From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Feb 26 20:36:36 2001 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 UAA03584 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:36:36 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id UAA24051 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:39:18 -0600 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:39:18 -0600 Message-Id: <200102270239.UAA24051@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 #2081 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, February 26 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2081 In this digest: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> Hearts Fwd: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> Improvements for a second edition Re: IN> Temporary Substitute for February 21-22, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> .02 worth Re: IN> Suggestions for Elizabeth Re: IN> Hearts IN> [ADMIN] A listrules footnote... Re: IN> The Angel of Prisons Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) IN> Action Figures?! Re: IN> Improvements for a second edition Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) Re: IN> Action Figures?! Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Re: IN> INS/MV vs IN (was : What to Cut) Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) Re: IN> Memes Re: IN> Memes Re: IN> INS/MV vs IN (was : What to Cut) Re: Fwd: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:54:49 -0500 From: "Jason F. McBrayer" Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:40:29PM -0500, Marc Bowden wrote: > --On Monday, February 26, 2001 1:09 PM -0500 "Jason F. McBrayer" > wrote: > > > Yes, the trick is to actually have been there. With a > > Superior-granted Role/6, everyone will remember you, too (whether > > this is through some kind of Symphonic manipulation or through > > having the Role lived out by a reliever or demonling until you > > needed it), but there's at least one way for a Renegade/Outcast to > > manage it. > > Yes, but that way tends to be Symphonically "noisy". And you get > gooky stuff everywhere. Gooky stuff, I'll grant you. But why is living out a Role from childhood noisy? You only have to use CorpEntropy a few times a year at most (maybe more as a small child), and you can refrain from Essence expenditure the rest of the time. Not very noisy at all. If you assume that normal high-level Roles are created by having a reliever or demonling live them out until they're needed, then it's no different from the normal process of making a Role. Or am I missing something? - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@carcosa.net | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:59:20 +1300 From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: IN> Hearts >Can Archangels make Hearts to demons? In this case it's Michael and a >Renegade Calabite of Belial. I make it a GM call. Michael can *make* the Heart, but it is just dead weight. It can't be used until Michael binds the redeemed Angel to it. Or flatly no. He can't make an Angelic heart *without* something to immediately link to it. >Can Demonprinces make Hearts to angels? (Just something to scare angelic >PCs with:)). Same deal I would think. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:24:49 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Non-member submission from [Sam Kington ] >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:15:24 +0000 >From: Sam Kington >Reply-To: skington@uk2.net >Subject: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) > >Perry Lloyd wrote: >[...] >> The descriptions of Heaven and Hell _are_not_necessary_, either. A >> supplement could cover them more in depth, perhaps. If the GM *really* >> wants to run a game in Heaven and Hell, she can buy the supplement or "make >> stuff up." > >Angels and demons are always going to be in Heaven or Hell *some* of the >time. And explaining what Heaven and Hell are like gives a better >explanation, by contrast, of what it's like to be a Celestial on Earth. > >> And, although they're >> *really* neat, the band/choir attunements take up a lot of space. Why not >> do what the original game does? Have upwards of 216 powers to choose from >> (they're like "songs" and "attunements" but without the different nature) >> and each superior can grant each choir/band one for free, then have his own >> "distinct" power. > >As I remember from the French game, a lot of those powers were fairly >boring, especially the 10 or so different summonable guns (I may be >exaggerating a little). >[...] >> Yeah, you'd lose the "special" attunements, but you'd certainly free up the >> powers. >> >> PC: "I want to turn into mist." >> GM: "You can't; only Demons of Theft can." >> PC: "Oh. Can I have photographic memory?" >> GM: "Nope, only Angels of Jean can." >> PC: "Oh. Can I have Danger Sense?" >> GM: "Do you serve War? No." >> PC: > >That