From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Oct 16 12:05:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23497 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:05:49 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA11633 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:47:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:47:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199810161647.LAA11633@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #979 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, October 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 979 In this digest: IN> Ambsace, Lilim of Gambling RE: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial IN> Max was shafted. Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> Max was shafted. Re: IN> Max was shafted. Re: IN> Max was shafted. IN> Re: Max was shafted. Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) Re: IN> Re: Max was shafted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:32:32 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: IN> Ambsace, Lilim of Gambling Ambsace, Lilim of Gambling - -------------------------- (with thanks to Jo Hart, who helped me work this out) - --- The small room was quiet, no sound from outside penetrating the simple black velvet drapes on the wall, and none of the pounding from Shal-Mari caused so much as a single tremble in the roulette wheel that rested on the ebony table in the centre. The gold decorations on the wheel gleamed dully, and the divisions seemed to tremble with light. "Another year," said the thin man, power trembling in the air around him like the heart of a dark star. The woman nodded as she knelt before him, bowing her head till the nape of her neck was fully visible. The gas-lamp laid shifting lights on the silver rings that decorated her small horns and were woven into her curling hair, on her white sheath dress and green arms and shoulders. "Yes, my Prince." "Rise." She stood gracefully, her ripple of movement betraying training at the hands of another Prince. Her eyes flicked to the roulette wheel, and to the small ivory ball that the man held between dark-gloved fingers. He nodded slightly at the movement of her eyes, each gesture sparse, and let the ball drop. As it fell through the air, the roulette wheel whirred suddenly into motion, and the ball clattered against it, dancing against the side of the spinning bowl and jolting between numbered slots. She could not take her eyes away. Every year, she swore to herself that she would be strong enough not to look, and every year she failed. The ball trembled on the edge of the _0_ slot, and her heart clenched inside her. *Not now*, she thought insanely, *not after so long, so many years, so many payments, please, anything, if there is a God, if Lucifer would hear me...* A final click, and the ball slipped into the _10_ slot. Her long slow exhalation of breath seemed to last forever in her ears, filling the silence in the room, but a breath of life, and a reprieve from death. "You owe me ten favours." The thin man's voice hung in the air, and his presence surged again, driving her to her knees. "Yes, my Prince." *But it was life. For another year, it was life.* - --- Ambsace is a Free Lilim - or so it is widely believed. She owes no Geasa, not even the traditional last Geas/1 which Lilith always keeps upon her Daughters, and is beholden to no Prince. Holder of the Word of Gambling, she manages a well-hidden chain of casinos in Shal-Mari, and one particular Casino, where only the most _elite_ come to play. Lesser demons never find the doors, or are thrown out by the Djinn bouncers. (Many lower-class casinos do operate in Shal-Mari, and often pay her a rakeoff, but Ambsace herself runs the most elite, the most secret, and the ones with the highest stakes.) A few minor, unobtrusive doors on the Strip give entrance to her casinos. Inside, all is restrained luxury, sufficient even for the comfort of a Prince. Guests are shown to private rooms where they can indulge in games of chance for the highest of stakes - damned souls, Servitors, Geases, favours, Relics and Reliquaries, areas of influence, territories on Earth. The sky is the limit. It is said that on occasion, even _Princes_ patronise Ambsace's most private casino, and on those occasions she self-Geases herself to absolute silence and acts as their croupier. If this should be the case, then nobody has ever spoken about it - reliably. But rumours are rumours, and it is said that even Baal enjoys the occasional gamble. Ambsace has a group of loyal workers who keep the Casino functioning, "lent" by the Princes of Shal-Mari, who have an interest in it. She pays a regular tithe for these services, and as "ground rent". Oddly enough, she is somewhat prejudiced against her own Band - or so they complain, as Ambsace will only accept Lilim for service in the Casino if they place a Geas/6 upon themselves to serve loyally for a year. There