From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 16 20:10:39 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 UAA25314 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:10:39 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id UAA01070 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:09:06 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:09:06 -0600 Message-Id: <199903170209.UAA01070@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 #1159 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 Tuesday, March 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1159 In this digest: IN> More Lilim questions Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies RE: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> Corporeal forces Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> More Lilim questions Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Lilith a Human? IN> IN: The Musical (Was: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy-ish) Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> IN: The Musical (Was: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> More Lilim questions Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) IN> Book of Locations Up For Playtest IN> Seraph and Truth IN> Celestial disguise Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Re: IN> Lilith a Human? IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> More Lilim questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:53:00 -0500 From: "Sheep Boy" Subject: IN> More Lilim questions Hello list, Almost as if in direct mockery of my inability to understand most of what has transpired recently on the list, one of my players has decided to play a Lilim. So if someone could take me through this slowly and carefully, I would appreciate it greatly. This is what I understand so far...please correct me as necessary... A bound Lilim starts with that superior's Lilim Band Attunement, and that superior's rites and dissonance condition. In addition, unless forbidden by that superior, the Lilim can also choose to accept Lilith's own rites and dissonance condition. A free Lilim starts with no attunements, Lilith's rites and dissonance condition, and nine "favors" to Lilith herself, each the equivalent to a Geas/3, which Lilith herself may trade to others, for whatever reason. Okay, my question becomes: Can a free Lilim acquire attunements at character creation? If so, how and at what cost? Thanks much, - Stavro +-stavro@crackden.org-------------------------ICQ#18493910-+ | "Boom na da mmm dum na ema | | Da boom na da mmm dum na ema" | | - Korn, "Freak on a Leash" | +----------------http://www.crackden.org/------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:56:20 +0300 From: "Tick Tock" Subject: Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy >>Redemption candidates? Impudites followed by Calabim that see redeeming as a >>stepping stone to becoming Malekites in the service of Michael or David. > >(That's Malakim, BTW, as the plural...) Thanks. >Also, the poor Calabim are going to be distressed. Barring very unusual >circumstances, they don't get to be Malakim. They get to be Ofanim. Question, please? Although I made the original comment with a smile I hadn't expected to be told that it was impossible or even implausible. As a number of people pointed out, a redeemed Calabim will become an Ofanim. I accept this as irrefutable. Yet, (based on examples such as David) cannot a pre-existing arch-type be re-made into a Malakim? I'm not aware that it's been actively addressed in any of the books (although I don't have a personal copy of FoM and the CPG). I would love hear your thoughts on this. > >Which has its own benefits, of course. **FOOSH**! I know. One of my friends drives the GM nuts with his Ofanite paradigm. He appears to derive it solely from the Flash comic books he read as a child. Still it seems to work except for soliloquies which sound oddly reminiscent of the Tick. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:05:34 +0300 From: "Tick Tock" Subject: Re: IN> Survey: Defection Tendencies - -----Original Message----- From: EDG >Tick Tock wrote: > >> Redemption candidates? Impudites followed by Calabim that see redeeming as a >> stepping stone to becoming Malekites in the service of Michael or David. > >Heh. Those Calabim who think you get to pick your choir when you >Redeem, you mean? Changing from an Ofanite to a Malakite would involve >pretty much destroying what you are now and rearranging your component >Forces into the new shape, IIRC. Yeah, I say it smiling but it could happen. It could, really. Hey, is the temperature of Balial's throne room dropping? Naa... :) >In Perry's campaign last semester, my Malakite was a former Mercurian >Remnant, found by Eli - no Celestial Forces. The Archangel stripped him >of his Ethereal Forces and tacked on new Forces of every type, then woke >him up in Rio de Janeiro as a Malakite and sent him to find the >Archangel of Death. Oh, please! This I want to hear? Just a quick summary? Or at least the reason why he sent him seeking that particular personage? And does this have anything to do with the fluffy bunny slippers I saw mention a few weeks ago? Enquiring minds want to know. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:07:58 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) >>Also, the poor Calabim are going to be distressed. Barring very unusual >>circumstances, they don't get to be Malakim. They get to be Ofanim. > >Question, please? Although I made the original comment with a smile I hadn't >expected to be told that it was impossible or even implausible. As a number of >people pointed out, a redeemed Calabim will become an Ofanim. I accept this as >irrefutable. Yet, (based on examples such as David) cannot a pre-existing >arch-type be re-made into a Malakim? I'm not aware that it's been actively >addressed in any of the books (although I don't have a personal copy of FoM and >the CPG). I would love hear your thoughts on this. In canon, as far as this non-canon person knows, a Calabite that Redeems becomes an Ofanite; Fallen Ofanim become Calabim. There is no option. The only canon example of any Celestial ever changing Choir or Band is the moment when the Malakim were born, during the Fall. The only other attempt even listed in the book is Lucifer pasting forces onto Kronos, trying to make him into a new thing. Out of canon, there's the thought that if an angel were to become a Remnant or lose Forces down to reliever-hood, if they _did_ have Forces added back to them, they could fledge as a different Choir. Totally out of canon, if you include, as some do, more than one type of Demon corresponding to each type of Angel (various people have written up the Axanim for Fallen Ofanim and Ha-Satanim as Fallen Seraphim.) It would be possible to expand the mix so that a being that Fell and Redeemed (or Redeemed and Fell) could end up a different Choir or Band. However, IMC, Redemption and Falling is rare enough that "yo-yos" are a very uncommon thing. And usually smushed by Superiors in short order. After the debriefing. steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:31:22 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Corporeal forces Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > In the normal course of celestial life, what are corporeal forces for? > > We are told that celestials have no natural place on the corporeal > plane. That's why they cause disturbance there. Vessels are no > more natural to celestials than cars are to humans -- Jordi invented > them, in cosmically recent history. Yet the only function for > corporeal forces that I can recall is to infuse strength and agility > into vessels and control the power-level of some songs, most or all > of which work only on the corporeal plane. So what does a celestial > need corporeal forces *for*, in its own internal economy? They all > have to have at least one. A 'stable arrangement of forces' requires it. Sorta like a nucleus needs neutrons in order to be stable. They don't (apparently) do anything for the atom, yet the thing would fly apart without them. Also, the corporeal realm is rather important, so a variety of angels is a good idea. Some have a lot, others have relatively few. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:32:35 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) Tick Tock wrote: > Question, please? Although I made the original comment with a smile I hadn't > expected to be told that it was impossible or even implausible. As a number of > people pointed out, a redeemed Calabim will become an Ofanim. I accept this as > irrefutable. Yet, (based on examples such as David) cannot a pre-existing > arch-type be re-made into a Malakim? I'm not aware that it's been actively > addressed in any of the books (although I don't have a personal copy of FoM and > the CPG). I would love hear your thoughts on this. The conversion of angels from other Choirs into Malakim seems to have been a one-time offer, good only when the Choir of Malakim was first created. At least, that's true in canon. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:16:03 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim questions In a message dated 3/16/99 5:00:51 PM Central Standard Time, stavro@crackden.org writes: > Okay, my question becomes: Can a free Lilim acquire attunements at > character creation? If so, how and at what cost? I'm not sure. I seem to recall that Lilim could buy Lilim band attunements for 5 points a pop, but I don't remember where I saw it. It would be useful. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:22:28 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth I have to do this: Actually, the Dissonance would have gone away with Ramesh's second post on the subject, where he said that it was intended as sarcasm. But since then two Balseraphs and a Djinn (Princess, mind you, but her word *is* Nitpicking) have been using it as a chew toy. Mark (Cherub of Destiny) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:38:37 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > That God... he's *wacky!