cuts both ways, though: you have special stuff that only you (and >other Celestials like you) have. So when an unknown Celestial turns up, >you don't know what they can do. > >Anyway, there's already a whole bunch of useful generic powers that >anyone can have. They're called Songs. (Oh, and the Songs of Memory and >Nemesis can do the last two of the examples you mentioned anyway.) > >> A lot of the choir/band attunements feel so _forced_ to me; like the authors >> had to think of something/anything; many are merely : add [forces] to [roll] >> if [circumstance] . . . grrrr . . . > >It's roughly a quarter of all the angelic resonances, as I make it (looking >*very* roughly at the In Nomine Cookbook - >http://www.illuminated.co.uk/innomine - which I *must* get round to updating). >Most of them are OK, though - some types of angel are just better at >some things. Although many of Marc's Servitor Attunements suck (the >Kyriotate one in particular). > >> Disturbance does not even /exist/ in the original game and could be cut, but >> that's not going to happen either, obviously, since in a world of reality >> manipulation, you need to have a Paradox equivalent (not that the original >> game does, but what do you expect, they're French; they just don't >> understand.) > >I personally found the original game very limited compared to the >SJGames version. I *like* all the extra stuff that's been added. > >Anyway, in the original game high-powered Celestials had big visible >auras; with the lack of that, there's got to be a way of telling >Celestials from mundanes (other than obvious things like they're flying >and are spitting acid). > >> The whole Destiny/Fate thing takes things a bit out of proportion for me. I >> mean, if one's fate and destiny determine whether or not people go to heaven >> or hell, shouldn't Lucifer have "all" demons serve Fate? > >First of all, if all demons serve Fate, and Fate serves Lucifer, then >why not cut out the middle man, get rid of Kronos, and have all demons >serve Lucifer? > >Secondly, there's a difference between Fate, for which the only point is >the ultimate end of whether human souls go to Hell, and other demonic >Words, who *also* want as many souls to go to Hell as possible (as >that's their power base), but concentrate on specific means. The >advantage of the latter approach is that you don't have to concentrate >on individual humans; you can take the more overarching approach (see >The Media for an example of this). I'm reminded of the contrast in Good >Omens between Crowley producing large amounts of low-level evil by tying >up the mobile phone network for hours, and other more traditional demons >tempting vicars over a period of years. Although it doesn't ewactly >apply to In Nomine (Fate tends mostly to big, important people who have >influence over other people), the parallel is, I think, useful. > >Sam >-- >Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ >INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ >Brussels, the New Jersey of Europe - Goats > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:33:24 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) At 1:09 PM -0500 2/26/01, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: >[...] With a >Superior-granted Role/6, These do not exist in canon, with the exception of: >having the >Role lived out by a reliever or demonling until you needed it), Superiors can't wave their hands and make a Role. (God could, and Lucifer _might_ be able to come close, but we're talking the rule not the exception...) _Someone_ has to live the Role, and the longer and better they live it, the better the Role is. The great gory details of this are in the Liber Servitorum. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:34:54 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Improvements for a second edition At 6:40 PM -0500 2/23/01, William J. Keith wrote: >>>My only wish for additional G:IN material (yeah, yeah, nothing's coming out >>>GURPS-flavored, I know) would be greater detail on Ethereal Spirits -- >>>there are no mechanics listed for constructing Ethereal characters in G:IN. >> >>Eh? What's that half-page on p. GIN25, then? > >It says they're designed like celestial characters, have some extra >additional advantages, and have a special Essence pool for Vessels. But of >course, unless you want the players to be as powerful as ethereal gods >you're going to have some changes... > >...unless starting ethereal PCs get 9 levels of Power Investiture? Hey, why not? O:> (They range from around 7-9, IIRC The Marches right...) >And the Essence pool; one assumes it breaks the usual "2/3 HT" limit? Actually, only sorta-kinda -- it's an Essence cache, which they can put Essence _into_, but not take Essence from, except to build a vessel. It works with the same mechanics as Limbo, but they don't have to be in Limbo. >Then there's the Humble or Proud, that's easy enough