From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 7 14:04:51 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 OAA20782 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:04:51 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA01180 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:49:30 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:49:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199812071949.NAA01180@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 #1040 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1040 In this digest: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Bodiless Shedim Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! Re: IN> Superior's Hearts Re: IN> Arcangeles - an SF setting for IN Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Re: IN> Santa Claus Re: IN> Santa Claus Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Politics and stuff Re: IN> Santa Claus Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Fixing hit points Re: IN> Fixing hit points Re: IN> Santa Claus IN> Re: Atheists in IN and Oops! Re: IN> Re: Atheists in IN and Oops! IN> Know the Enemy #16: As delivered by a Servitor of Fluerity (Drugs) IN> Know Your Diabolicals #12: As delivered by a Servitor of Novalis (Flowers) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:51:47 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Greg Jensen wrote: > At 01:16 AM 12/7/98 +0000, you wrote: > > >However, I think that part of Dominic's role in the game is to have strict > >beliefs that are not shared by the 'flakier' archangels (including, in > >this case, Michael :-) So he may well rule that all sorts of funny things > >are wrong, possibly including drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, > >heretical thinking, the Spice Girls, or for all I know sausages. As > >always, GM fills the canon gap. If any Archangel is going to be the kind > >of 'knee-jerk reactionary' that Mr. Edelstein so dislikes, it is Dominic, > >because he Knows He Is Right. > > I agree. I think Dominic should be intelligent and not narrow-minded, but > that he does adopt a utilitarian view of ethics. The greater good for the > greatest number must be served. This isn't my view of the Big Judge. I think he's very much concerned about individuals - what is the "greater good" but a number of "smaller goods", each of which is priceless? I think this is one of the big differences between angels and demons in general, that angels in general care more about individuals. Demons, as a rule, don't care about monkeys, except as a means to a goal. Even David, who is specifically group-oriented, doesn't care about the group per se, but rather about it's ability to help and protect the individual. I don't think Dominic would let a single person be wronged if he could do anything about it. What's Just is Just, whether it touches one person or a billion. 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: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:03:26 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 09:17:58PM -0800, Greg Jensen wrote: > Don't forget Ken Starr, Balseraph of Lust. > The Game, surely. I also heard Eli fell. What product did this > happen in? I liked Eli, and I found it ironic that he seemed the most > Christ-like IMO. > I don't know where you heard that, because I haven't heard it. I'm pretty sure it's not in the Revelations Cycle, and I doubt that any of the people on the list who write for In Nomine were planning something of that sort. > One last question, since we see on occasional Archangel fall, how about > seeing a Demon Prince redeem. I think Lilith should be just about primed > for redemption, personally. I think it's a product of changing values. Really? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with walking out of Eden, but ever since then she's been actively supporting the most repressive tyrants in existence. Lilith is worse than a collaborator: she is an active evil. In > ancient times, when women were considered property, In some societies. somebody advocating the > freedom of women and minorities would be seen as evil. They could still be seen as evil. It doesn't mean they are or were. In more enlightened > times today, this seems to be a more noble goal, and I can easily see > Archangel Lilith. Anybody else? No. Why would she redeem? She can get everything she wants in Hell. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:45:43 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Bodiless Shedim On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 06:16:24PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > They could assume their cloud-form and not have the vessel-problem, > but if one somehow got sucked into Limbo, I'd say they're outta luck. > > But then, I'm feeling sadistic right now. > Indeed. I believe in the Limbo write-up it says you have to form a new Vessel to get out, so it doesn't matter if you have ten pre-existing vessels already, you still have to make one. Anyway, Kyriotates of the Wind and Shedim of Theft don't need to worry about Limbo, barring acts of God/Lucifer or their own Free Will. (I just had a vision of a Balseraph of the Game convincing a Renegade Shedite that going to Limbo was a Good Thing.