From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Dec 22 11:09:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.io.com (root@mx2.io.com [199.170.88.18]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13257 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:09:04 -0600 Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by mx2.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03150 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:31:44 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id KAA28972 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:30:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:30:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199912221630.KAA28972@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 #1468 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, December 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1468 In this digest: Re: IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth RE: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Re: IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels IN> Using Supplements IN> Using Supplements IN> Joseph Smith documentary Re: IN> Using Supplements Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Re: Jospeh Smith documentary (WAS Re: Arianism) Re: IN> Re: Jospeh Smith documentary (WAS Re: Arianism) Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary Re: IN> Using Supplements Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels IN> Re: Shopping for Superiors IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) IN> Undead Redemption Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary Re:[FNORD FLUFF] IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Re: IN> Undead Redemption Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:20:46 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) >From: Emily Dresner >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >And no one likes my belief that Eli should be 30 pages of "This Space Left >Intentionally Blank". Foo. :) > I think that's a great idea! Just have 30 blank pages and at the end write "Draw your own conclusions (sic)" jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:57:29 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Trapped on Earth This is about to come up IMC, so I'd like to know what you guys think. A celestial vessel doesn't need to eat or drink and doesn't age. Therefore, if you locked a celestial in a prison cell in a basement somewhere, and then bricked up the door, you could keep that celestial imprisoned... well, if not forever, at least indefinitely. Obviously, most celestials could beat that by making a Will roll and going into celestial form. However, there are at least three ways this could be prevented: 1) If one uses Will shackles, or some other will-damaging item, at a level high enough to make it impossible for the Celestial to make a Will roll; 2) If the Celestial is Bound to its vessel; and, 3) If the Celestial is a demon, imprison it inside a major tether, where the Light of Heaven will quickly fry it if it assumes celestial form. Of course, unless the Celestial is renegade/outcast, its Superior should eventually notice that it's missing, and check its Heart (since a Superior can always use a Heart to locate a servitor). However, with some of the more disorganized Superiors, this could mean a VERY long wait in that basement room. Especially if it's in the basement of an enemy tether... IMC, an NPC is getting really tired of being stalked by a Djinn. Trauma only slows it down, he doesn't have the wherewithal to soul-kill it, and it's not interested in negotiating. So instead of killing it, he's going to try trapping the beast on this plane permanently, locking it up where it won't get out for a long, long time. Plausible? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:03:38 -0700 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth At 03:57 PM 12/21/99 -0400, you wrote: >Plausible? Absolutely. I have a character who's been trapped in almost the same manner who's going to be submitted to Pyramid as a Supporting Cast. Malakite of Stone, trapped in stone form on the corporeal plane. :) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:08:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Gant Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Douglas Muir wrote: > This is about to come up IMC, so I'd like to know what you guys think. (snip snip snip) > IMC, an NPC is getting really tired of being stalked by a Djinn. Trauma > only slows it down, he doesn't have the wherewithal to soul-kill it, and > it's not interested in negotiating. So instead of killing it, he's going > to try trapping the beast on this plane permanently, locking it up where it > won't get out for a long, long time. > > Plausible? Not really. I mean, yeah you could theoretically do it. However, unless you have the Celestial hog-tied and immobilized completely, he could still just suicide. Then he's out again. Of course, that could make for a fun scene later on... Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4656/ The Returners Final Fantasy Role-Playing Game Site: http://returners.simplenet.com/ or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Matrix/5758/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:26:12 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth From: "Douglas Muir" > > So instead of killing it, he's going > to try trapping the beast on this plane permanently, locking it up where it > won't get out for a long, long time. > > Plausible? Yes, and I love the idea. Just make sure that the cell has a reliable air supply, because suffocation will kill the Djinn's vessel. But lock it up with Will shackles in a secluded place with a good supply of oxygen, and you should be able to keep a vessel on ice for a long time. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:34:03 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth At 14:57 -0500 12/21/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >Obviously, most celestials could beat that by making a Will roll and going >into celestial form. However, there are at least three ways this could be >prevented: > >1) If one uses Will shackles, or some other will-damaging item, at a level >high enough to make it impossible for the Celestial to make a Will roll; > >2) If the Celestial is Bound to its vessel; and, In our campaign, there are also relics that can do this -- I think they got into the L.Reliquarum, though I don't recall for sure. >3) If the Celestial is a demon, imprison it inside a major tether, where >the Light of Heaven will quickly fry it if it assumes celestial form. All of the above also presume you can keep it from suiciding or shifting to an alternate vessel that could escape corporeally. Other ways: - You can drain its Essence before it can get the 2 Essence it needs to go celestial. The easiest way is to have an Impudite visit it daily, and use lots of Essence on its roll to drain the target's Essence. It's not cost-effective, but it keeps the target stuck. I seem to recall there's also a Song in the L.Canticorum that can steal Essence. Note that this trick doesn't work on Kyrios or Shedim, since they can go celestial "for free". - You can keep a Celestial Song of Seals going around it somehow, so you can contain it even in celestial form. This is likely to be difficult and expensive, unless someone has created a room with a permanent version of this Song on it. (A Superior might do this in a major Tether -- Judgment and the Game are probably the most likely to have such a place, and maybe Michael and Baal, for interrogating prisoners.) >Of course, unless the Celestial is renegade/outcast, its Superior should >eventually notice that it's missing, and check its Heart (since a Superior >can always use a Heart to locate a servitor). Song of Shields can probably block this, for anyone *but* a Superior; note that non-Superiors can also look into celestial Hearts and get a view of their surroundings. I'd also let a Cherub or Djinn attune to someone through touching their Heart. >IMC, an NPC is getting really tired of being stalked by a Djinn. Trauma >only slows it down, he doesn't have the wherewithal to soul-kill it, and >it's not interested in negotiating. So instead of killing it, he's going >to try trapping the beast on this plane permanently, locking it up where it >won't get out for a long, long time. Depending on how your GM interprets the "taking corporeal stuff with you celestially" rule, another trick that might work is to embed the Djinn partially in a block of cement. It's too big to take with him celestially, and it's "carried", and he can't easily relinquish it, so it might hold him there. Personally, I wouldn't work it that way, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:59:20 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth >unless >you have the Celestial hog-tied and immobilized completely, he could still >just suicide. Then he's out again. Hog-tying (well, handcuffing and wrapping with chains) is definitely on the agenda. Mind you, a celestial trapped in this manner might also try escaping through songs or by summoning his Superior. Of course, he'd have to have the right songs, and at a pretty high level in order to cast them while immobilized. As for summoning... mmm, depnds on whether one allows a bound and gagged person to try it. I'm inclined to say no, myself, although so far it hasn't come up IMC. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:09:16 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: RE: IN> Trapped on Earth > Other ways to trap a celestial: > You could find a specially attuned artist and trap the demon in a painting. (reference: The Dream Stories, IN rulebook; Ghostbusters II) *chuckle* When I stumbled upon the painting as a celestial trap prop while reading "A Bright Dream" (in the In Nomine rulebook) I immediately thought of that evil creature trapped in a painting in Ghostbusters II. Was I the only one that thought of this? Greg Bilbruck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:09:27 -0600 From: "Dennis Groome" Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth - -Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" http://evm-gamers.freeservers.com ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still love me." -Stabbing Westward, ACF > > A celestial vessel doesn't need to eat or drink and doesn't age. > Therefore, if you locked a celestial in a prison cell in a basement > somewhere, and then bricked up the door, you