From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 18 19:54:52 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 TAA14966 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 19:54:52 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id TAA21806 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 19:52:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:52:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199805190052.TAA21806@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 #785 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, May 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 785 In this digest: IN> DVPBEM NEWS Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... Re: IN> Saints Re: IN> Saints Several IN Questions (was Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 Re: IN> K.K. the Lilim Munchkin (Re: What's the best source of info...) Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 IN> Pyramid 23 IN> IRC and how to get there! Re: IN> Pyramid 23 Re: Several IN Questions (was Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" IN> Superior on a Stick (Very Long....) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:21:04 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: IN> DVPBEM NEWS Well, live and learn. I simply don't have the time or energy to run two PBEMs at once right now, and when one of them has half its players sitting around waiting for the other three (who are -in- action) to catch up, it's pretty easy to pick which one to drop. Ihate to say this, but DVPBEM2 is dead. And I'm going to think long and hard before I start off another game with every single player starting on their own, with no contact with anyone else. DVPBEM will resume in a couple days, in a new format; for the players who may be losing email but can still get to a computer with Web access, I'll be taking advantage of Dreambooks' service and putting DVPBEM on the Web. Copies of posts will be emailed to me for future archiving (when I can catch up... editing the old emails is a pain and three-quarters.) With one player on tour with a college choir, and two others apparently MIA (Eziel, Thaniel?), there -might- be an opening for one or two new players in this campaign soon... but definitely no more than that, and if you do want to sign up, be sure you have the time to commit to it. Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:58:02 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 At 12:46 18/05/98 -0400, you wrote: > > >Permanently? I'd wonder, I'd really wonder. (I'd also wonder if >they'd manage to outsmart that particular Superior, but there's >always Saminga...) > You know, I can see an argument that Jean might occasionally let himself get kind of trapped, and then free himself again. Just to try to keep all those ambitious demons who might otherwise be out plagiari^D^D^D^D^Dinspiring mortal scientists busy with wacko superior-trapping plans instead. (Come to think of it. In that case, I'd be tempted to laugh when they weren't looking). jo "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." - -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:52:52 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... On Mon, 18 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > with an *enormous* connection to the ethereal realm may be granted > Ethereal Songs as well (Beleth, Blandine, ethereal gods). Those > who have been very much altered (Saints and Undead) can use celestial. > > If you want the reasoning behind all of this in gameworld terms, ask... I'm asking... Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:34:07 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Saints - --------------42A1CEC9990D45CDA62B2DC4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit crossbyte@juno.com wrote: > >> St. Bride's cult includes (as recorded in the Carmina Gaedelica...) > >young > >> women dressing in bridal clothes, wearing crowns woven of wheat and > >singing > >> hymns to the Saint. If I'm remembering correctly, her Saint's day is > >May 1st, > >> also known as Beltane. There's more, but those are the two I can > >remember... > >> > >Nope. Her feast day is the 1st of February, which used to be called > >Imbolc, but isn't any more. Bealtaine (the pronunciation does not > >resemble what Beltane looks like in English in the slightest, apart > >from > >the consonants) is now the Irish for the month of May in general, and > >was > >the name of the Celtic Festival. As a feast day, it's more or less > >dead, > >from what I can see, and the only thing noteworthy that I recall of > >the > >cult is those weird crosses made of reeds (I think). > > Come to think of it, most feast days of Saints are seldom celebrated, > except in the countries in which they are Patron of. One exception is St. > Patricks day, but realize there are at least 2-3 Saints per day that have > their feast on a particular day... > ie, St. Peter and St. Paul have feasts on June 29 (I think) Two caveats here. Most feast days of Saints are seldom celebrated, _currently_ and _by the laity_. You are correct in that most people don't celebrate feast days, however they were of much greater importance during the formative years of t he Church on into the Middle Ages. And many more than are currently celebrated outside still appear for clergy, and especially in the monastic calendar. - - Tom - --------------42A1CEC9990D45CDA62B2DC4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit crossbyte@juno.com wrote:
>> St. Bride's cult includes (as recorded in the Carmina Gaedelica...)
>young
>> women dressing in bridal clothes, wearing crowns woven of wheat and
>singing
>> hymns to the Saint. If I'm remembering correctly, her Saint's day is
>May 1st,
>> also known as Beltane. There's more, but those are the two I can
>remember...
