From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Aug 15 23:04:41 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 XAA27491 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:04:40 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA22591 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:49:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:49:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199708160149.UAA22591@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 #296 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, August 15 1997 Volume 01 : Number 296 In this digest: IN> lucifer's word Re: IN> Lucy's Word Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music Re: IN> Humans and Skills Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Angels, God's Plan and Communism Re: IN> Words of God and Satan Re: IN> How do you say...? Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music Re: IN> Words of God and Satan Re: IN> Angels, God's Plan and Communism IN> Lilim Geases IN> Remove IN> Servants IN> Superiors' Appearance IN> Lilim Geases IN> Large Weapons Re: IN> How do you say...? Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #295 -Reply Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Words of God and Satan Re: IN> Fluff (Superiors' Appearance) Re: IN> How do you say...? IN> Celestial Enquirer : 2 Celestials and Computers (Re: IN> Humans and Skills) Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd Re: IN> Superiors' Appearance Re: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) IN> Motel 666 (5/9) Re: IN> How do you say...? Re: IN> Lilim Geases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:19:06 EDT From: delicious antique whore Subject: IN> lucifer's word "light" could also mean something like "enlightenment," and enlightening someone often means they stop being conformists. which means they might rebel against something that they don't see are Right. however, i've also heard his name was the Son of Morning, as in the Dawn, the Bringer of Light. so maybe he enlightens others as well. morning is also when the day begins anew, so maybe he was beginning a new day by starting something new. this one has my interest piqued. i'm think about it some more and write more later. - --- delicious antique whore succubus@nightly.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:50:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Lucy's Word On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Grim88 wrote: > >Lucifer's Word is Free Will. The ability to choose between Good and Evil > > Actually, its been stated that his Word was Light. Remember that celestial words are more metaphorical than literal. Light, the illuminator of darkness and the revealer of secrets. This light revealed to the angels their bondage to God, showed them that they did not have to blindly follow Him but that they could choose another path, and then illuminated that path for them. It still contains 'Free Will' as a major subclause, and that's good enough for me. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His 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: Fri, 15 Aug 97 13:03 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music > On the other hand, Soldiers that are recruited >with six forces, rather than made, might have only one >in CorpForces. This is totally a GM's call, however. And right now, it's in direct contradiction with the rules for a player to create a Soldier with only one Corporeal Force. If the rules were intended to mean that *most* Soldiers should have at least 2 Corporeal Forces, it could have been stated that way, rather than the flat "must have 2" as written. I'd like to see it erratized that way, actually. >The individuals that have six forces without celestial >help are very rare. So are PCs.... the point is, should a player character Soldier be required to have 2 Corporeal Forces, just because *most* Soldiers are beefed up that way? I'd say no. > Here's an example. Bob has CorpForces/1 with >Strength/2 Agility/2. After two Body hits, this guy >is unconscious and after four total, he's a >goner. After he becomes a soldier, the extra force >goes into Corporeal. Now he has Strength/4 Agility/4. >He has 8 Body Hits and it'll take 12 to kill him. >A big, big difference! True, but if the Soldier is being recruited for something other than Corporeal-related skills, it would probably be even more effective to boost Ethereal or maybe even Celestial Forces, to make them better at whatever you wanted them for. (This is probably especially true for demons, who probably don't care much if a Soldier gets toasted, other than how the loss of the Resource affects them.