From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Sep 5 12:08:27 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 MAA30404 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:08:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id LAA01784 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:47:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:47:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199709051647.LAA01784@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 #326 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, September 5 1997 Volume 01 : Number 326 In this digest: Re: IN> Resisting Angelic Resonance Re: Chocolate Fluff (Re: IN> New Drugs) Re: IN> Lilith's Potence IN> DANIEL KWON, Read This! IN> PATRICK O'DUFFY, Read This! IN> RELICS CONTEST UPDATE Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: Chocolate Fluff (Re: IN> New Drugs) Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> IN: Davidian Malakim (was Malakim Vows - David??) Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher Re: IN> Night Music rules change IN> Kyrios and Shedim becoming Remnants Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher IN> Weaseling out of Dissonance (was Re: IN> IN: Davidian Malakim (was Malakim Vows - David??)) Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher IN> Calvin and Hobbs (was KTE addenda -- Christopher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:07:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Resisting Angelic Resonance At 11:29 AM -0400 9/4/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Rather than use 'angelic' and 'demonic' resonances as terms, >I like 'will based' and 'perception based'. Will-based resonances >can be resisted (most of the time) and this includes the Kyriotates. >Perception-based ones usually can't be (like the Lilim's). Has this become Canon, Karakash? In particular, to Habbalah have two resonances-sort-of? One Perception, to sense an existing emotion (with the option of accenting it) and one Will, to force an emotion upon someone? It's two rolls, but then so is the Impudite resonance. It's on two different stats, too, though -- but the enforcing of an emotion probably wouldn't *require* sensing the existing ones? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:03:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Chocolate Fluff (Re: IN> New Drugs) At 2:19 AM +0000 9/4/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:37:51 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy >wrote: > >>>*White* chocolate? Clearly Vapulan... >> >>Hey, *I* like the stuff! > >HERETIC!! Uh-oh, somebody activated Dominic.Net again. >>Why Vapulan? > >It's usually a perverse technological replacement for *real* chocolate. I >quote from the rec.food.chocolate FAQ: [...] >>Real white chocolate is primarily cocoa butter, sugar, milk >>and vanilla. [...] White chocolate is the >>most fragile form of chocolate; pay close attention to it while heating or >>melting it. Cocoa butter. Yum. What's perverse and technological about that? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:58:32 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence At 8:51 PM -0400 9/3/97, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>I'm not saying they would consciously feel gratitude; I'm saying that, >just as their imminent demise is halted, for one brief moment they would >be thankful that they weren't killed. Lilith would then exploit that >thankfulness into a Geas. Yes, it's trickery, but that's what demons do.<<< > >Geases are imposed for fulfilling a Need. She had to sense the angel's Need >"to survive" in order to pull that off. So? Her Perception is off the scale... >If Lilith really wants to get a Geas on someone, I'm sure she can. I just >don't think she should be able to do it simply by appearing, and then >collecting Geases from everyone she kindly refrains from wasting. Probably not, true. It probably requires someone dangling by one foot in the sky for a little while. "No, no, I haven't sensed any needs in you. But if you had something you'd like to ask, I'm sure we could make a deal." Though mostly she's got too much class for that. At 12:17 AM -0400 9/4/97, Casca wrote: >On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, David Edelstein wrote: >[...] In fact, I can see a great >many of them thinking, "Oh God, I don't want to die!" and THAT is what >Lilith would capitalize on. > > >Besides, Archangel Beth agrees with me, so there. ;P > Now, now, Prince Edelstein (whose Word is Not Agreeing With Me) probably doesn't see much value to that. O;> (I'm so glad I'm not a Seraph!) >Well, she's got to have a reason to appear in a bloodthirsty mood. Her >word is Freedom, not Extortion. Right. She's much more likely