From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Sep 6 10:01:51 2000 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 KAA06241; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:01:48 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA05523 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:59:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:59:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200009061459.JAA05523@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 #1808 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, September 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1808 In this digest: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: IN> So who plays? Re: IN> So who plays? Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: IN> So who plays? Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) IN> Seraphim resonance Re: IN> So who plays? Re: IN> Squicking David? (Re: Cathexis) Re: IN> Contest Posted. IN> Re: So who plays? Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Re: IN> Squicking David? (Re: Cathexis) Re: IN> The Little Old Lady from Pasadina Re:IN> CONTEST: The most horrifying demon in the world. Re: IN> Rain, rain, go away (why the heck are no Archangels for ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:25:22 NZST From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) > > At 10:14 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > > > > > > And you forget the easy and simple way to befuddle a seraph. "No > > >> Comment" > > > > > >I'm sure Dominic has enough Essence to spend that he can get a six on >his > > >check digit whenever he wants to. > > > > That doesn't affect a "no comment" response. Only a false one. > >Eh? I thought that a six meant that you knew the Truth of and behind the >person's response, straight from the Symphony... which would include, in >this case, the exact Truth of *why* the questionee didn't want to speak to >you. > > > (Or, possibly, it could reveal that the person does indeed *have* a >comment.) > >Or why exactly he'd rather not comment? > The statement "No Comment" is something that gets by the Seraph's Resonance. The Subject doesn't think he is lying, he believes that he would not like to comment, so there is no reason for The Symphony to give the TRUTH. If it did the Truth would probably be "He believes that by saying No Comment, he can evade your detection of the Truth... and he can." This frustrates the hell out of a Seraph, and just leads them to ask more probing questions. With regard to an Archangel I think it is GM's call if they get anymore info. Make a Seraph Archangel as powerful as he needs to be. But think about it. Michael would just make a fist and say "Are you sure?" Dominic would probably just turn around and leave, letting you wet your pants thinking about what he is going to do. Stew in your own juice so to speak. My 2 cents. Alex _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:55:43 +0930 From: Gnezda Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Just out of curiosity, what 'Archangels' and 'statements' are you referring to when you said, 'The Archangels who told him about Eli's's statements weren't Seraphim...'? Admittedly I haven't read all of Dominic's entry in Superiors 1, but I have no idea where you got this information from. (not that I'm saying you're wrong, mind you :)). Milan Rolland Therrien wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Whistling in the Dark > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Cc: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:51 PM > Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) > > >At 10:13 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >> > >>It's just that since part of the evidence will be what Eli has to say for > >>himself whilst speaking in the celestial tongue and with Dominic's > resonance > >>pinging him throughout, Dominic can't/won't pass sentence until he finally > >>catches Eli for his long-overdue question-and-answer session... which is > >>what I've been saying all along. > > > >Mm. I'm not sure I agree 100%. Sup1 essentially states that Dominic > >is already convinced of the verdict. I think he sees this particular > >trial as more of the ritual of Judgement, not an examination of the > >evidence. He has been briefed, more than once, that Eli believes that > >this is the way he should serve God. Unless Eli directly claims God > >ordered him onto Earth (which I for one don't think is true) Dominic > >isn't likely to accept anything Eli would say as justification for > >abandoning his Mosque and Heavenly, Archangelic duty. Which is the > >crime -- desertion, more or less -- that he is accused of. > > That's mostly because Dominic didn't hear it from Eli himself. The > Archangels who told him about Eli's statements weren't Seraphim, so it's > likely Eli could've lied to them, and they told Dominic what they believed > was the truth. Until Dominic hears the truth DIRECTLY from Eli, he's gonna > have doubts about that "I believe this is the best way to serve God" line. > And you have to admit, Eli not giving his story directly to Dom is a pretty > suspicious move; so Dominic can suspect Eli's up to something (which all > investigators do), but until he can bring Eli in for Judegement, he's not > 100% sure. > > -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:32:23 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) At 11:06 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > > That doesn't affect a "no comment" response. Only a false one. > >Eh? I thought that a six meant that you knew the Truth of and behind the >person's response, straight from the Symphony... which would include, in >this case, the exact Truth of *why* the questionee didn't want to speak to >you. > >> (Or, possibly, it could reveal that the person does indeed *have* a >comment.) > >Or why exactly he'd rather not comment? I'd honestly rule no in this case. A "no comment" is not a lie. It's a refusal *to* comment. The Truth is neither being revealed nor perverted. Much the same as refusing to answer at all. And therefore, the Resonance won't pick it up. Even Dominic's Resonance can't create a falsehood where there is none to CD-6 over. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:48:22 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) > At 11:06 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > > > > That doesn't affect a "no comment" response. Only a false one. > > > >Eh? I thought that a six meant that you knew the Truth of and behind the > >person's response, straight from the Symphony... which would include, in > >this case, the exact Truth of *why* the questionee didn't want to speak to > >you. > > > >> (Or, possibly, it could reveal that the person does indeed *have* a > >comment.) > > > >Or why exactly he'd rather not comment? > > I'd honestly rule no in this case. A "no comment" is not a lie. It's > a refusal *to* comment. The Truth is neither being revealed nor > perverted. Much the same as refusing to answer at all. And therefore, > the Resonance won't pick it up. Even Dominic's Resonance can't create > a falsehood where there is none to CD-6 over. True enough, but I didn't think that the Seraph resonance needed a falsehood present to be able to sense the underlying Truth behind the truth on a CD of 6... .. IOW, I had thought -- apparently, I am wrong -- that the CD of 6 would give you the underlying Truth of the guy's statement no matter whether the comment was true or false. Plus, of course, refusal to answer an investigation is, if I remember Superiors 1 correctly, itself a crime -- "Obstruction of Judgement". - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:05:26 NZST From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Just out of curiosity, what 'Archangels' and 'statements' are you referring to >when you said, 'The Archangels who told him about Eli's's statements >weren't >Seraphim...'? Admittedly I haven't read all of Dominic's entry in Superiors >1, >but I have no idea where you got this information from. (not that I'm >saying >you're wrong, mind you :)). Just something to consider regardless of the answer. Superiors can use the Seraph Resonance regardless of their actual Choir. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Whistling in the Dark > > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > Cc: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:51 PM > > Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) > > > > >At 10:13 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > >> > > >>It's just that since part of the evidence will be what Eli has to say >for > > >>himself whilst speaking in the celestial tongue and with Dominic's > > resonance > > >>pinging him throughout, Dominic can't/won't pass sentence until he >finally > > >>catches Eli for his long-overdue question-and-answer session... which >is > > >>what I've been saying all along. > > > > > >Mm. I'm not sure I agree 100%. Sup1 essentially states that Dominic > > >is already convinced of the verdict. I think he sees this particular > > >trial as more of the ritual of Judgement, not an examination of the > > >evidence. He has been briefed, more than once, that Eli believes that > > >this is the way he should serve God. Unless Eli directly claims God > > >ordered him onto Earth (which I for one don't think is true) Dominic > > >isn't likely to accept anything Eli would say as justification for > > >abandoning his Mosque and Heavenly, Archangelic duty. Which is the > > >crime -- desertion, more or less -- that he is accused of. > > > > That's mostly because Dominic didn't hear it from Eli himself. The > > Archangels who told him about Eli's statements weren't Seraphim, so it's > > likely Eli could've lied to them, and they told Dominic what they >believed > > was the truth. Until Dominic hears the truth DIRECTLY from Eli, he's >gonna > > have doubts about that "I believe this is the best way to serve God" >line. > > And you have to admit, Eli not giving his story directly to Dom is a >pretty > > suspicious move; so Dominic can suspect Eli's up to something (which all > > investigators do), but until he can bring Eli in for Judegement, he's >not > > 100% sure. > > > > -Exit the LoneWolf > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:58:51 