From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jun 5 17:51:20 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 RAA22955 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:51:19 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id RAA12186 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:49:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:49:49 -0500 Message-Id: <200006052249.RAA12186@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 #1660 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 Monday, June 5 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1660 In this digest: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Serendipity and In Nomine (was Re: IN> Silly Artifact...) IN> Uriel's ultimate fate Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine IN> Karl Marx in Heaven/Hell IN> Words under Michael Re: IN> Words under Michael IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree IN> City of Angels IN> Dominic and Destiny Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Words under Michael Re: IN> Next Playtest? Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Re: IN> Next Playtest? IN> The Malakim Conclave (Seed) Re: IN> The Malakim Conclave (Seed) Re: IN> Next Playtest? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:14:59 -0700 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Sayeth Earl: > On the other hand, just to complicate matters, Laurence might > take seriously Jesus' remark in the following: > > "That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came > to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a > man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and > have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first > one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to > his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, > right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the > resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them > were married to her?" Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do > not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people > will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the > angels in heaven." > > - Matthew 22:23-30 > > So Laurence might conclude that it's wrong for angels to marry. Angels in heaven ... that could of course imply that marriage is an Earthly thing. While it is indeed an honorable thing that context, for some reason in Heaven there is no need of it. In an entire community of selfless people, firm institutions like this may be unnecessary. But don't tell Dominic that. Sean _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:36:05 -0400 From: neelk@cswcasa.com Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Emily Dresner wrote: > > On the other hand, there's plenty of _Scripture_ on the topic of > > chastity, and I'm sure that is what Laurence follows. I would > > assume he believes something along the lines of: > > > > "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept > > pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually > > immoral." - Hebrews 13:4 > > On the other hand, just to complicate matters, Laurence might > take seriously Jesus' remark in the following: > > "[...] Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the > Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will > neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels > in heaven." > > - Matthew 22:23-30 > > So Laurence might conclude that it's wrong for angels to marry. For my own game, I stole from _Paradise Lost_ and decided that there was no equivalent to the sacrament of marriage -- angels were free to engage in the celestial equivalent of sex with oany ther angels, modulo the usual requirements of genuine affection and respect for the other party. However, sex with humans was strictly forbidden, and was grounds for being cast out from Heaven or worse. This was the reason the Grigori had been cast out; their violation of this prohibition led to the birth of the Nephilim and the destruction of the ancient world in the Great Flood. Dominic was extremely worried that Eli was breaking this rule: having to pass judgment on the world again and ask Gabriel to destroy the Earth with fire was one of his personal nightmares.... - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:02:34 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Walter Milliken wrote: > I don't know of any offhand; we use a fairly simple Excel spreadsheet for > our characters. (And a *very* complex one for GURPS characters; I was just > hacking on it last night to do a bunch of GURPS IN characters to use in demo > games.) > > I once started hacking one up in Java, but it simply wasn't worth the > effort -- the spreadsheet does pretty well, and is a lot simpler. I suspect > other potential software authors have found the same thing. Spreadsheets are much better, in general, for these things. I've been hacking at an IN-2-GURPS spreadsheet, but have to wait for the final conversion rules before I can put the rest of it together. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:16:44 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine At 15:02 -0400 6/5/00, John Karakash wrote: > Spreadsheets are much better, in general, for >these things. I've been hacking at an IN-2-GURPS >spreadsheet, but have to wait for the final conversion >rules before I can put the rest of it together. As far as I know, it hasn't changed from the last playtest version, at least not much. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:24:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Philip J. Moyer" Subject: Serendipity and In Nomine (was Re: IN> Silly Artifact...) At Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:57:25 -0400, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>>It doesn't have much IN content *yet.* But I have faith in Philip. >>>Which should be worth a Rite, darn it. >> >>*Philip blinks much at this. And coughs. And blushes.* >[...] Actually, I was just wondering when the heck I had the power to -give- Rites... last I checked, I certainly wasn't a Superior... or even a Wordbound... o_O ^_^ or angel or demon for that matter... (Actually, I'm a Philip. But that goes without saying. *^_-* ) >>Where've you -been- the past few >>years, Eric? >Now now, I never claimed Serendipity hadn't come to IN, I said I had >faith IN would come to *Serendipity.* There *is* a difference.... >(Or am I digging myself deeper?) [Jean.2070] *Elohite clearing of throat* I beleive what Lady Arisa Aiziz was implying through her admittedly inefficent ramblings was not that the amateur conglomerate fanfiction known as "Serendipity" had not come to the Role Playing gaming series In Nomine, nor that there would be eventual In Nomine content in Serendipity, but that there -already- was In Nomine content in Serendipity, albeit in a rough, unrefined, and undocumented form, through references in roleplaying logfiles and discussions recorded elsewhere. So, in this instance, you are correct in your evaluation, "Whistling In the Dark", for in the present time interval there has been no solid evidence of In Nomine element inclusion in Serendipity for public consumption. [Jean.2070] In addendum, no, you are not digging yourself deeper, "Whistling In The Dark"; but if you wish to do so, you may desire to obtain a more efficent shovel. [Ayrie just boggles at the nice Elohite Archangel, and decides to sit over here like a nice little Creationer Cherub in service to the Lord of Lightning and not saying anything...] - --- Philip (who thinks at this point we've gotten off-topic enough to warrant email continuation off-list. *wl* Though admittedly, letting the Archangels out can be fun...) Philip Moyer----------------Qapla'-------------pmoyer@jurai.net "To boldly go where no one has gone before!"-Capt. J. L. Picard "Roads? Where we're going we don't NEED roads!"-Dr. E. L. Brown "If it can be dreamed, It can be done."- ReRob Mandeville "Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection, The Lovers, - ---------- The Dreamers, and Me."- Kermit The Frog ------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:19:49 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Uriel's ultimate fate >Actually, in canon, no one knows what happend to Uriel. (Which results >in some entertaining rumors for S3...) He was yanked into the Higher >Heavens -- and that could be a reward, a punishment, both... What >a particular celestial (or non-celestial, for that matter) thinks the >"verdict from on high" was, is up to the particular celestial (and the >GM, in the case of NPCs). (One hopes I'm parsing this correctly, >mind.) Well I wasn't suggesting Uriel was destroyed utterly by God for fufilling his word "too well". Basically saying that his being a fundamentalist was destroying him utterly...however it is one of my theories of what happened to poor Uriel. Basically what I was thinking was that Dominic might be very disturbed that it *was* a punishment and that he might be following the same path. However truth be told I'm kinduv wondering if he doesn't "try" and think it was a reward most of the time. Basically the theories for Uriel I've seen so far is. 1:) The Once and Future King: Uriel as it has been suggested (thank you very much) is just on ice til Armageddon or a similar time when he will be needed anew. Uriel may be being sleeping, learning new things, being rewoven into something more lethal, or something along those lines. Motivations by God for this: Unrelated to the whole Jihad deal-it was just time, Uriel had proven himself the supreme warrior of Heaven, Uriel's part in Armageddon was the most important of them all and he'd proven himself reckless and in need of training by the older powers that Yves is only the least of.... Problems with this: None, however realizing God's motives is the important part 2:) Discorporation: God has destroyed Uriel utterly and scattered him back into the Symphony for murdering humanity's dreams. Perhaps adding his strength to the Symphony of the mortals to replace what he took. Motivations by God with this: Uriel murdered Humanity's dreams and for that crime was unworthy of life, It was not the time for their defeat and he took too much initiative, God was having a bad day... Problems with this: Why bother calling him to the Higher Heavens to do it...unless he wanted to see the results of his actions in the place of all truth...hmmmm.... 