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:53:49 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 11:31:06PM -0500, Casca wrote: > > 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. > > Permission granted (after the fact, but still. :) > I think you should have sued him for emotional distress rather than giving him retrospective permission. > For those who care, it's archived at Jo Hart's webpage (the URL escapes > me at the moment) alongisde her fabulous essay on Balseraphim. And Kevin > Walsh did an equally good writeup on Calabim. Flatterer. I did another essay on Calabim once upon a time, which I partially disagree with now. Of course, it was written from an IC perspective, and can thus be considered to have a high deception quotient. Both of them were in opposition to what I perceive as a trend toward cute and scruffy Calabim in the canon literature. I wonder now if I should > post my thoughts on Habbalah? It would keep the trend going. > And it would result in good arguments. I wish I'd bothered to write my essay on Habbalah, but it would be far too long, and I have no time now. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:28:13 +0000 From: Peter Witney Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 12:57 AM 12/7/98 , Steve wrote: > >Since Dominic's standards of justice need not conform either to mine, >yours, Derek Pearcy's, or the American constitution, 'just' in this >context probably means either 'according to Dominic' or 'according to the >angel' depending exactly how you think dissonance works. Since Dominic has no codified set of laws or rules to work by, his idea of 'justice' has to come from his experience. Over the years, this would have built up into a large volume of precedents, which is presumably what his servitors study before going to work. Dominic is unfettered by social and cultural requirements, which often emplace laws in a compromise, biased or knee-jerk fashion. He has the long view and he's had a long time to consider his views. Dominic's standards certainly don't have to conform to any individual's or society's standards. They should, in fact, be more objective and 'fairer' (whatever Dominic considers to be fair) since they hold to an overiding outlook, rather than blowing in the wind of history and fashion, as human laws and society do. As an aside on 'the American constitution', I've always considered it ironic that when people refer to 'truth, justice and the American Way', they have to distinctly separate the three terms. IMC, Dominic held to an idea of truth (as befits a seraph) where injustice was intentional or knowing deceit which brought about harm to others, physically or emotionally. Often, for lesser crimes, justice simply required the revelation of the truth; the backlash (or other reactions) from the people around the perpetrator was considered just enough. Pete Peter Witney peter.witney@kobal.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:50:30 +0000 From: Peter Witney Subject: Re: IN> Somebody explain these guys to me, please!! At 09:53 AM 12/7/98 , Kevin Walshwrote: >Both of them were in opposition to what I perceive as a trend toward cute >and scruffy Calabim in the canon literature. I like to avoid the 'cute' aspects of Calabim, but the scruffy I consider to be something of a constant because of their fields of entropy. It would be possible to have a neat Calabite, but he would have to be obsessed with cleanliness and neatness, to the lengths of changing clothes several times a day and refusing to chase people through a sewer. One of my current NPCs is a Calabite fox- a mangy looking thing, but well adapted to urban life. No leather, no bike chain, no long fashionably untidy haircut (unless fur counts). Almost unnoticeable in London suburbia, but equipped with claws and fangs to see off any pets. Calabim don't have to (and shouldn't) be stereotypes, otherwise they'd be very easy for angels to spot. Pete Peter Witney peter.witney@kobal.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:51:44 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Superior's Hearts On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 02:21:01PM -0500, Frank Lazar wrote: > 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) In particular: Alaemon: I think he's Hellborn, and a former Servitor of Secrets. Andrealphus: Fallen Archangel of Love. Asmodeus: Fallen Cherub of Judgement. Baal: Fallen Archangel of Valour. Beleth: Fallen Archangel of Fear. Belial: Fallen Ofanite of Fire. Fleurity: Hellborn. Former Servitor of Haagenti. Furfur: Hellborn. Former Servitor of Belial. Haagenti: Hellborn (former Superior may be written in Pyramid. Probably Meserach or Mariel.) Kobal: Fallen Angel of Laughter. Apparently independent. Kronos: Other Malphas: Fallen. Apparently Wordless and Independent. Mammon (aka the inexplicably weak Prince): Fallen. Nybbas: Hellborn. Former Servitor of Technology. Saminga: Fallen. Former Superior Unknown. (or maybe in Pyramid). Valefor: Unknown. Vapula: Hellborn. Former Superior may be in Pyramid. Suspected to be Kronos. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:24:27 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Arcangeles - an SF setting for IN 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. Thank you. I don't care for cyberpunk myself, but space stations are often mentioned as part of the background in the bits of it I have read; it would be easy enough to use Arcangeles to bring one into the foreground. Amplify the political power of the Vacuum Industries Association and the Circle Star Network, allow cyborganization of characters, and you've got it. There needn't be much resemblance to either Babylon 5 or Deep Space 9. Both of those are space stations as centers of military/political intrigue, with loads of aliens, and a civic life as a side-feature. Arcangeles is primarily a city, not a military or diplomatic outpost, and there are no aliens in it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:09:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality The issue of what Superiors think of homosexuality, Dominic in particular, was argued once before on the list. One can find the relevant exchanges in the IN archives on the SJG web pages. The concensus, or the last word, insofar as there was any, appeared to be that it was not, in general, a huge issue for any of them. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:18:42 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Game "coolness" meta-theory continues.... Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote: > I agree. This is probably the best way to deal with them. Would you > perhaps say that the Endless are personifications of the Words > themselves, while Superiors only serve the words..? Something like that, yes. Words are supposed to be intimately worked into the very fibre of a Word-bound celestial's being, but it is still the case that the celestial had an existence independent of the Word at some point. The Endless, Gaiman makes pretty clear, ARE "concepts wrapped in a semblance of flesh." Even Michael, the oldest angel, according to his extended write-up, has slightly changed his Word in response to the Fall. And there may have been a time when Laurence was once a reliever of no particular choir, only to become Archangel of the Sword by several steps of evolution. The Endless, on the other hand, exist from the moment their concepts have instantiation. Of course, even they can change. Delirium used to be Delight. Still, they seem even more tightly "Word-bound" than an Archangel. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:23:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus Julian Breen wrote: > 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. I'm not sure, but I think Santa's paunch was established in two moves, first by the "bowl full of jelly" in the poem by Moore, then by the illustration you refer to, by Nast I thought, based on the poem. (Or is Nast the name of the publisher? As in Conde-Nast?) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:29:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus Greg Jensen wrote: > Maybe not all pagan gods went to the Marches, perhaps some > joined up with Heaven or Hell instead. The flip possibility is that some pagan gods were never Ethereals to begin with, but were celestials. In "Paradise Lost," Milton dumps several pantheons into Hell wholesale, as demons who later passed themselves off as gods. This is, in fact, a very common view of the pagan gods, according to monotheists, when the gods aren't simply viewed as lies. In his Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis adopts the idea but "lightens" it considerably -- out of his lifelong love for pagan mythology, which he certainly did not see as simply evil. In his SF novels, the pagan gods, or many of them, are essentially rumor-garbled accounts, filtering through the human collective unconscious, of the powerful celestials who steer and rule the other planets in the Solar System. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:53:23 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality > >>>One person, the 'john' is paying to use the body of another in > prostitution. Consensual sex is about many things, but if it's consensual, > it's usually not about one person buying another's body.<<< Give me a break. There are MANY consensual transactions that involve the use of someone else's body that aren't 'tainted' with the stigma of sex/religious issues. When I hire a masseuse (or a mechanic, or a plumber, etc), you are hiring the person to do a task in exchange for money. Prostitution is exchanging the use of skills for money, just like these other examples. In what you term 'consensual sex', the exchange is supposed to be 'pleasure for pleasure' or even 'pleasure for connectedness'. But take a look around and you see the other media of exchange are 'security', 'status', 'fame', etc. Because prostitution involves both SEX and MONEY, it has to be bad by puritanical belief systems. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:55:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Greg Jensen wrote: > 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). Just as an historical by-the-way, the *degree* to which the Church condemns homosexuality varies over time. For instance, in Dante's "Purgatorio," Dante was trying to be as orthodox as possible in his theology, and depicts Purgatory as a sever-tiered mountain with a different deadly sin purged on each tier. The worst sin, Pride, is purged on the bottom-most tier. Lust he judged the lightest, and it is purged at the top, just below the Earthly Paradise. Both heterosexual and homosexual lust is purged there, and the only distinction made between the two is that the heterosexuals run around their circle of fire clockwise, while the homosexuals do it counterclockwise. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:00:03 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Politics and stuff On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > Valefor - Hm.... He wants to steal something more from Heaven and > plans to be Redeemed and Fall again, and gets carried away? How about: "He turns out to have been Janus all along, and so was already an archangel and thus had no need to Redeem"? :) - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:14:28 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Julian Breen wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm not sure, but I think Santa's paunch was established in two > moves, first by the "bowl full of jelly" in the poem by Moore, > then by the illustration you refer to, by Nast I thought, based on > the poem. (Or is Nast the name of the publisher? As in Conde-Nast?) Thomas Nast. He did the art in the first illustrated version of the Moore poem. I believe this was around the turn of the century. These illustrations formed the basis of the Coca-Cola ad campaign mentioned above, which had a much larger public impact than did the Nast illustrations. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:05:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > the sexual act is an act of intimacy, which is "perverted", if you like, > by selling it to someone you don't know. It's the lack of intimacy in an > act that usually requires supreme intimacy that's bad, I think. Do you consider prostitution to effectively be an offence against sex? I can see arguments that Dominic may or may not care two hoots :-) He _would_ perhaps be opposed to an offence against intimacy, since intimacy is tied up with trust, selflessness, and other generally angelic things, but sex is in principle distinct from those as far as my (personal) reasoning goes, so prostitution is a 'perversion' of sex, rather than of intimacy. That may be where we differ on axioms. (Where 'we' means me, you and Dominic). > If you have knee-jerk reactions against -anything-, fun or not, you > can't be Just, Not so. Consider: You Know that X action is wrong, because you have resonated, considered, and generally thought the matter to death for millenia. If you come across it one more time, you don't have to resonate again, but you do anyway, and it takes you 0.01 seconds and you get the same answer as before. So you smite them, or tell them they are wrong, or whatever. If you are busy, you might not bother explaining to them, you just remind them that it is against the Law of Heaven, then punch them. Or write a quick email that says 'you are wrong, and I know you are wrong.' From the outside, that looks exactly like the actions of a fanatic, and the reaction is certainly swift and automatic (unless the resonance comes up different for some reason). Hence 'knee-jerk reactionary'. Just because you are a fanatic doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong :-) Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:36:21 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > the sexual act is an act of intimacy, which is "perverted", if you like, > > by selling it to someone you don't know. It's the lack of intimacy in an > > act that usually requires supreme intimacy that's bad, I think. > > Do you consider prostitution to effectively be an offence against sex? I > can see arguments that Dominic may or may not care two hoots :-) > > He _would_ perhaps be opposed to an offence against intimacy, since > intimacy is tied up with trust, selflessness, and other generally angelic > things, but sex is in principle distinct from those as far as my > (personal) reasoning goes, so prostitution is a 'perversion' of sex, > rather than of intimacy. That may be where we differ on axioms. (Where > 'we' means me, you and Dominic). I think we're pretty much in the same camp, actually. (Where 'we' means you and me - Dominic I don't know about.) > > If you have knee-jerk reactions against -anything-, fun or not, you > > can't be Just, > > Not so. Consider: > > You Know that X action is wrong, because