From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Aug 23 21:29:44 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 VAA02794 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 21:29:44 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA04467 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 19:54:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 19:54:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199708240054.TAA04467@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 #309 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 Saturday, August 23 1997 Volume 01 : Number 309 In this digest: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con Re: IN> Kyriotates Re: IN> Recorporation Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat Re: IN> The Words of God, Lucifer and Man Re: IN> New Drugs Re: IN> Jordi and Domestic Pets. Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #308 -Reply IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #307 -Reply IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> New Drugs Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? Re: IN> Lilim Geases IN> Smut (and nothing but) IN> Pay or Favour IN> Who is most reliable Cherubs, Malakim, Seraphs or Lilim? IN> Ofanim Re: IN> New Drugs IN> Hire Purchase of Lilim IN> Lilim Geases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:55:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Diabolical Dealings at Gen Con At 9:48 AM -0400 8/22/97, IQJason@aol.com wrote: >Shadowcat: >"Which issue will this be in?? I want this." > >Thomas Davidson >"Yeesh... Now I'm curious, too. :-)" > >Geez....you're going to make me turn this into an ad, aren't you? Okay. The >Tour of GenCon will be in InQuest #32 -- hits store shelves in November. And, >for those of you who aren't InQuest readers already, it's a decent place to >start. ;) Does this mean you now Owe me for increasing circulation of the magazine? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:05:18 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:35:04 GMT, dsarrazin@cyberus.ca (Denis Sarrazin) wrote: >My question is: how many forces do animals have? Or, to put it >another way, how do I determine how many of various kinds of animals >can be "controlled" in addition, or in stead of, a human? Some example animals are on page 191. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:05:16 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Recorporation On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:58:58 -0500, Colin Fredericks wrote: >>> I have a question for everyone, which may have already been answered, >>> but isn't in the official FAQ's or errata. When a Celestial gets >>> killed, they get shocked back to their home plane - heaven or hell. >>> How long does it take to recorporate? >> >> It's all detailed on page 67 under Trauma. It's a bit complicated. > >I think that deals more with overcoming Trauma than actually recreating >your physical body. Since one can argue that the corporeal vessel was >destroyed, and you can't get back to Earth without one unless you're a >body-snatcher (pg. 53), it must take something more than that... Oh, after that you spend character points to buy a new vessel, and you're back on Earth. If you don't have points, you have to beg from your Superior or take Discord--may I suggest Paranoia, so you don't lose you new Vessel? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:05:13 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:46:51 -0400 (EDT), IQJason@aol.com wrote: >See...I'm having trouble understanding how it's ever considered 'good' to >hijack a human body. With the Shedim, it's corruption -- exposing the mortal >to the horrible things that people are capable of so that they'll learn to >enjoy them. But a Kyrio's vessel is essentially out-of-the-picture when he's >being ridden. He's being used out of expedience. Remember that Kyrios are dissonant if they let their host be harmed while in him, and their Superiors will take a dim view of causing hosts any serious problems. Thinking of Night Music, suppose a Kyrio sees an addict about to shoot up? Well, take him over for a week and he may be over the worst of his withdrawal by then. If a Kyrio needs to deliver a package from one point to another, suppose he takes over a glassy-eyed commuter. Sure, he's a little later home than usual and is missing a little gas, but he's not really harmed--he was on automatic pilot anyway. Of course, there's also the Soldier of God, the Kyrio's servant or other volunteer to carry him for a while. And that's not even touching animals or fellow angels. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:26:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 IQJason@aol.com wrote: > Walt Mazur: > David Edelstein What, you didn't quote me? I'm hurt... ;) > See...I'm having trouble understanding how it's ever considered 'good' to > hijack a human body. With the Shedim, it's corruption -- exposing the mortal > to the horrible things that people are capable of so that they'll learn to > enjoy them. But a Kyrio's vessel is essentially out-of-the-picture when he's > being ridden. He's being used out of expedience. Have you ever been in a situation where something needed to be done immediately, and if you had thought about it before you did it you wouldn't have done it? (The example of running into a burning building to save someone springs to mind.) The folks who have been in these situations say that they don't know why they did them, they just found themselves doing it because they knew it was the right thing to do -- but five minutes later, they realized just how much danger they had been in, and that knowledge freaks them out. I see Kyrios in the same way. Sometimes a person needs to do something that they normally wouldn't do. Kyriotates give that push, when necessary, and I think that's a good thing. - -- 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, 22 Aug 1997 23:49:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Kyriosity Killed the Kat > On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 IQJason@aol.com wrote: > > I'm having trouble understanding the way that the Kyriotate resonance -- > > multiplicity -- is an aspect of the Divine in the way that truth or And Casca nobly assayed forth with; > Actually, that's exactly how I saw it. I see then as God's eyes and ears, > able to view thing from multiple viewpoints so as to avoid the personal > bias inherent in a single perspective. Imagine, if you will, a group of > people arguing. A Kyrio inhabits someone on -either- side of the issue, > and proceeds to have a debate with itself. It would lead to a greater > understanding of the issue in question. Since Jason asked the question, I've been TRYING to see them that way, and I keep running into the problem that the Kyriotates -DON'T- sample multiple perspectives. They drive the Host's mind out completely and remain entirely themselves, just in a different body...so the Kyrio can, to pick up your example, inhabit people on both sides of an argument...but to what end? They don't actually gain the PERSPECTIVE on both sides of the argument any better than..well, than anyone can just by trying to think about it both ways. An Elohim running two accounts on a BBS could probably do a better job of it than the average Kyriotate. > fairly well. I'm of the mind that roleplaying is simply a mild form of > schizophrenia channeled to a useful purpose ;) so following that "Useful?" > Incidentally, I'm one of those weird folks who doesn't have a problem > with Shedim possessing animals. Reference the demon 'Legion' of the New I don't see any problem with it, though, as with many other things, it may be influenced by who their Superior is...(Saminga, for example, is well noted for not being terribly impressed by the death of animals...their corruption, I expect, wouldn't interest him any more, so his Shedim probably can't use an animal host for any length of time before having to get on with business..) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:45:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> The Words of God, Lucifer and Man On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 JosephMoon@aol.com wrote: > commands, and then decided to act on this choice. But knowing you can rebel > and choosing to rebel are completely different things, especially for the > highest of the ArchAngels. (I don't buy Milton's rationale either.) I wouldn't say they're completely different. I mean, if the concept of rebellion is unknown, then not only are you -not- going to rebel, you won't even dislike your servitude, because you have nothing to compare it to. F'rinstance: Is a blind person gonna -care- what color clothes they wear? If they've been blind since birth, the concept of 'color' is alien to them. The concepts of 'clashing' and 'matching' will be irrelevant to them. > God's Plan needed a portion of his creation to oppose him, and who better to > play that role than the one who knew the Plan best? Lucifer was caught in a > divine Catch-22. If he didn't rebel, then he was opposing God's Will, and > therefore he was rebelling, but if he followed God's Will, then he MUST > rebel. The War in Heaven was it's own cause. And so he Fell, taking a third > of the Host with him, each according to Plan. (God would make a hell of a > domino champion.) Well, yeah. I thought I covered this? The concept of 'evil' must exist to allow for the concept of 'good'. One cannot be defined without contrasting it to the other. > What else did Lucifer glimpse before he fell? He saw the creation of a new > Word: Free-Will. And he saw that Word given to God's new creation: Man. Umm...no. If humanity had Words, then we wouldn't be humans...we'd be angels. > Mankind's Word is Free-Will. It is, afterall, what the War is about. I'd define it a bit closer: it's about -choice-. Choosing which side you will serve, good or evil, even if the choice is unconscious. > Thanks for you