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 13:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Humans and Skills >> Is this canon? > > Let's put it this way: I'm treating it as canon unless >one of the uberSuperiors overrules me! If this is intended to be canon, it should probably be in the FAQ (if you haven't put it in already -- haven't looked at it recently...). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 13:36 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases >> Bingo. A *tested* Geas can go anywhere. If you can get someone >> to agree to "an unspecified favor, anytime in the future, by >> me or one of my agents..." Well, more fool the mortal. >> >> If the Will roll has been attempted and failed on such an >> open-ended promise, then the Geas is tradeable to anyone. >> It's only prior to that test that non-Lilim don't get to play >> with Geasa. > > To balance out things for the poor victim, maybe we >should introduce a new mechanic: a flat bonus vs. these >open-ended Geases. This gives the Lilim a decision of >whether to test such things immediately or wait and get >the full roll. This sounds like a workable idea (maybe a +2?). Also, one of these "unspecific" Geases can't be used to ask for something harder than the Geas level -- if you do, I suggest it should self-destruct. Another option is to treat an unspecific Geas that's been tested as one level lower in actual effect. I.e., if you have a Geas/6, and tell the victim "You owe me a *big* favor later," the victim rolls at Will-6 (the Geas level), but the specific request made when the Geas is to be fulfilled can only be equivalent to a Geas/5. [Elizabeth, maybe this should be added to the Geas level modifiers.] - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:18:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd > Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:56:29 -0400 > From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" > Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd > > > Note that there are example soldiers in NM that break this (2 > > Corp Force) rule. > Which ones? Mentioned by others already, and dealt with. > > Is there any limit to how many forces a human can have? > > The practical limit is 15 forces since the top attribute > a human can have is 10. This is pretty rare, as you might imagine! > > > If a human somehow gets six Forces in one one category, are his stats still > > capped at 10? > > Officially, six forces is impossible for a human in any > one area. What about Saints? Sorcerors? > Use my patented Clue-by-Four(tm). Ten or twenty whacks should > put _that_ player into shape and provide a fine example to other > munchkins! :) (Thank you. Someone finally took it a s a joke!) > Keep in mind that Servants are _NPCs_. It is up to the > GM to generate them, so the problem shouldn't arise. I'd think players would want (and deserve) more input into their servants. Subject to GM veto, of course. martinl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:36:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Angels, God's Plan and Communism On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > [analogy between God's plan and communism snipped] > > Interesting! You can even look at it the other > way. Communism is basically faith since, despite decades > of contrary evidence, people still believe in it. ;) I remember something a college economics professor said: from a strictly theoretical standpoint, Communism is inherently more Christian than Capitalism because, ideally, it tries to make sure everyone has what they need. An interesting idea, that. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His 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: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:57:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob the Dancing Monkey Subject: Re: IN> Words of God and Satan Actually, if we wish to go to one of the principal sources of In Nomine, we can grab a good Word for God from the words of Jesus (I do not know chapter and verse; this is merely a paraphrase...) When asked who he was, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, Yahveh." The people of the time heard this as the verbalization of what was called the tetragramaton, the word that best named God (well, there's a lot more to it than that, but...) A decent translation of 'yahveh' from the Hebrew is simply "I am." I daresay that God's Word in the In Nomine universe would probably "To Be" or "Ser" or "I am". Pity that English doesn't have a single word for such things. Maybe God's Spanish... Mmm...Ramblings... - -Drew Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:27:44 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> How do you say...? On Aug 15, 6:31pm, Shadowcat wrote: > Subject: IN> How do you say...? > @ > This question came to mind the other night when Sean and I were > talking and discovered that we each pronounced Belial a different way. > Has anyone come up with a pronounciation guide for the superiors? I had that problem with him too! I had always pronounced it BEL-ee-ahl. Then I heard it pronounced by someone else as Be-LIE-ahl. I haven't seen a pronounciation guide. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:24:15 -0400 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Ladislas Budnarzik in Night Music > > On the other hand, Soldiers that are recruited > >with six forces, rather than made, might have only one > >in CorpForces. This is totally a GM's call, however. > >The individuals that have six forces without celestial > >help are very rare. > > I don't think Walter was saying that is wasn't useful, just that is > wasn't a justifiable *requirement*. I'm inclined to agree. > > Regardless, what I really need to know, errata-wise is: > > Should Ladislas have Corporeal Forces - 2 (and other changes to > compensate)? > > Or should he be tagged as not really a Soldier (since all Soldiers > have to have CF-2)? > > Or should the CF-2 requirement be dropped from Soldiers? I'd rule that, yes, he's a soldier that had enough forces to be _recruited_ rather than made. So the ruling would change so that all created soldiers (force 5 people that are made into soldiers) are required to have CorpF/2, but others can get by with CorpF/1 with the GM's permission. This would of course indicate a _very_ special person that managed to get six forces without celestial aid (was probably born with them). Bottom Line =========== Soldiers must have CorpF/2 if they gained their sixth force through contact with celestials, but can have CorpF/1 otherwise. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:07:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Words of God and Satan A hopefully interesting nit: As I understand it, "Yahweh" is the third-person form of a verb in archaic Hebrew and could be translated "He Is," "He Becomes," or "He Causes." Perhaps the ambiguity itself says something. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:09:20 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Angels, God's Plan and Communism Casca wrote: > I remember something a college economics professor said: from a strictly > theoretical standpoint, Communism is inherently more Christian than > Capitalism because, ideally, it tries to make sure everyone has what they > need. The early Christians were often communal, that is, pooling their possessions, and so "communist" in the old, pre-ideological sense. Monastic communities still are, aren't they? Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:58:11 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >>>On a related point any Superior can remove a geas [since it is discord] though they are reluctant to. Does loosing a geas this way cause dissonance to the Lilim? Do Malakim think this is Honourable?<<< This is currently being debated. But the general consensus seems to be that either Superiors cannot or generally will not remove Geases, or if they do, it's very dangerous. IOW, if you got slapped with a Geas, don't invoke your Superior expecting him to remove it. - -David http://ourwold.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:14:35 -0500 (CDT) From: corey@cfanet.com Subject: IN> Remove ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:58:12 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Servants >>>Another thought: A cheap trick is to make your servant really low on Will so you can push it around, even at low level. A servant/6 at level 1 is still pretty useful, even with a Will of 1, and only costs 3 cp. Making a tough, dumb soldier bodyguard an affordable option for many Celestials.<<< Which is why I let my players write up their Servants, and then change them as I see fit. - -David http://ourwold.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:58:17 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Superiors' Appearance >>>And then there's the "if Eli's in town" setup. [The cab drives up, the scruffy-ish fellow hops out. "Hey, I was in the area and heard you wanted me to drop by. Let's talk about it over lunch. Where's the best pizza around here?"])<<< This is how I imagine many Superiors handle invocations. Since it's already been suggested that Superiors are capable of manifesting in multiple locations at the same time, this also suggest that many of them have vessels traveling the world. You call your boss, and his nearest vessel uses mundane means to arrive at your location (or perhaps a Song, which still doesn't create nearly as large a disturbance as descending straight from the celestial plane.) - -David http://ourwold.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:58:15 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >>>So? They buy a loyal servant to invoke it for them, in that case. Do you want *all* Lilim running around with servants because the game mechanics make that the best thing to happen? Heck, get your vessel to look just like the servant...