From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri May 8 16:07:14 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 QAA03093 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 16:07:13 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA24299 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 16:09:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 16:09:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199805082109.QAA24299@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 #767 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, May 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 767 In this digest: Re: IN> Writing Canon -- Fluff Re: IN> Angels of Purity Re: IN> Re: IN- Children of the Grigori Re: IN> More Questions. IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence Re: IN> More Questions. Re: IN> Angels of Purity Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words IN> Re: IN- More Questions. Re: IN> Re: IN- Changing Nature of Words Re: IN> Children of the Grigori Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> More Questions. Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words Re: IN> Children of the Grigori Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> More Questions. Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine character maximums Re: IN> Stat limits Re: IN> Re: IN- Children of the Grigori Re: IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words Re: IN> Angels of Purity Re: IN> Angels of Purity Re: IN> More Questions. Re: IN> Children of the Grigori ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:10:06 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Writing Canon -- Fluff David Edelstein wrote: > Bear in mind, good writing includes good *form* as well as content. Lots of > people have really cool ideas and post them here. Remember that: LOTS of > people have really cool ideas. It's easy to find people full of ideas and > enthusiasm and a burning desire to write for publication. People who have > good, consistent technical skills, a firm grasp of the English language, > and a willingness to actually use a !%@#&$! spellchecker before sending in > something intended for publication, aren't so easy to find. Ironically, I think that's spelled !%@##&$#!; just thought you'd like to know. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:20:21 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Purity >I think I may have stumbled upon a little discrepancy.... > >In The Marches, page 5, Kronos is speaking to Baal and says "If the Word of >Purity had truly been abandoned, at least *one* of them should have Fallen >by now. But *no* Angel of Purity ever has." > >In the Infernal Player's Guide, page 60, under 'Some Famous Impudites': >"Vaphoron, a former Mercurian of Purity who became Outcast when he >befriended etheral spirits, then Fell when Uriel was recalled, and is thus >one one of a handful of former Servitors of Uriel in Hell." > >So, either Kronos is unaware of the existence of a 'handful' of Fallen >Purity Angels (which is highly unlikely- this Kronos, not Saminga!), or we >have a slight problem. > >-Brent My take on it could be that Kronos was refering to the Malakim and not the servitors of Uriel. Being as I have neither IPG or Marches, I can not answer as to the context of the given passages. However, the word of Purity has not been abandoned. Uriel is still the AA of Purity, as far as I know. Uriel was merely "recalled" to Heaven, taking Purity with him. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 13:19:55 -0500 From: Bob the Dancing Monkey Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Children of the Grigori At 10:30 AM 5/8/98 -0700, you wrote: >I expect that we will see information in a later cycle. Watchword >"patience". It's hard for me, too. I think a Grigori character would >be even more interesting to play than Grigori Kinder. Any comment on >this Emily, Beth, or Walter? > The grapevine says we'll be meeting the Children along with Eli in the first book of the second cycle, which sounds like it might be delayed until late this year. If you want to get in on that early, I'm guessing dollars to Pocket Games that this particular little bit of content is going to show up in Pyramid's Playtest arena, which'll out you $15 for a year of playtest stuff as well as Pyramid's other advantages... - -Drew Johnson MiB, Minneapolis [O] Drew Johnson - CLA - Office of Info Tech [O] x5-4885 - http://www.econ.umn.edu/~djohnson/ [O] djohnson@cla.umn.edu - ICQ: 10800645 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:24:53 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. Alloni Kramer wrote: > > Sigh. > > How do you pronounce Yves? As far as I know, there is no canon answer to this. I've always pronouced it 'eevs' with a long 'e' sound at the beginning. > > Can celestials change Words? (Not just the Word changing meaning, but > actually saying, "I'm getting tired of being the Demon of That Gunk You Rub > Out Of Your Eyes Every Morning. I want something more messy... like being > the Demon of Bloody Eyeballs! Yeah!") > > If you can never change Words, then that would certainly create a whole lot > of competition for those Words that can possibly be treated in a more > metaphorical sense. (Eventually the Demon of Bloody Eyeballs is going to > realize he got shafted, since there is no metaphorical meaning he can twist > so as to put a new and nifty area under his control.) > > This is less a question of "Is it possible?" (since you're talking about > the Council of Seraphim or Lucifer, depending), and more a question of "Is > it ever done?" It _is_ possible. There is discussion going on as to _how_ it is possible. > > Do you create a disturbance if you are in a vessal, sitting on a park > bench, and a kid on a bicycle rides by, trips on your outstretched legs, > flips over, and breaks his neck? Nope. > > Do you create one if you are standing by the road, and a kid on a bicycle > rides by, turns his head to look at you, accidentally rides into a sewer > grate, flips over, and breaks his neck? Likewise no. > > Do you create one if you tell the kid to ride out into traffic and he does so? His own fool 'free will' led him to that action. So, no. > > What if you do so by means of some sort of compulsion? A big Yes. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 20:25:33 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence On Fri, 8 May 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > Incidentally, regarding Rites: I saw something go by recently to the > effect that unstated but more or less canon view of Rites was that they > were a way of getting a small bit of your Superior's attention so that > your boss could give you some Essence. From reading the various discussions > of Essence supplies and generation, particularly in _The Marches_ and > _Heaven and Hell_, I had gotten rather the impression that it was the > reverse: a Rite is a way of furthering the Word you're attuned to, and > it coaxes the Symphony to supply some Essence for you *and* the Superior > from whose Word it derives. This would explain why Superiors tend to hand > out special Rites as their commonest reward, and when rewarding someone > else's Servitor are more likely to give a Rite than anything else. It > would also go a long way toward explaining the huge Essence supplies > that Superiors can throw around. This has been my understanding as well, esp. with regards to Ethereals, who get their essence specifically from the rites and rituals their followers perform, if I'm not mistaken. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jesus hade skägg" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:28:15 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. Pee Kitty wrote: > > Do you create a disturbance if you are in a vessal, sitting on a park > > bench, and a kid on a bicycle rides by, trips on your outstretched legs, > > flips over, and breaks his neck? > > Yes. You caused it, not him. After thinking about it, I'm reversing my previous opinion and am siding with Yes, now. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:31:32 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Purity Aren't there "orphaned" Angels of Purity still around, sans Archangel? Maybe Kronos was referring to them, and excluding angels who had left Purity and been re-assigned to other words. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:41:11 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words >Something's been disturbing me about the recent discussion of the changing >nature of Words - e.g the Demon of Spam expanding to cover junk e-mail. >Doesn't this imply that the Word is in English? It seems a little odd >that the very essence of a celestial can be altered by petty mortal >language change. I would have thought that the Word would be given in the >Angelic (or Demonic) tongue, and therefore would somehow encapsulate the >very essence of the Word being given. The Demon of Spam would actually be >the Demon of humans to throw up> and would stay that way however mortals used the word >"spam." Or is he "the Demon of Spam>"? And in that case, what about celestials with more powerful words >that are given different names in different languages? What happens when >the meaning changes in one language, but not another? > >James. Using the example granted, isn't Spam Email a horribly packaged product that makes internet users want to throw up? When serving a Word, you become that Word. You want that Word to mean as much as you can make it mean. In the case of angels, you want to serve your Word as an act of love, the Word as an integral part of the Symphony. Demons are for the selfish furthering of the word. Going from the afforementioned example, the Demon of Spam would want his Word to describe larger things. The Demon of Junk Mail doesn't move fast enough, and Voila! We have Spamming! Yes, this is either humans affecting the Celestial realm or White-Wolfing. In a game system that revolves around trying to interact with the "real world" some sort of influence will be exert in either direction. To not allow the human world to influence the celestial, would be to make the whole Word thing pointless. In the main book, they mention that there is a highly ambitious Demon of Pipe Bombs in service to the Demon of Bombs. This looks like human innovation if you ask me. So, if you can find a way to grant Words that maintain relevancy without using anything from humanity, tell me. I would be really interested to know. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:39:27 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- More Questions. I always went with Ives, as in "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives." However, Yves is pretty kind, so he probably doesn't care which way you pronounce it. >> >> Sigh. >> >> How do you pronounce Yves? > Bart Hammerly "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 20:56:45 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Changing Nature of Words On Fri, 8 May 1998, Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > A SPAM by any other name, would still smell? > > I agree, though, that spam is one of those words that has universally > entered the language. Shop for it in Japan, it's there. On the face of > the can "SPAM" in big letters. I don't believe they buy it much in > Germany, though. Too many memories of air-dropped supplies in Post > WWII, I guess. > > I believe "spam" (as in e-mail) is also universally used. Be > interesting to see how it's pronounced in Celestial. Something akin to > some sort of puking noise. Somehow I doubt there's an Angel of Spam. > Maybe an Angel of Spam Death? OTOH, many of the Words aren't universal in that way. "War" isn't called "War" in many languages, likewise with most of the other ones. OTOH, you could argue that the celestial has a celestial word which is translated into human languages as best it can be, and if the human words grow in meaning, so does the celestial's power. I think the best solution is to simply not use Words in that way, but to only use "abstract" words, or words that have a fairly universal metaphorical meaning. OTOH, the simplest way by far is to simply not care about these things, but that would go against my nature as a linguist. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jesus hade skägg" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 14:55 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori > How do I set up a character who is a child of the Grigori, >mechanics-wise? Is he set up like a mundane, or a celestial, or is he >something in-between that has not yet been discussed? They are celestials, from what little is said in the core book, but don't they necessarily know that, sort of like Saints who are re-incarnated without full knowledge of who they are. I would treat them as low-Force angels (maybe 7 Forces), possibly with some Songs that aren't necessarily under conscious control and a free vessel, Status, and Role (per normal humans). They should also have some sort of resonance; they can apparently detect celestials just from being around them (there's small throwaway line in the description in the core book), so maybe that's it. Since they are called "the Watchers", it should probably be something related to watching over humans. Also, the APG or IPG places the creation of the Grigori *after* the Fall, so they were partly there to counter demonic influence. > It seems to me that >this type of character would be the most interesting to play... is there >any source I can look up, or could somebody post the rules, if there are >any? Nothing really in canon yet. All I can say is that there *will* be more on them, someday. The INC pages might have someone's house rules for CoG, and there are various religious myths about them, that people have mentioned on this list. Apparently they mostly revolve around the fact that they interbred with humans. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 15:02 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits >> My current notion on this is the "Word Forces" concept. [...] [They would] >> have additional Forces that provide other benefits (like lots of Essence to >> play with). > > Oo. If you bound the Word Forces to the celestial's progress in promoting >his Word, the player could have a quantifiable way to know in what directions >the GM is thinking. Exactly what I've been thinking -- if the PC promotes his Word, the player gets character points which can be invested in Word Forces, or maybe just gets them added as a reward. On the other hand, letting the Word slide would tend to decrease Word Forces, which provides a very nice motivating factor, I think.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:01:12 -0500 From: "Scott Weber" Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. - ---------- > From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. > Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:24 PM > > Alloni Kramer wrote: > > > > Sigh. > > > > How do you pronounce Yves? > > As far as I know, there is no canon answer to this. > I've always pronouced it 'eevs' with a long 'e' sound at > the beginning. Come to think of it... there're a lot of words that could use pronunciation clarification - For instance, is the primary accent in "Grigori" on the first or second syllable? What about "Elohim" or "Ofanim?" Same problem there. > > Do you create a disturbance if you are in a vessal, sitting on a park > > bench, and a kid on a bicycle rides by, trips on your outstretched legs, > > flips over, and breaks his neck? > > Nope. > > > > > Do you create one if you are standing by the road, and a kid on a bicycle > > rides by, turns his head to look at you, accidentally rides into a sewer > > grate, flips over, and breaks his neck? > > Likewise no. > Actually, you would, I think, were you an Ofanite... since you didn't do anything to save the kid. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 15:18 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words >Something's been disturbing me about the recent discussion of the changing >nature of Words - e.g the Demon of Spam expanding to cover junk e-mail. >Doesn't this imply that the Word is in English? Yes, it does, in this case. > It seems a little odd >that the very essence of a celestial can be altered by petty mortal >language change. Yes and no. Novalis is AA of Flowers, but is effectively AA of Peace, due to her efforts to associate the two words in the minds of humans. Or something like that.... This is one way celestials can promote their Word, by getting humans to think about it in connection with things that aren't literally within its scope. Metaphorical connections are more common on the angelic side than on the demonic, perhaps partly because demons fight for power more, and don't want anyone else grabbing more than the absolute minimum their Word entitles them to. > I would have thought that the Word would be given in the >Angelic (or Demonic) tongue, and therefore would somehow encapsulate the >very essence of the Word being given. Usually, this is true. The Spam one is a bit off-the-wall. My fault, I guess. > The Demon of Spam would actually be >the Demon of humans to throw up> and would stay that way however mortals used the word >"spam." Or is he "the Demon of Spam>"? Since I wrote this little bit of canon, I can say definitively that it was the latter. Lucifer was obviously in a weird mood that day.... (OK, it was late at night when I wrote it.) Since there's a semi-direct path from Hormel's product to the use of the term for junk e-mail, he's effectively become the demon of junk e-mail, at least as long as humans use that term for it. He's probably also now the demon of bad Viking skits.... I'm sure there's a Demon of Twinkies(tm) running around somewhere, too. I don't know if he's happy with what's happened to his Word or not.... > And in that case, what about celestials with more powerful words >that are given different names in different languages? What happens when >the meaning changes in one language, but not another? If the human word is associated with the *concept* and retains that connection, then there's a tendency to accumulate these related aspects onto the Word-bound. Look at Novalis or Jean, for examples. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:33:22 -0500 From: "Scott Weber" Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori - ---------- > From: Walter Milliken > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori > Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:00 PM > > > How do I set up a character who is a child of the Grigori, > >mechanics-wise? Is he set up like a mundane, or a celestial, or is he > >something in-between that has not yet been discussed? > > They are celestials, from what little is said in the core book, but > don't they necessarily know that, sort of like Saints who are > re-incarnated without full knowledge of who they are. > > I would treat them as low-Force angels (maybe 7 Forces), possibly with > some Songs that aren't necessarily under conscious control and a free > vessel, Status, and Role (per normal humans). > > They should also have some sort of resonance; they can apparently detect > celestials just from being around them (there's small throwaway line in > the description in the core book), so maybe that's it. Since they are > called "the Watchers", it should probably be something related to > watching over humans. Also, the APG or IPG places the creation of the > Grigori *after* the Fall, so they were partly there to counter demonic > influence. I don't mean to nitpick, but I like to make sure... they are indeed celestials? I was under the impression that they could possibly be mortal humans who had the ability to consciously use Songs, though in a very limited sense... that would keep them from needing a 'resonance' or 'dissonance', because they would still be human. Maybe it'd be somewhat similar to a Remnant or Soldier - but only loosely related... Like a human with 7 forces and the ability to use Songs, or something. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 15:54 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits >>A short-term fix is to get them into more celestial combat.... > >Ouch, ouch, ouch...one problem is that there is no guarantee that >celestial combat will remove Forces from the problem area. I once wrote >up a starting character, designed as a Davidic melee bruiser, with 6 >Corporeal forces (1 Ethereal, 2 Celestial) -- I can just see a Celestial >combat with this chump, with a couple of wrong die rolls, dumping a >6-Cor 0-Eth 0-Cel Remnant on the game world. Yes, but unless you *do* get remnantized, you're going to want to shore up those weak Forces as soon as possible, which mostly solves the point problem we were discussing. As far as the munchkinized 6-CorpForce character goes, as a GM I'd just smile and call it evolution in action.... >I thought the examples of Word-bound celestials made it pretty >obvious: the player and GM, after choosing a Word, need to get together >and design a special Attunement or two, that the Word-bound has >intrinsically and can grant to others, and a small number of appropriate >Rites, ditto. I'm pretty sure that current canon (unpublished, I think) has it that only AAs and DPs can grant attunements, though the Word-bound will probably develop several that *he* can use. But he can't give them to others. His Superior could, probably. (The main reason for this is a game-mechanics problem of having PCs with access to multiple Choir/Band attunements, in particular, but Servitor ones are also a problem.) I'm of the opinion that Word-bound need more than just this, and connecting that issue to the character growth problem, came up with the "Word Force" concept. So we'll need expanded rules, partly to provide for a PC growth path, and also to make Word-bound more than just regular celestials with a Word connection and a funky attunement or two -- they need to be a bit scarier. >Incidentally, regarding Rites: I saw something go by recently to the >effect that unstated but more or less canon view of Rites was that they >were a way