From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 13 19:49:55 2000 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 TAA02547 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:49:54 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id TAA03986 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:46:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:46:00 -0600 Message-Id: <200001140146.TAA03986@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 #1493 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 Thursday, January 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1493 In this digest: Re: IN> InNomine question Re: IN> Aetheism In Character Re: IN> All hail Princess Beth! Re: IN> ...now back to IN Re: IN> Arisia in 1 day.... Re: IN> ...now back to IN IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> Atheists in In Nomine Re: IN> ...now back to IN Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine IN> Dowh! Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine IN> What is God? IN> Other theories Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine Re: IN> Greg's ... ... now back to IN Re: IN> All hail Prince David! Re: IN> Greg's ... ... now back Re: IN> Speculation on the Fall IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1492 Re: IN> Speculation on the Fall Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1492 IN> Pay No Attention to the Archangel Behind the Curtain IN> Re: IN Wild Cards Re: IN> InNomine question IN> My apologies Re: IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again Re: IN> All hail Prince David! IN> APG, 2nd Edition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:52:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question At 5:49 PM -0600 1/12/00, David Rodemaker wrote: [...] >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? You're correct. Very correct. Exceedingly correct. More correct than words can express. (Yes, yes, I'm eating something now. Really. I'll have blood sugar soon.) I haven't reskimmed the Mercurian section there, so all I'm _really_ positive of is that the CD tables need to die. If for no other reason than that they're _CD tables_, and after flipping through the main book several times (and printing out a single-page summary sheet for all the angelic resonance tables), I came to the conclusion that the main book had _more_ than enough CD tables, and adding any more was evil from the depth of the Pit. Which is one reason that the IPG only has _one_ CD table (that I recall; should probably doublecheck). I was new in my powers then, but I did jump up and down pretty hard for No New Check Digit Tables. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:26:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Aetheism In Character At 3:01 PM -0800 1/12/00, David Barr wrote: >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? The easy _and_ probably most accurate answer would be: "It Depends on the Atheist." And on the reasons _why_ the atheist is one! If an atheist is one because they don't believe in the Biblical Version for some reason, then being exposed to one of the more laid-back angels who'll give him a better story may cause him to "get religion" -- in the form of facts. ("Look, here's a celestial, and he told me some of the _real_ stuff that was behind the Bible, and he told me some of that was _wrong._ Cool. _This_ I can get into.") If the atheist is the sort of person who has a fixed worldview and would collapse into a quaking heap if the worldview were broken, then he probably try to rationalize it away. If the atheist doesn't believe in Spiritual Beings at all, he may take a page from Star Trek and declare that the angels and demons are energy beings on a higher plane of existance who have assumed the trappings of Judeo-Christian mythology and are lying or deluded about anything that contradicts that. If the atheist is contacted by persuasive demons first (or if he's living in a Shades of Gray world, or even a reversed-color world where the Rebellion was _right_), then he may go along with what _they_ say instead. ("I always figured that 'God' was a jerk, out to get people. Now I know it's true.") Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:01:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> All hail Princess Beth! At 9:36 PM +1100 1/13/00, bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au wrote: >> >> >>I wish to put forward a motion for David to Now be recognised as a >>Dual-Superior, you know like Beth, >Seconded, although it's rather strange that the Beth side of her >personality is coming out a lot more recently rather than her >Archangelic side (so I can't remember the name exactly... It's Beth, Archangel of Archives (believed to be a Bright Lilim with the Kyriotate resonance via Master of Destiny), or Beth, Djinn Princess of Nitpicking. (Which also translates to Princess of Line Editing, and occasionally List Admin. One of those Word-scope things, and translations from the original Helltongue.) (And it's "Archangel of Archives" ("The Archive" is Kronos' Domain), and no, I haven't lost the Word -- just ask David about my 'off-site backups' recently. (Do I need to send you any more of those, David?)) At 9:01 AM -0800 1/13/00, David Edelstein wrote: >I'll be happy to give you one of my Rites. It involves sending me money. Hey, that's been one of my Rites since before IN _existed_! No fair Rite-poaching! (Archangel Beth of the Fnord! BBS -- I have the archives, I have the proof! And in return for sending me money, people didn't get just puny Essence, they got Orion Dancing Girls! (Look, the Green connection!) They got backrubs and hot-tubs and Bimbiras...