From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Aug 7 05:03:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA21978 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:03:01 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA18169 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:09:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:09:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199808071009.FAA18169@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #901 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, August 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 901 In this digest: Re: IN> Kobalites? Re: IN> Lost Words? IN> _Fall of the Malakim_ IN> (no subject) Re: IN> Musings on Magog and just a Braindump IN> Pyramid article Re: IN> Musings on Magog and just a Braindump Re: IN> Enhanced Gabrielite Attunements Re: IN> Lost Words? IN> Fall of the Malakim Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? Re: IN> Lost Words? IN> Lillith IN> The Singular of "Lilim" Re: IN> Lillith RE: IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby Re: IN> Lillith Re: IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby IN> Is hippocracy (sic) a sin? Re: IN> The Singular of "Lilim" Re: IN> Lillith IN> Lost Words Re: IN> Lillith Re: IN> The Singular of "Lilim" IN> Wives of Adam IN> Wives of Adam IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby IN> What *are* the rules? IN> Genesis stories :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:05:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Kobalites? > Currently, Daimon, Bright Lilim of Creation, former Dark Lilim of > Kobal, from Fiat. (http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html) > > Since he has Geases upon him, still, it is easy enough to acquire them > and send him up to abuse annoying angels (if it was an angel) in Trauma. > He can also be given celestial tattoo kits... Hrm. True enough. I don't think he's given his Geasa collection much thought lately, because he's been a little, shall we say, preoccupied. But fear geasing Daimon to be Funny... because he enjoys it way too much. :) "Swirly? Why, you first need to put the toxic blue cleaning solution into the toilet bowl, or else the joke just doesn't have the oomph. Oh, excuse me, not 'joke', 'Divine Retribution'." - - Em Current Quote: Handy phrases for LEGO minifigs: "How many golden hamburgers will that cost?" "Aaaah, I lost my legs!" "It's NOT a brothel!" "There's nothing here my butt will stick to." "It's not a ruby tipped plunger it's a gun." - Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 17:08:04 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Lost Words? On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Anyway, can't DPs grant Words at the sub-Prince level? I mean, > does the Demon of Practical Jokes get his Word from Kobal or > from Lucifer? And can't individual AAs grant sub-Archangel Words > to servitors? I can't give you a reference off-hand (somewhere in the IPG, and probably elsewhere), but DPs can't grant words. The Demon of Practical Jokes got his Word by applying directly to Lucifer, just like every other Worded demon (so yes, they have all met him at least once). Kobal presumably supported his application. I'm not sure whether canon states that AA's cannot grant words, but we certainly know that they do not. My guess is that AA Beth will jump in soon to tell us where it says so. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 12:08:28 -0400 From: Twila Oxley Price Subject: IN> _Fall of the Malakim_ Well, got my copy yesterday, and read it last night. Interesting. Not what I'd thought when I tried to figure out how they could do it... and it does work, in theory. No spoilers here, exactly, but! I am cheesed off that the whole book is a come-on for _The Final Trumpet_. Even the end to the adventure isn't. It's a "to be continued". This I don't need. This I don't like. I mean, I *have* all of the darn supplements, but I don't want to be inveigled into buying them if I don't want to. As well, I felt that the content was just a little ... too vague about the where the when the why and the how. Yes, we got a lot of little vignettes and a bunch of NPCs who are mildly interesting, but no real *story*, the way we got for _Night Music_. If I buy a scenario, I want a scenario, not a vague framework. But the Lilith and David write-ups were good, as was the Bright Lilim section and the one on Geas. A few too many typos for my peace of mind, as well. It took long enough, and they are the kind that spellcheckers could easily get -- so why didn't they? Twila ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 17:27:26 +0100 From: Chris Lewis Subject: IN> (no subject) not alot happening here in uk connected with in inomine any news on uk groups? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:24:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Musings on Magog and just a Braindump Sorry, this is all off topic... > "Iwnw" == "The City of Columns" > "psdjt" == "The Company of the Nine Gods" > "r m3t rn n iht nbt" == "the mouth which pronounced the name of > everything." > > Mighty concise language, ancient Egyptian. Seems to have a serious vowel > shortage, too. That's my bad typed shorthand, because I don't have a Gardnerian equipped keyboard or the right character set to type in the whole transliteration correctly. I make do with English and what I have. psdjt just means "The nine" anyway, and Iwnw is a compound word of "iwnn n niwt" (which is what is actually written) which does say "City of Columns". Much like biblical hebrew and classical Arabic, Middle Egyptian was a fully unvocalized language in writing. It did contain weak consonants of yaa?, aleph and ayin, but these are not represented in English. Later, after the Greek conquest, the Coptic language abended them back in. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 12:25:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Pyramid article I submitted an IN-related article to "Pyramid" abou a month ago. I haven't heard anything since. Should I just assume they've rejected it, or is there a polite way of nudging for a verdict? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:34:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Musings on Magog and just a Braindump > Oh, it had vowels. But like modern Hebrew and Arabic*, the vowels weren't > represented in the writing system...everyone was assumed to know what vowel > sounds went between the consonants. Which makes it awfully hard to know > _now_ just what the actual Egyptian word was. Modern colloquial Arabic is not normally written fully vocalized, but it can be represented as such in children's books, primers, and for those of us who choose it as their language of choice in Undergrad. But if you pick up a modern Egyptian newspaper, the writing will not be vocalized. As for Middle Egyptian, that's not... entirely... true. First off, we still have a very active Coptic Christian Church, and while Coptic is to Middle Egyptian what modern English is to Beowulf, it is a fully vocalized and spoken version of the language. Some linguists can extract from that and attempt to puzzle out the original spoken language. Additionally, Akkadian (the language of say, Nebuchanezzer) was fully volcalized. All cuniform literals are tri, and in the form of either vowel-consonant-vowel or consonant-vowel-consonant. Several Akkadian communiques between Syria and Egypt contain names of kings, concepts and ideas as imported foreign words. So we know that rmt n km "A man from Kame" was pronounced "remenekeme" and "Re'" was "Ree'ya" and stuff like this. That can all be found in old copies of the BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY REVIEW, some dry papers from the early 90's. I can't remember call numbers off the top of my head. > But yeah, it was pretty concise, like it's (probable) distant relatives, > the aforementioned modern Semitic languages. Triliteral roots, so the same > three consonants can mean "teacher," "student," "I/you/he teach/taught/am > teaching," etc.... the difference is in the vowels. All Semitic verb roots are triliteral in nature, be it Arabic or what have you, and nouns are extracted as such. It's just the grammatical structure of the language. - - Em Current Quote: Handy phrases for LEGO minifigs: "How many golden hamburgers will that cost?" "Aaaah, I lost my legs!" "It's NOT a brothel!" "There's nothing here my butt will stick to." "It's not a ruby tipped plunger it's a gun." - Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:44:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Enhanced Gabrielite Attunements On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Peter Frederick wrote: > >KYRIOTATES > > As long as they have 3 free Forces, these angels can manifest as fire! > >Their senses and speech work normally, but they cannot actually burn > >anyone or anything. They do feel as hot as normal fire, however, and those > >immersed in their flame will probably believe they are burning. > > >Well? > > Just a couple of thoughts. How fast can the Fire Form move, does that have > to be along a surface? Could it be across the a ceiling? Does this mean > that the Kyrio of Fire with this attunement doesn't need to possess a host? > How much control do they have over the Fire, eg Flaming Words on a wall? Normal Move, based on Agility; yes, the fire is Corporeal. Sure, why not. Yes, it does. Hmm...not normally, but that's a neat idea; I'd ask for a Precision roll at -3 to pull it iff. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Official Martyr of X-Day! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:45:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Lost Words? On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > I vote for the theory that ANY Superior *could* grant Words. > The AAs do so as a council because of their more cooperative angelic > nature; perhaps they ask for divine guidance from God, the way > the College of Cardinals asks for it when electing a pope. > > Anyway, can't DPs grant Words at the sub-Prince level? I mean, > does the Demon of Practical Jokes get his Word from Kobal or > from Lucifer? Lucifer. The book is crystal clear - ALL words must be approved by Lucifer and Lucifer alone. > And can't individual AAs grant sub-Archangel Words > to servitors? Nope. Seraphim council only. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Official Martyr of X-Day! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:13:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Fall of the Malakim The big game store around here has acquired it. The writeups of David and Lilith are good. The write up on Bright Lilim is interesting. The expanded information on geasa is useful. The writeup of Los Angeles is *very* interesting. The adventure ... well, it has potential, but I'm afraid that imo it doesn't pass the plausibility test. And since basically all the book relates to the adventure, that's a problem. *Spoiler alert* Okay, so servitors of Jean get a video where Maximilian says he's Falling, and then says that he's Fallen. I don't have the original rules here, but angels can resonate on video images at a penalty. A powerful Word-bound Seraph of Dominic could easily have a 12 Perception and a +6 to his check digit. Dominic's going to have more bonuses than that. The video can be watched until a Seraph gets a check digit of 6, which should tell the Seraph whether or not Maximilian Fell, and if not, why he thought he did. Blandine assigns a Bright Lilim who owes Malphas a geas/5 to Los Angeles, which is firmly controlled by demons? That's asking for trouble. "Malphas calls in his Geas on Mira. He gives her a special artifact and tells her she must use it to shatter Maximilian's heart that evening." I think shattering the Heart of an angel that screwed-up should be a geas/6 - -- especially since she knew him ("betray a friend" is listed under geas/6 in FotM p.31). Furthermore, she then returns the artifact to Malphas and gets killed for her troubles -- and *that* in itself is a sizable geas (More than geas/6, I'd say, since he mostly soul-killed her and she should have expected as much.) I can rationalize that: pretend Malphas had two Geas/6 on Mira, one to make her shatter the Heart and one to make her return the artifact, and decide that both are geas/6s. However: "A Geas that becomes impossible to fulfill - such as obtaining something that has been destoryed, for instance - will vanish, causing a final note of dissonance or point of damage. Its effects can then be cured normally." (FotM p.31.) If the Geas was really to destroy Maximilian's Heart *this evening*, all Mira needs to do is wait it out. She gets some dissonance, but the Geas is gone; she can't do something yesterday. If the geas is really something more along the lines of "wait till this evening, tell no one, then destroy Maximilian's heart" -- well, it adds more to the level of the Geas, and brings it above a level 6. And I'd argue that telling no one for a day beforehand is part of the same geas as actually taking action and shouldn't be split into two geasa. If a GM would let this be done with multiple geasa (a geas/5-6 to shatter the heart, a geas/3 to tell no one for over an hour beforehand, a geas/6 (she got killed and should have known she was going to get killed) to return the artifact afterwards) Mira suddenly has a lot more geasa, and having her assigned behind enemy lines makes even less sense. Yes, I *know* that dissonance is painful and celestials are reluctant to take it. But there are times when angels are expected to take dissonance, then this is one of them. If after a brawl between angels and demons and soldiers, the only people left conscious are a Mercurian and a Soldier of Hell, people would expect the Mercurian to take some dissonance, if necessary, to protect his fellow angels and the Soldiers of God from having their throats slit by the Solider of Hell. Shattering a Heart can be set up to do minimal damage: tell your Archangel, who ought to cure your dissonance and put you in a cell while she confers with the Archangel responsible for the Heart. The Archangel then moves his Servitor to a Tethe, warns him, and sits there with him