3:) Reward: Yves was to make pure beings who suffer absolutely no evil to exist in their pure devotion to the utter destruction of all that is wicked or ignorant...or a threat to God depending on your interpretation. For his actions Uriel is now to be of a new class of beings that God makes his "true children". Uriel is kicking back and enjoying brewskies with the rest of the Higher folk. etc. Motivations: Well...I basically said my idea on this. Problems with this: God is a Malakim and a Dominican one at that... 4:) Imprisonment: Pretty much God was Po'ed he went after them and has bound Uriel in a magic tower or whatevers up in Heaven perhaps being forced to see exactly the depth of his crime, chained like Lucifer is in the Bible....he's none to happy. Motivation: God wants to teach Uriel and not strengthen Hell, God wants to punish Uriel and not strengthen hell - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:26:59 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine Walter Milliken wrote: > > At 15:02 -0400 6/5/00, John Karakash wrote: > > Spreadsheets are much better, in general, for > >these things. I've been hacking at an IN-2-GURPS > >spreadsheet, but have to wait for the final conversion > >rules before I can put the rest of it together. > > As far as I know, it hasn't changed from the last playtest version, at least > not much. It's the 'not much' that makes me nervous. Spreadsheets are notoriously finicky things and the logic behind some of the fields is convoluted to make the proper results come out. I only want to rework that code once at most! =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:22:39 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Character Generators for In Nomine At 3:02 PM -0400 6/5/00, John Karakash wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: > > I don't know of any offhand; we use a fairly simple Excel spreadsheet for > > our characters. (And a *very* complex one for GURPS characters; I was just > > hacking on it last night to do a bunch of GURPS IN characters to >use in demo > > games.) > > > > I once started hacking one up in Java, but it simply wasn't worth the > > effort -- the spreadsheet does pretty well, and is a lot simpler. >I suspect > > other potential software authors have found the same thing. > > Spreadsheets are much better, in general, for >these things. I've been hacking at an IN-2-GURPS >spreadsheet, but have to wait for the final conversion >rules before I can put the rest of it together. There *is* a shareware IN Character generator up at SJGames, but it's not perfect. It can make things easier, though. I'm building a spreadsheet in Excel for IN too (aren't we all?) just because it can better keep the math straight while making exceptions/NPC characters easier to build. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:29:44 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Karl Marx in Heaven/Hell >If you go with the idea that Marx ended up in Hell, things get stranger. >Most Demon Princes would enjoy pulling Marx's forces from his body while >saying "So who doesn't exist?" until Marx himself was no longer part of the >Symphony. Currently, I think only Asmodeus and Malphas (though possibly >Kobal or Lilith too) would possibly want Marx intact. Who knows, maybe he >could even work up to being a demon, but I don't know whether Marx would be >willing to do favors for beings he didn't believe in. Besides, both Hell and >Heaven are awfully bourgousie in their organization and heirarchy. Marx >would more likely work to organise other human souls in a proletarian revolt >against the Celestials. Ah, I see another plotline rearing it's ugly head. Hehe while I can see this as a very funny image.... "So humans need to share huh? I've got some words for you about the merits of a free-market economy I lost buddy...." Well personally I don't believe any humans have ever suceeded in working their way up to being a demon. Though I was tempted to go along with that root with someone like Vladimir Tepes (Servant of Saminga-Word of Vampires) and the like. It just doesn't fit. Also truth be told while I've said some pretty nasty things about Marx on this list I don't believe he would serve the forces of Hell willingly. One confronted with the fact there is a group of people actively working against the interests of humanity....be it Mammon, Asmodeus, or the like...Marx would do his best to destroy them (which isn't going to be much I believe). A human who doesn't enter Hell out of ignorance and arrogance to fufill his fate...still also has to be pretty cowardly and/or self serving to pledge themselves to the betrayal of his fellow man. Or stupid. "Angels are bad."-Balseraph None of which I see in the Communist writer. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:53:49 -0400 From: Greg Garrison Subject: IN> Words under Michael What Words do you guys consider under Michael? I am a player in a campaign that might soon offer the possiblility of gaining a word, or working directly under another word related to War. Due to the nature of my Angel, Ofantite which has an incredilble precision, I was thinking the Word of precision or the word of pistols or some such idea. Thanks for any ideas that you put forth. Greg PS..words under other superiors would be interesting and appreciated too. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 16:01:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Words under Michael Greg Garrison wrote: > What Words do you guys consider under Michael? I am a player in > a campaign that might soon offer the possiblility of gaining a > word, or working directly under another word related to War. > Due to the nature of my Angel, Ofantite which has an incredilble > precision, I was thinking the Word of precision or the word of > pistols or some such idea. Thanks for any ideas that you put > forth. Angel of Surgical Strikes? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:59:45 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree >Huh? I'm not parsing that... Basically translated I'm saying in In Nomine you don't have to look at anything written by a human scholar about the divine with a grain of salt. 9/10 what they write is true even if it depicts God's "minions" as cruel, arrogant, nasty sods while the next depicts them as loving caring bubbly folk. I have trouble being clear I admit. >[Laurence doing confession after, ah, well, you know.] Well Baladine and Laurence know. > >Heh. Poor Dom - nobody gives him an even break. (Truth be told, one >of the _hardest_ parts about doing Dominic (as in, writing him in >a story or having him appear in a game), for me, is merging his >Absolute Sternness with his angelic caring nature. I know, even Kobal has to have given up making Dominic's life a living Hell (not that he's not doing it already). Dominic is an easy target because he's ruthless, stern, and doesn't have any fun. However when the average renegade he works to destroy is guilty of throwing a human through a plate glass window for his point of dissonance.....50 stories down. You realize he's pretty fair about his beliefs too... However as an authority figure we can't relate to him very well alot either or want to call him friend. So he's a target....the fact he's hard on you too isn't pleasant either...or works with demons. Though truth be told who hasn't in their In Nomine campaign set up some "temporarey alliance" against a greater evil? Dominic doesn't "like" it that way but I think in a way he thinks it's necessary. In Heaven I used to have him and Lucifer as very close friends before the Fall plus probably many other angels. You don't get too close. Kobal was the angel who was never supposed to fall, Andre has the word by it's defination is meant to be the most beutiful....yet...again. Dominic is the simpliest of Archangels to understand I think but incredibly deep. Also I'm thinking of doing a fanfic for all the archangels at confession hehe >This is where one starts trying to figure out which parts of the "sex >is for procreation" ethos it is that Laurence accepts as pertaining >to angels. And it depends a lot on how one views the creation >process for angels. Well truth be told the way people have presented it I don't see him as really seeing Sex for Procreation as applying to Angels....more for humans. The question thus however is does he believe that angelic "sex" is sex in the earthly sense or does he believe it is a sacred bond for one person and one person alone. >In our games, there's really two ways that Superiors can cooperate >to produce a new celestial -- one involves handing over strongly >"flavored" Forces from one, for the other to merge into his/her >"flavored" Forces, thus producing a new celestial with elements of >both Words reflected in its nascent personality. Like I mentioned before this basically was how I saw Michael and Laurence trying to create the "perfect" warrior for their Earthly conflicts combining Laurence's honor with Michael's skill in battle. >The other is more intimate, involving close cuddling and Force >interweavings. Which I'm sure Laurence would prefer with baladine than Michael.... >Thus, really only the second would count as "sexual" in the sense >humans think of it, but I still think that a married Laurence wouldn't >do the first method either. O:> Which is totally IMOO. (First O= >Obnoxious, of course.) Well I'm not sure sure... Laurence: Honey I'm sorry I just don't feel comfortable with you and Novalis working to make a Celestial to help bring flowery dreams about the world.... Baladine: Not this talk again.... >(Sort of a "if sex is for procreation, does procreation = sex?" >question.) >On Earth, you mean? Yes effectively. It's my view that humanity is alittle more compacted than the average Celestial which is one of the reasons everyone is so confused about them. Jordi: They're a type of monkey I tell you. David: they are divine beings brought forth from all elements and hardened by me! Michael: They're both you ninnies! Gabrielle: I think they're god's fiery inspiration.... Jean: There molecule ammounts brought together by electrical tidal surges covalescing in energy bursts in a once in a quadrillanth ammount... Michael: They're that to...forget it no one believes me anyway. Dominic: Let's ask Yves! Michael: Grrr.... So basically while Laurence might be uncomfortable with the concept of sharing his forces with anyone but his cuddley consort and "eternal beloved"-ideal type. Truth be told I think it would be more on the idea of sharing Forces rather than devoting them to a common prodject. The best idea that supports your theory Laurence would abstain would be likely he should be devoting such creation and other ammounts of time to his lady. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:13:39 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> City of Angels >I think he was a Mercurian. I also think the movie sucked, but then, I >can barely tolerate Meg Ryan. I think it's a different point here-true while Nicholas Cage and his buddies were fascinated by human culture that they read about in their books (I assume no body is doubting that they are servants of Yves) particularly Hemmingway. Mercurians don't bother intellectually examining things about humanity-they go out and do it for themselves. While there may be some reserved Mercurians out there...in Dominic or Yves service true... I see this more as a Elohim who is in love with the idea of what humans possess and wishes to cease to be Elohim....yet not become demonic. Ergo his desire to experience humanity makes him a remanent....see the dissonance? :-) No the tight emotional control of Nicholas was very important there. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:19:59 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Dominic and Destiny >Afraid I don't get the reference. Neither does Yves. When Eli heard it...he just laughed and smirked. Having figured it out a long time ago. >I picture Dominic leaving his Chancery every so often to go to Jacob's Ladder where he can look and ->imagine-.... No doubt. >Take a look at his Dissonance conditions. If his ruling are too harsh - unbalanced - then he would suffer >Dissonance. Forgive me if I wonder if Dissonance: Fanaticism will not be as readily noticible as normal. >It's not supposed to. Justice, last I checked, was Judgement tempered with Grace. Dominic Judges, and if >he's wrong, God intercedes. That's a dangerous notion but an understandable one. Re: God talking to Angels >Not sure what you're trying to say here. I half suspect God is sick of his angels nodding and agreeing without understanding. >Would anyone be interested in seeing my Endgame writeup? Love to. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:33:09 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Laurence and Baladine sitting in a tree At 3:59 PM -0400 6/5/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >Also I'm thinking of doing a fanfic for all the archangels at confession This puts me in mind of an occurance in my life, some six years ago (where *does* the time go). This was at the end of my professional acting career -- which is to say 'temping.' I was also a professional pillow fighter at the Renn Fest (paid better than the acting did, to be perfectly blunt) that season, all while I was gearing up to move 3,500 miles to the West for a few years. And, being a Temp, I went where I was sent, which in this case was a small Methodist Church. I was a clerk for them, typing up bulletins and the like. I'm not a Methodist. Heck, I'm Agnostic and pretty outspoken about it. I liked them all right but it wasn't my favorite job. In fact, it was pretty low on the list. And I had little 'faith' in the Pastor, who seemed a little too slick to me in everyday life. So I could be hep and trendy and cynical about him, but I was polite. (Hey, their church, their rules. I was a guest.) But then one of my favorite teachers -- who happened to be a nun -- from grade school died. And I'd learned that as she'd retired, she'd been shipped off to a different convent, away from all the people she knew. And that hurt -- the idea of her being all alone because of the rules of her faith when she passed on. I learned it at work, and I was pretty desolate. So I knocked on the pastor's door, and he listened to me talk about her for a while, and we discussed Catholics and systems. And I felt better. I didn't feel Methodist, or even Christian. But I think I understood that Pastor better, and what he was trying to do. Dominic is in an odd position. He must judge his fellows. But he also ministers to them, giving them the chance to confess and be given a path to forgiveness. And I don't think he abuses that responsibility. It's like that Pastor -- you may not agree with a word he says, but he's there when you need him anyhow. And that's something I can respect. > > >Well I'm not sure sure... > >Laurence: Honey I'm sorry I just don't feel comfortable with you and Novalis >working to make a Celestial to help bring flowery dreams about the world.... > >Baladine: Not this talk again.... So, instead of a Movie trailer for these two, it'd be a British Comedy? Starring Penelope Keith and Chris Barres, with Brian Blessed as Michael and Rowen Atkinson as Asmodeus? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:05:33 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >At 10:36 AM -0500 6/5/00, David Edelstein wrote: > >You know, I'm starting to have real problems with these requests to >write "reviews" which are pretty blatantly advertisements for the books. 1) I didn't read it that way, and it looks like no one else did either. I thought it clear from context that he was saying "if you're going to puff the game, puff it in a way that's quotable". 2) Even if this was the case, a _modest_ amount of puffing (or requests to puff) on the part of SJG employees would be acceptable, if not exactly welcome. This is, after all, their meat and milk. I'd get annoyed it it was blatant and/or frequent, but IMO it hasn't been, at all. 3) Motes, beams, and eyes, Dave. I well recall your getting distinctly huffy when I posted a review of the CPG that was less than adulatory. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 14:10:58 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Words under Michael >Greg Garrison wrote: > > > What Words do you guys consider under Michael? I am a player in > > a campaign that might soon offer the possiblility of gaining a > > word, or working directly under another word related to War. > > Due to the nature of my Angel, Ofantite which has an incredilble > > precision, I was thinking the Word of precision or the word of > > pistols or some such idea. Thanks for any ideas that you put > > forth. > >Angel of Surgical Strikes? > >Earl Ha ha ha, how about Angel of: Marksmenship Snipers Deadly Accuracy Shooting Wamp Rats The Grassy Knoll Overcoming Target Modifiers - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/6045/index.html "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 07:24:21 -0700 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? Andrew Hackard wrote: > Second show of hands: Who here thinks Etrigan would make a cool IN Prince? > > Hands down again. I can easily see building an IN ad, for the comic, around > Etrigan's character writeup, with enough cool stuff in it to get the comic > readers interested. All we would need is someone who knows "The Demon" well > enough to do a good job, one that the readers of the comic won't hiss off > the stage. Ditto Spawn, if McFarlane is interested. I feel obliged to mention that DC stopped publishing 'The Demon' about 5 years ago. Spawn is still being published (unfortunately), and you can just talk to the Image publishers about advertising. McFarlane doesn't have much to do with the comic anymore. As far as other religious themed comics go, DC's 'Supergirl' is basically an angel these days, and her storylines are mostly religious in nature. Probably a good place to start thinking about advertising. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia My job isn't to make everything beautiful. My job isn't to make living life a good time. My job is to keep the majority of people in this country alive. That's it. If fifty-one percent eat a meal tomorrow, and forty-nine percent don't, I've done my job. That is the absolute fucking limit of what can be done. - The President of the USA (The Beast), TRANSMETROPOLITAN #21 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:53:36 -0500From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Love amongst Superiors (Sorry that it's long...) >Emily Dresner wrote: >> On the other hand, there's plenty of _Scripture_ on >>the topic of chastity, and I'm sure that is what >>Laurence follows. I would assume he believes something along the lines of: >> >> "Marriage should be honored by all, and the >>marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the >>adulterer and all the sexually immoral." - Hebrews >>13:4 >On the other hand, just to complicate matters, >Laurence might take seriously Jesus' remark in the >following: > "That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no >resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," >they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without >having children, his brother must marry the widow and >have children for him. Now there were seven brothers >among us. The first one married and died, and since >he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. >The same thing happened to the second and third >brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the >woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife >will she be of the seven, since all of them were >married to her?" Jesus replied, "You are in error >because you do not know the Scriptures or the power >of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry >nor be given in marriage; they will be like the >angels in heaven." - Matthew 22:23-30 >So Laurence might conclude that it's wrong for angels >to marry. Neat little double-bind we've stuck ourselves in here, eh? Of course, if you just dump Paul completely (something that I do in my own personal theology), then Laurence is in the clear for judicious tension-relief. He just can't _marry_ any of the little dears. :) Still, I think that we've found one of Heaven's favorite arguments to have over beer. Morgan Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Fermentation __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:37:35 -0500 From: Andrew Hackard Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? >I feel obliged to mention that DC stopped publishing 'The Demon' about 5 years >ago. D'oh! Tells you how up-to-date I am on comics news, doesn't it? (Hey, did they ever bring Superman back after Doomsday? ;-) ) - -- Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University" andrew@sjgames.com /______\ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:43:14 -0400 From: "Yeager, Alex" Subject: IN> The Malakim Conclave (Seed) This is the intro/setup for a scenario I used for last year's con season. Since there wasn't a lot of traffic on the question about Celestial parties, I thought I'd unlurk long enough to set this little critter free into the wild. The written version of this scenario dissolves into sketchy notes about halfway through, but if anyone wants more details, contact me privately at the e-mail address below. ********** The Malakim Conclave is not much of a secret, because it doesn't really have to be. (Who wants to interfere with hundreds of Malakim?) The Granish Inn, located in Aviemore, Scotland overlooking the Spey Valley, has hosted this event for over three hundred years, and, although Malakim are not required to attend - indeed, not even a majority attend, since duty comes first - most Malakim remember fondly their time spent at the conventions they have attended. The inn has been in the same family for centuries, and as the firstborn male (and female, in current years) has become innkeeper, they have also learned about their predecessor's status as a Soldier of Heaven. Each has embraced their role, with the assistance of Dathan, Malakite of Flowers. In the late 1600's, Dathan spent an afternoon with Novalis and