<<< No. See my earlier comments and buy a Munchkin-hammer. >>>Neither can I, entirely. Which is why you can't trade an untested Geas to a non-Lilim.<<< That sounds okay, but I'm not sure how the mechanics would work. Ms. Lilim fulfills a Need, and she now has a Geas. So this is an "untested Geas" because she hasn't tried to invoke it. Therefore you're saying she can't hand it over to a non-Lilim. Now, if she does "test" it-- i.e. announce to the subject what she wants, and the subject either failed to resist or didn't try-- can she then hand the Geas to someone else? That doesn't make much sense; he's already executing the Geas, so it's in action, how can she transfer it to someone else at that point? Even if the request is "Serve this person for a day/month/the rest of your life", etc., assuming that takes hold, the person being served isn't actually holding a Geas on the subject, he's just benefitting from the Geas' effects. >>>And a good GM will let a well-thought-out trick work as long as it's well-thought-out, because to do otherwise is pretty crummy.<<< Sure, IF it is well thought out, a good GM will let it work...for a while. But no trick is going to work forever, and if you keep sending a mortal to invoke Geases on celestials, it's just a matter of time before one of those celestials decides wasting the mortal is easier than resisting the Geas. (Fine, the mortal confronts the celestial in a crowded department store. Maybe the celestial is stuck with the Geas. But he, or one of his friends, is still likely to go trash the servant later.) Even if the Lilim is very careful about who she sends her servant after (implying she's only putting Geases on "safe" subjects, in which case what's the point?), sooner or later someone else will catch on to her trick and take out the mortal. - -David http://ourwold.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:04:02 -0400 From: "Michael Stanley" Subject: IN> Large Weapons Can someone tell me whether or not the skill "Large Weapon" is supposed to be a seperate skill for each specific weapon type (like Ranged and Small Weapon is), or is it a one skill for all Large contact weapons. The book doesn't make the distinction and I was wondering if it was supposed to be that way, or if it was an oversight. Thanks in advance, - -Michael Stanley- stanman@netset.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:53:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> How do you say...? > On Aug 15, 6:31pm, Shadowcat wrote: > > Subject: IN> How do you say...? > > @ > > This question came to mind the other night when Sean and I were > > talking and discovered that we each pronounced Belial a different way. > > Has anyone come up with a pronounciation guide for the superiors? > > I had that problem with him too! I had always pronounced > it BEL-ee-ahl. Then I heard it pronounced by someone else as > Be-LIE-ahl. I haven't seen a pronounciation guide. ;) > Heh. First Geasa\Geases, next Bel-ee-ahl, Be-LIE-ahl. We don't need adventures and new Superiors. We need an official In Nomine dictionary. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:57:23 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:00:19 -0400, "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" wrote: >> Question, though: Does Toughness change the death point? As expensive as it >> is, it seems like it should. > > Good point. I thought long and hard about this and I'm >_still_ undecided. It helps on the high end (the point where the >human is still conscious) so, in a manner of speaking, the death >point is further away in absolute damage terms. Adding Toughness >to Strength to determine the point seemed a little weak, but >having a formula similar to [Toughness level + 1] times Strength >has the possibility of being ridiculous. Without too much >fiddling, you could have a soldier that can take enough damage >_while unconscious_ to kill 5 normal people! Okay, let's add >Toughness to Strength for determining the death point and see >if that generates any problems. I don't see any problems with that, barring, as you say, it being a bit weak for the points spent. With modern medicine, people recover from damage beyond unconsciousness all the time. How about, you're injured to the point of death at -Strength. If you have Toughness, then prompt medical attention or Healing can save you unless you go below -(Toughness+1) x Strength, but you're going to be losing one Body a *minute* without treatment, so you might have only five or ten minutes to get the paramedics there. Even a Kyrio with healing may be hard-pressed to get another host to his dying host in time to save him. Someone with CPR or first aid may be able to gain a few minutes, but short of Healing, the person is going to need to get put on life support to save them from death. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:58:26 -0400 From: Tony DeGeorge Subject: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #295 -Reply I'll be out of the office from August 15th through the 24th, back again on August 25th. If you have publishing business that can't wait until I return, please contact Cindy Achar. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:34:50 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 7:55 AM +0000 8/15/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:02:19 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>>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. >> >>Except, if a Geas can't be enforced, it's not a *Geas* anymore. It's >>a tracker, and perhaps an inclination of goodwill to the asker, but >>it's not a *Geas*. (If a disad isn't a disad, it's not worth points.) >>If the will-reduction still works, then it's a silent tracker/Song-of- >>Charm/reason-to-get-a-favor combination. But it's not a *Geas*. >>Which makes it kind of... messy. > >But it *can* be enforced, just not by the current owner. If a fingerless >person buys a gun, isn't it still a gun? Nah, nah, nah -- wrong analogy. If a Geas cannot enforce itself, it is not a Geas. A Geas is an enforced-task. That's it's *definition*. If it's not enforced, it's a request, not a Geas. The analogy is if someone takes a gun and takes out all the bullets, and replaces them with little "bang" flags. Sure, you've got the Discord, but who cares but angels? Humans don't care, demons probably don't care... And it's still not an *invoked* Geas yet, if it doesn't cause dissonance/damage... (In fact, if you're saying the Lilim can take back the Geas once it's been "tested," we're back to the bad implications of her never invoking her own Geases again.) [...] >Think about K.K. Ok, she has a Geas on that hulking Malak; but even though >she's a Lilim, *she* can't enforce it, because the Malak will soul-kill her >if she tries. But she *can* enforce it -- she can give him the order (assume he fails the will roll) and skip back to Hell. If the Malakite doesn't obey, he gains dissonance. Once a Geas is invoked (and the Will roll failed, if applicable), it functions until it's fulfilled or the Geas-holder is soul-destroyed. (And if K.K.'s in a vessel, she just goes into trauma for a day, and the Malakite is *still* bound by the Geas.) >You're almost taking the position that a Geas isn't a Geas unless it's >forcibly invoked. YES! The Geas may exist (in potential or "tested"), but just asking someone to do something, in exchange for "poofing" the Geas, does NOT mean that you're Geasing someone! Instead, you're using blackmail: do this for me, or I'll invoke a Geas. >I think, at least among celestials, negotiating the Geas >away is more likely than forcible invocation--both sides risk dissonance if >it comes to force. Once you're negotiating, whether a Geas is negotiated >away by a Lilim or not doesn't really matter: an agreed task is done and >the Geas poofs. It doesn't poof if the Geas isn't invoked and performed. If it's negotiated, then the Geas-holder *gives* the other person the Geas and *he* poofs it. This is a perfectly legit thing to do! But if you're doing this, you're *not* Geasing someone, and it won't go "poof" automatically. (If you want it to, you make a deal of, "Okay, you're going to say all this, right? Fine, read that, and I promise not to resist the Geas. Deviate from the script, and I will.") At 1:36 PM -0400 8/15/97, Walter Milliken wrote: >>> Bingo. A *tested* Geas can go anywhere. If you can get someone >>> to agree to "an unspecified favor, anytime in the future, by >>> me or one of my agents..." Well, more fool the mortal. [...] >Another option is to treat an unspecific Geas that's been tested as one >level lower in actual effect. I.e., if you have a Geas/6, and tell the >victim "You owe me a *big* favor later," the victim rolls at Will-6 (the >Geas level), but the specific request made when the Geas is to be >fulfilled can only be equivalent to a Geas/5. > >[Elizabeth, maybe this should be added to the Geas level modifiers.] I like #2, myself... Less of a "new mechanic" and more a "modifier for funky stuff." Saved, will be added. Wheeeee.