indulgence. I obviously have a serious/dark slant on the In > Nomine game, but trust me, my players will more than make up for it ;) As I'm an unrepentant WODdie, I feel Dark is Good. :) - -- 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: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:23:13 +1000 (EST) From: peterf@wr.com.au (Peter Frederick) Subject: Re: IN> New Drugs Dear Walt >>Chocolate (+1 Int, max of 6) >> >>Legally and freely available in the US, and most other countries. >>Third of the Big C drugs of South American origin (the others being Cocaine >>and Caffeine) it is derived from the beans of the cacao bush. > >>Television (see description) > >Naw. People get addicted to all sorts of things: TV, gaming, computers, the >Internet, gambling--best to just handle them all under the general >addiction discord. Wow Walt, now I know more than I ever wanted about Chocolate, and I do agree that some of the stuff was overstated in the rules mechanics, but that's that you get with a slightly chunky stats system like IN. And I hope I have misread you in the same way you misread me, but like guy it was a _joke_. Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 10:43:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Jordi and Domestic Pets. > Quick question: > Do folks think that Jordi's word is 'Animals' or 'Animals that aren't humans'? The `samples' given by his Angel Attunements give a pretty strong push for the latter, with his Mercurians coming the CLOSEST with Primates and that still noted to `help humans to see the similarities between themselves and their cousins'. Honestly, I don't even get the impression he applies to a human's animal nature... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:04:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > Yeah, I've been mentally mucking with it so that the > Geas bites according to whether the person is *trying* or > not... (So a Geas/6-Year thing will "bite" if the person doesn't That I tend to take as a given...if, in fact, the Geas doesn't flat out evaporate if it turns out to not be accomplishable in the time period it should have been. (eg. "Deliver this package to ___ building across town" should be a Geas/1 taking a little under an hour, and the victim takes the package, hops into his car, and takes off..into the rush-hour traffic the Lilim hadn't considered. After holding his horn down for 53 minutes straight, snarling, and nearly shooting an obnoxious Shedim-possessed jerk in a corvette who goes speeding down the emergency lane, the difficulty of the task has turned out to technically exceed what the Lilim had authority to require, and the Geas breaks under the strain..) Now, honestly, contrary to that example, I'd take the time limits as a looser guideline unless the Lilim specifies it to avoid them resisting ("Look, this'll only take an hour," she adds hastily, as he looks about to blow Essence to be sure of making his meeting this afternoon), so it doesn't go pft at exactly sixty minutes and one second...but if it's looking more like a day than an hour, even due to unforseen (or forseen, for that matter - there's many a crafty use for a Geas intended to fail) circumstances, the Geas will only stretch so far... (Regarding Geas/6s, incidentally, I automatically go with the more traditional "year and a day", if only because it's more poetic.) [And I'm probably going to just refer to things rather than quoting them from now on because I just accidentally blipped it all into one massive paragraph. Bleah.] As far as having to roll only that often to resist..I can see that, and raise you...er, wait. What I meant was, I'd suggest that yes, you roll against a Level/1 Geas once an hour, and a Level/6 Geas once a year, and have to resist a certain number of times (say, the invokers Celestial Forces, maybe?) before it's completely gone... (I'm also kind of liking the idea that the amount of Dissonance you get if you fail is equal to the Level of the Geas...) I very much agree with Beth that an unenforced Geas is just a favor. (As was noted elsewhere - if you can pummel them into accepting the Geas, you could pummel them into doing it, and if you keep the favor to something they won't resist anyway, they'd have done it anyway.) But while I'm agreeing, I also want to point out that, "But that's not a Geas" is also still my problem with testing them before you define them...(It doesn't give any behavior to enforce, per se, thereby sticking them with Discord that they don't have the option of resisting and/or getting done and over with.) > or a Calabite failing a roll and going, "Oh, shucks." Had to quote this one and point out that Calabites DO have the option of inflicting the damage on anyone around 'em rather than taking Dissonance...