From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Feb 20 14:25:59 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 OAA07883 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:25:59 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id NAA09699 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:50:27 -0600 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:50:27 -0600 Message-Id: <199802201950.NAA09699@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 #636 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 Friday, February 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 636 In this digest: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Long) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Long) Re: IN> Satire Re: IN> Feast of Blades Re: IN> [Choir] of [Word/Superior] Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Character Names Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) IN> Elohim of Purity? IN> Michael Falling Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> Satire Re: IN> Re: IN- Feast of Blades Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> Michael Falling Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> Michael Falling Re: IN> Michael Falling IN> Hell's Runaways IN> Welcome to the INdex. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:47:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a > successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions > equal to half of his check die (rounded up). > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear on Oath to accomplish a certain deed. > Until this deed is complete, the Malakim gains a bonus equal to his > Celestial Forces on any roll which helps him complete that goal. Look what this combo does to a Celestial combat monster: 5 CelF, 11 Per, 9 Will. So 4-6 actions every round (CD 5-10). Does the restriction for servitors of Baal (1 use of each weapon) apply? Roll to hit is 14+Fighting. (Or 14+CelF, I can't remember which the book says). That has to smart. Only danger is that baddie escapes, and you are forced to follow him to Hell/Marches. Now we know why the Ethereal Crusade worked so well, but I prefer Michael's boys to be the best. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:00:47 -0600 (CST) From: Dataweaver Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a > > successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions > > equal to half of his check die (rounded up). > > > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear on Oath to accomplish a certain deed. > > Until this deed is complete, the Malakim gains a bonus equal to his > > Celestial Forces on any roll which helps him complete that goal. Modify this to include: "However, the Malakim gains dissonance every time he passes up an opportunity, no matter how slight, to advance his goal"; in other words, he becomes obsessed with it... > Look what this combo does to a Celestial combat monster: > > 5 CelF, 11 Per, 9 Will. So 4-6 actions every round (CD 5-10). Does the > restriction for servitors of Baal (1 use of each weapon) apply? > > Roll to hit is 14+Fighting. (Or 14+CelF, I can't remember which the book > says). That has to smart. > > Only danger is that baddie escapes, and you are forced to follow him to > Hell/Marches. Now we know why the Ethereal Crusade worked so well, but I > prefer Michael's boys to be the best. - ---- 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: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:17:58 -0400 (EDT) From: jonesm@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Long) Perhaps it is just me, but to me it seems that Uriel is perhaps a little more zelous then you have made him. Also IMO Uriel was called to heaven for a royal lecture session...not because he wanted forgiveness. He is to me a royal zealot who got a well deserved lecture. Rebecca, the Bright Lilim of Eden ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:17:37 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) >> 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a >> successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions >> equal to half of his check die (rounded up). >Look what this combo does to a Celestial combat monster: Well so it is pretty powerful. But using the rules for Ofiantes in the APG they can get extra actions and better actions too. Personally if you want a combat monster you can make one now as an Ofiante of War, They kick but. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:08:00 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a > > successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions > > equal to half of his check die (rounded up). > > > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear on Oath to accomplish a certain deed. > > Until this deed is complete, the Malakim gains a bonus equal to his > > Celestial Forces on any roll which helps him complete that goal. > > Look what this combo does to a Celestial combat monster: > > 5 CelF, 11 Per, 9 Will. So 4-6 actions every round (CD 5-10). Does the > restriction for servitors of Baal (1 use of each weapon) apply? > > Roll to hit is 14+Fighting. (Or 14+CelF, I can't remember which the book > says). That has to smart. Eeew. That *is* frightening. Of course, only an Ofanim could do that (since the Ofanim attunement is resonance dependent), but that would be over the top. The second possible Malakim attunement should be amended somehow so that only Malakim can use it (that is what I intended in the first place). > Only danger is that baddie escapes, and you are forced to follow him to > Hell/Marches. Now we know why the Ethereal Crusade worked so well, but I > prefer Michael's boys to be the best. I think there was a lot of rivalry about that. Rather like the Army/Marine debate in our Armed Forces. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:09:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a > > successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions > > equal to half of his check die (rounded up). > > 5 CelF, 11 Per, 9 Will. So 4-6 actions every round (CD 5-10). Does the > restriction for servitors of Baal (1 use of each weapon) apply? Should have mentioned this on my othe reply: yes, teh restriction does apply. I just forgot to mention it. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:11:12 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Dataweaver wrote: > > > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear on Oath to accomplish a certain deed. > > > Until this deed is complete, the Malakim gains a bonus equal to his > > > Celestial Forces on any roll which helps him complete that goal. > > Modify this to include: "However, the Malakim gains dissonance every time > he passes up an opportunity, no matter how slight, to advance his goal"; > in other words, he becomes obsessed with it... Words to that effect are in the original. I wasn't *that* insane with it. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:17:39 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Long) On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 jonesm@NKU.EDU wrote: > Perhaps it is just me, but to me it seems that Uriel is perhaps a little > more zelous then you have made him. Also IMO Uriel was called to heaven > for a royal lecture session...not because he wanted forgiveness. He > is to me a royal zealot who got a well deserved lecture. First of all, this is from Uriel's point of view. Everyone (including Archangels) tends to present themselves in the best possible light. It wasn't intended to explore every possible aspect of Uriel's personality (it was quite long as it was). Zealous? Zealot? Well, in a Word (that's a joke, son), yes. He is quite the zealot when it comes to promoting Purity. Any Word-bound Celestial is, or his Word (and existence) fade. Basically, I kept the description light on details for a reason. I wanted to present him in a better light (for a change), but keep things ambiguous enough that they didn't conflict with canon. Also, this way he can still be used as a "heavy" if somebody wants to use him that way. FAithful or fanatical, the choice is left to the GM. Oh, nobody really knows what happened when Uriel was recalled to the higher Heavens. The royal lecture is just the popular theory. With his return, nobody still knows. Whatever happened, he isn't talking. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:44:04 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Satire At 12:28 19/02/98 -0600, you wrote: >Hart, Joanna wrote: > >> I will help at least one author per month who is combatting a cruel >> system to improve their written skills via constructive criti > >Uh, I hate to be a pain, but could this be re-posted? As you can see, my >copy is not _quite_ complete. *g* S'OK. You are only missing about 4 letters. The last word should be 'criticism' cheers jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:57:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Feast of Blades At 12:31 PM +0000 2/19/98, Sam Kington wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: >> Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Kyrio came up with his >> now-famous "Acid-spitting Pants Trick". [...] > >Dunno, I'd allow it. But if you're spitting acid at someone from his >clothing, the clothing is going to get some damage from the acid as >well; similarly, if you poke claws out of them, the clothes are going to >get bloody. Both of these I would classify as harming the host. The >Kyrio is going to have to do some serious needle-work/dry-cleaning after >the fight is over - if it's lucky enough to stay in the clothes that >long. Except that the APG says that they *don't* get dissonance for a harmed non-living host... You now see the problem. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:24:17 -0500 From: "Thomas Davidson" Subject: Re: IN> [Choir] of [Word/Superior] - ---------- > From: Elizabeth McCoy > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: IN> [Choir] of [Word/Superior] > Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 1:55 PM > > Also note that "angel of [Word]" is someone's Servitor, while > "Angel of [Word]" is supposed to be a Word-bound. (This one > gets tricky, especially if the editor hasn't caught a wrong > capitalization...) No.... not the DP of Nitpicking... I would have thought that she would have this covered. :) Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7789233 MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, The Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, The Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:51:38 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 03:47:46AM +0000, Steve Jessop wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use his resonance to gain extra actions. On a > > successful resonance roll, the Ofanim gains a number of extra actions > > equal to half of his check die (rounded up). > > > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear on Oath to accomplish a certain deed. > > Until this deed is complete, the Malakim gains