From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue May 19 18:16:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17483 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 18:16:15 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA12911 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 18:17:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:17:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199805192317.SAA12911@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 #788 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, May 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 788 In this digest: IN> The Superior Question IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Superior on a Stick Re: IN> Bright Victory (long) Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Saints (Brigid in particular) Re: IN> Serious-Quotable Celstial Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Serious-Quotable Celstial Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) IN> Swatting Those Gnats Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear (Re: Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior) Re: IN> IN> New Discords IN> Inspiration from wierd places... Re: IN> Re: IN> Bright Victory (long) Re: IN> Saints (Brigid in particular) Re: IN> How Superiors React to Being Hit by a Fish for the Halibut Re: IN> Swatting Those Gnats Re: IN> The Superior Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:23:06 -0400 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> The Superior Question If I may also step in on this one: To me, the important question raised by the "wimpy Superior" faction is not that of whether it's possible to kill a Superior, but of just how much a Superior could accomplish all by itself. The question has been raised whether, in fact, a single Superior could accomplish most of the missions its Servitors undertake, at minimal danger to itself and with very little effort on its part. I would say no, but the off-the-scale nature of Superiors, along with their multi-tasking ability, makes it hard to be sure. I'm not so much troubled by the fact that there are things out there vastly more powerful than the PCs, but I am greatly troubled by even the remote prospect of the old "sent on a quest by a being obviously capable of completing the task itself inside of 30 seconds" bit. Archangels and Princes should *need* their Servitors, and not merely as cushions that keep them from having to fight each other all the time. I have borrowed from the list the semi-canonical idea that more powerful celestials, like Word-bound and Superiors, cause correspondingly increased disturbance when they act on the corporeal plane. (Semi-canonical because in one place the manifestation of a Superior is said to cause a huge disturbance, while elsewhere it is noted that Sups have ways to appear silently should they so desire.) Like War in _Good Omens_, they probably also send off "echoes" by their mere presence that cause the spontaneous appearance of phenomena related to their Words. That gives such beings a reason to work through intermediaries no matter how powerful they are. On a related note, I would have to throw in with the "large fry" proponents in asking why such a huge gap of power between Servitors and Superiors is necessary. Why can't the Superiors be powerful in the same sense as the President of the U.S. or Russia is powerful? Or the heads of the CIA, MI6, or KGB('s successor)? If you're playing the James Bond RPG, there are presumably reasons why M doesn't get assassinated and replaced every week, or why the sub-heads of SPECTRE don't (successfully) turn on Blofeld -- but those reasons don't have to involve positing that the individuals in question are cosmic beings of vast power. Physically, M isn't even the equal of a 00 agent, and Blofeld probably isn't the equal of SPECTRE's top assassin -- yet they somehow maintain their positions. Why can't the rulers of Heaven and Hell, respectively, stay in power by the same means? Even if on a purely physical level they could, say, take on about as many Dukes as a Duke can take on PCs? (That's far weaker than canon Superiors, but far tougher than the mortal examples cited.) Heck, even within the system, a being of 19+ Forces (some of them perhaps Word Forces) is more often than not going to be able to take advantage of autosuccess with huge CD bonuses. Why does Michael need to to be able to wipe PCs out of existence with a glance if he can just as easily (and more appropriately for the AA of War) kick their butts with his 12+ Agility and huge Large Weapon skill? Players will already know such things are possible under the rules, either from having taken advantage of such opportunities in character creation or from having taken on Barons and Dukes in the past, so that shouldn't inspire quite the same instinctive revulsion as a being who literally *can't* be beaten. If Superiors are simply really powerful celestials, they will *still* be able to whoop up on any PC group foolish enough to take them on directly, but will be vulnerable to the kind of elaborate trap some folks have described. (Those who are disturbed by the idea of a Jean-trap, for example, should look at it from the other side: imagine an adventure that begins with PC servitors of Jean being summoned into the lab of one of the Archangel's senior researchers, who informs them nervously that Jean has been *kidnapped*, and must be rescued before other Superiors catch on.... I rather like the idea, myself.) Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:37:37 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Superior on a Stick Beth, me 'ats off to ya. You said it better then I ever could. >From: Elizabeth McCoy (wonderful liturgy of Lilith) Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire newly conflicted servitor of Freedom and Nitpicking "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:51:47 -0700 From: alloni@ibsystems.com (Alloni Kramer) Subject: Re: IN> Bright Victory (long) >... Impressive story ... Wow. Well, thank you. In my upcoming campaign, you've just crystallized the concept of Lucifer. I don't think I will use the rest of it, since the campaign is Angelic, so the forces won't be anywhere close to as mismatched as in your tale. But, should Lucifer's presence ever be felt at all (which is amazingly unlikely), that's what it will be like. - --The Mazing Looni, E.S.I.T. and co-savior _________________________________________________________________________ Alloni Kramer alloni@ibsystems.com "Was I sleep-yodeling again? Sorry to disturb you." --Gen. Sedgwick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:55:58 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Lilith >If a Prince's strength is based on a word, then hasn't Lilith made >incredible gains in the 20th century alone? Eastern Europe freed. >Soviet Union collapsed. (more) Equal rights for women. Civil rights. >Human rights. Lilith kicks ass. > >End of rant. > >Bart Hammerly I don't think that Lilith embodies that kind of freedom. If she is really all for that, then why are all her children born into slavery? I tend to think that this represents personal freedom, regardless of the freedom of others. Example: Smokers tend to embody the Lilith side of the Word. Any place that is not relegated as a non smoking area is their domain. This includes those small bus shelters when it is raining. They are just using their "freedom" to excercise their rights as an adult, but they are subjecting others to the ill effects. Lilith is there when someones personal freedom becomes the most important focus; surpassing the rights of the majority. There is a reason that Lillith is a DP, and it ain't the dental plan. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 19:03:24 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Saints (Brigid in particular) On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 01:11:35PM -0400, crossbyte@juno.com wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 1998 12:44:35 +0100 Kevin Walsh > writes: > >On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 07:22:40AM -0400, crossbyte@juno.com wrote: > >> No argument. But note that the MEANING of the holiday changed.... > >> > >Really? Can you specify the changes? > > Sure. To Christians, Christmas is the "celebrated" date of Jesus' birth > (But no one knows for sure. Dec. 25 WAS originally the ceremony of the > Roman Sun-god. > The festival of Sol Invictus: The birthday of God, celebrated by drinking and sex. Christmas: The birthday of God, celebrated by drinking and sex. I'm somewhat cynical about these things, as you might have gathered. > Also Holloween and All Hollows Eve: The pagan celebration of the evil > spirits and the eve of All Saints Day, November 1. > Evil spirits as defined by whom? Kevin. - -- "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: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:37:37 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Serious-Quotable Celstial On Mon, 18 May 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > Were as before I was having some fun, now I am taking the opportunity to > present a serious representation of how I believe a Superior would react to > the question of say 'Why are you doing this?..' > > Eli-'Doing what? oh the whole Archangel of Creation thingie, well it was a > choice between this or a game tester for Nintendo, which reminds me, I've > gotta try out Super Mario Bros 7 in just s sec' (sorry but that was really > what he said!) Or, perhaps, this one: Eli-'Why do I do this? Because of the joy I see in every sunrise. Because of the music I hear in human laughter. Because this world is the greatest gift I can imagine, both for those of us who are priviliged to visit here and for the mortals whose birthright it is. Because, if this War is abandoned, Hell will destroy it all. There will be no joy, no music, no hope, no creation.' Honestly. Why is Eli always portraied as a flake? Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:47:31 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith >Example: Smokers tend to embody the Lilith side of the Word. Any place >that is not relegated as a non smoking area is their domain. This includes >those small bus shelters when it is raining. They are just using their >"freedom" to excercise their rights as an adult, but they are subjecting >others to the ill effects. >Lilith is there when someones personal freedom becomes the most important >focus; surpassing the rights of the majority. There is a reason that >Lillith is a DP, and it ain't the dental plan. Just a quick note from my personal philosophy; the majority has no rights not possessed by the minority. As such, for example, the majority has the right to not be subjected to air pollution (cig smoke) in public places, but they do not have the right to force smokers to quit or to ban smoking on private property. For the same moral reasons, I do not grant any majority the right to define what is obscene and unacceptable for the whole, since such a definition would violate the rights of anyone who disagrees with any part of the definition. The rights of the majority should never be considered in any clash of personal freedoms; the consideration ought to be kept strictly between the individuals brought into conflict by that clash of freedoms. That the majority often -does- make such decisions does not grant them the right to do so; it only acknowledges their power to force these decisions down our throats through abuse of the political process and the basic fact that they -are- a majority. Some of Lilith's Freedom is strictly selfish and uncaring, but a lot of it is actually for a fundamental ideal- that nobody should be held in bondage without their consent. Redneck (here's a plot seed- Lilith using a smoke-in in a California bar to consecrate a new Tether to Freedom) 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: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:51:30 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Serious-Quotable Celstial >Honestly. Why is Eli always portraied as a flake? > Maybe because he has more fun being one? }:-{D Or maybe because he sees something he can't share with us 'lesser beings?' My take on Eli's serious answer to 'Why do you do it?' is: "I thought it would be fun." 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: Tue, 19 May 1998 19:57:55 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilith At 13:47 19/05/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Just a quick note from my personal philosophy; the majority has no rights >not possessed by the minority. > That's very nice, but it's just your personal philosophy and not especially relevant. (Worry not, I am not going to post a full espousal of socialism :) ). jo "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." - -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:59:15 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear >From: Elizabeth McCoy > >At 9:20 AM -0400 5/19/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >>Even if PCs and NPCs are circumspect about summoning superiors, this >>still means that archangels and demon princes will very likely be >>sommoned at the climax of the adventure. This is bad, both in literary >>terms and in gaming terms, because it removes the possibility of >>consequential action from the PCs at the very moment of the most >>important decisions. > > Okay, Feast Of Blades SPOILER. Some really big spoilers lie ahead. > > > > >In the grand finale, well... We didn't get to the *grand* finale. SPOILERS BEGIN [snip story] Er, wasn't whathisface engaged in a plan to replace his boss? So he *couldn't* summon his boss, but there didn't seem to be any reason for the PCs not to -- and offing a Prince permanently seems to entirely justify calling in an archangel. Certainly some of the archangels -- especially Jean, David, and Laurence -- would be upset if you *didn't* call them at the finale, seeing the PC as grandstanding at the risk of blowing something big. There needs to be a solid reason /not/ to call them at that moment. For both sides. SPOILERS END (For the rest of the post, I'm going to assume the angels are PCs, because it's easier to phrase things that way. But the same applies to demons, too.) >Which means that there are times when the grand finale is something >that one doesn't *need* to summon a Superior for. Superiors are busy >busy busy. Call them too much, and they get annoyed. Yes, that's why I specified "even if the PCs and NPCs are circumspect." But that still means that the big guns come in at the climax, moving the focus away from the main characters. Small, personal plots are immune to this problem, but most games tend to have a big main plot to give the PCs a reason to stick together. This plot is vulnerable to hijacking by NPC superiors. >There are other ways to keep someone alive... Use too many of them and credibility is strained. There's a possible way to keep the PCs alive in any particular instance, but put them all in a row and suspension of disbelief takes a beating. This is same reason that you can accept a head or a tail in any particular toss of a fair coin -- but see 50 heads in a row and you doubt the coin is fair. >(Though it *does* take 2 rounds to summon -- if you can *stop* the >person before they finish, well, that danger is averted.) The trouble is that this applies to Princes too -- if they show up and see a PC summoning his archangel, it's basic sense to stomp the angel before it finishes. So if you are messing up something really important to the other side, you show up, summon your boss, and the game is over, because he can stomp them before they can call in something that can handle him. If you wait, they can do the same thing to you. >Or because a Superior can only deal with one or two gnats per round. >If someone is sufficiently heroic, one of their partners (possibly >a sensible one, overlooked while hiding beneath something) may get >that next round to do the summoning. Offing one or two a round is gameable -- I just don't think that this is current canon. Can a demon prince cause as much damage as, say, a large-bore artillery round? I think most people would agree this is reasonable, but if this is true then a Prince can put every angel in a PC group instantly into trauma, given the body hits of the average angel. (Though I think your example should be the other way around, if the Prince can only kill one or two angels a round. If only an archangel poses a threat to a demon prince, then the prince is well advised to stomp any summoning angels *first*. And I don't really see as how they wouldn't notice a summoning-in-progress, not with their off-the-scales perceptions. So the heroic/stupid angel starts the summoning, buying his friends maybe a round.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) Elizabeth McCoy writes: >In return, they sacrifice some of their freedom of choice and of >perspective. Andrealphus *does* see everything in metaphors of >flesh and sensation. Gabriel *cannot* refuse to burn. > >(That seems to be a potential theme in IN -- a loss of a certain >amount of Free Will for Power. A voluntary surrender to "something >greater" in exchange for glory. A forsaking of everything you ever >were, in exchange for Free Will above all. Maybe the Lilim's >TANSTAAFL is applicable in more metaphoric ways. This is in no way unique to IN; it's a common element in some mystical philosophies, and in the gaming world has been kicking around ever since Runequest's Glorantha background was published. RQ is quite explicit that the price of power is loss of freedom, and that the truly cosmic entities have almost no freedom of action left. (I think this notion has appeared even in Christian thought -- while it's probably a heresy, I have seen it argued that the Christian God lacks free will: being both morally perfect and omniscient, he will *necessarily* do the best possible thing in every situation -- no choices allowed.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:27:50 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith >At 13:47 19/05/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Just a quick note from my personal philosophy; the majority has no rights >>not possessed by the minority. >> > >That's very nice, but it's just your personal philosophy and not especially >relevant. Nope. But then, > (Worry not, I am not going to post a full espousal of socialism >:) ). Good. }:-{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: Tue, 19 May 1998 16:33:50 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) York H. Dobyns wrote: > RQ is quite explicit > that the price of power is loss of freedom, and that the truly cosmic > entities have almost no freedom of action left. > > (I think this notion has appeared even in Christian thought -- while > it's probably a heresy, I have seen it argued that the Christian God > lacks free will: being both morally perfect and omniscient, he will > *necessarily* do the best possible thing in every situation -- no > choices allowed.) It shows up in Christian thought in other ways, too. Though it is seldom commented on, Christian eschatology implies that free will is something you USE UP. For instance, one theory about the mysterious and unforgivable "sin against the Holy Ghost" is that it is the sin of destroying your own conscience, which logically leaves you irrevocably damnable and damned. And, in general, day by day, as we use up our options, we shape our characters into more and more definitive and final shapes that will either be compatible with the will of God or not. As to the freedom of God, it's true that the monotheistic religions don't describe Him as free to be good or evil, but He gets to make larger choices, such as whether or not there will be a world in which ethical issues arise. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:37:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Swatting Those Gnats It was originally part of a monster post, so it makes sense it wasn't answered, but I am curious to know. Question: How fast can a Canonical Superior kill lesser Celestials? How hard do they hit? Can they Soul-kill you if they are really pissed? If this is an area of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty, I'll be satisfied with an acknowledgement of that. Regards, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:40:05 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear (Re: Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior) At 12:08 PM -0500 5/19/98, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >On Tue, 19 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> ("Corner the Lilim till she yells for Mommy, and then she pays >> the summoning-geas and I can have a chat with Lilith")... > >I like it. Need to be sure that the Lilim yells for Mommy instead of her >Superior (for Bound Lilim) or her contract-holder (for Free Lilim working >for Demon Princes.) But I like it. > >Lilith would either be amused or angered, depending on whether or not she >considered it Lilim-abuse. Have to make sure that the Lilim isn't *really* hurt, and let her go afterwards... Then Lilith might well be amused. She gets to make a deal with you, *and* she gets a Geas on a Lilim. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:14:09 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Pee Kitty wrote: > >On Tue, 19 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> This is mostly a matter of tradition and market logic, and there is >> no intrinsic reason why you cannot have PCs who are powerful enough >> to substantially reshape the fabric of the game world. (I actually >> prefer to GM PCs this powerful, since players tend to be more >> willing to play PCs who make commitments and tie themselves into >> a gameworld when they believe the PCs will have the abillity to live >> up to their pledges.) > >So what's the problem? Run all the PCs as 18 Force word-bounds, let them >go hog wild changing the universe, and give the whole party an even shot >at wiping out a Superior. Do what you want, but don't get upset if the >majority on the list don't play that way. In canon even 18 Force word bounds are basically helpless against superiors. The Theran explosion was a side-effect of killing a superior; a maxed out ordinary celestial is about as tough as a tank. There is a difference in scale here that makes even the toughest possible group of PCs helpless when in direct contention with an archangel or demon prince. (Whether this is good or bad is a matter of taste; regardless, the decision will have its logical consequences.) So -- you are a demon prince, called to Earth by one of your servitors. You are now standing before a group of angels, who have no ability to resist you, but who can summon a being who *can* threaten you if you give them enough time. Do you put the angels in Trauma or not? Now, note that superiors are sufficiently easily summoned that it is a virtual certainty that a PC group will face hostile superiors on a regular basis. >> necessarily yes. If the aa/dp doesn't kill the PCs, then the next round >> the PCs will summon someone who /can/ stand up to them. Best to >> eliminate the problem before it comes up. This turns any fight into >> a question of who can call their superior first. > >This is ridiculous. Summoning a Superior because you're in a fight is like >caling 911 because your kid scraped his knee. They're likely to let you >off with a warning the first time, without actually doing anything to >help, and if it turns out to REALLY be serious, they'll pitch in, but if >you do it a few times or more, you'll just piss THEM off. Why is it ridiculous for a demon prince to get rid of the only beings who can summon a credible threat to him? Certainly, a Prince will torture anyone he feels summoned him frivolously, but he's certainly not going to put himself at risk, not when he can hurt his servants without the risk. In any conflict, the side that summons a superior first wins. If the matter is of any importance, you've created a powerful incentive to summon a superior right away. The disincentive to summoning a superior is damaging the relationship with him or her -- which is balanced by the damage serious failure will do to the relationship. ("If I let the angels rescue the kid, Belial will be angry. If I call up Belial to stop them, Belial will still be angry, but at least the angels will be in Trauma too.") Either superiors need to be harder to call on, or PCs need to be able to confront a superior with some hope of success. You can do this second either by making PCs more powerful or superiors weaker. For my own game, I'm thinking about simply lowering the summoning numbers by 3 or 5 across the board. It looks like it would simply be too much work to rescale the normal angels and demons with respect to the superiors. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:28:35 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> New Discords Here are some discords that I have created for my house game. Two of these have previously appeared on the list, but I didn't feel like trimming the list. - ---- Famous Name This is not really a discord, but can cause serious problems for a demon. A demon with this "discord" has its name written in various occult texts, along with rituals to summon it. At level 1, its name is found only in the most esoteric sorcerous texts, whereas at level 6, simple and easy rituals to summon it can be found in cheap paperback books on the occult. Twisty Liar A balseraph with this discord is even more flaky and unreliable than usual -- it may not repeat the same lie to someone more than three times. It should do its best to conceal this fact, if it values its survival. Ban The demon with this discord may not perform a particular action. Common bans include not being able to willingly touch holy items, say the Lord's prayer, or set foot on holy ground, or use any supernatural powers on someone who is praying to God. There are two versions of this discord. One is a flat prohibition against performing some action, which the demon must observe but can attempt to slime its way around. The other is a standard level based discord, which can be overcome with a Will roll minus the discord level, but for which a Will roll must be made to break even the spirit of the discord. Uncanny A character with the Uncanny discord is, well, uncanny. The PC is a being from another realm, and doesn't fit very well into the mundane world. Perhaps he casts an inappropriate shadow or no shadow at all, or maybe mirrors reflect a diseased version of his vessel. Maybe he is always followed by three black crows, or odd coincidences happen around him. All reaction rolls are made at a penalty equal to the level of this discord, as humans unconsciously realize that the PC does not belong. Further, any disturbance an Uncanny character causes is increased by an amount equal to the level of Uncanniness the character possesses. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 16:57:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Inspiration from wierd places... Kobal's Halibut: This Artifact appears to be a simple slightly-less-than-fresh halibut to mundanes, although circumstances might allow them to notice that it never ages and is effectively indestructable. Celestials making appropriate perception+3 rolls will notice it reeks of power. Those devining it's functions will realize it is designed to attack Superiors! A Superior struck with the Halibut (if in a vessel) will be hit with a Power 30 Physical attack (1), will take 30 Mind Hits if an Int-10 roll is failed (2) and will take 100 soul hit if a Will-10 roll is failed (3). These effects apply only to Superiors. The Halibut also geases any Celestial picking it up for the first time. Treat this as a Geas/6 to strike a Superior (any Superior) with the Halibut. This function is very hard to spot amongst all the other mega-powers - it wil only be noticed on a CD of 6 on a roll against Perc-5 if the Celestial in question is deliberately looking for more powers hidden beneath the glitz. It is said that numerous Superiors have tried to destroy this item, but this never seems to "take". However, most of them consider it beneath their dignity to warn their servitors of the Halibut, a fact wich has been known to make Kobal smirk. (Thus the Halibut provides a +5 modifier to invoke Kobal.) Notes: (1) Superiors automatically make dodge rolls at whatever CD they want, and have whatever "protection" level they want. It is rumoured that Baal once allowed a particularly overzealous Malik of War to scuff his boots with the Halibut, but this is unconfirmed. (2) Superiors never fail Int rolls. (3) Superiors never fail Will rolls. ************************************************ The Forbidden Fruitknife: This is the fruitknife God used to make salad from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge at the dawn of time. Lucifer, the "brightest" of the angels, deduced that its personal handling by God and exposure to the Fruit had imbued it with mighty Celestial forces, such thet the fruitknife might be cabable of killing God itself. Thus the future master of temptation was in fact his own very first victem. Unfortunately, due to complex factors beyond mortal understanding, the fruitknife was of no use against Micheal, and was lost in the battle between him and Lucifer. Lucifer has been after the fruitknife ever since, but He has to be very circumspect, since he doesn't want *any* being in creation to realize what he's looking for. (For similar mind-boggling reasons, his Rebellion made him vulnerable to the fruitknife's effects.) Note that this item always appears completely mundane, wherever it happens to be. It can even be "destroyed" corpreally, as it is in fact of celestial nature, the embodiment of the concept of fruitknives, and will simply imbue another fruitknife somewhere with its properties. The only valid test to determine it's nature is poke God or Lucifer with it. The only beings in Creation that know of this item are God, Lucifer, and the GM, although if Eli knew he would think it was cool. Regards, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:48:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> > The disincentive to summoning a superior is damaging the relationship > with him or her -- which is balanced by the damage serious failure will > do to the relationship. ("If I let the angels rescue the kid, Belial > will be angry. If I call up Belial to stop them, Belial will still be > angry, but at least