From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jun 8 21:57:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04073 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 21:57:14 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id VAA24907 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 21:50:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 21:50:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199806090250.VAA24907@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 #814 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, June 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 814 In this digest: Re: IN> World News Re: IN> World News Re: IN> World News Re: IN> Sorcery and Soldiers of God Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device IN> Off topic Re: IN> Yet another Sorcerer question... Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device Re: IN> Yet another Sorcerer question... RE: IN> IN Campaign Seed: The Third Avatar IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take Re: IN> Sorcery and Soldiers of God Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: Essence Reserves (was Re: IN> Word Forces, was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: IN> Word Forces (longish) Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) Re: IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) Re: IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) IN> Re: Word Forces (and Tether construction) (long) Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 09:40:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> World News The "Religious Tolerance" Web site has some information that pertains to this topic. Here are the URLs for: "Abortion - all sides of the issue" -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Under this, I particularly draw your attiontion to: "What the Bible says about abortion" -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm and "Historical abortion beliefs of the Christian church" -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 10:19:37 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> World News YOW! Wrong list. Ignore my previous post. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:22:43 -0400 From: Afterburner Subject: Re: IN> World News >YOW! Wrong list. Ignore my previous post. No no! It was cool! Afterburner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:28:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Sorcery and Soldiers of God The general theory behind a lot of the ceremonial magic in the Renaissance and the 19th-century occult revival was to do your magic and keep your soul safe by working on the side of the angels, calling on the forces of Heaven to constrain the powers of hell (and, if I recall correctly, using non-hellish powers whenever possible). Of course, such a line of reasoning is totally unorthodox in any of the monotheistic religions, but that doesn't stop IN. So, yeah, I could see a Solider of God getting coaching in Hermetic magic, using it to learn Songs and summon Ethereals, and going near Infernals only in emergencies or as a generally bad mistake. Of course, demons are famous for masquerading as angels. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 98 13:27 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take [Michael:] >This argues against the position some folks have put forth here, that >basically says you don't have functional ID and documents without a fairly >high-Level Role, no matter what its Status. In my campaign, basic, checkable documentation is what a Role/1 grants. >>Hardly. Role level and Status are not necessarily linked- a Role of >>Trashman/6 is unlikely to have a Status of 5, or 'minor celebrity.' > >Well, I was talking about linking Level to Status, not the other way around. >The house rule is meant to block out such obscenities as "Senator/1", or >"Pope/2". I believe it's canon that Status cannot exceed Role level. It's a bit unclear, but I think the main book says that you must buy a Role sufficient for your Status, or something like that. >As someone else pointed out already, though, that doesn't mesh with the >description on p. 43. I prefer to use the Level of a Role to describe just >how firmly attached to human society the character is, rather than the >quality of their papers. I give good papers at Role/1. But a background check would turn up the fact that that's about *all* you have. No one anywhere seems to know you. You maybe haven't filed an income tax return, but then you're not on record as having any income, either. So a security-style check would turn up things that were at least suspicious, though not necessarily prima facie evidence that you don't really exist. As you work your way into human society, a really thorough check wouldn't find anything unusual -- an investigator would find your third grade teacher who remembered when you put the frog into her boots, your childhood sweetheart, and the aging aunt who dotes on you. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:30:59 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device On Fri, Jun 05, 1998 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Gerry Mckelvey wrote: > yep. Know you're enemy...economics written by a man who never worked a day > in his life... That's like saying you have to be a woman to be a gynaecologist. facinating system, but Carl got alot of people thinking about > a bad idea. That's like saying Jesus was responsible for the Albigensian Crusade, or Clausewitz for the First World War. Then they got to killing about 6 or 7 million folks in > russia.. A lot more than that, actually. But let's be clear about something, the Bolsheviks were gangsters, and the fact that they did what they did in the name of Communism is no more relevant to Karl Marx's theories than what Mobutu did is to those of Adam Smith. Especially given that in attempting to establish Socialism in Russia at all, they were violating Marxist theory. not to mention the enviro damage! I think it'd make a great In > Nomine plot line (or historical point...). I happen to agree, and have an idea in my head about an IN LARP set in a Stalinist Labour Camp. Like most of my ideas, it'll probably never get written up, but I think it would be good. It's got self delusion, > arrogance, rejection of any moral structure... Have you read The Republic? Machevelli would've been > proud. Have you read Machiavelli, before you condemn him? 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: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 10:53:28 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Off topic >That's like saying you have to be a woman to be a gynecologist. I think that's basically true. Most male GYN's have the manners of a rat, whereas female GYN's actually understand that you have to be gentle when giving an exam. Obviously, I have no personal experience, but I was married. I know this is way off topic. Let the flames begin. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 14:05:18 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Yet another Sorcerer question... "Gerry Mckelvey" wrote: > >that answer got me to thinking...all those centuries of occult books must >have some game use... some of them scrolls and tomes of quaint and curious >lore are gonna be inaccurate, but I suppose it could be possible that one >or two demons could have had thier names leaked to the paparazzi of the >occult world...hmmm..Kobal's minions at work? Anyway, In Nomine rules >don't say anything about modifiers to invoke a particular demon (at least, >I didn't see any...but I could very well have just missed the obvious...) >but I'm wondering if you could have bonus's when using the demon's true >name to summon/bind/abusethehelloutofit to get songs, attunments, or just >information. > >might be fun to run a game where a band of demons got popular back in the >dark ages and now are hunting down and destroying copies of thier true >names... >just throwing this out for comment.. Last month I tossed this out as a new discord, and it sank without a trace, but anyway, here it is again: 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. Although a famous name can sometimes put the demon in contact with evil mortals willing to do its work on Earth, most of the time having a public name is a real nuisance -- just when a demon thinks it can relax it gets paged by some uppity sorcerer. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:35:18 -0700 From: "Gerry Mckelvey" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device > Have you read The Republic? not lately...I'll get back to you on that one... > Machevelli would've been > > proud. > > Have you read Machiavelli, before you condemn him? > > Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. I rather liked machiavelli...you know, he once said that the closer one gets to rome, the farther one gets from god....goes without saying that the clergy were NOT fond of the man...but he did know politics...he wouldn't have felt out of place in our current white house administration, 'cept I think he'd have been appaled at the stupidity those folks show when handling thier plots...I miss Nixon, Regan, Bush and the rest of the crowd...ah, those were the days... translate my tag line and you'll know why I liked them... Jerry McKelvey Exitus Acta Probat. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:37:27 -0700 From: "Gerry Mckelvey" Subject: Re: IN> Yet another Sorcerer question... > Although a famous name can sometimes put the demon in contact with evil > mortals willing to do its work on Earth, most of the time having a public > name is a real nuisance -- just when a demon thinks it can relax it gets > paged by some uppity sorcerer. > Hmm...that's just the sort of thing to really annoy a calabite....and leads to short lived sorcerers... Jerry McKelvey Exitus Acta Probat. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:09:51 -0500 From: Robert Addy Subject: RE: IN> IN Campaign Seed: The Third Avatar On Monday, June 08, 1998 3:10 AM, Hart, Joanna [SMTP:Joanna.Hart@nectech.co.uk] wrote: > Robert Addy wrote: > >But what if, instead of Lilith being the third avatar, she has the > *potential* > >to be the third avatar? > > Or _had_ the potential ;) Maybe when the prophecy was made she really was > intended to be the mythical third avatar but she blew it and chose 'freedom' > instead. So maybe the actual avatar is mankind in general or some specific > descendent of Adam & Eve in particular, and Lilith met with her fate to > become an evolutionary dead-end, together with all her offspring! She has > all the power associated with a DP but the one thing she really can't do is > go back and make that choice again... > > > *hides* > > > jo. I just have this image of some Aunt May-type person suddenly becoming The Third Avatar and sending the War into chaos..... Robert Addy raddy@uh.