(And, for that matter, an Impudite can say, "Kill this twit for me." Presumably rare, because it would still be considered wasteful, but not Dissonant.) Naw, to take out the risk that a Lilim will never have to think about Dissonance again, I'm finding it both easier, better precedented, and a lot more interesting to just expand their Dissonance mechanic to entail `doing something for free'...the same way a Balseraph gets it if they're Resisted OR contradict themselves, or a Cherub does for their Attuned subject getting harmed OR betraying any other trust... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 13:16:21 -0400 From: Tony DeGeorge Subject: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #308 -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: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 15:08:15 -0400 From: Tony DeGeorge Subject: IN> in_nomine-digest V1 #307 -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: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 16:01:08 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >>>Because it's not relevant! A valid character concept includes non-resistable Geasa; why should other character concepts *not* include the chance that a "blank check" might get stuck on them? (At least they get a chance to resist...)<<< I'm missing your point. Geases applied as Discord aren't quite the same as Geases applied by Lilim-- they can't be resisted, but they can only come from Superiors. Lilim can have those too. Maybe this is the problem...there are actually two kinds of Geases. I dunno, the discussion is going in so many different directions it's getting hard for me to keep track of what's been proposed... >>>On the other hand, Option 7 gets rid of both of those problems, and is close to what you *meant*.... <<< What did you think I meant? Option 7 seems okay, though I'm not keen on introducing a new thing called a "hook". I'd prefer to just call them Geases (or possibly "Lilim Geases") whether enforceable or not. - -David http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidEdelstein/innomine.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 20:22:02 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> New Drugs On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:23:13 +1000 (EST), peterf@wr.com.au (Peter Frederick) wrote: >And I hope I have misread you in the same way you misread me, but like guy >it was a _joke_. Whoops, sorry, mate. I was doing too much mail and I missed the +1 int up to *6* in the chocolate bit. But you weren't that far off even tongue in cheek. People get addicted to all kinds of things, TV definitely included. Obviously, I find the contrast between chocolate and cannibis intriguing. One we feed to children; the other we jail adults for using. Yet the mental effects are analogous. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 20:21:56 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:38:43 -0400, "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" wrote: > The problem is that if an UNSKILLED person with a low precision >hits you with a shotgun, it's not going to wing you. It's going to >blow a hole in you. That is much better simulated by high damage >rather than high accuracy. Shotgun shells have more powder and >more metal, hence more actual destructive capacity (i.e. more damage). > What I suggested does involve a new mechanic, but it >much more accurately simulates the way a shotgun works. I see your points. Here's why I'm advocating as I am. The skill system in IN is odd. Take a human soldier with precision 8, weapon/6, and a talisman gun/6. He's now got a skill/20 +8 power with the weapon, more that the base weapon damage. So, IN basically hands out huge bonuses for skill. Maybe it has a point, a forehead shot being a guaranteed kill. IAC, that's IN's style. Ok, so we have some bum with a shotgun. He's maybe precision 3, no skill, for a net 3-2=1. Your version, he gets Acc+1 for 2, so he has 1/36 chance of hitting someone with a shotgun--that bothers me as being too low. Try my version: Acc+6 for 7, a better chance to hit than not. Ok, barring 111 he'll only do a little damage, but he's such an oaf, I think that's probably realistic: he's lucky to wing someone in a leg or an arm--he's not going to manage a good shot. My point is that this matches the IN style where damage is largely controlled by skill, not by weapon mechanics (holy pistols excepted). Yeah, it's a funky system, but our Word is In Nomine, not Making In Nomine More Like GURPS. I'm trying to stick to the style and mechanics of IN. I'm not going to insist that Acc+6 Dam-1 are the perfect stats for a shotgun: I just picked those on the off chance they might actually have been reversed, and because they seemed to work decently, especially because it lowered power drastically at long ranges while still hitting. I don't think we should add a new mechanic, though. IN is hideously complex when it comes to all the various attunement details; it doesn't need more complexity added just for one weapon. IMHO of course: I admit to something of an addiction to finding simple solutions. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 20:21:47 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:27:41 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Yeah, I've been mentally mucking with it so that the >Geas bites according to whether the person is *trying* or >not... (So a Geas/6-Year thing will "bite" if the person doesn't >at least *try* to accomplish it in the interval, and same with >an hour-one. But I *have* been doing it by feel, rather than >the text of the rules. *sigh*) Yeah, but biting once a year instead of once an *hour*. Sheesh. Once an hour is so rapid it's easily open to orchestrated abuse to kill or outcast someone. Even if it were just Body points, one body an hour could be real trouble for a human: Geas him, then arrange for him to be jailed for something. Death by Geas. Strength and dissonance get there even faster. >>Reasonably, the Geas/6 should be the dangerous one, not Geas/1. To me, the >>basics of Geases just seem too whacked out to use. The changes you suggest >>are reasonable and balanced, but the fundamental problems with the >>mechanics remain. Maybe the best thing would be for The Powers That Be to >>be shown just how many problems Geases have, and ask for free rein to do a >>complete redesign. > > > >What if Geases were defined such that they worked similar to >the Bound Discord: the subject (once failing the first resistance >roll) has to make a Will roll to disobey the orders, at intervals >in some proportion to the Geas' level? I think the fundamental problem is that little Geases have huge penalties and big Geases have tiny penalties. The ability to make a will roll out will help celestials, who are pretty likely to bounce the Geas anyway, but mortals won't have a chance. Ok, let me try something dangerous, because I think just about everyone has gotten bitten by trying to make an off-the-top-of-the-head fix. (I note particularly the NM fix for mortal body points that gives Kyrios the same hit points whether they're in a hummingbird or an elephant!) Proposal: You have three things going on: (A) the power of the Geas, (B) the duration of the task, and (C) the level of punishment. (A) The basic power of Geas needed is determined by what you're asking the person to do (more or less canonical from the Lilim section on Geases): 1. Do a favor, like pick up some groceries; maybe give one essence. 2. Breach a trust, such as disclosing confidential information; do a big favor; or give few essence. 3. Commit a crime, like shoplifting or embezzling; hurt someone (aid them for some demons); do something to cause or remove dissonance; or give ten essence 4. Commit a serious crime, such as armed robbery; seriously injure someone; or cause or remove discord 5. Kill a stranger 6. Kill a loved one All these would be punished at the weekly rate. In RPG terms, I think that most events are going to play out in just a week; that's why I think this is the right time scale on which to base things. Even if you're trying to assasinate someone, it's probably a reasonable task for a week, unless it's the President. It also cuts the Geasee some slack for unavoidable problems: the idea is to get the task done not run the Geasee through the wringer. (B) You can expand the duration of the task: Start with a Geas/3. That would be good for having someone embezzle for you for a week. If you want them for a month, that's going to be a Geas/4, six months a Geas/5, and a year a Geas/6 (C) You can change the severity of the Geas punishment. If you want to buy the Geas to punish every day, it's going to cost you a Geas/+1; for an hour, +2. So if you really want that loved one killed fast, you need to expend Geas/8, Geas/6 for the task, +2 for the fast punishment. So the proposed rules are: (A) The basic level of the Geas is determined by the kind of task being requested, see above, all completable in a week. (B) If you want them to serve you for longer, you can extend one on the usual time scale, hour/day/week/month/half-year/year, at one geas level per extension. (C) Geases punish once a week, but you can shorten, costing geas levels, or lengthen, saving geas levels--all on the usual Geas time chart. Examples: 1.You want a servant who'll do *anything* you ask (G/6) for a year (G/+3) and you want him very attentive, punished hourly if he shirks (G/+2). You need a total Geas/6+3+2=11. 2. You want someone to embezzle for you (G/3) and keep doing it for a year (G/+3), but he's only going to embezzle once a month, so you lower the punishment rate (G/-1): total Geas/3+3-1=5. 