From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Jun 4 09:11:05 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 JAA20414 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:11:04 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA09989 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:10:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:10:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200006041410.JAA09989@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 #1656 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 Sunday, June 4 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1656 In this digest: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you... Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you... IN> The Prophecy Trilogy Re: IN> Getting into Heaven IN> Love amongst Superiors IN> Destiny and Dominic Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> Getting into Heaven IN> Lovecraft In Nomine Re: IN> Long live the Revolution IN> Long live the Revolution Re: IN> Love and Superiors Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Long live the Revolution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you... Well, if we're going to play the Silly Artifact game, then here's mine. First one I've really fleshed out. Thanks to everyone with the helpful suggestions on the Song of Form question (I decided to keep it simple and just handwave). I am surprised, BTW, that I haven't seen anything like this. It seems so ... obvious. :) Universal Lego This particular relic is a big favorite among Servitors of Jean and Christopher. Physically resembling a standard, eight-hole red Lego piece, the artifact contains a variant form of the Celestial Song of Form that allows the user to alter inanimate objects. This effect lasts for (Users Celestial Forces x Check Digit), and costs 1 Essence for each 500 lb. of weight to be altered (the Universal Lego also acts as a dedicated reliquary/6). There are several fairly hefty restrictions to this relic, however. The first, and most important, is that the only materials that can be altered are Legos. The relic cannot change anything else. Second, size remains unchanged (though mass can vary): if the relic is attached to a six-inch sculpture of a car, it will transform it into a working car … six inches long. Also, any device made by this method will have neither fuel nor ammunition, unless the original sculpture somehow incorporated these into the design. Third, the user may not use this relic to create anything that he or she is not personally familiar with. As a general rule, anyone with Earthly experience could create a hand weapon ("sword", "knife", or "gun") or vehicle. Specific weapons, or a particular model of vehicle, or an elaborate piece of electronic equipment, would require rolls against both the relevant skill (GM call) _and_ Artistry (Lego Sculpture). A failure on either roll produces an unreliable device: failure on both means that the whole thing has to be taken apart and reassembled. However, the sculpture does not have to be done by the user of the relic. This does not mean that a Lego car has to be a perfect mock-up of a real car for this relic to work. A solid block of Legos, with discernable wheels, can actually be turned into a working automobile: it will just be a fairly poor car. A sculpture that lovingly recreates a Ferrari, complete with bucket seats, steering wheel and windshield wipers will give a much better end result. The sculptor can take penalties to his Artistry roll to improve performance (+1 to rolls involving the device for every -2 to the Artistry roll). Lastly, this is not a subtle artifact. Constantly altering the fundamental nature of a set of plastic blocks causes a continuous disturbance in the Symphony. Jean has been asked to work on this. All devices made by this relic have the same statistics, damage and Body hits as their "normal" counterparts (the Universal Lego itself is invulnerable to all damage). As a special effect, if pieces from the device are broken off, the debris immediately reverts back to its original form (as would all transformed ammunition, once it has done damage). This can cause awkward questions, later… Needless to say, this relic is mostly used as a holdout weapon, as making large devices from scratch usually takes too long to be useful. The largest item ever made with this relic was a tank, but that involved several Universal Legos and the lucky discovery of a particularly fanatical Lego sculptor … and, even then, the angels involved had no shells for the main cannon. Fortunately, simply running over the attacking Hellsworn was sufficiently effective. Jean and Christopher usually reserve these artifacts to especially successful Servitors. Some have shown up among demons, but it seems that they are captured, rather than locally made. Vapula apparently has not yet been able to reverse-engineer the