From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 1 21:18:01 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 VAA25878 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 21:18:01 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id VAA07050 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 21:12:43 -0600 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 21:12:43 -0600 Message-Id: <199804020312.VAA07050@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 #704 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 Wednesday, April 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 704 In this digest: Re: IN> Anyone recognize this reference? Re: IN> History IN> Nouveau PBEM Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) Re: IN> History Re: IN> History IN> Propaganda Re: IN> History Re: IN> Propaganda Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) IN> ArchThetans? (fluffy, noisy) IN> basic rule book Re: IN> basic rule book Re: IN> basic rule book Re: IN> History IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries Re: IN> basic rule book Re: IN> ArchThetans? (fluffy, noisy) Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) Re: IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries Re: IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries Re: IN> History Re: IN> basic rule book Re: IN> History Re: IN> History ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:46:26 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Anyone recognize this reference? >Recently picked up Constance Victoria Briggs, _The Encyclopedia of Angels_. > >Does anyone have details about this? Why did the Church decide to "reprobate" >seven angels, and what did the action imply? > That the Pope feeling a distinct shortage of European royalty to validate, has become "a higher authority." :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 07:17:04 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> History At 18:03 31/03/98 -0500, you wrote: >Well, you could ask what were Laurence and Dominic doing when the Church >was selling indulgences and turning the Vatican into a brothel? (Actually, >that's partly been answered in Night Music -- Laurence wound up >accidentally spurring the creation of Protestantism in his attempts to >reform the Church.) Well there you go then ;) I still maintain that if you name an AA as patron of Judaism, the question probably will need to be addressed. > The point is, just because an Archangel is the patron >of a particular group of people doesn't mean he's going to be able to >protect them from all harm. (Or you could take an even more sinister >viewpoint -- imagine David as the patron of the Jews. It kind of makes >sense; *let* them suffer inoordinately over dozens of centuries, until the >survivors have become one of the hardiest and most enduring peoples on >Earth.) It does work better for David than Michael doesn't it, when you put it that way? > >Someone suggested Mammon as the patron of Scientology. ;) But you're right, >listing a Demon Prince as the patron of a religion -- unless it's a >long-dead and probably fictitious one -- is probably not something you'll >ever see in canon. I was going to be worse than that and suggest Mammon for Judaism as another possibility for patronage. As a satirical point its only Funny if you pick out a religion that a lot of people really believe in! Now, I did write up some rough notes on traditional Jewish beliefs as regards heaven/ hell/ angels & demons -- to my knowledge, it is reasonably accurate given that its a very non-dogmatic religion so many of these points just don't have really have an 'official line'. Given that people seem interested I dumped them to the net at http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN_Jewish.html I'll note only that Neel's comment about Satan as the DA of heaven is entirely accurate in this interpretation ;) 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: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 03:32:31 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: IN> Nouveau PBEM Nouveau PBEM Casting is complete. I heartily thank my players for sending in such wonderful and excellent characters. There are NO openings in Nouveau PBEM for new players, though I will be taking Lurkers (first come, first serve). Congratulations to * Charybdis Greydragon as the Fledgling Seraph * Robert Knop as the Mundane Pre-teen and * Adrian Gunadi as the Vassal of Destiny Thank all for your time and bandwidth. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "Your balls are mellifluous, sir!" - Perry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:22:27 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) David Edelstein writes >>>>Is there a problem here? Is it assumed that many of us that aren't >Jewish will get upset if IN assumes that the Jews *are* God's chosen >people? Ick! I sure hope not.<<< > > >But what if IN assumes they *aren't*....? > >- -David > Not a problem David! And neither would it be (to me at least) if this applied to Christians, Moslems, or Used Car Salesmen either. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:49:42 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) Armand writes > >Isn't this one of the points that SJG has tried to avoid? The history I >mean. White Wolf goes the opposite direction. They have history tied down >and gagged. Every supenratural entity that can, manipulates that version >of history. Some of us have stated how SJG has gone the better way. >Hence, history is going to suck. There are going to be major gaps. Guess >what kids? We get to build it. Yep, it's hard work; but not impossible. >We all sit here and toot our little horns on how creative we are. Let's >get off the high horse and build a universe. I don't want a detailed >crystalized history. I want something that I can make mine. Geez > >Armand >Ofanim of "What Chasm?" > I don't neccessarily want to have to invent the history for my game from scratch though. Does that make me a poor GM? No imagination? I don't think so. It sort of stems from having a full time job, other hobbies, and other commitments, so lack of time is a problem I guess. I often have little chance to put scenarios together let alone write detailed, consistent campaign backgrounds concerning religious history (Especially when such a subject is not something that I am particulary well read on. Implying research, implying *more* time). For those that wish to do so, fair play to them, but I think that a backdrop that explains itself a little more should already be there so that, as ever, you can choose to use it, ignore it, or tweak it. As a passing observation concerning creativity; If I was that creative (if any of us were :)) we wouldn't be playing IN anyway. We'd have written our *own* game systems! - -- Jules - Demon with vestigial wings. jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:13:09 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> History David Edelstein writes: >That said, I too would like to see some more "serious" theology and history >explored in In Nomine, but it's not likely to happen. Not only is it >touchy, but there's no satisfying anyone, and when you get into Deep >Thoughts, anything you write is establishing canon for the universe that >will contradict numerous other GMs' Deep Thoughts. > >- -David > On the subject of 'touchiness' people would do well to remember the disclaimer on the back of the main rule book; "This book is intended for mature readers. It contains interpretations of religious themes which some readers may find unsettling." As much as I (generally) respect peoples views (on any subject; not just religion) I fail to see why folk should get so hot under the collar about assumptions made within this game. It's just that. A game. If it offends your religious sensibilities, stop playing. In fact, WHY did you start in the first place??? You have no option now but to burn your books! Repent! Prostrate thyself on the floor of thy church/synogogue/mosque and beg forgiveness from the Higher Power! Ahem. On satisfaction; sure, you can't please everybody, but at least make *some* stand. Nobody has to use any theology/history if they don't want to. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:13:47 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> History Emily Dresner wrote: > As an aside, I have always thought it would be cool to do late Roman > Conquest of England, and have Artius, who supposedly became Arthur, be a > servant of Baal, and Mordred be a servant of Uriel... and have human > history 'give it to the victor'. I know it's not very Mallory like, but > it's appropriately dark and nasty for that point in history. You go girl! Sorry, that just slipped out. It was the comment on Mallory, I swear. Just for fun there is a book I once read, I believe that the name was Sherwood, that did the same thing for Robin Hood. If I recall the book placed the Robin legend in 1066 with the Norman Invasion. The book was great because you really got to enjoy the time it spent with Notingham. Loved it. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:13:07 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Propaganda Neel wrote: >>But I think thats just Jewish-seraphic paranoia ;-) >That's so brilliant, it must be true. :) You have just written a piece >of my game's canon. *g* Ta. I wouldn't normally waste bandwidth on re-quoting compliments but when I wrote that I thought it had an awful Ring of Truth about it ;) (I really hope there is an artefact called the Ring of Truth in the LR, as if not then someone wasted a marvellous pun opportunity!) On the subject of seraphim, truth detection and scary angels of judgement, this is something that made me laugh. ** SERAPH-OF-JUDGEMENT dials the number of its triad-mercurian ** ANSWERPHONE: Hello. I'm afraid Fluff isn't in at the moment but if you leave your name and... S-O-J: Fluffiel! I know you are just trying to avoid answering the phone so that you can have sex with a mortal you met at the 'Coach and Horses' last night. Get out of bed and answer the telephone right now! jo "The truth is not important. Belief is everything." (My sister, who works for the civil service so presumably Knows) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:19:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> History David Edelstein points out that the original game by CROC was far more satirical and heretical than IN, and Julian Breen writes: > On the subject of 'touchiness' people would do well to remember the > disclaimer on the back of the main rule book; > > "This book is intended for mature readers. It contains interpretations > of religious themes which some readers may find unsettling." > > As much as I (generally) respect peoples views (on any subject; not > just religion) I fail to see why folk should get so hot under the > collar about assumptions made within this game. It's just that. A > game. If it offends your religious sensibilities, stop playing. I am not sure that Julian's remarks are in direct