From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Jul 19 11:38:20 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 LAA32622 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:38:20 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA05070 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:56:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:56:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199707191456.JAA05070@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 #251 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 Saturday, July 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 251 In this digest: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic Re: Gaby and Dominic (Re: IN> Celestial Age) Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... Seraph resonance (Was: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:19:23 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:18:52 -0400, "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" wrote: >> Well, suppose the player is in the office of Demonic Arts. The MoE gets >> into a Situation, and grabs a bust off a table to use as a weapon. The GM >> has predetermined that the bust is hollow papier-mache, weighing an ounce. >> It isn't about to hurt any mildly healthy sparrow. Perhaps I'm trying to be >> too realistic, but I'm not going to allow that hollow bust to be used as >> even a weapon/1 any more than I'd allow the MoE to pick up a sheet of paper >> and use it to give paper-cuts/1. > > The actual maneuver, which the Malak would recognize immediately >upon picking up the bust, is to smash it over the guys head, temporarily >blinding him and then giving him god-almightiest-kick where it will >do the most damage. ;) Need a new weapon after that, though. But that isn't canonical either: "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." (Emphasis added.) Jackie Chan seems to be a great example of a Malak of Eli, but he doesn't pick a thread off his coat and start using it as a power 6 weapon. My house rule will be something like, "A successful Perception roll will notice a weapon of at least the power of the check digit which will last the combat IF such an object is there to be perceived. Additional weapons of lesser or greater power or durability may also be perceived at the GM's option. The accuracy of perceived weapons will also be sensed." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 20:03:36 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 11:32 AM -0400 7/18/97, Highway Star wrote: >Just out of curiousity - > >How many GMs give their Malakim of Creation the attunement of whatever >other Archangel their working for? If they pay the five points for it, sure, no problem. [Anael did, in the "Angels in the Architecture" section in Pyramid #23. (I added up her points -- sans the Rite (which we don't know what would cost in points anyway), she's exactly starting-character level, counting her Malakite of Fire attunement as 5 points.] > Which archangel is popular for Malakim of Creation to work for? All of them? (Well, except Dominic. And maybe Laurence. And Novalis doesn't much like violent Malakim in the first place.... ("Pllllleeease, ma'am, can't I throw this nasty person in the pine tree and beat him up with a bouquet of roses with the thorns still on?" "No, and if you keep asking, you're going to get dissonant.")) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 19:40:08 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus At 9:54 PM -0600 7/17/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: [...] >> >going to take two turns to get ready to use Claws Proficiently, compared >> >to one for a hunk of sharpened metal you just have to pick up...} >> While it takes one round to invoke the NC, the Proficiency is a preparatory >> attunement, which can be used on the same round--but has to be re-invoked >> every round. (Per p. 68 combat summary.) > The way I read it, you can invoke the Proficiency and strike with >a sword in the same turn..but since invoking any power comes on the same >step, you CAN'T invoke a Song and Attunement simultaneously. So, to use >Proficiency with a sword, you just pull your sword out and have at 'em; >one turn, pow. To use it with Claws, you first Sing up your NC; that's an >action, end of turn. THEN you can start using Proficiency and having at >them; two turns. Always invoke your Claws several minutes ahead of time... They will last for at least an hour, maybe even six, and can be vanished when inconvenient... [Exerpt from "Dear Abby, Servitor of Destiny, whose Word is Trivia"] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:23:43 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic At 8:43 AM -0700 7/18/97, David Edelstein wrote: Unlike applying it to someone who says "OJ >Simpson was guilty", where a check digit of 6 would tell the Seraph whether >or not OJ *was* in fact guilty. Some statements can be objectively true or >false, others are opinions and cannot be anything else, since there isn't >an objective Symphonic standard to determine the quality of a movie. . . Yes, but it can't be possible that anyone, even an angel, can determine objective truth just by asking someone else, and detecting the truth of thier answer. Remember, a lie is (according to the OED) "an intentionally false statement." All you could possably do, even if you're a Seraph, is determine if the person believes he is telling the truth or not. Don't believe me? Try this thought experiment. A Seraph goes and gets a buddy and asks him if Jesus was God Incarnate. The Seraph's buddy, who doesn't know, says "Yes." Now, if the Seraph were able to unerringly determine if this were true or false he would now know if Jesus was god incarnate, even though the person he was talking to didn't know. Think of all the mysteries in In Nomine. They wouldn't be mysteries to the Seraphim. They could just ask anyone, even people who have never heard of God or Satan, all about God and Satan, and learn the Truth about the Universe. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:33:30 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: Gaby and Dominic (Re: IN> Celestial Age) At 02:33 PM 7/17/97 -0400, you wrote: >There's about one thing that can foil this -- if the truth or falsity >is purely personal opinion. Dominic can *know* that Gabriel is >heretical, bordering on Outcast or Falling, because of how she's >acting. He's sure of it, positive of it. She should have refused >to contaminate the purity of the existing religion, refused to carry >the message. > >Gaby, on the other hand, has stomped off in a huff that anyone could >*dare* to accuse her, when she *knows* she was doing her job, and >how could that no-good ^%$*&^ Seraph think otherwise?! > >Now, if there's no Truth about which *opinion* is right, all a 6 will >tell you is: "This is opinion, as much as whether _Men In Black_ was >a terrific movie or not." > I don't get your point... That statement wsa the Truth. >The other thing that might foil it is if Dominic has, for whatever >reason, *refrained* from using his resonance -- his mind made up, >and refusing to listen to any dissenting opinions, even from the >Symphony... > >(I like option 1 for some atmospheres, where it's a tragic difference >of opinions, but option 2 would make things very... Illuminated, >perhaps? ) > > As you could probably guess, I would guess option 2. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:49:08 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 11:05 PM 7/17/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:52:06, Jeff Miller wrote: > >>I see the attunement differently. Instead of a perception roll to spot >>likely weapons in an environment, I see it as a perception roll to see how >>to use the object creatively. This would be extreemly situational. Thus, >>the MoE might pick up a hammer in one instance and see how it could be used >>with the effectiveness of a weapon/5. On another occasion he picks up a >>hammer and either the weight of the hammer is different or the >>opponents/fighting conditions are different and he can only see how to use >>it as a weapon/3. > >Well, suppose the player is in the office of Demonic Arts. The MoE gets >into a Situation, and grabs a bust off a table to use as a weapon. The GM >has predetermined that the bust is hollow papier-mache, weighing an ounce. >It isn't about to hurt any mildly healthy sparrow. Perhaps I'm trying to be >too realistic, but I'm not going to allow that hollow bust to be used as >even a weapon/1 any more than I'd allow the MoE to pick up a sheet of paper >and use it to give paper-cuts/1. > I favor the GM fiat, "You Perceive that that object is useless as a weapon" in those situations. I wouldn't allow it either. I think the rules assume that the GM, in situations like that, is just going to give the player a "you've got to be kidding" look and move on. There's no need to legislate common sense. Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 20:26:52 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy David Edelstein wrote: > > For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I > guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative > reaction against "Judgment". Welcome to the unofficial Dominic fan club! > As harsh as he may be, Dominic is also *fair*. Contrary to what some people > seem to believe, Dominic does not pursue angels for the sheer pleasure of > pulling their wings off. He does not *enjoy* convicting members of the > Host. > > A lot of In Nomine GMs seem to be using Dominic as an indiscriminate > Heavenly bad guy. "Oh oh, Servitors of Judgment, that means we're all gonna > get hauled in if we say 'boo'..." Yep, got it in one. Players (as well as characters) cann't stand the idea of a fixed standard of behaviour. Particularly in such a phenomonally powerful game such as In Nomine. If the games not about good and bad, you might as well be playing a game with pale goth people in black... > It seems that several other notes about Dominic, such as the fact that his > Servitors (and thus by implication, Dominic) may not inflict a punishment > greater than the crime, or stand by while the innocent are punished > unfairly, are being commonly overlooked. SNIP IAD comments I have a great answer for that. Let the players go on a big 2 month long elaborate mission without any of Dom's old boys, and have them backstabbed HARD by a trusted, "rules loose" kind of angel who just happens to have been on earth too long... > Now, some of Dominic's personal obsessions -- such as Gabriel -- may call > his objectivity and fairness to question. Feh, Gabby is a loony (at least as explained in the book). Go into war with a lunatic at your flank and half the time you'll love them for being a better target then you and the other half you'll be dead. Dom is justified and Gabby has the same self control as the average munchkin player. > Dominic is unyielding, uncompromising, and sometimes completely arbitrary. > However, he is still an *angel*. He does not act with malevolent intent or > out of personal self-interest, as Asmodeus does. He wants the best for > Heaven and Earth, as much as any other Archangel, he just has a very > different idea of how that should be accomplished. For him, it means not > tolerating the slightest amount of corruption. Another good idea. Give the player group the responsibility of Dominic (He decides he hates being the heavy and goes off to pout next to Gabby in a straight jacket). They get to make the decisions of who lives or frys. Enough zorched decisions may cure them. Perhaps Hell wins...? Another fan of Dominic ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:44:32 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:54:21, Jeff Miller wrote: >Yeah, you could shove the wet-noodle up the Demon's nostrel and hope he >suckes it into his lung.... Ok, your Accuracy is -10. :) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:05:46 +0500 From: "James Rand" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic > Think of all the mysteries in In Nomine. They wouldn't be mysteries > to the Seraphim. They could just ask anyone, even > people who have never heard of God or Satan, all about God and Satan, > and learn the Truth about the Universe. According to the rules, Seraphim discover the Truth of any statement if they get a 6 on their check digit. And yes, they can just go and ask a bunch of people at random and the law of averages says they're going to get the secrets of the universe real quick, according to the rules. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... > > > > Ah, but you get the troublemaker/troubleshooter syndrome to > >help you. Demons cause problems in town A for some nefarious > >purpose, Angels arrive to deal with Demons, more Demons arrive > >to ensure long-term plans evolve correctly, Angels establish > >tether to keep eye on Demons, etc. Even small towns could have > >stuff like this happen! > > That's fine, but with a limited number of Earthly servitors, a > Superior's best strategy is to concentrate on only those activities that > affect large numbers of people. Following that notion out to its > logical conclusion, nearly all the demons in the US should be in > Washington DC, state capitals, and major corporation headquarters -- you > get more bang for you buck corrupting people there. I don't like this > result -- I want demons out there corrupting Joe the baker in Timbuktu, > Arkansas. > O.K.. How about this? The Symphony is a suble thing and the relation between cause and effect isn't always clear. For some reason, Joe the baker in Timbuktu is important, even though nobody has noticed but Demon Prince X. Who knew that Timothy McVeigh's mother was going to be important in the larger scheme of things? How about Hitler's grandfather? Or the guy who beat the young Stalin up at school? Maybe Demons just get a 'feel' sometimes that a certain innocent person is worth persecuting. Another possibility is just that Joe the baker is a really great guy and getting his soul is worth more than getting the souls of thousands of middle-of-the-moral-road individuals. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:24:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I > guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative > reaction against "Judgment". > When I read these words, the first thought that came to my mind was "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Which I believe you'll find in Matthew 8:28 (IIRC, I don't have a Bible handy). This is the problem I have with Dominic. He claims to support Christianity, yet--if you ask me--neither he *nor* Laurence seem to act much like Christians. But, now I'm reaching a subject that's only tangentially related to this list, so I'll shut up... >[snip] > As harsh as he may be, Dominic is also *fair*. Contrary to what some people > seem to believe, Dominic does not pursue angels for the sheer pleasure of > pulling their wings off. He does not *enjoy* convicting members of the > Host. > He doesn't? It certainly seems that way. Witness his treatment of Gabriel *before* she left in a huff. As several people have pointed out, he tried her for heresy, when she was only doing her job. In fact, she was tried (as I interpret the section on Gabby and Dom) because she followed *Yves* instructions, which were giving the Q'uran to Mohammed. Apparently, Dom only suspects you of heresy if you don't support *his* very limited view. Oh, yeah. That sounds incredibly fair to me.... how about you? > A lot of In Nomine GMs seem to be using Dominic as an indiscriminate > Heavenly bad guy. "Oh oh, Servitors of Judgment, that means we're all gonna > get hauled in if we say 'boo'..." > > It seems that several other notes about Dominic, such as the fact that his > Servitors (and thus by implication, Dominic) may