From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jul 17 17:13:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA17392 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:13:59 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA17930 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:18:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:18:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199707171818.NAA17930@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 #248 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, July 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 248 In this digest: Re: IN> Items and Age Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) Re: IN> Age of Celestials (was Items and Age) Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Age of Celestials (was Items and Age) Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Malakim of Creation IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus IN> Relics Contest ADDENDUM IN> Celestial Age IN> Celestial Age, again Re: IN> Relics Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Items and Age Re: IN> In Nomine font ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 11:57 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Items and Age >> of the Song up to the Level of the Artifact. Each Song has its >> own Essence reserve that can only be used for _that_ Song. If the > What, just automatically? I'd still say it has to be a Reliquary, >and the Essence is just in a pool for the Artifact that can be used for >whatever the artifact can use Essence for, the way it is in everything >else... I agree. Not only does it make more sense, but the other way is just *way* too complex. If the Essence is limited to use by Songs in the artifact, let it be divided up any way the user needs; he just can't draw it out for some other use. (BTW, this is exactly the way GURPS handles "dedicated Powerstones" in magic, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with that.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:54:19 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) > > >>>Note that this is one pitfall in allowing older PC celestials -- if they > >>>were around at the time of Christ, they may likely *know* some of the > >>>details. If you allow this, you're going to have to come up with > >>>answers up front. With younger celestials, they won't know from > >>>personal experience, and may not even have access to accurate historical > >>>information on some of the touchier subjects. I don't think this is necessarily true. Remember, the PC's are only recently assigned to Earth Duty--before "now" they have been on duty in Heaven and their knowledge of what is going on "down" on Earth is going to be *very* limited, consisting mainly of those matters that directly pertain to their Heavenly duties. So though they may have been around during the time of Christ or the Dinosaurs, unless they were directly involved with the Heavenly end of the various events, the PC's would probably be about as well informed as the average modern Western human, ie the players themselves. all IMHO, of course, and worth what you paid to get it. tom timberlake, sometimes Vessel of James, Malakim of David. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 12:04 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Age of Celestials (was Items and Age) [peterf, on celestial "regression" to lower Forces:] >The other way that I see it happening is that a Superior might decide that >they like a particular Celestial "just so". A 12" dagger might be just the >right size where a 14" one is a bit uncomfortable, in the same way a 10 >Force servitor might be perfect for some jobs where a 14 Force one might be >a bit unwieldly. If you had someone who is great at a particular job why >would you ever want them to move on to somethingelse that they might not be >good at, and force you to look for a replacement. I agree that this makes some sense, but it's going to be a little tricky for PCs. Did the Superior just change his mind, and decide to let the PC advance, or is the PC never going to get any rewards? And unless the character himself is unambitious (possible for angels, unlikely for demons), *he* may not being locked into a red-queen's-race situation. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:27:30 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) >I tend to look at it the other way. The info is around and you might have >to ask, but if you do then there are people who will just tell you. Not >Dominic and not Lawrence, whose "need to know" reflex would be well >developed, but Eli (if you can find him) and on some things Michael might >only look at you and ask if you are sure you want to know then just give it >to you straight. Note that simple direct answers to complex questions are >likely to be less than imformative. I like that. Especially for Michael. Is anyone else having visions of "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" Perhaps shreds of history linger in the Marches, in old dreams and forgotten visions. Perhaps even the Ethereal spirits could tell a character things about the old days - of course, their point of view might be somewhat biased, and they're sure to want a favour in return for the information.. Maya - --- Maya, Elohim of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 14:39 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus >I'm looking for a little bit of support on this topic. A >Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. >I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus >did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he >disagreed (along with the rest of my group). > >Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point? Off the top of my head, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, even if it doesn't precisely fit the attunement description -- the basic idea of that Attunement is that the War crowd tend to be *very* good at a preferred form of combat, if I recall right. Claws ought to fit into the spirit, if not the letter. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 14:45 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation >I have a player who wants to play a Malakim of Creation. An issue >came up, obviously. It says that these Malakim are supposed to >fight creatively. The rules say: > >"Anything they pick up can be used as a weapon with a power equal >to the check digit of a successful Perception roll, for the length >of a single combat." > >The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a >weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he >come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with >small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the >nature of his attunement? Attunements are supposed to be pretty useful -- I'd say that the penalties should be dropped, and general Fighting skill substituted, or at worst force the player to take Small Weapon (anything) and Large Weapon (anything). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:49:04 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation >The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a >weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he >come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with >small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the >nature of his attunement? I run it like this: Is he using it like a small weapon? Then use the base small weapons score. Is he using it like a baseball bat, or a sword? Large weapons. Is he throwing it? Throwing. Is he using it to shoot someting? Ranged weapons. I don't penalize him for what his specific skill in say, Large Weapons, is. If he just has Large Weapons (Axe) but picks up a telephone to use a nunchaku, I'm not going to penalize him. SeanMike - ---- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:26:53 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 9:29 AM -0500 7/16/97, Oscar Rodriguez wrote: [...] >"Anything they pick up can be used as a weapon with a power equal >to the check digit of a successful Perception roll, for the length >of a single combat." > >The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a >weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he >come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with >small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the >nature of his attunement? I'd probably base it on his Corporeal Fighting skill, myself, with a Power-bonus (i.e., damage bonus) equal to the check digit. Or Throwing skill, if tossing spoons like shurikin. Yes, you get scary things like a spoon with a +6 Power. Creative Malakite-players will find some way to explain this... (Why am I reminded of that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie scene, about her being saved by her impeccable fashion sense? Hairspray and a lighter...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 16:55 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Asking Tricky Questions (was Age of Celestials) >> >>>Note that this is one pitfall in allowing older PC celestials -- if they >> >>>were around at the time of Christ, they may likely *know* some of the >> >>>details. If you allow this, you're going to have to come up with >> >>>answers up front. With younger celestials, they won't know from >> >>>personal experience, and may not even have access to accurate historical >> >>>information on some of the touchier subjects. > >I don't think this is necessarily true. Remember, the PC's are only >recently assigned to Earth Duty--before "now" they have been on duty in >Heaven and their knowledge of what is going on "down" on Earth is going >to be *very* limited, consisting mainly of those matters that directly >pertain to their Heavenly duties. So though they may have been around >during the time of Christ or the Dinosaurs, unless they were directly >involved with the Heavenly end of the various events, the PC's would >probably be about as well informed as the average modern Western human, >ie the players themselves. I don't know... some Earthly events, like the foundings of Christianity and Islam, were probably major news in Heaven, in their day. The Fall certainly was.... There's also the question of what all those angels are doing in Heaven, too, if they're not concerned with the celestial fallout of the corporeal realm (sorting souls, shuffling reports from the angels downside, doing intelligence analysis, etc.). OK, some of them are in the army, preparing for the final battle, but that's only the War contingent. My view is that the corporeal realm is the main focus of attention for both sides, and that celestials should be interested in the broad outlines of what's happening there, even if they might not know how to fit into human society. And there's a difference between what a celestial or human born this century might know of past events, and what a celestial born back near the beginning might know. Direct experience registers very different views of events than reading an after-the-fact summary of history. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:32:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus At 10:10 AM -0500 7/16/97, Oscar Rodriguez wrote: >Hey... > >I'm looking for a little bit of support on this topic. A >Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. >I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus >did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he >disagreed (along with the rest of my group). > >Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point? It could go either way, but I think I'd go with the players here -- essentially, Claws are undroppable daggers/swords on the ends of your hand. Just remember to break them all if they ever get a 666 when checking for Proficiency when using them! (And believe me, breaking a fingernail *hurts*!) You will also want to think of whether you'd allow Proficiency for "unarmed combat" -- I might waffle a bit more here, but I'd probably allow it in the end. These guys are resonating to the Word of War, after all, and ought to be scary in combat. (If you haven't guessed yet, In Nomine relies a *lot* on the GM to make sure that there's play-balance... It sounds like you've got two Malakim so far, so you're going to have a combat-heavy group anyway? You should probably only get really worried if you have the "to challenge this/these player(s), I have to dump enough critters at them to smear the rest of the group" situation. Then it would be wise to tone down the abilities...