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:25:06 +0200 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Words of God and Satan At 12:53 15/08/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:13:30 -0500 >From: Earl Wajenberg > > >If God has a Word at all, "To Be" would be it, I agree. > That sounds rather similar to 'Creation' to me. Amusingly, 'Eli' translates as 'My God' jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:48:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Fluff (Superiors' Appearance) At 3:41 PM +0300 8/15/97, Tapio Erola wrote: > (Snipped) >> ("Uh, boss, can't we *both* leave? Please?" And then there's the >> "if Eli's in town" setup. [The cab drives up, the scruffy-ish >> fellow hops out. "Hey, I was in the area and heard you wanted >> me to drop by. Let's talk about it over lunch. Where's the best >> pizza around here?"]) > >Well, given the nature of this archangel, I'd presume that the pizza joint >in question would be some small, out of the way, cheap joint run by >italian emigree which products are excellent and made by real artist. Good point. Or some other place that had a really talented cook. Of course, the Servitor who called him up will probably know a few of those (unless he's really new in town), or else he'll get a severe look from his boss... ("You call me all the way out here, and you don't even know where the best cup of coffee is? What, you gonna ask for a transfer?") >He'd _never_ frequent in places like McDonalds which products are >always the same. Those places are ran by Marc at best, Haagenti at worst. Nah, the Demon Prince of Garbage... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:01:08 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> How do you say...? At 2:27 PM -0400 8/15/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >On Aug 15, 6:31pm, Shadowcat wrote: >> Subject: IN> How do you say...? >> @ >> This question came to mind the other night when Sean and I were >> talking and discovered that we each pronounced Belial a different way. >> Has anyone come up with a pronounciation guide for the superiors? > > I had that problem with him too! I had always pronounced >it BEL-ee-ahl. Then I heard it pronounced by someone else as >Be-LIE-ahl. I haven't seen a pronounciation guide. ;) And then there's Jean: "JEEN" or "jhan" (As in Jean-Luc Picard.) Or "LIL-im" vs. "lil-EEM". Kih-RIH-o-TAH-tay or KIH-RIH-o-tate (short "a" in the second). "Bahl" or "Ba'al" "ee-vees" or "yee-vees" or "eev"? Hm... How many more... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:46:14 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: IN> Celestial Enquirer : 2 Today, hot for you from our roving reporters at NybbasPress! MICHAEL'S SECRET VISITS TO GABRIEL'S LOVENEST Yes, you heard it from us first! We had photographic footage of the Archangel of War himself paying a private visit to the Volcano, and only a thousand witnesses actually saw him do it! For a long time our sources have speculated about the secret liaison between these two, and now this seems to prove it. There is, after all, no other reason for two Archangels to be communicating this secretly. The Archangel Gabriel, long known to have been given the brush-off by Heavenly polite society due to her fondness for sadomasochism with hot irons, refused to speak to our reporters. Her coy behaviour was clearly demonstrated by the way she was blushing when she ordered them scourged from her doors. (Artist's impression of Gabriel in black leather gear follows.) As for Michael himself, long-term idol of many of our workers in Shal-Mari, we were unfortunately unable to keep the camera footage of him descending in Celestial glory on the hot nookie spot, but our surviving reporter claims that there was a certain note in that rough, commanding voice. Remember, you heard it here first! - --- THE TOE SENSATION Yes, we have here pictures of the big toes of Valefor, Prince of Theft, and Janus, Archangel of Wind, for _you_, our readers, to compare! You would find it difficult to believe the hardships our reporters went through to obtain them for you - but NybbasPress only hires the best! (*THESE PICTURES CONFISCATED BY ORDER OF PRINCE ASMODEUS*) - --- To be continued, by myself or others... Maya - --- Maya, Elohim of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:36:26 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Celestials and Computers (Re: IN> Humans and Skills) At 8:30 AM -0400 8/15/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: [...] >In Nomine, IMO, should be fast-paced and >only involve dice when strictly necessary. Yah. >Rolling for every niggling detail ("Roll vs. Computer Operation >at -4 for default to turn on the computer!") strikes me as absurd. Unless it's someone whose backstory says they were last on Earth in the Middle Ages, of course -- but that *is* a "necessary" thing, due to the backstory... BTW, why does the Elohim of Jean attunement give only a few minutes'-worth of computer time with the thing? I can't read my Email in 1-7 minutes... (Or did Jean forget that not all Elohim have mega-Forces like Superiors do?) And I certainly hope it saves state before it vanishes. ("ARGH! I lost my preference settings AGAIN!") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:49:01 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Humans, Relic Weapons, and a Lonely Goatherd At 11:32 PM 8/13/97 GMT, you wrote: >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. [Some fun chain of command stuff snipped] And remember it only takes 1 bullet to disassemble the whole chain of command.... Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:24:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Appearance At 3:58 PM -0400 8/15/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>And then there's the "if Eli's in town" setup. [The cab drives up, the >scruffy-ish fellow hops out. "Hey, I was in the area and heard you wanted >me to drop by. Let's talk about it over lunch. Where's the best >pizza around here?"])<<< > >This is how I imagine many Superiors handle invocations. Since it's already >been suggested that Superiors are capable of manifesting in multiple >locations at the same time, this also suggest that many of them have >vessels traveling the world. You call your boss, and his nearest vessel >uses mundane means to arrive at your location (or perhaps a Song, which >still doesn't create nearly as large a disturbance as descending straight >from the celestial plane.) Probably depends on the boss, though -- Blandine probably *only* shows up corporeally (dissonant for her servitors to go celestial and all that) or uses the Ethereal Song of Tongues when you contact her... Gabriel probably does whatever suits her at the time -- I get the impression that she swaps between her volcano home and the corporeal world pretty often... Michael's probably a fifty-fifty chance of having a vessel around. Jordi -- no problem, unless you're in a city, whereupon you might get the "Big Bong Of Arrival" just to make a point. anyone, at a Tether -- celestial, most likely, since that's the quick way... Hmmmmmm.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:00:31 From: Jeff Miller Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Enquirer (A Publication of Kobal Enterprises, Ink.) At 03:41 PM 8/13/97 -0400, you wrote: >>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. > Makakim of Dominic to his Superior: Hey boss, look at this new recruit I brought for you! Dominic: (no words just six eyes bugging out) Now we know why he dosn't have many of Eli's Malakim.... >[...] > >>>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 don't mind that angel of Destiny standing in the corner who just looks at her and smiles a secret smile.... > >(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!") > Have her Redeem herself to Litheroy. That should make Jean happy.... Jeff Miller Program Director/Webmaster for Agamemcon II Burbank Airport Hilton -- May 22-24, 1998 Contact Info: 24161-H Hollyoak (714)643-8352 Laguna Hills, CA 92656 www.primenet.com/~shadocat/agamemcon.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:52:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Austin George Loomis Subject: IN> Motel 666 (5/9) Hello again. Margali for Motel 666 -- where we don't have valet parking, tip-hungry bellboys, or elevators that keep you waiting forever in the lobby. Why, from the moment you arrive, it's *all* downhill. And we've got a hot tub just *waiting* for you to shuffle off that mortal coil. We're Motel 666, and we'll leave the goat on. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:08:13 -0400 From: Charles Badger Subject: Re: IN> How do you say...? At 16:53 08/15/97 -0400, Emily K. Dresner wrote: >> On Aug 15, 6:31pm, Shadowcat wrote: >> > Subject: IN> How do you say...? >> > @ >> > This question came to mind the other night when Sean and I were >> > talking and discovered that we each pronounced Belial a different way. >> > Has anyone come up with a pronounciation guide for the superiors? >> >> I had that problem with him too! I had always pronounced >> it BEL-ee-ahl. Then I heard it pronounced by someone else as >> Be-LIE-ahl. I haven't seen a pronounciation guide. ;) >> > >Heh. First Geasa\Geases, next Bel-ee-ahl, Be-LIE-ahl. We don't need >adventures and new Superiors. We need an official In Nomine dictionary. MAybe it's a slang thing like TOM at o, to Mat o. Depending on whether they are from heaven or hell and which region they have/use different pronounciations. - ----- Charles T. Badger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:03:32 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases At 3:58 PM -0400 8/15/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>So? They buy a loyal servant to invoke it for them, in that case. >Do you want *all* Lilim running around with servants because >the game mechanics make that the best thing to happen? Heck, >get your vessel to look just like the servant...<<< > >No. See my earlier comments and buy a Munchkin-hammer. The point is still that if a *really* gaping loophole is around, then the loophole needs to be whacked with the hammer right after the Munchkin. (Otherwise all angels would be Munchkins -- and while I can get stretchy suspenders of disbelief for IN, some things will just snap it.) >>>>Neither can I, entirely. Which is why you can't trade an untested >Geas to a non-Lilim.