From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu May 14 16:27:45 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 QAA20123 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:27:44 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA30403 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:17:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:17:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199805142117.QAA30403@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 #779 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 Thursday, May 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 779 In this digest: Re: IN> Dis (Long) Re: IN> Books of Interest Re: IN> Alternative Reading Re: IN> Nitpicking (was Re: IN- Angels of Purity) Re: IN> More Offing Superiors Re: IN> More Offing Superiors IN> Combat Clarification Re: IN> Combat Clarification IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" Re: IN> More Offing Superiors Re: IN> Books of Interest IN> Fluff (Re: Quantifying Superiors) Re: IN> Offing Superiours Re: IN> What's the best source of info... Re: IN> More Offing Superiors (Long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:48:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Dis (Long) Erratum: The reminiscence about Nergal, Ialdabaoth, and Ahriman was ascribed to Kobal. I meant Kronos. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:57:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Books of Interest To the list of L'Engle books, I'd add "Many Waters," which continues the series that started with "A Wrinkle in Time" and involves Noah's Flood, fallen angels, and nephilim. As an aid to "Paradise Lost," I recommend "A Preface to Paradise Lost" by C. S. Lewis. Even if you don't read PL itself, it will give interesting and useful information on celestials. For a good translation of Dante's Inferno and the rest of his Divine Comedy, try the one by Dorothy L. Sayers (she of Lord Peter Wimsey fame), published by Penguin. It preserves the original rhyme scheme and meter, and is loaded with interesting notes. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:26:30 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Alternative Reading > > Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > And ever and ever and ever... Please, folks, if you want a list of > > stuff -- compile it *off* this list? Do Email to one central person > > and then email it to me (or Em?) and it can go on the INC. > > > > But not the list. Not unless you're going to put up the lyrics on > > your own page (for those of us who don't know them) so we can go > > and admire them. > > Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I'm pretty new to the list, so I didn't know this had been discussed > extensively. I'll keep my music to myself - I've seen old threads > resurface in other lists, and it's not a pretty sight. :) try http://www.cas.nwu.edu/people/chandley/ for a look at the list of some of what was suggested before, along with samples of some of the music, when it could be found and sampled. tom timberlake, who still likes Bob Seger's "Like A Rock" for David.*g* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:40:43 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Nitpicking (was Re: IN- Angels of Purity) Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > > I'll keep this response short. I believe nitpicking has three purposes. > > 1. To point out new "truths". You look at a rule in a new way, to give > you insight on how to play the game. > > 2. To point out mistakes. This gives the publisher a change to correct > original mistakes, and create a less flawed canon. > > 3. To bitch and moan. I think this is what most people complain about. > If you don't have a fix, don't complain. Otherwise, ask for > clarification. > > Sorry. I realize I haven't really added anything of consequence. Back in my junior high days, back in the early 70s, in mixed choir, we were taught to listen to music and to critique it, not criticize it. The difference is that a critique cites reasons for disliking something, giving one a handle to grab hold and fix something: the baritones were flat in the 3rd measure on page 5 of this number--they need to listen to the sopranoes at the end of the 1st measure to get their starting pitch for when they enter the music 8 beats later. "Y'all suck dirty earth worms and couldn't carry a tune with a ream off scored music in your arms" is an example of a criticism--it doesn't help you fix what is wrong, offers no constructive advice--in short, it is devoid of any redeeming value. No geases for sensing which I prefer to receive *G*. tom timberlake, cadre Cherub of Heaven 0:-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:52:50 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors Jo wrote: > >We can choose to say, "Nothing a PC does will ever affect a superior >directly unless the superior co-operates. However, the superior can do >whatever it wants to a PC unless another superior intervenes. They really >are a totally different plane of existence and represent elemental forces >which are completely out of PC reach." I think this is the standard >interpretation. > >It has the advantage of injecting a tone of awe into the game (which I think >Beth has written on far better than I could). Can you lose the >invulnerability and keep the awe? I think the problem is not that the celstial superiors are too powerful, but that the PCs are too weak. For my own game, I want the archangels and demon princes to be powerful enough that it doesn't seem immediately stupid that one of their number thought he