From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Oct 2 08:56:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA20424 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:56:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id FAA23434 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 05:54:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 05:54:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199910021054.FAA23434@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 #1349 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 Saturday, October 2 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1349 In this digest: Re: IN> IN Crossovers/conversions - the dark side. Re: IN> IN Crossovers/conversions - the dark side. Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Re: IN> Sticky situation IN> Celestial Creativity IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Celestial Creativity IN> Re: Theatrix IN> purity crusade Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> purity crusade Re: IN> Celestial Creativity Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> purity crusade Re: IN> dark ages superiors IN> Sticky situations - the general case Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case Re: IN> Andre... Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Celestial Creativity Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case IN> Cities of In Nomine IN> Blatant Self-Promotion Re: IN> Celestial Creativity Re: IN> Sticky situation IN> Adv : make your computer fully y2k compliant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:16:23 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> IN Crossovers/conversions - the dark side. From: Derek K. > > And, finally, the most horrifying idea of all: > > IN/Macho Women With Guns. > > Don't even go there. Because they already did that (sort of) in Bat-Winged Bimbos From Hell... Prodigal Demon of Calling In To Tech Support Without The Product Nearby ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:22:16 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> IN Crossovers/conversions - the dark side. >Forget wimpy cross overs and conversions like WoD and GURPS - let's get to >some of the good ones. > >IN/Call of Cthulhu. Actually, this works surprisingly well. If you have human PCs, particularly. >IN/Paranoia. > >"Gab-R-iel-1, this is El-O-Him-3. Snort. >In Nomine: Time Travel, by Ben Glickler > >"Ok, so your vessel was possessed in 1680, throwing you back into the >Heaven of TODAY, and you come back to TODAY in your second vessel, and >then while you're travelling back in time, your ORIGINAL vessel is >abandoned, so you get zapped back there..." Heh. >IN/Toon. > >This would be just . . . wrong. But strangely insightful, I'd think. Makes my head hurt. Perhaps that's a good thing. >IN/D&D > >"You enter a 10x10 room. You see a green slime." "I wanna cast magic >missle!" "You're an angel, stupid. You can't cast magic missle." "I >wanna be angel who can cast magic missle!" "Okay, you cast magic missle." No real change, actually. >"I pull out my God's Big Sword of Smiting all the Demons and Stuff +111 >and wave it at the orc. 'Repent or die!' What's my THAC0? Oooh - does >anyone have Satan's stats? My multi-classed Elven Cherub/Balseraph is >going to kick his ass, man. And then I'm going to become an Archangel, >and then let my other character beat up God. Oooh - how many gold did I >get for killing off all the demons in New Haven?" "New Haven"? Hmmm. Maybe we finally get to see what's really inside Skull and Bones. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:02:51 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation From: Douglas Muir > > >>...but this demon is a wily old veteran who has dealt with angels before. > >>So he points to the Seraph in the party (it's generally not too hard to > >>pick them out, right?) and says, "Hey, Seraph. When he tells me I'll live > >>if I cooperate... I want YOU to tell me that he's not lying." > >> > >>One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye > >>each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the > >>only question is who... > > >Malakite turns back and says "right." He then cuts off the Demon's > >leg at the knee and drives his own knee into the Demon's solar > >plexus. "Talk or suffer more than you could possibly imagine. We > >don't work for *you.*" > > Umm, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. > > The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do > something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this > sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg > would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off. That is anything BUT a munchkin response. It's a Malakim response. A Malakim simply can't let a demon command it, unless its Superior specifically directed it to. And the damage to the demon's vessel will hurt, after all, which will make all but the most hardened subjects talk, if only to stop the hurting. > And look at it from the demon's POV. Cooperating with angels is a big > no-no; it can get him in deep, deep trouble with his Prince if he's found > out. He's only doing it to avoid Trauma. Once he knows the angels are > going to kill him anyhow, he'll quickly decide to take his chances with > Trauma. Unless he decides that Making The Hurting Stop is his top priority, and thinks he may have some way of distracting his angelic tormentors long enough