is a "house rule" for all staff that no resonances or attunements are to be used upon customers, even if the customers grow violent. (Ambsace has a well-trained security staff who get called out on those occasions.) Despite that, working in the Casino can be very rewarding, both in terms of tips from happy customers, or in making contacts for later use and impressing the powerful. For these reasons, Lilim still seek employment there. Ambsace herself appears as a dark-haired Lilim, elegantly dressed in simple white dresses - as some have cruelly remarked, a "poor man's Lilith". Her body is notoriously bare of Geasa. She is polite to all customers, and deferential to the very powerful - to her staff she is concise and clipped, and positively vicious if they disobey or err. Several have traced her habits of disciplining her staff back to her time as a Lilim of the Game. Some of her staff have even vanished after errors, and never been seen again. Ambsace rarely visits Earth, but she does from time to time show up at a Casino, or at some major gambling event. However, she's really too busy in Shal-Mari to spare much time... Ambsace's Secret - ---------------- Ambsace never left the service of Asmodeus. She was permitted a degree of freedom to run her Casino, and he petitioned Lucifer for her Word, but she is still his Servitor - and a Countess of the Game. Her last Geas/1 to Lilith was the subject of some private discussion between Lilith and Asmodeus, and Ambsace still does not know what Asmodeus may have done to secure her freedom from it. She does, however, know that Lilith has never spoken to her since, or sent her any message at all. Once a year, Asmodeus comes to Ambsace's Casino, and she attends him in a private room, which is empty except for a roulette wheel. He spins the wheel once, and the number of the slot that the ball lands in determines the number of "favours" that she owes him. These favours are tasks that he gives her, which may be minor or large. All that matters is that she obeys perfectly. If the ball lands in the slot marked _0_, then he will kill her on the spot. These were the terms that he gave her when she first offered him this service, and she accepted them. Nobody else, save perhaps Lucifer and Lilith, knows of this private game. So far, Ambsace is still alive. Details (As In, The Devil Is In Them) - ------------------------------------- I'm not including any stats for Ambsace. She's an 15-Forcer, a Countess of the Game (though that's a secret to the rest of Hell) and doubtless carries plenty of attunements (from earlier services) and Songs. Inside her Casino, she should be pretty impossible to take down, given that she can summon help. If caught on Earth for some reason, she can probably hold enemies off long enough to run for it (something she has no qualms about doing). However, her "favours" for Asmodeus may end up taking her into dangerous situations, or cause her to employ pawns to fulfil them.... - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:00:51 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF876.95CF29C5 Content-Type: text/plain The errata on Kyriotates of War seems to imply that _any_ vessel takes five forces. What if the vessel that the Kyrio chooses is a small, normally two force animal? steve -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy [mailto:emccoy@nh.ultranet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 12:33 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? At 2:05 PM -0400 10/15/98, David wrote: >The Lilim of Kronos attunement does what? Pick up the Infernal Player's Guide, which clarifies this little puppy. >The text says the attunement adds the Lilim's Celestial Forces to any attempt >to inflict a charmed person with their infernal geas. If, after the Lilim has fulfilled the Need and gotten the hook (the state of a Geas before the Will roll but after the Need is fulfilled, see the "Fall of the Malakim" page from http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine), she manages to get a positive reaction roll from the person, via skills or whatever, then the victim subtracts her Celestial Forces from his Will (along with the level of the Geas!) when attempting to resist. Okay, there's a lot of those "add to attempt to inflict" in the Lilim attunements -- this is because they used to have a 2-part resonance, like Impudites. One was the Impudite Charm ability, the other was the Inflict Geas ability. As you can see, it got changed.... However, some of the attunements reflect the older version (as does Michael's Kyriotate one reflect old Kyrio mechanics -- check the errata for it!). When it says "add to attempt", subtract that number from the victim's Will. (For Vapulan Lilim, IIRC, they get it for Perception *and* subtract it from Will. Eee!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ - ------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF876.95CF29C5 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement?