could overthrow the omnipotent author of Creation. I also want the players of celestial character to realize that they themselves are at least potentially in that league. Hell (IMHO) works much better if its princes are not eternal, but rather the powers-of-the-moment. Even demon princes should worry a lot about some underling stabbing them in the back and seizing their place. I want every demonic PC to believe that with enough skill, luck, and ruthless will to power they too can seize one of the thrones of Hell. Take, for example, the Game. How many times has Princes of the Game been overthrown? How many of the replacements been shams designed to smoke out traitors? Has the Prince of the Game even ever existed, or is it all a convenient blind for the hidden grey eminences? If the PCs have no hope of becoming one of the players of the Game, questions like that are of little interest and foster no paranoia. This is not for me a desirable outcome. (I may not be able to reply to this message for a couple of days, since I am taking a realspace trip starting tomorrow.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:03:19 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors At 14:52 14/05/98 -0400, Neel wrote: > >Take, for example, the Game. How many times has Princes of the Game been >overthrown? How many of the replacements been shams designed to smoke >out traitors? Has the Prince of the Game even ever existed, or is it >all a convenient blind for the hidden grey eminences? Oh, that's very nice! I had Asmodeus always appearing in a mask. Perhaps the mask really is the prince -- so to become prince all you have to do is... sieze it. I have a notion that secrecy could be so paramount that you might never know the true shape of the hierarchy, only who your own immediate supervisor and 'cell' of co-workers were. The rest? A mystery... jo "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." - -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:23:12 -0400 From: "Gallops" Subject: IN> Combat Clarification This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD7F4C.35B8FDC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In Nomine Guys, My gaming group has recently began playing In Nomine and we love it. = As the GM I wanted to check with you guys to make sure I understood how = damage was taken during combat. Not to take up too much of your time = please let me know if the below scenario is correctly resolved. Ariel the Mercurian fires her .44 at Ozzie Dovebiter the = Shedim. She hits with a 1,3,6. He succesfully dodges with a 1,2,4. = Ariel's weapon has a +3 to power and her check digit was a 6 (6+3=3D9). = The bullet has a potential of doing 9 damage. Dovebiter is not wearing = armor but he successfully dodges with a check digit of 4. (9-4=3D5) As = Dovebiter leaps to the side the bullet clips him in the shoulder. His 36 = body points drops to 31. I wanted to confirm this because it seemed that characters in a = normal fist fight would be punching for a long time before anybody = dropped. The chart on page 65 of the main IN rules state that a punch's = power is -3. Characters with a Str. equal to or higher than 9 only adds = +1 to that (along with protection and Fighting>4 adding bonuses). A big = ole celestial with a Body of 45 would take long time to take down with = conventional hand to hand fighting. For that matter I wonder how = stunning could occur in a normal hand to hand fight. With a -3 being = imposed the most a character would sustain would be 3 points (check = digit max of 6 minus 3) and that's not including the possibility of = dodging or armor. I know you guys are busy constantly answering the questions of = befuddled people like myself (Hey! that could be a great new choir The = Befuddled Ones, the host with the least ; ok maybe not) but if you could = answer yea or ney on this issue I would greatly appreciate it.=20 Thanks guys and keep up the good work The Mad Jester @ gallops@g-net.net - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD7F4C.35B8FDC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In Nomine Guys,
    My = gaming group=20 has recently began playing In Nomine and we love it. As the = GM  I=20 wanted to check with you guys to make sure I understood how damage was = taken=20 during combat. Not to take up too much of your time please let me know = if the=20 below scenario is correctly resolved.
          &nbs= p; Ariel=20 the Mercurian fires her .44 at Ozzie Dovebiter the Shedim. She hits with = a=20 1,3,6. He succesfully  dodges with a 1,2,4. Ariel's weapon has a +3 = to=20 power and her check digit was a 6 (6+3=3D9).  The bullet has a = potential of=20 doing 9 damage. Dovebiter is not wearing armor but he successfully = dodges with a=20 check digit of 4. (9-4=3D5) As Dovebiter leaps to the side the bullet = clips him in=20 the shoulder. His 36 body points drops to 31.
    I wanted to confirm this because it seemed that characters in a = normal=20 fist fight would be punching for a long time before anybody dropped. The = chart=20 on page 65 of the main IN rules state that a punch's power is -3. = Characters=20 with a Str. equal to or higher than 9 only adds +1 to that (along with=20 protection and Fighting>4 adding bonuses).  A big ole celestial = with a=20 Body of  45 would take long time to take down with conventional = hand to=20 hand fighting. For that matter I wonder how stunning could occur in a = normal=20 hand to hand fight. With a -3 being imposed the most a character would = sustain=20 would be 3 points  (check digit max of 6 minus 3) = and that's not including the = possibility of=20 dodging or armor.