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:16:38 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) At 8:41 PM -0400 6/5/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >PS: In canon can any Word-bound have a tether, or are they limited to the >Archangels and Demon Princes? AAs and DPs only, unless something really funky is going on. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:25:41 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take At 5:33 AM -0400 6/6/98, Michael Nutt wrote: >Redneck wrote: >Well, I was talking about linking Level to Status, not the other way around. >The house rule is meant to block out such obscenities as "Senator/1", or >"Pope/2". Already in rules, actually. It's not as clear as it could be, but your Status cannot be higher than your Role, and you need the appropriate Status *for* your Role. p. 43: "The higher a Role's level [...] the more Status it *can* have. If you want a worldly identity as a cardinal, a movie star, a Nobel winner or an NFL quarter back, take it at level 6." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:39:34 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sorcery and Soldiers of God At 7:29 AM -0700 6/6/98, Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: >Can a Soldier of God learn the Sorcery attunement? Probably. >More importantly, >should he? It seems to me that the old saying, "The road to Hell is >full of good intentions." may apply here. And then there's the Dozen...? Who knows. Maybe some of them *are* SoG.... O;> >(digression) >Angels are an excellent source of true names of demons >(end of digression) So are Renegades. Heh heh heh. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:52:27 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >PS: In canon can any Word-bound have a tether, or are they limited to the > >Archangels and Demon Princes? > > AAs and DPs only, unless something really funky is going on. Hmmm...only Archangels and Demon Princes? I can think of two reasons for that. Which one do you think is closer to canon, or are they both equally valid? 1) Making a tether requires an enormous amount of power. While (theoretically) any Word-bound could make one, only the Archangels and Demon Princes really have the power to do so. 2) Tethers have to be tended to and protected. Theoretically, any Word-bound could make a tether. However, most Word-bound don't have the sheer number of Servitors required to maintain and protect their tether. The Archangels and Demon Princes, on the other hand, do. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 98 15:53 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) [Richard Gant:] >Word-bound Celestials may have up 54 Forces, with no more than 18 Forces >in any given category. The problem I have with this sort of scheme (which is like ones I considered early on, at least for Superiors) is that it doesn't really work well with the d666 system. Everything becomes an auto-success with a effectively-fixed (and *high*) check digit. > Their skills and songs are likewise limited to >a maximum of 18, and may not exceed the appropriate Force by more than 4 >(that is, an angel with the Celestial Song of Motion and 12 Celestial >Forces may not have the song at a level higher than 16). Do you mean level or target number here? The thought of adding a Song level of 16 to a Cel Forces of 12 and thus rolling d666 against target number of 28 kind of makes me cringe.... > In addition, >each day that pases in which the Word-bound does not promote it's Word, it >takes 1 soul hit which may not heal until the Celestial promotes it's Word >succssfully. Interesting idea... sort of similar to what would happen with Word Forces varying (not promoting your Word causes Word Forces to diminish slowly, which the gradual soul hits would also do). One problem with this model is Eli, who is said to not be bothering to promote his Word because it's doing just fine on its own, thank you.... >Now, how do I control all of this? Simple. I drag them into politics >more, and let them fight less. Role playing becomes more important, and >dice rolling is cut back. They have power, but they now have to spend >more time maintaining it. That's all quite reasonable -- Word politics should be important to a Word-bound. >PS: In canon can any Word-bound have a tether, or are they limited to the >Archangels and Demon Princes? I believe so far, only Superiors have Tethers, but I'm not sure there's anything that actually *forbids* others to have them. In the work I'm doing for the Tethers book, I'm proposing that this is official canon -- that only Superiors can stabilize Tethers and thus gain the Essence flowing from them. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 98 16:20 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Essence Reserves (was Re: IN> Word Forces, was Re: IN> Placing credit) > The concept that Superiors are all-powerful and untouchable by >lesser beings has always bugged me. It is the sheer size of their >essence caches, really, and their skillful use of them, that makes >Superiors, effectively what they are. Yet the supply is indeed finite. >A carefully staged plan, perhaps as part of a strategic move in the war, >*could* succeed in overthrowing a Superior, in my opinion. Even if >executed by 'minor' celestials. Yes, though in the canon draft I'm working on, it would *very* difficult. >I wonder if you have any guidelines for approximate reserve levels of >major/minor Word holders? Strictly apart from the canon stuff I'm working on, I picture Superiors as having 20-200 Word Forces, in the Word-Force model, which means an equivalent Essence reserve. But I'm not really trying to quantify them