From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Aug 13 20:02:21 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 UAA26429 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:02:21 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA10456 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:09:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:09:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199708132309.SAA10456@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 #291 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 291 In this digest: Re: Privacy and plot ideas (Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Requesting guidance on human use of Essence Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Heaven & Hell Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. Re: IN> Rewards and character improvement IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Contributions and Point Awards Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> The Austin question Archangel of Borg (Re: IN> Maarath, Familiar Outcast from Fire) Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Why I DID buy Night Music IN> Song of Location Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Maarath, Familiar Outcast from Fire Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS Re: IN> Re: Why Lilim aren't playtoys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:25:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: Privacy and plot ideas (Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > > 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... > Yeah, so did I. The plot can be summarized in four very scary words: "The > Fall of Judgment"! How about titling the scenario, "Do Ti La So Fa Mi Ray Do"... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:11:11 +0200 From: Jo Hart 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. > I like that as an idea I think. I can imagine some mortal being taught a song and practicing it -- under normal circumstances they probably coudln't make it work. If they really wanted to then they might blow all their essence and get it off and... if its useful for the story, maybe they'd get a divine/ infernal/ GM intervention some time and not only get the song off at some amazingly appropriate moment, but also manage it to a far higher level than normal. That seems like quite a subtle sort of intervention (which I like). I think, as a GM, its always available as a plot device. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:45:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 8:46 AM +0000 8/13/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >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. Right. And it is clear -- "When the victim hears what the Lilim wants, he gets a Will roll 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. I could see that. It would probably not be traded in the same manner as a typical Geas, though -- more like a "I'll give you a pass-phrase, and anyone using the pass-phrase it my agent: take the package from them and deliver it/kill the target they name/alter the record they state." Then the Lilim gives the passphrase to the person she's trading with. (And probably accepts a self-Geas not to activate the person before the person she traded with.) [...] >>>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. I'm not sure it's a Geas anymore at that point. Gets rather way too complicated to mess with, IMO. Not that the same thing couldn't be done ... You'd have to have the Lilim promise to release the Geas or something... (Which just means that you do what you want in your game, of course.) >Perhaps Archangels, Demon Princes, and high level Superiors should be >capable of enforcing a Geas, too. Definitely. Superiors are probably *quite* capable of enforcing *any* Geas. It may cost them essence or something, though, which will devalue untested Geases. (As it should be, IMO.) >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 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. Yeah. But I still think this is more complicated than is useful. Easier to just restrict untested-Geas-trading to Lilim and Superiors. IMO, of course. >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. Well, there is that. Of course, if you do it in a public place, where killing random humans is frowned upon.... >I presume the Geases go poof, anyway. A failed Geas doesn't go poof for 1-6 days -- you get a second try. *Then* it goes poof. A dead Geas-holder always makes Geases go poof, of course. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 15:02:07 -0400 () From: Greg Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Heaven & Hell On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, S. John Ross wrote: > > ********************************* > Well, I've heard from a very reliable source that LA will be detailed in > Heaven and Hell. > ********************************* > > To set the record straight, Heaven & Hell will be detailed in Heaven & Hell. > If that is the only setting in the book, then I, for one, will be buying it. If it *had* had L.A. in it, I would have left it on the shelf. