From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue May 26 16:31:28 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 QAA05649 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:31:28 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id QAA23376 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:25:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:25:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199805262125.QAA23376@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 #797 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 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 797 In this digest: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question IN> IN INWO Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question IN> Re: [INWOC] IN INWO Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> Summoning Superiors Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #789 Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> The Hottest Computer Bargains On The Planet! Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> Lilith IN> Techno-demons Re: IN> When to Summon, When They Appear Re: IN> Two questions, two comments (Superiors) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:48:20 EDT From: Gruzzle Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question >Hello, > My name is Thomas Roubik, I visited your web site today while >doing a search on "Certified Public Accountant". So I thought I >would take this opportunity to introduce myself and invite you >to visit our web site at: >http://www.sentrynetwork.com You know... this is one of the few times where hacking into a sight and deleting files would be justified.... somewhat >8^P Anyways.. Can someone please explain to me exactly what happens when a Calabite fails his resonance.... by "absorbing" it, does it mean he takes the damage himself? And is it possible to target his resonance to certain parts of a persons body, such as the head, and crumbling it with only minimal damage? If not, why not. Thanks. Sorry if the question was dumb, I just didn't want to waste space with only the off-topic response above. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:04:51 -0500 From: "Yeager, Alex" Subject: IN> IN INWO Thanks to Sam for all of the kudos from the last batch of IN INWO cards; I would be remiss to point out that the majority of those cards were mutually developed with Pee Kitty, who has been a marvelous co-creator, an editor of near-Beth-like proportions, and able to get all of my obscure '80s band references. We like him and owe him beverages at his earliest convenience. Well, enough lollygagging...Pee and I (and anyone else who wants to play - see http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/InNomine/ to catch up on the Groups, and hopefully Pee Kitty will have his site up soon, with the rules and everything) have another 200 or so Plots to develop [grumble]... Alex Yeager YeagerAW@Maritz.com MIB 0230 - ...?/FoL/INWO Local 23 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:10:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question On Mon, 25 May 1998, Gruzzle wrote: > Anyways.. Can someone please explain to me exactly what happens when a > Calabite fails his resonance.... by "absorbing" it, does it mean he takes the > damage himself? Yes. > And is it possible to target his resonance to certain parts of > a persons body, such as the head, and crumbling it with only minimal damage? > If not, why not. No. The reason why is actually given in the GURPS conversion rules. The damage is unfocusable...it only affects overall body hits. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:49:53 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question On Mon, May 25, 1998 at 11:10:49PM -0400, Pee Kitty wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 1998, Gruzzle wrote: > > > Anyways.. Can someone please explain to me exactly what happens when a > > Calabite fails his resonance.... by "absorbing" it, does it mean he takes the > > damage himself? > > Yes. > A certain myth has spread that failing resonance rolls is dissonant for Calabim. It isn't. Everyone who thinks it is is wrong wrong wrong. If it was true, there'd be no reason for the Indiscriminate Discord. When a Calabite fails his/her resonance roll, the Calabite doesn't have to absorb anything. (S)he simply can't use his/her resonance for check digit minutes. Calabim do _not_ take dissonance from failing resonance rolls. In fact, no-one does, unless you count the Will roll required by Cherubim and Djinn to erase attunements as resonance rolls. However, when a Calabite _succeeds_ in its resonance roll, this resonance roll can be resisted. If the resistance roll is successful with a higher check digit than the resonance roll, the Calabite resonance backlashes, and the Calabite can either choose to absorb it by taking a note of dissonance, or can choose to forfeit future actions and lash out again at other targets. At this point, there is a lack of clarity. Firstly, nothing is said about what happens when the resistance roll has the same check digit as the resonance roll. In the general section on resistance, it's said that such a score can be considered a draw. Is it true that there is no result when this occurs? Can the Calabite refocus its resonance on that target? Secondly, the wording is along the lines of "can do nothing except continue to lash out". Does this mean