From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Feb 3 14:40:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11705 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:40:15 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA29356 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:18:36 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:18:36 -0600 Message-Id: <199802032018.OAA29356@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #608 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 Tuesday, February 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 608 In this digest: Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth Re: IN> Nemesis Re: IN> Aaron, Malakite of Stone Re: IN> Swipe Re: IN> Intervention stuff Re: IN> Connection to the Symphony Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Question about the Marches Re: IN> Swipe Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Re:IN> Shedite of the Game Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH Re: IN> Question about the Marches Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Re: IN> Question about the Marches Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) IN> [FLUFF] Bad Haircuts in Hell Re: IN> Swipe Re: IN> Question about the Marchest Re: IN> Intervention stuff Re: IN> Intervention stuff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:25:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH I gather that H&H contradicts the depiction of Kronos as a Balseraph, but that's another story. > This leads me to believe that there is no way in Hell, literally, that > Yves = Kronos. I simply cannot imagine Yves being subserviant to Lucifer, > or not being allowed to 'do his own thing'. > > - Em > The way I evaluate power is based on the strength of the Words involved. If one assumes that good is _ultimately_ stronger than evil, then Yves' Word of Destiny is stronger than Kronos' Word of Fate. If good and evil are ultimately equal in power, then I'd imagine that Yves and Kronos are of equal power. I think that the future is important in this regard, unlike with other Words, because Fate and Destiny both deal with the future. There are paradoxes in this view, of course. If the world is moving toward an equilibrium from a position of perfect good (which is one way of interpreting the state of the War), then while Yves and Kronos are equally powerful (by the argument I'm making), Kronos is currently more effective in the use of that equal power, and has been over the course of history. But the contradiction is removed if we make them the same person, whose Word is the Future. As to Lucifer, if we assume that Lucifer's Word is Darkness or Evil or the likes, then his Word might be regarded as the present tense of Kronos' Word. So it isn't a question of Kronos obeying Lucifer as such. More like saying that his Word is perfectly served by the existence of Lucifer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:34:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > At 11:35 -0500 1/29/98, Walter Milliken wrote: > >Interesting theory. Unfortunately, I believe the Valefor writeup in the > >main book states that Valefor is relatively new. > > Stealing the predictions of Nostradamus predates his ascension to Demon > Prince; therefore, he's a relatively new Demon Prince. > I got the distinct impression from the write-up that he stole the _true prophecies_ of Nostradamus from Yves' library before Nostradamus actually wrote them. After all, it states that "since then he has personally stolen everything from the sealant for the Spanish Armada's gunpowder barrels", which must have occured before Nostradamus was born, as the Spanish Armada predates Nostradamus. (Assuming Nostradamus is human, of course.) My GM reckons this particular theft is the best evidence that Janus is Valefor. After all, how did a Calabite get into Yves' library without being noticed? And how did he manage to find the thing? If we assume that he's an Ofanite Archangel, both questions are answered. > However, he was probably a demon for a lot longer then that. He easily > could have Fallen with Lucifer, and took that long to reach Demon > Prince-hood. > Conceivable, but it says that "he first arrived on the scene several centuries back". And it says that Kronos was worried about him, so it doesn't look like he has records of his previous activities. (Though if he stole from the library, nothing could prevent him stealing from the Archives.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:39:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking Beth > > But you're using one of my rites.... I never said I could spell, > though. I'm Nitpicking, not Spelling. > > Actually, it could well be argued that all Servitors of Nitpicking should start their arguments with sloppy reasoning, punctuation, spelling, etc., so that others will be drawn into nitpicking them, thus furthering the Word of their Superior. It could be dangerous territory for Balseraphim, though. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:45:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Nemesis > > Would he get Nemeses based on the number of previous attunements, or based > on the number of enemies (does the Shed have one or five on him?) > Given that if you fail a resonance roll, you can't use it for that purpose for (check digit) hours after that, I'd say he only gets one roll. Don't forget to subtract the dissonance from his Perception roll. Another point, wouldn't he only be attuned to the Shedite's Vessel? > Would killing the Shed rid him of five points, or just one? What about > the Discord? > It wouldn't get rid of the Discord, anyway. > Would killing the Shed's vessel be enough, or would he have to celestially > destroy him (dang Shedites are slippery enough as is)? > I reckon it'd have to be Celestial death, given the incredible amount of dissonance he's taken. Maybe each Force ripped would cure a point of dissonance. > I'm thinking that there'd be one nemesis on the Shedite, and killing him > would clear up two points (the Discord'd stay), but I'm undecided about > corporeal or celestial vengeance, as having a horse killed out from under > him would only inconvenience the Shedite, and celestial combat is usually > more trouble than it's worth, especially against 12 Will Shedim... > Does he have the Celestial Song of Light, or friends with same? It's the only way I know to inflict Celestial damage on people without being vulnerable oneself. Celestial Charm might be a good thing to have. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:54:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Aaron, Malakite of Stone Pee Kitty wrote: > I truly liked this NPC. [...] I hate the stereotypical Malakim Ditto. Several times, I've suggested breaking the stereotype by using James Bond or D'Artagnan, etc., as Malakite models. Neel has shown a completely different and interesting direction to break the stereotype. My hat is off to him. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:12:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Swipe > > example: i 'swipe' the shirt off someone's back? > Well, literally it would mean that, unless the shirt was very heavily weighted down. > My personal thoughts are hedged in the 'no' vein, but there's something > to be said for the Merc of Janus who 'swipes' the gun being held to his > head with a smile. > > thoughts from the list? > I'd be opposed to this being forbidden, on the grounds that a Lilite of Valefor did it to the Seraph in my Triad already. Everybody else has to suffer the same misery we do. (Like the Ethereal Song of Harmony, the teleportation, the harassment by police officers, the escape to an Infernal Tether in Chicago, the ascension to Hell, and getting chewed out by my Boss when I was late for work the following morning.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:20:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Intervention stuff > > > > And I'm not sure "unlikely" is a strong enough word for it. "Improbable" > > seems better -- it will only occur once every 23,328 opposed rolls. > > That would be *double* the probability of a PC rolling two favourable > interventions in a row then? No, it would be the square of the probability. And yet it can happen. Trust me. I had to GM > the result. It's a pity that the past doesn't affect the future in instances such as this, because then I could be confident of it never happening to me. For the second one, I decided that the PC in question, and his > girlfriend, now have a vital role to play in the Destiny of the entire > world and/or Symphony. They might end up redeeming Lucifer. If it all goes > wrong, they could just as easily give Hell the weapons it needs to win. In > any case, I have a rather cool scene to play out in a year or so's time. > You evil sadist. It's the only explanation I can think of for you actually inflicting such misery on people. You've just made them more important than Yves and Kronos combined. > Spectacular enough for everyone? I admit that it was already an idea I had > begun to consider, but the double intervention kind of settled my > thoughts. > Damned spectacular. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:23:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Connection to the Symphony > > So, if demons can't hear the Symphony and have no connection with it > anymore, how do they detect Symphonic disturbance? > One possible suggestion is to rip off the following bit in the Marches, p55. "Many sorcerers call the Symphony "the Cacophony" - in their limited perception they can only hear the clashing of the powers. They only perceive the contrapuntal notes that seem to clash and collide, creating noise , not music." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:31:47 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH > > > I gather that H&H contradicts the depiction of Kronos as a Balseraph, but > that's another story. Yes. As a matter of fact it does. From page 172 of the In Nomine source book: "Kronos, a Balseraph, persents himself as an older man of small stature. He rarely speaks, but when he does it's always with calm authority. Sometimes this is more then a little annoying, but other Princes, while jealous of his position, respect the vastness of his knowledge." This was the statement I was working off of. I went back and reread Heaven and Hell, and it turns out that: * Kronos is no longer a Balseraph, he's 'Something else'. * The other Princes do not always respect the vastness of his knowledge. (Well, that wasn't how it read, at any rate.) It may be Tuesday and I may be nitpicking, but this is exactly what I was talking about when I was referencing internal game world consistancy. For my purposes, the main rule book is Lord and Master, because people, especially players, are far more likely to own that then the additional books. - - Em, Workin' for the Demon Princess because it's Tuesday ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:49:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > > On the other hand, I'll point out, wild baseless speculation is fabulous, > because it's good grounds for creativity. :) > I'm opposed to creativity on principle. We need more rigid rules, more order, more structure, etc. > The wonderful thing about philosophy is that it's a whole pack of > questions to which there are _no_ answers whatsoever. I'm going to get round to doing my unofficial guide to Habbalah philosophies any time now. I've even done the foreword, by a Renegade Balseraph of Kronos (formerly an Elohite). It'll be very big and I'll be weeks doing it, but harassing me with private e-mails to hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie will expedite the process. > > I hear it's with lots of rubber bands and slinkies. And some already > chewed gum. > Damn, why can't I remember the speech the Creator of the Discworld made in Eric? It's so apropos, it's incredible. > > I can buy that he Fell, and I can buy your argument 100% and I'm certainly > willing to, but how does he get back into Heaven? How does he create > angelic servitors? How come no one notices he's a Calabite? > Look at the Words, Theft in particular. Theft can be interpreted to include all the essential preliminaries to Theft, such as stealth and disguise. When Janus Fell, he was already resonating with the Word of Theft to some extent, so it wasn't too hard for him to get it on his own, while hiding this fact from Lucifer. Then, since there was no one who realised that Janus had, in a sense, died, there was nothing to stop him from stealing Janus' identity, giving him a Role/6 as the Archangel of Wind. And I reckon he somehow mimicked that trick Kronos has of giving demons angelic resonances, but only to himself. The perfect Theft. (Now that I've given myself nightmares with this extension of a Word's power, I'm going to carefully refrain from thinking about the sort of things Baal and Michael can come up with when they're bored.) > > I avoided the intense Need (*stare direly at local Lilim*) to make them > into Demons, the whole lot of them. It is funny, and it's going to show up as one of the looney (by Habbalite standards) theories in my write-up. But then I had so much ickiness going > on, I really needed Laurence to be a Very Good Guy. And he's a Malakite, > ya know. And he looks fabulous in leather. > I have no problem with him being a good guy. But I reckon he'd still look fabulous if he was Fallen, not that I want him to Fall. If there's one of them I'd really like to make Fall, it's Uriel, but it ain't gonna happen. Instead, I reckon that a cult of Uriel will exist in my version of Gehenna. Suitable punishment, IMHO. > I can make the argument both ways quite easily. It's one of those > swinging door kind of things. But I really like that they just don't > Fall. > I was dubious about it, and there's something about absolute statements like that that set my teeth on edge. When I'm told flatly that something can never happen, I assume that there's a way to get around it. On the other hand, when I'm told that there are really rare ways to get around stuff that will be dealt with in an upcoming supplement, I assume it'll be left up to GMs. > > > Because they were created by Lilith and are thus not Fallen? Because they > > are the embodiments of Freedom, which is neither good nor ill in itself, > > but only in its uses? (I find that argument unconvincing myself. Lilim > > don't look like the embodiments of Freedom to me.) > > I am unconvinced. Try again. :) > Because Lilim are the embodiments of Slavery, which is neither good nor ill in itself, but only in its uses? (And Lilith's Word is the result of an early experiment by Lucifer in doublethink.) > > Just one of the manifold theories about Hell's existence held by > > Habbalah, but quite possibly a popular one. > > Yes, but that doesn't explain why I can't get a good haircut in Shal-Mari. > Because you are unworthy of such an honour. Consider it part of your Punishment. (And of course I've seen your explanation, which makes that statement a complete non-sequitur.