From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Aug 26 07:32:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA23842 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:32:51 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id HAA25405 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:00:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:00:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199808261200.HAA25405@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #929 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 Wednesday, August 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 929 In this digest: IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> Calabim and the Fifth Dimension IN> Calabim and the Fifth Dimension Re: IN> The Tsayadim IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? IN> re:re:re:927! Re: IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> Falling/Redemption Re: IN> Falling/Redemption IN> London Sourcebook Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:55:11 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Tsayadim None of this is canon, _yet_. But I'll go so far as to say that (a) I'm the guy who wrote the aforementioned story in the Marches that introduced the Tsayadim into canon, and (b) I think Uriel is way cool, and I've written a version of him that has been tentatively accepted as proto-canon, and I am chomping at the bit to write something for Uriel for a future supplement. So with the disclaimer that this is not canon, only what will become canon if I have anything to say about it, here's my take on Uriel and the Tsayadim: "Tsayadim" (which is Hebrew for "Hunters") probably was originally the name for a special Distinction Uriel granted. Now, it has become a term to refer to all remaining angels of Purity. The Tsayadim are not a separate Choir. Some Servitors of Uriel (of all Choirs, though Malakim do predominate) chose to remain (Outcast) angels of Purity rather than go to another Archangel when Uriel was recalled. Since they still serve the Word of Purity, they still have Uriel's attunements, just as any other Servitor of a vanished Superior keeps his old Word-related attunements. One of the benefits that all Servitors of Purity gain is that, like Malakim, they cannot Fall. That's a function of Uriel's Word. All of the above has already been mentioned or at least hinted at previously. I'm not going to go into much more detail than that, since I'd be giving away stuff that's likely to be published in the future. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 02:06:42 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: Re: IN> The Tsayadim Thank you, David, for some wonderful insights. David Edelstein wrote: > None of this is canon, _yet_. But I'll go so far as to say that (a) I'm the > guy who wrote the aforementioned story in the Marches that introduced the > Tsayadim into canon, and (b) I think Uriel is way cool, and I've written a > version of him that has been tentatively accepted as proto-canon, and I am > chomping at the bit to write something for Uriel for a future supplement. My vote is still for a historical game centering around the Purification Crusade. IIRC, Gabriel leaves Heaven after the whole Islam debacle around the end of the 7th century (the last sounding of Gabriel's Horn, too), and Uriel is recalled in 745 AD. That gives us a nice 50 year period to play around with. I haven't done any historical digging yet, but the *true* Dark Ages should make a great playground for In Nomine. > So with the disclaimer that this is not canon, only what will become canon > if I have anything to say about it, here's my take on Uriel and the > Tsayadim: > > "Tsayadim" (which is Hebrew for "Hunters") probably was originally the name > for a special Distinction Uriel granted. Now, it has become a term to refer > to all remaining angels of Purity. > > The Tsayadim are not a separate Choir. Some Servitors of Uriel (of all > Choirs, though Malakim do predominate) chose to remain (Outcast) angels of > Purity rather than go to another Archangel when Uriel was recalled. Do they possible have a common Discord, such as Obsession or such? Something that explains somewhat their continued fanatical devotion to the Word of Purity? > > > Since they still serve the Word of Purity, they still have Uriel's > attunements, just as any other Servitor of a vanished Superior keeps his > old Word-related attunements. > > One of the benefits that all Servitors of Purity gain is that, like > Malakim, they cannot Fall. That's a function of Uriel's Word. A built-in component of all the Choir attunements, no doubt. > All of the above has already been mentioned or at least hinted at > previously. I'm not going to go into much more detail than that, since I'd > be giving away stuff that's likely to be published in the future. > > -David In regard to the possibility of a historical setting, I am cruising through all the books trying to get a better picture of which Superiors were around in those days, what the politics were like and what would need to be done to alter/create all of the necessary parts. Any help on lost/destroyed Superiors who would have been going concerns in the 8th century, along with any suggestions about the nature of those who held certain Words before their modern counterparts, would be appreciated... - --Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy still looking for the face I had before the world was made ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:09:20 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Calabim and the Fifth Dimension > Demons can be used in the short term. Angels can't, and > therefore it is better to get rid of the angels before turning upon other > demons. Therefore they deliver the results of loyalty without possessing > any loyalty whatsoever, for as long as it offers their best chance of > survival. Very nice! >Lilim: "One great benefit of aggressive behaviour is that it > tends to keep them the hell away from you. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:39:07 PDT From: "Doug Muir" Subject: IN> Calabim and the Fifth Dimension >Imagine having that sense of sureness ripped away >from you. Imagine that you can still sense the map, but you are no longer >a part of it. It is something _other_, it is much larger than you are, >and therefore it is threatening. The only way to safeguard yourself is to >destroy it. Ah. Nice insight. >Try staying absolutely still. Imagine that what you see in front of you >has no fundamental reality at all, that it is nothing other than a >picture. Imagine that you can reach out your hand and rip part of the >picture away, or grab hold of a piece of it, and twist it. [snippage] Ooh, another nice touch. This would make Calabim... oh... sort of paranoid solipsists? "The world is only just real enough to want to get me", or something like that? But anyhow, I do think that Cals would have a strongly developed sense of the *flimsiness* of things.... analogous to their Ofanite brethren's sense of the _transience_ of things. >This essential cowardice is not usually evident to others, >because Calabim understand the need to put up a front. The characteristic >grin is an act of defiance, of bravado, rather than of genuine >complacency. Yeah! True. Or usually so, anyhow. There probably are some Cals who have been lucky for so long that they've gotten cocky... but, yeah, I think most of them are blustering. Won't matter too much to you when they're grinding your bones to sand, of course. >Calabim are descended from Ofanim, and because of this they retain a >sense of pattern. They can analyse anything for weaknesses that can help >them take it apart. Yeah, and this is something not much discussed in canon. They should be able to "take things apart" in more subtle ways than just smashing or disintegration. I think a patient Cal might make a great interrogator, for instance. >The converse of this is that they have a gift for >construction, at least in theory. They make good planners, architects, >designers and artists. But no Calabite will make anything which they >can't take apart in case it's used against them later, and neither would >most Calabim do anything so revealing of themselves as create art. I like this. Hey -- sometimes they might be *forced* to make stuff, say by their Princes. Weapons, obviously, but also military construction, torture instruments... H'm. I'd expect a Cal to be a really good architect (weaponsmith, programmer, whatever), but I'd also expect them to have an almost irresistable compulsion to incorporate hidden flaws or weaknesses into anything they are forced to create... in case it ever might be used against *them*, of course! "Yeah, I built the Ultimate Nullifier for my Prince. Bastard made me do it. But, of course, I *didn't* tell him that it's secretly vulnerable to (garlic/the color yellow/being dropped into the Cracks of Doom/common tap water/whatever)" And any software written by a Calabite would most certainly have a back door... Plot seeds abound. Cheers, Doug M. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:45:26 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> The Tsayadim At 12:55 AM -0400 08/25/1998, David Edelstein wrote: > >One of the benefits that all Servitors of Purity gain is that, like >Malakim, they cannot Fall. That's a function of Uriel's Word. > That might have to be amended to be "not fall by mischance, i.e. a bad dissonance roll." The IFP has quite a few ex-Urielites in it's famous demon's lists, the one thing that they seem to have in common is that they all volountarily strayed from Purity by their relationships with the ethereal gods and/or entities. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:09:27 -0700 From: alloni@ibsystems.com (Alloni Kramer) Subject: IN> Falling/Redemption Another random question for discussion: Would you say more demons get redeemed or more angels fall? Or are the numbers about even? Why? Alloni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:24:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: [...] > The simplified system definitely has drawbacks, but I couldn't find > anything else that worked as well and kept the following properties: > > - simple to compute > > - higher-Perception celestials more likely to hear things farther away > > - kept *roughly* the current range of perception for typical celestials > and "typical" amounts of noise (about 6-10 disturbance) I see a small problem here. Where did 6-10 disturbance become "typical"? For one substantial Song, it may be. But even the noisy Songs are rarely one-punch solutions to a situation. The cumulative-noise rule means that any protracted encounter is likely to build up to enormous levels of disturbance. So far, my campaign has generated two "typical" levels of disturbance: less than 5, or over 70. Once something has gotten loud enough to be audible at any appreciable distance, my players generally seem to figure that their only hope is to finish their business in a hurry before somebody ugly comes to investigate, however noisy that makes things, and then run far and fast to wait for