while you break the Heart. Immediately afterwards, the Archangel makes another Heart. Traumatic, but not permanently damaging. I recognize that Blandine and David aren't best buddies, but they're both angels. In the face of a Geas on an angel called in by a Demon Prince, they ought to be *very* willing to cooperate. (This is a general problem with geasa on Bright Lilim: Heaven really *ought* to rally around someone who's been geas-hooked by a demon, angels cooperating to arrange to either make the action impossible or to have it done with minimum harm. Maybe Lilim, or at least Bright Lilim, ought to have to make Will rolls to violate a geas.) I can buy that David might do to a servitor what he did to a Maximilian (ordering him to *serve* the demons in L.A. and collecting vast amounts of disonance.) But while Malakim don't Fall, they go Outcast the same as everyone else, and I can't buy that David would do it without taking some basic precautions about that (assigning a Reliever to watch the Heart and having someone keep stuff of Maximilian's that can be used to track him via the expanded rules for the Songs of Attraction (in _Liber Reliquarum_, iirc.) Why is there unprecedented open cooperation between Dominic and Asmodeus in the face of a possibly Fallen Malakim? Sure, it shakes up the status quo, but it shakes it up in favor of Hell. And Asmodeus is in favor of getting angels to Fall. Dominic and Asmodeus ought to be on opposite sides of this one. Why doesn't Jonathan report the potential Maximilian disaster to Judgement as well as his superiors? Why haven't *any* of the other angels in town done so? Dominic's angels aren't welcome in town, but they can talk to Maximilian during his monthly week-long visits to the nearby Tether. (Okay, maybe they're worried that Maximilian won't get his monthly relief of dissonance, but the possibility that Judgement will *do* something about this awful situation seems worth it. Maximilian's clearly been punished enough already, so Judgement _can't_ make matters worse.) I'm sorry to say so, but there are just too many things that don't make sense about this adventure. Some of them can be rationalized; however, there's really no getting around the "Dominic watches the videotape and resonates when Maximilian says that he's Falling" problem. And there are just too many things that need to be rationalized; it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:33:42 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) On Tue, Aug 04, 1998 at 05:11:42PM -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Angels are the number one danger to a Shedite who can't ooze quickly. > They have to go celestial for every other kind of takeover (all 7+ > Forces of them, going WHONG in the Symphony). > The annoying thing about Shedim is that they're so hard to kill Celestially. In general, they're the 4 Celestial Forces, 10 Will types. Sometimes they're the 5 Celestial Forces, 12 Will types. I remember with the old wonky rules for NC: Acid, a reasonably balanced character would have an approximately even chance against a Shedite (assuming the Shedite didn't have it as well), but that isn't an attractive prospect. So what are the good Shedim killing tactics? Firstly, the Celestial Song of Shields, which will prevent it from leaving the area in which it is cast (it blocks Celestial Forces) except through a host. Secondly, try to keep potential hosts away from the area. Either that or have a couple of people on the ground smacking it with the Celestial Song of Charm (do this anyway in fact, on general principles). Once you've achieved this, its only Earthside option is to stay and fight. As a plus, the Song of Shields will also delay the disturbance. IIRC, it lasts for minutes. Use #1 Superior Numbers, #2 the Celestial Song of Light (the only way to damage something Celestially while not vulnerable oneself) and #3 someone with the Celestial Song of Healing. Slightly more evil tactics include the use of the Song of Ethereal Attraction, the Song of Ethereal Light (if you have it at a high enough level to create illusions of hosts, you can distract it!) and the Song of Ethereal Tongues (I'd like to see it concentrate on fighting when someone is shrieking into its mind with that Song). If you're demons, use Habbalah for Emptiness, and Calabim if you reckon its Will has been reduced enough by the Songs of Celestial Charm you were using. All of these tactics are quite costly, but then so are Shedim. And since Shedim can be such a problem, I assume all Superiors have teams that can take them out (except Andre, Malphas and Valefor, who use other people's teams). > Worse -- get the Shedite into a Soldier of God who manages to come under > suspicion by the local triad, and the Cherub attunes . . . to the Shedite! > Now, a Cherub of Judgment doesn't have to worry about damage to his > attuned if that attuned is being investigated... > > Stick him with a Djinn, or a Song of Attraction, for a lesser threat. > The Celestial Song of Affinity is nastier, IIRC, though it does mean you have to get a piece of the Shedite. How does that work for a Shedite's hosts? > Force-catchers make Kyrios unhappy, and will probably do the same > to Shedim. Make sure they're big enough to hold the whole Shedite. > > Nail him hard with the first Divine Intervention he gets, or one > of his hosts gets... > > Remember that if he breaks anything while he's in the host, there > will be noise. Celestials or Soldiers may notice and wonder why > their friend just created that disturbance in the Symphony. > > Present them with the occasional 1/1/3, Will 8 Perception 3 human. Surely 8 Will, 4 Perception. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:48:21 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN- Lost Words? On Thu, Aug 06, 1998 at 04:29:46PM +0200, Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > Now while you could have an angel of interfaces, this would be like having > an angel of doorknobs. Yes some doorknobs are prettier than others, but it > aint a concept I'd want to represent. The angel of interfaces is probably more commonly known as the Angel of Public Relations. And PR has been around since humans came up with such ideas as society (at the very least). It's quite possible that such a Word could be promoted to Superior-level. Admittedly, Gabriel might be thought of as already holding this Word. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:49:18 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lost Words? On Wed, Aug 05, 1998 at 01:19:48AM -0400, CaelinR@aol.com wrote: > Pondering #2: What is so special about Lucifer that allows him to grant > words? We know (from his defeat at Michael's hands during the revolt) that he > is at least roughly within the power-range of other major Superiors (perhaps > greater, but certainly not their better by orders of magnitude). Would it be > possible for another superior to bestow a word? Perhaps two collaborating? It looks like it's time for me to resurrect my old theory of the Word hierarchy. Basically, it goes like this. If the Demon of Treachery is bound to Malphas, every act of treachery will further the Word of Factions more than any other Word. If the Demon of Treachery gets sick of Malphas and goes to work for Asmodeus, the Game as a Word grows more powerful and Factions less so. Thus, Lucifer has, more or less, the combined power of all other demons with rites and dissonance, because they're all bound to him directly or indirectly. As a result, he's bigger than everything except God, Yves and Kronos, and we're not sure whether he's bigger than the latter two. One assumes that Lucifer has given himself a Word. Darkness makes sense, and is traditional. Given a broad interpretation, we can regard Darkness (evil) as being equivalent to Fate (ultimate evil) in the long run. I speculate that if Lucifer is gone, only someone with a Word which can be reinterpreted as Fate could possibly replace him. The following such Words might make the grade: The War, the Game (if you assume "against God" as existing in these Words, then you see how they can be reinterpreted as defining evil), Destruction (unfortunately the Demon of Destruction is dead), Corruption (Legion is gone, and his successor is not impressive), and if you're really willing to stretch it, Dark Humour, Theft and Gluttony (in its aspects as Oblivion and Sloth (the ultimate in Entropy)). Lust, Nightmares, Factions, Freedom, Technology, Fire, the Media, Death, Hardcore, Cruelty, and Greed can't, IMO, be stretched that far. One might wonder, if Kronos is as powerful as Lucifer, why does he put up with him. My answer is that as a Seraph, Cherub, Ofanite, Elohite, Malakite, Kyriotate and Mercurian, Kronos isn't selfish enough to want the job of ruling Hell when he knows it would retard the cause of ultimate evil. (I assume that Kronos does have all those dissonances. It makes him more frightening.