From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 4 06:22:27 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 GAA23082 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 06:22:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id GAA04254 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 06:15:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 06:15:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199805041115.GAA04254@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 #749 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, May 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 749 In this digest: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Yves Re: IN> Abortion Angels Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Yves Re: IN> Dominic IN> Gnosticism Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Yves Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Yves Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Gnosticism IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat IN> Shedites and dead hosts Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Angels, Tao, and Dicey Words Re: IN> IN: BB Fluff Re: IN> flaming mapboards Re: IN> Dominic Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Re: IN> IN: BB Fluff Re: IN> Dominic Re: IN> Dominic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:16:19 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment At 07:03 PM 3/05/98 -0500, you wrote: >Okay, I was initially forming my own camp of "what a silly idea I shan't >post a word." But Jason has reminded me of something that I had forgotten >- in the IN universe, Lovecraft was probably prophet of some kind, not >the (awesome) perpetual goth he was in this universe... >"Forgot the demons for a second!! That's Nyarlathotep coming at us!! HE >takes priority!!!" >I can see it already... >Randolph Carter leading armies of Shantek and cats, Pickman at his side >with his armies of ghouls... >hehehe... >Eli approves... > > > Lovecraft was not a perpetual Goth, and don't let me hear you say that again, he was one of the greatest horror writers of the 20th Century and has influenced the likes of Robert Bloch (Psycho) Stephen King and Ramsey Campbell. Also, there are some who would say that what he wrote about was not completely fancy either, his dad was a member of a mystical Freemason lodge, and owned many esoteric books of lore.... Simon 'R'lyeh, Cthulhu' Person. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 01:24:14 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Yves Neel Krishnaswami writes >>From: Titus 3 11 >> >>BVarious cut people... >>1)Yves isn't really a "kill-em and let their next incarnation sort 'em >>out" kinda guy. I fetus with a dark Fate and a meager Destiny would find >>himself well-protected and guided (see Good Omens, and how each side tries >>to change the "Antichrist" with tutors) by angels guiding him to his >>Destiny (not that they probably know they are - their orders probably read >>"swing your right hand 45 degrees upon reading this. Walk child X to >>school. Walk child X home from school. Swing your right hand 45 degrees >>upon completion of walking child X home, but in a different dirention then >>last time." WHy? Who knows, it's DESTINY!). > > > >>I just get the impression from his expanded write-up that he wouldn't do >>such a thing to a fetus, even if he was unopposed by Kronos and Co. > >I got the exact opposite impression, actually. He's out to bring the >entire universe to its absolute best possible Destiny, and would do >quite a lot to see that it happens. > Hmmm. But if Yves is not averse to abortion, why hasn't he done so in the cases of people such as Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.? After all, they were definately stinkers. Could it be because he knows what they can stoop to but wants them to aspire to so much more and killing them before all this transpires would deny them their destiny? (IMC, I might add, Yves can foresee *all possible futures* but even he doesn't know what the *actual* one will be. That's for humanity to decide.) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 01:40:13 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Abortion Angels David Edelstein wrote: >>>>Gotta admit...It wasn't as bad as I feared...gave us both sides of the >issue...So confess...how long have you been working on the angels and >demons of Abortion?<<< > > >I started writing them the same day they were posted, after someone (Julian >Breen, I think) said it couldn't/shouldn't be done. Basically finished them >in about a three-hour period. > >- -David > Oooh, was that a little "I'll show him!" there David? :-) Actually, it wasn't me. It was Jesse. I had absolutely no objection to them. I *wanted* you to post them so that I might get a better handle on how you view things. However wrong you are . When I get around to reading them properly I'll let you know what I think. FWIW I *generally* like your stuff. - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 01:04:40 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words From Armand: >Okay, be forewarned. I do not approve of inflicting selfish acts on >another person. However, I could see how an angel might. > But aren't angels supposed to be selfless? >I think that it would have to be an Elohim for starters. This is one of >those ends justifies the means issues. The goal isn't to leave a tattered >shell, but to create a person more receptive to Heaven's light. > I'd