* > But come on. This is just paranoid. Setting up a doomed experiment > entirely so he could give a Third Party a Word *previous* to the Fall and > the Rebellion. Why, the very idea is ridiculous. It implies that Baal was > actually working on *God's* authority when he interfered with the > Experiment, and that long conversation of Lucifer and God is when Lucifer > was brainwashed into rebelling and leading others to fall with him so > that.... > > Man, the X-Files has *nothing* on this.... It's classic Christian theology that God (being omniscient and all) knew the Fall would happen and set the universe up so that the Fallen could be Redeemed. Nothing unusual about *that*. But it doesn't mean that God _wanted_ the Fall to happen. God may know what will happen if he creates Adam & Lilith & Eve, and what will happen if he just creates Adam & Eve to begin with, and what will happen if he exiles Adam from Eden for demanding such of Lilith and created Adam & Paul & Lilith, et cetera. But ultimately God has to choose one of the above; he can't create Lilith and have her submit to Adam's demands while still giving her free will. I don't find it much of a stretch that God stacked the deck by prepping Lilith to be a long-term influence once she left Eden. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:42:39 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> IN: The Musical (Was: Survey: Defection Tendencies) >Because they're babes, and anyone who looks that cute has to be >redeemable. > >(Para-quoted from Maya's In Nomine Musical, which is a work of >brilliance.) No, this is -not- a casting call. Just commentary. Yeah, read it this morning. -Cute-. But this is not the first time I've seen something like it. I got subjected to a lot of G&S being used for of all things, Amber (The DRPG). Worse still, my character I played at the time got turned into one of the villians-of-the-moment. *grin* Getting back _on-topic_, any hope for a sequel Maya? *evil grin* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:49:16 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy-ish) >Actually, the Dissonance would have gone away with Ramesh's second post on the >subject, where he said that it was intended as sarcasm. Not necessarely. >But since then two Balseraphs ^^^^^^^^^^ Malakite. Of Fate. Did I mention I'm Word-bound and a Marquis? >and a Djinn (Princess, mind you, but her word *is* Nitpicking) >have been using it as a chew toy. (Of course, my playing with him is to accept his Greatest Delusion and face the fact that he should serve Hell.) > Mark (Cherub of Destiny) Nice Doggy. . . Here, have a chew toy. . . Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Technomancer, Six of Nine. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:43:47 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth At 6:22 PM -0500 3/16/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >I have to do this: > >Actually, the Dissonance would have gone away with Ramesh's second post on the >subject, where he said that it was intended as sarcasm. But since then two >Balseraphs and a Djinn (Princess, mind you, but her word *is* Nitpicking) have >been using it as a chew toy. > Well, yeah -- they *want* him to fall. It's the nature of it.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a 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.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:53:10 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? >That God... he's *wacky!* > >But come on. This is just paranoid. Setting up a doomed experiment >entirely so he could give a Third Party a Word *previous* to the Fall and >the Rebellion. Why, the very idea is ridiculous. It implies that Baal was >actually working on *God's* authority when he interfered with the >Experiment, and that long conversation of Lucifer and God is when Lucifer >was brainwashed into rebelling and leading others to fall with him so >that.... > > > >Man, the X-Files has *nothing* on this.... Yves, isn't he holding a cigarette as part of the picture of him in the Main Book? Makes you wonder, doesn't it. . . *evil grin* Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:05:27 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 9:47 -0500 3/16/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Which implies that she's really playing both sides against the middle. >Maybe she wants more Brights in Heaven. Maybe she wants to become a true >middle power, beholden to neither. In a very non-canon future (non-canon even for our own campaign, though it may happen...), this happens, but it's not something she actually wanted. Instead, it's an outcome of the "Third Avatar" plot I mentioned before, with some careful manipulation by Jean behind the scenes. I can't talk too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:11:41 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 9:50 -0500 3/16/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>In my game, Lucifer *didn't* give her her Word. She *started* with it. >>People (including Lilith, and maybe Lucifer) only *think* he gave it to >>her. Actually, she was created with it, and the whole Eden experiment was >>a sham for some deep, long-term plot of God's, related to Lilith. (See the >>"Third Avatar" plot in the IN archives.) > >That God... he's *wacky!* > >But come on. This is just paranoid. Setting up a doomed experiment >entirely so he could give a Third Party a Word *previous* to the Fall and >the Rebellion. Why, the very idea is ridiculous. It implies that Baal was >actually working on *God's* authority when he interfered with the >Experiment, and that long conversation of Lucifer and God is when Lucifer >was brainwashed into rebelling and leading others to fall with him so >that.... > > Well, the scheme isn't quite as illuminated as all that, but wrapped up in my view of how temporal omniscience (or at least reasonably-accurate foreknowledge) works in IN. From that viewpoint, God knew the Fall would happen (and maybe needed to, maybe not, or maybe it just couldn't be prevented without messing up the Design), so was setting up a wildcard piece that could maybe fix the problem, without violating His own rules. The Grigori may be another part of the scheme. And they say Elohim are manipulative.