From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jan 9 10:47:20 1998 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 KAA19308 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:47:20 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA19228 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:26:47 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:26:47 -0600 Message-Id: <199801091626.KAA19228@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 #557 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, January 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 557 In this digest: IN> Plastic Little (?) Re: Malkakim & Evil (Re: IN> capturing an angel) Sorry!!! Accidental message! (was: Re: IN> Malakim and Evil) Re: IN> Questions, apparently not frequently asked Re: IN> Detecting whodunna the disturbance Re: IN> Words of the Fallen Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles Re: IN> Destiny or bust! IN> Superman nitpick Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles IN> Zaccur (Beth's latest movie) Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine Re: IN> A resonance question Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine IN> Malakite and dissonance Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? Re: IN> Words of the Fallen Re: IN> Questions, apparently not frequently asked Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles (Snipped short) Re: IN> Movie Trailer: Partners Re: IN> Malakim Humor Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:55:23 -0500 From: Garrett Taylor Subject: IN> Plastic Little (?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Casca wrote: >I once ran a Star Wars adventure based upon the storyline of >Plastic Little. I sent the PCs there for a little R&R... Suffice >it to say, they never wanted a vacation again. > >If Garrett is reading this thread, I'm sure he'll pipe up and give >us his impression of the adventure. P P PIP I I I E P P PIP EPIPEE E :) Would that be the adventure on the pleasure planet in the floating city, hmmm? :) - ------------------------- 'R&R isn't slang for Raze and Run?' Rating: 5 (out of 10) The Good: Wound up with a light sabre, resistance to stun bolts :) The Bad: Wanted across the Empire, Lost a good ship The Ugly: Jedi Jr. , The unarmed non-jedi has to fight Dark Jedi w/light sabre The Severly Wacked: Jedi Jr. *building* light sabre Number One Lesson Learned: Never play a subplot while Eric GMs - ------------------------- After a year of gaming - being GM and player concurrently in 2 games - I can't remeber much more. But I can vouch for Eric's anime fetish. Sickeningly cute little girls seem to drive most of the plots. :) And how does the relate to IN? :) - -Garrett Taylor Macintosh Specialist / Lotus Administrator / Domino Drone / Web Wonk ERAU: IT - Infrastructure taylorg@cts.db.erau.edu "I've got twenty guys out there, packing their shorts with dry-ice. If that isn't entertainment, I don't know what it is." - --Red Green, "New Red Green Show" on PBS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:34:14 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: Malkakim & Evil (Re: IN> capturing an angel) On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > As soon as possible, pick up the APG, which has a discussion about > > Malakim and evil and stuff... > > I heartily second that! The APG is chock full of stuff > on all the choirs and other things. Despite the name, it's > probably more useful for GMs than players (though players won't > lose out by getting it!) > The APG is out? Why didn't anybody say anything? > > On APG49, "A *temporary* alliance that offers an opportunity to > > erase greater evil is acceptable." (Just don't hang around afters, > > if you're a demon.) "If a Malakite is forced to choose *which* of > > 2 evils will escape, he earns no dissonance for choosing the lesser!" > > Aaaaaaah! Page references! I want my copy! Aaaaah! O;) > I want my APG!!!! :) > > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > / \ > |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | > | (919)380-4629 | > | | > | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | > | -Chief Justice Marshall | > \___________________________________________________/ > 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, 9 Jan 1998 02:37:38 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Sorry!!! Accidental message! (was: Re: IN> Malakim and Evil) I have to apologize to the list for accidentally sending a message to the list. It was an old message that sat in the Outbox of my backup e-mail program that got accidentally sent. My apologies for any inconvenience. 