of getting a small bit of your Superior's attention so that >your boss could give you some Essence. Correct. > From reading the various discussions >of Essence supplies and generation, particularly in _The Marches_ and >_Heaven and Hell_, I had gotten rather the impression that it was the >reverse: a Rite is a way of furthering the Word you're attuned to, and >it coaxes the Symphony to supply some Essence for you *and* the Superior >from whose Word it derives. This would explain why Superiors tend to hand >out special Rites as their commonest reward, and when rewarding someone >else's Servitor are more likely to give a Rite than anything else. It >would also go a long way toward explaining the huge Essence supplies >that Superiors can throw around. This is in fact the opinion I held initially. However, this doen't explain why the Superior doesn't give the Rite to everyone he can, which is one reason for the canon change -- it was deemed undesirable that the PCs pick up Rites like potato chips. It also allows the Superior to "cut off" a Servitor, while not actually stripping the Rite -- this was needed to explain some of the stuff about Renegades (who can't use their old Rites) and Redeemed (who *can* use their old demonic Rites). The Rite still *does* promote the Superior's Word, but doesn't necessarily provide them directly with Essence. This also makes Word-bound likely to be careful who they give Rites to, since it allows the Rite-holder to tap the Word-bound's Essence, and they don't have the huge amounts to play with that a Superior does. I have another explanation for why Superiors have tons of Essence to play with, which is related to Tethers. There's a pretty good chance this will become canon in some form -- I'm starting to work on some material that uses it. >The notion of Word-Forces is intriguing, and I would *love* to see >it detailed in a future supplement provided it didn't involve too much >retconning of published Word-bound characters. There is going to be some of this, I fear, but I think the impact will be minimal. Seneschals are going to look more different than regular Word-bound, I think, as far as published ones go. For regular Word-bound, I propose roughly the following: - additional Word Forces add to total Force count anywhere that matters (e.g., disturbance from going celestial) - each Word Force adds an additional point of Essence capacity, like regular ones do - Word Forces can be affected by celestial combat (i.e., a 4-way even chance rather than a 3-way one) - the Word-bound has the ability to develop new attunements *for himself* that relate to his Word and maybe the ability to use Word Forces to boost related Songs in some way. So for existing Word-bound, the changes would be fairly imperceptible, since most of them are low-power celestials who probably only have 1-3 Word Forces. Mostly they get a *little* tougher in combat. The only errata needed is the addition of a Word Forces value. > However, I don't like the >idea of binding Superiors to the 6-Force 12-Characteristic maxima. So what >if they get autosuccesses? Maybe some of the things Superiors do aren't >intrinsically profound mysteries at all, but just impossibly difficult >for beings limited to the ordinary characteristic range. Since there is no limit to the amount of Essence you can spend, it suffices to give Superiors lots of Essence. They can then max-out the CD any time they want, and they pretty much start with auto-successes. (I'm presuming that a 6/6/6 Force distribution is a *prerequisite* for Superior status, actually.) This makes Superiors very noisy, but they already *are*.... > Suppose, for >example, that sticking Forces together to create a new celestial isn't >an ineffable Superior skill but is simply an effort that requires a >Will roll at -15 with a minimum check digit of 10 + # of Forces, given >that said Forces are ready to hand from some appropriate source. Or maybe it just takes a *lot* of Essence. (Also look at the vessel-creation rules for Limbo in H&H -- a relatively low-level vessel equates to a *lot* of Essence.) Actually, I think the current (vague) thinking on this matter is that Force-manipulation is some kind of attunement that's granted with being made a Superior. The main distinguishing feature for Superiors may simply be access to *lots* of Essence. >Having base rolls over 12 is not system-breaking as long as there >are really difficult tasks that require either large penalties or >high check digit thresholds. Yes, but I see no real reason for these -- if only Superiors are supposed to do them, there's not much reason for mechanics for them. And we're been pretty much presuming in canon that Superiors don't fail tasks that are important to them, unless they are directly opposed by another Superior. Special Superior attunements, plus really large Essence reservoirs and high Essence regeneration rates handle that, simply-bigger stats don't. ("Superiors don't roll dice for the universe....") We don't want PCs getting hold of a reliquary/20 and duplicating Superior feats, I think.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:54:28 -0400 From: Robb Kidd Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. Scott Weber wrote: > Come to think of it... there're a lot of words that could use pronunciation > clarification - For instance, is the primary accent in "Grigori" on the > first or second syllable? Second, I'd say, but then I'd never seen the word before reading the core book. > What about "Elohim" or "Ofanim?" Same problem there. elohim :: elo HEEM ofanim :: ofa NEEM nephalim :: neff ALEEM Least ways that's the inflection my biblical studies professors always gave them. One of them, the Old Testament prof, knew crazy amounts of ancient Hebrew, so I'm willing to accept him as a reputable source. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:05 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits >I ain't gonna elaborate on the need for a 2nd Edition In Nomine, and how >all the rules are not only scattered throughout the sourcebook, but >through nine additional books as well, where it is only getting worse. >And how, if you don't know what you're doing, it can take up to three >hours to make one character with the main rules. You can just close your >eyes and imagine the rant. :) I don't need to, I've heard it from Elizabeth. And then they went and made her Line Editor. Be careful what you complain about, for you may find yourself in charge of being complained *at*.... Yes, they need a 2nd edition, for mostly organizational reasons. I don't think all the rules expansions would fit into a single book, though, unless you want 3-point type.... Elizabeth and I have had a few discussions on how to organize all this material that's coming out in some coherent way for long-term use. There may be a need for something like the "Compendium" books that SJGames has put out for other heavily-evolved product lines. There are at least *some* improvements like putting *all* the artifact stuff in the LR. Similar things are going to happen with other expanded aspects of the game. And at least we won't see "The Book of Cherubim" or "The Book of Eli".... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:15 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine character maximums >Plus, never forget that your superior can hose you good if he/she/it >wants to. If you're a GM worried about creating super-characters, give >your players a complex adventure with morally problematic issues that >make them eat a little dissonance to get the job done. Let the superior >strip 'em of a couple of forces. They still have their skills, after >all. So, encourage your players to buy relics (or take a few game years >off to make 'em) and blow them up. Much fun (heh heh). I generally don't agree with this approach -- it's too likely to annoy the players, and a GM who routinely trashes characters somewhat arbitrarily will lose players. If I wanted to strip things from a character that were clearly causing trouble, I'd set it up with the player first. Trashing artifacts is a *little* less troublesome, since the player has to be at least somewhat aware that they're vulnerable to theft and destruction. But players do tend to feel that they should keep what they've paid for (after all, the GM let them buy it... whine... whine....) My comment about celestial combat was only half-serious -- it's too unreliable a method of fixing Force distributions. In particular, the most likely outcome would be to remnantize the *weakest* character in the group, rather than the one that's been upping Forces at every opportunity.... As a GM, I prefer to avoid these problems in the first place, rather than try to fix them up after the fact. I think the IN reward rules could use some better GM advice, and maybe some tweaking, but I'm not fond of drastic corrective action, ex post facto. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:20 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Stat limits >However, I don't like the >> idea of binding Superiors to the 6-Force 12-Characteristic maxima. So what >> if they get autosuccesses? Maybe some of the things Superiors do aren't >> intrinsically profound mysteries at all, but just impossibly difficult >> for beings limited to the ordinary characteristic range. > >I prefer intrinsically profound mysteries myself, and there are certain >bits in the Liber Reliquarum that support that position, like what happens >when Laurence picks up a sword. (It becomes the sword of automatic killing >with one blow, except against Celestials of similar or higher power >level.) It's pretty much SJGames policy for In Nomine that Superiors Shall Not Be Quantified. I've been playing with some Superior mechanics, but primarily as a way of providing a uniform view of *roughly* what they're capable of, which will almost certainly never see the light of day as canon. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Children of the Grigori >The grapevine says we'll be meeting the Children along with Eli in the >first book of the second cycle, which sounds like it might be delayed until >late this year. No comment. > If you want to get in on that early, I'm guessing dollars >to Pocket Games that this particular little bit of content is going to show >up in Pyramid's Playtest arena, which'll out you $15 for a year of playtest >stuff as well as Pyramid's other advantages... Not to knock Pyramid, which I like quite well, I think it should be pointed out that any IN "cycle" material is unlikely to show up in the Pyramid playtest area, unless policy changes. The only "public" playtest of In Nomine material since the core book came out was the Liber Reliquarum. Some future books that are similarly mostly "collection" material may show up, but I'm dubious about any of the cycle stuff -- it's pretty closely held to avoid plotline spoilers, even the stuff that's not directly concerned with the adventure plots. "Core" books may be more likely, but I wouldn't hold my breath on those, either. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> IN: Superiors, Rites and Essence [Rite stuff cut...] >This has been my understanding as well, esp. with regards to Ethereals, >who get their essence specifically from the rites and rituals their >followers perform, if I'm not mistaken. These may be qualitatively different from celestial Rites, though -- they're explicitly designed as a way for humans to *give up* Essence to their gods. The gods don't need to promote Words in the same way, either -- they just need people to believe in them and give them Essence. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:38 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Changing Nature of Words >When serving a Word, you become that Word. You want that Word to mean as >much as you can make it mean. In the case of angels, you want to serve >your Word as an act of love, the Word as an integral part of the Symphony. >Demons are for the selfish furthering of the word. Exactly. Nice summary! >In a game system that revolves around trying to interact with the "real >world" some sort of influence will be exert in either direction. To not >allow the human world to influence the celestial, would be to make the >whole Word thing pointless. Not to mention making humans pointless, except maybe as Essence-generating fodder. It's Elizabeth's stated policy as Line Editor (and SJ's, for that matter) to keep humans *important* in the IN world. This is only one of the ways this happens. This is also good from a GMing point of view -- there's a good reason for PCs to get sent to interact with humans in various ways, since it has larger strategic effects. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 16:42:05 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Purity On Fri, 8 May 1998 rogue@ez-net.com wrote: > I think I may have stumbled upon a little discrepancy.... > > In The Marches, page 5, Kronos is speaking to Baal and says "If the Word of > Purity had truly been abandoned, at least *one* of them should have Fallen > by now. But *no* Angel of Purity ever has." > > In the Infernal Player's Guide, page 60, under 'Some Famous Impudites': > "Vaphoron, a former Mercurian of Purity who became Outcast when he > befriended etheral spirits, then Fell when Uriel was recalled, and is thus > one one of a handful of former Servitors of Uriel in Hell." Well, without speaking canon, here's my take. Vaphoron was an Outcast. he got that way by befriending ehtereals. It may be that he deliberatly chose to abandon the Word of Purity, rather than by becoming an Outcast through dissonance. As a result, he was no longer a Servitor of Purity when he Fell, although he may have considered himself to have been one right up until the end. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 16:47:01 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Angels of Purity On Fri, 8 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On reflection, I apologise for the posts about Seraphim resonating the > moral truth. But not the others, until someone can demonstrate to my > satisfaction that I hurt a serious thread by useless nitpicking. I don't know about anyone else, but that one didn't bother me. I rather enjoyed the in-depth look at how the seraph resonance works (since I'll be playing one soon). What I despised was the 8 page long post and repost routine about whether or not somebody deserved a rank "in the service of Nitpicking". It ate up my account's memory for no useful purpose; heck, it wasn't even entertaining. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:45 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> More Questions. >> > Do you create one if you are standing by the road, and a kid on a bicycle >> > rides by, turns his head to look at you, accidentally rides into a sewer >> > grate, flips over, and breaks his neck? >> >> Likewise no. >> >Actually, you would, I think, were you an Ofanite... since you didn't do >anything to save the kid. I don't think this would generate *disturbance*, but the Ofanite might get dissonance for it, if he could have acted to save the kid. (And most especially if the Word he served would benefit from saving him.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 98 16:53 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Children of the Grigori >I don't mean to nitpick, but I like to make sure... they are indeed >celestials? I'm pretty sure that this is the case -- I looked through this subject pretty carefully a while back for my own campaign. Without my book here I can't quote you the exact line(s) that led me to believe this, though. I suppose there are also human "children of the Grigori", who are might be Soldier material. But the "true" ones are celestials -- I think there's something about them in the combat section or somewhere like that (maybe the bit on Trauma), as well as the little bit in the Choir writeup section. > I was under the impression that they could possibly be mortal >humans who had the ability to consciously use Songs, though in a very >limited sense... that would keep them from needing a 'resonance' or >'dissonance', because they would still be human. Maybe it'd be somewhat >similar to a Remnant or Soldier - but only loosely related... Like a human >with 7 forces and the ability to use Songs, or something. That's really just an improved Soldier, not anything distinct. Also, the writeup implies that they're not necessarily aware of the War, but *can* sense celestials, with slightly different effects for the two sides. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #767 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.