From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Aug 13 13:49:57 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 NAA30766 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:49:56 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA21437 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:50:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:50:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199708131450.JAA21437@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 #289 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 Wednesday, August 13 1997 Volume 01 : Number 289 In this digest: IN> Pyramid #26... Re: IN> Night Music/Austin Re: IN> Discord at character creation Q. Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Character points at creation Re: IN> Requesting guidance on human use of Essence Re: IN> Dominic is (silly) Re: IN> Drew Angel of Sexuality Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS Privacy and plot ideas (Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Character points at creation IN> Zeal! Zeal! Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> Dominic/Dominique IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #288 IN> Demon Prince Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> The Austin Truce Re: IN> Humans Q. Re: IN> Relic Weapons IN> ascension ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: IQJason@aol.com Subject: IN> Pyramid #26... I'm guessing that most of you are Pyramid readers/contributors anyway, so I don't have to tell you to tune in. For those who aren't, the latest issue has an article by Derek "Demon Prince of IN" Pearcy called "The Nature of My Game." It's a thinly-fictionalized explanation of the "good & evil" debate, what happened to Raphael, and lots of other good things -- some of which had been discussed here previously, others not. Your beloved Nybbasketeers say check it out. yours, - -J ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:20:54 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Night Music/Austin At 01:11 PM 8/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >And it can make a campaign that much more timely. My next >project will be trying to develop a scenario around the >transplanting of a Tether. General Motors is moving their >headquarters four miles down the road in Detroit...if the GM >HQ was a Tether for Marc (it certainly would be appropriate), >how would he go about shifting the Tether.. and what >excitement could be caused by those current inhabitants >of the Renaissance Center? GM's taking over Ren Cen? That's a bit of a mind blower. I use to live in Michigan in Bloomfield Hills (near Birmingham) about 16 years ago. I loved the spring and fall there. 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: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:27:53 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Discord at character creation Q. On Aug 5, 11:16am, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > Subject: IN> Discord at character creation Q. > Is there a limit to how much Discord you can buy at character creation? > This seems abusable to me, at least for demons.... If I recall correctly (my books are still packed with my Gencon stuff), there is no upper limit other than the GM's tolerance. Remember that there are watchdogs on BOTH sides looking for high-discord characters and their methods aren't very pleasant... - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:29:58 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases One note from On High: The official plural for 'Geas' is 'Geases' in In Nomine. Some people, in character, use Geasa, however. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:54:12 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Character points at creation delicious antique whore - succubus@nightly.com wrote: > the attunement you get for free, like Malakim or War, or Elohite > of Judgment. but do you have to pay for any more? i'm an ofanim > of gabriel, and i've taken that, and now i want Smite grin>, do i get it for free or do i pay 5 for it? or 10? i don't > get this part. The other Choir/Band Attunements cost 5 points each and the general Servitor Attunements cost 10. The Rank Attunements you can't buy at character creation - you must earn it trough good roleplaying... We all know it's kinda complicated to come up with everything at the first look, but be patient... Soon you'll manage to control all of it. And pay attention on the Role cost - (Status x Role Level)/2 -, it fools a lot of new players... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 97 18:31 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Requesting guidance on human use of Essence >What I am trying to work out is if a 5-force-human could put all his Essence >into one effort, if he were rote-following some song, and just copying the >tune/pattern and singing his heart out. Technically, they can't use Songs >directedly. I'm just wondering if they could be coached and shoved into >producing an undirected low-power Song this way. I have a PC in my game (yet to be started for real) who is untutored, but has some "natural" abilities that work more or less this way. If the character *really wants* something to happen, sometimes all his Essence will be spontaneously blown on one of these "subconscious Songs" that is reasonably appropriate to the situation. On the other hand, this isn't a 5-Force human -- he's got 7. Exactly what his nature is, hopefully will be brought out in the game as the campaign evolves. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:53:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is (silly) At 4:34 PM -0500 8/11/97, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >Just another wierd tangent to the Dominic Thread... > >Fact: Dominic was Dominque until a fairly late draft of IN >Fact: Dominic always wears a big, concealing cloak >Fact: Dominic is really into discipline > >I figure he's wearing skanky black-leather-with-silver-studs S&M gear >under that thing. [Picture it, I *dare* you.] But is he S or M? And what S's and M's are you using... *AHEM*! GenCon has fried my brain, yeah, that's the ticket... (o/~ "Seraphs in white satin..." o/~) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:21:46 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Drew Angel of Sexuality At 9:50 AM +1000 8/11/97, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >Joel Mathis wrote: >>[...] I honestly don't think that many angels would have a good time >> if they thought that their partner wasn't enjoying the sex too. > > Caring about your partner(s) enjoying themselves isn't the same as >having sex with the aim of pleasing them. It's a mutual gratification >thing, most of the time. If you only have sex to please your partner, >that's kinda dysfunctional. Unless you're an Elohite? (Of course, they can enjoy it too, but only initiate what's best for the Symphony as a whole...) >> A side thought, faking an orgasm with a Seraph would be a very bad >> idea. > > They'll know, but will they understand why? If they get a 6 check digit... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:10:00 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS At 3:29 AM -0100 8/10/97, Henry Leirvoll wrote: >On perceiving celestials, views within "sight" rolls their perception PLUS >the number of Celestial forces the seen being has. - This the book tells us. >I think this is odd. >The more powerful a being, the easier it is to see? Sure! It shines brighter... >A Demon Prince would be noticed by anyone - even a mortal, at a mere glance! Yup! And would probably be very scary... OTOH, Superiors might have some way to "mask" their presence when they want. And they can always take a vessel, of course -- then they're only "seeable" if they want to be seen. (Charisma 6, anyone?) >A Senezchal (sp?) protecting a tether - is seen by every mortal who enters >there - not to mention celestials. He may just as well have 6 Celestial >forces, giving a human with Will/2 a chance of 8 to spot him : VERY GOOD >chance. So don't go celestial in front of humans much... The only celestials who would have problems never being celestial might be Kyrios and Shedim, who body-hop all the time. One would hope that the Superior who owned the Tether would be sensible about assigning Seneschals... (Mitra, for instance, can inhabit the physical form of her Tether; our campaign has a Kyrio Seneschal for a Tether of Lightning who possesses the computer system there -- a Seneschal is probably not restricted to the time-limits of possessing inanimate objects that ordinary Kyrios of Jean must contend with.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:34:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Privacy and plot ideas (Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy) At 1:37 PM -0700 8/4/97, R. Coon wrote: >On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Andrew Getting wrote: >>At 10:22 AM 8/3/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >>>At 01:27 AM 8/3/97 -0500, Andrew Getting wrote: >>>>I disagree. The triatic method of the Inquisiton involves >>>>the loss of all privacy, dignity, and respect for the accused. >>> >>>I don't understand why you say this. I think that the Seraph could be very >>>respectful. The others don't ask questions. They just keep you from >>>running. >> >>Seraphim aren't respectful. They're the Most Holy, and Inquisitors. And seeing a Seraph of Judgment questioning nearly any other Seraph is entertaining... Seraphim are usually a little iffy on the politeness thing anyway, and amongst themselves probably feel little or no need to even try. Q: "Why have you been going to this bar and dancing with humans?" A: "Because, firstly, I've got a Role as a college student, and that's normal for them. Secondly, I can find the talented ones there as well as on campus. Thirdly, I'm born of Creation; I *like* doing it. Now, you're going to make me late for class if we don't speed things up. I'm not dissonant, I'm not Discordant, and as far as I know, none of my friends are either. Go bother someone else." Q: "..." >>Having a Cherubim bound to you against your will, so that he knows >>where you are at all times, is obviously a breach of privacy. >> >I would agree to the loss of privacy; however, this complaint implies that >there is something that needs hiding. Why would ANY angel need privacy, >other than