response to my remarks that the game is deeply heretical, either through indifference or inattention, but if they are: I am not, in fact, "hot under the collar." Nor do I think there is anything sinful about playing IN. I have two motives for my remark, and both are related to the quality of the game as a game. First and foremost, the basic idea of the game is "angels and demons in the modern world." Angels and demons are figures from the theology and (more important for IN) folklore of the monotheistic, "Abrahamic" religions. Therefore, deviations from the worldview of those religions should either be deliberate and add something to the flavor of the game, or they should be avoided since they will then weaken and dilute the flavor of the game. Having the Archangels quarrel among themselves is an example of a good deviation. It adds dramatic interest and is essential to a whole array of plot possibilities. The heresy introduced so far, on the other hand, is little more than "background color" as far as the game is concerned, yet it is a major error as far as being true to the background. And, by the way, the heresy I have been referring to is pantheism, spelled out most clearly in the expanded write-ups on Yves and Kronos. Imagine a Greek mythology game in which Zeus was made to act like Jehovah instead of a boisterous lecher. Imagine a Hinduism or Buddhism game in which no one *really* becomes one with the infinite. Second, one stated goal of the game is to be playable in several different ways -- dark, cinematic, comic, epic, etc. One obvious way, I should think, is to pick up the game and say, "Let's play as if Catholicism / Prebyterianism / Sunni Islam / Orthodox Judaism / United Church of the Latter Seed in the Full Gospel is true." (This is, of course, especially attractive if you actually do believe that faith is true.) Throwing in a heresy as background color is simply a nuissance -- one more thing for the players to have to edit out. And now we have undoubtedly used more characters on this subject than are devoted to it in the write-ups on Yves and Kronos. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:33:34 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Propaganda On Wed, Apr 01, 1998 at 03:13:07PM +0100, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >That's so brilliant, it must be true. :) You have just written a piece > >of my game's canon. > > *g* Ta. I wouldn't normally waste bandwidth on re-quoting compliments but > when I wrote that I thought it had an awful Ring of Truth about it ;) That isn't a Seraph thing. It's a Balseraph thing. You write something you only took half seriously and then you think about it and realise it must be true. I do that all the time. Who needs the Seraph resonance to discover the truth? (I > really hope there is an artefact called the Ring of Truth in the LR, as if > not then someone wasted a marvellous pun opportunity!) > Puns are evil. > On the subject of seraphim, truth detection and scary angels of judgement, > this is something that made me laugh. > > ** SERAPH-OF-JUDGEMENT dials the number of its triad-mercurian ** > > ANSWERPHONE: Hello. I'm afraid Fluff isn't in at the moment but if you leave > your name and... > S-O-J: Fluffiel! I know you are just trying to avoid answering the phone so > that you can have sex with a mortal you met at the 'Coach and Horses' last > night. Get out of bed and answer the telephone right now! > She's being modest. It was her that wrote that (although the seraph didn't pronounce the -iel in the version I have, IIRC). On a similar note, Mithredath really should _wear_ her pair of sunglasses when she's having business meetings. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "He was wont moreover to complain openly of the condition of the times wherein he lived, as not being renowned by any public calamities...And, at times, he wished for some terrible carnage of his armies, a famine, a pestilence, conflagrations, or an earthquake." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:37:05 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) >I don't neccessarily want to have to invent the history for my game >from scratch though. Does that make me a poor GM? No imagination? I >don't think so. It sort of stems from having a full time job, other >hobbies, and other commitments, so lack of time is a problem I guess. I >often have little chance to put scenarios together let alone write >detailed, consistent campaign backgrounds concerning religious history >(Especially when such a subject is not something that I am particulary >well read on. Implying research, implying *more* time). >For those that wish to do so, fair play to them, but I think that a >backdrop that explains itself a little more should already be there so >that, as ever, you can choose to use it, ignore it, or tweak it. >As a passing observation concerning creativity; If I was that creative >(if any of us were :)) we wouldn't be playing IN anyway. >We'd have written our *own* game systems! > >Jules - Demon with vestigial wings. I don't know if you caught my follow up to the post that spawned this, but I wrote out a skeletal history of the Laurence/Saminga hate relationship in less than an hour. I wrote this using my base knowledge of the two Superiors and the main IN book. I know that I have a decent imagination, and I have come to the opinion that others on this list far surpass me. That's why I tend to lurk in the back and watch. The write up I did took a mere twenty minutes of research and time. I tend to