From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 22 16:07:18 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 QAA09051 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:07:17 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA25749 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:59:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:59:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199804222059.PAA25749@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 #725 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 22 1998 Volume 01 : Number 725 In this digest: Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... IN> A is for angels Re: IN> Archangel stereos Re: IN> Jordi Alert Re: IN> A is for angels IN> Bright Lilim Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! Re: IN> A is for angels IN> Outcasts Re: IN> A is for angels Re: IN> Archangel stereos Re: IN> More Lilim discussions.... IN> Parrot Jokes Re: IN> Character taxonomy Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... IN> Archangels and Princes Logos Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... IN> Transcript Re: IN> Outcasts Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! Re: IN> Archangels and Princes Logos IN> In Nomine Character sheets Re: IN> More Lilim discussions.... Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets IN> A burning question IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> A burning question Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Superiors on the Edge Re: IN> Outcasts Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> A burning question Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> A burning question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:34:15 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... At 10:42 AM 21/04/98 -0400, you wrote: > >> >Eli gets together with Kobal regularly for 'Why you really want to Redeem, >man, it would be cool' conversations over shots of whiskey. > >It's sort of a floating background campaign idea, but it has it's >moments.] > > >Eli and Kobal drinking whiskey? yikes! its bad enough when my parents get drunk, but what about an Archangel and a Demon Prince together? 'Thats right officer, we tried to book em for drunk driving but one of them turned my pen in to a banana, the other found a most ingenious way of pulling my underwear over my head!' Simon, Who cannot be serious at the moment > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:20:31 EDT From: Heretic103 Subject: IN> A is for angels I found a great book to my surprize in the the discount rack for only 5 bones at borders today, it is called Angels A to Z the authors name eludes me right now, but it is an interesting read. Heretic, Archangel of Police Death ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:50:22 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Archangel stereos Following the trend of everybodys superior classifications I have now assigned actors to each archangel! I'm still doing the casting for the Demon princes :) Blandine-Jennifer Connelly (yes I have seen Higher Learning) David-Dolph Lundren (Jean Claude broke a hip) Dominic-part animated robed seraph, part guy who plays Skinner in X-Files Eli-Matthew-Matthew Perry Gabriel-Lucy Lawless and Christopher Walken (couldn't resist no) Janus-Michael Richards Jean-Lance Henriksen Jordi-various rained animals provided with voices Laurence-Christopher Lambert Marc-Charlie Sheen Michael-Michael Beihn (they're names match so thats cool enough for me) Novalis-Lisa Kudrow Yves-Alec Guiness That is all, to the rest of you who auditioned today, shame on you, you had no concept whatsoever of an Archangel would act, your a disgrace to the industry...blah,blah so on and so on. Simon, Casting for Celestials and movies not about sinking ships that most people only watched because leonardo Dicaprio was in it....(you notice he was not hired) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:24:42 EDT From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> Jordi Alert In a message dated 4/20/98 2:31:06 PM Central Daylight Time, zenith@umich.edu writes: << All I can think of is the prank some kids did that I read somewhere. They grabbed some guys pet parrot and nuked it. And then left it in the microwave, steaming. They may have even wrapped it in saran wrap first. (Mmmmm.... saran wrap.) >> That is not funny, I mean what the kids did. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:23:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> A is for angels > I found a great book to my surprize in the the discount rack for only 5 bones > at borders today, it is called Angels A to Z the authors name eludes me right > now, but it is an interesting read. > ANGELS A To Z : A Who's Who of the Heavenly Host by Matthew Bunson It's OKAY, it's not fantastic. It's good enough to inhabit a spot on my shelves, but not much more. I use Gustav Davidson's rather quite a bit instead. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:41:31 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Bright Lilim >>>Because every GM will have a different dozen Brights, probably. And Lilim going Bright seems to be a popular plot thread in many campaigns. Thus there's some call for game mechanics, since they're vastly overrepresented in actual games.