From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Mar 7 16:26:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA09385; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:53:24 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA25530 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:56:39 -0600 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:56:39 -0600 Message-Id: <199703072056.OAA25530@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 #59 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 Friday, March 7 1997 Volume 01 : Number 059 In this digest: Re: IN> Patience (long!) Re: IN> Elerial RE: IN> Possible Demon Princes? Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? Re: IN> Song Questions Re: IN> Patience (long!) IN> Failed Superior Invocation... RE: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Failed Superior Invocation... Re: IN> Patience (long!) Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? Re: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Song Questions Re: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Munchkin Math! Re: IN> Tether locations Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:22:39 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Patience (long!) On Mar 7, 9:40am, Drew Johnson wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Patience (long!) > > On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 09:39:24 -0500 John Karakash - Lucent ASCC > wrote: > > [Elerial post] > > > > John- > Have you been consorting with dreadlocked archangels? > > Seriously, is Elerial merely a part of the future canon of > archangels from the Good Folks at SJGames, or did that just come from a > blast of inspiration? > > I like the character concept rather a lot; only one thing was missing; > what would the base invocation number be? I would say something along > the lines of 4 or 5 (any angel servitor to Patience would probably have a > pretty good, well-thought-out reason for calling her.) Well, I read Moriah's post on Patience and I thought it would be a neat idea, and quite appropriate, to have an Archangel of Patience. Also, I had a free hour this morning while doing email, so why waste it? ;) If Elerial actually does get picked up for anything, she'll require a bit of revision. I'm not certain that the attunements and distinctions are really balanced against each other and the other Archangels. The base invocation could, with justification, be quite low. Start with a 1, but allow the 'extra time' rule to work as well. Probably have to extend the 'extra time' chart just for her! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:28:07 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Elerial > But I agree, I liked Elerial. Very much a traditional Archangel, > which from my point of view is a Good Thing. (Yeah, I'm one of those ones > who balked at an Angel of Weed or what-have-you. Call me a conservative, > beat me, whip me, I still think angels are supposed to be the Good Guys > (tm).) > > Back to the point at hand, though, if Elerial isn't Canon she is at > least an interesting non-official addition. Maybe a Pyramid article about > her inner machinations? Sounds good to me, I'll put a lot more thought and detail in and see what the higher-ups think. The field for major players is already about full for the supplements for the game, but since Elerial is a 'sleeper' that can pack a wallop, she works better in the magazine format. Oooooh, this give me ideas, must get to word processor... - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:19:55 -0600 (CST) From: Shadowcat Subject: RE: IN> Possible Demon Princes? On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 5:51 PM -0800 3/5/97, Lonnie Foster (Volt Temp) wrote: > >_A Dictionary of Angels_, by Gustav Davidson (it's listed in the In > >Nomine Primary Sources section), is a really good place to look for the > >names of fallen angels, as well as members of the Host. More names for > >angels and demons than you can shake a stick at. > > If you can find it -- our local bookstore couldn't get it, and > even Powell's hiccuped on it once. (Third time's the charm... > At least they have a used paperback kicking around, according > to their catalog...) Try religious suply houses. I got my copy at the same place a preist friend of mine got his robes in Indianapolis. Don't ask me the name I can't remeber for the life of me, and i am living in southern Wisconsin not far from Milwaukee now so i can't just check the phone book. Shadowcat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:24:54 -0600 (CST) From: Shadowcat Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > > > right idea, wrong date. Trust someone who worked