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:28:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Immortal soldiers. > One of my soldier players noticed that if a Soldier spends one point on > Corporeal Song of Entropy, he's immortal. Oh, sure, he can't control Well, *I* don't see any problem with it...I mean, if a Soldier of Hell wants to be immortal, he can always sign up for Mummification; there's no reason Soldiers of God shouldn't have a similar option. (I'd expect Demons are a little less prone to teaching their soldiers the SoE just because of that, though; much rather they went for the undead option than doing it under their own power...depending on how well you get along with Saminga, I suppose.) [Of course, if you REALLY want to be immortal, find some way to seriously annoy God. He seems to do it to everyone he hates. Caine, Methuselah...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:00:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Rewards and character improvement John Karakash mentioned; > This also brings up a play-balance point that I use in > my campaign (non-canon!). If you want to get your tenth Force > point or higher, you usually have to go through a Superior > (at a cost of 10 cp's). If, on the other hand, you want to > sneak in the back way by raising attributes high enough that > you get the force point afterwards, you don't. (Cost of 12 points) I like this...I mean, I don't have much to add to it, but I like it enough I thought I'd mention it. I move this be added to the FAQ as an official option, at least...("Why WOULD anyone spend 12 points to raise a Force when they can do it with 10?" "Well, because..") {Angels might do it as well just to avoid having to pester their Superior about it, or because many of the Superiors will look very kindly on someone working to strengthen themselves, rather than having everything given to them - it IS one of the common tenets of Heaven, after all, to help those who help themselves. Of course, demons help themselves too, but that's usually to other people's stuff, and may not count.} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:31:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd - ------------------------------ 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." My bad. Note that the description of Holy *Bullets* says _hits_. martinl From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" 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. Works. OK, another NM Question: In the section on Soldiers, it says humans *must* have 2+ Corpreal forces. No weak humans? Legit? (IDHNMIFOM, but I could look it up if you need the reference.) Note that there are example soldiers in NM that break this rule. On humans in general: Could a mundane human PC buy a sixth Force without becoming a soldier? A seventh? Could there be twelve force mundanes wandering around out there? (Now *that* would freak the PCs). Is there any limit to how many forces a human can have? If a human somehow gets six Forces in one one category, are his stats still capped at 10? And a silly question to wrap up: Scoobiel the Angel buys a Servant/1 (2) for 1 CP. Making up stats for that servant he uses 8 of it's 16 CP to buy two Servant/4 (2), and they use their CP to buy a bunch of Servant 6 (3)... My question is this: How big a stick should the GM apply to Scoobiel's Player? martinl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:57:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Contributions and Point Awards > > My question is: How many points are typically given out after some good > > natural stopping point, and how much should I hand out for going above and > > beyond? I'm looking at a collection of the following: > 2-3 points (in my campaign). Perhaps you should do it on the > Amber model where you get a one time bonus, but you have to > keep up the contribution from session to session. The main 'Cept hardly anyone does it that way in Amber, since it stops making sense pretty quickly...("Alright, look...I got ten additional points for this, which was great...five years ago.") Em; I'd actually recommend more the way I handled it for PoB/WoS; Contributions don't so much manifest in points as they do in cool stuff, which can then be corrupted/taken away if they slack off (or repaired/found/replaced if they pick up again..) Things like a Superior who's on your good side, a cool Artifact that doesn't quite fit the rules, etc... (These strike me as on the one hand much neater, and at the same time less unbalancing, than just giving out points for it...it ALSO gives the GM a little more control over the results AND a nice back-door to do sneaky evil stuff if they stop doing it - which, again, is both neater and less unbalancing than just snatching points away. {Y'know, when they ask Novalis for help, since she always has in the past, and she sniffs, "Oh, but do you ever write?" Heh..}) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:52:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > > Here's where the "*somebody* takes the dissonance" has to come in. > I think what David was saying (and what I agree with, > if so), is that Lilim 2 now has the delightful opportunity to > experience Dissonance for using the Geas on someone. If, instead, Doing the example with two Lilim I think skews things a little..I'd be inclined to suggest that a Lilim invoking ANY Geas takes Dissonance if it's blocked, but I don't quite like the idea of NON Lilim getting it that way...which puts us back to trading the Geas to a human servant or an Impudite buddy (or a Seraph buddy, if you've got the contacts..) as `safe'... > > 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 Though the bit from John I just snipped had a very good point on this...EVERYONE can avoid Dissonance if they can get someone else to do what they can't. (As I commented in our last session - "Notice how once he says something touchy, the Seraph shuts right up." If there are things Nathaniel doesn't want said, he just keeps quiet and lets the Ofanite do the talking for a bit.) I think it IS a fair tradeoff that if the Lilim wants to avoid Dissonance forever, she can't ever invoke her own Geasa. She can trade them off...IF the person she's trading to can be trusted, IF he wants something from the person she has a Geas on to trade, and IF she doesn't want anything from them herself. > What average person would ever agree to something like > this? The only people who really understand such a trade are 'Course, how often is a Lilim going to be making such a deal with an `average person'? (Besides, an average person could be a bit more susceptible...just give them a minor show of supernatural power to convince them you might have something there, and then say, "Listen, you want your wife to lay off about the lawn thing for a week? Just let me borrow that key for half an hour, and when she gets home...") > > Despite multiple *failed* invocations of a Geas, K.K. is dissonance > > free. It was a little complicated, but her resonance is unimpaired Now, Beth has a good point HERE that a Lilim could seriously abuse a Servant this way...but hey, that's what Servants are for, right? > Perhaps we can make giving a Geas to a non-Lilim require > an expenditure of energy (since the non-Lilim doesn't have quite > the right 'soul' to accept it). This would stop easy gifts > to trusted servants, but still allow Lilim to do the baseball-card > thing. Hmmmm... I think I like this idea. One essence per > level sounds reasonable. What do you think? I dunno...I'm not liking this, myself. This is largely because I don't like the idea of Lilim as being the only ones who can possibly do Geasa...they have the Resonance for it, which lets them do it `easily' (eg. without a Superior or some other effect - the back of my mind just started on a Song of Binding concept which I'll put up when it finishes out), but...it's like the Seraph resonance compared to the Detect Lies skill. ANYONE can learn to tell if you're lying to them; Seraph don't HAVE to. How about just this - only Lilim get that bonus of subtracting the Level of the Geas from the victim's Will to resist? That's a POWERFUL advantage; most people won't bother resisting the little 1 and 2 Level Geasa, and by the time you're to Level/3, most mortals are straight out of the running...(Consider a pretty strong Will of 4 for a human, subtract 3, and try to roll it on 2d6? Hah.) For a Level/6 Geas, even the strongest willed Celestial (on the PC level - eg 12) has less than a 50 percent chance of resisting and inflicting that Dissonance on the Lilim...but if it's just her Servant, he just shrugs it off and sticks a sword through 'em. ('Course, he can spend that Essence, but don't forget - Lilim have Essence, too.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:25:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > >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... But for that, you need to need a favor from someone who CARES. (As Andrealphus looks at you quizically and asks, "But darling, what do *I* need from Ed, the mechanic, Joe, the Zookeeper, and Sherryl the racecar driver? Frankly, nothing, and if in the future I do, well, I'll contact them. From YOU, however, my sweet..") > If they can do it without risking dissonance? You bet! They just > go around finding folk who want to order someone *else* around, There's an interesting point...the Lilim COULD work her way up the chain. ("Hmm..now, YOU have a Level/3 Need for a Level/2 Favor from this person I happen to have a Geas on, and HE has a Level/5 Need for a Level/4 favor from you, so if I can just do a TEENSY favor for you and let you boss this poor slob around, I can have HIM, and HE knows the passcodes..") Which is a little bit of a side point, I know, but sounds like fun... > 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." I don't know...sending a human servant to invoke Geasa on a "strong-willed Malakite" sounds like a quick way to not only avoid Dissonance, but also lose a loyal Servant. Granted, you can get another, but it takes time... Otherwise, unfortunately, with your logic, it really comes down to that the dissonance has to hit HER, or Lilim will never invoke their own. (In this example, f'rinstance, the Servant is pretty much toast anyway, even if he thinks he can dodge an annoyed Malakim - what does she care if he picks up a few notes of dissonance first?) And, as you noted, if it hits her, the Lilim will never trade 'em, which comes into a bit of a Catch-22 and all the Lilim suddenly vanish in a puff of logic... > into the "karma" section of the Symphony... But if it fails, then > they have given something for nothing, and the imbalance hurts them. So, myself, I'm seeing two options. Either the suggestion I just posted in reply to Karakash's message - any Lilim gains dissonance for invoking any resisted Geas, but while any non-Lilim doesn't, they're also much less likely to succeed - OR you take that and expand it. The Geas is