>>
>Nope. Her feast day is the 1st of February, which used to be called
>Imbolc, but isn't any more. Bealtaine (the pronunciation does not
>resemble what Beltane looks like in English in the slightest, apart
>from
>the consonants) is now the Irish for the month of May in general, and
>was
>the name of the Celtic Festival. As a feast day, it's more or less
>dead,
>from what I can see, and the only thing noteworthy that I recall of
>the
>cult is those weird crosses made of reeds (I think).

Come to think of it, most feast days of Saints are seldom celebrated,
except in the countries in which they are Patron of. One exception is St.
Patricks day, but realize there are at least 2-3 Saints per day that have
their feast on a particular day...
ie, St. Peter and St. Paul have feasts on June 29 (I think)

Two caveats here.  Most feast days of Saints are seldom celebrated, _currently_ and _by the laity_.  You are correct in
that most people don't celebrate feast days, however they were of much greater importance during the formative years of t he Church on into the Middle Ages.  And many more than are currently celebrated outside still appear for clergy, and especially in the monastic calendar.

- Tom - --------------42A1CEC9990D45CDA62B2DC4-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:59:47 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Saints On Mon, 18 May 1998 crossbyte@juno.com wrote: > Sounds like St. Claire of Assissi...but remember, these were not > performed by her power, but her humility, resignation to the Divine Will, > and Faith in God's power. Just a minor point - I don't think this is a good forum to state that as a fact. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 17:55:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Several IN Questions (was Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... Elizabeth McCoy writes: >Normal Soldiers only get Corporeal Songs. Those who serve an entity >with an *enormous* connection to the ethereal realm may be granted >Ethereal Songs as well (Beleth, Blandine, ethereal gods). Those >who have been very much altered (Saints and Undead) can use celestial. > >If you want the reasoning behind all of this in gameworld terms, ask... Yes, the reasoning would be nice, but so would a clarification. Some portions of the rules addressing this matter are phrased so as to imply that mortals are not *able* to use Songs other than Corporeal ones; other sections imply that they are never *taught* such Songs, because doing so is a big no-no as far as all Superiors are concerned. Which of these is the case? While I'm asking questions about rules that, upon reflection, seem ambiguous... Shedim Band Dissonance conditions. Do Shedim need to corrupt a host: - -every 24 hours of their own existence? (Seems unlikely, as there are apparently lots of Shedim on permanent duty in Hell). - -every 24 hours that they spend in the corporeal realm occupying hosts? - -or, every 24 hours they spend in *the same* host? The last two are the viable options given canonical material, and the distinction between them is nontrivial: under the 2nd version, a Shed who keeps hopping between different hosts need never incur dissonance, even if it never corrupts any of them. (This is probably a *good* thing, since the number of on-duty Shedim is implied to be, er, large, and the canonical descriptions suggest that being Shedridden tends ultimately to lead to violent death as a serial killer. That makes for a *lot* of serial killers wandering around.) Next question: Balseraph resonance duration. The duration of (CD minutes) given in the basic rulebook seemed almost uselessly short as a period for the victim to believe a lie. I therefore assumed that, as an appropriate inversion of the Seraph resonance, a Balseraph who successfully resonated a given victim gained an interval of time in which that victim would automatically swallow *anything* the Bal said, hook, line, and sinker. The expanded writeup in IPG clearly shows, however, that the intent was for *each* lie to require a resonance roll, and the resonance duration was indeed the length of time that *that* lie would be believed. While the expanded writeup also gives rules for extending that duration enormously by building a whole framework of plausible lies, it remains a finite duration. Which raises, at least for me, a conceptual headache. What happens when the duration expires, presuming that the Balseraph hasn't killed the victim or done something else permanent in the meantime? Does the victim suddenly "snap out of it" and realize that everything was a lie? Is this the case even for plausible lies that have not been contradicted by anything in the meantime? If so, the Balseraph resonance seems for most purposes to be *inferior* to mundane lying skill; if a mortal tells his dinner hostess that yes, the chocolate curry pizza was delicious, her belief in the lie is not automatically bounded by a little alarm clock counting off the minutes. What I would assume, in the interests of playability and plausibility, is that the resonance duration only describes the period in which the victim will cling to the lie so tightly that only ironclad, incontrovertible proof will let them deny it; a plausible lie that has not gotten contradicted will continue to be believed indefinitely, or at least until it *is* contradicted. However, I would like to find out the official view of things. While we're