not inflict a punishment > greater than the crime, or stand by while the innocent are punished > unfairly, are being commonly overlooked. > This is where you and I agree, but I'm afraid one of the few places. Read on. > In other words, Servitors of Dominic could just as easily be defense > lawyers as prosecutors. A Servitor of Dominic could even defend someone he > knows to be guilty! He would not be trying to get the person off, of course > -- but he'd ensure that all the defendant's Constitutional rights (or the > equivalent, based on the venue) were observed, and he'd work hard to > prevent the defendant from receiving a more severe punishment than he > deserves (doing hard time for shoplifting, for instance.) > Yes, I can see where he would want to insure that a criminal's rights would be defended. That's justice. But, I don't think that necessarily means that he would defend someone that he knows is guilty. Defend their rights, yes. Defend *them*, no. There is a difference. > I think of Dominic's Inquisitors (and remember that not all angels of > Judgment are assigned the task of policing the Host, some have other > responsibilities....like defending the innocent) as the IAD (Internal > Affairs Division) for the Host. Just as many cops despise IAD officers and > consider them to be "buddy-f***ers", many angels probably have animosity > towards angels of Judgment....yet without them, who would root out the bad > apples? If no one stands in judgment over the Host, who's going to tell an > angel that he's not following God's plan? Would you want a police > department with no internal monitoring, no external oversight committee? > Since it's been proven that angels are quite fallible, it makes no more > sense to let angels -- with a much greater responsibility -- go without any > kind of policing either. > Okay, I'll agree with this to a certain extent. But do I have to remind you of Nicole's statement in "A Bright Dream"? "[Angels are n]o more than the universe is Christian." According to the rulebook, Dominic supports Christianity--which I interpret to mean that he would like to see the universe (indeed, the other angels) become Christian. That means that he would interpret everything in terms of "Christian"/"non-Christian", with nothing in the middle. > Now, some of Dominic's personal obsessions -- such as Gabriel -- may call > his objectivity and fairness to question. One can certainly argue that > Dominic is no more imperfect than any other being, so even he is capable of > making mistakes. But this does NOT mean he's a petty, vindictive tyrant > with no regard for the rights of anyone else. Every time Dominic passes > judgment on an angel, he has to feel the weight of that responsibility. He > certainly knows that if he goes around consigning Servitors to damnation > for every transgression, he will lose all respect and moral authority in > the eyes of the Host. > That's my point. He isn't perfect at all. Then again, none of them are (with the possible exception of Yves). > Dominic is unyielding, uncompromising, and sometimes completely arbitrary. > However, he is still an *angel*. He does not act with malevolent intent or > out of personal self-interest, as Asmodeus does. He wants the best for > Heaven and Earth, as much as any other Archangel, he just has a very > different idea of how that should be accomplished. For him, it means not > tolerating the slightest amount of corruption. > Here's the other place you and I agree. Since he hasn't Fallen--no matter how much I may disagree with him--I believe that he means well. > -David (who thinks assigning oneself a Choir and a Superior is silly, but > if I had to, I'd say I have a certain resonance for Elohim of Judgment....) > For me, it would be "Mercurian of Creation" (Note: Eli and Dom have certainly had *their* disagreements. ;-) ) Oh, and BTW, that may be silly, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? :-) Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us OR ThomasDavidson@compuserve.com - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:50:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, John Dye wrote: > David Edelstein wrote: > > > > For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I > > guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative > > reaction against "Judgment". > > Welcome to the unofficial Dominic fan club! > > > > As harsh as he may be, Dominic is also *fair*. Contrary to what some people > > seem to believe, Dominic does not pursue angels for the sheer pleasure of > > pulling their wings off. He does not *enjoy* convicting members of the > > Host. > > > > A lot of In Nomine GMs seem to be using Dominic as an indiscriminate > > Heavenly bad guy. "Oh oh, Servitors of Judgment, that means we're all gonna > > get hauled in if we say 'boo'..." > > Yep, got it in one. Players (as well as characters) cann't stand the > idea of a fixed standard of behaviour. Particularly in such a > phenomonally powerful game such as In Nomine. If the games not about > good and bad, you might as well be playing a game with pale goth people > in black... > > > It seems that several other notes about Dominic, such as the fact that his > > Servitors (and thus by implication, Dominic) may not inflict a punishment > > greater than