From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Dec 24 00:43:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06375 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:43:08 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id AAA14899 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:42:24 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:42:24 -0600 Message-Id: <200012240642.AAA14899@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 #1987 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 Sunday, December 24 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1987 In this digest: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine Re: IN> Unicorns in In Nomine IN> Who let that hedgehog in here? Re: IN> Use of words Re: IN> Merry Christmas and somesuch! Re: IN> Merry Christmas and somesuch! Re: IN> Cleverest use of attunements... Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch! IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> Angels in hell IN> Editor nonsense - don't read unless you're a grammarphile (was Re: IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch!) Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> Editor nonsense - don't read unless you're a grammarphile (was Re: IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:23:33 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine > >oh. So, in theory, your Essence Pool in infinite, it's the amount of > >essence that you can "control" which is the issue (in GIN). > >Well, not precisely. The base cost of the advantage is the ability to >control whatever Essence you have, and the final cost includes the >size of the pool as well. (There's also an upper limit based on the GURPS >HT stat, which functions roughly similar to how Forces limit it in IN >proper.) >The advantage just lumps the two things together, since they never appear >separately in GURPS IN. Mundanes have an Essence pool, but it costs them >no points, since they can't actually use it for anything directly. >(The "mundanes spend Essence unconsciously" stuff is still present, >but mechanically it's subsumed into the normal dice results -- partly this >reflects the fact that mundanes aren't totally pathetic at their major >skills in GIN, due to the bell-curve centerpoint offset between the two >systems.) Makes sense. GURPS is a LOT more normal-people friendly. (duh) >The size of people's Essence pools couldn't be infinite, or Impudites >would run rampant. (No Andre jokes, please....) Most individuals would >have the same Essence in GURPS IN as in IN proper, though it can vary a >little more for mundanes. Which is nice . . . but meaningless except for Impudites. > >>(Frankly, if you know IN and want to stick to that, you just give out > >>the basic numbers and pitch the 2/3rds HT suggestion. We only stuck that > >>in so that Soldiers wouldn't go wonked to heck and gone.) > > > >??? 2/3 HT? OH! (2/3)14=9 (rounding up) gotcha. :) > >Actually, it's rounded down, but I assumed most GIN celestials would >blow 10 points on +1 HT to get their Essence level to 9. Rounded down? suckage. oh, well, I'll just have to House Rule it. > >Ooooh . . . What about Discord? > >All the standard (main IN book) ones should be in there. Some of them >translate a little weirdly to GURPS mechanics, because we kept the >6 levels, and most GURPS disads don't have that many levels. Kept all six levels? Goodness. Well, I look forward to reading those rules as well. :) >[my comment on G:Supers point-balance problems] > >I've never really had any problems/complaints from my Supers players. > >I dunno. > >As a playtester, I had a lot of problems with it. But that's off-topic >here, mostly. Yeppers. What about the point cost for being able to > >switch vessels, let alone owning more than one vessel (I imagine the >first > >one is free, and would negate the "Vesselless" disad, akin to the No > >Physical Body disad from G:PSI) > >The ability to enter a vessel or host is inherent in the Celestial Form >advantage, and doesn't cost additional points. Good way to fix that. To preserve some of the >flavor of IN mechanics, vessels *always* cost points in GURPS IN. To >completely *lack* a vessel is a disad, and normally a temporary one for >one for PCs, so we opted to make having at least one vessel the default, >but >did not include the cost for the first one. So, the first one's free, but if you don't take one, it'll cost ya. >The Vessel mechanics were probably the single biggest mechanics design >mess I ran into, mostly because the GURPS mechanics for multiple forms >are broken, and known to be broken, and planned to be fixed. So I couldn't >use those. I wound up having to create new rules for this effect from >first principles, with lots of discussions with Kromm and SJ on the >subject. I'd be interested in