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:24:25 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Eeyore wrote: > No she isn't. The Seventh Trumpet sounds after the champions have > fought. The Fifth Trumpet sounds after the vote in question is taken. > And she only voted to let Armageddon happen; she never voted on the > question of whether she'd fight Heaven's champion. She may or may not > have known she was Hell's champion at the time. Or perhaps she did > know, and had political reasons for voting as she did while knowing > that she wouldn't carry out the last element. Or she knew, but needed > to vote in order to be able to cut a beneficial deal with Marc to > avoid Armageddon. Or she simply exercised her reserved prerogative to > Change Her Mind (I believe that's one of Freedom's servitor > attunements). And it'll cost you to get her to tell you which of > these motivations it was. I suspect it went something like this: First vote is taken. All the DPs but Lilith and Andrealphus are in favor of Armageddon. Baal takes Belial aside and has a short chat with him, exchanges a single sentence with Saminga, and then has a longer chat with Asmodeus. Asmodeus announces that two more votes will be taken, allowing an hour in between each vote for the Princes to discuss the matter. Baal states that the third vote *will* be unanimous. One way or another. Saminga and Belial grin. Second vote is unanimous in favor of Armageddon. Lilith and Andrealphus add entries to their grudge ledgers. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:25:56 GMT From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> IN: The Musical (Was: Survey: Defection Tendencies) >>(Para-quoted from Maya's In Nomine Musical, which is a work of >>brilliance.) > > No, this is -not- a casting call. Just commentary. > Yeah, read it this morning. -Cute-. > But this is not the first time I've seen something like it. I got >subjected to a lot of G&S being used for of all things, Amber (The DRPG). >Worse still, my character I played at the time got turned into one of the >villians-of-the-moment. *grin* > Getting back _on-topic_, any hope for a sequel Maya? *evil grin* While I'm flattered, I'm afraid I don't have any current ideas for a sequel. My apologies. I also have a certain Malakite of War complaining that I haven't finished a story about him, a Mercurian of Flowers, and vampires in Victorian London. Down, boy. You'll get your turn. Ack. Creation is a cruel master! - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:31:59 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 22:41 +0300 3/16/99, Tick Tock wrote: >>Another possibility is that he did manage to give her a Word, but something >>about the process worried him -- e.g., he discovered something *really >>dangerous* about giving Words to humans. And for some reason, he didn't >>immediately destroy her. > >Sounds good, but it doesn't offer an underlying logic to explain canon stating >that humans cannot have words. Although it might offer a reason why humans >should not *have* words. "Cannot" may be the wrong term (except for PCs), "don't" might be a better choice. >>The Seraphim Council, conservative body that it is, has never tried. > >You would think that somewhere along the line one of the Bodhisatva or Saints >would have been nominated by a Superiors not afraid of rocking the celestial >boat. Michael nominating a penultimate warrior or Eli an insightful jazzman. >The council would be aghast at the innovation but would have to discuss the >matter. Actually it sounds like something Janus would propose. But I can't see them ever trying -- what would they gain from it? And would God approve this sort of tampering with a human? (Lucifer, of course, wouldn't care at all about that.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:31:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim questions At 5:53 PM -0500 3/16/99, Sheep Boy wrote: >A bound Lilim starts with that superior's Lilim Band Attunement, and >that superior's rites and dissonance condition. In addition, unless >forbidden by that superior, the Lilim can also choose to accept >Lilith's own rites and dissonance condition. Correct. Few Princes allow their Lilim to take Lilith's Rites/Dissonance package; the GM should be vicious and cruel. O;> >A free Lilim starts with no attunements, Lilith's rites and dissonance >condition, and nine "favors" to Lilith herself, each the equivalent to >a Geas/3, which Lilith herself may trade to others, for whatever >reason. A Free Lilim *MAY* start with Lilith's Rites and dissonance conditions, but she does not have to. Other than that, yes. >Okay, my question becomes: Can a free Lilim acquire attunements at >character creation? If so, how and at what cost? The GM accepts the player's story for how she did this, and the Lilim pays the required character points. She can only get Band Attunements for Lilim and Servitor Attunements (and not Asmodeus' -- that's only for *his* Lilim/Servitors, I believe the main book says). If the GM doesn't buy the story, then the GM says, "Nyet." Lilim Band Attunements are 5 points, Servitor Attunements are 10 points. The GM may also rule that the Lilim has to pay in Geases. (Either that, or such Geases should be in the back story.) The rough equivalents are a Geas/5 for 5 character points and a Geas/6 for 10. (Geas/4 is 3 cp, Geas/3 is 1 cp.) [These are from FotM, p. 30.