From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Mar 5 12:57:36 1999 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 MAA30985 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:57:35 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA23962 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:55:30 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:55:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199903051855.MAA23962@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 #1134 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 Friday, March 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1134 In this digest: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? IN> Are you player enough? Hangin' with the Superiors IN> Are you player enough? Hangin' with the Superiors IN> The nature of evil Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? IN> IN: Stunning IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) IN> Getting a cherub's attention Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Re: IN> IN: Stunning Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Re: IN> Corproeal Death (was FoTM) Re: IN> IN: Stunning Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:02:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? At 9:57 AM +0000 3/5/99, Leath Sheales wrote: >Dear List, > >A quick question. In Fall of The Malakim, the write-up of LA says >(paraphrasing) that Asmodeus has several demons working the airports, >keeping an eye out for angels as they arrive. My question is how the >hell are they doing this? [...] >It's been causing me Dissonance from confusion.. Bingo -- the Sense for Betrayal attunement (Heaven & Hell, p. 24) detects dissonance in *anyone*, combined with... Shedim (can't possess celestials), Habbalah (limited emotion-sense like Elohim), Lilim (Need-readers), as well as some mundane background checks on suspicious folks... If worse comes to worse, break their leg and see if there's disturbance... >Leath (Servitor of Kobal, in service to Beth due to Fear). Wise. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:10:13 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Are you player enough? Hangin' with the Superiors >>>With us, it was the hypnotic power of Deities and Demigods. They should *never* have given Zeus a hit point total....<<< And only 400 too! What a wimp! Why my 47th level Paladin/Assassin/Magic-User/Thief could have eaten him for breakfast! - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:10:09 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Are you player enough? Hangin' with the Superiors >>>Of course. Promote your word, build your strength, gather your forces. That's how you do it. Just ask Furfur.<<< There is the additional fact that he managed to persuade Lucifer, who certainly had his own reasons for making Furfur a Prince. Humor aside, sure, it's _possible_ to run a campaign in which a PC becomes a Superior. With a damn good storyline, I might even buy it as plausible. But the notion of a campaign where _everyone_ rockets up to 18-Force, Word-bound status and then starts up the path to Superior status....well, I believe someone mentioned Nintendo... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:10:17 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The nature of evil >>>I guess what I'm really asking is, in your version of the world, is it personal belief or some higher power which decides good, and if the second, how can I join the Rebellion?<<< Keep in mind, destiny and fate are based on selflessness or selfishness, not good and evil. If Hitler was acting out of a genuine, selfless desire to help the German people, one could make the argument that perhaps he was acting selflessly, but it seems likely he was actually acting out of twisted self-gratification, possibly deluding himself (as many leaders do) that he was doing it for the country. In other words, he was a sociopath -- the epitomy of selfishness. If going to Heaven means doing whatever you tell yourself is "good," then just about everyone would go to Heaven, because very few people consciously choose to do what _they_ consider to be evil things. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:23:25 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Leath Sheales <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> wrote: > >A quick question. In Fall of The Malakim, the write-up of LA says >(paraphrasing) that Asmodeus has several demons working the airports, >keeping an eye out for angels as they arrive. My question is how the >hell are they doing this? Asmodeus can tune his demons so they can >detect their own Bands, but AFAIK, he can't tune them in to Choirs. >So (apart from the obvious stuff such as extended background checks >which would take longer than the author implies), does anyone have >any idea how this concept (which defines a lot of why LA doesn't have >many angels) could actually work? Nope. It doesn't work at all. Even besides the airport there are highways, so you could have busloads of angels coming in and doing good and no one would ever know. Yes, this is a giant gaping plot hole in FotM. Sorry. I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal death matters not at all to a celestial, and they are basically impossible to detect unless they want to be. Ergo, they shouldn't be acting like characters from a mobster flick -- they should