3. You need someone to get your dry cleaning (G/1) this week (G/+0) and you figure the threat of punishment at the end of the week is enough (G/+0): total Geas/1+0+0=1. I don't quite like this because it moves things up and down scales, making it a little hard to use; but I think it has about the right play balance. >>Um...care to try that math again, Beth? ;) > > Now how *did* I get that it was the equiv of 3 years...? >It was the demon of typos' fault. > > >3*9=27 levels of Geas... >27/6=4.3 > >So it's *4* years, 1 week, right? (4 Geas/6's and a Geas/3 left >over...) Right. >>it...nothing happens. The bearer still holds the Geas, it hasn't >>evaporated, but he has no way to force the subject to obey it. > >OH! Why didn't you say that previously? >So there's no resistance roll if someone else "invokes" a Geas-hook -- >it depends on what's asked, and what the person wants to do, with >the addition of an "auto-poof" of the hook if it's done. But if >it's not done, the hook isn't actually *invoked*. (It's not that >it's not *enforced*, it's that it's not *INVOKED*. The Geas-hook >remains inert.) > >It's like saying, "I've got a potential Geas on you (a hook), and >I'll give it to you if you do what I want, and here's what I want," >except you don't have to trust the person to give it to you afterwards -- >it goes poof automatically. > >Curse it, why didn't you say this in the first place? I don't >have much problem with *that*. I think this is a good solution. While it makes traded Geases somewhat less valuable, it means Lilim can't be robbed of their Geases. Suppose a Calab corners a Lilim and say, "Give me all your Geases or I'll soul kill you!" What's she going to do, run to Hell? (Summoning Lilith would take too long.) >I wouldn't make the subject make a Will roll to resist a "hook" pseudo- >invoked by a non-Lilim -- double-jeapordy. Agree. The only thing a non-Lilim has is the evidence of the Geas and the threat of dragging in a ticked off Lilim to enforce the Geas. >So, would Option 7, above, work with this? It doesn't include the >"auto-poof" mechanism, though; the situation becomes, "I hold a >Geas-hook on you, and if you do what you say, I'll give it to you." I think the Geas token or whatever should auto-poof. Essentially, it would be a special artifact that embodies the Geas. When the Geas is fulfilled, the token poofs. But only a Lilim (or a superior) is capable of making the artifact actually turn into a active, punishing Geas. >(Whereupon it can go "poof," or the subject can trade it himself (!!), >whichever he wants -- that sound good? Or should this get something >like, the person says, "I will do [x]" and the "hook" allows him >to have self-Geased himself with that statement?) I like the poof. Otherwise it spreads Geasing power too far; and what if it's stolen? OTOH, stealing an unused Geas-token could be an interesting plot device. >[NOTE: I have always read the "self-Geas" paragraph as "It >causes her dissonance *unless* she fulfills it" rather than "until". >I don't think a Self-Geas on a Lilim should cause dissonance right >then, persisiting until it's fulfilled. It will, however, slap >her with dissonance if she breaks her promise.] I think "until" is right, unless the Geas is to do something later. At the point you're supposed to start working on the Geas-task, the clock starts ticking. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:55:15 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Smut (and nothing but) From: Elizabeth McCoy >(Though all those "gynocologist" scenes really really shouldn't be watched by anyone under the age of getting a pap smear...) < So being male, I should never watch them since I'm never going to be old enough to get a pap smear? > The orgasm is within one's mind only, and post-cuddling is tidily swept under the rug.< Except where his Djinn can use it to manipulate people. Adam Canning ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:55:12 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Pay or Favour From: Nana Yaw Ofori > For three, Nadine (The Lilim in Question) if working under these strictures, could easily get around the pay problem with anonymous donations of every bit of her pay that she doesn't absolutely need to the hospital she works at. By doing that, she's no longer getting fully recompensed for the job she is doing, and with some mental gymnastics, the fraction of her pay that she does return is equivalent to the fraction of babies that she's helping for "free".b < Simplest Technique conceptually is to aquire the Lilim of Gluttony attunement and just make wonderful baby food.[And of course remember not to poison it.] Adam canning ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:55:09 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Who is most reliable Cherubs, Malakim, Seraphs or Lilim? >A Malakim is slightly *less* stable because of their Honor. They can be forced into irrational actions by conflicting or inconvenient codes.< Please explain how having a code of behaviour makes you less reliable than some one who doesn't have any self imposed restrictions on what he will do. From the Malakim oaths I've seen setting up contradictions in there reqiured and forbiden codes of behaviour is rather difficult. Unless you are one of the Cherubs attunements they can be considered flaky. Sure you can rely on them to protect their attunments, but unlike Malakim you can't rely on them not to Fall. The point I was trying to make was that the initial generalities [Seraphs are proud and perfect, Cherubs are the most reliable, Malakim are arrogant and destructive, Ofanim are implacable and unstoppable, Kyriotates collections of primal urges, Mercurians are the least divine angels] are not the be all and end all of the character types when you look at the actual rules for the characters. Adam Canning ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:55:18 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Ofanim From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" > Duh, Ofanim of Jean are Ofanim are they not?