From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Feb 23 16:26:26 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 QAA32654 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:26:25 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA06566 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:33:11 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:33:11 -0600 Message-Id: <199802232133.PAA06566@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 #639 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, February 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 639 In this digest: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> [Choir] of [Word/Superior] Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) IN> An attempt to inject understanding. IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) Re: IN> Blandine's Boys Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> Varying superior disturbance levels IN> Falling/Repenting and Words Re: IN> Michael Falling Re: IN> Re: Jean's Kyrios IN> Outcast Michael Re: IN> PBEM:Strange request Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> Starting to feel like I should have Nitpicking attunements RE: IN> Interview with the Balseraph Re: IN> Outcast Michael Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> Falling/Repenting and Words Re: IN> Re: Jean's Kyrios Re: IN> Starting to feel like I should have Nitpicking Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:21:35 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) > > Well, to me Michael is more about unified combat, while Uriel and > > Laurence are all about individual strength. Yes, I know the > > dissonance conditions are wrong; they are being changed... > > I think that maybe you've gotten that reversed. Michael is to me > all about individual strength, while Laurence is about unified > combat. Look at Laurence Dissonance conditions. To quote the main > rulebook: "[Laurence] holds his troops in strict regimentation, > demanding precision in all things." This to me says that he sees > his troops as a "unit", not a grouping of individuals. In Michael's > description, on the other hand, it says, "While Laurence rules the > armies of God, Michael is the commander of those who fight alone, > relying only on their own weapons." But, of course, that's just how > I'm reading it. :) Please, next time, read all of what I wrote before you critique it. I explicitly said that the dissonance conditions are wrong, and that I am changing them. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.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: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:21:35 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) > >Well, to me Michael is more about unified combat, while Uriel and > >Laurence are all about individual strength. Yes, I know the > >dissonance conditions are wrong; they are being changed... > > From the description of Michael: IN p. 130 > > "While Laurence rules the armies of God, Michael is the commander of > those who fight alone, relying only on their own weapons." > > Sounds to me like you may have it backwards. Michael, IMO, is all > about individual strength, Laurence is about honor and the chain of > command. This doesn't mean that Michael does not have a chain of > command, just that it is less important to him. AAAAUGH! People, READ WHAT I WRITE BEFORE YOU CORRECT ME! I said, in no uncertain terms, that the dissonance is all wrong, and that I disagreed with the description of him as the individual warrior. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:16:54 From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: IN> [Choir] of [Word/Superior] **Excellent explanation snipped for Brevity** Just a short note. When referring to third person Celestials I, and my PC and NPC's, often use terms like Elite, Novalian, Vapulan to indicate what Superior a Celestial works for. One bonus is that you only get mildly odd looks from those around you, especially if you are having a gaming conversation in a public place, and I thought I use to get funny looks when discussing terminal balistics in public places :) . Also a PC in my PBeM capmaign uses the term Swordthanes for Servitors of Lawrence, which I like the sound of, kinda olde worlde. Thanking you for your indulgence. Regards, Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au May the Goddess shelter you in the palm of her hand until we meet again. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:12:20 -0500 From: "Thomas Davidson" Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) - ---------- > From: Nathaniel Eliot > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) > Date: Sunday, February 22, 1998 4:21 PM > > > > Well, to me Michael is more about unified combat, while Uriel and > > > Laurence are all about individual strength. Yes, I know the > > > dissonance conditions are wrong; they are being changed... > > > > I think that maybe you've gotten that reversed. Michael is to me > > all about individual strength, while Laurence is about unified > > combat. Look at Laurence Dissonance conditions. To quote the main > > rulebook: "[Laurence] holds his troops in strict regimentation, > > demanding precision in all things." This to me says that he sees > > his troops as a "unit", not a grouping of individuals. In Michael's > > description, on the other hand, it says, "While Laurence rules the > > armies of God, Michael is the commander of those who fight alone, > > relying only on their own weapons." But, of course, that's just how > > I'm reading it. :) > > Please, next time, read all of what I wrote before you critique it. > I explicitly said that the dissonance conditions are wrong, and that > I am changing them. > DOH!!!! Well, just to show you some of the idiotic things you'll read into a message at 4AM... 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: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 20:41:00 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. >Please, next time, read all of what I wrote before you critique it. >I explicitly said that the dissonance conditions are wrong, and that >I am changing them. Time out. I, at least did read your entire message. My comment was that according to cannon as I read it you are incorrect. I did read the part about you wanting to change Michael's dissonance conditions. I also read the part where you said that you interpret Michael to be team oriented, while Laurence is individual oriented. While I have no problem with this if that is what you want to do in your campaign I do have a big problem with it if you do not introduce ideas and just leap into them, and then expect us all to follow without complete explainations. If you want to introduce a non-cannon idea such as this I do not believe that it would be too much to ask for you to introduce it with a quick snipet such as "in my campaign" or "I have changed this because I think this is more interesting." Both of these (and many others for that matter) quickly give us all a great deal of required information to reduce misunderstandings such as this. In my opinion we need to know what we are in for, and need to know that you are not interested in debating cannon, but in offering another take on things such as Dark Victory or the WW2 thread. These two things can improve an existing game or spark a new one, while acting defensively does neither of these things. On the whole, I believe that we should all spend a few extra moments of time with each message in an attempt to minimize misunderstanding, and that this is a noble goal. Having been on the other end of misunderstanding, as have we all I assume, and am not speaking from an elevated platform, but from the bottom of a long staircase looking up, and hoping that we can all take a few steps up together. Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:23:34 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios >So, maybe Jean's a power-hungry little bugger, or maybe he was granted >some insight into God's plan and saw that his Word was going to become >very, very powerful and this is why he has been working so very, very >hard to keep certain technological secrets out of the hands of humanity >and Vapula. Vapula is a Habbalite, is he not? Thus he thinks he works for God. He probably sees himself as revealing secrets to humankind for their betterment. Principally, by killing off the weak. (a bit similar to David's attitude, oddly). Jean is more of a "censorship" guy - protecting humanity from things it is not ready for yet. I'd suggest the elemental AAs - Wind, Stone, Fire, Lightning - are all fairly old. Vapula was probably a word-bound Angel of Jean. According to the Bible, Lucifer was a guardian cherub at the garden of Eden (Isaiah somewhere, I think). Since the serpent in Genesis (who is identified as Lucifer later in the Bible) is cursed after tempting Eve to eat the forbidden apple, it seems that this is actually the act that led to the Fall! According to Christian mythology, that is. If you accept this, then you can see that Vapula's word became stronger after original sin/the Fall. Adam and Eve's needs were all met in the Garden of Eden - they didn't need clothes to keep warm, or to till the earth for food. Post Fall, they did. It makes sense to me that Angels with weak words would be most easily tempted by Lucifer, pre-Fall. Of course, perhaps Vapula didn't have his word, pre-Fall, or a different word. Actually, this is likely. Beleth was the Archangel of Fear, now she is the Demon Princess of Nightmares. Lucifer was AA of Light, now he's not - he's probably DP of Darkness, if he has a word at all. (so, celestials CAN change their word - if they Fall/Repent!) SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:55:34 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Archangel of Purity (Rules comment) > > Most likely in the Marches or the APG, since most of the other books > barely even mention him... > It's not in the Marches, which mentions only his recall to the Upper Heavens. > > 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. > Yes, that's exactly what I meant. It's in