    I know you guys are busy constantly answering the questions of = befuddled=20 people like myself (Hey! that could be a great new choir The Befuddled Ones, the host with = the=20 least ; ok maybe not) but if you could answer yea or ney on this = issue I=20 would greatly appreciate it.
    Thanks guys=20 and keep up the good work
 
The Mad Jester
@      =20 gallops@g-net.net
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD7F4C.35B8FDC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:10:30 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Combat Clarification dropped. The chart on page 65 of the main IN rules state that a punch's power is -3. Characters with a Str. equal to o r higher than 9 only adds +1 to that (along with protection and Fighting>4 adding bonuses). A big ole celestial with a Body of 45 would take long time to take down with conventional hand to hand fighting. For that matter I wonder how stunning could occu - ---------------------------------------------- Higher than 10, I thought. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ r in a normal hand to hand fight. With a -3 being imposed the most a character would sustain would be 3 points (check digit max of 6 minus 3) and that's not including the possibility of dodging or armor. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, if you've Strength 12 and Fighting 6 that's +6 to check digit. (Modified downward to +5 unless you have something nasty on your hands.) Admittedly that's implausible, but called shots are good, and are covered by the risk rules or less abstractly by whatever effects you rule (and by a special difficulty table which is somewhere in the rules). But in general it's hard to take someone out in a fist-fight, which isn't something I have a problem with. (I can't think of any RPG with even a semi-realistic combat system where it's easy.) Let it be noted that the Body hits for humans are wrong and corrected in Night Music, and in either the Errata or the FAQ. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:44:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" > Actually, it IS possible, according to canon, even. Haagenti started off > as a 3-6 Force familiar, worked his way up to PC level, then kept growing > from there. I don't have my books with me, but if I'm not mistaken, he > devoured his first Superior before he became a Prince... > > > Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian > Meow! IDHMBIFOM, but I'd guess that even if that was the case, he only managed to pull it off because he had the aid of another Superior... > ------------------------------ > From: "Hart, Joanna" > Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors (Long) > > (I think it's interesting, Martin.) > (Thanks.) > We can choose to say, "Nothing a PC does will ever affect a superior > directly unless the superior co-operates. However, the superior can do > whatever it wants to a PC unless another superior intervenes. They really > are a totally different plane of existence and represent elemental forces > which are completely out of PC reach." I think this is the standard > interpretation. I get the impression this is actually Canon. In any case, it's an interpretation I'm not overly fond of. > > It has the advantage of injecting a tone of awe into the game (which I think > Beth has written on far better than I could). Can you lose the > invulnerability and keep the awe? > > I actually think that you could, and that a concerted effort by PCs should > be able to leave a superior reeling temporarily (although probably not more > than that unless your PCs are rather more powerful than starting stat). This is more how I look at things, and much more eloquently put. Thank you Ms. Hart. > But it does leave the lingering question -- what happens when the superior > decides that enough is enough? Is the threat of another superior intervening > enough to preclude going to squash the PCs personally -- because that is the > only thing that /could/ stop them? > Well said! > Generally it isn't enough of a threat, but a superior will tend to see a > PC's action and assume that their own superior was directly behind it. Maybe Superiors suffer from the same "The scrubs can't have done it." complex as PCs? PC celestials, IME, tend to assume that humans can't do *anything*, and that anything serious has a celestial behind it, even when confronted with repeated and blatant evidence to the contrary. This doesn't stop them from offing any humans who annoy them, but they are less likely to "waste their time" hunting one down unless it gets personal. I would hope that mellenia-old Superiors, especially the more thoughtful ones, would have more perspective. > their form of striking back may or may not affect the actual celestial who > offended. If the PC managed to personally irritate the superior (harder to > do than it sounds) then they are probably in mortal trouble, yes. Exactly. > Ultimately, it is the protection of their own superior and a certain amount > of judicious caution which will keep their hides together. Venture into the > corporeal world without that judicious caution and see Darwinism in action! Or just don't get caught doing it. This works for me for demons, but the idea that Angels have to conceal their greatest deeds so that vengeful DPs don't squick them is less palatable. > A large amount of the war is fought covertly, between servitors of either > side who all wish not to draw too much superior attention. I like the cold > war