From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jul 25 22:36:34 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 WAA30196 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:36:34 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA27651 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:44:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:44:09 -0500 Message-Id: <199707260144.UAA27651@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 #261 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, July 25 1997 Volume 01 : Number 261 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic, Again Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Night Music Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) IN> Redeeming Shedim IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN> Malakim of Creation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:28:15 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Dominic, Again At 01:29 AM 7/24/97 -0600, you wrote: >MaBarry commented; >> > You know, the more I think of it, the more I like >> > my original interpretation of Dominic: >> > >> > He's young. >To which Jeff Miller noted; >> I like this version of Dominic. I don't think he'll get played this way >> much but if he was, *I* might play a servator of Dominic (much as that > Actually, I have to admit, that version, or at least something >like it, is how I tend to hold Dominic..UNDERNEATH it all. But only Yves, >if anyone, may ever be SHOWN this side of him; I think he deliberately >positions himself as a bad guy because it's good for his job. (One thought >I've had is that he may take some pains to give Angels something to fear >more than Hell...so that they won't, if they start thinking that way, feel >secure in figuring they can just go there and be protected.) > He sets himself up to fail then. Angels who act covertly put themselves much closer to Falling than those who don't. If Dominic didn't give them a reason to act covertly.... 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: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:09:18 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) At 08:51 AM 7/24/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:27:38, Jeff Miller wrote: > >>Granted but I was under the impression that he was talking about all angels >>not just Servators of Eli. > >I was (and Beth gave several other examples). > >>I just don't see David saying to Michael, "can I have one of your angels >>for a while." And Michael actually *giving* him one. I can see Michael >>telling one of his Servitors to go work *with* David but not *for* David. > >You're splitting hairs. The end result is that for whatever political or >practical reason, an angel of Michael ends up working on David's task. >Metaphysically, this means the angel can gain dissonance from violating >either's rules. That's just the way it works. > Uh, no.... That doesn't mean anything about Dissonance. At least not in these rules. In the working *with* the angel is *still* and angel of Michael he's just working with David at the time. There is *no* metaphysical connection just that "This task is important to me help David get it done." >>It seems too much like trading Servitors like cards in a Magic: the >>Gathering game. They're angels, not pawns. They represent the angel they >>serve. I would imagine that most Archangels would have propriatory >>feelings toward their Servitors. > >Sure they do. You're not going to see Gaby loan an angel to Dominic. But >it's like an MIS programmer being tasked to work for Sales to build a new >computer system. Sure, he's still MIS's guy, but he better make Sales happy >or everyone will be ticked off at him. True but does he have to go on commission, start leasing his car, and get ulsers whenever his potential increase in income doesn't keep pace with his overextended lifestyle? No. He stays an MIS guy. Nothing changes about his nature. If he pisses off the guys in sales, then their boss will complain to his boss and he'll catch flack from his boss. 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, 25 Jul 97 12:56 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form >Page 103 says that a Kyrio with 3 Forces not being used to possess Hosts may >manifest a Celestial form and "That form need not be in the same place (or >on the same plane) as his host body or bodies, but he can never have more >than one celestial form at a time." > >Does this mean that a Kyrio can manifest his celestial form anywhere? That >is anywhere not in the same place as any of his Host(s)? I've been interpreting it as meaning that the celestial form need not be *kept* near a host, but that it can only be formed near one, according to the usual rules for using a Will-based resonance. So perhaps one could manifest in celestial form at the far end of a telephone conversation, for example, but not arbitrarily anywhere. >Can a Kyrio who manifests their celestial form use it to communicate with >others, presuming he doesn't stun them. Very useful when inhabiting animal >Hosts. The drawback is that manifesting a celestial form causes noise equal to the Kyrio's *total* Forces. (This is in the FAQ, I think.) You may be better off with the Ethereal Song of Tongues, though that takes Essence. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:54:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Adam Canning wrote: > > >>>>there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and > being `in the right'.<<<< > > Any case in which Dominic was right would rather imply the defendant was > not an Archangel afterwards. Like what happened to Uriel. > I don't think that's what happened. He was recalled to the higher planes of Heaven. In fact, according to the rulebook, p. 53 (on the top left), the implication is that Uriel and Dominic were working together (or that Uriel was working under Dominic's aegis): "Dominic has yet to find another Uriel, someone willing to mount a holy crusade against the spirits of the Marches..." Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us - -------------------- 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: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:53:08 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 08:50 AM 7/24/97 GMT, you wrote: >>>Wood would be Novalis' domain. >> >> This isn't *Mage*. Besides look at those attunements a bit >>harder. One of them allows the servant of Eli to change things into >>organic or even living substances. > >But that's a different attunement. The creation one allows creation of >*simple* substances. Wood is not simple, just natural. > OK, fine, he uses two attunements to do it.... >>So, a MoE could create a weapon of a given Power? Why would he ever give >>it up then? If that MoE finds a 2x4/6, why would he ever put it down? > >No, only a weapon comparable to a weapon he's seen. If he finds a power/6 >weapon, it might not be portable, durable, or accurate. IAC, standard >weapons have powers as high as 8. I can assure you that you will not find a >2x4/6. High powered weapons will almost always be situational, as you put >it. > We may not be that far off.... OK, take a stanshion that they use to rope off waiting lines. Lets say that if a normal person had a proficiency in using it as a weapon it would be a stanshion/3. If the MoE rolled a CD/6, what would the Power of the stanshion be? What if he rolled a CD/2? >>That's why the rules state that the MoE rolls for an object each time he >>gets into combat. It's not to discover a bigger weapon it's to see how >>creatively he can use an item as a weapon in a situation. > >Look, if you find a nail gun/6, I'm not going to make you keep it. Feel >free to put it back where you found it. > Would a normal person be able to use it as a nail gun/6? >>I can see tweeking rules to get rid of exploitable situations but doing so >>to create them? > >Just trying to keep things somewhat in tune with reality. > Well, then *all* of the attunements need to be modified. No sense in giving any "supernatural" abilities to angels. >>>Absolutely. Still, if demons pick the battleground, they may try to >>>restrict your options; they may or may not succeed. I'll give you full use >>>of your attunements within reason but not stupid demons that are going to >>>ignore what they know of your capabilities (when and if they learn of >>>them). "Be afraid. Be very afraid." :) >>> >>True. That would be their goal. The MoE's strength is that he might see >>weapons where the demon might not. > >Exactly. > I should run a MoE just to make you come up wiht a contents list for *every* room we enter.... >>...and he can always create a big rock over it's head.... > >With the right Attunement, but remember that's not one you get free. > True but it can be a fun one. That Djinn is following you in the car? Instant caltrops! Is sodium metal a simple substance? How about phospherous? 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, 25 Jul 1997 14:16:44 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels >Ouch. An Archangel of Paradox.....I love it. Gonna have to write this one up. >Can anyone help suggest a name? Evan.:) (A friend of mine named Evan consistently used the handle "Paradox" for email over the last 4 years.) Or how about Albert? 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: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Wilmoth Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels bertishg@db.erau.edu wrote: >Can anyone suggest a name for an Archangel of Paradox? Why, This Angel Has No Name, of course! - -James, also considering 'Escher' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:38:00 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form On Jul 25, 8:53pm, Peter Frederick wrote: > Subject: IN> Kyriotate's Communicating and Celestial Form > Dear List > > since there was no Kyrio question going I thought I better start one :) . > > Page 103 says that a Kyrio with 3 Forces not being used to possess Hosts may > manifest a Celestial form and "That form need not be in the same place (or > on the same plane) as his host body or bodies, but he can never have more > than one celestial form at a