you have resonated, considered, > and generally thought the matter to death for millenia. If you come across > it one more time, you don't have to resonate again, but you do anyway, and > it takes you 0.01 seconds and you get the same answer as before. > > So you smite them, or tell them they are wrong, or whatever. If you are > busy, you might not bother explaining to them, you just remind them that > it is against the Law of Heaven, then punch them. Or write a quick email > that says 'you are wrong, and I know you are wrong.' > > >From the outside, that looks exactly like the actions of a fanatic, and > the reaction is certainly swift and automatic (unless the resonance comes > up different for some reason). Hence 'knee-jerk reactionary'. Just because > you are a fanatic doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong :-) IMO, that isn't a knee-jerk reaction. If you've carefully considered something, it's not a knee-jerk reaction when you see it again and react the same way, the way I use the term. If you see something -new- and instantly condemn it without really thinking about it, that's a knee-jerk reaction, IMO. I agree that Dominic is very consistant in his opinions, if that's what you mean. 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: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 17:52:45 +0000 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Fixing hit points Robert Knop wrote: > > 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 I still think it's a bit excessive. IMC we use Hit points=Corp Forces + 2x Strength + 4x Vessel Level This brings the maximum down to 6+24+24=54 (better than 144). The one problem is that it doesn't scale for Ethereal or Celestial Hits. Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:12:39 +0000 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Fixing hit points Sam sic scrpsit: > > Robert Knop wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, H=E5vard R=F8nne Faanes wrote: > > > But the Hit point systems are really tiresome. > >=20 > > 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 seem= > > s reasonable. > > > > Check out http://www.concentric.net/~Pkitty/nomine/hits.txt > > I still think it's a bit excessive. IMC we use > Hit points=3DCorp Forces + 2x Strength + 4x Vessel Level > This brings the maximum down to 6+24+24=3D54 (better than 144). > The one problem is that it doesn't scale for Ethereal or Celestial Hits. The system I use, suggested by someone (I don't recall who - those who know me irl will attest to my abominably bad memory for names) was to calculated Body Hits thus: Body Hits = Total Forces + (Vessel level * Strength) This gives a range of between 10 and 81 Body Hits for a nine-Force Celestial, which a lot better than the 2 to 144 Body Hits range for the system suggested in the Core Book, as it formula above takes out the semi-quadratic expression resulting from: Body Hits = {Vessel level} * [Str + Corp Forces] Where your Strength is to an extent a function of the number of Corporeal Forces the character has and where a nine force Celestial can easily have 70 or 80 body hits without too much munchkinising and only foour Corporeal Forces. As a sidenote, I also altered the combat system in the last game of IN I ran a month ago. All the listed power modifiers for different attacks and weapons had three added to them so that a punch had a power of zero intead of minus three. This avoids fiddling with subtracting numbers. To counterbalance this slightly, the amount of damage taken is reduced by the number of appropriate Forces you have, so they act as natural protection. IE, if you have 3CorpForces and you're shot for eight damage, you only take five damage to your Body Hits. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:27:02 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Santa Claus Julian Breen wrote: > 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. Actually, it's a major testament to the power of persuasion and the Coca-Cola Company's advertising department that this myth persists. The modern Santa Claus image, and the image on which Haddon Sundblom based his 1931 image for Coca-Cola, was a mixture of the image from Clement Clarke Moore's 1822 "An Account of a Visit from Saint Nicholas" and the European tradition of the Father Christmas who accompanied the Christ child on his gift-giving rampage (alternately called "Sinterklaas", "Père Nöel", or "Pelznickel", among others). A Harper's Weekly cartoonist by the name of Thomas Nash began creating his image of Santa Claus as early as 1863, and his 1881 "Merry Old Santa Claus" is the basis for the modern image. I refer you to http://snopes.simplenet.com/holidays/xmas/xmas.htm#santa for the full story. http://snopes.simplenet.com, by the way, is an excellent urban legends site en todo. - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:27:07 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Re: Atheists in IN and Oops! >>> Long answer: Belief is one of the things that In Nomine leaves wide opento interpretation. Yes, the premise of the game is a Judeo-Christian-Muslim universe to an extent, although it doesn't perfectly match any of the above. However, the game material makes no statements on the eventual fate (or Fate) of humans who do not ascribe to one of these three religions. ***Nowhere does it say, for example, that all Buddhists go to Hell for not acknowledging God.