know how that worked out. IIRC, multiple forms from GURPS Supers was only 5pts per form, or something like that. But, it's different for Were-creatures and stuff. >I think the result is playable, and not too painful, and not *too* >trouble-prone. There are some unfairnesses in the Vessel mechanics, but >they shouldn't crop up much except with munchkinoid characters. I hope.... We'll find out soon enough. But, it makes sense that Vessels be expensive, I mean, each one is a fresh body to trash. (As my players discovered the hard way when the single-vessel Angel went toe to toe with a Calabite with two vessels. After the Angel's vessel was pretty banged up and the Demon was nearly dead, it switched vessels. Those darn NPCs . . . :) they're so . . . tricky. > >Looks like my GURPS midset caused me to feel limited by a system that was > >meant to be freeing. I dunno. My players have felt that their >characters > >feel kinda, well, bland. They're regular players of White Wolf and enjoy > >the Merits and Flaws system provided there. > >To tell you the truth, I had a similar feeling, being a devoted fan of >GURPS, and detailed mechanics in general. On the other hand, you don't >need a hundred+ pages of detailed skills, advantages, and disadvantages to >play IN. True, not that I really use much of GURPS beyond the character generation system, the Fright Check table, bits and pieces of the combat system and the expanded character generation rules in whatever source books I'm using (typically Martial Arts and Psionics). I look forward to using the Chambara rules in G:IN with our Malakite of War. Finally she'll get to kick a little ass and not have the Malakite of the Sword cutting in on her action. I think this is a common tradeoff in game design: simple, but inflexible and unrealistic, or complex, but flexible and realistic (or >at least true-to-genre) Well, yeah. Except when the inflexible and unrealism /are/ the genre, as in HoL and Teenagers from Outer Space, for instance. But that's neither here nor there. > >> (Admittedly one of the more innately powerful ones... note > >>that the original IN power has *no* weight limit -- try to find a finite > >>GURPS cost for that!) > > >Well . . . G:Supers has Invulnearable costs, and that shrugs off an > >*infinite* amount of damage, depending on the source of damage. > >Yes, but that's present primarily because it's a genre staple, I think. >And ignoring an infinite amount of attack damage is rather different from >being able to cause an infinite (or near-infinite) effect. As written in >IN, Cherubim of Stone don't *leap* tall buildings, but they could, in >theory, *pull them down*. Ouch. Well, I'd probably argue any player character trying to do that has just discovered a new way of swinging from roof-top to roof-top. >[ST:hits HT:fatigue swap in GURPS] > >Yeah, I probably will do that. Though Essence/Fatigue Pool /size/ will > >probably still be based off of HT. > >That's probably appropriate; attaching the limitation to HT in GURPS was >mostly because HT doesn't do much for celestials, otherwise, and doesn't >really correspond to a stat in IN. So making it a partial stand-in for >Forces made sense. Totally. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/llloyd.geo "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:30:20 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Unicorns in In Nomine >Hey has anyone ever done anything up about Unicorns in In Nomine. check out: http://www.meta-earth.com/nomine/ethereal/ It's . . . incredibly cool IMHO, and it includes a write up (albeit short) of Unicorns for In Nomine. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/llloyd.geo "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:03:28 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Eng Subject: IN> Who let that hedgehog in here? >At 4:41 PM -0500 12/22/00, Rolland Therrien wrote: >>Sonic #91 >> >>Crash! >>(Either they're calling Sony's Bandicoot for a challenge, or they >>just couldn't think of anything else.) >> >>Written by Karl Brollers >>Pencilled by Ron Lim >>Inked by Jim Amash >[...] > >Methinks someone needs to differentiate the aliases for a couple of >mailing lists... > Probably so. But just to be silly, imagine an Ethereal whose preferred vessel is a blue humaniform hedgehog that wears sneakers. Corporeal Song of Motion, Numinous Corpus (quills), Need/6 (Chili dogs, for one point per two levels)... Excuse me. I believe I need to go to sleep now. Peter Eng ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:49:50 +0000 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Use of words >Malakim aren't listed as a warrior Choir in the sources I've seen. I >have seen "malakh" (I think that's Arabic) and "malaika" (Swahili) as >generic words for angel. Malakite is derived from those terms. Referring