say Habbalah. They think that they're helping you by subjecting you to unspeakable cruelties and degradations because you'll be unable to do anything *but* turn to God as a result. Of course, they're just as likely to turn you away from God, perhaps more so, than get you to accept Him. Take, as an example, the Demon of Rape. (don't know the figures, but I'd hazard a guess that at least as many lives are ruined by such an experience as those that 'gain' from it.) If you accept that The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways, then *any* evil act is justifiably sponsored by Heaven. >This is like the issue of the person that is too good to leave, but too bad >to stay. You've forced yourself into this sort of deadlock with another >person. While some people can be led out of this relationship with the >facts or a better offfer, some people need a harsher reason. Even a Cherub >who saw his attuned in such a situation might go a bit nuts to get the >attuned out of it; his actions a little on the rash side. > >However, I don't think that the Angel of Rape would just be about the act >itself. I think that he would also include the counselling that follows, >and possibly the aid programs. > >I don't know how many of you are in/have been in college lately, but >anymore it seems that they tell all the girls in attendance to expect to be >date-raped. This bothers me. It's no longer an "if", but a "when". Part >of me would like to think that a merciful soul was responsible than someone >getting their jollies from the pain they inflict. > >Enough rant. Let me conclude with this: I think that the idea of saying >that there can't be an angel/demon of "?" is a little on the ludicrous >side. We tend to look at Celestial society as a sociological extension of >our own. We tend to forget that they are watching out for us. A sheep may >not like what a shepherd is doing, but how often do they know why the >shepherd is doing it? > >Armand > - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:37:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Yves > Hmmm. But if Yves is not averse to abortion, why hasn't he done so in > the cases of people such as Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.? > After all, they were definately stinkers. Could it be because he knows > what they can stoop to but wants them to aspire to so much more and > killing them before all this transpires would deny them their destiny? > No, not quite. Killing them would cut short the destinies of _others_. Hitler was horrible, but through WWII many men attained great heights of bravery and leadership, especially in battles like Stalingrad. Pol Pot is burning in hell, but through him journalists have brought the real side of that sort of oppression and horror to the eyes of the entire world. Remember, no one lives in a vacuum, and those with the worst fates may inspire many others to their greatest destiny _fighting against them_. Think oblique! Ride the Yves Wheel of Confusion! - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 21:57:39 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Dominic >From: Jesse > >Anyway, does anyone run a game where Dominic is a good guy? It seems to me >that he has been a victim of bad press, prehaps one of Micheal's saints >works at SJG? Of course Heaven needs a police force, it lost one third of >its populace in a rebellion. Of course! The backplot of my game is basically, "the Seraphim are right." Eli and Gabriel are in fact falling (see -- Dominic was right!) and it really is all Yves's fault this is happening (see -- Michael was right!). (Michael himself is excused only because God Almighty came down and personally declared him innocent; you don't get evidence much more convincing than that.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:16:23 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: IN> Gnosticism >From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) > >> "PML" == Perry M Lloyd writes: > >PML> Who fights for Earth? We do. The plants, the animals, the >PML> humans, the stone, the water. With what weapons? Our dreams, of >PML> course. They were powerful enough to fight before, to grant us >PML> power. Now they have been pushed to the Far Marches, Heaven >PML> carefully monitors our dreams and behaviors so that such >PML> creatures of Myth cannot ever be created again to fight in our >PML> name. > >Oooh, I like it. Very much. This is definately becoming part of the >backstory for the Gnostic/Albigensian IN campaign I am planning on >starting in June. It's definately going to trample on many Canon >Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty, in vastly heretical ways. Could you please post some of your notes to the list, or are they on the Web somewhere? I'm doing basically doing exactly the opposite thing you are, with God as the full-bore screw-the-existentialists God of Abraham. Gnosticism is an infernal deceit of a particularly pernicious kind in my game (I can explain why if you are interested) and it's almost always true for me that I get my best ideas by examining those of someone doing something completely different from myself. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:41:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment consider me reprimanded enosh On Sun, 3 May 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > At 07:03 PM 3/05/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Okay, I was initially forming my own camp of "what a silly idea I shan't > >post a word." But Jason has reminded me of something that I had forgotten > >- in the IN universe, Lovecraft was probably prophet of some kind, not > >the (awesome) perpetual goth he was in this universe... > >"Forgot the demons for a second!! That's Nyarlathotep coming at us!! HE > >takes priority!!!" > >I can see it already... > >Randolph Carter leading armies of Shantek and cats, Pickman at his side > >with his armies of ghouls... > >hehehe... > >Eli approves... > > > > > Lovecraft was not a perpetual Goth, and don't let me hear you say that > again, he was one of the greatest horror writers of the 20th Century and > has influenced the likes of Robert Bloch (Psycho) Stephen King and Ramsey > Campbell. Also, there are some who would say that what he wrote about was > not completely fancy either, his dad was a member of a mystical Freemason > lodge, and owned many esoteric books of lore.... > > Simon 'R'lyeh, Cthulhu' Person. > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:42:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Yves On Mon, 4 May 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > Neel Krishnaswami writes > >>From: Titus 3 11 > >> > >>BVarious cut people... > >>1)Yves isn't really a "kill-em and let their next incarnation sort 'em > >>out" kinda guy. I fetus with a dark Fate and a meager Destiny would find > >>himself well-protected and guided (see Good Omens, and how each side tries > >>to change the "Antichrist" with tutors) by angels guiding him to his > >>Destiny (not that they probably know they are - their orders probably read > >>"swing your right hand 45 degrees upon reading this. Walk child X to > >>school. Walk child X home from school. Swing your right hand 45 degrees > >>upon completion of walking child X home, but in a different dirention then > >>last time." WHy? Who knows, it's DESTINY!). > > > > > > > >>I just get the impression from his expanded write-up that he wouldn't do > >>such a thing to a fetus, even if he was unopposed by Kronos and Co. > > > >I got the exact opposite impression, actually. He's out to bring the > >entire universe to its absolute best possible Destiny, and would do > >quite a lot to see that it happens. > > > Hmmm. But if Yves is not averse to abortion, why hasn't he done so in > the cases of people such as Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.? > After all, they were definately stinkers. Could it be because he knows > what they can stoop to but wants them to aspire to so much more and > killing them before all this transpires would deny them their destiny? Yves is adverse to killing humans because they might not reach their destiny. > > > (IMC, I might add, Yves can foresee *all possible futures* but even he > doesn't know what the *actual* one will be. That's for humanity to > decide.) > > > -- > Julian > jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:46:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words 1) i can't see an angel of rape working out. But I'm not an AA 2) Angels are supposed to act for selfless reasons. Not be selfless. An Elohim (especially of David) would have no trouble "testing" humans in a fashion that can only be seen as cruel. A Habbalite punishes people in the hope (subconsiouscly) that it will drive them to Hell. On Mon, 4 May 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > >From Armand: > > >Okay, be forewarned. I do not approve of inflicting selfish acts on > >another person. However, I could see how an angel might. > > > But aren't angels supposed to be selfless? > > >I think that it would have to be an Elohim for starters. This is one of > >those ends justifies the means issues. The goal isn't to leave a tattered > >shell, but to create a person more receptive to Heaven's light. > > > I'd say Habbalah. They think that they're helping you by subjecting you > to unspeakable cruelties and degradations because you'll be unable to do > anything *but* turn to God as a result. Of course, they're just as > likely to turn you away from God, perhaps more so, than get you to > accept Him. Take, as an example, the Demon of Rape. (don't know the > figures, but I'd hazard a guess that at least as many lives are ruined > by such an experience as those that 'gain' from it.) > > > > If you accept that The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways, then > *any* evil act is justifiably sponsored by Heaven. > > > >This is like the issue of the person that is too good to leave, but too bad > >to stay. You've forced yourself into this sort of deadlock with another > >person. While some people can be led out of this relationship with the > >facts or a better offfer, some people need a harsher reason. Even a Cherub > >who saw his attuned in such a situation might go a bit nuts to get the > >attuned out of it; his actions a little on the rash side. > > > >However, I don't think that the Angel of Rape would just be about the act > >itself. I think that he would also include the counselling that follows, > >and possibly the aid programs. > > > >I don't know how many of you are in/have been in college lately, but > >anymore it seems that they tell all the girls in attendance to expect to be > >date-raped. This bothers me. It's no longer an "if", but a "when". Part > >of me would like to think that a merciful soul was responsible than someone > >getting their jollies from the pain they inflict. > > > >Enough rant. Let me conclude with this: I think that the idea of saying > >that there can't be an