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, 9 Jan 1998 03:17:58 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Questions, apparently not frequently asked On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > I have some questions about In Nomine that weren't addressed by the FAQ > that arrives when one subscribes to this list. > Well, I'll try to answer the questions that I can. It's really late, and I have had a rough day. :) > 1.) There are two different systems given in In Nomine for purchasing a > Role. One (around p. 40) gives the cost of a Role as (Level x Status)/2. > The other (around p. 70) gives the cost as (Level x 2) + (Status -1) x2. > Which of these was intended? > That's because this isn't a FAQ question, but rather an errata. Since celestials have both Role and Status, the cost given on p. 40 is correct. The cost given (if the cost for Role Levels is ignored) is intended for Mundanes (Mundanes, Soldiers, and Sorcerors). So the (Status - 1) x 2 is intended for Mundanes, Soldiers and Sorcerors. Role x 2 is an error. (Have I over-explained?) Saints have to pay for their Role, since they aren't normally a part of the Symphony, but other humans get it for free. > 2.) Continuing on the subject of Roles, it is mentioned that any Role > includes a "free" skill of background knowledge in how to be the Role is>, with (IIRC) a level equal to the Role's. It is also > mentioned that mortals don't have Roles, since they have real lives in > the Symphony. Does a mortal also get an appropriate "free" background > knowledge skill, for whatever she is or does, or does she have to pay > character points for it? If it is a "free" skill, what is its Level? > I would definitely say this is a GM call, but my GMs decision would be an emphatic "NO!" Reason? I feel that for the amount it costs, a Role should be good for more than a cup of coffee and a desk with a name-plate that may or may not be my name (see: Seraphim and Roles) for the coffee. > 3.) Why does it cost more, during character design (and, by implication, > when spending points to improve a character in the course of play) to own > a Talisman that grants you a skill, or a Relic that grants you a Song, > than it costs simply to know the skill or Song yourself? > That's actually a very good question. An Artifact has the built in limitation that it can be taken away from you. But IMO, the advantage of having a Talisman is that it allows you to have a Skill above six. For example: If Daniel (a Cherub of Novalis, but that's not important right now) has a Talisman Sneakers: Move Silently/3 and he has Move Silently/5, then when he has the Talisman, he has Move Silently/8. > 4.) Is there a reason why, after giving the first five major Choirs > Hebrew or pseudo-Hebrew names, the two "lowest" have Greek (Kyriotates) > and Latinate (Mercurian) names? Was this a deliberate design choice in > the English-language version, or an inheritance from the original French > game? > Errr.... well, as I understand it, the French version of IN didn't have choirs/bands, per se. But there are people better qualified than I am to answer that question. > 5.) The discussion on Numinous Corpus songs mentions that two attacks, > e.g. one with claws and one with hooves, can be performed in the same > round, provided that one is based on Strength and the other on Agility. > Nowhere else, in either the combat section or the skills section, is the > notion of attacks based on Agility discussed; Fighting skill is > identified as based on Strength. Can this be clarified? > Dunno. This is a new one on me. > York Dobyns ydobyns@princeton.edu > No one has yet succeeded in inventing a philosophy at once credible > and self-consistent. -- Bertrand Russell > 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, 9 Jan 1998 04:34:01 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Detecting whodunna the disturbance On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 5:18 PM -0500 1/7/98, Pee Kitty wrote: > >The ripples are not stopped by normal matter, for they are beyond anything > >corporeal. The celestials who hear them do not slow down, stop, or affect > >the ripples in any way. In fact, nothing does, except _the person who > >caused them_. While technically he does not emit ripples of disturbance, > >when the ripples emanating from the scene of disturbance reach him, they > >have struck a resonant note... and they bounce. Think sonar. The ripples > >coming off the person are much weaker, of course, but they can be > >detected, and last for as long as the normal ripples last. > > > (Yes, one little grab and you're tarred for life.) > > Incredibly complicated, but I like the rationale. Does this imply > that if the culprit stays at ground-zero (pretending to be > a victim? An innocent bystander?) that *he* won't be spotted > until he leaves the area where the ripples are? I have a knack for making things seem more complicated than they actually are, I think. :) If he was in a crowd and verrrry close to the point of disturbance, yeah, it'd be kind of hard to pick him out. Bear in mind, though, that at that close a distance, the echoes will not be hard to track down on a person by person basis. If you can hear the echo, you've just gotta get close enough to each person to hear who it's coming from.... Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! And finally, a special message to anyone who thinks I give a damn... \|/ ____ \|/ ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 05:00:04 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Words of the Fallen > This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my players. How > jealous are Fallen Angels of their former Words? Do they still > consider it their Word, or do they forget about it. I know the APG > says (or at least implies) that Outcasts get to keep their words, > and that they can only lose their word when they Fall, but what are > their feelings about their old words? Like all things, I think it varies. Brax, newly-Fallen Habbalah, formerly the angel of Telephone Sex, might have a problem with anybody on *either* side having his word. Jerry, Impudite, formerly angel of Children's Stories, might take perverse pleasure in tormenting those who now hold his word. Mishnael, formerly the Ophanim of High Speed Chases, is now to involved in destroying things for Belial to care, although he still likes to watch a good crash. > What prompted this was the fact that the Word of Light is still up > for grabs in Heaven. My friend (who plays a Mercurian of Laurence) > said that he would never even consider trying for that Word because > he would be concerned that Lucifer would show up in person to kick > his butt. Would that happen, and why or why not? I would also be concerned about whether Lucifer lost his word or not. If he did, then everything is (relatively) safer, but if he didn't, well...you know how insane Gabby is because of Belial? Can you say Seraphic Smear? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.com Changing addresses faster than an Ophanite with a house mover! It's temujin9@...um...where are you this week, Nate? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:20:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles > > > > according to the APH, malakim don't enjoy humor, they are deadpan > >characters. > > > > So its a very dry sense of humour that the rest of the universe just fails > to get ;) There are some things which you don't joke about but I'm sure > that still leaves plenty of scope for a determined psychopath to get amusing. > > My Malakite isn't a psychopath, he's a lawyer, a defence lawyer in fact. (I've kept some of the stereotypes, he's a devious manipulating bastard.) He works for Dominic too, and for a long time was my worst combat character. I've yet to see him in action, but I'm pretty sure he has something resembling a sense of humour. Stereotypes are there to be broken. As long as a Malakite follows his/her own code of ethics (not just his oaths), you should be able to make them any way you want to. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:24:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Destiny or bust! > At 19:20 06/01/98 +0000, you wrote: > > > >If I didn't have Slothful/4, I'd write up my Angel of Sorcery, who is > >definitely going to be a Malakite of Blandine + Yves. My inspiration was p > >11 of the Marches, under Little Dreams. > > I'd like to see that (what do I have to do, crack the electro-whip to get > you to start writing? :) ) > I'm revising the idea. I've decided that no matter how cool his arguments are, he wouldn't be able to get a Word per se. He'll probably be an Outcast, but without Discord, fighting the War in his own manner. And he has a secret society to help him, too. > > "Another type of dreamer especially favoured by Blandine is the > >ambitious madman - any human who dream of building an empire, making a > >new nation or toppling an old one is likely, too, to be favoured with an > >angelic guardian." > > > > Does this worry anyone else? ;) What happens when one person's dream > equates to a lot of other people's nightmares...? > Nightmares are just a type of dream. Beleth is deluding herself as to the possibility of victory. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:30:04 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Superman nitpick >I've never had this problem. I've always just let it go. >Mortal: "What's your name" >Jor-El, Seraph, Angel of Krypton: "Superman" > >It's the name given him. It's the name he's recognized with. If >Jor-El had said "Jimmy Olsen", I'd smack him upside the head with >dissonance. Actually, Jor-El would get dissonance for calling himself Superman, if he were a Seraph. Jor-El is Superman's late father. Kal-El is Superman. And I'm a nit-picky comics fan. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:38:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles > Bleah. > > I fail to see the differences in deceptiveness between: > > 1) Giving an assumed name. > 2) Wearing a name tag with an assumed name. > 3) Wearing the form of an assumed species. > It helps to have read the Wheel of Time series. In it, there are lots of people who are unable to "speak a word that is not true", which is what the Seraphim dissonance actually is. It doesn't prevent then being deceptive, just stops them from lying outright. A classic example involves a character who doesn't have to, but chooses not to, lie directly. He's caught in a conflict with duties. He's sworn to obey the rules of his order, which would in this case require him to arrest his sister. However, he had sworn to protect his sister earlier. He's trying to convince his sister and her companion to leave the country, when a fellow member of his order comes over to him and asks to be introduced to the pretty young women. His response was along these lines. "I thought I knew them when I came over here, but whatever charm you think I possess, it does not seem to work on them. I do not think that they will like me, or any companion of mine." Every single word was true, but the effect was to get his friend away from them without revealing the fact that it was a death sentence for the women to be where they were, and probably also for him and his friend to sit there talking to them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:48:41 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Zaccur (Beth's latest movie) 'Ey, Beth. I dunno if you'd wanna go this far, but if I filmed _Partners_, I'd make one change. Zaccur would make his final appearance as the proverbial horde of 22 cats. * SCENE: [One cat winks at Tryphena as the others whomp up on the Game agents] Cat: Better than a chainsaw. * Granted, the tether was of Laurence, so a Shedite would be more likely to get splattered than Redeemed . . . but he *did* impress a Seraph, and his actions in both disarming the bomb and going back to help Tryphena (even though *he* was in even more trouble with the Game) were both selfless and honorable. Even Laurence, though he might not believe his eyes (or his resonance), might be swayed. Besides, that sets up the inevitable sequel: either Tryphena's trying to get out of all her Geases and go Bright, or else we have an angel/demon (well, angel/Lilim) friendship, with the attendant troubles from Judgment and the Game. Whaddaya think? Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:08:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine > At 2:25 PM +0000 1/6/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: > >> > [...] > >Why isn't Michael the commander of God's armies in official In Nomine, > >anyway? > I was speaking conceptually, rather than asking about the history of the thing. That particular question was rhetorical. > > (As for dissonance... A Sword stands straight and rigid, while Except when it's a saber or a scimitar. > War can be dirty and tricksy. (or so I'd figure) Failing to retreat when it is sensible is not tricksy. And Mike *used* > to be the leader of all; Larry's young, a former Servitor of > Purity, and new at this. Mike bails him out from time to time...) > What I have problems with is statements like "Michael is the champion of those who fight alone." Fighting alone is not war, in most circumstances. By helping those who fight alone, he is not furthering his Word. War is concerted effort to achieve a particular goal. The dissonance conditions of _The Sword_ fit that goal perfectly. Wars are also long-term. Making it dissonant to retreat from a combat, especially if you were ambushed but could take whoever it is out later with reinforcements does not make sense in war. It is putting honour above practicality, which is not an attribute of successful warmongering. The Sword has altogether different connotations. Swords are historically the province of warrior _castes_. They were simply too expensive for peasants to possess. It indicates a social position where you can afford to worry about personal honour and glory. It was a nobleman's weapon, an _honourable_ weapon. IMO, Servitors of the Sword should be more worried about personal honour than strictly obeying orders. I think that those dissonance conditions are simply wrong. And I also think that failing to put the Archangel of War in charge of the War is culpable. He should have been ordered to take the job, if necessary. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:16:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> A resonance question > > Tell him nice try. Any failed resonance roll means you can't use it on > > that subject (at least for the same purpose) for a number of hours equal to > > the check digit. And on *any* failed resonance roll with a check digit of > > 6, the resonance becomes useless for a period of hours! (In Nomine, p. > > 56-57). > Unfortunately, I've noticed two exceptions. Under the Calabites, it specifies a number of minutes equal to the check digit of the failed roll. Under the Habbalah, it says that a failed resonance roll has no effect (bottom of p. 146). Presumably, this statement shouldn't be there, or should be modified to state that it doesn't affect other emotions the Habbalah wishes to inflict, but there it is. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:33:47 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine >IMO, Servitors of the Sword should be more worried >about personal honour than strictly obeying orders. I think its more the case that they are assumed to have pledged their allegiance, and a knight's allegiance to his liege lord is supposed to be absolute. (ie. even above his allegiance to God -- when in doubt, your lord will interpret God's will to you ;) ). I think that requiring perfect obedience is actually very appropriate for Servitors of the Sword. Its similar to any military order and a lot of church orders as well! I agree about it being dubious tactics to not allow your soldiers to retreat from a combat under any circumstances though. I wonder if that applies to an ordered retreat or a pre-planned one also. (ie. lure the opposition into a trap by drawing him into combat and then letting him chase you into the ambush-site). jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:43:26 +0100 From: Samuel Ranzato Subject: IN> Malakite and dissonance I have a question about how to act like a Malakite properly. During our last campaign I gained a point of Dissonance because I let a Balseraph get away. Because I had taken an oath never to let an evil creature live, I gained a dissonance. I accepted this, but I am left with a question about how it all came about and what I, as a Malakite, did and/or should have done in the given situation. When the party left the stronghold where we battled our foe (and defeated him), we went outside and on our way stumbled upon a Balseraph. He was (according to the gamesmaster) one of my former Seraphim instructors in the use of the sword. I knew that he was around since the first war, when Lucifer fell from grace and all. He had a human in his hands with a sword ready to slice his throat. His demands were simple, let me go or the human gets it ! I decided for my character