to stand somewhere being intimidatingly Superior and offer something... tempting. At 6:29 PM +0200 9/4/97, Jo Hart wrote: >At 11:29 04/09/97 -0500, you wrote: >[...] I suspect they are expected >to bite the bullet , look up at the demon princess and just say 'I won't >accept that. Kill me now.' They may well have a need to survive but I think >loyalty to the cause is expected to outweigh these selfish desires :) There's also the other option -- they get slapped with the Geas because they *did* Need it, but upon a second to themselves, can take some kind of suicide option. ("Malakim get to kill themselves afterwards," for instance.) I think that only an Elohite would be able to not-desire survival for the instant necessary. But they *would* be able to choose something afterwards -- a Geas isn't mind-control, quite. It's *dissonance* to disobey, but is possible. At 9:58 PM -0400 9/3/97, Walter Milliken wrote: [...] >And if it takes more time and effort than just killing people, is it >worth it? Especially if the effect is unpredictable and can be cured by >the victims Superior at least as easily as you added it? > >I don't buy this as a "killer trick", though I agree it needs to be hard >enough that Superiors can't just point their fingers and people and say, >"Bang! You've got Discord X/6".... Putting in Discord is probably at least as hard as removing it, and we already know Superiors don't fix *that* casually. They make you *earn* it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:56:53 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> DANIEL KWON, Read This! Daniel Kwon: You are a winner in the Steve Jackson Games Relics Contest. However, when I tried to send e-mail to you, at "godot@idt.net", it bounced back to me as "address unknown". Maybe your server is down, but since I also don't know your mailing address, you need to contact me so you can receive your complimentary copy of the Librum Reliquarium. Hopefully you read this list. If anyone else knows how to get in touch with Daniel Kwon, please let me know. Thanks. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:56:54 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> PATRICK O'DUFFY, Read This! Patrick O'Duffy, of Brisbane, Australia: You are a winner in the Steve Jackson Games Relics Contest. However, when I tried to send e-mail to you, at "redfern@thehub.com.au", it bounced back to me as "address unknown". Maybe your server is down, but since I also don't know your mailing address, you need to contact me so you can receive your complimentary copy of the Librum Reliquarium. Hopefully you read this list. If anyone else knows how to get in touch with Patrick O'Duffy, please let me know. Thanks. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:56:57 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> RELICS CONTEST UPDATE Hello all, I am pleased to announce that the winners of the Steve Jackson Games Relics Contest have all been sent e-mail informing them that their entry is scheduled to appear in the Librum Reliquarium. If your entry was chosen, you should have a message from me in your in-box now. Approximately 50 people participated in the contest. 21 people were chosen as winners and will be listed as contributors in the book's credits, as well as receiving a complimentary copy when it's published (probably in late 1997 or early 1998, but we can't give a more specific estimate at this time). In case you're wondering, the criteria for having your entry selected were very strict and scientific: I chose the ones I liked. SOME of you, not naming any names (though I'm going to do that in a couple of messages that follow) did not send me your address. Some of you did not even include your name, nor could I find a real name in the original e-mail you sent me. Read your e-mail! If I'm missing your address (or name ), you need to send it to me if you want to be properly credited and receive your free copy of the book. Two winners-- PATRICK O'DUFFY and DANIEL KWON -- need to contact me because when I tried sending a notice to you, using the e-mail addresses you used to send me your entries, my messages bounced back to me twice. The Librum Reliquarium is going to be a valuable addition to your In Nomine collection: it will be a resource independent of the Revelations Cycle or any other current storyline in the official In Nomine universe. Besides including many, many new artifacts of all kinds, from the trivial and amusing to the apocalyptic, it will include expanded rules for artifact creation, many more Limitations, lots of tips for using artifacts in your campaign, some new skills and Songs, a full-length adventure, and three Word-bound NPCs. Thank you, everyone who contributed, and I hope you will enjoy the fruits of all our