angel/demon of "?" is a little on the ludicrous > >side. We tend to look at Celestial society as a sociological extension of > >our own. We tend to forget that they are watching out for us. A sheep may > >not like what a shepherd is doing, but how often do they know why the > >shepherd is doing it? > > > >Armand > > > > -- > Julian > jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:46:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Yves Good calls. enosh On Sun, 3 May 1998, Emily K. Dresner wrote: > > > Hmmm. But if Yves is not averse to abortion, why hasn't he done so in > > the cases of people such as Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.? > > After all, they were definately stinkers. Could it be because he knows > > what they can stoop to but wants them to aspire to so much more and > > killing them before all this transpires would deny them their destiny? > > > > No, not quite. Killing them would cut short the destinies of _others_. > Hitler was horrible, but through WWII many men attained great heights of > bravery and leadership, especially in battles like Stalingrad. Pol Pot is > burning in hell, but through him journalists have brought the real side of > that sort of oppression and horror to the eyes of the entire world. > Remember, no one lives in a vacuum, and those with the worst fates may > inspire many others to their greatest destiny _fighting against them_. > > Think oblique! Ride the Yves Wheel of Confusion! > > - Em > ------------------------------ Date: 03 May 1998 21:37:26 -0600 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment >>>>> "T31" == Titus 3 11 writes: T31> Okay, I was initially forming my own camp of "what a silly idea I T31> shan't post a word." But Jason has reminded me of something that T31> I had forgotten in the IN universe, Lovecraft was probably T31> prophet of some kind, not the (awesome) perpetual goth he was in T31> this universe... "Forgot the demons for a second!! That's T31> Nyarlathotep coming at us!! HE takes priority!!!" Like the other guy said, Lovecraft was not a "perpetual Goth". In general I don't think Lovecraft's world and In Nomine are compatible, because HPL's fiction depends on a mechanistic, godless universe (ours) for its impact. So I don't intend to do any sort of IN/CoC crossovers. No munchkinful Lucifer-vs.-Nyarlathotep square-offs. BUT, the campaign that is forming in the back of my mind depends heavily on the Ethereal Realms, and Lovecraft's Dreamlands stories have done a lot to shape the way I think about dreams and nightmares, as has The King in Yellow. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: 03 May 1998 22:02:41 -0600 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Gnosticism >>>>> "NK" == Neel Krishnaswami writes: >>>>> "JFM" == jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) >> Oooh, I like it. Very much. This is definately becoming part of >> the backstory for the Gnostic/Albigensian IN campaign I am planning >> on starting in June. It's definately going to trample on many >> Canon Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty, in vastly heretical ways. NK> Could you please post some of your notes to the list, or are they NK> on the Web somewhere? I will once I have some! So far it's just a set of musings in my head, which I haven't had time to work on. Once my semester is over, I'm going to be writing some of my ideas up. I don't even know whether my PCs will be angels or demons (I'm leaving the decision up to the players), but the setting should work with both. Essentially, I'm oversimplifying and distorting elements of Gnosticism (how can you not?) and blending them with Albigensianism and other medieval heresies, and some Illuminati lore and enough IN canon to tie it all together. More later. NK> I'm doing basically doing exactly the opposite thing you are, with NK> God as the full-bore screw-the-existentialists God of NK> Abraham. Gnosticism is an infernal deceit of a particularly NK> pernicious kind in my game (I can explain why if you are NK> interested) Yes, I am quite interested. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 21:31:17 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- IN Mapboard Combat >serve to sustain the feel of the genre. Maybe I should mention that I am a >long time Call of Cthulu GM, which has affected my style in a number of >ways. One of those is that I have become very mood oriented. (Call of >Cthulu with out the proper mood is a waste of every ones time). Ahh yes. Well, I grew up on Champions, so perhaps that has coloured my thinking. SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:01:37 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: IN> Shedites and dead hosts As I was rereading the largely-overlooked rules part of the core book today(The pictures in the second half of the book are better, right?) I noticed something in the dissonance rolls section. (p57) For either outcome, the check digit determines how many hours he must wait before using /any/ supernatural aspect of his resonance again! A Shedite whose host dies out from under them gains a point of dissonance but it not zapped back to Trauma if they can find a new host in time. But barring Intervention, their resonance will be useless for at least 1 hour...and they don't have that much time. So while not directly contradictory, there is a perceived difference in the rules and I was wondering what part if any I was misinterpreting. This has, of course, all kind of new problems. Balseraphs in particular are in trouble, because of how easily they gain dissonance...and how hard it is to shed said dissonance without their resonance. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 10:09:16 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment >[Disclaimer: These views are merely one of many Perry possesses within the >context of the game.] > >Who fights for Earth? We do. The plants, the animals, the humans, the >stone, the water. With what weapons? Our dreams, of course. They were >powerful enough to fight before, to grant us power. Now they have been >pushed to the Far Marches, Heaven carefully monitors our dreams and >behaviors so that such creatures of Myth cannot ever be created again to >fight in our name. This isn't about humans, this is about God and >Lucifer, Tyrant and Rebel, Good and Evil. It doesn't have anything to do >with humans and our dreams. If it did, then why would God have had them >destroyed and pushed into the hand of Lucifer. > >What will we fight with, now that our dreams have been slain, cast out, >and shattered? I have no idea. Perhaps with our Nightmares... > >-Perry The first thing that comes to mind after reading this, is the idea that this is all occuring during Revelation, at least that was the base for the original post. During the very beginning, 144,000 are to be saved. (I heard a priest state this as fortunate news. Unfortunately, I know that number doesn't even equal one tenth of the pop. of my city, much less the world. Gosh, math sucks!) During this time, humanity is to be tested through a time that can be only referred to as God awful. In most cases, though, it seems that Earth is being used as the battle field. In one corner, you have Lucifer. In the other, Heaven. (I say Uriel, but everyone's allowed an opinion) While these cosmic combatants are going toe to toe, there are going to be 144,000 short the world population scurrying about. While a naiive, infantile side of me sees Godzilla rising from the ocean to protect all the good little boys and girls; I don't fancy this to be the reality. If I was running a Revelation game, I might make it just one human being. Not a soldier, not a wizard. Just your average human being. He possibly is from a third world nation (hey, he's average) and will decide the fate of humankind through his actions. Occasionally, I think that celestials will barter for his time, given that they actually have the time to commit to this type of action. In the end, though, I always think that it comes down to one individual. How this will help the rest of us during the interim, I have no clue. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 10:28:04 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Angels, Tao, and Dicey Words >>From Armand: > >>Okay, be forewarned. I do not approve of inflicting selfish acts on >>another person. However, I could see how an angel might. >> >But aren't angels supposed to be selfless? Maybe I phrased this wrong, after all, I'm a human incapable of deciphering the motives of a creature that is capable of working from a truly selfless center. I was just referring to the idea that rape, to my way of thinking, is a selfish act. I do not think that there is one person that could commit rape for the better end. There is always a selfish reason when one human acts against another. To an angel, such an act might spell out "parental discipline." >>I think that it would have to be an Elohim for starters. This is one of >>those ends justifies the means issues. The goal isn't to leave a tattered >>shell, but to create a person more receptive to Heaven's light. >> >I'd say Habbalah. They think that they're helping you by subjecting you >to unspeakable cruelties and degradations because you'll be unable to do >anything *but* turn to God as a result. Of course, they're just as >likely to turn you away from God, perhaps more so, than get you to >accept Him. Take, as an example, the Demon of Rape. (don't know the >figures, but I'd hazard a guess that at least as many lives are ruined >by such an experience as those that 'gain' from it.) > >Julian >jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk For every hand that got burned touching a stove, another was fed by the meal that was prepared on it. To all things there is a duality. Some things focus more toward the positive, others the negative. However, to deny the duality is to remove a dimension. You have a front, yet, what are you without a back? Think, for a moment, about those people who "die", see this great city, and come back feeling all wonderful. This experience changes their life rather signifigantly. However, there is something out there that took them to this edge. Something that saw that there was a need for this person to go to the extremes, and return. I would think that something more angelic is responsible. Just another piece of food for thought (horribly unofficial, but something to note): Most of the volunteers that I know at the local women's shelter are rape victims. Just a thought, Armand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 01:31:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> IN: BB Fluff On Sun, 3 May 1998, Jesse wrote: > >> Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. > >Big Brother's watching, and he has a huge survaillence budget. > Hey! You got a probelem with Big Brother huh? I sure don't, it is my > tag-alone Little Brother watching! > > Orwell was wrong, rule by annoyance, not by fear. Well, the idea is that it's more fun to make you sweat trying to keep track of me than it is for me to worry about you... Ask Grant Morrison sometime. ObIn: Hmm. The Invisibles as Soldiers. But whose? After all, one of the underlying ideas of the series is that no one *really* knows what side they're on, or if there even are different sides. That might be workable in-game, if the GM takes an extremely ineffable view of God, and concludes that if he created everything, he intended for Evil to occur, and maybe even supports it as much as Good... Maybe the Habbalah are *right*, that would really mess up a Seraph. I think I could actually have some fun with this... 