in_nomine-digest Friday, September 20 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2780 In this digest: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> Triangulate Re: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> Ofanim angels? IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions Re: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) Fwd: IN> Song of Fusion by BC Petery Re: IN> Ofanim angels? RE: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN>Genubath Final Draft Re: IN> Restaurant of Lost Souls Re: IN> Jinx Re: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions RE: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> Ofanim angels? Re: IN> Navy geeking (was "Ofanim angels?") RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) IN> Plot Seed: Raising the Edmund Fitzgerald (was Re: Navy Geeking) Re: IN> The Aegis RE: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions RE: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) Re: IN> Navy geeking (was "Ofanim angels?") Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? - --- EDG wrote: > At 05:59 AM 9/19/2002 -0700, Michael Walton wrote: > That's what I get for trusting an encyclopedia. ;) The Jane's books (i.e. _All the World's Aircraft_) are better resources for such stuff. The entry for the SR-71 is most informative by way of what it leaves out. };> > ...or other choirs need to start becoming obsolete. I > wonder if that's a sign of the End Times? Like the Mercurian Resonance overloading as people's networks of contact expand exponentially due to e-mail? =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:36:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Triangulate Now this is way cool. I can hear the combat gumbies drooling. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:37:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? - --- Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Do Ophanim at least get a bonus to learn or perform the > Songs of Motion? According to LC, yes. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:47:01 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? At 10:30 AM 9/19/2002 -0700, Michael Walton wrote: > The Jane's books (i.e. _All the World's Aircraft_) are >better resources for such stuff. The entry for the SR-71 >is most informative by way of what it leaves out. };> I've looked through those, and they are quite good. (Honestly, what I'd *like* is a resource that tells me different classes of ship - cutter, cruiser, destroyer, etc. - and tells me, in specific terms, what the characteristics of that class are (e.g., why is this ship a cruiser and not a gunboat?).) > Like the Mercurian Resonance overloading as people's >networks of contact expand exponentially due to e-mail? Oh dear. "Sir, we need backup, now! Something just caused the Mercurian to explode, and --" "Relax, Virtue. The Mercurian made it back to his Heart, and we've looked into the situation. Apparently the Mercurian tried to use his resonance on a Net addict..." - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:48:06 -0400 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? >> Like the Mercurian Resonance overloading as people's >>networks of contact expand exponentially due to e-mail? > >Oh dear. > >"Sir, we need backup, now! Something just caused the Mercurian to explode, >and --" > >"Relax, Virtue. The Mercurian made it back to his Heart, and we've looked >into the situation. Apparently the Mercurian tried to use his resonance on >a Net addict..." > My God... It's full of... listservs... Josh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:03:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher Anthony" Subject: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions It's big, so it's linked: http://heretech.mirrorscape.net/in-nomine/orexp.html Feedback is appreciated. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:45:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: Re: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Christopher Anthony wrote: > It's big, so it's linked: > > http://heretech.mirrorscape.net/in-nomine/orexp.html > > Feedback is appreciated. > > -EDG > Here are my thoughts: #1 aspect is interesting and useful without being overpowered. Good. #2 and #3 take away from other powers (Song of Cel Motion, Cherub resonance) -- I don't think there is a need to expand the Ofanite resonance along these lines. Two replacements I would use would be: 2) Ever notice how an Ofanite in a Vessel (not in Cel. form) only moves as fast as everyone else? True, he can use his resonance to boost an Agility-based Running total, but that only lowers the difficulty: it doesn't raise the effect. So: An Ofanite, while in a Vessel, can resonate to improve his running/swimming/flying speed. Make a resonance roll; if successful, the Ofanite's base movement speed will be multiplied by the check digit for (Corporeal Forces) minutes. While under this effect, the Ofanite cannot use his resonance to boost his Agility rolls -- he is sacrificing finesse for raw speed. 