From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 12 23:14:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29935 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:14:25 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id WAA08880 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:53:52 -0600 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:53:52 -0600 Message-Id: <200001130453.WAA08880@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 #1491 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, January 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1491 In this digest: IN> Superiors 1 Question Re: IN> InNomine question Re: IN> Journalist Soldiers RE: IN> Malakim and Redeemed RE: IN> Malakim and Redeemed IN> New Prince & Archangel IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1490 Re: IN> Malakim and Redeemed IN>Spam? (list question) and Opposite numbers IN> The Spammer of God IN> Atheism again IN> Roles vs. Resonances Re: IN> Jean's Dissonance Re: IN> Atheism again Re: IN> The Spammer of God Re: IN> Atheism again Re: IN> Atheism again Re: IN> Arisia in 8 days.... Re: IN> Aetheism again (Call to drop it off list) IN> Re:IN Wild Cards IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN RE: IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN Re: IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN Re: IN> Aetheism again (Call to drop it off list) Re: IN> A question for you Re: IN> InNomine question Re: IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again Re: IN> A question for you RE: IN> Atheism again Re: IN> InNomine question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:17:44 GMT From: "Krowe _" Subject: IN> Superiors 1 Question I was reading through Superiors 1 in more detail yesterday and came across a small bug. In _Night Music_ , Laurence has an Attunement called Divine Silence. This Attunement is not printed in S1, but one called Divine Absolution is. Both are fairly similar in effect and I was wondering the new Attunement is a re-write of the first. Other than that, S1 has been a wonderful addition to IN collection. I was dissappointed with the LS (I expected a book of Servants, not a book of NPC's) and _You Are Here_ (Should have kept the Liber name going, the Book of Locations should not have such a dumb title). In addition, both books break from the cover style that the other Libers had established. The GMG was like mouthwash, it took the bad taste of those two out of my mouth but left me with that odd, minty fresh feeling. It was a convenient but not really nescessary addition to the collection. Keeping this strange (and totally unintentional) oral hygiene analogy going, Superiors 1 was like the cream filled chocolate donut with sprinkles that you eat right after brushing your teeth in the morning. It's been quite pleasurable to read, added immensly to my views of the Superiors contain within, and I've yet to find a single part of the book that I'd like to tear out. I hope the trend continues. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:35:22 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question David Rodemaker wrote: > >John wrote: > > > > Actually, what may be thought of as a flaw I rather like. > > A Role/6 should be an _impressive_ thing and it makes them more > > valuable (especially with all those darn Mercurians wandering > > around). > > > Sorry to quote so much of this... > > Are we talking a contested roll here or merely a "CD exceeds..."? > > If contested what would the stat be? Role + Wil? Role + Corporeal Forces? I > hate the thought of adding more dice rolls to the game. Beside's, if you > ahve to start rolling dice that would be the first clue that something is > up. Perhaps we could go for a "CD meets or exceeds the level of the Role..." > Still nice and powerful for the Role but without making a Role/6 darn near > the equiv. of the semi-dreaded Humanity attunment. "CD exceeds" And because this would only really affect the Mercurian resonance, there's no way it's anywhere near as powerful as Humanity. Anyway, a really suspicious Mercurian can get bonuses to their CD by using the expanded resonance stuff in APG, I believe. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:39:19 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Journalist Soldiers At 4:22 AM -0800 1/12/00, Bruce Dykes wrote: > >I've got the core supporting cast close to done. >They'll be directly working for a Mercurian of the >Sword, and he may or may not have a creationer or >Jeanite buddy to provide some potentially necessary >toys, such as film that would capture a a celestial's >celestial even if the picture is taken on the >corporeal plane. > >Litheroy doesn't know about this, and wouldn't be >pleased if he did. So long as it's not Angels of Revelations taking the picture (doing the crime, as it were), Litheroy's going to be pleased instead of not. Litheroy (barely) obeys the restrictions that prevent Celestial Evidence from being proven to humanity, but if he had his druthers he'd be standing on a box in Times Square with Numinous Corpus wings flapping, shouting out the truth at the top of his lungs. If an angel uses a device from Jean (*Jean* of all people) to capture proof of Celestial existence, Litheroy would simply smile and enjoy. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalah of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:59:36 -0600 From: "Trent" Subject: RE: IN> Malakim and Redeemed "I would practically guarantee the "most honorable thing" the newly redeemed Angel has done in *whatever* increment of time the CD comes up with will be "Redeemed and rejoined the service of Heaven." This would be such a blindingly honorable (not good, by the way -- honorable) thing that it would eclipse all the other things." Eh. I'm not so sure what if in redeeming he has betrayed his demonic friends? Would that be considered honorable? I don't think so. I should be IMHO a case by case evaluation. Trent Ofanite of Doubt All generalizations are false. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:21:00 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: RE: IN> Malakim and Redeemed At 9:59 AM -0600 1/12/00, Trent wrote: >"I would practically guarantee the "most honorable thing" the newly >redeemed Angel has done in *whatever* increment of time the CD comes >up with will be "Redeemed and rejoined the service of Heaven." This >would be such a blindingly honorable (not good, by the way -- >honorable) thing that it would eclipse all the other things." > >Eh. I'm not so sure what if in redeeming he has betrayed his demonic >friends? Would that be considered honorable? I don't think so. I should be >IMHO a case by case evaluation. A Malakite's resonance detects what is honorable by the *target's* values. I would expect that any Freshly Redeemed Angel would find his Redemption, reembracing of Heaven, reacceptance of the Symphony and movement into essential selflessness as the pinnacle of his new, angelic value system. The betrayal of his demonic friends *probably* wouldn't feel like such, but even if it did that would register as what the Angel believed was his most *dishonorable* recent act, not affect the essentially honorable act of taking his existence and putting it on the line to serve Heaven. So the Malakite would see the Redemption as "strongest most recent honorable act." After all, the one thing the new Angel *knows* is that it was right to redeem. However, he might see "leaving my Demonic friends in the lurch and betraying them" as the most dishonorable recent act. Which itself would twig the Angelic nature of the redeemed Celestial. In other words, I think it *massively* unlikely a newly redeemed angel would be feeling guilty for leaving Hell behind -- and would be more likely to want to bring his old demonic friends into the fold than bemoaning betrayals of them. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalah of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:38:41 PST From: "Erich Arendall" Subject: IN> New Prince & Archangel Okay, they're finally in HTML format and uploaded. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks! ...Especially if the comments are positive! :) Rampel, Prince of the Seas http://www.insync.net/~sprite/rampel.html Tamiel, Archangel of the Deep http://www.insync.net/~sprite/tamiel.html - -Erich S. Arendall "Shadow Sprite" Impudite of Critical Failures at the Worst Possible Time for Players and the Best Time for GMs, servitor of Kronos http://rpg.net/news+reviews/sprite.html - ---------------------------- Gaming Quote of the Time Period: One character talking to another:"Have you ever noticed how the universe seems to form around us? I mean, I pick up a rock that wasn't there until I thought about it, and I throw it and everything seems to take focus around it as I focus on the rock, until it hits that...." GM: "Car" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:14:11 -0500 (EST) From: "J. Michael Smith" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1490 >Bad. Read the book, read the FAQ (available off the resources link of >www.sjgames.com/in-nomine), _then_ ask the questions. Otherwise, Bad >Things will happen to you. No, you don't want to know what. Oh, I've read the book. That doesn't mean I remember every single nitpicking rule in it though, and I did check the obvious pages for rulings on the subject. But then again, those kinds of rulings aren't always on the obvious pages. >The ones the GM decides upon. > Sheesh. I was just looking for a second opinion. >> I understand that he's a seraphim, > >A _Seraph_. Note the singular. (Yes, this is a pet peeve of the Line >Editor...) Seraph is singular, Seraphim is plural, and it's always >capitalized. Oh, shut up. My seraphim's big brother can beat up your Seraph's big brother. >Go check out one version at the INC's Dark Victory, located somewhere >on the INC. www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles . Read it. As I said, I was looking for a variety of opinions on the subject. >> Would he even BE a demon prince? > >Buy and read the GMG (Game Master's Guide) for more discussion on what >happens if Superiors Fall/redeem. (cries) I'm a college student. I'm too poor for that. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:25:17 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and Redeemed From: "Trent" > > Eh. I'm not so sure what if in redeeming he has betrayed his demonic > friends? For the same reason that a Malakite would consider any promise made to a demon to be non-binding, betrayal of demons shouldn't bother them very much, if at all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:12:24 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN>Spam? (list question) and Opposite numbers >>>(Yeah, if I _can't_ get this "Perfectly simple if you have access to the majordomo machine" fix, I'm going to have to do the restriction thing. And I now predict several unhappy, "Oh don't do that!" messages in my personal email box. O:p )<<< So what? (You don't know how close I came to adding a copulatory adverbial gerund to the preceding.) Why are you worrying about the whining of a small handful of people who demand that an entire mailing list be given special settings to cater to their idiosyncracies, when there are any number of cheap and easy measures they could take which *might* inconvenience them by a minimal amount, instead of their demanding that the entire list be inconvenienced by needless spam for their sake? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:39:28 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Spammer of God I'm gonna try to stay Elohite of Not Suffering Fools here, but you're really, really begging for the Habbalite of Sarcasm. >>>It is my opinion that David was just fortifying his position so that he could feel comfortable.<<< Oh, please. (Please, please, please....can you see my eyes rolling, here?) I was not attacking this "Soldier of God's" intelligence because he believes in Jesus and thinks God talks to him. I was attacking his intelligence because his spam was silly, babbling drivel, not any kind of coherent expression of spirituality, sent inappropriately, and apparently directed at someone who hadn't even solicited it in any way, shape, or form. Which is a stupid thing to do. I know plenty of Christians who have intelligent views -- which I do not agree with, but which I do not regard as indicative of stupidity or mindlessness. All of them would agree with me that Clueless Jesus-Boy was at best so giddy on his spiritual high that it eclipsed his judgment, and at worst a moron. >>>When I did not see proof of God, I found some comfort in attacking the intellect of zealous Christians. As an agnostic, I referred to Christians as "mindless sheep" or "robots". It certainly made me feel more "fortified" in my position. Perhaps David was doing the same thing.<<< No. Obviously, you were insecure and defensive when you were an agnostic, just as you're insecure and defensive now as a Christian. I'm not. I don't attack anyone's intellect for being a zealous anything (except zealous idiots). I attack their intellects for doing stupid things, which may or may not have been prompted by their zealousness. >>>Actually, one of the ironies of this whole discussion is that if the "Spammer of God" were a Servitor of Laurence in an In Nomine campaign, he would have received experience points for playing his role well.<<< No, he'd have received a reprimand from his superior for being an idiot. >>>Zealous Christians do not care about derision, they care about souls.<<< *Intelligent* Christians (a state which is neither exclusive of nor synonymous with zeal) know that there are ways to go about proselytizing that don't involve antagonizing their prospective converts, and that antagonizing people is highly unlikely to "win souls," and much more likely to drive them away. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:47:06 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheism again >>>Ahh.... my mistake, then. I would have sworn that a few weeks ago you had described yourself as a "weak atheist"<<< Correct. >>>and that you defined weak atheism as not knowing enough information about the existence of God to take a firm stance on the matter.<<< Incorrect. A weak atheist believes firmly that there is no god, but admits that he does so based on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, rather than proof. (In other words, he admits that his disbelief is an opinion, not a fact, as are most things that people believe.) A strong atheist believes that there is sufficient evidence to consider the nonexistence of god effectively proven. >>>Your definition of a "weak atheist" is what I would call an agnostic... or a fence-rider.<<< Your definition is wrong. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:55:04 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Roles vs. Resonances >>>I agree with this. The "contest" idea is kludgey and would alert the player that something's wrong. On the other hand, a Role/6 shouldn't be impregnable. The "meets or exceeds" rule would be, IMO, the optimal combination of appropriateness, simplicity, and effectiveness.<<< I agree that a Contest is kludgy and adds more unnecessary rolls. I disagree that it should be "meets or exceeds" -- I think we should leave it at John's idea (which I think actually originated with me, who presented it when this issue came up in our campaign, and this is the house rule my GM settled on ;): the angel's CD must beat the Role level or the information gained pertains to the Role. Keep in mind, this _won't_ make Role/6s impregnable. An angel can beat a CD of 6 (by touching the subject when applying his resonance, for example). And even if he does only get Role information, sometimes that information will still be pretty damning if the celestial hangs out mostly with other celestials in his Role... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:41:52 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Jean's Dissonance At 10:19 -0500 1/11/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >In our games... (We have several Jeanites.) > >For the most part, it means that the Servitors of Jean don't get to >play with the Ultratech catalog. They usually have the best, cutting- >edge _mundane_ tech that they can afford -- but they don't have the >best that the Halls of Progress can deliver. As the GM in question here, I'll clarify a little on how I'm handling Jean. It's *possible* for PCs to request mundane "ultra-tech" items from the Halls of Progress. Such requests would require Jean's personal approval, and would have to be for a very specific purpose. I also interpret these conditions as applying to all gadget-based celestial abilities, most specifically relics, but also anything with abnormal "supernatural" features like Summonable. As a rule, loss of a relic to human hands will cause dissonance, *especially* if the humans in question have seen it used. (Just showing off celestial gadgets in front of humans is likely to get a sharp note from the Boss -- besides being against the Seraphim Council's general policy, it may give the little monkeys ideas they shouldn't have. It's not *usually* going to cause dissonance, though.) The net effect of this is that Lightning Servitors should be very careful with any celestial artifact, even if it's not theirs. They may get assigned to "cleanup squad" duties if humans collect celestial artifacts from any source; they'll get dissonant if *they're* the source. Basically, Jean doesn't want humans playing with celestial toys, unless they're already in the know (and presumably playing by the rules, keeping such items strictly "in the family"). As an even broader interpretation of this, I would generally expect Jeanites to *lack* celestial artifacts, except maybe one-shot items issued for a specific mission (such as Song Grenades). Jean would much rather give a person a new Song than bind it into an item that might wind up in the wrong hands. (This is somewhat at odds with the notion that Lightning currently has most of the celestial artificers in Heaven -- maybe that's so they can keep better track of what's being sent downside....) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:53:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Atheism again For what it's worth, here are the different grades of unbelief as I understand them: Strong atheist: I have proof that there is no God. Weak atheist: The reasonable conclusion on the evidence is that there is no God, but I do not have an ironclad proof. Strong agnostic: It is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Weak agnostic: I do not have sufficient evidence to decide whether or not there is a God. No doubt, more delicate shades could be found between those positions. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:02:50 -0500 (EST) From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> The Spammer of God [snip David's post about intelligence and Christianity] I'm irresistibly reminded of the (probably apocryphal) anecdote about physicist Werner Heisenberg. WH was a determined atheist for most of his life; he believed that Christianity was for (IIRC) "sheep and fools and stupid people". However, late in life, as his health began to fail, he started to get a little wobbly on the topic. Furthermore, his family, good Catholics all, began applying gentle but persistent pressure on him to convert (or recant, or whatever you call it when an apostate comes back to the fold). Finally, on his deathbed, Heisenberg threw up his hands. "I still think it's stupid," he snarled, "but -- just to make you happy -- I'll let you call a priest, and I'll take the last rites." But as his happy children were rushing out the door to summon the cleric, Heisenberg raised one trambling hand and called after them. "Wait!" he said. "Make sure... make sure it's a *smart* priest!" Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:29:55 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Atheism again At 2:47 PM -0800 1/12/00, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Ahh.... my mistake, then. I would have sworn that a few weeks >ago you had described yourself as a "weak atheist"<<< > >Correct. > > >>>and that you defined weak atheism as not knowing enough >information about the existence of God to take a firm stance on the >matter.<<< > >Incorrect. David's definitions of Weak and Strong Atheism are in the Game Master's Guide, and are consistant with the definition he just gave. So he's been on the record about this for a while. > >>>Your definition of a "weak atheist" is what I would call an >agnostic... or a fence-rider.<<< > >Your definition is wrong. Quite. I'm an Agnostic, which isn't riding the fence in the least. My philosophy is that we don't know what or who is out there, and that we can't know. My firm belief (and it is both firm and a belief, not a statement of fact or a hand-wave) is no one has gotten it right, and cannot get it right until they're looking at it from the outside. It is not a disbelief in the supernatural, nor is it disbelief in God. It is a Belief that we as human beings cannot rationalize God's existance (or nonexistence) or nature with the tools we've been provided. - -- 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: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:50:08 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Atheism again At 3:53 PM -0500 1/12/00, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >For what it's worth, here are the different grades of unbelief >as I understand them: > >Strong atheist: I have proof that there is no God. > >Weak atheist: The reasonable conclusion on the evidence is that >there is no God, but I do not have an ironclad proof. > >Strong agnostic: It is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. > >Weak agnostic: I do not have sufficient evidence to decide >whether or not there is a God. Strong Tea: I have a need for a rarified experience that will invigorate my senses and awaken my soul to higher things. Weak Tea: I have