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: Sun, 3 May 1998 23:59:19 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> flaming mapboards > > At 11:26 PM 5/2/98 PDT, David Streeter wrote: > > > > >GMs that never use mapboards are one of three things - lazy... > > > > Mapboards are useful to the lazy GM.... Call me lazy then. I mean after building wonderful terrain for all my miniatures to fight over, Like trees, wrecked vehicles, buildings, hills, rivers and other wonderful things like that. That and the fact that its nice and useful to know if that Calabim of Baal can reach you in the current in order to attack you several times. I'm also quite lazy in that after every battle I clear the terrain from the table, and get back to the role-playing. And then setting up the terrain for the next battle I'm also quite lazy for painting up sizable armies of minis. Having close to 500 minis. And yes Virginia, I'm a wargamer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:17:04 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic On Sun, 3 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > (Michael himself is excused only because God Almighty came down and > personally declared him innocent; you don't get evidence much more > convincing than that.) Actually, God didn't declare Michael innocent, but said that without Michael's pride and glory Heaven would loose (sp? I can never learn to spell this word...). 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: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:40:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment Natch again - the characters I mentioned (Nyarlathotep, Randolph Carter, super-Cats in general, and Pickman) were all figurs of the Dreamland mythos, not the Cthulu mythos, correct? Enosh On 3 May 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > >>>>> "T31" == Titus 3 11 writes: > > T31> Okay, I was initially forming my own camp of "what a silly idea I > T31> shan't post a word." But Jason has reminded me of something that > T31> I had forgotten in the IN universe, Lovecraft was probably > T31> prophet of some kind, not the (awesome) perpetual goth he was in > T31> this universe... "Forgot the demons for a second!! That's > T31> Nyarlathotep coming at us!! HE takes priority!!!" > > Like the other guy said, Lovecraft was not a "perpetual Goth". > > In general I don't think Lovecraft's world and In Nomine are > compatible, because HPL's fiction depends on a mechanistic, godless > universe (ours) for its impact. So I don't intend to do any sort of > IN/CoC crossovers. No munchkinful Lucifer-vs.-Nyarlathotep > square-offs. > > BUT, the campaign that is forming in the back of my mind depends > heavily on the Ethereal Realms, and Lovecraft's Dreamlands stories > have done a lot to shape the way I think about dreams and nightmares, > as has The King in Yellow. > > -- > +----------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | > | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | > | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:46:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment On Sun, 3 May 1998, Armand wrote: > >[Disclaimer: These views are merely one of many Perry possesses within the > >context of the game.] > > > >Who fights for Earth? We do. The plants, the animals, the humans, the > >stone, the water. With what weapons? Our dreams, of course. They were > >powerful enough to fight before, to grant us power. Now they have been > >pushed to the Far Marches, Heaven carefully monitors our dreams and > >behaviors so that such creatures of Myth cannot ever be created again to > >fight in our name. This isn't about humans, this is about God and > >Lucifer, Tyrant and Rebel, Good and Evil. It doesn't have anything to do > >with humans and our dreams. If it did, then why would God have had them > >destroyed and pushed into the hand of Lucifer. > > > >What will we fight with, now that our dreams have been slain, cast out, > >and shattered? I have no idea. Perhaps with our Nightmares... > > > >-Perry > > The first thing that comes to mind after reading this, is the idea that > this is all occuring during Revelation, at least that was the base for the > original post. During the very beginning, 144,000 are to be saved. Nonononononononononononoono only 144,000 are to be taken to the pleasure spacecraft of the alien space vixens. Of course, they could have said 14,440. or even 144...who knows... All we know is that if it comes down to the Faithful of Bob who gave the (bone-gnawingly low amount of) ten dollar registration fee, or the Faithful who gave all he had and tithed anyway, we all know who gets that last seat!!! Enosh (I > heard a priest state this as fortunate news. Unfortunately, I know that > number doesn't even equal one tenth of the pop. of my city, much less the > world. Gosh, math sucks!) During