From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Sep 12 12:53:25 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 MAA03102 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:53:24 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA05840 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:15:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:15:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199709121715.MAA05840@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 #338 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 12 1997 Volume 01 : Number 338 In this digest: Re: IN> Beth, Archangel of Archives (LONG) Re: IN> Davidian Malakim Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... Re: IN> Homosexuality in In Nomine Re: IN> Yves: Mechanics Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... Re: IN> Cola and backrubs - just the beginning Re: IN> Fate vs. Destiny Skills Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... Re: IN> [HUMOR] Archangel of Grease (Long) Re: IN> [HUMOR] Archangel of Grease (Long) Re: IN> Superior Intervention Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... Re: IN> Beth, Archangel of Archives (LONG) Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) Re: IN> Yves: Mechanics Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:32:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Beth, Archangel of Archives (LONG) > Beth, Archangel of Archives (arcangel@io.com) > ============================================= Yaay! I like the Attunements, though I'd had the thought of Kyriotates being able to create -temporary- Vessels (complete with Roles) based on fictional characters...(Or perhaps as a Servitor Attunement; cost 1 Essence per Force (with the note that a lot of animals in fiction, say, Puss In Boots, are definitely 5 Force creatures...) the `original' would have had, and can then be maintained for 1 Essence per day...but in addition to granting the form and Role, it DOES force you to act within that Role...) > Invocation Modifiers > -------------------- > +4: A well-read series of books or reference works > +5: A bookstore or medium-sized public/school library > +6: A *big* library -- at least three stories. (Austin Public Library, > for instance.) These ones I think I'd suggest bumping up a bit, even granting her tendancy to make herself relatively easy to get ahold of...(eg a bookstore or medium-sized library is +4, a large public libary is +5...and +6 requires a large and somehow distinct collection - the Library of Congress, or perhaps the study of a collector who has a number of rare books..) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:56:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Davidian Malakim > Dear Kinsgly and List > > Peter Frederick, replying to an assortment of people, noted > > I'm making a distinction here between having Dissonance imposed > >from the outside and having conditions for Dissonance imposed. Everyone > I can see your point and agree with it about 90%. Angels gain Dissonance as > a consequence of their actions. Wow...I think I only agreed with it about 80%... One thing I'm wrestling with is the idea that an Angel can fall -without noticing-. This is an idea I LIKE, particularly for role-playing purposes - the Elohim who suddenly realizes, "Whoa...I'm on the brink, here!", or the Seraph giving his friends a puzzled look, "What do you MEAN, you think I'm going `down'? I've NEVER lied. Oh, sure, in the interests of honesty - happy now? - I make the occasional rationalization, but.." I'm considering that, depending on exactly how it's gained, one effect Dissonance may have is to make itself `feel' RIGHT to the Celestial acquiring it... {What I'm working on currently is the idea that it's accumulated Dissonance that `masks' further additions...so the first one is always going to be felt strongly, but if they DON'T clear it up, it'll make it harder to note later ones...} > 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 Actually, I tend to agree with you on this...and derive it back from my belief that Dissonance is an internal decision consequence rather than an external event consequence. Ie. the Kyrio takes his non-flying host and jumps off a building, the IMMINANT harm about to be done is directly related to the action the Kyrio took WHILE they were the host...and is therefor an abuse of host. If they happen to jump out just as their host is passing a door from which a mugger emerges that the Kyriotate just didn't know about, on the other hand..that's just bad luck for the human. It happens. Even, for that matter, if we replace `mugger' with `demon who thinks it's still the Kyrio' - the Kyriotate did NOT consciously put the human in the precarious position, and therefor collects no Dissonance. (The Demon, on the other hand, will be surprised when he smacks them and hears it in the Symphony. "Oh, hey, sorry about your face, man...thought you were someone else. I gotta run.") > 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 Which, unfortunately, is the primary reason I DON'T think Kyrio's gain Dissonance for non-physical harm done to their Host as an