trick, despite his best efforts. This might explain why Jean would have designed such a frivolous relic in the first place. Stats Universal Lego Relic/6 (Variant Celestial Song of Form)18 Reliquary/6 (only with artifact) 12 Use Restriction: Materials to be changed be made out of Legos with 2 successful skill rolls to sculpt device -4 Essence Regeneration (1 per week) -2 Fragility (Unbreakable) +5 Visibility (Automatic) -3 Disturbance (3 pt, constant when used) -3 Total: 23 pt. Morgan (FAW) Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Lego (tm) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:09:03 -0400 From: "EDG" Subject: Re: IN> I'll see your Silly Artifact and raise you... > Universal Lego I've been waiting to see this turned into an In Nomine artifact. Have you been reading Serendipity? ^_^ - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:19:25 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Prophecy Trilogy >> Arguably the Best of the Series and the most Angelic movie for In Nomine >> ever made (even moreso than the Orginal I do believe)...I refer to P3 of >> course. The Other David > How is this the most Angelic? Very well incidents of notes for In Nomine players as according to movie. **SPOILERS** Prophecy 3: * Nephilim Depiction: The Street Preacher Danyael is a rogue who has been raised to think God is a big and teaches it though he doesn't deny Celestial forces exist. Celestials want him because he possesses skills and forces they do yet likely causes no dissonance as he does it (it is his homeworld). Plus he regenerates on Earth and needs no new vessels. In my game he may also be able to attack Corporeal and Celestial vessels with equal propensity. (This is how I treat Nephilim in my game....NASTY NASTY CUSSSES) * Elomhite example in Pyriel: Pyriel is both male and female and a anydrogneous example of both. He is completely logical and takes the time to explain himself before logically and emotionlessly pointing out Danyael's options. You can see the forefront of emotions about to pour out as he's dissonant. * The Switch-Sword-Okay it's kinduv hokey but a switchblade that can become a Celestial Sword, Spear, or Knife in my game is damg cool artifact. Especially with the heat seeker which I make as part of a weapon that does Celestial damage. * Revenant: Gabrielle stripped of all of his forces is a bum on the streets truly. He enjoys the Earthly pleasures but has no desire or will to aspire to be anything really other than Danyael's protector and that is just because it seems to be something he does. As he was dissonant before this is cool alternative for players to falling. * Redemption: You see Gabrielle go 360 degrees in the story though the Fall of Gabrielle is not hinted at. You see just how a lesson in humilation and what the price of redemption is (turning against all you former stood for and not regretting but embracing it). * Angels and Sex: Nuff said "It's like Tasting dying" * Habbalah attitudes: The idea of the Habbalah doing God's will by replacing him in Heaven is a helluva disturbing one. In this case a Angel of Genocide believes it's his duty to replace humanity with something alittle less troublesome. * Elohim Vessel and Attitudes: Zophiel the Spy of God is exactly how I picture Elohim...they have no sense of humor, they do not understand or appreciate the Corporeal realm but do their job to the best of their ability, they hate having emotional issues (like their love of God called into question) * The usual Human servitor relationship "I can't drive" * An infernal Tether: The Mesa as a little piece of Hell. The Angelic skelaton marks Pyriel. * Regaining essence: Doughnuts! - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:28:00 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Getting into Heaven At 8:15 PM -0400 6/3/00, Charles Phipps wrote: > > >Well then is it a measure of how much you achieved your Destiny vs. Your >Fate? I mean if Hitler survived death and snuck off to teach art in his old >age (and presumably did not repent) I sincerely doubt he would be entering >heaven at this point. Achieving Destiny *and* Fate sends you neither place, generally, though if a Destiny is overwhelming and a Fate trivial (or vice versa) then IMC you'd go to the right place. Otherwise, Reincarnation or Disforciture. >What about when Destinies are screwed up? When through no fault of your own >you accidentally oversleep and prevent the World Trade Center Bombing...yet >instead go down to South Africa and open a hospital for the victems of >Sudan-in effect a mortal rewriting his destiny. Or does God have a big >honking book of everyone's destinies that has "sub clasues?". Destinies don't tend to be so literal. "Prevent the destruction of a major symbol of trade, and egregious loss of life" is as close as it gets. So if they miss the WTC bombing, they might still prevent peaceful protest of a WTO function becoming