this time, humanity is to be tested > through a time that can be only referred to as God awful. > > In most cases, though, it seems that Earth is being used as the battle > field. In one corner, you have Lucifer. In the other, Heaven. (I say > Uriel, but everyone's allowed an opinion) While these cosmic combatants > are going toe to toe, there are going to be 144,000 short the world > population scurrying about. While a naiive, infantile side of me sees > Godzilla rising from the ocean to protect all the good little boys and > girls; I don't fancy this to be the reality. > > If I was running a Revelation game, I might make it just one human being. > Not a soldier, not a wizard. Just your average human being. He possibly > is from a third world nation (hey, he's average) and will decide the fate > of humankind through his actions. Occasionally, I think that celestials > will barter for his time, given that they actually have the time to commit > to this type of action. In the end, though, I always think that it comes > down to one individual. How this will help the rest of us during the > interim, I have no clue. > > Armand > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:51:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> IN: BB Fluff On Mon, 4 May 1998, Raoul Duke wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Jesse wrote: > > >> Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. > > >Big Brother's watching, and he has a huge survaillence budget. > > Hey! You got a probelem with Big Brother huh? I sure don't, it is my > > tag-alone Little Brother watching! > > > > Orwell was wrong, rule by annoyance, not by fear. > > Well, the idea is that it's more fun to make you sweat trying to keep lB> track of me than it is for me to worry about you. Perhaps I mispoke. Big Brother is watching, Little Brother is learning how, they both havethe kind of budgets one usually associates with the Cold War (the whole thing, from both sides, and taking into account inflation, but without contractors shaving off the top), and that's just to keep track of YOU! They're attuned to you. They have you being watched. Your vessel is bugged. Your car is wired. And we have your Heart hostage. Don't sin down there, angel. Enosh Malakite of Creation In Service to Dominic (And not exaggerating in the above rant). .. Ask Grant Morrison > sometime. > > ObIn: Hmm. The Invisibles as Soldiers. But whose? After all, one of the > underlying ideas of the series is that no one *really* knows what side > they're on, or if there even are different sides. That might be workable > in-game, if the GM takes an extremely ineffable view of God, and concludes > that if he created everything, he intended for Evil to occur, and maybe > even supports it as much as Good... Maybe the Habbalah are *right*, that > would really mess up a Seraph. I think I could actually have some fun > with this... > > 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: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:57:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Titus 3 11 Subject: Re: IN> Dominic Nien - God "...intervened and acquited Micheal, not because he was innocent but because without pride and glory - and Micheal - Heaven's greatest battles would be lost." I don't read that to mean that God TOLD everyone that Micheal was guilty but tough, he's allowed to break my laws. No. As players and readers of the book, we get a little more info then we as characters do. So Heaven in general doesn't know why God did what he did, probably thinking that Micheal actually was innocent. Dominic might have gotten a personal explaination (we all know he ... touchy... he can be). But to the celestial realm at large, Micheal was acquited. Enosh Servitor of Creation In Service to (a feeling gyped about the whole Micheal/Gabriel/Eli thing) Justice On Mon, 4 May 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > > > (Michael himself is excused only because God Almighty came down and > > personally declared him innocent; you don't get evidence much more > > convincing than that.) > > Actually, God didn't declare Michael innocent, but said that without > Michael's pride and glory Heaven would loose (sp? I can never learn to > spell this word...). > > 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: Mon, 4 May 1998 07:02:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben-Prime Subject: Re: IN> Dominic On Mon, 4 May 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > > > (Michael himself is excused only because God Almighty came down and > > personally declared him innocent; you don't get evidence much more > > convincing than that.) > > Actually, God didn't declare Michael innocent, but said that without > Michael's pride and glory Heaven would loose (sp? I can never learn to > spell this word...). Lose. :) And God, true, did not declare Michael innocent, merely 'Not-Guilty', the definition of an Acquital (the word the book actually uses). I have obtained *3* local players for In Nomine based solely on the strength of the writeup of Michael, I note, so I'm a bit biased. ;) Ben - ----- emrys@netrox.net ---------------- http://www.netrox.net/~emrys/ ------ "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WhHi6G2>3 LCJRo hBrc+++g b69/83 B3^E1# a27+ sM1N10~ K8p k3BdSAbCehIOpRrTtxX QbEKLMRTtO v64s opLSO X6#7 w7T r6IsLM E+++ p9f7v4&g4s8 D36C(c*P*!# Hco+usFL7 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #749 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.