Yves, having tea in a secluded spot outside Pitmedden Garden (near Aberdeen). During the course of the conversation, Dathan expressed his pleasure at talking with other Malakim about their duties. Yves asked him to elaborate, and halfway through his enumeration of reasons, he found Yves looking at him with that smile of his which literally forces you to listen - and understand - what you've just said. Dathan organized the first convention shortly thereafter, and it quickly became a very popular event for Malakim in the United Kingdom, and, as travel became more common, it became easier for others from around the world to participate. This year, over 600 Malakim will attend the convention, to share ideas, knowledge, skills and equipment. There are various seminars throughout the four days of the convention, and participants are encouraged to attend as many as possible (or, in the case of some Servitors, attend specific ones). Laurence puts in the occasional appearance, and David tries very hard to be there every time, even if only for a day or so. (David is VERY approving of this convention.) Many other Archangels have attended at one time or another, and the convention has a reputation of being an informative, invigorating and entertaining time. ***** The convention, as mentioned before, is not a secret - and this year, there's a problem child wanting to crash the party. Brinnan is a Calabim of Belial that, for the past year, has been getting increasingly erratic in his behavior. He's been defeated twice in the past year at his plans by (different) Malakim, the last event leaving him close to death and with a brand-new Ethereal Discord - Grudge (treat as Berzerk in the presence of a known Malakim). He set out to get his revenge - at any cost. Brinnan managed to obtain two Geases to cash in: one, to get a worker from Vaputech to switch labels on two warehouse items; the second, for another worker to steal one of the switched items for him. Consequently, Brinnan is now the proud owner of a box labeled "Blasting Caps" - with a low-yield nuclear device inside. His goal: detonate the device outside the Granish Inn during the convention. Unfortunately for the two Geased Vaputech workers, Vapula picked that week to do some nuclear testing of his own. Upon discovering the mislabeled blasting caps, and two Game Triads later, the truth was figured out. Vapula had his answer and was satisfied (or was after reassigning the two workers for experimentation); for most of the other Demon Princes, the excitement was just beginning. It wasn't hard to do the math: a few hundred Malakim, along with a three-mile radius chunk of Scotland, would go up in a nuclear fireball - - and a split second later, a few hundred incredibly pissed-off Malakim would be ready to make Aviemore a rallying cry as they exterminated every Infernal they could lay their hand on for the next millennia or so. Nothing would be gained for the Princes, and the act could easily tip the emotional momentum of the War to the side of the angels. This would not do. Still, Brinnan was nowhere to be found, and trying to intercept him within the area of the convention meant putting a group of Infernals within arms' reach of a LOT of Malakim. They needed smart, yet expendable demons... ********** Alex Yeager YeagerAW@Maritz.com SJ Games North US MIB RD/Cheapass Games Demo Monkey INWO Deck of the Week: http://inwo.mymmc.com/dotw/index.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:46:27 -0500 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> The Malakim Conclave (Seed) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Yeager, Alex To: Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 4:43 PM Subject: IN> The Malakim Conclave (Seed) > This is the intro/setup for a scenario I used for last year's con > season. Since there wasn't a lot of traffic on the question about > Celestial parties, I thought I'd unlurk long enough to set this little > critter free into the wild. The written version of this scenario > dissolves into sketchy notes about halfway through, but if anyone > wants more details, contact me privately at the e-mail address below. > > ********** That was *very* nicely done, and I like it too! Does anyone else have any other similar ideas? The Other David ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 2000 22:48:52 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Next Playtest? On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:37:35 -0500 Andrew Hackard wrote: >>I feel obliged to mention that DC stopped publishing 'The Demon' about 5 years >>ago. > >D'oh! Tells you how up-to-date I am on comics news, doesn't it? (Hey, did >they ever bring Superman back after Doomsday? ;-) ) as if they wouldn't. there was a religiously-based comic called "The Illuminator" around the same time period as Superman/Doomsday, but that series only lasted three issues. as someone else has said, Supergirl might work, but it might not. it certainly has the same amount of ambiguity about God besides the fact that He and His angels exist. insofar as other crossover publicity, you might contact Marvel with regard to "The Mighty Thor" the next time you guys reprint "The Marches," but that's a fair stretch. -=|horsefly|=- If I ever wanted to say 'gwrthwynebiad', I'd probably kill myself by choking on my own tongue. =) - --John Karakash ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1660 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.