at it: can a Balseraph use its resonance to convince someone of the truth? Imagine a Balseraph, say a servant of the Game with a Role as a high-powered lawyer, is defending a useful, high-status Hellsworn soldier. Presume also that the defendant is *in fact* innocent of *that* particular crime (he's guilty of all sorts of heinous stuff the authorities know nothing about, but in this case the cops grabbed him by mistake). The jury, unfortunately, is hostile, and disinclined to accept the perfectly valid evidence exonerating the defendant. Can the Balseraph use its resonance to convince the jurors of truths they are unwilling to believe? What if the Balseraph is mistaken, so that it *falsely* believes in the defendant's guilt, and lies to the jurors using its resonance? If the second case works, but the first case doesn't, all the Balseraph has to do is resonate *itself* to believe the lie "the defendant is guilty" and then, until the resonance wears off, it can resonate the jury with the "lie" that "the defendant is innocent." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 00:12:12 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 On Mon, 18 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 11:54 AM -0500 5/15/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > >What stops "Superior Ambush?" I.e. the angry Superior has a Servitor summon > >him in front of the PCs, squicks them, then leaves? > > Not much, so don't get noticed by the other guy's Servitors, and if you > do, RUN if you can't engage them in distracting combat within a round > or two. (Why *did* the PCs let the captured demon have 10 seconds > to invoke Vapula?? Yeesh.) Also, would the Superior smite the opposition just like that? I can imagine some Superiors being pretty pissed off at being summoned just to off a few angels/demons, when their underlings should know enough to keep out of such situations. If you have to rescue them all the time, are they really worth the effort? Maybe they can better serve its word in some slightly less important position... Say, as clerks. Or loose forces. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:18:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN> K.K. the Lilim Munchkin (Re: What's the best source of info...) At 12:36 PM 5/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >At 3:47 PM -0700 5/14/98, Kim Foster wrote: >>At 06:12 PM 5/14/98 -0400, you wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> (You sense the Need...to kill you.) >>>>>>> See K.K., Lilim of Dark Humor, on the INC, for an answer to that. :) >>>http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles -- go to the Rogue's >>>Gallary, thence to the demons, etc. > >>>So what does the Malakite do? Kill the demon who murmurs, "Okay, you >>>owe me now?" or stand by and take dissonance? Catch-22. >> >>Well, they could get someone else to kill them, servants or otherwise (Do >>not suffer an evil to live doesn't mean you have to whack it personally IMHO >>or that you have to do it -right that moment-) > >True enough. On the other hand... What if she sees the Need for her >to be dead, and does the deed herself. Woops. > Is the Need for her to be dead, for the Malakim to kill her? And just how is "dead" defined for Celestial? I lean more toward "killing" another Celestial to be soul death, not vessel death. For Malakim in particular. Vessel death is temporary. Vessel death is like trashing their car. They might be injured for awhile (Trauma) but rarely does it take them totally out of picture for a long time. Of course this is solely my opinion. >>or suck up the dissonance and try to explain. > >K.K. and Kobal think this is amusing too. O;> "Where does this stain on your soul come from, my servant?" "One guess..." *rubs temple,"oh her...." >Well she's the dog the causes disturbance and has target painted on it and >like staring contests. :D Hee hee hee! Yes, well. She only causes disturbances if she harms something (and with Strength 2, this is pretty rare...), Or spends Essence, or uses Songs..... > >Not all Lilim are Perception 12. Not all Needs seen are the correct one. >Not all Lilim manage to CelSong of Charm their target, and sensible >Malakim spend Essence resisting a Geasing attempt, so that the Lilim >takes dissonance and is then chopped up again. > >Or just wear those cool sunglasses! > And hope the GM is lenient in defining "holding on to" for the purpose of motion songs...... >At 4:06 AM +0100 5/17/98, Steve Jessop wrote: >Thank the stars, you can only get up to Geas/6. (Unless you're Lilith, >and even that's a maybe.) But yes, Lilim of Haagenti are quite >entertainingly powerful. > Taking no such thing as a free lunch to nightmareish extreme. :) I know violence doesn't solve all problems... But it sure feels good! Felicia:DS3:Vampire Savior ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 >>> If the Superior bothers to hunt them down personally....but every Superior >>> has scads of lesser Servitors of other Superiors doing things to harrass >>> and weaken it. If they personally hunted down everyone who stings them, >>> they'd be spending all their time squashing small fry. >> >> This trivializes everything the PCs do. It only works if >>their greatest deeds are average or sub-par. > Why does it make their part trivial? They are working alongside the other forces of Heaven, chipping away the enemy, a victory here, a change there. Not huge deeds