labor! - -David Edelstein Editor for the Librum Reliquarium ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 02:57:40 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:18:54 -0400, johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) wrote: > Ah, ah, ah. I would NOT allow a Lilim to get a Geas by >NOT doing something _to the victim_. I've always ruled that you have to >actively do something to fulfill a Need. For example, you wouldn't be able >to put a gun to someone's head and read their Need for you not >to pull the trigger. On the other hand, you could toss them >out a window and offer to pull them back in where they are dangling >by their fingertips. }=) So you *could* put a gun to their head to fulfill a Need as long as the trigger were to be pull by a timer instead of the Lilim's direct action. Or throw a grenade in the room and sense the Need for the grenade to be teleported away. Damn, that's a slippery slope you're trying to walk... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 02:57:42 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:22:55 -0400, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>I'm on the side of most Superiors being *very* powerful. But, I think >they have implicit limits. They act through servitors because acting >directly would too greatly disturb the Symphony they're all trying to get >to play in their favor: if it collapses into cacaphony they've all lost. >So, while Lilith *could* drop as many Geases or any other discords as she >wanted on anyone, she doesn't because it would be counter productive.<<< > > >You'd have to add rules about Superior intervention causing negative >consequences. It's an interesting thought, but definitely not canonical. I'd suggest that these interventions are the rare moments when a Superior can act directly in a limited way without disrupting the Symphony more than it can stand. We know an Intervention won't either destroy the PCs nor cure all their problems. This supports the idea that the intervening Superior can still only act in a limited way. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 02:57:45 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Chocolate Fluff (Re: IN> New Drugs) On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:03:52 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>HERETIC!! > >Uh-oh, somebody activated Dominic.Net again. We have always been here... >>>Why Vapulan? >> >>It's usually a perverse technological replacement for *real* chocolate. I >>quote from the rec.food.chocolate FAQ: >[...] >>>Real white chocolate is primarily cocoa butter, sugar, milk >>>and vanilla. [...] White chocolate is the >>>most fragile form of chocolate; pay close attention to it while heating or >>>melting it. > >Cocoa butter. Yum. What's perverse and technological about that? Parting it from its natural companion, cocoa solids, viz., REAL CHOCOLATE. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 02:57:36 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:55:09 -0400, johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) wrote: > Let's take a looksee at what a high accuracy, low power >shotgun rule would do... > A low skill person could never do any real damage: unrealistic. > A moderate skill person _might_ get a couple of extra points: > unrealistic. > A high skill person would get a moderate bonus: unrealistic. > > The first example is damning enough... the low skill person >can _never_ get good damage. Ever. This is not how shotguns work >in the real world! An unskilled person wielding a shotgun is likely >to do ugly amounts of damage if they hit at all. A 'wing' means >the person rolled a '1' on their check digit. > Shotgun shells have more metal and more gunpowder... there's >just more damage being handed out! I think you're missing some things in your analysis, John. First is an intervention: a low or moderate skill person *can* *rarely* get really good damage. Second is the basic chunkiness of the system. In order to let a low skill person do high damage, you have to let him do it at least one sixth of the time he hits, and really every time he hits since the power outweighs the check digit--he can't do less than 7 damage. That's too much for dropping a few pellets into someone's arm. Third, with the current rule a highly skilled person can do high damage at a distance where the shot would be too dispersed and spent to do that damage. That's the real case for dropping the power and upping the accuracy: it ensures that damage drops quickly as distance increases. And reasonably, a sawed-off shotgun ought to have the highest accuracy having the greatest spread, not a -1 accuracy. Fourth, an unskilled person, because of the spread of a shotgun blast, is nearly as likely to hit at some