be of the opinion that it would take me nearly as long to read about it and adapt it to my campaign. Maybe longer. Granted, extended in-depth histories are hell to create, but how in depth do you need? I tend to work with character ideas. We've all done it. Anytime anyone posts something that some superior or other would do (my mind summons fond memories of the "Bigger Hammer" plot seed), they tend to follow through with what that Superior would do. (in "Bigger Hammer", David wants to save one of his Malakim from Vapula) We postulate, and are right because we are GM's. (well, some of us are players and some of us are both; just roll with me) History works the same way. Take David. He and Michael are allies. From here, it's all formula. Just fill out the form. What has gone on between the two? Is it give and take or did one do a series of big favors for the other? How often do they get together? What are their common interest? Now, all you need is a time when something exemplifies this relationship. The Holocaust maybe (recent posts stating that Michael's has strong ties to Judaism). To me, it's just not that hard. Sure, there are games that I run that required a lot more research (try running a historically accurated game based around Richard III), but I don't feel that knowing the entire history of England would have helped. Besides, just read about five examples written about that or, even better, Agincourt. Nowhere can you find a definitive figure on the losses in that battle. Scary enough, Shakespeare wasn't that far from the average. I just have the feeling that things would be a bit more canstrained if the history was more defined. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:51:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Austin G. Loomis" Subject: IN> ArchThetans? (fluffy, noisy) I could easily participate in the discussion some people were starting, toward the tail end of v.1 #703, of which DP is the patron of Scientology. I choose not to, because although the DP of Nitpicking hasn't written to me in over three weeks, I prefer to believe that she's just too busy with her Line Editing duties, and that she *is* still my friend, and will therefore do nothing obvious to jeopardize that state of affairs. Instead, I'll list the positive things various Archangels might have to say about the religion into which the Archangel of Archives was born: * BLANDINE: They see the importance of dreams, and of making dreams a reality. * CHRISTOPHER: They're certainly dedicated to preserving innocence; hard to argue with that. * DAVID: They understand the path of struggle as few do. * ELI: The guy had an imagination, what can I say? * JANUS: They sure shake things up, y'know? * JEAN: They understand that there is knowledge for which mortals are not yet ready. * JORDI: They acknowledge that part of the human soul comes from nature. * KHALID: They are true believers. * LITHEROY: They call attention to many abuses committed by their rivals. * MARC: They understand the importance of keeping your word, and they know that nothing in this life really comes for free, not even enlightenment. * MICHAEL: They're training for war with the ways of this world -- a goal I can certainly understand. * NOVALIS: Their world would certainly be a peaceful place. * YVES: They have their part to play. * ZADKIEL: They protect their own. I couldn't really see Dominic and Laurence getting past their pro-Rome biases, nor was Gabriel seem sane enough to reply to me. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to post them. Austin George "Looking forward to the IN-IOU stats" Loomis, MiSTie #84029 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:59:32 +0100 From: "Andrew Brown" Subject: IN> basic rule book Dear SJGAMES. I hope to god (pun!) that you dont mind a wee bit of feedback. Just so as you know where im coming from im 25 , been a roleplayer for 12 years and president of my uni soc. for 2 years. Ive also helped produce the little known rpg Stocs lite from Wasteland Games. I have just splashed out on the IN-Nom rule book, REV3 and the GMs screen. WHY? Bottom line i love the look and feel of the game world i love the system i like the art etc but why in gods name is it sooooo! hard to find information. Sorry maybe im just silly but among my group who have all now had a read, we had real probs. Char-generation should be clear but you make so little of costs re: resources,songs etc it was quite a task to go through generation flicking backward and forward to find out details. And you make so little of important bits like how to work out hit points etc. Q? a player takes a human servant. how many body points does it get. whats its vassel level?how much do i pay. sorry to pick and be so quick but i have to pay for the time here! if i get a chance i might snail-mail a clearer letter. but ta for a new game keep it up. andy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:21:15 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> basic rule book On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Andrew Brown wrote: > Dear SJGAMES. Actually, 95% of the list readers have nothing to do with SJG, but we'll still help you out as best as we can... > Bottom line i love the look and feel of the game world i love the system i > like the art etc but why in gods name is it sooooo! hard to find > information. Sorry maybe im just silly but among my group who have all now > had a read, we had real probs. That's why this list is a good resource; if you're having problems with a rule, just