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:38:43 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Lillith From: Elizabeth Bartley >Lilith is technically still human (according to her description in _In Nomine_), and was granted the word of Freedom by Lucifer. < The quote is Technically, she's not even a demon; she's just Lilith, unique and exquisite. From Induction being a human is not uniqueexcept that since she didn't eat from the tree of knowledge she can be said to be fundamentally different from all other human beings. This does mean of course that it is entirely possible that the demon pricess of Freedom [which she is described as in the same write up] may not have any conception of the difference between good and evil. By the same argument Lilim aren't demons. Lilith makes them in her image. The fact that Lilim are functionally identical whichever side they are on, only thier motives change seems to support this. Adam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 17:02:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> The Singular of "Lilim" Here's a linguistic question I have wrestled with ever since IN came out -- I ask it again because the membership of the list has turned over some since the last time -- What is the singular of "lilim"? I know that, in IN usage, "lilim" is both singular and plural, but it's obviously a plural form in Hebrew. My father, who knows Biblical Hebrew, is stumped. He's never heard of a "lili" as a singular Hebrew noun, though that is what the plural form suggests. I suggested "leili," which I think means "nocturnal," used as a noun rather than an adjective, and he thought it an okay coinage, but no more. I have seen "lilot" offered as a singular, but my father didn't think that made sense. As a workaround, he suggested "ben lilim," "child/son of the lilim" (or, of course, "bat lilim," "daughter of the lilim"). But that still leaves me wondering what the singular of "lilim" is. Any ideas? Earl P.S.: The proper singular of "shedim" is "shed," but I can see why no one wants to use it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:12:59 -0500 (CDT) From: SaturdayBoy Subject: Re: IN> Lillith as far as I remeber, and that may not count for much, Lillith was created from different matter than that of Adam, which is why God used Adam's rib to create Eve, in an attempt to get the same type of creature, one which would go along with his little experiment. - ---That is all... - ---Commander Eric out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:23:46 +0100 From: "Ellen Kakkaratchi" Subject: RE: IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby Hey Doug, I really like Bobby Jean and her other selves. I intend to incorporate the Marches version of the encounter almost immediately into my campaign. Thanks very much for sharing this. Ellen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:37:32 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Lillith SaturdayBoy wrote: > as far as I remeber, and that may not count for much, Lillith was created > from different matter than that of Adam, which is why God used Adam's rib > to create Eve, in an attempt to get the same type of creature, one which > would go along with his little experiment. Actually Lilith was made at the same time and from the same materials as Adam. The arguments in Eden that lead to her leaving dealt with her lack of desire to be subservient. And you should look at the stories about Adam's second wife, the one before Eve if you want some moral ambiguity. - - Tom ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:50:45 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby >The Tar Baby > >Bobbie Jean is more than she appears, though. She is one of those rare >people who have real, honest-to-goodness MPD -- Multiple Personality >Disorder. > >Childhood abuse can produce MPD. In Bobbie Jean's case, though, >childhood abuse provoked by a Shedite produced something very strange. >Not only did Bobbie develop MPD, but she gradually grew several >personalities specifically to deal with demons. > >Jean has Will 6, Perception 6, and is in most respects a fairly normal >young woman. Her friends in the band have occasionally seen some of her >other personalities, and been unnerved and alarmed, but they believe >she's just "high strung". The problem I see, is that she "appears" normal. I've done a lot of study on MPD, or at least the schizophrenic (which involves most cases) side of the equation. The thing that I think her friends might notice is that she either has rubber sheets or is continually washing them. A little known side effect of MPD is chronic (focus on this here) bed wetting. Psychiatrists don't really know why this occurs, but it happens in any serious case of schizophrenia. Maybe she just swung back into life with Depends? ;) Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:02:37 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Is hippocracy (sic) a sin? >>>I wouldn't jump to conclusions about that. I would assume that Beth would have handled it in private e-mail.<<< Wrong. See, I didn't break any rules. You may not _like_ what I said, but, well...too bad. >>>But I do think a public apology is still needed.<<< Pity. We all have to struggle with life's little disappointments. >>>My favorite bit of irony, BTW, was his post ranting and raving about how annoying it is when people send anti-spam messages to the list....which, of course he sent to the list.