*** <<< Actually, that should say 'Nowhere in Canon does it say,' because it is a fact of Christian religion that anyone who is not baptised cannot go to Heaven regardless of their actions on Earth. Read _Dante's Inferno_ (Actually, read the whole _Divine Comedy_), it's got references to some of the souls who are in Hell because they were born before baptism. In Canon I would say that the big G doesn't care if you've had water and oil poured on your head while some priest muttered prayers, so long as you've lived a decent life. >>> Saints are very close to angels in game mechanics, just slightly weaker, and the fact they tend to "retire" to the higher Heavens after a few deaths. There is no real demonic equivalent. Saints are described in Night Music. <<< One of my players wanted an "Infernal Saint", so I wrote up Spawn (for lack of a better title). Basically they're Saints. Same rules and abilities. I saw no reason to make any severe differential between reincarnated souls from Heaven or Hell. Oh, and about human souls becoming angels. It may not be in Canon but it is 'in reality'. The Archangel Metatron was human before becoming an AA, so sayeth some angelic texts. IMC, I plan on writing up a level of spirituality that ranks between being a Saint/Spawn and being a fully fledged Angel/Demon. I figure that there HAS to be some difference between created celestials and evolved human souls, since celestials ARE souls, while humans HAVE souls; if that makes any sense what-so-ever. And on a final note, if you're looking for a Malakite who doesn't fit the _hurry up and bash the evil thing into putty_ stereotype, talk to a Virtue of Flowers named Lucatian (from Robert Knop's In Nomine Berkley PBEM). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:59:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Atheists in IN and Oops! Chris Crowe wrote: > Actually, that should say 'Nowhere in Canon does it say,' because > it is a fact of Christian religion that anyone who is not baptised > cannot go to Heaven regardless of their actions on Earth. Read > _Dante's Inferno_ (Actually, read the whole _Divine Comedy_), it's > got references to some of the souls who are in Hell because they > were born before baptism. They are in the part of Dante's version of Limbo, which is the topmost layer of his Inferno. It is a blissful place, based on the classical Elyssian Fields, and the souls there suffer nothing but the knowledge that they missed out. Actually, there are loopholes even then. Dante puts the pagan Roman Cato in charge of one of the gates of Purgatory, and puts one of the pagan Roman emperors in the Heaven of Jupiter. He was following Thomas Aquinas, who defined what he called "baptism of desire" -- the moral equivalent of baptism for souls unable to go through the ceremony but willing to. > Oh, and about human souls becoming angels. It may not be in Canon > but it is 'in reality'. The Archangel Metatron was human before > becoming an AA, so sayeth some angelic texts. I believe he was supposed to have been the pre-Flood patriarch Enoch. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:43:03 -0500 From: dahak Subject: IN> Know the Enemy #16: As delivered by a Servitor of Fluerity (Drugs) #16: As delivered by a Servitor of Fluerity (Drugs) The first rule: Better living through Chemistry. Choirs ====== Seraphim: Watch your step these guys have polygraphs built in. Cherubim: Almost always carry a medkit, this is the obvious thing to relabel a few bottles and change the concentration of some of the contents. Ofanim: Plenty of opportunity with these guys for Amphetamines Elohim: A perfect client for emotion suppressants Malakim:. Cops with a bad attitude, and they don't take bribes. Burn them by giving the punters near them free samples of the more interesting pain and mood altering substances. Kyriotates: How do we addict something which leaves its body behind each week? Mercurians: Not to much problem they like recreational chemicals too much. And they help your clients recover so they can take more. Servitors of... =============== Blandine: Boring why dream when you can trip. Christopher: Stuck up little prudes, watch their faces when they realise that entire schools are on the hard stuff David: Harder prudes so wander into the community centres they so love and add interesting chemicals to the drinking water. Dominic: Like the IAD but they don't take bribes. Eli: These guys are walking chemistry sets. They get drunk a lot too. Not much for us to worry about. Gabriel: Now their boss is on one hell of a bad trip, and they enjoy setting fire to all sorts of things. Try to arrange for them not to do it to your processing facilities. Janus: Blink and they are