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:37:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> ...now back to IN At 7:21 PM -0600 1/12/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: >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. Bear in mind that if you got _that_ many, a lot of them are likely to be _old_ books! The Revelations Cycle, in particular. (The art for which I never really liked. I _almost_ liked _The Marches_ but couldn't stand the "feather fright wig." _The Final Trumpet_, on the other hand, is really nice. Anyway, the art on the covers of those is a style thing. The art on the GMG is also a style thing; and, well, it's not _my_ style... But I don't get to do anything about the cover art, a lot of the time, alas.) (I also dislike the APG/IPG covers, actually -- the APG coverangel's wings are _crooked_, which feeds directly into a very old in-joke regarding how you can tell what's demonic propaganda/"angel-porn"/etc. "The Wings Are All Wrong!") >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. Must haves... Why, all of them! Ahem. Sorry. I'd say the Must Havs are: The main book. Then the main book 2/e when it comes out because it will be better organized. Liber Canticorum. Gobs of Songs. 'Nuff said. IPG if you're doing a demonic campaign. APG.... I actually consider that it has enough flaws that I don't reccomend it as much as I do the IPG. Though when it sells out, APG 2/e will be a Must Have. GMG if you're GMing or just asking a lot of questions about the universe background and nuts and bolts. A bookmark to www.sjgames.com/in-nomine , .../in-nomine/errata, and .../in-nomine/articles . Can Get Along Without But You Really Want: Superiors book that contains the Superior(s) for your PC(s). Probably Wants: CPG if you're playing humans or designing sorcerers. _The Marches_ rules are really flawed. Liber Castellorum if you're using lots of Tethers. Liber Reliquarum if you like artifact toys. _Heaven & Hell_ if you're doing any campaigns that involve the celestial realm. _The Marches_ for campaigns that involve the ethereal realm heavily. You Are Here, which has lots of corporeal locations for color and adventure seeds, and ethereal/celestial ones which lend color (and seeds!) to those realms. If you're going to be doing stuff off-Earth, you almost certainly want to at least flip through it and see if it's to your taste. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:19:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Arisia in 1 day.... At 5:57 PM -0500 1/12/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >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): Saturday: Running Your First Table Top Campaign, noon Steve Jackson Games Roundtable, 2pm Writing For Game Publishers, 3pm >Hopefully, we'll have some interesting news tidbits at the SJGames >Roundtable, including one or two "not yet for official publication" >items. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:01:47 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> ...now back to IN >At 7:21 PM -0600 1/12/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: > > >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 Greg, if you liked Superiors I for the extra background and colour, you'd probably like "You Are Here." jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:19:03 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong >>>(read this carefully now... I don't want to have to repeat myself. I have stated this before. I will try to state it in simpler terms.)<<< No need. I understood you the first time. You're still wrong. >>>Since we do not know Paul, your assumption that the *original* author's message was inappropriate for his audience is illogical.<<< He SAID in the message that Paul didn't know him, and that he was sending him the message based only on something he'd seen on an In Nomine webpage. >>>One In Nomine list subscriber wrote the following message to me about this topic: "I just think that David may have made a hasty comment based on emotion and not wanted to retract it, which is different from a prejudice against Christians or all religions."<<< No, I made a hasty comment based on the fact that I hate spammers and unsolicited proselytization, in almost equal measures. >>>David, you seem to be bright, so I must assume that your only reason for continuing to ride your illogical statement into its grave was identified by the author of that quote.<<< I'd like to believe that you are bright, so I'm going to avoid belaboring why your claiming that my statements are "illogical" indicates that you (a) didn't read them carefully, just responded as soon as some defensive button was pushed, or (b) you simply haven't a clue. >>>I grow weary of this simple lesson in logic but I am a patient tutor.<<< Is this kind of like where you attempt to teach something by demonstrating its converse? And didn't you say, like, four or five posts ago that you wanted to drop it/take it off list? I was ready to quit, but here you are publically accusing me of being illogical while making incorrect statements about my beliefs and position, which as all long-term IN-listers know, is a surefire way to incur another dose of pain. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:23:23 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong >>>The spammer and/or author are stupid, selfish people. David is right to treat them as such. He doesn't have to be gentle about it. And if he isn't, the religous nature of the spam doesn't shield it from his contempt and shouldn't.<<< Eric, I hereby grant you a Distinction for Getting It. - -David (do you want to be a Vassal or a Knight? ;)) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:30:49 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >>>This is an area on which I disgree with the GMG then :) I think the distinctive flavour of IN comes from a game-universe in which Monotheistic theology is mainly right.<<< I agree. The GMG doesn't say there *isn't* a God. It just points out that *Lucifer* says there isn't a God (and we all know what Lucifer is...), and that God hasn't made any personal appearances lately, so it's hard to say for certain that Lucifer is wrong. >>>And FWIW, I assume that the very oldest superiors have seen God and spoken to Him (and that does include Lucifer).<<< Presumably so....but if ONLY they claim to have seen Him, how do we know they're right? I mean, it's the same situation for angels as for humans here on Earth. Some people claim to have seen/experienced God personally, and they are quite sincere about it. When I meet someone who tells me that he KNOWS God exists, with every fiber of his being, because God has spoken to him, I believe such people are sincere, truly believe that, and are not necessarily deluded or suffering from hallucinations. Religious fervor can cause people to experience all kinds of things which seem as real to them as anything I might experience with _my_ senses. But it doesn't convince me that they are right that God does exist. It just convinces me that they are convinced God exists. >>>David, how do you explain Dominic being told not to prosecute Michael if not by direct uncontradictable divine intervention?<<< *I* explain it by saying God exists. ;) I have long been on the record as being in favor of a truly monotheistic, and fairly high-contrast, setting. However, CDaU can be maintained with various other explanations, such as Metatron. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:35:33 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> ...now back to IN From: "Jo Hart" > > Greg, if you liked Superiors I for the extra background and colour, you'd > probably like "You Are Here." I agree. For me, "The 8th Virtue" and Laurence's flying cathedral alone were worth teh price of admission. :::) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:03:02 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine At 11:30 AM -0800 1/13/00, David Edelstein wrote: > > > >>>David, how do you explain Dominic being told not to prosecute >Michael if not by direct uncontradictable divine intervention?<<< > >*I* explain it by saying God exists. ;) I have long been on the record >as being in favor of a truly monotheistic, and fairly high-contrast, >setting. However, CDaU can be maintained with various other >explanations, such as Metatron. Here's an explanation for you.... The Metatron was actually just a collection of Yves's Forces. Yves came to consciousness in the Void first (or the last of another cycle, if you prefer), learned how to manipulate the Symphony, considered all his options, and Created Michael, claiming it was God who did it. As the Namer of things, Yves was assumed to have an in with "God" while he set things up to his liking. He crafted the invisible Voice of God for those circumstances when God's active involvement was needed. His ultimate purpose? Perhaps to create the Human Race and have them evolve to some later state. (Perhaps Yves was the *last* human, evolved perfectly, who passed through the End of Time and found himself at the Beginning, to start over. Who knows?) Lucifer, getting increasingly dissatisfied with the odd preferential treatment given to Humanity, confronted the Metatron, had a long talk with him, and managed an Intervention on his resonance. (What are Divine Interventions in this system? Natural events -- nodal waves in the Symphony.) He pierced the most ineffable Lie of them all, and told Yves he would spill *all* the beans if Metatron didn't "die," right then. Yves agreed, and the contest (and War) began. Yves engineered the creation of unfallable Malakim and continued to pursue the development of Humanity, using Gabriel as an unwitting mouthpiece when necessary. He only broke Metatron's silence once, in the recall of Uriel (and who knows what's *really* in the Higher Heavens), and by then Lucifer's own power was threatened if Lucifer told the truth. So Lucifer contents himself by insisting there is no God and knowing he's right, but without explaining the truth behind it. Do I think this is what should be, in IN? Nope -- I like God in his Heaven too. But it's not hard to work out. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalah of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:52:39 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong At 11:23 AM -0800 1/13/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Eric, I hereby grant you a Distinction for Getting It. (I wonder what the proper "thank you" is when talking to the Demon of Sarcasm. Snort and say "whatever?") >-David (do you want to be a Vassal or a Knight? ;)) Oh, a Knight. The Elohite so *rarely* gets a chance to talk these days.... (Besides, Habbalite of Belaboring the Point, Knight of Sarcasm in Service to the Game is a cool thing to put on a business card. Beats the Hell out of my Role's title, for sure.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalah of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:16:18 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >From: Whistling in the Dark > > >Do I think this is what should be, in IN? Nope -- I like God in his >Heaven too. But it's not hard to work out. > So who told Dominic to acquit Michael? The Metatron was supposed to be dead by then, and the book didn't say that Yves intervened. So I find this a bit of a stretch. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:23:06 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Dowh! At 12:52 PM -0500 1/13/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >Eric Alfred Burns - > >Habbalah of Belaboring the Point Nothing like discovering a stupid error in your .sig file.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:40:20 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine At 10:16 AM -0800 1/13/00, Jo Hart wrote: >>From: Whistling in the Dark >> >> >>Do I think this is what should be, in IN? Nope -- I like God in his >>Heaven too. But it's not hard to work out. >> > >So who told Dominic to acquit Michael? > >The Metatron was supposed to be dead by then, and the book didn't >say that Yves intervened. So I find this a bit of a stretch. Mm -- point. I could probably justify it, but as I *don't* intend to use it and prefer a God to no God, I'm willing to leave this with a "point taken." - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:13:20 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> What is God? Jo Hart wrote: > So who told Dominic to acquit Michael? > > The Metatron was supposed to be dead by then, and the book didn't say that> Yves intervened. So I find this a bit of a stretch. When the Archangels say that God told them such-and-such, do we really know how they know what God told them? Does all of Heaven hear a Divine voice booming down from the Upper Heavens giving instructions? Or might it be more like the "inner voice" with which many people in the real world claim they receive messages from God? And if all the Archangels claim that God told them that Michael is to be acquitted, or Laurence is to be made General of the Host, or whatever, and they truly believe it, the ineffable nature of God is going to prevent any Seraphim, even fellow Archangels, from being able to get more Truth than that. Maybe God is really a gestalt of the Seraphim Council, or a shared hallucination by all of Heaven, or a "subconscious" that only Archangels are able to connect to. They might really believe that God is an independent, self-willed, entity, or they might just present Him like that because lesser beings can't comprehend His real nature. Yes, a bit of a stretch, but it can be done, for those who want to maintain CDaU, or to make God something other than GOD. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:51:07 -0500 From: Adam Thomas Gieseler Subject: IN> Other theories Here's a different take: Yves began the Symphony with seven names, expressing ideas and concepts. However, to create these names, beginning with his own, he had to create the attendant concepts. While "Yves" may be nicely ineffable, "Michael," "Who is like God?" implies an entity or even quasi-entity who is the pinnacle of perfection, and "Eli," "my Light," where light represents God or holy power, intimates that this power can be personal. What Lucifer did in rebelliing against God was to remove the light in his name from the Light of Heaven. Metatron's death was partly metaphorical, and partly representative of what the Seraph Archangel of Light did to his own self. It was a working fiction, devised by Yves, or by Uriel, or by the Seraphim Council, and they were as bound to it after they committed to it as any Balseraph. An Archangel could probably figure it out, but then that Archangel might be in danger of dissonance or even Falling. Eli's absence may be due to his figuring this out, and not being able to deal with it. Or: Metatron was the firstborn angel, the speaker of Heaven's commandments. Lucifer, in his pride, believed that he had to have been first, so convinced himself that Metatron was the ghost of a God that never existed. Lucifer killed Metatron, causing at that very moment Uriel to become a Malakite, and eventually, the scattered Celestial Forces formed again into Michael, who immediately without thought banished Lucifer from Heaven. Lucifer still has the Remnant, though, which explains how he is able to extend his resonance in order to grant Words. The guy you see walking around Hell isn't Lucifer; it's Lucifer possessing Metatron's body. Lucifer exists in a state reminiscent of an Ethereal; every Balseraph lie he has ever told is an extension of his self. For that matter, any lie told by any other Balseraph, as well as the Discord that keeps demons demons, is an extension of Lucifer. Hell, however, has nothing to do with Metatron. Hell is what happens when you take a human dreamscape to the mountains of Sheol, convince the dreamer that she may have already won and you'll give her everything she's ever wanted, and crack the dreamscape open like an egg into a frying pan. Then tell the just-created dream shade that for being such a good sport, she gets to be a Princess. Adam who figures that if any Archangel would bother to deconstruct any Demon Prince's personal Symphony, pick out the Balseraph lies, refute them one at a time until the Prince gets it, and continue for as long as necessary, the War would be over. Period. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:54:06 PST From: "Miles 2 Go" Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >>Do I think this is what should be, in IN? Nope -- I like God in his >>Heaven too. But it's not hard to work out. > >So who told Dominic to acquit Michael? > >The Metatron was supposed to be dead by then, and the book didn't say that >Yves intervened. So I find this a bit of a stretch. > I don't remember anything about Micheal's acquital, but when Uriel was recalled isn't it said somewhere in cannon that some angels claimed the voice they heard was that of Metatron? Is this cannon or from a web page somewhere? Remember it is also CDaU if a person who has been soul killed is completely destroyed, or possibly just taken to the higher heavens. The assumption is usually toward completely destroyed, but everything in the higher heavens is CDaU. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:13:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine Miles 2 Go wrote: > I don't remember anything about Micheal's acquital, but when > Uriel was recalled isn't it said somewhere in cannon that some > angels claimed the voice they heard was that of Metatron? Is this > cannon or from a web page somewhere? It's listed in the timeline of celestial history in the GMG. My own pet theory about Metatron is based on his name, which means roughly "Behind the Throne" (of God). Metatron is God's grand vizier. Now, I don't expect Omniscience to need advice, but the other thing grand viziers classically do is run sneaky schemes. So I figure that Metatron is in charge of Mysterious Ways, as in "the Lord moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform." He's Mr. Ineffability; he makes Yves look straightforward. So don't count on Metatron being dead, even if you saw what you were sure was his dismembered corpse under Lucifer's bloody talons. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:48:53 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Greg's ... ... now back to IN At 20:21 -0500 1/12/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: >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"? The only "must have" is the main book, really. Of the others, I'd rank the Player's Guides next (though I'm not really fond of some parts of the APG), along with Superiors , the GMG, and the L.Canticorum. The L.Reliquarum and the L.Castellorum are good, but more limited in utility. Ditto for L.Servitorum and You Are Here... All these books contain useful information, and useful plot seeds, but aren't what I'd call essential. Of the Revelations Cycle books, the only ones I consider to contain important information are The Marches and Heaven & Hell (for their coverage of those realms). The adventures are mostly so-so; the writeups of Austin (Night Music) and L.A. (FotM) have some interest, mostly for the NPCs. The expanded Superiors writeups have been (or will be) superceeded by the Superiors series, and all important rules material has been republished in the CPG or another of the new "core" books. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:04:52 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> All hail Prince David! At 8:15 -0500 1/13/00, Azrael wrote: >Beth, Archangel Of The Archives, I believe was her original title, but she >has lost the word (she no longer manages the archives, EDG does) which would >explain why we haven't spoken to ArchBeth, now she May Be Archangel Of The >List. Actually, the AA of Archives title didn't come from In Nomine, but from prior work on GURPS stuff, such as putting all the old Roleplayers online. I think the first (and only, as far as I know) official acknowledgement of the title was in GURPS Compendium I, predating the publication of In Nomine. "Archangel Beth" goes back a *lot* farther (I won't go into the obscure origins of this here), to sometime around 1989, and she's had ARCNGL on her car's license plate since sometime around 1991, for what that's worth. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:11:00 -0500 From: Tracey.Pratt@wellpoint.com Subject: Re: IN> Greg's ... ... now back The GM's Guide is great for the optional rules. I think the ideas for backlash when using songs help the GM keep players in check. Also, it has rules for falling/ jumping... invaluable!!