that the Calabite can't dodge? Use the Art of Combat attunement? I would rule that that is exactly what it means, but I'd like an official ruling. Thirdly, there is no clarification of what happens if the initial resonance roll is backlashed, and subsequent attempts to lash out fail. Does the energy dissipate, manifest as dissonance, or be treated in the same way as a backlash? The official wording implies the latter, but is aspecific. Fourthly, what happens if the Calabite is stunned or killed while attempting to deflect a backlash? Fifthly, concerning the Calabite of Factions attunement, which is explicitly resonance based. If an attack on a particular relationship is backlashed, can the Calabite attack another relationship held by the same person? Is the target the person or the relationship? Can the backlash be manifested as an ordinary resonance roll, or must it be the same type? Sixthly, if the Calabite is attempting the invisible resonance trick from the IPG, must subsequent attempts to deflect the backlashed resonance be of the same type, ie, with the -4 penalty? Seventhly, what happens if a Calabite runs out of alternate targets? Now for my complaints. Firstly, why isn't the idea of specific focusing there instead of invisible resonance as a special schtick in the IPG? With perhaps the caveat that something similar to the Indiscriminate Discord effect will occur if the roll fails only due to the penalty. I think it's much more appropriate than the invisible damage. Secondly, for something largely unrelated, why does the IPG describe the Balseraph of Fire attunement as resonance based? It didn't say it for Balseraph of Lust or Balseraph of Factions, but says it for Balseraph of Fire? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory." Machiavelli, the Prince. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:07:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: IN> Re: [INWOC] IN INWO On Mon, 25 May 1998, Yeager, Alex wrote: > Thanks to Sam for all of the kudos from the last batch of IN INWO > cards; I would be remiss to point out that the majority of those > cards were mutually developed with Pee Kitty, who has been a > marvelous co-creator, an editor of near-Beth-like proportions, and > able to get all of my obscure '80s band references. We like him > and owe him beverages at his earliest convenience. > Well, enough lollygagging...Pee and I (and anyone else who wants > to play - see http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/InNomine/ to catch > up on the Groups, and hopefully Pee Kitty will have his site up > soon, with the rules and everything) have another 200 or so Plots to > develop [grumble]... I don't want to officially open my site until all the cards are 100% done; I don't like "works in progress"...anyone who wants to see what's done right now can visit Sam's page, which also has tons of other homebrew cards (including a few alternates that didn't make it into the "official" expansion). When my IN-WO page is opened, it'll have all the cards and rules organized on their own dedicated web page, in easily downloadable and readable files...trust me, it's worth the wait to get it all at once. Now on to all those Plots...yeesh. WE NEED MORE HELP, PEOPLE! :) Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question On Tue, 26 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > A certain myth has spread that failing resonance rolls is dissonant for > Calabim. It isn't. Everyone who thinks it is is wrong wrong wrong. If it > was true, there'd be no reason for the Indiscriminate Discord. > Oops. I missed that one...I should've corrected that person; you're right. Now, IANANR, of course, but here's what I think... > Firstly, nothing is said about what happens when the resistance roll has > the same check digit as the resonance roll. In the general section on > resistance, it's said that such a score can be considered a draw. Is it > true that there is no result when this occurs? Can the Calabite refocus > its resonance on that target? Throughout the rules, a "resisted" roll is generally described as one in which the target must BEAT the check digit of the attacker. Based on this, it seems that a tie would go to the Calabite. > Secondly, the wording is along the lines of "can do nothing except > continue to lash out". Does this mean that the Calabite can't dodge? Use > the Art of Combat attunement? I would rule that that is exactly what it > means, but I'd like an official ruling. I agree with you 100%. > Thirdly, there is no clarification of what happens if the initial > resonance roll is backlashed, and subsequent attempts to lash out fail. > Does the energy dissipate, manifest as dissonance, or be treated in the > same way as a backlash? The official wording implies the latter, but is > aspecific. I don't see the problem...the Calabite must keep lashing out at different targets until successful, or eat dissonance. It doesn't say he must keep lashing out until he finds a target that does not resist...otherwise he could just automatically attack an inanimate object and never eat dissonance (they don't resist, ya know). So if he attacks Ralph and Ralph resists, and he then attacks a lamp but fails the roll, he must attack something else until SOMETHING gets hurt. Obviously if he fails with a roll of 6 it sucks to be him. Dissonance. > Fourthly, what happens if the Calabite is stunned or killed while > attempting to deflect