From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 17 16:55:35 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 QAA09238 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:55:35 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA19979 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:53:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:53:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199905172153.QAA19979@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 #1228 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, May 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1228 In this digest: IN> Origins, Plural Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality IN> Book binding Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey IN> Bouncy bouncy! Re: IN> Loose Canons IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide IN> Re: Loose Canons Re: IN> Loose Canons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:41:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Origins, Plural David Edelstein wrote: "I'm speaking of strict Biblical creationism -- I know many liberal theists reconcile the two theories by stating that evolution is a process instigated by God." (My own impression is that this, or a similar position, is also the main view in the middle-of-the-road theist camp, but that's not my main topic here.) In Nomine invites some kind of interweave between the Genesis accounts and the scientific view of human origins. For people who would like to make variations on the canonical version, or add detail to it, here are some menus of choices one can make composing your own interweave: Adam was created by: a) being formed from clay b) resurrecting a deceased hominid to new, more spiritual life c) transforming a living hominid into a new, more spiritual one d) being born as a baby to pre-spiritual hominids e) starting life as a normal hominid and having a "conversion experience" with no physical alterations Adam was raised/educated by: a) direct divine inspiration b) angels c) hominids Adam was: a) the first member of a new biological species or sub-species b) not the first member, in any biological or physical way Adam's physical race was: a) Australopithecus or some other pre-Homo hominid b) Homo erectus or some other pre-sapiens human c) Homo sapiens neandertalensis (a.k.a. Homo neandertalensis) d) Homo sapines sapiens The following choices will be constrainted somewhat by species selection: Assuming that Eden was washed away in the Flood, and that the Flood was not global, Eden was located in: a) the Mediterranean basin b) the Black Sea basin c) the Persian Gulf basin d) the Red Sea basin e) none of the above; fill in the blank: __________ The "Great Leap Forward" of about 30,000 years ago, when Cro-Magnons began producing lots of art and artifacts: a) is a pre-Adamite event b) is an Antedeluvian event c) is after the Flood but before Babel d) is after Babel Pre-Adamite hominids: a) went extinct naturally b) were exterminated by the children of Adam c) interbred with the children of Adam, so that in short order all humanity had Adamite ancestry d) some combination of the above Essay question: What relationship do pre-Adamit human/hominid races have to Ethereals? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:47:28 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality At 01:45 AM 5/17/99 -0700, you wrote: > Of course! As with everything within the realm of human experience. *grump* What John said. *shakes his tiny fist* >Nani? What's that? Are you referring to the idea that everything is >relative to the point of view of the individual? What's that got to do >with White Wolf? Mage: the Ascension. Paradigm is everything. It certainly wasn't new when Mage took it up, but it was Mage that brought it into the gaming world's demesnes. >Valid means correct/right in the eyes of authority, logically sound, or >well-grounded in evidence; applied to that which cannot be objected to >law, logic, the facts, etc . . . >As law, logic and the facts are all subjective because they are labels >granted by the human mind, none necessarily conform to the Truth and are >therefore objective, rather all are subjective. "Correct/right in the eyes of authority" is only a secondary meaning of valid; a truer word for that would be "acceptable", as in "acceptable evidence". "Logically sound" is just another way of saying "well-grounded in evidence". (I would also argue that law can absolutely be objected to, as can some logic; we don't feel the Earth move but we see the sun move from horizon to horizon, therefore the sun is rotating around the earth. Perfectly logically sound, but incorrect.) Your "labels" comment grates, too - facts aren't labels. We assign labels to facts, but to name something is not to define it; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It's all well and good to tell me I'm labeling when I call a certain unit of distance a "mile"; it doesn't change the fact that there are X many of them between where I am now and where you are now. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. Am I? >This is why the Elohim get the shaft. They aren't plugged into the Truth >the way Seraphim are, therefore they can never be purely objective and are >instead locked into a tortured subjective viewpoint. >Of course, they can *think* that they're being objective, but that's a >subjective point of view. I don't think so. "Objective" in the case of the Elohim does not mean "acting on the Truth"; only the Seraphim can do that. What the Elohim do is take every viewpoint into consideration before acting. They are the ultimate representatives of Occam's Razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution that satisfies every condition is the correct solution." Elohim don't give in to subjectivity. That doesn't mean that they have to be _objective_. >But the laws of physics have been rewritten over and over again as each >has been outdated by new evidence which has required it. If the last >theory didn't explain all the evidence then it must not have been >objectively correct. Is light made up of waves or particles or waves of >particles? We can't be sure - physics *is* subjective! In the same way that Elohim are subjective, yes. However, IMO that's not being subjective. Physics - as all sciences - creates rules which are believed to govern the natural world. These aren't arbitrary; they're made by taking all of the available evidence into account. When new evidence comes to light, physics revises its rules to encompass that evidence. It's as objective as it can possibly be. Thus, we define it to be objective. - -EDG sorry, Perry. You don't write back to me, this is what you get. ^_- - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:50:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> Book binding What happened to that special kind of "lay-flat" binding that SJG started using a couple of years (or so) ago? I've got one or two books with that binding, and I thought it was really good... did it turn out to be too expensive or what? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:10:09 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) wrote: > >On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:04:17PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >Well, if people _want_ the full results -- I don't see why not. They're >> >anon. [...] And yes, I was startled too. >> >> This list is *weird*; I always thought that historicals sold poorly. >> >Don't blame it on me. I didn't know about the poll beforehand. (And if I >were to vote for a historical setting, I'd have gone for the Thirty Years >War.) This makes me sure you've read this, but for the benefit of those who haven't: Go read Michael Moorcock's _The War Hound and the World's Pain_. During the Thirty Years' War, the Devil hires a German mercenary to find the Holy Grail. The book gets steadily less predictable, moving from a simple McGuffin hunt into a meditation on the nature of God, faith, evil, and redemption. Definitely worth checking out. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:27:43 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >Don't blame it on me. I didn't know about the poll beforehand. (And if I > >were to vote for a historical setting, I'd have gone for the Thirty Years > >War.) > > This makes me sure you've read this, but for the benefit of those who > haven't: > > Go read Michael Moorcock's _The War Hound and the World's Pain_. > For the record, I haven't read anything by Michael Moorcock. The reasons I think the Thirty Years War makes a good setting are manifold: First, it's one of the more significant wars in Europe's history, and has, I think, some claim to being a world war. The fact that much of the impetus for the war came from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation just makes it more interesting as a setting. It allows one to play with the influence of Celestials over history at important turning points in history, and show the dark side of the likes of Janus, Michael and David without making them support the Nazis or something equally dubious. Second, it's at an interesting point in Celestial politics. Raphael, Legion and Genubath are recently deceased, and Prince Valefor (and Haagenti?) have taken new thrones. There's a lot of scope for intrigue based scenarios in Hell as wel as on Earth in this period. Thirdly, it's not a time period I've seen any other game take on before, so you're not really in competition with established historical games. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "It is an impressive thing to hear a helpless woman damned in every item of her life, every corner of her soul. For good reason, no one accused by the Temple has ever been found innocent." Ser Visal's Tale, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:41:27 +0200 From: "Keiv." Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine On Mon, 17 May 1999 06:14:18 -0400, David Edelstein wrote: |>The distinction can be a fine one, but strong atheists are more likely to |>be the Madelyne Murray O'Haire types who rail against religion and insist |>that any religious beliefs whatsoever are simply, objectively wrong, and |>stupid. Weak atheists, like me, can accept that you can't disprove God or |>Heaven, and are willing to be shown evidence for same (making the |>distinction between a weak atheist and an agnostic blurry at times), but |>basically don't think it makes sense to believe in things without evidence. actually, what you're describing here as atheism (not the 'weak' one) is actually antitheism (when someone denies the very existance of god or whatever). atheism is more along the lines of: 'i don't believe in this/that, mainly because there's no evidence to it. just my $.03 for you all. Keiv. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 99 11:43:42 CDT From: redneck@detnet.com (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey >On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >Don't blame it on me. I didn't know about the poll beforehand. (And if I >> >were to vote for a historical setting, I'd have gone for the Thirty Years >> >War.) I was surprised to see the results, too, but I'm kind of glad to see the Civil War IN placed so high... if for no other reason than that I could maybe write it... }:-{D Redneck (history buff) Kris Overstreet's email has changed... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/milkmaid.html - The Magnificent Milkmaid ... but his sig hasn't -- redneck@detnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:54:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey On Mon, 17 May 1999, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> >Don't blame it on me. I didn't know about the poll beforehand. (And if I > >> >were to vote for a historical setting, I'd have gone for the Thirty Years > >> >War.) > > I was surprised to see the results, too, but I'm kind of glad to see the > Civil War IN placed so high... if for no other reason than that I could > maybe write it... }:-{D I'm less glad for it, though, simply because the US Civil War is rather less interesting to us non-Americans. I'd much prefer the Thirty Years War, with Gustavus Adolphus an' everything. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 13:33:51 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Bouncy bouncy! If anyone's received bounce-messages for my account (Hi Beth!), there was a routing problem internally when Stigmata (the old Mail machine) migrated to Roulette (the new Mail machine) here at shiny, happy annotations.com. All is well now. Thank you, and have a good day. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 13:37:46 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons In a message dated 5/14/99 1:39:49 PM, earlw@mc.com writes: >We often hear, on the list, of various additions and departures >people make to canonical IN. I'm interested, and I think others >would be as well, in hearing about this a little more systematically. > >Could the GMs and GM-wannabe's on the list post their variations >and additions to canon, everything in one message, instead of >mentioning the variations individually under various threads? > >Thanks. > >Earl > You asked for it: First rule change: Ignore the combat section. Use Paranoia's Theatric Combat System, as modified for the d666 mechanic. Second rule change: Perception roles can be made to tell celestials. As the check digit goes up, what you know goes up: CD: 1 Yep, they're celestial. 2 They're an angel/demon. 3-4 Their band/choir is _____. 5 Their celestial form looks like ______. 6 Their superior is _____. This is true in celestial or ethereal or corporeal form. Note that certain band/choir resonances are now less useful than previously. Third change: Disturbance is a plot device, not a mechanic. (I, as game master, determine who hears what, without relying on perception rolls.) Fourth change: Demonic vessels are subject to destruction by Holy Water, Consecrated Hosts, and blessed objects. (Turns black and sizzles destruction...) Fifth change: Dead vessels dissolve into air. Sixth change: Humans are able to consecrate things, celestials are not. Mystic workings (Ala Masonic rites or Qabbalistic or Wiccan ceremony) are effective against celestials. I came up with a set of Mystic rules based on the Sorcery rules, but they went unused and have since been lost. Seventh change: Starting characters get a free superior attunement based on their character's superior. Eighth change: The contrast and brightness knobs are both turned all the way up. Ninth change: Relievers can carry corporeal materials equal to their forces in pounds, invisibly. In addition, a lot of the politics are different. Yves and Michael are strong allies for instance, and Eli is on Walkabout, not exile. Rafael is Archangel of Humanity (Mercurian), and Gabriel isn't as crazy as many people think she is. I used the Archangel of Archives as well. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things, but those should do for now... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:13:52 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 06:14:18 -0400 >From: David Edelstein >Subject: IN> Atheism in In Nomine > > >>>I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a tremendous > >amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out there. >That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there.<<< > >Depends on what you mean by atheism. "Strong atheists" believe that there >is *nothing* we can't sense, period. "Weak atheists" (a term I dislike, as >I've mentioned before, but it is the "official" term) believe there is no >evidence for souls, afterlives, God, etc., and therefore no reason to >believe in them. It doesn't take "faith" to not believe in something I see >no reason to believe in, any more than it takes faith to not believe in the >Easter Bunny or pink space aliens living in my coffee. Weak Atheism, by that definition, sounds a heck of a lot like a variant of agnosticism to me. >In Nomine relevance: In In Nomine, obviously, atheists are wrong. Can they >still go to Heaven? I wanted to say they're the ones most likely to >"unravel" at death, neither reincarnating nor going on to Heaven or Hell, >in the CPG....but it was decided to leave such things CDaU. I would say that an atheist who achieved his Destiny would go to Heaven, and an atheist who achived his Fate would go to Hell, just like everyone else. In fact, I don't think Spiritual Belief has anything to do with IN Heaven and Hell as defined -- Destiny and Fate (and their overriding concepts "selfless" and "selfish") are the really significant points. > >Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >would go in the LS. Hmmph!) Awwwwwww.... I love Word-bound. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:37:09 -0400 From: "Kelly W. West" Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >would go in the LS. Hmmph!) > Any chance of the writeups being posted here or on the web? Kelly W. West (Demon of Insatiable Curiosity) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:26:23 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling >Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:46:23 -0400 >From: EDG >Subject: Re: IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling > >At 01:08 AM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > >All right, we know that Words become innate to the Wordbound. A part of > >their nature. To my knowledge Words can't be stripped of a Wordbound > >Celestial without tearing them apart. And we know that an Angelic Word > >cannot be held by a Demon and vice versa. > >What do you mean by "Angelic Word"? Keep in mind that Gabriel and Belial >both have the same Word, it's just that they embody different aspects of it. But it's known that Demonic Words come from the Demonic Language, and Angelic Words from the purer Celestial Language that they came from. Gabriel and Belial have the same Word, but in two different languages. It's still the same Word, but one side's the Angelic and the other's the Demonic. >I think that there are certain Words that an angel simply wouldn't petition >for... the same goes for demons, except that I can see Lucifer giving a >demon a typically "angelic" Word just because it amuses him (I believe >there's even an example of this, but I don't remember where or what Word...). In all things there are two sides... but selfless words aren't likely to be given to Demons unless they can pervert the intent -- which is possible, because the Demonic Language is slippery (remember the lesson of the Demon of Spam). > >So... when a Wordbound falls/redeems, does he retain an aspect of his Word > >until he's given a new one? And if he isn't given a new one, can his > >Forces survive the loss of Word? > >This is a purely opinionated and non-canon answer. > >The Word-Binding goes the same way as the Resonance; the celestial's Forces >simply no longer support it. They twist in such a way that the Word can't >exist in its current form. As the Angelic Resonance is part and parcel of >being a full angel, it warps _with_ the Forces; since the Word is not, it's >simply stripped off. Mm. I don't care for this. It's one thing to lose Resonance and Attunements et al. But a Word is something innate, a rewriting of the Symphony within the Angel/Demon itself. You become your opposite when you Fall, but a Wordbound Angel is something different than a Servitor Angel. The resulting Demon shouldn't be the same as a Servitor Demon -- at the *least* they should be in flux. >Another possible explanation would be this, although it may only hold for >Superior-type celestials: beings who hold Words are said to have >Word-Forces; that is, Forces which are dedicated to the Word itself and not >to that particular angel. These Forces are the last to be destroyed in any >celestial conflict, and if the celestial in question changes sides, the >Word-Forces don't; they simply separate from the Falling angel or Redeeming >demon and sent back to the relevant Superior. > >I kinda like the second one, actually; I think I'm going to make it a house >rule. Give me a day or so to write it up, and I'll post it if you like. Mm. Here's my variant on that.... When a Celestial gets a Word, his Celestial Forces are remade into Word-Forces. They echo with his Word and cherish it and promote it. When that Celestial Falls or Redeems, those Forces are radically changed, but still ring with a Word -- now a Word in perversion. The Word needs to *be* Perverted for the Celestial to survive -- a Redeemed Demon's Celestial Forces need to be rewritten into something Angelic, or else the Angel will at best Yo-Yo, at worst his Celestial Forces will destroy themselves in conflict, leaving a Remnant. A Superior could resolve that conflict and keep the new Angel in balance until his suitability could be determined, and then if suitable a Word could be granted. If not suitable... well, better to be destroyed than to Fall.... The same is true of a newly fallen Demon -- but even as Demon Princes vie for the Freshly Fallen with great zeal, they vie even more for the formerly Wordbound, showing how that Word that the new Demon now hates can be turned into something appropriately Demonic under their care. Lucifer is uncommonly gracious about ensuring these new Wordbound work out, in part because the perversion of an Angelic Word appeals to his sense of irony. That's just my take, and I'm not sure it couldn't use more fleshing out. I await more comments. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:29:37 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) At 12:35 PM -0700 5/14/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anders Gabrielsson >> >> >> >Elohim look a bit like Greys, I suppose... could >> >be scary or not, depending on if you believe you've been abducted or not. >> >>Hmmmm, maybe all those stories of alien abductions are actually based on >>peoples' memories of encountering Elohim in the Marches? > >Elohim who strap them down and perform painful experiments on them >that leave scars in the real world as well as bits of metal in their >body? Nightmares maybe. Now now. Objectivity isn't always pretty. "This one's Destiny is to encourage others to believe in a wider world than they have encountered to date. Objectively speaking, we should encourage that. But how to make it memorable?" "Well...." - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:28:55 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 01:37 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >First rule change: Ignore the combat section. Use Paranoia's Theatric Combat >System, as modified for the d666 mechanic. I'll agree that combat needs to be modified, but I don't recall Paranoia's Theatric Combat rules, so I guess I'll have to look them up. >Second rule change: Perception roles can be made to tell celestials. As the Nitpick: "rolls" :) >check digit goes up, what you know goes up: >CD: >1 Yep, they're celestial. >2 They're an angel/demon. >3-4 Their band/choir is _____. >5 Their celestial form looks like ______. >6 Their superior is _____. I don't like this; a big part of a lot of games is not knowing who's celestial and who isn't. Gryphon's ".45 Caliber Angel" demonstrates this wonderfully. (If he's still on the list, I'm sure he can direct you to the website; I don't remember the address off the top of my head, though it's probably on eyrie.net somewhere.) >This is true in celestial or ethereal or corporeal form. Note that certain >band/choir resonances are now less useful than previously. Nitpick: celestials don't have an Ethereal Form, afaik. :) >Third change: Disturbance is a plot device, not a mechanic. (I, as game >master, determine who hears what, without relying on perception rolls.) This takes away some of the danger inherent in being a celestial on the corporeal plane; I'd rather just fudge dice rolls if the characters need to hear/not hear Disturbances. >Fourth change: Demonic vessels are subject to destruction by Holy Water, >Consecrated Hosts, and blessed objects. (Turns black and sizzles >destruction...) Does this work the other way? (i.e. unholy items harm Angelic vessels) >Fifth change: Dead vessels dissolve into air. I wouldn't use this, myself, although that's just because I like making players deal with clean-up. It's a neat plot seed, though (characters kill a series of people, then watch as the bodies dissolve into thin air before they hit the ground...). >Sixth change: Humans are able to consecrate things, celestials are not. >Mystic workings (Ala Masonic rites or Qabbalistic or Wiccan ceremony) are >effective against celestials. I came up with a set of Mystic rules based on >the Sorcery rules, but they went unused and have since been lost. What do you mean by "consecrate"? Does this refer back to #4? >Seventh change: Starting characters get a free superior attunement based on >their character's superior. Again something I wouldn't use, considering they already get their Superior's Choir/Band Attunement for free. I might let them trade, though, taking either the Choir/Band Attunement or spending five CP and taking a Servitor Attunement instead. >Eighth change: The contrast and brightness knobs are both turned all the way >up. Huh? >Ninth change: Relievers can carry corporeal materials equal to their forces >in pounds, invisibly. I thought this was already the case. Where are the existing rules for this? - -EDG still working... - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:49:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons Mark can answer for himself, of course, but... EDG wrote: > Nitpick: celestials don't have an Ethereal Form, afaik. :) If I recall correctly, on the canonical Ethereal plane, anyone looks like anything they want to. >> Third change: Disturbance is a plot device, not a mechanic. (I, >> as game master, determine who hears what, without relying on >> perception rolls.) > > This takes away some of the danger inherent in being a celestial > on the corporeal plane; I'd rather just fudge dice rolls if the > characters need to hear/not hear Disturbances. I guess I don't see a lot of difference between fudging dice rolls and using a pure plot device. As to danger, doesn't that depend on how nasty the GM decides to be with his plot device? He could make it *worse* than the mechanical version. It would also make it harder to predict how likely your own Disturbance is to be noticed. >> Fifth change: Dead vessels dissolve into air. > > I wouldn't use this, myself, although that's just because I like > making players deal with clean-up. You can also give annoyance to players who have to explain where Big Bad Mr. X. vanished to, or why he left his clothes in a neat pile, right near that bullet hole in the wall. This is likelier to be a problem if X was on your own side, but both sides are supposed to keep the War secret. >> Eighth change: The contrast and brightness knobs are both turned >> all the way up. > > Huh? At one point, these were metaphors used on the list for style of play. A "high contrast" game, one with the contrast knob turned way up, was one where angels and demons were very different in behavior, really righteous or nice, really wicked or nasty. A "high brightness" game was one where Heaven itself is in no obvious danger, and Hell is fairly clearly doomed, the main question being how much humanity is it going to take with it. A low contrast game is one where angels' moral surperiority is much less clear, and a low brightness game is one where Hell looks like winning. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:22:23 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons In a message dated 5/17/99 12:31:11 PM, edg@gamingoutpost.com writes: >At 01:37 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>First rule change: Ignore the combat section. Use Paranoia's Theatric >>Combat System, as modified for the d666 mechanic. > >I'll agree that combat needs to be modified, but I don't recall Paranoia's >Theatric Combat rules, so I guess I'll have to look them up. > The central concept is fast-pace, arm-waving mania. >>Second rule change: Perception roles can be made to tell celestials. As >the > >Nitpick: "rolls" :) > Yes. >>check digit goes up, what you know goes up: >I don't like this; a big part of a lot of games is not knowing who's >celestial and who isn't. Gryphon's ".45 Caliber Angel" demonstrates this >wonderfully. (If he's still on the list, I'm sure he can direct you to >the website; I don't remember the address off the top of my head, though it's >probably on eyrie.net somewhere.) > The point of this rule was to eliminate the Cold War/World of Darkness angst which can result from the current lack of perception rules. Also, it allowed a group of angels to converge on a huge disturbance and discover they were all on the same side. (Which is how I got the group together in the first place...) >>This is true in celestial or ethereal or corporeal form. Note that certain >>band/choir resonances are now less useful than previously. > >Nitpick: celestials don't have an Ethereal Form, afaik. :) > The Ethereal form looks either like a celestial's Vessel or their Celestial form, but it can be modified in appearance with a successful will roll. (I think that's in The Marches...) >>Third change: Disturbance is a plot device, not a mechanic. (I, as game >>master, determine who hears what, without relying on perception rolls.) > >This takes away some of the danger inherent in being a celestial on the >corporeal plane; I'd rather just fudge dice rolls if the characters need >to hear/not hear Disturbances. > I'm not sure I understand this objection. Clarify, please? >>Fourth change: Demonic vessels are subject to destruction by Holy Water, >>Consecrated Hosts, and blessed objects. (Turns black and sizzles >>destruction...) > >Does this work the other way? (i.e., unholy items harm Angelic vessels) > Yes, but do you know how *hard* it is to get a viable Black Mass for Unholy Water or Corrupted Host? (I'll give you a hint: the base ingredients are one virgin, one defrocked and excommunicated priest, Consecrated Host and Wine, Holy Water, a congregation of at least two other people, both Hellsworn, and a location in which to hold the orgy.) >>Sixth change: Humans are able to consecrate things, celestials are not. >>Mystic workings (Ala Masonic rites or Qabbalistic or Wiccan ceremony) >>are effective against celestials. I came up with a set of Mystic rules based >>on the Sorcery rules, but they went unused and have since been lost. > >What do you mean by "consecrate"? Does this refer back to #4? > Yes. Perhaps the most amusing example of this was the Wiccan who (while desperately trying to defend herself) accidentally sliced a demon with her athame. When his arm dissolved into a puddle of black goo which then evaporated into a sulfurous mist, she was startled to say the least. >>Seventh change: Starting characters get a free superior attunement based >>on their character's superior. > >Again something I wouldn't use, considering they already get their >Superior's Choir/Band Attunement for free. I might let them trade, though, >taking either the Choir/Band Attunement or spending five CP and taking >a Servitor Attunement instead. > This was actually accidental. I let the first set of players do it, because I misread the character creation rules, so it became standard for future players out of a sense of fairness. >>Eighth change: The contrast and brightness knobs are both turned all the >>way up. > >Huh? > This is actually from terminology Beth (McCoy) uses. Contrast is the amount of difference between Good and Evil. Brightness is the quotient of Good in the world as a whole. In my campaign, for instance, Andrephalus' favorite activity to encourage is child rape. Kobal and Saminga are close friends. Nybbas could have been behind the tragedy in Littleton, CO. On the other hand, Michael is the noble warrior of Right, and supports Dominic and Yves in their respective efforts. Dominic is not a paranoid, he's a micromanager with a close line on Truth. On the brightness scale, Hell is beaten, but they're still fighting hard for sheer survival. >>Ninth change: Relievers can carry corporeal materials equal to their forces >>in pounds, invisibly. > >I