just window dressing. What Lilim gain Dissonance for is doing something for nothing. (Now, just as a Seraph can engage in `creative conversation' techniques, the Lilim can justify quite a bit as possible returns - especially a Bright Lilim, who may be able to get away with doing it just for the satisfaction of a job well done, at least once in a while...but having a Geas resisted is, as it were, carved into your soul a bit, so that's just Dissonant regardless.) I'm thinking of going with both, myself...I've never been quite comfortable with the Lilim getting Dissonance strictly for having their Resonance resisted. Balseraph get it for being resisted OR contradicting themselves. Calabim and Haballah get it not so much from being resisted as from `eating' the results, while both Djinn and Impudites get it for pretty much the same reason their Choir counterpart does, if with a bit of a lemon twist...so the Lilim Dissonance mechanics struck me right from the beginning as not quite right. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:31:31 -0400 () From: Greg Littmann Subject: Re: IN> The Austin question > > As it seems, most people who oppose to Austin are opposed to have _any_ > setting material intermingled with rules material. Depends on what you mean. I'd be delighted with more political background on the superiors, or even on Angel distrubution over the world. But the setting material presented - Austin, and so many N.P.C.s - was so specific. These are details I *want* to fill in myself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:31:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Archangel of Borg (Re: IN> Maarath, Familiar Outcast from Fire) At 7:34 PM -0400 8/4/97, Adam Canning wrote: >I'm beginning to suspect Legion of being the Demon Prince of Borg, which >raises some questions about Archangel Beth. But *why*? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:53:41 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills >It looks to me like skills are just too hard for humans to use >effectively. Well, my solution is to use the Risk rules (p. 39) to give humans a fighting chance -- by being more careful (which is something they might do regularly) they get a +1 bonus to succeed but at -1 to the check digit. Also, a non-canon answer would be to give a "Symphonic bonus" to humans -- since they're part of the Symphony, they understand human endeavors better than any Celestial ever will, so they get a +1 or +2 to do something they'd normally be doing in their lives, like surgery (for a doctor) or preparing a brief (for a lawyer). -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:11:04 -0400 () From: Greg Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Why I DID buy Night Music > > > after adjusting for their lifespans...it would make sense that, as happens > > > in a lot of wars that go on for more than a couple years, both sides have > > > started to forget what they're fighting FOR. > > It could happen, but these creatures would be far too morally depraved > > to be recognisable as Angels. Maybe that's O.K. for some people's games, > > but its not how I want to run things. > Well, it's great for mine, but I really do draw heavily from Good > Omens and The Prophecy for influence...(from the first, the idea that > there are Angels who, though basically good, aren't..fanatic about it, I just wrote a long reply to this and the terminal ate it. I'll summerise, although I'm doubtful whether this will get through either. 1. If Celestials aren't moral fanatics, what gives In Nomine its unique "feel". What makes it *special* - and not just supers or mage with different stage dressings. 2. You don't need violence to have a War. Sure, there are factions among the angels who think all the killing is a bad thing - but that doesn't mean they ignore the demons or tolerate what they are doing. The Catholic church has no policy of sending its priests down to crack-houses and opening fire with uzis. But they have to oppose what the crack-dealers are doing all the same and can't just make friends with them in the name of tolerance. Above all - they can't hide them from the police! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 15:39:06 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> Song of Location In a couple places in IN Austin inside _Night Music_, the Song of Location is mentioned (p. 75, for example). I can't seem to find this Song in the rulebook... Is it going to appear in a supplement? Or is it an alternate name for some other Song? -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:08:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 11:06 AM -0400 8/13/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC 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. > > I think what David was saying (and what I agree with, >if so), is that Lilim 2 now has the delightful opportunity to >experience Dissonance for using the Geas on someone. Correct. >If, instead, >Lilim 1 had given the Geas to Calabim 1, he has no chance for >Dissonance and probably is cursing out the Lilim for giving him >a bum Geas when a lucky human makes their Will roll. ;) Which is why Lilim can't trade untested Geasa to those who don't have the appropriate resonance to invoke it. >[...] So when the Geas is passed to a non-Lilim, >the situation where Dissonance can be generated is avoided much >in the same way