From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jan 27 15:46:53 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 PAA27804 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:46:53 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA25610 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:45:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:45:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199801272145.PAA25610@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 #596 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, January 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 596 In this digest: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking Re: IN> Lilith a human? IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> Question Re: IN> Re: Sophia Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> Sophia Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) Re: IN> A few scattered questions IN> Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty Re: Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) RE: IN> (FLUFF) Fallen Re: IN> Lilith a human? Re: Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) Re: IN> A few scattered questions IN> Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty Re: IN> Some questions Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Angels and the Salvation of Man Re: IN> Some questions Re: IN> Some questions IN> Song of Motion, Warner Brothers-style IN> Digest List Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) Re: IN> Ugly Vessels Re: IN> FLUFF: Titles Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:49:58 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Beth's Princess of Nitpicking > Band-sister to Asmodeus, her celestial form looking something like a > scorpion crossed with a beaver who could take down a redwood, this Beth was > once the Angel of Evolving Consistency, a Cherub who served Archives. > ("Yes, I know I have the same name as *her*. But that doesn't mean > anything -- she's a Kyrio or Bright or something, and I'm a Djinn.") After > foolishly attuning herself to the _Oz_ books by Baum and gaining dissonance > for every internal inconsistency he wrote, she plummeted like a rock, > convinced that humans were sloppy, uncaring, and generally contrary. If _OZ_ was what caused her to Fall, it's a good thing she didn't attune herself to Zelazny's Amber series - especially the second five books. She might have outright exploded. *boom* > Balseraphs: > With their flexible world-views, a Balseraph can see *anything* as > inconsistent. Anyone resisting their lies rolls at a penalty to Will equal > to the Balseraph's Celestial Forces -- but *any* successful resistance will > cause the Liar a note of dissonance (as if the subjected had resisted with > a 6). AUGH. How come I feel this band attunement is based on my emails? :) *resonate* This is cool. Into the "Beth" folder it goes. - - Em, Bal of the Game in the service to Nitpicking - but only on Tuesdays ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:46:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a human? In "The Alphabet of Ben Sira," the source of the Lilith legend as used by most moderns, Lilith was created from dust just like Adam, but left before the fall. So she might be "human," but she sure ain't mortal, because our race acquired mortality from eating the forbidden fruit. The same tale describes her using magic to teleport out of Eden and bearing 100 demon-children a day. So her original design doesn't sound very human. In our game (which pre-dates IN by a good bit), she is a renegade Dragon, the Dragons being a semi-celestial race created by some angels at the beginning of the Mesozoic period. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:48:58 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition >>>Since _The Marches_ had a significant *lack* of description of the Gods that over 900 million people follow (and they're quite good about it for the most part, I'm told)<<< Which is a good reason _not_ to try describing the Hindu deities in official In Nomine publications (though doing it in unofficial writeups like yours is fine). The small number of pagans who actually worship the Olympians, Asgardians, etc., are usually understanding of seeing their gods treated as fictional characters, since they have been for centuries. Heck, a fair number of pagans are gamers themselves. But 900 million people might be a little offended by seeing the objects of their very real veneration quantified as game characters. (OK, granted, the number of Hindus that would ever see it would be much smaller than 900 million. But the point is, it's a matter of respect more than fear of repercussions -- when you're dealing with real religions, it's not a good idea to treat them in a cavalier manner for a game. That's one of the reasons why In Nomine avoids making canonical declarations about many issues that are at the heart of Islamic-Judeo-Christian theology.