a backlash? Dissonance. > Fifthly, concerning the Calabite of Factions attunement, which is > explicitly resonance based. If an attack on a particular relationship is > backlashed, can the Calabite attack another relationship held by the same > person? Is the target the person or the relationship? Can the backlash be > manifested as an ordinary resonance roll, or must it be the same type? Hmm. I'd say the target is a relationship, and the backlash can be manifested however he wants - so if you try to break up a couple, and it doesn't work, you can get pissed and take it out on the husband. :) > Sixthly, if the Calabite is attempting the invisible resonance trick from > the IPG, must subsequent attempts to deflect the backlashed resonance be > of the same type, ie, with the -4 penalty? I'd say no. He can attack anyone/thing he wants, however he wants. In fact, I'd say he *can't* use the -4 modifier because he doesn't have control anymore, but that's IMC. > Seventhly, what happens if a Calabite runs out of alternate targets? I believe this one is covered in canon quite adequately. If he runs out of people and things around him, he must hurt himself...or take dissonance. > Firstly, why isn't the idea of specific focusing there instead of > invisible resonance as a special schtick in the IPG? With perhaps the > caveat that something similar to the Indiscriminate Discord effect will > occur if the roll fails only due to the penalty. I think it's much more > appropriate than the invisible damage. Probably because IN doesn't have rules for hit location. :) > Secondly, for something largely unrelated, why does the IPG describe the > Balseraph of Fire attunement as resonance based? It didn't say it for > Balseraph of Lust or Balseraph of Factions, but says it for Balseraph of > Fire? Don't know, don't care. Doesn't really matter, after all. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:29:13 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Kevin Walsh wrote: [and there was much snippage] - - I didn't comment on the vast majority because Pee Kitty commented as well if not better than I could have and I don't feel like being redundant. - > Firstly, why isn't the idea of specific focusing there instead of > invisible resonance as a special schtick in the IPG? With perhaps the > caveat that something similar to the Indiscriminate Discord effect will > occur if the roll fails only due to the penalty. I think it's much more > appropriate than the invisible damage. > My personal feeling on targeting damage in IN is no problem take a -2/-4/-6 to target number or some such modifier. It has never really come up in my game. I still would not allow Calabim to target particular body parts. My thoughts are that the Calabim resonance can be used to destroy any one entirely distinct thing. Meaning that item in question must almost always be made up of the same materials (wood, metal, plastic, flesh, whatever). In my game a Calabite that walks up to a door to take it out would most likely warp the wooden door until it snapped but would leave the brass doorknob untouched or vice versa. Since living things are basically uniform bundles of flesh the resonance can not be targeted to specific parts. > Secondly, for something largely unrelated, why does the IPG describe the > Balseraph of Fire attunement as resonance based? It didn't say it for > Balseraph of Lust or Balseraph of Factions, but says it for Balseraph of > Fire? The Balseraph of Factions attunement makes reference to the Balseraph resonance and is thus automatically resonance based. I don't know why the Balseraph of Lust attunement does not have a similar reference, but in my opinion it should. As for the Balseraph of Fire attunement I think that they state the the heat is just a lie and thus the province of the Balseraph. For the record I tend to agree, making that a Balseraph only thing while the Balseraph of Lust is not is a bit strange. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:47:26 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Summoning Superiors Walter Milliken wrote: > > > If a Prince can only obliterate 2 or 3 PCs a round, they > >have a chance -- but as written he can vaporize them all instantly. > > This doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.... > > >(Don't think so? Imagine a Superior-level Song of Ethereal Motion. Add > >half-a-dozen steak knives. Six dead PCs. Instantly. If there are more > >PCs, bring along more steak knives.) > > Uh-uh... there's nothing I remember that suggests that Ethereal Motion > includes MIRV capability. Either all those knives go to the same > target, or you need multiple actions to direct them. Baal could do it, > probably (I think he's the one with the multiple actions/round). > > The only ones I could *maybe* see affecting multiple PCs with a single > attack are Gabriel and Belial -- it's easy to see how a fire-based > attack could affect a whole group. Both of them are also crazy enough > to do it, if annoyed sufficiently -- neither cares much about collateral > damage, I suspect. (Well, Gabriel might... some of the time.) However, > unless it's *supernatural* fire, then it's not going to do much more > than scorch the PCs before they have a chance to leave. I have to disagree here. I think every, or near-every, Superior has a trick up his/her/its sleeve that could take out a roomful (or a city block) of attackers. Or at least seriously ruin