beyond rough order-of-magnitude.... I'm also thinking that regular Word-Bound have 1-18 Word Forces or so. (The general thinking I've done on Superiors is that to qualify for Superior, you have to have 18 regular Forces and 18+ Word Forces, though sometimes they are granted with elevation to Superior status. But this is *way* out of being close to becoming canon right now, and probably never *will* get close.) >I presume that this is something that you'll be incorporating into >Tethers, though. Not precisely, no -- certainly nothing detailed about how many Word Forces (or equivalent) a character might have. So far, they play only a small part in the Tether-related stuff. >> I also >>postulate that they recharge much faster than regular celestials -- at >>the moment I am working this into my proposed Tether canon, but I don't >>know if this will fly. > >If by chance it doesn't, Walter, then will you be posting this? I can post a summary of my current thinking right here, very simply. With the proviso that this isn't nearly canon yet.... And some aspects (particularly quantifying Superiors directly or indirectly) are likely to be left deliberately fuzzy, for the GM to tweak as desired. I'm postulating that the average Superior owns about 100 Tethers, each with an Essence flow of about 1/minute on the average. (NOTE: these numbers are *very* squishy, and I'm not entirely happy with my attempts to quantify Essence flow in Tethers yet. I may yet can them entirely.) So a typical Superior "recharges" at about 100 Essence/minute. This sounds like a lot until you realize that anything above their Essence reserve (figure 100 for a typical case for the moment) is lost if not used. And also that that's only 8 Essence per combat round. Much less than that, and a Superior would quickly become fairly vulnerable to a reasonably large PC group in combat. This model lets Superiors pull off some truly amazing one-shot feats, but they don't necessarily have a lot of stamina -- if they keep expending energy at a rapid rate (particularly in combat), they'll run out. But they also recover quickly. I should note that I'm not totally happy with the way the stuff above works out -- besides not wanting to quantify Superiors too much, it still feels a bit "off" to me. But it's the best compromise I've been able to come up with so far in my own head. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 98 16:52 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Word Forces (longish) [jo, with a lot of good thoughts on Words and Word Forces:] >1. Some words are inherently more powerful than others. I was thinking along the same lines you proposed: a given Word can only support a given number of Word Forces, based on its current importance in the Symphony. The Word-bound's Word Forces can be less than this, showing that they haven't yet learned to fully access the power of their Word (or become it, or however you want to phrase it). As a PC earns experience *associated with promoting/understanding/becoming the Word*, they would be able to use the cp earned to buy additional Word Forces, up to the current maximum the Word will support. >2. Power associated with a word may fluctuate in a way independent of cp >expenditure. Again, I was thinking along similar lines. I was thinking mostly that the GM would have to agree that the cp were earned in a way that enlarged the Word (if the PC was maxed out to the current potential of the Word). Thus, both the ceiling and the current number of Word Forces would go up. This is probably hard enough that as a mechanic, it should require more than the current 10cp/Force -- probably at least double or triple, maybe more (the whole Symphony is hard to shift). >3. Personality Shifts. > >There are some aspects to being word-bound that a mechanic just can't cover >IMO. Taking on a word involves surrendering some of yourself and immersing >in the Word. The last is probably more true of angels than demons. I see demons as more likely to add the Word to themselves -- they're not inclined by nature to sacrifice any part of their selves.... But yes, I agree that the psychological aspects are more important than the mechanics. I've really only been talking about the mechanics aspect, since that's what I tend to be more interested in (along with the "How?"s and "Why?"s of the game world background). The fact that I'm an engineer shows.... >4. What if the word has a matching holder amongst the 'opposition'? The celestial equivalent of market-share wars seems the most likely outcome.... >-- >(My thoughts on the above) > It is debatable whether superiors and ancient >word-bound celestials have any of their original personality left at all, or >whether their word would have moulded any other holder into exactly the same >as they have now become. I think Word and Choir/Band nature drive this to a large extent, but there is still some individual personality giving both a twist. Also, some Superiors don't seem to be primarily shaped by their Words: Dominic and Jean come to mind right away. Dominic's personality seems to have been shaped primarily by his personal experiences at the time of the Fall. Jean, on the other hand, has a lot of jobs that really aren't particularly associated with his Word -- they've been dumped on him at various times due to events outside his own control. I think his personality partly reflects this, much more than his Word, or even his Choir. >If it decreases and the word-bound had reached that maximum, then the >word-bound loses an appropriate amount of word