From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Dec 25 09:41:15 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 JAA02575 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:41:15 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA27884 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:40:47 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:40:47 -0600 Message-Id: <200012251540.JAA27884@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 #1989 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, December 25 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1989 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic-sama kawaii desu ne! Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine IN> Re: Angels in Hell Re: IN> Re: Angels in Hell IN> The Grigori Re: IN> The Grigori Re: IN> Angels in hell IN> Automatically Unpublishable? IN> RE: in_nomine-digest V1 #1988 Re: Not really Re: IN> Use of words anymore Re: IN> Dominic-sama kawaii desu ne! Re: IN> Angels in hell Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine Re: IN> Re: Angels in Hell Re: IN> Automatically Unpublishable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:36:33 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic-sama kawaii desu ne! From: "Daniel Gallagher" > If you could post comments, my friend could use the ego boost. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~jjg52/dominic.jpg That's just sick! I love it... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:42:07 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell From: "Elizabeth McCoy" > > While there, before they can do the SANE thing > and ascend promptly ("THAT NEVER HAPPENED!"), something odd catches their > attention and they feel they have to investigate. Reminds me of the one unfallen angel in Hell from the "Heroes in Hell" anthology series. Maybe they run into him? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:24:12 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine >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;> Cool. :) > >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. Coolness. I'd say that there should be a min -1 reaction modifier, at least for angels. I mean, Discord is more accepted among demons, but among angels? Not, really. That's probably going to be IMGIN. Round up and fraction for angels, round down for demons. > >>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_. Hrm. I'll have to look into the mechanics of it. > >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, Well, yes. But I wouldn't have removed that. I think it gives an interesting flavor to assume that all celestials are living in former people. Also, I'd also say that upon death, *any* decent-enough-to-go-to-Heaven person would be asked upon their immediate arrival if they'd mind donating their formerly living body to the Heavenly cause, battle evil, yadda yadda yadda. It becomes interesting when, with each death, the celestial comes to in a new "life," or at least when they encounter people who knew the human who's life they absorbed. On the other hand, if they get access to all those people's memories, that could make for some *very* interesting possibilities . . . 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. Uh . . . unless you provide Songs and/or Relics which DO Soul damage, perhaps Celestial Entropy, and perhaps even the Numinous Corpus. (Paralling aggravated damage from White Wolf, in a way.) Then Celestial healing becomes even more important, since Soul damage will be much more common, and the risks in combat skyrocket. (Which I kinda like, since the risks increase, but _death_ would still be relatively unlikely. (Except if/when the downed character falls unconscious, hrm . . .) 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...) Oh, well, yeah. But I wouldn't keep it anyway when playing INS/MV. I prefer the necessity of removing the enemy *politically* (ie embarrassing them so badly, or messing up their plans so badly, that they're so buried in hell/heaven that they'll never return. >I think that for IN/SJG, the flavor of the vessel stuff, plus the ability >to go celestial, was worth the weirdities. The ability to go celestial is *nice*, but could be replaced with a simple song. And I /prefer/ the Angelic/Demonic Aura, anyway, since mortals will actually *see* it (try getting a mortal to witness your Celestial form when their perception is a 4, or worse, a 2). Sure, there's the Songs of Nimbus, but Celestial form, the /innate/ ability of angels, COSTS ESSENCE, and 2 at that. I mean, for an innate ability, I find that a bit much. IIRC, the INS/MV aura ability costs *zero* Power Points. Doesn't feel like a fair swap for me. As for using Celestial form to return to Heaven, that would have merely been an innate ability that cost 2 Essence. I may just use those changes in my next game, if not my current one, players willing. 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.) Well, yeah. And the choirs/band could have optional character packages. (though that'd be a mess, probably) [body-bag] >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. I'll have to look at it. > >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. Not that any of my players are willing to let their characters die (I had to purposely kill one of the two malakim before they were even really willing to consider it). But that's b/c of my GM style, where 24 hours of game time can take three gaming sessions. I'm working on it, but mostly b/c of low-essence problems. When so much is packed into so-little time, there's never enough essence to go 'round. >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. Yeah, we'll see. > >>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;> ) Yup. >(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.) Neat. :) - -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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:35:22 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine > >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. Cool. >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. That makes sense. >[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. Wow, that's sweeeeet. I'll probably first have the disad points sunk into a Secret(Discordant) and then convert that into Enemy(Inquistion) when the Discord is reported. > >iiiinteresting . . . I think using the one-body, one-life form the >original > >game would have made conversion into GURPS a bit easier. > >Maybe. Well, yeah. > > 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. Yeah, that makes sense. That's really annoying. > >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. Hrm. Makes for weird "character balance" won't it? > >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. Whoo-hoo nothing like DEADLY COMBAT. Yeah, enemies having multiple vessels really annoy the players. But, then, I always say that they can get one if they want one and they say, no way, vessels are too expensive. Such is life. :l > >>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. I *totally* agree there. >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. ha ha ha >---- > > >> >??? 