3) Similar to 2, except it effects Ofanim in vehicles. First, the Ofanite makes an appropriate Driving roll. If the Driving roll fails, the Ofanite must immediately spend his next action to regain control of the vehicle (Driving with a -2 penalty) or else crash (or something equally unpleasant). If the Driving roll succeeds, the Ofanite may make a resonance roll. The check digit of the resonance roll may not exceed the check digit of the Driving roll. For the next (Ethereal Forces) minutes, the vehicle will have it's base speed multipled by the resonance check digit. During this time, all piloting rolls have an additional -2 penalty. No damage is done to the vehicle unless the Ofanite crashes; no extra fuel is used either. Note that effect #3 can be used with mounts (such as horses) and Moe's Screamers. :) Ryan R. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:40 +0100 (BST) From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Subject: Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) In article , jmensch@shaw.ca (Julian Mensch) wrote: > Malakim have strong inter-Choir bonds that are almost cultic in You do mean "intra-", not "inter-", don't you? - --- John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:00:37 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: IN> Song of Fusion by BC Petery >Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:00:04 -0400 >Subject: IN> Song of Fusion >From: BC Petery > >>> Ooh! Ooh! Can more than one person fuse? Can a Saminga, Asmodeus and Belial >>> do a ring-around-the-rosie and merge to form Asminglial? >[ka-chunk] >> Seriously though, it really does depend. Maybe people can fuse endlessly, >> but duration halves each time as the amount of power grows more and more >> unstable. > >Rats. I'm trying to imagine the entire collection of Anime AAs & DPs >preparing to do battle with the revived Legion by performing the Monty >Python sketch, "Formation Swanning About." (Led by Kobol, of course.) > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:47:05 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? At 8:39 PM -0400 9/18/02, William J. Keith wrote: >>the speed of sound at STP (about 770mph) can move faster than an Ofanite at >>maximum speed (about 720mph).) >[...] presuming >accuracy, Ofanim are a lot slower in GURPS.[...] >(Move in yds/sec = (DX+HT)/4, rounded down and modified by encumbrance; >resonance multiplies move by 8. An Ofanite which had paid 260 total points >for a DX and HT of 20 (maximum possible natural human values, each) 260? Is this including the template, or outside of it? (Because it's only a +6 to celestial-native stats of 14, and that's only... 80 points, each, IIRC?) - --Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:01:49 +0300 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Ofanim angels? - --- EDG wrote: > The fastest jet in the world has a top speed of 2190 mph - -----Original Message----- From: Michael Walton [mailto:thunderdog_sa@yahoo.com] It's a bit faster than that, actually. The SR-71 has an _admitted_ top speed of about Mach 3. It's known that it can go faster than that, but the U.S. government won't say exactly how much faster. And the Blackbird was designed and built in the late 1960's; we surely have faster stuff now. *** *** Not so certain about that. The Blackbird goes so fast that it literally expands from the heat. The fuselage has gaps designed to close as it heats up. I do believe that factor is the limiting one on the Blackbird's speed, not the engine. Anything faster in an atmosphere is just going to turn itself into flack. But Jean and the gang at the Skunk Works might surprise us. Once metallurgy or ceramics tech catches up with speed. DS1 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:33:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN>Genubath Final Draft I really like the Bright Lilim Attunement. The Ofanite Attunement is markedly similar to Zadkiel's, though. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Restaurant of Lost Souls Yikes! The scary thing is, this could work. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:38:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Jinx The Jinx isn't overpowered, IMO, but the Curse definitely is. [shameless plug] For another take on this, check out the Palatinates on www.phargle.com. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:42:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? - --- EDG wrote: > (Honestly, what I'd > *like* is a resource that tells me different classes of > ship - cutter, > cruiser, destroyer, etc. - and tells me, in specific > terms, what the characteristics of that class are Jane's _Fighting Ships_ (I think that's the title) might have that. And if exploding Mercurians aren't enough, how about Seraphim with constant migrains on the Corporeal plane? The proliferation of advertising may eventually get to that point -- it certainly gives _me_ a headache. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:45:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions - --- Ryan M Roth wrote: > An Ofanite, while in a Vessel, can resonate to > improve his running/swimming/flying speed. Nice. > 3) Similar to 2, except it effects Ofanim in vehicles. [snip] Note that effect #3 can be used with mounts (such as > horses) and Moe's Screamers. Nicer. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:28:44 +0300 From: "Bergeron, Robert F., DS1(SW)" Subject: RE: IN> Ofanim angels? This help any? http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/ It doesn't exactly say "why" but it's got all the physical characteristics listed. I don't think we have cutters any more, unless you're asking about Coast Guard ships. Cruisers are bigger than Destroyers, and we've gotten rid of most of 'em except the Aegis class. Both hunt subs as a primary concern. Gunboats are the little things that they used in "Apocalypse Now" to hunt down Marlon Brando. I would need more specific questions to answer anything else. DS1 - -----Original Message----- From: EDG [mailto:anthoch@earlham.edu] I've looked through those, and they are quite good. (Honestly, what I'd *like* is a resource that tells me different classes of ship - cutter, cruiser, destroyer, etc. - and tells me, in specific terms, what the characteristics of that class are (e.g., why is this ship a cruiser and not a gunboat?).) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:07:42 -0400 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> Ofanim angels? >260? Is this including the template, or outside of it? (Because it's only >a +6 to celestial-native stats of 14, and that's only... 80 points, each, >IIRC?) >--Beth, arcangel@io.com / archangel@sjgames.com In Nomine Line Editor >http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ *sigh* I just read through the applicable section of Compendium I, which I've read before, and owned about as long as I've owned In Nomine. Joy. (I was paying the difference between 14 and 20, 45 points to 175.) I really oughta go through the INC, doublecheck anywhere I have a GURPS-statted character in there, and overhaul their claims as to point levels. (I *think* I've undercounted points, which means I can add more goodies in -- I tend to like high-attribute characters.) Fortunately for all our sanities, Beth, as far as I can tell this won't affect the LCant conversion or the EPG conversion. William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:28:34 -0400 From: Michael Nutt Subject: Re: IN> Navy geeking (was "Ofanim angels?") > http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/ > > It doesn't exactly say "why" but it's got all the physical characteristics > listed. You might also try http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.html for a good general description. Historically, though, naval nomenclatures have been subject to some degree of interpretation. Depending on the era, ship classes have had different definitions and roles -- today's "cruisers" don't displace nearly as much as WWII cruisers did, and the roles are completely different. For example, the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers (WWII era) had a standard displacement of 13,000+ tons, whereas the Ticonderoga-class (today's "Aegis" cruisers) only displace about 7,600 tons. To get this somehow back to In Nomine... some of these ships are being turned into museums, while some are simply in storage. You could quite easily imagine a Tether actually on board, and while it isn't really possible to steal a ship out of mothball storage, it could certainly provide a quasi-private location where nobody would bother you. Perhaps one of Baal's demons has a soft spot in his heart for a ship on which he once served... - -- Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:17:21 -0600 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) << >* Resonances are broken down into sub-aspects called > Facets. Each Facet of a resonance has a corresponding > skill rated from one to six. Any resonance roll starts > out with a base penalty of -6, lessened by one for each > level of the corresponding Facet skill that the user > has. Assuming 6 Facets, an average character, with evenly-distributed characteristics and Facet ranks, has a 1-in-216 chance of successfully using his resonance (trivial uses notwithstanding): since his target number is 1, he *must* roll an Intervention in order to succeed at the roll. If an otherwise average character spends all 6 points on a single Facet - in other words, he is as skilled as he could possibly be in that use of his resonance - his chances of success rise to 41.6% (42.1% if a demon), and he *still* needs to roll an Intervention in order to succeed at any other use of his resonance (TN 0). >> The idea here being that most "normal" angels will spend 6 ranks on their primary Facet (Virtue & Sin for Malakim, etc.) so they can use it like a normal canon resonance, and then would devote points to the others just as if they were skills -- so, an expanded resonance table (at -1) costs the same amount as a Choir attunement. Further, most Facets go off the *same* attribute, and how many Seraphim or Mercurians have Perception 6? << I can't begin to imagine that that's what you intended. Suggest the default penalty be -4 at *most*. >> That could work... but then it opens the idea that an angel with Perception 9 (not unusual, IMO) can succeed *unskilled* at *any* aspect of a resonance juat under half the time. Which may not be bad, but defeats the point of "you get ONE table, unless you pay for more" and we're back to angels rolling on 3+ tables all the time to harrass the GM. > Nitpick: The singular is Menunite. Gotcha. << >* Trivial uses of resonance