to get free after he spills his guts, rather than letting the Malakim spill his guts for him. > Finally, I seriously doubt whether torture will have much effect on a being > that spends a lot of time in Hell. A demon's standards of torment are > going to be way higher than most angels could match, I suspect... Having your leg cut off still hurts a hell of a lot (if you'll pardon the pun.) > So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does the > Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast go? Since we refuse to let the Malakim beat the information out of the demon, we'll just have to let him say something along the lines of "OK, hellspawn, you win. Cooperate, and you get to walk." The Seraph then nods to show that it was true, and while the demon starts talking, the Chrub attunes itself to the demon. Half a block later, when the Malakim is tearing the demon apart, he can smile and say "I never said how far" with a clean conscience. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:21:50 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 04:18 PM 10/1/99 +0100, you wrote: >From: Ben Aldred > >> Just so you know your context and so forth, Charlemagne was born in 742 >> where as 622 is the date given for the "birth" of Islam. So unless the >> trial of gabriel was the celestial equivalent of OJ simpson then Gabby is >> already awol. > > >curses. good point. i was planning on setting it in the early 740s, i think >i had some vague notion of islam being founded in the 800s. guess i didn't >pay enough attention in RE class > Islam as a full fledged religious movement didn't really take hold until the late 8th century after the various wars and the consolidation of the doctrine(incidentally, this is where the misogynistic 'doctrines' come from). So you have to think, what really triggered the trial of Gabriel, that she said this to Mohammed or that the religion became what it did. I could see a case for the second and have the trial of Gabriel not actually come until a little before the crusades when the Christian world realized that the Holy land was in the hands of the 'infidels.' Just my two cents though. I might have the trial be just about to happen. That way there is some definite tension between the archangels especially in interesting ways like Dominic and Yves. But also in ways like Yves and Mikey getting along. That could be some interesting contrast to modern day and so forth. Sorry, just a random historian/gamer spouting off. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:11:51 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors >During the Dark Ages, Jeanites were, I think, fighting a holding >action (against the demons of Oblivion?) in Europe, trying to >preserve technical and scientific knowledge more than advance it. >There were a few things -- stirrups, codex-bound books, some >advancements in architecture, and the like (all only if I recall >correctly). But a Jeanite might be most concerned with preserving >and extending a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and with >saving as many classical texts as possible from destruction. >They'd be busy guarding the Irish monks as much as possible, I bet. I think that would be a little more Yves but Jean and Yves have always been close so... Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:24:27 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Questions galore . . . (Jesus) Ben Glickler wrote: [snip] > Insight into why or why Jesus wasn't included may be garned from > the French version of the game -- wasn't Jesus translated into In > Nomine as Eli? No; the French edition has Jesus *and* Eli. (Jesus is a spoilt brat who messes up everything, but he's Daddy's boy so nobody can argue with him.) Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:34:56 -0500 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation > Half a block later, when the Malakim is tearing the demon apart, he can > smile and say "I never said how far" with a clean conscience. He wouldn't even have to let him make it that far....after all, two or three steps would be walking..... Ben Chism angel in search of a word demon of utterly useless triva(did you know that a rat can swim for 1/2 a mile without resting...and tread water for three days) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:47:05 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Celestial Creativity >>>Your evidence for this being? They are apparently creative enough to make new Songs,<<< No, they _discover_ new Songs, they don't create them. >>>Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist),<<< Only Archangels can make vessels, usually. And this was a matter of discovering how to manipulate Forces. A certain amount of creativity was involved -- no one said that celestials don't have *any* creativity -- but they're generally not very innovative. (And if you look at the timeline in the GMG, you'll see that the angels were running around on Earth for thousands of years before they figured out the corporeal vessel trick.) >>>new attunements,<<< No, Archangels can figure out how to make their Words interact in new ways, they don't just invent attunements. >>> and new artefacts.<<< After being shown how by Eli, yes, but mostly they make artifacts that are copied from human ideas, I think. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:52:59 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Sticky situation >>>The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off.