back to Qabalistic lore. Malachim (Kings) are the choir of Angels related to Tiphareth (Beauty). Elohim (Gods) are the choir related to Netzach (Victory). Beni Elohim (Sons of God, though I would prefer Sons of Gods) are the choir related to Hod (Glory). It's always seemed to me that In Nomine uses the words (and the sounds of those words) at the expense of their qabalistic or literal meanings, but, for those interested in the philology, the above can be taken as reasonable accurate. I'm not very active on this list at present so, if anyone wants to pick my brains on Qabalistic angelography (or demonology) or, even, the relationship between that and gentile thinking on the same subject, whether or not it's IN related, please feel free to mail me off-list. Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:03:26 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Merry Christmas and somesuch! At 8:17 PM -0400 12/22/00, Douglas Muir wrote: >>Amy Borden, one of the coolest froods known, did up an IN Christmas >>Card she wanted shared with everyone here. It features Tiphareth, >>Bright Lilim of Lightning, the mighty Malakite Skritcher, along with >>Tatiel, Cherub of Creation. >> >>See them at http://www.eyrie.org/~genchaos/xmasangels.cc.jpg > >I only see two angels here; possibly the Mal has gone celestial? > >Still, it's a nice piece of art. Has she considered going pro? Nay, nay -- Tiphareth _is_ the mighty Malakite Skritcher. She skritches Malakim. Or at least _a_ Malakite. Took me a sec to parse that as well, though. Bad comma placement, no donut. - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:02:11 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Merry Christmas and somesuch! On 12/23/00 9:03 AM, "Elizabeth McCoy" alleged: > At 8:17 PM -0400 12/22/00, Douglas Muir wrote: >> >> I only see two angels here; possibly the Mal has gone celestial? >> >> Still, it's a nice piece of art. Has she considered going pro? > > Nay, nay -- Tiphareth _is_ the mighty Malakite Skritcher. She > skritches Malakim. Or at least _a_ Malakite. > > Took me a sec to parse that as well, though. Bad comma placement, > no donut. > Hey now -- heeeeeeey now. It's a comma-delineated paranthetical clause. While clearly parentheses or dashes would have worked better to clarify (since there *was* confusion) the placement *is* legal. (I'm bearding the DP in her lair. Clearly, my kitten -- who woke me up early this morning -- is trying to get me killed.) - -- Eric A. Burns - in-sabre@annotations.com - http://www.annotations.com Whistling in the Dark "Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them." - --Antonie de Saint-Exupery, "The Little Prince" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:27:32 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Cleverest use of attunements... At 1:45 AM -0400 12/21/00, Douglas Muir wrote: >The header says it all. What's the cleverest use of a Band or Superior >attunement that you've seen yet? > >It has to be something that someone actually got away with using, mind. Divine Logic - on a Divine Intervention, an attempt to convince a Lilim of Lust that Angels were the good guys turned into the redemption of the Lilim (now a Bright of Creation...) Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:14:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine At 9:02 AM -0500 12/23/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>At 7:55 AM -0500 12/21/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: >> >> >There're different levels of Essence Control? [snip] BTW, Walter knows the gearhead mechanics better than I. If we contradict in that, unless I'm quoting page numbers or something, he's right. O;> >>Most of the main-book Discords were translated in (if they were unique to >>IN); the others are covered by regular disads... paired with the Discord >>disad. (Basically the Discord disad is linked to a regular disad and gives >>it all the Discord special effects. A regular disad is treated as disads >>normally are in GURPS and won't have any special tendency to show up in >>celestial form.) > >Well, except that they have a social componant as well. Discord among >Angels might be enough to warrent negative reaction penalties, depending on >the Discord and how bad it is. Especially for Malakim. Exactly! That's part of what the Discord disad _does_ -- it changes a regular disad into Discord. Here's an example... Two celestials, A and B. A has the Bad Temper disad. B has the Bad Temper disad and a level of the Discord disad linked to it. A is just grumpy/twitchy due to psychological effects which A may or may not choose to buy off on its own someday. Perhaps A was redeemed and has some _issues_ to work off... People _may_ have a negative reaction to A if they are targeted by the Bad Temper or otherwise view it