<<< I believe there is still a question over whether or not there should be any such thing as "Bright Lilim" attunements. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:40:48 -0400 From: Doctor TOC Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! David Streeter wrote: > > Saw an excellent film called "Faraway, So Close!" last night. It's about > an angel who becomes a human. > > (I haven't seen "Wings of Desire" yet - FSC is the sequel). > It's funny you should post this at today. I was about to post on the movie "City of Angels" which is based on "Wings of Desire". If anyone's pondering whether to see this movie or not, go see it. While it lacks the spiritual depth and philosophical weight of "Wings", it's not a light-weight film. The producers concentrated on the romantic aspect of the story, but there's still enough meat there for subscribers to this list. Oh yeah...take a hanky. all the best, Doctor TOC (AKA Caustiel, Angel of Irony) - -- The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" "Lovers, like bees, make life as sweet as honey." UIN # 4814586 URL: http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:47:26 EDT From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> A is for angels In a message dated 4/21/98 10:32:05 PM Central Daylight Time, zenith@umich.edu writes: << I use Gustav Davidson's rather quite a bit instead. >> Does anyone know where to get a copy of dictionairre infernal? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:41:36 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Outcasts >>>But why would a AA do this unless the angel had behaved contrary to either their own nature or the nature of the superior? I believe your argument to be semantic.<<< It's not, because the original claim was that angels aren't Outcast by anyone except themselves and their very nature, implying that an angel can _only_ become Outcast as a result of a failed dissonance roll. However, as the APG makes clear, an Archangel can choose to make a Servitor an Outcast if he's angered enough. Yes, it will usually be because the angel was behaving in a contrary manner, but nonetheless the angel might not have accumulated enough dissonance to become Outcast on his own yet, or the AA might be angered by something that wasn't technically dissonant. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:55:21 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> A is for angels >I found a great book to my surprize in the the discount rack for only 5 bones >at borders today, it is called Angels A to Z the authors name eludes me right >now, but it is an interesting read. > Hm. A is for Angels, the holy unseen, B is for Blandine, the maker of dreams, C is Celestial, the realms of the Light, D is for Demons, hearts dark as night, E is for- who else?- the wanderer Eli, F is for Fleurity, he'll get you high, G is for Game, and don't you forget it, H is Haagenti, if you had it, he 'et it, I is for Impudite, Hell's charming fakes, J is for Jordi, a big fuzzy flake, K is for Kobal (who had nothing to do with this I swear!) L is for Laurence, of his armies beware, M is for Malphas who rips ties apart, N is Novalis and her generous heart, O is for Ofanim, who roll on and on, P is for Purity- thank God that THEY'RE gone! Q is for Queen, which describes Andre, R is Rafael, gone many a day, S is Saminga, the dumb bloody brute, T is for Trade in which Marc is astute, U is for Uriel who got called Upstairs, V is for Vapula- don't ask for repairs! W is for War, the old Mike-and-Baal row, X- no, says Nybbas, it's NC-17 now, Y is for Yves, who inspires with a word, Z is for Zadkiel- and THANK GOD FOR HER!!! - --- Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.antarctic-press.com/ - Antarctic Press Web Site http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/acupunct/ - Anatomical Acupuncture http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:36:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Doubting Eric Subject: Re: IN> Archangel stereos On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > Following the trend of everybodys superior classifications I have now > assigned actors to each archangel! I'm still doing the casting for the > Demon princes :) > Gabriel-Lucy Lawless and Christopher Walken (couldn't resist no) > Michael-Michael Beihn (they're names match so thats cool enough for me) I'm sorry. You couldn't resist Christoper Walken for Gabriel, but you ignored Eric Roberts for Michael? It is my firm opinion that the art in the core book is too close a match to his appearance in Prophecy II for it to be coincidence. Nybbie is being a naughty little Impudite. :) Eric Elohite of Orc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:52:01 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim discussions.... At 12:51 21/04/98 EDT, you wrote: >>---Walter Milliken wrote: >> >>Still IMO, I prefer it this way as I actually like Mercurians/ Impudites >>because they are the most human celestials. If they aren't then I guess I >>should convert to the true-lilim-way > >Canon is that the Grigori (and presumably their dark counterparts, the >Nephallim) are the closest to human (this is in the core rules section >on the Grigori). However, the Mercurians were the closest of the >*original* Choirs I had actually meant 'of those choirs/ bands which are available to players'. Sorry, I wasn't clear. 