that a Mercurian could get someone else to do >their killing for them. The thing is that Mercurians sometimes get forced into a "reactive" role, when combat comes to them. Lilim are rarely forced to invoke a Geas -- they fulfill the need, then go away and get their servant to do it... >> "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. };) > > What average person would ever agree to something like >this? The only people who really understand such a trade are >other Celestials, most ethereals and select mortals. Oh, I don't know -- it could probably be worded... "Can you do this for me? I've got this friend, y'see, who owes *me* a favor, so you can go get a hand from them..." >And the >Lilim has no way of _enforcing_ such a trade... it would have >to be something immediate or she would just have to trust (ha!) >the recipient of the Geas. You lose a lot of flexibility that >way, which seems worth the trade, IMO. Geas the person to do it (it's a trade!). Get something "right now" (perfectly valid!). Buy a servant -- a wimpy servant, very loyal, and never experience dissonance again! Bad mechanic, no donut. Dissonance goes somewhere. >> 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. > > Why in the name of little green apples would a Lilim >_ever_ trade a favor away? Simple -- you trade it to someone with the resonance. Then, when Lilim 2 invokes it, *she* risks the dissonance. Am I going to have to write up the whole bloody thing in one paragraph? So a Calabite (or human) can only invoke a "tested" Geas -- one that was agreed to, and has no chance of being failed. A Lilim can invoke untested Geases she got from her sisters, and risks the dissonance if the target resists. Superiors can take an untested Geas, do Superior-type-things that probably involve Essence and enforce it as they wish. > Perhaps we can make giving a Geas to a non-Lilim require >an expenditure of energy (since the non-Lilim doesn't have quite >the right 'soul' to accept it). This would stop easy gifts >to trusted servants, but still allow Lilim to do the baseball-card >thing. Hmmmm... I think I like this idea. One essence per >level sounds reasonable. What do you think? I think it's a lot simpler to say that non-Lilim simply can't get untested Geases. It just don't work. That's what makes Lilim Lilim -- that they can pull this favor-trick. (Mind you, in *your* game, you do what you please so long as you tell the PCs first...) The other option would be to say that damage is inflicted instead, if a Geas lashbacks on a non-Lilim, but it would probably have to be something like Geas-level in hits. Mind-hits, maybe, or Soul-hits. But I think that's more messy. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:33:21 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Maarath, Familiar Outcast from Fire At 7:04 PM -0500 8/4/97, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: >> >>From: David Edelstein > Took me awhile to find the reference, but here it is. > >IN p53: "Angels who are Outcast cannot attain their celestial form, and >thus cannot ascend to Heaven." That's going to be errata'ed, I heard. (And about time. Silly little thing...) > Oddly enough, Renegade Demons can attain their Celestial Forms. So >If he could attain his Celestial Form, He'd be a Imp/Gremlin for sure. >Maybe he's just too scared to check. That one works all the way -- being too scared to check. Though he'd be getting back Essence at sunset if he were demonic, and sunrise if angelic. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:34:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills > You know. Something has been bothering me about skills. Has there been > any discussion of them on the mailing list? It seems like skills are > unnaturally difficult. How much study is a point of skill supposed to We did talk about this a while ago...(Beth might be able to direct you to the right archive, but that's just one of the perks of Archangeldom, I suppose...) I THINK the general consensus, such as one is ever really reached, was to go with the idea that humans just don't have to roll for a lot of things Celestials do. (Humans have to roll when they're pushing the envelope - and people usually DO fail most of the time, trying something completely new or just beyond their level of skill. When it's something they're practiced at, they just don't have to. Celestials, on the other hand, have to roll for all but the simplest actions under a skill, because NO earthly skill comes quite so naturally to them; for one, they have the pressure of the Symphony against so much as breathing, and for another, it doesn't matter that they've been practicing chemistry for 500 years...that's 500 years out of their 4000-year life, compared to a human who's been doing it for 35 out of 40...) On the other hand, I may just remember that being the best because, well, it was one of mine. I'm kind of vain that way.. (Uh, oh, hi, Dominic. Did I say, `vain'? Er...drat.