the opening story to the Marches, which I'm now going to quote. Baal is asking Kronos whether he reckons the Word of Purity still protects the Malakim. Kronos makes the following point about the Tsayadim, those Servitors of Uriel who had not allowed themselves to be attuned to another Word following the recall of Uriel. "Yet in the twelve centuries since Uriel withdrew from our sight, the Tsayadim have continued to serve his Word, even in self-imposed exile. If the Word of Purity had truly been abandoned, at least _one_ of them should have Fallen by now. But _no_ Angel of Purity ever has." (emphases are Kronos' own) Now, having looked at this again, it seems that it works differently from the general Malakite protection. Kronos doesn't enlighten us as to what happened to those of Uriel's Servitors who aligned themselves with other Superiors as regards Falling, but it is at least conceivable that allowing yourself to be attuned to another Superior's Word breaks the attunement to the Word of Purity. 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:11:33 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Blandine's Boys > > > That's a valid interpretation, and I offer this in collateral support. > I'd make a distinction between actively taking celestial form on the > corporeal plane and being sent back to Heavenly trauma do to vessel death. > The prohibition on the former, seems more of a desire to keep humans from > seeing the celestial forms of angels. Blandine's concern here is keeping > the fantastic in it's proper place, the dreamscape. I don't think getting whacked qualifies as taking Celestial form, but that isn't what's bothering me. What I have problems with is the prohibition on the use of Celestial Songs on Earth. Many of the effects of Celestial Songs don't seem any more fantastic to me than their Corporeal or Ethereal equivalents. In addition, the Celestial Song of Attraction is very useful in locating dreamscapes, but if it can't be sung on Earth, it's utility is sharply diminished. If I read the Marches and the main rulebook aright, singing the Corporeal Song of Dreams and using the Dreamwalking attunement on Earth will bring you straight into the target's dreamscape, and after the duration of the Song/attunement ends, you're booted out of the Marches. But if you go into the Marches first, you have to locate the dreamscape before you can use them, and locating the dreamscape requires either physical proximity or a link to the target such as is provided by the Cherubim and Djinn resonances and the Celestial Song of Attraction. It would seem that most of Blandine's Servitors can't freely move about between Dreamscapes, which would explain why most of them are assigned to individuals, while Beleth feels free to assign Servitors to districts. It would be nice if this was mentioned in the book, but it isn't. 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:46:56 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios > > Vapula is a Habbalite, is he not? Thus he thinks he works for God. He > probably sees himself as revealing secrets to humankind for their > betterment. Principally, by killing off the weak. (a bit similar to > David's attitude, oddly). > I wouldn't go that far, much as I dislike David. He's much more like the Habbalah of Nightmares. You have to show people terror in order to build up their resistance to it. If their resistance isn't built up...well, they weren't going to survive the last day anyway. > Jean is more of a "censorship" guy - protecting humanity from things it > is not ready for yet. > > I'd suggest the elemental AAs - Wind, Stone, Fire, Lightning - are all > fairly old. Vapula was probably a word-bound Angel of Jean. > No, he wasn't. I'm very confident of that. After all, it says in the main rulebook on p182, referring to the man himself "He was never an angel". Who he served originally wasn't mentioned. Kronos or Baal are the likeliest candidates, and which you pick will probably tell you a good deal about how he views his work. > According to the Bible, Lucifer was a guardian cherub at the garden of > Eden (Isaiah somewhere, I think). Since the serpent in Genesis (who is > identified as Lucifer later in the Bible) is cursed after tempting Eve > to eat the forbidden apple, it seems that this is actually the act that > led to the Fall! According to Christian mythology, that is. > This is completely anti-IN canon, you know. Under Baal in the main rulebook, Ophis is fingered as the serpent in Genesis, and Lucifer is a Balseraph, indicating that he must have been a Seraph. (Unless God made him a Balseraph in the beginning, of course.) > > (so, celestials CAN change their word - if they Fall/Repent!) > I assumed that they have to, though it's probably easier for them to assume an analogous Word, due to experience if nothing else. 