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:56:32 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Oscar quizzed us with the following:- > A Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. > I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus > did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he > disagreed (along with the rest of my group). > If the PC really wanted it, then I'd allow it, but by my reckoning he'd need to spend 10 CPts on the Attunement, at least 1 CPt on Numinous Corpus: Claws, plus the fact that he'd need to burn at least one Essence singing the NC every time he needed to use those claws. I can see him being short of Essence very rapidly in even a mildly combat-oriented adventure. > Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point? > "Do what though wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", said Alasdair Crowley. It's also the golden rule of all GMs, too. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:23:26 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Age of Celestials (was Items and Age) At 8:46 AM +1000 7/16/97, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >> >There is no need for a steady rise in power (and Forces) of a Celestial over >> >time. Development could come in fits and spurts and a Celestial could even >> >regress to a lower level of power. Superiors give and Superiors take away, >> >especially Demon Princes. [...] > Remember that the PC celestials are those who act as 'special agents' >for their Superior, and that most 'normal' Celestials have less Forces >than humans. A celestial could have been around since the War, but only >acting as a menial, until being promoted recently and given more Forces. That depends on the critter in question -- all angels are 9-forcers (if they're lower, they're "angelic spirits," such as Relievers). Demons go from demonic spirits (e.g., Imps & Gremlins) to demons (7 Forces) to PC-level demons (9 Forces). At 12:49 AM -0600 7/16/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: [snip] >>>If someone knows then a PC, whatever age is going to be able to ask those >>>questions, so you better have some sort of idea if you think your Players >>>are going to be interested in that sort of thing. >> >> Certainly *someone* knows -- at the very least answers can be found in >> Yves' and Kronos' archives. But some information may be off-limits: > > I'm not nearly that certain, unless you want to take it up a step >and suggest that *Someone* must know..but we know who that One is. >(Archangel Beth, yes, but that other guy, too.) SJ, you mean? Still, you have to get into the Restricted Stacks before you can find any of *those* answers. And when you do, there's this little slip of paper that says, "Checked Out 100 AD by Uriel; Overdue." [...] > Besides...PCs have more important things to do with their >Superior's time than spend it looking up past trivia in the >Library...shouldn't they be getting back down there and, say, I know this >is a novel concept, but maybe..doing their job? Like, now? [taptaptap] >Or would they rather, if they just don't have the time for Earth duty >anymore, maybe be assigned to Celestial KP? That COULD be arranged...ah, >yes, I see you're going, then. Good job. Not to mention librarians of Destiny complaining about visitors who misfile records, get in the way, and generally waste *their* time asking stupid questions of doubtful utility. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:02:57 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Oscar presented the following poser... > I have a player who wants to play a Malakim of Creation. An issue > came up, obviously. It says that these Malakim are supposed to > fight creatively. The rules say: > > "Anything they pick up can be used as a weapon with a power equal > to the check digit of a successful Perception roll, for the length > of a single combat." > > The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a > weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he > come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with > small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the > nature of his attunement? I'd say that even as a Malakite of *Creation* the PC would fairly combat oriented, so I'd say "wing it" as a GM and assign a reasonable minus default to whatever controlling Characteristic you deem approriate. How's that for an idea? > > Comments from the peanut gallery? > Well, there's mine for ya. :-) Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:48:47 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus On Wed, 16 Jul 97 10:10:11 CDT, Oscar Rodriguez wrote: >I'm looking for a little bit of support on this topic. A >Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. >I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus >did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he >disagreed (along with the rest of my group). > >Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point? Claws are a weapon, no? I'd allow it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:48:43 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Wed, 16 Jul 97 09:29:54 CDT, Oscar Rodriguez wrote: >I have a player who wants to play a Malakim of Creation. An issue >came up, obviously. It says that these Malakim are supposed to >fight creatively. The rules say: > >"Anything they pick up can be used as a weapon with a power equal >to the check digit of a successful Perception roll, for the length >of a single combat." > >The problem is does the character receive penalties to use such a >weapon. The weapon skills all require specifics. So should he >come up with small weapons (spoon) or should we go broad with >small weapon (blunt)? Or do we drop that all together given the >nature of his attunement? Interesting question