to hide things? And with Seraphim and Elohim running around loose, angels don't *get* privacy to start with! They're raised in fishbowls. It's *normal* for their buddies to know if they're concealing a truth or an emotion. Their best friend Cherubs make playing Hide and Seek a moot point. Their Mercurian pals know who else they're being friends with. And if you assume that all Choir resonances are automatically active and successful in Heaven (CD of Eth Forces? Cel Forces?), as in our house rules, then they *really* grow up with all their friends knowing stuff about them, and them knowing stuff about their friends. (And then there's Adam's point about Hearts -- anyone can spy on you with those things...) Privacy is a demon-thing -- you only have to worry about Lilim and Habbalah, for your internal life, and Djinn, following you around. Requiring privacy also implies that people will use the truth against you -- in Hell (or on Earth), this is a reasonable assumption. In Heaven... It's only reasonable if you're using the "petty Dominic" or the "Balseraph Dominic." At 1:08 PM -0400 8/5/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>I really have to wonder, though: why are you (collectively, that >>is) arguing over Dominic's true nature? [...] > >Intellectual stimulation, and because I hate seeing irrational assumptions >go unchallenged. :) > >Of course Dominic might be as nasty and evil as some have suggested. Even >the writers sometimes disagree about how a particular Superior should be >presented. ( ;)) And some of this might spark plot ideas, and/or solidify what the participants think of Dommie. I've already got some plot-type notions forming in the back of my head... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:11:08 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 1:08 PM -0400 8/5/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>> If a Need-Geas is invoked and >resisted, *somebody* should take dissonance, or else Lilim would >swap un-tested Need-Geasa all the time. (*Especially* if the >dissonance for a resisted Geas vanished that way!)<<< > >I don't think swapping *away* a Geas you've already invoked, had resisted, >and gained dissonance for would get rid of a Lilim's dissonance. Nah-nah-nah, not what I mean. If *nobody* got dissonance from invoking an untested Geas they didn't need-fulfill, then they'd swap the untested Geases all the time. Hem. Lemme do this in example. Lilim 1 fulfills Human A's Need. She now has the potential to invoke a Geas on him. I call this an "untested Geas." Now, Lilim 1 needs a favor from Lilim 2, and offers this untested Geas to sweeten the deal. Lilim 2 accepts, and heads off to Human A to get a favor later. Human A resists. Here's where the "*somebody* takes the dissonance" has to come in. If Lilim 1 took the dissonance, she'd never trade untested Geasa -- she'd at least want to *know* when she was at risk for dissonance. This is valid enough, but makes trading untested Geases very unlikely. (Which would be no fun for the plot seed that started this.) If Lilim 2 takes the dissonance, untested Geases can be traded as much as Lilim want. (They'll be worth less than a Geas on a sister, or one that a celestial had agreed to, of course.) If *NOBODY* takes the dissonance, then Lilim will *never* invoke an untested Geas they got on someone! They'll *trade* their untested Geases around, and never get dissonant! BAD mechanic, no donut! The other option is to say that untested Geases simply can't be traded, but this is #1: not as much fun, and #2: makes it hard to justify beginning Lilim characters with no potential Geases owed to them. If untested Geases *can* be traded *and* don't risk dissonance to Lilim 1, then the GM can rule that in all the previous jobs, the Lilim was instructed to turn her untested Geases over to a boss. (A madam-Lilim in one of Andre's Houses of Lust, for instance.) Or that the Lilim wanted some big favor from Mom and gave in the untested ones as well. >But I >don't see why they couldn't swap a Geas to someone else. (How often are >they going to *want* to trade a Geas for which the Need has been fulfilled? When you need a favor, you need a favor -- better to trade away a Geas on someone than bind yourself in the future... >Now if you managed to fulfill a Need on someone you think has a Will too >high for you to invoke it on, you find a more powerful celestial who can >deal with that, and see what he has to offer in trade.) (I'd say it probably only works with Superiors that way -- it's not a Will contest, normally.) >>>>I think that the dissonance will backlash onto the person who >did the invoking, normally, not the person who fulfilled the Need >(if it differs).