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:33:49 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A little nitpicking (Re: Survey: Defection Tendencies) At 1:56 AM +0300 3/17/99, Tick Tock wrote: >Question, please? Although I made the original comment with a smile I hadn't >expected to be told that it was impossible or even implausible. As a number of >people pointed out, a redeemed Calabim will become an Ofanim. I accept this as >irrefutable. Yet, (based on examples such as David) cannot a pre-existing >arch-type be re-made into a Malakim? Not since the Fall, when Malakim were *created*. (I mean, if you're the GM, you could make it happen. But it would basically be a divine intervention and should be part of the theme of a mythic campaign -- it doesn't Just Happen. It has to *MEAN* something. It's not a throwaway miracle, it's a focus of the campaign and the character's evolution.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:42:46 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) At 7:05 PM -0500 3/16/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 9:47 -0500 3/16/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>Which implies that she's really playing both sides against the middle. >>Maybe she wants more Brights in Heaven. Maybe she wants to become a true >>middle power, beholden to neither. > >In a very non-canon future (non-canon even for our own campaign, though it >may happen...), this happens, but it's not something she actually wanted. >Instead, it's an outcome of the "Third Avatar" plot I mentioned before, >with some careful manipulation by Jean behind the scenes. Jean is a ruthless, manipulative little space alien, and she's only going along with this because she'd be axed if she stayed in Hell and she has to play nice to keep her Archangel allies happy. (Dammit.) Which keeps the psychoanalyst Elohite on his toes, which provides some amusement, which keeps her from using the lesser angels as toys when she gets bored. Survival sometimes requires ... annoying compromises. But not compromising means being hunted down and destroyed, or worse, enslaved somewhere. No way. (She's flay that Elohite if he weren't vital to her survival, some days. And if he weren't busy giving her a backrub.) >I can't talk too much about it, since it also involves some plot >elements from the next Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. You just can't talk about *them*. [Did I mention my LE hat is quite firmly off right now? I'm just sitting on it.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:48:23 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Jean is a ruthless, manipulative little space alien, and she's only > going along with this because she'd be axed if she stayed in Hell > and she has to play nice to keep her Archangel allies happy. (Dammit.) *This* I want to hear more about. Even if it requires another set of Cycle books. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:10:01 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) At 18:48 -0600 3/16/99, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >> Jean is a ruthless, manipulative little space alien, and she's only >> going along with this because she'd be axed if she stayed in Hell >> and she has to play nice to keep her Archangel allies happy. (Dammit.) > > *This* I want to hear more about. Even if it requires another >set of Cycle books. It's not even on the horizon for canon -- just something for our own amusement. It started from a hint in the main book that Jean is somehow soft on Lilith, combined with various speculations trying to explain certain bits of canon, including the "Word-bound human" issue that just came up, along with the fact that the stated goals of the Eden experiment made *absolutely* no sense, given the way the actual experiment was performed. (A sample group of two? Riiight....) Out of that grew what we tend to refer to as the "Superior soap opera", which is loosely related to our own campaign. But it really started as one-on-one roleplaying between Elizabeth and myself of some Superior reactions to a hasn't-happened-yet event in our campaign, but one I've planned on (maybe) to happen sometime appropriate -- the spontaneous redemption of a Free Lilim. Things sort of got carried away from there.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:21:25 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Book of Locations Up For Playtest Um. I don't need to say more about this, do I? It has its message board up now. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:35:55 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Seraph and Truth > But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to > Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing > small babies?" Nitpick: Despite the inclusion of a question mark, this is actually a statement.