since the description of Small Weapon is almost self contradictory: the first sentence says the skill is for "any kind" of small weapon; then the last sentence says there's a version of the skill for each kind of weapon. Further, brass knuckles are listed as a small weapon, though I think logically they should just use Fighting. Large Weapon implies the skill applies to all large weapons and Throwing, likewise; but Ranged Weapon details specific kinds of ranged weapons. I guess I can see two ways to go with the weapon skills, general and detailed: In the general view, actually being *trained* in a weapon skill would train you in all kinds of weapons. Ignore different types of weapons. In the detailed view, you have to choose a weapon type to specialize in, though I would hold that using another weapon of the same general category (Large, Ranged, or Small) would take the default off that skill, not the base attribute. So, if you train for Large Weapon, quarterstaff/6, you effectively get Large Weapon, anything else/3. All this complicates the Eli attunement. The description says whatever he picks up can be used as a weapon of the check digit's power. Right. GM: "A Calabite attacks you in the middle of the Bonneville salt flats." Malakite of Eli, "I pick up a grain of salt. (Rolls.) Hallelujah! It's a grain of salt/6." No way. Nothing guarantees what kind of weapon he'll find. Indeed, I'd hold that if he's in a rubber room, he won't find a weapon no matter what he rolls--it's a perception roll, not a magical hey-presto-here's-a-weapon trick; essentially, he'd be at a -6 in those conditions. OTOH, I think some things that aren't really covered in the short description should be possible weapons. For example, he might notice that his best weapon is using Fighting to throw someone through a plate glass window, which while it might be a power/5 weapon, is clearly single use; or it might be a spiked fence, usable multiple times. If you've watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I see her as a good example of this attunement. But what to do specifically about skills? If you decide to go with the general skill idea, then it's pretty simple what skills are needed. If you go with the detailed skill idea, I'd decide that Malakim of Eli can receive special training in (whatever type) Weapon, improvised; Fighting, improvised--pushing people into dangerous things or places; and Throwing, improvised. This allows the use of all improvised weapons of the type, but you need the attunement to sense how powerful the weapons are. This is also going to require a certain amount of improvisation on the GM's part. He needs to think what objects are likely to be around where the fight is. In a garage, it might be a tire iron (Small Weapon) or some equipment the opponent could be thrown into (Fighting). At a construction site, you might find a nail gun (Ranged), rebar (Small or Thrown), or dangerous items to push people into (Fighting). Or in lieu of improvising, you need to think what will be around the sites you expect to be in. But what to do about sites with various weapons or no weapons of a particular type? A question would be whether to make the Malakim of Eli use his attunement once for all or to declare, "I look for a large weapon," one turn and have to use it again for another class of weapon if there isn't a good large weapon available. Given the need for multiple weapon skills, the attunement isn't that powerful, so I'd be tempted to give the Malakite the whole story in one shot. My assumption is that he's been trained to look for this stuff always, so he always knows what's there--the attunement just gives him an exact reading on everything. So, at a construction site, the GM may announce something like, "You see a nail gun/2 (Ranged), a claw hammer/3 (Small), a six foot length of pipe/3 (Large, usable with quarterstaff skill), a big plate glass window/6 (Fighting, usable only once), and three steel L brackets/2 (Thrown)." On a clean street, the list might be shorter, "A couple plate glass windows/5 (Fighting, usable once each), and some parking meters/1 (Fighting)." Essentially, I'd think up the list beforehand, but only give him the weapons with powers at or under his check digit unless they were extremely obvious: if he's atop a tall building, I'm going to tell him, "Using Fighting to throw someone off the building is more powerful than any weapon your attunement perceives," though I might assess a bad accuracy number, too. In compensation for limiting the attunement to what's realistically likely to be available, I'd let him keep and continue to use a found weapon if appropriate. I'd also tell him accuracy numbers for the found weapons. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:46:42 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus >>>I'm looking for a little bit of support on this topic. A Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he disagreed (along with the rest of my group). Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point?<<< You're the GM, so if you want to disallow it, that's all the justification you need. However, personally I don't see any reason not to let him have it. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:46:40 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Relics Contest ADDENDUM >>>What are the rules to follow in the great Relic competition?<<< The concept and the write-up is the most important part. Do your best with game mechanics -- if they're beyond the scope of the current rules, but I like the idea enough, they'll be edited to fit with the rules that will come with the supplement. ALL entries that are accepted are subject to editing, naturally. While I'm on the subject of the Relics Contest, things are picking up a bit, which is good. However, slightly less than half of you are remembering to include your postal address with your submissions. Now, if I really like your submission, of course I'll e-mail you and find out where to send your complimentary copy of the book, but Ye Contest Administrator has a +1 Reaction to people who follow all the rules the first time around.