distance as a skilled shooter, though he's going to do little damage. Consider an Agility 4 untrained shooter. His net skill is 4-2=2, -1 for the sawed-off shotgun accuracy, for 1. At any range, it's impossible for him to hit, barring intervention. Reversing power and accuracy, he'd be +6, for 8 on a chance to hit someone near him, 6 or 7 to hit someone across the room. Sure, he'll only do a few points of damage, but at that skill, he's probably only hitting by ricochet. I guess my feeling is that if you want real combat accuracy, you convert over to GURPS for the combat (preserving 111 and 666 interventions) and use d666 for everything else. I'm just trying to get a little more realism into the intentionally simplistic combat of IN. And I don't say Acc=6 and Power=-1 is *the* answer for a sawed off shotgun, but Acc should be pretty high and the net damage should drop quickly with range for anyone. Since range drops Acc not Power, that says that most of the capability of the shotgun has to be put in Acc, not Power. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:36:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence > Presumably because Superiors have better things to do with their time > and Essence than take out lowly celestials one at a time....<<< > Being able to brainwash/recondition celestials is a much more potent effect > than simply destroying them. To a certain extent, but then, just putting Discords, even Geases, has some major disadvantages in this regard, and it's not quite as potent as you suggest, I don't think... > kill anyone who gets in range. Any Superior could jump into the midst of > some enemy celestials and lay waste. > But that's not going to alter the War significantly; there are a LOT of > enemy soldiers. And they can shoot back. For what good it might do against a Superior; the only major reason they can't do THIS at will is because once they do, the other side can, too, and they ALSO have big guns. (eg. by traditional rules of engagement, it wouldn't be honorable for Laurence to jump in and start wasting the Undead and Soldiers of Hell, even as they're winning against his Angels...but once Baal shows up and starts really wasting the Angelic side, Laurence is practically obliged. Even the Superiors who aren't as tied up in honor, per se, as Laurence is will tend to abide by this for practical and Symphonic reasons..) > But suppose you have the ability to capture a few choice soldiers, > brainwash them so they're now serving you (or so they'll go back their own > side and then freak out and cause massive damage and demoralization), and Then they'd go back and HOPEFULLY kill a few enemy before getting noticed, but there are several points I think you've overlooked on this. 1) Slapping a Geas on someone is detectable by several Angelic means, so in the context of the Lilith debate, there's a good chance they'd be `caught' before doing any significant damage. 2) Either side CAN do this with Soldiers, comparatively easily. (Shedim and Kyriotates provide only the simplest method...old fashioned human brainwashing techniques can work as well.) But that can only damage operations on Earth, which is a little like, say, a U.S. operative messing up something the USSR (when there was a USSR, but the Cold War is still the best model for IN) had going in Iraq. It'll be annoying, but hardly permanantly crippling to either side in the long run, no matter HOW big an operation it may have been looking at it from Iraq... 3) NEITHER side, Geases or otherwise, can really do it to the other side's "HQ", because Celestial forms are so obvious. When you get a Seraph on Hell's side, you can't send him back to `infiltrate' Heaven because A) his Heart had to break for him to Fall and he can't go there anymore, and B) if he managed it somehow, everyone would say, "Looking awfully dark today, aren't you, Fred?" Even Balseraph of Kronos, who can imitate a Choir on Earth, still retain their own Celestial form and dark Heart. So...you can capture a few choice soldiers and brainwash 'em and do a little more damage than you would have just killing them, and it makes for a nice adventure seed, but in the context of the War, it's of limited use...and doing it via Discord is even less useful, since those can be detected and removed so much more easily. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:53:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >I thought that since the Numinous Corpus songs were Corporeal, they > >couldn't be used in Celestial combat. > > p. 82, box, 3rd paragraph: "When the user is in celestial form, > these powers do celestial damage!" Oh, okay. Spank me for not reading it closely enough. ;) - -- 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, 5 Sep 1997 00:12:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jo Hart wrote: > So the question is, is an individual angel's need to survive going to > outweigh its need to serve its superior devotedly and follow its own theme > in the symphony? In that brief moment....yes. At least, that's how I see it. > I can see them trying to escape or to call on their own > superiors to help them, but if all else fails I suspect they are expected > to bite the bullet , look up at the demon princess and just say 'I won't > accept that. Kill me now.' They may well have a need to survive but I think > loyalty to the cause is expected to outweigh these selfish desires :) Expected, yes. There's a world of difference between 'in theory' and 'in practice'... > (OK, call me callous but I tend to see angels as not being terribly subject > to human fears and doubts). I keep thinking of the "They are very much like us" line from the back cover. If they were infallible, they couldn't fall. - -- 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, 5 Sep 1997 00:14:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>> > Besides, Archangel Beth agrees with me, so there. ;P > <<< > > > Well, ask Archangel Beth how much weight that carries with me. Well, okay...but you realize that you now owe me a Geas/1 in return? ;) > >>>Well, she's got to have a reason to appear in a bloodthirsty mood. Her > word is Freedom, not Extortion.<<< > > I'm just saying I thought the example was a little spurious. Not completely > impossible, but it rubbed me the wrong way. It has to suit the circumstances of the setting and the story. In other words, be a plot device rather than something that happens on a regular basis. - -- 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, 5 Sep 1997 00:19:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > It's more than semantic. One involves action and the other > involves lack of action. The fact that the Lilim caused the Need > to be imminent is irrelevant. I agree with Walt Mazur on this one. > You could as easily ask why a celestial generates disturbance > for killing a human, but not when they allow a mortal to die that > they could have easily saved. I have asked, and I disagree with the answer. So now that you know where this discussion is headed... > Perhaps a new example will make it clearer. > Bob needs $50. A Lilim can sense this and fulfill it. > Bob doesn't need $50, but somebody (perhaps the Lilim) > just robbed him for $50. That puts > you back in the first case with a detectable Need. > Bob doesn't need $50. You can't go up and say, "I'm > not going to steal $50 from you. You owe me > a favor now." I disagree with your reasoning here, but I don't feel I can argue my point coherently. So I'll just sit back and watch, and if someone *nudge AA Beth* states my point I'll be sure to let you know. :) - -- 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: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:19:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> IN: Davidian Malakim (was Malakim Vows - David??) Peter Frederick, replying to an assortment of people, noted variously; > >Attempting to make a Malakim gain dissonance *IS* an attack. The Malakim > >would be justifed in attacking a demon who did this purposefully. > Not sure I could support that. If you can make that mental leap then > knowledge of the Demon's existance from any source is a threat to the > Malakim and hence an attack and you are free to retaliate. and.. > >His Ass." Now, if the Demon attacks any one of them, you are free to join > >in. You didn't start the fight, you reccomended to your friends that they > Definately Not! Well IMHO anyway. Otherwise you might as well stretch the > taffy to "Michael and Lucifer started this fight, I'm just continuing it." Here and here, I'm afraid I think you're taking Speaks and Nana's reasonable conclusions to logical extremes...which isn't necessarily fair. In the first case, the Malakim learning of a demon and then hunting him down is, I think, *VERY* different from the demon learning of the Malakim and walking up to taunt him - from David's Dissonance perspective, the key point seems very much to be that your opponent has to initiate something. (Meaning very probably that yes, a clever demon COULD force a Malakim into taking Dissonance if they let him know they were a demon SUBTLY, so that he didn't KNOW they were doing it on purpose...but once the Servitor of David finds out they're TRYING to make him take Dissonance, that's an attack. Considering that Dissonance is MUCH worse to a Malakim than any amount of physical damage, I don't see any problem with that, myself.) In the second case, I see a big difference between "a fight" and "the War." Your example is even more extreme than the MoD