From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Oct 3 04:32:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA25424 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:32:13 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA29662 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:56:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:56:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199710030856.DAA29662@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 #380 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 Friday, October 3 1997 Volume 01 : Number 380 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine IN> How I See Demons Re: IN> On playing demons Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action Re: IN> On playing demons Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> d666 patches Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Re: IN> WW vs. IN Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? Re: IN> How I See Demons Re: IN> Vessel death and 'A Bright/Dark Dream' Re: IN> d666 patches Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? Re: IN> d666 patches Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 00:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) >> (> the various Archangels (and lesser angels) after *they* win the War>...) > >I'd give my left arm to role-play that.... or to at least have a >transcript. :) Oh No! In Nomine is losing it's "Entertainment for All >Ages" rating! Whatever shall we do! Must have missed that when I read the package labelling... I don't think Lauren (in Night Music) is exactly G-rated... "G-stringed", maybe.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:44:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons >>>Would you object to a killing spree in the same way? If not, why is a rape spree so much worse? For that matter, what is wrong with fictional badness of *any* form?<<< *Getting off* on fictional badness is what bothers me. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 00:35 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> WW vs. INO and Playing Demons >> While it's unlikely that there's going to ever be a "Big Book of >> Shedim Adventures," I personally don't want demons to be totally >> shafted or have their only option be Redemption. Playing In Nomine >> as "rebels against the nazi angels" is a perfectly valid spin to >> put on it, and there should be stuff to match. > >It is comforting to know that that opinion is present in the creative >team; it seems to be forgotten on occasion. I think it's harder to keep in mind, and trickier to balance it properly (so it feels right). From what I've seen so far, though, this is Derek's vision of things -- he certainly seems to be trying to smear the lines between the sides, and disrupt the stereotypes. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:55:02 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo Benjamin D. Hutchins wrote: - ----snip suggested symbol---- > Y'know, I don't burst out giggling in my cube at work nearly enough. > My co-workers still react. > > I like this one a lot, but it probably treads on somebody else's > trademark or something. Okay, now could someone explain it to this ignorant furriner? cd (Yes, Beth, Charlie Dyer will be done Real Soon Now. Esp. as I got UT2 the other day...) - -- "And it has come to pass that the Lord of the Woods, being ... Seven and nine, down the onyx steps ... (tri)butes to Him in the Gulf, Aza- thoth, He of Whom Thou hast taught us marv(els ..." - H. P. Lovecraft, _The Whisperer in Darkness_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:44:53 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> White Wolf's Games vs. In Nomine >>>Or do I have to get out the bullwhip and leather?<<< That's supposed to be a threat? ;) But seriously, you're right, this is all too silly. Some people get their panties in a knot waaaaaay too easily. Look, some people are taking personal offense and suggesting that no one should dare criticizing their favorite games, because some other people don't like their favorite games. No one in this thread (including me) has said that playing White Wolf games will cause you to become a sociopathic vampire wannabe. Personally, I think WW does suck. I also think "Seinfeld" sucks. I hope that doesn't start a crusade to defend "Seinfeld" on this list. My point is that we all have preferences, and since there is a lot of incidental chatter on any e-mail list, sometimes those preferences will be expressed. Since this is a mailing list about In Nomine and since everyone tends to make comparisons between In Nomine and the World of Darkness anyway, the WoD *is* going to get more than its share of comments. Frankly, my dear kestrel, I wouldn't give a damn if you made some incendiary comment about how "GURPS sux". Your opinion about something I like has no effect on whether