the angels will be in Trauma too.") > > Either superiors need to be harder to call on, or PCs need to be able > to confront a superior with some hope of success. You can do this > second either by making PCs more powerful or superiors weaker. This disincentive you mention can be a powerful one, though. One way to look at it is that the PCs have the _power_ to call upon their superior without too much trouble, but they are expected to use that power judiciously and with restraint. After two or three times of being called in to do all of the dirty work for a given celetial, a superior is probably going to yank him from Earth and send in somebody "who can get something done by himself." This can work for PCs (by the third time they've created a full background for a new character, they'll have learned to be a little more wise about when they call upon their superiors). At to why the opponents of the PCs don't call in a hostile superior, you can explain it with natural selection: those celestials still around on Earth are the ones who've learned not to just call a superior on the drop of a hat. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:11:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Bright Victory (long) - ---ehp wrote: > > Hello all. > > The title is either with apologies to Redneck or with a tip of the hat to > him, depending on how he likes it. > > Bright Victory > In the top room of one glass plated tower, in the heart of the > Eternal City, there was a tiny, forgotten globe of crystal which had > remained dark for six thousand years. It had always been there, yet till > now, no one had remembered it. The old man who slowly climbed the steps of > the tower to the top took his time, eyes distant and amused. Finally he made > it there, just as suddenly a light began to throb inside the globe. It grew > and grew with intensity, till it was bright enough to rival the illumination > of the celestial temple. > Yves reached down, and gently stroked once hidden Heart. "Lucifer? > Light bringer?" > The light became more gentle. "I am home again, Father. I am sorry..." > Yves' tears flowed freely. "Come, let's go discuss this with our Maker." > > :) > Evan > > > One word....Cool. Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:13:52 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Saints (Brigid in particular) In a message dated 5/19/98 10:12:10 AM, hjalkar@RedBrick.DCU.IE writes: >> Also Halloween and All Hollows Eve: The pagan celebration of the evil >> spirits and the eve of All Saints Day, November 1. >> >Evil spirits as defined by whom? > In this case, the pre-Christian Irish. (Specifically the death of the year where the unseileigh have sway for the entire night.) Post-Christian syncretism in the 'Celtic fringe' led to it being simply the Night of Spirits (friendly or un-). >Kevin. Mark (Now it's a "Harvest Festival" in the Evangelical world...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:18:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> How Superiors React to Being Hit by a Fish for the Halibut - ---Redneck Gaijin wrote: > > If you hit them with a fish, just for the halibut... Good thing you didn't try hitting them with birds, because I would then have to call "Fowl"! :) Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation - --who, coincidentally enough, uses a trout as a weapon... _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 98 18:24 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Swatting Those Gnats >How fast can a Canonical Superior kill lesser Celestials? As far as I know, canon doesn't establish this yet. My inclination is to say that it's probably not instantly, at least without spending tons of Essence. But they could almost certainly hold you there until they were finished with you, if they were so inclined. The trick is to not make them mad enough to spend the time to shred your Forces, contenting themselves with trashing your vessel and knocking you down a few Forces. DPs probably make a production out of it, taking enough time to provide a good object lesson to onlookers, as well as the victim. If you're talking specifically about corporeal death, then most Superiors can probably trash a weak-vesseled celestial (or a human) in a single blow without working at it. A maxed-out vessel (144 hits) might take them a few blows, unless the felt like spending enough Essence on it to do it faster. Of course, with Haagenti, it's probably over in one round -- he swallows you. > How hard do >they hit? I think this boils down to "How hard do they *want* to hit?" -- they've got enough Essence to play with to boost their CD values as high as they care to. > Can they Soul-kill you if they are really pissed? Almost certainly, but it may take a while. Basically, if they can put Forces together to make celestials, graft Forces onto existing ones, and strip them off (at least for their own Servitors), it seems pretty likely that they can completely disassemble anyone, given time. However, there's no real reason why Force manipulation should be fast, even for Superiors. This may be one in-game reason why they don't spend all their time making Servitors, or grafting Forces on existing ones. >If this is an area of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty, I'll be satisfied with >an acknowledgement of that. As far as I know, it hasn't been put in that category, either. My guess is that these questions will probably get answered at least indirectly some day. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 98 18:59 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The Superior Question >The question has been raised whether, in fact, a single Superior could >accomplish most of the missions its Servitors undertake, at minimal danger >to itself and with very little effort on its part. Probably yes. But it is probably *not* the best use of their time. Just like I could probably complete many of the projects I work on by myself, possibly better than they'd get done otherwise. But it's not time-efficient or cost-effective to do things that way. Theoretically, a boss should be able to do the jobs of his subordinates. Does this mean they're unnecessary? No. The fact that he has them allows him to do those things that *only* he can do, and they can't. Makes perfect sense to me that it works that way for IN Superiors. >I would say no, but the off-the-scale nature of Superiors, along with their >multi-tasking ability, makes it hard to be sure. Their multi-tasking is going to turn out to be pretty limited, I think - -- on the order of no more than a dozen instantiations, and possibly considerably less. >I'm not so much troubled by the fact that there are things out there vastly >more powerful than the PCs, but I am greatly troubled by even the remote >prospect of the old "sent on a quest by a being obviously capable of >completing the task itself inside of 30 seconds" bit. Probably not 30 seconds, at least without making *lots* of noise, and an almost-certain uproar in the human world as well. Both of those are strongly discouraged by policy on both sides. >I have borrowed from the list the semi-canonical idea that more powerful >celestials, like Word-bound and Superiors, cause correspondingly increased >disturbance when they act on the corporeal plane. If they throw their weight around to accomplish things in the quickest possible way, this is almost certainly true. And then there's all the special effects that even the most clueless human would have a hard time missing.... > (Semi-canonical because >in one place the manifestation of a Superior is said to cause a huge >disturbance, while elsewhere it is noted that Sups have ways to appear >silently should they so desire.) I think the former is specifically for descent from the celestial realm for an invocation, the latter *may* refer to instantiations running around in vessels already -- they need only to have a souped-up version of the Celestial Song of Motion to get around quickly. (They could do that for an invocation, too, probably.) >Like War in _Good Omens_, they probably >also send off "echoes" by their mere presence that cause the spontaneous >appearance of phenomena related to their Words. That gives such beings a >reason to work through intermediaries no matter how powerful they are. This is a nice concept. I've used something a *little* similar to that in my game, though it's more of a psychological effect on those around them. >On a related note, I would have to throw in with the "large fry" proponents >in asking why such a huge gap of power between Servitors and Superiors is >necessary. I think that's just the way the original game designers conceived it. It could certainly have been done other ways, though the game would play rather a bit differently, I think. >Heck, even within the system, a being of 19+ Forces (some of them perhaps >Word Forces) is more often than not going to be able to take advantage of >autosuccess with huge CD bonuses. Why does Michael need to to be able to >wipe PCs out of existence with a glance if he can just as easily (and more >appropriately for the AA of War) kick their butts with his 12+ Agility and >huge Large Weapon skill? That's certainly how *I* would play him, anyway -- it's more in tune with his Word and personality, I think. >If Superiors are simply really powerful celestials, they will *still* be >able to whoop up on any PC group foolish enough to take them on directly, >but will be vulnerable to the kind of elaborate trap some folks have >described. The notion I've had for quantifying Superiors generally follow the model that Superiors are "perfect" 18-Force beings with lots of additional Word Forces, tons of Essence to play with, and lots of special Superior attunements. Mostly what makes them scary is the huge Essence supply -- they can afford to "buy" high CDs for any roll, enough to do what they want, within reason. But it makes them *very* noisy. Which would also explain why they didn't do everything themselves.... This is not canon, or even proposed canon, though bits of it may creep into canon someday, here and there. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #788 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.