feeling. This is a good argument, if that's the kind of game you want to play. Big honkin' superiors *force* the PCs to be subtle, because if you stand out, you draw their attention. If your PCs *want* to stand out, this is not so fine. > But none of that could happen if superiors could be everywhere at once and > took every setback as something which needed to be personally resolved. Or even occasionally took a setback personally. PCs tend to do things on a grand scale... > I don't think superiors need to be completely untouchable, but that > doesn't mean PCs shouldn't be sensibly afraid of them. > > A problem on the GM side of the fence is trying not to be desperately unfair > to the PCs. If they are cautious and sensible, then it isn't a problem (but > how many PCs will be? :) ), but once you have personally annoyed (or killed) > enough powerful opponents even at the sub-superior level you should be in > deep deep trouble. I've never had problems designing unstoppable demonic > strike forces which could take out a group of PCs easily, Designing one might be easy, but IMHO, at least, such groups are hard to come by in Hell. Baal might have a few. Asmodeus might have some almost as powerful, and more devious. Heaven, of course, has disciplined hodres of Malakim to deal out devine wrath, but they tend to be a tad clueless. > given enough time, > effort and priority and they might never get a chance to call their own > superior to help... Players would complain that it wasn't fair, and they'd > be right. It probably wouldn't be fun for them either, but neither is having > the opposition presenting too easy a challenge. Its just a personal thing I > think, for different groups of players. > Right. However, since everyone on this list seemed to be of the opinion that killable Superiors were badbadbadbad, I wanted to point out that the althernate view doesn't have to be. Thank you for helping. (If you were DP Beth, I'd owe you a pile o' Geases by now... :) > jo > ------------------------------ > From: Kevin Walsh > > > You have to _catch_ them first. And that can be difficult. It's not as if > you can hold onto their Hearts to find them. Of course, they have hordes of Servitors, access to a large set of special abilities, and Essence on a scale PCs can't dream of. PCs would have to lay *very* low. > And these Celestials may well have backup (they'd be insane to try > without it, IMO), Part of my problem with the concept. > in addition to > being kickass themselves. And you don't want to show too much interest in > them because it'll attract the attention of other Superiors. Spending > excessive attention on a few PC types is tantamount to a confession of > weakness, which could well start a feeding frenzy. And then you're f***ed > no matter what happens. > Allowing a bunch of piss-ants to trash your plans/tether/operation and get away with it is *not* a sign of weakness? "Excessive" is also dubious. Squiking the PCs personally should not take the Superior long, and finding them can be their servitor's responsibility. I also don't see "feeding frenzy" as in character for AAs. > And there's always other stuff you have to attend to. Always. Sometimes > you mightn't be able to spend enough resources to do the job. This is back to trivializing everything the PCs do. Nothing they do can be important enough to warrent the enemy Superior's personal attention. > > > Good point. But they still can't do it themselves. > > > Isn't being a catalyst good enough for your PCs? Nothing is "too good" for my PCs. :) Seriously, though, I don't see why they *must* be limited to being catalysts. > If they want to do it > themselves, they can do as Haagenti did and build themselves up over > several hundreds of years with the covert assistance of another Superior. > > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. That's just a little *too* Epic, unless there's a lot of fast-forewards involved. > From: MarkDEddy > I'll explain exactly how the PC's in my campaign managed to destroy > Andrephalus' operations in a major city (Seattle) and get away with it. Cool story and classic example of the technique. The point remains that if Andre had had them alone in a room for any length of time, they would have been in Trauma at best, and quite likely soul-killed. Luckily Andre's not one to hold a long grudge. :) Regards, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:50:28 -0700 From: alloni@ibsystems.com (Alloni Kramer) Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors >Take, for example, the Game. How many times has Princes of the Game been >overthrown? How many of the replacements been shams designed to smoke >out traitors? Has the Prince of the Game even ever existed, or is it >all a convenient blind for the hidden grey eminences? If the PCs have no >hope of becoming one of the players of the Game, questions like that are >of little interest and foster no paranoia. This is not for me a desirable >outcome. Wow. Demon Princes as aliens. This just changes the entire continuity of the IN game. (I know what you meant. I'm just... sensitized to the word grey.) But, seriously, I do think that in the rules as they stand, there is a definite possibility of the PCs becoming one of the Players on the demonic side. (Nybbas, Haagenti, Saminga, Furfur all come to mind.) With some luck, some brains, some luck, some skill, and some luck, you too could happen to be the Demon of Cinnamon-Covered Pretzels when Lucifer decides that Hell needs a Demon Prince of Cinnamon-Covered