From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Aug 14 05:38:34 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 FAA07742 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:38:34 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA14529 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:27:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:27:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199708140927.EAA14529@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 #292 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, August 14 1997 Volume 01 : Number 292 In this digest: Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #274 Re: IN> Heaven & Hell Re: IN> Why I DID buy Night Music Re: IN> Heaven & Hell Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Rewards and character improvement Re: IN> Requesting guidance on human use of Essence Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Corporeal Vessels Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> Yet another Motel 666 (3/9) Re: IN>Um..ok need some Angels..... IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Gabriel & Dominic & Eli & Asmodeus & Ted & Alice IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN> Lilim Geases IN> Lilim Geases IN> Superiors' Appearance Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:39:24 -0400 From: Hunter Johnson Subject: Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music On Fri, 01 Aug 1997 09:45:43 -0500, Gorta the Dwarf from Under Valhalla said: > Isn't this character illegal? Mortals are supposed to have 2 > corporeal forces. Sorry if I missed the resolution of this. As far as I can tell, mortals don't need 2 Corporeal Forces, but Soldiers do. I couldn't find at a glance any absolute indication that Ladislas is a Soldier. Hunter - -- J. Hunter Johnson /\ SJG Errata Coordinator (sjg-errata@io.com) http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ /()\ Knightmare Chess Development Coordinator jhunterj@io.com /____\ GM in search of a group in Dayton, OH! 1870 AoR CE DH Guer GURPS Hack HotW Ill INWO KC DiF SamS Catan SqL UpF etc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:57:44 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #274 At 1:27 AM -0400 8/5/97, Gregory Littmann wrote: >> >> >kinds of love. I think I'm going to sit in a corner and cry now ... :( >> >> >> >> Love. >> >> Lust. >> >Is a pretty negative word that I wouldn't class under even a broad >> >interpretation of "love". >> >> Hey, a little healthy lust can be fun! Especially with one's spouse! >> Mind, that kind of desire isn't *Andre's* Word... > >Fair enough - I was unfairly critical of lust. But I still say it isn't a >kind of love, just because some people (mostly American's I'm told) have >been known to lust after those they *don't* love. Can lust grow into love, though? >> >> Friendship. >> >Is reasonable - O.K.. >> >> Infatuation. >> >Ain't a kind of love. >> >> What, you've never had a crush on somebody in high-school? > >Actually, I didn't know *any* girls when I was in high-school. Just part >of what makes me the wonderfully healthy and well-balanced individual I am >today. (The story has a happy ending, actually - I met some girls when I >left). Ahhhh..... >> Infatuation is a kind of love. A really shallow, unrealistic, good-way- >> to-get-heartbreak-and-angst kind of love, but... It's an emotional >> attachment to another person, where you want to be with him and want >> good things to happen to him, right? > >I wish I could agree. I think that infatuation can be much blacker than >that. Its true, it is an emotional attachment, but so is hate. I don't >think that infatuation requires a wish to have good things happen to the >object of one's desire. Indeed, spurned infatuation can inspire some >pretty nasty behavior. Spurned love can get pretty hairy too. I didn't say infatuation was always *healthy*. Indeed, often it's not. But it can grow into more. The initial stages of spousal love looked like infatuation to *me*! It just happened to be mutual. >> >Nor is >> >> Attraction.> Compassion. >> >> Empathy.> Sympathy.> Kindness.> Gallantry.> Chivalry.> Benevolence.> >> >Philanthropy. >> > >> >I can feel/show any of these to people I don't love. >> >> Love is Empathy cranked up to high. > >Hm. Maybe, but I'm still not sure. Certainly, if Empathy is simply an >ability to know what others are feeling, then it isn't a kind of love. No? If you know what others are feeling, can you dismiss them easily? If you don't *want* to acknowledge someone else as having their own identity/reality, then will you allow yourself to empathize with them? >Even if it a tendency to share the feelings of others, it need not be a >kind of love - some people want everyone to be miserable, including >themselves. But I might be twisting the meaning of the word here. I'm >not sure. I think you are -- wanting others to be miserable is a "misery loves miserable company" kind of thing. It's not empathy. It's manipulation and probably a form of powertripping. >> Spousal love >> usually includes a dose of lust/desire, had better include friendship, >> empathy, compassion, attraction, sympathy, kindness (big doses), >> gallantry (when appropriate)... > >It ought to include them, but I still wouldn't call these kinds of love. >You can be kind to someone you despise, just because you are a decent >individual. I think that if you're able to see that someone else might deserve a bit of kindness, just because they exist in their own head, then it's got its roots in love. Love is a big Word! It encompasses much. - --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 14:45:58 -0700 From: zingaro@PEAK.ORG Subject: Re: IN> Heaven & Hell > ********************************* > 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. Yep. I always knew LA was a part of hell. Is Brentwood considered a Feif, or just a sort of outlying area? - ------- zingaro@peak.org Have you ever driven a hearse before, Harold? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:05:16 -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 think this highlights our disagreement perfectly. Its the very fanatacism that you find unnecessary that I want sitting at the core of my game. When people ask me what makes In Nomine feel different to all the other games out there (especially all the Supers and Gothic games), I tell that that (when I play it at least), its moral fanatacism. In Nomine (again, when I play it) is a game about people who care about doing the right (or wrong) thing more than anything else. Good and evil never sleep. As three-dimensional people, Angels and Demons have other concerns - - but they can never shake their moral nature. They are always ON DUTY. They can do things for fun, but only because A) they can fit it in with their work (going to a bar, listening to music and looking for alcoholics to help), or B) their idea of fun happens to involve doing good anyway (flying kites with orphans or whatever). If my examples seem a little namby-pamby, its because any angel who in enjoying a brawl is looking to fall - my Malakim fight out of grim DUTY, not because they happen to enjoy beating heads in. At the core of every celestials being, they give a great big shining damn - or drop out of their side of the War. My take needn't be for everyone, and indeed, isn't quite the official take of the game. But if it isn't moral fanatacism that gives In Nomine its feel, that makes it special, that what *is* it? What keeps it from being supers in a beurocracy or a bunch of dueling mages? What do you point to to the uninitiated in order to tell them "this game is special - this one is different". > and > likewise Demons who can be basically evil without being drooling toothy > things. Sure - some of them should be smiling beautiful things. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. > From the Prophecy, I very much picked up on the point that even > without Falling, Angels can be REALLY scary - these are guys who get sent > down to kill people, demolish cities, and order people to take out their > own kids. Yeah - I agree with this one. And, of course, people who are fanatically concerned with doing the right thing are usually the most adept at taking out cities... > > But what about Angels who neither want to beat up on demons *nor* want to > > protect humans? That seems to be what is required for a truce. > I don't think it's required at all, as noted further on...it seems > to me that Angels who aren't either working against demons or for humanity > probably aren't on Earth duty... (I'm having some trouble figuring > out any other reason they'd BE here. It's not like Jean sends them down > for chips and Mt. Dew while he goes through this week's marathon > debugging...) Fair comment and an important point. > > > > The first of these might ally with demons for strategic advantage. > > A pragmatic Angel could do that, but they would then take the knowledge > > and use it to fight with. > Oh, certainly, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility of a > limited truce. I can't quite see either side doing an absolute truce, but > a kind of, "As long as YOU behave, I won't beat up on YOU," can make a lot > of sense. But both sides should realise that this is a lie. Neither side is going to behave unless they give up being Angels and Demons altogether. > (The Austin story seemed to have that as a core tenet; the idea > of OTHER `angels', from either side, had everyone worried because they > wouldn't be part of it and might disrupt things.) Even a Malakim, in my > view, could make a strong case for that; if a Demon is making that good a > source of information, then killing them off would entail letting a number > of OTHER demons live...{Okay, I admit - that's a Malakim who's probably > going to be chopped up by other Malakim in a week or two, but as I've said > before, I tend to shade their Oaths a bit according to their Superior.} That's fine with me. As long as the Malakim is pumping this guy for imformation and using it to wipe out other Demons. A false truce is fine - - its real truces that I don't feel right about. > > > > they care about humans, and have seen the way indiscriminite warring can > > > take them out on the sidelines... > > Human death is pretty insignificant compared to Damnation. > They're only Damned if they make their Fate. There are most > certainly Angels who justify the wonton slaughter of innocent bystanders > with that point, and from the perspective of the War, they have a good > point. However, I think there are a LOT of Mercurians who'd disagree with > that kind of "lesser of evils" justification. But even if Mercurians don't like the slaughter, that doesn't mean that they want to give up the war. Mercurians fight Demons as dogedly in their own fashion as Malakim do in theirs. Sure, some angels will want to keep guns out of it - but the fight goes on in other forms. To draw an analogy, it is not the official policy of the Catholic church to send their priests round to crack-houses with uzis and take everyone out. But neither is it their policy that the priests should hang out with crack dealers, lay off giving them a hard time about what they do, and lie to the police to protect them. > ("Well, yes, it may be > insignificant compared to Damnation, but it's NOT insignificant to his > three-year-old daughter, Carry, who, I'd just like to point out, my friend > Ed - yes, the Seraph of Yves - just informed me is now going to be brought > up by her now-single, broken mother, who can't afford to raise them both, > and therefore turn to a life of prostitution and quite probably end up > working as her pimp's connection selling drugs to preschoolers...meeting > HER Dark Fate, which she never would have if you hadn't offed her dad > because he happened to be momentarily inconvenient. Nice going, Mr. Sword > Of God.") Sure, random death in the streets helps Damnation. But as long as its not mass death, a free demon is MORE likely to help. Particularly so in that random death in the streets is somewhat of a demonic trademark. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:54:41 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Heaven & Hell At 3:02 PM -0400 8/13/97, Greg Littmann wrote: >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. _Heaven and Hell_ will *not* have L.A. in it. It may have an adventure for somewhere, but the only "city" settings will be Heaven (hey, the Eternal City is there, right?) and Hell (I'm sure something qualifies there). [Of course, what do I know? I'm just the Arcangel of Archives.] - --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 17:59:05 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills At 1:09 PM -0400 8/13/97, Emily K. Dresner wrote: >This comes from one of my players, and I couldn't adequately answer this >question: > >You know. Something has been bothering me about skills. Has there been >any discussion of them on the mailing list? Yup. They ought to be in the archives somewhere... ( http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine and then poke around to find the archives... ) [...] >It looks to me like skills are just too hard for humans to use >effectively. Various notions have been proposed -- chief among them is the notion that, when not under pressure, anyone can do just about anything "normal." (You don't need Driving to drive a car -- just to shave off time from point A to point B, or in crisis accident- about-to-happen/Run-the-Balseraph-and-Brat-Pack-off-the-road situations.) So anyone can climb the chain-link fence -- but can they climb it before the guard-doberman gets there? IOW, only roll when it's a somewhat stressful use of the skill. - --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 17:47 EDT From: Walter Milliken 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 >equate to? Here's what I'm talking about: There's been a lot of discussion on the subject. One answer (which doesn't help all *that* much) is that mundanes blow Essence on skill rolls a lot, though that's really only good for one skill roll per day (at a +1), or a higher bonus less frequently. Various "fixes" have been proposed, most of which amount to some type of bonus to human skill use. The basic problem here is that the game is designed to center on celestials. To make a significant distinction between them and humans, and still have celestials fail often enough to make things interesting, humans wind up being mostly total incompetants. Note that the issue isn't really the granularity of the d666 system (or the limitation to skill levels <=6) -- it's on a more fundamental level. This problem is probably the largest architectural flaw in the game mechanics. The solution space seems to boil down to one of: - make humans mostly incompetant at skills - make humans and celestials roughly equal for skill use - make celestials always succeed automatically at skills The In Nomine designers chose the first option. None of the options particularly appeal to me at the moment, though I probably lean toward the second -- there are enough other differences between celestials and humans that giving them comparable target numbers for skills isn't *that* much of a flavor-killer. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 97 18:22 EDT From: Walter Milliken 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. I'll second the motion -- it's a good explanation and should balance well. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 97 18:04 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. >> > >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. Actually, in the case I mentioned above, no one apparently taught the PC (or otherwise imbued him with) any Songs -- they're somehow intrinsic to the character's nature, though they didn't really appear until a traumatic encounter with someone *very* unusual (Gabriel, actually, though the PC doesn't yet know that). Using these "natural" talents *does* make the usual noise, however. Basically, they're modelling "psi" powers in a "mundane" (i.e., non-Soldier) human, and they all have the equivalent of the GURPS Psionics limitations of "Unconscious Only" and "Extra Fatigue". The amusing thing is that this human now thinks of himself as a Jedi, sort of, since his abilities seem somewhat similar to those seen in the Star Wars movies (though much more erratic). The truth may come as a bit of a let-down.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:39:03 -0400 () From: Greg Littmann Subject: Re: Superior Appearances (Re: IN> Dominic) > > I've always figured that they look like both their "human" and > non-human forms. At once. (It's just harder to tell with Dommie, > because of the cloak.) So you see Gabriel, and she is at once > whichever of her vessels she prefers *and* a firey wheel; I like this a lot, as it adds strangeness to the superiors. I think there is a great danger in In Nomine of Archangels losing their air of being something awesome. In my game, they never show their faces at all. Novalis will manifest by a general blooming of flowers nearby and a voice from nowhere in particular. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 97 18:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd >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.) I think this is supposed to apply to Soldiers only, not mundanes. But it doesn't make a great deal of sense when there are Soldiers who are specialized in Ethereal or Celestial directions, and not just combat-monster-Coporeal types. >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? Don't apply a stick at all -- just tell him when he wants something done, that his direct Servant/1 spends all his time trying to chase down this ever-expanding chain of command, and has no time to actually *do* anything.... Nice Stupid Servant Trick, though.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:38:46 From: Jeff Miller Subject: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? Night Music seems to contradict previous rulings as to how many body hits a Kyrio or Shedim has when it is in a host. One previous answer was that the host's vessel level equaled its Corp Forces. Night Music however states that all mortals have a Vessel level = 0. Does this carry to Hosts as well or does the Kyrio or the Shedim do something temporary to the Host? 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: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:29:38 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Zeal! Zeal! At 05:49 PM 8/13/97 -0500, you wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Casca wrote: > >> 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. :) > > I thought she found them under a cabbage leaf, and a stork brings >Jodi's. ;-) > No, you hear Jordi making new Servators at night in the alley.... ...That *would* make throwing that bucket of water a much riskier task. 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: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:04:29 -0400 From: "Michael Stanley" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > On Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 11:08 AM > John Karakash wrote: > > Actually, I wrote that and I've heard from the uber-Superiors > that Geases is the new official word. Sorry about that. The FAQ > has been changed to reflect the new reality. My apologies. I didn't notice that you were the keeper of the sacred text:). Take care, - -Michael Stanley- stanman@netset.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:32:26 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Corporeal Vessels On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:19:11 -0400, "Michael Stanley" wrote: >I have a guestion regarding the death of a Celestial's Corporeal Vessel. > >When a Vessel is killed, and the Celestial form goes off to recover from >Trauma, how does the angel/demon make a new Vessel once the Trauma is over? Good question. I don't have an answer, but another question: When the Vessel dies, what happens? Does it poof as it normally does when the owner goes celestial? Or does it sit there and get picked up by the Coroner? If the latter, is a Vessel/6 distinguishable from a Human/+2 Toughness during autopsy? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:32:38 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:31:10 -0500 (CDT), Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >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? Just IMHO, I'd let it happen and have fun with it. The celestial can try to get the S/1 to do something, but he might not agree. Only the S/1 can give orders to the two S/4's and they aren't guaranteed to do what the S/1 wants. Should the S/1 and one of the S/4's both agree, then the S/6's may resist, too. However, after the instructions go from the Angel to the S/1 to the S/4 to the S/6's, they may have gotten changed a bit. You might also remember that servants are NPCs: say, "Ok, you buy an S/1. You ask him to buy two S/4's. Ok, he agrees. He (the S/1) decides to give these S/4's high wills so they'll be able to resist demons. You want the S/1 to ask the S/4's to buy S/6's? Ok, the S/1 will do that. Ok, one of the S/4's agrees to buy some S/6's. The S/4 decides to buy them with really high will." Etc. IOW, he's got to go through the chain of command he's created, and he doesn't have complete control over his servants. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:32:22 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:45:29 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>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.) What I'm suggesting is that the Geas would be there, tying the Geasee to the non-Lilim Geas-holder. If the Geas-task is asked for and performed, the Geas poofs. Until then the Geas-holder has the Geas (and can track the Geasee?) and the Geasee has that embarrassing Discord. It's just that the Geas-holder doesn't have the Lilim resonance to enforce the Geas on an unwilling victim. The advantage I see in this is allowing Geases to be traded to anyone without either escaping the Dissonance or imposing a Lilim Dissonance condition on non-Lilims. >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. But what about stories like Aladdin's lamp? Gotta have human Geas-holders! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:01:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Austin George Loomis Subject: IN> Yet another Motel 666 (3/9) [All Motel 666 posts from this address are made with permission from Niels Erickson , even though this is the last time I'll repeat the fact. Beth and Paul are of course permitted to archive these on the INCs.] Margali here again for Motel 666. If those ol' wages of sin just don't seem to get you much any more, we're the pit stop for you. Your good intentions will get you this far -- we're just at the end of your road. And don't worry about fancy credit cards -- we take payment all *sorts* of ways. We're Motel 666, and that goat'll probably burn a *long* time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:36:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN>Um..ok need some Angels..... At 11:14 PM 8/6/97 -0400, you wrote: >>Due to someplayers dropping out I need some Angelic Celestials for my PBEMs. >>I know this is getting tiresome. I really apologize. I have room for three. >> >> What sick person put an "S" in lisp? > > I'd be interested. Please send a character submission. :) > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >| _ | >| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | >| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | >| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | >| And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | >| \\__// \\ | >| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | >| \\ | >| | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > What sick person put an "S" in lisp? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:46:28 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>This is getting really ordinary guys. Can't you take this to a private discussion and stop posting it to the group? It has been going on for some time now with neither of you actually advancing any point. I don't know if anyone else agrees, so if you don't just flame me and I'll shut up and quietly keep deleting these.<<< Delete away. Actually, I thought the thread was dead. It got revived again, and since the comments were addressed to things I said, I replied. There are a lot of threads on this list that I consider fluff and have no interest in reading, but as long as it's about In Nomine, I'm not going to tell other people to only post to discussions that interest *me*. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:46:21 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Gabriel & Dominic & Eli & Asmodeus & Ted & Alice >>>Pardon me for butting in, but I saw here an opportunity to interrupt and make some potentially constructive suggestions. Usually, though, they explode into a flurry of enraged, half-shouted obscenities and poorly formed emotional arguments. The words "Soldier of Malphas" keep ringing in my head; I can't imagine why.<<< Heh....if this is what you consider a "flurry of enraged, half-shouted obscenities and poorly formed emotional arguments", then this MUST be your first online experience. This list is pretty tame, I've seen nothing here that matches your description. >>>I BEG your pardon?? When was this? I was under the impression that Dominic and Asmodeus were both in charge of justice (or lack thereof in Azzie's case) in their own respective realms, and never really bothered to consider the existance of one another, much less meet on anything less than the coldest of terms.<<< It's implied in the rules that Asmodeus and Dominic sometimes collaborate against the Disfavored. - -David (Yes, THAT David) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:46:12 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy >>>>I explained the resulting scenario in this hypothesis earlier. It didn't satisfy me. <<< Oh well. >>>Probably, but being on trial for serving Heaven and her Word wouldn't help.<<< Undoubtedly not. >>>Didn't. The Crusades began largely because of Christian aggression. The resulting Moslem attacks on Christian-held lands were the greatest threat Christianity had faced since Rome.<<< That's not exactly true, historically...but in any case, my point was that Dominic might have opposed introducing a new religion because he believed that it would threaten Christianity. What happened afterwards can be seen as either vindication or discrediting of that assumption. >>>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. He then started making ill-advised accusations against fellow Archangels, as well as associating with one of the most powerful Diabolicals in Hell. I don't think these are unrelated, nor do I think Dominic's really evil in his own right. I simply believe that Asmodeus is attempting to manipulate Dominic.<<< Quite possible. In all likelihood, they try to manipulate each other, both knowing they probably won't succeed. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:46:15 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >>>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!