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) At 11:48 PM -0500 9/5/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >Plus, of course, refusal to answer an investigation is, if I remember >Superiors 1 correctly, itself a crime -- "Obstruction of Judgement". > That is *very* true. As it says, "you have a right to answer truthfully in a complete way...." - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 22:34:27 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> So who plays? Thomas J Howell wrote: > So my question becomes - who on this list plays in a currently running, > face-to-face In Nomine campaign that meets at least once > a month (and preferably 2+ times)? I'm quite curious to know. > I'm also curious to see player/GM ratios. I used to play fairly often. We actually had two campaigns going for a while (I bought the game, and the two brothers I game with decided independantly to run, variusly, a Revelations Cycle game and a backwards game), and alternated between them each week (since we generally get together once a week or so). The Revelations cycle game had 4 players (and an occaisional fifth), and the other had three for most of its life, although we garnered an additional two players before our GM got distracted by D&D/3e, school and a trip to paris. The other campaign finished up, and the GM says that he may start a second if he finds time. Cheers, Ryan "There was an african tribe who's closest word to 'enemy' was 'friend I haven't met yet'... Unfortunately, they had all killed eaten or enslaved by 1864. The last one died in Illinois, and was, by all accounts, very upset." -T. Pratchett, "Only You Can Save Mankind" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:44:20 NZST From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: IN> So who plays? >Thomas J Howell wrote: > > So my question becomes - who on this list plays in a currently running, > > face-to-face In Nomine campaign that meets at least once > > a month (and preferably 2+ times)? I'm quite curious to know. > > I'm also curious to see player/GM ratios. > I have a group of 8 people that play every Sunday. We alternate Angelic/Demonic/Mixed to give some variation. Alex _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 03:11:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Charles Glasgow wrote: > > > > That doesn't affect a "no comment" response. Only a false one. > > True enough, but I didn't think that the Seraph resonance needed a falsehood > present to be able to sense the underlying Truth behind the truth on a CD of > 6... > > .. IOW, I had thought -- apparently, I am wrong -- that the CD of 6 would > give you the underlying Truth of the guy's statement no matter whether the > comment was true or false. But what you just said has no bearing on the statement "no comment". "No comment" is short for "I will not comment on that" or "I have no comment I am willing to make on that". All the Seraph can do is evaluate the truth of THAT STATEMENT... as such. CD 1 - The subject believes he is not willing to comment on that subject. 2 - Ditto 3 - The subject chose to tell the truth about his unwillingness to comment because he feels you have no right to ask that question. 4 - The subject believes that he is unwilling to comment on that subject. 5 - The subject does know the Truth of his willingness to comment. 6 - The Truth is that the subject could comment, but refuses to, for reasons stated above. Like mentioned in the APG, it's like saying "What a lovely day" when asked a question... the Seraph can ONLY ping your statement, as made. They cannot ping "The theoretical answer you might give if you were to give them a straight answer to their question". - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 06:37:35 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> So who plays? Don't have much of a gaming group at the moment, unfortunately. I did run a brief campaign -- with extra one-offs when the opportunity arose. And there's the one-shot that Genevieve & I ran last weekend at GenCon UK, of course. (Which wasn't bad since we only decided to do it about about midnight the previous evening.) I'm almost tempted to post the pregen PCs, but I don't know if we might want to use them again, and wouldn't want to spoil it for people. jo _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:17:59 +1000 From: "Shane Curtis" Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) On 6 Sep 2000, 3:11, Rev. Pee Kitty wrote: > "No comment" is short for "I will not comment on that" or "I have no > comment I am willing to make on that". All the Seraph can do is evaluate > the truth of THAT STATEMENT... as such. > > CD > 1 - The subject believes he is not willing to comment on that subject. > 2 - Ditto > 3 - The subject chose to tell the truth about his unwillingness to comment > because he feels you have no right to ask that question. Hrm. Mightn't that also produce the result of "because he feels he doesn't want you to know the truth to your question"? > 4 - The subject believes that he is unwilling to comment on that subject. Now what would be really weird is a CD1 of "he thinks