The errata on Kyriotates of War seems to imply that = _any_ vessel takes five forces.  What if the vessel that the Kyrio = chooses is a small, normally two force animal?

steve

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Elizabeth McCoy [mailto:emccoy@nh.ultranet.com]
Sent:   Thursday, October 15, 1998 12:33 = PM
To:     = in_nomine-l@lists.io.com
Subject:        = Re: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement?

At 2:05 PM -0400 10/15/98, David wrote:
>The Lilim of Kronos attunement does what?  =

Pick up the Infernal Player's Guide, which clarifies = this little puppy.

>The text says the attunement adds the Lilim's = Celestial Forces to any attempt
>to inflict a charmed person with their infernal = geas. 

If, after the Lilim has fulfilled the Need and gotten = the hook (the state
of a Geas before the Will roll but after the Need is = fulfilled, see
the "Fall of the Malakim" page from http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine),
she manages to get a positive reaction roll from the = person, via skills
or whatever, then the victim subtracts her Celestial = Forces from his Will
(along with the level of the Geas!) when attempting = to resist.


Okay, there's a lot of those "add to attempt to = inflict" in the Lilim
attunements -- this is because they used to have a = 2-part resonance,
like Impudites. One was the Impudite Charm ability, = the other was
the Inflict Geas ability.  As you can see, it = got changed....  However,
some of the attunements reflect the older version = (as does Michael's
Kyriotate one reflect old Kyrio mechanics -- check = the errata for it!).

When it says "add to attempt", subtract = that number from the victim's
Will. (For Vapulan Lilim, IIRC, they get it for = Perception *and*
subtract it from Will. Eee!)


--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com  In = Nomine Line Editor
GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF876.95CF29C5-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:33:01 EDT From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial I've got a question about the specifics when God intervened in Dominic's trial of Michael for vainglory. In the core book, it says that Michael was acquitted(pg130), yet in The Final Trumpet, it says that he was pardoned(pg 14). I believe that there is a difference between the two, with pardoned meaning that the crime is forgiven, yet acquital meaning that the charge is thrown out (don't have a dictionary, so I can't be positive). Assuming that my memory is correct, was Michael pardoned or acquitted? There is a big difference between the two (at least in my opinion). Acquital would mean that he had done no wrong, where being pardoned would mean that he would have to admit that he had done some wrong. Both texts indicate that Michael considers that he had done no wrong. I prefer to go with pardoned, as it would mean that he lies to himself, possibly implying that he could Fall. S. Flanigan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:42:50 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Samovar3@aol.com wrote: > I've got a question about the specifics when God intervened in Dominic's trial > of Michael for vainglory. > > In the core book, it says that Michael was acquitted(pg130), yet in The Final > Trumpet, it says that he was pardoned(pg 14). I believe that there is a > difference between the two, with pardoned meaning that the crime is forgiven, > yet acquital meaning that the charge is thrown out (don't have a dictionary, > so I can't be positive). Assuming that my memory is correct, was Michael > pardoned or acquitted? There is a big difference between the two (at least in > my opinion). Acquital would mean that he had done no wrong, where being > pardoned would mean that he would have to admit that he had done some wrong. > Both texts indicate that Michael considers that he had done no wrong. I > prefer to go with pardoned, as it would mean that he lies to himself, possibly > implying that he could Fall. Most likely, it doesn't make a difference. In many systems, someone can be pardoned without actually admitting to or being convicted of the crime. My reading was that God made his feelings on the subject known before any verdict was reached. What the Council would have decided remains an open question. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:43:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE On 15 Oct 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > Assume Forces and Attributes work as in Anders Gabrielsson's IN FUDGE > 0.1. > > Your Damage Capacity is the sum of your Strength and Vessel Level (or > Toughness for mortals). Vessel level can be from 0 to +3; humans can > take Toughness from -1 to +1. > > There are 6 (actually 7) Damage levels: > > Fine (0) > Just a Scratch (1) > Wounded (2) > Badly Wounded (3) > Incapacitated (4) > Mostly Dead (5) > Dead (6) > > (Adjust as desired. For example, stick "Stunned" between "Just a > Scratch" and "Wounded", and get rid of "Mostly Dead". Adjust effects > to match.) I think that would be better, but YMMV. The difference between "Incapacitated" and "Mostly Dead" isn't very big, I think. :) [reasonable examples snipped] These seem to indicate that the system works pretty well, but it's difficult to judge without more thourough testing. Seems like a good start, though. > I'm sure this needs some fixing up...one problem I foresee is > strength-based weapons doing far more damage than ranged weapons > unless they are assigned very low power ratings. You could make a close-combat weapon's damage modifier depend on the combination of the wielder's strength and the weapon itself. I think strength-modifiers should be less than -3-+3, but I haven't tried this enough to say for certain. I'm not sure how it > plays out for defense monsters, either... Comments? Well, disallowing, or giving hefty penalties to, "passive dodge" - dodging while doing something else - would make it more difficult for them. If you have to choose between dodging and attacking (possibly with a very reduced ability to dodge) the defense monsters wouldn't be as unbalancing, I think. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:46:25 -0700 From: Stephen Gingell Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Samovar3@aol.com wrote: > > I've got a question about the specifics when God intervened in Dominic's trial > of Michael for vainglory. > > In the core book, it says that Michael was acquitted(pg130), yet in The Final > Trumpet, it says that he was pardoned(pg 14). I believe that there is a > difference between the two, with pardoned meaning that the crime is forgiven, > yet acquital meaning that the charge is thrown out (don't have a dictionary, > so I can't be positive). Assuming that my memory is correct, was Michael > pardoned or acquitted? There is a big difference between the two (at least in > my opinion). Acquital would mean that he had done no wrong, where being > pardoned would mean that he would have to admit that he had done some wrong. > Both texts indicate that Michael considers that he had done no wrong. I > prefer to go with pardoned, as it would mean that he lies to himself, possibly > implying that he could Fall. > > S. Flanigan In Michael's writeup in the main text it says God acquited Michael "not because he was innocent but because without pride and glory - and Michael - Heaven's greatest battles would be lost". So it sounds to me like, yes Michael was guilty of being proud, vain, heathenish, and everything else Dominic had to say about him, but was too valuable to Heaven from a military standpoint to loose, and God, recognizing that "dissmissed the matter" (for lack of the appropriote legal term). Sort of the "who care's if the President is getting blown by interns? The economy is up!" argument. Is Michael then lying to himself? The truth can be slippery, I would imagine he admits the truth to himself to the extent of admitting he's proud, but doesn't see it as a weakness (which isn't true if your Dominic and demand purity, but it could easily be argued as true if you envision heaven loosing "The War" without it...). Could he Fall? I get shivers of delicious horror just thinking about it. Thanks for bringing it up, imagine Baal and Micheal sharing the same sort of relationship Laurence and Micheal had... Heaven would be burning within the week. - -Stephen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:19:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Michael, Demon Prince of Pride? Hmmm... I think Baal would have mixed emotions about Michael falling... It would weaken the enemy, but it would also create a lot of tension in Hell, I think. Michael would have a lot of inside info, and could very well insist on a high position in Hell's army, something that Baal might not be very happy about. And if Michael really became the DP of Pride, he might insist on leading Hell's army himself... and everyone would remember that Michael beat Lucifer himself. Including Lucifer. So maybe he wouldn't give Michael a Word... but how could he not? Alienating such a powerful entity would be extremely dangerous... This sounds more and more intriguing... *grin* Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:52:28 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Max was shafted. I have a question that has always bugged me regarding Fall of the Malakim. Maximilian, Malakite of Stone. One of his oaths, like all Malakim, is "Do not suffer an evil to live if it's your choice" In addition to which, his dissonance condition for being an angel of Stone prohibits him from attacking a demon first. That makes two solid reasons for Max not to attack the demons in L.A., and two solid reasons why it was not his choice,(i.e. His natural dissonance conditions, plus the direct order