proof that there is no God. - -- 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: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:57:58 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Arisia in 8 days.... At 10:05 -0500 1/7/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 10:23 PM -0500 1/6/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>So, Arisia's coming up fast. Anyone from the list going to be at >>Boston's premiere SF Con? > >I and Walter are, and, therefore, the Little Impudite. Don't know how busy >we'll be yet, but we should be on some panels... I just got my panel schedule, for those who might want to catch up with me sometime at the con (Elizabeth will have to post her own): Friday, 7pm: Mortals!? You Mean We're Mortals? Saturday, 11am: We Had Just Slain The Dragon When... Saturday, 2pm: Steve Jackson Games Roundtable Saturday, 6pm: GM Plot Exchange Hopefully, we'll have some interesting news tidbits at the SJGames Roundtable, including one or two "not yet for official publication" items. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:01:11 -0800 (PST) From: David Barr Subject: Re: IN> Aetheism again (Call to drop it off list) - --- Earl Wajenberg wrote: > For what it's worth, here are the different grades of unbelief > as I understand them: Irony checkk; upon seeing that this thread was not yet dead (again) my immediate reaction was "Oh, for Gods sake." I am suffering from a mild cognative dissonance at that one. And my beleifs on the subject of the existance of God are A) None of your business, and, more importantly B) NOT what this list is about. okay, to avoid getting Hypocrisy Dissonance; In IN, it is taken for granted (or at least, taken for Cannon) that the Aetheists are wrong. There is a God, et al. What happens to aetheists who are confronted with proof? do they suddenly get religon? rationlize away the experience? or take up arms in the war? and if that last one, Which side? I had a friend who was (in real life) an enthusiastic and evanglical aetheist (he actively and seriously tried to win converts to his particular dogma. Yes, it was as annoying as any other dogmatic evangilist (to me, anyway)); when asked, what he would do if confronted by God, he said "kill him." okay, so he had issues far beyond those of most aetheists (and most people in general, but nevermind that). Given someone like that, you could have an adventure where the angels assigned to keep this guy from learning of the existence of God et al; doing so is the key to his Fate. oh yeah,. additionaal ironic peice, the real life persons name is Kahle. A variant of Khalid. go fig. - -Daiv ===== reply to my home address -> daiv@cruzio.com haiku prophecy see seventeen syllables into the future - -Daiv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:44:27 -0600 From: Ryan Subject: IN> Re:IN Wild Cards >Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:25:16 -0000 >From: "Liam Astley" >Subject: Re: IN> IN Wild Cards > >From: Ryan >> Dominic would Outcast any angels >> who HAVE been infected > >why? all it would do would mutate the celestials' vessels. if it gives them >some funky powers, cool. otherwise, you trash the vessel and give them a new >one. i can't see celestials being prejudiced against people because they >look weird, otherwise kyriotates would have drummed out of heaven by now I was thinking of it not being limited to the vessel, but to the celestial itself. Don't forget that the virus kills 90% of the people it manifests in. What this would do to souls in heaven or hell, i don't know, but i can see it killing off a lot of a Superiors Servitors rather quickly. Grim88 rbeall@fdldotnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:21:56 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN > Quite. I'm an Agnostic, which isn't riding the fence in the least. > My philosophy is that we don't know what or who is out there, and > that we can't know. My firm belief (and it is both firm and a > belief, not a statement of fact or a hand-wave) is no one has gotten > it right, and cannot get it right until they're looking at it from > the outside. It is not a disbelief in the supernatural, nor is it > disbelief in God. It is a Belief that we as human beings cannot > rationalize God's existance (or nonexistence) or nature with the > tools we've been provided. You seem to be a "strong agnostic" (as Whistling defines it). I would have been roughly categorized as a "weak agnostic" (as Whistling defines it). Personally, I dislike restrictive labels because many people have beliefs that can not be pigeonholed. I shall elaborate on what I believed when I was a fence-sitter (to avoid more vocabulary messages). I reasoned that God *probably* existed. I didn't have belief that God existed -- but evidence seemed to point in the direction that some supernatural force that was not governed by our laws of space and time existed in the past, and may still exist. After that, I was in the dark. During this phase of my life (roughly 13 years of my adulthood), I referred to myself a fence-sitter. I didn't mean it as an insult. In my opinion, fence-sitting is the most logical stance that a person without proof can take. I live in the middle of the Bible Belt. This means that I can't throw a rock without hitting a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. One of my friends had a bumper sticker that read: "Dear God, Please save me from your followers." I loved that sticker. My friends find it ironic that I am now a Christian. There... now you have