retail far too many years. > > the day after thanksgiving, Known far and wide as Black Friday, is the > > most horrible day of the year to be a retail sales person. Especially in a > > mall. > > Yup. Almost everyone has that day off (except for retail > and restraunts... surprise!), the next big holidy is Xmas and > nobody wants to cook. Can you tell I worked my way through > college as a food server? ;) I put in my time at a tether of Nybbas. A huge 15 screen movieplex the day of Christmas. I seriously learned to hate Carebears and Smurfs one year. 8-p Shadowcat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:15:20 +0000 From: "Joel Cardella" Subject: IN> Munchkin Math! Hey - Check out the munchkin Malakite my friend built. Incidentally, thi is a "not" in my capaign. Althought, he'd be a great NPC, especially for demons. Malakim of Gabriel 5 Corp Forces Str 12 Agi 8 Fighting/6 Num Corp: Claws/6 Malakim of Gabriel Num Corp: Feet/4 Rolling (Str+Corp+Fighting)= +11 Power, auto success! +6 Power (Hands) +4 Power (Malakim of Gabriel) - ------ +21 Power w/ hands! Then, if it hits on Agility: +4 Power (Feet) Hands only: 21 - 27 pts Hands & Feet: 25 - 31 pts EVEN WORSE Malakim of David, Master of the Granite Hand (Forces/Stats/Songs as above) Hands Only: +17 Power w/ hands Master [Check digit x Corp Forces] = (5,10,15,20,25,30) Hands only: 22 - 47 pts! Hands & Feet: 26 - 51 pts! * * * * * * * * * * * * Joel Cardella All the powers of a man bestowed on a man. http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:34:52 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Munchkin Math! On Mar 7, 1:15pm, Joel Cardella wrote: > Subject: IN> Munchkin Math! > Hey - > Check out the munchkin Malakite my friend built. Incidentally, thi is > a "not" in my capaign. Althought, he'd be a great NPC, especially for > demons. [munchkin combat monster deleted] Demonspawn! Someone has been reading my mind about the I'm going to use in my first adventure. Can't even trust my own mind these days... grumble, grumble... - -john 'Demon Prince of Rules Lawyers and his faithful servant the Demon of Munchkins' karakash- - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 12:23:52 -0600 (CST) From: Bob the Dancing Monkey Subject: Re: IN> Munchkin Math! I was thinking about the way in which the In Nomine rules can be used to create Special Forces-esque combat machine Celestials. For a time, I was thinking this is terribly strange and why in the world would SJGames put out a game in which such terrifyingly strong characters that the Munchkins that we know and love could create and annoy everyone with. Then it hit me. It's obvious from some of the postings (not to mention the IN Core Book rules) that it is frighteningly easy to create Corporeally nasty angels and demons that can easily rip apart Celestials and Soldiers alike. There has been a lot of muttering about this (both here at Carleton and - it seems - in this space.) However, if one thinks about it, this is exactly what the War can be like. In "A Dark Dream", a threat is made about Malakim getting ahold of characters and pummeling them into bloody ectoplasmic pulp and the angel, a being of no little power himself, was scared out of his wits. The Servitors of Dominic and Asmodeus are _supposed_ to be bad-asses who mete out justice as they see fit. This is a game about a titanic struggle between good and evil; there is a war under heaven, and the characters we create are powerful beings in that war. Much of it _is_ in fact done with deceit and planning and subterfuge. Sometimes, brute force is used. The heavy tanks are brought and characters will begin to feel the hurt. This is why Corporeally or Celestially weak characters need to have defenses and resources invested in making sure that 1) They use their talents so as to further their aims _without_ attracting attention. 2) If they do attract attention, they have the allies and artifacts and songs to be able to escape with their vessels intact. What's more, strong characters have even more to think about. Their Corporeal Forces have been jacked up, yes. Attack one of these Celestials in Celestial form, however, and they are going to be in for a world of hurt. What's more, it would seem natural that if an Prince or Archangel on the opposing side to the Tank was to learn about this bull in their china shop, she would probably send out a contingent to take out this threat as quickly as possible. Angels that specialize are one thing; an unbalanced muscle-bound Angel or Demon is just waiting to have his Forces stripped or his Corporeal vessel destroyed by a Celestial SWAT team. Just some thoughts... - -Drew P.S. Has anyone else as of yet taken a look at Peretti's