forces and also the >equivalent percentage of _all_ other forces too. Interesting notion -- I've really only been considering having the Word Forces wax and wane, not the "personal" ones. It's probably too complex a game mechanic for IN, though. It may be enough to feel the Word Forces dying off, anyway.... A slightly different way to think about this is that the celestial may take damage when his Word is harmed in the Symphony. (Someone else in this discussion proposed something like this.) > Ouch! ie. celestials whose words >completely fade away _will_ be discorporated. This is probably the right end point. I'm proposing something similar for Word-bound Seneschals of Tethers -- it's already canon that destroying the Tether kills a Word-bound Seneschal. I was planning to propose that Tether damage would do soul hits to the Seneschal -- it's plausible to extend this notion to all Word-bound and their Words, in some way. Need to think about it more.... >6. (This is the tricky one ;) ). The power of some words can vary >geographically/ thematically. Some buildings, events, cities, or areas just >happen to be particularly harmonious with some words, or particularly >disharmonious with others (a tether is maybe the ultimate expression of >this, but doesn't need to be). If the word-bound goes to one of these >places, then their temporary maximum word forces may increase or decrease >for the duration, along with an equal proportion of other forces. This is plausible, but the mechanics would be a bear! I don't think I'd want to propose something like this for canon, without a much simpler way to make it workable. But it's a good idea in concept.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:23:44 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) At 3:52 PM -0400 6/8/98, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: >On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> >PS: In canon can any Word-bound have a tether, or are they limited to the >> >Archangels and Demon Princes? >> >> AAs and DPs only, unless something really funky is going on. > >Hmmm...only Archangels and Demon Princes? [...] My concept: #3: Only Superiors have that connection to the Symphony that allows Tethers to form which can link to their Word. It is part of that "quantum leap in power"/"state change". And/or only Superiors have Principalties. Note, for instance, Furfur. (Yes, I know people hate him.) p. 124, Night Music: "He doesn't yet have a Principality, he may not yet consecrate any Tethers, and his vessel must remain alive in the corporeal realm." Apparently a Superior has to have a Place -- it may not be enough to be a Superior, even? Unclear. Hm. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:05:36 -0700 (PDT) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: [snip] > Note, for instance, Furfur. (Yes, I know people hate him.) why? Furfur's fun! and browsing the web today i've already seen two alternate versions of him that are wonderfully diabolcial. > p. 124, Night Music: "He doesn't yet have a Principality, he may not > yet consecrate any Tethers, and his vessel must remain alive in the > corporeal realm." yes, read that last night (i really need to get more sleep--and study for finals more intensely...). i figured it was because he had only recently become a Demon Prince, and with such a recent upsurge of power, he hasn't consolidated himself yet. > Apparently a Superior has to have a Place -- it may not be enough > to be a Superior, even? Unclear. Hm. and each of the other DPs do have territories, either awarded to them (like Samenga) or which they wrested from their former owners (Haagenti's a prime example). i guess there are several levels to being a Demon Prince(ss). -=|horsefly|=- "All I am after is a just life, at the end of which I can laugh as I die." --ARCADIA OF MY YOUTH, end credits lyrics ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 18:28:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben-Prime Subject: Re: IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: > > p. 124, Night Music: "He doesn't yet have a Principality, he may not > > yet consecrate any Tethers, and his vessel must remain alive in the > > corporeal realm." > yes, read that last night (i really need to get more sleep--and > study for finals more intensely...). i figured it was because he had only > recently become a Demon Prince, and with such a recent upsurge of power, > he hasn't consolidated himself yet. I'd personally just gone with the assumption that a Tether needs someplace in Hell to which to connect, and without a Principality or a chunk of one to serve as 'anchor', a DP couldn't create a Tether. From there, I progress to the assumption that by the very virtue of *having* a Tether, a Demon Prince has a personal 'lifeline' back to hell which helps protect his essense in the Corporeal Realm. Of course, I could just be thinking too linearly for Celestial Mechanics. ;) Ben - ----- emrys@netrox.net ---------------- http://www.netrox.net/~emrys/ ------ "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WhHi6G2>3 LCJRo hBrc+++g b69/83 B3^E1# a27+ sM1N10~ K8p k3BdSAbCehIOpRrTtxX QbEKLMRTtO v64s opLSO X6#7 w7T r6IsLM E+++ p9f7v4&g4s8 D36C(c*P*!