it. The former Greg is defined. I shall not label it any further lest we get more unsolicited vocabulary lessons. Now back to In Nomine: I have been playing IN for a couple of months now, so I am a IN newbie. I really enjoy the main rulebook, Superiors I, and Liber Canticorum... so I ordered a bunch of new books. My shipment of ten or so supplements that I ordered from SJG arrived last week. The first thing that I noticed was that the cover art has lost some quality. It was bad enough that I thought about going to a color copying house and photocopying the burning feather and the APG cover and pasting it over the art on my GM screen. The APG looks good and Superiors I cover is OK... but the rest of the books need some serious work. Although I must admit that art is just eye candy. The true substance is in the text contained within the tome. Which brings me to my next point... as I scan through some of the books I find myself agreeing with the fellow that compared several supplements to "mouthwash" (GMG, etc.). I also agree with his assessment that Superiors I is a good investment. Are there others on this list that feel this way about the art and the content? Which books are the "must haves" out there? Which books are the "mouthwash"? Please help out an In Nomine newbie. Thanks, Greg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:32:26 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: RE: IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN I wrote: > You seem to be a "strong agnostic" (as Whistling defines it). > I would have been roughly categorized as a "weak agnostic" (as Whistling > defines it). *smiles* Correction: It was Earl Wajenberg that defined weak and strong Agnosticism. Whistler defined weak and strong tea in a reply to Earl's message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:34:18 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Greg's fence-sitting defined... now back to IN At 7:21 PM -0600 1/12/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: > > Quite. I'm an Agnostic, which isn't riding the fence in the least. > > My philosophy is that we don't know what or who is out there, and > > that we can't know. My firm belief (and it is both firm and a > > belief, not a statement of fact or a hand-wave) is no one has gotten > > it right, and cannot get it right until they're looking at it from > > the outside. It is not a disbelief in the supernatural, nor is it > > disbelief in God. It is a Belief that we as human beings cannot > > rationalize God's existance (or nonexistence) or nature with the > > tools we've been provided. > >You seem to be a "strong agnostic" (as Whistling defines it). >I would have been roughly categorized as a "weak agnostic" (as Whistling >defines it). Actually, those were Earl's definitions. >Now back to In Nomine: >I have been playing IN for a couple of months now, so I am a IN newbie. I >really enjoy the main rulebook, Superiors I, and Liber Canticorum... so I >ordered a bunch of new books. My shipment of ten or so supplements that I >ordered from SJG arrived last week. The first thing that I noticed was that >the cover art has lost some quality. It was bad enough that I thought about >going to a color copying house and photocopying the burning feather and the >APG cover and pasting it over the art on my GM screen. The APG looks good >and Superiors I cover is OK... but the rest of the books need some serious >work. Actually, Sup1 is one of the newest books, so if you like it better, the art has improved, not declined. >Although I must admit that art is just eye candy. The true substance is in >the text contained within the tome. Which brings me to my next point... as I >scan through some of the books I find myself agreeing with the fellow that >compared several supplements to "mouthwash" (GMG, etc.). I also agree with >his assessment that Superiors I is a good investment. Hurm -- the Game Master's Guide is one of the best, I think. In fact, most of the X Guides are on that list for me. The Infernal Player's Guide and Corporeal Player's Guide fills in much needed information and depth, IMHO. Coupled with that are the Liber Castellorum, Liber Canticorum and Liber Reliquarum, which I think really flesh things out. The Angelic Player's Guide...could be better. A lot better. Of the Revelations Cycle, I've found The Marches and Heaven and Hell as the most useful. As for "Must Haves...." I'd say the Main Book. Period. The rest is cake, baby. - -- 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: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:34:23 EST From: SdshowTim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Aetheism again (Call to drop it off list) In a message dated 1/12/00 6:02:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, daivbear@yahoo.com writes: << In IN, it is taken for granted (or at least, taken for Cannon) that the Aetheists are wrong. There is a God, et al. What happens to aetheists who are confronted with proof? do they suddenly get religon? rationlize away the experience? or take up arms in the war? and if that last one, Which side? I had a friend who was (in real life) an enthusiastic and evanglical aetheist (he actively and seriously tried to win converts to his particular dogma. Yes, it was as annoying as any other dogmatic evangilist (to me, anyway)); when asked, what he would do if confronted by God, he said "kill him." okay, so he had issues far beyond those of most aetheists (and most people in general, but nevermind that). Given someone like that, you