require no roll, nor do any > charts need to be consulted. This is essentially just > making official a common-sense rule anyway, but it can > be significant with the infernal resonances, as demons > backlash. Essentially, it's "resonance cantrips." What about choirs and bands (such as Ofanim and Shedim) who don't *have* analogues to these examples? >> Off the top of my head? Ofanim move at 3x normal speed by nature in their CelForm. Shedim... are a whole pile of wierdness because their Backwards resonance is just so different from their Forwards one. Put simply, when tapping into a host's most primal desires, passions and ambitions to enhance his abilities, they can automatically gain a +1 bonus to a roll, as opposed to +CD. But it's A) not really written yet, and B) more involved then that. << The problem here is that Strength has almost nothing to do with damage. How about "any inanimate object that they could destroy with a single unarmed blow"? It gets rid of the passive voice *and* the emphasis on someone else's statistics. >> Yes, that's a good call. The reason I avoided damage is because a gun has 4 Body Hits, and I didn't want a Calabah to auto-melt people's weapons in combat without a chance of failure. But "single unarmed blow" works as long as the GM isn't too literal with Body Hits. << >...Malakim have strong inter-Choir bonds... I think you mean "intra-Choir" here. >> Yup. << I don't see anything particularly wrong with the rest of the write-up. Unfortunately, what this means is that GMs are going to have a *lot* more work to do. (It's already tough to come up with virtues and vices on the fly - the Mercurian resonance notwithstanding!) >> I see this as just part of IN. I'm probably the only one that will GM this setting anyway, and I'm not overly worried. Of course, having players that don't randomly ping everything is helpful, no matter what rules-set you are using... :) - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:48:25 +0800 From: Manny Nepomuceno Subject: Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) Hey, At 10:28 AM 9/19/2002 -0500, 'twas written: >By the way, I applaud your use of the singular forms "Malakh" >and "Lilot" instead of "Malakite" and (ick) "Lilim." *chuckle* I had a friend who went by the name of Malakh on a MUD once, only to be informed that it meant something unprintable in Greek. Of course, not being Greek, I have no idea if this is true. ;) Manny Neps http://www.geocities.com/angeloffools ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:53:49 -0600 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) << By the way, I applaud your use of the singular forms "Malakh" and "Lilot" instead of "Malakite" and (ick) "Lilim." >> Thanks. I think it might have been you that I stole it from in the first place. I'm trying to get rid of all the inconsistent plurals while avoiding silly names like "Calab" or "Lil" that are accurate to Hebrew but uncool-sounding. Currently, I have: Seraph / Seraphim Balseraph / Balseraphim Cherub / Cherubim Djinn / Djinn Ophath / Ophanim Calabah / Calabim Menunah / Menunim Pachadal / Pachadim Eloah / Elohim one Habbalah / many Habbalah Malakh / Malakim Lilot / Lilim Kyriotate / Kyriotates Shedu / Shedim Mercurian / Mercurians Impudite / Impudites Grigori / Grigori Nephalah / Nephalim << I also like re-naming the Words of Novalis, Zadkiel, and Christopher as the Garden, Providence, and Innocence. Any other changes in your game? >> Lots. I do hope to post it someday, one all the little niggling bits are taken care of. My perpetual problem is that I always start writing something new instead of finishing what I start. Anyway, here's a Superior list for the heresy. I'm going to try and put something tangible - -- whatever writeups I have done -- on the web in time for Christmas. It just takes too long to sort out all the 8-bit ASCII and reformat tables & paragraphs to post bits and pieces to the list, though, so I think I'll leave the "previews" at the resonances. The Host of Heaven --Major Archangels-- Abdiel, Mercurian Archangel of the Cross David, Malakh Archangel of Stone Dominic, Seraph Archangel of Judgement Eli, Outcast Mercurian Archangel of Creation Gabriel, Outcast Ophath Archangel of Fire Hayyael, Kyriotate Archangel of Nature Israfel, Seraph Archangel of the Symphony Khalid, Eloah Archangel of Faith Metatron, Seraph Archangel of the Word Michael, Malakh Archangel of the War Novalis, Cherub Archangel of the Garden Raziel, Ophath Archangel of the Mysteries Uriel, Cherub Archangel of Purity --Minor Archangels-- Christopher, Seraph Archangel of Innocence Sabrael, Ophath Archangel of the Wind Jean, Eloah Archangel of Lightning Marc, Mercurian Archangel of Trade Oannes, Kyriotate Archangel of the Waters Raphael, Eloah Archangel of Knowledge Shang-ti, Kyriotate Archangel of Authority Zadkiel, Cherub Archangel of Providence [and Azrael, Fallen Kyriotate Archangel of Death, who still has several angelic Servitors, as he Fell in 1943, becoming Saminga.] The Hordes of Hell --Humanist Princes-- Andrealphus, Impudite Prince of Lust Asmodeus, Balseraph Prince of the Game Azazel, Grigori Prince of the Tower Baphomet, Djinn Prince of Life Beleth, Djinn Princess of the Night Demogorgon, Calabah Prince of the Unnatural