in the grand schemce of things but it all adds up. Sort of fits that Angelic selflessness togetherness thing.. To take another game for example look at Star Wars, PCs there are not going to he the "big" heroes but they do their part. Important, vital operation that will lead to the eventual victory. >>What stops "Superior Ambush?" I.e. the angry Superior has a Servitor summon >>him in front of the PCs, squicks them, then leaves? The PCs can call theirs. With a big bonus I beleive for being threatened by an enemey superior. And even if it does work, how long before the opposition gets annoyed. Baal keeps stomping Michea's servants personally. How long before Mike gets ticked enough to intervene then things get interesting as a cold war turns hot. something neither side want at the moment as I understand it. I know violence doesn't solve all problems... But it sure feels good! Felicia:DS3:Vampire Savior ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:55:52 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: IN> Pyramid 23 Dear List, I'm going to be runnning a demo IN game in a month or so for the first local Con. I've decided to run "Lust in the Afternoon" (from Pyramid 24?), but I don't have Pyramid 23 to get the stats for Charlie and Phillipe. If someone has that issue and the time, could you please post me a quick run down of the characters? Thankyou in advance. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:00:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: IN> IRC and how to get there! - ---EEEAMEEH wrote: > > how do you get to this #innomine place? > > Starsurfer, Seraph of Creation in service to Destiny, Angel Of Words > > > For those of you who have mIRC, it's on EFNet If you DON'T have mIRC, it's on www.mirc.com, I think...Download it today! Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:13:57 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Pyramid 23 >Dear List, > >I'm going to be runnning a demo IN game in a month or so for the >first local Con. I've decided to run "Lust in the Afternoon" (from >Pyramid 24?), but I don't have Pyramid 23 to get the stats for >Charlie and Phillipe. If someone has that issue and the time, could >you please post me a quick run down of the characters? > *blink* You mean... this isn't Amonhotep III's secret warehouse of suppressed ancient technology? No Ra McNally's Road Maps of Atlantis? No Chia Sphinxes? No blueprints for the Valley of the Kings written in alien script? Awwww. }:-{D Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:48:57 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Several IN Questions (was Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... At 5:55 PM -0400 5/18/98, York H. Dobyns wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy writes: >Some >portions of the rules addressing this matter are phrased so as to imply >that mortals are not *able* to use Songs other than Corporeal ones; >other sections imply that they are never *taught* such Songs, because >doing so is a big no-no as far as all Superiors are concerned. Which of >these is the case? I *believe* the former. (The Songbook editor will know more than I, when that section is written.) >While I'm asking questions about rules that, upon reflection, seem >ambiguous... > >Shedim Band Dissonance conditions. Do Shedim need to corrupt a host: >-every 24 hours that they spend in the corporeal realm occupying hosts? I would rule this one. But only *one* host need be corrupted, so if they hop around, they can do a little corruption there, a little here, etc. They need not ride *one* host into the ground. Though many *wish* to do so. >The expanded writeup in IPG clearly shows, >however, that the intent was for *each* lie to require a resonance roll, >and the resonance duration was indeed the length of time that *that* lie >would be believed. Yes. >Which raises, at least for me, a conceptual headache. What happens when >the duration expires, presuming that the Balseraph hasn't killed the >victim or done something else permanent in the meantime? Does the victim >suddenly "snap out of it" and realize that everything was a lie? In some cases, yes. In other cases, they then are able to *accept* that what they heard *might be* a lie, if it's pointed out to them. If it doesn't get contradicted... GM's option how long before it becomes less of a "fixed opinion" and more of "faulty data." >While we're at it: can a Balseraph use its resonance to convince someone >of the truth? Yes. The Balseraph takes some "fact," incorporates the TRUTH of that fact into his personal symphony (whether the fact is true or not, objectively), and projects it out. Which means that if someone dis- believes even a true resonance-projection, the Bal gets dissonant. (If the CD was a 6 to resist, that is.