This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness (mentioned in the IN bibliography)? I would love to chat at some time about these two books in relation to the In Nomine world. __________________________[O][O][O]____________________________________________ Drew Cosby Johnson [O][O][B] http://public.carleton.edu/~DJOHNSON/ djohnson@carleton.edu [O][C][O] Ld. Robert Bartholomew Mmm...Nukes... [M][O][O] Gabba-gabba-hey. __________Student Computing Intern____[O][O][O]___Carleton College_____________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:10:06 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? At 8:37 AM -0500 3/7/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >> Funny you should mention this. I just finished an >>article titled, "Mommy, Where Do Angels Come From?" and >>sent it on to the upper heavens for review/approval. I can >>answer your questions, but they are very much My Opinions >>Only. Well, that's not entirely true since Derek looked >>at some of it and didn't say it was flat out _wrong_, but >>then again he didn't say it was all _correct_ either! ;) > >[...] It's only when mating with humans that 'accidental' use >[of Essence, to create a kid] can occur (and, in my proposal, >Followers of Eli...) ;) (Creation, true... Are you sure that "accidental" is entirely appropriate? I might do it, "make a Will/Perception" roll to start the process with the average Celestial, and make it totally voluntary, don't need to roll, with the Servitors of Creation.) >> 'Kay. Is it an act of deliberate will on the celestial's part, >> or could it "just happen"? Would it be different depending on >> which gender the vessel was in? > > It has to be a deliberate act of the celestial (with >the caveat above). Gender is irrelevant although that _will_ >change some of the details of the actual gestation/birth. >(Angels don't get morning-sick, for example.) Lucky critters. (Well, I wouldn't know about morning sick myself; I *do* know about monthly cramps.) Can a pregnant-vessel celestial "go celestial"? What happens to the kid's soul, if so? Does that contribute to memetic inheritance? (As opposed to genetics...) >>>>#3: Can celestials (in vessels) interbreed with animals? >> >>>#3) No. The essential element, the soul, is missing from >>>the mix. Just thought of a better requirement -- must have (or have had in the past, perhaps, for Remnants?) at least one of each Force for a successful breeding? (Okay, I *like* the idea of a Remnant in a Role being able to have even only semi-celestial kids.) >>>Three elements are required for Corporeal breeding: >>>1- Two souls, one per partner ;) >>>2- Essence expenditure (to provide the seed for the new soul) >>>3- Body compatibility and capability >> >>I don't know about *you*, but I've seen cats (and dogs) with >>more soul than some people... O:> > > Kyriotates. Must be Kyriotates. Although I have seen >a cat with what must be a case of permanent Shedite possession! Eeeeg! Now that's scary... >>>#2a/#3a) A Kyriotate or a Shedim in a host can breed the >>>same as another angel/demon in a regular vessel. >> >>Though a Shedite might think it was amusing to saddle a host >>with a "hellspawn" kid. :-p No wonder Lilim hate Shedim... >>("Our bodies, our choices!") > > Oooooh, adventure idea, adventure idea! Seriously "mature audiences only," but yeah.... >>>#4) If Lilith had children, they would follow the same >>>rules, presumably, as other celestials breeding. >> >>Not quite what I meant -- Lilim are the daughters of Lilith, created >>by Her. One presumes that if Lilith herself were meant to be >>cross-fertile with Adam, that the Daughters of Lilith (that we know >>of, not just cross-breed ones) could conceive/sire a child with a >>human, even if other angels couldn't (or had more trouble doing it). > > Ahhhhh, I see. That's an interesting point and I must >meditate on it properly. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... One would presume that it would be a definite matter of choice for them, of course. :-) >>That sounds like a "middle ground" to me, actually. There's no >>"half-elf" theme, but the human result *is* something at least >>slightly different from the rest of humanity. One might speculate >>that depending on Choir/Band, the result might share "memes" from >>the celestial parent -- Seraph-kin tend to be tallish (providing >>the Seraph was in a standard vessel) and don't like the Lying >>skill (and are handy with Detect Lies), while Impudite-spawn are >>really good at mooching off of other people and making them like it. > > The middle ground I was referring to was the non-genetic >side of things. It is canon that you either have a human soul >or a angelic soul and there is no way to switch from