<<< > >I can't see a resisted Geas inflicting dissonance on anyone but a Lilim. >Dissonance results from violating one's *own* celestial nature, and failing >to invoke a Geas isn't going to be dissonant for non-Lilim. (What if a >mortal invoked a Geas and failed? Mortals can't incur dissonance.) Mmmmmm..... Then an untested Geas will either backlash on the Lilim (the celestial scales aren't balancing), or it simply can't be traded to someone without the power to invoke it. >I think a Geas invoked by a non-Lilim loses the power to inflict >dissonance. Yes, it offers Lilim a way to avoid risking dissonance for >their Geases, "Hey, Joe Human, I'll trade you this untested Geas/3 for a little ol' favor, right now..." It's not just "a way to avoid," it's license to never suffer lashback dissonace again. *Trust* me; I'm playing several of the little temptresses, I know what they'd do with that kind of escape clause. };) >but it also adds a level of complication for them to reap any >benefits from fulfilling Needs, and how many Lilim will want to go around >fulfilling Needs and then letting someone *else* call in the sucker's >debts? If they can do it without risking dissonance? You bet! They just go around finding folk who want to order someone *else* around, and fulfull *those* needs, and make the trade (possibly as a "I have this Geas here, and I want a favor from you *first*," rather than invoking a Geas at all). Example: Lilim 1 wants something from Human A. Lilim 1 finds out that Human A really wants something from Human B. Lilim 1 goes and resonates Human B, fulfills B's needs. Lilim 1 goes to Human A and offers them a chance to get what they want from Human B -- if they'll just fulfill this eensy little favor here... Or, worse... K.K.'s been up to her usual tricks, and has some potential Geases on a strong-willed Malakite. She'd like to use a Geas/6 to make him summon his Archangel and recite "I'm a little teapot" at him, but doesn't want the lashback when he resists. On the other hand, if he'd just blow a lot of Essence resisting... She goes to her human servant and says, "Okay, I'll give you that new motorcycle you've been wanting, in exchance for some potential Geases on a Malakite. And, if you invoke them the way I tell you to, I'll sweeten the deal with a new Song." Her human servant, being aware of her whims, decides that having K.K. in a good mood is worth dodging a Malakite. He agrees. He invokes the Geas, and the Malakite, naturally, resists with everything he's worth. It fails, but because a human was invoking it, nobody gets dissonance. The human asks again, using another Geas, and the Malakite quickly goes out of Essence. (Or have a Will-reduction Song, whatever.) Then, the human invokes a final one, and the hapless Malakite is bound to go off and annoy his Superior...or not, if the dice are kind! Despite multiple *failed* invocations of a Geas, K.K. is dissonance free. It was a little complicated, but her resonance is unimpaired and the Servitors of the Game can't officially touch her. The dissonance has to hit someone, or a Lilim will never invoke a Geas herself. At 3:12 AM -0400 8/7/97, David Edelstein wrote: [...] >>>>I tend to view the Lilim resonance as being able to inflict a Geas on >others by fulfilling their Needs.<<< > >Yes, that's their resonance. The dissonance part comes when they are unable >to enforce the other end of the bargain, thus failing to impose their will >on the Symphony. Except that Lilim don't use Will to impose a Geas -- they just tap into the "karma" section of the Symphony... But if it fails, then they have given something for nothing, and the imbalance hurts them. The implications there are that the Symphony does, indeed, work on a karma basis -- if someone gives you something and you don't reciprocate, then that's Bad. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:54:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Character points at creation From: "delicious antique whore - succubus@nightly.com" At 1:05 PM -0400 8/12/97, delicious antique whore - succubus@nightly.com wrote: >i'm a complete newbie so PLEASE bear with me. > >i'm confused about where your character points (cps) go when >you create a character.stop me when i mess up. > >cps = 4 x FORCES ... so if you're a celestial you get 36. Right. >each level of vessel costs 3. Right. And if you take Charisma, that's 2 per level; Sex Appeal (one-gender/orientation only) is 1 per level. You can have a max of +3 *total*. (1 of Charisma, 2 of Sex Appeal; 2 of Sex Appeal, one of Charisma; or 3 of one and 0 of the other.) >each level of a skillcosts 1, but you have to buy your way out of >the negative defaults. You don't have to buy your way out of the defaults. If you have *any* points in it, it's Characteristic + Level. >each song costs 1 per level. Right. And the target number is [Appropriate Forces] + Level. >the attunement you get for free, like Malakim or War, or Elohite >of Judgment. but do you have to pay for any more? Yes. >i'm an ofanim of gabriel, and i've taken that, That one's free. >and now i want Smite , do i get it for free or do >i pay 5 for it? or 10? i don't get this part. You pay 10 for a Servitor attunement. p. 108: "Servitor attunements are available to all servants of that Archangel, but cost 10 character points at character creation." After that, the GM may or may not make you pay points to get rewarded with Smite. Depends on the GM. If you want a *Choir* Attunement not your own -- say, Malakim of Fire attunement -- then *that* costs 5 character points at character creation. >i was trying to use the example characters to figure out where cps >went. the first one, Carin, i came up with 34 cps spent out of 36. >and on Ishmael i got 39. what