violent on both sides. I would say it require the prevention of an act, not the atonement for another -- but a mortal so strongly motivated after his oversleeping would be unlikely to achieve his Fate, meaning he would reincarnate and get another shot the next go-around. The Symphony is patient, and themes can recur before coda. - -- 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: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:54:49 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Love amongst Superiors >She is also considered to be one of the Archangels who spends the majority >of her time not playing angelic politics, but rather quietly fighting the >War. Marc, I don't see wedded to his job over relationships. Blandine, >however, I can easily see dealing with her sorrow and heartache by burying >herself in her work. Soulmates don't come around that often, and hers Fell Feel free to share your Marc view and the best view you have for him. That might be possible and sticks well with my sleeping beuty motiff actually...effectively she is pushing away her suitors. However the fact remains if anyone ever did need love for Bladine it was her. Again I stick with my idea she sleeps more and is falling more and more into past memories in my game because it just fits my sense of mood.... I don't see her as dealing well with politics and all this....she's getting "tired". And I did mean "Let's sleep together" as going to bed and going to SLEEP. Dreaming/word pun there. >Dominic spends a lot of time ensuring that his own servitors don't engage in >lustful relationships, and are careful about sex. I can't see him being >easier on himself in this matter than he is on his servitors. Asmodeus aside I don't see him as a big hypocrite. He practices what he preaches. However I do believe that Dominic more than any other Superior feels like he's missing something out of the Symphony. As a Seraph at least he's not emotionally uninvolved. While married to his work might be true...on some level I think there is a very real need on Dominic's part to feel like he's doing actual good for the Symphony. If someone fell in love with him whose soul was in danger (maybe he's/she's in a vessel etc) and giving affection in return could work....I could see him finding a confident... But as your ininuating true-this has about the same chance as Haagenti going on a diet. >When one is touched by the Inspiration of the Divine, by the Holy Flame, I >see her as being already "wedded" to the Most High. After God's touch on >her soul, how can anyone else hold a feeble candle to that source of Flame? Perhaps however the fact remains how can even she hold a candle to such a flame? Angelic love and harmony is not about dividing oneself less but adding to oneself more. What is also the flame of inspiration and purfication is also the flame of passion and heart. No, no affairs of the heart that are meaningless I see Gabrielle wishing to partake in a time of great sorrow and strife for her word a time in both comfort and strength of a lover or lovers...those who are not physically sleeping together but partaking of her/him for a time as they do the same of Gabrielle/Gabriel Those who are pure of intent no matter what the word they serve or what their cause. No self interest whatsoever is likely the stongest sweep of the heart....and a desire to support and care....and belief truly in what you hold dear. Though alternatively love would be for a person who is not pure of purpose but heavily disonant...that she might cleanse he or she... In other words Sex and Love for Gabrielle is not an act of procreation or lust but it is a cleansing agent. A show of affection that brings one better. Ergo Khalid might be a good love (strong, confident, unshakable in Faith) though I see his relationship to Gabrielle as that of the follower to the Prophet. He could never share himself or open himself to her woes and dreams as the rest do because he doesn't see her as she IS but how he wishes her to be sadly. Thus in my mind Gabrielle has loves who share in his/her pains and triumphs like a flickering candle burning off a leach or guiding one to one's proper place in the night's window. >We obviously see Jean in *very* differing ways. Go team! Heheh what's your view? >How would Michelle be seduced? I don't see her as rushing off to protect >some whimpering little guy hanging out outside the little boys room. Nor, >do I think, would Dominique be enthralled by the scenario you proposed. >Flip the genders on the Archangels and see if the sketches still ring true. On the contrary I believe the only thing about the situations that would be changed I think is that they would take on a more femmine approach to the situation if women or a more masculine approach if men. I.E. Michael appears as a man because traditionally men are associated with War, Power, and Maschosismo. Truth be told I play Michael in my game