one to the >other. Ahhhhhh! Okay, I think I get whatcha mean now. >Angels have certain powers and restrictions that make >them unique from humans and vice-versa (all are based on that >essential soul-difference). While a human might be a result >of 'better breeding', and therefore be more inclined to get >that sixth force, they are hardly divine/demonic. So the product, while maybe having 1+ more forces than the average mortal, will not necessarily be celestial -- they won't have Trauma if they die, but will get bounced to the appropriate celestial gates, and if demonicly celestial (by their actions) may well be used as an Essence-generator with the rest of the peon human souls, or if angelically celestial (by actions), have to worry about "passing on" to the Heavenly realms beyond which we know naught. However, if the product gets lucky enough to have a *celestial* soul, they show up (possibly in Trauma, unless they have a Malakite parent?) somewhere in the celestial realm their actions earned? If that's the same as their celestial parent's, then maybe they show up by that parent's Heart? (Which I think is a seriously cool notion.) Hm. So where do Grigi-Kiddies show up when they die? And will the product have memetic influence from the celestial parent's Choir/Band? (As well as genetic influence from the vessle used, which I'd say is likely...) Gee.... Ofanim-kids would be hyperactive, wouldn't they? >> BTW, I tried to reply to you in Email on a different topic, and >> it got bounced -- ascc.lucent.com couldn't be found... > > *(sigh)* I believe in one telling of the garden of >eden, it was surround by a huge wall of fire after they >kicked Adam and Eve out? Our firewall around our computer >at work functions in much the same fashion. I don't suppose >your post was filled with impure thoughts, was it? ;) I was just thanking you for your appreciation of my In Nomine IOU stuff... I suppose that might count for Pride. > johnk@lucent.com _almost_ always works. >johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com works nearly as often. It doesn't like ascc... I think just lucent.com worked last try. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:11:54 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Song Questions At 8:22 AM -0500 3/7/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >>> There is no second edition currently planned. Nor, >>>at this time, does there seem to be a need. >> >>:-pbpbpbtt. Fine, fine, I'll see if I can pick up another copy >>and use an exactoknife on it... > > Now, who let the Calabite in here! Geesh, I thought >we had sprayed for them! ;) Beats me, but I think some might be working at the printer's -- the plastic covering on our In Nomy book is starting to fray a little at the edges. >>> I haven't checked in that detail, but more Songs are >>>definitely in the works! >> >>Just wanted to make sure it was an orphen ref, not an obsolete one. > > If I have to, I'll MAKE a spell just to use that >reference... Song, not spell, Song. Maybe the Song of Sleep? (Lullaby, lullaby...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:16:58 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Patience (long!) At 9:39 AM -0500 3/7/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: [...] > Elerial, the Archangel whose name means Patience approves >of the willingness of all who bide their time in support of In >Nomine. [...] >Kyriotates: These Kyriotates gain the ability to wait in their > hosts without controlling them. They gain no dissonance > when their hosts are damaged unless they are actually in > control at the time. While not in control they are > nearly indetectable. Hey, I had dibs on that one first! [...] >Basic Rites >Spend 12 hours in simple contemplation of an activity without > actually taking any actions toward completing it (nor any > other actions). Oh, that's easy... You should see the planning that goes on amongst our group sometimes... (On the other hand, there's just this *glow* that you get when your plans all work perfectly, allowing you to set it up and waltz through the opposition via treachery and guile, rather than messy combat...) (And then there's times when everything just goes wrong and you wind up in a firefight with people who can actually use their weapons naturally and not by default.