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, 22 Apr 1998 02:12:20 -0400 From: laidlaw@gtn.net (Laidlaw, Mike) Subject: IN> Parrot Jokes [delurk] <> This one's an old standby, but it might work as a running reply. An old lady, who'd been pretty much alone for five years since her husband's death, took great delight in her companion, a parrot. A firm believer in manners, she taught the parrot to say "Hello, who is it?" Each day, she'd repeat the phrase and hear it echoed back. One day her plumbing started to back up, so she called the local fluid-transfer technician. He told her he would be over in an hour. A half-hour later, the old lady slips in the water that's been building up on the floor as she's mopping it up. She cracks her head and falls unconscious in the bathroom. The plumber arrives and knocks on the lady's door, but her state doesn't allow her to hear his summons. He tries the knob to discover that the door's unlocked, so he yells out "Hello?" as he enters the house. The parrot replies "Hello, who is it?" "It's the plumber" Again the parrot calls back "Hello, who is it?" The plumber makes his way up the stairs as he replies "It's the plumber!" Again the call and again the reply. The plumber, growing quite angry sets his tool box down and begins to pace back and forth on the landing. Again the parrot calls out "Hello, who is it?" and the plumber pushes open the door to the parrot's room as he calls back "Look, I already told you, it's the plumber!" As the door opens all the way, he sees the parrot, and starts to laugh, taking a step back straight onto his tool box, which prompty slips both itself and the hapless plumber down the stairs. Awoken by the clatter, the old lady groggily rises to her feet and leaves the bathroom. As she enters the landing and views the corpse lying at the bottom of the stairs she gasps in shock "Oh my! Who is it?" To which the parrot replies "It's the plumber!" Just grisly enough for a servitor of Cobal.. [/delurk] - ----- Mike Laidlaw (aka Cynewulf) Shedim servitor of List-Lurkage ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:27:07 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Character taxonomy On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >I was more concerned with the taxonomy in general. > >It just seems to me (at the moment) that Derek wrote > >Superiors in three basic flavors. > > I tend to group them into "war party", "peace party", and "neutrals". > These can usually be deduced by the alliance/enemy data, though the > groupings are a little fuzzy. On the angelic side, there's also a sort > of "green party" (Eli, Novalis, Jordi) which I tend to view as an > environmentalist alliance of sorts. I think more like this too - there are the hardliners, who want to wipe out the opposition at all costs; those who want an end to the war, even if it means giving up some to the enemy; and those who are just along for the ride (Kobal, Janus/Valefor, Nybbas). Among the angels, the Hawk group are more concerned about the final goal, and the Doves more about humanity. But there are always different groupings and alliances, ever changing. Michael might go along with something Dominic suggests, if it would further his Word, and Laurence might help Novalis every once in a great while. There are no absolute factions, and definitely no parties, IMO. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:35:12 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > > Kobal's BFG (Big effing Gag, tm) is one of those things that should be > > unique to every campaign. But this one is just too neat... > > > > Kobal and Eli are collaborating to create a heavenly tether in a > > chamber hidden behind a file cabinet in Kobal's office. > > > > Cute. Someone else reinforces my belief that Eli and Kobal get together > on a regular basis for drinks. Maybe they bring Janus and Lilith. :) Our GM had Eli and Lilith make a bet, involving us (demons), some angels, and the church in that little place in France that I can never learn the name of, that the priest who found the stuff about the Templars and all that. Clear enough? :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:47:29 +0200 From: Tony Valle Garcia Subject: IN> Archangels and Princes Logos Greetings, I would like to know if the Archangels and the Princes have their own signs (as pictures, logos or something like this) so I can identify their servitors. If so, please send me information or the signs. If not, can I design my own logos for the Arch. and Princ. ? _--_ / -) ___/___|___ ____-----=~~///| ||||~~~==-----_____ //~////////////~/| |//|||||\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////| |///////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ |.||/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`\\\\\ //~ /\\|\\ ~\\ ///W^\W\ ////|||\\\ ~~~~~~~~~~ Tony "Black Hawk" Valle i52vagaa@lucano.uco.es ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:12:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Why Kobal doesn't laugh much anymore... > > Cute. Someone else reinforces my belief that Eli and Kobal get together > > on a regular basis for drinks. Maybe they bring Janus and Lilith. :) > > Our GM had Eli and Lilith make a bet, involving us (demons), some angels, > and the church in that little place in France that I can never learn the > name of, that the priest who found the stuff about the Templars and all > that. Clear enough? :) The church is in a small town called Rennes-la-Chataeu. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:22:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Transcript Heeeeeeeeey all: Rumor has it that I ran Jo Hart's "The Trial" Scenario about a month ago. Well, Susan (whom I love to death!) took a log, and finally posted it! We have both Terry and Rigziel - on the same side, no less! We have possessed King Dons! We have annoying young Mercurians of Judgment who just KNOW you are doing something wrong! We have BEANIE BABIES! [But, alas, no froggies.] Enjoy it, become one with it: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mozzer/games/trial.html - - Em Current Quote: "If the Buddhists are right, I am doomed to return because of my wants, desires and cravings. The way it looks now, the only way I'd reach Nirvana would be to buy one of their albums." - Seen on Alt.Angst ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:31:16 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Outcasts David Edelstein wrote: > >>>But why would a AA do this unless the angel had behaved contrary to > either their own nature or the nature of the superior? I believe your > argument to be semantic.<<< > > It's not, because the original claim was that angels aren't Outcast by > anyone except themselves and their very nature, implying that an angel can > _only_ become Outcast as a result of a failed dissonance roll. However, as > the APG makes clear, an Archangel can choose to make a Servitor an Outcast > if he's angered enough. Yes, it will usually be because the angel was > behaving in a contrary manner, but nonetheless the angel might not have > accumulated enough dissonance to become Outcast on his own yet, or the AA > might be angered by something that wasn't technically dissonant. Have to agree. Must have been feeling argumentative at the time. Hmmm... Malphas you are such a jerk. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jose Burgos Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! Hi, I'm new to the list. My name is Jose Burgos, graduate literature & languages student at Arizona State. I've just recently purchased the rulebook and liked what I read. I have been involved in rpg for over a decade now and except for a very few games (Ars Magica, CoC) I rarely come across a game with so much potential for storytelling. On the issue of "Wings of Desire" I just received a copy I purchased on "Reel.com" for $16.99 (new). I had seen the German film before, and once I saw it I knew I had to own it. It is perhaps the best interpretation of angels I have seen in film. Wenders (the dir.) throws in some very heavy metaphysical issues (is God asleep, or is he just indiferrent to mankind). In particular I like the role that angels play in this film as not only watchers (Grigori ?), but how they can influence the dark thoughts of humanity and offer hope. NOw to get to my point, is "Far Away, So close" really the sequel to Wender's "Wings"? If so could someone give me some info on it, (year of release, language)? I highly recommend "Wings of Desire". A fantastic film. If you play this game I would consider it a primer for any storyguide or player. My humble thoughts, Jose burgos@yahoo.com - ---David Streeter wrote: > > Saw an excellent film called "Faraway, So Close!" last night. It's about > an angel who becomes a human. > > Has anyone seen it? If so, what do they think of Willem DaFoe's > character? Is he a Malakite, or Lucifer? > > (I haven't seen "Wings of Desire" yet - FSC is the sequel). > > SurturZ > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:52:43 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Archangels and Princes Logos At 12:47 PM +0200 4/22/98, Tony Valle Garcia wrote: > Greetings, I would like to know if the Archangels and the Princes have their own signs (as pictures, logos or something like this) so I can identify their servitors. If so, please send me information or the signs. If not, can I >design my own logos for the Arch. and Princ. ? At this time, I don't know of any official logos. This may change in the future (or not), but I believe you can certainly design your own. Just don't go selling them all over the Net. (Or the corporeal realm, for that matter.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:19:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jose Burgos Subject: IN> In Nomine Character sheets Im curious, are there any character sheets that one can download off the internet or that someone has created besides the one in the rulebook (not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to know if anyone has tailored their own)? Thanks, Jose Burgos Cassiel, Angel of Forgotten Hopes. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 12:08 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim discussions.... >>Canon is that the Grigori (and presumably their dark counterparts, the >>Nephallim) are the closest to human (this is in the core rules section >>on the Grigori). However, the Mercurians were the closest of the >>*original* Choirs > >I had actually meant 'of those choirs/ bands which are available to >players'. Sorry, I wasn't clear. Hopefully we'll see Grigori, Children of the Grigori, and Nephallim as PC options sometime soon.... But yes, Mercurians/Impudites are technically the closest to human of canon PC celestials. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 12:50 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets >Im curious, are there any character sheets that one can download off >the internet or that someone has created besides the one in the >rulebook (not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to know >if anyone has tailored their own)? Look at: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/resources.html Under the heading "Play Aids" -- there are a couple there as PDF files (as well as a GIF of the one in the book). There are also many other useful things on that page. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:04:04 EDT From: MUG282 Subject: IN> A burning question Hello my name is Marc, I have been playing In Nomine for about 6 monnths now and I can honestly say that it was one of the most well written and inventive RPGs I've ever played.(The combat system is a little convoluted but thats what house rules are for) :-) Anyway I have a continuity question: On page 5 of The Marches, Kronos says that Uriel was the first of the Malakim. However; on page 6 of the Angelic Players Guide it lists the earliest Celestials as: Michael, Lucifer, Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel, and URIEL. On page 46 of the Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an answer please let me Know... Thank You for your time. -Marc Grasmugg MUG282@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:00:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Walter Milliken writes: [...] >I don't think any particularly clear-cut grouping was intended -- each >of the AAs and DPs shares certain goals and viewpoints with others, and >what groups you see depends on which issue you pick as important. After >all, IN is supposed to be somewhat "fuzzy", not black & white. Thanks for bringing up something, even tangentially, that had been bothering me without my really being aware of it. Is IN actually "fuzzy"? It's kind of hard to maintain moral ambiguity in a speculative universe where angels and demons are real, where people who live good (or at least, kind and unselfish) lives move on to potentially eternal rapture in the Heavens, while people who lead evil lives suffer (for the most part) eternal agony in Hell. However, IN does manage a small degree of ambiguity. The problem, as I see it, is that it's all on one side. I have yet to see any, pardon the expression, redeeming feature in any of the Demon Prince writeups, either original or expanded. The writeups for demonic Bands are hardly more sympathetic; none of them describe people you'd want to know, possibly excepting Lilim who owe you something. The ambiguity comes in when Heaven manages to come across as not all that much better than Hell. The individual angelic Choirs are described fairly favorably -- but in some cases, they're still not very nice people. And the Archangels, with their backbiting and mutual hostility, are definitely *not* admirable as a group. The upshot, at least to me, comes across as a Hell that is unreservedly, unambiguously, unrelievedly evil -- and a Heaven that, while quite definitely better, falls rather short of being "good" in any absolute sense. It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the lesser of two evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come somewhere closer to the center. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:22:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> A burning question On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, MUG282 wrote: > On page 46 of the > Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir > until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! > How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an > answer please let me Know... The way it works is that Malakim can either be created from scratch or converted from another Choir; David is an example of a Malakite who used to be something else (A Cherub, in his case). Uriel started out as some choir (dunno which offhand), and then during the Fall was changed into the first of the Malakim to go kick some red ass. Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "To fall in love is to create a religion that has a fallible god."-- Jorge-Luis Borges How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:30:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) York H. Dobyns wrote: > The upshot, at least to me, comes across as a Hell that is > unreservedly, unambiguously, unrelievedly evil -- and a Heaven that, > while quite definitely better, falls rather short of being "good" in > any absolute sense. It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the > lesser of two evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come > somewhere closer to the center. I suspect it's in there to cater to the current fashion in angst. However, I agree that it paints a rather drear picture, which has provoked some individual alterations, such as Neel Krishnaswami's Heaven which is "so bright you have to wear shades," and my own suggested list of modifications for Christian-specific IN, where the archangels are not nearly so divided. Is it just me, or does nearly all the darkness in canon IN's Heaven radiate from the figure of Dominic and his Inquisition? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:24:42 +0100 From: "Craw Wurm" Subject: Re: IN> Superiors on the Edge - ---------- > From: Neel Krishnaswami > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> Superiors on the Edge > Date: 21 April 1998 12:45 > > On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > > [Eli] > > > > > Remeber that the first thing God did was to create. Think about it. :) > > > > Isn't his name one of those for God? One of the other players in a game I > > was in suggested that Eli was God and the reason that human beings were so > > important to Heaven is that God is a Mercurian. > > Heh. In my own game, Eli is absent from Heaven because he's on the > express train to Hell. (Likewise for Gabriel.) Since canon is pretty > obviously taking the "Eli is a hippy, therefore he's a good guy" route, > I decided to warp things a little bit for my own game. He and Gabriel > are not fallen yet, though, and depending on how things work out it's > possible the PCs might save them. But I wouldn't bet that way. Would they be bid for like the other angels or would they have a 'Special Day Out' for getting these new servants... Sorta like the 'Christmas Hype Toy' that the manufacturers can't make enough of and people queue for hours to get one. Just a thought... Craw-Wurm "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:38:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Nutt Subject: Re: IN> Outcasts >> >>>Outcast Angels are not Outcast by any individual except themselves and >> their very nature. The term Outcast just fits well with the all the >> biblical analogies there are in the game.<<< >> >> Incorrect. A Servitor can be deliberately cast out by his Archangel, though >> it's rare. > >But why would a AA do this unless the angel had behaved contrary to >either their own nature or the nature of the superior? I believe your >argument to be semantic. They may have *disagreed* with the Superior, perhaps... and while some Superiors may destroy servitors who question their orders, others may choose to simply "fire" one, letting the servitor learn its own lesson based on experience. >I am of course assuming that this would be used as a punishment. If you >wanted to risk a servitor by giving them to the other side in hopes that >they will eventually come back with excellent intelligence I suppose >that that would have some logic, but if Heaven is using tactics like >this it is no wonder they are slowly losing the war. An Outcast angel is not *yet* given over to the Other Side, and can yet be returned into the good graces of Heaven. Perhaps the Outcast will see the error of his ways. Perhaps he can find another Superior more amenable to his viewpoint, assuming that he's kept his nose clean (and dissonance-free!) during his time away. And maybe, just maybe... his original Superior wasn't as wise and all-knowing as all *that*, either. This is one of the reasons I quibble with the idea that the hosts of Judgment are dead-set on eradicating all Outcasts. I understand watching them closely. I understand viewing them suspiciously. But, they aren't always wrong -- and it's dissonant to punish those who are not guilty. IMC, Outcasts have "celestial parole officers" -- Cherubs of Judgment, usually, who are assigned to watch over the errant, and to make sure that their feet stay on the path of righteousness. It's labor-intensive, yes, but it seems like a valuable feedback mechanism that an Archangel of Judgment would love to have. Doesn't always work, especially in the case of angels who *hide* after going dissonant... but if you remove the "I'm gonna get torn to bits" mentality, Outcasts don't have as much *reason* to hide, if they are interested in returning to the fold. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:46:19 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) In a message dated 4/22/98 10:40:50 AM, earlw@mc.com writes: >Is it just me, or does nearly all the darkness in canon IN's Heaven >radiate from the figure of Dominic and his Inquisition? > >Earl Maybe it's not just you, but for me it's more the 'traditionals' Michael is a lone wolf, Gabriel is nuts, Rafael is dead, and Uriel is some combination of the three. Dominic is not nearly as bad as Uriel, imho. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:19:13 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> A burning question MUG282 wrote: > Hello my name is Marc, I have been playing In Nomine for about 6 monnths now > and I can honestly say that it was one of the most well written and inventive > RPGs I've ever played.(The combat system is a little convoluted but thats what > house rules are for) :-) Anyway I have a continuity question: On page 5 of The > Marches, Kronos says that Uriel was the first of the Malakim. However; on > page 6 of the Angelic Players Guide it lists the earliest Celestials as: > Michael, Lucifer, Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel, and URIEL. On page 46 of the > Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir > until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! > How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an > answer please let me Know... Uriel was not origially created as a Malakite. The Malakim were "invented" by her at the time of the Fall as something of a response. Others followed her pure lead and changed from their old choir to be Malakim. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 16:21 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) >However, IN does manage a small degree of ambiguity. The problem, as I >see it, is that it's all on one side. I have yet to see any, pardon the >expression, redeeming feature in any of the Demon Prince writeups, >either original or expanded. The writeups for demonic Bands are hardly >more sympathetic; none of them describe people you'd want to know, >possibly excepting Lilim who owe you something. It's a little hard to maintain the "grayness" sometimes, so IN writing tends to make demons and Hell fairly dark, especially from a human point of view. Generically, demons are not particularly nice; but as individuals, they aren't entirely bad, either. This shows best in the vignettes, primarily the ones by Derek; it also is fairly evident in Night Music, though that's said to be an unusual setting. I tend to view the demonic mindset as more being more "tired and resigned" than "evil" -- they don't have much hope, they're pawns in a game that even their superiors don't understand, and they're mostly looking to kick over the gameboard. >The ambiguity comes in when Heaven manages to come across as not all >that much better than Hell. The individual angelic Choirs are described >fairly favorably -- but in some cases, they're still not very nice >people. In many cases, I think Heaven is perfectly happy with the notion that the end justifies the means, and that the sacrifice of few to save many is a viable strategy. > And the Archangels, with their backbiting and mutual hostility, >are definitely *not* admirable as a group. I don't read them as being *that* bad, though some of them are hard to like. Most of them aren't really that hostile -- if you read carefully, they tend to be more at cross-purposes. Though there are some outright feuds in there. The big problem with the AAs is that they aren't *human*... their viewpoint can be very alien. >The upshot, at least to me, comes across as a Hell that is unreservedly, >unambiguously, unrelievedly evil -- and a Heaven that, while quite >definitely better, falls rather short of being "good" in any absolute >sense. It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the lesser of two >evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come somewhere closer >to the center. It shouldn't really come across that way -- it's *supposed* to work out that the demons are on the dark end of the spectrum, angels are on the light end, and they overlap in the middle. With humanity spanning the whole range and beyond on both ends. At least that's my take on meta-canon. The main problem may be that in Hell, the scum rises to the surface -- the average demon may not be particularly bad, but he gets stuck in a Catch-22 situation where he's being jerked around by everyone above him, and he can't try to escape without probably getting into worse trouble. So he just muddles along and looks out for Number One as best he can. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 16:31 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) >> The upshot, at least to me, comes across as a Hell that is >> unreservedly, unambiguously, unrelievedly evil -- and a Heaven that, >> while quite definitely better, falls rather short of being "good" in >> any absolute sense. It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the >> lesser of two evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come >> somewhere closer to the center. > >I suspect it's in there to cater to the current fashion in angst. Some, though not all. I think it's supposed to be more ambiguous than angsty. Though angst is certainly supposed to be there. >Is it just me, or does nearly all the darkness in canon IN's Heaven >radiate from the figure of Dominic and his Inquisition? I think it's just you. David, Gabriel, and maybe even Janus could be viewed as rather dark. So can some of the others, with the right slant. And the choir of Malakim. Dominic is simply the most obvious -- no one likes Internal Security.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:56:27 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A burning question At 1:04 PM -0400 4/22/98, MUG282 wrote: >Uriel was the first of the Malakim. However; on >page 6 of the Angelic Players Guide it lists the earliest Celestials as: >Michael, Lucifer, Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel, and URIEL. On page 46 of the >Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir >until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! >How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an >answer please let me Know... The Malakim were *created* during the Fall, from those of the angels who (to paraquote Derek) 'Raised their fists in the air and suddenly found that they had become a new thing.' Uriel used to be a Seraph, I think it was, just as David used to be a Cherub. (This is mentioned in the IPG History, BTW.) Uriel was simply the *first* of these (and, I suspect, held his Word from *before* he became Malakite). This is the first, and only, time that fully fledged angels have changed their nature. These days, Malakim are only created from scratch (by Superiors) or fledge from relievers. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #725 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.