From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Sep 8 13:28:07 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 NAA05192 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:28:06 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id NAA12101 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:02:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:02:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199709081802.NAA12101@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 #329 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 Monday, September 8 1997 Volume 01 : Number 329 In this digest: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears IN> What's up with "The Marches"? Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears Re: IN> Kyriotates of Lightning Re: IN> Converting Lillim Re: IN> What's up with "The Marches"? re: IN> Davidian Malakim Re: IN> Resisting Angelic Resonance Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Lilim Trackers Re: IN> Lilith's Potence Re: IN> Lilim Trackers Re: IN> Night Music rules change Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? Re: IN> Lilim Geases Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears Re: IN> Night Music: "...a skill known at Level 6 or better..." Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears Re: IN> Night Music: "...a skill known at Level 6 or better..." Re: IN> Lilith's Potence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 05:07:02 +0200 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears >From: Casca > >On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Adam Canning wrote: > >> No, Eli is Yahweh's Vessel which he uses to communicate with the Arch >> Angels much like the Angels use vessels to talk to humans. > >Could be. They both end up being the same thing, I suppose. No matter how >many forms God splits into, He's still God. > >I actually like this interpretation better, except for one thing: since >when has any archangel ever listened to Eli? Yes but since when has any archangel listened to God either? >:-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:04:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael C. Nutt" Subject: IN> What's up with "The Marches"? Following the occasional mentions of the book here on the list, I've been pestering the bejeezus out my Friendly Local Game Store about it, and Friday they told me that they'd heard it wouldn't be out until sometime in October. I rushed to the SJG website, but the last "Word" was dated July 23, and announced "Night Music" coming out. What's the status of the project, guys? Not fair to the hopelessly addicted public to tease us with mentions of it, and even letting some folks at Worldcon see it, and then not letting the rest of us get our grubby little paws on it... Waiting not-so-patiently, Michael Everything is controlled by a small evil group... which, unfortunately, contains no one that we know. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:11:39 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Plane Questions > >> Oh, okay. Spank me for not reading it closely enough. ;) > > What? Beth's giving out spankings for misreadings? Oooh... > > I am? Hm.... Funny, I didn't put anything about wearing black > leather outfits in my "Archangel of Archives" first draft. Do > you think I should? You're the one with the Dominatrix button... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "O Lord, protect me from those to whom You speak directly." - Arrowblue@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 01:15:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Jo Hart wrote: > Yes but since when has any archangel listened to God either? >:-) I seem to recall God acquitting Michael of Dominic's charges. And in AD 700 Uriel got called upstairs.... He doesn't speak much, but when He does, angels listen, by God. ;) - -- 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: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 01:16:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Lightning On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Kingsley Lintz wrote: > {On the strictly symbolic note, I'd also point out that stone cabins were > designed quite specifically as protection against lightning, which may > have some influence there as well...but it's a sidepoint, and only really > matters if a GM wants to get into that kind of thing.} Stone cabins would fall under David's word -- not only because of being Stone, but because his word deals with shelter and defense. - -- 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, 7 Sep 1997 23:38:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Converting Lillim Mark queried; > hiding out at various tethers around Seattle. So, does anyone have any ideas > about the servitor attunements this "Bright" Lilim of Eli will end up with? > Or for that matter, would she keep her old attunement? Archangel Beth can best direct you to the Bright Lilim attunements, though I think it's pretty clear that she probably doesn't just get it immediately unless Eli has some particular reason to like her or want her to have it...(Though it's probably true that Eli's more likely to extend that kind of thing sooner than most..) I suspect that the `canon' response is that she loses her old Attunements. Personally, however, I don't believe they do; the `true' Celestials lose their old Attunements, Rites, et cetra when they undergo that radical revision of their basic nature that changes their whole Resonance and outlook on life... ...and Lilim just don't go through that. A Bright Lilim is still a Lilim, just like a Free or demonic Lilim. (Heh...diet, caffiene free, and cherry, respectively? ) Free Lilim don't start with Attunements because they've never worked for anyone specifically, and have to trade for 'em... So personally, I maintain that a Lilim working for a Demon Prince who goes Bright keeps her Attunements. And her Rites, for that matter, though I wouldn't highly recommend using those. (Granted, if her old Prince catches up with her, he'll take those back, but I think that'll be the least of her worries...) I consider it one of the reasons they're particularly coveted, and why they're particularly hunted. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 02:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: CeIestiaI7@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> What's up with "The Marches"? In a message dated 97-09-08 02:23:04 EDT, you write: > Everything is controlled by a small evil group... which, unfortunately, > contains no one that we know. Make that no one that we know OF...mwahaha. S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 20:45:10 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: re: IN> Davidian Malakim Dear Kinsgly and List > 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. I have to agree. It was dishonest of me to make such extreme examples. Especially it was not conducive to a constructive discussion, which is the main purpose of this forum, and I did not mean to belittle or demean the other contributors. It was also lazy of me to resort to that sort of response. I was writing in a hurry and at that time wasn't completely clear on my own policy in this area. From consideration of the arguements so far on the List I have come to think that Dissonance is a more important part of In Nomine than I had previously thought. I also think that it is an area in which the GM has a large degree of freedom of interpretation and that where they draw the line on matters regarding Dissonance can be a big factor in setting the tone of the campaign. I can certainly see advantages in the view that Nana and Speaks have taken, and would be happy to play under those interpretations, but they don't suit the way I want to run my campaign. >> 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... I am sure the point has been made before with the reverse emphasis. That Demons hate Malakim because you can trash one and if his Superior is one of the more combative types they are likely to just be given another Vessel and will be back without even waiting for Trauma to clear. >> 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 >gains Dissonance from his personal, internal, decision to retreat (for >whatever reason), in violation of that condition. NOT from Michael. I can see your point and agree with it about 90%. Angels gain Dissonance as a consequence of their actions. How Superior's effect Celestials is another interesting point. Some obviously place a greater degree of slant on their Servitors than other, and this can vary depending on the Choir and the Servitor. Michael and Malakim get on fine and Novalis and Mercurians get on fine, but the other way around is a different story. >> 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...} Agreed, and it was partly proposed to see where the thought would lead, I tend to do that a bit . It came to me because the Seraph ressonance seems to be able to reveal Objective truth (which has been thrashed around the list a few times). I could see two Seraphim having a chat and one realising the other had not told the Truth, but the first not getting Dissonance. The obvious conclusion is that the first Seraph told what he thought was the Truth. >> 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. I tend to have a broader interpretation of the Kyrio Dissonance than others I guess. I think that for complex beings, especially Humans, there are more ways to measure harm to a Host than Body Hits. I know this too has been thrashed around the list a couple of times, but to give you a helping of what IMHO would get you Dissonace. Taking a non flying Host (human, dog, etc) to the top of a tall building, jumping off and then leaving before they hit the ground. Watching a person use an ATM machine then possesing them and withdrawing all of their money. Crashing the Host's car, they lose their insurance and have to restrict their budget to cover the repairs, that is if they don't kill someone and go to jail for vehicular manslaughter. The point I was trying to get to (extremely poorly I admit) was that with Kyrio's if you take more than a Body Hits interpretation of harm to a Host then you can't be so sure that just borrowing some human for a day won't mess her life up so much that you will avoid Dissonance. What if you make them late for work and their boss fires them? Even taking some of a Host's resources could have very large detrimental effects if they needed those resources for something that will greatly effect their life (ie rent, car payments, anniversary present for the SO, school project, to build a nest for their babies). I know that this makes it a lot harder to play Kyrio's, but I want to discourage my Kyrio players from taking over random humans for more than a couple of hours. > 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...) My somewhat parallel slant comes from a thought that an Angel should know enough and be closely enough aligned with his Superior's point of view that he will not chose to do an Dissonant act when his Superior would not forgive it. It is still the actions/decisions of the Angel that take them over the line into Dissonance, but they should be shying away from the line when they know that their Superior wouldn't approve of the action that are about to decide to take. If you are continually taking actions which you know your Superior, or God, would not aprove of, then you may not be good Servitor or, in extreme cases, Angel material. The second point is very interesting. Is Sin Intent or Action? In most legal systems there must be an element intent to allow full force of the law to be brought to bear. In lots of cases it might be more reasonable to judge Dissonance on intent rather than action, but I wouldn't rely on it if I was a Player, or an Angel. >> 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..) This is the point I think at which it becomes largely interpretation and depends in what sort of campaign the GM wants to run. As you say there is a difference between doing something once and making it standard operating procedure. I am reminded of a Budhist Priest character my brother played many years ago who bought an attack dog and would set it on people. His argument that _he_ wasn't commiting violence didn't last too long with me . What I am trying to set up is an atmosphere in which Angel's do not try to weasel out of Dissonance and in which Superiors are more tolerant of Dissonance gained for actions which support the Superior's aims or God's Plan. This for me goes to an important part of the whole In Nomine background. It is not only necessary for Heaven to win the War, but to win it while staying within the Rules. They are in the position of a Police Force fighting Terrorists. Not only do they have to curb the destructive acts of the terrorists, they have to preserve the society which those actions take place. It is much easier to make a complex system like a modern society fall over than it is to preserve it. Therefore Angel's (especially PC's) have to know when they have gone over the line. As Agents at the front line they