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:19:34 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Failed Superior Invocation... At 9:44 AM -0600 3/7/97, fish wrote: >On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Drew Johnson wrote: > >> I like the character concept rather a lot; only one thing was missing; >> what would the base invocation number be? I would say something along >> the lines of 4 or 5 (any angel servitor to Patience would probably have a >> pretty good, well-thought-out reason for calling her.) > > I disagree. I'd think somewhere between 1 and 3... After all, if you >don't succeed the first time, be patient and try again. ;) Here's a question -- if you *fail* to attract your Superior's attention, what's the Check Digit good for? If you were at a Tether, is that the number of days before your Superior gets your message (that you left off with a secretary angel/demon) and gets back to you? If you're not at a Tether, is it the number of days before you can try again? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:19:36 -0800 From: Nicholas Jost Subject: RE: IN> Munchkin Math! - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC2AE9.71662F40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So is that what you were going to send after us John? And after I tried to make a resonable *character* :) Nick Jost - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC2AE9.71662F40 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiUTAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABpbl9ub21pbmUtbEBsaXN0cy5pby5jb20AU01UUABpbl9ub21pbmUtbEBsaXN0cy5p by5jb20AAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAZAAAAaW5fbm9taW5lLWxAbGlzdHMu aW8uY29tAAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABsAAAAnaW5fbm9taW5lLWxAbGlzdHMu aW8uY29tJwAAAgELMAEAAAAeAAAAU01UUDpJTl9OT01JTkUtTEBMSVNUUy5JTy5DT00AAAADAAA5 AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAA7A7AQiABwAYAAAASVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBNYWls Lk5vdGUAMQgBBIABABcAAABSRTogSU4+IE11bmNoa2luIE1hdGghAO4GAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcDAAcA CwATACQABQAlAQEggAMADgAAAM0HAwAHAAsAEgAmAAUAJgEBCYABACEAAAAxRUU4N0VCMTNEOTZE MDExODUzQjAwQTAyNENGMTY1MgAOBwEDkAYAgAIAABIAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAEA AAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDgO69+LCu8AR4AcAABAAAAFwAAAFJFOiBJTj4gTXVuY2hraW4gTWF0aCEA AAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG8Kyx+p7F+6B+WPRHQhTsAoCTPFlIAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAA HgAfDAEAAAAVAAAAbmlja2pAb2xzdGFmZmluZy5jb20AAAAAAwAGEJkYaRUDAAcQXQAAAB4ACBAB AAAAXgAAAFNPSVNUSEFUV0hBVFlPVVdFUkVHT0lOR1RPU0VOREFGVEVSVVNKT0hOP0FOREFGVEVS SVRSSUVEVE9NQUtFQVJFU09OQUJMRSpDSEFSQUNURVIqOilOSUNLSk9TVAAAAAIBCRABAAAACQEA AAUBAACrAQAATFpGdVpvC8f/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIA cHJCcRHic3RlbQKDMzcC5AcTAoM0BEYTMzEgdwhVB7ICgH0KgAjPCdk78RgPMjU1AoAKgQ2xC2Dg bmcxMDMUUAsKFFFNC/JjAEAGAG8gBAAg1nQRgAVAdx1ieQhgHZChBJBlIGdvC4BnHUDDHQARsG5k IGEBgBaxAnUEIEpvaG4/IPsUsB83SR1ACIEfQB7hAMDSax5gYSAYEHMCIAGgOmweYCoRcgDQH4Eq IAw6KQqFI6xOaWNrvx/hE8ALRhVhC/ITUG8T0BcjICQGFzEAJ6AAAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAA QAAHMMCBFVwsK7wBQAAIMMCBFVwsK7wBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAArkA== - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC2AE9.71662F40-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:39:13 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Failed Superior Invocation... On Mar 7, 2:19pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Subject: IN> Failed Superior Invocation... > At 9:44 AM -0600 3/7/97, fish wrote: > >On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Drew Johnson wrote: > > > >> I like the character concept rather a lot; only one thing was missing; > >> what would the base invocation number be? I would say something along > >> the lines of 4 or 5 (any angel servitor to Patience would probably have a > >> pretty good, well-thought-out reason for calling her.) > > > > I disagree. I'd think somewhere between 1 and 3... After all, if you > >don't succeed the first time, be patient and try again. ;) > > Here's a question -- if you *fail* to attract your Superior's attention, > what's the Check Digit good for? If you were at a Tether, is that > the number of days before your Superior gets your message (that > you left off with a secretary angel/demon) and gets back to you? > > If you're not at a Tether, is it the number of days before you can > try again? I like this proposal. Right off hand, I can't remember whether that was covered in the rulebook. (Right now, a lot of my mental energies are going towards FORGETTINg all thost playtest files I carried with me lovingly to many conventions. Ack.) If there isn't a ruling already, I think this is a good answer. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:47:22 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Patience (long!) On Mar 7, 2:16pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Patience (long!) > At 9:39 AM -0500 3/7/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > [...] > > Elerial, the Archangel whose name means Patience approves > >of the willingness of all who bide their time in support of In > >Nomine. > [...] > >Kyriotates: These Kyriotates gain the ability to wait in their > > hosts without controlling them. They gain no dissonance > > when their hosts are damaged unless they are actually in > > control at the time. While not in control they are > > nearly indetectable. > > Hey, I had dibs on that one first! D'oh! I thought that sounded familiar as I wrote it. Can you suggest a change that would make it sufficiently different? (I'm still pulling for the ArchDean of secrecy... heh, heh, heh.) Maybe take out the indetectable part? I've forgotten the details, help! > >Basic Rites > >Spend 12 hours in simple contemplation of an activity without > > actually taking any actions toward completing it (nor any > > other actions). > > Oh, that's easy... You should see the planning that goes on amongst > our group sometimes... (On the other hand, there's just this *glow* > that you get when your plans all work perfectly, allowing you to > set it up and waltz through the opposition via treachery and guile, > rather than messy combat...) > > (And then there's times when everything just goes wrong and you wind > up in a firefight with people who can actually use their weapons > naturally and not by default.) Eh, that's what essence is for... ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:11:51 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? > >[...] It's only when mating with humans that 'accidental' use > >[of Essence, to create a kid] can occur (and, in my proposal, > >Followers of Eli...) ;) > > (Creation, true... Are you sure that "accidental" is entirely > appropriate? I might do it, "make a Will/Perception" roll to > start the process with the average Celestial, and make it > totally voluntary, don't need to roll, with the Servitors of > Creation.) Oh, the Celestial doesn't have an accidental stuff, they do it automatically. The _human_ has no real control over their essence, even Soldiers are rarely trained in the amorous arts when it comes to its use. ;) There do seem to be some mystical/sexual practices designed to _withhold_ vital essences. I imagine there could be the opposite as well. A lot of the evil-devil-worshipping-cultist types try to give birth to the antichrist with their ceremonies. A demon of some sort would be required to stand in for the devil and the woman could either be a volunteer or a hapless victim. Fear is a good way to cause essence spillage. > Lucky critters. (Well, I wouldn't know about morning sick myself; > I *do* know about monthly cramps.) Can a pregnant-vessel celestial > "go celestial"? What happens to the kid's soul, if so? Does that > contribute to memetic inheritance? (As opposed to genetics...) In my essay, the embryo (soul and all) goes where the vessel goes when it's not in use. This can make for a VERY long pregnancy. You have to spend the full nine months in corporeal form for the child to complete gestation. > Just thought of a better requirement -- must have (or have had in the > past, perhaps, for Remnants?) at least one of each Force for a > successful breeding? (Okay, I *like* the idea of a Remnant in a > Role being able to have even only semi-celestial kids.) Erk. That opens the floodgates for weirdness. Possibly interesting weirdness, but weirdness nonetheless. As far as I can tell you have to be at _least_ as complex as a human being to help create an angel and, IMO, at least one partner must be an angel to actual make an angel. But you have triggered an idea for a story/character. What if a remnant fled to a vessel that was pregnant? I'd say that the soul's course had been set at conception. Now if a Remnant had sex AFTER becoming a remnant, it become trickier. They cannot spend essence with the same surety as celestials, but certainly could do it for this purpose. The offspring would be all humans to my thinking. The genetics are right and the remnant at least has the tatters of a complete soul, but the angelic quality is gone. > > Kyriotates. Must be Kyriotates. Although I have seen > >a cat with what must be a case of permanent Shedite possession! > > Eeeeg! Now that's scary... We call her Loviatar, Kitten of Pain. > However, if the product gets lucky enough to have a *celestial* soul, > they show up (possibly in Trauma, unless they have a Malakite parent?) > somewhere in the celestial realm their actions earned? If that's the > same as their celestial parent's, then maybe they show up by that > parent's Heart? (Which I think is a seriously cool notion.) Ah, this gets into the meat of the proposed article. The proto-angel is, for most intents and purposes, a human called a Chrysalid until they emerge. Until that point they live and die as a human. Afterwards, they are fully angel and subject to the restrictions and enhancements angels have. The dead proto-angel could be used as the core of a new angel possibly, since their soul was essentially angelic. > Hm. So where do Grigi-Kiddies show up when they die? Depending on how you look at things, there are two different choices. 