could keep that celestial > imprisoned... well, if not forever, at least indefinitely. or until it ascended and descended down a Tether... > > Obviously, most celestials could beat that by making a Will roll and going > into celestial form. However, there are at least three ways this could be > prevented: > > 1) If one uses Will shackles, or some other will-damaging item, at a level > high enough to make it impossible for the Celestial to make a Will roll; sure, that will work...for a time. until the Celestial blows all its Essence to get out. > > 2) If the Celestial is Bound to its vessel; and, see above. > > 3) If the Celestial is a demon, imprison it inside a major tether, where > the Light of Heaven will quickly fry it if it assumes celestial form. > hehehe..I used this on one of my players...his Shedite was jumped and strapped to a chair in a Tether...the angels slowly watched him grow more and more discordant while the other players tried to come up with a plan to get him out...then they realized they were _demons_ and walked away. ..or the Celestial could bite the bullet and go Limbo.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:34:46 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth Our spies report that on 03:57 PM 12/21/99 -0400, Douglas Muir said: (stuff about trapping a celestial) What no one has mentioned so far, I think, is going to sleep and willing oneself into the Marches. It's escape of a sort. If you then pass through one of the Ethereal->Celestial tethers present there, your vessel goes away just as if you had gone celestial the normal way, I presume. It is Very Hard to trap a celestial in physical form. It's a full time job, really, barring the Relic That Does Foo. Though to ditch a Djinn, can't you just wait until the attunement expires? Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:56:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth At 4:34 PM -0500 12/21/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 14:57 -0500 12/21/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >>2) If the Celestial is Bound to its vessel; and, > >In our campaign, there are also relics that can do this -- I think they >got into the L.Reliquarum, though I don't recall for sure. Discord Bracelets (aka Bound Bracelets), and they're in the LR, yes. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:03:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Trapped on Earth At 2:34 PM -0800 12/21/99, Sean McCarthy wrote: >Though to ditch a Djinn, can't you just wait until the attunement expires? Actually, isn't Djinn Fuzz in the Liber Reliquarum, for breaking attunements of the Cherub, Djinn, Song of Affinity, and Song of Attraction sort? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:25:16 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) At 12:20 PM -0800 12/21/99, Jo Hart wrote: >>From: Emily Dresner >>Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >>And no one likes my belief that Eli should be 30 pages of "This Space Left >>Intentionally Blank". Foo. :) >> > >I think that's a great idea! Just have 30 blank pages and at the end >write "Draw your own conclusions (sic)" Sell the book with crayons! - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >It's one of my favorite images from the game, really. I don't see >Celestial bodies as supernaturally resistant, so much as inhabited by >a force that isn't actually human. So until you manage to whittle >all those body hits down, they keep coming back like the Crow.... > >I know it's not doctrinal, but I'm cinematic. Horror-Cinema, >perhaps, but heck. That's what I did IMC, too. It has the great demon-who-won't-die effect, as you noted, but it's also great for comedy: "Dammit Zog, you just shot me in the head!" "Sorry, boss, it was an accident." "Sorry! Sorry? How am I supposed to go out dancing tonight with little bits of my brainpan scattered all over the floor? Come on, tell me!" "Uh, you could wear a hat..." - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:22:08 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Using Supplements >>>(I think that's a little more coherent, yeah? I've got some coffee here... I know it's a different argument, but I had time to think about it.)<<< A little more coherent, yes. But I'm not sure why "using supplements" = "requiring players to buy supplements." When I GMed Champions, I was just about the only person in my group who bought anything more than the basic Hero rulebook. And I bought almost EVERYTHING, and used most of it in some way, shape, or form. (Yeah, I was a Hero fanboy, bigtime. We all have our little phases.) My players never had a problem with this, nor complained about having to buy supplements -- for the most part, they didn't buy them. If they really needed to look at one, they borrowed mine. If your players are all mini-maxers who demand the right to optimize their characters with every available rule, I can see why this might be an issue. Or if your campaign rules require that the GM not use any powers, beings, or other setting material not known to the PCs. But otherwise, I don't get it. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:30:29 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Using Supplements >>>So? So what? Not everyone's commentary here on the list needs to be aimed at gearing people up for "BUYING SUPPLEMENTS!!!"