and take it badly. Ofanim of Judgment will not notice it. B has Discord; that Bad Temper will get worse if B gets more Discord, and cannot be removed save by a Superior (or McGuffin). B's celestial form is affected, and angels have a negative reaction (Bad Temper + Discord values divided by 5, IIRC) to B should they find out about it. Servitors of Judgment will frown, and Ofanim of Judgement will pick up on it. [...] >>the point cost below 5. It's never a disad to have a vessel. (Since non- >>human vessels still have celestial stats, it's _more_ expensive to have, >>say, a cat vessel. C'est la vie.) > >Makes sense, unless the Celestial would be willing to assume a form which >gave it a reduced ST and so forth. IQ . . . yeah. It is noted that a form may well have Short Arms, Inconvenient Size, or other problems which may prevent the normal celestial strength to be used _effectively_. >iiiinteresting . . . I think using the one-body, one-life form the original >game would have made conversion into GURPS a bit easier. Probably, though there was a lot of baggage associated with that one -- _all_ celestials got vessels from sacrificed humans. (Angels asked first, and their doner-humans went to Heaven for their sacrifice...) If you take that away to give them vessels via Superior Fiat, it becomes harder to justify why they only get one at a time... (Well, one _could_ justify it via "no celestial forms, one form, you're stuck in it," but then you have to figure out if anyone ever dies... If there's no way to soul-kill someone, your enemies _always_ show up again, and you're never _really_ threatened. If you use the INS/MV route of "roll 1d6 * 1000 for the number of years before you get approved for a new vessel," you can get rid of baddies, but character death is a lot more troubling...) I think that for IN/SJG, the flavor of the vessel stuff, plus the ability to go celestial, was worth the weirdities. It's just that GURPS had no previous way of _handling_ that. I suspect that if INS/MV had been 'ported to GURPS in the first place, certain aspects of it would be a lot more similiar to the original than they are now. (No Kyrios/Shedim, multiple vessels, or celestial forms, at a guess.) >Hrm. I'll have to see how my players feel about it. I'm already planning >to introduce Will and Perception as two new attributes, increasing typical >PC pt total by at least 25pts. > >Although the Body-bag might only cost as much as the number of Extra Lives >it provides. It also would have to include the Teleportation as a special >effect or a feature . . . Relics use the Compendium 1 costs of "points for value" -- 1cp for 20 Essence sunk into the enchantment process of the artifact. (These values are, frankly, jiggered to merge GURPS Enchant spell mechanics (mostly) to produce roughly the time-to-enchant values from Liber Reliquarum. That was my main concern, and other mechanics-translations were subordinated to it.) You can use an artifact for free (if there are no limitations against it), but have no link with it. Body Bags cost 10 Essence per hit point of vessel they can contain. >Do you (or anyone else) know why the "Vessel" idea was introduced and used >in the American In Nomine? No clue. O:> My _suspicions_ are that it was to aid in the cinematic feel of the game -- your character _could_ die, and only be out of the action a week or so, gametime. This makes players more likely to sacrifice a character for the party (or just because it'll be the biggest explosion in the city of X), without actually having to create a new character. Even if that's not the original reason, I happen to _like_ that effect... Witness Malakanaries. >> I had a bit of a time getting over that myself. You have to do a lot >>more "verbal" defining of character in IN. Interestingly, when we did up >>a set of characters for a demo game, I found myself giving them very few >>actual disads. Lots of quirks, though... > >Makes sense, since Celestials *are* "perfect" beings, in theory. But disads >make the character, in my opinion. After all, without all those GM hooks? >But then again, I prefer flawed (read: interesting) people and characters to >the "perfect" individual. _boring_ Oh, I agree utterly -- when I'm designing non-IN characters, I start with the disads and go from there. But Choir/Band and Word create the Initial Character Canvas pretty well for me, so quirks and maybe a single disad or two seem to make the character come together well. See what you think when you actually start making some. >>Something I have noted is that the immunity to fire is over-priced in >>non-Supers games. Fire is _not_ a common threat in games that don't >>have Flamin' Jane clones running around loose! And so Ofanim of Fire >>only pay 75 points for that instead of 150... > >Um, yeah. I guess. Is that b/c you're not