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:05:42 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition David Edelstein wrote: > (That's one of the reasons why In Nomine avoids making canonical > declarations about many issues that are at the heart of Islamic- > Judeo-Christian theology.) Or tries to. The theology implied in Yves's lecture to young angels in the Angelic Player's Guide has strong suggestion of several heresies, of which the easiest to name is pantheism. (See http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/Angelic/excerpts.html#lk1) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 07:20:44 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Question I would smack that Kyriotate with one point of dissonance. In this example, the host is the swarm itself, rather than each individual bee. I would rule that since damage was done to the swarm, it is in worse condition than when found. Remember that the dissonance is not for the destruction of the vessel, but for any lessened condition, medical or otherwise. In this example, I would also allow the swarm to "heal", not by raising the dead bees, rather by having those bees replaced by new ones. Thus, the swarm is back intact even though the individual members of it are dead. Also, the Kyrio doesn't generate the dissonance until he leaves. It is then that the host's current status is compared to his conditions at the time of possession. - ---Sanguinas wrote: > > Hi my name is Andrew. I have a question concerning Kyriotates. The > question is as simple as I could make it and at the end of this > explanation I have phrased the question in a yes or no answer as best I > could: > I have a Kyrotate that followes Jordi, the archangel of animals. > His name is Buzz and he choses as his host(s) a swarm of bees. In the > In Nomine book, it states that " if a Kyrotate leaves his host in worse > condition than when he found it, they generate dissonence. Well, in one > of our games the swarm of bees was attacked and my Kryotate took 5 > points of damage. According to the rules of a swarm taking the damage, > five bees were killed. The question than came up as to whether the > Kyrotate should take dissonence. The kyrotate was not in one host but > several. Surely the angel wouldn't heal all five bees because, once > again, the rules state that they would be as dead as George Washington. > > In conclusion, the question is thus: Does the Kyrotate generate > dissonence for each bee killed, or rather if the entire swarm was > destroyed? > > Thank you for your attention, > Andrew, Malakite servitor of War == --Querent USELESS FACT: The hominid skeleton known as "Lucy" was named after the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds", the song that was playing when the discovery was made. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:45:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Sophia James Palmer wrote: > The idea of the relationship between God and Israel being like that > between a man and woman crops up everywhere in the Bible. SoS has > been mentioned, but there's also quite a lot of it in Isaiah. St. Paul adapted the idea to Christianity, hence the Church as the Bride of Christ. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:59:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) York H. Dobyns wrote: > On the other hand, I would have ruled that a Seneschal > whose Tether gets destroyed simply loses his Word and is no longer a > Seneschal, not that he gets soul-killed. Opinions? Personally, I would not make Word-loss result in soul-death, especially if the Word was something clearly transitory to begin with. On the other hand, Word-loss should be really severe. You were personifying it, after all; you were it, for some values of "were." So, barring Superior intervention *and* good dice, Word- loss should probably result in Trauma and some lost Forces. An angel who volunteers to take on a transitory Word, like my Angel of World War Two, is being very self-sacrificing. (Granted, you may have been *given* Forces when you got Worded, but maybe not, and there's no guarantee it will be a net gain, and it still hurts a *lot*. And there's the Trauma.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:01:01 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Doing something behind his DP's back >I have an npc who wants to aquire an attunement belonging to a rival demon >prince. He wants to do this without either DP's knowledge or consent. (a >probable death-wish, but there you go.) This means creating the power on his >own. There is another way. The NPC could trade favors with Lilith. This probably would be a worse idea than making the power on his own but would be alot easier and quicker. It would not be without the rival Prince's knowledge but it may be with out his consent. That is he would be under Geas. Of course you would have to trade lots of stuff to Lilith for this. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tounge-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:13:33 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition David Wrote: >But 900 million people >might be a little offended by seeing the objects of their very real >veneration quantified as game characters. So how many people pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels and Holy Mother on a daily basis? This kind of strikes me as a double standard, you can represent the dominant culture in publications and you can represent minor cultures and sects, but you cannot represent the stuff in between? Am I missing something? - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tounge-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips remember that, folks: trust your government, or skinheads will find you and kill you... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:42:10 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sophia Here are a couple of good general-purpose titles on Gnosticism: Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism, by Kurt Rudolph, 1987, Harper, ISBN 0060670185 Gnostic Religion, by Hans Jonas, 1979, Beacon, ISBN 08070579911 Both are available through Amazon.com. I own the first and I read the second in college (which means that the 1979 date has to be for a more recent revision). The Jonas book appears to be something of a classic in the field and has the following review posted on Amazon.com: "enemy@enemies.com from the Gnostic Friends Network , 10/04/97, rating=10: Essential reading for gnostics everywhere! For all you college professor types, this book is essential! Includes an original essay comparing Gnosticism to modern nihilism and existentialism! The first popular book on the subject!" This is interesting, since reading the same book made me sure I detested Gnosticism as the font of many pernicious errors. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:40:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > In our game (which pre-dates IN by a good bit), she is a renegade > Dragon, the Dragons being a semi-celestial race created by some > angels at the beginning of the Mesozoic period. Ooooh...sounds good. can you tell us more? Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:46:37 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions At 10:55 AM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >Soldiers and Undead cannot hear the Symphony, yes? >> >> Can. That's what distinguishes a Soldier from a servant. (At least, >> Soldiers can. Undead... I think they can. I think anyone who can >> use Essence consciously can hear the Symphony.) > > From a 'cause and effect' point of view, it >probably works the other way around, but Beth has the >essence of it. (i.e. being able to hear the Symphony >implies that you can hear, and control, your own >personal symphony.) Hello, I just saw this going over my backlog... Is this canon? If so, what part of the rulebook did I miss? -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: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:16:55 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: IN> Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty One more certain area: The nature of God And a possible area: The full extent of the Far Marches - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:24:28 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > In our game (which pre-dates IN by a good bit), she is a renegade > > Dragon, the Dragons being a semi-celestial race created by some > > angels at the beginning of the Mesozoic period. > > Ooooh...sounds good. can you tell us more? I wrote the creation-myth for our fantasy game and our GM has posted it at: http://www.ultranet.com/~brons/Tuesday/info/RacesOfEarth.html If anyone on the list wants an e-mail copy, just ask me. Our GM's Web page also posts logs of our campaign, going back years. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:29:04 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > [...] > >The worst part is the removal of the mysteries, and the end to idle > >speculation. The more source material there is, the less speculation > >there can be, because it's all defined in canon, just buy the book. And > >that's what really makes me sad. It's too bad, really. But there > >is nothing I can do about it without bringing on three page rants. Oh > >well. > > One of the things that I and Karakash are planning is to find all the > "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" and mark them as such > for future writers, etc. I don't promise to take every single one > of every list-member's pet mysteries -- but I'd be interested in > seeing *which* mysteries GMs prefered to keep to themselves... > > Current "This Will Remain Unclear" areas include: > > Jesus' nature, and very existance > > Ditto most other Messiahs. > > Are celestials hopped up ethereals? > > Some other stuff that I can't remember right now... > > > Anyway, go ahead, tell me. I don't promise to make you happy > and use everything, but I don't say I won't. > Okay, let me think.... Here is my Official Things I Do Not Want To See Defined: * The Nature of God. Does he exist? Does he not exist? Is he a big essense sucking hole? Stay far away from this one. * The Nature of Christ. * If Angels have Free Will or not. * If _Demons_ have Free Will or not. * Making every human who has been important in history into a Soldier/Angel/Celestial/Ethereal * The true nature of the Symphony * The true nature of Lilith * What Eli has been up to. It's a large plot hook provided in the sourcebook, and preferably it would be best to keep it that way. * The true nature of Eli * The true nature of Yves * The Janus/Valefor question, and especially "How he pulls it off". * Kobal's Last Prank * Why Malakim cannot Fall. (Yeah, I know, already ruined.) * Why Lilim don't change when they go Bright, other then