to discard, and >likewise steps 2-4 of the Celestial creation checklist. >Let's try an exercise. I want to write up His Faithful Hound, an ethereal >spirit. The history is that he's formed from the dreams that people have >had of their dogs, or the ideal dog; he's an *old* ethereal (we're talking >"memories of barely-domesticated wolves" here, up through "Rochester Dog >Show") that's been around long enough to become intelligent. Some >characteristics: > >* Mute, No Manipulators, etc.; standard dog template, minus Pre-Sentient >and adding TL0. I would strike Mute (and he's No _Fine_ Manipulators. O:> ) -- celestial vessels are generally equipped with voices, no matter the alleged species. Disturbing Voice, though... >* Selfless (Slave Mentality?) -- tends to jump into a dreamscape and defend Oh, cool -- variation Slave Mentality, sure, I'd see that. >*Essence Pool -- not really necessary unless I want him to go to Earth and >continue his Cherub-like activities; a dog would be, what, 60 Essence >anyway? Probably. Note, however, that as a GM, I'd rule that the Essence Cache is part of being an ethereal, and therefore you'd get the points freebied, same as celestials get all their racial stuff freebied. >So: >Celestial Template distribute 9 levels of PI, dog form >advantage/disadvantage package, probably No Vessel disadvantage to start >with, pick the stats(do ethereals get the stat bonuses?), (Good question. Probably, with encouragement to buy them down, or a bonus of +2 or +3...) >pay for the Songs, skills, and personality mentioned... >...am I done? Yes. >If so, I beg pardon for the intimation that the description >wasn't complete. Okay, it could have been a bit more detailed -- though truthfully, doing ethereals in main IN requires about as much "winging it" as I just did above. (Which is probably why it's _got_ some missing data; we had the Corporeal Player's Guide to grab humans from, but the EPG is yet in Limbo.) >But there seem to be some guidelines missing. (If you'd >like me to write up the character in detail, perhaps any flaws in the >writeup would explain my question more effectively.) I think I see your point above. (But still, there's not _no_ guidelines!) Hm. Maybe I should write up some Q&D guidelines along these lines. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:34:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Temporary Substitute for February 21-22, 2001 (ML) At 1:43 PM +0800 2/25/01, Manny Nepomuceno wrote: >on 2/23/01 1:18 PM, Maurice Lane at moelane_1999@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Embarrassing. I seem to be blocked on writing out >> something interesting about Shiva (Wednesday's), so I >> can't present today's based-on-the-IN-Calendar entry >> until I get one. Suggestions welcome. > >Try this one out for size. > >Numinous Corpus: Arms Isn't that already in the Liber Canticorum? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:34:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> .02 worth At 9:16 PM -0800 2/23/01, Maurice Lane wrote: >Well, everyone else is mentioning their dream thoughts >for IN v2.0, so here's mine. > >.05) Reorganize. We all know _that's_ gonna happen, >anyway, but I have a reason. >1) Dump some of the artwork. Specifically, the two >page spreads for each section. Moe, stop reading my mind... O:> (I've been, off and on, wondering how well those guys would shrink. And it seems that GIN does well enough without 'em.) >revised IN GM screen (a whole DIFFERENT matter), () >2) The first and last page of the hardback version of >IN is completely blank. Those aren't pages -- they're the "backing" to the cover, that hides the glue-points. I don't know if they could have anything printed on them or not. (See that they're not bound into the rest of the pages, but are pasted in with a fold.) >That's about it. Aside from the layout issues, I >really don't have anything major about IN that I want >to see fixed... except, of course, for biting the >bullet and retroactively altering Khalid's fragging >Choir*. Won't happen, of course, but a man can dream. > :) Now, now, I thought that Superiors 3 _fixed_ that pretty well... O:> - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:35:05 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Suggestions for Elizabeth (Just so you all know, telling me something is no guarentee that _your_ suggestions will prevail, or that you'll get any sort of credit whatsoever. 