that a human life saved now, was worth the dissonance for letting him go. So, we made a promise that if the human was returned to us, we'd let him go..for now. My question is thus, did I do the right thing? Is a human life more important to an angel (even a Malakim) than his oath(s) ?? I would be glad to know what other Malakite would have done in my place... Samuel Ranzato, Netherlands Contact me at s.ranzato@tip.nl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:01:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? > I'm awfully glad that my party's Malakim is of Eli - although we've yet > to get into any fights. He spent most of his Essence over the first two > sessions using Transubstantiation to improve the quality of hospital > coffee... > (Just as well we have a Malakim... none of the other PCs have any combat > skills...) > I hate that. I spend my life making characters who couldn't win a fight with a dog and I always end up using my combat characters because I know that no one else will. (My Habbalah of Malphas is spectacular in that regard. The only combat ability she has is her Resonance. Plus she has Cowardly 5 and a bodyguard who she can't allow to die because she still believes that she is serving Yves.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:09:36 -0600 From: "Micah T.J. Jackson" Subject: Re: IN> Words of the Fallen >What prompted this was the fact that the Word of Light is still up for >grabs in Heaven. My friend (who plays a Mercurian of Laurence) said that >he would never even consider trying for that Word because he would be >concerned that Lucifer would show up in person to kick his butt. Would >that happen, and why or why not? I think that the real question here is "who would want it." Think about this example. It's possible that your child could have such a bright Destiny that he could wipe the stain off the name "Adolph," but it's not likely. I think that any angel who aspired to the Word of Light would have to be one arrogant (or ignorant) (or both) dude to even ask. And to succeed in what is probably the most watched word in the Symphony... well, it would make taking over as James Bond look like changing your shirt. Good Luck to any angel willing to try it, and Good Hunting to his GM. <--Micah. __________ __________ Micah T.J. Jackson micahj@io.com __________ __________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:15:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Questions, apparently not frequently asked > I have some questions about In Nomine that weren't addressed by the FAQ > that arrives when one subscribes to this list. > > 1.) There are two different systems given in In Nomine for purchasing a > Role. One (around p. 40) gives the cost of a Role as (Level x Status)/2. > The other (around p. 70) gives the cost as (Level x 2) + (Status -1) x2. > Which of these was intended? > The first. It's in the errata on SJG's webpage. (FAQ? I don't remember receiving a FAQ.) No one could possibly buy high level roles under the second system. My Calabite's level 6 Role as a bum would cost him 24 character points. > 2.) Continuing on the subject of Roles, it is mentioned that any Role > includes a "free" skill of background knowledge in how to be the Role is>, with (IIRC) a level equal to the Role's. Indeed. I have often wondered what should be in that skill. To take an example, does a Role as a lawyer, judge or cop include knowledge of the law automatically? The Role profiles I have indicate that a lawyer only needs Fast Talk, which would imply that it does, but does a Chemist get free Chemistry? Does my journalist/commentator have to buy a certain level of Current Affairs, History and Economics or is it covered by her Role? Does my gang member know who leads the gangs in his area and where the drug pushers hang out or does he have to buy Area Knowledge? It is also > mentioned that mortals don't have Roles, since they have real lives in > the Symphony. Does a mortal also get an appropriate "free" background > knowledge skill, for whatever she is or does, or does she have to pay > character points for it? If it is a "free" skill, what is its Level? > I would assume not, since as you pointed out, they don't have Roles. > 3.) Why does it cost more, during character design (and, by implication, > when spending points to improve a character in the course of play) to own > a Talisman that grants you a skill, or a Relic that grants you a Song, > than it costs simply to know the skill or Song yourself? > Relics are weird. The only good reason for Song-including relics is for cover. Using them doesn't normally look as strange as singing Songs. Talismans allow you to do super-overkill, plus you know that the GM can't come up with an excuse for denying you that piece of equipment. And my own fix for Numinous Corpus Acid goes here. Base it on Precision, don't add Fighting, and retain the Accuracy and Power bonuses. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:26:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Christian Mods for In Nomine > >IMO, Servitors of the Sword should be more worried > >about personal honour than strictly obeying orders. > > I think its more the case that they are assumed to have pledged their > allegiance, and a knight's allegiance to his liege lord is supposed to be > absolute. (ie. even above his allegiance to God -- when in doubt, your lord > will interpret God's will to you ;)). A fair point. I think that requiring perfect > obedience is actually very appropriate for Servitors of the Sword. Its > similar to any military order and a lot of church orders as well! > I want to be the first to mention the Templars, since someone else was bound to anyway. > I agree about it being dubious tactics to not allow your soldiers to retreat > from a combat under any circumstances though. I wonder if that applies to an > ordered retreat or a pre-planned one also. (ie. lure the opposition into a > trap by drawing him into combat and then letting him chase you into the > ambush-site). > Pre-planned, no, except for the commander. Assuming that the commander was stupid enough to go into the zone knowing that he'd have to retreat. It is a direct order after all. Does Celestial Tongues transmit instantly at close range? But methinks that the commander in any group of Servitors of War had better be damned careful, because it's unlikely that anyone around will give him/her direct orders to retreat. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:40:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance > I have a question about how to act like a Malakite properly. > > During our last campaign I gained a point of Dissonance because I let a > Balseraph get away. > Because I had taken an oath never to let an evil creature live, I gained > a dissonance. When it's your choice. If you were ordered to make sure no people died, or not to allow the Symphony to be unduly disturbed, then it wasn't your choice to allow the Balseraph to escape and you would avoid dissonance. > I accepted this, but I am left with a question about how it all came > about and what I, as a Malakite, did and/or should have done in the > given situation. > Moral dilemmas. What fun. > He was (according to the gamesmaster) one of my former Seraphim > instructors in the use of the sword. I knew that he was around since the > first war, when Lucifer fell from grace and all. I often wonder about character longevity. I've avoided characters being anywhere near that old. I sort of assume that if someone's that old and they're not Word-bound with lots of Servitors, that they're doing something wrong. > He had a human in his hands with a sword ready to slice his throat. > His demands were simple, let me go or the human gets it ! > > I decided for my character that a human life saved now, was worth the > dissonance for letting him go. > So, we made a promise that if the human was returned to us, we'd let him > go..for now. > > My question is thus, did I do the right thing? > Is a human life more important to an angel (even a Malakim) than his > oath(s) ?? > Of course, there's more than just a human life at stake, there's also that disturbance. Plus whatever the police would have to say about the matter, and whether you can afford to leave witnesses. Hmm...now I'm starting to go Elohite. But I would argue that it was the right thing to do, assuming you had no other way of saving that person's life. You can always get rid of the dissonance by killing the bastard later, but the human was hardly likely to go back. > I would be glad to know what other Malakite would have done in my > place... > Too individual a question. There are doubtless Malakites out there who don't give a shit about humans. If you haven't considered a question, extrapolate from your oaths. Generally, you should have a code that extends beyond them. And sometimes it's something that is more important to you than your oaths, but simply can't be expressed well by taking oaths. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:02:28 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance [snip] I believe that, as an ANGEL, rescuing the human was more important then killing the Balseraph. The Balseraph is Immortal and there will always be another day. Yes, you received dissonance, but allowing the innoncent to die when there is a way to save them is not only Dishonorable, but it brings you right down to the Bal's level. And as a Malakite of the Sword, you're on double honor duty - you serve probably the most Honorable Word there is. I would say, it is in your character's best interest to simply explain to Laurence that there was no other way to rescue the human, and it was the honorable thing to do. He'll understand, or at least he should, and probably remove the note. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:18:38 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Sam Kington wrote: > I suppose if you started storing too many things, there would be a > danger of not getting exactly what you wanted (a la Merlin in the Sword > in the Stone). Still, I like the idea of a bunch of grinning Calabim > surrounding a single solitary Malakite, ready to beat him into a pulp, > when he pulls out of nowhere... a wet noodle :-). Yeah, but I'd still be afraid of a wet noodle in the hands of a Malakim of Eli. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:26:40 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Seraphim and Roles (Snipped short) On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Querent wrote: > I've never had this problem. I've always just let it go. > Mortal: "What's your name" > Jor-El, Seraph, Angel of Krypton: "Superman" > > It's the name given him. It's the name he's recognized with. If > Jor-El had said "Jimmy Olsen", I'd smack him upside the head with > dissonance. (Going off-topic here) Nope. Jor-El, Seraph of Krypton, gets dissonace for that statement. Kal-El, Malakim of Krypton, gets the name Superman which he can use as an alternate to the Role name Clark Kent. Jor-El just lied to the mortal. :::) You may now return to your mailing list. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:31:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Movie Trailer: Partners On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 10:27 AM -0500 1/8/98, Jamie Wilmoth wrote: > >All right... but I get to play Zaccur. > > With or without bribery of a chainsaw? I like Zaccur. He'll have to show up in my campaign soon. He'd make a perfect foil for my group's Malakim of War. He used the Artifact rules to custom make his own weapon based on the falming sword: the Celestial Flaming Turbo Chainsaw. Michael worries about that Malakim from time to time. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:29:39 EST From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Humor In a message dated 1/8/98 9:30:34 PM, gantr@NKU.EDU writes: (talking about Malakim...) >they can have as good a sense of humor as anyone else (and probably better >than the seraphim. Now they strike me as humorless...). Seraphim strike me as having the *wierdest* sense of humor. Word play is not necessarily something they like, but I imagine a Seraph and a Balseraph interacting in the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Python's Flying Circus (S: "This parrot is dead...") That and they make wonderful straightangels for Mercurians ("*Who*'s on first?"), just up until they invoke their resonance.... Mark(Not to mention the humor value of telling the absolute truth to someone who can't or won't believe it...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Samuel Ranzato wrote: > I decided for my character that a human life saved now, was worth the > dissonance for letting him go. > So, we made a promise that if the human was returned to us, we'd let him > go..for now. > > My question is thus, did I do the right thing? > Is a human life more important to an angel (even a Malakim) than his > oath(s) ?? Unless another of your oaths was to always keep your word, you should have jumped the Balseraph as soon as he let go of the human. Malakim don't have to keep their word to anybody (especially demons) when they promise to let evil go, unless they have an oath that requires them to do so. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:52:49 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance - ---Emily Dresner wrote: > I believe that, as an ANGEL, rescuing the human was more important then > killing the Balseraph. The Balseraph is Immortal and there will always be > another day. This works fine for me, but just out of Friday-afternoon-ness I'll give the other argument ;) You know that the Bal was willing to kill (at least) once so as soon as you let it go you have no guarantee it won't go off and kill many more people before you ever get a chance to catch up with it. And when you do, it will know one of your weaknesses and likely arrange to have more human shields handy. You also know for a near-certainty that it will run off to further the cause of evil because thats what they do. My vote goes to 'Tell the demon you agree, then try to toast it after it has released the mortal', but I'm not sure how strictly honorable that might be considered. Does depend a lot on what the Malakite's vows are and its view of its own priorities. If you have any vows that equate to 'protecting the weak' or 'keeping your word' then that makes the choice easier but its definitely a dilemma, I think. jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:15:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Who needs Swipe? > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Sam Kington wrote: > > > I suppose if you started storing too many things, there would be a > > danger of not getting exactly what you wanted (a la Merlin in the Sword > > in the Stone). Still, I like the idea of a bunch of grinning Calabim > > surrounding a single solitary Malakite, ready to beat him into a pulp, > > when he pulls out of nowhere... a wet noodle :-). > > Yeah, but I'd still be afraid of a wet noodle in the hands of a Malakim of > Eli. > And these Calabites are supposed to know the Malakite serves Eli because... (other than the fact that it has a wet noodle in hisher hand). Btw, the Calabim would still most likely beat him into a pulp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:16:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Malakite and dissonance > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Samuel Ranzato wrote: > > > I decided for my character that a human life saved now, was worth the > > dissonance for letting him go. > > So, we made a promise that if the human was returned to us, we'd let him > > go..for now. > > > > My question is thus, did I do the right thing? > > Is a human life more important to an angel (even a Malakim) than his > > oath(s) ?? > > Unless another of your oaths was to always keep your word, you should have > jumped the Balseraph as soon as he let go of the human. Malakim don't > have to keep their word to anybody (especially demons) when they promise > to let evil go, unless they have an oath that requires them to do so. > And a smart Balseraph would know this and require the Malakite to take that oath, at least a one-use oath. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #557 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.