theTartarus am i doing wrong? Lemmes see... Carin: Vessel/2 = 6 points Corp. Artifact = 1 point Thunder Song = 4 points Healing Song = 2 points Dodge = 4 points Ranged Wep. = 3 points Light Song = 6 points Proficiency = 10 points - --------------------------- 36 points. Ismael: Vessel/1 = 3 points (human one) Vessel/1 = 3 points (dog one) Dodge = 2 points Savoir-Faire = 2 points Throwing = 1 point Cor. Dreams = 6 points Cel. Dreams = 6 points Charm Song = 3 points Dream Walking = 10 points - -------------------------- 36 points - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 97 22:04:28 -0400 From: dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org Subject: IN> Zeal! Zeal! Previously, from the desktop of in_nomine-digest... >According to dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org: > >> >I don't think of Dominic as evil, or petty. I think of him >> >as an Archangel who, over the millenia of his own success, >> >got drunk on his own hubris. >> >> I don't see him as evil or petty either. But hubris sounds an awful lot >> like a Discord to me. Instead, I prefer to see him as single-minded and >> overzealous: [a lot of other stuff I was flattered to see replied to snipped] >I think you've hit on one of the key disagreements about >Dominic though; singlemindedness AND insight (the latter being >something of a question). I could see some of that insight thing coming into dispute; if he knew everything, then he wouldn't need to investigate everything. Or as some people might put it, "He's the Archangel of Judgement, not the Archangel of *Good* Judgement!" Dominic would object, though. As for the singlemindedness, I see it this way: when a Celestial is granted a Word, that Word becomes ingrained into their nature. In a way, the Celestial gives up a measure of its freedom to act in all ways to assert greater control over one particular section of the Symphony. As a result, most seem singleminded in one way or another. Eli is so slavishly devoted to his word that he felt duty-bound to leave Heaven in order to protect it. (But that's specific to my campaign; your mileage may vary.) Michael is so dedicated to War that he even holds a grudge against Yves, one of the most innocent beings in Creation (unless you count that whole Islam falderol). Blandine is so driven by her word that she feels obliged to remain in her tower and oversee the Marches than participate in Celestial Politics. (Celestial Politics could be likened to a live rat spitting contest, but that's beside the point). And dear sweet Dominic shows considerable devotion to his word by turning his eyes (all six of 'em) toward any Celestial who behaves oddly. All Archangels with Words will be singleminded in one way or another. Dominic's Word merely makes him the most intrusive of the lot. > If it IS hard to "pull the wool over >his eyes", then Dominic is - much as you say - akin to a head of >internal security. If this is not quite true, however, and >Dominic is a bit more singleminded and zealous than plain >evidence suggests, then he becomes more like a member of the >Inquisition than an internal services head. You're not stepping as far from my example as you seem to think. What was the Inquisition, after all, beside the policing and processing of those who were differently faithed? >For example, Dominic reads Eli's behavior as suspicious - >granted. This definitely merits investigation, but does it >give him the right to persecute servitors of Eli to delve into >his workings? Well, yes. The servitors of any Archangel are also somewhat bound by that Archangel's word, and may exhibit some of the Archangel's behaviors. You could even look at the servitors as an extension of sorts of the archangel. (It does kind of suggest a 'sins of the father' relationship, I suppose.) Eli's case is so far unique, so Dominic has a problem: he doesn't really know quite how to proceed. So, in lieu of the Boss, Dominic might as well go after the small fish in the hopes of reeling in the big one eventually. That's how some police departments would handle such a case... > I guess it sorta depends on how you read into >"persecute". I know both types of people - those who read him >as zealot and those who play him as a hard-nosed cop. The two aren't mutually exclusive -- I see Dominic as a hard-nosed cop who lets the weight of his duty blind him to the damage he is inadvertantly causing. That becomes another theme in my campaign, ultimately. >Personally, I read him as more of a cop than an Inquisitor, but >I definitely acknowledge a healthy dose of bull-headed >persecution..... Even the Angels aren't sure how to read 'persecution' in that case, and the Celestial Tongue ordinarily prevents that sort of misunderstanding. Go fig... - -David http://www.bluecrab.org/members/dwood/ No, not THAT David. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:17:02 -0400 From: "Michael Stanley" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > John Karakash Wrote: > One note from On High: The official plural for 'Geas' > is 'Geases' in In Nomine. Actually, it's Geasa according to the official In Nomine FAQ at the Steve Jackson Games website. The page specifically says: "What is the plural of 'Geas'? " " "Geasa. " The URL for this section of the FAQ is: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/faq/#rule-demons-lilim-002 L8R, - -Michael Stanley- stanman@netset.