2nd Edition is a total pipe dream until the Blue Book sells out, and maybe even then, depending on the state of the world. I make mental notes (such as the ones that observe that the GURPS IN art that was shrunk down worked pretty well, though it doesn't, of course, break up the text as much) and that's it. Don't hold your breath.) At 12:29 AM -0800 2/25/01, scott hillman wrote: > The Octaves system. This is, actually, a very close version of one of the original drafts of the SJGames IN. Divinity and Malevolance. The higher your Divinity, the better you were at some things (such as Songs, resonances) and the worse you were at others (such as mundane skills). Ditto Malevolance, except for demons. Since it was cut somewhere between the draft I found and the current version, I think it's safe to say that SJ didn't like the idea. (He probably found it too complex in playtest.) You could write this up and sent it to Pyramid, though you would want to mention that you came up with it yourself; it really does look very derived from a previous draft. (No, I don't think you swiped it. I think it was parallel evolution. But you'll want to make that clear to others less sensible than I. O:> ) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:35:10 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Hearts At 4:59 PM +0200 2/26/01, Mervi Hamalainen wrote: >Can Archangels make Hearts to demons? Only if they redeem the demon first. >Can Demonprinces make Hearts to angels? (Just something to scare angelic >PCs with:)). Only if the angel Falls first. Or is a Habbalite. O:> (I believe that's what the GMG says, certainly.) [In some of our personal, hardly even within sight of canon, games, it has been tried for an Archangel to make a Heart for a demon. The demon experiences great discomfort as the True Symphony starts clashing though its being, probably leading to insanity or a forced redemption (which might or might not have been survived). The experiment was dubbed a mitigated failure and the Heart was broken. However, this provided raw materials for some False Hearts (Liber Reliquarum), which served the original purpose fairly well.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:35:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] A listrules footnote... This isn't one of my "HTML-kill-it" kinds of hot buttons, but it's a point I'd like to make, and it is now in the listrules... Please, everyone, check the sizes of your posts -- if it's above 10-15K, SERIOUSLY consider splitting it into two halves and posting it about a day apart. Why? Because of people whose mailboxes fill up and then start bouncing. Giving them a day makes it slightly less likely that they'll get bouncification from hell immediately (causing yours truly to u n s u b s c r i b e them). This is _MOST_ important for things over 20K -- people who try to do 20+ K messages on a routine basis _will_ incur my disapproval. The higher the Ks there, the more wrathful I will wax. - --Beth, List Admin http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/listrules.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:35:08 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Angel of Prisons At 5:34 PM -0600 2/25/01, Santiago wrote: > > > Now that I agree with. There's no canon way to force a >Celestial to use its resonance. Will Shackles, mebbe. (Liber Reliquarum.) >You can't force someone to be nice--you can only force >them to act nice. Amen. (In our campaigns, angels (typically Elohim, the little emotional voyers) tend to try to find likely demons for redemption and maneuver them into angelic mindsets, such as caring, love, loyalty, etc. And then there's the Angel of Sculpting (a version of which appears in the Pyramid Designer's Notes on the Liber Servitorum), who has been known to use BDSM to fracture Habbalah so that they get a weird idea of "Strength" and from there, progress to "If I know I'm strong, I don't have to keep showing it to people" and then to "I should help other people be strong too, so that they don't need to be punished" and once you get there, well... Hey, hand 'em over to Stone, dump 'em in the bleach vat, and who can tell the difference? (Okay, okay, so it's only come up once in our campaign, and she was "fixing" a Habbalite of Lust. The BDSM was the chink in his demonic mindset, and being a Malakite of Creation, Kath used what weapons came to hand to reshape his tiny little brain.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:33:03 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 1:09 PM -0500 2/26/01, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > >[...] With a > >Superior-granted Role/6, > > These do not exist in canon, with the exception of: > > >having the > >Role lived out by a reliever or demonling until you needed it), > > Superiors can't wave their hands and make a Role. (God could, and > Lucifer _might_ be able to come close, but we're talking the rule > not the exception...) _Someone_ has to live the Role, and the longer > and better they live it, the better the Role is. > --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor > RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ So... your next door neighbor might actually be a three to five force reliever or Demonling? Who has no purpose, no desire to do anything other than live a perfectly Normal Life. Whatever is normal for that persona, anyway. This strikes me as a