sneak around until detected, at which point they should start acting like characters from *opera*, making huge grandiloquent speeches and over-the-top dramatic gestures. After all, grand dramatic gestures cost a week or two in Trauma at worst. And at best have a chance of impressing the humans enough to get them to flock to your side. This is also good because RPGs are a verbal medium and it gives you a good excuse for your NPC antagonists to show up and talk to (rant at, same thing) the PCs. I mean, admit it -- you always have all these cool lines for your NPCs that you never get to use because the players investigate your baddies and then start a firefight. And no one outside a John Woo flick hold philosophical debates in the middle of a gunfight. But if the PCs and the NPCs know that shooting each other is basically pointless, then they are going to spend much more time trying to talk each other into doing things. Heck, in my game, the Cherub of Blandine worked in the detective agency run by the Impudite of the Game -- that way they could keep an eye on each other and try to get the other to switch sides. (If they whacked the vessel, then the other one comes back in a few days in a body you can't ID, after all.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:09:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Diane J. Donaldson" Subject: IN> IN: Stunning Hello all, Does stunning only happen in the corporeal realm? Or can you be stunned by taking 25% of your soul or mind hits as well? djd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 21:40:24 -0500 From: EDG Subject: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal > death matters not at all to a celestial, and they are basically impossible I'm going to have disagree here. My gaming group - which includes evil Perry and Ben Gabbiani over there - has been discussing this, and we've come to the conlusion that, generally speaking, corporeal death _sucks_, for several reasons. (The group didn't come up with these, I think. But they follow from the discussions.) First, you lose a vessel. A valuable vessel. Most characters, be they PC, DPC, or NPC, only have two or three of these. That's two or three chances to do good on Earth, unless your Superior is feeling generous enough to give you another one - and if you've just lost a vessel by being a) stupid enough to get caught and b) wildly grandiose about dying, they're not likely to be that generous. "You don't mind dying?" *takes away two vessels* "There. That ought to make you reconsider _that_ point of view." Second, you go into Trauma. Trauma, again generally speaking, is Not Fun. Trauma is a time for introspection, a time for dealing with the pain of death. It _hurts_, that's why it's called "Trauma". "A week or two in Trauma" is _hideous_. It feels like _years_; plenty of celestials return to awareness wondering when and where they are. Malakim don't go into Trauma; _that's_ why they're so cavalier about dying. If you make Trauma next to nothing for celestials, you're taking away a large part of the game. Third, even if you are fortunate enough to have a "spare" vessel, or to have your Superior grant you one, you have to reestablish _all_ of your ties on the corporeal plane. You lose your Role. You lose your ties - by the time you get back to Earth, your old vessel is probably either buried or destroyed, because you leave the dead shell behind when you die and if you've got a Role, there's probably _someone_ who knows you enough to dispose of the body, and that means you have to re-establish everything. And a "twin brother who just happens to be in the same line of business" is extremely fishy. Also, if your Superior _is_ nice enough to give you another body to work with, expect to get lectures about it. My first character, Cutstone - who some of you may remember - died rather unfortunately (stepped on a piece of glass in Perry's Disturbance Amplification Room and took the final physical hits needed to kill him), and when he awoke from Trauma (yes, he was a Malakite, but a _brand-new_ Malakite, who'd been around for roughly a week), he was given a two-hour lecture about Heaven, Hell, and death by an Archangel of Death in bunny slippers, then sent back to Earth in the body of a 12-year-old girl. Death did have a sense of humor, though. Said body _was_ a Vessel/6. - -EDG in a ranting mood 'cos he can't think of a paper topic. - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu 159.28.165.120 "I never trust anybody who can't lie." - Caitlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 19:11:57 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Getting a cherub's attention Can anyone suggest any guidelines as to the definition of "danger" as it applies to the "danger sense" of a Cherub who senses that someone he is attuned to is in danger? Two examples which illustrate my question: 1) Malakite of War goes to the home of a Soldier attuned to his co-worker, a Cherub of War, to warn her that she might be stalked. Unknown to the Malakite, the Cherub has already warned the Soldier, so when the Malakite sneaks up to the house, the Soldier assumes he is the stalker and threatens him with a pistol. While the Malakite is trying to explain the true situation, the GM tells the Cherub's player that he has a strong feeling that the Soldier is in danger. (I, playing the Malakite, explain to the GM that the Soldier *isn't* in danger of anything except having the gun taken away from her by force if she really tries to shoot me with it. The GM thinks this still counts.) 