the echoes to die down. IIRC the rules state that even humans cause disturbance when they spend Essence to try to alter reality. Since the rules also imply that a typical human seldom goes longer than two days without burning all his or her stored Essence, I've tended to assume that in populated areas, a limiting factor to detecting disturbances is the constant susurrus of human wishes roiling the ether. A possible way of averting the problem of 1-2 pt disturbances being audible hundreds of yards away, under Walter's simplified system, might be simply to declare that any disturbance of 3 or fewer points can't be *distinguished* from some random human burning Essence to do something he really wants. (Maybe rule that the perception CD cannot exceed the base disturbance level?) This won't mask noise in rural areas, of course; but then, in rural areas it's a lot easier to be several hundred yards from the nearest eavesdropper. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:25:47 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 12:24:49PM -0400, York H. Dobyns wrote: > The cumulative-noise rule means that any protracted encounter is likely to > build up to enormous levels of disturbance. So far, my campaign has > generated two "typical" levels of disturbance: less than 5, or over 70. We've added another one. The million point disturbance. I find this quite frightening, actually, given that I have never played a character who knows how to use explosives. Most of the really small disturbances tend to be from unlikely failures on Song rolls. (It gets really unlikely when you're doing it the fifth time.) > IIRC the rules state that even humans cause disturbance when they spend > Essence to try to alter reality. I assumed that this referred to Songs, and that spending Essence on skills in an undirected way (ie by mundanes rather than Soldiers/Sorcerors/Undead) was a normal part of the Symphony, and didn't disturb it. 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, 25 Aug 1998 14:05:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? At 12:24 PM -0400 8/25/98, York H. Dobyns wrote: >IIRC the rules state that even humans cause disturbance when they spend >Essence to try to alter reality. No. IIRC, the rules are conspicously *silent* on whether *instinctive* "blowing all Essence" makes noise. I believe the implications is that it is *silent* when done that way, and I think that's the way I'm gonna canonize it. If a human spends Essence *consciously* (such as blowing just one or two measures of it to boost a skill, or when powering a Song), then it causes disturbance. (Or at least the instinctive spending of Essence a *normal* part of the Symphony, and while it may or may not mask other disturmances (since sometimes a celestial doesn't hear disturbances; that's one explanation for why not), it is not the same noise as someone *deliberately* spending Essence.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:28:13 +0100 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Kevin Walsh sic scribit: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 12:24:49PM -0400, York H. Dobyns wrote: > > The cumulative-noise rule means that any protracted encounter is likely to > > build up to enormous levels of disturbance. So far, my campaign has > > generated two "typical" levels of disturbance: less than 5, or over 70. > That's happened in the games I've run too. Funny that. > We've added another one. The million point disturbance. A BUBH??? Now I know there's been a few big bangs in my games, but *nothing* to compare with that scale of damage. In one encounter the angelic players had with Demons and Soldiers of Hell, there were five Superiors summoned, three humans killed and about 60-70 points worth of damage done to the local environment, which led to a Disturbance of about 150-odd (ish). But a *million*? *Sheesh!* > > IIRC the rules state that even humans cause disturbance when they spend > > Essence to try to alter reality. > > I assumed that this referred to Songs, and that spending Essence on skills > in an undirected way (ie by mundanes rather than > Soldiers/Sorcerors/Undead) was a normal part of the Symphony, and didn't > disturb it. Yep. That's right. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 14:23 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? >> - kept *roughly* the current range of perception for typical celestials >> and "typical" amounts of noise (about 6-10 disturbance) > >I see a small problem here. Where did 6-10 disturbance become "typical"? >For one substantial Song, it may be. But even the noisy Songs are rarely >one-punch solutions to a situation. 6-10 is sort of "typical" disturbance for a situation in my games, except a major battle. Maybe my players are more disturbance-wary than yours. >IIRC the rules state that even humans cause disturbance when they spend >Essence to try to alter reality. Only if doing it *consciously* -- i.e., Soldiers, Saints, Undead, and Sorcerers. Mundanes *never* make noise. > Since the rules also imply that a typical >human seldom goes longer than two days without burning all his or her >stored Essence, I've tended to assume that in populated areas, a limiting >factor to detecting disturbances is the constant susurrus of human wishes >roiling the ether. Nope -- see above. This may be covered in the FAQ somewhere, but I believe it's implied in the core rules, though not very prominently. > A possible way of averting the problem of 1-2 pt >disturbances being audible hundreds of yards away, under Walter's >simplified system, might be simply to declare that any disturbance of >3 or fewer points can't be *distinguished* from some random human burning >Essence to do something he really wants. That would work nicely, but only if humans made noise, which they don't. > (Maybe rule that the perception >CD cannot exceed the base disturbance level?) I've thought about this a little, just on its own, on the general principle that you simply can't get much information out of a small noise. The actual thing I was thinking of was limiting the check digit to the total Perception modifier. Thus, if you were farther away, the range modifier would reduce what you could pick up, while touching would allow you to pick up things you might not get otherwise, for a small disturbance. But that may be more rules complexity than is worth introducing. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 14:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption >Would you say more demons get redeemed or more angels fall? Or are the >numbers about even? Why? An interesting game-world design question.... I've been assuming the numbers are roughly comparable. While it's probably less likely that a demon will redeem than an angel Fall, there are also a lot more demons, so that could result in approximately equal numbers going both ways. I think rough parity in the numbers over a long period of time is required to keep the sides even in the War, unless the rates for both are *very* low. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:35:39 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? An idea: "Mundanes *never* make noise." Yeah, but they (we) make music. I mean, if we're *part* of the *Symphony*, then presumably our presence is represented in the musical metaphor by part of the score. Ditto for air and mountains and such. If small amounts of disturbance can't be hidden by noise, maybe they can be hidden by the music. And since everything natural makes this music, the covering effect works regardless of the human population density. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:48:39 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption At 10:09 25/08/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Another random question for discussion: > >Would you say more demons get redeemed or more angels fall? Or are the >numbers about even? Why? > IMG _many_ more angels fall. In fact successful redemptions of any sort are almost vanishingly rare. (I guess that in canon its still more common for angels to fall -- because they can do that on their own, whereas a demon needs to enlist an archangel to redeem) jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 14:49 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? >Yeah, but they (we) make music. I mean, if we're *part* of the >*Symphony*, then presumably our presence is represented in the >musical metaphor by part of the score. Ditto for air and mountains >and such. That makes sense. > If small amounts of disturbance can't be hidden by >noise, maybe they can be hidden by the music. And since everything >natural makes this music, the covering effect works regardless of >the human population density. Maybe, though even minor "off-notes" can be picked up pretty easily in music, by a trained ear. On the other hand, there's only so far one can stretch the metaphor. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:37:52 PDT From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> re:re:re:927! >>Hampton Court >>This is one of London's oldest and most interesting royal palaces. >>Famous for its maze which was originally considered a religious penance >>to impress upon ordinary mortals the labyrinthine complications of a >>life in the service of Christ. > >I thought Henry VIII used to chase his wives through it :) The 'labyrinthine complications of a life in the service of Christ'! didn't impress his wives then. Marnie ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:46:02 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption At 10:09 AM -0700 08/25/1998, Alloni Kramer wrote: >Another random question for discussion: > >Would you say more demons get redeemed or more angels fall? Or are the >numbers about even? Why? > >Alloni I'd make it a GM call based on who's currently winning and on which side has the upper hand. If for example, Laurence is really doing badly and reacting by becoming even more rigid, there might be quite a few Sword Angels going Outcast and/or Falling outright. On the other hand, Novalis and Blandine might be having a bumper crop of successful redemptions. So in short, it really depends upon your GM's Big Picture. As to the SJG's Big Picture, I imagine the end of the Revelations Cycle will give us our best look. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:10:23 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 07:48:39PM +0100, Jo Hart wrote: > IMG _many_ more angels fall. In fact successful redemptions of any sort are > almost vanishingly rare. > I tend to agree, though the proportion of angels on Earth duty who fall is still likely much less than 0.1%. > (I guess that in canon its still more common for angels to fall -- because > they can do that on their own, whereas a demon needs to enlist an archangel > to redeem) > Also, angels can delude themselves into believing they're not going to fall. Demons who similarly delude themselves likely aren't going to find an Archangel. Kevin. - -- "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, 25 Aug 1998 20:22:47 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 06:28:13PM +0100, David.Evans wrote: > > We've added another one. The million point disturbance. > > A BUBH??? What's a BUBH? Now I know there's been a few big bangs in my games, but > *nothing* to compare with that scale of damage. Well, there's only been two In Nomine games in which I've played that such a thing happened. (Although there was the Mage game I played at Warpcon '97 where New York got blown up. That wasn't my fault, though.) In one encounter the > angelic players had with Demons and Soldiers of Hell, there were five > Superiors summoned, three humans killed and about 60-70 points worth of > damage done to the local environment, which led to a Disturbance of about > 150-odd (ish). But a *million*? *Sheesh!