pick up some wings and so on and so forth. * The true nature of Hell, whatever that means. Just don't come out and say it was carved out of the side of a decaying buffalo. * The Far Marches * A whole bunch of stuff about Islam. I'd rather not open a book and find out the Kadah is some sort of tether or something. I'd be bugged. * Messiahs, Ethereals, and the stuff mentioned above. I believe these are the _big_ ones, right off the top of my head without much thought. I'm sure if I sat here for an hour or so I could think up at least a dozen more. When I say "True Nature" - personality is fine, because I'll just toss it anyway. But I would rather not see "Yves knows everything because he is _thus_ and therefore _thus_" and so on and so forth. I just don't want to see it defined. - - Em, Balseraph of Wagglin Eyebrows ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:34:58 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: RE: IN> (FLUFF) Fallen On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: > -sigh- > > *sniffle* > > > > I just can't win against Ultimate Truth... No, you can't, and it's Dissonant to try. Would you mind listing your reasons for trying? Speak slowly and clearly, please. And stop dripping on the microphone. Dominic hates it when his surveillance gear gets wet. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives, freelancing for Judgement today (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:40:24 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a human? On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > In "The Alphabet of Ben Sira," the source of the Lilith legend as > used by most moderns, Lilith was created from dust just like Adam, > but left before the fall. So she might be "human," but she sure > ain't mortal, because our race acquired mortality from eating the > forbidden fruit. Yes. But in IN canon, apparently as of the Angelic Player's Guide, humans were extant (and presumably mortal) before Eden was created, let alone Adam & Lil. So I'm a little interested in how/why Lucy 'promoted' Lilith, as it were. Maybe that's why Hell has more troops than Heaven (another factoid buried in the APG); Lucifer's been upgrading humans (yes, I know that canon says this ain't done. Canon has been known to change). Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "We prefer our metaphysics with a money-back guarantee."-- Penn & Teller How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:46:28 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Dragons? (Was Re: IN> Lilith a human?) > > > In our game (which pre-dates IN by a good bit), she is a renegade > > > Dragon, the Dragons being a semi-celestial race created by some > > > angels at the beginning of the Mesozoic period. > > > > Ooooh...sounds good. can you tell us more? > > I wrote the creation-myth for our fantasy game and our GM has posted > it at: > > http://www.ultranet.com/~brons/Tuesday/info/RacesOfEarth.html > > If anyone on the list wants an e-mail copy, just ask me. > > Our GM's Web page also posts logs of our campaign, going back years. Oh, and I should have said: Lilith doesn't show up explicitly in that story, but she was the Serpent in the Garden, and our GM later stipulated that she was one of the original nine dragon queens. As such, she is probably mother of several different draconian races. Our PCs are in the midst of battling some of them now. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:50:07 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions On Jan 27, 11:46am, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> A few scattered questions > At 10:55 AM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote: > >> >Soldiers and Undead cannot hear the Symphony, yes? > >> > >> Can. That's what distinguishes a Soldier from a servant. (At least, > >> Soldiers can. Undead... I think they can. I think anyone who can > >> use Essence consciously can hear the Symphony.) > > > > From a 'cause and effect' point of view, it > >probably works the other way around, but Beth has the > >essence of it. (i.e. being able to hear the Symphony > >implies that you can hear, and control, your own > >personal symphony.) > > Hello, I just saw this going over my backlog... Is this canon? If so, what > part of the rulebook did I miss? > -Loki It's in some canon, somewhere... I _think_. Anyway, consider this official, then. They _can_, but just not very well considering their generally lower Perception scores compared to celestial beings. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:50:52 -0500 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: IN> Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty Free will is another biggie... Either for humans or for celestials! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:55:02 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Bowman Subject: Re: IN> Some questions On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > I know... About half of them, I could weasle around that he got *some* > part of it. (Like taking the Lilim of Gluttony attunement -- you > don't get the Geas, but you can still cook stuff that people have to > make a Will roll to refuse.) Hmmm. That seems reasonable for someone like Duke Hamet, but I would be reluctant to say that a character could spend 5 points and get *part* of a Band attunement, I'd probably go for all or none. > >How exactly does one resist something? > > Force of Will... >[much snipped] > > That help? Oh yes, that was very useful. I knew that some resistances specifically said they weren't Contests, which implies that a normal resistance is, I just wanted to make sure and make a plug for a statement to that effect in errata or the mythical 2nd ed. Here's yet another question (can you tell I've just starting *running* IN as opposed to playing it): One of the PCs is a Mercurian and used his resonance on demons twice last game. I'm wondering just how to present information to the player in a way that doesn't immediately give away the individual is a demon (geographic origin - Hell). One of the demons had a role, so I provided information on the role, the other one didn't and I answered very generally (had problems with his boss, etc.). Is this the right tack to take or should the Mercurian resonance be a demon/angel detector? Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:03:58 -0600 (CST) From: Bolie Williams IV Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > Okay, let me think.... > > Here is my Official Things I Do Not Want To See Defined: [snipped *long* list] Personally, I'd like to see the list of things not defined to be relatively short. I wouldn't mind a longer list of things that are defined in sidebars but which aren't central to the In Nomine World. Perhaps some of the more controversial areas can have alternative explanations, much like GURPS IOU did with the three versions. While it's nice to have room to work as a GM, as a *busy* GM, I like to have enough defined that I don't have to do a lot of work myself. That's why I buy all the supplements. :) Bolie IV ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bolie Williams IV bolie@io.com http://www.io.com/~bolie/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:13:10 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Angels and the Salvation of Man > >It depends on how the Game Master decides to handle the angst. I believe > >a little pain and philosophy is good for the soul, but too much and it > >turns into a soap opera. There's got to be a balance there somewhere. > > Well, I had a good GM, but it's hard to care when your decisions don't > matter at all. AHA! That's the trick, you see. The idea is to put the character into a morally painful situation, and make any decision the character makes count in some fashion. It is true that it is hard to care after you agonize over some point or some decision for hours, and nothing happens at all. It's an entirely different story when you agonize, you do something, and things happen in new and mysterious ways, mostly to impact your world directly around you. > Angst arises from having to make a hard choice that will > compromise something you love; if any choice you make will trash everything > you love, then you get pissed, not angstful. Very true. Although, I tend to say, "It depends on your decision." If you let a nuclear weapon go off in New York City, don't be pissed when every being in creation comes after your hide, and does kill everything you love. If it's, "Do I sleep with so and so tonight?" or you let the bad guy live or you choose to do action A instead of action B, that's a different matter entirely. I would never say that no action should never suck, because it's all part of the experience. If I didn't want the experience, I'd play AD&D. It's a scale of subjectives. > > Justin, my PC, relaxed a lot once he realized this, and grew a lot more > interested in stylish violence and tacky one-liners than in trying to > save the world. The surface of heroism, rather than the essence. Fun > for a little while, but ultimately boring. This sounds more like a problem of your GM then the concept of harder-core roleplaying in general, actually. Angst for angst sake is no fun. Angst, in moderation, because it's part of the story and makes a better character is. > > It probably depends on who your Christ is. Judaean loony who lived in > the opening years of the Empire, or the sinless Son of God who freely > chose to die for mankind's salvation? Though it occurs to me that either > way the answer is "not the way he lived," since on the one you don't > want to emulate him and on the other you can't, not on the essential > level. Man, did I ever misquote horribly. I found the quote... hold on... "We Protestamts must sooner or later face this question: Are we to understand the "imitation of Christ" in the sense that we chould copy his life and, if I may use the expression, ape his stigmata; or in the deeper sense that we are to live our own proper lives as truly as he lived his in all its implications? Its no easy matter to live a life that is modelled on Christ's, but it is unspeakably harder to live one's own life as truly as Christ lived his. Anyone who did this would... be misjudged, derided, tortured and crucifed." - Jung: Modern Man in Search of a Soul That's almost exactly what you said - to live his life exactly as he lived his would bring down neurotic horrors uncountable. Which is why it reminded me of attempting to live up the the unholy standards of Perfect Goodness within the Archangels. The