<<< > >That sounds okay, but I'm not sure how the mechanics would work. > >Ms. Lilim fulfills a Need, and she now has a Geas. So this is an "untested >Geas" because she hasn't tried to invoke it. Therefore you're saying she >can't hand it over to a non-Lilim. Now, if she does "test" it-- i.e. >announce to the subject what she wants, and the subject either failed to >resist or didn't try-- can she then hand the Geas to someone else? Only if the Geas was "At some point in the future, I or my agent will ask you for an unspecified favor roughly comprable to the one I did you, and you will do it." See Walter's comment about making that take a level off the Geas, and/or allowing bonuses to Will to resist it. (Heck, strip a couple of levels off it -- you've "tested" the Geas with those levels, and therefore they went poof. I'll get coherent after I eat something.) This does make it tricky. Normally, the only Geases humans will see are those that a Lilim can generate herself, or that a Superior generated. The kinds of Geases that can't be resisted, because they were agreed to. (Such as the ones that can give you bonuses to summon Lilith...) (House rule: if someone knowingly agrees to an indefinite Lilim- style Geas, a Lilim can create a "tested," tradeable Geas right there and then. Might require a resonance roll, but I'd be inclined to make it an auto-success -- if someone's willing, then why make them wait the hour(s) on a failure?) >That doesn't make much sense; he's already executing the Geas, so it's in >action, how can she transfer it to someone else at that point? Even if the >request is "Serve this person for a day/month/the rest of your life", ["Year." Only the most trivial of things could be geased "forever." (Hiding information, say.)] >etc., assuming that takes hold, the person being served isn't >actually holding a Geas on the subject, he's just benefitting >from the Geas' effects. Right! Though he can certainly order the fellow around, and if the Geased-one disobeyed, it would "bite." Hm. Possibly, at that point, the only thing the *real* Geas-holder could do would be provide interpretation: "When I said serve, I think I meant as a dinner dish," for instance. [[ Example from current game with this situation: Seneschal of Lightning tether is given a Geas on a Renegade Lilim (don't ask where he got it). The instructions: "For the duration of this Geas, you are to consider yourself a Servitor of Jean." (Lilim: "GLUCK!") Bezekiel (the Seneschal) is the Geas-holder; in the absence of direct orders to her from Jean, he gets to explain any rough spots about what being a Servitor of Lightning entails. ("There's these weekly reports, see..." "Does *every* Servitor of Lighting file weekly reports?" "We try, but we're not dissonant if we don't.") If things got really weird, he might be able to say, "Trust me, you have to read between the lines on these instructions, here's what he *really* wants." [Said Renegade has already been thrown into Geas-conflict, too! (Feast of Blades (not yet finished): Amanda got a blackmail Geas/6 on her... Jean's instructions: Destroy the dagger. Amanda's: Bring it to me... Owie. Bezekial *might* have been able to say something like, "I'm sure it's okay if you give it to her and then take it away again real fast," though.)] ]] >>>>And a good GM will let a well-thought-out trick work as long as it's >well-thought-out, because to do otherwise is pretty crummy.<<< > >Sure, IF it is well thought out, a good GM will let it work...for a while. >But no trick is going to work forever, and if you keep sending a mortal to >invoke Geases on celestials, it's just a matter of time before one of those >celestials decides wasting the mortal is easier than resisting the Geas. Or angels get resigned -- as I said, there's an easy munchkinism if you do the "nobody gets dissonance" route for trading untested Geases. *I* can't justify that *and* the current setup (where angels *aren't* paranoid about accepting any favors or talking to anyone except in back allys). If mortals could test Geasa and nobody got dissonant for failures, more demons would have el-cheapo servants do it. They don't, ergo they can't. (I need blood sugar.) >(Fine, the mortal confronts the celestial in a crowded department store. >Maybe the celestial is stuck with the Geas. But he, or one of his friends, >is still likely to go trash the servant later.) Even if the Lilim is very >careful about who she sends her servant after (implying she's only putting >Geases on "safe" subjects, in which case what's the point?), sooner or >later someone else will catch on to her trick and take out the mortal. Yeah, but mortals are cheap. Place is crawling with them. All kinds of ways to get them to work for you. Anyway, why make a ruling that *encourages* that kind of thing, when one can just pound it early on?