... you know, small stuff. Don't sweat it, it's nothing to get into a fit about. (Canon, yes. The universe exploding, no.) > > 5) Have FUN! Get into your NPCs. Love them. Pet them. > > Unless they're faceless hordes, in which case you laugh at the expression > on the players' faces when they're creamed. Hmmm... I have some faceless hoardes, but I'm proud of my well developed NPCs. > > > Give them good > hair. > > What if they're Calabim? Give them good messy hair. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:51:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament > > I still go along with the theory that Eli was Jesus. This explains > a lot in terms of attunements and dissonance, and it is just a fun theory > for scenario/campaign ideas. > Actually, given the dissonance, I reckon it's more likely that he's Aleister Crowley. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:27:19 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament I still go along with the theory that Eli was Jesus. This explains > a lot in terms of attunements and dissonance, and it is just a fun theory > for scenario/campaign ideas. > Actually, given the dissonance, I reckon it's more likely that he's Aleister Crowley. Or, Eli was Aleister Crowley too. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:31:36 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament >> I still go along with the theory that Eli was Jesus. This explains >> a lot in terms of attunements and dissonance, and it is just a fun theory >> for scenario/campaign ideas. >> >Actually, given the dissonance, I reckon it's more likely that he's >Aleister Crowley. Or both? :-) In the jewish version (which I wrote some notes for and then gave up on cos I was getting bored of it ;)), Eli was the prophet Elijah, which doesn't stop him from having done a stint as Jesus too .. and Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus and (if you must) Crowley ;-) And germaine Greer, a prophetess for our times!! (in this particular version a prophet was like a supercharged saint. Imagine that none of the archangels can really speak to God any more.. but He still talks to a few random 'mortals' from time to time). jo - --------------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G.K. Chesterton http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:43:19 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: RE: IN> Last Night's Quotes At 06:03 PM 1/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Right now, I GM a game, and play in a game. (Loki's game, in fact. we went >Celestial and called the superior. hehehehe) Right. I guess I should mention my modifications -- mainly I dropped the specialization of the weapons skills. Otherwise canon, though I don't think my players should pay too close attention to the "official" history of the universe as displayed in the APG. -Loki - -- 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, 19 Jan 1998 09:14:57 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> It finally happened, damnit... >I think most Malakim would smite the Demon in this situation as soon as >they could find it. It's just a standard Malakim response. Heck, the two >Malakim in my campaign would also commence to smighting the *Angels* >involved in the situation as well. Well, yes. But the point is I'm not talking *most* Malakim -- I'm talking about something on the edges of the normal curve. Something unusual but possible. -Loki - -- 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, 19 Jan 1998 09:54:58 -0600 From: "Yeager, Alex" Subject: IN> Re: [Do You Run IN?] On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com wrote: > So, how many of us on this mailing list actually play in a campaign, either > as a GM or a PC? No campaigns, but still running a LOT of convention events - like what, you may ask? Thanks, glad to tell you... Feb. 7, GEMcon, Ypsilanti, MI: Angelic Scenario (In Hominy) Feb. 21-22, BASHCon, Toledo, OH: Demonic Scenario (License and Sensibility) Feb. 26-Mar. 1, Winter Fantasy '98, Chicago, IL: A variety of seminars on the game/char. gen./game history, as well as multiple sessions of the above events. As one might derive from the titles, I'm still jumping up and down on my own little hill of events high on the brightness and clown makeup scale. It's my cross to bear, and I do so with pride... Alex Yeager YeagerAW@Maritz.com MIB 0230/FoL/INWO Local 23 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:01:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Dataweaver wrote: > a false prophet, depending on who you ask), while Christianity views > him as God incarnate (and even there, you're likely to get a war > going amongst different denominations of Christianity as to whether > he actually was God, or the Son of God, or both, or neither). The vast bulk of Christendom regards Jesus as both God and Son of God, the exceptions being very small groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who are often dismissed by the rest of Christendom as not Christian exactly for their unorthodox Christology. At this late date, Christology is pretty uniform throughout Christendom. The really divisive issues are matters of church government -- i.e. who has authority here on Earth. Hardly surprising, is it? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:09:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Superiors: Old Testement or New Testement Jesse wrote: > Of course Gabriel and Michael, whom you put in the Old Testement, > are both mentioned in the New. Ironic They are mentioned in the Old, too, in the book of Daniel. In fact, they are the only angels mentioned by name anywhere in the Bible, unless you include the Apocrypha, in which case you can include Raphael (and Uriel? I forget). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:13:59 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Other Rafael Stuff > If there isn't a canon location for Rafael's trumpet, then what's the > consensus on a probable location/new owner? I'd really like to hear from > anyone on the issue. > > Just as a tack on idea; what about other major angelic artifacts? Yes, > Liber Reliqarim isn't out yet, but let's play with the idea. Do the > Archangels/Demon princes make a habit of keeping their major artifacts on > their person, or is there an angelic/diabolic armory? Would you believe both? =) Most Superiors keep certain items on their person and other items somewhere in their stronghold. Plus there's a special place for special items and a proprietoress that brooks no nonsense about the use of her charges. All of this is detailed in LR. (The reason I'm being so vague is that there are plot seeds involved here and non-GMs read this list...) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:19:05 -0600 From: John L Veazey Subject: IN> Loss of Superior Question: When a superior ,such as Raphael or Legion or Uriel, is removed from play and leaves behind servitors, can they continue to follow their supperiors word? I know that the Tsayadim (Marches, 5) are a special case. They continued to purify at the cost of becoming outcasts. But could theses servitors not continue to follow their AA word, keep thier attunement, and remain within the ranks of Heaven? - -- I am asking mainly because I am curious as to what the attunements for the three above are. Vz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:22:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Definitions, please Ni Ke Hsin wrote: > The one exception is the fairies. There is a small body of > folklore in which various members of the fairy races are converted. I recommend to the list "The Discarded Image" by C. S. Lewis (author of "The Screwtape Letters"). This book is an introduction to the medieval worldview, and has sections on angels that might be interesting to IN players, but there is a whole chapter devoted to faeries. Lewis points out that the medieval mind loved to tidy up and classify, but could never quite decide what to do with fairies. They had many different theories about them and never settled on one. These theories included: - they are a class of angel - they are a class of demon - they are a class of neutral celestial (in IN terms) - they are a class of the dead (a sort of ghost or undead) - they are a separate species of rational animal, possibly unfallen Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:24:42 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Superiors: Old Testement or New Testement > > Of course Gabriel and Michael, whom you put in the Old Testement, > > are both mentioned in the New. Ironic > > They are mentioned in the Old, too, in the book of Daniel. In fact, > they are the only angels mentioned by name anywhere in the Bible, > unless you include the Apocrypha, in which case you can include > Raphael (and Uriel? I forget). > > Earl > I've seen written in a bunch of places (the good olde Gustav Davidson resource being one) that Raphael was one of the three Angels who went to talk to Abraham, with Gabriel and Michael. [I have also seen this as God/Gabriel/Michael.] I have also seen that Raphael bound Jacob's wounds after his tussle with Satan/God/Michael/Sammael/my brother. All of this is what, Genesis? There's also all sorts of interesting junk in the Apocryphia which is always amusing. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:28:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com wrote: > I still go along with the theory that Eli was Jesus. In Paradise Lost, it was Jesus who did the actual work of Creation. It's always nice when things mesh. Call me a cynic, but what about Kobal as Jesus? Then again, if he had been, he'd probably still be chuckling non-stop... Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:32:00 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes On Jan 16, 9:21pm, Kevin Walsh wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Last Night's Quotes > My only > > changes have been to make the skills more comprehensive - getting rid of 'Small > > Weapon' and 'Large Weapon' for instance, and replacing them with a 'Melee > > Weapons' skill that provides skill with all hand weapons, that sorta thing. > > That scares me to death, personally. I thought it was a bit dodgy even in > WOD games, though I could never be bothered to change it personally. The > techniques involved with swords and spears are, I would imagine, very > different indeed. (Do you know that all small weapons and large weapons have > individual skills in canon?) > > It makes Malakim of Eli even more scary than they already are. It depends on how combat-intensive your games are. If there's few weapons-based battles then having fewer skills makes a lot of sense. If you tend to fight a lot, separating the skill into sub-categories keeps people from getting _too_ bogus, too quickly. OTOH, any particular character will almost always have the weapon that matches their best skill, so it all comes out about the same in the end. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:40:57 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament > OTOH, I can see why it was avoided so studiously; the most fundamental > difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is in their views of > Jesus. Judaism and Islam generally view him as a prophet (occasionally as > a false prophet, depending on who you ask), while Christianity views him > as God incarnate (and even there, you're likely to get a war going amongst > different denominations of Christianity as to whether he actually was God, > or the Son of God, or both, or neither). > > Keeping in mind the potential volatility of the subject matter, though, > let me pose this question: > > In the IN universe, who was Jesus? > > Was he a prophet (read: Soldier)? > or a sorcerer? > or an angel? > or an archangel? > or God incarnate? (in which case, how does he relate, if at all, to Yves > and Kronos?) > > For those who are working on the various Religion mods for IN, this is a > vital question. > In my universe, it was Eli, but that's only because I decided that before the game started, and it seemed to fit at the time with some of the universe background. I may change it to a normal human being soon, not even a soldier, for several reasons that just vary wildly from 'historical/mythological accuracy' to ' It gives more impact as Christ the Man vs. the heavyhandedness of Archangels ' to 'I just feel like it'. I HIGHLY recommend the small novella, "Behold the Man" by Michael Moorcock. (Yes, the guy who wrote Elric.) If you want to do Jesus Christ stuff in your campaign, hop over to amazon.com and order it *NOW*. *prodprodprod* It's about 150 pages, not very long, but deep as hell. If you don't, you're missing out big-time. I also read Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son". In no way as good of a book, and one has to deal with Mailer's pretenousness, which gets to be trying at times, especially at the end. I recommend getting it out of the library just to read Satan's conversation with Christ, because he certainly does justice to that bit, but save your $$. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:44:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Old Testament or New Testament Steve Jessop wrote: > In Paradise Lost, it was Jesus who did the actual work of Creation. > It's always nice when things mesh. That's not just Paradise Lost; that's standard Christian theology. The Father produces the Son, who is then the direct agent of creation, inspired by the Father. Jesus, as the Word, is equivalent to a concept found in many philosophies, mythologies, and systems of thought. It is, roughly, the creative power that makes the world hang together and make sense. It has been variously called: Logos ("Word,") John 1:1, the philosopher Philo, misc. Greek philosophy) Nous (neo-Platonism) Ma'at (Egyptian mythology) R'ta (Hindu mythology) Tao (Chinese philosophy, notably Taoism of course) and others that I don't have in memory. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #574 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.