saying, "Hey, I recognize that guy..he hit me once fifty years ago," and take that as an excuse to go slug him NOW...which I also think most of us would agree is irrational. A fight is a very singular, confined event. > Malakim comes into the campaign, but it does mean that you have to do all > you can to stop the Evil in a permanent, preferably terminal way. That's actually an interesting note, just on the side - most Malakim seem equipped to take out demons Corporeally. Which is annoying, but hardly permanent..and they DON'T seem particularly required to actually destroy Demons Celestially. (Which is a good thing, given the near impossibility of it in the system..) Malakim must get frustrated with that. It's like doing dishes. You wash a dish, someone eats off it. You kill a demon, he comes back a couple weeks later when he's over the Trauma... > In some cases it is not subject to a decision by the Celestial. Some > Choir/Band Dissonances are related to use or failed use of Ressonances. Only some of the Bands, I believe..(and even there, Haballah and Calabim have another option to avoid Dissonance.) > Some aspects of Dissonance seem to me to be imposed from outside, > particuarly from Superiors. You might be able to make a self justification > for pulling out of a fight, but if your Superior Michael doesn't (or > wouldn't?) agree with you then shouldn't you still get the Dissonance? You I'm making a distinction here between having Dissonance imposed from the outside and having conditions for Dissonance imposed. Everyone has one condition of Dissonance for their Choir/Band; almost everyone has a second one imposed on them from their Superior. Personally, I believe the Superior also influences the Choir/Band rule. (Some of them very directly, like Kyrio's of Dominic, but I also feel more subtly, as in these cases..) In other words; Michael imposes upon his Servitors that they may not retreat from battle. However, the Servitor who retreats from battle gaina Dissonance from his personal, internal, decision to retreat (for whatever reason), in violation of that condition. NOT from Michael. > Hey what about a Seraph who unknowingly tells a Lie? It doesn't matter if > they think they Lied or not, it is an external Objective thing. Similar Nah...there's a *BIG* difference between telling a lie and being mistaken. (Now, if the Seraph says he KNOWS when he knows he doesn't..that'd be a lie.) {F'rinstance, I've probably said one or two things in here that are wrong, but I haven't LIED...} > with Kyrioates. You might not know that you have left your Host in a worse > condition than when you took them over or might not think that you have, but > if you _have_ then you get Dissonance. Possible, though I'm having trouble seeing cases where the Host is likely to be damaged without the Kyrio's knowledge...in any case, however, ignorance is actually a separate question. (A good one, but separate. ) Now, Kyrios are actually a bad example for this, because I think they DO get Dissonance if they're ejected from a damaged host against their will...one of the risks of being a Kyrio. In the majority of cases, however, I still strongly believe a Celestial should gain Dissonance for the DECISION of violating one of their restrictions. (To a certain extent, even if they end up not going through with it, provided what stops them is other than themselves...) > then enter a fight and hit any general opponent, but not getting someone > else to start the fight and then joining in "because the fight was already > started." This has already been commented on, but I wanted to throw in that I, too, think this is explicitely allowed by the rules...though I, personally, would be inclined to rule it Dissonant if the MoD were doing it OFTEN. (ie. you can use it as an escape clause once in a while when you need to, but if you're doing it a lot, it quickly reaches the point where YOU're starting the fight, using your gang/servant/whatever as a `tool', essentially...for that matter, a MoD who taunted people into attacking him too often would probably get slapped with a note once in a while..) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 00:08:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > p. 82, box, 3rd paragraph: "When the user is in celestial form, > > these powers do celestial damage!" and Casca replied; > Oh, okay. Spank me for not reading it closely enough. ;) What? Beth's giving out spankings for misreadings? Oooh... Er, hey, uh, what about here, on...on..page 5628, where it says "Dominic also wears a floppy purple hat and carries bright orange pom-poms"? Isn't that interesting? (Or am I just up too late?