< But they are the only ones that say they are among the fastest things in creation, the others don't Even Offanim of Flowers who can move faster once a day.don't and most of the others use there resonance for motion for basically static activities[i.e. deciding wheter to use DHL or Parcel force, Picking Locks, Detecting Discord, being immune to heat, electricity and radiation and Increased Intelligence or Knowledge based skill rolls. The point I was making is still that A - Ofanim have a resonance for Motion [of any form not necessserily speed] B- There are ways of out pacing there inherent abilities over some distances. Incidently Ofanim of Lightning travel at around 60 meters per second through conductors on average [20 yards to 120 yards per second and can only keep that up for between 5 and 30 seconds. That gives a maximum range of about 3 miles, opf course he can blast out of the conductor then and blast back in next round but he is still going to leave a trail of damage as he does.] They also blow 5 square meter holes at there entry and exit points when they conduct them selves through sheet metal. Or wreck a car by conducting themselves through its body work. Does the damage from being conducted count for destroying celestial Artifacts? As I saw the Telephone thing it was only Phone to Phone [and you had to get through on the number first.] which brings it down to no worse than teleporting to a plant. It is also one of the few tricks the celestials in Good omens get up to that thre is't a good match to in IN. However I'm not sure whether I think the Cherub of Lightning attunemet would make it seriously unbalanced.Even if in normal use one might get stuck in a voice mail system. Adam Canning ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:46:47 +1000 (EST) From: peterf@wr.com.au (Peter Frederick) Subject: Re: IN> New Drugs >On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:23:13 +1000 (EST), peterf@wr.com.au (Peter >Frederick) wrote: > >>And I hope I have misread you in the same way you misread me, but like guy >>it was a _joke_. > >Whoops, sorry, mate. I was doing too much mail and I missed the +1 int up >to *6* in the chocolate bit. But you weren't that far off even tongue in >cheek. People get addicted to all kinds of things, TV definitely included. np mate, some people even get addicted to email, look at me up and emailing before 9am on a Sunday morning . >Obviously, I find the contrast between chocolate and cannibis intriguing. >One we feed to children; the other we jail adults for using. Yet the mental >effects are analogous. One of those things that makes you realise that a portion of society's rules are completely arbitary. Thanking you for your indulgence, looks like the coffee's ready better go get my forst hit :) . Yours Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:55:06 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Hire Purchase of Lilim From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" >> However there is a good arguement that these are Normal Discord Geases and > therefore not Cumulative or divisible. Now this is an interesting theory... one I hadn't heard before.< Terminology extrapolated from the Lilim and Lilith descriptions: a Level favour is the result of a lilim fufiling a level need. She can call it in by imposing a level Geas or combine it with other favours to impose geases totalling the sum of the levels of the favout(s). Arguement goes as follows: What you owe Lilith for your existance is 9 favours that shouldn't take more than a week each [i.e buying your soul on hire purchase.]. If you don't do as she asks then she can hit you with a geas 3 to insure you will. but if you can do something nice for her she may well trade you one of your own favours thus writing it off. Since she can only inflict Geas/3's not level 3 favours [possibly since the Lilim didn't have a need to be created and thus these are favours for being made not favour\3's.] she can't accumulate them using the mechanic that lilim use to accumulate 6 level 1 favours to get a favour 6 since you have to set the task when you impose the geas. And while she might be able to go do this today [a level 2 geas] and this in the next hour[a level 1] that is unlikely to be a favourable trade on her part. Even then she hasn't got a Favour/3 to turn into a Gease, she just has teh Hire purchase agreement on the Lilim's exisitance to work with and therefore might not be able to split the geases or cumulate them since the