incidental result of the Kyrio's usage of them. It'd make 'em too unplayable, ESPECIALLY since they don't get access to the host's memories to have the faintest idea if they're causing such harm or not, in many cases. (And waking up in the morning asking, "Um, darling? Do I have a job? Where'bouts?" can cause at least as many problems...) > 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. I'd still be inclined to hold it to intentional abuse rather than incidental harm...going somewhat with the idea that they're called "hosts" for a reason; the Kyriotate is intended to consider itself a guest, which implies certain liberties that may be taken, and certain rules that must be followed. > 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. I tend to feel that action is stronger for it; if you DO something Dissonant, you get the dissonance regardless of intent. If you intend to do something and don't...you MAY get Dissonance, depending, basically, on whether you'd tripped that `trigger' in your mind before ending up not doing it, for whatever reason... (On the similar note, I figure they can get away with clever dodging of their Dissonance..for a while. Eg. a Seraph using those `conversational tricks' they mention in the rules can be deceitful without lying..up to a point, when it's important. If it gets too habitual, that's definitely a straight-line path to Balseraphdom...) > 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 Heh...it's almost an equally important part of the In Nomine genre to ME that even Heaven doesn't always follow the rules...(I'm very much taken with the idea that you don't have to go to Hell to find some pretty nasty fellows...and, for that matter, that if you DO, you're likely to run into some perfectly nice chaps while you're looking.) > 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) That I quite agree with, though...'course, Superiors get even more at being annoyed with frequent, or even infrequent, requests to forgive Dissonance than they do other forms of pestering.. > 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 Well...*ahem* I still kinda like the Dominic-as-Balseraph theory, and consider several of the Archangels as harboring distinct dislikes for each other..(Michael fair leaps to mind in this.) Though it may be, at worst, similar to, say, the FBI and CIA having to cooperate against terrorists, to go more to your suggested model; they may not LIKE each other, and may even take a few actions to trip the other up and make themselves look good by comparison...but both will very much have the enemy in mind, and only act against the other to an extent that they're sure won't endanger the real mission. ('Course, they still might misjudge..) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:56:20 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:13:20 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>That's a pretty easy deal you're offering. A Lil with Perception 12 would >>get a 6 target for a Geas/6; an 8 if she'd touching the victim. And she >>doesn't get disonance for looking and not finding. > >No, she's have a 4 target (-2 for a specific need, -6 for the level >she wanted). If she's touching, then she will probably find some >levels of needs that add up to 8. >And she doesn't get dissonance for looking and not finding. So she can keep hunting. Maybe pushing through a subway crowd, testing, testing, testing... >It's up to the GM -- I think that's already been mentioned somewhere, >that there might not be something that high. I can look at the >stuff and see if a sentence of "If the GM thinks there aren't any Needs >of that high a level, he may give the Lilim the highest the person has, >or a selection of smaller ones." would fit. That's reasonable. >Oh, and you can only Geas someone to do something of the level of >the Geas -- more expanded stuff, I fear. If it's a "life-threatening" >task (such as coming back to a spa where he nearly died!) it *takes* >a Geas/6 to get him there. So you can Geas-factory if you want, >but you have to keep using that Geas/6 to get him coming back -- and >that doesn't include any sort of "Don't tell anyone that you nearly >died here" Geases. That I *definitely* agree with! >>Your three dice haven't gotten stuck together in all the Eastern humidity, >>have they? That'll do it... :) > >Noooooo, I just have a tendency to roll... interestingly. :) >>Well, since you're rewriting Lilim rules anyway... > >Hah. I'm not going to put in fifteen jillion rules to patch every >little thing. I *tried* that, and got "If we wanted it to be complex, >we'd have written it in GURPS." When God speaks, wise Archangels listen. True and I agree. >>I'm not following: I was thinking of the sensing rolls on Perception and >>the doing rolls on Will. That's independent of any resistance roll rules. > >Right. Here's the current way it works: >Lilim rolls Perception, spots Need. >Later, Lilim invokes Geas, rolls nothing. >Victim rolls Will minus Geas-level to resist. Right. >If you split it into Perception/Will, it would work: >Lilim rolls Perception, spots Need. >Lilim rolls Will, invokes Geas (does the Geas vanish