as Michael from Prophecy 2-he's a warrior but he is also the holiest of angels. The wisest as well as the strongest. The reason he beat Lucifer was because of cunning not sheer brute force despite what Dominic believes-and also faith. If Michellel was going to save a little guy outside the little boys room-she'd go in Buffy the Vampire Slayer style. I think Michael has had affairs many a times with angels and women but always with warriors....basically he's attracted to Joan of Arc types among women who are just hard to find-hence the sexism. He also I doubt feels the urge much. It's not so much equality as...you do your best and don't give up. Jean (Jean goes both ways) might be an ice princess but she'd still be ice and a cold corporate executive. Dominic is still an anal retentive micromanager...she just has a cute hair tussel...not that it really matters as a snake. Marcus/Marca like I said I see as married to his/her word and if attracted to somebody would find it while working and that would be amongst a person with the same devotion to the stock market and business savy....pizazz if you will. They don't change-just their looks. Nor are they any less/more sexually or mentally attracted to a person because of their gender-in VESSELS maybe. Not in Celestial form. Likely angels just conform to whichevers more pleasurable or the mood strikes them. In other words Novalis appears like a peacful hippie because she is one. Appearing as a guy is just less conveinant usually because guys traditionally arn't supposed to be sensetive, peaceful, compassionate indivduals (like my seraph) but I see steel behind this Magnolia and no doubt she can assume a "Hell no we won't go" stance if she's a man or woman easily. Likely I see her stance on love is that it should be shared because it is beutiful, inspires trust, and shows affection. Plus it's enjoyable. Eli is the more creative aspect. If he's going to have an affair I see him as the type for leaves a little bundle of joy who'll be well cared for and have a happy home...though on the other hand this would elimanate mortal lovers....I could see him using love as a way to cause people who've lost their sense of creation to be reinspired.....maybe a person who lost his wife/child meets a woman who sparks his interest to live again and go to his co-worker whose always loved him and they get married-thus having the child who'll invent the pocketwatch. Though mainly because Eli left a creative atmosphere not because he believed it was destined this way. In this sense Sex and Love for him, like Gabrielle, is a tool not for it's own sake (though pleasurable) but what it can bring angels and mortals. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:04:57 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Destiny and Dominic >I file this under "Free Will", which is the biggest spanner in the Destiny/Fate machine. I see Fates and >Destinies as being intensely personal, to the point of spiritual intimacy, and as such any change of a mortal's >spirit (not soul) results in a commensurate change in F/D as well. That works. Explains why Yves is so busy.... "You just had to take Route 7# instead of the shorter Route 9# huh!?" Yves grumbles as his quill breaks.. "Grrrr..." >Ah, Dominic. One of my players in a Dominican, who ironically enough -is- a happy, likable girl angel. A fluffy >Mercurian. And she's skirting the edge of being thrown out of his service because she Just Doesn't Get It. Truth be told I do get it but it's sad to see any Angel put himself through what must be daily Hell. Dominic isn't proud I don't think...I can hardly see any Archangel more self loathing for so very little reason. Though his desire to be perfect is going to destroy him somehow I know. Someday Dominic is going to crack (it may be in my game where Yves is about to fall) and he's either going to become the Angel of "Mercy" or "Guidence".... Or he's going to commit Suicide. No Fall...Suicide. >Dominic's motivation -- indeed, his entire worldview -- stems from the Fall. He regards it not only as a >personal failure, but the failure of his Word as well. I saw it this way too....can you imagine seeing everything in the Cosmos and saying.... "What if everything beutiful is less so because I didn't say when Lucifer was staring at the rain...and ask why he should be forced to endure rain when God wills......I had said "Because it's better for us all this way"." Seen the difference instead of shrug. >When a full Third of the Heavenly Host make the awesomely bad choice of siding against God, it's a bad day >for Judgement. No offense as my Seraph puts it "It was a bad day for everyone D." Which is something Dominic I doesn't think gets.... >He's plagued by guilt. He feels the Fall was his fault, that if he'd been more vigilent, he could have stopped it. >And now he's simultaneously rectifying that mistake and doing penance for his failure, his crime against