<<< And what on Earth makes you think I believed otherwise? I'm just pointing out an irony. >>> I mean, sure it's a living and people saying saying that might threaten that is kinda scary, but . . . <<< I think you are making a few erroneous assumptions about my motives, here. I write In Nomine supplements for fun and recognition. The pay is a nice little bonus, and I wouldn't work as hard on them as I do if I weren't getting paid, but I'm not a professional game writer (if "professional" is taken to mean "doing it for a living"). It's strictly a spare time, extra pocket money thing for me. >>>chill out. I'd bet that without people who choose to think outside the box provided by supplements and the rules and game world of the main text, we wouldn't HAVE a lot of supplements for our games to begin with.<<< I'm chilled. Do you imagine that I run my own IN campaign confined to official canon? >>>While it's true that supplements probably really are the lifeblood of the RPG industry, that doesn't mean that we all have to say "Supplements aren't just good, they're Grrrrrrreat!"<<< One straw man, duly torched. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:35:46 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Joseph Smith documentary >>>I like Dominic specifically because, since the flap over Gabriel's role in the creation of Islam, he strikes me as being one of the AAs most likely to go after any new religious movements as heresy.<<< Only if they are founded by (or with the help of) celestials or ethereals. Dominic doesn't concern himself overmuch with purely human heresies. (Note that Dominic did come to approve of Islam. He's probably fine with the LDS, too.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Using Supplements > If your players are all mini-maxers who demand the right to optimize their > characters with every available rule, I can see why this might be an issue. > Or if your campaign rules require that the GM not use any powers, beings, > or other setting material not known to the PCs. But otherwise, I don't get > it. Bingo. The campaign rules usually require that the GM not use powers, beings, or other setting material not known to the PCs. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 99 13:10:59 PST From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels > > It's one of my favorite images from the game, really. I don't see > Celestial bodies as supernaturally resistant, so much as inhabited by > a force that isn't actually human. So until you manage to whittle > all those body hits down, they keep coming back like the Crow.... {Angel shot in head, angel, get's up pounds shooter, kewl} Yeah! Yeah! Super Angels! Mega Demons! Cool Vessels! Woo Hoo! A person after my own heart. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 99 13:13:38 PST From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 > FNORD Err... sorry, what's FNORD Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:26:19 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jospeh Smith documentary (WAS Re: Arianism) On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > (On the plus side, the u n/s u b stuff sometimes catches _spam_... > And yes, I'm still waiting on the majordomo guru who was talking about > setting up the "approved posters" list for this. *sigh*) I'm sorry, was the ball left in my court? I thought we'd figured out what needed to happen and it just needed to get done, but if I've forgotten something, just tell me; I can get it done over the holidays. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:29:40 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jospeh Smith documentary (WAS Re: Arianism) Sorry again, that was supposed to go to Beth and I forgot to reset the To line. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:05:57 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 In a message dated 12/21/99 9:13:48 PM Central Standard Time, stuball@tpg.com.au writes: << > FNORD Err... sorry, what's FNORD Azrael >> You're not cleared for that. Reverend B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:18:21 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary From: "David Edelstein" > >>>I like Dominic specifically because, since the flap over Gabriel's role > in > the creation of Islam, he strikes me as being one of the AAs most likely to > go after any new religious movements as heresy.<<< > > Only if they are founded by (or with the help of) celestials or ethereals. > Dominic doesn't concern himself overmuch with purely human heresies. Yes, but if Moroni really was an angel, Dominic would IMO have gone after him like a duck going after a junebug. > (Note that Dominic did come to approve of Islam. He's probably fine with > the LDS, too.) Now, I have no doubt. But in its beginning days, I see it as something that Dominic would brand as bordering on Heresy. Once it stood the test of time, I can see him granting it the same status that he eventually granted Islam. But at first, I see him opposing it with great vigor. One of the duties I see Judgement carrying out is that of Judging each new religion, and determining which are worthy (in Dominic's eyes) od continued existence. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 07:05:25 -0600 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> Using Supplements > I'm chilled. Do you imagine that I run my own IN campaign confined to > official canon? No, actually... But I'd be really interested to hear what changes you've made... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:55:42 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 Azrael wrote: > > FNORD > > Err... sorry, what's FNORD "Fnord" is a word made up by Robert Anton Wilson and used in his "Illuminatus!" trilogy. Supposedly, we have all been conditioned in childhood, by agents of the Illuminati, to ignore the word "fnord" whenever we see or hear it, but to feel vaguely uneasy when we do. Thus, by putting fnords into the media in varying amounts, the Illuminati have a tool for controlling the degree of public unrest. This is just one of their world-controlling devices. Steve Jackson Games, being fond of conspiracy-based games, is very fond of Robert Anton Wilson, and very, VERY fond of "fnord." For an excerpt from the "Illuminatus!" trilogy about fnords, see: http://www.rawilson.com/illuminatus.html#fnord (The phrase "you're not cleared for that" is, I think, a catch phrase from the "Paranoia" RPG.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:21:42 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 At 16:13 -0500 12/22/99, Azrael wrote: >Err... sorry, what's FNORD It's an acronym for You're Not Cleared For That Information.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:55:35 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 > Err... sorry, what's FNORD You're not cleared for that. Here's the declassified information from Steve Jackson Games' website. http://www.sjgames.com/general/faq.html#44 http://www.sjgames.com/secret.html > Azrael phargle Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:05:41 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary > Yes, but if Moroni really was an angel, Dominic would IMO have gone after > him like a duck going after a junebug. Why? Mormonism, the result of Moroni's actions, is heavily into order. Dominic is heavily into order. Who's to say Moroni wasn't a servitor of Judgement, sent to help clean up after Laurence's bungled reformation of the church? > Now, I have no doubt. But in its beginning days, I see it as something that > Dominic would brand as bordering on Heresy. Once it stood the test of time, > I can see him granting it the same status that he eventually granted Islam. > But at first, I see him opposing it with great vigor. This depends on how you view Dominic. If you view him, the billion year-old creature that he is, as being very short-sighted, then yes, he might dislike the early days of Mormonism. If you view him, the Archangel of Judgement, as supporting unfair persecutions on earth (remember his dissonance conditions), then yes, he might dislike the early days of Mormonism. Trying to compare it to his initial distrust of Islam is slightly skewed; after all, his distrust of Islam sprouted from its non-Christian status and the discrepencies found between the Koran in Heaven and the Koran Gabriel dictated to Mohammad. > One of the duties I see Judgement carrying out is that of Judging each new > religion, and determining which are worthy (in Dominic's eyes) od continued > existence. Yes. And if the religion passes the Is It Christian?/Is It Orderly? litmus test, do you think Dominic would dislike it for long? ;-) Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:13:14 -0500 From: Adam Canning Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels >Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:46:27 PST >From: "Jo Hart" >>From: John Karakash >> The other way is you assume the vessel is >>only warped when the warped soul is within it and >>'cleans up its act' when it gets possessed. This >>has fun options as well! >That would be very funky. If a prince wanted to make sure that a servitor >was never secretly possessed, all he'd have to do is give the lucky demon a >really noticeable corporeal discord ... Time to start marking them with the number of the beast, somewhere convenient. Of course it does make them noticeable, but, hmm where did I put some expendable minions to trawl the idea in front of Saminga and Furfur... Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:13:11 -0500 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Re: Shopping for Superiors From: Wade Trupke >From: "M Trent" >>Jordi: a pokemon fan if I ever saw one. 8) >You're kidding, right? >Let's see: In Pokemon, the player/hero goes >around capturing wild animals, keeping them >stored in tiny balls (or as files on a computer Lots of tiny and not so tiny balls in the cartoon. >when he's not using them), trains them to fight, >battles them against others who have done the >same, then uses them to capture more wild >animals, who go throughout the whole process again. >Oh, and society sees this as a noble and >worthwhile endeavour. >Pokemon is, when you get down to it, virtual cock >fighting. More like Roman Gladiatorial combat. Pokemon are after all sentient, even if only Mewth has much to say. Considering that Mewth has a large quantity of gold stuck to his forehead might we diagnose working for Marc, or just