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. probably right, but not in my game. It's changing IMG. > >> 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. I'll have to look read the rules. >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. yup :) > >> 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. Nah. Probably not worth your time, especially since I haven't read it, yet. > >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. Coolness. > >> 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. Yeah, makes complete sense to me. - -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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:19:24 -0000 From: "cassandra benner" Subject: IN> Re: Angels in Hell Wow the response was a little more than i was expecting. Thankyouthankyouthankyou, Huggles all around for everybody. Ok now for my remarks as to a number of the comments... (snippage) - -As I recall, the question was 'What would induce an Archangel to have-an angel go to hell *and stay there*.' chuck g um.. actually the Q was: What would make the Archangels send their angels in to hell, other than the normal smiting. not mentioning anything about being there long periods, the cameign starts earth based, charecters find out something big bad gonna happen, charecters tell superiors, superiors give them the task of spending a fortnight every month in hell to find stuff out and dig around, then go earthside for other campaign stuff, then eavenside for debreif then hellside for a short while again to try and cause a riot and finalise the problem they found earthside. As for Falling, i hope that one of the charecters will fall, so that they can then 'be a real hells angel' and be a real agent on the inside... (more snippage) - -Or, alternatively, name a place in Hell where being under the protection of one Demon Prince renders you entirely safe, yet still able to walk around, meet people, do useful work chuck g well i think this answers that fairly ok.. (snip, glue) - -Once there, he drops a Mark of Protection around their necks, tells them that something's come up, and they should make themselves at home around the place until his return. (You can play this creepy or for laughs, frankly.) Demons and Princes who see the (probably un-removable) Mark of Lucifer amulets will turn vaguely pale and, unless totally non-sapient (like some demonlings may be), will not molest the angels. emcoy That works for me and it may be a start for a possible redemption (or trying to) of Lucifer. (snip, manic glueing) - -Reminds me of the one unfallen angel in Hell from the "Heroes in Hell" anthology series. Maybe they run into him? Who wrote the anthology, and where can i find out more about it? It sounds interesting, is it IN based or merely angel/demon based? And i love the Sorcerererererer in hell plot seed, this bears writting up in full, with stats and everything, and possibly a story or three based on it. Also, i have another question.. Can etherials enter heaven and hell? I personally doubt they'd be able to enter heaven but i think they could get in to hell (but probably not out again). Thankyou for everything you've said, the campaign plot is almost completed with some of the major scenes/seeds written down. Cass "I still believe in god, but he no longer believes in me" -Mission _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 20:25:25 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Angels in Hell From: "cassandra benner" > > (snip, manic glueing) > -Reminds me of the one unfallen angel in Hell from the "Heroes in Hell" > anthology series. Maybe they run into him? > > Who wrote the anthology, and where can i find out more about it? > It sounds interesting, is it IN based or merely angel/demon based? Can't remember who wrote it - the books came out in the mid-80s, so it's really unlikely that it had anything to do with the original incarnation of In Nomine, much less the one that came out stateside a decade later. ;;;) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:30:24 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Grigori Merry Christmas! This is, of course, not official or canonical, but I've tried to make it compatible with existing canon (including GURPS IN). http://www.amadan.org/Innomine/Grigori.html - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:29:15 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> The Grigori On 12/24/00 10:30 PM, "David Edelstein" alleged: > Merry Christmas! This is, of course, not official or canonical, but I've > tried to make it compatible with existing canon (including GURPS IN). > > http://www.amadan.org/Innomine/Grigori.html > > -David This is fantastic. Truly fantastic. Until Canon comes along, it's knocking my rough notes right out of the gate. Thanks, David, and Happy Holidays! - -- Eric A. Burns - in-sabre@annotations.com - http://www.annotations.com Whistling in the Dark "...when we are sick in fortune -- often the surfeit of our own behavior -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon and the stars; as if We were villains by necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion...." - --King Lear, Act I, Scene ii, line 129 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:44:55 +0800 From: Manny Nepomuceno Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell on 12/24/00 10:56 AM, cassandra benner at casiopia@hotmail.com wrote: > 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. > 1. Depends on the Superior. Expect most Malakim to have epileptic fits, though. But seriously, can't you see the humor in the situation? DOMINIC: "Seraphiel, I am sending you down to Tartarus for an extended period of time...you are to work with Asmodeus as a favor to him." SERAPHIEL: "Most Holy...is there something you wish to confess?" 