# Hco+usFL7 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:42:49 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Re: Furfur (was re: Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces)) > > p. 124, Night Music: "He doesn't yet have a Principality, he may not > > yet consecrate any Tethers, and his vessel must remain alive in the > > corporeal realm." > yes, read that last night (i really need to get more sleep--and > study for finals more intensely...). i figured it was because he had only > recently become a Demon Prince, and with such a recent upsurge of power, > he hasn't consolidated himself yet. > > > Apparently a Superior has to have a Place -- it may not be enough > > to be a Superior, even? Unclear. Hm. I imagine that Furfur can make Tethers if he wants to but they have two end points one Corporeal and one Celestial. If he doesn't have a place to connect them to that is safe then he won;t be able to gather the essence that flows throught the connection. What would be the point of making a Tether and not being able to reap the benefits? Perhaps his vessel must remain alive in the Corporeal realm because in order for Celestials to be able to do the vessel creation trick thaty need a flow of essence from the Corporeal realm. This would explain why Ethereals can do it as well, the Ethereal realm has a constant flow of Corporeal Essence from the dreamers that bridge the delta between the two realms each night and some small amount of energy travels with them both ways. This could also explain why Ethereals have different rules for manifesting in the Corporeal realm as well. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 22:16:24 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Re: Word Forces (and Tether construction) (long) On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > [Richard Gant:] > >Word-bound Celestials may have up 54 Forces, with no more than 18 Forces > >in any given category. > > The problem I have with this sort of scheme (which is like ones I > considered early on, at least for Superiors) is that it doesn't really > work well with the d666 system. Everything becomes an auto-success with > a effectively-fixed (and *high*) check digit. It is a little...overwhelming, isn't it. I'd already worked out the autosuccesses myself (it was a little thing with Michael at 90 Forces versus 9 demons with 10 Forces in a Corporeal fight - it got depressing for the demons really fast). I didn't see that as a problem myslef, though. The way I figure it, the powerful Word-bound and the Archangel/Demon Prince status individuals shouldn't ever really have to worry about failure. At least, unless they are being opposed by another Celestial of similar power. > Do you mean level or target number here? The thought of adding a Song > level of 16 to a Cel Forces of 12 and thus rolling d666 against target > number of 28 kind of makes me cringe.... I meant level. It made my players cringe, too. And drool at the same time, when they realized that they can aspire to that someday. As I said, though, playing at this level is really not a matter of dice-rolling anyway. Important plot elements include Word promotion, Celestial politics, and the strategic elements of the War. My players will (once we get back from hiatus) still be involved in Corporeal matters, but not as foot soldiers anymore. > > In addition, > >each day that pases in which the Word-bound does not promote it's Word, it > >takes 1 soul hit which may not heal until the Celestial promotes it's Word > >succssfully. > > Interesting idea... sort of similar to what would happen with Word > Forces varying (not promoting your Word causes Word Forces to diminish > slowly, which the gradual soul hits would also do). One problem with > this model is Eli, who is said to not be bothering to promote his Word > because it's doing just fine on its own, thank you... Is Eli not promoting his Word, or is he just promoting it in a new and different way? That may be why he hasn't been back to Heaven in centuries...he's looking for new ways to promote Creation, and he knows that returning to Heaven would just distract him from his search. It may be that he is involved in some sort of a long term, subtle promotion of Creation. Which reminds me...as much for the benefit of my player on this list as anyone else...let me explain that business of taking a soul hit for not promoting your Word. That doesn't mean you have to find a new way to promote it every day. Picking a single, long-term way to promote your Word, and working at it for as long as it takes means you are promoting your Word. soul hits only happen if you get lazy and do nothing at all. > >PS: In canon can any Word-bound have a tether, or are they limited to the > >Archangels and Demon Princes? > > I believe so far, only Superiors have Tethers, but I'm not sure there's > anything that actually *forbids* others to have them. In the work I'm > doing for the Tethers book, I'm proposing that this is official canon -- > that only Superiors can stabilize Tethers and thus gain the Essence > flowing from them. Hmmm... Perhaps I'm just jumping the gun here, but I have given thought to tethers for Word-bound Celestials (when 3 of your 5 players have Word-bound characters, you start thinking about these things...). I took your idea about tethers maybe needing a Force bound into them and ran with it. I don't know if it will match up with your ideas, but maybe you (or someone else on line) will find a use for it. Creating a tether operates in a similar fashion to creating an artifact. Only Word-bound beings may create tethers, and those tethers may only be created in an area which somehow relates to that Celestial's Word (the Angel of Second Chances, for instance, could create one in a dedicated rape crisis center; she could not create one in a sewer). No special skills, songs, or