he received from David), which makes two solid reasons why he should not gain dissonance. Yes, Max was frustrated. Yes, he was miserable. But no, he was never dissonant. Even if he were not under orders to avoid physical conflict with the demons of L.A. his dissonance conditions still would have been prohibited from attacking them first. If this is how it works, I think all Malakim of David are pretty well shafted. I can envision a group of fun-loving demons following a Malakite of Stone around, taunting him, doing deliberate acts of evil in front of him, and watching gleefully as he gets more and more dissonant, impotently unable to attack them, then cutting out and running when the poor guy's fellow Malakim show up to destroy the dissonant bastard. I hope this isn't how it works. Your thoughts, everyone? Yours, Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1998 15:49:26 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE >>>>> "SK" == Sam Kington writes: SK> Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >> > One of the real advantages of using FUDGE-based rules would be that >> > the Stat+Skill problem would go away. And as you say, you could >> > still keep interventions, if you weren't using real dF. >> >> You could still use the usual 4dF. Interventions happen in IN once >> every 108 rolls (on average). Having them happen on a rolled >> result of -4 or +4 in FUDGE would make them occur every ((1/3 ^4) >> x2) 40 or so rolls. Make the rule that a Intervention requires a >> +/- 4 rolled result, and a Legendary+ or worse than Terrible total, >> and the odds should work out about the same. SK> Well yes, but IMHO the whole point of Interventions is that they occur SK> when you roll a 666 or a 111 - special numbers. Making them just another SK> critical hit or fail is losing a lot of the magic. I agree. Also, if you say that they only happen on an +/- 4 rolled result _and_ a Legendary+ or Terrible- total, then they can only happen to characters with better than Fair or better or Fair or worse skills or attributes (respectively) rather than to anyone at any time, for no reason. I think this means that you need to use 3d6, even though using 3d6 in Fudge flattens your bell curve _and_ requires you to do a table-lookup every time you roll. *sigh* - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1998 15:43:43 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE >>>>> "KW" == Kenneth Winland writes: KW> On 14 Oct 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: >> I think it would be a nice idea. There are a lot of things I don't >> like about IN's mechanics, but I'm uncomfortable with changing them >> since some of them (like Forces and Interventions) tie in so >> closely with the setting. KW> We ran In Nomine up here using FUDGE once or twice. It works KW> nicely, bu the core In Nomine system is so simple, we just went KW> right back to usinf the original mechanics . Sure, there are KW> problems, but they are easy to fix. I agree that the In Nomine system is as simple as you could ask it to be. That wouldn't be the reason for wanting to use Fudge, in this case, or at least it wouldn't be _my_ reason. I don't like how combat works in IN at all, and all of the proposed fixes I've seen are just tweaks. For example, I don't like hit-point based damage systems. The fact that body hits are unreasonably distributed in IN is fixable, but not the fact that it uses them at all. I also don't like Stat+Skill systems in general, especially where stats and skills are bought out of the same pool of points. In IN that's not a problem at character creation, but it is when characters advance. You can tweak the costs to alleviate the problem, but I still don't like it. These are all religious issues: I don't think the IN system is _badly_ broken in the way that say, the Storyteller system is. But if a FUDGE conversion could retain the IN flavor, it would be possible to fix some of the elements of IN mechanics that can't just be tweaked. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:29:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE On 15 Oct 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > >>>>> "SK" == Sam Kington writes: > > > SK> Well yes, but IMHO the whole point of Interventions is that they occur > SK> when you roll a 666 or a 111 - special numbers. Making them just another > SK> critical hit or fail is losing a lot of the magic. > > I agree. Also, if you say that they only happen on an +/- 4 rolled > result _and_ a Legendary+ or Terrible- total, then they can only > happen to characters with better than Fair or better or Fair or worse > skills or attributes (respectively) rather than to anyone at any time, > for no reason. > > I think this means that you need to use 3d6, even though using 3d6 in > Fudge flattens your bell curve _and_ requires you to do a table-lookup > every time you roll. *sigh* This can be fixed quite easily, I think. Use six-sided dice to simulate FUDGE-dice - 1,2 = -, 3,4 = 0, 5,6 = +. Pre-determine three of the dice, preferably separated by colour or some other marking, to be used for determining intervention. Then just roll away. Examples, using four dice: Coloured dice 1,1,2, last die 1 No intervention, total result -4. Coloured dice 1,1,1, last die 4 Divine intervention. Coloured dice 6,6,5, last die 6 No intervention, total result +4. Coloured dice 1,3,6, last die 4 No intervention, total result 0. If you want a check digit, add another (easily distinguished) die. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:41:02 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 Samovar3@aol.com wrote: > Assuming that my memory is correct, was Michael pardoned or acquitted? If I remember right, God dismissed the charges before the Council could try Michael, in the same way as He did for Uriel. So the answer is probably 'neither'. For it to be a pardon, God would have told Michael not to do it again, which I don't think he did. Dominic might argue that He implied that without stating it. IMC, Michael's sum total thought on the matter is 'God told me that I'm doing the right thing. Therefore I will carry on doing it.' Michael Falling? I reckon if he did, then barring God wrapping up the Universe, Hell would win The War within hours. It's established canon that even Laurence is no match for Michael in combat. When Micheal,Lucifer, Baal, Belial, Saminga line up against Laurence, David, Janus, Gabriel and Jordi I know who I'd bet on. But then I belong to the 'Lucifer and Michael are both considerably harder than you' school of thought. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:20:08 -0400 From: werther@hilander.com (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial > Michael, Demon Prince of Pride? Hmmm... A better choice, IMO, would be Demon Prince of Battle - the more bloodthirsty, pagan version of War. Promotes that Baal/Michael dichotomy, too. - -J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:50:18 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Max was shafted. BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > I have a question that has always bugged me regarding Fall of the Malakim. > Maximilian, Malakite of Stone. One of his oaths, like all Malakim, is "Do not > suffer an evil to live if it's your choice" In addition to which, his > dissonance condition for being an angel of Stone prohibits him from attacking > a demon first. > That makes two solid reasons for Max not to attack the demons in L.A., and > two solid reasons why it was not his choice,(i.e. His natural dissonance > conditions, plus the direct order he received from David), which makes two > solid reasons why he should not gain dissonance. Read his conditions more carefully. He doesn't get dissonance from THOSE oaths. The ones that tore him up were "Protect fellow servants of God" and "Never allow the name of Heaven to be dishonored". If oaths (or oath and orders) conflict, then sometimes dissonance is unavoidable without very, very clever work on the angel's part. For most angels, a good effort to avoid dissonance (combined with a successful mission) is enough to get their Superior to removed the dissonance. Max was being punished, however. > If this is how it works, I think all Malakim of David are pretty well > shafted. I can envision a group of fun-loving demons following a Malakite of > Stone around, taunting him, doing deliberate acts of evil in front of him, and > watching gleefully as he gets more and more dissonant, impotently unable to > attack them, then cutting out and running when the poor guy's fellow Malakim > show up to destroy the dissonant bastard. A typical response would probably be to waste the demon and then say, "Sorry boss, I got carried away. Can you please remove this note of dissonance?" And, as you guessed, "When it's your choice" is the critical element in 'not suffering evil to live'. If David says no in his dissonance conditions, then the Malakim are not bound by that oath until the demons attack. Max's problem was the other oaths. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Max was shafted. On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > I have a question that has always bugged me regarding Fall of the Malakim. > Maximilian, Malakite of Stone. One of his oaths, like all Malakim, is "Do not > suffer an evil to live if it's your choice" In addition to which, his > dissonance condition for being an angel of Stone prohibits him from attacking > a demon first. > That makes two solid reasons for Max not to attack the demons in L.A., and > two solid reasons why it was not his choice,(i.e. His natural dissonance > conditions, plus the direct order he received from David), which makes two > solid reasons why he should not gain dissonance. Well, it wasn't his oath to "never suffer an evil to live if it is my choice" that got Max the dissonance. I think. I think it was the other oaths he took, that David did not relieve him of for the duration. He still had to protect the honor of Heaven, etc. When he did not do that, he took dissonance. Truthfully, I still don't think Max's behavior makes much sense. He should be going through cycles of stoically taking everything the demons do to him (and racking up dissonance) and then going berserk and killing anything near him that he thinks is evil (and racking up dissonance for attacking first). Instead, he just sits around and guilts. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:56:33 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Max was shafted. gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > Truthfully, I still don't think Max's behavior makes much sense. He > should be going through cycles of stoically taking everything the demons > do to him (and racking up dissonance) and then going berserk and killing > anything near him that he thinks is evil (and racking up dissonance for > attacking first). Which would have had an added benefit from Max's perspective: after the first time he went berserk, the demons of LA would probably have forbidden his presence there. There probably isn't anything David would do to him that could be worse than his stay in LA. David would probably just disband his forces, which would surely be a relief. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:36:06 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: Max was shafted. I don't know what Max did to get his punishment, but as a Malakite himself, David is certainly behaving oddly. Torturing one of your servitors strikes me as... evil. 'Ware the Inquistition, David. But no, all the AA's seem to think this is just fine, which strikes me as another reason FotM sucks royal. Bart Hammerly "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:53:07 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:45:09PM -0400, Highway Star wrote: > According to Kevin Walsh: > > Heaven just doesn't cut it, IMO. Angels lack the malice, selfishness, and > > information-deprivation needed for it to work. > > It depends on how you run it. Heaven has the "utopia" feel to > it (of course!) The thing is: Alpha Complex doesn't feel like utopia. It feels bloody awful. And Heaven doesn't. but you'd need God to be more active to act as > the Computer. > You don't particularly need the Computer to make it Paranoia. It's humanity that makes Paranoia what it is, not the Computer. So long as you have denunciation boxes which allow you to file anonymous denunciations, you can have Paranoia. > Malice? I think Dominic is pretty good at that. > Well, your campaign is your campaign, but that's not how I see it. Dominic doesn't even allow his obvious hatred of Asmodeus to prevent him working with him when necessary. That's how much he's influenced by malice. He prevents his Servitors from inflicting unjust punishments, but does not prevent them from exercising mercy. Is this malice? Of course he's on the look out for heresy that isn't dissonant. That it isn't dissonant for a Seraph of Creation to rape someone doesn't mean it's right and a Dominic that ignored such acts would not be worthy of his position. > Selfishness? Yeah, most of them seem to show that at times. > At times. In Paranoia, it's pretty much universal. In one game I got an Infrared killed because he took a fork out of the canteen. Why? It made me feel better about things and made me look good in front of the Computer. Not one of my angelic characters would even contemplate doing something like that. The idea would sicken them. > Information deprivation? Definitely. > Information deprivation in a place where no one can lie, where PCs can tell the Truth of people's statements, read their emotions, assess the state of their soul and know all their friends and interests? Hardly. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:47:08 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Re: Max was shafted. Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > > I don't know what Max did to get his punishment, but as a Malakite > himself, David is certainly behaving oddly. Torturing one of your > servitors strikes me as... evil. 'Ware the Inquistition, David. David was trying to teach a lesson. A very harsh lesson, but David is a big proponent of tough love and endurance. An angel that survives successfully what Max is going through probably would've earned a distinction at least. > > But no, all the AA's seem to think this is just fine, which strikes me > as another reason FotM sucks royal. The other AA's probably DON'T think it's such a hot idea, but it's not their servitor. The AA's disagree on a lot of things and discipline is not the least of them. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #979 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.