From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Nov 6 11:14:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30167 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:14:28 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA25894 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:15:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:15:03 -0600 Message-Id: <199911061715.LAA25894@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 #1393 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, November 6 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1393 In this digest: Re: IN> Novalis, Demon Princess of Corruption Re: IN> Novalis, Demon Princess of Corruption IN> Sorry Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) [FLUFF?] Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> Comix Re: IN> The Final Battle RE: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> Millenium Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin)(now we get fluffy) Re: IN> Millenium Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> Falling Archangels (Yves) Re: IN> Candidates for a Fall Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Re: IN> Shared Tethers IN> Ethereal Campaigns IN> Nitpicking Rites Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 21:03:08 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Novalis, Demon Princess of Corruption Tim Groth wrote: > That explains why I wrote it that way. I'm curious if anyone has comments > on the attunements/distinctions/etc that I put with the Word of Corruption > run by a subtler prince than Legion. Well, I just don't see Novalis with that word, especially as a Djinn. To me, only Shedite could truly snare Princehood of -that- word except under terribly extenuating circumstances And Novalis doesnt strike me (even a Fallen Novalis) as being -insidious- enough for that. She was sort of passive before, I can see her -far- too active for a Word like Corruption. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:26:59 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Novalis, Demon Princess of Corruption [snip] >To me, only Shedite could truly snare Princehood of -that- word except under >terribly extenuating circumstances And Novalis doesnt strike me (even a Fallen >Novalis) as being -insidious- enough for that. She was sort of passive before, >I can see her -far- too active for a Word like Corruption. Beelezub the first Prince of Corruption was a Djinn (IPG if your curous). See I do agree that Corruption is extreme, but think about the likely hood of Novalis Falling. She has to have a pretty nasty shove, and the worst shove (especially Superior level) is against ones Word. But I agree that a subtle Shedim may be the most logical choice for a new prince of Corruption, assuming Lucifer gives that Word out again. 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, 5 Nov 1999 17:59:07 +1100 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> Sorry >Subject: IN> Falling Archangels (Yves) >Subject: IN> Asmodeus, Archangel of the Infinite Game >Subject: IN> Get ready! So very very sorry, for some reason my mailbox wasn't emptied when I sent everything. I mucjly beg forgiveness of all (especially the really, really nice Demon Princess who has such lovely hair. No, really.) kris who is not going to do this again ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 99 19:50:38 PST From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) > Since the topic of 'End of Days' seems to be on everyone's brain > (something to do with their _erronious_ assumtion that this is the end of > the Millenium; when in fact we have a full _year_ until the actual end of > the Millenium), why not look at alternate versions of the Final Battle. Well I wouldn't be to quick to call it an erronius assumption, especially when you make such claims as 2001 being the last year of the millineum. Firstly, time is relative construct, one that has been changed, many times over the course of history, frex, originally there were but ten months in the year however an additionall two were added (August in honour of Augustus Caeser, and July after Julius Caeser). The ramifacation of such a change are obvious; we can not truly even be in the 1999 as yet. Secondly, many years have been lost for various reasons, currently it is believed that 14-16 years have been lost in the back counts that we have done. To further complicate things the current system of time measurement is based upon christian beliefs, and thus the assumption that the year 0 was the birthdate of Christ, however scrutiny of the archives has revealed that he was in fact born at any time between the years 6 B.C. and 4 A.D. inclusive. Thus we may in fact already be in the new millineum or may even be many years away from it. A millineum is of course merely one thousand years and may thus be measure from any time you wish to choose. To measure each millineum in order from either the beginning of time or from the birth of Christ is quite impossible, however it would of course change when the turn fell. The calender is based upon aforementioned assumption that the year 0 is the year in which Christ's birthdate falls, of course many people disagree upon its existence, let alone which millineum in which it is included. This also raises the question was the year 1 the first year (thus each year labelled by its conclusion, i.e. at the end of this year one year will have passed since