<<< No, its not. It's syntactic structure is that of a statement, but meaning is not derived from syntax alone. Some languages explicitly mark questions in speech with a question-marker (such as the Japanese suffix "ka?" or the Arabic prefix "Hal"), but English uses inflection, and inflection is as important in determining semantic meaning as other speech elements -- in tonal languages (like Chinese), inflection actually comprises part of the the lexical meaning of words. So adding the question mark (the written representation of an interrogative inflection) MAKES the statement a question. Other examples: "Yeah?" "Got a problem with that?" "You want to eat something?" "I said that?" - -David (linguistics major -- You want to argue the point?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:36:01 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Celestial disguise >>>The Song of Concealment can let a Celestial disguise their Celestial Form, however it can be detected using the Seraphim Res. and something else which I shouldn't really say because it could be a spoiler. So the Balserpah could disguise themselves, but I don't think they would make it past the Seraphim Council.<<< Not a chance. You're facing the entire Seraphim Council, including Archangels. And that Song only lasts for a few minutes... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:46:51 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>So Lucifer gives Lilith her Word as a fail-safe, hence the alternate FT ending >>where Lilith and Marc go off and have dinner instead of duking it out like the >>two champions are supposed to. Lucifer can count on her, far more than any of >>the truly demonic Demon Princes, to stop Armageddon in its tracks. Or, >>depending >>on how you look at the necessity of human intervention to produce the final >>battle, if Lilith steps to the plate, then Armageddon is on. But none of the >>others can actually make that choice. > >The problem is, the "Final Trumpet" of the adventure's name is sounded only >after all the Demon Princes agree to the course of action. By that >rationale, Lilith is Committed. Or some warmongering (or any commitied) DP Calls a Geas in. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:03:34 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) EDG wrote on 16 March 1999 >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> But a rhetorical question *is* a statement. If you're talking about real >> questions though I'd have to agree with you though. > >It's not, though! A rhetorical question is one where you think you know >the answer already. :) Okay possibly sometimes but often rhetorical question are statements: "Is the Pope Catholic?" >> >And the one form of out and out lying that Seraphim *can* use is the >> >expression of truth in such a way that no one believes them. >> >> Wait did anyone actually believe me when I said "not that servitors of the >> Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness"? That >> was so obviously false it *had* to be scarcasm. > >Not the same thing as Whistling described - what you were doing was >expressing _untruth_ in such a way that no one believed you. ;) And to >someone who had no idea of the system, it would _not_ have been >obviously false. Given the phrase stated just before it and the phrasing of the sarcastic phrase it should have been obvious, and to be honest I would be very surprised if most people on this list do not appreciate the fact that Windies are creatures of entropy, motion and are associated with (T)theft, so the idea that someone wouldn't realise the statement was sarcasm is a little far-fetched in (my mind, but maybe I assume too much). Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:44:51 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Kevin Walsh wrote on 16 March 1999 >On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 09:47:01AM -0500, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >(Eli and Novalis and Janus being such tyrants.) Yeah, I mean 2 points of dissonance, 2 measly points of dissonance, like "chill man". :-) >> >The Seraphim Council, conservative body that it is, has never tried. >> >> And would consider the possibility Heresy. > >They might simply consider it impractical. After all, most Saints don't >make a second return trip. Loads of Wordbounds do stay in heaven politicing though and I have got the impression (I think it was the APG in the discussion about the perfectability of humanity which gave me that impression but I can't find APG at the mo' [probably been nicked by a player]) that Saints do get involved in politics (as far as they can). Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:00:40 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 16 March 1999 >At 4:18 AM +0000 3/16/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> How many Seraphs have fallen due to the Word of Nitpicking? > >Many, because the essence of a Seraph is Truth, and the further they >slip from that, into idiom or slang, the more likely they are to >discover they have carelessly said something that is not -- but should >be . . . Okay, this is the main point of contention as I see it: Many people here seem to be under the belief that all language follow certain rules (of grammar and the like) perfectly 100% of the time. I would agree this is true for languages like computer languages, propositional calculus or even possibly the Celestial Tongue (at least the Heavenly tongue) but the difference in my opinion is that those languages were designed. However in my completely arrogent opinion no-one sat down and created English, it evolved. (IRL in IN there may be ways to stop this I don't know) Due to the fact that each person percieves a different (possibly slightly or possibly not so I have no way to check) reality due to the fact that each persons body is slightly different and due to their own preconceptions and beliefs, each person speaks a slightly different language (when you think of the word which represent something that has had a massive impact on your life what you imagine will be different to the image had that thing not had the impact on your life). And from the amalgum of similarities between the languages people speak in one area (or group) a joint language is born - this could be English, French, German but also this language could be the language of say English with slight modifications to include certain jargon based around a certain subject (Physists and not Physists *really* do speak different languages) or shared experiences (for example do you have a word which means something radically different within a group friends you have because you all shared an experience which shaped how you all view that word). These joint languages may appear to follow rules but they don't, they really only follow the rules to the degree that each and every speaker of that language follows the rules. Moreover these laws are observational rules like Newton's Laws of Physics and as such they are guidelines (in fact I would say they are more guidelines than Laws than Newtons Laws of Physics are, but again that's opinion), in other words if there really were Laws of Grammar (which I don't believe there are, but then again I'm not sure there are Laws of Physics but I digress) the Laws that we have come up with may not be the correct ones (in the sameway that in some areas of Science we have figured out general outlines but haven't figured out all the detail). If I understand the Seraph dissonance condition correctly then they gain dissonance when they lie. To me lying and stating a false statement are quite different. To say a false statement one makes a description of reality which does not match the actual nature of reality (i.e. one say it is raining outside when it isn't). To lie one describes a view of reality which does not fit your view of reality - but may or may not fit with the actual nature of reality (i.e. you believe it is raining and you state "it is dry outside", whether it is raining or not is irrelevant). Moreover the understanding other people have of the statement is irrelevant, all that is relevant is that the speaker did not believe the statement to be true. Therefore when one uses sarcasm to for instance say "not that servitors of the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness", what the speaker believes they are saying is "and it is well known that servitors of the Wind steal and break the Law" which matches their belief of the nature of reality. I hope that made sense. Beth also wrote: >Face it, you're going to have to get your brain scrubbed by Janus. >Denying the inevitable will only get you more dissonance. };> Ahh but If I argue for long enough people may think my lack of dissonance is due to a state of the universe not knowing (because there is no GM) whether I should have dissonance of not rather than some *other* explanation. :-) >>Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind >>"No, really! Would I lie to you?" > >Obviously... > "No, Really!" Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:19:29 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim questions Sheep Boy wrote on 16 March 1999 >Hello list, Hello "Sheep Boy". >A bound Lilim starts with that superior's Lilim Band Attunement, and >that superior's rites and dissonance condition. In addition, unless >forbidden by that superior, the Lilim can also choose to accept >Lilith's own rites and dissonance condition. Yep >A free Lilim starts with no attunements, Lilith's rites and dissonance >condition, and nine "favors" to Lilith herself, each the equivalent to >a Geas/3, which Lilith herself may trade to others, for whatever >reason. Not quite, they have the choice of accepting the package of Lilith's rites and dissonance condition (It wouldn't be in Lilith's style to force someone to workfor her, and that is effectively what having her conditions means to some degree). >Okay, my question becomes: Can a free Lilim acquire attunements at >character creation? Yep >?If so, how Tell the player it's only possible through huge Gm bribes (at least in your game ) :-) (That isn't a lie before anyone out ther starts, so ner! :-) ). But seriously if you do let them get attunements make sure they have a good story (I worked for the superior for X time or I did such and such), and always reserve the right to use the rule of No, (or at the very least the rule of Not unless I can have some of your chocolate). >and at what cost? 5 cps for Lilim Band attunements and 10cps for servitor attunements (Not forgetting the HUGE GM bribe of course :-) ) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1159 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.