Mammon. The rest of Team Rocket spend their time internally fighting and making futile grand entrances, so they are obviously PC's. >Not something I see Jordi enjoying. You are forgetting the servitor of Jordi who turns up at the end to liberate them all. I am of course talking about Mewtwo, who wants to kill off the trainers for their oppression of the pokemon but is stopped by the traitor Pikachu. [somehow I don't expect that was how I was supposed to interpret that scene but it fits.] Pikachu is obviously suffering from Stockholm syndrome. I can see Jordi liking Misty and one or two of the other trainers, who do after all care for and about their pokemon, unlike that scum Ash who only cares for the glory they bring. From the looks of a lot of them they are in fact minions of Novalis, Bellflower and most of the Plant pokemon are good at disabling rather than killing. Mr Mime is obviously one of Zadkiel's. Of course it would appear that Sephar's minion in Fiat is a Pikachu or possibly a more evolved Raichu. Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:13:16 -0500 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Speculations (Re: The Holy Trinity) >Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:22:35 -0500 >From: Elizabeth McCoy >At 3:54 PM +1100 12/21/99, Chris Rose wrote: >>I was sure that Eli was gonna be the fourth in Superiors-3 >Alas, didn't work out that way. (Okay, class, here's an exercise for >you. Take all the Superiors. Organise them into books, with at least >4 per book. (Sometimes you can squeeze in 3 minors and 2 majors, or >4 majors and a minor.) Make the books have themes and catchy titles.) >Eli just goes far too well with Novalis and Jordi, the tight "Green >Triangle" of Allied/Associated. Yank him out of that one, and who >else do you put in with them? Yves? Ummmm.... Zadkiel, Christopher, Blandine and do the various Cherubs types together. Okay, so Jordi isn't a cherub, as far as we know but he is the only Kyrio. On the other hand having been an MDK Kyrio/Cherub before becoming a superior does sort of fit his behaviour pattern, but would mean he used to work for Yves. Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:13:08 -0500 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Undead Redemption >From: EDG >At 08:15 AM 12/20/99 -0500 >Didn't we just hear these? :) >>1) can the undead be redeemed? how would it work, and what would happen? > >Nope. They can be "redeemed" - see the errors of their ways and start >working for Heaven - but in the end, their fate is the same. Presumably one could get them transubstantiated via the chariot of god. People don't die that often in heaven. Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:19:43 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary From: "Ben Glickler" > > Yes, but if Moroni really was an angel, Dominic would IMO have gone after > > him like a duck going after a junebug. > > Why? Mormonism, the result of Moroni's actions, is heavily into order. > Dominic is heavily into order. Who's to say Moroni wasn't a servitor of > Judgement, sent to help clean up after Laurence's bungled reformation of the > church? To my way of thinking, Dominic has objected to the formation of new religions on general principle (and Laurence is of the same mind.) That's why I see him as being inclined toward applying a "test to destruction" approach to any new religions, with the view that if a religion is reflective of the Truth, it will survive, and if it is not, then he is doing hiumanity a service by destroying it before it can spread too widely. > This depends on how you view Dominic. If you view him, the billion year-old > creature that he is, as being very short-sighted, then yes, he might dislike > the early days of Mormonism. I offered what I think is an ezxcellent reason for why short-sightedness is not a factor just above, so I'll leave that as my answer to this. > If you view him, the Archangel of Judgement, > as supporting unfair persecutions on earth (remember his dissonance > conditions), then yes, he might dislike the early days of Mormonism. I view him as a being who upholds the Truth of God and God's will as being paramount, and being the sort who places any new faith within the crucible, to see if it is burned away or not. > Trying to compare it to his initial distrust of Islam is slightly skewed; > after all, his distrust of Islam sprouted from its non-Christian status and > the discrepencies found between the Koran in Heaven and the Koran Gabriel > dictated to Mohammad. The Book of Mormon is the one which speaks of Christ coming to the Americas to teach the natives, isn't it? That one doctrine alone would, IMO, be enough reason for Dominic to distrust it until he could test the new movement. > > One of the duties I see Judgement carrying out is that of Judging each new > > religion, and determining which are worthy (in Dominic's eyes) od > continued > > existence. > > Yes. And if the religion passes the Is It Christian?