2. Besides the other responses... Some interesting seeds: I'd send Servitors of the Wind into Hell to steal something. Yes, I got the idea from S4. I'd also send a Triad of Judgment in there, by special arrangement with Asmodeus, to investigate those rumors of Gabriel in Shal-Mari. Yes, I got the idea from S3. 3. That last plot seed. Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you as well. Manny Neps ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:30:54 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: IN> Automatically Unpublishable? - --- Charles Phipps wrote: > I've got my favorite mythological beasts on the brain and frankly > submitted > a pyramid article regarding them and another popular creature > > (I hope it isn't automatically unpublishable because I mentioned it > online....theres alot of strange rules) ?? This is new. Is it the case that anything posted on this list is unpublishable, or am I just being paranoid? ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "...faith is only pure when it does not negate the faith of another." -- Eli Weisel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:37:43 -0000 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: IN> RE: in_nomine-digest V1 #1988 > > Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:30:10 -0600 > From: "Charles Glasgow" > Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell > > - ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Benedict Canning" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell > > > 2] You don't believe War doesn't have very carefully instructed > > malakim in hell, sying on the place and keeping Micheal > informed on > > whats going on? > > Actually, no, I don't. (In Hell, the Celestial form of a > Malakite is a > dead giveaway. Emphasis "dead".) > Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:26:31 -0600 > From: "Michael" > Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell > > Actually, I can see it. There's the song of Concealment (I > think - don't > have my LC with me) that allows you to mask your celestial > form. Granted, > said Malakite would only be able to be down there for a few > hours max, and > they'd better seriously avoid mirrors, but it could work... Other possibilities [mostly Slightly Obscure.] 1] IIRC The French Archangel of Chaos's servitor Atunements are permanent celestial form disguises [By logic Malakim get Lilim Disguises, everyone else gets the equivalent Bands.]. 2] Belseraphs of Fate look like the Choir whose attunement they have. Thus some are humanoid with black feathery wings. 3] Fiat Justina's Vessel Form trick. 4] There is evidence for a certain mutability in Celestial Form. Many of them being based on the angels favourite vessel. Pre Crusade, Nonhuman vessels were used more. How does one tell an appropriate Dracoform Malakim in sunglasses from a Balseraph. [Or does one insist they get two sets of wings, one feathery.] Adam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:55:00 +0100 From: Benediktq@t-online.de (Benedikt) Subject: Re: Not really Re: IN> Use of words anymore > J. Gregory Keyes uses the term malakim in his Age of > Unreason series: seeing as (AFAIK) he didn't get them > from IN... As far as I know MalŽak is the name of the angel who slew the egyptian firstborn. Samiel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:17:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Dominic-sama kawaii desu ne! At 5:50 PM -0500 12/24/00, Daniel Gallagher wrote: >>Bwhhahahahahahahahahahah! Kaaaaaaawaiiiiiiii! (EDG, can you get >permission >>to link this cutie to the INC Artpage?) > >That won't work. I'm canceling my earthlink in 2 months, so the picture will >be gone. I just put it there because it would be the fastest way to show it >to everyone.Though if you want I could find somewhere more permanent to put >it. How's about eternal fame by arranging to schlup it over and host it on the INC site? O:> >>Have him do Baal next? O:> > >He'll be in Mexico till Tuesday but when he get's back I'll ask. Just think, being able to replace all the Superior pictures in your book with these... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:46:13 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Angels in hell At 1:26 PM -0600 12/24/00, Michael wrote: [...] >that out of place. Third, an Elohi[te] can not allow himself to be controlled >by his emotions, but IMO, he can have them and show them. That's not just YO, that's canon. (However, if _showing_ them would be bad for the Symphony in the long run, he can't. If showing them is neutral, he can if he wishes, and if it's good, he MUST.) [...] > have him claim to >be from research and development, or Vaputech advance sales. Remember that, house rules to the contrary, angels cannot lie when they are in celestial form. They're either speaking angelic, which CANNOT be used to lie, or they're speaking Helltongue, which inflicts dissonnance if they lie. - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:46:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In-Nomine At 10:24 PM -0500 12/24/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>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. > > > >Coolness. I'd say that there should be a min -1 reaction modifier, at least >for angels. Oh, quite! You see, the Discord disad is, IIRC, -5 points/level. So, with a -1 reaction for every -5 points of DIscord... >>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_. > >Hrm. I'll have to look into the mechanics of it. Hopefully they're fairly simple. >>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, > >Well, yes. But I wouldn't have removed that. You can always put it back... O:> I think general audiences would have had more problems with it, overall. It's a bit harder to tweak certain contrast/brightness aspects if it's totally canon that someone _died_ to put one on Earth. [...] >>If there's