From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Dec 6 09:10:14 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 JAA16393 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:10:13 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id JAA24601 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:01:54 -0600 Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:01:54 -0600 Message-Id: <199812061501.JAA24601@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 #1038 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 Sunday, December 6 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1038 In this digest: Re: IN> Arcangeles - an SF setting for IN Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Santa Claus Re: IN> Superior's Hearts IN> Fixing hit points Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1036 Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality IN> Stripmining comics for ideas IN> Dominic and Catholicism IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:03:42 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5vard_R=F8nne_Faanes?= Subject: Re: IN> Arcangeles - an SF setting for IN On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Roland Ward wrote: > Mmm I like the idea of near future In Nomine. Especially if the future has > gone to hell like the Cyberpunk world. The space station idea is good - > you would want to steer clear of any likeness to Babylon 5 though. Why? :) Haavard *** Haavard R. Faanes (hoc@nvg.ntnu.no) http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc "Remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people." -Mr Garrison, South Park. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 10:34:10 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > On the other hand, if Dominic supports Catholicism as a mater of politics, > then his attitude towards homosexuality is far more likely one of absolute > indifference. > If he's competent at his Word at all, he supports Catholic doctrine insofar as it expresses good judgment about the way monkeys should treat each other and no further. He probably would ony see churches in about the same way he sees governments: they have a set of rules, and if the rules are generally good and just, then we like them, and if a rule isn't, then the rule needs to be changed and people need to not follow the rule. That's just flat-out what judgment -is-. "In my considered judgment, this rule is destructive and arbitrary, so men shouldn't follow it or try to impose it on each other - those that do have flawed judgment and need correction. Have attem, kids." That kind of thing. Jason onwards ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:45:22 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus In message , Greg Jensen writes >At 02:41 PM 12/3/98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 3:43 AM -0500 12/3/98, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>>>Now, now, he could just as easily be a creation of Marc.<<< >>> >>>Nope. Santa Claus isn't about Trade. There's no exchange or bargain >>>entailed in the myth of a magic sled-riding fat man giving away free gifts, >>>and encouraging greed for undeserved rewards in children. >> >>What about the "be good, you get stuff; be bad, you get a lump of coal" >>stuff? (Though I'm not sure that's Trade either...) > >I was more thinking of the fact that the entire fiscal year revolves around >Christmas. Nothing has improved the trade industry quite as much. > >>>It's the _modern_ incarnation of Santa Claus that is explicitly a creation >>>of Mammon. The older legends on which St. Nick is based may come from a >>>variety of sources. > >I have read in several sources (and it was also mentioned in A&E's >Biography on Santa Claus) that the image of Santa Claus is largely based on >the pagan god Odin. The modern day depiction of Santa Clause as jovial, bearded, and red- costumed, is due to none other than the Coca Cola company. In 1931, artist Haddon Sundblom used a retired salesman as a model to give Santa a more human face, as prior to this most illustrators had depicted him as largely elfin. It is testament to the power of CC that their image was subsequently adopted worldwide as the most commonly accepted depiction of the character. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:21:01 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Superior's Hearts >* The Cathedrals of Fallen/Dead Archangels still stand, although >abandoned. This is explicitly stated in the main source book. Does that >mean if say, (for example) Kronos once had a Cathedral in Heaven, he now >has a "Heart" that is empty and abandoned from the Fall? And is it all >cracked and black and nasty? (Oooh, I like this, actually.) > Actually, relatively few of the Demon Princes were Archangels prior to their Fall. (The bumping up of status might have been one of the things Lucifer used in recruitment) Also in particular, Kronos' existence as a Fallen Seraph is itself a lie. My take is that Kronos itself came into being "spontaneously" as a result of that First Fall, or else the moment that the Symphony encompassed the Possiblity of its own Fall.) In the Heaven and Hell sourcebook, that statement has been modified to the extent that some of the Cathedrals of the Lost and Fallen Archangels are no more while detailing a few of the others which remain. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.concentric.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:21:26 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Fixing hit points On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote: > But the Hit point systems are really tiresome. Rev. Pee Kitty created a pretty good fix for the hit point system. It means a bit more math, but it brings things more in line with what seems reasonable. Check out http://www.concentric.net/~Pkitty/nomine/hits.txt - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 14:05:56 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 09:30 AM 12/5/98 +0100, you wrote: >Not quite. The janitor et al are selling the work their bodies perform, >which isn't the same thing. How do you do work without your body? Maybe if you're a Kyriotate or Shedim. >> To get back on the subject of Dominic, perhaps a better example would be >> homosexuality. I assume Dominic would not approve of homosexuals. But >> why? What harm do they cause? Homosexual rape is harmful, yes, just as >> heterosexual rape is. Diseases passed through prolific homosexual sex is >> bad, yes, as is heterosexual prolificity leading to STDs. This says >> nothing about a loving monogamous homosexual relationship. Remember, the >> real Inquisition went after and tortured/killed many homosexuals. What >> about Dominic, and how can he justify this except that "it's the law, right >> or wrong?" > >Why do you assume this? I can't see why Dominic would care about what >consenting adults do behind closed curtains, as long as none of them was >hurt by it. Because Dominic has openly supported Christianity, and Christianity has historically condemned homosexuality. Not all sects, of course, but quite a few (including Catholicism, the religion Dominic and Laurence support). I don't really want a discussion about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, or whether one religion is right or wrong. My point is that some people (and Archangels), good people, see homosexuality as a sin. Other people, also good people, do not. I won't believe that the good people who do not believe this are deserving of punishment, regardless of what the law may say. If there is a punishment for such a behavior that harms noone, it cannot be a just punishment. So where would Dominic stand on this issue? Remember, he supports the rules of Christianity, but also demands just punishment only. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm > >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: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 14:13:24 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1036 At 05:35 AM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >Okay... how does this sound? >A "superheroic" game is one with clearly defined moral lines (good vs. >evil), lots of cinematic (as opposed to simulationist or 'realistic') >action-adventure, featuring characters that are clearly 'larger than life'. >Another sign of a superheroic game is that most often (but not always) they >feature characters with "inherent" abilities; their powers come from >within, not devices or the like. I think that describes four-color comic style superheroic games. But not all games listed under Supers conforms to that. The darker style of street-level heroes (Punisher, Crow, Watchmen, etc.) has very murky moral divisions (Watchmen is the best example), and the characters are all too human. Dark Champions is a good example. I agree that In Nomine really is its own genre; nothing else really fits. It's a pseudo-religious heaven vs. hell game, fairly unique. I also agree that it could fit within horror or superhero genre, but pretty much any other setting could as well. I mean, fantasy and sci fi both have mean nasty monsters that could be considered horror, and both have larger-than-life heroes battling the forces of evil with powers and abilities (or devices) beyond the ken of mortal men. I think it's also interesting to note the large amount of angelic and demonic superhero comics (there seem to be more demonic heroes, for some reason): Sandman, Demon, Ghost Rider, even the '70s comic Son of Satan, etc. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:02:55 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > At 09:30 AM 12/5/98 +0100, you wrote: > > >Not quite. The janitor et al are selling the work their bodies perform, > >which isn't the same thing. > > How do you do work without your body? Maybe if you're a Kyriotate or Shedim. What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it - -is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. > >Why do you assume this? I can't see why Dominic would care about what > >consenting adults do behind closed curtains, as long as none of them was > >hurt by it. > > Because Dominic has openly supported Christianity, and Christianity has > historically condemned homosexuality. Not all sects, of course, but quite > a few (including Catholicism, the