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:48:50 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches > My votes are "yes" -- in many ways, anyone in the Marches (who isn't > in a dreamscape) is "on the same wavelength," or so I'd think. Since > celestials can "go celestial" enough to fight in celestial combat, in > the Marches, it probably doesn't matter how they started out... Everyone's vote so far has been Yes, so that makes that idea a 'go'. > > >And can I get books/line numbers with the right references, oh demons of > >nitpicking? > > The Marches, mostly.... p79-80, 82. > I read that, and now I have a further question. What does a celestial look like when the enter the Marches? pg. 52 of the Source Book says: "While cruising the Marches, most visitors look like the last physical vessels they inhabited, whatever they were." So I assume, on entering the Marches via Dreaming, they look just like their last vessel. So I assume all the Celestials who are wandering the Marches who entered via dreaming all look like their last vessels. But those who enter the Marches proper (through Beleth's/Blandine's Tower, or however you usually get a large army out into the Marches) are in their Celestial form. (pp. 80 of 'The Marches'). So do those who enter the Marches proper get forced into a version of their previous vessels? What about those who enter via a Tower and never had a previous vessel? What form do they take? Are they visible? In celestial combat in the Marches, does the celestial take celestial form? Is _this_ visible? What happens to their vessel? Sorry, but none of this is clear in either sourcebook, and I've read the entries several times. - - Em, who is sorry she dragged the Marches into the game ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:56:37 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Swipe - ---Kevin Walsh wrote: > I'd be opposed to this being forbidden, on the grounds that a Lilite of > Valefor did it to the Seraph in my Triad already. Everybody else has to > suffer the same misery we do. I think thats admirably fair minded of you. Keep up the good work. jo (ps. Sounds like a fun game ;-) ) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:20:24 -0500 From: Chris Smith Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Querent wrote: > In Nomine, p.86, the Corporeal discord of Stigmata says "These wounds > will not heal until the Discord is bought off." Hello? Bought off? > I was of the impression the only method of ridding oneself of discord > is to have a superior do it. I was going to submit this as errata, > but is it? Is there a method for a PC to buy off discord if they get > enough points? How would this be rationalized within the game? > I've never seen anything about buying off discord either. I guess it would be rationalized the same way you rationalize spending CP's for anything else, i.e.. forces, items, etc.... If a character has enough CP's to buy off discord ( and I have no clue as to how much this would cost) it could be rationalized that they have done enough work for their superior to request that it be removed. Kinda like if a character finally earns enough CP's for a Celestial Sword of Flame. Just because he finally gets enough points doesn't mean that it just appears out of thin air. It is assumed that the character is in favor with their superior enough to request, and receive, the desired item. - -- "I never claimed to be sane. I'm a cold-blooded, vindictive, petty, heartless, evil bastard. People who cross me suffer, and I laugh while they writhe in torment. I send letters of complaint to postmasters on whims. I think nothing of taking a few punches at bums on the street who tell me to screw off when I refuse to give them change. I do bad things to bad people." --Jim Cowling ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:21:28 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Nutt Subject: Re:IN> Shedite of the Game >He's decided to play a Shedite of the Game. Do Shedim of the game >get the 12 points that other servitors of the Game get? Shedim can't >have vessels, and therefore, might find it hard to have a role. They can also spend the points on skills that would go *with* a Role. I'd make the player spend the points on corporeally-oriented skills, but give him the points anyway. >From the FAQ, Kyriotates can have role, with certain riders - do >Shedim use the same? I *personally* don't care for that ruling, since it strikes me as not fitting in with the Band/Choir, but if you want to use it, let us know how it works for you. >The main thing confusing me is that in "Heaven and Hell", Ojoro, a >sample Shedite of the Game, has only spent 35 points on resources. >This would imply that no, Shedim of the Game do not get the 12 >points. Seems a bit unfair. I looked at it, and I think Ojoro just got screwed out of some Resources. Call it a typo, and upgrade him as you see fit! Xena/Gabrielle in 2000... Because women are so tactful and diplomatic! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:27:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Janus and Valefor: FIGHT TO THE DEATH > > "Kronos, a Balseraph, persents himself as an older man of small stature. > He rarely speaks, but when he does it's always with calm authority. > Sometimes this is more then a little annoying, but other Princes, while > jealous of his position, respect the vastness of his knowledge." > > This was the statement I was working off of. I went back and reread > Heaven and Hell, and it turns out that: > I don't possess it, and my GM only lets me read carefully selected bits, so I can't borrow it off him. > * Kronos is no longer a Balseraph, he's 'Something else'. > * The other Princes do not always respect the vastness of his knowledge. > (Well, that wasn't how it read, at any rate.) > ObNitpick. The statement you quoted indicates that only some of the other Princes respect the vastness of his knowledge. Anyway, it's possible to respect his knowledge without respecting any of his other qualities. > It may be Tuesday and I may be nitpicking, but this is exactly what I was > talking about when I was referencing internal game world consistancy. For > my purposes, the main rule book is Lord and Master, because people, > especially players, are far more likely to own that then the additional > books. > Personally, my opinion is that people tend to take the stuff they read first as canon, no matter whether it came first or not. As for internal game world consistency, my experience with White Wolf games has led me to the conclusion that you have to wait for the 2nd Ed, which is regrettable, but in some respects unavoidable. Sometimes, the developers want to _change_ what was previously canon, and sometimes, and I'm going to specifically mention the Book of Mirrors in connection with Project Twilight now, they haven't read the relevant material at all. I think the Kronos bit is like the Fall of the Malakim or the famous "Stilling can't be Healed" bits in the Wheel of Time; something that is intentionally kept secret because the vast majority of PCs wouldn't know about it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:48:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches > I read that, and now I have a further question. What does a celestial > look like when the enter the Marches? > > pg. 52 of the Source Book says: "While cruising the Marches, most visitors > look like the last physical vessels they inhabited, whatever they were." > So I assume, on entering the Marches via Dreaming, they look just like > their last vessel. > > So I assume all the Celestials who are wandering the Marches who entered > via dreaming all look like their last vessels. You would be incorrect in that assumption. I can't find the exact reference, but you can make a Will roll to alter your appearance in the Marches. Initially, that's what they look like, but if they want to be stealthy, they'll probably make themselves look different. But those who enter the > Marches proper (through Beleth's/Blandine's Tower, or however you usually > get a large army out into the Marches) are in their Celestial form. (pp. > 80 of 'The Marches'). So do those who enter the Marches proper get forced > into a version of their previous vessels? Sorry, I don't understand that last question. What about those who enter via > a Tower and never had a previous vessel? What form do they take? Are > they visible? > If you entered via the Tower, I assume that you look like your Celestial form. > In celestial combat in the Marches, does the celestial take celestial > form? Is _this_ visible? What happens to their vessel? > I assume that if you entered by dreaming, your body is stuck where it is, but you can still take soul damage, and if you entered by either of the Towers, or via an Ethereal Tether, your Vessel is in potentiality, assuming you have one. It seems that it has no effect on what you can do in the Marches, apart from being able to find people's dreams more easily in certain circumstances. Presumably, while still in the Marches in dreaming-form, you can go Celestial, thus removing your Vessel into potentiality, but this will mean that you have to back via the aforementioned Towers and Tethers. > Sorry, but none of this is clear in either sourcebook, and I've read the > entries several times. > I think The Marches could have been a lot clearer if they'd devoted some extra pages to it instead of having Blood & Circuses. (Sorry, but I genuinely hate that thing.) > - Em, who is sorry she dragged the Marches into the game > For some more unclearness, how does the Calabim of Nightmares attunement work? Does it provide information, or is it catalysing someone's fear? To put it crudely, does the Calabite have to do the footwork of altering someone's dreamscape/physical reality in order to confront them with this fear? And if so, why is it phrased as if it is a combat attunement? Why is the fact that it's so damned hard to find dreamscapes without the Celestial Song of Attraction (I presume mention of the Song of Charm is an erratum.) mentioned prominently, instead of being tucked away at the bottom of p88? Does the Corporeal Song of Dreams, if sung on Earth, send the singer to sleep? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:51:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) > > > In Nomine, p.86, the Corporeal discord of Stigmata says "These wounds > > will not heal until the Discord is bought off." Hello? Bought off? > > I was of the impression the only method of ridding oneself of discord > > is to have a superior do it. I was going to submit this as errata, > > but is it? Is there a method for a PC to buy off discord if they get > > enough points? How would this be rationalized within the game? > > It can be rationalised under the bit in p61 under Losing Discord which says "Other, riskier methods exist, but since a Discordant celestial is to angels and demons what a leper is to humanity, there's very little knowledge on the subject." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:03:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Perhaps "buying off" the Discord was a casual way of saying "going to your superior, having the Discord removed, and then working through whatever penalty the superior inflicts"? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:06:09 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches I think the problem with the marches is that its implied that there should be three realms. Corporeal, Ethereal (ie. marches) & Celestial -- which would imply three forms for each celestial, depending on where they were. But you can go to the marches from the corporeal world without taking your vessel with you -- presumably if you enter the marches from the celestial sides you don't leave anything behind (although it would be more consistent if you did ;) ). (Q: Can you do this and then return to a 'spare' vessel instead of the one you just left? If so, does that negate the need for body bags?) I'm going to disagree with canon now and say that I think the true ethereal form (ie. the one that looks like a slightly idealised form of the corporeal vessel) only happens when the celestial actually IS coming in from the corporeal side -- so it will be immediately obvious to any other celestials in the marches where they have come from. A celestial in ethereal form can shift to celestial form for purposes of celestial combat but.. their corporeal vessel will vanish in the same way as it would if they took celestial form on the mortal plane (so they'll need to find a tether to get back to earth). But since its quite difficult to take out a celestial in ethereal form (not many songs affect that one) unless you are in ethereal form yourself this may not be a problem. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:19:03 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) A good point. I suppose learning a method would be an entire adventure in and of itself. I would rule, in the absence of further information, that discord could be bought off for 3 points per level (the same amount of points they give you) but with a VERY good explanation as well. Even so, I believe the line should become errata saying instead "These wounds will not heal until the Discord is removed." That way, my players won't come up and ask me how to buy off discord (which is what sparked this in the first place.) - ---Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > > > > In Nomine, p.86, the Corporeal discord of Stigmata says "These wounds > > > will not heal until the Discord is bought off." Hello? Bought off? > > > I was of the impression the only method of ridding oneself of discord > > > is to have a superior do it. I was going to submit this as errata, > > > but is it? Is there a method for a PC to buy off discord if they get > > > enough points? How would this be rationalized within the game? > > > > It can be rationalised under the bit in p61 under Losing Discord which says > "Other, riskier methods exist, but since a Discordant celestial is to > angels and demons what a leper is to humanity, there's very little > knowledge on the subject." == --Querent USELESS FACT: Jiminy Cricket received his name from a line in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, where the phrase "Jiminy Crickets" was used as a curse. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:40:39 -0600 From: tom timberlake Subject: IN> [FLUFF] Bad Haircuts in Hell Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, but that doesn't explain why I can't get a good haircut in Shal-Mari. > > > Because you are unworthy of such an honour. Consider it part of your > Punishment. (And of course I've seen your explanation, which makes that > statement a complete non-sequitur.) Actually, bad haircuts are just another expression of Hell's infernality, like underwear that rides up and gives you a wedgie, or the sight of gluttons in thong swimwear.....*g* tom t. , James the Stone Malakim's role ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:46:10 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Swipe Raoul Duke writes: >On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron wrote: [...] >> My personal thoughts are hedged in the 'no' vein, but there's something >> to be said for the Merc of Janus who 'swipes' the gun being held to his >> head with a smile. >Much as I'd love to be the smiling Merc, I believe it says something about >"it causes no noise as long as its appearance and disappearance are not >noted." I think this is meant more along the lines of someone looking in >their pockets for something as the Windservant walks away whistling... So? It can still be used, even if it'll cause a disturbance. Since it doesn't destroy anything, and mentions no specific Song-like "degree of disturbance", presumably the only source of disturbance is the 2 Essence spent. A +2 disturbance, lah-dee-dah. Range increment an amazing 6 yards for the average celestial. Anybody close enough to hear the celestial noise is probably close enough to *see* the thing vanish anyway. The main problem with witnesses is not the disturbance per se, but the fact if people see things vanish around you too frequently, they might start figuring out that all is not what it seems -- unlikely that this would mess up the secrecy of the War as a whole, but it might cause problems for your Role. (Unless, of course, your Role is "stage magician", which come to think of it is a great cover for an agent of Janus or Valefor anyway.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:52:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marchest > > I think the problem with the marches is that its implied that there should > be three realms. Corporeal, Ethereal (ie. marches) & Celestial -- which > would imply three forms for each celestial, depending on where they were. > It says specifically in p52 of the main rulebook that there is no such thing as an Ethereal Form. > But you can go to the marches from the corporeal world without taking your > vessel with you -- presumably if you enter the marches from the celestial > sides you don't leave anything behind (although it would be more consistent > if you did ;) ). > It's like Dreamwalking in the Wheel of Time. Has anyone out there read it? > (Q: Can you do this and then return to a 'spare' vessel instead of the one > you just left? If so, does that negate the need for body bags?) > > I'm going to disagree with canon now and say that I think the true ethereal > form (ie. the one that looks like a slightly idealised form of the corporeal > vessel) only happens when the celestial actually IS coming in from the > corporeal side -- so it will be immediately obvious to any other celestials > in the marches where they have come from. Finally found the reference I was looking for. P 85 the Marches, Dream-Shaping results. Dream-Shaping is done by Will (aided by Celestial Dreams) or Lucid Dreaming rolls. A check digit of 3 will "Alter the appearanceo of your dream-self into any roughly humanoid form you desire." It should be noted that this causes 1 point of disturbance, so it's detectible within the same domain. Though I tend to agree that that is what you should start from. A celestial in ethereal form can > shift to celestial form for purposes of celestial combat but.. their > corporeal vessel will vanish in the same way as it would if they took > celestial form on the mortal plane (so they'll need to find a tether to get > back to earth). > I get the strong impression that most of the stuff about the Marches in the main rulebook is now un-canon, in the same way that Soldiers can't become Celestials any more. My interpretation of the question of the Ethereal Form is this: It functions in many respects like a Celestial Form, but is directly vulnerable to mind damage as well as soul damage. In addition, its appearance can be changed by a successful Will roll, at no Essence cost. But engaging in soul-combat is disapproved of by the main Superiors in the Marches, so only ignorant newbies serving other Superiors try it, and then promptly have rings run around them by those who've been there a while and know the tricks. After all, it only takes a succesful Will roll to become effectively invisible. It's because of this that there don't tend to be conflicts between Blandine and Beleth's Servitors except when they clash over specific mortal dreamers. > But since its quite difficult to take out a celestial in ethereal form (not > many songs affect that one) unless you are in ethereal