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:54:05 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Celestial Age >>Note that this is one pitfall in allowing older PC celestials -- if they >>were around at the time of Christ, they may likely *know* some of the >>details. If you allow this, you're going to have to come up with >>answers up front. With younger celestials, they won't know from >>personal experience, and may not even have access to accurate historical >>information on some of the touchier subjects. > As far as the Christ situation goes, I don't think there's much that *could* be known for sure. It's much like the Islam situation in that respect. We're told that Gabriel was "present at the birth" of Christianity. (Actually, the Gospel accounts place Gabriel at the conception of Jesus, announcing the same to Mary, and an unnamed multitude of angels at Jesus' birth. Perhaps Gabriel was present on both occasions.) The thing is, we don't know how much initiative Gabriel had, here. Much as when (s)he dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, (s)he may simply have been given orders (by God or Yves) to deliver a particular message to a particular audience. In Derek Pearcy's sidebar on pregnant angels (probably no longer canon, but still informative), it is suggested that Michael, at least, suspects that *Gabriel* fathered Jesus on Mary. So, again much as in the case of Islam, the truth seems clouded even in Heaven. Celestials who met Jesus while he walked the earth would be none the wiser as to his true nature. He used Essence and Songs, most likely, but so does any Soldier (and Jesus was probably at least a Soldier, even in the eyes of non-Christian angels). Remember, it's impossible (or at least very hard) to spot a Celestial in a Corporeal Vessel, so even if Jesus were merely Gabriel's angelic offspring, no one could tell as long as he remained Corporeal. If the Christian view is correct, and Jesus was God Himself somehow inextricably fused with an actual human (not just a Vessel, but a body *and* soul), then he'd probably be even harder to detect. Heck, most Celestials have never met God, so how would they know what to look for? If the Temptation occurred as recorded, Lucifer might know something -- but he's unlikely to talk. And even if he did, the Gospel accounts of the Temptation make it clear that Jesus very specifically did not do anything "divine" during the encounter, though Lucifer tried to persuade him otherwise. If it happened at all, Jesus was tempted and resisted as any specially chosen human (i.e., Soldier) might have. The angel most likely to know something would be the one who announced the Resurrection to those who visited the empty tomb. (I'm assuming there was, in fact, an empty tomb. Given that two of the Archangels are strongly pro-Christian, I'd assume that even the angels can't say for sure that Jesus stayed dead. It would be dissonant for Dominic, and probably dishonorable for Laurence, to support a religion they *knew* was untrue.) However, the Gospels are unclear as to who, exactly, was responsible for that announcement. Two say an unnamed angel, one says two unnamed angels, and the earliest (Mark) mentions a young man in white linen. (That might be a description of the angel's Vessel, but the same unnamed "young man" pops up earlier in Mark's Gospel as one of Jesus' followers; some think Mark was humbly referring to himself there. So the messenger may not even have been a Celestial.) Now, if Jesus did, in fact, hang around after death, there's the question of where he was during the not-quite-three-days that his body was entombed. Presumably he did *not* show up in the angelic Heaven. He *may* have gone immediately to the higher Heavens (permissible whether he was merely human or divine/human). Or perhaps he wandered the Marches. One of the letters of Peter suggests that Jesus used that time to "preach to the spirits in prison," a notoriously obscure reference. Since the IN cosmology has no Limbo that we know of, this could be a reference to the wandering ghosts of the Marches. The Mormons, I think, believe that Jesus used that time to preach to his "other sheep" in the Americas, certainly an interesting possibility. (Were there Celestials watching over the Americas before the monotheistic religions spread there? Or merely pagan spirits of the Marches?) The "spirits in prison" have also been identified with the Grigori, which would make for a *really* interesting IN possibility. Anyways, that's why I don't think the "Jesus problem" is a problem, no matter what age your PCs are. Just as with Islam, Gabriel and Yves may know things they're not telling, and other angels may have very strong opinions on the issue -- but as far as the Truth is concerned, Celestials are in the same boat as humans. (The possibility of a Seraph getting a 6 check digit on its resonance does undercut my previous statement somewhat. But since we are to believe that Dominic has never gotten a 6 CD when Inquiring into Gabriel's alleged heresy -- this despite off-the-scale attribute scores -- we can believe the same here.) BTW, I realized the above about Dominic and Gabriel when I read "Feast of Blades," the GM Screen adventure. I won't spoil anything here in case we have folks who haven't read/played the adventure, but the appendix on involving the various Superiors suggests that Gabriel is now searching for extraordinary means to prove her innocence to Dominic. After reading this I realized, "Waitaminnit, lady, he's a Seraph. Go *talk* to him, and eventually he'll realize the Truth. And once he knows you're innocent (assuming you are), he can't lie about it or he'll eat Dissonance. If you think he'll try to keep mum on the issue and continue to persecute you, lobby for a hearing before the Seraphim Council. He can't lie to *all* of them." Anyway, I've blathered on enough. Bye now. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:24:59 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Celestial Age, again Walter Milliken said, RE PCs having more Forces than most Celestials: >I don't think there's support for this idea in the book; to the >contrary, I believe it says Relievers only become full angels when they >gain their 9th Force. So it's true that a Reliever might have been >around for a long time, but it's not an *angel* until it gets the 9th >Force. True. However, the poster you're replying to did say "Celestials," not "angels." Given that the PCs are described as special quasi-autonomous agents of the Superiors, granted the rare perk of Earth duty, it does seem likely that most of the population of Heaven is made up of sub-angelic spirits. These would be the administrative and support staff of Heaven, as well as the Relievers who are assigned to minor tasks on earth. (If the traditional belief that everyone has one or more guardian angels operates in IN, those angels are probably Relievers rather than full-fledged Cherubim. Ditto with DP's "temporary angels" that Moriah had so much trouble with -- the guardian angel of a raindrop or a blade of grass probably has less than a full Force in each area.) It's true that the game doesn't dignify Celestials with the title "angel" until they reach 9 Forces. So in one sense the PCs are at the bottom of the ladder (or on the second rung, for PC demons, since diabolical spirits become "demons" at 7 Forces). However, I think that's only the ladder of potential earthly operatives. (In fact, perhaps that's what the title "angel," or "messenger," signifies -- that a spirit is fit for earthly duty should its Superior so choose.) I definitely think there should be far more angels at the PCs' level than above it, with the numbers growing correspondingly smaller as each new Force is added. And there shouldn't be all that many 9-Force angels, at least not when compared to the numbers of lesser spirits. Of course, I'm also one of the people who think the PCs should be the *only* representatives of their Side in their city. That may just be a personal backlash against supernatural overpopulation in Vampire games I've played, but it does seem to be supported by the "Bright Dream" and "Dark Dream" stories. Marcus and his three associates seem to be the *only* local demons of consequence, and they seem quite shocked when a *single* angel is rumored to be prowling their territory. That's why all the human-to-Celestial ratios I've seen proposed strike me as too high. Having very few Earthbound Celestials not only fits the source material, but also helps in other ways. If the PCs are *the* angels of their city, then *all* responsibility for "cleaning it up" falls on *their* shoulders. (I plan to assign my PCs to "liberate" a demon-dominated city, putting them in charge of every phase of the operation.) The PCs can't easily call in help, since the other angels of their power level have their *own* assignments. Conversely, the GM can't use the ever-annoying NPC who's powerful enough to browbeat the PCs, but strangely would rather assign the PCs to a problem than turn his vast power upon it. (I hate those.) Also, while Celestial politics has its place, I think IN should focus largely on the characters' interactions with the human population and human problems. Again, this is probably a reaction to Vampire games that have concentrated on supernatural politics to the point of practically ignoring the existence of humans except as undifferentiated pawns. Just my opinion, of course. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:02:39 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Relics On Jul 15, 12:06pm, Shadowcat wrote: > Subject: IN> Relics > I saw an article that had various relics in it, including the magic eight > ball, and the hula hoop. Can anyone tell me where to locate this article? I believe the SJG website has them (though my browser is down so I can't be sure)... - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:20:33 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus On Jul 16, 10:10am, Oscar Rodriguez wrote: > Subject: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus > Hey... > > I'm looking for a little bit of support on this topic. A > Malakim of War wants to take the proficiency attunement in claws. > I read the description and said that I think that numinous corpus > did not qualify for that particular attunement, but he > disagreed (along with the rest of my group). > > Am I being a being to stringent on the players or do I have a point? I'd let him have it. The attunement would probably also work for artificial claws as well. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:05:29 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Items and Age On Jul 15, 3:57pm, Gregory Littmann wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Items and Age > > > > > > > The basic rules don't allow for more than one Song per > > Relic. More advanced rules are being written even as we speak. > > Use this for now: Each additional Song cost 2 times the level > > of the Song up to the Level of the Artifact. Each Song has its > > own Essence reserve that can only be used for _that_ Song. If the > > Relic also has a Reliquary, the rules for how it divides up the > > Essence are determined by its creator (and cannot be changed). > > What are the rules to follow in the great Relic competition? Don't worry too much about point costs... We're looking for cool _IDEAS_. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:59:05 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine font > > >From the FAQ: > > What is the name of that cool headline typeface? Is it public > > domain? Where did you get it? > > > > SKREETCH CAPS. It is not public domain and was created by the > > [T-26] type foundry in Chicago. SJG bought it through > > Precision Type Inc., of Commack, NY. As far as we know > > Precision Type doesn't have a webpage, but their phone number > > is 1-800-248-3668 if you want to order something from them. > > As of April 10, it costs $49 from them. > > Do you know what that $49 entails - nonprofessional use, professional > use, inclusion in free/commercial images? No idea... Then again, that _is_ a '1-800' number... O;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #248 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.