/Is It Orderly? litmus > test, do you think Dominic would dislike it for long? ;-) The fact that the religion did not come to an end would argue in favor of his having eventually accepted it. *g* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:19:29 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re:[FNORD FLUFF] IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 > "-----" is fnord a word fnord made up fnord by Robert > fnord fnord Anton ------ fnord and used in his fnord > "-----------!" fnord trilogy. Fnord Supposedly, fnord > we have all fnord been ---------ed fnord fnord fnord > in childhood, by agents fnord of the fnord fnord ----------, > to fnord fnord fnord ignore fnord the word "-----" > whenever fnord we see or fnord hear fnord it, but fnord > to feel vaguely ------ fnord fnord fnord fnord when > fnord we do. Thus, by putting fnords into fnord fnord > fnord the media in varying amounts, the fnord fnord > fnord ---------- fnord fnord have a tool for controlling > the degree of fnord fnord public fnord fnord ------. > This is just one of fnord fnord their ------controlling > devices. Suppress with extreme prejudice. > fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord Earl fnord fnord Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:19:02 -0600 (EST) From: "Derek K." Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1466 On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: GOOD GOD MAN! How you do this? >"Fnord" is a word made up by Robert Anton Wilson and used in his >"Illuminatus!" trilogy. Well, that part's true. It is. It's made up. Completely. > Supposedly, we have all been conditioned >in childhood, by agents of the Illuminati, to ignore the word >"fnord" whenever we see or hear it, but to feel vaguely uneasy >when we do. Yep. Supposedly. Ha. Those wacky independent writers who didn't really know anything about the Illuminati. They're just so silly. don't know how that got out > Thus, by putting fnords into the media in varying >amounts, the Illuminati have a tool for controlling the degree >of public unrest. This is just one of their world-controlling >devices. We have no fnord well not many fnord world controlling devices. We are a myth. Myths can't control anything, can they? Fnord dispatch black helicopters immediately and prepare the OMCL fnord fnord. >Steve Jackson Games, being fond of conspiracy-based games, is >very fond of Robert Anton Wilson, and very, VERY fond of "fnord." > This is not true. We're just good friends. >For an excerpt from the "Illuminatus!" trilogy about fnords, see: > > http://www.rawilson.com/illuminatus.html#fnord > >(The phrase "you're not cleared for that" is, I think, a catch >phrase from the "Paranoia" RPG.) > You're not cleared for that, citizen, typically. But SJ (and those lovely people at Illuminati Online) has adopted it and made it a mantra. For instance, see www.io.com/secret to see if you're cleared for that. >Earl > Noted, Earl. If that is your real name. Please pay no attention to the Men in Black arriving at your house in . . . 12 minutes I believe. They are there to help you, and will make your life much more fun. In no way will they rip out your eyeballs and devour your brain. And remember: There is no Illuminati. Fnord. Derek K. Not a pawn of the Global Conspiracy because there isn't a global conspiracy at all doncha know. Illuminati Online. Everything is Under Control ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:20:37 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Undead Redemption Adam Canning wrote: > Presumably one could get them transubstantiated via the chariot of > god. People don't die that often in heaven. As in the fiery chariot of Elijah? Is this a piece of canon? (Not that I'm saying it has to be. Of course, even in canon, a Divine Intervention can mean whatever the GM wants it to, and any GM worth their salt should feel free to add their own Interventions to whatever the dice do.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:28:43 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Joseph Smith documentary >From: "Ben Glickler" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > > Yes, but if Moroni really was an angel, Dominic would IMO have gone >after > > him like a duck going after a junebug. > >Why? To find out why he did it. If he really was delivering a message from God -- well, even Dominic can't argue with that. However, if he was just giving out cod revelations for kicks and egoboosts, then he may need some attitude readjustment. Of course, if it turned out that Moroni wasn't an angel at all, then Dominic can probably cease the investigations (unless he was a demon, in which case you hunt it down out of principle.) >If you view him, the Archangel of Judgement, >as supporting unfair persecutions on earth (remember his dissonance >conditions), then yes, he might dislike the early days of Mormonism. *snigger* I think he'd have had his hands full with all the /other/ unfair persecutions on Earth. Anyway, what's a bit of suffering on Earth if you end up in Heaven, right? > >And if the religion passes the Is It Christian?/Is It Orderly? litmus >test, do you think Dominic would dislike it for long? ;-) > I think he'd still investigate any angelic involvement, regardless of whether he approved of the resukts. As a traditionalist, I imagine he'd incline to the view that the law is the law, and if something isn't broken, why fix it? He was happy enough with Catholicism. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1468 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.