1) God made the Grigori to be so close to human that all their children with humans were human 2) Grigori, fallen or no, are angels still. They have the same chances of making an angel as any other angel. Of the two, #2 has richer role-playing opportunities. Maybe the mysterious Grigori still exist and have ways of reproducing that make neither angels, humans or devils. A sort of 'pre-tripped for you convenience' angel. This was firmly beyond the score of the article since the details of the Grigori are still being batted around. > And will the product have memetic influence from the celestial > parent's Choir/Band? (As well as genetic influence from the vessle > used, which I'd say is likely...) Gee.... Ofanim-kids would be > hyperactive, wouldn't they? It's more fun that way, so I'd go with that! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:13:13 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Munchkin Math! On Mar 7, 11:19am, Nicholas Jost wrote: > Subject: RE: IN> Munchkin Math! > > So is that what you were going to send after us John? And after I tried to make a resonable *character* :) Hey, out outnumber my poor six to one! It'll be a cakewalk. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:30:57 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Song Questions > > Song, not spell, Song. Maybe the Song of Sleep? (Lullaby, > lullaby...) Verry sleeepy. Up to0 late. Need sleep. Zzzzz.... Actually, the Song of Sleep sounds pretty neat! Lessee.... This Song focuses on the calming and soothing effects of that most mortal gift: sleep. Sleepers normally end up in Blandine's realm, but the spell can be perverted to send the vicitim to Beleth's side with the addition of an addition point of essence. Corporeal: The target is overtaken by lassitude and must make a Will roll to remain conscious. He will sleep normally until awakened by some means or after a number of hours equal to the check digit of a successful performance. Ethereal: Calms the emotions of a group of people within yards*check digit range of the singer's voice. Strong, violent emotions (even involving Ethereal Discord) are negated unless the listener chooses to resist and makes a Will roll. (Note, that unlike the Ethereal Song of Harmony, violent _actions_ are still possible, but the person will be very calm while doing so. A not-normally violent person will find it difficult to take violent actions, though.) If the Singing skill is possessed, a successful use of this skill (which requires several minutes) will have the effects of the Corporeal Song of Sleep on the listeners. Celestial: Will put someone to sleep, unless they make a Will roll, and up to one other person per extra point of essence spent, and take them into a mutual shared dreamscape created by the singer. The singer himself can enter the dreamscape at no extra cost and can exit at will. The check digit determines how many hours the dreamscape can be maintained. Essence Requirement: 1* Degree of Disturbance: 1 per person who fights the Song (successfully or not) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:33:53 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Munchkin Math! On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Bob the Dancing Monkey wrote: > out of his wits. The Servitors of Dominic and Asmodeus are _supposed_ to be > bad-asses who mete out justice as they see fit. Err, not exactly -- they're supposed to mete out justice when justice is due. *Not* judge, jury, and executioner -- at least not one individual Celestial. Thus Dominic's three-person hit squads, rather than just one or two -- they're the jury, too... -- fish. | Fish Flowers ><> | | (Malakite of Power Gaming.) (I don't exist.) (Fnord.) | | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu eidolon@io.com | | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:07:46 +0000 From: "Joel Cardella" Subject: Re: IN> Munchkin Math! On 7 Mar 97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Demonspawn! Someone has been reading my > mind about the might be reading this> I'm going to use in my first > adventure. Can't even trust my own mind these days... > grumble, grumble... > > -john 'Demon Prince of Rules Lawyers and his faithful > servant the Demon of Munchkins' karakash- > Well, John, I AM one of your players