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:38:40 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Soldiers, Undead, You know... At 3:52 PM -0400 5/18/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >On Mon, 18 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> with an *enormous* connection to the ethereal realm may be granted >> Ethereal Songs as well (Beleth, Blandine, ethereal gods). Those >> who have been very much altered (Saints and Undead) can use celestial. >> >> If you want the reasoning behind all of this in gameworld terms, ask... > >I'm asking... Okay. Songs are ways to manipulate the Symphony. Normal Soldiers (it says this, p. IN32) can only learn Corporeal Songs. This is because they are native to the corporeal realm, and are most easily "attuned" to Corporeal Songs. Dream-Soldiers -- those who serve Beleth, Blandine, and the ethereal gods -- have a connection to the ethereal plane. They dream every night (like all living mortals), which gives them a teensy alignment there, and their Superiors can adjust them more (which takes effort, essence, personal attention, and all those good things that keep them from doing it to *every* Soldier). They are able to learn and perform Ethereal Songs. Saints have had their beings altered just a touch. They died and went to Heaven, for starters. The Light of Heaven has permeated their beings, and they now have an affinity for the celestial realm, and therefore Celestial Songs are available to them. Undead have had their celestial forces *bound* to their bodies. In effect, their celestial forces are also corporeal. They sneak in the back door and are able to learn Celestial Songs. Does that help? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:39:51 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" >>>Now let's apply the principle proposed by a member of the superior-infallibility faction, that no superior can ever be affected by anything the PCs might ever be involved in.<<< Hmm. Who said that? I must have missed that message. - -David (who doesn't even remember anyone using "infallible" to describe Superiors) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:55:29 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" >>>Just because no-one specifically said it doesn't mean that it wasn't proposed as a principle ;)<<< Jo, Jo, Jo....shame on you. It was _not_ proposed as a principle. Argue against straw men if you like, but don't try to ascribe them to anything but your own imagination. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:36:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Superior on a Stick (Very Long....) Wow. I was not at my email for the weekend, so this is a bigger chunk than usual. I pulled stuff off into an editor so the format will be a little wierd. After this section, I'll put my comments in between lines of *'s, ************************************* Like so. ************************************* In any case, before I get started, I want to reiterate a few points, since they serve as replies to a large number of the comments on the list. (Sorry, but I can't resond to everything. Assume liberal snippage below..) A. I am not trying to change Canon. That would be silly for any number of reasons, the most horrific of these being annoying AA/DP Beth, and her hordes of fanatical servitors. B. I *am* somewhat surprised by how few people are willing to consider PC-scale superiors as even an option, which is why I started this. Somewhere very early along the line it mutated into me listing what I percieved as faults in the Canon POV. This helps me understand how others deal with this, but doesn't exactly get all of my point across. I think this is my fault, so I'll apologise right now. B.1 There are faults in *every* RPG setting, and it really boils down to which ones bug you the most. To me, near-omnipotent, virtually incomprehensible, and interventionist Superiors wandering around the landscape crimps my style. Or to put it in a Millikenesque way: the trick is to not rub your player's nose in the fact that they're "popcorn". I just don't see how to pull that trick in IN. B.2 I realize there are games where the rubbing of the PCs noses in their own helplessness is part of the genre. (Paranoia, CoC, probably others.) Such games have always struck me as deliberately silly or very Dark. Dark and Silly are ofc. two good ways to play IN, but Epic is fine as well, IMHO. B.3 Most of my comments make the most sense in an Epic campaign context. Many of them make no sense outside of one. If you don't play Epic - just ignore me, I have nothing to say in this message of interest to you. C. I was not originally proposing Superiors so weak that a PC with a fruit knife could walk up to one and kill it. I was merely objecting to the "PCs can't hurt them, can't annoy them sufficiently to get their personal attention, and if they manage to do so, they are fugatives or dead" mindset. Killing someone with a fruit knife is not very Epic. Never, ever, not a chance in Hell (literally) of having the climatic confontation with the evil Mastermind (as anything but small fry pawns in someone else's game) is not very Epic either. And, now, the responses... ___________________________________________ From: Kevin Walsh Well, I like it, for one simple reason. Without that idea, the War doesn't make sense. If Superiors are not vast elemental forces, then how did one of them get the idea that he could beat God? You can play with the idea that the War is all part of the Great Plan, but to me that cheapens the setting far more than making Michael or Belial massively kickass could possibly do. And there's a difference between being a massive elemental force capable of trivally killing a PC and being omnipresent and omnipotent. Superiors are the former, but not the latter. *************************** Isn't God's power level is (sensibly) an area of Canon doubt and uncertainty? In any case, God is sensible *not* visible in Canon IN, as any sensible Omni-potent/present/scient being should be. As for how Lucy successfully