their day. Blandine: That's a tough one. On the Corporeal, probably not, but on the Ethereal, she just shunts everyone into a dreamscape that really, really sucks. She might be able to, en masse, move a group of people to the ethereal and then deal with them there. David: His patented big-rock-falls-on-all-of-you ability. Dominic: A lot of judgement swords appear out of the air. God sorts them out. ;) Eli: "Whoa. This gas I just produced is instantly fatal to all life forms. Sorry 'bout that." Gabriel: Boom. Janus: Alternating complete vacuum and air hammers. Or winds that make the typical tornado look like a summer breeze. "A straw through a telephone pole? Hmmmph. What about a telephone pole through a bunch of jerks..." Jean: Point gadget. click. end of problem. Jordi: He has it tougher than the rest. But that thing he just summoned LOOKS like a dragon and SMELLS like a dragon and it's very, very, very big. (18 Forces and it's breath functions as a Power +15 area affect attack...) Perhaps his own very, very, very big form is due for a bit of exercise (20 points of armor and big, big feet.) Laurence: Trust us, he has a way. ;) Marc: I dunno. Maybe he bribes all the attackers? ;) Michael: He _taught_ Laurence. No problemo. Novalis: First of all, no is angry, right? Great. Let's all sit and talk about this. Good, good. Now, I'm afraid some of you are going to have to leave, but no hard feelings, right? Yves: Funny thing, he knew exactly what was going to happen and asked some friends to be there at just the right time. *** Lilith: A friend of hers showed up very quickly. Details vary. *** Andrealphus: Sort of like his Captain distinction, but it works on a lot of people. All at once. No you can't do anything for at _least_ a minute. Asmodeus: Chains leap out and bind everyone in the immediate vicinity... then they begin to squeeze. Azzie may or may not let people out as he chooses. Baal: Get serious. Blood will flow and limbs will fly. Beleth: See Blandine. Belial: Boom. BIG boom! Haagenti: Probably just opens his mouth really wide and swallows as much as he wants. It gets unpleasant after that. Kobal: Hrrrmmmmm. Killing joke, anyone? ;) Kronos: Time stops for everyone but him. Malphas: Suddenly, everyone in the vicinity hates everyone they previously were allied with. Mayhem, of course, ensues. Nybbas: Another tough one. Of course a super version of his Baron attunement might work. (e.g. a huge billboard appears, or he says a catchy jingle THAT YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF YOUR HEAD, DAMN IT KEEPS GOING OVER AND OVER... etc.) Saminga: Hey, he's the _Prince_ of Death. If anyone knows how to waste a bunch of people quickly, he da man! Valefor: Pretty rough, methinks. Of course, who knows what he has in his pockets. Also, you might notice that all the possessions of all his attackers are gone. Strange, that. Vapula: See Jean. Except everything is purple and hums afterwards. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:53:25 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Lilith > > Except for recruiting, there remains the question of why a DP would > *want* to hire a Free Lilim. Frees may have serious problems with > getting attunements and other things (perhaps even Songs) that require > Princely powers. A starting Free Lilim may not have very useful skills, > compared to any bound Lilim the Prince has. So you can justify most > low-power Frees getting stuck working for other demons (such as other > PCs) in exchange for future favors, or maybe Essence, or the odd > lower-power artifact, or help with a Role. Possibly for the same reason consultants are hired (none of your own people have that _particular_ skill). The servitors of any particular prince might be too similar to each other. Also, no-one has enough Lilim, so you might just be short-handed at times. An experienced Free might even have talents granted by other Superiors... and this could be quite a bit more subtle than going up to that Superior directly. Perhaps they even have a few hooks on the 'other side'. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:57:00 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #789 Walter Milliken wrote: > These are, to the best of my knowledge, only Elizabeth McCoy (Line > Editor) and John Karakesh (IN net-rep). Theoretically also Scott Haring > (SJGames Managing Editor) and Steve Jackson himself, but I don't believe > either of them read this list. I'd be very surprised if they did. Some days I'm surprised that they read their personal email! > Some of the other IN writers and editors hang out here, like myself, > Maya, and David Edelstein, but anything we say isn't really "official", > though it may include actual canon, or things that may become so. Most > of us try to be careful noting whether what we are saying is derived > from canon, or personal interpretation. (Elizabeth and John pretty much > *have* to do that, since they have personal opinions that are sometimes > divergent from canon.) That's pretty much exactly the situation. Walter and David keep their fingers on the canon pulse pretty constantly, so their reliability is high, though. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:01:12 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Pee Kitty sayeth: [snippsge] > On Tue, 26 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > > > A certain myth has spread that failing resonance rolls is dissonant for > > Calabim. It isn't. Everyone who thinks it is is wrong wrong wrong. If it > > was true, there'd be no reason for the Indiscriminate Discord. > > > > Oops. I missed that one...I should've corrected that person; > you're right. > > Now, IANANR, of course, but here's what I think... What, may I ask, does "IANANR" stand for? Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:07:08 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Lilith David Edelstein wrote: > Yup. That's why I disagree with the canonical version of Lilith as > "Protector of all Lilim." I _do_ treat Lilith as the least powerful of all > Superiors. Yes, she has lots of Geases she could pull in to harass a Prince > (or to a lesser extent, an Archangel) who ticks her off, but if any Prince > or Archangel _really_ gets pissed off at her....ashes to ashes, Lilith to > dust. So Lilim cannot really expect much protection from "Mom." The degree > to which other Superiors will avoid "abusing" Lilim is only the degree to > which they like having Lilim in their service or find it advantageous to > continue doing business with Lilith. That's close to the way I do her. Most Princes have access to more raw power of a persistant nature (they can draw on their powerbase, with some replenishment, over and over). Lilith has a lot of 'cash on hand' that she can use nearly any time she wants, but when it's gone, it's gone. She knows this better than anyone so she's always adding to her reserves, socking away the odd Geas or two and making new deals. If she _had_ to, she could probably work out a way to take out nearly any other Prince, but she would be fatally (literally) weak afterwards and easy pickings, so she doesn't. Likewise, no one wants to take her one because a) she's just too damn useful at the moment and b) even if successful, the attacker would be weakened and easy pickings in turn. One thing to remember about Lilith is that no one (except God and, possibly, Lucifer and Yves) knows the full extent of her favor network. I think it goes without saying that probably every Prince has servitors that owe favors to Lilith by one route or another (maybe not Asmodeus. Maybe.) Heck, most _Princes_ probably owe her a few favors. (You want a Lilim? I'll make one for the proper fee... of course. You can work out a deal with her afterwards.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:38:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer Bargains On The Planet! - ---Sales@sentrynetwork.com wrote: > > Hello, > My name is Thomas Roubik, I visited your web site today while > doing a search on "Certified Public Accountant". Sounds like another name for "Infernal" > So I thought I > would take this opportunity to introduce myself and invite you > to visit our web site at: > > http://www.sentrynetwork.com > Oh, yeah--like I'd fall for that trap! :) > We feature daily computer specials. We can ship more than > 70,000 quality computer products the same day, at prices to > please your pocketbook And erase our Forces to nothingness? > > I hope you will pay us a visit, you won't be sorry! Surrrrrrrre, we won't! We are your > on-call computer experts. > > Thank You! > > > > > > > > LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! I never thought I'd see advertising on a LISTSERV! :) Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 98 12:52 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith [JohnK:] > An experienced Free might even have >talents granted by other Superiors... and this could be quite a >bit more subtle than going up to that Superior directly. I'm not quite sure what you mean here -- it sounds like you're saying a Free Lilim can get attunements and such from non-Superiors, which is *decidely* non-canon, at least for the Band attunement. It does look like they could get attunements from lesser Word-bound, though.... Songs, skills, and artifacts are more readily obtainable, of course, though I'm not sure anyone except a Superior can just *bamf* a skill into someone. (Songbook looks like it will allow certain non-Superiors to grant Songs, which is fine with me.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 13:12:57 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Kevin Walsh wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 1998 at 11:10:49PM -0400, Pee Kitty wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 1998, Gruzzle wrote: > > > > > Anyways.. Can someone please explain to me exactly what happens when a > > > Calabite fails his resonance.... by "absorbing" it, does it mean he takes the > > > damage himself? > > > > Yes. > > > > A certain myth has spread that failing resonance rolls is dissonant for > Calabim. It isn't. Everyone who thinks it is is wrong wrong wrong. If it > was true, there'd be no reason for the Indiscriminate Discord. > > > When a Calabite fails his/her resonance roll, the Calabite doesn't have to > absorb anything. (S)he simply can't use his/her resonance for check digit > minutes. Calabim do _not_ take dissonance from failing resonance rolls. In > fact, no-one does, unless you count the Will roll required by Cherubim and > Djinn to erase attunements as resonance rolls. > > However, when a Calabite _succeeds_ in its resonance roll, this resonance > roll can be resisted. If the resistance roll is successful with a higher > check digit than the resonance roll, the Calabite resonance backlashes, > and the Calabite can either choose to absorb