<<< That's not a munchkin response, that's a typical Malakite response. It might not be appropriate (or work) in some situations, but it's perfectly viable and it's the first thing a Malakite would think of. >>>Finally, I seriously doubt whether torture will have much effect on a being that spends a lot of time in Hell. A demon's standards of torment are going to be way higher than most angels could match, I suspect...<<< Demons do feel pain; some are probably hardened to torture, but I'm sure others would crack. Remember their selfishness; they'll certainly sell out to spare themselves pain unless they fear the consequences of selling out more. But assuming for whatever reason that torture is not an option: IF one of the angels has the authority to order the Malakite to stand down, or if the Malakite can justify that he's going to be able to kill a greater evil by letting the lesser one get away, then he can probably avoid dissonance. Otherwise, if they can't outwit or compel the demon, then yes, one of them will have to take dissonance. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:56:13 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Creativity >After being shown how by Eli, yes, but mostly they make artifacts that are >copied from human ideas, I think. > there's a question. do celestials ever make artifacts that have no real counterpart in human understanding. i.e. Human:what the hell is that Angel: it's a nirtleplag Human: huh? I mean every artifact I have heard of has some specific human or natural counterpart. Is that true? Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:55:47 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Re: Theatrix >>>I'm assuming this is out of print. When you mentioned Ironwood, is that based off the comic?<<< Yes, and it's an excellent supplement. The Ironwood setting is given FAR more detail than it is in the comic series. I ran an online Theatrix Ironwood game, and may be doing a ftf one soon. >>>Any good suggestions on where to find a copy? Who published it? (And, don't sugggest it, I already checked eBay.)<<< Unfortunately, Backstage Press seems to have disappeared. They used to have a website, but it's no longer up. So it's probably out of print, and your only hope is to find someone who has a copy and is willing to sell it. (Don't bother asking me! ) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:49:15 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: IN> purity crusade I have a question. Was there a reality basis for the year 745 as the disappearance of Uriel into Heaven. I was wondering if that date was reached for any particular reason. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:09:21 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation David Edelstein wrote: > Otherwise, if they can't outwit or compel the demon, then yes, one > of them will have to take dissonance. The more selfless one, obviously. Which would make its Archangel feel more lenient, perhaps. And ought to make the fellow angels anxious to help it work the dissonance off, later. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:15:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> purity crusade Ben Aldred wrote: > I have a question. Was there a reality basis for the year 745 as > the disappearance of Uriel into Heaven. I was wondering if that > date was reached for any particular reason. Yes. It's a bit of an inside joke. In reality, that was the year the Roman Catholic Church took Uriel off the official list of saints, on the grounds that he wasn't really attested to in the Bible or anywhere else but in some non-canonical books. Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael remain on the list. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:11:23 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Creativity At 12:56 PM -0400 10/1/99, Ben Aldred wrote: > >After being shown how by Eli, yes, but mostly they make artifacts that are > >copied from human ideas, I think. > > >there's a question. do celestials ever make artifacts that have no real >counterpart in human understanding. >i.e. >Human:what the hell is that >Angel: it's a nirtleplag >Human: huh? > >I mean every artifact I have heard of has some specific human or natural >counterpart. Is that true? I'd say "no." After all, Jean's withholding *tons* of innovations. Every one of those innovations could have an artifact varient as well (though Jean would freak if even an Artifact version of Heavenly technology got out...) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:30:07 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors From: Whistling in the Dark > "Now -- pay *attention,* 007. I expect these to be returned in at > least passible condition this time. Now, this may look like an > ordinary sword. However, notice the basket hilt -- this will conceal > your hand from immediate attack. Furthermore you will find the blade > is longer than the standard crusader's sword and therefore usable > from horseback. Ah -- now, this may look like an ordinary bow -- but > notice the size of it and the curviature? Our labs call this a > *Long* bow, capable of ranges close to thrice that which your > opposition may be able to field. It is vitally important the *Long* > bow not be allowed to fall into human hands. Finally, over here you > see what we term the three field crop rotation technique...." > > Man, puts "The Medieval Machine" into a whole new perspective.... > *lol* still, it's spookily reminiscent of the a little chat one of my players (an ofanite of jean) had with his superior when he borrowed a plasma weapon from Up There liam angel of bad movies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:36:37 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> purity crusade At 2:15 PM -0500 10/1/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Ben Aldred wrote: > > > I have a question. Was there a reality basis for the year 745 as > > the disappearance of Uriel into Heaven. I was wondering if that > > date was reached for any particular reason. > >Yes. It's a bit of an inside joke. In reality, that was the year >the Roman Catholic Church took Uriel off the official list of >saints, on the grounds that he wasn't really attested to in the >Bible or anywhere else but in some non-canonical books. Gabriel, >Michael, and Raphael remain on the list. That.... has to be the coolest bit of IN-related trivia I've ever heard. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:37:41 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors From: Ben Aldred > Islam as a full fledged religious movement didn't really take hold until > the late 8th century after the various wars and the consolidation of the > doctrine(incidentally, this is where the misogynistic 'doctrines' come > from). So you have to think, what really triggered the trial of Gabriel, > that she said this to Mohammed or that the religion became what it did. I > could see a case for the second and have the trial of Gabriel not actually > come until a little before the crusades when the Christian world realized > that the Holy land was in the hands of the 'infidels.' > Just my two cents though. I might have the trial be just about to happen. > That way there is some definite tension between the archangels especially > in interesting ways like Dominic and Yves. But also in ways like Yves and > Mikey getting along. That could be some interesting contrast to modern day > and so forth. Sorry, just a random historian/gamer spouting off. > Ben > that would fit in pretty well actually. i was planning on the lead-up to uriel's crusade being a major factor in the game - gabriel's exile could be another. also, i'd imagine uriel getting on pretty well with gabby ("the purifying flame"). it makes more sense to me that she got kicked out after he disappeared, i'm sure he would have stuck up for her otherwise. at least, that's how i imagine it. mind you, i'm pretty sure it's mentioned in canon that she went before he did. still, as i mentioned before i'm not adverse to altering history :) liam angel of bad movies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:39:37 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Sticky situations - the general case >The more selfless one, obviously. Which would make its Archangel >feel more lenient, perhaps. And ought to make the fellow angels >anxious to help it work the dissonance off, later. Well, this leads to a more general question: how easy is it for angels to get into situations where one angel or another _must_ take dissonance? It's easy to come up with hypotheticals... if a Seraph says, "This Ofanite will stand RIGHT HERE WITHOUT MOVING for the next 24 hours," then either the Seraph or the Ofanite is going to take some dissonance. Obviously _that_ example is flawed; no Seraph would ever say such a thing. But can we come up with more plausible situations where two angelic resonances end up directly opposed to each other? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:55:27 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case how about a malakite interrogating a demon attuned to a cherub Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:10:38 -0600 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case >>The more selfless one, obviously. Which would make its Archangel >>feel more lenient, perhaps. And ought to make the fellow angels >>anxious to help it work the dissonance off, later. > >Well, this leads to a more general question: how easy is it for angels to >get into situations where one angel or another _must_ take dissonance? > >It's easy to come up with hypotheticals... if a Seraph says, "This Ofanite >will stand RIGHT HERE WITHOUT MOVING for the next 24 hours," then either >the Seraph or the Ofanite is going to take some dissonance. > >Obviously _that_ example is flawed; no Seraph would ever say such a thing. >But can we come up with more plausible situations where two angelic >resonances end up directly opposed to each other? > Then its a no holds bar fight to the death between the two. Timothy, "Angel" of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:21:48 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Andre... At 10:57 PM -0400 9/30/99, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >What if a Balseraph of Lust says, in order to seduce someone. "Yeah, babe, of >course I care!" While he's saying this, he believes it. He's a Balseraph. >I'm assuming this is dissonant. It just seems somehow wrong that a Bal is not >allowed to lie in order to get laid. Balseraphs Don't Lie. O:> So yup, if he altered his reality so that he cared, then he'd be dissonant. Of course, he doesn't have to say _that._ He could say, "Babe, babe! You know I think you're wonderful!" (in bed, whatever...) Or he could play word-games, where sure he cared -- he cared about getting laid. That could be tricky, though, and a GM might penalize his resonance roll, or require a minimum check digit. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:37:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation At 10:06 AM -0400 10/1/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do >something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this >sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg >would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off. > >And look at it from the demon's POV. Cooperating with angels is a big >no-no; it can get him in deep, deep trouble with his Prince if he's found >out. He's only doing it to avoid Trauma. Once he knows the angels are >going to kill him anyhow, he'll quickly decide to take his chances with >Trauma. Will he? Consider what other demons _do_ to demons in Trauma. Especially, say, Lust. ("Oh, look! A 9-Force demon! In Trauma! Mmmmmmm, a chance like this...") Or Death. ("Look! Forces on the hoof, and not hoofing it!") Or the Game. ("Ah, good. Someone to blame who can't talk back. Let me go make sure the frame is air-tight.") Or Dark Humor. (My mind fails to conceive of an example and curls up in the corner, twitching.) "It's like this, demon. You can cooperate, and first, you have a chance to escape while we're dealing with other problems, and second, even if you don't escape, you get a quick, clean death. If you don't cooperate, we take you off somewhere and let the Malakite work off his frustrations on you." (Malakite froths.) "You know what Malakim do to demons." (Malakite froths more.) "Sturdy vessel like that, you probably'd last, oh, at least a few months before he made a mistake..." Ideally, you have the Elohite giving this speech, trying to find out what things the demon is most squicked by. Then you let the demon psych _itself_ out about what these scary angels would do to him. >So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does the >Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast go? If the Greater Evil will be slain by letting this Lesser Evil go, then the Malakite can do so, without dissonance. If the group REALLY NEEDS the demon's cooperation, then the Malakite can probably manage. Though the rest of the group might need to brow-beat him a bit. O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:30:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 9:49 AM -0400 10/1/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Note, however, that "Discover" is *always* the word used when >referring to 'new songs.' "Haagenti discovered the Songs of >Hunger..." "Kobal discovered the Songs of Laughter when he was >Archangel of Laughter..." "Christopher re-discovered the Songs of >Laughter, which Kobal finds offensive as they're 'his.'" The Liber >Canticorum is full of these descriptions. And where it isn't, it's been errata'ed to have it. O:> >The implication is very strong -- Songs are a part of the Symphony. >Angels can discover them. They can't create new ones. Either the >Song is there, waiting, or it isn't. (And, actually, as relics are created via Songs, creating a relic generally requires discovering the Song. I think.) No matter who's more creative in a GM's opinion, a valid arguement could be made that celestials are less creative over a given period of time, by virtue of their immortal lifespans (suggesting that demons might well be somewhat more creative than angels, at least in the young, pick-upon- able young-demon stage) and their simplified mindsets. Humans, being a conglomerative mess of mindset ( O;> ) are more likely to come up with the Funky Connections that lead to Really Cool Creativity. Or so someone could argue. In the final equation, I _think_ it's CDaU. Unless I'm forgetting something. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:44:49 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation At 12:02 PM -0500 10/1/99, Prodigal wrote: [...] >Since we refuse to let the Malakim beat the information out of the demon, >we'll just have to let him say something along the lines of "OK, hellspawn, >you win. Cooperate, and you get to walk." The Seraph then nods to show that >it was true, and while the demon starts talking, the Chrub attunes itself to >the demon. > >Half a block later, when the Malakim is tearing the demon apart, he can >smile and say "I never said how far" with a clean conscience. Only if that's a Cherub of Judgment, there! Remember, Cherubim have to _protect_ their attuned. Of course, the Cherub could attune to an item of the demon's clothing, and will then be trailing along after the Malakite, wailing, "DON'T HURT HIS SHOE, YOU NUTCASE!" - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:08:38 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Creativity At 1:47 PM -0400 10/1/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>new attunements,<<< > >No, Archangels can figure out how to make their Words interact in new ways, >they don't just invent attunements. I'd actually think that it's sort of "figure out" -- Word-expansion, for instance, could result in having a Word interact in "new ways." But it's true that they can't just whip up an attunement. They may be able to influence it to some small extent, but it's going to arise naturally from their Word and probably require a certain amount of introspection, akin to discovering a Song... (Which they sort of are, if you look at it as self-introspection, 'walking' the themes of their own Word...) And the extent to which they'd be able to do that will probably be CDaU in some extent. However, they have to be able to change them somewhat, I'd think -- surely Elohim of Lightning didn't manifest computers way back when, and all that. But at the moment, I'm just raaaaaaambling, and dropping chunks of sea-changable notions all over the keyboard. Ew, messy. Anyway, no, I wouldn't call it _inventing_ new attunements, either. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:46:21 -0500 (CDT) From: paranial@creighton.edu Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > Only if that's a Cherub of Judgment, there! Remember, Cherubim have to > _protect_ their attuned. Of course, the Cherub could attune to an item > of the demon's clothing, and will then be trailing along after the Malakite, > wailing, "DON'T HURT HIS SHOE, YOU NUTCASE!" > Well their is always what I call the "Quarter Trick". Here's how it works. After the demon says yes to the angels' offer. The Cherub attune's himself to a small easily concealed object (usually IMC's a quarter). The Cherub the approaches the demon, helps him up and plants the Quarter on the demon. The Malakite may now track with worring about causing his comarde dissonance (as he is attuned to the quarter). Bradley Paranial, Mercurian Vassal of War ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:48:47 -0500 From: "Trent" Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situations - the general case > It's easy to come up with hypotheticals... if a Seraph says, "This Ofanite > will stand RIGHT HERE WITHOUT MOVING for the next 24 hours," then either > the Seraph or the Ofanite is going to take some dissonance. Acutally if the Offinite was restraind to the point where he could not move for the next 24 hours neither would take disonance. The Ofinite just has to try to keep moveing, of course one wonders why the Sereph won't help the poor Ofinite, 'cause he certinly isn't enjoying his situation. Trent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:57:51 -0500 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> Cities of In Nomine Hrmn, Like I was mulling over this idea (along with a certain Djinn Princess): Since the likelyhood of the Revelations cycle surviving into Version 2.0 of In Nomine is something like next to slim and null. . . How about putting IN Austin, and IN L.A. into one book? How about two books? Adding a second book means we not only can add IN San Francisco, but another city where the battle lines are not so firmly set. Basically we'd have four cities to draw upon. Two of which are firmly under the control of one Celestial power, one where a Peaceful Treaty exists, and one where the Cold War is ever present. Now, I see you saying to yourself: "But Citybooks means we'd just be like X!" I'm well aware of that fact. Still, it'd be nice to have a few sample cities where the political atmosphere is clearly drawn out. Examples for any budding GM to draw upon and use. (Also, these would be updated to reflect certain changes that no doubt have taken place since various adventures and such have changed them. IE, a section on 'former' residents of LA for all the dearly departed Celestials.) Anyone else like to see such a beast come into being? Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 10:48:26 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> Blatant Self-Promotion G'day. One of my short stories has just been published on the Web, and since it has strong religious themes, I thought that some of y'all might find it interesting. It's at www.thewayfareronline.com (follow the '1st Short Fiction Award Winner' link). Let me know what you think (off-list). - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs & misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:43:59 +1000 From: "Shane and family" Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Creativity > The implication is very strong -- Songs are a part of the Symphony. > Angels can discover them. They can't create new ones. Either the > Song is there, waiting, or it isn't. Which to my mind makes using Songs as a proof of Celestial creativity or the lack of it as relevant as using E=MC^2 as a proof of Einstein's creativity or the lack of it. Physical laws, mathematical formulae, southern continents, they're all aready either there waiting to be discovered or they're not. And technically, all the works of Chopin and Bach and Mozart - and indeed, every musical work ever 'created' - were all already out there, waiting for somebody to discover them. They're all just a combination of notes, after all, occupying miniscule fractions of the musical equivalent of a Mandelbrot set (itself something that was just waiting to be found). > >>>Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist),<<< > > Only Archangels can make vessels, usually. And this was a matter of > discovering how to manipulate Forces. A certain amount of creativity was > involved -- no one said that celestials don't have *any* creativity -- but > they're generally not very innovative. (And if you look at the timeline in > the GMG, you'll see that the angels were running around on Earth for > thousands of years before they figured out the corporeal vessel trick.) Humans (homo sapiens, that is) have also been running around on Earth for thousands of years and we're only up to experimenting with growing ears on the backs of mice and making replicas of sheep. If I go up to a