his >Word and his God. That intensity spills over into everything he does, colors every interaction he has. Yep. I see it. >Fluffy Dominicans don't work. It's a hardass Word, run by a hardass Archangel. As someone recently put it, >"We can rest when we're dead." Until then, there's work to be done. To quote. Thta was me. I was just wondering if Dominic had any trace of sympathy left in his body...or he was *this* close to despair (the final sin). >A mellow Dominic? Sorry, I can't see it. Judgement, by definition, is about demarcation. Judgement is being >able to say, with full force of conviction and absolute certainty of one's own correctness, "This is good, and >this not." Judgement is drawing the line between what is of God and what is of the Devil. Perhaps the time for Judgement has passed or Dominic at least needs someone to lighten his load. Maybe an Angel of Compassion. >The moment you begin to doubt your own rightousness, your own purity, is the moment you begin to see the >gray areas, and that is FAILURE when it comes to Judgement. Any time a Dominican says, "I honestly don't >know what the right thing is anymore," you've got a Judge that needs to be yanked back to Heaven pronto. >Judgement is black and white. Leave the mellowness to Eli and Novalis. The real part is in my mind I think Dominic doesn't know either. And he's been faking it since Uriel. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:33:22 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors At 11:50 PM -0400 6/3/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >At 10:39 AM -0700 6/3/00, Eric Bertish wrote: >>On Fri, 02 June 2000, "Charles Phipps" wrote: >> >> > Laurence: Will you marry me in a traditional Catholic ceremony for the >> > purposes of Procreation. [...] >See, I'd do Laurence with full out "Maiden Knight Eager to Break A >Lance" earnestness. He'd *hardly* be a 'we will Procreate and that's >it' husband. Among other reasons, procreation with a human would be unthinkable (it's a _sin_ ! Remember the Grigori!), and what's the point with a Servitor? You just wind up Force-stripping the poor thing and having to replace the Forces -- and he can make new angels and relievers entirely on his own, without memetic taint from some other being who might have a quirk or two that, while individual, wouldn't be too bad... but spread throughout his servants?? (Mmm, long sentence!) Far more likely to do the "courtly love" thing, in my view (_not_ as LE -- the LE view is whatever it says about the matter in Superiors 1, and IIRC it does touch on that somewhere), and wear a favor and kiss hands and maybe show off just a _touch_ in an honorable duel. (Not that he'd have to. Mmmmmm, fencers. They have the _most_ ... _delicious_ .... legs. And other body parts. (Yeah, I had a quasi- crush on the best fencer in the class once. Does it show? O;> )) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:25:35 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Getting into Heaven At 8:15 PM -0400 6/3/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >>In canon, there is one _known_ way to get into Heaven: achieve your >>destiny. > >Well then is it a measure of how much you achieved your Destiny vs. Your >Fate? No -- it's binary. If you hit neither, or both, then either you get reincarnated (it's never really said whether with the same or even similiar destiny/fate or not, and I don't intend to nal that one down), or your Forces are dissolved back into the Symphony. Some few cling to Earth as ghosts (see the CPG), or cling to the Marches as Dream-shades (see the CPG), and then there are undead, who simply cling to the corporeal and if they die, they die utterly, fate or destiny not-withstanding. (see the main book or CPG.) >What about when Destinies are screwed up? When through no fault of your own >you accidentally oversleep and prevent the World Trade Center Bombing...yet >instead go down to South Africa and open a hospital for the victems of >Sudan-in effect a mortal rewriting his destiny. Or does God have a big >honking book of everyone's destinies that has "sub clasues?". You get reincarnated or dissolved. Your destiny is the _best_ thing you can do for the Symphony, and your fate the worst. If you are a Soldier of God, and your destiny is to play second violin in the local orchestra - then playing second violin is what _will_ have the best (if more subtle!) effect upon those who hear you and whose lives you touch. Killing demons on your spare time is gravy. Note that GMs should strive to make destinies and fates both requiring some kind of selfish/selfless _choice_ (at least in the mind of the mortal making it), and not _too_ specific. "Save the life of a friend" is better than "rescue my childhood buddy, bob, and his dog, rex, from drowning in the Flood of '92." What the GM _makes_ be a destiny or a fate is a subtle campaign decision. For instance, a less-specific destiny