in pre-modern game worlds where >fire is still, like, everywhere? It's the universal intimidator. People >fear it, animals fear it, plants, well, plants would fear it if they're >capable of fear. Only fire's just not that common in modern day. (at >least, my modern day. discounting all these candles in my apt to keep me >warm . . .) Might be -- but I still kind of doubt that a pre-modern character is going to find Fire a _common_ attack form. (Re-reads Ofanite desc.) Ah, sorry -- generic energy as an attack form. I don't think many people are routinely threatened with lava, freeze rays, etc. often outside of games where Supers with Fire/Energy-based attacks are running around loose. (It's still 75 points, though, which is pretty expensive but a non-Ofanite Servitor of Fire might yet be able to acquire it. And GIN _is_ set in modern-day, by default. O;> ) (Truth be told, I think I've always thought Invulnerability is overpriced; we didn't use it for IOU, either, I believe, but chose a warped version of Insubstantial instead.) - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:19:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch! At 9:02 AM -0500 12/23/00, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >On 12/23/00 9:03 AM, "Elizabeth McCoy" alleged: >> At 8:17 PM -0400 12/22/00, Douglas Muir wrote: >> Took me a sec to parse that as well, though. Bad comma placement, >> no donut. > >Hey now -- heeeeeeey now. It's a comma-delineated paranthetical clause. >While clearly parentheses or dashes would have worked better to clarify >(since there *was* confusion) the placement *is* legal. Legal, yes, but effective? Nay, for there was confusion, since she had _two_ comma-delineated parenthetical clauses: the "Bright Lilim" one, _and_ the "Malakite Skritcher" one. If there had indeed been three angels in the list, it would have definitely been time to use semicolons to delineate the angels (as a complex list like that may, when the listed items have their own commas), but with only two, it is a bit more dubious that way. I would suggest either alternate punctuation (as you noted) or the use of "and" to join the two designators. >(I'm bearding the DP in her lair. Clearly, my kitten -- who woke me up early >this morning -- is trying to get me killed.) Hey, the baby woke _me_ up early, batting at my face and is even now trying to play with the trackball, the keyboard, and anything else she can grab on the computer desk.... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:56:21 -0000 From: "cassandra benner" Subject: IN> Angels in hell Hiya all, happy Xmas to you all. Right, i have an idea for half a campaign in my head but i need some of your divine knowledge and comments. 1- How would the various Choirs stereotypically react when the get told they have been given a lengthy assignment in hell due to a favor owed to a prince/princess. 2- What would make the Archangels send their angels in to hell, other than the normal smiting. 3- Why would the Princes allow angels in hell, or why would they request them in hell. Has anyone tried a campaign like this before? If so how did it turn out, what was the party made from. So far the group has generated as follows: Elohite of Jordi Role unknown yet, Kyriotate of Fire whom has servents working in local legal firm and possesses them as hosts, Ofanite of Laurence Role/Vessel Stray Dog, and a Malakite of Barsabel* Role Student of modern Mythology. This is the group that i intend to eventually take in to hell, but i'd like to know the 1/2/3 responces first. Cass "Abso-Fraggin-Lutely Damnit" *Minor Superrior that nick created for me, nows he's seeing how it plays as a charecter _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:08:04 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cassandra benner" To: Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 8:56 PM Subject: IN> Angels in hell > 2- What would make the Archangels send their angels in to hell, other than > the normal smiting. *Nothing*, that I can think of. Archangels ain't stupid... and barring very exceptional circumstances (such as the Angels of Final Judgement), an angel in Hell that *stays* in Hell is an angel you'd better kiss goodbye. Whether soul-killed or corrupted into Falling, if you let the demons have enough free swings at an angel on their home turf, that angel is toast. > 3- Why would the Princes allow angels in hell, or why would they request > them in hell. The first thing that comes to my mind is "If any Archangel is stupid enough to agree, we get angels we can starch, dry, press, and brainwash -- hold 'em down and hit 'em Ethereally and with appropriate resonances enough times, those angel brains *will* turn into mush eventually." - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:09:44 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine At 9:02 -0500 12/23/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: >Ah. Weird. So, when you "give" someone Essence, you're really just >shifting "control" over that Essence and not actually "giving" then >anything. No. Essence is exactly what it is in IN. You have a maximum amount of it (based on the lower of 2/3 HT and levels of Essence Control). Essence Control is really a bad name, but I couldn't come up with a better one during the hectic changes to the Essence implementation at the end of editing of GURPS IN. Essence Control is a combined advantage, with the "Control" part being a fixed 15 point (I think) cost, and the "Essence" part being 1 pt/Essence stored. [Discord] >Well, except that they have a social componant as well. Discord among >Angels might be enough to warrent negative reaction penalties, depending on >the Discord and how bad it is. Especially for Malakim. It's in there. I'll note here that the negative reaction penalties for angels aren't really totally costed into the disad, though, since angels with Discord normally should also take the Inquisition as an Enemy, and that tends to dominate the cost of the reaction penalty component. >iiiinteresting . . . I think using the one-body, one-life form the original >game would have made conversion into GURPS a bit easier. Maybe. > Then, rather than >"switching vessels" you'd merely use a shapeshifting ability, with the >Non-Transferable Damage advantage (guess who just got his copy of Compendium >1 (finally!)). Except that the shapeshifting rules are another instance of the "general multi-form" rule problems. This is all supposed to be resolved in another GURPS book, but we couldn't wait for it to be fixed. Believe me, I tried a bunch of different schemes. The main problem is that GURPS simply can't yet handle a character with multiple forms with different advantages and disads, and make it work across all reasonable cases. Whether there's an Extra Life (aka Vessel) in there as well doesn't really matter, from the point of view of where the rules break. >Hrm. I'll have to see how my players feel about it. I'm already planning >to introduce Will and Perception as two new attributes, increasing typical >PC pt total by at least 25pts. For GURPS IN, celestials should start with both at 14, probably, like all their other stats. That will raise the point cost of celestial form appropriately, but won't change character generation, if you use the "canon" character point model, rather than the usual "everyone gets X points" model. >Do you (or anyone else) know why the "Vessel" idea was introduced and used >in the American In Nomine? Not for sure, but I speculate it was to keep players from worrying about character death, to up the general mayhem level of the game, and cause lots of deadly combats. >>Something I have noted is that the immunity to fire is over-priced in >>non-Supers games. Fire is _not_ a common threat in games that don't >>have Flamin' Jane clones running around loose! And so Ofanim of Fire >>only pay 75 points for that instead of 150... > >Um, yeah. I guess. Is that b/c you're not in pre-modern game worlds where >fire is still, like, everywhere? Fire is everywhere, but it's *not* a common attack form the way kinetic weapons are. Yes, it's a danger, but being invulnerable to it isn't *that* big a boon. In 4-color Supers, fire is a pretty common super power, and about as likely an attack as many others. In IN, though, kinetic weapons (hand and ranged) are by far and away the biggest danger, and fire comes an order of magnitude lower -- in any era, I think. Frankly, in any historical era, Immunity to Disease is probably more useful than Invulnerability: Fire. And it's *lots* cheaper. Basically this is a case of Supers genre-specific costs creeping into the main system -- something that's taken *years* of playtest gripes to eliminate the majority of brain-damage. - ---- >> >??? 2/3 HT? OH! (2/3)14=9 (rounding up) gotcha. :) >> >>Actually, it's rounded down, but I assumed most GIN celestials would >>blow 10 points on +1 HT to get their Essence level to 9. > >Rounded down? suckage. oh, well, I'll just have to House Rule it. It's pretty much a meta-rule in GURPS that everything is rounded down, unless that would favor the character (which is rare, except for point costs). I was just following the meta-rule. >> To preserve some of the >>flavor of IN mechanics, vessels *always* cost points in GURPS IN. To >>completely *lack* a vessel is a disad, and normally a temporary one for >>one for PCs, so we opted to make having at least one vessel the default, >>but >>did not include the cost for the first one. > >So, the first one's free, but if you don't take one, it'll cost ya. No, the first vessel isn't free, but not having *any* vessel is an additional disadvantage. The