form yourself this > may not be a problem. > If you have any of the Songs of Dreams, Dreamwalking, or the Song of Ethereal Entropy, you can do normal Ethereal attacks. (Intelligence + Eth Forces, dodged by Precision + Dodge). (p. 82 The Marches, errataed by reference to p63 main rulebook.) And of course you can use other Songs and your resonance, with normal effect. (In this context, I'm surprised the option of using the Calabite resonance for inflicting mind hits in the marches doesn't seem to exist.) Personally, I'm surprised by the fact that you don't roll Intelligence + Fighting, though I can see Ethereal Combat being represented as a sort of dream-shaping contest (eg the Balseraph of Kobal visualises an anvil and drops it on the Malakite of Blandine's head, who then visualises a dagger in the Bal's heart). So it's the character's ingenuity that's being tested. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:38:12 -0500 (EST) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Intervention stuff Kevin Walsh writes: >> > And I'm not sure "unlikely" is a strong enough word for it. "Improbable" >> > seems better -- it will only occur once every 23,328 opposed rolls. >> >> That would be *double* the probability of a PC rolling two favourable >> interventions in a row then? > >No, it would be the square of the probability. No, it's double. Every d666 roll has 216 possible outcomes, so any pair of d666 rolls has 216 x 216 = 46656 possible outcomes. For an opposed roll, there are two possible ways for "Duelling Interventions" to happen: both roll favorable interventions, or both roll unfavorable. The probability is thus 2/46656 = 1/23328. On the other hand, consecutive favorable interventions by a single character can only happen in one way out of the 46656 possibilities, so its probability is 1/46656. But while we're on the subject of Duelling Interventions -- the same probability applies that both sides will roll *the same* intervention, either a pair of 111's or a pair of 666's on the same resisted roll. Which sounds like one side is *really* hosed. Furthermore, the writeup of Interventions indicates that 111 is always good for angels and bad for demons, and 666 the reverse. But what do you do if, as all too often happens, the conflict is between characters on the same side of the War? Dominic's minions in particular tend to precipitate angel/angel conflicts, and interdemonic conflicts are chronic. What happens in, say, a brawl between demonic minions of different princes, when one of the combatants rolls 666? Or 111? When angels oppose each other, what does God do if combatants on both sides roll 111? For a concrete example, the Marches contains a scenario -- I'll try not to include any spoilers -- where Dominic is planning to step in, and for a change has what I would consider good and sufficient reason even though it's part of his ongoing vendetta against Eli. Nonetheless, being Dominic, he of course has a plan of action that will frighten and threaten the angels involved and cause considerable risk if not outright suffering to a large number of "unimportant" mortals. (Have you gotten the impression that I don't much like Dominic?) I can readily see a situation where two sets of angels are in conflict over this mess, and both consider themselves in the right, with excellent justification. What is the outcome of *any* Intervention roll in this kind of situation? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:08:50 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Intervention stuff York H. Dobyns wrote: > But while we're on the subject of Duelling Interventions -- the same > probability applies that both sides will roll *the same* intervention, > either a pair of 111's or a pair of 666's on the same resisted roll. > Which sounds like one side is *really* hosed. Furthermore, the writeup > of Interventions indicates that 111 is always good for angels and bad > for demons, and 666 the reverse. But what do you do if, as all too > often happens, the conflict is between characters on the same side of > the War? > Dominic's minions in particular tend to precipitate angel/angel > conflicts, and interdemonic conflicts are chronic. What happens in, > say, a brawl between demonic minions of different princes, when one of > the combatants rolls 666? Or 111? The side rolling 666 is favored by an intervention by Lucifer, while the other side gets hosed. For a Divine intervention, it works the other way: the side rolling 111 gets hosed and the other side ... well, they probably don't just win, but they are allowed to get away, or maybe one of them is moved to repentance. > When angels oppose each other, what does God do if combatants on > both sides roll 111? He reconciles them. If the GM judges one side was clearly in the wrong, that side is led to repentance. That's my take, anyway. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #608 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.