no way to soul-kill >>someone, your enemies _always_ show up again, and you're never _really_ >>threatened. > >Uh . . . unless you provide Songs and/or Relics which DO Soul damage, Oh, sure -- but we're talking taking from the original here, not taking one element from the original and making it map to the current status. If you start talking in _those_ terms, then either it's a case of "mixing them both for cool house rules," or else we get into a paradox of chicken and egg which makes my head hurt. >>I think that for IN/SJG, the flavor of the vessel stuff, plus the ability >>to go celestial, was worth the weirdities. > >The ability to go celestial is *nice*, but could be replaced with a simple >song. And I /prefer/ the Angelic/Demonic Aura, anyway, since mortals will >actually *see* it (try getting a mortal to witness your Celestial form when I'm trying to remember the mechanics of that one -- some of the adventures I've heard didn't seem to rely on that one working... >their perception is a 4, or worse, a 2). At least you can add your Celestial Forces to that... >Sure, there's the Songs of Nimbus, >but Celestial form, the /innate/ ability of angels, COSTS ESSENCE, and 2 at >that. I mean, for an innate ability, I find that a bit much. Think of it as an innate Song... O;> >I may just use those changes in my next game, if not my current one, players >willing. Report on how they change the feel of the game, if you do? O:> >>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.) > >Well, yeah. And the choirs/band could have optional character packages. >(though that'd be a mess, probably) My mind flinches. In truth, I'm not sure there would have _been_ Choirs and Bands, considering what a pain it was to convert them. Or if there were, they would have been given more traditional GURPS powers from Supers, Psi, and Compendium. >>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. > >Not that any of my players are willing to let their characters die (I had to >purposely kill one of the two malakim before they were even really willing >to consider it). Well, our first character death was when Eric ran a little something and the Malakite (who got hit with a blinding Song) discovered that he was in front of a speeding truck. Oops. But he brought back reinforcements and saved the day! And gave me the idea for Malakanaries! >But that's b/c of my GM style, where 24 hours of game time can take three >gaming sessions. I'm working on it, but mostly b/c of low-essence problems. > When so much is packed into so-little time, there's never enough essence >to go 'round. _That's_ the truth!! At 10:35 PM -0500 12/24/00, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>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. > >Hrm. Makes for weird "character balance" won't it? No more than in the original IN -- we all know that the various Choir/Band Attunements are worth different things, and that Kyriotates of Lightning are one of the more munchkinable combos, right? Basically, the Choir/Band _base_ costs were all over the map, and the Choir/Band Attunements likewise. Giving one person X points so it could be an Ofanite of Fire and someone else Y points so it could be a cheaper model would reverse-break... There are actually 3 different suggested methods of character point allocation: the canon model, which mirrors initial character creation in IN; the fixed points model, which is more typical for GURPS (and includes the cost of the celestial "racial" template); and one where all the players pick their Choir/Band and Superior, and the GM allocates enough points for the most expensive combination plus a few customization points. (Oh, and I think there's one in there which suggests fewer customization points but the GM should do up "packages" of "default skills celestials should know"...) We were trying to avoid the traps of SuperNormal that can afflict high-power supernatural games.... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:48:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Angels in Hell At 2:19 AM +0000 12/25/00, cassandra benner wrote: >Also, i have another question.. >Can etherials enter heaven and hell? Not in canon, though the ethereals do not necessarily believe this (or believe the reasons the celestials give for it). A Superior might well be able to create a "bubble" or other protection that allowed it, of course. (And it's emcCoy, please. Two Cs. O:> ) - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:54:48 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Automatically Unpublishable? At 11:30 PM -0800 12/24/00, Michael Walton wrote: >--- Charles Phipps wrote: >> I've got my favorite mythological beasts on the brain and frankly >> submitted >> a pyramid article regarding them and another popular creature >> >> (I hope it isn't automatically unpublishable because I mentioned it >> online....theres alot of strange rules) > > ?? This is new. Is it the case that anything posted on this list is >unpublishable, or am I just being paranoid? As this is a "semi-public" list (anyone can join, and it's archived on the web), posting something here does tend to make it less publishable in certain ways: it's already available for free, so any publisher wonders, "Why should _I_ pay to reprint it?" However, appropriate "value-added" can certainly fix that. I believe that one of Moe's characters, with additional material and some tweaks to match the stylesheet better, made it into Pyramid. _Mentioning_ something online is hardly likely to make unpublishable the work which was mentioned. Not mentioning that you've done a work, or a first draft of it, online when you are trying to sell it is somewhat unethical -- publishers like to know if they're going to be able to sell that which they have bought the rights to publish. You very likely _could_ get in trouble if you put something on the web in complete form _after_ it was published by someone else, unless you got permission! Publishers generally buy exclusive rights to publish material, at least for a given time. ("First North American Serial Rights" and whatnot.) I Am Not A Lawyer, But These Are My Best Semi-Educated Guesses. If in doubt, don't post. O:> - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1989 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.