religion Dominic and Laurence support). > I don't really want a discussion about whether homosexuality is right or > wrong, or whether one religion is right or wrong. My point is that some > people (and Archangels), good people, see homosexuality as a sin. Other > people, also good people, do not. I won't believe that the good people who > do not believe this are deserving of punishment, regardless of what the law > may say. If there is a punishment for such a behavior that harms noone, it > cannot be a just punishment. So where would Dominic stand on this issue? > Remember, he supports the rules of Christianity, but also demands just > punishment only. The way I've read it, Dominic and Laurence support Catholicism since they think it's a good way to get people to act in such a way as to reach their Destinies and stay away from their Fates. Whether they care about the details of the Catholic fait is much less clear. They may well be unhappy about a lot of what the Popes say, but they think that a unified Church is a lot better than many small churches, so they continue to support them. Whether they think homosexuality is a "sin" or not is not currently known, or even if they believe in the concept of "sin". The closest thing to sin in IN, as far as I can tell, is selfishness, and there is no direct connection between that and homosexuality, IMO. If they supported all doctrines of the Catholic church they'd also be against contraceptives, female priests and so on, which I find rather unlikely. YMMV. 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: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 16:30:32 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 12:02 AM 12/6/98 +0100, you wrote: >What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else >use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it >-is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't >matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. So more like how a model uses his/her body, then? >The way I've read it, Dominic and Laurence support Catholicism since they >think it's a good way to get people to act in such a way as to reach their >Destinies and stay away from their Fates. Whether they care about the >details of the Catholic fait is much less clear. They may well be unhappy >about a lot of what the Popes say, but they think that a unified Church is >a lot better than many small churches, so they continue to support them. >Whether they think homosexuality is a "sin" or not is not currently known, >or even if they believe in the concept of "sin". The closest thing to sin >in IN, as far as I can tell, is selfishness, and there is no direct >connection between that and homosexuality, IMO. If they supported all >doctrines of the Catholic church they'd also be against contraceptives, >female priests and so on, which I find rather unlikely. YMMV. I have to disagree, I think Dominic does support all the rules of the Catholic church. It's not so much that he has a problem with gays or contraception or eating meat on Fridays or whatever. It has to do with rules. Part of the consequences of living in a civilized society, organized for the good of all, is having to live under rules. Not all of the rules will be fair, but it is better than having no rules. If we start deciding that we can break any rules we don't like, where does it stop? It is little different from anarchy, and this is something Dominic feels is far, far worse than a few oppressed homosexuals. The ends justify the means. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from deciding they don't like property laws, and think it's fair for them to steal your stuff? Or if somebody disagrees with homicide laws and kills you? There are other ways of changing unjust laws. In a democracy, there is votes. Otherwise, you can appeal to the reason and empathy of the rulers. Another valid option (according to Dominic) is to commit the crime, because you find it unjust, and freely submit to punishment for the crime. This was the strategy taken by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi in resisting oppressive rules. They still supported the law, since they did not resist the lawful punishment for their actions. In a similar vein, if you are going to speed because you think the speed limit is too low, fine, but you still had better pay the tickets you get. Just because the law isn't fair is no excuse to flaunt it, or you could arguably flaunt any law. Of course, I don't agree with this outlook, as I think there are other criteria to judge the fairness of a law. But I think Dominic should be played like this, and I think he has a valid point. Sometimes the law will not be good, but if you value law, you must put up with some of this. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:19:04 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > At 12:02 AM 12/6/98 +0100, you wrote: > > >What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else > >use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it > >-is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't > >matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. > > So more like how a model uses his/her body, then? Yeah. Though a prostitute is selling his/her body for sex, which is far more intimate than being photographed, which makes it more problematic. > I have to disagree, I think Dominic does support all the rules of the > Catholic church. It's not so much that he has a problem with gays or > contraception or eating meat on Fridays or whatever. It has to do with > rules. Part of the consequences of living in a civilized society, > organized for the good of all, is having to live under rules. Not all of > the rules will be fair, but it is better than having no rules. If we start > deciding that we can break any rules we don't like, where does it stop? It > is little different from anarchy, and this is something Dominic feels is > far, far worse than a few oppressed homosexuals. The ends justify the > means. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from deciding they don't like > property laws, and think it's fair for them to steal your stuff? Or if > somebody disagrees with homicide laws and kills you? There are other ways > of changing unjust laws. In a democracy, there is votes. Otherwise, you > can appeal to the reason and empathy of the rulers. Another valid option > (according to Dominic) is to commit the crime, because you find it unjust, > and freely submit to punishment for the crime. This was the strategy taken > by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi in resisting oppressive rules. They > still supported the law, since they did not resist the lawful punishment > for their actions. In a similar vein, if you are going to speed because > you think the speed limit is too low, fine, but you still had better pay > the tickets you get. Just because the law isn't fair is no excuse to > flaunt it, or you could arguably flaunt any law. Of course, I don't agree > with this outlook, as I think there are other criteria to judge the > fairness of a law. But I think Dominic should be played like this, and I > think he has a valid point. Sometimes the law will not be good, but if you > value law, you must put up with some of this. Well, I have a different view of Dommie. I think he's quite able to judge individual rules on their own merits, instead of just whole systems. Rules that inspire good behavior are good, rules that inspire bad behavior, or that prevent good behavior, are bad. But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :) 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: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:26:26 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality >>>To get back on the subject of Dominic, perhaps a better example would be homosexuality. I assume Dominic would not approve of homosexuals.<<< I don’t assume that. I think Dominic doesn’t care much about human sexuality. >>>Remember, the real Inquisition went after and tortured/killed many homosexuals. What about Dominic, and how can he justify this except that "it's the law, right or wrong?"<<< Well, the real Inquisition is NOT and was not Dominic’s Inquisition. And Dominic certainly does NOT take the position "It’s the law, right or wrong." I don’t see how people keep coming to this conclusion when his write-up in the core book explicitly states that Judgment is above the law and doesn’t care much about human laws. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:02:42 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality In a message dated 12/5/98 5:10:44 PM Central Standard Time, anders@strindberg.ling.uu.se writes: > What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else > use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it > -is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't > matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. Does that mean you're placing models and many actors and actresses in the same category as prostitutes? :) Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 22:42:39 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 12:02 AM 12/6/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 12/5/98 5:10:44 PM Central Standard Time, >anders@strindberg.ling.uu.se writes: > >> What I meant is that a prostitute sells his/her body, lets someone else >> use it. In other kinds of work you sell what your body -does-, not what it >> -is-. I'm not sure I can make it anymore clear than that. It doesn't >> matter what a janitor looks like as long as he does a good job. >Does that mean you're placing models and many actors and actresses in the same >category as prostitutes? :) >Brian A Rogers Yes. Can you tell me what the major difference is? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 18:44:20 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> Stripmining comics for ideas G'day. The recent conversation about IN's 'genre' (horror vs supers) struck a cord. Like I said there, I don't see it as being either. However, I am a big horror fan, and an even bigger comics fanboy... so I'm reluctant to discount them as good sources for IN fun. The problem with supers as a genre (at least as relates to IN) is that it tends to be very overt. Costumes, operating in the open, big fights in Grand Central Station etc. It's hard to make that gel with the covert nature of the War in IN. However, that's not to say that you can't get inspiration from comics - or even better, blatantly steal ideas and make them your own. The thing to do is not lift the character/idea/whatever and try to warp canon to fit it - instead, mutilate the idea until it fits into canon easily (lots of reduntant organs on those ideas. They'll never miss the ear I had to cut off). What you get might not suit every campaign, but it should suit some - and any source of ideas is a good one for an ongoing campaign (not that I run ongoing campaigns anymore, but I still have vague memories of what to do with them). As an example, here's an idea lifted from the character GHOST RIDER, which someone mentioned on the previous thread as a character that might suit IN. Now, I'm not really familair with the title, since I don't read Marvel Comics material (used to as a teenager, but abandoned them for DC and independant stuff). Still, I worked in a comics store for four years, and you can't help absorbing some knowledge just through osmosis. Anyway, the character (current version) is a demonic biker, the 'Spirit of Vengeance', bonded to a 20-something guy and fightin' the forces of evil. There's potential there, so... This version is still too overt for any IN campaign _I'd_ run, but it'd work in some games. And it just shows how easy this is to do. - -- Ketchiel Kyriotate of Fire Corporeal Forces: 4 Strength/8 Agility/8 Ethereal Forces: 2 Intelligence/3 Precision/5 Celestial Forces: 3 Will/7 Perception/5 Skills: Driving/6, Fighting/4, Area Knowledge/3 (New York), Large Weapon/3 (chain) Songs: Entropy (Ethereal/5), Form (Corporeal/4), Healing (Corporeal/3) Attunements: Kyriotate of Fire, Ofanim of Fire Artifacts: Motorcycle (see below) Ketchiel is that rarest of things, a Redeemed Shedite. Originally a Servitor of the War, Ketchiel was assigned to the Hell’s Angels in the 1960s. He grew adept at fostering gang violence (both towards outsiders and other Angels) within the biker gang, and also became an enthusiast of motorbikes himself. But then he found God. Or at least Redemption, through the guidance of John Blaze, a Saint who’d died at Ketchiel’s hands year earlier, but returned to forgive his murderer. The newly repentant Ketchiel expected nothing better than obliteration as punishment for his past sins - but instead, he was taken in as a Servitor of Fire. Perhaps Gabriel saw a madness within him that she recognized. Ketchiel has been assigned the duty of punishing the cruel in the slums of New York City - and like any convert, he’s fanatical about his duty. Never a deep thinker, he prefers a simple, direct method - beating the cruel to within an inch of their life. His preferred methods, though, are anything but ‘normal’, and centre around the Relic motorcycle given to him by Gabriel. Tethering his Forces in rats, cats, birds and other vermin, Ketchiel spreads his attentions through the slums until he sees someone that requires punishment. He then observes that person for a little while, until he finds a victim of their bullying. Possessing said victim, he then summons his motorcycle, mounts up and goes hell for leather. Burning through the streets, he bursts in on his victims and beats the living daylights out of him, before unleashing his Song of Entropy upon the bully to teach him the error of his ways. Then it’s away, to release his (confused) host somewhere safe and get back to watching. He’s found that a lot of his targets tend to be criminals, gang members or mobsters, which suits him just fine Ketchiel tends to be a bit laizze-faire about the welfare of his hosts - a hangover of his Shedite days - but he does his best to protect them using his Songs of Form and Healing. Further, he usually takes a moment to disguise the host’s face, using a balaclava, helmet, mask or similar. Last year, at Halloween, he possessed a costume store owner who was being harassed by a protection racket, and disguised himself with a skull mask from the vendor’s store. Desiring a big entrance when attacking the racketeers, he took the time to drive through a bonfire before the inevitable fight scene, knowing the flames would not harm his host. To his surprise and delight, he found that the story of the flaming, skull-faced vigilante took off in the area, and the urban legend of the ‘Ghost Rider’ has grown larger and larger. Now he tries to pull the same stunt whenever possible, figuring that he can use the intimidation to his own ends. Ketchiel is too keen on his job and status as ‘Spirit of Vengeance’ (as he likes to think of himself) to take time off - although he does tend to have his animal hosts hover around biker bars and motorcycle rallies when things are quiet. He’s yet to encounter any infernal opposition in his new role, and has grown somewhat overconfident in his abilities. Facing a demon - worse, one who knows him from his previous life - could be a real blow to his ego. Ketchiel’s motorcycle is quite a hefty Relic. It contains the Song of Motion (Corporeal/5), with the variation that it does not actually permit flight - rather, the bike can drive up walls or even upside down on ceilings when the Song is in effect (he can even park the bike while upside down, but will fall off if he dismounts). While the Song is in effect, the bike’s wheels burn with angelic fire. Furthermore, the bike contains a Reliquary/2, and can be summoned from nowhere at a cost of 1 Essence. Of course, the bike is indestructible. On the down side, it’s an obvious artifact, and any celestially-aware character who sees it will know exactly what it is - not that Ketchiel cares. And there we have it. Like I said, easy. I must admit I'm tempted to look at John Constantine next, since he's a character that'd fit much more easily into most IN campaigns (and with Warren Ellis taking over the series, I'm thinking about Constantine a lot these days), but we'll see. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia ...my attorney kept screaming at them: "Shoot! Fuck! Scag! Blood! Heroin! Rape! Cheap! Communist! Jab it right into your fucking eyeballs!" HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:42:56 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Dominic and Catholicism On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > I think it depends on how you interpret Dominic's support for Catholicism. [whether he supports it because he agrees with its doctrines or if he supports it because of more political issues] A couple other possibilities: Dominic may support Catholicism doctrinally without agreeing with them on every issue. He might support them because while they're (in his opinion) 95% correct, with the next best religion being 90% correct. Or he might support them because he believes Christ was God and of the Christian faiths they're right on one or two key issues. For example, almost all Protestant faiths believe in salvation through faith, and in the IN world in practice one has salvation through works. Or Dominic might support Catholicism because he believes Christ was God and therefore men should be Christian and Peter was Christ's delegate on Earth; hence, Peter's successor should lead Christianity. I could see Dominic disagreeing with the Pope on many issues and still supporting him and his religion because he was God's representative among men. And of course, Dominic could support Catholicism for mixed political and doctrinal reasons. He might support Christianity because he agrees with the the central belief and Catholicism because he thinks there should be one church encompassing mankind and Catholicism has the best chance of getting close to that. It's also possible that Dominic supports Catholicism and/or Christianity out of habit, or for lack of a better alternative. Say when it got started he looked at it and decided it was better than its competitors. I suspect Dominic supports Catholicism in part because the hierarchy more closely resembles the hierarchy in Heaven than the leadership of other religions. Given that humans are different from angels in ways besides being less divine and less powerful, this may be a mistake. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:22:25 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. I have a question that has bothered me for a little while. Hypothetical situation: Muffy the Free Lilim is vessel-killed in a freak accident involving a deck of playing cards, a pack of contraceptives, and some ordinary household bleach. Having no heart, poor Muffy is consigned to that wonderful no-place known as Limbo, where she has plenty of time to reflect on freedom, the ever-changing world of fashion, and the perils of latex. Having a rather good willpower, and a few good friends on the outside who are willing to toss her a little essence to speed her return, Muffy manages to stockpile a large pile of essence in a surprisingly short time, and begins to mentally design her new vessel. Problem: There are no rules for giving a vessel formed in Limbo Charisma of any sort. Presumably you can design your vessel to look like whatever you want, since it's not being given to you by a superior. Why can't you form it into a pleasing (i.e. sexy) shape? Muffy is not the sort of girl who would drive around in a Ford Pinto when a cherry-red Porsche was available. If she had to leave Limbo in a plain-jane vessel then Oh-my-GAWD! she would just DIE!!! What kind of rules do you people generally use for this? I might be nice and let them have the Charisma for free if it was in character for them to worry about that sort of thing. Limbo's bad enough without getting a piddly over character points. On a side note: it always bugged and confused me that Charisma was a function of the vessel and not the personality of the celestial involved. But being to lazy to actually change or fix that I called upon my old friend Rationalization. Why fix a problem when you can rationalize a reason not to? Here's what I came up with: Charisma is a function of the vessel because you are supposed to roleplay the personality. If you want a celestial who gets his way by being forceful, commanding, or smooth and slick, you'll have to roleplay to get those bonuses. The vessel's Charisma simply shows any freebies given because of chiseled good looks, a powerful build, etc. You could act like