From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 5 08:58:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA11993; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:57:59 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA20434 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:01:14 -0600 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:01:14 -0600 Message-Id: <199703051501.JAA20434@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 #54 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, March 5 1997 Volume 01 : Number 054 In this digest: Re: IN> Possible Demon Princes? IN> Another Vessel question Re: IN> Another Vessel question IN> Re: Possible Demon Princes? Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers IN> Lucent Re: IN> Lucent Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers IN> Riders and Hosts IN> What _was_ that book? Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Talisman Costs IN> Choir/Band attunements Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements Re: IN> Talisman Costs Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Riders and Hosts Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers IN> New NetRep/John IN> Corporeal Artifact cost Re: IN> Talisman Costs Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:31:43 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Possible Demon Princes? On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Plki wrote: > > I did a little digging, although my resources on the matter are > > depressingly limited, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Did you check Milton's 'Paradise Lost' ? It has a lot of demon names in > it, and (IIRC) their 'jobs'. I wish I had a copy to consult. I've heard many conflicting opinions on Milton, however. But If other gamers can like his work, maybe there's a chance it won't make by brain implode. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 07:22:54 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: IN> Another Vessel question Just something I was wonder about. In the writeup on Tariel (at the end of the rulebook), he's in Trauma, with no Vessel (since the Vessel was killed). I have to wonder- How long does it take to get a new Vessel once the old one is defunct? Malakim don't get Trauma, so they can get right back into the fray if they have a back-up body. If you don't, though, how long do you have to wait? Long enough for the Vessel to heal back to a working standard? Do you have to wait at all? Sacrifice Essence? Beg your Superior? Jump do, turn around, pick a bale o' cotton? - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia The crumbled cities stand as known Of the sights you have been shown Of the hurt you call your own Love is suicide SMASHING PUMPKINS, "Bodies" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:44:36 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Another Vessel question On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > How long does it take to get a new Vessel once the old one is defunct? However long it takes for you to work up the three character points needed to create a new one... Unless you're a Kyriotate, of course. > Malakim don't get Trauma, so they can get right back into the fray if > they have a back-up body. If you don't, though, how long do you have to > wait? Long enough for the Vessel to heal back to a working standard? Nah, the Vessel that just died is, well, *dead*. Dead and gone. Which is why it's always struck me as a little odd that Charlie gave up the ghost on his badass vessel so easily... but we all do strange things sometimes. > Do you have to wait at all? Sacrifice Essence? Beg your Superior? Well, begging your Superior *is* one way of trying to gain a new Vessel, but it's not likely to be pleased with you for losing your last one... -- fish. | Fish Flowers ><> | | (Malakite of Power Gaming.) (I don't exist.) (Fnord.) | | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu eidolon@io.com | | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:47:38 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: IN> Re: Possible Demon Princes? Warning: minor literary soapbox coming... >I wish I had a copy to consult. I've heard many conflicting opinions on >Milton, however. But If other gamers can like his work, maybe there's a >chance it won't make by brain implode. I guarantee you it won't. A friend of mine read it in high school for pleasure -- you should manage. _Paradise Lost_ is, IMHO, the one best choices one can make for in-depth source material for In Nomine. A very interesting theological perspective that is quite gamable, tho the In Nomine Hell is more like the Hell in Kid Eternity than the one in _Paradise Lost_. Especially note how charming Lucifer's point of view is, until you think carefully about what he's really rebelling against. (Who would rebel against eternal joy?) Milton was pretty politically radical (for the time), and he often expressed the opinion that one's only sovereign should be God, so it was easy for him to come up with appropriately rebellous speeches for Lucifer. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:01:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers At 1:00 PM -0500 3/3/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >On Mar 3, 11:56am, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> Subject: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers >> Okay, so you have your poor Shedite-possessed host. You drag him to >> a divine Tether [and knock him out] >> 30 minutes later, the Shedite has a problem... Demons aren't allowed >> to approach a divine tether *in celestial form*. But he can't stay in >> the unconscious host... [...] > Here's my take on the situation: > > 1) demons in Vessels (even borrowed ones) can enter a >Divine tether because they are shielded by the Vessel. Demons >in Celestial form don't have that luxury so cannot enter. > 2) Any demon that is tricked or trapped in a divine >tether and has to assume their Celestial form is screwed... >and hard. Each round the demon will take 1 dissonance (from >being exposed to the divine in such a pure form) and will >take a Celestial attack that automatically hits. On a >roll of 666, the dark forces will shield the demon enough >to protect their Soul for one round, but on a 111 the >demon has the instantaneous choice between being utterly >destroyed or being redeemed. Only demons that were 'wavering' >have the second choice at all! One hopes that the Shedim in question has the opportunity to flee like a bat out of... somewhere, before he turns into a celestial smear on the ground, just for those depraved souls who want PC Shedim. "Instant Death," while impressive, is probably not good for game balance stuff. Or if the Artifact Of Forcing Celestial Form shows up -- it's just too easy a "kill" if the demon doesn't have a chance to escape... (Charred, smoking, and possibly with celestial pursuit -- but escape.) That said, being forced to go celestial at a divine tether ought to be a very, very *BAAAAAD* thing for a demon to have to do. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:35:24 -0600 (CST) From: Dann Webster Subject: IN> Lucent I have no idea what the context of this article is (if these people are actually serious or if it is some elaborate satire), but it is a really good look at how Lucifer may be operating in the world. dW ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:44:10 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Lucent On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Dann Webster wrote: > I have no idea what the context of this article is (if these people are > actually serious or if it is some elaborate satire), but it is a really > good look at how Lucifer may be operating in the world. Really now. That's fascinating. ;) Did we forget to include a URL, perhaps? Or maybe the article? -- fish. | Fish Flowers ><> | | (Malakite of Power Gaming.) (I don't exist.) (Fnord.) | | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu eidolon@io.com | | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:10:11 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers > > One hopes that the Shedim in question has the opportunity to > flee like a bat out of... somewhere, before he turns into a > celestial smear on the ground, just for those depraved souls who > want PC Shedim. "Instant Death," while impressive, is probably > not good for game balance stuff. Or if the Artifact Of Forcing > Celestial Form shows up -- it's just too easy a "kill" if the > demon doesn't have a chance to escape... (Charred, smoking, and > possibly with celestial pursuit -- but escape.) > > > That said, being forced to go celestial at a divine tether ought > to be a very, very *BAAAAAD* thing for a demon to have to do. grin> Heh. It's pretty darn hard to trap a Celestial form. Right off hand I can't think of even a single way of doing it that doesn't involve killing the Celestial... which can hardly be termed 'trapping'. Any Shedim caught in such a predicament will probably earn several points of dissonance and be smarting for weeks to come. Note that none of this is canon, but there has to be an extreme reason why demons can't enter a divine tether and the only reason is that the presence of the divine is anathema to them. Being _forced_ into said presence in such an encompassing form has to have extreme consequences. A divine tether, in a lot of ways, is just an extension of heaven on earth. And without massive protections of one sort or another, I'd say that a demon in heaven itself _is_ instantly destroyed. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:26:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers At 8:10 PM -0500 3/4/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >> >> One hopes that the Shedim in question has the opportunity to >> flee like a bat out of... [...] >> That said, being forced to go celestial at a divine tether ought >> to be a very, very *BAAAAAD* thing for a demon to have to do. > grin> [...] > A divine tether, in a lot of ways, is just an >extension of heaven on earth. And without massive protections >of one sort or another, I'd say that a demon in heaven itself >_is_ instantly destroyed. This implies that Archangels Redeem demons (for valuable cash...no, no) at Tethers, or even outside of them, then? Must be noisy... Either that, or an Archangel can protect a demon to drag it up to Heaven to retune. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:03:03 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers > > A divine tether, in a lot of ways, is just an > >extension of heaven on earth. And without massive protections > >of one sort or another, I'd say that a demon in heaven itself > >_is_ instantly destroyed. > > This implies that Archangels Redeem demons (for valuable cash...no, > no) at Tethers, or even outside of them, then? Must be noisy... > > Either that, or an Archangel can protect a demon to drag it up > to Heaven to retune. I imagine the Archangel could do it elsewhere, but it's probably MUCH easier in a tether or in heaven. I like the 'retuning' image... you are bring a flawed soul back into harmony, so having the Symphony in one of its purer forms (heaven or a tether) makes it easier. That would make for a very dramatic scene, I think. An archangel stripping a demon down to its very core (its Celestial Form) and laying its Forces bare against the backdrop of the heavens, and then holding it together long enough for it gain the Divine status. I imagine there is a crucial point, when the pain of conversion is at its highest as the essence of the demon is being restructured, that the creature, still a being of free will, might doubt that it is doing the right thing and be utterly destroyed. Not a process to undergo lightly! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:27:04 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Riders and Hosts Dear List thought experiment. Rider (9 Forces split 2/3/4) possesses an Elephant (9 forces - 7/1/1). I think that the concensus is that the Rider gets a lot of Body cause of it's now vessel's high level, but not as many as the Elephant had, because of the Rider's lower strength. However what happens to the strength of the Rider+Host for other applications. Is it; 1) equal to the Elephant's, I guess about 24 or so, really good for stomping those demons who squashed your pigeon Host; or 2) equal to the Rider's, probably 4. This means the "Elephant" can now only pick up one smallish person. And further that it can't pick itself up, weighing as it does lots of tons, and the Elephant collapses and dies suffocated by it's weight (bing gain one dissonance). Thoughts welcome. Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. email to peterf@geko.net.au "Whoso loveth God truely must not expect to be loved by Him in return." Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Any Institution big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:36:38 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: IN> What _was_ that book? Holly Lisle had a book about about angels and devil and the damnation and redemption of the same. Anyone remember the name of the book? It had an In Nomine-esque feel to it without the grandeur that IN tries to capture. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:39:15 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > An archangel stripping a demon down to its very core (its > Celestial Form) and laying its Forces bare against the > backdrop of the heavens, and then holding it together > long enough for it gain the Divine status. I imagine there > is a crucial point, when the pain of conversion is at its > highest as the essence of the demon is being restructured, > that the creature, still a being of free will, might doubt > that it is doing the right thing and be utterly destroyed. Or, , if the Archangel is particularly vindictive (Dominic springs to mind), it could decieve the demon into Redeeming itself, and then leave it to fry in God's glory... Actually, now that I think about it, that's not something even Dominic would do. I don't *think*... | Fish Flowers ><> | | (Malakite of Power Gaming.) (I don't exist.) (Fnord.) | | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu eidolon@io.com | | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:03:06 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, fish wrote: > Or, , if the Archangel is particularly vindictive (Dominic > springs to mind), it could decieve the demon into Redeeming itself, and > then leave it to fry in God's glory... > > Actually, now that I think about it, that's not something even > Dominic would do. I don't *think*... Remember, Dominic is a Seraph. He can't lie. Well, he could, but I don't want to even THINK about a Dissonant Archangel. Any deception he tried on the demon would have to be /incredibly/ precisely phrased; and demon who didn't ask alot of questions about what he was getting into deserves what he gets. Not to mention that such an underhanded tactic would severely tarnish Dominic's reputation. And besides, it would be so much easier and simpler to just send down the Stark Fist of Removal after the demon anyway. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:20:08 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Talisman Costs On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, David.Evans wrote: > So, does this mean that if you have Small weapon/4 and are using a > Kukri/5 you add a total of 9 to your Agility when figuring out your to > hit roll (before any modifiers take effect)? So, if you had the case > above and had 8 Agility, you would need to roll 17 or less on two dice to > hit your opponent, giving a +5 to your check digit..? Hmmm... I can see > a combat character to two apearing in my next IN campaign, perchance. (First off: No way does a kukri count as a small weapon. The things are designed to cleave off large parts of a person.) Um, could you quote me the page ref for this rule about the check digit? I don't remember anything about target numbers over 12 increasing the check digit, although I do like it. It would make a pair of NPC's I made much more dangerous... I made a Cherub and a Djinn, serving Michael and Baal, almost identical powers. They were basically teh same concept on both sides. They had no vessels, but had a Talisman/6 (large weapon), and Bound/6 (the talisman). Two magical swords with spirits trapped in them, one an angel and the other a demon. The Cherub would attune himself to a chosen wielder and aid him, hopefully guiding him to a life of heroism. The Djinn would also attune himself, but would lead his wielder to destruction. If they were lucky and played their card right, they may even lead him to his Destiny or Fate. Another thing they both had was the Song of Possession, and a high Large Weapon skill. If need be, they would possess their wielder and fight themselves. Now with 4 Corp. Forces, they were beefy and agile, and that combine with their weapon skill and the Talisman made for a disgusting target number. I was going to point-shift them some, and take the skill down so that the total would be a mere(!) 12, but if the check digit goes up, meaning even more grievous damage, I'll leave it where it is. Another possibility along these lines: A Cherub bound to an item, like a piece of jewelry, a crown, a staff, etc., serving Yves. His task is to lead his chosen (and attuned) owners to their Destiny. And a Djinn serving Kronos, leading people to their Fate. (A simple gold ring, with an inscription in the dark celestial tongue, seems somehow appropriate for this one... ;) |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 01:15:46 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: IN> Choir/Band attunements Someone in my gaming group said that you can buy attunements for your Choir/Band of other superiors. i.e., a Cherub of Michael could buy any of Michael's attunements AND any Cherubim attunements from other Archangels. I can't find this in the rules /anywhere/, but Sabrina, the Limim of Andrealphus on p. 197, has the Lilim of Gluttony attunement. Can anyone tell me where they mention this in the rules? As a player and a GM, I'm not sure how I feel about this. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:20:22 +0000 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements Raven said:- > > Someone in my gaming group said that you can buy attunements for your > Choir/Band of other superiors. i.e., a Cherub of Michael could buy any of > Michael's attunements AND any Cherubim attunements from other Archangels. Hang on. I can't quote you the exact page, but I *do* definitely remember the bit your talking about. It states that You can, at a cost of 5 character points, buy any other Servitor Attunement belonging _to_the_same_Archangel/Prince_that_you_serve_. On a personal note, as a GM, I would rule that any character may take any other Archangel/Demon's Servitor Attunement as long as they could give me a good *in-character* reason as to why they should have it (and would probably have to pay over the odds in terms of CPs to get it; say 7 or 8 pts, maybe even 9 :). There is *nowhere* in the Core book that I can recall that it states that you may buy any other Servitor Attunement of the same Band/Choir as yourself that belongs to a different Archangel/Demon to the one you currently serve. The obvious exception to this would be the Lilim, of course, givien the fact that they get "hired out" to all and sundry, and so would be able to aquire Servitor Attunments from anyone, basically. But I would rule that for every Attunement they had form another Archangel, they had at least one Gease/3 they would owe to them. Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:44:47 +0000 () From: "David.Evans" Subject: Re: IN> Talisman Costs Raven said that:- > > On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, David.Evans wrote: > > > So, does this mean that if you have Small weapon/4 and are using a > > Kukri/5 you add a total of 9 to your Agility when figuring out your to > > hit roll (before any modifiers take effect)? So, if you had the case > > above and had 8 Agility, you would need to roll 17 or less on two dice to > > hit your opponent, giving a +5 to your check digit..? Hmmm... I can see > > a combat character to two apearing in my next IN campaign, perchance. > > (First off: No way does a kukri count as a small weapon. The things are > designed to cleave off large parts of a person.) > Compared to, say, a katana or a broadsword, a kukri *is* small, yes. So :P~... to you. (Sorry, but it's just the mood I'm in ATM... :-) > Um, could you quote me the page ref for this rule about the check digit? > I don't remember anything about target numbers over 12 increasing the > check digit, although I do like it. It would make a pair of NPC's I made > much more dangerous... > No, I can't quote the page no off the top of my head, but it *is* in there, trust me. :-) Be seeing you... David. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:44:30 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers > First off, let me say congrats on your new position as NetRep and FAQ keeper > for In Nomine. In light of your newly exalted position, though, I > have a couple of questions I hope you can answer for me. I'm new to the IN > mailing list, so if these questions have come up before, my apologies. Certainly! As always, go ahead and send all questions to the list. Many other people might have the same questions and you are _much_ more likely to get an answer there (due to my time constraints and the fact that there are some Very Clever People on the list!). > 1) Is there a maximum level for Skills? The Character-Creation Quick > Reference on p. 36 of the core rulebook says that you can only get up to 6 > levels for artifacts, skills, Songs, and everything else... but what about > through experience? It seems reasonable to allow it... but it also seems > open to abuse, too. Six is the max. Not four, not five, and seven is right out! (Okay, okay so I'm misquoting LoB... sue me.) ;) > 2) I had a situation come up in a recent game where a player was playing > Anael, the Malakite of Eli given as an example in Pyramid magazine. She > wound up getting into a hand-to-hand fight unexpectedly, and was caught > without much of anything close to hand for a weapon. "No problem," she > says,"I'll just use my Choir Attunement and whip off a high-heeled shoe and > beat the demon to death with that." > > "OK," I said. "You made your Perception roll, with a check digit of 4, so > it's a weapon with Power 4 for the length of this combat. Roll to hit > using..." ...and I drew a blank. I finally told her to just use Fighting > skill, but would Small Weapon skill have been appropriate? And if so, it > doesn't seem right that they'd have to have points spent in "Small Weapon > (High Heels)", y'know? But... Small Weapon skill is required for using brass > knuckles, as well as things like daggers, and it breaks down into "each > specific kind of small weapon (p.77)". Could we get a clarification on this? There are two thoughts on this: First, and this is probably what Derek intended, is that you buy each weapon individually. As a GM, you can either pick a fairly close weapon (sap might be a good choice) or you can define a new weapons skill, Small Improvised Weapons. Or you can just left the default stand. ANY Malakim had better be darn good at using ANYTHING that comes to hand! ;) Perhaps only allow Malakim of Eli to buy Improvised Weapons as a skill? IMO, however, this system places too much emphasis on weapon skills. To resolve this (keep in mind that these are GM calls, NOT canon!) you can have broad groupings. For example you can break down the list into the longer, swingy things (like a shortsword or club), the shorter stabby things (daggers, icepicks, etc), the shorter swingy things (saps, high-heels), and the attached to your hand things (brass knuckles, some martial arts weapons, cestus). Then have each broad category as a skill. Or, for the gung-ho GMs, just have ONE Small Weapons skill and be done with it. The same for Ranged weapons as well. This is Absolutely Not Canon, but I hate fiddlin' around with character sheets wondering "does this NPC have skill in flail?". This is not realistic, but it works for me! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:01:07 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Riders and Hosts > thought experiment. Rider (9 Forces split 2/3/4) possesses an Elephant (9 > forces - 7/1/1). > > I think that the concensus is that the Rider gets a lot of Body cause of > it's now vessel's high level, but not as many as the Elephant had, because > of the Rider's lower strength. However what happens to the strength of the > Rider+Host for other applications. Is it; > > 1) equal to the Elephant's, I guess about 24 or so, really good for stomping > those demons who squashed your pigeon Host; > > or > > 2) equal to the Rider's, probably 4. This means the "Elephant" can now only > pick up one smallish person. And further that it can't pick itself up, > weighing as it does lots of tons, and the Elephant collapses and dies > suffocated by it's weight (bing gain one dissonance). You