2) Cherub of the Sword (very young and innocent, like the "Young Angel" writeups in the APG) arrives at a safe house and meets a Bright Lilim of Trade who has had a few bad experiences with Cherubs of Dominic attuning themselves to her on general principles. The last one of these was in fact a Cherub of the Sword on loan to Dominic, and also the "big brother" of the young Cherub in the safe house. The Bright Lilim wants to find out if the young Cherub is in fact an innocent "cat's paw" of Dominic, by having the resident Seraph talk to the senior Cherub ("Are the reports you get from your brother Cherub being forwarded to Dominic?"), but has to get him there first. She (the Bright Lilim) suggests that she and the young Cherub have a sparring match. (The GM [me] says that this does not constitute danger sufficient to cause the senior Cherub to come rampaging down the nearest Tether of Lawrence in defense of his little brother. The Bright Lilim's response is to ask the Malakite to do the sparring instead.) On the one end of the danger scale, there's the demonic assassin lurking in the ventilation duct. On the other end, there's crossing the street against a red light. I would place the examples above (annoyed Malakite, sparring practice) very low on the scale. (All right, maybe the annoyed Malakite is a little higher, since he could have broken the Soldier's arm taking the gun away from her. But if sparring counts as danger, then how does any angel or Soldier who has a Cherub attuned to him get to do any practicing?) Janet Anderson dorigen@hotmail.com P.S. That story about the servitors of Dominic was absolutely awesome and in my opinion should be posted on the In Nomine Collection next to the article on the Djinn Mindset and other valuable works. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:15:44 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) At 9:40 PM -0500 3/4/99, EDG wrote: >Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal >> death matters not at all to a celestial, and they are basically impossible > > > >I'm going to have disagree here. My gaming group - which includes evil >Perry and Ben Gabbiani over there - has been discussing this, and we've >come to the conlusion that, generally speaking, corporeal death _sucks_, >for several reasons. (The group didn't come up with these, I think. >But they follow from the discussions.) > >First, you lose a vessel. A valuable vessel. Most characters, be they >PC, DPC, or NPC, only have two or three of these. That's two or three >chances to do good on Earth, unless your Superior is feeling generous >enough to give you another one - and if you've just lost a vessel by >being a) stupid enough to get caught and b) wildly grandiose about >dying, they're not likely to be that generous. "You don't mind dying?" >*takes away two vessels* "There. That ought to make you reconsider >_that_ point of view." > We should also remember the other bad thing about death, in a practical sense. You're an angel -- you're running around like you're... well... immortal. You're fighting the war with both hands. And you get -- and I believe this is the divine term -- wasted by a Calabite with good cover. While you're in Trauma and then lobbying for a new vessel... the Loyal Opposition is down on Earth, running positively amuck. Your careful plans, if they had an inkling of them, have been torn asunder. The young visionary you've been protecting has a Shedite in her head and just took a job in a strip club and developed a heroin habit. In the one example we *know* about of someone who's lost their vessel in the vignettes, they were in such a rush to claw their way back, they accepted a three legged dog as a vessel. This to me means vessels are valuable. - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:38:53 -0500 (EST) From: anthoch@earlham.edu Subject: Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Whistling in the Dark wrote: >In the one example we *know* about of someone who's lost their vessel >in the vignettes, they were in such a rush to claw their way back, they >accepted a three legged dog as a vessel. This to me means vessels are >valuable. You've just reminded me of the celestial in the Limbo section of _Heaven & Hell_ who takes a rat with a level or three of Stigmata just to get out of Limbo as quickly as possible; and I didn't even touch on Limbo. ;) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 23:31:42 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) At 10:38 PM -0500 3/4/99, anthoch@earlham.edu wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: >>In the one example we *know* about of someone who's lost their vessel >>in the vignettes, they were in such a rush to claw their way back, they > >>accepted a three legged dog as a vessel. This to me means vessels are > >>valuable. > >You've just reminded me of the celestial in the Limbo section of _Heaven >& Hell_ who takes a rat with a level or three of Stigmata just to get >out of Limbo as quickly as possible; and I didn't even touch on Limbo. >;) > >-EDG You know.... I'm going to have a very hard time keeping from having a bloody rat from wandering through scenes at irregular times from this point forward. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 21:02:03 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) EDG wrote: > First, you lose a vessel. A valuable vessel. Most characters, be they > PC, DPC, or NPC, only have two or three of these. That's two or three > chances to do good on Earth, unless your Superior is feeling generous > enough to give you another one - and if you've just lost a vessel by > being a) stupid enough to get caught and b) wildly grandiose about > dying, they're not likely to be that generous. "You don't mind dying?" > *takes away two vessels* "There. That ought to make you reconsider > _that_ point of view." That is what makes Shedim I run as a ST so damn nasty. They really - -don't- care about their host body and as long as they take a modicum of care, they're never -in- there when the host actually dies. That, and many angels are still leery about killing the 'innocent victim' of a Shedite. It's easy enough to put a gun to the head of a Cherub's charge that you happen to be in, smile and say, "Oh I'll deal with the dissonance...how about -you-?" and calmly walk away. That and it really isn't hard to find another Host in any sort of municipal area before their time is up. This also leads into a question about Kyriotates. Their Dissonance condition involves leaving a host 'worse off' than when you arrived. How does this work as re: animal and -especially- insect swarm hosts? If you attack anyone as a swarm, members of it -will- be killed. How does the Kyriotate deal with this? Does the swarm count as a single entity and as long as you 'compensate' for the time spent it's allright? (Like taking a human host, buying a mess of sugar and leaving it by the ant nest you just came from). Just wondering. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:05:18 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Leath Sheales <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> wrote: > >A quick question. In Fall of The Malakim, the write-up of LA says > >(paraphrasing) that Asmodeus has several demons working the airports, > >keeping an eye out for angels as they arrive. My question is how the > >hell are they doing this? Asmodeus can tune his demons so they can > >detect their own Bands, but AFAIK, he can't tune them in to Choirs. > >So (apart from the obvious stuff such as extended background checks > >which would take longer than the author implies), does anyone have > >any idea how this concept (which defines a lot of why LA doesn't have > >many angels) could actually work? > Nope. It doesn't work at all. Even besides the airport there are highways, > so you could have busloads of angels coming in and doing good and no one > would ever know. Yes, this is a giant gaping plot hole in FotM. Sorry. Even just the airport doesn't work. FotM says he has 3 minor Servitors watching the airport. Well, the ABCNews writeup of LAX says it gets close to 58 million passengers a year. Figure 57.5 million, 365 days a year, the airport active for about 16 hours a day, and you get almost ten thousand passengers an hour. Three seven-Force Servitors are going to be able to spot angels in that crowd? I don't think so.... The only rational I've been able to come up with for why angels wouldn't come to LA any time they've got a mission worth risking being killed on is that if they get caught, not only are they killed but the resident angels known to the demons are killed as well. And IMNSHO, Dominic, at least, would be willing to see that happen in order to verify the soul-status well-being of angels working in a demon-controlled town. > I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal > death matters not at all to a celestial, Corporeal death matters to Celestials because: 1. Vessels are valuable. 2. You can only get new Vessels from a Superior, so if your boss doesn't like your reasons for getting killed you're off Earth duty until he says otherwise. 3. Roles are valuable and a pain to establish. 4. You can't do any work while dead, and the other side will have a field day with you gone. If there are political squabbles on your own side you'll lose out there, too. 5. Trauma, as the name indicates, is painful. Worse, there's always the chance of something going wrong in Trauma and not coming out the other end. (Wrong side intervention.) This is why Archangels use Malakim for combat missions with a really high chance of corporeal death. The Ofanite resonance is of much more use in combat, but a Vesselkilled Malakim is ready for more as soon as he's given a new Vessel, whereas a Vesselkilled Ofanite goes through torture and has a small chance of never recovering. 6. (Where applicable) Even if you have a high Will *and* Essence coming in from the outside, Limbo is bad, and Trauma in Limbo is worse. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:00:37 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Neel Krishnaswami wrote: "I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal death matters not at all to a celestial, and they are basically impossible to detect unless they want to be. Ergo, they shouldn't be acting like characters from a mobster flick -- they should sneak around until detected, at which point they should start acting like characters from *opera*, making huge grandiloquent speeches and over-the-top dramatic gestures. After all, grand dramatic gestures cost a week or two in Trauma at worst. And at best have a chance of impressing the humans enough to get them to flock to your side." The objections have been: - You've annoyed your Superior. - You've wasted a vessel, and vessels are valuable. - You've wasted your Role, and Roles are valuable. - Trauma sucks bigtime. I think all of these are a matter of roleplaying style. Take the first one. How annoyed your Superior is, is strictly a matter of GM interpretation. That, in turn, tends to control how readily the Superior will give you a new vessel. As for the Role, this depends on how good a Role it was to begin with. A cheap Role is a minor loss. If your campaign tends to use expensive, deep-cover Roles, then of course that's different, but if your angel tends to be in town only for a few weeks, live in a hotel, and has a Role that amounts to some paperwork and a plausible cover story, then its loss is probably more of a bureaucratic bother than anything else. As for the pain of Trauma -- well, one side is notoriously selfless and the other side calls everlasting torment home. Yeah, Trauma sucks, but once again it's a matter of roleplay -- how does Trauma compare to the urgency of the mission? I will let Neel defend himself now, but I can imagine some further points. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 04:05:14 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? >I think the Derek Pearcy missed a trick, myself; the fact is that corporeal >death matters not at all to a celestial, I disagree with this in many ways. First of all while trauma could be simply seen as an inconvenience it is still painful to an angel. If it wasn't uncomfortable it wouldn't be called trauma it would be called waiting period or something. Anyone who charges into a combat situation thinking 'I'll just be in trauma for a few weeks' is not properly playing their character. That is the equivalent of jumping off a building and saying 'I'll just be layed up for a month or so with all my broken bones' in other words just plain stupid. Also in terms of angel invading one must remember this is esentially a cold war. If the US wanted we could have sent thousands of troops to invade the Soviet Union during the 50s but that would have started a war that nobody was sure they could win. That is the same case with the Angels in Los Angeles. They could invade and probably win but at what price. Just my two cents Ben, Cherub of Destiny, angel of depression recovery ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 04:09:00 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Re: Corporeal Death (was FotM) Loss of a vessel really can suck even if you do have another one. I got stuck as a cat with stigmata, do you know the difficulty of roleplaying that. Ben COD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:18:13 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> IN: Stunning In a message dated 3/4/99 6:11:38 PM, andie@glue.umd.edu writes: >Hello all, > >Does stunning only happen in the corporeal realm? Or can you be stunned >by taking 25% of your soul or mind hits as well? > > djd If I'm remembering correctly, stunning occurs in all three realms. I think it's in the main rulebook in the combat summary, but don't hold me to that. The rules-lawyer Seraph player used the effect well while in celestial combat with a Balseraph. (Messy fight, that, especially once the Malakite of Michael succeeded on his perception roll...) Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:25:19 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Ben Aldred wrote: > Also in terms of angel invading one must remember this is esentially a > cold war. If the US wanted we could have sent thousands of troops to > invade the Soviet Union during the 50s but that would have started a war > that nobody was sure they could win. That is the same case with the Angels > in Los Angeles. They could invade and probably win but at what price. Just > my two cents Actually, the cold war analogy makes exactly the opposite point. Did the US invade with thousands of troops? No. But they were constantly sending one and two individuals at a time into the Soviet Union, beyond the "official" spies that worked in the embassy. And once Kim Philby was no longer betraying them all, a fair percentage went undetected for at least a period of time. The idea that this cold war mentality is going to keep the number of infiltrators not just small, but non-existent, is one that can not be supported by any historical analogy. Ok, that's not quite true, but I haven't seen an effective Double-Cross system in place in LA. The simple fact about Fall of the Malakim is that it is completely and utterly implausible on a number of fronts. You can either jump in and make sure you don't think about the yawning plot holes, or, like me, you throw up your hands in disgust and hope that the next set of products avoids these kinds of problems. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 11:33:25 -0500 From: Matthew Rice Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? Earl Wajenberg wrote: > The objections have been: > > - You've annoyed your Superior. > > - You've wasted a vessel, and vessels are valuable. > > - You've wasted your Role, and Roles are valuable. > > - Trauma sucks bigtime. > > Earl The most important objection that has been made, IMHO, is that whatever plans you had in the material realm have probably been wrecked by your corporeal death, and the plans that other celestials (and Superiors!) might have had that involved you are ALSO messed up. When seconds count, kicking a key player into Trauma for just a week can screw things up beyond repair. Resources are a secondary concern, comparatively. Superior: "I don't care about your vessel OR your role; what about that little girl you were supposed to protect/corrupt?" Servitor (recently returned from trauma): "I'll get a new vessel and get down/up there right away. How long have I been out?" Superior: (seethe) Matthew Rice ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:48:28 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> FoTM: Asmodeus' Angel Spotters??? > Actually, the cold war analogy makes exactly the opposite point. Did the US > invade with thousands of troops? No. But they were constantly sending one and > two individuals at a time into the Soviet Union, beyond the "official" spies that > worked in the embassy. And once Kim Philby was no longer betraying them all, a > fair percentage went undetected for at least a period of time. The idea that this > cold war mentality is going to keep the number of infiltrators not just small, but > non-existent, is one that can not be supported by any historical analogy. Ok, > that's not quite true, but I haven't seen an effective Double-Cross system in > place in LA. Yah, you're forgetting the biggest problem with this: the moat. Between the US and the Soviet Union there was not only another continent, but this great, big, huge, deep moat which makes invasions a real pain in the behind. You want to invade the US? Gotta get rid of the Atlantic. Here's your straw, better start drinking now! The fact is, as has already been pointed out, you don't need to show up at LAX (or one of the hordes of smaller airports). All you need is a car. Not even a good car. You can just drive down from San Fran, which someone pointed out once is an angelic city so it makes this all DOUBLY pointless, taking your time to admire the coastal scenery, and wander right into LA. It's a long drive, and there might be necessary Coke runs and the car needs to be filled with gas every once in a while, but that is the worst of the obstacles facing the angels. There is no way to keep the angels out of LA, or the LA suburbs, or San Diego, or even any place in Orange County. Oh, maybe out of specific _buildings_. Maybe keep the angels out of the Oscars. But otherwise, it is utterly and completely impossible. The entire concept is laughably ludicrious. I can think of some spiffy ways that it _might_ be possible with Las Vegas with some really good, solid planning. But it's neither as big, and it's surrounded by a small perk: a desert. FotM is a joke. It's an awful supplement. It's definitely the worst one I own, and this is in comparison to some of the old AD&D stuff I have in a box in the back. Debating it is pointless, in my eyes. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 12:08:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Corproeal Death (was FoTM) Matthew Rice wrote: > The most important objection that has been made, IMHO, is that > whatever plans you had in the material realm have probably been > wrecked by your corporeal death, and the plans that other celestials > (and Superiors!) might have had that involved you are ALSO messed up. Okay, that's another objection to add to my list of four. The answer, if I may venture to speak for Neel, is that he isn't (we aren't) saying that celestials should dive into trauma carelessly, to the endangerment of mission, but that in fact the mission is much MORE important than trauma. A celestial takes great care not to die if dying is going to screw up plans, but if dying can be of USE, then a celestial is going to be much more willing to die than a real mortal. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:40:20 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN: Stunning At 9:09 PM -0500 3/4/99, Diane J. Donaldson wrote: >Does stunning only happen in the corporeal realm? Or can you be stunned >by taking 25% of your soul or mind hits as well? I'd let it happen... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:12:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention At 7:11 PM -0800 3/4/99, Janet Anderson wrote: >Can anyone suggest any guidelines as to the definition of "danger" as it >applies to the "danger sense" of a Cherub who senses that someone he is >attuned to is in danger? >Two examples which illustrate my question: > >1) Malakite of War goes to the home of a Soldier attuned to his >co-worker, a Cherub of War, to warn her that she might be stalked. >Unknown to the Malakite, the Cherub has already warned the Soldier, so >when the Malakite sneaks up to the house, the Soldier assumes he is the >stalker and threatens him with a pistol. While the Malakite is trying >to explain the true situation, the GM tells the Cherub's player that he >has a strong feeling that the Soldier is in danger. (I, playing the >Malakite, explain to the GM that the Soldier *isn't* in danger of >anything except having the gun taken away from her by force if she >really tries to shoot me with it. The GM thinks this still counts.) If the PC really and truly doesn't intend to kill the Soldier, then the Soldier is not in "mortal danger" and the Cherub doesn't get an automatic alert. However, if the GM has the Cherub "ping" his resonance (which is technically a thing that the player decides the timing of, but for