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:30:19 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Dominic/Dominique Concerning the Dominic/Dominique issue, I was wondering, for those of you who had used Judgement in their campaigns, which did they use, Dominic, or Dominique? Grim "Looked back at my source and noted that I, of course, HAD IT WRONG" 88 rbeall@fdldotnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:21:46 -0500 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #288 > >Somebody needs a more reliable source . . . > >To set the record straight, Heaven & Hell will be detailed in Heaven & Hell. > >Hope that doesn't count as a "spoiler" for anyone . . . ;) > >L.A. will be detailed in an upcoming book, though. > >- -Sjohn ouch! shot down... I'll go sulk in the corner now and shut up until I KNOW I'm right. (Note: I'll be quite for a VERY long time) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Hobbes Subject: IN> Demon Prince Hi all, I had a buddy ask me where I thought a word bound demon of Hatred would fall (Superior-wise). My first thought was; "hmm, that's pretty general - lemme check". My best guess would have been the Demon Prince of Factions, but I really couldn't say. My next thought was; "Oh well, bounce it off the list." PLease bear in mind that I don't as of yet own any of the supplements for In Nomine and am trying to glean what I can about them off this list. At any rate, I would appreciate the help so I can relay advice and at least LOOK like I have some idea of what I'm doing..... Thanks a lot, Dan Ozdowksi - -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\//\ Beware the single most feared person in life..... The Articulate Incompetent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 01:14:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 dwood@skipjack.bluecrab.org wrote: > The servitors of any Archangel are also somewhat bound by that > Archangel's word, and may exhibit some of the Archangel's behaviors. You > could even look at the servitors as an extension of sorts of the > archangel. > > (It does kind of suggest a 'sins of the father' relationship, I suppose.) Funny you should phrase it that way. I've been pondering the "Where do new angels come from?" question for a while now and the idea came to me last night: their archangels make them. All they have to do is splinter off 9 of their own Forces, shape them as they wish, and *bing* an angel is made (ringing of bell is optional). Doubtless each archangel has its own preferred means. Michael probably hacks off one of his limbs, which becomes a new Servitor of War. Laurence might imbue one of his swords with Forces, while Yves might just find a new Servitor of Destiny wandering around in his library. Novalis, I am certain, undergoes pregnancy (9 Forces...9 months?Hmm....); not only does it fit with her fertility concept, I get the feeling she'd enjoy maternity. :) - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of this robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:46:45 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:11:08 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >If Lilim 1 took the dissonance, she'd never trade untested Geasa -- >she'd at least want to *know* when she was at risk for dissonance. >This is valid enough, but makes trading untested Geases very unlikely. >(Which would be no fun for the plot seed that started this.) Let me throw in an idea: suppose you could test a Geas? I don't know if it's exactly clear, but I imagine what happens is the Geas- holder goes to the victim and says, "I want you to ____." The victim then resists if he wants to. If the Geas-holder says, "I want you to buy me some donuts," the victim probably says, "Sure," and doesn't resist at all--the Lilim might ask for something worse later. If the Geas-holder says, "I want you to put this bomb in your mother's house," the victim probably burns every essence he has to try to resist. So, suppose the original Geaser could go to the victim and say, "I want you to deliver a package...later." Suppose the victim agrees or resists unsuccessfully. Now the Lilim has something solid to trade: they victim has already agreed or been forced to his fate, and he's the only one who can suffer consequences. But, the Geas is limited to the agreed task. The Lilim could say, "I want you to do anything the holder of this Geas wants for an hour," but she would probably be resisted as much as possible. OTOH, an assassin might not flinch at agreeing to kill someone. It makes sense for the Lilim to bargain with the victim and use them for what they're best at. >If *NOBODY* takes the dissonance, then Lilim will *never* invoke >an untested Geas they got on someone! They'll *trade* their untested >Geases around, and never get dissonant! BAD mechanic, no donut! Yep. >>I think a Geas invoked by a non-Lilim loses the power to inflict >>dissonance. Yes, it offers Lilim a way to avoid risking dissonance for >>their Geases, > >"Hey, Joe Human, I'll trade you this untested Geas/3 for a little