fertile plain for a low powered game. Not playing the three to five forcer, mind you. But having one as your next door neighbor, and not knowing it. I imagine that the only thing that this hypothetical role builder would do (other than building the role) is serve as sort of a second rate Grigori. Whenever they detect a disturbance, they get on the phone and report it to the local tether (this is not breaking role, right? Not that it is consistent with the role, but because the action is pretty much totally passive, and is in any case, unwitnessed by anyone). This assumes that role building requires a long period of not doing anything other than living the role, and not doing anything to cause Disturbance. If that is true, then I imagine that both the Game and Judgement have teams devoted exclusively to finding and exposing people who are role moles (well, what would you call them?) The other thought that comes to mind is that this might make an interesting background for a character; that they spent several years or lifetimes before they fledged as a role builder for others. Just a thought, while I deepen my role as a silicon valley slacker. - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:52:35 -0500 From: "Jason F. McBrayer" Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 04:33:24PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: [how Roles happen] > The great gory details of this are in the Liber Servitorum. I even hvae the Liber Servitorum, and forgot about that. I guess the huge pre-LS arguments on the mailing list over how Roles were created made more of an impression on me than what eventually became Canon. Oh well. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@carcosa.net | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:13:25 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Action Figures?! >Just when you thought you saw it all; religious action figures with >weapons: > >http://www.jesuschristsuperstore.net/ > >Adam Check this OUT! HA! (Is is just me, or does the God Almighty action figure have the biggest gun?) - -Perry, kfc 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, 26 Feb 2001 19:29:22 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> Improvements for a second edition > > >>...am I done? > >Yes. > >>If so, I beg pardon for the intimation that the description >>wasn't complete. I really do; apparently everything is covered. Thanks for the step-by-step there; I guess I just needed a little extra boost to step out of the rigidly-defined lines for celestials. >Hm. Maybe I should write up some Q&D guidelines along these lines. Q&D? >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:25:43 -0500 From: "John Walter Biles" Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) On 26 Feb 01, at 13:33, Daiv wrote: > > So... your next door neighbor might actually be a three to five > force reliever or Demonling? Who has no purpose, no desire to do > anything other than live a perfectly Normal Life. Whatever is > normal for that persona, anyway. This strikes me as a fertile > plain for a low powered game. Not playing the three to five > forcer, mind you. But having one as your next door neighbor, and > not knowing it. I imagine that the only thing that this Sounds like a sitcom to me...:) > hypothetical role builder would do (other than building the > role) is serve as sort of a second rate Grigori. Whenever they > detect a disturbance, they get on the phone and report it to the > local tether (this is not breaking role, right? Not that it is > consistent with the role, but because the action is pretty much > totally passive, and is in any case, unwitnessed by anyone). The key thing is that using the phone never causes a Disturbance, unless you used the Corporeal Song of Tongues or something. The only danger would be if your phone was bugged, which as long as your role isn't something like 'crack dealer' isn't too likely. John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas ranma@falcon.cc.ukans.edu http://www.dkcomm.net/rhea/falcon.html rhea@maison-otaku.net http://maison-otaku.net/~rhea/ "That all princes shall kiss the foot of the Pope alone."--Dictatus Papae, 11th century ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:55:31 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) Just to clarify a couple of points: >> PC: "I want to turn into mist." >> GM: "You can't; only Demons of Theft can." or Angels of the Wind, or any Kyriotate or Shedite, assuming they're willing to pay the points for it. ;^) >> PC: "Oh. Can I have photographic memory?" >> GM: "Nope, only Angels of Jean can." >> PC: "Oh. Can I have Danger Sense?" >> GM: "Do you serve War? No." >> PC: Photographic memory and Danger Sense(if the latter is allowed in the campaign for, say, normal humans) are Advantages that can be bought with standard GURPS character points. The premium for being a Celestial of a particular Choir or Word is