Pretzels. Just because there SEEMS to be that huge power gap, and just because there are no rules saying "to become a DP, insert tab a into slot b, and presto!" doesn't mean it's not very possible. It's different on the angelic side. It seems to be far more stable, and, as such, AAs don't appear and disappear at the drop of a feather. Of course, angels are far less prone to being power-hungry backstabbing bastards anyway. Alloni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 02:11:57 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Books of Interest On 14 May, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Here's my big list of IN-related books. I wrote it up for my campaign, > and I was inspired to post when I saw someone else post something > similar. Might I add a recommendation for Mary Doria Russell's "The Sparrow". A fascinating book about the nature of faith, the perils of First Contact, and the workings of the Jesuits. Right up there with Blish, in my opinion. - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:19:24 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Fluff (Re: Quantifying Superiors) At 5:27 PM -0700 5/13/98, Graveyard Greg wrote: >---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> Lemme put my Archives Hat on... Okay, it's like this. Superiors are >> more than just mega-powerful celestials. Each and every one of them >> embodies a *Word*, a concept, an integral piece of *REALITY*. > >Nice hat, Beth! Thank you. And Em doesn't get to steal this one either. O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:39:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Offing Superiours At 6:11 PM -0500 5/13/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >First, I wish to apologise for using the word "terrible" three times in a >two paragraph post. That was a terribly silly thing for me to do. I >feel terrible about it. Hopefully, it wasn't a terrible strain for the >nitpickers and anglishphiles on the list. ;^) It was just terrible of you. >> From: Walter Milliken >(Working up to Lucifer's Advocate/2) >Most RPGs do in fact assume the PCs are special. That they can kill >Fixandranthaxus the incredibly ancient and even more incredibly irritable >dragon despite the fact that thousands of others have tried and failed. >They can successfully infiltrate the Rouge Xenocidal Cidi Death fleet, >even though crack Space Patrol agents have failed. I want to watch this, considering that Cidi are sentient hamsters... of slightly-larger-than-hamster-but-not-much size. >They can destroy the >One True Ring, get their tax forms filled out properly, or even topple >MicroSoft - they're the PCs, after all. They should be able to do the >important and cool things. You suspend disbelief a little to assume this >ragtag group is capable of outdoing the best of the best, but it's >perfectly in-genre, and usually a lot of fun. > >Why is this kind of thinking wrong in IN? Well, think of Call of Cthulhu. Do the PCs read Things Man Was Not Meant To Read without making SAN checks (and losing it)? Do they kill Cthulhu? It's the same thing with Superiors.... If you don't want that setup, then don't play canon IN... O;> (And sometimes someone can get lucky. Haagenti, for instance. Of course, I get the impresion that eating Sloth was kind of like shooting the side of a barn at 5 paces with a shotgun, and Kobal may have helped.) At 10:04 PM -0500 5/13/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >I get this list as a digest, so I'll try to deal with this as a lump. >Perhaps unwise. Heh heh heh... >Note that I'm not trying to get Canon changed here. I will run my IN >games however I want, as will y'all. I just think this is an interesting >discussion. Which is why I have all the Devil's Advocate comments - I'm >personally not strongly on one side or the other, but no one else seems >even close to the middle ;( I seem to be arguing with the entire list here. >Are you all finding this interesting too? Or should I stop harassing >you?) Hey, anyone wants to play IN Out Of Canon, *go* for it! Tell me how it went! But I'll argue canon because I happen to like it... >> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:02:38 -0400 >> From: Elizabeth McCoy >> Subject: Re: IN> Quantifying Superiors >> Letting a bunch of hotshots just walk up to a Superior and waste it >> pretty well shatters that concept. > >paragraphs explaining your POV, then an ugly and blunt one line sentence >on mine. Wow. It was like skipping through alpine meadows, then being >slapped with a halibut. :> Just for the halibut... *ahem* Sorry. Lost a bet with Kobal, have to say things like that sometimes? (And a tip of the hat to ehp.) >But it is canon that Superiors *can* kill each other, *without* >destroying the dead celestial's Word. Yup. Of course, those are Superiors and Superiors. They have those boatloads of Power to throw around. Mind you, only Sloth and Oblivion seem to have been killed without pyrotechnics, and *maybe* Vephar. >(Q: Are non-Superior worded celestials in the same boat? ) Not quite -- they haven't made that state-change. They're much easier to toast. >> Which is why canon Superiors won't have "oh kill me now" stats. > >Just because you give it stats, it does not mean you have to kill it. >Just because it can theoretically be killed, does not mean it has to be >easy. The munchkins are going to kill it anyway. Then they can stretch their minds and make up the stats themselves. >> If you want to kill a Superior, it's a *campaign*, > >More