geneticist and ask for a nice new body to replace my current one, I'm going to be disappointed. :) I also note the "usually". Once an angel has been given the attunement to make vessels, it's the decision of that angel - ultimately limited only by their creativity - as to what form and appearance those vessels take (as far as I know, anyway; the main book doesn't go into detail). > >>>new attunements,<<< > > No, Archangels can figure out how to make their Words interact in new ways, > they don't just invent attunements. Humans can make toasters and computers and cars and rockets and stuff. Which is all pretty much making new things by extrapolating from old things. We got our initial ideas for aircraft from watching birds. Then we experimented some more, figuring out new ways of sticking the parts together so that our machines would stay up in the air instead of going splat into the ground. > >>> and new artefacts.<<< > > After being shown how by Eli, yes, but mostly they make artifacts that are > copied from human ideas, I think. Which may or may not have been copied from celestial ideas. The human inventor of item X may have come up with X on their own, or they have may have gained their inspiration from a coffee break conversation with some stranger on a park bench named Ben, who was actually an Elohite of Neat Ideas taking a coffee break from their own work. Or it may have been a stranger named Luke, actually Lucifer, or a stranger named Rob, actually another engineer from up the street. ;) A lot of this boils down to "what's creativity?", and truth is I'd have trouble answering that in a satisfying way beyond "the ability to give something existance where previously the giver had at most only the knowledge of its potential". Perhaps someone can come up with a better definition. So are celestials more or less creative than humans? I don't know. Is their creativity different from humans? I don't know that either. But the fact that the IN main book has Artistry as a skill for celestials (without any mention of it being easier or harder for humans) should tell us something. Shane. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 03:22:58 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation In a message dated 10/1/99 5:49:08 PM Central Daylight Time, paranial@creighton.edu writes: << Well their is always what I call the "Quarter Trick". Here's how it works. After the demon says yes to the angels' offer. The Cherub attune's himself to a small easily concealed object (usually IMC's a quarter). The Cherub the approaches the demon, helps him up and plants the Quarter on the demon. The Malakite may now track with worring about causing his comarde dissonance (as he is attuned to the quarter). >> Let's hope the demon doesn't figure this one out. "I've got a gun, man! Keep your Malakite buddy off of me or the quarter gets it!" Rev. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 12:48:08 +0200 From: ziafaemae13@bestway.com.br (loskiee) Subject: IN> Adv : make your computer fully y2k compliant For email address removal, reply to urrghh@bigfoot.com COMPUTER USERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS--"DO NOT LISTEN TO RUMORS!" Many people have been mislead to believe that "Y2K' will only provoke a small "Glitch" to their computer systems. <<>>!! * Get the facts or lose MONEY in expensive computer repairs!! **FORTUNE 500 corporations and the government cannot all be WRONG !! General Motors, Chase Manhattan Bank, AT&T and other corporations have expended BILLIONS of dollars to repair their computers due to Y2K!! Why would "TOP" corporations expend such huge amounts of money if Y2K is just a matter of FICTION? They must know something about Y2K that many people don't............THE FACTS!! **We can HELP you COMPLETELY solve your Y2K problems in a cost- effective way, but the problems must be PROPERLY identified FIRST. Do it before it is too late!! Your computer system may be at high risk. Thousands of DOCUMENTED tests revealed that FAILURE to make computers FULLY Y2K COMPLIANT may lead to the following problems: *EXPENSIVE REPAIRS, *Corrupted data files and reports, *Hard drive corruption, *Inability to access hardware components such as: disk drives, printer, etc., *The loss of whole segments of data, *Errors and miscalculations in date-dependent software applications and data files, *Computer crashes, *Screen error messages, *Error messages about imputing invalid dates, *Frozen screens. PREVENT EXPENSIVE REPAIRS IN YOUR COMPUTER <>Our testing software is the most advanced program available in the United States that is capable of making FULL diagnostic tests at every level of operation, *Hardware (BIOS and CMOS-RTC microchips), *Software, and *Operating Systems. (DOS, Windows). **IDENTIFY all Y2K-related problems in your computer, then you will be able to obtain a SAFE COMPLETE and COST-EFFECTIVE solution to your own Y2K problem! On January 1, 2000 there will be NO cheap solution to Y2K if you let your hardware, software, and data files become poisoned by the "Millennium Bug" ORDER OUR TEST/DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE NOW-- TIME IS RUNNING OUT!! Our products meet the required INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS for Y2K compliance!! Visit our web site and obtain extra BONUSES!! click here Visit our site for info NOW! ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1349 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.