rebelled, that's by no means a settled issue on this list, unless I missed it going by some time. It certainly doesn't have to be because Lucy's personal raw power was similar to God's. *************************** Without extraordinary effort? Have you looked at the +6 modifiers before making that statement? What if your Superior is one of those types that has a base invocation of 0 or 1? I remember in No Dinero, I considered that I could only reliably get hold of Janus by blowing 9 Essence, despite the fact that important matters were in progress in the same building as me. All of this despite the fact that in canon, PCs are special agents who get priority channels, and can work outside the normal chain of command. *************************** Point remains that with 9 Essence you could *reliably* get a hold of a Superior. I don't consider that extraordinary effort. Not easy, not cheap, but any "full" celestial PC can do it, and a Superior is big guns. If the matters going on in the building were of real importance to Janus, he could have solved them, snap. And to answer your question - Yes, I have a good idea what the Summoning modifiers are. +1 or +2 is usually not too hard to get, and you make up the rest with Essence. If you start from a base invocation of 0, get a +1 modifier, and blow 9 Essence, you have a target of 10. For most Superiors, it's easier. *************************** No. The words "when it is your own choice", implicit in the word "suffer", are made explicit in the wording. Malakim attacking Superiors with no hope of victory without specific orders to do so could arguably take dissonance. If they're soul-killed, they're not going to be able to prevent evil. *************************** Interesting POV. See B.3. *************************** >Or a truly deparate being who had nothing to lose. Nothing to lose? *************************** "My name is Inegioaerel. You killed my Prince. Prepare to die." See B.3. *************************** >Or a Michealite. I think Michael would be forgiving about dissonance in these circumstances. *************************** That doesn't mean it is bad roleplaying to stay and face the enemy Superior, or necessarily make the PC doing so a "Hot Shot." *************************** > Or perhaps a very powerful, very well-prepared, very careful > indivdual who thinks they have a way to win, and a good reason to risk > it. There are plenty of other reasons. > Very powerful is not a term normally applied to PCs. *********B.3**************** From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" At 3:44 PM -0500 5/14/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >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. Ehhhhhhh. *Severe* cognitive dissonance there. Read the alt.tasteless FAQ to see what I mean. **************************** "Save the Choad!" :) *************************** From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Superior Slaying 101 >My point was that if the Superior *is literally* some aspect of the Symphony, as you wrote, killing them should kill that aspect.< It would be more accurate to say that a Superior is the literal embodiment of some aspect of the Symphony. <...> *************************** OK. That's more how I view things. The point was made in response to DP Beth's assertion that since they *were* said elemental forces, they had to be incredibly more powerful than the PCs. I misuderstood, apparantly. IMHO, embodiments of elemental forces can be of any power level the GM wants, depending on how much power they gain from that status. *************************** ..so if you are up against Saminga, you're not just up against a Shedite with lots and lots of Forces, you're up against a Shedite who is Death incarnate, and his might is equal to the power of Death in the world.... *************************** So Canonically, Superiors have all the power available to their Word. Easy to justify as truly Massive, and impossible to quantify. Luckily I'm not arguing Canon. ;) *************************** This trivializes everything the PCs do. It only works if their greatest deeds are average or sub-par<<< It works if their greatest deeds are still not capable of shaking the foundations of the universe, at least not with a few dice rolls. *************************** B.3 There is also the inconsistancy that a PC is of enough interest to his own Superior to summon It fairly often, but never very interesting to other Sups. *************************** .... but your whole argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that PCs should have unlimited power to change the universe, *************************** No. But they should have enough power to attract the attention of Superiors. They can talk to Superiors. They can *summon* Superiors. But their actions will never enrage one unless they deliberatley try? Maybe this makes more sense with an example: The players are Servitors of Yves. They do many wonderful and great things to lead people to their Destinies and away from their Fates, foiling many important Demon plots along the way. (Remember point B.3) Now all Servitors of Yves can't be doing this well, or the War would be over. Kronos will undoubtedly be pissed. He will try to stop them. They succeed in surviving numerous attacks by K.'s pawns. What does he do now? What prevents him from scouting thier residence out, popping in, soulkilling the lot, and leaving again before anyone can react