if she fails the > Will roll? Does she just not get to use her resonance for CD hours? > Does she get dissonance here if she fails? Fails w/ a CD of 6?). >Victim rolls Will (minus Geas-level?) to resist. Ok. So this is a different issue from the basic rule that sensing is off perception and doing is off will. Hm. It does seem logical that a Lilim doing something ought to require a will roll. Maybe a comparison on invoking Geases would help: Lilim Victim Comment Old: free resist Will-geas Proposed: Will resist Will-geas Well the Lilim definitely loses by the change How about: Will+geas resist Will Makes the Lilim less likely to fail and less needing to put points in will; simple resistance roll > The second way is more complicated. Icky. It does add a roll, but it does make some sense. It also gives a Lilim a better chance of Geasing a Celestial: she can't add essence if she can't roll. >How big does that warehouse need to be? You're right. Oops. >>"Oh! What a horrible accident! The lock stuck! Oh, my, I'll have that >>checked at once!" > >That only works once... Per person. Unless they're very gullible. Hm. P.T. Barnum... >Karakash mentioned it, yes. It's canon. Lilim cannot trade Geases. They >can *promise* "I'll only invoke this Geas the way you tell me to" to >someone, or use a Geas to get a sister to invoke a Geas to your specifics. > >But you can't trade 'em anymore. That changes things. Not even with Lilith herself? >>"What makes you think I'm going Celestial for you? I can buy a new vessel." > >"What makes you think that I can't grab you while you're slipping >out of your dead vessel, heading to Hell in Trauma?" Is that possible? I though you essentially teleported to your heart. Or is this new stuff? >>As I said, I'd rule that satisfying a Dark Desire Need would Geas Joe of >>Lust--it's his Need, ultimately, not the victim's. Remember the part of the >>faq that says this isn't one of those humans-are-helpless-pawns games? :) > >Okay, so slip some mortal aphrodisiac in, or instill a post-hypnotic >suggestion of "That babe is really cute, you want her." Ok, that works; but the aphrodisiac just makes them want *some*one, and some people are immune to hypnosis. >>...and if you don't manage to find the same person several days, you've >>just got a bunch of piddling Geas/1's. > >This is why you get a Brothel, where they come to you... Sure, that works. >>I personally wouldn't allow it. The Need IMHO has to be an actual, real >>Need, not one cooked up somehow. A Symphonically pure Need, if you will. He >>has to Need it, not just be deluded or tricked into thinking he needs it. >>Sure, if he's a drug addict, he's fair game once he's an addict by himself, >>and not with some demon pushing him along with a pitchfork. > >That's a better one, then -- the drug-pushing Lilim of Fleurity. I don't have a problem with that. The human set himself up for the situation, and he can still stop taking the drug. >>Not noisy if she can Geas someone to set the fires or has a servant to do >>so. > >Even cooler. Definitely asking for a hitsquad of Fire-angels, but >they'll have some problems tracking her down. I like her. And who is it on the IN staff that represents the Angelic side? ;) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:03:29 -0400 From: "Jens H. Kruuse" Subject: IN> Fallen Malakim (was IN> Dissonance, Discord, and Falling) Ok, here's the result of too little Single Malt: (too much?) From Karakash: >It's generally accepted by most celestials that Malakim literally >cannot Fall. There has never been an instance recorded in Heaven and >there have been numerous attempts by Hell to get one these warriors >to their side (A Malakite of Hell? Eeeeee! Wouldn't that be a mean >S.O.B.?) >Mind you, not _everyone_ believes that (and Dominic watches >_everyone_ . . . just in case), but they've built up an impressive >track record since they were created! There is actually a good explanation for the Malakim's inability to fall and it explains the problem mentioned in another post: >Unfortunately that arguement supports teh Idea that god wants angels to >fall or he would have made them all malakim. Actually in a sense Malakim ARE already fallen! If one studies the description of Malakim, one sees that they expect others to adhere to their rigid code of honor, which is based on individual vows. So in a sense they have a selfish perception of the Symphony or rather their own individual "tunes". We all know that the War is about selfishness, which is what the demons believe in as well as the Malakim. Okay, but the Malakim serve Archangels and not Demon Princes. True, but what would happen if a Malkite took a quite valid new vow: "Non Serviam!" (Commonly translated as "I will not serve"). In order to remain true to himself he would have to rebel against his superior and if he happened to be an AA, that superior would be God. This is what happened to the Archangel of Light (=Creation, "Let there be light"), Lucifer. He /had/ to go against God! It probably happened when he discoved the word "Not" and applied it to his greatest vow, to serve God. So, what do you guys think? Especially the new line