for the above hospital/World Trade Center choice up there might be "Save the lives of 100 people" -- and either path would lead to that. For more on destinies and fates, I believe there's material in the GMG, and also a sample listing of same in the Liber Servitorum, and IIRC, Steven Marsh did a Pyramid Article about rolling up random ones, not too long ago. >>End of canon digression. Anything else is just me rambling. >I swear someone needs to write up a high spiritual wonderful/happy likeable >dominic....maybe when he's a girl. Check out the "Variations on a Theme" in Superiors 1. O:> I think something closer to that is alluded to there. >>(I think I covered everything there -- if not, well, someone will >>point it out.) > >Another idea is it's simply God who lets people in on his own judgement to >whether or not they've lived lives of goodness...or have overcome their >inner evil even in Hell...(base source love/hate) but that's a cop out >lacking conflict and makes sense. Plus it fits again too much with my real >world theology as a minister. Well, quite possibly -- but that's not the canon "We Know This Works." It's undoubtedly debated amongst those in Heaven who debate such things, however, and even possibly researched. And a GM can decide that's the case. (Or can decide it _isn't_ the case.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:18:07 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Lovecraft In Nomine The Other David wrote re: My comparisons to In Nomine to Lovecraft: >Have you actually *read* any Lovecraft? Yep though pretty tame once your a teenager and extensive reader of philosophy/extentialism and everyone whose LEGITAMATELY stolen from lovecraft (illegitmately steal is to not to and claim you are) you realize there is enough similarity to go on and it is inspired work. Specifically that...okay yes the overiding mood is the exact opposite Lovecraft horror is "Humanity means jack in the cosmic scheme of things"-In Nomine means "Humanity is everything" basically. However on an Individual level alot does work. (Beleth and Nightmares-Vapula-individual stories) Delta Green was wonderful for it's Demon appearing as Hitler to gain cultists work but I didn't like much else. Still a very adequate depiction and transition of Lovecraft to the 20th century and some excellent writing. Just not my cup of tea. Casca wrote: Re: Saminga and death of the spirit >It could fall under his Word, yes, but I don't think he uses it. Despair and demoralization seem nicely tied up >between Kobal and Beleth. True but I think he enjoys spreading a Healthy fear of Death. The Black Death was fun because he had his image plastered all over the place. Same with paradise Lost. >I presume you mean Nyarlathotep? I love Lovecraft's work to death but his names...and my copy of Call of Cthulhu nowhere to be found (or my Best of Lovecraft) Re: Cthulhu as new gods >Ooh, I like. I just may steal this... Thanks. Enjoy. >Nurture them the same way one nurtures a veal calf, at any rate. True I was thinking they'd be more into "Sucking essence out of human beings and leaving them soul dead" via scienctists they've overwhelmed but that's not giving them enough credit. Likely they'd be smart enough to realize that small places of extreme psychopathic devotion are going to be alot less attention drawing than than the average large movement Demons prefer. Innsmouth thus becomes an Ethereal Tether and inserting their seed Grigori style.... Hehe I could just see Celestials working for J.Edgar Hoover breaking up *THAT* plan. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:19:45 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Long live the Revolution At 10:51 PM -0500 6/3/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Charles Phipps wrote: > >I tend to think that Blandine, Novalis, Zadkiel, and Christopher -- all >the "warm fuzzy" Archangels -- would be most popular among >non-denominational do-gooders. I'm not sure that's always true. Michael would appeal to many, since despite his Archangelic Prime status, Michael would be in ways the most egalitarian. As would Marc, who isn't particularly warm and fuzzy. I'd think that after a period of adjustment, assuming said Athiest wouldn't just decide to go up the ladder, they'd find angels whose attitudes appealed the most to them. (Heinlein, who never really elaborated on his personal beliefs but who made a good case for agnosticism, is in Canon known to work with Jean, for instance. Though I'd have thought he'd work for Michael, myself.) > > I rather object to the idea of Saint Marx as despite his >Eglatarian retorhic > > Marx always struck me as a selfish, stupid, and ultimately violent man with > > a propensity for sticking his nose at all those who deserved it in his mind > > (whether or gods or not) > >Hmm? Are you talking about Marx or the results of his theories? I was wondering too. Marx preached manifestoes and certainly was impassioned, but I don't recall any history of violence. He was an intellectual preaching to other intellectuals. - -- 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: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:26:47 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Long live the Revolution >That's not true. In order to enter Heaven you have to achieve your >destiny. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a particularly >nice guy. This never sat well with me. In my opinion thus everyone was a nice guy in Heaven who didn't have a Superior helping him "Fudge" things out by calling in Favors with Yves. >Actually, given that an atheist in Heaven would have to immediately come >to terms with the fact that what he believed was just plain WRONG (yeah, >he could make up theories about how God isn't real, but what's the >point? He can look around and see that HEAVEN and ANGELS are real!), I >think they'd span the spectrum, from remaining somewhat skeptical to >embracing the truth they'd denied in life. True I personally agree with you that the person in question has to have the most closed mind imaginable...don't believe it might not happen though. A number of folk I know amongst Fundemantalists (it's just a few) could end up in Heaven and still say Jews, Muslims, and the like are here...in fact proclaim this was a false vision of heaven sent to torment him from Satan. Needless to say as a minister I just looked at him. In retrospect Atheists might be a blessing since In Nomine mortals don't get any wiser or connected to God once dead. >I tend to think that Blandine, Novalis, Zadkiel, and Christopher -- all >the "warm fuzzy" Archangels -- would be most popular among >non-denominational do-gooders. Perhaps but I doubt they would have much to offer these worlds in Understanding. They might want to learn but if a Saint is to be useful I think moreso they'd end up in the Professions they had in life-a man who spent his life as a philantropist becomes one again this time mentioning to his fellows not to put one's faith entirely in money....use it wisely. A scientist who loved the Stars but couldn't see God might go back down to the Space Program to help folks out with it do so...perhaps adapt technology not for glory but to better help man. Maybe I'm being stereotypical but it seems to me the best place to find a Communist Atheist who actually was a good man would be working for Marcus (against Mammnon) or Michael (against Mammon). >Hmm? Are you talking about Marx or the results of his theories? Marx I'm afraid. I'm not saying he was evil or even a bad man but his writing carried a extremely angry overtone in the manner of a man who feels the need to kick a dog to let off steam. The Communist Manifesto was about revolution and he was blind to it improving...admitting the fact it was a disgusting horrible time back then...he encouraged or at least predicted...open violence. A class war that bears too much in my opinion the tone of those who predict the same for races or religeons. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:51:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Love and Superiors At 1:33 AM -0400 6/4/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 11:50 PM -0400 6/3/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >At 10:39 AM -0700 6/3/00, Eric Bertish wrote: > >>On Fri, 02 June 2000, "Charles Phipps" wrote: > >> > >> > Laurence: Will you marry me in a traditional Catholic ceremony for the > >> > purposes of Procreation. >[...] > >See, I'd do Laurence with full out "Maiden Knight Eager to Break A > >Lance" earnestness. He'd *hardly* be a 'we will Procreate and that's > >it' husband. > >Among other reasons, procreation with a human would be unthinkable >(it's a _sin_ ! Remember the Grigori!), and what's the point with >a Servitor? You just wind up Force-stripping the poor thing and >having to replace the Forces -- and he can make new angels and >relievers entirely on his own, without memetic taint from some >other being who might have a quirk or two that, while individual, >wouldn't be too bad... but spread throughout his servants?? True, all true. But we're postulating actual love here, versus the marriage proposal given above. Hmmmm... There's the other option, of course. Not a mortal (I agree there) and not a Servitor (though many love *him* passionately and completely, he would never damage that love or their service by stepping down from his proper role and place). But there are peers... and... hmmm.... >(Mmm, long sentence!) But you do it so well! >Far more likely to do the "courtly love" thing, in my view (_not_ >as LE -- the LE view is whatever it says about the matter in Superiors >1, and IIRC it does touch on that somewhere), and wear a favor and >kiss hands and maybe show off just a _touch_ in an honorable duel. Hm. Hm hm hm. I have this sudden urge to reinterpret Laurence's