Furfur, Calabah Prince of Hardcore Lilith, Human Princess of Freedom Lucifer, Balseraph Prince of Light Mammon, Impudite Prince of Greed Mephistophiles, Balseraph Prince of Transformation Nybbas, Impudite Prince of the Media Vapula, Habbalah Prince of Technology --Defiler Princes-- Amon, Balseraph Prince of Empires Ahriman, Balseraph Prince of Illusions Beelzebub, Calabah Prince of the Qlippoth Belial, Shedu Princess of the Abyss [i.e. Despair] Kobal, Impudite Prince of Mockery Moloch, Habbalah Prince of the Inferno Saminga, Shedu Prince of Death --Unaligned Princes-- Baal, Djinn Prince of War Malphas, Shedu Prince of Divisions Sammael, Habbalah Prince of Damnation - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:56:19 -0600 From: "Wade Lahoda" Subject: IN> Plot Seed: Raising the Edmund Fitzgerald (was Re: Navy Geeking) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Nutt" > To get this somehow back to In Nomine... some of these ships are being > turned into museums, while some are simply in storage. You could quite > easily imagine a Tether actually on board, and while it isn't really > possible to steal a ship out of mothball storage, it could certainly > provide a quasi-private location where nobody would bother you. Related plot seed that I'm going to eventually incorperate into my game once my players move out of their immediate area: Raising the Edmund Fitzgerald Remember the Edmund Fitzgerald? It was a 729-foot freighter that went down in Lake Superior in 1975. Made famous, of course, by the Gordon Lightfoot song "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". 29 men died aboard. I have the /wreck/ pegged as a Tether to Janus - simultainiously a symbol that technology will never be able to completely conquer nature, and a memorial to the men who spend their lives away from home wandering over oceans and lakes, always moving from port to port. The plot is simple: A well-meaning foundation wants to memorialize the Edmund Fitzgerald by hauling the remains of the ship up from the bottom, restoring the ship, and set it floating once again. Of course, this isn't just a memorial - it's proof of the ability of Science! to conquer mother nature's most formidible obstacles - and consequently, also a sign of man's uncontainable hubris. This is, of course, an attack on the tether from an Impudite of Vapula. So the object is to keep the Edmund Fitzgerald /sunk/. Made complicated by the hard to reach location of the Tether, and a Seneshal who is just a little bit out of touch, having spend the past 27 years underwater... "[...] Does any one know where the love of God goes When the waves turn the minutes to hours? The searches all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her. They might have split up or they might have capsized; May have broke deep and took water. And all that remains is the faces and the names Of the wives and the sons and the daughters. [...] In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed, In the Maritime Sailors' Cathedral. The church bell chimed till it rang twenty-nine times For each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down Of the big lake they call 'Gitche Gumee'. Superior, they said, never gives up her dead When the gales of November come early!" - --The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, by Gordon Lightfoot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:02:07 -0400 From: Michael Nutt Subject: Re: IN> The Aegis > Okay, that post was a bit long-winded and waffly, but what do you think? :) Honestly, to me it sounds more like something for the Legion of Super-Heroes than something for IN. Not only are the practical difficulties going to be pretty extreme (how will they get to remote locations quickly -- just appear in the nearest Tether? Will that cause problems for the Seneschal? Will your FDNY role help you at an oilfield fire in Bahrain?), but whatever happened to the War being covert? How will these angels manage to keep their cover from being blown as "miracle-workers" over the long haul? Will the inevitable Symphonic disturbance involved in pulling off these rescues mark them as targets for less-kindly-disposed demons? I know many people have described IN as a superhero game with a vaguely religious setting, but this calls for a comic-book universe to let it even vaguely work. Perhaps, though, most of Zadkiel's angels on corporeal duty are working on rescue tasks something like this, in specific areas... which would explain her status as a minor Archangel. - -- Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:35:43 -0600 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions > http://heretech.mirrorscape.net/in-nomine/orexp.html I agree with Ryan that #1 is the cream of the crop. Very wifty. You wouldn't be offended if I borrow it for my writeup, would you? :) - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 07:05:23 -0400 From: EDG Subject: RE: IN> The Ofanite Resonance: Expansions At 09:35 PM 9/19/2002 -0600, Julian Mensch wrote: > > http://heretech.mirrorscape.net/in-nomine/orexp.html > > I agree with Ryan that #1 is the cream of the crop. >Very wifty. You wouldn't be offended if I borrow it >for my writeup, would you? :) Of course not. (If I didn't want things stolen, I wouldn't post