it by taking a note of > dissonance, or can choose to forfeit future actions and lash out again at > other targets. At this point, there is a lack of clarity. Listen well, for he speaks the Truth. It's only when a _successful_ Resonance roll is resisted, that the Calabite can take Dissonance (or attempt to lash out against another target). > Firstly, nothing is said about what happens when the resistance roll has > the same check digit as the resonance roll. In the general section on > resistance, it's said that such a score can be considered a draw. Is it > true that there is no result when this occurs? Can the Calabite refocus > its resonance on that target? That's for a _Contest_. This is a simple resistance roll. If the resistance roll succeeds (with any check digit) then the damage bounces. Using the Calabim Resonance on high Strength targets is NOT recommended! > > Secondly, the wording is along the lines of "can do nothing except > continue to lash out". Does this mean that the Calabite can't dodge? Use > the Art of Combat attunement? I would rule that that is exactly what it > means, but I'd like an official ruling. My assumption has been (and is official unless Beth disagrees) is that the Calabite must attempt their resonance each round til they succeed. If they stop, voluntarily or not, they eat the dissonance. They can still do whatever else is allowed in a combat round (such as dodging, but not ACTIVE dodging) as long as it doesn't interfere with their use of the resonance. > > Thirdly, there is no clarification of what happens if the initial > resonance roll is backlashed, and subsequent attempts to lash out fail. > Does the energy dissipate, manifest as dissonance, or be treated in the > same way as a backlash? The official wording implies the latter, but is > aspecific. I'm not sure what this question is asking, so I'll just answer what I think it says. ;) If a subsequent roll succeeds, no problem, no dissonance, continue as normal. If a resonance roll fails, either eat dissonance next round or try again. No other bad effects. If a resonance roll succeeds AND the new target bounces it, it's the same as the previous answer. You don't get a 'backlog' of bounced resonances successes that you have to pay back. No other bad effects. > > Fourthly, what happens if the Calabite is stunned or killed while > attempting to deflect a backlash? See answer two. > > Fifthly, concerning the Calabite of Factions attunement, which is > explicitly resonance based. If an attack on a particular relationship is > backlashed, can the Calabite attack another relationship held by the same > person? Is the target the person or the relationship? Can the backlash be > manifested as an ordinary resonance roll, or must it be the same type? They can either attack a relationship of someone else in the vicinity OR attack something physically. The initial target is immune for a few minutes as per the Calabim resonance mechanics. > > Sixthly, if the Calabite is attempting the invisible resonance trick from > the IPG, must subsequent attempts to deflect the backlashed resonance be > of the same type, ie, with the -4 penalty? Nope, they can just lose control and start bustin' things. ;) > > Seventhly, what happens if a Calabite runs out of alternate targets? The Calabite can _always_ attack themselves and choose to fail the resistance roll. Yeah, it stings like the mother, but considering the alternatives... If they don't like this idea, they just eat the dissonance and get on with it. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:14:11 -0400 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Lilith Walter Milliken wrote: > > [JohnK:] > > An experienced Free might even have > >talents granted by other Superiors... and this could be quite a > >bit more subtle than going up to that Superior directly. > > I'm not quite sure what you mean here -- it sounds like you're saying a > Free Lilim can get attunements and such from non-Superiors, which is > *decidely* non-canon, at least for the Band attunement. It does look > like they could get attunements from lesser Word-bound, though.... Servitor attunements, unless my memory completely fails me, can be given to anyone. Choir/Band Attunements are, of course, something completely different. Heck, even the odd Rite can come in handy. > Songs, skills, and artifacts are more readily obtainable, of course, > though I'm not sure anyone except a Superior can just *bamf* a skill > into someone. (Songbook looks like it will allow certain non-Superiors > to grant Songs, which is fine with me.) Yah. Rare Songs, special artifacts and whatnot are always useful in a free agent. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:25:29 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: IN> Techno-demons I made some use of the long weekend to tidy up an extended write-up on technology I was doing. (was going to post it but decided against (you'll be pleased to hear ;) ) because it was getting a bit long). If anyone is curious, its up at http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/viridian.html Pollution is your friend! jo "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." - -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:40:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> When to Summon, When They Appear At 3:11 PM -0400 5/22/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >> >>On Thu, 21 May 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >>> Favored servitors like the PCs presumably have a good idea of the cost >>> of the AA's time, and are more likely to get big missions of high >>> importance. >> >>They're also supposed to be able to take care of themselves without coming >>running to the Boss every time things get a bit hairy. > >I've been arguing that this attitude is not consistent with what the >game mechanics say is possible. One or the other has to give, or things >don't make sense. I don't understand this, I fear. Yes, it may be semi-easy to call a given Superior. This does not follow that you *should* do so for every little thing (or even every big thing), but that when the REALLY BIG THING shows up, the Superior is easy enough to call. If the Superior, Angelic or Demonic, is being called too much by the PCs, the Superior will start wondering if he'd do better to assign someone *else* to the hard tasks, and let the PCs play tour-guide for dead souls. >>For these it's not a question of being -unable- to retreat. It's a choice >>between Trauma and taking some dissonance. Not exactly a win-win >>situation, but there's still a choice. The nice thing about IN is that you can drop someone into Trauma, and the *character* is not destroyed. If the Prince doesn't want to waste the time/power, a bunch of PCs can be dropped into Trauma, and be back a few weeks later. (Same for NPCs, for that matter. Focalor, the Bal we love to hate... (http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html)) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:40:17 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Two questions, two comments (Superiors) At 1:01 PM -0500 5/22/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >Q1: It has been established that Superiors are way too busy doing >things vastly more important than whatever the PCs are doing to get >involved in their affairs. What are the Superiors doing? Administration >seems a waste of their talents. Admin is *not* a waste of talents... (Keeping everyone from tripping over each other is less easy than I have thought...) But they do other things as well -- such as politics, Word-related things, Mysterious Happenings... And answering calls for help. >Q2: I realize this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure it was >ever resolved: How many Celestials are out there? (This is complementary >to the first question, as managing Servitors will take up some of many >Superiors' time, although the Cosmic Importance of this escapes me.) This is a thing for the GM to decide. There could be as few as 1 celestial per million people, 1 per 100,000; 1 per 10,000, 1 per 1,000, 1 per 100, 1 per 10... I think the general notion is, "lots." >Comment1: Superiors apparantly do not mind being summoned to chat >occasionally. UR? I've read that they sometimes *drop in* to chat, on their own initiative. I don't think it's ever been said that they get *summoned* to chat! >It is argued that calling for backup will make the PCs seem incompetent >in their Superior's eyes. Considering the PCs job description (roughly >"special agent") I find this hard to swallow. PCs who *didn't* get in >over their heads now and then are not trying hard enough. The sides are >roughly matched, after all. And, from time to time, they call for their bosses. It's up to the GM to decide how often this should happen, and if the PCs were *really* in over their heads when they called. >This resultis in the "take your Truama/dissonance and smile" philosophy, >which implies that whatever the Superior is doing is more important than >ensuring that whatever the PCs are trying to accomplish comes to pass. >(Which takes us back to Q1.) Related point: what about non-Sup backup? >I suspect calling in a "malak strike" would not be unreasonable. This is what a phone and the number of the local Tether are for... (Why, yes, we did get a group of Malakim of the Wind to bomb the Feast of Blades hideout. They showed up after the PCs had pretty well gotten things in hand -- except for the Duke.) Another reason that Superiors might not want to show up is that, when confronted with Mega Disturbance, some people a few blocks away may call for *their* Boss, and escalation occurs. Ick. >What worries me about this is that >a) Certain AAs and DPs are not very rational. A couple are outright >psycho. True. And some Princes are just as likely to waste their summoner as the opposition. And Gabriel might take a few Forces off someone if she's weirded enough. >b) AAs and DPs apparantly show up on the Corp. Plane in person to talk to >their Servitors quite regularly, making a big honking Disturbance when >they do so. [...] As others have mentioned, Superiors may wander over with an instatiation of themselves (no noise), use a Song of Projection (or varient thereof), use a Song of Tongues (Ethereal or Celestial) or varient thereof, use the Celestial Song of Motion (minimal disturbance), send Email, send a reliever with a message, send a message via their Tether, etc. And the personal apperances are more likely to happen to a few favored Servitors -- not *all* their Servitors. >Note that Cold War IN severely limits confrontation with the enemy. >Great for some, intolerable for others. Is there a good third option for >limiting Superior hijacking? That, I dunno. - --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 #797 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.