he is lying" while a CD4 gets "he believes the truth to be what he is saying". :p (brainwashing victim?) > 5 - The subject does know the Truth of his willingness to comment. > 6 - The Truth is that the subject could comment, but refuses to, for > reasons stated above. I suppose it depends a lot on just how *much* Truth the Seraph gets. A given CD already includes all lesser CDs; it seems in this case you'd have a CD6 give no more information than a CD5? > Like mentioned in the APG, it's like saying "What a lovely day" when asked > a question... the Seraph can ONLY ping your statement, as made. They > cannot ping "The theoretical answer you might give if you were to give > them a straight answer to their question". Um, but a lie is also not a straight answer - I would've thought. Heck, I'd've thought a CD4 would cover the 'theoretical answer if the person was to give a straight answer' situation? And if a CD4 can give that, I'd've thought a CD6 would give rather more than that? Here's an example. Seraph: "Did you murder that man?" Murderer: "No comment." Seraph (gets a CD6): "the Truth is that you are trying to avoid incriminating yourself by refusing to commit to a positive or negative answer." At least, that was the impression I gained from the core book (not having the APG handy, which seems to grey things considerably if your post is to be gone by?). I can understand how saying "no comment" might spoof lesser CDs, but a CD6 - isn't this the point where a Seraph is reading not just the person, but the Symphony 'at large'? I base this on an idea that saying "No comment" *is* making a comment (along the lines of however much one might believe it is not so, the Symphony says it is indeed so). In the IN universe, perhaps there's a deeper reason beyond the mundane for the US's Miranda Right of "you have the right to remain silent," one that demons might appreciate. :p PS. On the "What a lovely day" observation. On a CD6, a Seraph gets both the truth as the speaker understands it and the Truth as the Symphony knows it. In a world of Words, perhaps just because something's a subjective opinion doesn't necessarily mean there is no absolute measure of that opinion... I wonder if Seraphim would indeed Know whether it was a Lovely Day, or get their resonance fogged because they just tried to resonate an aspect of God's Plan that He would prefer remain Ineffable (or which is simply Too Big for the angel to comprehend). ;) Shane. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:26:57 +0930 From: Gnezda Subject: IN> Seraphim resonance With regards to the 'no comment' statement, I'd take it to allow others to fool seraphim. You apply the resonance on that angel, not the immediate area or on yourself (unless you want to know when you're lying which, hey, now that I think of it would be a pretty good way to get to the truth if you were suffering from amnesia... but I need to think on that some more... :)). So, if you were to say 'What is your name' and the angel responded 'I am thiry five years old today', the Symphony wouldn't recognise your question, it would *only* recognise the truthfulness in the 'I am thirty five today' sentence. ie the Symphony may go into great depth about how he is 35 years old in vessel appearence, but has actually been around for 1500 years as an angel, etc... That's how I see it anyway. Also, what if you said 'I will not make any comment to that question.' but the Symphony knows you don't have the willpower to withstand this questioning and the seraphim rolls a 6. The angel will hear, 'Buzzzz! Incorrect answer! You *will* eventually make a comment, but haven't made one yet!' ;) Milan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 04:17:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: Re: IN> So who plays? > So my question becomes - who on this list plays in a > currently running, face-to-face In Nomine campaign that > meets at least once a month (and preferably 2+ times)? > I'm quite curious to know. I'm also curious to see > player/GM ratios. Not me! Since EDG left town, I haven't had the inclination. Several (like, five) friends would like me to run a campaign, and I've been considering doing a write-up on IN Phoenix for some time... So, one potential GM, five players, no campaign. Actually, two to three potential campaigns; I want my players to have an Angelic character, a Demonic character, and someone in-between, for those grey days. That way, depending on which faction holds the reins, I could run an OpForce. Or interested third party. Owen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 04:19:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: Re: IN> Squicking David? (Re: Cathexis) > Erin > (...who actually went out _looking_ for Gor after all > these posts about it. One local used book store used > to have a huge shelf in the back devoted mostly to Gor > and similar juvenile series fiction, like Mack Bolan, > but it's gone now. Guess I'll never no what I was > missing...) Nothing. Me, I'm missing several hours of my juvenile years from reading that tripe. Owen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:33:53 +1200 (NZST) From: Keith