<<< That had a purpose -- _maybe_ someone will read it, remember it, and not do the same thing in the future. (Now, when people complain about _this_ post contributing to the wasted bandwidth, they'll also be contributing, ad infinitum....vicious catch-22, ain't it? Me, I tend to respond to inaccurate statements, even if you don't welcome that response. If you don't want such responses, be rational in your replies.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:23:34 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> The Singular of "Lilim" In a message dated 8/6/98 4:32:24 PM, you wrote: >Here's a linguistic question I have wrestled with ever since >IN came out -- I ask it again because the membership of the >list has turned over some since the last time -- > >What is the singular of "Lilim? I know that, in IN usage, >"Lilim is both singular and plural, but it's obviously a >plural form in Hebrew. My father, who knows Biblical Hebrew, >is stumped. He's never heard of a "lili" as a singular Hebrew >noun, though that is what the plural form suggests. I suggested >"leili," which I think means "nocturnal," used as a noun rather >than an adjective, and he thought it an okay coinage, but no >more. > >I have seen "lilot" offered as a singular, but my father didn't >think that made sense. > >As a workaround, he suggested "ben lilim," "child/son of the lilim" >(or, of course, "bat lilim," "daughter of the lilim"). But that >still leaves me wondering what the singular of "lilim" is. > >Any ideas? > >Earl > >P.S.: The proper singular of "shedim" is "shed," but I can see >why no one wants to use it. Let me see if I can take a stab at this one. Technically, the (plural) noun Lilim is derivative from Lilith. Lilith is derived from the "leili" form, as best I can tell. (Remember we're talking about a language which only has written down the vowels in the past millenium or two...) So, the common root would probably be "Lil." Ulp... Perhaps the best compromise would be 'bat Lilith' or 'ben Lilith' for a member of the Lilim band. (Unfortunately, that's probably not precisely right. 'Bat' goes with 'bar,' not 'ben.' I don't know what goes with 'ben.') Ulp again... Mark (Merrily muddying the muck) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:31:06 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Lillith >SaturdayBoy wrote: > >> as far as I remeber, and that may not count for much, Lillith was created >> from different matter than that of Adam, which is why God used Adam's rib >> to create Eve, in an attempt to get the same type of creature, one which >> would go along with his little experiment. > >Actually Lilith was made at the same time and from the same materials as >Adam. The arguments in Eden that lead to her leaving dealt with her lack of >desire to be subservient. And you should look at the stories about Adam's >second wife, the one before Eve if you want some moral ambiguity. > >- Tom According to the APG, it was all an experiment. So, they really aren't what we have grown to believe as human. Of course, Adam could still be running around as well. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:27:16 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lost Words >>>Anyway, can't DPs grant Words at the sub-Prince level?<<< Not in canon. >>>I mean, does the Demon of Practical Jokes get his Word from Kobal or from Lucifer?<<< Lucifer -- Kobal might choose a suitable Servitor and petition Lucifer to grant the demon an audience, but it's still Lucifer's decision. >>>And can't individual AAs grant sub-Archangel Words to servitors?<<< Not in canon. If Superiors could grant words by themselves, consider -- Vapula and Saminga both want the Word of Accidental Dismemberment By Heavy Machinery to go to their own Servitor. So they both _give_ that Word to one of their Servitors. Oops -- trouble. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 05:31:29 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lillith At 18:37 06/08/98 -0400, you wrote: > And you should look at the stories about Adam's >second wife, the one before Eve if you want some moral ambiguity. Neil Gaiman made that story up. jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 05:34:26 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> The Singular of "Lilim" At 20:23 06/08/98 EDT, you wrote: > >Perhaps the best compromise would be 'bat Lilith' or 'ben Lilith' for a member >of the Lilim band. (Unfortunately, that's probably not precisely right. 