time." > > Does this mean that a Kyrio can manifest his celestial form anywhere? That > is anywhere not in the same place as any of his Host(s)? The CelForm appears near one of the Kyrio's current hosts and _then_ is allowed to travel anywhere. > > Can a Kyrio who manifests their celestial form use it to communicate with > others, presuming he doesn't stun them. Very useful when inhabiting animal > Hosts. p.54 "A being in Celestial from may speak to anyone who has perceived it." - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:25:00 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! > > If so, are Saints humans graduated?? Saints are humans who, despite earning a place in the upper reaches of heaven, have petitioned a Superior to go back to Earth to help their fellow human beings. > Heh. Wouldn't we *ALL*??? Which brings me on to ask the question on > everybody's lips; "When's Night Music coming out?" The playtesters/authors/etc have gotten their copies! That means that shipments are being boxed up for all sorts of places and shipped even as we speak. When any _particular_ place will get their order is not for me to say (even if I knew...) ;) A review follows: Night Music (Revelations I) This is the first supplement in the long-awaited Revelations Cycle. Though each one of the books is designed to work together to flesh out the In Nomine world they can all be used individually. The boring stuff: It's about a 128 pages long with numerous (black and white) pieces of interior art. Rogerio Vilela did the cover and the redoubtable Dan Smith doing the interior stuff. The authors (much like most of the upcoming stuff) were legion: Derek Pearcy, James Cambias, Sam Chupp, S. John Ross and John Tynes. Scott Haring did the herculean task of editing the stuff with help from Mike Sullivan among others. One thing I found delightful is that each author is credited by section... an important distinction in a resource that is a product of many hands. The book could be a bit sturdier--I fear for my binding already!--but the layout is excellent. Having learned from the experience of the main In Nomine book, this one is a marvel of organization and clarity. The Table of Contents and index are extensive and (as far as my spot checks are concerned) complete. Typos are rare (The only two I spotted, however, were right near the beginning. I was _very_ glad this didn't crop up throught the rest of the book.) and the art fits the sections very well. The bits of fiction are well integrated and atmospheric. Look for more stuff like this in future releases unless I miss my guess. Why you should buy the book: Most of the book is aimed directly at Gamemasters. The sheer quantity of information on places, NPCS, new plots and plans plus an integrated adventure scream out GAMING RESOURCE: ADVENTURES INSIDE. =) Two Superiors are given much more detail, Laurence and Saminga; while two new ones are introduced, Christopher, Archangel of Children and Fleurity, Demon Prince of Drugs. The new Superiors are given the basic treatment (almost exactly the format found in the In Nomine rulebook... thank God) while the expanded descriptions have more personality details, a history, priority lists, a tether, new Servitor Attunements, Higher Distinctions and few sample servants. In fact, the book practically _throngs_ with NPCs of all stripes... from high-ranking Celestials all the way down to normal (and abnormal) humans. Also detailed are expanded rules on Mortals. Soldiers of God and the quietly powerful Saints; Soldiers of Hell and the truly twisted Undead. All four are made more fun and more _believeable_ in a game that deals so much with the extremes of reality. To round out things that the players can look at are more Discords and a section on Poison, Diseases and Drugs. Since the text doesn't say otherwise, I think we have to assume that Celestials are vulnerable to these things. Whoops! ;) Fortunately, they have more options for help! The second half of the book is dedicated to a new adventuring area (Austin and some parts of Texas), the NPCs that live there, local conditions, what various Superiors are doing in the area, and an adventure designed to integrate with everything above. Unlike so many 'modules' in the history of gaming, this environment works well. There are good and valid reasons for Demons and Angels in Austin and the interactions between them are complex, but realistic. Here is something that people have been clamoring for: Demons with whom you can actually empathize, Soldiers of Hell that aren't mindless goons, Angels both rising in power and falling, and countless human PCs to interact with. Despite all the useful information in the first section, I'd say the second half of the book is where the real value is... especially as a first supplement. The main rulebook is forced, mostly due to lack of space, to skimp on motivations and histories. Night Music is designed to take up the slack. Sorry I can't give more detail for the last part, but some _players_ are out there that will be going through this module... No spoilers here! ;) Why you shouldn't buy the book: Half of it is designed just for gamemasters... if your particular GM doesn't want to use the NPCs, tethers, adventures, etc, etc, these sections are a lot of fun to read. Otherwise half the book is useless unless _you_ are the GM. A stronger binding would be nice too, fellas! Final summary If you are running a campaign, it's a five out of five. As a player, especially one playing a human character, it's worth a three and a half... not becuase it's bad, mind you, but it was designed more for GMs. The Angelic and Demonic players guides will help out with THAT problem, though! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:50:10 -0400 From: John Dye Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Thomas Davidson wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Shadowcat wrote: > > > > > >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. > > > > Then again, a hell of a lot of Christian, aren't very Christian, > > or as my Grandmother used to say "Cold as a Christian's heart" and she was > > brought up in a SERIOUS christian household > > > As was I, come to think of it... perhaps that's why I shun Christianity? > Perhaps we can keep the personal religious commentary to a minimum? Otherwise this list will bog down like it did in the beginning. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:37:18 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Night Music >Heh. Wouldn't we *ALL*??? Which brings me on to ask the question on >everybody's lips; "When's Night Music coming out?" It shipped on Monday. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:04:22 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) At 02:43 AM 7/25/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:34:22 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>I suspect that they only gain the dissonance conditions if they >>are also able to invoke that Superior -- if they're just told >>to go work *with* somebody's group, they will follow their >>Archangel's orders, but don't have the dissonance conditions. > >Agree, but the Archangel borrowing them will generally want them bound by >his dissonance so they're on their best behavior not to undermine his Word. >That might not happen in all cases, but I think it's the general case, at >least for PCs. > If you want to force the PCs to act in a certain way, you should just announce it at the beginning. I think that it is quite illogical to assume that *any* superior is going to put up wiht someone else mucking with their Servants' fundimental natures. >>Dissonance conditions would only apply to long-term loans, and >>maybe not even then. (Eli's do *not* get them, for instance; >>neither do they get freebie attunements from their temp AAs, >>though.) > >Freebie Attunements? I thought Attunements would be handed out free only as >a special reward, and Eli's servants would be as eligible as any. (But >Elians do have trouble getting distinctions.) > She's talking about X of Y attunments that come about because the Servator shares the nature of the Superior. That same shared nature that causes the Dissonance. Celectials gain Dissonance by going against their nature and they share some of their Superior's nature which is why they gain their Superior's Dissonance. There is nothing in one of Jordi's servants nature that tells him that he can't retreat from a fight. Only if Michael were to go inside and twist the Angel's nature could he force an Angel into taking his Dissonance. 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: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:08:35 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels > > bertishg@db.erau.edu wrote: > >Can anyone suggest a name for an Archangel of Paradox? > Schrodinger? - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia It always comes and finds you It will always hear you cry I cross my wooden leg and I swear on my glass eye It will never leave you high and dry Never leave you loose It's harder to get rid of than tattoos TOM WAITS, "That Feel" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:03:37 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) > In a message dated 97-07-24 13:51:24 EDT, you write: > > << > Lessee... Asmodeus' (!!) don't have to "wear out their welcome" > > by corrupting the host. > > Betraying Asmodeus - why does this not sound like a good idea? > >> > > Hmmmm...well, for one, I apologize - the tone on that was meant to be dripping with Sarcasm. The school I went to must have been a Tether for the demon with that Word... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:21 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Redeeming Shedim >>>Hmmmm...well, for one, I would think that as soon as he learns what you've done your band/servitor attunements and distinctions would stop working...after all, those powers come from him. So now you *do* have to corrupt your host...<<< No, Renegades lose their Rites and Distinctions, but they don't lose their Band and Servitor attunements. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:22 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>There would also be a lot less opposition to Dominic, if he was having to bring in Falling AAs every time you turned around---the need for Dom and his work would be nearly unchallengeable, with the proof all around the Angels on Heavenly assignment.<<< Conversely, one can argue that the lack of dissonant Archangels is evidence of how well Dominic does his job. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:27 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A small "Immortals" tangent (was Dark In Nomine) Agreed, it's a fun game, at least to read, and I mention it here on the list because as several other people have noticed, it has some interesting potential parallels with In Nomine. I ran an "Immortals" game for a while, but having to Capitalize Every other Word and Make up new Definitions for Everything just became too irritating. (White Wolf x10!) If anyone ever converted THAT game to GURPS, I'd give it another try. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:30:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine At 4:43 PM -0400 7/24/97, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: >> Actually, judging from this list I think there are quite a *lot*. This >>makes things difficult for SJG, because there is a much wider variety of >>feels they need to cater to to keep In Nomine fans happy. I can't really >>think of any other game that inspires such dispirate playing styles. > >AD&D. GURPS (almost by definition, really). Those are just my immediate >thoughts, I'm sure there are others... > -Loki (take GURPS IOU, for example, with its three different versions) (Yes, please do take it! And pay for it... ) (And then there's In Nomine IOU... http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/IOUInNom.html ) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:26:25 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation At 3:53 PM -0400 7/24/97, Jeff Miller wrote: [...] >>>...and he can always create a big rock over it's head.... >> >>With the right Attunement, but remember that's not one you get free. >> >True but it can be a fun one. > >That Djinn is following you in the car? Instant caltrops! > >Is sodium metal a simple substance? How about phospherous? For the suicidal angel, a tiny amount of antimatter can really ruin a demon's day... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:54:00 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy At 5:16 AM -0400 7/25/97, Adam Canning wrote: >>>>>there isn't a single instance of Dominic charging another Archangel and >being `in the right'.<<<< > >Any case in which Dominic was right would rather imply the defendant was >not an Archangel afterwards. Like what happened to Uriel. That was a case of God saying, "You, upstairs, now." It's not clear whether he was or wasn't an AA after. Just that he was no longer seen bumming around... >If justice is Blind why does Dominic have countl;ess eyes. Dominic is not Justice. He is Judgment. A subtle distinction, but one I like. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:29 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>But the entire point of the Objective Morality theory is that Something is Either Right or Wrong, Circumstances Be Damned. And how does one know if something is wrong? Well, one gets the definition of this from God.<<< Not quite. God, unfortunately, has never personally told Dominic ALL the rules. Dominic may have been told some of them, but the rest, he just has to infer. So yes, he does believe that everything is either Right or Wrong according to God. BUT-- every once in a while, something he believes God says is wrong, isn't. Secondly, while Dominic may believe the rules should be inflexible, God is God. He's beyond questioning. He's beyond rules. So if He says "I'm making an exception", is Dominic going to question Him? I think not. Now maybe, it will bother Dominic just a little....just like a lot of Archangels seem to wonder exactly what God has in mind, when He does things that don't make sense to them. But they all accept that God's will supercedes all their Words, and He isn't constrained by dissonance restrictions or the Seraphim Council or anything else. And sometimes, He's just plain ineffable. As they say in Heaven, deal with it or go join the ones who couldn't... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:24 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>David, I realize you said right from the beginning that you felt the need to defend Dominic, but you're defending him against too many accusations that haven't been made. All told, I have to say I think this'll be my last word on the subject. The book definitely slants him towards a bad guy (with words like "tyrannical" and "Inquisition"), and personally, I like the view, at least as a way to have him presented to the PCs...you're certainly free to view him otherwise.