editor, whom_I_have_ offended_gravely? >P-) (Demon w/ an eyepatch). Gongrats on the promotion, btw! Cheers, Jens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:19:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Dennis C Hwang wrote: > Yeah...although, now that I think about it, it seems to me that Saminga as > the sole representative of Death in the IN universe is a little lopsided. > After all, Death shouldn't always fall into the demonic realm. > > Anyone interested in a writeup for Archangel Azrael? > (Appears as a perky young black-clad Goth girl? :) > Well, actually, I think the Endless would be neither Angels nor Demons. Something in between, not caring about the War or its consequences. This is supported by the comics. Dream often found himself caught between Angels and Demons, such as in "The Season of the Mist". In that story Angels, Demons, and several pantheons were fighting over the Key to the Gate of Hell. Although, the roles of Michael (Destruction), Yves (Destiny), Beleth/Blandine (Dream) blur somewhat. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:18:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Homosexuality in In Nomine Haavard Roenne Faanes wrote: > However, it is quite clear that God created angels. Thus he should > have been able to predict their fall and this should therefore IMO > be part of his plan. Free will and divine foreknowledge is one of the oldest cans of worms in existence, but there is a respectable philosophical case to be made that, even if God can *foresee* a free individual's fall (or lack thereof), He does not and can not *predict* it the way we would predict a projectile's trajectory. A free being, on this theory, is a limited kind of First Cause, originating its own causal chains. God foreknows its actions only because He is outside time and not limited by it, so that future and present are equally observable to Him; He does not, on this theory, set up the individual to fall. > Evil must exist for Man to have a free will. If not, he cannot > choose evil and thus he doesn't really have free will. Actually, what must exist is the *possibility* of evil. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:22:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> Yves: Mechanics > Humans don't CAUSE Disturbance...(which makes Disturbance an > automatic Celestial detector for ANYONE, if you can pin it down to the > cause..that's why Celestials have to be real careful about breaking things > or using Essence.) Malakim of Yves just don't have to run off every time > someone on their side does something, like everyone else.. Soldiers and sorcerers do. Controlled Essence expenditure causes Noise. Only untrained, "blow it all in one shot", Essence use by humans is quiet. > [There IS a good case that Celestials all have some specific name in the > Celestial Tongue which this would pick up instead, thereby making it not > only an automatic (by touch) Celestial Detector, but probably also > differentiate between Angels and Demons, since the Tongues are > different...but then, of Demons, you'd only get that their name is in some > language you can't speak, since that's a requirement. In ANY case, if you > don't want it to work like that, it's easy enough to rule that Celestial > names are, indeed, very like human names...] The "in a language you know" stipulation can cut down on the abuse for non-Celestials too. Even if you don't declare Corporeal Tongues insufficient for this use, it'll still make a touch of noise to warn the person about to be checked. (And likely have some Seraphim of Destiny chucking lots of points into languages/1 ;'p) > Rather, those're held on the upper levels, where no one > directly involved in the Earth-levels of things is allowed...(Y'ever > wonder about that? It sounds like even the Superiors are pretty much > locked out on that...suspicious, no?) What's your security clearance, friend celestial? Oops da Ogre, censorship isn't only used by demons, you know ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:25:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > The writers of the Bible have been wrong > on a couple of things, from the IN perspective. Being off on a > demon's Word is relatively small. Actually, I don't recall much in IN that flat-out contradicts the Bible. IN just adds a lot of detail not found in the Bible and contradicts a lot of traditional views that have grown up in the monotheistic religions. Even the idea that angels are ignorant of which theology is true is found in one of the epistles of Paul. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Cola and backrubs - just the beginning > Dom isn't invited. Too stuffy, never bluffs. He's got a _great_ poker face, though! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:53:33 -0400 From: johnk@ascc01.ascc.lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Fate vs. Destiny Skills > Sorry, I should be clearer. IMO, the skill which MAY be raised to a > level above 6 must have something to do with the person's Fate or > Destiny. It can be the same skill for both or it can be different > skills. With a person who would have the same skill for both it is > difficult to tell which way their Fate/Destiny will go. For a person > (eg. Hitler) it was easier, because that box in the rulebook actually > points out what his Fate and Destiny (in the IN universe was). I > merely used this example because it had already been suggested by IN, > plus it is known that Hitler was a reasonably talented painter in his > youth (read that somewhere). Anyway, hope that clears it up a bit. Or it could have been that Leadership was still his 'destined' skill, but it _should_ have been used for gathering people for an artist's school, or perhaps to organize the german artists expo or somethin' ;) Hmmmmm... wouldn't it be _wicked_ if a person's best skill could be used for either his Fate _or_ his Destiny, but possible not both? For example, a person's best skill was Sword, but he could only reach his Destiny by renouncing warfare... sound cool? - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:11:54 -0400 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... At 17:34 +0000 9/11/97, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >> No, this is Famine. > >Okay, yup. Duh... > >> Guess who ;> > >Well, Haggenti fits it best, in a cause-effect way. Or maybe some >other unnamed Prince (who is probably a good friend of Haggenti). > Good friend of Haagenati? I'd say "lunch of" I don't think he was a demon prince at the time that Revelations was written. So whomever was originally supposed to be a Horseman has since been eaten, and now he's going to take their place. Mmmm. Horse. IMHO, of course, YMMV. 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, 12 Sep 1997 11:23:05 -0400 (EDT) From: CeIestiaI7@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> [HUMOR] Archangel of Grease (Long) In a message dated 97-09-12 00:55:09 EDT, you write: > -David (are Fallen Angels of Grease called Beauty School Dropouts?) > I better see a doctor. I might be contagious. S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:00:55 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> [HUMOR] Archangel of Grease (Long) "Benjamin D. Hutchins" , wrote: > ---snip--- > > FRANKIEL > The Demon of Bad Taste > Impudite Captain of the Media - ----snip---- I guess we know now who was *really* responisble for the newsgroup alt.tastelss, hmm? cd - -- Don't try to eff the ineffable. cd skogsberg cd@alfakonsult.se | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:21:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Superior Intervention On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > Of course I realized that you probably didn't *mean* to say that the Demon > Princes themselves personally performed those acts, but your wording was > imprecise, and didn't suggest an analogy but literal responsibility. > > And since this just happens to be one of my big gripes with the World of > Darkness, and one of the things I *don't* want to see in In Nomine, I used > the opportunity to make a point myself. So in other words, you deliberately misinterpreted me. I submit that your Word is "Contrariness", Prince Edelstein. - -- 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, 12 Sep 1997 18:00:54 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... "Nathaniel Eliot" wrote: > > I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I > > heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like > > thunder, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a white horse! > > Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as > > a conqueror bent on conquest. > Baal, probably. AKA Conquest. Could be Pestilence, too; "as pestilence conquered the land" and all that. If you go for something rather sick, he could be Pollution (as in Good Omens), as pollution seems to conquer the world, and there is nowhere to escape it; acid rain, CFCs, ozone holes, ozone at ground level, NHx, hydrocarbons, etc., etc. Cheery, isn't it? > > When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living > > creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! > > Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what > > sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart > > of wheat for a day's wages, [2] and three quarts of barley for a day's > > wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!" > > Huh? I assume that this is Pestilence, but this reference is > somewhat obscure... Famine, actually (as anyone who's read Good Omens can tell you); it's not really clear who Pestilence is, but my bet is Rider No. 1. cd - -- Don't try to eff the ineffable. cd skogsberg cd@alfakonsult.se | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:39:46 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Beth, Archangel of Archives (LONG) At 10:32 PM -0600 9/11/97, Kingsley Lintz wrote: >> Beth, Archangel of Archives (arcangel@io.com) >> ============================================= > Yaay! > > I like the Attunements, though I'd had the thought of Kyriotates >being able to create -temporary- Vessels (complete with Roles) based on >fictional characters...