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:36:46 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Varying superior disturbance levels On Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > One of the things I'm thinking about including in my campaign > is to have different superiors make different levels of disturbance > when they manifest on Earth, so that a clever character can make > an educated guess about who just showed up. > > Of course it's not perfect, but I want to give thinking players an > edge. > I attempted a reply to this before, and my session crashed. Ah well... I've never understood how people have problems identifying which Superior shows up. It's usually obvious from the context of the action. I can't recall a single occasion when I failed to recognise when a Superior had appeared (even without any disturbance being mentioned), and who it was. As long as you know who the other players serve (most likely for angels, I admit), you're usually all right. Knowing when you're likely to be in trouble is also a help. > > Celestial Base Disturbance > --------- ---------------- > Michael 100 > Lucifer 80 Do you have a particular reason why Michael is still more powerful than Lucifer? I assume that given the amount of time Lucifer has had to catch up on Michael, and given his more powerful Word, and, IMO, the fact that Michael's Word feeds Lucifer's, I think that Lucifer is likely far stronger. (You don't get a Michaelite intervention when you roll a 333, do you?) > > o Powerful Superiors: > Archangels: Yves, Gabriel, David, Janus > Demon Princes: Kronos, Kobal, Baal, Asmodeus > o Average Superiors: > Archangels: Novalis, Blandine, Jordi, Dominic I'd note at this point that Novalis' and Jordi's Words are being hacked to pieces at an incredible rate. The literal parts, at any rate. > Demon Princes: Andrealphus, Beleth, Belial, Saminga, Malphas, Vapula I tend to view Dark Humour as a subset of Nightmares, myself. > o Weak Superiors: > Archangels: Marc, Laurence, Eli, Jean Do you have a reason for making Jean weaker than both Vapula and all the other elemental Superiors? I might note that Eli's Word, being Creation, is generally agreed to be quite potent. As an aside, it amazes me that Mammon is presented as a weak Prince. Looking at the state of my own country, it seems to me that the strongest Princes by far are Malphas and Mammon. Gluttony drives Greed rather than the other way around, in my personal experience. And Malphas' influence is present wherever people place either their own interests or the interests of a cause over the interests of other people or another cause. That's more than merely average power, though I'd stop short of calling it a Mega-Word. More generally, I always assumed that Superiors could cause as much or as little disturbance when they manifest as they please, and moreover, that they're only committing a fraction of their Forces to a Vessel when they manifest. It's like the Horsemen in Good Omens, part of them moves around and talks, the rest is everywhere. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nightmares, 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 05:05:05 PST From: "Andrew Frades" Subject: IN> Falling/Repenting and Words >It makes sense to me that Angels with weak words would be most easily >tempted by Lucifer, pre-Fall. > >Of course, perhaps Vapula didn't have his word, pre-Fall, or a different >word. Actually, this is likely. Beleth was the Archangel of Fear, now >she is the Demon Princess of Nightmares. Lucifer was AA of Light, now >he's not - he's probably DP of Darkness, if he has a word at all. > >(so, celestials CAN change their word - if they Fall/Repent!) Actually a strong case could be made for Words not changing even if you fall. Here's how I see it... 1. Angels/Demons are connected to a certain part of the Symphony when they have a Word, the part associated with the meaning of the Word. 2. This one isn't exactly published, but I infer it from the way that Celestials can read emotions from art: The Celestial languages are both languages of symbol and context and thus one word may have multiple meanings depending upon how you look at it. Conclusion: Angels/Demons that switch sides are actually still connected to the same part of the Symphony and the same Celestial Word, they just come at it from a different angle, thus the different word in English. Just a thought, but it seems to ring true. Any Seraph out there? Andrew ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:00:25 +0000 From: "Patrick Chester" 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!" the Bloody Great Axe hidden behind the wings> "Ah, a battle axe. How-" "-impressive. Did you have something to say, Micheal?" "WhERe'S thE bAcTInE?!" - -- Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wolfone@io.com "Well Jim, that proves it. The Universe not made up of an endless vacuum of eternal nothingness like we once believed. The Universe is in fact made up of Fabio." -Cape Carbunkle bunch at work. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:41:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jean's Kyrios Perry M. Lloyd wrote: > It seems to me that technology has been with humanity for a very long > time. Yes, but *electrical* technology is pretty recent, and if Jean's Word isn't essentially electrical, it needs a different translation into English. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:04:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Outcast Michael Neel Krishnaswami wrote that, in his campaign: > In Heaven, Laurence commands > the armies of God and Michael is fighting to keep from being cast > out. Now *that's* an interesting wrinkle, an Outcast Archangel. Gabriel comes close, but she's clearly not Outcast all the same. For an ordinary angel, being Outcast means being thrown out by your Archangel; I suppose that, for an Archangel, being Outcast means being thrown out by the Seraphim Council? But an Outcast is not Fallen. An Outcast Michael would go a long way to giving the game one of those three-cornered structures people on this list are evidently fond of toying with. If Michael were cast out, I would suppose it would be because the more straight-laced Archangels (e.g. Dominic and Jean) teamed up with the more pacifist ones (e.g. Blandine and Novalis) and got a slim majority. After the casting out, there would be major rifts between the pro- and anti-Michaelist parties. I'd think that David, Laurence and Gabriel would be pro-Michael, and would probably keep up contact with Michael & Co, either openly or covertly. Hell would be delighted. Which might cause second thoughts in Heaven. And Hell might have second thoughts if it saw Michael now operating free of the restraints they didn't realize he was under before. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:35:02 -0500 (EST) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> PBEM:Strange request "I am running a In Nomine PBEM and had a player drop out due to RL problems. I wanted to as if there was any on the list wanting to play this players place running the character. Its a Shedite of Lust. " Oh. Hell. Yes. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:07:32 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios > > Vapula is a Habbalite, is he not? Thus he thinks he works for God. He > > probably sees himself as revealing secrets to humankind for their > > betterment. Principally, by killing off the weak. 'The prince leaned across and patted her on the hand. "You're here now," he said warmly, then rose to his feet again, pacing around the desk towards her. "We are engaged in the Great Work, and the world itself is our crucible. Everything that we do here, every scrap of knowledge that can be gleaned, will be made pure and fitted into its place. Everything is hard-won, and all the more worthwhile. Nothing is allowed to interfere with the work. No mortal, no demon, no angel, no politics or outside interests, no petty concepts of morals or ethics - when I assign projects to my people, they are given the resources that they need and allowed all the freedom required to get the work done."' jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:47:54 -0600 From: "S. Dickie" Subject: Re: IN> Starting to feel like I should have Nitpicking attunements >>What is the meaning of Discord in mortals? > >IMO, depends upon how they got it. If it is true discord, then it >definitely has some serious effects similar to those that are felt by >celestials. How do mortals get Discord. According to the faq mortals can't get "true discord". It is my understanding that you get Discord mainly through acting against your nature. What is a mortals nature? I know you can get Discord through Ethereal Combat or by trading in notes of dissonance (and I suppose having a geas inflicted counts as a Discord). How do mortals gain notes of dissonance? Can they? Are there other ways of gaining Discords that I in my In Nomine pre-pubescence don't know about? Please enlighten me. I really just want to know... Is it further explained in Night Music? steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:43:17 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: RE: IN> Interview with the Balseraph >Interview with the Balseraph. by Leath Sheales... Very enjoyable. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd Check out the PBEM In Nomine: Soldiers of Linn webpage! "Nothing is sacred but truth. Too bad nobody can agree on what's sacred." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:06:59 -0500 From: "Thomas Davidson" Subject: Re: IN> Outcast Michael - ---------- > From: Earl Wajenberg > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: IN> Outcast Michael > Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 10:04 AM > > Neel Krishnaswami wrote that, in his campaign: > > > In Heaven, Laurence commands > > the armies of God and Michael is fighting to keep from being cast > > out. > > Now *that's* an interesting wrinkle, an Outcast Archangel. Gabriel > comes close, but she's clearly not Outcast all the same. For an > ordinary angel, being Outcast means being thrown out by your > Archangel; I suppose that, for an Archangel, being Outcast means > being thrown out by the Seraphim Council? > > But an Outcast is not Fallen. An Outcast Michael would go a long > way to giving the game one of those three-cornered structures people > on this list