I'll continue to enjoy it. If you said "Everyone who likes GURPS is a moron", I might take offense, though not a lot, since I can only really be offended by people whose opinions I value. But, before Archangel Beth uncoils that bullwhip, let me get to the point of what I hope will be my final comment on this topic. _ALL_ kinds of irrelevant things get brought up on the In Nomine list, things that have little or nothing to do with In Nomine. Usually they last for a few messages and then fade into the background. Sometimes, incidentally, they involve bashing things. Y'know, I use Microsoft products and I'm pretty happy with them. I think the gratuitous Microsoft-bashing and speculation about Bill Gates being the incarnation of evil is pretty silly. But I don't complain, because it doesn't really bother me. I'm still gonna use Windows no matter what y'all say, and if you hate Microsoft, oh well. Why should I care? More importantly, if I jumped up and down, clenching my little fists and screaming "Hey! Why is it so fashionable to bash Microsoft just because they're the industry leaders?" it would start a big, nasty Thread From Hell like we have now. Which is how this got started. Some people (including me) make off-hand comments referring to White Wolf and our dislike of same, from time to time. No more frequent or offensive than a lot of other extraneous fluff that gets brought up here, as far as I can tell. But some other people decided they were so personally aggrieved they had to make an issue of it. Now me, I have a few hot-buttons, and one of them is people who take themselves too seriously. Another is people who tell me "Shut up, I don't want you to talk about that." If y'all REALLY want to stifle any hint of White Wolf-bashing, then stifle all the other nonsense too. That's not going to happen, and that doesn't really bother me. Generally speaking, the signal-to-noise ratio on this list is better than most (except for the last couple of days). Now, I for one will try to bear in mind the tender sensibilities of dear kestrel and casca and others and limit my offhand WW cracks. On the other hand, I'm not going to promise I'll never again say an unkind word about the World of Darkness. If everyone would just grow up and chill out, this would blow over. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:44:50 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> How I See Demons Apparently some clarification is in order: No, Kingsley, I do not "have major problems seeing demons as viable player characters". No Donald, the DPG is not going to be written just for GMs. I was speaking about how *I* would use it, and how I hope most people will use it. The purpose of the DPG is to flesh out demons and help make them vibrant, interesting characters with a wide range of motivations and associated plots, just as the APG will do for angels. If you happen to have demon PCs, you'll love it (or your players will). It's just my hope that MOST people aren't playing demons, and if they are, they aren't just going on psycho-Shedite atrocity binges. I don't want to encourage that kind of thing, which I've seen in some other games....yes, WoD, but to be fair, there's that infamous Champions "rape spree" and the good old Anti-Paladins and Assassins of early AD&D, so beloved by munchkins. Good villains should be interesting, not card-board cutouts. As has been pointed out before, only Shedim are commonly demons of the blood-bathing "evil for the sake of evil" variety, and even they CAN be much more interesting and complex than that. Hopefully the DPG will help make that possible. And Donald is correct, an all-angels game consisting of "let's get a bunch of Malakim together and kick some demon butt" would be just as boring as an all-demon game of "let's go on an EVIL SPREE! Bwwwwaahahahahaha!" The key point is, I see demons as VILLAINS. Bad guys. Not necessarily pure evil. Not necessarily evil at all. Some of them believe they are actually on the right side and don't consider themselves evil. Some are self-deluded (the Habbalah being the prime example). Some simply rationalize what they do. Some are trapped, some don't know any better, some have been deceived, MANY are tragic figures. And a few are even sympathetic. But they are the bad guys. I like moral uncertainty, I like shades of gray, I think it's cool if everyone on both sides of the War has occasional doubts as to whether they're on the RIGHT side. That's why I liked Kingsley's suggestion of Malakim as demons (so much I'll even forgive that little covert pot-shot he took at me. ;)) But I think it should be clear to the *players* that the demons ARE on the wrong side. NOT necessarily the losing side! But the side that will make the world a really nasty, unpleasant place, the side that no right-thinking human should ever WANT to win. What I DON'T want is for the angels and the demons to be indistinguishable. And