Bolland Subject: Re: IN> Contest Posted. On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, ben wrote: A little late to the starting gate, I know, but I hope y'all will forgive me; I've been trying to tease these little beggars out of my skull all week. Note that these guys are pretty much intended as an NPC Band, something to scare Servitors of the Game with; however, they probably COULD be played as PCs, so long as they avoided taking their celestial form... THE KEEPERS (as in "My brothers'...") "But I didn't mean to!" the pathetic, quivering shape whimpered, abasing itself at the feet of the figure looming above it. "You didn't mean to what?" the second shape murmured. "Wait, don't tell me..." It stared down at the battered vessel of the Djinn with blank, pupil-less eyes. There was a pause. "You didn't mean to... tell the renegade Calabite Araxes the location of a Tether of Flowers he could appeal to for sanctuary... in return for... a reliquary crammed with Essence?" The standing demon shook its head. "Tsk, tsk, tsk. You serve the Game, Hassadai... not Gluttony." It considered for a moment. "Somehow, I just don't believe you. Not that it would save you if I did." The second demon reached into a pocket. "Lord Asmodeus has been informed of your treachery, of course. He'll be waiting at your Heart. I'm almost sorry I couldn't see the ensuing... discussion... personally." Hassadai felt the cold metal of a gun-barrel press to his vessel's temple, and knew he was doomed. He closed his eyes and tried to pray... but demons have no-one left to pray to. "Please..." Hassadai begged instead, grinding its vessel's nose into the grime and filth of the alley. "It's far too late to beg, Stalker," the other said. "It's ALWAYS far too late to beg." The second demon pulled the trigger. Hassadai's vessel crumpled as the soul within it was catapulted back to Hell to face the personal wrath of the Prince of the Game. The demon tucked its weapon away and retrieved the reliquary from the bag the corpse had carried. It was a leatherbound book, pages edged in gilt. A Bible. "How appropriate," the hunter chuckled to itself, paging backwards through it and stopping near the beginning. "Genesis, chapter IV, verse 9... 'Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"'" * * * Though Asmodeus does not like to admit it, even demons of the Game sometimes go bad. And because even the secret police need a secret police, he created the Keepers. Most demons regard the existance of this Band as a myth, designed to scare unruly Servitors back into line. Asmodeus and the tiny population of Keepers - perhaps 20 exist - do nothing to discourage this rumour. It's the best way to root out rats, after all. As a general rule, the only demons unlucky enough to learn that the Keepers really do exist learn about it far too late for it to matter. Asmodeus does make Keepers available to those with whom he is closely allied: at this point, that means Baal and Kronos. Baal has one, and Kronos three. These demons do not generally have "party line" duties - even in service to other Superiors, their only task is to root out corruption in the ranks. However, Kronos in particular finds their resonance directly useful to his Word and will occasionally employ them in missions which further it directly. RESONANCE Keepers resonate with condemnation. This is not personal guilt, which is the domain of the Elohim and Habbalah, nor genuine justice - the field of the angels of Judgement - nor perverted "justice" such as other demons of the Game traffic in. This is the heavy opprobium of societal prejudice: things which would be regarded as wrong by the weight of public opinion, not necessarily by the individual concerned. DISSONANCE It is dissonant for a Keeper to... well... be dissonant! Asmodeus trusts his Keepers absolutely, because he knows he can: he built them that way. Whenever a Keeper acquires a note of dissonance, no matter the outcome of his dissonance roll, he immediately gets a SECOND, as his nature amplifies the dissonance even further. If he fails the second dissonance roll, he gains a third, and so on into a hideous dissonance spiral that will eventually either rip the Keeper apart and scatter its Forces to the four winds, or leave it a shambling, Discord-beset wreck... and Asmodeus will be checking up on it within the week. However, if the Keeper succeeds at the second dissonance roll, it can attempt to exert its infernal Will to halt the spiral. It must make a Will roll, minus its current dissonance. If it succeeds, no more dissonance is accrued... though two notes is a fairly unpleasant number all by itself. If it fails, the Keeper gets yet ANOTHER note, and the spiral continues. If the Keeper makes the third dissonance roll, it can try and use its Will, etc. The further a Keeper sinks, however, the harder it is to get out... Keepers obey Asmodeus, because their very existance depends on it. There is no record of a Keeper ever surviving dissonance long enough to go Renegade, let alone Redeem. Any which did so would result in Asmodeus throwing every resource at his disposal to terminate the delinquent before it could reveal