'Bat' >goes with 'bar,' not 'ben.' I don't know what goes with 'ben.') Ulp again... Bat is the female equivalent of either. B'nei Lilith would be 'children of lilith.' jo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:01:24 PDT From: "Doug Muir" Subject: IN> Wives of Adam >Actually Lilith was made at the same time and from the same materials as >Adam. IIRC, at the very beginning they were one creature, which was then divided into a male and a female half. >The arguments in Eden that lead to her leaving dealt with her lack of >desire to be subservient. And you should look at the stories about Adam's >second wife, the one before Eve if you want some moral ambiguity. The one he rejected because he saw her made, right? Doug M. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:13:06 PDT From: "Doug Muir" Subject: IN> Wives of Adam >> And you should look at the stories about Adam's >>second wife, the one before Eve if you want some moral ambiguity. > > >Neil Gaiman made that story up. Ummm, I'm not so sure about that. I seem to recall encountering that story elsewhere. For those of you who are wondering what the heck, the story is this: that Adam had a wife who he rejected. Not clearly identified with either Lilith or Eve, this woman was created in Adam's presence... so he got to see her assembled from her component pieces. He found the process so repulsive that he either fled in horror or ordered God to send the woman away. Neil Gaiman mentioned this story in _Sandman_ a couple of years ago. Jo thinks he made it up, but I'm not sure... both because I think I heard it somewhere before, and also because Gaiman generally batted about 80% with his mythology and legends. Gaiman cites the Midrash as the source of the story. Anyone? Doug M. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:25:11 PDT From: "Doug Muir" Subject: IN> Plot Seed: The Tar Baby >The problem I see, is that she "appears" normal. I've done a lot of study >on MPD, or at least the schizophrenic (which involves most cases) side of >the equation. ? I'm not a psychiatrist, but I _have_ done a lot of reading on MPD. Last time I looked, it was considered a disorder quite separate and distinct from schizophrenia. Stipulated, that MPD is a difficult and controversial diagnosis, and one still the subject of much debate. Still... clarification? As for her appearing normal, well, I've got her down as "odd, but within the broad bounds of normal, at least for a lead singer". Again, based on what I've read, many MPD sufferers can pass as normal, at least within these bounds, for extended periods of time. >A little known >side effect of MPD is chronic (focus on this here) bed wetting. >Psychiatrists don't really know why this occurs, but it happens in any >serious case of schizophrenia. Hm. I know that bedwetting is associated with schizophrenia, but (as noted above) I am under the impression that MPD was quite separate from schizophrenia. Certainly I have never heard of bedwetting being connected to MPD... but, again, I am not any kind of expert in the field, just someone who has read a lot about it because it seemed really interesting. Finally, I note that while I'm no authority on mental disorders, I *have* known a number of lead singers. And bed-wetting would be well within bounds of normal behavior in this group. Cheers, Doug M. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 01:53:13 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> What *are* the rules? On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > Wrong. See, I didn't break any rules. You may not _like_ what I said, but, > well...too bad. No skin off of my nose. But, on a different subject, what *are* the list rules? I'm curious now. Other than "don't upset Beth", what is and is not allowed? Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at <(not yet ready)> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:47:48 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Genesis stories :) (This goes to the best of my knowledge...) I've never heard any stories that said anything about there having been 2 women created prior to Eve. The origin of the 'first wife' stories is from the fact that Genesis contains two different accounts of the creation of Eve, one which implies that she was made of the same substance as Adam, and one which says that she was taken from his rib. (This is where the commentators veered off into stories to explain/ expand on the phrasing). I think there is a story that Adam rejected the first one because he'd seen her created from blood and sinews and was disgusted, so she was unmade, but that's a variation on the Lilith story. AFAIK Gaiman made up the '3 Eves' to try to draw parallels with the 3 fates and other triple-goddess imagery. I'd be very surprised if that was in the Midrash. jo ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #901 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.