could have an adventure where the angels assigned to keep this guy from learning of the existence of God et al; doing so is the key to his Fate. >> Well MOST (not all, and I've met a few of the exceptions so don't yell at me please) atheists disbelieve in the supernatural in all forms. Thus an atheist confronted with proof of the supernatural would all depend, some would write it off as a momentary loss of proper perception others would accept it because they saw it and there was no way that they were seeing things. The second type is the type that would take up arms in the War, and would take sides on the same basis as other humans. The issue of giving them proof about the existance of God is more difficult. Even an angel isn't neccesary proof of God (they may point out that they haven't ever actually talked to God directly). More importantly Lucifer, the second angel claims there is no God per se (otherwise he wouldn't have Rebelled, he may be fwillful but he isn't stupid). The fact there is a War may vindicate a possition describable as atheistic, 'There is no all powerful/sentient God.' As for the rest of your post I have also met atheists who decided they need to spread the word. Though none as insane as your aquantence. I also like the idea of angels having to prevent a mortal from learng about God's existance. Timothy, Angel of Rambling ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:27:58 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> A question for you In message , Whistling in the Dark writes > >Besides, a Balseraph's resonance is designed to mold your worldview >to his. That's not David's MO. No? Who's writing _canon_ these days..? AND he's *convinced* us he's good at it! ;> - -- Julian -- (Who's got *those* books...) ;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:30:43 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question In message , David Rodemaker writes >If contested what would the stat be? Role + Wil? Role + Corporeal Forces? Role + Corp Forces. >I >hate the thought of adding more dice rolls to the game. Beside's, if you >ahve to start rolling dice that would be the first clue that something is >up. I got into the habit of rolling for all my NPCs when a Celestial resonates on them, mundane or otherwise. Keeps them on their toes... (Just like a roll following "I search for traps" used to keep Thieves worried about reaching 2nd level ;) > Perhaps we could go for a "CD meets or exceeds the level of the Role..." >Still nice and powerful for the Role but without making a Role/6 darn near >the equiv. of the semi-dreaded Humanity attunment. > A Role/6 requires much in-game maintenance though, whilst the Humanity attunement doesn't. Apart from that, Role/6 *should* be formidable, IMHO. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:02:54 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again I wish to put forward a motion for David to Now be recognised as a Dual-Superior, you know like Beth, Elohite Archangel Of Not Suffering Fools Easily and Hallabite Demon Prince Of Biting Sarcasm (and possibly of Being Mean), Oh and Ethereal God of Making Me Laugh So Hard My Stomach Hurts. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:58:54 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> A question for you At 3:27 AM +0000 1/13/00, Julian Breen wrote: >In message , Whistling in the Dark writes > > > >Besides, a Balseraph's resonance is designed to mold your worldview > >to his. That's not David's MO. > >No? Who's writing _canon_ these days..? > >AND he's *convinced* us he's good at it! ;> Sarcasm is a major Word. He'd have enough Word Forces to have several attunements. One of them is _Get It?_ That lets you commit words to paper you mean utterly sarcastically, and people Believe It. It ties to his Habbalite Resonance, of course. He inflicts Belief when he uses _Get It?_ I expect that if he becomes Demon Prince of Sarcasm it will turn into his Habbalite Attunement. As for day to day interactions? He's also perfected inflicting Awe. Do not taunt Happy Fun David. - -- 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: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:47:41 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: RE: IN> Atheism again Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >For what it's worth, here are the different grades of unbelief > >as I understand them: > >Weak agnostic: I do not have sufficient evidence to decide > >whether or not there is a God. This is my understanding as well. I was a "weak agnostic" for I did not have sufficient evidence to decide whether or not there is a God and I felt that it was illogical to commit one way or another without proof. Thank you for your post. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:49:11 -0600 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question John wrote: > "CD exceeds" And because this would only really affect > the Mercurian resonance, there's no way it's anywhere near as > powerful as Humanity. Anyway, a really suspicious Mercurian > can get bonuses to their CD by using the expanded resonance > stuff in APG, I believe. You're correct, a Role/6 even with this rule is nowhere as powerful as Humanity. However my impression is that the expanded Res. rules from the APG are considered "broken" and are to be "used at your own risk..." Am I correct in this understanding or have I missed something somewhere? David ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1491 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.