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 15:41:57 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) At 10:15 AM -0400 8/5/97, Jeff Miller wrote: >At 02:31 PM 8/4/97 -0400, you wrote: >>>Her problems come when she runs into a Malakim of Flowers or Destiny, >>>Either of whom is more likely to resonate a need to redeem a demon and >>>either of whom are going to be quite happy to hopld her down while >>>explaining why herbal teas make you a lot less cranky or why it is your >>>destiny to fight against the forces of darkness. >> >>Well, Malakim can't suffer evil to live, but I suppose that >>they could rationalize it as "If we can redeem her, she won't >>be evil, so we're just keeping her alive while it's expedient >>to try...." Walks kinda close to dissonance, but... >> >I dunno on that one. > >I'd think that if they let a demon live while it is likely that that demon >can be redeemed and they are actively trying to redeem that demon (no >weasel factor here) then it wouldn't be dissonant. But it would be skirting the edge -- they have to be *actively* trying to redeem him/her/it, and the instant they start getting tired... It's possible, but it's difficult. Malakim of Destiny and Flowers are the most likely to try, yeah. [...] >>K.K. probably gets really frustrated by Malakim of Flowers... >> >K.K. looks into the eyes of a Malakim of Flowers and reads: > >"I *need* you give up your evil ways and learn how wonderful it is to be good" > >and then leaves to worship the porcelain alter. You forgot the scream of frustration first. (And that need is a perfectly valid one to see in an angel. My Renegadling picked it up. It was very frustrating... "A potential Geas/3, but I have to go Bright to get it! ARGH!") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 97 17:24 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> PERCEIVING CELESTIALS [John Karakash, from on high:] > Superiors have tricky ways of shielding their presence and >do not have to follow the perception rules. As far as I know, no one has yet made this canon, though it makes sense. However, it does sort of conflict with the "appearance of a Superior" Disturbance modifiers, as given in the book -- a Superior appearing is pretty noticable, especially in celestial form.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:29:08 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Why Lilim aren't playtoys At 5:20 PM +0000 8/5/97, Hart, Joanna wrote: >Verrry interesting ;-) Thanks. > >I'd guess that Lilith doesn't bother with keeping an eye on the Lilim on >a reliably regular basis, only when shes in that sort of mood. If she >did, the other Princes might not be so keen to have so many Lilim >servitors. They have to feel that its worth the effort - swings and >roundabouts - and being a naturally paranoid lot, they probably like to >feel their servants know which side their bread is buttered... That, and one also figures that she probably pays less attention to the Bound Lilim. If they've chosen to serve a Prince, their Hearts within his hands, then they lose most of Lilith's protection -- and gain their new Prince's. Hopefully. >>Does Asmodeus *really* want >>to have fifty of his best agents scrutinized by the IRS, just >>to bring down one Free Daughter who's decided to start herding >>sheep in the wilderness instead of tempting mortals for a while? >>She's not hurting anyone (this is also the point...), but she's >>not helping, either. > >He probably doesn't want to but he mightn't have much choice either. >After all, what are all the other Lilim (and other demons for that >matter) going to think if it looks as if the tempters get concessions and >can skip off duty whenever they feel like it? My best guess in this case >is that the 50 agents get scrutinised, Azzie drops in to see Lilith for a >quiet chat over tea to discuss various political realities Probably the quiet chat shows up first, before things get out of hand. ("Yes, I see you've found a dubious Lilim. Hm. This is a gray area. You're off this case. I'll deal with it from here.") >and the >unfortunate possible consequences for Lilim in the future and... they cut >a deal. That Lilim is toast (gotta reputation to keep, after all) - but >the next one might not be. It probably depends on what's going on, and what the "punishment" is supposed to be. Catch a Bright traitor, and the *only* way Lilith would help even *covertly* is if you could make it worth her while. ("Okay, for getting me the new computer system from Jean, with free upgrades to the OS for the next century... I'll give you the key to your cell. Get caught, and I'll roast you myself, kid.") The bargain might be for a "vanishment" rather than an Example, for instance. Or giving the "renegade" a chance to prove her loyalty. Or, if she's not *obviously* getting concessions, leaving her alone; if it's not being an *obvious* bad example to everyone else, just someone dropping out of sight, then hassle probably ain't worth it. (Of course, keeping an eye out for further subversive behavior is perfectly within keeping.) Or perhaps the deal is that Asmodeus backs off, and Mom drops by to have a heart-to-heart chat with her girl. Politics is a fine line, especially with touchy Princes. >(Actually in my game Asmodeus and Lilith are consorts because it fits so >nicely with the folklore I'm using as background but that's seriously >non-canon :) ). Oh-yeah! >I'd guess that the ideal from the Demon Prince (or Princess) p.o.v is >always to be as inscrutable and unpredictable as possible to their >minions, to keep them on their toes and give them less footholds for >scheming against their superiors (which is probably Hell's national >sport) ;-) Definitely. (And definitely.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #291 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.