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:26:05 +0300 (EET DST) From: Tapio Erola Subject: Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher > Know the Enemy (series created by Elizabeth McCoy) > > A comprehensive course for young demons, in determining the strengths > and weaknesses of The Enemy. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > #14: As delivered by a Daughter of Lilith > > "There's almost nothing most kids Need enough to get a really high-level > Geas -- and even if you do spot a Need like that, you might find yourself > racing with an Elohite of Children to see who fills that Need first." > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #14: Servant of Freedom That jerk Christopher wants to keep children ignorant and innocent, _dependent_ on their parents and unaware of the hard facts of life. This is disgusting. That kind of mollycoddling makes it just harder when they inevitably grow up. Keep a collection of Heinlein works and borrow them liberally. That'll help at least some. Tapio Erola txr@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to txr@sliver.oulu.fi please) "Virtue is its own punishment." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 08:44:26 -0400 From: "Jens H. Kruuse" Subject: Re: IN> Night Music rules change >> My questions are: >> 1) What is the definition of a Mortal? Human? Mundane? Does it include >> Soldiers, Undead, and Remnants? > Soldiers and other humans are mortals. Undead are _not_, >and neither are Remnants. Both Undead and Remnants buy levels in their >vessels and thus cannot use Toughness. p.48-49 Vessels are only bought by Celestials. Humans get a free body or "vessel". p.50 Matthew gets a free vessel, so he does not _buy_ it. p.193 Undead don't have to eat, drink, sleep - just like Celestials. This means that the undead have their BP's doubled as an effect of the black mass. As well as losing the dependancy on food etc.? I'll buy that,- it'll only cost them their soul! Thanx for the answer, Jens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:13:14 -0400 From: "Jens H. Kruuse" Subject: IN> Kyrios and Shedim becoming Remnants One of my players asked a couple of interesting questions: When a KySh loses all of his Celestial Forces in Celestial combat, he will become a Remnant. Which vessel does he return to? (Assuming he has no regular vessels as some do). My take is that their link to the Corporeal plane is too delicate for them to become Remnants in the regular sense. Instead, they become Ghosts linked to a location near their final battle. Or something like that. What happens to the hosts of a Kyrio when he loses his Forces? Is it first in - first out or something else? I would say that the Ky makes the choice of which hosts to lose. What if he has to few Forces to stay Celestial because some (or all) of them are bound to hosts? Again, the Kyrio makes the choice which makes that Choir a bit harder to kill Celestially. Multiplicity wins again. Cheers, Jens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:14:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Austin George Loomis Subject: Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, at 14:56:05 CDT, Earl Wajenberg replied to me: >> Austin George "Now, what Choir is Hobbes?" Loomis > >I'd say Elohite, given the constant critique he offers of Calvin's >harebrained ideas. I'd have said Cherub because he's invisible (or nearly so) to everyone but Calvin, but... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:33:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher Austin George Loomis wrote: > I'd have said Cherub because he's invisible (or nearly so) to everyone > but Calvin, but... Yeah, but he doesn't protect Calvin, which is the main thing Cherubim do. I vote Hobbes as Elohite of Christopher. Now... Which *band* does Calvin belong to? Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:16:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Hobbes Subject: Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher According to Earl Wajenberg: > > Yeah, but he doesn't protect Calvin, which is the main thing Cherubim > do. I vote Hobbes as Elohite of Christopher. > > Now... Which *band* does Calvin belong to? > > Earl Wajenberg > Calvin is definitely a Calabite. My IN Gamemaster - who's on this list and will probably respond - once described Calabites as, " Entropy on wheels ". This is Calvin when you consider all the broken, mangled stuff in the strip. Of course, he's not a very STRONG Calabite, but he makes up for it! Dan Ozdowski - thinks Moe is a Djinn....... - -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\//\ Beware the single most feared person in life..... The Articulate Incompetent ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 01:20:55 +1000 (EST) From: peterf@wr.com.au (Peter Frederick) Subject: IN> Weaseling out of Dissonance (was Re: IN> IN: Davidian Malakim (was Malakim Vows - David??)) Dear Walt >>I wrote >>Looks like I am a taking the hard line on this one. I might have to >>reconsider slightly. I can see the Davidian Malakim being released from his >>Superior's restriction once someone actually swings at him so that he could >>then enter a fight and hit any general opponent, but not getting someone >>else to start the fight and then joining in "because the fight was already >>started." >Walt Replied >I think the intent of IN is to allow *exactly* this sort of weaseling at >times. The prime example is Nicole (a Mercurian) recruiting her Servant >to kill her prior (failed) Servant, since it's dissonant for Mercurians >to harm humans. I don't see the David example as significantly >different. I agree to a point. One of the reasons I think Superiors have Servitors is to have someone to take those Dissonant actions that would have much greater consequences if taken by a Demon Prince or ArchAngel. This is why Dissonance exists, so that you can bend the rules and be forgiven, not Fall the first time you put a toe over the line. In the example of "A Bright Dream"; Who do you think KO'ed the guy before the new Servant cut his throat? Looks like violence to me. Which in my book means that Nicole already earnt her point of Dissonance. She got the new guy to do the cutting to avoid the Major Disturbance to the Symphony for killing a human and to bind him to her, hard to back out when you have to explain to a District Attorny that you cut a man's throat because an Angel made you. We see in the scene between Gabriel and Nicole that Gabriel is in a good mood so the Dissonance probably gets wiped at the same time Nicole gets her itty bitty pistol back. Gabriel would probably look at it and the explantion about the turncoat Servant and think to herself something about the falibility of humans and just cross the Dissonance off. Again Dissonance is earnt, but not in a way that suggests that the Angel is failing in her Faith or Mission so it is reasonably waived by her Superior. Finally I see Angels as mostly being pretty straight forward and trying to do the right thing most of the time. Extended mind gymnastics to try to weasel out of Dissonance can get you into the sort of self justifications that Servitors of The Game like to promote. "How do I bend this rule to benefit God's Plan" all to easily become just "How do I bend this Rule" and then "How do I bend this Rule to benefit Myself". 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: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:56:15 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> KTE addenda -- Christopher I knew as soon as I saw the word "Hobbes' that you'd stick your nose in, Dan... (BTW, You never brought those characters over to my house. Now I gotta slap youse guys around more.) At 11:16 -0400 9/5/97, Hobbes wrote: > >Calvin is definitely a Calabite. My IN Gamemaster - who's on >this list and will probably respond - once described Calabites >as, " Entropy on wheels ". This is Calvin when you consider >all the broken, mangled stuff in the strip. Of course, he's >not a very STRONG Calabite, but he makes up for it! I got that straight from the book. However, I always figured a Balseraph. Look at the way he's always restructuring reality around him... But then again, is Hobbes an Elohite trying to redeem Calvin (probably), or mebbe an Impudite who is having fun hanging around with him? > Dan Ozdowski - thinks Moe is a Djinn....... Moe who? SeanMike - ---- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:35:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Dorothy Bixler Subject: IN> Calvin and Hobbs (was KTE addenda -- Christopher) On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Austin George Loomis wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, at 14:56:05 CDT, Earl Wajenberg replied to me: > > >> Austin George "Now, what Choir is Hobbes?" Loomis > > > >I'd say Elohite, given the constant critique he offers of Calvin's > >harebrained ideas. > > I'd have said Cherub because he's invisible (or nearly so) to everyone > but Calvin, but... > Hrmm... I don't know. I think Hobbes is a very subtle Djinn of Nightmares. He's protective, but there's all those references to eating people (especially young, tender, juicy kids) It has given Calvin nightmares before, and how many times has Calvin woke up with Hobbes' mouth around his head? And that would explain the monsters under the bed (go Lynoure!). Calvin's a Calabite (of Gluttony possibly?) by my vote, although Donald's vote is that he's a natural 6 forcer. *Dorothy Michelle Bixler * mudmh10@ecom.ecn.bgu.edu* ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #326 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.