twofold; first, the Choir Attunement for your Word is basically free in G:IN, and second, many of these are enhanced versions that can't be taken otherwise; for example, Jean's Seraphim can create holographic images as well(and invoke resonance upon them later!). >If you want GURPS, you know where to find it (and you're already >playing GURPS IN, so I don't see how this is a problem). A lot of the >flavour of IN /comes from/ having limited options based on your >character type. IN Celestials aren't humans. They can't have >Disadvantages unless they're Discordant. They can't have Advantages >except as Attunements from a Superior. I know that's not part of >INS/MV, but IN is not INS/MV. Likewise, Advantages and Disadvantages in G:IN can be taken without being, respectively, Attunements or Discords. A bloodthirsty Malakite can be a b*****d with the Bloodthirsty and Bully disadvantages, but still not be Discordant, because he's only being doing what his Choir is supposed to do... really nastily. >+----------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@carcosa.net | >| The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | >| forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | Btw, IIRC, isn't that Ythill? (TKiY... *shudder* Talk about a dangerous spreading Meme....) William ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:01:11 -0500 From: "Rolland Therrien" Subject: Re: IN> Action Figures?! - -----Original Message----- From: Perry Lloyd To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, February 26, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: IN> Action Figures?! >>Just when you thought you saw it all; religious action figures with >>weapons: >> >>http://www.jesuschristsuperstore.net/ >> >>Adam > >Check this OUT! HA! Interesting... Sounds like another Media/Gluttonny co-production... >(Is is just me, or does the God Almighty action figure have the biggest >gun?) Of COURSE He has the biggest gun: He's GOD ALMIGHTY!! - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:11:14 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Walter Biles" To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: Re: IN> February 21, 2001 (ML) > The key thing is that using the phone never causes a Disturbance, unless > you used the Corporeal Song of Tongues or something. The only danger > would be if your phone was bugged, Pay phones? - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:12:46 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> INS/MV vs IN (was : What to Cut) Jason F. McBrayer >A lot of your other comments seem to be complaints that IN is not >INS/MV. That's legitimate; INS/MV is a good game. But so is IN; >they're just completely different games by this point. If you wanted, >it would be very easy for you to play GURPS INS/MV. I certainly admit I'm guilty of something quite akin to this. I don't see myself as complaining that IN is not INS/MV, I get upset that english readers may never get to read INS/MV in english because the official english "translation" of the game isn't merely a tranlation, but a transformation. And because SJG holds the rights to the "translation" the original french game will probably never ever be read in english. Of course, I understand why SJG didn't merely translate INS/MV in its entire-ity (sp?) - because American sensiblity might not be able to handle the take on religious beliefs that the French game has. I've received permission from Siroz productions to translate (and therefore create a personal copy) of INS/MV into english. (Which means, no, I will NOT be emailing copies or posting it on the web - that would be very illegal; so none of you will ever see INS/MV in english unless you come down to Athens and hold the hard-copy in your hands, or get permission from them to translate it yourself.) So, I'll be happy as a clam once I'm finished, but I'll still be miffed that so long as SJG sits on the rights to publish INS/MV in english (but publish IN, a different game, instead) others will be missing out on INS/MV. It just feels injust to lock up the work and block it from an honest translation. And I haven't talked to SJGames about all this yet, which is stupid of me, so for all I know there's plans in the works to do just this. Of course, the irony is that, overall, IN is probably a much better game. It's the principle of the thing that gets to me. Though, I'd bet that INS/MV directly translated as much as possible (maybe having to take out some of the more "offensive" religious takes for the American audience) might make a really neat supplement for IN. And, if a writer was wanted for it, I'd do it a heartbeat (because I already am.) Not that SJGames doesn't have their own copy in English anyway already. - -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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:21:40 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) >From: "Jason