this is what I see as the primary difference between In Nomine and the WoD. I swear, this isn't meant as another shot at WW, it's honestly how I see the WoD; there aren't really any good guys or bad guys, just some characters who are slightly less bad than others. In In Nomine, angels and demons are *different*. They aren't just one big race of celestials wearing two different colors of uniforms. They are different in concrete, definable ways, not just in terms of their powers and their appearance, but in terms of their methods, goals, psychology and indeed, their intrinsic natures. The thing is, the intrinsic natures of demons are anathema to humans, or at least to a culture that aspires to be anything but brutal social Darwinism. Yeah, there are humans worse than some demons, but the demonic mindset *exemplifies* the very worst of human nature. Somebody else (I forget who-- four digests in one day, sheesh!) pointed out that in In Nomine, demons can pretty much walk over humans and instigate whatever atrocities they like, balked only if an angel happens to be nearby. Frankly, this is a problem that bothers me too. I have a REAL problem with Shedim. (I'm telling you, I would shudder constantly if I believed I lived in a world where things like that REALLY existed!) I see In Nomine as an opportunity to *contrast* good and evil, light and darkness. Often that contrast may be-- ironically-- sharpened when the two sides *blur* the lines, and the angels act like psycho-killers and the demons seem to be just hard-working joes trying to make their way in a world full of killer angels. But ultimately, there IS a difference between the two sides, and it's when the participants start to lose sight of that fact that angels Fall or demons go Renegade, and either get destroyed or start on that arduous path to Redemption. Besides the World of Darkness, In Nomine has also been compared to a superhero RPG, with angels and demons as dressed-up heroes and villains. This is actually a comparison I like better, though I don't like the simplistic four-color comic book morality one often associates with superhero games. I probably mispoke when I said I don't want to encourage demons as player characters. What I was trying to say was that I didn't want to encourage EVIL player characters. Most demons are evil. But some aren't....which doesn't mean they are good either. The ones whose motives are more complex than that are the ones who make better player characters. The ones who are just plain evil...well, how much psychological drama is there in that? If you just want a game of strategy and tactics, trying to do bad things while outmaneuvering the angels trying to stop you, there is nothing to separate In Nomine from a dozen other games where you can play bad guys. In Nomine deals with real contrasts, real moral polarity....the characters usually ARE going to be colored in various shades of gray, but I believe it is important that there IS white and black at either end. Now, if you want to make the characters have nasty doubts about which color is at which end.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 22:06:22 -0700 From: zingaro@peak.org Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons > And that is the *huge* problem with picturing demons as anything other > than blacker than pitch. They are collaborating with a scheme whereby > humans are sent to Hell to be tortured for all eternity. *Nothing* they Uh. Well, that'd make all the angels just as black, and JHVH even blacker since he wrote the scheme that the demons collaborate with. - ------- zingaro@peak.org It's not a bug -- it's a 'random feature'. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 01:05:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kinney Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Live-Action On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Kingsley Lintz wrote: > Nah, Lilith's smarter than that...preferences vary too much. As > it stands, everyone builds up their own, personal, idea of what Lilith > PROBABLY looks like and lusts after her. If she had an actual PICTURE, > she'd cut down on her market share...(I mean, does she use her red-headed > vessel? There go all the blondophiles...) > Well, you could use those one of those weird pictures that change depending on the angle at which you look at it... then Lilith could be blonde, brunette, or (my personal favorite) redhead, depending on the preference of the viewer. Actually, if I ever actually *run* a game of IN, and Lilith gets involved, I'm going to do something like that (not the picture that changes, but she will... kind of like Camille the Pleasure GELF in Red Dwarf). alberich@iglou.com | Mark Kinney | http://www.iglou.com/nations "Oh, we've got a bigger dressing room than the puppets? How refreshing!" -- David St. Hubbins, "This Is Spinal