and I AM a Servitor of Destiny, so doesn't it stand to reason that I'd know? "Hey, you, get out of my mind!" - - Joel "Servitor of Destiny" Cardella * * * * * * * * * * * * Joel Cardella All the powers of a man bestowed on a man. http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Mar 97 15:37 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Tether locations [John Karakash:] > Did you say a HUNDRED tethers?! IMO, even ONE tether is >something to write home about and more than a dozen, even for >the largest, most important cities would be pushing it hard. This is assuming the tethers are roughly proportional to population density (i.e., Essence in the vicinity). It certainly needs to be modified for special circumstances (strong emphasis on a Word in the area), and probably for city age as well -- a city of 1 million on France, for example, is more like to have a Tether than one in the US, simply because US cities are so young, and the events/opportunities to Tether creation are probably somewhat random over time. The problem with using a much-higher population density per tether is that then *very* few places will have a Tether, and you'll have to travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to find one to a particular Archangel/Prince. I'd think a place as large, old, and diverse as New York would probably at least have one Tether to each major power, which means something on the order of 30-50. They're probably not all downtown, but that doesn't seem unreasonable for the Greater New York area. On the flip side, a city like Manchester NH (the largest city in my state) *might* have one. (I think the population there is a bit under 100k.) Tether density isn't so important on the Eastern Seaboard, where the population density is so high you can probably find any sort of Tether within 500 miles. But out in the more open parts of the US like the midwest, you may want Tethers in much less-populous areas, just so there's one not *too* far away when you need one. Even so, you'll probably have to "borrow" someone *else's* Tether. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:52:57 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Why Johnny can't breed... or can he? > Oh, the Celestial doesn't have an accidental stuff, > they do it automatically. The _human_ has no real control > over their essence, even Soldiers are rarely trained in > the amorous arts when it comes to its use. ;) There do > seem to be some mystical/sexual practices designed to > _withhold_ vital essences. I imagine there could be the > opposite as well. > A lot of the evil-devil-worshipping-cultist types > try to give birth to the antichrist with their ceremonies. > A demon of some sort would be required to stand in for > the devil and the woman could either be a volunteer or > a hapless victim. Fear is a good way to cause essence > spillage. Not to be sexist, it could easily go the other way. Men _can_ be raped as long as you don't scare them too much (and even then certain spells/songs could help out there) and killing the poor sap is a reasonable way for him to provide his side of the essence since you don't acutally need him around for the gestation period. YUCK. Imagine this scene. The cultists pick out an appropriate stud (horny college student, perhaps), and lure him in with the appropriate bait (attractive Demoness in a vessel, or even better, a Sheddite- controlled victim). Have sex and, at the climax, kill the guy. Clean the mess and then wait 9 months. If you go the Sheddite route, you get two victims for the price of one, though she will be harder to manage than a willing cultist. Oooh, adventure seed! Go with the entire above scenario, but the woman _escapes_ sometime in the eighth month. There are all sorts of hook for either demons or angels (since the offspring will have the same opportunities for choice that any angel has) or perhaps for the interest of our favorite Demon Princess, Lilith. The cultists obviously want the child so they can raise it right (wrong). The demons have similar plans. The angels think it would be much better that the child choose their side. Lilith wants to make sure the poor woman has some sort of choice (in return for a favor or two, no doubt). Sound like fun? Or you can take it at the far end. All the above is _background_ for an adventure and the child is now almost mature and ready to emerge. You can take it on any side (raised by angels, demons, cultists, a favor-bound servitor of Lilith). I'm generation an adventure based around this concept already, but of a kinder nature (a fling with a Mercurian of Eli... Oy!) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #59 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.