problem is that additional vessels are basically a linear advantage, starting with 1, except that the vessel costs can vary a bit based on physical advantages/disads. So we didn't include points for the first vessel. However, there's a much bigger gap between 0 vessels and 1 vessel, than between 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, etc. This is due to the fact that you can't go corporeal at all without at least one. So there's a special disad for this. However, the typical angel or demon in the game is assumed to have at least one vessel, since IN games take place mainly in the corporeal realm. One without any is below the norm, and gets the additional disad points, but characters still pay for their first vessel out of customization points, since the cost *is* somewhat variable, and also because IN always charges for vessels. It took a number of playtester comments and suggestions before we got this nuance right. The Vessel mechanics are tricky. I suggest postponing further discussion until you've seen what we actually did there. >> I wound up having to create new rules for this effect from >>first principles, with lots of discussions with Kromm and SJ on the >>subject. > >I'd be interested in know how that worked out. IIRC, multiple forms from >GURPS Supers was only 5pts per form, or something like that. But, it's >different for Were-creatures and stuff. See my above comment about looking at the actual GIN mechanics. Multiple Forms didn't work, since it requires the forms to have similar point values (mostly to avoid some of the traps that surface if they don't, I suspect). If you want details on how the vessel mechanics were arrived at, we should do that off-list. It's incredibly messy, with no really "fair" answer that's playable. >We'll find out soon enough. But, it makes sense that Vessels be expensive, >I mean, each one is a fresh body to trash. Yes, which is why they are mostly based on the Extra Life advantage in CI. >> As written in >>IN, Cherubim of Stone don't *leap* tall buildings, but they could, in >>theory, *pull them down*. Ouch. > >Well, I'd probably argue any player character trying to do that has just >discovered a new way of swinging from roof-top to roof-top. A reasonable answer, but it's not what the attunement strictly says. I felt it needed a weight limit in the GURPS version, and put that in. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:07:08 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell On the question of number 2. They could owe favor to Lilith, and she could geas them (probably only work with archs like Eli and Novalis). - ----- Original Message ----- From: cassandra benner To: Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: IN> Angels in hell > 2- What would make the Archangels send their angels in to hell, other than > the normal smiting. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:57:29 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell Charles Glasgow wrote: > > 2- What would make the Archangels send their angels in to hell, other than > > the normal smiting. Occasionally an Archangel might have reason to send a message to a Demon Prince. And the message can be made very pointed by reminding Hell that angels can invade their realm, but they can't visit Heaven. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:24:49 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell On 12/23/00 10:57 PM, "David Edelstein" alleged: > Charles Glasgow wrote: > > Occasionally an Archangel might have reason to send a message to a Demon > Prince. And the message can be made very pointed by reminding Hell that > angels can invade their realm, but they can't visit Heaven. > I'd also imagine both the War and the Game have "diplomatic channels" where an Angelic 'Ambassador' can descend -- it's a move in the Game, after all, and a part of the War, and it also allows them to directly nail a sacrosanct angel with propaganda designed to change their preconceptions about Hell (and Heaven). And occasionally, certain factions in Heaven take advantage of those channels for their own purposes. - -- Eric A. Burns - in-sabre@annotations.com - http://www.annotations.com Whistling in the Dark "The world's great men have not commonly been great scholars, nor its great scholars great men." - --Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:33:40 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell As I recall, the question was 'What would induce an Archangel to have an angel go to hell *and stay there*.' My answer to that is' nothing'. Delivery of messages, I can believe. Assignments that require taking up residence for any length of time longer than half an hour at the outside, I can't believe. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:27:40 -0500 From: EDG Subject: IN> Editor nonsense - don't read unless you're a grammarphile (was Re: IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch!) Cool, I think I made up a word. At 10:19 AM 12/23/00 -0500, you wrote: >Legal, yes, but effective? Nay, for there was confusion, since she >had _two_ comma-delineated parenthetical clauses: the "Bright Lilim" >one, _and_ the "Malakite Skritcher" one. If there had indeed been >three angels in the list, it would have definitely been time to use >semicolons to delineate the angels (as a complex list like that may, >when the listed items have their own commas), but with only two, it >is a bit more dubious that way. I would suggest either alternate >punctuation (as you noted) or the use of "and" to join the two designators. But the "and" would promote more confusion (consider: "The Bright Lilim, the Malakite Scritcher, and the Cherub of Creation"). Unless I'm misinterpreting. :) Consider what Eric said, though. "...It features Tiphareth, Bright Lilim of Lightning, the mighty Malakite Skritcher, /along with/ Tatiel, Cherub of Creation...." (emphasis mine) Were it not for the "along with", then yes, I'd say this was an ineffective statement. However, the "along with" construction doesn't terminate a list - - it follows a previously terminated list, placing an addendum. How weird would the following sound? "I need eggs, milk, bread, cheese, oranges, along with apples." Instead: "I need eggs, milk, bread, cheese, and oranges, along with apples." (Although why poor Granny Smith is left out of the group is beyond me.) Eric's included no termination of his list "Tiphareth..., the mighty Malakite Skritcher,...", so we must assume that it's self-terminating - i.e., that it contains only one item. Thus "the mighty Malakite Skritcher" must be an appositive, linking back to the lovely Tiphareth. Is it legal? Absolutely. Is it confusing? Possibly, except to ultra-grammarians. ^_^ Is it effective? While the meaning of the statement may have been obscured, the picture was seen (hence this entire discussion) and so the statement was effective in achieving its author's intent. In any event, it's a nice picture, and I wish I could draw as well as Amy. ^_^ >Hey, the baby woke _me_ up early, batting at my face and is even now >trying to play with the trackball, the keyboard, and anything else she >can grab on the computer desk.... This is why Alex doesn't get to play in the computer chair. ^_^ He has a playpen within about three feet of it, though... - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:25:16 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell On 12/23/00 11:33 PM, "Charles Glasgow" alleged: > Delivery of messages, I can believe. Assignments that require taking up > residence for any length of time longer than half an hour at the outside, I > can't believe. > Ooooo... a challenge.... Michael I could see sending down a few spies, charged with staying out of sight and keeping an eye on conditions and morale (and keeping an eye on possibilities to strike as needed). Laurence, naturally, wouldn't. Novalis might send some Ministers, now that I think about it, if she can secure some kind of sacrosanct status for them and is certain they won't Fall (of course, she could be wrong....) Mostly I think you're right, mind. - -- Eric A. Burns - in-sabre@annotations.com - http://www.annotations.com Whistling in the Dark "Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them." - --Antonie de Saint-Exupery, "The Little Prince" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:44:29 +0000 From: Pak Chan Subject: Re: IN> Editor nonsense - don't read unless you're a grammarphile (was Re: IN> Merry Comma-mas and somesuch!) At 00:27 24/12/2000 -0500, EDG wrote: >Cool, I think I made up a word. > >At 10:19 AM 12/23/00 -0500, you wrote: > >>Legal, yes, but effective? Nay, for there was confusion, since she >>had _two_ comma-delineated parenthetical clauses: the "Bright Lilim" >>one, _and_ the "Malakite Skritcher" one. If there had indeed been >>three angels in the list, it would have definitely been time to use >>semicolons to delineate the angels (as a complex list like that may, >>when the listed items have their own commas), but with only two, it >>is a bit more dubious that way. I would suggest either alternate >>punctuation (as you noted) or the use of "and" to join the two designators. > >But the "and" would promote more confusion (consider: "The Bright Lilim, >the Malakite Scritcher, and the Cherub of Creation"). Unless I'm >misinterpreting. :) I think you are putting the "and" in the wrong place. Consider instead, "Tiphareth, Bright Lilim of Lightning and Malakite Scritcher, along with Tatiel, Cherub of Creation." Pak Chan ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1987 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.