to the disturbance? Assuming there's a rational reason, replace the Superior in question with Sam. or Belial What keeps *them* in check? *************************** and should in fact potentially be the most powerful beings in that universe, or else they are "trivialized". *************************** They are trivialized because there are these Superior things running around that they see and interact with and summon and actively attempt to thwart, that can kill them without working up a sweat. I don't ask that PCs be able to kill Sups with vegetable peelers, but I ask that they be able to do things that the Sups care about passionately. After all, they interact the Them often, and it rankles when the best the PCs can accomplish is at best of minor interest to the enemy. When the PCs make a major coup against the enemy, the enemy should care. On the other side of the coin, if the PCs are attempting a task of major interest to their Sup, and they lose, what stops them from summoning It? Sure they flubbed up, and will get in trouble for it, but the task will be accomplished. (Canon Superiors should be able to accomplish any task their servitors could.) If their Superior doesn't care enough about the task to make a personal appearance, how should they feel about it themselves? *************************** ... I've never seen players complain that their characters were being "trivialized" because there were far more potent, essentially unkillable, beings out there. *************************** You've never had me as a player. 0;) One of my first campaigns was an AD&D game with very interventionist gods, who essentially ordered the party around to do stuff they could accomplish with a wave of their hand. I get a bad taste in my mouth even today, thinking about it. In any case, usually they aren't able to call these being up on the phone, and the beings in question are sharply limited in some ways. What limits IN Superiors? Perhaps I am missing something important that makes the PCs more than pawns doing things that Sup could do with a wave of Its hand if It cared. *************************** >>>What stops "Superior Ambush?" I.e. the angry Superior has a Servitor summon him in front of the PCs, squicks them, then leaves?<<< Flippant answer: what stops a PC in any game from being ambushed by a bunch of thugs with machine guns (or whatever equivalently lethal alternative exists) as he leaves his house in the morning? Dramatic license and the fact that just because in the real world, anyone who annoys the Powers That Be in a serious manner would indeed be squashed doesn't mean that should be the case in any RPG. But a more serious answer: same as I gave earlier -- Superiors don't have the time or inclination to personally attend to the destruction of everyone who annoys them. *************************** Flippant reply: If you play a game of international intrigue, being ambushed by machinegunners as you leave your house is a possiblity the PC will have to deal with. More importantly, if the PC is clever and talented, this is not insurmountable. Serious answer: Right. The PCs are small fry. Let's rub their noses in it some more by pointing out that they have a decent chance, mechanically, to physically summon the Superior that is delegating their greatest deeds to his own small fry servitors. (Say the PCs manage a +3 modifier and blow 9 Essence. IIRC, the penalty for summoning someone else's Sup is -5, the PCs have 7 + Base invocation of summoning It. Better than even.) *************************** >>>> or die. Considering relative power levels, this seems likely. In the first round.<<< All that depends on the GM. You could certainly make an argument for "Baal waves his hand -- ok, all of you start making Trauma recovery rolls." Most GMs would probably choose to give the PCs a fighting chance, though (to survive, not to off Baal....) Also note, I am saying Superiors should be pretty much indestructable to PCs, which in In Nomine isn't quite the same thing as saying they are _unkillable_. A sufficiently prepared and lucky PC group might indeed succeed in offing a Superior's _vessel_. That's probably very rare, but it probably _does_ happen from time to time. And it really pisses off the Superior. But it doesn't destroy him, just weakens him a little bit and causes enormous loss of face. *************************** Well, that's part of what I wanted. "No way. no how" seemed to be Canon. Is "How long it takes a Superior to kill a PC" going to remain an area of Canon doubt and uncertainty? *************************** >>>On the contrary, it makes them more awesome. "Yes, you could probably kill Baal if a bunch of you gang up on him, sure. No one has in the millenia he's been a DP. Think about that before you try it."