anything. A Keeper working for the Other Side - or selling the secrets of the Game to the highest bidder - could destroy Asmodeus utterly. He doesn't particularly want that. MANNER AND APPEARANCE Corporeally, Keepers dress however they must to carry out their current assignment, usually in whatever fits their Role. They have a particular fondness for sunglasses or heavy scarves, or other devices which will conceal part of their features. The few demons who claim to have seen a Keeper in celestial form and lived describe them as humanoids seemingly molded from quicksilver: metallic and shining, they have no blemishes on their perfect bodies, but no distinguishing features either. In particular, all observers concur: Keepers have neither horns nor wings nor face. GAME MECHANICS The Keeper resonance allows them to detect people who have violated what the people around them would consider to be acceptable behaviour. This is a highly subjective affair, depending entirely on which other people are present: someone who tossed back a bottle of vodka the previous day would not trip a Keeper's resonance if they were in a bar, but the celestial sirens would wail like nobody's business if the same person were sitting in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Furthermore, the Keeper's own opinions, whatever they may be, are never included in the assessment, which makes the resonance useless if there is not at least one person - angel, demon, or mundane - in the room besides the Keeper and the target. (Asmodeus' attunement for Keepers modifies this with regard to demons, however.) The exact detail of information obtained depends on the check digit: 1 - Yup, whatever they did would make people look REALLY grumpy, all right. 2 - You know the major moral precepts of the people around. Now if you just knew which one they'd busted on... 3 - You know which precept they violated. 4 - You know when they violated it, relative to now. 5 - You know what they did that violated the precept. 6 - You know every grisly detail of the violation, including where it happened. Two items worthy of note: First, since people's opinions vary wildly, this resonance will base itself on the opinions of that mythical creature, "the majority", so long as the people present are of roughly equal strength. If a celestial is standing in a room full of 5-Force humans, however, the celestial's opinions will be so overwhelming that they will be the yardstick the resonance measures transgressions by. Secondly, this resonance only applies to major moral transgressions. Little things, like forgetting to feed the cat, don't apply. This is, of course, wholly subjective: HAVING a pet cat would be viewed very badly at a meeting of a animal-rights group, for example. All Keepers are always +3 to summon Asmodeus, no matter what the circumstance. ATTUNEMENTS Keeper of the Game Keepers of the Game get all the standard Asmodean benefits, like the free 12 points to spend on a Role or Roles. However, instead of being attuned to their own Band - although they are, for what little it's worth - - they are attuned to demons in service of their Superior: the Game, in this case. They possess all the usual abilities: IDing a Servitor of the Game and sensing their dissonance. Additionally, Keepers of the Game may use their resonance on any demon - and they have to know it's a demon for this to work - as if Asmodeus himself was standing right next to that demon. Furthermore, all Keepers of the Game must purchase the Humanity attunement at character creation. Keeper of the War, Keeper of Fate, Keeper of the Abyss The Princes to whom Asmodeus makes Keepers available have modified versions of the Keeper of the Game attunement, replacing the references to Asmodeus with those of the appropriate Superior. They still get the extra character points for Roles, and still must purchase Asmodeus' Humanity attunement. Asmodeus makes the attunement available to his gifted Keepers, but if relations with one of the Superiors ever sour, Asmodeus will revoke the attunement. (Not to mention try his level best to extirpate the Keeper.) //-- <*> Keith Bolland --------------------------------------- // "Life isn't fair. But the root password helps." -- The BOFH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 07:46:18 -0400 From: Jonathan Walton Subject: IN> Re: So who plays? A perfectly valid question. Having just moved to college in this past week, I'm not in any game right now except for a PBEM IN game that hasn't quite got it's act together yet, and another PBEM game that I'm running that just started this past month (which is doing pretty well). I'm currently trying to get a group together, but it's the first week of classes, so things are tough. Before that, I ran a year-long campaign for three players that met once every two weeks. Looks like you're right about the GM-player ratio. Seems like most of us are GM's then. I would argue that's probably because (speaking as a generalization now, don't kill me) the people who have the strongest passion for a game and care about it's continued existence, inevitably end up running it when no one else will. I know