are _always_ assumed to be able to pick yourself up, even with Strength 0. You might not be very spry at that low a Strength, but you can still move! Right now, though there HAS been talk about making the body Strength be the controlling one, it's the Strength of the rider that determines the outcome. Angels and Demons are primarily Celestial creatures, not bound by the rules and restrictions of the Corporeal world, but this also means that different and sometimes unguessable limitations. A vessel, to a Celestial, is just a suit of clothes that they can don when it suits them. The suit of clothes in this case is fairly large, but there you go. ;) In myth and legend, there have also been many cases where possessed people have shown extraordinary strength. If the Vessel's strength rules, we would lose this tie. Also, an elephant's weapon has a LARGE power! So even if that fumble-footed rider (low strength usually means low brawling scores) is a wimp, the mighty Foot of Doom makes up for a lot! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:03:17 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers On Mar 4, 11:03pm, Raven wrote: > Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers > On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, fish wrote: > > > Or, , if the Archangel is particularly vindictive (Dominic > > springs to mind), it could decieve the demon into Redeeming itself, and > > then leave it to fry in God's glory... > > > > Actually, now that I think about it, that's not something even > > Dominic would do. I don't *think*... > > Remember, Dominic is a Seraph. He can't lie. Well, he could, but I don't > want to even THINK about a Dissonant Archangel. Any deception he tried on > the demon would have to be /incredibly/ precisely phrased; and demon who > didn't ask alot of questions about what he was getting into deserves what > he gets. Not to mention that such an underhanded tactic would severely > tarnish Dominic's reputation. And besides, it would be so much easier and > simpler to just send down the Stark Fist of Removal after the demon anyway. Hey, Dominic's no fool. A former demon is an excellent tool against the other demons. The fervor of the newly converted is almost always higher than those who never switched and the new angel has literally noplace left to go. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: 05 Mar 97 09:10:46 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> New NetRep/John >> Moriah >> GURPS Line Editor > > Funny, I thought Sean did that... Either I was posting too late at night or I was channeling Sean again. Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: 05 Mar 97 09:10:37 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> Corporeal Artifact cost >John K: >Over there it said that the only advantage to a higher level Corporeal >artifact is that it easier to find; recently on the list Moriah said that the >general value/utility determined the level. I was mistaken. According to the rules, the higher the level, the stronger the attunement (this is true whether one paid the points for a Corporeal, Ethereal, or Celestial artifact). Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:19:50 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Talisman Costs > Um, could you quote me the page ref for this rule about the check digit? > I don't remember anything about target numbers over 12 increasing the > check digit, although I do like it. It would make a pair of NPC's I made > much more dangerous... Automatic Success, p.39 [Bound ideas snipped] Hey, neat ideas! Although if I were the superior of either of them, I'd get them out of those damn items and put them to work. Of course, the angel might be an Outcast and has no superior to save his bacon and this is his way of trying to get back in good with the Power That Be. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:26:27 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements On Mar 5, 1:15am, Raven wrote: > Subject: IN> Choir/Band attunements > Someone in my gaming group said that you can buy attunements for your > Choir/Band of other superiors. i.e., a Cherub of Michael could buy any of > Michael's attunements AND any Cherubim attunements from other Archangels. > I can't find this in the rules /anywhere/, but Sabrina, the Limim of > Andrealphus on p. 197, has the Lilim of Gluttony attunement. Can anyone > tell me where they mention this in the rules? As a player and a GM, I'm > not sure how I feel about this. p.36 Attunements You can Choir attunement, from the SAME superior, as long as the attunement doesn't depend on being a certain Choir of angel (i.e. if you are not a Seraph and the Seraph attunement depends on their Resonance). Servitor attunements can be granted by a superior to ANY angel. You better make sure that your superior doesn't object, though! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 09:36:18 EST From: jdye@juno.com (JOHN C DYE) Subject: Re: IN> Choir/Band attunements On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 01:15:46 -0800 (PST) Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> writes: >Someone in my gaming group said that you can buy attunements for your >Choir/Band of other superiors. i.e., a Cherub of Michael could buy any >of >Michael's attunements AND any Cherubim attunements from other >Archangels. >I can't find this in the rules /anywhere/, but Sabrina, the Limim of >Andrealphus on p. 197, has the Lilim of Gluttony attunement. Can >anyone >tell me where they mention this in the rules? As a player and a GM, >I'm >not sure how I feel about this. > If I recall, and Choir/Band specific attunements can be bought. So an attunement which is only good for a Seraphim because of his resonence could not be bought, but an attunement such as the Malakim of Gabriel have of lighting up their hands could be bought by any servitor of Gabriel (or anyone else whom she deems worthy, but not at character creation) jdye@juno.com Formerly the GM God, evicted from Beleth's Lands for excessive Internet Use Since becoming John whose Word is Undead Hunter, Malakim of Gabrial in the hopes of getting some Flame proofing ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 09:36:18 EST From: jdye@juno.com (JOHN C DYE) Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers On Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:03:03 -0500 "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" writes: >> > A divine tether, in a lot of ways, is just an >> >extension of heaven on earth. And without massive protections >> >of one sort or another, I'd say that a demon in heaven itself >> >_is_ instantly destroyed. >> >> This implies that Archangels Redeem demons (for valuable cash...no, >> no) at Tethers, or even outside of them, then? Must be noisy... >> >> Either that, or an Archangel can protect a demon to drag it up >> to Heaven to retune. > > I imagine the Archangel could do it elsewhere, but it's >probably MUCH easier in a tether or in heaven. I like the >'retuning' image... you are bring a flawed soul back into >harmony, so having the Symphony in one of its purer forms >(heaven or a tether) makes it easier. > That would make for a very dramatic scene, I think. >An archangel stripping a demon down to its very core (its >Celestial Form) and laying its Forces bare against the >backdrop of the heavens, and then holding it together >long enough for it gain the Divine status. I imagine there >is a crucial point, when the pain of conversion is at its >highest as the essence of the demon is being restructured, >that the creature, still a being of free will, might doubt >that it is doing the right thing and be utterly destroyed. > Not a process to undergo lightly! ;) This is very dramatic, and even a pretty scene, but I have a problem with this interpretation of a divine tether. If an angelic tether is established, what can the demons do to "beat back the beachhead" if they cannot even get near it? If such was the case, the War would have been won a long time ago. I think this needs a little reworking. Maybe instead, free essence for servitors and wardens, and a 2 point dissonence penalty against the demons. For a Hellish tether, give the slaves and masters of the tether free essence, but no perception penalty. Just MHO ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:57:29 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Shedim and Divine Tethers > This is very dramatic, and even a pretty scene, but I have a problem with > this interpretation of a divine tether. If an angelic tether is > established, what can the demons do to "beat back the beachhead" if they > cannot even get near it? If such was the case, the War would have been > won a long time ago. > > I think this needs a little reworking. Maybe instead, free essence for > servitors and wardens, and a 2 point dissonence penalty against the > demons. For a Hellish tether, give the slaves and masters of the tether > free essence, but no perception penalty. They can do it while shielded by Corporeal Vessels. Or, more likely, they trick humans into doing the dirty work. Each Tether is different, was created in a different way and probably has a unique method of removing it that depends on how it was created. All sorts of adventures can be based around something like this. For example, assume that the Liberty Bell was the focus around which a divine tether was formed in America, but the forces of hell, through extreme measures, managed to crack it, destroying the tether for good. Mind you, the rules for tethers are still be being worked out, so you have to play it by ear til then. Also, creating a tether is not an easy process! It is probably quite draining on the creator, both at the beginning and maintenance costs (you think connecting heaven to earth is _easy_?). Remember how scared the demons were that a divine tether might be created in the story in the rulebook? This gives you a good example of how important, and dangerous, a tether is to the other side. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #54 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.