Tap" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:31:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> On playing demons > of empathy-sort-of ("Slavery is *wrong*, even when it's demons doing Except, of course, when it's kinky. > Humans just don't figure into the equation for them, mostly. When > humans do come in, they're, well... To be used. It's not a matter, > for these characters, of gloating over human suffering. It's that > humans simply aren't worth caring about, except as tools. If they Heck, that's the whole reason some of them Fall in the first place...Camilla, my Impudite of Death in a PBeM I was in until a few minutes ago (*ahem*), had been a Mercurian of Gabriel, way back...being shown how to see humans who WANT to be hurt didn't do much for her opinion of them. Hanging out with other Servitors of Gabriel gradually brought her to the conclusion that what humans don't want it, deserve it. [I just picture this group of Servitors of Gabriel hanging out at a subway, watching people walk past. "Wife-beater," the Cherub comments. "*AND* Embezzler," notes the Elohim. "On his way to see his professional Mistress," Camilla chimes in..."Alright," asks the Seraph, "So who gets 'im?"] And having the Inquisition hit right when she needed to talk these doubts over REALLY didn't help... {Her theory is that the only reason Gabriel's still hanging out with those angelic jerks is because she CAN'T come down to Hell, on account of her Word being filled...} > I think that's how I'd play a "real" demon, too -- humans are tools > and toys (and, if Impudite, a buffet). Some demons get their kicks Sounds like Shadowfolk in Amber, according to some games... {And humans in Nightlife, the un-Enhanced in Underground, everyone in Paranoia...} > Shedim are squicky, squicky, squicky. They give demons a bad name. "Squicky?" You make them sound like something I'd use to get the kitchen floor sparkly clean. "I can see my face in it!" "Why, of course - I used Sheddim(tm) brand cleaner! Gets my floors -squicky- clean, AND gives me that temporary insanity defense when I off George!" > Habbalah are also somewhat interesting -- they're so utterly lunatic. Actually, I'm noticing that demons, on the whole, seem to have broader ranges than the Angels...you can GET some odd takes on the Choirs, but it takes a little more doing... > Do note, however, that the more they use their resonances, the more > likely they are to suffer a backlash or worse -- a Divine Intervention. I've got to agree with the, "DI isn't a valid deterrent" response on this. You risk an Intervention whenever you do *ANYTHING*, and there's nothing you can really do about it, so why not risk it? Plus, your odds are just as good to get a beneficial one... > Also, don't forget that humans can spend Essence (unconsciously, all > at once) to resist something that they really don't want to do. If If they still have any. Try pushing them into something they really won't want but you don't care about so much first; they'll blow their Essence resisting, because, well, they have to, and then you get them to do what you want... > they make the resistance, the demon usually has trouble affecting > them again soon. "Soon" being a few minutes, generally...so maybe you have your friend get them to do it, instead. (Or have your friend get them to blow their Essence, depending on who's better suited where.) > Get more power that way. Humans are wonderful little Essence > generators. Do you want them up in Heaven, generating power for > the Establishment, or down in Hell, generating power for your bosses? I have a theory that souls in Heaven and Hell generate Essence less quickly than those on Earth, and that the reason Heaven IS so much on the winning side is that things like prayer send some Essence on up...and Heaven has a bunch more people praying to it regularly, while Hell is, by and large, reliant on the souls actually residing. Those masses of living followers keep giving Heaven the edge it needs... {It may be on the grounds of a Rite, perhaps. Whenever someone happens to sacrifice a goat to Satan, Hell gets a whopping point of Essence. Every night when a billion or so kids kneel by their bed and ask to wake up tomorrow and, yes, "bless Gramma, too", Heaven gets a billion or so Essence...} ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 01:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, cd skogsberg wrote: > Benjamin D. Hutchins wrote: > > ----snip suggested symbol---- Y' snipped the symbol, so now there's no context for my explanation...go read the original post again. I'll wait. > > Y'know, I don't burst out giggling in my cube at work nearly enough. > > My co-workers still react. > > > > I like this one a lot, but it probably treads on somebody else's > > trademark or something. > > Okay, now could someone explain it to this ignorant furriner? A yellow circle, containing two dots and a line that arc upwards. It's a "Have a Nice Day" smiley face. :) - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 01:37:43 -0400 From: "Steven Ehrbar" Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo How about a stylized figure of a human? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:03:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> d666 patches In a message dated 97-10-02 14:53:17 EDT, you write: << Has anyone come up with a good way to patch this apparent flaw in what is otherwise a beautiful game mechanic? Two things came to my mind right away. First, remind (and encourage) your players to increase the difficulty of their tasks. This is an indirect way of allowing greater skills to yield greater CDs. >> Ok, yeah, sort of... In combat I allow people to add their Strength/3 to non ranged attacks... So big and burly is difinately a good thing. On the other hand I resolve attacks with the highest agility going first, so a musclehead with low agility may never get his turn...he could be stunned. I also allow trading between sucess roll and check digit...up to six levels, instead of one level like straight rules.... If you use my idea, be careful !!! We wanted a very cinimatic game...actually we're not all that combat oriented, but when the angels DO fight, I wanted them to ROCK AND ROLL! If you like this in a game, then this is a very good thing. It can have some odd effects though... Mortals become fragile, even without the errata fix on their hits. Mortals become somewhat more competent, because suddenly they start taking penalties to the check and raise their success roll to a good number... Using my rules will do weird things to the play balance of songs...you'd better sit down and tinker with the song of numinous corpus also, or EVERYONE will be spitting acid!!! - -Calabim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:25:01 -0700 From: zingaro@peak.org Subject: Re: IN> (Fwd) A Mercurians Logo > How about a stylized figure of a human? Oh yeah! Like The Saint! That would be SO COOL. - ------- zingaro@peak.org What you have just said will be a Great Help to us. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:47:53 +1000 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Christopher Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> WW vs. IN >Dear Guys and Gals of the List, > >Speaking personally (and I would hope some people would agree), >could we please move this "WW sucks/ No it doesn't" argument off the >list and into private e-mail for those who wish to continue it. Yeah! BTW it's all Casca's fault. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:45:22 +1000 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Christopher Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? >Here you go: take your d666, put them in a zip-lock bag, puff it up so the >bag has room for the dice to shake, and seal it. Shake it in your hand, and >let the dice fall on your flat palm. If the GM is feeling generous he could >loan the zip-lock bags and dice. Or some sugar cubes and food colouring... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 01:49:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> How I See Demons On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > Apparently some clarification is in order: This is indeed true. > No, Kingsley, I do not "have major problems seeing demons as viable player > characters". No Donald, the DPG is not going to be written just for GMs. I > was speaking about how *I* would use it, and how I hope most people will > use it. The purpose of the DPG is to flesh out demons and help make them > vibrant, interesting characters with a wide range of motivations and > associated plots, just as the APG will do for angels. If you happen to have > demon PCs, you'll love it (or your players will). It's just my hope that > MOST people aren't playing demons, and if they are, they aren't just going > on psycho-Shedite atrocity binges. I don't want to encourage that kind of > thing, which I've seen in some other games....yes, WoD, but to be fair, > there's that infamous Champions "rape spree" and the good old Anti-Paladins > and Assassins of early AD&D, so beloved by munchkins. Well, sometimes the line between what is your opinion and what is your opinion as an influential member of the IN developing team is hard to determine. > Good villains should be interesting, not card-board cutouts. As has been > pointed out before, only Shedim are commonly demons of the blood-bathing > "evil for the sake of evil" variety, and even they CAN be much more > interesting and complex than that. Hopefully the DPG will help make that > possible. That's nice, but I hope that I am right in think ing that this is your opinion, and not reflective of the IN development team. Demons can and should be much more than just villians. > And Donald is correct, an all-angels game consisting of "let's get a bunch > of Malakim together and