agreement she has is for 9 week long services not 4 year long services and 3 hour long ones. Also if these were normal accumulative geases, wouldn't it be simpler to call them a Geas/27 rather than 9 geas/3's. It is nice to know that the going rate for Lilim to buy a force from Lilith is a Geas/3 however especially since that comes out very close to the cost in character points i.e. a Geas/3 is 9 cp of discord, a force is 10 character points, obviously Free lilim get a slight disount for bulk purchasing. I.e. these favours are part of an agreement to recompense Lilith for making you rather than for a need. I suspect those Lilim who don't take the deal get traded to the Demon Prince [And possibly Jean] of their choice in exchange for favours for Lilith [Quite possibly Need related ones.] Does that make sense or have I totally flipped? Adam Canning. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:54:57 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Lilim Geases >From: Elizabeth McCoy >[NOTE: I have always read the "self-Geas" paragraph as "It causes her dissonance *unless* she fulfills it" rather than "until". I don't think a Self-Geas on a Lilim should cause dissonance right then, persisiting until it's fulfilled.< It's a Geas that means you set an appropriate amount of time as part of the lilim promising and she suffers 1 note of dissonance per increment of time that she fails to keep her promise [i.e. 1 on the due date and then 1 per similar period thereafter until the task is acomplished.] When the task is acomplished it all vanishes. Thus it only causes dissonance if she takes longer than she said she would. K.K. on the other hand probably has friends who convince her to do this at level 1[That is 1 note per hour she is late] when she says she'll be ready to go out in five minutes. >Actually, the rules *don't* say that they can't be traded... The "no fun" aspect is that you can't give hooks to anyone -- some want the option of: Lilim of [x] fulfilled the Need, but the person who comes asking for it might be an Ethereal/angel/mortal... (And I *do* like the notion of being able to trade a hook to Lilith -- it's probably deeply discounted for various reasons, but the idea of going to someone and saying, "You know that Geas I got on you? I'm not going to try to invoke it. *Mom* is." )< I have nothing against Lilith Trading Geases [It doesn't have the dissonance feed back problem since you can't resist hers and she can trade tham.[IN p150] Or indeed much against trading favours to Lilith. [Except the massive loss of risk involved and the fact that as the rules stand you can always geas yourself to Lilith to ask a task of her choice from the victim as part of doing a trade with Mom.] However [IN p149 ] says Lilim may only impose Geases on those whose needs they have attended to. If she helps her vistim, the Lilim may at any time in the future, ask for something in return. When the victim hears what she wants he gets a roll to resist [actual from the next paragraph he must make two and if he makes both the favour cannot be used for inflicting a geas.] [Note in both cases the Lilim, not the Lilim or whoever she has traded the favour to.] >Because it's not relevant! A valid character concept includesnon-resistable Geasa; A geas is a Forced oath... Pick a Task that is resonably achievable in the chosen level of time.[IN p88] All Geases are non resistable, all that is resistable is converting the favour to a geas. If in character design or play you need an unresistable favour then go talk to Lilith. On the I want anyone to be able to call in a favour, any one can call in a favour they have done someone,but the person doesn't have to respond a la real life. It is the Lilim's resonance that if she does a favour she can force people to comply. Characters do aquire Geases by other causes i.e. Discord and Dealing with Lilith both of which can be used to justify most if not all of the someone strange calls it in situations [admittedly both rely on the characters previous behaviour but then so do lilim geases.]Most of the rest can be covered by the " Hi you remember I did for you, well could you do for ".It takes more roleplaying and is more difficult to achieve than handing the favour to Lilith to inforce or handing the favour on to some one else but they wouldn't be the only choir or band that could work to get the most out of there resonance. If you can quote anything other than Lilith trading favours [Those that can be inflicted as geases] in the rules please do. I cant see why the rul;es would make it clear that lilith can trade the favours she is owed [IN p148 under FreeLilim and In 150 under Summoning Lilith], and have the statements above for Lilim without any mention of them trading favours unless it intended that they could not be. But what I was given to understand was if the rules don't say you can you can't. Adam Canning ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #309 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.