<<< That's contradictory. If a bunch of PC-level celestials could "probably" kill (meaning destroy permanently, not just kill a vessel) Baal if they gang up on him, then DPs would be dying constantly, since there's no shortage of Malakim willing to hurl themselves at a diabolical Superior if a few of them dying means the Superior will be offed... ****************************** But Baal is still around. Impressive, isn't it? 0;) Certainly there are public figures alive today and in history who survived large numbers of people who wanted to off them. (Stalin. S. Rushdie. Most Monarchs... ) Note that this *does* mean that Superiors will be mush less willing to leave their strongholds, which largely takes their vessels out of play. Could be bad or good, depending on what you want for your campaign. Aside: What keeps Malakim *Superiors* off the DPs throats? ****************************** It would be, just as playing Superiors would be interesting. But it's a vastly different setting than canonical In Nomine. ******************************* Point A ****************************** From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" Simple. Apply the principle, originally proposed by a member of the Pro-Wimpy-Superior faction, that the PCs have a chance at anything they like if they try hard enough. Corollary: the PCs can potentially challenge God. On their own. Armed with a small fruit knife each. Or indeed between them... ****************************** I am overcome by the clarity and fairness of your argument. I surrender. >:^J ****************************** Steve, Demon of Player Characters Knowing Their Place. Oh Yeah, and S(obw)S. From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 > >Canonophilia/3. -9 pts Only level 3? Get serious. Level 6 at least. *********** Points munch! :-P *********** >> 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." > >Although this is kinda sick, that sounds like a neat videogame. The >graphics could be awesome. >:^) You're sick, definitely. What's the difference between that and any other "kill 'em all" vidgame? **************** Cool setting, neat enemies, and fighting Haagenti at the end of the "greed" level, and the cute little animation when he eats your character. The entire Lilim level as well, of course. **************** >This is where I differ. If my players pulled off a dangerous, cool and >involved plan like that, I'd let them trap the AA. Permanently? I'd wonder, I'd really wonder. (I'd also wonder if they'd manage to outsmart that particular Superior, but there's always Saminga...) **************** Permanently? Depends I guess. I dislike the knee-jerk reaction that they *couldn't ever trap him permanently whatever they did. Once he got out they're pretty much dead. How outsmartable Superiors are is an entire different thread. **************** There is also a world of difference between a group of PCs who start small to harass a Superior, and over the course of game-decades (or more), work up to power where they might have a chance -- having weakened the Superior, having built up their own power, perhaps being just shy of getting elevated to Superiors themselves. Epic campaign to destroy a Superior, that's one thing... Walk up and hit Superior with a fish for the halibut is another. O;> **************** I admit I wouldn't run IN that way either. The Superior hierarcy requires massive personal or political power, and without it you're very far from IN. However, I don't see why the Sups can't get by with political power. I admit that that takes things down to a more mundane level. **************** >What stops "Superior Ambush?" I.e. the angry Superior has a Servitor summon >him in front of the PCs, squicks them, then leaves? Not much, so don't get noticed by the other guy's Servitors, and if you do, RUN if you can't engage them in distracting combat within a round or two. <...> And instafry for PCs is somewhat rare. If you're quick and lucky and don't hang around *talking*, then you may survive. (Fall on your own sword and wake up next to your Heart after Trauma. It's better than getting caught by a Prince...) Or have one silly hotshot feint around and try to distract the Prince for a couple of rounds while someone else yells for HELP from their Superior. *********************** This is useful advice for players of Canonical IN, thanks. (Also see the Q. about how long it takes to fry PCs above...) ************************** [IN is like a fantasy game with interventionist gods] >Where everyone is a cleric powerful enough to summon their God without >extrordinary effort. Players talk to their Superior fairly regularly, With the exception of Judgment and the Game, this should actually be vaguely *rare* -- note the universal invocation modifiers, where not summoning your boss for a year gives you a +1, because he knows you don't call him unless it's *urgent*. ************************** IME, PCs usually talk to their Sup more often than 1/yr, with some exceptions. The point remains that the Sups are not nearly remote in presence as they are in power. ************************** Standard disclaimers about If You Want To Play Outside Of Canon Go Ahead. A "Large Fry" game might even be interesting, though it would quickly head off into *being* Superiors and doing tactics over the worldmap and telling your Servitors what to do... ************************** This is not the only way to take it. Certainly many temporal leaders are weaker physically than their soldiers. ************************** From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: IN> How Superiors React to Being Hit by a Fish for the Halibut **************************** ROTFL! Thanks Redneck - I needed that. Disclaimer - this thread is eating way too much of my time. I hope you have all found it interesting. (Despite my impression that few enjoyed it.) I shall stop posting these huge replys and go largely back into lurk mode. I reserve the right to post short quips and clarifications. Goodday all, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #785 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.