kick some demon butt" would be just as boring as an > all-demon game of "let's go on an EVIL SPREE! Bwwwwaahahahahaha!" Yup. It's interesting to me how comments of doing the latter are not commented upon or merely seen as amusing while any hint of playing as a demon seems to put you in a rather sensitive mode. Do you think that people aren't likely to play them correctly (IE not a sicko fest) or do you merely dislike them enough to want to discourage use of them as protagonists? > The key point is, I see demons as VILLAINS. Bad guys. Not necessarily pure > evil. Not necessarily evil at all. Some of them believe they are actually > on the right side and don't consider themselves evil. Some are self-deluded > (the Habbalah being the prime example). Some simply rationalize what they > do. Some are trapped, some don't know any better, some have been deceived, > MANY are tragic figures. And a few are even sympathetic. That's nice, but that's not the only position, and certainly not the sole one I want to see in the supplements as that would be ignoring a large chunk of the potential of the game and alienating (further) the demonic players. > But they are the bad guys. I like moral uncertainty, I like shades of gray, > I think it's cool if everyone on both sides of the War has occasional > doubts as to whether they're on the RIGHT side. That's why I liked > Kingsley's suggestion of Malakim as demons (so much I'll even forgive that > little covert pot-shot he took at me. ;)) But I think it should be clear to > the *players* that the demons ARE on the wrong side. NOT necessarily the > losing side! But the side that will make the world a really nasty, > unpleasant place, the side that no right-thinking human should ever WANT to > win. What I DON'T want is for the angels and the demons to be > indistinguishable. And this is what I see as the primary difference between > In Nomine and the WoD. I swear, this isn't meant as another shot at WW, > it's honestly how I see the WoD; there aren't really any good guys or bad > guys, just some characters who are slightly less bad than others. Once again, this is fine as your opinion, but not what I think is appropriate for the IN line. And I agree, that there are definite good guys in IN, I just don't think that it's necessarily the angels. > The thing is, the intrinsic natures of demons are anathema to humans, or at > least to a culture that aspires to be anything but brutal social Darwinism. > Yeah, there are humans worse than some demons, but the demonic mindset > *exemplifies* the very worst of human nature. That's funny, I think that any society based solely on selflessness would be horrible too. All functional civilizations or social groups that I have participated in have needed but selfish and selfless aspects in the members to work properly. An all-selfless group would be totally incapable of doing anything useful. At the very least, one being in the group needs to have some selfishness, or the group has no focus or purpose. And I see demons as doing this balancing a lot more often than the angels do... > Somebody else (I forget who-- four digests in one day, sheesh!) pointed out > that in In Nomine, demons can pretty much walk over humans and instigate > whatever atrocities they like, balked only if an angel happens to be > nearby. Frankly, this is a problem that bothers me too. Just like it bothers me that angels can do the same thing. Besides the fact that none of them tend to allow a human any privacy, an offense which is rather serious in my personal morality, they are more than capable of walking over humans as well. Elohim can determine just what it takes to break a human's will, a cherub is, at best, an overprotective parent, it's second nature for seraphim to be able to pull up sensitive information to use for extortion, and likewise for mercurians. And a gay wiccan is in just as much trouble when a malakim of the sword is out looking for evil to smite unless a friendly brick of a demon is nearby. The average angel's abilities are easily just as offensive and overriding as any demon's; I'd rather that humans were most competant at resisting either influence myself. I have a REAL > problem with Shedim. (I'm telling you, I would shudder constantly if I > believed I lived in a world where things like that REALLY existed!) I would hate to live in a world with almost any of the celestials running around. But if I had to, I'd much rather have to cope with an impudite than a malakim. At least an impudite can be reasoned with, while if a malakim decides that you fit his personal description of "evil", well you can either be forcibly converted or die. I see > In Nomine as an opportunity to *contrast* good and evil, light and > darkness. Often that contrast may be-- ironically-- sharpened when the two > sides *blur* the lines, and the angels act like psycho-killers and the > demons seem to be just