* > One of them was probably over a million. That was the nuke. The one where Janus and Baal thrashed a large part of New York mightn't have been as bad, although who knows? I don't know the population density of the Lower East Side of Manhattan. It still probably ran into hundreds of thousands of points, though. I blame the GMs in all instances. (In the case of the nuke, Baal ordered me to do it, so I got someone else to do it. In the other case, I wouldn't have let it happen the way it did.) (Anyone sick of me mentioning these incidents should mail me. I won't stop doing it at irregular intervals otherwise.) Other big disturbances included the one where Furfur ripped the Old Guy to shreds in Celestial Combat, the 6-pointer soon afterwards where I failed to sing the Ethereal Song of Form 4 times straight, despite having a base chance of 7 to get it, and spending extra time once and extra Essence another time. The destruction of a generator right underneath Furfur's nose was also quite impressive. And the various incidents in No Dinero involving multiple human deaths. This doesn't seem to be a good reflection of our gaming group... 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, 25 Aug 98 15:30 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption > As to the SJG's >Big Picture, I imagine the end of the Revelations Cycle will give us our >best look. I don't think this particular issue has had any canon decisions made on it, one way or the other, and as far as I know, isn't really addressed in Final Trumpet at all. I'm not even sure it *should* be addressed in canon.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Redemption > I think rough parity in the numbers over a long period of time is > required to keep the sides even in the War, unless the rates for both > are *very* low. This would be my take on the matter (which obviously is IMC, not cannon): More angels fall than demons are redeemed. The reason is as Walter states -- it's a lot easier for an angel to fall than for a demon to be redeemed. The rates probably are low enough that the sides stay roughly balanced, although this disparity probably contributes to the growing darkness in the war. However, there is another balancing effect: demons are more likely to be soul-killed than angels. First off, because of the hoardes of <9 force demons out there, in the "average" (as opposed to PC-demon) angel-demon battle, the demon is going to lose. Occasionally this must involve soul death. Also, archangels aren't as apt to tear their celestial servants apart "just for fun" (or for whatever reason) as demon princes are. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:29:57 +0200 From: "Donato Ranzato" Subject: IN> London Sourcebook Hello, I've put a complete In Nomine London sourcebook online. This sourcebook is based on the london write-ups of Martin Arnold, a subscriber to this mailinglist. If you are running a London based campaign or if you are planning to run one or if you just plan one scenario in London, then I advice you to take a look. You can find the online In Nomine London Sourcebook at: http://people.a2000.nl/dranzato So, now I can begin at that In Nomine Amsterdam Sourcebook........ Greetings, Donato Ranzato ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:49:32 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Walter Milliken wrote: > > Since the rules also imply that a typical > >human seldom goes longer than two days without burning all his or her > >stored Essence, I've tended to assume that in populated areas, a limiting > >factor to detecting disturbances is the constant susurrus of human wishes > >roiling the ether. > > Nope -- see above. This may be covered in the FAQ somewhere, but I > believe it's implied in the core rules, though not very prominently. I think that "implies" covers it best. In the core rules, as near as I can tell, it never says that mundanes don't make a disturbance, but the section on Perceiving the Symphony says only that celestials do. It's possible that it says it somewhere else, but on my Christmas list, I'm asking for a more useful index for the core rulebook. The list of items, and which ones various things are listed under, is often mystifying. I'll give it this, though; all of the page numbers are right. This puts it far ahead on the usefulness scale than my 3rd Edition Ars Magica book (yes, the one by White Wolf) which didn't even get the pages right in the Table of Contents. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:57:01 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Los Angeles Wordbounds Looking at FotM I was just a little surprised to see no real coverage of Word-bounds operating there. I would have thought that there would have been more of them in such an important place to hell? - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #929 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.