(Or perhaps as a Servitor Attunement; cost 1 >Essence per Force (with the note that a lot of animals in fiction, say, >Puss In Boots, are definitely 5 Force creatures...) the `original' would >have had, and can then be maintained for 1 Essence per day...but in >addition to granting the form and Role, it DOES force you to act within >that Role...) Ah, another thing to put into the INC version! I like it as a potential Kyrio-only Servitor attunement, I think... (And I *do* like it muchly... I can just see some of the Kyrios running around in SF characters...) >> Invocation Modifiers >> -------------------- >> +4: A well-read series of books or reference works >> +5: A bookstore or medium-sized public/school library >> +6: A *big* library -- at least three stories. (Austin Public Library, >> for instance.) > These ones I think I'd suggest bumping up a bit, even granting her >tendancy to make herself relatively easy to get ahold of...(eg a bookstore >or medium-sized library is +4, a large public libary is +5...and +6 >requires a large and somehow distinct collection - the Library of >Congress, or perhaps the study of a collector who has a number of rare >books..) Have you ever seen the main branch of the Austin Public Library? The UNH Library *might* manage it, but I think both it and the Dover one would be only +5... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:02:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Geas Entrapment (Re: IN> Lilith's Potence) At 4:56 AM +0000 9/12/97, Walt Mazur wrote: >On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:13:20 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy > wrote: > >>>That's a pretty easy deal you're offering. A Lil with Perception 12 would >>>get a 6 target for a Geas/6; an 8 if she'd touching the victim. And she >>>doesn't get disonance for looking and not finding. >> >>No, she's have a 4 target (-2 for a specific need, -6 for the level >>she wanted). If she's touching, then she will probably find some >>levels of needs that add up to 8. >>And she doesn't get dissonance for looking and not finding. > >So she can keep hunting. Maybe pushing through a subway crowd, testing, >testing, testing... Yes. (And eventually she gets a 111, and the GM decides how annoyed he is...) My Lil does a lot of "just checking" (and a fair amount of failing, *sigh*, I gotta boost her Perception). I don't think that's much worse than Elohim and Seraphim doing similar things. >>>I'm not following: I was thinking of the sensing rolls on Perception and >>>the doing rolls on Will. That's independent of any resistance roll rules. >> >>Right. Here's the current way it works: >>Lilim rolls Perception, spots Need. >>Later, Lilim invokes Geas, rolls nothing. >>Victim rolls Will minus Geas-level to resist. > >Right. > >>If you split it into Perception/Will, it would work: >>Lilim rolls Perception, spots Need. >>Lilim rolls Will, invokes Geas (does the Geas vanish if she fails the >> Will roll? Does she just not get to use her resonance for CD hours? >> Does she get dissonance here if she fails? Fails w/ a CD of 6?). >>Victim rolls Will (minus Geas-level?) to resist. > >Ok. So this is a different issue from the basic rule that sensing is off >perception and doing is off will. Yeah. It *would* be cleaner if imposing the Geas were Will, in concept, but messier in mechanics. >Hm. It does seem logical that a Lilim doing something ought to require a >will roll. Maybe a comparison on invoking Geases would help: > > Lilim Victim Comment >Old: free resist Will-geas >Proposed: Will resist Will-geas Well the Lilim > definitely loses by the > change >How about: Will+geas resist Will Makes the Lilim less likely > to fail and less needing to > put points in will; simple > resistance roll > >> The second way is more complicated. Icky. > >It does add a roll, but it does make some sense. It also gives a Lilim a >better chance of Geasing a Celestial: she can't add essence if she can't >roll. It's not just adding a roll -- I could handle that -- but it puts in the question of "does the Geas vanish if she fails?" It also gives her three chances to fail -- Perception, Will, and Resistance. Will+Geaslevel helps her *try* to impose the Geas, but the victim becomes much more likely to resist and cause her dissonance. >>How big does that warehouse need to be? > >You're right. Oops. The rules are a little complex. They looked much clearer when I wrote them down, though, in that little equation. (The one rule that I'd love to re-do, if only I could think of something better. *sigh*) >>>"Oh! What a horrible accident! The lock stuck! Oh, my, I'll have that >>>checked at once!" >> >>That only works once... > >Per person. Unless they're very gullible. Hm. P.T. Barnum... If they're *that* dumb, then evolution action... >>Karakash mentioned it, yes. It's canon. Lilim cannot trade Geases. They >>can *promise* "I'll only invoke this Geas the way you tell me to" to >>someone, or use a Geas to get a sister to invoke a Geas to your specifics. >> >>But you can't trade 'em anymore. > >That changes things. Not even with Lilith herself? I've proposed that they can, but that trasferring a Geas earned by a Lilim to Lilith without breaking it is at least as tricky a task as removing Discord -- Lilith will only do that for Geasa that interest her, and the effort of getting it reduces its value. (So there's a certain amount of "Okay, that's a nice Geas, and I'll trade you this if you promise not to use it up except as I dictate," even with Lilith.) >>>"What makes you think I'm going Celestial for you? I can buy a new vessel." >> >>"What makes you think that I can't grab you while you're slipping >>out of your dead vessel, heading to Hell in Trauma?" > >Is that possible? I though you essentially teleported to your heart. Or is >this new stuff? It's what I'd have a Superior say to a demon (or angel...) who was doing the "kill my vessel, I don't care!" scam. And I'd have it work, too, if the demon/angel were being too much of a twit about it. I mean, they do end up staring at their Heart, so they've obviously "gone celestial"? It's just in such a diffuse form that they don't make disturbance... (Hm. Maybe it's making matter vanish that makes the noise when one goes celestial?) [...] >>>I personally wouldn't allow it. The Need IMHO has to be an actual, real >>>Need, not one cooked up somehow. A Symphonically pure Need, if you will. He >>>has to Need it, not just be deluded or tricked into thinking he needs it. >>>Sure, if he's a drug addict, he's fair game once he's an addict by himself, >>>and not with some demon pushing him along with a pitchfork. >> >>That's a better one, then -- the drug-pushing Lilim of Fleurity. > >I don't have a problem with that. The human set himself up for the >situation, and he can still stop taking the drug. Heh. I don't see much difference between crack (or M:TG?) and Dark Desire, myself... >>>Not noisy if she can Geas someone to set the fires or has a servant to do >>>so. >> >>Even cooler. Definitely asking for a hitsquad of Fire-angels, but >>they'll have some problems tracking her down. I like her. > >And who is it on the IN staff that represents the Angelic side? ;) Blest and bedamned if I know. I mean, I'm the one who channelled K.K. (Who may be a munchkin and a half, but she's the GM's toy, not a PC...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:41:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Yves: Mechanics > > Humans don't CAUSE Disturbance...(which makes Disturbance an > Soldiers and sorcerers do. Controlled Essence expenditure causes Noise. > Only untrained, "blow it all in one shot", Essence use by humans is > quiet. Oh, right...supplements. Sorcerors I know nothing about. (I know nothing, I tell ya! I'm innocent!) Still, at least as far as Soldiers go, I'm not sure I'd agree...I don't see any other evidence that they step significantly `outside' the Symphony - they can still kill people, f'rinstance - and I don't see ANY reason why spending 1 Essence intentionally should make Noise, while spending 4 in desperation wouldn't.. I WOULD say that Songs, because they meddle directly with the Symphony by their very nature, cause disturbance no matter who's using them. But a Soldier just getting a boost on a roll I think should still be quiet. (While one using a Song, I suspect, would still interact normally with the Malakim of Yves Attunement, assuming he's on one side or the other...) > > different...but then, of Demons, you'd only get that their name is in some > > language you can't speak, since that's a requirement. In ANY case, if you > The "in a language you know" stipulation can cut down on the abuse for > non-Celestials too. Even if you don't declare Corporeal Tongues To an extent...I think it applies a good bit more to objects than people's names, though. The Demonic tongue Angels just can't fathom; when I see "Saram Ramaswami" listed as an author of a book, I can tell straight off that's the guy's name even though I don't speak a word of Indian... (Though it gives the amusing thought of a Seraph of Yves picking up some weird device to find out what the heck it is, and getting back, "Binky," because the guy who invented it was so fond of it - and so eccentric - that he gave his device an actual `name' that he used even above, "molecular discombobulator"..) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:02:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> About the four horsemen of the Apocalypse... > > > When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living > > > creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! > > > Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what > > > sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart > > > of wheat for a day's wages, [2] and three quarts of barley for a day's > > > wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!" > > > > Huh? I assume that this is Pestilence, but this reference is > > somewhat obscure... > So, here's my burning question. *FABOOSH* We have the four horsemen. Who is the Lamb? Emily K. Dresner, M.S.Eng. Applications Programmer III and Hand of God Patron Saint of ACI-1 Medical Center Information Technology Desktop Applications Team Phone: (313) 936-3576 Current Quote: I'm not manic-depressive, I'm digital. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #338 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.