hard-working joes trying to make their way in a > world full of killer angels. But ultimately, there IS a difference between > the two sides, and it's when the participants start to lose sight of that > fact that angels Fall or demons go Renegade, and either get destroyed or > start on that arduous path to Redemption. That's a potential problem, but what makes a celestial dissonant depends little on making sure you're on the right side of the selfless/selfish line drawn in the books. You get in trouble for not following the rules, not because you're being too greedy or giving (Except, perhaps for the Elohim, who really do have to avoid the selfishness of sujectivity, but even being subjective isn't inherently selfish IMHO.). > Besides the World of Darkness, In Nomine has also been compared to a > superhero RPG, with angels and demons as dressed-up heroes and villains. > This is actually a comparison I like better, though I don't like the > simplistic four-color comic book morality one often associates with > superhero games. I'm honestly not trying to flame you, but it seems to me that you are. "These are the good guys, these are the bad guys. No ifs and or buts." Sounds a lot like the stereotypical comics to me. > I probably mispoke when I said I don't want to encourage demons as player > characters. What I was trying to say was that I didn't want to encourage > EVIL player characters. Most demons are evil. But some aren't....which Evil characters as in what? Evil by selfishness, evil by atrocious acts, or evil by not regretting that they are demons? > doesn't mean they are good either. The ones whose motives are more complex > than that are the ones who make better player characters. The ones who are > just plain evil...well, how much psychological drama is there in that? If > you just want a game of strategy and tactics, trying to do bad things while > outmaneuvering the angels trying to stop you, there is nothing to separate > In Nomine from a dozen other games where you can play bad guys. In Nomine > deals with real contrasts, real moral polarity....the characters usually > ARE going to be colored in various shades of gray, but I believe it is > important that there IS white and black at either end. That's nice, but you see, I don't think that the demons are the bad end. I know this may come as a shock to you, but I'd rather have the IN demons running the show than the IN angels if I had to have one of them running the real world. Your veiw on what side is the good guys isn't everyone's. I want IN as a game about morality, not as a game with a predetermined answer for the right answers to the morals. Particularly since not everyone will agree that one side or the other is the one that should be the "victor". > Now, if you want to make the characters have nasty doubts about which color > is at which end.... Why bother? It's kind of hard imagining getting into serious pondering over which side is right if there's essentially a glowing neon sign over the GM sreen pointing to one side. > -David Donald G. Bixler mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu - -- Oops da Ogre (mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu) Donald G. Bixler "I need a urine sample." "Chicken or beef?" - heard at work ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 07:16:00 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Vessel death and 'A Bright/Dark Dream' Walter Milliken wrote: [snip] > I've been thinking that a dead vessel may hang around until the > celestial involved comes out of Trauma (representing the point where the > last Corporeal Force has broken free of it). This doesn't really fit > with the above, but I think it's an interesting notion. In this case, > if you switch to a spare body (like Charlie does), the dying one would > disappear, though. Interesting. So if a Malakite's vessel gets whacked, it dissapears almost immediately: the Malakite ascends to Heaven, stays in Trauma maybe a second or two, if that, the last remaining ties to the vessel vanish and the body goes poof. But a normal angel will stay in Trauma long enough that the body can be embalmed and buried; more than a week will pass before the angel can even attempt to get out of Trauma, long enough for no-one to notice the sudden lack of a body 6 feet deep. Of course, that also means you can have a Prophecy-type autopsy. BTW, if Malakim can cheat Trauma, presumably they could choose to go through it if they wanted to avoid appearing too weird - leave a perfectly normal body behind, rather than vanish into thin air in front of dozens of witnesses. This could probably go wrong if they really pushed it, though. Sam - -- There are *my* opinions, dammit, and let no-one say otherwise. Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati Preudhomme's Law of Window Cleaning: It's on the other side. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:08:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Donald G Bixler Subject: Re: IN> d666 patches On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 Calabim@aol.com wrote: > In combat I allow people to add their Strength/3 to non ranged attacks... > So big and burly is difinately a good thing. *checks GM screen* That's what I thought. That's already covered. A strength higher than eight adds a point to your power. Likewise, a high fight skill can add extra power. Upper left corner of the leftmost panel under the list of contact weapons. > On the other hand I resolve attacks with the highest agility going first, so > a musclehead with low agility may never get his turn...he could be stunned. I think that the ability to dodge is enough, particularly since a dodge doesn't mean that that's all you have to do in that round: "Full Dodge A combatant who does _nothing else_ during a round may Full Dodge. He takes his Dodge roll against every attack aimed at him at a +2 bonus." p66 > I also allow trading between sucess roll and check digit...up to six levels, > instead of one level like straight rules.... I guess that that would work for very cinematic games ro extenuating circumstances. > If you use my idea, be careful !!! > > We wanted a very cinimatic game...actually we're not all that combat > oriented, but when the angels DO fight, I wanted them to ROCK AND ROLL! > If you like this in a game, then this is a very good thing. Ahh. I thought so. > Mortals become somewhat more competent, because suddenly they start taking > penalties to the check and raise their success roll to a good number... That's not a bad thing. I'm all for anything that makes humans more capable. They are always in trouble when they need to make a roll. > Using my rules will do weird things to the play balance of songs...you'd > better sit down and tinker with the song of numinous corpus also, or EVERYONE > will be spitting acid!!! You means they aren't all ready? I thought everyone kept a spare Alien vessel around... ;'} > -Calabim Oops da Ogre, who's surprised that he remembered that obscure bit of rules regarding combat considering how few fights are in his games... mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu - -- Oops da Ogre (mudgb4@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu) Donald G. Bixler "I need a urine sample." "Chicken or beef?" - heard at work ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:38:05 +1000 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Christopher Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Do we need 'things' to play LARP?? >I'd recommend a hard container rather than this - your palm isn't >entirely flat, and the dice may not land in your palm. Like I said >earlier, a baby-food bottle with three mini-d6 works well. > > >Nathaniel Eliot It could just be the name, and no offence, but a 'baby-food bottle' sounds a bit crappy. Maybe a small plastic collectable-card box? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:28:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> d666 patches In a message dated 97-10-03 03:22:20 EDT, you write: << > In combat I allow people to add their Strength/3 to non ranged attacks... > So big and burly is difinately a good thing. *checks GM screen* That's what I thought. That's already covered. A strength higher than eight adds a point to your power. Likewise, a high fight skill can add extra power. Upper left corner of the leftmost panel under the list of contact weapons. >> No, no, no, Oops old buddy...yes the rules give a +1 for having a strength over 8. But the system I use gives a +1 for every 3 str... so at STR 3 a policeman gets a +1, while our resident Malikim with his strength of 10 gets a +3... +2 may not sound like much but over the long haul it's actually quite a difference. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:35:43 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim (fwd) Emily K. Dresner wrote: > > ( > the various Archangels (and lesser angels) after *they* win the War>...) > > > > I'd give my left arm to role-play that.... or to at least have a > transcript. :) Oh No! In Nomine is losing it's "Entertainment for > All Ages" rating! Whatever shall we do! Why, break out the whips, cuffs, and whipped cream of course. (Not to mention the chocolate pudding. Mmmm. Chocolate pudding with whipped cream.) ObAside: Upon spotting the "Trouble with Andre" Subject: line, how many here were reminded of the Shakespeare's Sister song with the same title? cd Calabite of Furfur currently on loan to Haagenti. - -- "And it has come to pass that the Lord of the Woods, being ... Seven and nine, down the onyx steps ... (tri)butes to Him in the Gulf, Aza- thoth, He of Whom Thou hast taught us marv(els ..." - H. P. Lovecraft, _The Whisperer in Darkness_ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #380 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.