<<< Well, your chorus notwithstanding, the points I made were logical extensions of the accusations you did make. I should probably clarify what I mean by defending Dominic. I don't think he should be a "good guy". He's certainly going to be a pain in the rear in many In Nomine scenarios, and angels hauled before the Inquisition should rightly be afraid. What....annoys me, in a lot of the Dominic-bashing, is not his portrayal as a harsh, even tyrannical, authority figure. It's his portrayal as a *petty*, blind and often downright ignorant authority figure. Which I realize is not how you were suggesting he be played. But I think one of the things that makes Dominic, if anything, MORE fearsome, is the fact that he's usually RIGHT, and that he holds the position he does because he *deserves* it. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:36:46 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:09:18, Jeff Miller wrote: >In the working *with* the angel is *still* and angel of Michael he's just >working with David at the time. There is *no* metaphysical connection just >that "This task is important to me help David get it done." It could be that way or he could be an angel of Michael whose superior is David. That's up to the archangels. >>it's like an MIS programmer being tasked to work for Sales to build a new >>computer system. Sure, he's still MIS's guy, but he better make Sales happy >>or everyone will be ticked off at him. > >True but does he have to go on commission, start leasing his car, and get >ulsers whenever his potential increase in income doesn't keep pace with his >overextended lifestyle? Worse: He has to wear a suit or suffer dissonance. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:37:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (was: Dark In Nomine) At 10:08 AM -0400 7/25/97, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: >>From: Elizabeth McCoy > >>Lessee... Asmodeus' (!!) don't have to "wear out their welcome" >>by corrupting the host. >> >>One of Beleth's might be able to run to the other side of the Marches. >> >>A Shedite of Belial might take up residence in some fire that >>didn't ever get put out, but that's getting pretty dubious... >> >>Shedim of Death can wander around in corpses... >> >>And Shedim of Valefor don't *need* a host (if you really want to be >>a big target for all the celestials in the area...). >> >>Shedim of Technology can stay in their laptop. >> >> >>And those are the only ones who wouldn't *necessarily* have to >>walk *quite* as narrow a tightrope... [...] > As for the others, Doesn't going Renegade cause the Demon to lose >band attunements? Or is that something that the Superior has to personally >show up to strip a servitor of? I don't know. There's a Renegade in "Feast of Blades" who kept her Band Attunement. (I know this, despite being only half-way through the adventure as a PC, because the @#%%$!! sister used it on *my* Free "I'm only Renegade if they catch me" Daughter... And put her into a Geas-conflict between her and AA Jean...) (Ah, p. 30, second paragraph. Outcasts keep their attunements, so Renegades probably do as well.) Maybe bending a demon to one's Word (i.e., granting a Band Attunement) is a one-time thing, and won't get changed until you or another Superior bends it back? > Maybe that's why Shedim are so nasty. They know they have nowhere >else to go. Point... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:48:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! At 3:25 PM -0400 7/25/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >> > If so, are Saints humans graduated?? > > Saints are humans who, despite earning a place in the >upper reaches of heaven, have petitioned a Superior >to go back to Earth to help their fellow human beings. And then there's the roundabout way to get humans into angels... No, no, I won't tell it yet. Find it for yourself. One little slip of the typewriter. Musta been Lucifer's doing. > A review follows: > >Night Music (Revelations I) > >The boring stuff: > It's about a 128 pages long with numerous (black and white) >pieces of interior art. Laurence is yummy! (Ah, this explains K.K.'s obsession with Malakim. She think's they're so *cute*!) >redoubtable Dan Smith doing the interior [art]. The authors >(much like most of the upcoming stuff) were legion: I thought Legion was... No, no, nevermind. [...] >One thing I found delightful is that each author is credited by section... In the Contents pages. I missed that the first devour. >Typos are rare *Bad* typos are rare... I've spotted some duplicated words, a double comma, and at least one tense problem. Throughout the book. But they don't detract. >Why you should buy the book: Because it makes Laurence much more interesting (and he *is* sooooo cute), elucidates Saminga the loon, adds a couple of neat Superiors... And has great stuff about Austin! (I used to live there. I should know.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:10:19 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>Let me try it this way. Dominic and Laurence tend to agree. Michael, Yves, Novalis, Jordi, Gabriel, and Eli have all evidenced differing opinions with Dominic's view of the Law, while the others, on the whole, haven't registered a vote one way or another. This doesn't fit any definition of "prevailing" in the English language *I* learned, but then, I'm an American...