angels would become neurotic, never being able to live up to an unattainable standard, although it is expected of them to do so. An interesting position to put the PCs in, I would expect. > Well, that's what makes the challenge of being holy so hard. How can you > try to live in a holy fashion when you can't even come to a clear idea > of what good is? The only answer is you do your best and take your lumps > as they come. Very true. It leads me to believe in either very accepting angels who refuse to look deeper then the superficial flaws, or neurotic angels who spend their lives trying to live up to unrealistic ideals. Sort of like people. > That's why there's more than one archangel, IMC. Eli and Gabriel are bad > examples, since they are both slated to fall, but Novalis and Michael > are both really really good people who disagree on a lot of really basic > questions. (You know, I hope none of my potential players were reading > that, if I told the truth.) > Hmmm. Deep. Very deep. I'm not arguing, I'm just seeing it leading toward Angels going nuts trying to reach ideals they cannot reach. Which is interesting in and of itself. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:17:03 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Some questions > One of the PCs is a Mercurian and used his resonance on demons twice > last game. I'm wondering just how to present information to the > player in a way that doesn't immediately give away the individual is > a demon (geographic origin - Hell). One of the demons had a role, so > I provided information on the role, the other one didn't and I > answered very generally (had problems with his boss, etc.). Is this > the right tack to take or should the Mercurian resonance be a > demon/angel detector? I'd say to tell the Mercurian only about the role unless he succeeds with a CD higher than the level of the role. So the first one would sound the demon out if it had a low roll, or if the Mercurian was lucky. The second would let the Mercurian know immediately, unless the CD was so low that the relationship could be misinterpreted as human. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:13:41 -0500 From: The Baron Samedi Subject: Re: IN> Some questions >> >How exactly does one resist something? >> >> Force of Will... >>[much snipped] >> >> That help? > >Oh yes, that was very useful. I knew that some resistances specifically >said they weren't Contests, which implies that a normal resistance is, I >just wanted to make sure and make a plug for a statement to that effect >in errata or the mythical 2nd ed. > >Here's yet another question (can you tell I've just starting *running* IN >as opposed to playing it): > >One of the PCs is a Mercurian and used his resonance on demons twice last >game. I'm wondering just how to present information to the player in a >way that doesn't immediately give away the individual is a demon >(geographic origin - Hell). One of the demons had a role, so I provided >information on the role, the other one didn't and I answered very >generally (had problems with his boss, etc.). Is this the right tack to >take or should the Mercurian resonance be a demon/angel detector? I think this is a degree of success thing. if the Murcurian got a 6 check digit, he would prob pick up on things beyond the role. Angel resonances are very very difficult to resist, since most of them in now way affect you whatsoever. Perhaps you could even compare the role to check digit, in cases like Mercurian resonance and special use at -4 of the Cherubim Resonance (APG) Incidentally, this question came up. if a Cherub attunes to someone can the person tell something is up? My ruling in my game had been no, but a player pointed out the story section under cherubs, where the politician was quite aware something was happening. > >Michael > The Baron Samedi occasional Cherubim of Destiny ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:21:13 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Nutt Subject: IN> Song of Motion, Warner Brothers-style >> Third... the destination must be someplace on Earth that the singer has >> been before. Could this mean inside a particular vehicle... or just the >> location in three dimensions that the vehicle was occupying at some point in >> time? For example, could you teleport someone into the middle of the >> approach pattern at your local airport, and just hope he's got Wings (or >> hope he *doesn't*, if you're trying to kill him...)? Or instead, could you >> send him into seat 13-F on TWA Flight 7704, wherever that aircraft might be >> right now? > >I'd say if he knows where the plane is, it's cool to say 'onto the plane'; >otherwise, unless he has a way of knowing just where that plane is, he >can't do it. Cherubim have an easier time at this, of course. :) Well, I can see someone wanting to zap the target onto an airplane... but I was thinking of it as a not-too-subtle way to kill somebody. Scene: Celestial is in an airplane, coming home after a brief jaunt somewhere else. He looks out the window as the airplane is coming in on final approach, and notes that he is currently directly above a local football stadium at an altitude of 2000 feet, and thinks to himself, "This would be a great place to drop an enemy from." Later, he uses the Song of Motion to teleport this person he's very upset with to that exact location, but said individual probably *won't* have the benefit of being surrounded by an airplane. The ensuing scene would strongly remind me of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon, though, and might be highly favored among Kobal's minions. :) Michael Xena/Gabrielle in 2000... Because women are so tactful and diplomatic! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:18:01 -0500 From: Alex Howard Subject: IN> Digest List I'd like the digest list... dunno if this is the right format or no. Regardless, snend it to funkysocks@hotmail.com My thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:18:28 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine: Hindu Tradition At 11:13 27/01/98 -0500, you wrote: >David Wrote: >>But 900 million people >>might be a little offended by seeing the objects of their very real >>veneration quantified as game characters. > >So how many people pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels and >Holy Mother on a daily basis? > >This kind of strikes me as a double standard, you can represent the >dominant culture in publications and you can represent minor cultures and >sects, but you cannot represent the stuff in between? > Its one thing to lampoon your own culture & religion, a bit of another to rip off someone else's IMO. I actually think IN owes more to literature such as Paradise Lost, Dante et al than any one religious interpretation but it does tend to assume that the monotheistic traditions are more right than others. At the moment it has managed (neatly, I think) to avoid the question of 'who is right?', but if there was to be a canon view on where something like the Hindu pantheon fits in, it would be really difficult to avoid facing that (unless you can do something clever and find a way to make the archangels into avatars of hindu deities or vice versa). jo (I'm just as bad. I wrote a plot seed in which Hindu gods were ethereals -- but it was a tolerably cool plot ;) ). - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:39:09 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Tangents (was Re: IN> Angelic Words) > >Personally, I would not make Word-loss result in soul-death, >especially if the Word was something clearly transitory to begin >with. \ >Earl One question: What is a clearly transitory word? IMO, a superior wouldn't grant such a word to begin with. The only thing that I could even think to come up with would be the Angel of the '98 olympic games, but is that really a reward for good service? Armand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:50:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ugly Vessels At 6:09 AM -0500 1/26/98, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: > 1) These points aren't somehow quantized into Role levels or Vessel >levels: If you have a Vessel/3 with Charisma-2 on it, the combination only >costs you five points, rather than 6. It simply means that the net cost of >a Vessel, its Role, and its Charisma can never be less than 0. As a GM, I'd probably want the net cost to be at least 1 point, not 0, and if it were a creature where it's ugliness just didn't really matter... ("No, you *cannot* have a Wombat/1 with Ugly (-2), forget it.") The other way to take it is the way Joanna did -- 3 points for the first level, and then *improve* the rest. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:52:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF: Titles At 5:19 PM +0000 1/26/98, Hart, Joanna wrote: >>>(feeling inadequate because I have no title!) > >>Oh, just pick one. Archives, Nitpicking, whatever. I seem to collect >>Servitors... It's very bemusing. > >(Now to take the subtle approach) Err.. how do you deal with servitors who >turn out to be totally incompetent? > >Like an archivist who reads the books when they are supposed to be filing >them, or just stuffs them into the nearest gaps in the shelves when >she^D^D^Dit gets bored... Well, that depends on if I'm being the Archangel or the Demon Princess at the time... The Archangel of Archives would probably sigh and suggest that perhaps the "archivist" would like to have a slightly different job description (for reading instead of filing), and would definitely have a nice little Archangel-to-Servitor talk about someone who misfiled books. That's dissonant, after all. The Demon Princess of Nitpicking would get scathing and send you to go play in Kronos' Archives for a while. [finally recovering... ] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:59:55 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kobal's Last Prank (was Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 3:03 PM -0500 1/26/98, Brandon Quina wrote: >> SJG publications for IN form the "canon" of IN, compared to which >> GM variations and alternatives like "Dark Victory" are non-canonical. > >And indeed, they are heretical and Dominic will send servitors to >your house to make sure you play In Nomine *correctly*. [...] [...] >Brandon, >Habbalah of Nitpicking Ah, my Servitor, what are you doing letting the Judgment angels get to him *FIRST*? Hmmmmmmm???? - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #596 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.