them. ;) I wasn't kidding when I said that I stole it from myself, though. A few months back, that was Oannes's Ofanite attunement. ;) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 07:22:31 -0400 From: EDG Subject: RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) At 08:17 PM 9/19/2002 -0600, Julian Mensch wrote: > The idea here being that most "normal" angels will spend >6 ranks on their primary Facet (Virtue & Sin for Malakim, >etc.) so they can use it like a normal canon resonance, and >then would devote points to the others just as if they were >skills -- so, an expanded resonance table (at -1) costs the >same amount as a Choir attunement. This gets back to the issue I had earlier (not with this setting, mind) of buying vast amounts of skills at once. It sounds like you're condoning that. Am I misreading you? Also, designing around "most" leads you to situations with unplayable characters. I'm not saying it's possible to build a perfect system. or to keep everybody happy - just that it pays to keep as many people happy as possible. Most angels might - but the average angel won't. > Further, most Facets go off the *same* attribute, and how >many Seraphim or Mercurians have Perception 6? It's not an issue of prevalence, it's an issue of mean. The average newly-fledged angel, of *any* choir, has Perception 6. > That could work... but then it opens the idea that an angel >with Perception 9 (not unusual, IMO) can succeed *unskilled* >at *any* aspect of a resonance juat under half the time. Which >may not be bad, but defeats the point of "you get ONE table, >unless you pay for more" and we're back to angels rolling on >3+ tables all the time to harrass the GM. Perception 9 either a) accompanies Will 3, b) accompanies lowered characteristics in other areas, or c) requires a point expenditure similar to a Servitor attunement. Any angel with Perception 9 has paid for it in other areas, and should be allowed to reap the benefits. As a note, this angel won't be succeeding just under half the time: he'll be succeeding 36% of the time. (Remember, it's not possible to roll a 1.) That's just over one out of every three rolls - and failing a resonance roll, if I remember correctly, renders it useless for a certain amount of time. To get back to the point, though, the description that you gave us - unless I'm horribly misremembering it, which is possible - doesn't imply anywhere that angels should/must take 6 Facet levels in their primary Facet. It just says you get 6 points to spend among the Facets, which itself means simply that the average Malakite (for instance) will have 2 levels in two Facets, and 1 level in the other two. Suggest: Celestials start out with 6 free points in their primary Facet. It costs 1 CP at creation to move one point from the primary to another Facet; after creation, the Facets are locked in, and can only be bought up like skills. Example: Ed the Malakite starts character creation with 6 levels in his primary Facet. He wants to change this so that he has 3 levels in Virtue/Sin, 2 levels in Guilt, and 1 level in Moral Paradigm; this will cost him 3 points. After the game starts, these points cannot be shuffled again: if he decides he'd really rather have Virtue/Sin at level 6, he has to spend the 3 CP to buy the skill up, and Guilt and Moral Paradigm remain at 2 and 1, respectively. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:51:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Navy geeking (was "Ofanim angels?") - --- Michael Nutt wrote: > To get this somehow back to In Nomine... some of these > ships are being > turned into museums, while some are simply in storage. > You could quite > easily imagine a Tether actually on board, and while it > isn't really > possible to steal a ship out of mothball storage, it > could certainly > provide a quasi-private location where nobody would > bother you. That alone is valuable even without the Tether. > Perhaps one of Baal's demons has a soft spot in his heart > for a ship on which he once served... Or one of Michael's angels, for that matter. Shoot, such a ship would be a great place to find that Orphan of Oceans or the Waters that your Superior has sent you to track down. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) - --- Manny Nepomuceno wrote: > *chuckle* I had a friend who went by the name of Malakh > on a MUD once, > only to be informed that it meant something unprintable > in Greek. It means "angel" in Hebrew (Arabic too, but the spelling is different. Or maybe I have them reversed), so your friend has something to come back with. Still, homophones can be pain. Hmmm... sounds like an opening for a minor Word-bound of Factions... =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

"Don't repent. Stop sinnin'." -- old cowboy saying