ol' >favor, right now..." It's not just "a way to avoid," it's license >to never suffer lashback dissonace again. *Trust* me; I'm playing >several of the little temptresses, I know what they'd do with that >kind of escape clause. };) How about this: The Geas can be traded, but if it's traded to a non-Lilim, it doesn't act either way: it won't cause dissonance if resisted, and it won't cause dissonance or hits if not satisfied either. The threat is that if the victim doesn't satisfy the Geas, the holder will go find a Lilim to enforce it. It's not really an escape clause, since the Lilim will have to steeply discount her Geases unless she also agrees to enforce them if needed. Perhaps Archangels, Demon Princes, and high level Superiors should be capable of enforcing a Geas, too. Let's see how this works with your K.K. example: >K.K.'s been up to her usual tricks, and has some potential Geases >on a strong-willed Malakite. She'd like to use a Geas/6 to make >him summon his Archangel and recite "I'm a little teapot" at him, >but doesn't want the lashback when he resists. > >On the other hand, if he'd just blow a lot of Essence resisting... > >She goes to her human servant and says, "Okay, I'll give you that >new motorcycle you've been wanting, in exchance for some potential >Geases on a Malakite. And, if you invoke them the way I tell you to, >I'll sweeten the deal with a new Song." > >Her human servant, being aware of her whims, decides that having >K.K. in a good mood is worth dodging a Malakite. He agrees. > >He invokes the Geas, and the Malakite, naturally, resists with >everything he's worth. It fails, but because a human was invoking >it, nobody gets dissonance. If the human has no power to enforce, the Malakite ignores him. But the Malakite goes and borrows a relic/reliquary of Celestial Motion/6, 'cause he's expecting a visit from K.K. Real Soon Now. So, the net result is the Malakite is more prepared because K.K. tried to dodge her dissonance condition. Of course the out in the original situation is after the first attempted Geasing, the Malakite--who probably has a higher perception than the human, and can therefore claim the initiative--says to himself, "Evil! Kill!!!" Whereupon, the human and the Geases go poof at the beginning of the second combat round. I presume the Geases go poof, anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:27:24 -0400 From: "Joel Mathis" Subject: IN> The Austin Truce Throwing my $1/50 into the ring... I think that the major point of the truce in Austin is to provide the GM and players with a setting that is not a rehashed, dark-gothic role playing enviroment. The idea seems to be to steer the game more towards Good Omens, where angels and demons can get along as long as they are not in direct conflict, and sometimes that may even have similar enough goals to assist each other. I think that establishing that was very important, although doing it in a more subtle way would have been better. Joel Mathis jmathis@gate.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:30:20 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Humans Q. On Aug 5, 11:22am, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > Subject: IN> Humans Q. > According to the new (Night Music) rules, humans don't have vessels - > they just get CorpF*ST hits. (Implies Vessel/0.) > > Question: What happens to them at negative hits? Under the current > rules, they die instantly... Good question! Hmmmm... I'd say that they die when they get to negative ST. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:35:10 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Relic Weapons > However, you're right - there seems to be no point to a HP/1 unless it's > errata'd that CD*level is the weapon's power. (Even then, a .44 would > do > almost as well.) That is _not_ errata! That is _exactly_ how it is written in the book. P.71 "It is a ranged weapon, with a Power equal to its Resource level (multiplied by the check digit!) and an Accuracy of +1." - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:14:54 EDT From: "delicious antique whore - succubus@nightly.com" Subject: IN> ascension greetings all. this is my first official post to the mailing list. i'd like to thank the people who explained to me what i was doing wrong with character creation. now i understand why i was getting 34 and 39 instead of 36. but i've got another question for ya. imagine that. damn newbies. it says, and i quote, "The character point cost of a corporeal artifact is equal to it level as a Resource." later it says, and i quote again, "The cost of a servant depends on his Resource level ... and how powerful he is ... Multiply the servant's Class by his level as a resource, and divide by 2, to get his character point cost." after the first line i was thinking, okay, corp artifact/1 is 1, corp artifact/2 is 2, etc. then i get to this thing about servants. that means i can take a Class 6 servant as a level 1 resource and pay 3 for it? ((6*1)/2) or are resource level and Class the same value, so a Class/level 6 servant is ((6*6)/2) 18? thanks again. d.licious antique whore ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #289 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.