ask here for clarifications. We even agree sometimes. :) > Char-generation should be clear but you make > so little of costs re: resources,songs etc it was quite a task to go > through generation flicking backward and forward to find out details. This is true. You may want to check out the FAQ, which clarifies a LOT of things. > And > you make so little of important bits like how to work out hit points etc. > Q? a player takes a human servant. how many body points does it get. whats > its vassel level? This *IS* an important one...it's in the FAQ, but I don't believe it's in the errata yet. At any rate, the rules for human hit points are NOT correct in the main book. Humans don't have vessel levels. Their hit points are (Corporeal Forces x Strength). They can buy a new resource for humans only, called "Toughness", up to 2 levels. Each level adds to their Corporeal Forces. So a human with 2 CorpForces, Strength/4, and Toughness/1 would have (2+1) x 4, or 12 hit points. > how much do i pay. Whatever the Class Level of the servant is (I don't have the books at hand, but I think humans are level 3; it's DEFINITELY in there, clearly, right under Servants), times their level (which is how well you control them), divided in half. So a human that you controlled at level 4 (i.e., - -4 to their Will rolls to resist your commands) would cost (3 x 4)/2, or 6 points. > sorry to pick and be so quick but i have to pay for the time here! if i get > a chance i might snail-mail a clearer letter. Any more questions? Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:23:21 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> basic rule book >Bottom line i love the look and feel of the game world i love the system i >like the art etc but why in gods name is it sooooo! hard to find >information. Sorry maybe im just silly but among my group who have all now >had a read, we had real probs. Char-generation should be clear but you make You know with the amount of time that SJG spent trying to get In Nomine out it might be expected that these dumb errors would have been avoided. Or they could have put out a 2nd edition by now. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:47:17 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> History Jo wrote: >- ---Andrew Frades wrote: >> There are however some serious problems from >> a canon IN point of view with Judiasm and specifically with a patron AA. >> >> Judaism does not believe in Hell and Lucifer is not the Adversary and is >> more like (sorry) the Devils's Advocate. His purpose is the temptation >> of the world to prove out who is worthy of Heaven. To the Jews this is >> all part of God's plan. > >Yep, but of course in IN they don't have to be right about that ;) > Quite >The reason I think it doesn't work is that as soon as you designate an AA as >patron of Jews/ Judaism, you get the inevitable question 'So what was that >AA doing during the holocaust/ spanish inquisition etc etc?' > Patronage of a peoples though is different to protecting your Word. If Michael does patronise Jews/Judaism them then it may be a form of admiration or respect because they are survivors. Patronage if you like could be assumed to be a 'hobby' of the AA. If the AA's Word was at risk then he would have to act. >(I'm also not sure it was a great idea to designate AAs as patrons of >religions. It does also beg the question of whether any DPs decided to >inspire religions also -- maybe that is just to close to the bone), > >What might work better is either to designate a deceased/ departed Archangel >(ie. Uriel) to that, or say that it was originally Michael but he turned >that responsibility over to Yves whilst they were still on good terms. >[Uriel might be interesting as there are tons of laws on ritual purity (such >all the food preparation/ kashrut), and it implies that Laurence sponsors >Christianity because he wants to prove that he can do better ;) ] > >Canonically, if you want to keep the chosen people thing, you could say that >God really did speak personally through the burning bush (which would make >it the only religion that was originated by God, rather than Gabriel/ Yves) >and after God absconded, with no notes on what His intentions were, Michael >took a personal interest (because he is so ultra-loyal) and Yves thought >about it, and then decided to experiment with some copy-angel religious >inpsiration. > >Michael may well think that Yves got jealous and set things up personally so >that the religions he inspired deliberately became anti-semitic (although >it has been pointed out previously that Jews lived quite happily alongside >Muslims in Arab lands for a long time). But I think thats just >Jewish-seraphic paranoia ;-) > >Other archangels who might suit: Dominic (all those laws -- 613 in total, >not including the books and books and books of legal interpretation), David, >Marc, Janus ... >Archangels who would not suit: Laurence, Jordi, Eli > >Or maybe the other archangels decided this monotheism thing was a good idea >but Judaism just wasn't spreading fast enough on its own so they each >grabbed different sects and had a competition to see who could invent the >most popular religion. (A bit like playing Populous with life). > > >jo Your explanation of these matters is excellent. The issue of God as having started Judaism himself; but with subsequent variant religions of the One True God being copycat designs of Yves, works. For me anyhow. I personally believe that God *does* favour the Jews because they are directly descended from Adam. Remember