thought this was already the case. Where are the existing rules for >this? > No clue. I thought it was a change, but it might not be. Mark >-EDG > still working... > > >-- >EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination >anthoch@earlham.edu >www.gamingoutpost.com >www.insanitymag.com > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:30:59 +0100 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine On Mon, 17 May 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Weak Atheism, by that definition, sounds a heck of a lot like a > variant of agnosticism to me. Weak Atheist: I don't believe in God, because my beliefs are based on my observations, and I have made no observations indicating the existence of God. Strong Atheist: I don't believe in God because the idea is patently false. Agnostic [Version 1]: I believe that nothing that could happen to me on Earth will convince me one way or the other. Agnostic [Version 2]: I believe that the only experience which could cause me to believe in God is direct revelation. Agnostic [Version 3]: I have never seen evidence to convince me one way or the other, and therefore keep an open mind. I don't think an agnostic[3] is technically agnostic, but common usage is that [3] is agnosticism. I don't know technical terms to distinguish 1 and 2. In practice, the weak atheist and agnostics 1 and 2 are almost indistiguishable, although obviously agnostic 1 is far more likely to make general statements along the lines that believers in God are deluded, even if they're right. Steve. - ------ War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:08:23 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide At 11:47 AM -0500 5/15/99, Amo Nympham wrote: >I just recently bought my APG, have only read it once, even only owned it >about 3 weeks. now the binding is completely trashed, the cover is falling >off and pages are slipping. has anyone else had this problem with the book? >is this a somewhat common thing (like it is with Tor novels) or did I just >get a bum copy? Actually, there's someone who's trying to track fragile SJ Games books, and I'm forwarding this to him -- he's trying to see if it's related to certain printers, or is random. (My APG is doing pretty well; my Night Music is dubious so I never crack the covers...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:44:32 +0100 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: IN> Re: Loose Canons I've just HTML'ed the basics of my alternative game mechanics, wot I wrote. I'm afraid it's a dice pool system, but hopefully not as lame as WW. Haven't done the combat rules yet, but there are also my ideas on falling, and some draft stuff about superiors, and the basic abilities of such and such a weird thing. Do Saints have hearts? Can Hellsworn summon Demon Princes? My answers, not guaranteed to match canon, are mostly in there. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~linc0471/InNomine/symphony/rules.html Steve. - ------ An idiot with a computer is a faster, better idiot. - - Rich Julius ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:51:39 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Loose Canons At 04:22 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: > The point of this rule was to eliminate the Cold War/World of Darkness angst >which can result from the current lack of perception rules. Also, it allowed >a group of angels to converge on a huge disturbance and discover they were >all on the same side. (Which is how I got the group together in the first >place...) I can see that. On the other hand, the lack of perception rules can lead to wonderful situations with humans (non-Soldiers, even) bluffing their way into groups of celestials simply by being in the right place at the right time and picking up on the lingo pretty quickly. >The Ethereal form looks either like a celestial's Vessel or their Celestial >form, but it can be modified in appearance with a successful will roll. (I >think that's in The Marches...) No fair referring to books I don't have. ;) I was under the impression that a celestial in the Ethereal plane looked like its current Vessel, but that it didn't have an Ethereal _Form_, per se. *shrug* Semantics. >I'm not sure I understand this objection. Clarify, please? I guess I object to the term "plot device". The way I read that, it would be less dangerous to be a celestial on the corporeal plane because you wouldn't make disturbance unless the GM decreed it. Too, making it a GM's tool just removes another Perception rule. I suppose if you already know who's a celestial, though, these arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. >Yes, but do you know how *hard* it is to get a viable Black Mass for Unholy >Water or Corrupted Host? (I'll give you a hint: the base ingredients are one >virgin, one defrocked and excommunicated priest, Consecrated Host and Wine, >Holy Water, a congregation of at least two other people, both Hellsworn, and >a location in which to hold the orgy.) Regardless, it can be done, and angels get damaged by these things. >This was actually accidental. I let the first set of players do it, because I >misread the character creation rules, so it became standard for future >players out of a sense of fairness. Ah. *nods* - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1228 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.