F. McBrayer" >On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 03:24:08AM +0000, Perry Lloyd wrote: > > The ethereals and the Ethereal realm descrpitions (as well as Blandine >and > > Beleth) can _certainly_ be removed and placed in a supplement to be >covered > > much better in clearer detail. > >EEEEaaaarrrgh NO! _You_ may not like having servitors of Dreams and >Nightmares in your games, but my players certainly do, and the >Marches are a huge part of the setting. In my Demonic campaign, two >of the (four) PCs are demons of Nightmares (one could have been recast >as a Fate servitor, but Nightmares works a little better). The >Marches have been pretty important in Fiat Justitia, too, even in >places where the real action is on the Corporal -- there's no way to >get inside a mortal's head like getting inside their dreamscape. Actually, I *really* like having them in my games. My players don't. Personally, I'd be sad to see the section on the Marches go, but, we'd have to cut something, and since just about everything in IN is good, that means losing something good. No pain, no gain? > > The descriptions of Heaven and Hell _are_not_necessary_, either. A > > supplement could cover them more in depth, perhaps. If the GM *really* > > wants to run a game in Heaven and Hell, she can buy the supplement or >"make > > stuff up." > >I think what's currently in the core book is about enough, but you'd >be hard pressed to cut much. You need a certain amount of minimum >description just to deal with PCs traveling by Tether and such. Yeah, Tethers . . . crap. They necessitate minimal descriptions of H&H, don't they? Grrrr . . . So we couldn't really cut H&H desc.s. > > And, although they're *really* neat, the band/choir attunements take > > up a lot of space. Why not do what the original game does? Have > > upwards of 216 powers to choose from (they're like "songs" and > > "attunements" but without the different nature) and each superior > > can grant each choir/band one for free, then have his own "distinct" > > power. > >The current system of Songs and Attunements is flavourful. If you >want Champions, you know where to find it. Flavorful, certainly. They also take up a lot of space, and this is about cutting things. > > PC: "I want to turn into mist." > > GM: "You can't; only Demons of Theft can." > > PC: "Oh. Can I have photographic memory?" > > GM: "Nope, only Angels of Jean can." > > PC: "Oh. Can I have Danger Sense?" > > GM: "Do you serve War? No." > > PC: > >If you want GURPS, you know where to find it (and you're already >playing GURPS IN, so I don't see how this is a problem). A lot of the >flavour of IN /comes from/ having limited options based on your >character type. IN Celestials aren't humans. They can't have >Disadvantages unless they're Discordant. They can't have Advantages >except as Attunements from a Superior. I know that's not part of >INS/MV, but IN is not INS/MV. Of course. - -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, 26 Feb 2001 19:24:22 -0600 From: Santiago Subject: Re: IN> Memes >>+----------------------------------------------------------------+ >>| Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@carcosa.net | >>| The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | >>| forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | > >Btw, IIRC, isn't that Ythill? (TKiY... *shudder* Talk about a dangerous >spreading Meme....) Ooh, the demon of dangerous spreading memes--that'd be an obnoxious little bugger. Bet you he's getting a lot of essence from "All your base are belong to us"... Actually, what if memes are really alive in In Nomine? Once they become widespread enough, they turn into some sort of ethereal spirit, albeit one that exists in a distributed fashion in the back of people's minds, subtly influencing them, like a a very special-purpose Shedite. You can't attack them directly, only stomp them out, maybe by building a counter-meme designed to force it out of people's minds. - -- Santiago ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:41:56 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Memes Santiago wrote: > Actually, what if memes are really alive in In Nomine? Once > they become widespread enough, they turn into some sort of ethereal > spirit, albeit one that exists in a distributed fashion in the back > of people's minds, subtly influencing them, like a a very > special-purpose Shedite. > -- Santiago Is it just me, or does anyone else see a Legion Conspiracy here? Just a thought. Heavens conspiracy theorists... Hmmmm.... - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner-Thornber Subject: Re: IN> INS/MV vs IN (was : What to Cut) > Of course, the irony is that, overall, IN is probably a much better game. > It's the principle of the thing that gets to me. Actually, to be frankly honest, what I've seen and translated myself of INS/MV, it is a much better, or at least _funnier_, game. It has a certain amount of punch and style, much like Over the Edge or HoL. I was never clear on the mechanics -- but I'm never clear on mechanics of games I _write_, let alone run -- but the flavor material and the characters were just wonderful. The Superiors are very vivid, and they drip with wackiness. We even learn from INS/MV that demons of Fate play Rolemaster. Side by side, there is almost no comparison. Unlike IN, INS/MV has a definite satirical tone to the game. It's mean and vicious. And funny. And it has additude. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emily K. Dresner-Thornber -- http://www.nodonut.com/zenith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:33:27 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IN> What to Cut (was : Improvements for a second edition) > >From: Sam Kington > >Perry Lloyd wrote: > >[...] > >> And, although they're > >> *really* neat, the band/choir attunements take up a lot of space. Why >not > >> do what the original game does? Have upwards of 216 powers to choose >from > >> (they're like "songs" and "attunements" but without the different >nature) > >> and each superior can grant each choir/band one for free, then have his >own > >> "distinct" power. > > > >As I remember from the French game, a lot of those powers were fairly > >boring, especially the 10 or so different summonable guns (I may be > >exaggerating a little). yeah, a little. And they are fairly boring, about as boring as the Songs. > >[...] > >> Yeah, you'd lose the "special" attunements, but you'd certainly free up >the > >> powers. > >That cuts both ways, though: you have special stuff that only you (and > >other Celestials like you) have. So when an unknown Celestial turns up, > >you don't know what they can do. And as soon as they /do/ use an attunement, it's pretty unlikely that you don't now know whom they serve. > >Anyway, there's already a whole bunch of useful generic powers that > >anyone can have. They're called Songs. (Oh, and the Songs of Memory and > >Nemesis can do the last two of the examples you mentioned anyway.) Oh, I know. I excluded the supplements since we're talking about the core book. > >> A lot of the choir/band attunements feel so _forced_ to me; like the >authors > >> had to think of something/anything; many are merely : add [forces] to >[roll] > >> if [circumstance] . . . grrrr . . . > > > >It's roughly a quarter of all the angelic resonances, as I make it >(looking > >*very* roughly at the In Nomine Cookbook - > >http://www.illuminated.co.uk/innomine - which I *must* get round to >updating). > >Most of them are OK, though - some types of angel are just better at > >some things. Although many of Marc's Servitor Attunements suck (the > >Kyriotate one in particular). Well, servitors of Marc make excellent NPCs (and interesting PCs) [...] > >I personally found the original game very limited compared to the > >SJGames version. I *like* all the extra stuff that's been added. Oh, I like the extra stuff as well. Just, if we're to cut stuff to make room for other stuff . . . we'll have to actually /lose/ things. > >Anyway, in the original game high-powered Celestials had big visible > >auras; with the lack of that, there's got to be a way of telling > >Celestials from mundanes (other than obvious things like they're flying > >and are spitting acid). Ummmm . . . Magna Veritas pg 40 : - -Blessed Aura- "This ability, possessed by all Angels and avatars of Archangels, permits the being to summon around them an aura visible only to Demons, avatars of Demon Princes, familiars, Angels and avatars of Archangels . . ." So, it's not a constant thing, just FYI. > >> The whole Destiny/Fate thing takes things a bit out of proportion for >me. I > >> mean, if one's fate and destiny determine whether or not people go to >heaven > >> or hell, shouldn't Lucifer have "all" demons serve Fate? > > > >First of all, if all demons serve Fate, and Fate serves Lucifer, then > >why not cut out the middle man, get rid of Kronos, and have all demons > >serve Lucifer? A good question, isn't it? > >Secondly, there's a difference between Fate, for which the only point is > >the ultimate end of whether human souls go to Hell, and other demonic > >Words, who *also* want as many souls to go to Hell as possible (as > >that's their power base), but concentrate on specific means. The > >advantage of the latter approach is that you don't have to concentrate > >on individual humans; you can take the more overarching approach (see > >The Media for an example of this). Sounds like something Fate would delegate : demons who aim at individuals specifically, and those who aim at society in general. Fate would delegate it since the entire purpose would be to bring humans to hell and build power base. - -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. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2081 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.