that in the game, other humans existed before Adam, Lilith, and Eve, and IMC, God feels especially moved toward his special test subjects and their descendants. > >(nb. I may try to write up some of the myth-stuff but its tricky because >some of it requires a lot of background to put it into context and althoguh >I'm familiar with the stories, I'm not sure that I am expert enough to get >it all absolutely right -- enough for other people to use). > Actually, I found that the stuff that you sent to me was very good. Admittedly, I'm not much in the know on Jewish myth but total accuracy doesn't worry me anyhow. If I like it, I'll use it :) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:58:15 -0600 From: John L Veazey Subject: IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries Stay -- Shakespear's Sister if this world is wearing thin and you're thinking of escape i'll go anywhere with you i'll do anything it takes but if you try to go alone don't think i'll understand stay with me. stay with me. in the silence of your room in the darkness of your schemes there among the souvenirs and the useless memories when your pride is on the floor i'll make you beg for more you'd better hope and pray that you'll be safe in your own world you'd better hope and pray that you're gonna awake back in your own world ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:29:34 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> basic rule book At 10:59 PM +0100 4/1/98, Andrew Brown wrote: >I have just splashed out on the IN-Nom rule book, REV3 and the GMs screen. >WHY? [The main book is disorganized.] Shedim did it... Believe me, we *know*... I have plans for when the first print run sells out.... There is some stuff in the APG and forthcoming IPG (at the printers) which may help -- flip through the back of the APG and check, maybe? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:34:05 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> ArchThetans? (fluffy, noisy) At 1:51 PM -0600 4/1/98, Austin G. Loomis wrote: >I could easily participate in the discussion some people were starting, >toward the tail end of v.1 #703, of which DP is the patron of Scientology. > >I choose not to, Smart. I see I'm going to have to fix the two nits and post what I wrote about my Birth Religion a while back. (I've got some dates where I can't remember the exact stuff off the top of my head, so I hadn't posted it...) >because although the DP of Nitpicking hasn't written >to me in over three weeks, I prefer to believe that she's just too busy >with her Line Editing duties, Yup. Very. Lotsa mail, things get buried. *sigh* - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:09:02 EST From: JFZeigler Subject: Re: IN> History (was Source Book Reviews) In a message dated 98-04-01 11:53:46 EST, armand@spiretech.com writes: << I just have the feeling that things would be a bit more canstrained if the history was more defined. >> Not an unreasonable position. I think I see how it might be addressed. Let's suppose we have a supplement to IN that touched on some of the historical points we're talking about: stories from the Bible, some high points of Middle Eastern and European history, maybe a few sidebars on how celestials have interacted with non-Abrahamic cultures. Now, most IN material has been written from the "third-person omniscient" viewpoint, where the author is speaking ex cathedra, as it were. Such writing baldly defines canon. But suppose the supplement was written in first-person viewpoint? Imagine a mortal researcher who has (somehow) become aware of the existence of the celestial realms. He may have come into direct contact with one or more celestials -- they haven't told him much, but he knows about the War. The historical material in the supplement is written from *his* point of view, possibly with guarded commentary from his celestial friends. Notice what this does. Our human friend can easily be mistaken on many points. And his friends might be lying to him. He may *think* they're angels. . .Properly done, this could anchor IN much better in the source material, and provide GMs with a lot of ideas for their own campaigns. But since it's never made plain whether the author got his details right, no GM needs to feel constrained by what's said. This might fit pretty well into a Revelations-style supplement. A couple of Superior writeups, a long middle section containing the historical material, and an adventure. The adventure might involve the celestial maneuvering around the historian. I'm suddenly reminded of the narrative frames used in the GURPS/World of Darkness crossover books. . . Comments? - ---------- Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, freelance writer, amateur historian, science fiction fan, occasional scribbler of bad poetry JFZeigler@aol.com "Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:15:37 -0600 From: John L Veazey Subject: Re: IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries sorry, didn't mean to post this. Vz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:11:23 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Love, Hope, & Mysteries At 6:15 PM -0600 4/1/98, John L Veazey wrote: >sorry, didn't mean to post this. Darn. It looked evocative, though I was trying to figure out Choirs, Bands, and/or Superiors... O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 22:03:29 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> History At 09:19 AM 1/04/98 -0500, you wrote: > Uh, angels and demons actually come from