*shrug*<<< As a fellow American, allow me to direct your attention to the many, many people who disagree with our current set of laws, to varying degrees. We have the full spectrum of political opinion from those who want to maintain the status quo at all costs to those who want a revolution to destroy the government. With the exception of the last (and they're a pretty small minority, though it only takes one bomb...), hardly anyone wants to replace any of the branches of the government wholesale. Most don't even want *major* changes in the way things are done, they just don't like the income tax system, or they think the Federal government should have more power to do some things, or less power to do others, or they want a new President (but not a new presidential system), or they want a more conservative/more liberal Supreme Court, etc. In other words, if you took a poll, you'd probably find that practically everyone is dissatisfied with the Powers That Be, to some extent. But that doesn't mean practically everyone wants to put the Powers That Be up against a wall. Most of the Archangels probably have some difference of opinion with Dominic. Michael really dislikes him, and even he probably wouldn't say "Get rid of Judgment." All of them accept the need for Dominic's role, and most of them accept Dominic in that position, even if they don't always like him. The above expanded English lesson comes free of charge. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:22:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) At 2:43 AM +0000 7/25/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:34:22 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>I suspect that they only gain the dissonance conditions if they >>are also able to invoke that Superior -- if they're just told >>to go work *with* somebody's group, they will follow their >>Archangel's orders, but don't have the dissonance conditions. > >Agree, but the Archangel borrowing them will generally want them bound by >his dissonance so they're on their best behavior not to undermine his Word. >That might not happen in all cases, but I think it's the general case, at >least for PCs. Probably depends on the Superior, the situtation, and the GM... >>Dissonance conditions would only apply to long-term loans, and >>maybe not even then. (Eli's do *not* get them, for instance; >>neither do they get freebie attunements from their temp AAs, >>though.) > >Freebie Attunements? I thought Attunements would be handed out free only as >a special reward, and Eli's servants would be as eligible as any. (But >Elians do have trouble getting distinctions.) Choir attunements aren't free -- a Servitor of Creation in Service to another Archangel does not partake of that other Superior's dissonance conditions. But neither do they get that Superior's Choir Attunements for free. (They pay 5 points to get 'em, from what I gathered from Anael's sheet.) They can still *earn* them (or pay for them with points at creation), but they're not "freebies" the way you get your Superior's Choir Attunement for free. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:36:35 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:53:08, Jeff Miller wrote: >We may not be that far off.... No, we aren't. >OK, take a stanshion that they use to rope off waiting lines. Lets say >that if a normal person had a proficiency in using it as a weapon it would >be a stanshion/3. If the MoE rolled a CD/6, what would the Power of the >stanshion be? What if he rolled a CD/2? My feeling is, if it's a stanchion/3 that's what it is. Remember that the MoE attunement is perceptive not will-based. He's seeing things, not changing them. OTOH, if you rolled a CD/6, I might rule that the rope and the stanchion could be used as a flail/6, under those conditions and considering the surprise advantage you have. >>Look, if you find a nail gun/6, I'm not going to make you keep it. Feel >>free to put it back where you found it. >> >Would a normal person be able to use it as a nail gun/6? Generally, but they wouldn't usually see it as a weapon. Remember the big bank shoot out in LA with the two guys with AK-47s and armor? At one point one of the guys hides behind a compact car in the middle of the street, and its driver runs away. A bunch of policemen come up in their patrol car and pile out to try to pop him with their pistols and shotguns. An MoE would sense, "This patrol car has more kinetic energy than all the rounds shot that day." He'd ram the compact and nail the guy hiding behind it. >I should run a MoE just to make you come up wiht a contents list for >*every* room we enter.... You'd roll, and I'd give you information appropriate to the roll. Remember, bad things can happen if you use your attunements too lightly. >Is sodium metal a simple substance? How about phospherous? I think they would be considered rare. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #261 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.