a bonus equal to his > > Celestial Forces on any roll which helps him complete that goal. > > Look what this combo does to a Celestial combat monster: > Since both of those attunements are resonance based (are any of the Choir attunements not resonance based?), I don't see how you _can_ combine them. That Ofanite attunement is damn scary, but Ofanim are scary anyway, and someone has to have a counter for the Art of Combat. > 5 CelF, 11 Per, 9 Will. So 4-6 actions every round (CD 5-10). Does the > restriction for servitors of Baal (1 use of each weapon) apply? > > Roll to hit is 14+Fighting. (Or 14+CelF, I can't remember which the book > says). That has to smart. > It's not that bad, since the situation you mentioned above doesn't apply. > Only danger is that baddie escapes, and you are forced to follow him to > Hell/Marches. Now we know why the Ethereal Crusade worked so well, but I > prefer Michael's boys to be the best. > They can still be the best, so long as you don't bring Uriel back. But, being a Servitor of Nitpicking, I have to point out that in canon, Uriel was a Seraph before he became a Malakite (not sure where this is, not owning most of the sourcebooks I've read). So this should have some impact on how you perceive him. Also, according to the short story at the start of the Marches, the Word of Purity prevents the angels attuned to it from Falling, just like the Malakim. If Uriel comes back, how much stronger is that effect going to be? None of this means that you have to follow canon, of course, but it'd be dissonant for me not to point it out. Methinks you'll also find that the Cherubim already have an effect similar to the attunement you gave them where they add levels of Forces to rolls to protect objects of their attunement. It's somewhere in the APG. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:23:20 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) >Eeew. That *is* frightening. Of course, only an Ofanim could do that >(since the Ofanim attunement is resonance dependent), but that would be >over the top. The second possible Malakim attunement should be amended >somehow so that only Malakim can use it (that is what I intended in the >first place). I think the way you wrote it implies that the Malakite adds another Oath (capitol O) to their list. This would mean that it would be Choir specific. >I think there was a lot of rivalry about that [Michael's boys being the best]. Rather like the >Army/Marine debate in our Armed Forces. As a response to this I quote the Malakim of the Sword attunement: "Malakim of Laurence are the most honorable fighters in the world (as apposed to Michael's who win more often)." Which is better? Winning or Honor? I would venture a guess that to the Malakim, honor is most important, while to everyone else it would be winning. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:33:15 -0600 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: Re: IN> Character Names >From: Kevin Walsh >Ironic names are a Good Thing(tm). Anything with the suffix -el or -iel is >a must. Names of Archangels are also very cool. Alternatively, names of >biblical heroes are good. Examples including Moses, Joshua, and a popular >variant of the latter, Jesus. I don't know why..but when I make demon npc's, I love to give them normal, everyday names...Eric, Biff, George, Susanna, Frankie, Manuel, and Randy are all names that I have used for demons. It's great when the PC's ask me, 'Whats his REAL name?" Makes me smile everytime. Ryan Beall aka: Grim88 Look for me in #innomine on Efnet rbeall@fdldotnet.com grim88@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/~Grim88/index.html <---Follow the link to the "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. #innomine web page. Comedy is when you fall through an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:49:47 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Andrew Frades wrote: > Which is better? Winning or Honor? If it's part of your Word, honor IS winning. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:57:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) > 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use... > 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear... Aurrrrr! If Emily can get exercised about canon-creep and historical accuracy, I reserve the right to fuss about grammar. The "-im" endings on these words indicate they are PLURALS. Two Ofanim, one Ofan. Two Malakim, one Malak. Two Sheddim, one Shed. If those words jangle on your ear, use "Ofanite," "Malakite," and "Sheddite." For that matter, I recommend "Lilite" as the singular for "Lilim." The "-ite" ending is Greek, but at least it sounds kinda Biblical, since we are all used to "Israelite," "Canaanite," et al. Earl P.S.: Is there a reason there is no attunement for Elohim of Uriel? (Two Elohim, one Elohite.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:31:00 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity - ---Andrew Frades wrote: > Which is better? Winning or Honor? > > I would venture a guess that to the Malakim, honor is most important, > while to everyone else it would be winning. Honour before life. Death before dishonour. I think its kind of valuable to have folk around in heaven who consider that if you put winning above everything, then you might not have anything left to win ;) If Michael fell, would anyone notice? jo - -- And now for a neat reference: a how-to-interrogate-heretics guide by the master himself, Bernard Gui (I think he is giving tips on how to interrogate balseraphs in this one) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/heresy2.