the birth of Christ) or is the system that each year is named by the number of years that have passed since the birth of Christ and thus that year 1 was the second year. Many different walks of life believe many different things about the passage of time and how much has actually passed. For example, ask one of the Chinese what year it is and they will reply "The year of the Dragon", should you ask when the year changes they will not give the answer "January 1st" they will give another date which I can't quite remember. Of course the fact that world's two leading authorites on chronology have decreed that the New Millineum begins 2001, this accounts for naught as, the science and mathematics simply do not agree. In any case this would not be the first time in which the leading authorites were wrong, as for many centuries the Church was the leading authority on all things scientific, and no one can denied that they have been wrong about many things, frex, a stationary earth, the length of the earth year, the existence of the universe (some may even say they were wrong on just about everything, however don't even get me started on that), thus it is feasible that our leading authorities are also incorrect. The fact that the current calculations are provided by a body with a reputation for being wrongs records (the Church) do not bode well for the validity of the figures. My point is that although the claim that the millineum begins 2000 may be incorrect, it may also be correct. Smae goes for the year 2001. So I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting the "erronious" assumption. > Finally, Abbaddon, Celestial (it was uncertain if he was a Demon, Angel > or _other_, like Yves and Kronos) of the End. He got tired of waiting, and > let a renegade Malakite of Fire (who happened to know the Song that > destroyed Soddem and Gomora) start the beginning of the End for him. . . > The Four Horseman were not far behind. Abaddon is officially (not in IN, in "real" life) said to be the demon of the bottomless pit. "Soddem" is actually spelt Sodom, and is the root for sodomy (see similar hey), this is because men would lay with both other men and animals, not only their wives, in the town of Sodom. Ahhhhhhh........nitpicking essence. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 04:07:47 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) [FLUFF?] At 7:50 PM -0800 11/5/99, Azrael wrote: Two wrongs still do not make a right, regardless. };;;> >Abaddon is officially (not in IN, in "real" life) said to be the demon of the] >bottomless pit. Yes. GM's Fiat is such a wonderful thing. Just because one thing says something doesn't mean we can't tweak things to fit whatever we want. >"Soddem" is actually spelt Sodom, Thanks. >Ahhhhhhh........nitpicking essence. (So, since when did the Djinn Princess give you the rite? };;;>) (I've got it, but only because I know that the Djinn Princess likes Choco-Sprinked Ofanim to munch on. . .) 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: Fri, 05 Nov 99 20:44:40 PST From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) > Ahhhhhhh........nitpicking essence. When did the D.P. give me the rite? We can all dream. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 03:57:56 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) Azrael wrote: > My point is that although the claim that the millineum begins 2000 may be incorrect, it may also > be correct. Smae goes for the year 2001. So I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting the "erronious" > assumption. Well, the point seems to be, according to the (admittedly) totally arbitrary system the Western world uses, the year 2000 -can't- be the end of the Millenium. It isn't something you can -vote- on, anymore than you can reasonably vote on whether 2+2=5 (yes, I've read Orwell, no, it doesn't apply here). If Christ was born in year 1 (because no, the current calender doesn't recognize a Year 0) then 1,000 years haven't passed until 2001 (I usually say 'twenty-oh-one', myself) begins. That's all it comes down to, have 1,000 years passed since the arbitrary starting point? No, so it can't be the new millenium until 2001 by that system. I mean really, I agree, when you get down to it, that the only -real- measurement may have you start when the universe did and then use our system to quantify -that- figure. But beyond that, the current Western calender has no Year 0, so it starts at 1, and 1+1,000+1,000=2,001 and that's it. Now I'll formally petition our delightful Djinn Princess for her Nitpicking Rite. I'm a good lil' Shedite, really. ___ _ , / o \ _ _ _ / \ / | o 0 | / \/ ) ( \ / | '\_/' |__ / - - Abracax (Happy) Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:13:31 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> Comix From: Douglas Muir > You might want to take a look at Alan Moore's "Promethea", published by > America's Best Comics. Good in its own right, and also as a source for IN > ideas. Issue #2 has two demons who act (IMO) exactly as demons would act > if they were on a one-shot short-term mission and didn't care about > disturbing the Symphony. In fact, they fit IN rather well... one Djinn and > the other is either a Cal or a Habbalite. getting the taxidriver to commit suicide was ace. it certainly fitted the recurring IN theme of demons being sickened at some of the stuff humans get up to. promethea would definitely be an ethereal spirit, what with