attunements are required to create one; the natural link between a Word-bound Celestial and a physical location which represents that Celestial's Word is enough. When the Word-bound has found an appropriate location, that location must be prepared before it may be used, and the Word-bound must decide how powerful to try and make the tether (on a scale of 1-6 for "ordinary" Word-bound, or on a scale of 1-12 for Archangels or Demon Princes). The potential tether must then be invested with power (to the tune of 3 character points or 30 essence per level of the tether), a process which may not take more days than the Word-bound's Celestial Forces times the level of the tether (if the investment is not completed in time, the invested essence and/or character points are lost; character points and essence may be mixed when investing the tether). Gifts of essence may be accepted to help invest the potential tether, but only essence from servitors of the Word-bound or the Word-bound's Superior may be used while investing; any other essence from any other being will "pollute" the potential tether, requiring the investment to begin anew (if a Superior grants essence to the tether, it becomes a mixed tether, benefiting both the Superior and the Word-bound). Once the site is invested, it is a simple matter to create the tether. The Word-bound makes a Will roll. If it is successful, he strips off the Forces required to power the tether (1-3 Forces, with no more than 1 Force from each category and no more than 1 Force for every 2 points on the check die). A second roll is then made (Perception for Angels, Will for Demons) to bind the Force(s) to the tether. If it is a success, the tether is established; if it fails, the Forces are lost into the Symphony (meaning that a tether, while not difficult for powerful Word-bound to create, is still not created lightly). If only 1 Force is bound into the tether, it is a "noisy" tether - any celestial may make a Perception roll to notice it's location (by the disturbance it makes) each time it generates Essence (a 1 point disturbance). If 2 Forces are bound into the tether, it is a standard tether (no disturbances). If 3 Forces are bound in, it may be granted a special ability as well (consider the tether to be prepared to be made into a Artifact of some kind, at any level up to the level of the tether, but may only represent the Word the tether serves). Daily, a tether generates an amount of Essence for the Word-bound it serves equal to it's level. This Essence is generated evenly throughout the day, beginning at the time the Word-bound generates Essence naturally (dawn for Angels, sundown for Demons). The Forces bound into the tether are still part of the Word-bound, to a degree. They count as Forces for determining the total amount of Essence the Word-bound may store, and may be lost (if the Word-bound so chooses) in place of Forces lost in Celestial combat. They do not count in any way for determining attributes, Song target numbers, hits of any kind, or anything else. Also, if the tether is ever destroyed, the Forces are lost into the Symphony. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant PS: The notes for Archangel/Demon Prince tether creation are primarily speculation. I have no real desire to quantify them, I'm just using it to speculate about how it could work. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 22:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Tethers for who (Re: Word Forces) On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > My concept: #3: Only Superiors have that connection to the Symphony > that allows Tethers to form which can link to their Word. It is > part of that "quantum leap in power"/"state change". And/or only > Superiors have Principalties. That makes sense. The part about the Principalities, anyway (well, it all makes sense from a canon perspective). See below for my thoughts. > Note, for instance, Furfur. (Yes, I know people hate him.) > p. 124, Night Music: "He doesn't yet have a Principality, he may not > yet consecrate any Tethers, and his vessel must remain alive in the > corporeal realm." > > Apparently a Superior has to have a Place -- it may not be enough > to be a Superior, even? Unclear. Hm. Since a tether is a link between the Celestial and Corporeal realms, then it would seem to indicate that the Superior needs a place to link the tether to. Since Furfur has no Principality, he has no place to link any tethers to. It would also explain why (most, at any rate) Word-bound hav no tethers of their own; they have no place in the Celestial realm which is theirs, for the tether to link to. Of course, if it is just the lack of a Celestial end for the tether, there woud be ways around it. The Word-bound could "lease" part of the Superior's Principality, giving part of the Essence from the tether to the Superior in exchange for the right to establish the tether. It would require a Word-bound that is a) in favor with his Superior and b) confident in his ability to defend a tether to do this, but it could be done. Or, if the Word-bound can't make the tether himself (because you have to be a Superior to do it), his Superior could grant him one. Why would the Superior do that? Several reasons, actually. As a reward for devoted service and a test for future duties and responsibilities, because it also nets the Superior a new tether, and so on. Of course, I'm just rambling now... Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #814 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.