Sumerian Polytheism, based upon earlier shamanism which populated the world with dark and light spirits, Egypitan polytheism also had demons and beings appropriate to angels, as did in fact most ancient religions, it was only under Zoroastrianism that these beings were given any real form. However you are right, if a game is based upon religious ideals it should live up to them, but In Nomine doesn't, in In Nomine religion was a tool created by the angels (and influenced by demons) to shape humanity, not something that binds Celstials or the Symphony. Simon, Demon Prince of Pearls ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:10:20 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: IN> basic rule book >There is some stuff in the APG and forthcoming IPG (at the printers) >which may help -- flip through the back of the APG and check, maybe? Isn't this the "buy more stuff" fix rather than fixing and reprinting what is out now? That really disgusts me. As a college student I am on a very limited budget and spend as little as possible on unessential items. As a result I really wish that the editors at SJG would get their acts together and do a book right on the first time rather than proposing a fix or errata in a new book. While SJG has great concepts in gaming I fear that the quality of the company suffers a great deal because of poor editing. One need only look at the In Nomine main book, the APG, or the original printing of INWO to verify this. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 03:14:15 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> History Andrew Frades writes: >Just had a thought. What if Yves dicated the tenants of Judaism before >the fall? At the time the religion was fairly true. Then after the >fall Judaism was no longer true, but its believes were strong and held >on to their religion and survived for thousands of years. Michael loves >the Jews because they are survivors and he is their patron because of >this. > I had considered something like this myself a while back, Andrew, but didn't do anything with it because I was unsure of the timing of The Fall. Obviously, in canon it occurs sometime after the creation of Adam, yet when it does is left open to interpretation. The APG says 'Eventually, Lucifer rebelled...' which is none too useful. So, when DOES the Fall take place exactly? Well, according to the APG, several millenia passed peacefully immediately afterward, before the infernals discovered the Marches, learnt how to assume mortal form, escape Hell, and return to earth. Then along came the Grigori. I would offer that the Watchers disappeared somewhere between 3500 - 3000 BC, shortly after inventing the wheel perhaps, and just as cities started to appear, with civilization really beginning to take off. This would also tie in nicely with canon because it was David's angels that stepped in and (after bashing the Nephillim) detained the Grigori. David wanted to protect the gatherings of humanity in these new communities, rather than seeing them exploited by the depraved mentors that the Watchers had (generally) become. What I'm not so sure about, is how long the Grigori were with us for or when they might have first appeared? One of the oldest settlements in the world, the town of Jericho, was occupied circa. 7000 BC. Might this be a starting place? The Grigori instigating the beginnings of a cultural centre? It would be possible to place the Fall (from this information) at a few millenia prior to the first appearence of the Watchers. 12,000 - 10,000 BC? Yet the problem with this approach is that it would place the Eden Experiment at somewhere around this time also, and 10,000 years or so is perhaps a little early, especially when Abraham supposedly lived 2000 - 1500 BC and Moses received the Ten Commandments somewhere around 1200 BC. But then again some of those old patriarchs had very long lives didn't they? :) Have any of the folk on this list got more information on lifespans in years of some of these guys? Noah, Enoch, and Adam for example? (It might thus be possible to place a time on events such as the Flood.) Earl? I'm sure that you've mentioned something about lifespans in the past... :) - -- Jules - Angel of Biblical Archaeology ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:00:43 EST From: JFZeigler Subject: Re: IN> History In a message dated 98-04-01 21:25:17 EST, you write: << Have any of the folk on this list got more information on lifespans in years of some of these guys? Noah, Enoch, and Adam for example? (It might thus be possible to place a time on events such as the Flood.) >> It's all in Genesis, chapter 5. You can reckon up time from the Creation to the Flood pretty easily from that. Problem with this approach is that it's been done already. Depending on your assumptions, you may end up with Bishop Ussher's old figure of 4004 BCE for the Creation. Which doesn't fit the canon very well no matter how you slice it. I know this will sound strange coming from someone who's been asking for closer ties between IN canon and historical sources. . .but I suspect a lot of Genesis has to be treated as myth, even in a game that assumes angels and demons are real. - ---------- Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, freelance writer, amateur historian, science fiction fan, occasional scribbler of bad poetry JFZeigler@aol.com "Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself." ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #704 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.