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:21:09 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity >Honour before life. Death before dishonour. And whiskey before breakfast! Sorry - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:39:32 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) Earl wrote: >> 1) An Ofanim of Purity may use... > >> 2) A Malakim of Purity may swear... > >Aurrrrr! If Emily can get exercised about canon-creep and >historical accuracy, I reserve the right to fuss about grammar. > >The "-im" endings on these words indicate they are PLURALS. >Two Ofanim, one Ofan. Two Malakim, one Malak. Two Sheddim, >one Shed. If those words jangle on your ear, use "Ofanite," >"Malakite," and "Sheddite." For that matter, I recommend >"Lilite" as the singular for "Lilim." The "-ite" ending is >Greek, but at least it sounds kinda Biblical, since we are >all used to "Israelite," "Canaanite," et al. Here is the plural and singular forms of the choirs and bands as they are presented in the main book. Singular: Seraph Plural: Seraphim Singular: Cherub Plural: Cherubim Singular: Ofanite Plural: Ofanim Singular: Elohite Plural: Elohim Singular: Malakite Plural: Malakim Singular: Kyriotate Plural: Kyriotates Singular: Mercurian Plural: Mercurians (Note that the resonance check digit box in the Mercurian listing is the only one that is titled in the singular. Strange) Singular: (unknown) Plural: Grigori (The Grigori are always refeered to in the plural in the main book.) Singular: Balseraph Plural: Balseraphs Singular: Djinn Plural: Djinn Singular: Calabite Plural: Calabim Singular: Habbalite Plural: Habbalah Singular: Lilim Plural: Lilim Singular: Shedite Plural: Sedim Singular: Impudite Plural: Impudites So there you are. I expect that this is cannon (it is the main rulebook) and I don't think it will change. Note that in two cases (Djinn and Lilim) the forms are the same, compare this to fish and sheep. Singular: Jesse Plural: Jesses ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:07:02 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: IN> Blandine's Boys Ok, servants of Blandine can not go Celestial without taking dissonance. Fine. What if their vessel is killed? I interpret it as an involuntary action, and therefore not dissonant. However, it *is* dissonant for them to preserve a valuable vessel by going Celestial and fleeing the fight. (See FAQ) Now I'm confused. Can they actually get dissonance for having a vessel slain? If so, that makes them the only characters who actually risk falling sheerly by virtue of getting beat up. If not, then Blandine and Beleth care less about creating new vessels for their servants than they do about not using Celestial songs and forms on Earth. That doesn't seem quite right to me. Help me! Answer this! Stop the pain! == --Querent, Angel of Widescreen. Mercurian Servitor of Creation. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:22:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Grammar comment) Jesse wrote: > So there you are. I expect that this is cannon (it is the main > rulebook) and I don't think it will change. Note that in two cases > (Djinn and Lilim) the forms are the same, compare this to fish and > sheep. It's rather a pity abou "Djinn," because it has a perfectly well- known singular form, "djinni," pronounced "genie." I have yet to find the real-world-usage singular of Lilim, though I think there must have been one. It may have been "Lili," which means "nocturnal" in Hebrew. It might have been used as a noun, though I gather Hebrew doesn't do that with adjectives as freely as English does. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:22:22 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Blandine's Boys >Ok, servants of Blandine can not go Celestial without taking >dissonance. Fine. > >What if their vessel is killed? I interpret it as an involuntary >action, and therefore not dissonant. Why wouldn't an involuntary action be dissonant? A cherub might not be always able to protect his charge. A Kyrio may, through little or no fault of its own, have its host destroyed. Both would be dissonant. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:25:38 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > But, being a Servitor of Nitpicking, I have to point out that in canon, > Uriel was a Seraph before he became a Malakite (not sure where this is, > not owning most of the sourcebooks I've read). So this should have some > impact on how you perceive him. That's interesting. I almost made him a Seraph, before I decided that a Cherub would better fit the way I envisioned his original role in the Symphony. Does anyone know where this reference is? I want to make Uriel as close to canon as possible (given that this version *isn't* canon), so if the reference can be found I would like to change his origin a little. > Also, according to the short story at the > start of the Marches, the Word of Purity prevents the angels attuned to it > from Falling, just like the Malakim. If Uriel comes back, how much > stronger is that effect going to be? I don't think it will make the effect any stronger. I decided that Uriel's Word still protects the Malakim because he still has the Word. Just because he was out of touch didn't make his Word null and void. It just meant that he couldn't activly pursue it. > None of this means that you have to follow canon, of course, but it'd be > dissonant for me not to point it out. I appreciate it anyway. Like I said, I want him as close to canon as possible. > Methinks you'll also find that the Cherubim already have an effect similar > to the attunement you gave them where they add levels of Forces to rolls > to protect objects of their attunement. It's somewhere in the APG. Maybe I missed that. I'll have to reread the Cherub section of the APG and see. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:34:26 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Elohim of Purity? On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Aurrrrr! If Emily can get exercised about canon-creep and > historical accuracy, I reserve the right to fuss about grammar. Point taken. I will correct it. > P.S.: Is there a reason there is no attunement for Elohim of Uriel? > (Two Elohim, one Elohite.) Ummm...uh..uh..well..that is...um... :( I forgot all about them. :( My fault, not Uriel's. I'll post the missing Choir Attunements as soon as I can come up with some good ones for them. Rich Gant Angel of Forgetting Entire Choirs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:36:23 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Michael Falling On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > I think its kind of valuable to have folk around in heaven who consider that > if you put winning above everything, then you might not have anything left > to win ;) If Michael fell, would anyone notice? Most of Heaven would. Mostly because Michael and Baal would get together and see who could kill more angels in a 24-hour period. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:49:13 -0600 (CST) From: Dataweaver Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > But, being a Servitor of Nitpicking, I have to point out that in canon, > > Uriel was a Seraph before he became a Malakite (not sure where this is, > > not owning most of the sourcebooks I've read). So this should have some > > impact on how you perceive him. > > That's interesting. I almost made him a Seraph, before I decided that a > Cherub would better fit the way I envisioned his original role in the > Symphony. Does anyone know where this reference is? I want to make Uriel > as close to canon as possible (given that this version *isn't* canon), so > if the reference can be found I would like to change his origin a little. Most likely in the Marches or the APG, since most of the other books barely even mention him... > > Also, according to the short story at the > > start of the Marches, the Word of Purity prevents the angels attuned to it > > from Falling, just like the Malakim. If Uriel comes back, how much > > stronger is that effect going to be? > > I don't think it will make the effect any stronger. I decided that > Uriel's Word still protects the Malakim because he still has the Word. > Just because he was out of touch didn't make his Word null and void. It > just meant that he couldn't activly pursue it. Umm... If I read Kevin right, he's saying that according to canon, _all_ angels - of _any_ Choir - who were attuned to Purity were incapable of Falling, just like the Malakim. This, in and of itself, is a potent attunement. Personally, I'd rather have it as a Servitor Attunement or a Distinction. > > None of this means that you have to follow canon, of course, but it'd be > > dissonant for me not to point it out. > > I appreciate it anyway. Like I said, I want him as close to canon as > possible. As a friend of mine once said, this is often the wisest course when publishing non-canon material; people already know how to adapt canon material into their campaign, but if you introduce something wildly different from canon, they either need to figure out from scratch how to convert your material, or they will ignore it... - ---- 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: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:16:34 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Hmmmm...sure, if you want to be sneaky and look for the obvious. I worded it badly anyway. I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense, if you don't want dissonance, protect your vessel. It just strikes me as a little odd. I view the Cherub's dissonance as "it's your job to protect your charge and you failed." I view Blandine's lackeys as having "it's your job to promote the Ethereal over the Celestial, the Dreams over the Divine." I just don't see how getting your vessel killed fails in that regard any more than it would fail for any other Superior's objectives. (ie. it costs the Celestial a body). I was thinking maybe the Celestial could just will himself to sleep and then jump to the Celestial realm. The problem? That's at least one round that he has a sleeping body vulnerable to attack. - ---Jesse wrote: > > >Ok, servants of Blandine can not go Celestial without taking > >dissonance. Fine. > > > >What if their vessel is killed? I interpret it as an involuntary > >action, and therefore not dissonant. > > Why wouldn't an involuntary action be dissonant? A cherub might > not be always able to protect his charge. A Kyrio may, through > little or no fault of its own, have its host destroyed. Both > would be dissonant. > == --Querent, Angel of Widescreen. Mercurian Servitor of Creation. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:28:44 -0600 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Satire Jo Hart wrote: > > At 12:28 19/02/98 -0600, you wrote: > >Hart, Joanna wrote: [snip] > S'OK. You are only missing about 4 letters. The last word should be > 'criticism' > > cheers > > jo > ---------- > "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." > G. K. Chesterton > > jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ Thanks, Jo, I appreciate that. Of course, with mine missing stuff, I couldn't be sure that 4 letters was all that was missing, so I had to ask, even though I had guessed that criticism was the next word. By the way, when I was in high school, way back when, criticism and critique were two not-quite synonymous words. The difference between the two? A criticism was on the order of "ewww, that stank", with nothing to help a poor actor improve his art; a critique would still let you know that the play stank to the Upper Heavens, but would also point out specific failings that needed to be addressed in order to fix the play. It gave the actor/producer/director/ screenwriter something specific to work on, instead of just savaging him/her and leaving them feeling small. In short, criticism was Demonic, Critique was Angelic, even if The Truth did hurt. tom timberlake, played tonight by James the Stone Malakim, with AA David directing...*g* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 13:24 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Feast of Blades >BTW, are angels described by Archangel or Word. Eg. is "Mercurian of >Stone" or "Mercurian of David" more correct? Or doesn't it matter? I've been using both more or less interchangably. After all, the Archangel *is* the Word, more or less. The Word is less ambiguous, if somewhere along the way you got two Superiors with the same personal name. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:29:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Querent wrote: > I view Blandine's lackeys as having "it's your job to promote the > Ethereal over the Celestial, the Dreams over the Divine." I just > don't see how getting your vessel killed fails in that regard any more > than it would fail for any other Superior's objectives. (ie. it costs > the Celestial a body). On the other hand, I view their thrust as "Your proper sphere of operations is the Ethereal. Your proper mode is the subtle. Don't make a lot of noise on the Corporeal plane." Or, actually, since these things are supposed to be part of the angel's character, not externally applied constraints, "You really HATE making noise on the Corporeal plane." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:30:19 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> Michael Falling >> I think its kind of valuable to have folk around in heaven who consider that >> if you put winning above everything, then you might not have anything left >> to win ;) If Michael fell, would anyone notice? > >Most of Heaven would. Mostly because Michael and Baal would get together >and see who could kill more angels in a 24-hour period. Nah, he would just boot Lucifer out. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:47:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Blandine's Boys At 9:07 AM -0800 2/20/98, Querent wrote: >Ok, servants of Blandine can not go Celestial without taking >dissonance. Fine. > >What if their vessel is killed? A celestial does not go celestial *really* that way (or so I've been thinking, and I don't know of any canon to contradict it) -- instead, it gets snapped back to its Heart (or Limbo) without ever really taking a visible-to-anyone celestial form. (A Superior might be able to grab someone in this state, but most other celestials could not.) So they aren't really going celestial. And with the exception of Malakim and maybe Kyriotates, a *killed* vessel lands the person in Trauma instantly -- they don't have a choice of going Celestial *after* the body is dead. (If the body is only nearly dead, they can do the celestial thing if they wish.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:09:08 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Michael Falling At 12:36 PM -0400 2/20/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >> I think its kind of valuable to have folk around in heaven who consider that >> if you put winning above everything, then you might not have anything left >> to win ;) If Michael fell, would anyone notice? > >Most of Heaven would. Mostly because Michael and Baal would get together >and see who could kill more angels in a 24-hour period. "And lessee, that's five triads, so fifteen for me... Hm. Maybe I should just stake out the next set and wait for the Daddy Hyena to show up..." "If he doesn't show up in 24 hours, he doesn't count towards the total." "Aw, go blow up a Church. Tell you what, you go after that little snot Larry, and I'll go after the Hyena, and the first one to bag his Archangel wins." "Hm. Suits. If you know where a good Laurencian Tether is." "Sure, just down the street, hang a left..." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:30:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Michael Falling At 1:30 PM -0500 2/20/98, Jesse wrote: >>> I think its kind of valuable to have folk around in heaven who consider >that >>> if you put winning above everything, then you might not have anything left >>> to win ;) If Michael fell, would anyone notice? >> >>Most of Heaven would. Mostly because Michael and Baal would get together >>and see who could kill more angels in a 24-hour period. > >Nah, he would just boot Lucifer out. "Heh heh heh... And now that I've got Baal off hunting Larry, the way is free and clear to go poking around the Lower Hells. Here, Lucy, Lucy, Lucy... I've got something to *shoooooowwww* you!"