the link to the pagan gods and magical misty land (or whatever it's called), which could work as someplace in the far marches liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:28:49 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle From: Azrael > My point is that although the claim that the millineum begins 2000 may be incorrect, it may also > be correct. Smae goes for the year 2001. So I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting the "erronious" > assumption. > i don't see why it matters, in the real world at least. as far as most of the world is concerned, the new millennium starts in 2000. i have this image of billions of people partying and a few million sitting around grumpily asserting that "we shouldn't be doing this till next year". ah well. of course, if the date has significance in your IN game, you can just decide for youself. > Abaddon is officially (not in IN, in "real" life) said to be the demon of the bottomless pit i'm sure i've heard him referred to as an angel, though. could have been in the context of a "fallen", i guess. isn't he the guy who leads an army to cleanse the earth in revelations? not a very nice thing to do, but angels in the bible aren't generally very nice guys liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:40:10 -0600 From: "Trent" Subject: RE: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) True. And don't forget that the entire 2000 'millennium' craze is really just Nybbys flexing his muscles. Trent Offanite of Doubt - -----Original Message----- From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com]On Behalf Of Azrael Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 9:51 PM To: IN Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) My point is that although the claim that the millineum begins 2000 may be incorrect, it may also be correct. Smae goes for the year 2001. So I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting the "erronious" assumption. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:49:11 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Millenium In a message dated 11/5/99 1:52:09 AM, chiram@tpgi.com.au writes: >Ahhhhhhh........nitpicking essence. > > > >Azrael I'm not even going to quote this ramble, but you're completely off base with the millennium thing. The Gregorian Calendar, the currently accepted calendar for at least the Western world, dates from the arbitrarily set '1 AD' established by Dionysis the Short and decreed by Pope St. Gregory the Great. The Gregorian Calendar has no year 0, just 1 BC followed by 1 AD, so counting millennia or centuries counts (for example) 1 January 1 AD to 31 December 100 AD (inclusive) as the first century. Thus, the second millennium runs from 1 January 1001 to 31 December 2000, inclusive. The calendar really has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, something those who study such things have known for centuries, which is why CE and BCE are more accurate (and popular among those in the know) descriptors than BC and AD Attempt to collect nitpicking essence fails, as does attempt to collect Archives essence. (Rats!) And *don't* get me started on Sodom and Gemmorah. Or demonology. Mark Eddy (It's not the Millennium, it's just a bunch of zeros...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:33:49 -0800 (PST) From: David Barr Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin)(now we get fluffy) - --- Steel Angel wrote: > Azrael wrote: > > > My point is that although the claim that the millineum begins > 2000 may be incorrect, it may also > > be correct. > > If Christ was born in year > 1 (because no, the current calender doesn't recognize a Year 0) > then 1,000 years haven't passed until 2001 (I > usually say 'twenty-oh-one', myself) begins. That's all it comes > down to, have 1,000 years passed since the > arbitrary starting point? No, so it can't be the new millenium > until 2001 by that system. > - Abracax (Happy) Shedite of Riots You see, the thing i have a problem with is nitpicking my own GM for essence, especially since i would then have to explain to my superior exactly how it is I have a Nitpicking right in the first place. Granted, Janus is pretty mellow about such things but really.... oh, the Nitpick? Hey, happy shedite (cited above) you even went so far as to point out that you cannot argue that 2 + 2 = 5. So, why are you saying (twice, notice) that 1000 years would need to pass between year 1, and year 2001? Ah, essence with my coffee. (as I say, above happy shedite is my GM, therefore i am going to need it....) - -Daiv (occcasionally emulating a offanite of Janus (especially when running away from suddenly unhappy shedim (I am assuming he will call his friends (why yes, i am the angel petitioning for the Word of parethetical comments (why do you ask?))))) ===== reply to my home address -> daiv@cruzio.com my mother once said that boy is stranger than a three toed barking frog - -Daiv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:35:53 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Millenium Interestingly enough historians add no year 0 in between 1 ce and bce but astronomers do. wrap your head round that one. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:56:57 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) From: Azrael > > Well I wouldn't be to quick to call it an erronius assumption, especially when you > make such claims as 2001 being the last year of the millineum. No, the claim was that 2000 is the last year of the millineum. Which to those who start counting from years numbered 1, rather than years numbered 0, is correct. > "Soddem" is actually spelt Sodom, "Soddem" was actually what God said when the angels asked him what to do about the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. *eg* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:24:10 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) From: Trent > True. And don't forget that the entire 2000 'millennium' craze is really > just Nybbys flexing his muscles. In collaberation with Valefor and Kobal, of course... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 14:29:09 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Falling Archangels (Yves) Liam wrote: > > From: Ben Glickler > > > Yves > > Demon Prince of Secrets > > this is a cool write-up, my only problem with it is that if Yves fell the > war would be lost, IMO. in fact, Yves might only be able to fall if the > symphony chose its fate I've been of the opinion that Yves would cease to be if the Symphony chose its Fate. As long as the final state is indeterminate, both Yves and his opposite number will continue to exist. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 01:15:27 +0100 From: Dave Taylor Subject: Re: IN> Candidates for a Fall In article <381EC6AC.A7EB26D3@cruzers.com>, Steel Angel wrote: > Jean: Extremely unlikely. Content in work, deeply involved with Heavenly > Word and society. Directly opposed to Vapula, would not have access to > knowledge in Hell he currently enjoys. Elohite nature tends to preclude > tempation, difficult if not impossible to tempt to Fall. Subject would > also experience near total loss of research facility and data. I favor Jean becoming Demon Prince of Stagnation. He already prevents humanity getting too far ahead of themselves tech wise. This would become a selfish drive to prevent any form of technological advance. Instant Hostility with Vap, and Malphas gets another faction ready made, just add water. ) (_ucan - -- - -- Beyond the iron claws of the northern mountains, and over the lake of shadows, past the swirling fogs of the rainbow plains. There, upon the obsidian cliffs, stands the unholy sanctuary of Lucanrashen Darek Almarn, High priest of Tzeentch. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 99 08:26:00 PST From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) - ---------- > At 7:50 PM -0800 11/5/99, Azrael wrote: > > > Two wrongs still do not make a right, regardless. };;;> I do not claim that they do. However 3 wrongs multiplied by the square root of 6432819.34632785 to the power of 87.3 do in fact make a right. But only on Tuesdays. I was under the impression that the Nitpicking Rite was open to all. Ahhhh well, I'll show you, I'll make my own!!! The Rite of Faux Pas'zezezezezez Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:00:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Shared Tethers At 10:16 PM -0600 11/3/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>(And Tether-Words _can't_ be shared.)<<< > >I don't know of any reason why sharing a Tether-Word would be more >impossible than sharing any other Word. Just equally unlikely. Because the thought of it makes my head hurt trying to think of what the mechanics would be. It's ineffable. Cope. (Yeah, I have a headache, I haven't slept enough this week, and Nice Computers Don't Go Down on their user's birthday, dammit.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:29:18 -0600 From: Santiago Subject: IN> Ethereal Campaigns Has anyone done much exploration into Ethereals as player characters? I'd say that this could certainly be quite interesting. Imagine a group composed of an Oni, a Valkyrie, and the son a Duke of the Seelie Court, all banding together for protection and companionship during their adventures on Earth, as they undermine the influence of the Celestials, generate essence (and send some back to the folks at home in the Marches), and cause general mayhem, all while avoiding being found out by the local Malakim and the more violent of the demonic elements. Has an Ethereal Players Guide already been considered and rejected? If not, I think some thought should be given to it when other ideas for books start running low... - -- Santiago ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:45:40 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Nitpicking Rites At 8:26 AM -0800 11/6/99, Azrael wrote: >I was under the impression that the Nitpicking Rite was open to all. Just mine Servitors, who must then, of course, bow down low before me, especially when I have a headache and am in a tired, stressed mood. Groveling is good too. (IIRC, I have 3 Servitors, and am so tired I can't remember who #1 was...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:38:05 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) but three lefts do. - -Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11340261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, ACF - -----Original Message----- From: Azrael To: IN Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 4:30 PM Subject: Re: IN> The Final Battle (Was: Re: Pride IS a sin) >---------- >> At 7:50 PM -0800 11/5/99, Azrael wrote: >> >> >> Two wrongs still do not make a right, regardless. };;;> > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1393 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.