the biggest wad of dirty toilet paper on the planet and still get bonuses because your vessel's sexy thang Charisma is greasing the wheels. Anything more than that you'll have to work for through roleplaying. Anyway, that's all my current thoughts on the subject. Opinions, anyone? Yours, Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:32:39 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! I don't get the Djinn. I'm sorry. I've tried. I've found a way to understand and even like all of the other demonic bands, but I've never really understood the Djinn. I mean, first of all, they have no coolness. They're just washed up Cherubim. Second, I don't understand their purpose. Are they stalkers? I got the impression that they're supposed to be stalkers. After all they're called stalkers. But they're not allowed to emotionally harm the objects of they're attunement. I thought that's what stalking was! Terrorizing someone, making their fear of you as great as your obsession for them. And then maybe offing them so that no one else may have them. But these Djinn can't even do that. All they can do is attune to someone and pretend not to care! Useful? Yes! Cool? No! Maybe I'm just thick. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, and I just need one of you good people to explain it to me. I hope so, because the stalker concept is a good one. It just needs some room. Help me out, people. Thanks, Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:21:15 -0500 From: werther@hilander.com (...jason schneiderman...) Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! >I don't get the Djinn. I'm sorry. I've tried. I've found a way to understand >and even like all of the other demonic bands, but I've never really understood >the Djinn. *nod* There was some talk about this long time gone, back when I first joined the list. Let's see how well I can recap. >I mean, first of all, they have no coolness. They're just washed up >Cherubim. Depends on your view of coolness. The heart of a djinn is love denied and caring twisted. What balseraphs are to pride, djinn are to envy. > Second, I don't understand their purpose. Are they stalkers? I got >the impression that they're supposed to be stalkers. After all they're called >stalkers. But they're not allowed to emotionally harm the objects of they're >attunement. First off, that's *physically* harm. Emotional torment is perfectly okay. > I thought that's what stalking was! Terrorizing someone, making >their fear of you as great as your obsession for them. You're mixing up the two meanings of "stalk". What you've described tends to be the hobby of dissonant djinn who just can't put an attunement behind them. The sort of "stalking" that djinn do is the more traditional "hunt" stalking - holding on to someone (spiritually) and being able to track them relentlessly. >And then maybe offing >them so that no one else may have them. >But these Djinn can't even do that. /diabolic mode on No. They can't kill them. But anyone who stands in their way is fair game. Lovers, friends, pets... And, if sufficiently motivated, they're explicitly allowed to have someone *else* hurt the object of their desire. "Not by their own hand," remember? /diabolic mode off >All they can do is attune to someone and pretend not to care! Useful? Yes! >Cool? No! Think of it this way. The cherub resonance is, essentially, the power to fall in love with someone/something at will. Now, imagine that love twisted into obsession. That's a djinn. yours, now, where's that tonic, - - J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> No supermodels ever came out of Limbo. On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > to toss her a little essence to speed her return, Muffy manages to stockpile a > large pile of essence in a surprisingly short time, and begins to mentally > design her new vessel. Problem: There are no rules for giving a vessel formed > in Limbo Charisma of any sort. Presumably you can design your vessel to look > like whatever you want, since it's not being given to you by a superior. Why > can't you form it into a pleasing (i.e. sexy) shape? Muffy is not the sort of If you want to bother keeping it all balanced, then it seems simple enough to me...now, I don't have H&H with me right now, so this is from memory. The cost of a human vessel is (IIRC) 75 essence per level. Character point-wise, a level of charisma costs 2/3 of what a vessel level costs, so a level of charisma should be an extra 50 essence, or 25 if it only applies to one gender. Of course, the cost of being a cute rat would be proportionately cheaper. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:56:28 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > I don't get the Djinn. I'm sorry. I've tried. I've found a way to understand > and even like all of the other demonic bands, but I've never really understood > the Djinn. I mean, first of all, they have no coolness. They're just washed up > Cherubim. Wha-? Washed up Cherubim? Naw... Cherubim can attune to anything they want, knowing where it is and how it is, but they have to devote their lives to keeping those things safe, so you don't mind having a Cherub attuned to you. If you have a DJINN attuned to you, you have a demon who always knows where you are, always knows how you are, who can track you down in an instant, and has absolutely NO need to give a damn about you or keep you safe...his *only* rule is that he can't hurt you himself, but that's what his friends are for. For as long as that attunement lasts (and all he has to do is make contact again at some point to renew it - see IPG), you're NEVER safe because you can NEVER hide. I call that fairly scary. That's why they can attune to less people than Cherubim...it's a *more* powerful attunement because it's the same thing, but with FAR less restrictions. > Second, I don't understand their purpose. Are they stalkers? I got > the impression that they're supposed to be stalkers. After all they're called > stalkers. But they're not allowed to emotionally harm the objects of they're > attunement. Errata'd. They can't PHYSICALLY harm their attunement, that's it. Emotional harm is just fine. Since I didn't see it on the INC yet, I'd like to repost Casca's wonderful essay on the subject as a final word. The Djinn Mindset By Casca Djinn have the worst self-esteem of any Band. Why? Because they used to be Cherubim. Think about what this means: pre-Fall, they were the epitome of devotion, loyalty, and selfless love. Whenever a Cherub attunes itself to something, it is in effect swearing undying devotion to that object. The purpose of a Cherub is to love beyond all sense of self. Now, imagine what happens when one such as this Falls. The desire-- no, - - -need- to love something with that same level of devotion is still there, but it's been twisted into something selfish. Selfish love is all about wanting someone else to love you so you can feel good. So: You're a Djinn. You need to be loved. You desperately want someone to love you. Of course, you can't just tell someone that you love him/her, because if he/she doesn't love you back, then that would mean you've been rejected. You hate rejection. Besides, if you've gotta tell someone you love them before they'll tell you they love you, then what's the point? They should love you for what you are -first-. Otherwise it looks like coaching. They could just be saying it to be polite. You never know unless they tell you first. The problem is, people aren't coming up to you and telling you they love you. Jerks. Everyone else is happy and in love, why can't you be? "Because people don't love you," says that nasty voice in the back of your head. "Because you're unlovable. Because no one will ever love you. Never. For all Eternity." People don't love you? Fine. You'll show them. You'll prove to them that you don't need love. Nope, you're strong. You can go for all Eternity without love. You're a big, tough demon, you don't need affection...and you fool yourself into believing it. That is, until you see people who are happily in love. They have something you don't. Something you can never have, -will- never have. Boy, does it piss you off. It gets you so mad, you could wring the neck of each lovebird in your hands, and with their dying breath, they'd - - -finally- stop thinking about each other and pay some attention to -you-.... Waaaait a moment. They won't love you, but you can think up all sorts of ways of getting attention. And attention is really what you want, isn't it? People will be thinking of you constantly. It's love without that messy emotional involvement crap. So you start following the woman, and you do it in such a way that she knows you're following her. All of a sudden, you're the focal point of her attention! It feels gooood. You want more. Soon you start doing things to get her pay more attention to you. Little things, like rifling through her underwear drawer. Every time she gets dressed, she'll think of you. When she pays too much attention to that damnable cat of hers, you take it away from her. You give it back, though. In pieces. That'll teach her to pay attention to something other than you. It's about attention. It's about control. It's about owning somone, body and soul. Breaking her spirit so that you can do anything you want to her, so that she's yours, all -yours-, dammit, and no one else's. Then, after a while, it gets....boring. There's no fear in her eyes anymore. No terror, no indignation, just bland acceptance of the next atrocity you decide to inflict on her. She'll do whatever you want, be whatever you want, let you do whatever you want....and it'll be completely emotionless. That isn't how it's supposed to be, dammit! The emotions are what makes it -fun-. Fear, loathing, hatred....they're what turn you on. That and the sense of power you get when you force her to do something she doesn't want to do. When she doesn't care...well, that's when she doesn't matter any more. You gave her one last thorough going-over for old times sake, then tossed her into the tree chipper -- alive. Her screams were the nicest going-away present she could have given you. But that's in the past now, and you're ready to find someone new....maybe a redhead today.... - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1038 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.