are evidently fond of toying with. > > If Michael were cast out, I would suppose it would be because > the more straight-laced Archangels (e.g. Dominic and Jean) teamed > up with the more pacifist ones (e.g. Blandine and Novalis) and got > a slim majority. After the casting out, there would be major > rifts between the pro- and anti-Michaelist parties. I'd think > that David, Laurence and Gabriel would be pro-Michael, and would > probably keep up contact with Michael & Co, either openly or > covertly. > > Hell would be delighted. Which might cause second thoughts in > Heaven. And Hell might have second thoughts if it saw Michael now > operating free of the restraints they didn't realize he was under > before. > And somewhere in his Library, Yves smiles. And in his Archives, Kronos winces. ;-) 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: Mon, 23 Feb 98 14:10 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios [David Streeter:] >> Jean is more of a "censorship" guy - protecting humanity from things it >> is not ready for yet. >> >> I'd suggest the elemental AAs - Wind, Stone, Fire, Lightning - are all >> fairly old. Vapula was probably a word-bound Angel of Jean. [Kevin Walsh:] >No, he wasn't. I'm very confident of that. After all, it says in the main >rulebook on p182, referring to the man himself "He was never an angel". >Who he served originally wasn't mentioned. Kronos or Baal are the >likeliest candidates, and which you pick will probably tell you a good >deal about how he views his work. I believe the core rulebook writeup of Yves mentions that he transferred responsibility for scientific knowledge to Jean some time in the past (possibly around the Renaisance, when science and philosophy split). That makes Kronos Vapula's likely former Prince, since Kronos may have helped his rise as a counter to Yves' spinning off responsibility to Jean. Although the reverse is also possible -- that Yves handed science off to Jean as a partial counter to Vapula's Princehood. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 14:01 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Re: Jean's Kyrios [David Streeter:] >Jean is more of a "censorship" guy - protecting humanity from things it >is not ready for yet. Not exactly, as I see it, he's more of a "hands off" guy -- he doesn't let celestial intervention change human tech, but anything humans do entirely on their own is OK. Though his servitors may try to influence the direction of research in subtle ways, like helping teach certain subjects. >I'd suggest the elemental AAs - Wind, Stone, Fire, Lightning - are all >fairly old. Vapula was probably a word-bound Angel of Jean. I'm don't recall about Wind, but the rest *are* old, according to the history in the APG (if I'm remembering it right). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 14:15 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Repenting and Words >Actually a strong case could be made for Words not changing even if you >fall. Canon definitely is the other way, though. Beleth, for example, was Fear, but became Nightmares when she Fell. Lucifer may often grant a powerful Fallen a roughly-equivalent Word, simply because that is efficient, but it's not a given. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 14:32 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jean's Kyrios [Earl:] >Yes, but *electrical* technology is pretty recent, and if Jean's >Word isn't essentially electrical, it needs a different translation >into English. Not necessarily -- Jean was given ownership of science and tech by Yves, possibly because being an Elohite, he was one of the few AAs capable of dispassionately ensuring that celestial knowledge/tech didn't contaminate human progress. So Jean's association with technology might well have predated electrical tech, and may be as much political as an issue of Word-scope. However, Jean's Word covers inspiration, in the intellectual sense (as mentioned in his writeup in the core rules). That gives him fairly good claim on all scientific and technological progress. The English translation of his Word is rather specific, and, as for many AAs, there are many metaphorical associations that have to be considered as part of his scope. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 15:14 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Starting to feel like I should have Nitpicking >How do mortals get Discord. According to the faq mortals can't get "true >discord". It is my understanding that you get Discord mainly through acting >against your nature. What is a mortals nature? I know you can get Discord >through Ethereal Combat or by trading in notes of dissonance (and I suppose >having a geas inflicted counts as a Discord). How do mortals gain notes of >dissonance? Can they? Mortals do not get Discord or dissonance (acting against their nature isn't really possible). However, certain psychological problems that *would* be Discord if a celestial had them are possible, but humans don't get them the same way as celestials -- these problems *are* part of the human's nature. Thus, a human character could take a "Discord" of Bloodlust, but it's just descriptive of that human's nature. It's not something that can be added by dissonance, or removed by a Superior, like it could with a celestial. Ethereal combat might affect humans the same way it does celestials, though. Similarly, a human could have a Crippled "Discord", but it's simply a natural condition for them. As a flaw, it's worth character points during character design, but it's not really the same thing as if the celestial had the Discord. >Is it further explained in Night Music? A little. There may be more in the FAQ, or there should be.