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:24:02 -0600 From: Julian Mensch Subject: RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) First of all, I do appreuciate the degree of concrete analysis you put into this. It's really helpful to get this kind of feedback. > This gets back to the issue I had earlier (not with > this setting, mind) of buying vast amounts of skills > at once. It sounds like you're condoning that. Am > I misreading you? I'm afraid I don't understand what the issue is. Can you describe it more completely? [ Averages vs. Optimized Characters ] All right, I'm actually convinced. I actually agree with the game-design philosophy that says "I should not have to min-max in order to have a competant character". HERO is one of my favorite game systems due to it's sheer flexibility, yet it drives me up the wall that if you don't use the Power Frameworks, you suck in contrast to those who do. Automatically. I *do* think that, in canon and in most games, angels tend to have higher Perception than Will, and demons vice versa, and *all* Celestials tend to emphasize Celestial Forces over the other two catagories. Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that IN is an out- standing game, but mechanics have never been a real point of emphasis. The canon attunements are not anything resembling balanced, so I don't make balance a priority in things I write; rather, I just look out to ensure that nothing *game-breaking* enters the system on my watch. IOW, yes, the Facet system as written sucks, but it isn't really the root of the problem -- the canon -4 resonances aren't particulairly usable or practical to the *average* Celestial either. I'm completely open to people's ideas on how to improve either the canon rules or my homebrew variant; I will admit that my variant resonances as they stand are high on concept and low on number-balance. To start with, yes, let's set the penalty at -4. Then let's note in the description that almost all Celestials have one Facet skill at 4+. Then you get the same base distribution as in canon -- one resonance at [Attr], one at [Attr -2] and the other/rest at [Attr -4]. This does not entirely fix things, but it does seem better. Another option would be to leave the resonance roll at base attribute value as in canon, and set the maximum check digit on a resonance roll to be the Facet skill rating. Anyway, the central point of my changes was not to numerically "fix" resonances, but to try and capture the "organic, multifaceted aptitude as opposed to kool special power" feel the APG gave me without the niche overlap that the APG had. Also, to give greater expan- sion to those Choirs the APG expanded very little, like the Kings. Any other thoughts? - -- Julian Mensch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:31:14 -0400 From: EDG Subject: RE: IN> Expanded Resonances: Malakh(ite) At 09:24 AM 9/20/2002 -0600, Julian Mensch wrote: > First of all, I do appreuciate the degree of >concrete analysis you put into this. It's really >helpful to get this kind of feedback. No problem. :) > I'm afraid I don't understand what the issue is. >Can you describe it more completely? It's the "Ed Gruberman, Kung Fu Master" problem. Hypothetically, a character can get enough character points in two sessions to go from no ranks in a skill to master-level proficiency. My solution was to vary CP costs for skills; a simpler one was to limit CP distribution. I don't remember what your original text was, but it seemed like you were recommending buying Facet skills bunches at a time. > Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that IN is an out- >standing game, but mechanics have never been a real >point of emphasis. The canon attunements are not >anything resembling balanced, so I don't make balance >a priority in things I write; rather, I just look out >to ensure that nothing *game-breaking* enters the >system on my watch. I can understand this. > IOW, yes, the Facet system as written sucks, but it >isn't really the root of the problem -- the canon -4 >resonances aren't particulairly usable or practical to >the *average* Celestial either. I'm completely open to >people's ideas on how to improve either the canon rules >or my homebrew variant; I will admit that my variant >resonances as they stand are high on concept and low on >number-balance. Well, I did give you one idea. ;) > To start with, yes, let's set the penalty at -4. Then >let's note in the description that almost all Celestials >have one Facet skill at 4+. Then you get the same base >distribution as in canon -- one resonance at [Attr], one >at [Attr -2] and the other/rest at [Attr -4]. This does >not entirely fix things, but it does seem better. Okay. So Ed the Malakite would be using Virtue/Vice at TN 6, Detect Guilt at TN 4, and both of the others at TN 2. That sounds reasonable. (He has a chance without relying purely on Intervention.) > Another option would be to leave the resonance roll at >base attribute value as in canon, and set the maximum >check digit on a resonance roll to be the Facet skill >rating. That works too. (In fact, I think I might like it better.) > Anyway, the central point of my changes was not to >numerically "fix" resonances, but to try and capture >the "organic, multifaceted aptitude as opposed to kool >special power" feel the APG gave me without the niche >overlap that the APG had. Also, to give greater expan- >sion to those Choirs the APG expanded very little, >like the Kings. I understand. I'm not trying to turn this into a cool power - I'm just saying that if it's part of who they are, they should be able to use it. ;) - -EDG ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2780 ********************************