cases of mild danger, I think it's fine if the GM suggests that the Cherub might want to check) and the Cherub gets a successful CD of 2+, then the Cherub will know that there is a chance the Soldier might get roughed up a little. With a CD of 6, the Cherub knows that the Soldier is in danger of having her gun forcibly removed by the person she's confronting. >2) Cherub of the Sword (very young and innocent, like the "Young Angel" >writeups in the APG) arrives at a safe house and meets a Bright Lilim of >Trade who has had a few bad experiences with Cherubs of Dominic attuning >themselves to her on general principles. The last one of these was in >fact a Cherub of the Sword on loan to Dominic, and also the "big >brother" of the young Cherub in the safe house. The Bright Lilim wants >to find out if the young Cherub is in fact an innocent "cat's paw" of >Dominic, by having the resident Seraph talk to the senior Cherub ("Are >the reports you get from your brother Cherub being forwarded to >Dominic?"), but has to get him there first. She (the Bright Lilim) >suggests that she and the young Cherub have a sparring match. (The GM >[me] says that this does not constitute danger sufficient to cause the >senior Cherub to come rampaging down the nearest Tether of Lawrence in >defense of his little brother. The Bright Lilim's response is to ask >the Malakite to do the sparring instead.) If the little brother Cherub is not in danger of being killed, big brother Cherub won't get an auto-alert. (If some accident happens and little Cherub is about to crack his skull against something, then big Cherub gets a flash of DIRE DANGER and then a note of dissonance.) If he pings his resonance, he gets that little Cherub is sparring with someone -- and Cherubim of Laurence ought to be cool with that. >On the one end of the danger scale, there's the demonic assassin lurking >in the ventilation duct. On the other end, there's crossing the street >against a red light. I would place the examples above (annoyed >Malakite, sparring practice) very low on the scale. (All right, maybe >the annoyed Malakite is a little higher, since he could have broken the >Soldier's arm taking the gun away from her. But if sparring counts as >danger, then how does any angel or Soldier who has a Cherub attuned to >him get to do any practicing?) With some Cherubim, they *don't*. With more military Cherubim, they get a mildly twitchy Cherub who'd *like* to be there and keep an eagle eye on them. Also note that auto-alert of MORTAL DANGER doesn't include direction. It's *not* the same as a check digit of 6. The Cherub still has to ping its resonance to get any more information. BTW, there's a couple of Cherubim at Maya's Fiat Justitia game (www.homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html) -- including at least two who are attuned to the "Trouble" of Creation. (Bright Lilim, ex-Kobalite.) I think Maya handles the Cherub attunement thing well, so you can look for examples there. (Some useful examples of Cherubim and attunements are: Week 1, Day 2: "Chephirah : Failure" Week 1, Day 3: "Fireworks" Week 1, Day 4: "Fractures," Freedom and Judgment," "Tea and Propaganda" Week 1, Day 5: "Telephones," "A Quiet Basement" Week 3, Day 2: "Let Justice Be Done," "Burning Bright" Week 3, Day 3: "De Profundus" ) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:28:34 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention > BTW, there's a couple of Cherubim at Maya's Fiat Justitia game > (www.homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html) -- including > at least two who are attuned to the "Trouble" of Creation. (Bright > Lilim, ex-Kobalite.) I think Maya handles the Cherub attunement > thing well, so you can look for examples there. At least two? Who are the other ones? And should we tell them that the Lilim is once again vehicle enabled, and about to spread pain and suffering across the entire DC area instead of only in designated spots? That is, until Judgment realizes it loaned a car to someone who charged it for a bar tab which is the size of a small country's defense budget.... (Chephirah's response was to, more or less, put her head in her hands and fear. :P ) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:45:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Getting a cherub's attention At 1:28 PM -0500 3/5/99, Emily Dresner wrote: >> [...] including >> at least two who are attuned to the "Trouble" of Creation. [...] > >At least two? Who are the other ones? Ummmm.... Who knows who wandered by while the Lilim was in the Council Spires? I mean, it would probably take a half-dozen to have a *prayer* of keeping the Trouble out of trouble. >And should we tell them that the Lilim is once again vehicle enabled, and >about to spread pain and suffering across the entire DC area instead of >only in designated spots? That is, until Judgment realizes it loaned >a car to someone who charged it for a bar tab which is the size of a small >country's defense budget.... (And people wonder why Cherubim of Judgment *don't have to worry* about the Subject of Investigations!) Actually, I think you only have to worry at the end of the week or the beginning of the next one. After all, sometime around then is when Dominique drops by to check on how things are doing. - --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 #1134 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.