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:46:13 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. > >Please, next time, read all of what I wrote before you critique it. > >I explicitly said that the dissonance conditions are wrong, and that > >I am changing them. > > Time out. I, at least did read your entire message. My comment was > that according to cannon as I read it you are incorrect. I did read > the part about you wanting to change Michael's dissonance > conditions. I also read the part where you said that you interpret > Michael to be team oriented, while Laurence is individual oriented. > While I have no problem with this if that is what you want to do in > your campaign I do have a big problem with it if you do not > introduce ideas and just leap into them, and then expect us all to > follow without complete explainations. Well, say that, then, instead of simply telling me I'm wrong on the basis of the very thing I had discounted. You complain about miscommunication, but stating that "That can't be right, because his dissonance conditions are wrong" is not the way to ask "Well, why are you changing them?". > If you want to introduce a non-cannon idea such as this I do not > believe that it would be too much to ask for you to introduce it > with a quick snipet such as "in my campaign" or "I have changed this > because I think this is more interesting." I did imply that, rather heavily. Moreover, I *have* been implying that rather heavily in *all* of my posts, for the last several months. I thought that the "In my campaigns" were getting a little egotistical, and that I might be safe, just this once, with something less than that. Seriously, including a three line disclaimer in every message of mine was getting a bit much. > Both of these (and many others for that matter) quickly give us all > a great deal of required information to reduce misunderstandings > such as this. In my opinion we need to know what we are in for, > and need to know that you are not interested in debating cannon, > but in offering another take on things such as Dark Victory or the > WW2 thread. These two things can improve an existing game or spark > a new one, while acting defensively does neither of these things. I did - the In Nomine Sideways posts. There was very little response (in fact, one response) to them. I decided I had better things to do than to spend long amounts of time crafting works that nobody really was interested in, and went on to other things. > On the whole, I believe that we should all spend a few extra > moments of time with each message in an attempt to minimize > misunderstanding, and that this is a noble goal. Having been on > the other end of misunderstanding, as have we all I assume, and am > not speaking from an elevated platform, but from the bottom of a > long staircase looking up, and hoping that we can all take a few > steps up together. My peave came to this: I wrote what looked like a very understandable message, which included a reason why my statement was different than canon. I admit I had not been totally clear, but being answered with "But that's not true, because the dissonance is wrong", when I'd explicitly stated I wasn't using normal dissonance, irked me rather badly. If you want me to go into my current Archangel structure and the reasoning behind it, please ask. I'd love to. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:25:12 -0500 (EST) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > I did - the In Nomine Sideways posts. There was very little response > (in fact, one response) to them. I never responded because the post said "Part 1" and I was waiting for the other parts to come out.... > I decided I had better things to > do than to spend long amounts of time crafting works that nobody > really was interested in, and went on to other things. I'm interested; I was just under the impression that you ran out of creative steam on that particular thread. > If you want me to go into my current Archangel structure and the > reasoning behind it, please ask. I'd love to. You're blatantly fishing here, but I'll indulge you anyway ;) .... Would you please go into your current Archangel structure and the reasoning behind it? - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (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 ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #639 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.