or less my thought, as well. It should be epic. I'm allowed to do >epic, right? I *like* epic. Epic is great, epic is fine, killing a Superior in an epic campaign is perfectly fine. Gobs of roleplaying, thinking, planning, plotting, narrow escapes! >> where you >> undermine them politically and on the corporeal plane, striking >> at their Word again and again until they are weakened enough to >> take on. > >Note that only an insane Superior would allow this to happen. If a >simple group of (say) 6 celestials was doing massive damage to it's word, >it would hunt them down and kill them. They would have to do enough >damage to its word to get it bumped below Superior status before it >caught them. When it did, that's it. Yes, it is. Which is why you need to be *careful*! You need to be indirect, screening what you do with humans, always staying one step ahead of the Superior you're taking on (and hopefully with the tacit assistance of your own Superior...). You need to plot and plan and take advantage of luck, and it may take *centuries*. It's not epic if all you need to do is play video game "I take out the servitors, I take out the Knight, I take out the Baron, I take out the Duke, I take out the Prince." >> And even then, if you can get one into celestial combat, >> expect to lose most of the hotshot attackers. > >In the current version of IN, you have to take it *below* Superior level >or it simply wastes you as soon as you confront it. Yup? >BTW - why does anyone confronting a Superior have to be a hotshot? Because only a hotshot overconfident person would *confront* a Superior in a snit.? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:04:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> What's the best source of info... At 9:50 AM +0100 5/14/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Wed, May 13, 1998 at 12:14:21PM -0400, Pee Kitty wrote: >> > would you want to use the Lilim or Djinn resonances? (You sense the >> > Need...to kill you.) >> >> See K.K., Lilim of Dark Humor, on the INC, for an answer to that. :) >> >I saw it, and disagree. If you can be easily killed, the most you get is a >Geas/1, which is not worth a Vessel/1, especially given that you'll be >spending a while in Trauma. K.K. is funny, but not realistic. Actually, while K.K. *is* a munchkin, check her stats. She stays in Trauma for 1 day. (Corporeal Forces: 1. Will: 12.) And she's not necessarily easily killed -- Celestial Song of Motion and all that. But even with a Geas/1 per death, she only needs to get killed 6 times, in 12 days, and geeeeee, there's a Malakite with a Geas/6 on him! For the way it serves his Word (how much "vague Essence" *does* a silly death generate?), and the prospect of running "The Pirates of Penzance" with angels, Kobal could plausibly keep her in vessels. Mind you, just because K.K. is a plausible legal character doesn't mean any sane GM would want to accept her into their game... Still, the basic point is that if you're gonna die, getting even a Geas/1 on your killer lets you do *soooo* many fun things later. Especially if you have the CelSong of Affinity. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:52:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors (Long) At 10:53 AM +0100 5/14/98, Hart, Joanna wrote: >(I think it's interesting, Martin.) > >I think the problem with giving superiors stats is not so much that PCs will >want to kill them, but that they will start wondering about other ways in >which they can be affected. For example, in the LR, a description is given >of Dominic's cloak which includes the fact that the wearer can't be affected >by resonances or mind control (I think). Does this imply that other >superiors can? As the original concept-person for that -- it got clipped for space, but the concept was that Superiors *can* shield automatically against resonances -- but it takes a tiny amount of attention. The cloak muffles without needing to think about it (probably just *got* that way because he was shielding *all the time*). And maybe it messes slightly with other Superiors' resonances, too. But that's my personal concept. (Which I infected Maya with... And then there's when the Elohite accidentially resonated Lilith with a CD of 6. She let it happen.) >Jean may be crackling with the essential energies of the universe but if he >is summoned to a rubberised stone chamber far away from any power supplies >when he was already reeling from a nasty bout with Vapula's raygun ... and >then bound into a shard of glass... I don't think he would be laughing. True. It probably wouldn't hold him *long*, but it could be *very* annoying. (Of course, Jean wouldn't laugh anyway unless it was either necessary or wholly un-important.) >(I think there is a canon example of a superior being bound into an object?) Spoilers for Feast Of Blades! Gebbeleth jumped into the dagger *himself*, and was trapped there when the dagger was taken up to Heaven. Sort of a Divine Intervention case. >But none of that could happen if superiors could be everywhere at once and >took every setback as something which needed to be personally resolved. I >don't think superiors need to be completely untouchable, but that doesn't >mean PCs shouldn't be sensibly afraid of them. There are ways to take out Superiors, sure. But they aren't going to be simple straightforward knock-'em-down fights between the Superior and the PCs. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #779 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.