are going to be in situations where to achieve bigger goals they are going to have to bend rules, but I think they should wear the penalty for their actions until those actions can be approved by a larger authority. I also think that this might remove the potential fear that some Superior's can envoke, especially ones that aren't your own. If you know that Lawrence is going to consider the larger picture before burning you for disobeying orders then you know you have some freedom to act, as long as you are doing the right thing, and he becomes a slightly less complete terror. I can't think of a good US sports analogy, but to use one from a world sport, Dissonance should be more like getting a referee's report in Soccer. If you do something that is questionable the referee puts it in his match report. It is considered by a panel of officials later and they decide if it was something worth a fine or a suspension from play or whatever, or whether it was a minor matter not worthy of any penalty. Don't get me wrong I think all Dissonance is bad, it represents actions that you have taken against your Celestial nature. But I think that the situation where it is accepted that it is very hard to operate without gaining some Dissonance occasionally and that Dissonance gained for good reasons is likely to be forgiven, is preferable to having all Dissonance be an instant cause for Excoummunication (if you'll grant me that exaggeration) and having Angels spend half their time trying to figure out how to circumvent a subset of the very set of Rules that it is their vocation to protect. All this only works if you presume, as I do, that Angels do their work with a fair degree of good will between themselves. Even Dominic and his Servitors don't _want_ to find that any Angel has done something wrong, they just know it is their job to investigate and they take it very seriously (as they should). The same attitude can't really be said to operate amongst Demons . 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: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:05:23 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Resisting Angelic Resonance On Sep 4, 4:07pm, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > 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? Unless I'm overruled, this is Canon. Habbalah _do_ have two ways of using their Resonance. "Like an Elohite, he can tell what emotion a person is feeling. He can _also_ tell what emotion would cause the person the most harm..." This puts the Habblah's Resonance strictly better than the Elohim's... not exactly a comfortable situation rules-balancewise. Note, though, that their Resonance just says sense emotion, not all the guessing-about-the-future stuff that the Elohim. So I'd rule that they can sense emotion with a simple Perception roll and do the damage that they do so well with a successful Will roll. This may seem unbalanced (Hey, my Habbalite needs TWO stats to do her resonance!), but they are getting two decent powers and they aren't the only Band/Choir that is in that situation. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:08:54 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence > >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. I'd say that putting in Discord is _harder_. One, the person is probably fighting, at least subconsciously, the entire process. And, two, Discord is _unnatural_ in the being. Increasing an already-existing Discord might be acceptable for the "Bang!" method, though... If a being has already allowed a 'crack' in their personal symphonies to develop, the Superior is just taking advantage of that flaw... - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:13:29 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Trackers > > Two things, though. They can only do it once per Geas because > >they are _required_ to use up the Geas once they activate it in this > >way. Those darn Cherubs and Djinn can follow you around for a long, > >long time. > > Quite true. So what's the other thing...? Ummmm... I forgot? O=) Oh, yeah, the other thing... It looks like that ability is going to removed anyways in favor of the 'detective Lilim' who has to track down people who owe her 'favors'. (This from current discussion from the AA's and DP's of In Nomine...) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:15:08 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Sep 5, 2:57am, Walt Mazur wrote: > 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... Yep. Though isn't it a fun idea that a Lilim with a flair for the dramatic have a house set up with all sorts of 'death traps' to convince people they should owe her a favor? ;) Or did I just read too many pulps? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:51:47 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Trackers > >> Well, Karakash has been wrong before... > > > > Lies, foul lies! It wasn't me! I wasn't even there! You > >can't prove nothin'! > > I hope you're not going to deny it's in the FAQ. And do you *really* > want me to go through the archives to find the original email with > your name on it? I will, you know.... You wouldn't do that to me, would you? *looks up with soulful brown eyes* Not _me_!? O;) [BTW, I was denying that anything I could say is ever wrong. Everything in the FAQ is 100% correct. The next version will be even _more_ correct. The ways of the FAQ-keeper are ineffable. Fnord. Buy more bonds. The last sentence was true. The one before that did not exist.] - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:47:37 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Night Music rules change On Sep 5, 8:44am, Jens H. Kruuse wrote: > 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! Good point. While not _purchased_ in levels, undead still figure out their hits using the celestial calculation. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:40:58 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN>Kyriotates in Humans, Vessel=? > First is an intervention: a low or moderate skill person *can* *rarely* get > really good damage. Really good damage=7+, hence impossible for someone with a skill total less than 13 at a power of -1. > 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. The d6 range is a problem inherent in In Nomine. Someone getting 'winged' with a shotgun is when the roll barely misses (zero damage). > 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. Did I say -1 accuracy was reasonable? No. If you look at my suggestion for a reasonable shotgun, it had a positive accuracy that dropped off more slowly with range (due to spread). I, personally, think the stats in the book could use some tweaking and that a shotgun _does_ require additional mechanics to model properly. Let's not do the straw man, okay? An average person (stats of 3) with quite a bit of training in shotgun (skill 3) can't do better than 5 points (assuming the suggestion of +6 accuracy, -1 power). Not reasonable. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:54:30 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases On Sep 6, 8:21am, Peter Frederick wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Geases > Dear Leath and John > > > At 11:56 AM 4/9/97 -0400, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >On Sep 3, 11:49am, Leathal Weapon wrote: > >> Subject: IN> Lilim Geases > >> Yet another Geas question. > >> > >> If a Lilim (or anyone, for that matter) kills a holder of their Geas, > >> does that geas cease to exist? Therefore Lilim A finds out Human X > >> has a geas on them. They track that human down and kill them before > >> they can call in the geas. Does the geas vanish. Logically I'd have > >> to say yes, but I'd like a few other opinions. > >John Replied > > Sounds like yes to me! > > > I (as usual :) ) have another position on this, which I hope isn't too > biased as I know the in-game situtation that Leath is referring too. > > Firstly I would say killing the human doesn't remove the Geas. It stays > with their Soul and that means you still have to find them and get it off > them. Of course if their Soul goes to Hell you better be quick, because the > first Demon that realises the new 'inmate' was holding a Geas is going to > trick /force/bribe it off them. A _very_ good point which several people have brought up. Here I go and forget that people don't just _die_... they actually go somewhere! ;) While Geases are blatantly obvious, the keys I've always thought were more subtle. I suppose there are some demons who go 'dumpster diving' on occasion and manage to pick up juicy things like this. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:04:39 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears On Sep 7, 12:40am, Casca wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears > On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Adam Canning wrote: > > > No, Eli is Yahweh's Vessel which he uses to communicate with the Arch > > Angels much like the Angels use vessels to talk to humans. > > Could be. They both end up being the same thing, I suppose. No matter how > many forms God splits into, He's still God. > > I actually like this interpretation better, except for one thing: since > when has any archangel ever listened to Eli? With the exception of > Novalis and Blandine, all the others think he's nuts and irresponsible. There are ways and there are Ways. Have you heard the concept of a 'meme'? You start an idea and it will spread through a population (or die) much like a disease. What would be more appropriate than Eli casually mentioning something (or even taking an opposing stance) that sets people to thinking (and talking) the way he wants them to? Besides, Eli used to be _much_ more respected than he is now. He's the Archangel of _Creation_ for Yahweh's sake! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:00:58 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Night Music: "...a skill known at Level 6 or better..." On Sep 6, 2:39pm, Walt Mazur wrote: > Subject: IN> Night Music: "...a skill known at Level 6 or better..." > On page 31 of NM, in the second paragraph of Forces and Characteristics: > "When a mortal succeeds at a skill roll known at Level 6 or better, that > creates a point of Essence." This implies that skills are open-ended. Was > this formerly "5 or better" or is the intent that the net Chararacteristic > + Skill be 6 or better? Or are skills really open-ended? (Perhaps only for > mortals?) The main rulebook says just 'Level 6'. While this implies that skills can go above six (Dios Mio...), I'm still holding my ground that skills top out at 6 for anyone who isn't an AA/DP. Mind you that NM had a kid with a computer skill at 7. I view this is a foul heresy. ;) Seriously, though, unless overruled, skills top out at 6. [On the other hand, I'm kinda likin' the idea that _humans_ can go above six... this leads to ugly problems, though. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone!] - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:56:15 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> Eli is more than he appears Casca wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Jo Hart wrote: [God] > He doesn't speak much, but when He does, angels listen, by God. ;) Ehm, pardon me. But shouldn't that be "angels listen, *to* God"? cd - -- Don't try to eff the ineffable. cd skogsberg cd@alfakonsult.se | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 17:17:38 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Night Music: "...a skill known at Level 6 or better..." On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:00:58 -0400, johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) wrote: > [On the other hand, I'm kinda likin' the idea that _humans_ >can go above six... this leads to ugly problems, though. Perhaps >we should leave well enough alone!] It does allow them to actually get to reasonable skill levels. Otherwise it takes a high stat of 5 or 6 and skill/6 to get them to the super-skilled range of a surgeon or sharpshooter. Maybe a ruling that humans can have skills over 6 because they are integral to the symphony, but they can't manage net stat+skill over 11 or 12 unless the skill is no more than 6? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 17:17:36 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith's Potence On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:15:08 -0400, johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) wrote: >> Damn, that's a slippery slope you're trying to walk... > > Yep. Though isn't it a fun idea that a Lilim with a flair >for the dramatic have a house set up with all sorts of 'death traps' >to convince people they should owe her a favor? ;) > Or did I just read too many pulps? I think for my campaign, I'm going to rule that since Lilith is the Princess of Freedom, trapping someone in such a no-win situation would be dissonant. The Lilim would get disonnance for entrapping someone that way. Lilim are powerful enough without letting them set up Geas factories. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #329 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.