gone. With your stash. Jean: With out Technology where would we be. He doesn't want the humans to know how to make all those interesting substances. They usually Know a few we haven't seen before. Jordi: I've never had any success selling recreational chemicals to animals, but Vets on the other hand... Laurence: Complete boring straight arrows, luckily not to many are wandering round as cops. Litheroy: Celestial detectives, they really enjoy telling the police about what you are up to. This sort of behaviour makes them obvious targets for the traditional cement clothing. Marc: They seem to be unable to understand the basic economic principle that illegal chemical recreationals have a massive profit margin due to supply and demand Michael: Killing Machines. The only drug they use is Adrenaline. Novalis: Why don't they like us after all it is her poppy's that we get opium from. Yves: They can talk people out of addictions, they want people to do well for them selves. Waste them. Adam dahak@compuserve.com "This was the dreadful "Muscle Lock" so uniquely characteristic of thionite; the frenzied immobility of the ultimately passionate satisfaction of every desire, no matter how base." :-First Lensman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:42:59 -0500 From: dahak Subject: IN> Know Your Diabolicals #12: As delivered by a Servitor of Novalis (Flowers) Since Its been a while since we've been doing these I dug out my thoughts from before. Adam Canning dahak@compuserve.com "Oh Rose though art Sick" Blake Know Your Diabolicals #12: As delivered by a Servitor of Novalis (Flowers) - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bands ===== Balseraphs: The things they do to their own sense of reality makes LSD look safe. Djinn: They really need a good strong cup of Herbal Tea and a few Hours Disco Dancing and They'll be fine. Calabim: Kiatsu Massage seems to work quite well relaxing them as a start to explaining to them that their negative vibes are what screw them up. Habbalah: Since when has god's plan included running people over with combine harvesters? Lilim: Take themselves far to seriously. If they would only slow down for a while they would realise the have sold their freedom for a Fax and an Answerphone. Shedim: Personally I blame bad upbringing. If you can get them to slow down and mellow out you'll be fine. Most of the time all you can do is pick up the pieces. Impudites: Cuddly but selfish, If you can get them to do the washing up without asking them then you are half way there. Servitors of... =============== Alamemon: Lying is wrong, worse it disturbs the natural flow of human life. Secrets are bad too they tend to upset people. Andrealphus: Sexual activity should be for the pleasure of both partners, not the pain of either. If you can persuade them of that you are most of the way through. Asmodeus: Hell's Fascist Pigs. Difficult to persuade to defect since they are all looking over their shoulders the whole time. Baal: Like a Poppy, bring rebirth to the charnel houses of the War. Beleth: A real bad trip man... If necessary opiates will help you avoid having to deal with them. Belial: Fireworks are fine so long as they are used safely. Dealing with the minions of Baal is like dealing with an ever spreading Ash waste. Haagenti: Grow faster than they can feed, They are a walking famine, and they have no real sense of humour. Band Aid time again. Fleurity: That is not what herbal extracts are for. That's not what supernatural creatures are for. Certainly that isn't something that should be encouraged at music festivals, and MDMA should never have been made. Furfur: Violent Violent Violent, you cant talk them out of their huff once a fight starts. Besides the music is barely worthy of the name so don't dance to it. Kobal: Well they are funny, but cruel. Do what you can to stop people laughing at the hard end of the jokes and find a way to make them the butt. Kronos: They want bad Karma for every one and they have no fun doing it. Lilith: Why did she leave? The "Free" lilim have the most opportunity of all of them to redeem. It can be worth helping them work off their Geases. Malphas: Flowers do not form factions. Flowers form a unity of colours. Flowers are a lot more happy than these manic paranoids. Show them you care. Nybbas: Soundbites are as much as they can manage. Unfortunately that's also true for many humans. These are worse than many of the others because they understand that the war is a battle for Hearts and Minds as much as Bodies Saminga: They gain naught from killing plants, but we cannot heal the undead back to life. Valefor: Hyperactive kleptomaniacs the lot of them It throws them when you give them something for nothing. The Boss wants her thousand year old bonsai collection back though. Vapula: Inhuman Cyborg Zombies marching in quick step to create a faceless future of brushed concrete and neon. And [plastic fake flowers!! Get them out in the fresh air for a start. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1040 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.