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:22:28 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Speculation on the Fall At 11:27 -0500 1/13/00, Adam Thomas Gieseler wrote: >As aspirant Soldier of Blandine, it's my role (sometimes) to ask whether >Uriel might have been to blame for the Fall. Now, I'm perfectly certain >that the canon answer to this question is no, utterly no, no question >about it, the Fall was a premeditated rebellion by Lucifer and what >Uriel and Michael did served only to stop him. Not that any Archangel >is likely to question this statement, or that Dominic wouldn't >investigate and probably try for heresy any angel who questioned it. > >What if there was an alternative? What if Lucifer was utterly >well-meaning in his speculations in the Groves, and didn't recognize >Pride until it was too late? What if Uriel pushed this process along >with his intolerance, Michael intervened too late to do anything but >protect Heaven, and Yves, thorugh inaction, opened the possibility of >Fate? An interesting speculation.... As a somewhat related thought of my own, I was thinking the other day about the notion of having a collection of "Why I Think *I* Caused the Fall..." essays for all the major AAs. (The particular case that led to this was Jean -- in my campaign Elohim are rather prone to indulge in all sorts of philosophical speculations in their pursuit of understanding all possible viewpoints of the Symphony. And many of these are at least mildly heretical....) >And just what was Lilith's role in all this? "You mean I'm free to just walk out? What about you...?" - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:46:42 GMT From: "Krowe _" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1492 >>> That's not a bug, it's a feature. <<< From David and Beth (Kyriotate influence, mayhaps)! I stand corrected. And David, do you realize that that was the first time you've ever responded to one of my posts and NOT been hatefully sarcastic. Perhaps the Elohite in you is holding out. Either that or the Habbalah is too tired from dealing with that silly SoG thread. >>> >>>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.<<< Yes. The original attunement, Divine Silence, didn't make a whole lot of sense as written (IMO, as the person who did the rewrite of Laurence), since Laurence is not the Archangel of Martyrs. Also, forcing the GM to monitor "pleading looks across the gaming table" can be rather awkward. I wanted to turn the dissonance-removing attunement into an action that ties into Laurence's Catholic leanings, as well as his origins as a Servitor of Purity. Fortunately, the editor and LE agreed with me. - - -David <<< I can partially agree. The Attunement was great IMC until the entire party realized that the Cherub had it. Then it got old quick. I like the new one better, even if I miss describing Divine Silence as 'jumping on a Dissonance grenade'. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:47:07 -0500 From: "Gregory Gietzen" Subject: Re: IN> Speculation on the Fall - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Milliken" > As a somewhat related thought of my own, I was thinking the other day > about the notion of having a collection of "Why I Think *I* Caused the Fall..." > essays for all the major AAs. A nice corollary to this would be "Why I Think *S/He* Caused the Fall," which would allow all of the major AAs to point fingers at and blame the other AAs. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:22:35 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1492 Krowe _ wrote: > And David, do you realize that that was the first time you've ever responded> to one of my posts and NOT been hatefully sarcastic. IIRC, you earned a dose of sarcasm last time because I made some reference to munchkins, which you took personally. But it takes more than an indignant kid throwing a hissy-fit to inspire hatred in me. >>>Perhaps the Elohite in> you is holding out. Either that or the Habbalah is too tired from dealing> with that silly SoG thread.<<< The Habbalite in me only comes out when people say stupid and/or insulting things. I've never been sarcastic in response to a civil request for information. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:21:10 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Pay No Attention to the Archangel Behind the Curtain A stray thought I had a few days ago, during the last Janus/Valefor discussion, but haven't had time to put down: Suppose the Janus/Valefor thing is *intended* to worry people about whether Valefor is Janus (or vice-versa). Why? To distract people from something else -- the fact that Janus is now playing *Lucifer*.... Think about it... if Valefor is Janus, then it's pretty hard to believe that Lucifer wouldn't figure it out. Also, Valefor clearly had some private contact with Lucifer, getting to be made Prince. Maybe Janus (as Valefor) *killed* Lucifer. (Or maybe just convinced him that running Hell was a *real* pain, and a nice millenium in Tahiti was just what the doctor ordered.... Or something.) So, OK, Asmodeus and friends are *very* suspicious of Valefor. Eventually they uncover the deception, and send Janus packing back to Heaven, and chase down all Valefor's Servitors, and mayhem ensues. But will they think that he's *also* masquerading as Lucifer? Probably not. One problem is how Janus could maintain Lucifer's ability to give out Words. But then, it's not clear how *Lucifer* manages this, either -- maybe Janus figured out some trick for it, or swiped it from Lucifer. Of course, one major question is why Janus would do something like this: - It seemed like a good idea at the time. - Hell needed a change. - He was trying to infiltrate Hell as Valefor, and he killed Lucifer sort of by accident. Not wanting to explain this to Michael, he wound up impersonating Lucifer. - He wants to see Kobal's face when Armageddon is about to start, and he (as Lucifer) addresses the troops, announcing that, "Oh, by the way, Lucifer's dead -- I'm Janus. Have a nice War." And then flies off. - He figured Hell was losing the War, and that if Heaven *won*, it would get too stagnant. So he provided some more dynamic leadership.... - He figured Hell was winning the War, and it needed a little more chaos at the top. But that just killing Lucifer would result in Kronos (or Baal, or someone) taking over and doing a better job. So he provided a stand-in to mess things up. Subtly. After all, Lucifer is known to be somewhat capricious, but who's going to buck him...? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:44:03 -0600 From: Ryan Subject: IN> Re: IN Wild Cards If enough people are interested, I'm seriously considering doing this as an IRC campaign. Games would be run at #innomine on Efnet, as listed on the In Nomine Resources page. Please email me privately if you're interested with a very general character concept. A 'What' of 'Who' or a human, ethereal, etc. Infected status and anything else you deem important. I'd like to have about 5 players for a weekly, or if that doesnt' work out, bi-weekly or monthly game. Thanks for your time. Grim88 rbeall@fdldotnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:39:43 -0600 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question > I haven't reskimmed the Mercurian section there, so all I'm _really_ > positive of is that the CD tables need to die. If for no other reason > than that they're _CD tables_, and after flipping through the main book > several times (and printing out a single-page summary sheet for all the > angelic resonance tables), I came to the conclusion that the main book > had _more_ than enough CD tables, and adding any more was evil from the > depth of the Pit. OK, so we drop the dire expanded Res. rules. Probably add a section for Brights... Will the rest of APGv2 be pretty much the same? I do think that a series of expanded explanations of how the Res. work would be useful -but without adding any new rules. I think an expansion on the Outcasts section would be nice too... I was also going to say that the minor Choirs should be in APGv2 but I think it might make more sense to put them in thier own book with a couple of example NPC's and some adventure hooks. (please...hmmm...???) I also agree with more tables being from the depths of the Pit. One of the things that I love about IN is that it is really a *simple* game with no "tons-o-dice." I vote *REALLY* loud for less tables and more explanations/examples of play... David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:00:22 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: IN> My apologies > Let it go. If you can't let it go, take it to private email. > But don't make > the rest of us suffer for your ideals. > Consider it gone. I apologize for the inconvenience that this argument may have caused any of the readers on this list. My intent was not to send 5 or 6 messages per day about the topic... it was to stop a trend. I should have handled it privately. Please forgive my intrusion on your privacy. Nothin' but love for all of you (David included), Greg Bilbruck ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:55:42 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again > I'll be happy to give you one of my Rites. It involves sending me money. Really? You will? How Much? Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:36:47 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> All hail Prince David! I stand corrected, my apologies go to Beth, and so does a plea for no SMITING. No, please no smiting, please no... Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:47:27 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> APG, 2nd Edition David Rodemaker wrote: >>>OK, so we drop the dire expanded Res. rules.<<< Yup. The biggest problem with the expanded resonance rules for angels was not so much that they added new CD tables (which I don't dislike as much as Beth does, though I do think they should be added sparingly), but the fact that most of the "More Sophististicated Uses of Resonances" were not "more sophisticated." They simply amounted to "Make a resonance roll at a penalty, and you get extra powers." It was lazy design prompted by a rushed schedule and very little editorial oversight. You'll notice that the five Choirs that I wrote *don't* have those tables. (Except for the Cherubim, which I deny blame for, due to peculiar circumstances I've explained before.) >>>Probably add a section for> Brights...<<< >>>I was also going to say that the minor Choirs should be in APGv2 but I think> it might make more sense to put them in thier own book with a couple of> example NPC's and some adventure hooks. (please...hmmm...???)<<< A book of minor Choirs would only be good if there were going to be a bunch of them, and there aren't. AFAIK, there have only been three minor Choirs actually mentioned in canon, and only one of them are playable as PCs. Not including them in the APG was a major oversight. - -David ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1493 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.