<<< I don't agree they'd never use their untested Geases. Often, Lilim are going to try to get Geases on specific people because they want something from that specific person. It might also be that only Lilim take dissonance from resisted Geases, though. So if Lilim A trades a Geas to Lilim B, Lilim B takes dissonance if the subject resists. But if Lilim A trades a Geas to a Djinn and the subject resists, nothing happens (except the Djinn goes back to the Lilim growling "It's broke!" ) So why would Lilim not trade their Geases to non-Lilim all the time? Because non-Lilim don't have the passion for trading favors, the ability to negotiate, or the skill in invoking Geases for one's own benefit that Lilim do. A Lilim wouldn't be able to find a buyer for any but her most important Geases. Sure, you can sell that Geas on a Malakite of Laurence to the highest bidder, and probably cash in big time, but how many other demons care about the Geas/4 you got on Fred the Bus Driver, or the Geas/1 you got on Sally the Waitress? Unless that particular human just happens to be convenient to another demon's plans (unlikely), who is going to give you Essence or other bennies for a Geas on a random, insignificant mortal? Lilim, on the other hand, know how to work Geases and get maximum benefit out of them....this might even be considered a secondary part of their resonance, one not defined in mechanical terms, but equally part of their nature. I just can't see resisted Geases inflicting dissonance on non-Lilim. Dissonance is not a virus or toxin or some kind of energy, it's an intrinsic flaw in a celestial's makeup. It is particular to the nature of each celestial. Non-Lilim would not take dissonance for a resisted Geas because Geases are not in any way part of their resonance. Non-celestials *can't* take dissonance. So dissonance for resisted Geases, IMO, has to be limited to Lilim. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:46:41 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >>>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.<<< Sure, buy a wimpy, very loyal servant to invoke all your Geases for you. Unless your GM is just as wimpy, the servant will probably survive that trick twice, max. ;) As has been said elsewhere, the best antidote to munchkinism is not more rules, it's a good GM. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:46:39 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Superiors' Appearance >>>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....<<< Superiors undoubtedly have ways of avoiding that too, if they really want to. Of course they won't always do so. ("You chose to invoke me in the middle of New York City-- so, I assume you already took into account the fact that half the celestial population of Manhattan will be converging on this location after I leave....") - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 01:24:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills In a message dated 97-08-13 15:40:21 EDT, you write: << In order to succeed more often the you fail you must have at least a 7 skill. Let us assume an average human stat level of 3. This would mean 4 levels of skill would be required just to reach the 50%+ success threshold. May I add that no one in their right mind would trust a professional who succeeded only slightly less than half the time. Add to this the fact that minor successes (check digit of 1 or 2) often lead to weak results and you can see that the professionals (doctors, lawyers, plumbers, pilots, etc) that we interact with on a daily basis would have to have much higher skills. Someone with a 10 skill would still fail 8 1/3% of the time and someone with a 3 stat could NEVER achieve that much skill! (6 levels of skill max) It looks to me like skills are just too hard for humans to use effectively. >> AWWW! You killjoy! You don't want a maintenance tech to have a 50% chance to do routine servicing? But it would make Robert Mueller Municipal Airport so much more interesting! ;-) I used to play a game called Nightlife. It used a percentile die skill system. Skills tended to be low, 30's to 60's. But it had a thing they called the rule of 20. Basically it said that if you had a skill of 20 or more you could automatically succeed at every day ho-hum things. IE, you don't have to make a driving roll to drive to work. You only make a roll when a maniac starts playing bumper cars, and tries to push you into an oncoming truck... I would try to import this basic idea into nightlife. Automatic success begins at LVL 1 or 2. A man who repairs passenger jets only rolls to spot sabotage or do repairs under unusal penalties. If that's how and why you roll, 50% doesn't seem so bad. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 01:34:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd > 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.) I have the impression this is mostly to emphasize that Soldiers are fundamentally based in the Corporeal realm...but I'm personally inclined to ignore it. (I tend to think the fact that they just ARE fundamentally based in the Corporeal realm is reminder enough..) > 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)... Well, apart from..argh, it's out of my scrollback, but I think it was Will Mazur who had a very nice response to this about the chain-of-command aspect Scoobiel has evidently neglected... I'd be inclined also to point out that the class of Servant also reflects its type, which entails a bit more than just Forces-and-CP count. So what you've got here is a Zombi or a puppy ordering around two basic humans (or vampires) who in turn are each ordering several experienced Soldiers (or Mummys)...with the first step being the most obviously ludicrous. ("Here go, Spot! Here's your treat! Now go order George to tell his troop to take out the enemy command center. GOOD boy!") The Zombi is probably the best-case scenario here, though I could see a case for a small child as well... Anyway, I'd just add it to Mazur(?)'s note - IF the player can actually come up with a reasonable explanation for this, I don't see any reason not to allow it...("Well, my Servitor of Marc here works for a major corporation, so of COURSE the least competant is at the top of the hierarchy." [GM nods sagely. "I see...and then comes the dog, and then the humans..") ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #292 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.