the crime, or stand by while the innocent are punished > > unfairly, are being commonly overlooked. > > SNIP IAD comments > > I have a great answer for that. Let the players go on a big 2 month > long elaborate mission without any of Dom's old boys, and have them > backstabbed HARD by a trusted, "rules loose" kind of angel who just > happens to have been on earth too long... > Ummmm... I assume that you mean an angel of Creation? Well, I hate to tell you this, but they *are* angels. They're not perfect (some have more than their fair share of Dissonance and Discord), but I don't see very many of them *backstabbing* anybody--particularly someone on their Side without chalking up yet *more* Dissonance. And don't think for a minute that an over-zealous angel of Judgment wouldn't do the same thing... > > Now, some of Dominic's personal obsessions -- such as Gabriel -- may call > > his objectivity and fairness to question. > > Feh, Gabby is a loony (at least as explained in the book). Go into war > with a lunatic at your flank and half the time you'll love them for > being a better target then you and the other half you'll be dead. Dom > is justified and Gabby has the same self control as the average munchkin > player. > No, Dom is *not* justified. I suggest you read that section again. p. 118: "...for Islam, she recited the Qu'ran to Mohammed at Yves' instruction...Although she was only following orders, Dominic (who, along with Laurence, supports Christianity in particular) declared her heretical and tried to have her exiled from Heaven. Yves and Michael defended her, but she stormed away angrily and has yet to return. That was over a millennium ago." As I have stated to David, since Dominic hasn't Fallen, I'd like to believe that he *means* well... but.... this has stuck in my craw ever since I read it. Dominic considers himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the Host, and yet he is clearly biased toward *one* form of thought. I don't consider this fair(or just) at all, in the same way that I think trying someone for "Witchcraft" isn't fair or just. (What? You're not a Christian? BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!! ) > > Another fan of Dominic > NOT!! Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us OR ThomasDavidson@compuserve.com - -------------------- Don't panic! I have a new .sig! - -------------------- Instruction Booklet for this message: STEP 1: Open mouth. STEP 2: Insert foot. STEP 3: Chew vigorously. STEP 4: Repeat as needed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 19:55:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 11:43 AM -0400 7/18/97, David Edelstein wrote: >For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. I >guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative >reaction against "Judgment". [Very nice and quite applicable defense snipped; and now the prosecution takes the stand again... O;> ] Dominic is scary. And he's not a *nice* guy, either. He's a tough, stern, authoritarian, rigid fellow who has a nasty job. And did I mention that he's scary? He's fair, but he's fair by *his* rules... Get into character of anyone who's sympathetic to Eli, Gaby, Michael, or anyone else who's not fond of ol' Dom, and one doesn't like him... (And then there's that Reliever of Judgment that I have lying around somewhere. ) Being "fair" when you're not using the same rules for "fairness" can be a problem: "What do you mean I'm heretical?? I just said that I thought devil's food cake was great stuff, really yummy!" "Being seduced by the pleasures of the corporeal realm is what lead the Grigori to be excommunicated. You must recant your heretical love of physical things." "Oh else what?" "Or else you will be questioned in Heaven. Even if you have not yet become dissonant, it is obvious that the seeds are there. We shall reccomend to your Superior that you be reassigned to Heaven, where you will not be tempted, until you have regained your sense of proportion and priority." "Oh, man, I'm gonna be in such trouble now.... I swear, I wasn't doing anything to tick off my boss!" "Your refusal to cooperate does not help your case. Please put your corporeal affairs in order and come with us. We'll wait." Ahem. So it's easy to see the Lord High Judge himself as a "baddie." It's a bit one-sided, but it's easy. But if you're really in the clear... then the servitors of Judgment are really just nuisances. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:30:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Proficiency and Numinous Corpus > >one turn, pow. To use it with Claws, you first Sing up your NC; that's an > >action, end of turn. THEN you can start using Proficiency and having at > >them; two turns. > Yep. Now that I double check, the Artifact Fiery Sword takes a round of > preparation just like NC does. But a talisman sword doesn't. 'Course, talismans, unless I'm very confused, can't be used on the Celestial realm, which is a definite jump...(Of course, an Artifact Sword with Corporeal Light/1, technically, should be a Celestial Artifact that now functions just like any other sword on the Celestial plane, no preparation needed..) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:37:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... > That's fine, but with a limited number of Earthly servitors, a > Superior's best strategy is to concentrate on only those activities that > affect large numbers of people. Following that notion out to its Depends on the project at hand and the Superior in question....there's the significant advantage to small towns that they're less likely to have Opposition, whichever side you're on. (For example, that Lilim of Kronos proposed some time ago who hung out in a hospital - in a major city, she'd probably be picked out and chopped to bits pretty quickly, because hospitals are generally likely to have a high concentration of Angelics. One in a smaller town, however, may not, and you never know WHERE someone with a powerful Fate might turn up...) The other note to it is that that's very modern assembly-line style thinking. A lot of the Demon Princes are likely to still be going for the more old-fashioned craftsmanship approach of thoroughly corrupting a single person, not that kind of broad population-based effect... (I'm reminded of the bit in _Good Omens_ where the demons are meeting..the one who's been on Earth a while is trying to explain that he tied up the phone lines for several minutes, thereby smudging souls for miles - the other two just don't get it, having been spending years working on, say, getting a particular priest to look down the shirt of a parishoner or somesuch...) It's a natural tendancy for US to think in terms of doing evil things to or trying to corrupt a few thousand people at a pop...and some demons will follow the same trains of thought. But I'm not sure it's so natural for the Princes or even many lower Demons, any more than it would necessarily follow that one of the Archangels is going to say, "Don't bother protecting against this, it's just one guy they're corrupting.." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:07:41 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic At 12:05 PM -0700 7/18/97, James Rand wrote: >> Think of all the mysteries in In Nomine. They wouldn't be mysteries >> to the Seraphim. They could just ask <anyone<, even >> people who have never heard of God or Satan, all about God and Satan, >> and learn the Truth about the Universe. > >According to the rules, Seraphim discover the Truth of any statement >if they get a 6 on their check digit. And yes, they can just go and >ask a bunch of people at random and the law of averages says they're >going to get the secrets of the universe real quick, according to the >rules. > I know. It's on page 94. My point is that one of the following things are true. Either A: It can't really work that way, because then there'd be Seraphim who know many of the things only God and Derek Pearcy are supposed to know, or B: It does work that way, and the Seraphim know everything. I mean, there's a one in six chance that, presuming that succeed, their CD means they KNOW. Ick! How can they both be true? God I hope someone's not going to say "Well, yeah, the Seraphim could do that, but they don't really because. .um, they're not uh, curious. Or, wait, God won't let them. . .yeah. Or. . ." something else that sounds suspiciously like "yes I'm a psychic but, no, I won't tell you the lottery numbers or race results because that would be. . .uh, bad? No, wait. . .my vision is clouded. In fact, if I am a psychic, why am I working at this stupid neo-phone sex company?!" - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:24:25 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 11:24 PM -0700 7/18/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >> For some reason, I keep finding myself wanting to defend Dominic. < I >> guess it's because so many people seem to have a knee-jerk negative >> reaction against "Judgment". >> > >When I read these words, the first thought that came to my mind was "Judge >not, lest ye be judged." Which I believe you'll find in Matthew 8:28 >(IIRC, I don't have a Bible handy). Psh. What good's a Bible going to do you? Get a Bartlett's Quotations. No GM should be without one. And, since I've got one, I can tell you it's Matthew 7:1 And it's "Judge not, that ye be not judged." A better quote, which I will admit to knowing about as a result of Alan Moore's Watchmen, is "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks also into you." - -Nietzsche. A very similar sentiment. >According to the rulebook, Dominic supports Christianity--which I >interpret to mean that he would like to see the universe (indeed, the >other angels) become Christian. That means that he would interpret >everything in terms of "Christian"/"non-Christian", with nothing in the >middle. I presumed, and as with all things I could be wrong, that, since it was earlier established that the Universe (and by that I think we can also read: God) is not necessarily Christian, that therefore what Dominic was supporting was the advancement of the Christian church. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:13:48 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Back to celestial populations again.... At 10:32 PM -0700 7/18/97, Gregory Littmann wrote: > O.K.. How about this? The Symphony is a suble thing and the relation >between cause and effect isn't always clear. For some reason, Joe the >baker in Timbuktu is important, even though nobody has noticed but Demon >Prince X. Who knew that Timothy McVeigh's mother was going to be >important in the larger scheme of things? How about Hitler's grandfather? >Or the guy who beat the young Stalin up at school? Maybe Demons just get >a 'feel' sometimes that a certain innocent person is worth persecuting. > > Another possibility is just that Joe the baker is a really great guy and >getting his soul is worth more than getting the souls of thousands of >middle-of-the-moral-road individuals. This is close to how I intend on running my game. That each person's soul is as important as every other person's. So you are just as likley to have tens of angels and demons pitting themselves against each other in order to influence the soul of a 10 year old boy living in Connetticut as they would be to influence Rupert Murdoch or Bill Clinton. Obviously SJ Games isn't going to support this notion. In Nomine is supposed to be a hell bend for leather, guns-a-blazing War Between the Celestial States. Eh. This will certainly make my life easier. The feast of Blades adventure will be a lot easier to run than what I was thinking of, but I'm not yet convinced that my idea has no merit. I like the idea of Celestials worrying about people's souls more than anything else. I like the idea of thier politics having nothing to do with our ecomony or politics. That they are alien powers, who covet and seek things that we take for granted and have little interest in. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:55:17 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Seraph resonance (Was: Re: IN> Gabriel and Dominic) David Edelstein wrote: > A Seraph's resonance, for instance, will simply not determine whether or > not "Men In Black" is a good movie. And it won't determine that if a Seraph > applies his resonance to someone who says "MIB was a good movie" or "MIB > sucks." All it will tell the Seraph is whether or not the speaker is > expressing his opinion honestly. Unlike applying it to someone who says "OJ > Simpson was guilty", where a check digit of 6 would tell the Seraph whether > or not OJ *was* in fact guilty. Actually, this is something that has been bugging me for some time. Get a 6 check digit (not hard for a fairly hard Seraph) and you know the absolute Truth about anything, provided you have someone to say a statement on that subject to you. So, kidnap some random human scum, tie him to a chair, clasp your hands tightly to his head and ask him questions, and you'll be able to keep on trying, waiting for a 6, without risk of failure (barring Infernal intervention) for any angel with at least 4 Celestial Forces (which is a lot of your average 9-Force angels, not to mention the higher ones) - say 10 Perception, 6 Will, +2 for physical contact, automatic success for Resonance every time. For instance: "Repeat after me: 'Eli is on the Celestial plane'" "Er, Eli is on the Celestial plane" [Resonance: No] "Ah. Say 'Eli is on the Ethereal plane'" "Eli is on the Ethereal plane" [No] "Correct. Hmmm. 'Eli is in America'" "Eli is in America" [No] ... go through an Atlas, until... "Eli is in Toledo, Spain" [Yes] "Gotcha." OK, so he'll probably have moved by the time the Seraph gets there; so the Seraph tries again. And so on until he catches him. And the same applies to anything you care to mention. The book doesn't help much - "If you use it on a whim and accidentally bungle it badly, the feedback will make a mess of your usually delicate relationship to the Symphony for a while". Big deal. Perception of 10 or more and physical contact and you've got automatic successs all the time. As a prospective GM, planning to run In Nomine in a world where God created the World, played with it a bit, still looks in occasionally but otherwise is doing other stuff and is totally unaware of the War (because it's been hidden from Him), I don't really relish the prospect of a player asking some poor sap "Does God know this is going on?", getting a 6 and finding out one of the key elements of the campaign. So I won't use these rules. Instead, I'll rule that you only get to know the Truth if the person being questioned knows it himself - which certainly makes sense for these important, quasi-metaphysical questions. For more mundane stuff - eg "Who painted this car in that horrendous purple colour?" - you might want to let them know; alternatively, a 6 lets them find someone who *does*. This has the added advantage of adding extra style to Seraphs: "Who carried out the paint job on this car?" "Er, er, I don't know, Sir, begging your forgiveness Sir, oh my God please don't kill me." "No, no, it's true, you do not know. But, thanks to you, I know who does. His name is Joe, he is a mechanic in the garage on Woodlands Road, and he will be there for another hour before going home for the night. And he will have an answer for me before he does, mark my word. This is the Truth, you can depend on it." Better than "It's alright, I know. It was Bill Grimsby." Comments, suggestions? Sam - -- There are *my* opinions, dammit, and let no-one say otherwise. Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati No man is an island, but some of us are long peninsulas. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #251 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.