that's been my experience at least. But I wouldn't have it any other way. There's nothing quite like showing players a game they've never seen before and watching them get as excited about it as you are. Ok, I'm getting sentimental now. That's how you can tell I haven't played for a while. Later. Jonathan/Daedalus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:43:43 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Charles Glasgow wrote: > It's just that since part of the evidence will be what Eli has to say for> himself whilst speaking in the celestial tongue and with Dominic's resonance> pinging him throughout, Dominic can't/won't pass sentence until he finally> catches Eli for his long-overdue question-and-answer session... This is not necessarily so. If Dominic feels there's sufficient evidence to find Eli heretical, even without his testimony, he will be so judged. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:45:39 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Archangelic Serephim (was:Eli & Dominic) Charles Glasgow wrote: > Eh? I thought that a six meant that you knew the Truth of and behind the> person's response, straight from the Symphony... which would include, in> this case, the exact Truth of *why* the questionee didn't want to speak to> you. No. > > (Or, possibly, it could reveal that the person does indeed *have* a > comment.) Whether or not a person has a comment is determined by whether or not he comments. > Or why exactly he'd rather not comment? Only if he says "I'd rather not comment." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:44:13 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: Eli & Dominic (was Re: IN> Cross Archangel Help) Rolland Therrien wrote: > That's mostly because Dominic didn't hear it from Eli himself. > The Archangels who told him about Eli's statements weren't > Seraphim, so it's likely Eli could've lied to them, and they > told Dominic what they believed was the truth. But can't any Archangel use any choir resonnance? and therefore the seraphic lie-detector resonnance? Or can an Archangel only use all their own Word-specific choir attunements? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Squicking David? (Re: Cathexis) > That'd squick _me_ out... > > Erin > (...who actually went out _looking_ for Gor after all > these posts about it. One local used book store used > to have a huge shelf in the back devoted mostly to Gor > and similar juvenile series fiction, like Mack Bolan, > but it's gone now. Guess I'll never no what I was missing...) A better question is... where did they all go? (... The shambling mound of bad fiction slowly dragged its victim away down the narrow alley between shelves, muffling the hapless browser with a copy of 'Houseplants of Gor'. It would feed well on wasted time tonight...) - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:50:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> The Little Old Lady from Pasadina Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:36:42 -0400 From: "Charles phipps" Subject: IN> The Little Old Lady from Pasadina >Margret >Calabim of Death >Captain of the Infernal Legion >Demon of Reckless Driving One quibble. She really should have Large Weapon/4 (four-door sedan). Other than that, neat-o. :) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:49:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re:IN> CONTEST: The most horrifying demon in the world. Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:15:32 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: IN> CONTEST: The most horrifying demon in the world. >Why not? >Put together the most awful, horrifying demon you can >and mail them to the list. Keep them under 10k -- if >they get bigger, post them to a webpage and mail the >URL -- and keep them plain text. I'll collate them >and tack 'em onto a website. Sounds like a plan. Oh, BTW: You'll be sorr-reee! Bwahhh-hah-hah-hah-hahhh! ;) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:59:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Rain, rain, go away (why the heck are no Archangels for Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:15:08 -0400 From: "Charles phipps" Subject: IN> Rain, rain, go away (why the heck are no Archangels for the Weather?) Any angel can be adapted truly...see Ogiel the Seraphim. "You lie, you guilty, hulk smash." Oh, true: Ogiel really could work as anybody except a Mercurian or Bright Lilim. There's Cherubic Ogiel ("You mean to friend. Hulk Smash."), Elohite Ogiel ("Your actions demonstrate that you subscribe to that worldview best described as 'evil'. Hulk smash.", Malakite Ogiel ("Hulk SMITE! Hulk SMITE! Hulk SMITE!"), Kyriotate Ogiel ("You Bad. Hulk smash over here, and Hulk smash over here, and over here, and here here here and here."), and of course, Grigori Ogiel ("Be very, very quiet. Hulk looking for Bad people to smash. Ogiel sneaky."). Had to get that off my chest. :) Moegiel Kyriotate of Destiny Petitioner for the Word of Lets Not Even Start With Fallen Ogiel, Shall We? ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1808 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.