Sup1 crossquote with Blandine, you know it? Think about it -- Blandine is the perfect Lady for a Knight's Courtly Love. So distant, and so melancholy, and Lawrence respects her position in "the broadest beachhead of the war..." And he is so young in comparison, and as a Malakite can *see* her pure honor, even when it comes to her Fallen Soulmate.... And she would represent the perfect Courtly Love for him in another way -- a part of Courtly Love is the idea that if the fates would but allow, the pair could be united in pure bliss. And as an Archangel who is not in Laurence's Service, Laurence would be free to wed her, accept her as equal and wife, and take her as a perfect wife (in the Catholic, as well as 'biblical' sense). This isn't to say Blandine would reciprocate, but that's even *better* for Courtly Love, and it gives Laurence someone to impress beyond Michael. >(Not that he'd have to. Mmmmmm, fencers. They have the _most_ ... >_delicious_ .... legs. And other body parts. (Yeah, I had a quasi- >crush on the best fencer in the class once. Does it show? O;> )) No comment. (Though back in my fencing days, there was this strawberry blonde who handled an epee something fierce... though sabre fencers weren't her thing. She preferred this faux brit epee guy who wore tweed in the summer... *not* that I'm bitter...) - -- 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: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 05:16:51 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? At 5:31 PM -0400 6/3/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 1:52 PM -0700 6/3/00, Ryan Elias wrote: > >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >>S4 is [....] about my favorite book at the moment.) > > > >Eh. I'm still very fond of S2 (considerably better, IMHO, than S1, which > >was in no way a bad book). Mind you, I haven't seen S4's art yet, and > >I'm marvellously shallow. > > _I_ haven't seen S4's art yet. I don't even know what the >_concept_ for S4's cover might be! (I'm hoping either Vapula, for >the Mad Science aspect, or a nice Valefor, for the beefcake >aspect. (Yes, I'm marvellously shallow too...)) The great thing is, I just need *one* decent shadow on the cover, and I can claim Alaemon got the cover too. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:12:48 +1000 From: condition@subdimension.com Subject: Re: IN> Long live the Revolution At 01:26 4/06/00 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: >Maybe I'm being stereotypical but it seems to me the best place to find a >Communist Atheist who actually was a good man would be working for Marcus >(against Mammnon) or Michael (against Mammon). Or working for Janus against Mammon >Marx I'm afraid. I'm not saying he was evil or even a bad man but his >writing carried a extremely angry overtone in the manner of a man who feels >the need to kick a dog to let off steam. Marx was just a man and in his life he did some low things (like most people). But this doesn't mean anything for his theories. He wanted a better world where people were free from the tyranny of Capitalism. So even if you don't agree with him I think he had an influence on a lot of people. >The Communist Manifesto was about revolution and he was blind to it >improving...admitting the fact it was a disgusting horrible time back >then...he encouraged or at least predicted...open violence. I have to admit here that I am a Atheist and a Socialist (Not a Stalinist however). But for instance I believe the Russian Revolution was successful and lasted as such for about six years. One shot was fired during the revolution and but it was when the landowners and capitalists decided that they didn't like things being seized that the civil war began and people died. It can get quite political here on whether the revolution was good or successful or why it failed but for In Nomine I think there's a few interesting spins; You could see the revolutionaries and working class influenced by Janus and David and maybe even Gabriel against the Tsar and other agents of Mammon and maybe a few other Princes. With the success then corrupted by Malphas and Asmodeus (castigating Mammon for his failure). Or the other side could be the revolutionaries were influenced Asmodeus, Baal, and Lilith against the stability of the Tsar. I figure depending on what you think you could take either spin (I obviously don't take the latter). > A class war that bears too much in my opinion the tone of those who > predict the same for >races or religeons. Just to play Devil's advocate for a bit here but what of the war of heaven against the individuals of hell; "Don't you know those demons are just for individuality and heavens an authoritarian regime trying to wipe them out of existence? Not to mention down right prejudicious!" - - Condition ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1656 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.