From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Apr 23 15:29:38 1998 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 PAA03765 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:29:37 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA13391 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:06:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:06:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199804232006.PAA13391@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 #727 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 Thursday, April 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 727 In this digest: Re: IN> Victory in the War Re: IN> [FLUFF nitpicking] Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Victory in the War Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Re: IN> Marc's rites Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> Players in Tempe/Phoenix Re: IN> Fuzzy? Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> Players wanted - Northern New Jersey Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. Re: IN> Marc's rites Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> 100% profit Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> The Destiny of Bananas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:47:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Victory in the War Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > The recent discussions sparked an idea in my (admittedly more than a > little bit demented) brain - what if the final showdown came, and > -nobody- won? There was a great big battle, the Hosts of Heaven and > the Hordes of Hell slaughtering each other left, right and center... > without a clear winner? God doesn't intervene, at least not in a > direct enough manner to tip the scales, most of the Superiors are > destroyed or MIA, both angels and demons (and quite possibley humans) > are decimated... What happens then? How will the (few) survivors > interpret this outcome? Well, I suppose a lot of them will decide, "Since it wasn't decisive, that can't have been the real Armageddon and Judgment Day." They then try to patch things up and continue. Even if they DO decide that was Judgment Day, there's nothing left to DO but patch up and continue. As to what that's like-- Does Superiors missing or dead include Lucifer? I think it ought, just to keep symmetry with God's lack of intervention. In that case, you'd see a massive power struggle in what's left of Hell. In fact, you'd very likely get each surviving major Prince declare independence and/or war on all the others, except for a very few team-ups. You'd also have masses and masses of demons going Renegade and *succeeding* far better than ever before, since the Game is gone or massively crippled. Likewise, lots of angels might go Outcast, but in general I'd expect Heaven to show more solidarity. Some kind of Seraphim Council would probably be patched together. Which would probably mean that new Archangels could be elevated and new Words passed out. Hell, on the other hand, has no way of elevating Princes or passing out Words except by direct intervention of Lucifer, and if the Devil is dead, they're stuck. (Though I can see Vapula trying to re-invent Wording, Lilith trying to weave Wording out of geasing, Kronos trying to make Fates substitute for Words, etc. But a lot of demons will say "We don't need no stinkin' Words if we just have *power*.") Now, the dead... If the damned have a chance to escape Hell, they certainly will. *That* could make life on Earth or in the Marches a lot more complicated. On the Heavenly side, the saints have been rather marginal until now. Maybe they now step into the power vacuum left by the the angels. I have, before now, proposed a College of Saints as a parallel or subordinate institution in addition to the Seraphim Council. This is another place it could be used. On Earth, agnosticism and atheism would, presumably, have gone straight down the tubes. After people decided this wasn't Judgment Day, they'd set about adjusting to a world where ghosts, angels, and demons are public realities. It might resemble "Shadowrun" (if I'm thinking of the right game -- the cyberpunk/fantasy crossover). It might also resemble Reformation/Counter-Reformation Europe, in that EVERYONE is now interested in religion, but it doesn't follow that they agree about it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:54:55 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF nitpicking] Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, SienarFLT wrote: > to know how to spell Judgment correctly (hint, there's no "e"), Not According To My Dictionary (TM). It says both Judgment and Judgement are correct. But the dictionary I have to hand is only Webster, so the second spelling might be an Americanism. I wish there was an online OED. Steve, grabbing that essence. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:59:15 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Victory in the War In a message dated 4/23/98 4:59:37 AM, anders@strindberg.ling.uu.se writes: >The recent discussions sparked an idea in my (admittedly more than a >little bit demented) brain - what if the final showdown came, and -nobody- >won? There was a great big battle, the Hosts of Heaven and the Hordes of >Hell slaughtering each other left, right and center... without a clear >winner? God doesn't intervene, at least not in a direct enough manner to >tip the scales, most of the Superiors are destroyed or MIA, both angels >and demons (and quite possibley humans) are decimated... What happens >then? How will the (few) survivors interpret this outcome? It depends on who the survivors are. Which depends on where the battles were fought. My guess would be that the pacifist/green party of heaven would survive, as would certain of the D.P.'s. So: Toasted Superiors: David Michael Laurence Jordi Jean Gabriel Baal Lucifer Saminga ('accidently' stabbed in the back, if nothing else) Belial Haagenti (didn't move fast enough) Valefor Crippled Superiors: Mark Dominic Janus (Solved the J/V question -permanently.) Yves Vapula Asmodeus Malphas Lilith Kronos OK Superiors: Novalis Blandine (Secret angent Beleth time...) Eli (Armaggedon? What Armaggedon?) Beleth Kobal Andrephalus This would lead to both sides essentially taking a breather and the War continuing- in human hearts and minds. A much more subtle campaign would be waged. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:15:48 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) >At 11:35 PM 22/04/98 +0900, you wrote: >>At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: >>>Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In Nomine >>for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons from the >>onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and i asked what >>character he would play, he said definately an angel, and also, I have >>noticed that a lot of games on this list have angel PC's (that's not a >>criticism just an observation) >>Longest sentence smah, it seems I always get picked on about grammar. >More full stops, more paragraphs, blah, blah. What's important is the >content! yeesh, anyone would think this list was populated with ex-english >teahcers! >Simon Okay, moving past sentence structure and other grammar related issues, I find it hard to hold with the angels outgun the demons theory. First of all, let's get a poll. In my group, I have three angels/five demons. Occasionally, I'll have them play NPC's if the game focusses more on one side of the war than the other. So, how many angels v. demons are there out there? Second, have you read the APG? "The Archangels don't want to begin the escalation that would lead to Armageddon....not when they're uncertain of the outcome. Though the average angel is stronger than the average demon, Lucifer's strength lies in numbers." APG, pg12, second to last paragraph Even if all the players in your group play angels, that doesn't mean that good old Scratch loses all his demonic host. A virtual supply of NPC cannon fodder. Where did you get the idea the the outcome of the war is "fated"? I don't have all the source books yet, and am interested in reading it myself. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:29:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) At 11:35 PM +0900 4/22/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >are they really at heart >angel lovers who grudgingly had to give demons a place, Count the number of authors in each book, and then consider that generality more... (IOW, some are angel-oriented, and some are *not*. And some are trying to strike a balance, and some angel-oriented ones are trying to strike a balance, and... You hopefully get the picture.) But it's certainly not to avoid being flamed by religious types. Here's one to think about... Maybe angels are more sympathetic... but demons are *right*. (As has been noted, God and Lucifer had the Eden experiment... *One* Eden. 2 humans. What kind of scientific value does the result have??) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:32:27 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) At 5:01 AM +0900 4/23/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >>Longest sentence smah, it seems I always get picked on about grammar. >More full stops, more paragraphs, blah, blah. What's important is the >content! yeesh, anyone would think this list was populated with ex-english >teahcers! >Simon Hey, my mother was an English teacher! (And I got a degree in English...) Watch out what you say about 'em -- the good ones have a Special Place in the Library! (And, truthfully, it's hard to wade through Big Chunks O'Text. The Return Key is one's *friend*.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:22:43 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question David Streeter wrote: > Can angels convert to other choirs? I was thinking about this on the way to work today. Suppose an angel is force-stripped down below the 9-force mark, or even the 7-force demonic mark. Do you get a reduced angel, or does it revert to reliever? If it reverts to reliever and starts growing again, it might fledge into a different choir. If that doesn't happen naturally, it might happen artificially. The powers of Superiors are canonically and deliberately ill-defined, so it's at least possible they could transform a servitor. When a celestial suffers corporeal death and goes into trauma, the book describes this as their forces re-gathering at their Heart. That might be a natural time to re-adjust the formation of those forces; you wake up from trauma and find your Superior has put you into a different choir/band. This could be either a reward or a punishment, or just simple expediency, depending on the situation. you can bet Vapula will have at least tried this! Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:33:22 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Marc's rites >Hi, > >Marc has two basic rites: > * Hold an object worth more than $1m (IIRC, could be $100,000) > * Make a 100% profit on an honourable transaction > > >So, anyone have an explanation for these rites, and how to make them >work better? > >Sam First rite, take a really expensive car out for a test drive. Get ajob in a bank and hold a cashier's check for the $10m. They won't miss it for two hours. Second rite, this one isn't about buying a building and making 100% profit when you sell it. This is the bigger picture. In the business that I work in, the days profits work into the categories of "to plan" and "above plan." When the store earns below plan, we are making the rent, paying for supplies, enabling us to fill out paychecks, and a little bit of profit. Once we get above plan, however, we get to the 100% profit area. This does come as a problem in running this aspect into the game, but that's how I would go with it. One suggestion is a daily roll to test the success of the days business ventures. Between game time, we generally have time pass (1 month up to a few centuries). This allows players whose characters have those long term investment things to get caught up. Before each game session, have servitors of Marc roll their Charisma. Use any modifiers based off of how intensive they are about their "business", and roll it. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:44:01 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. At 9:40 AM -0400 4/23/98, BarbarJoJo wrote: >The player said that he had "forgotten" the conditions for forgiveness and >planned to "redeem" his character, but we haven't played it out yet. It >should be interesting, as the angelic characters now feel a duty to remove him >from demonic influence in whatever way necessary, including killing him. Do mention to them that if he gets worse, he'll probably go to Hell if they kill him. If he hasn't gotten *too* bad, then maybe killing him now would just dump him into the reincarnation or soul-dissolution options (in the Predestination: Fate & Destiny box, last paragraph)... Just to give them something to think about. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:38:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question At 12:58 AM -0700 4/23/98, David Streeter wrote: >>The way it works is that Malakim can either be created from scratch or >>converted from another Choir; David is an example of a Malakite who >>used to be something else (A Cherub, in his case). Uriel started out as >>some choir (dunno which offhand), and then during the Fall was changed into >>the first of the Malakim to go kick some red ass. > >Of course, this opens a can of worms... > >Can angels convert to other choirs? (Why the Hell not? They can turn >into demons!) In canon, no. The Malakim were a special case, brought about by the Fall. (Which, in itself, was a Special Case of, well, mythic proportions...) Turning into a demon isn't the basic change of nature that changing Choir would be. For the most part, demon-resonances are dark reflections of the angelic resonance. (Mercurians can tell people's friends, Impudites make *themselves* people's friends...) >What are the rules for doing so? In canon, none. In semi-canon*, a Superior might be able to strip an angel down to reliever-hood (somehow removing its Choir nature at the same time; normal Force-loss during combat just gives you a low-Force member of the Choir) and then build it back up again, slowly enhancing the nature that the Superior *wants* to take ascendancy. Roleplay it. In semi-canon, perhaps Malakim are still created spontaneously from time to time, as a particularly honorable angel gets sufficiently outraged (GM decision). * Semi-canon is something that *could* follow logically from canon, but for whatever reason, isn't canon itself. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:34:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) > (And I got a degree in English...) And we don't hold it against you. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:45:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > * Semi-canon is something that *could* follow logically from canon, > but for whatever reason, isn't canon itself. In theological circles, writings that are really nifty but not quite canon are "deutero-canonical." :-) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:55:01 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) At 11:34 AM -0400 4/23/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> (And I got a degree in English...) > >And we don't hold it against you. :) That's okay, I filed and forgot it myself. Dandy dartboard, if it weren't rectangular. Of course, they never did teach me how to spell without the aid of a spellchecker... (I blame my name. Elizabethan English had, IIRC, few accepted spellings and many different variations. It's my nature! I've been brainwashed against correct spelling from birth!) *resonate* - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:01:08 +0000 (GMT) From: "The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather" Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) In my game my players are both angels and demons. They have primary characters, who are angels, who do the more traditional roleplaying type thing, all together working through the senario. They also have secondary characters, who are demons, who don't (as yet) know of each other, and do thier own thing, which affects how the game affects the angels sometimes. It works well, although you need to be able to trust your players to keep thier demon and angel information seperate. One characters demon is directly affecting his angel character, although he doesn't quite know it yet. Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:11:18 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question At 11:45 AM -0500 4/23/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> * Semi-canon is something that *could* follow logically from canon, >> but for whatever reason, isn't canon itself. > >In theological circles, writings that are really nifty but not >quite canon are "deutero-canonical." :-) Yes, but do you expect me to be able to remember how to *spell* that? O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:05:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Dataweaver Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Armand wrote: > >At 11:35 PM 22/04/98 +0900, you wrote: > >>At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: > >>>Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In > >>Nomine for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons > >>from the onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and > >>i asked what character he would play, he said definately an angel, and > >>also, I have noticed that a lot of games on this list have angel PC's > >>(that's not a criticism just an observation) > > > Okay, moving past sentence structure and other grammar related issues, I > find it hard to hold with the angels outgun the demons theory. > > First of all, let's get a poll. In my group, I have three angels/five > demons. Occasionally, I'll have them play NPC's if the game focusses more > on one side of the war than the other. So, how many angels v. demons are > there out there? > > Second, have you read the APG? Yep; I've also read the IPG, where they say pretty much the opposite - that demons don't want to start Armageddon because they're certain that they'll get trashed if they do. > "The Archangels don't want to begin the escalation that would > lead to Armageddon....not when they're uncertain of the outcome. Though > the average angel is stronger than the average demon, Lucifer's strength > lies in numbers." > APG, pg12, second to last paragraph > > Even if all the players in your group play angels, that doesn't mean > that good old Scratch loses all his demonic host. A virtual supply of > NPC cannon fodder. > > Where did you get the idea the the outcome of the war is "fated"? I don't > have all the source books yet, and am interested in reading it myself. Personally, I prefer to think that the outcome of the war is "destined"... ;) But seriously, it seems to me that one of the major themes of In Nomine is that a person's future is not fixed; a person has both a Destiny and a Fate, and neither of these is certain to occur. I'd say that the war shares this same nature; Heaven is Destined to win, and Fated to lose. - ---- Jonathan Lang ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver --------- Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing, FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer. submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jose Burgos Subject: IN> Players in Tempe/Phoenix Looking for In Nomine players in the Tempe/Phoenix area. Please contact me if interested. Jose burgos_j@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:10:42 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Earl Wajenberg spouted the following do-gooder hippy communist propaganda: > Good may not always be nice, and evil may have its seductive side, but > if good is good, then it's the common thread in justice, love, and > mercy, while evil is the aching lack of those things. Many people believe this, but those same people will then go on to disagree as to exactly what 'good' might be. Millenia of 'holy' wars have proved that humans can reach no common standard of 'good'. The Archangels certainly can't: their moralities vary as much as any two humans picked off the street. Lucifer realised the truth of this long, long ago. Of course the Great Tyrant wouldn't accept that his own preferences were as arbitrary and subjective as those of anyone else. Justice is no more nor less than imposing your personal standards on another. Mercy is the act of cultivating your enemies: David and Dominic are two Archangels who realise just how pointless *that* is. Love? We have love down here. Some like it and some don't. I can take it or leave it. We have friendship, and just occasionally we have loyalty. Of course the angels would have you believe otherwise, but then their perceptions are clouded by their own blind love for their oppressors. So maybe evil is seductive, and maybe it is attractive. But perhaps that is just because 'evil' is exactly 'that which I would do if only I had the courage to disagree with others', and good is 'that which I do because I'm too scared to believe in myself.' > So if canon describes angels in more appealing terms than demons, I > think that's largely just inherent in the concepts. Of course it is. You are 'good', so you self-righteously detest 'evil'. I am free, so I can look at the world without such arbitrary filters. So who says playing demons is no fun? Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 12:16 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) > and in heaven and hell a number of hints, >not so subtle really, are given that the demons are fated to lose, That's not official canon, as far as I know -- it *does* reflect the Christian view of the subject matter, but the IN universe isn't constrained to reflect that. The main problem the demons have is that God is *clearly* more powerful than anything else in the Symphony, so they're the underdogs. Presumably God could squish every demon in Hell, if he felt like it. Not a pleasant thought.... On the other hand, God let the Fall happen, and pretty much gives demons free rein on Earth, so maybe he's not as powerful as he's made out to be. Or maybe he just doesn't care (which is one reason to be one of the rebels). Or maybe that's wishful thinking.... > which i >found annoying because it was a step back from the whole ambiguity thing >which seemed to be inherent in the game, is steve jackson doing this to >avoid to much criticism from the relgio types, or are they really at heart >angel lovers who grudgingly had to give demons a place, It's not policy. I think it's mostly that it's hard to write material that makes the demon side sympathetic. Or at least *rules* material that does so -- the fiction shows a different picture. Yeah, the Princes are, by and large, a pretty nasty lot. But the average demon isn't necessarily all that awful. The problem is, we've got a lot of material on Princes, and not so much on average demons. We probably need more demonic characters with some sympathetic qualities. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: IN> Players wanted - Northern New Jersey Okay, since today seems to be player request day, looking for players in Bergen County, Northern New Jersey region... email me... == bruce bdykes@intac.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 12:24 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- A burning question >Can angels convert to other choirs? (Why the Hell not? They can turn >into demons!) It was a one-time-only deal. God presumably intervened, due to the changed circumstances at the time of the Fall. He gets to do what He wants in In Nomine.... >What are the rules for doing so? There are none, and I don't expect we'll see any. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:29:21 -0400 From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: GRAMMAR (Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy)) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > [snip] > (And, truthfully, it's hard to wade through Big Chunks O'Text. The > Return Key is one's *friend*.) > ...and the period key ("."), and the comma, and the space bar, and (if you use Windows 95/98) ALT + CTRL + DEL... :) - -- Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7789233/ UIN: 7789233 http://www.accessdenied.net/cgi-bin/main.cgi?userid=326&newuser=profile MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:33:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Earl Wajenberg writes: >York H. Dobyns wrote: [...] >> It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the >> lesser of two evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come >> somewhere closer to the center. > >I suspect it's in there to cater to the current fashion in angst. >However, I agree that it paints a rather drear picture, which >has provoked some individual alterations, such as Neel Krishnaswami's >Heaven which is "so bright you have to wear shades," and my own >suggested list of modifications for Christian-specific IN, where >the archangels are not nearly so divided. Unfortunately, the "Christian-specific" modifications that I recall -- other than reducing the divisiveness -- do not constitute much of an improvement from my view. The notion of degrees of salvation or damnation that are irrevocable, that beings may be so thoroughly aligned with one side or the other that they *cannot* fall or be redeemed, is one that I find repellent, just to cite an example. >Is it just me, or does nearly all the darkness in canon IN's Heaven >radiate from the figure of Dominic and his Inquisition? As I perceive it, a lot of the worst problems would still be in place if Dominic handed Judgement over to Yves and became Archangel of Kindness. You still have a remote God whose wishes are usually indecipherable, several Superiors whose dissonance conditions look irrelevant to morality if not actually aimed at encouraging their servants to Fall, profound divisions between Superiors that have nothing to do with Dominic, and the Armies of God under the command of a headstrong bozo who has repeatedly demonstrated his own incompetence. (That last, mind you, is *canon*: Michael is described as "tired of having to pull Laurence's fat out of the fire every couple of centuries." Laurence has had millennia to grow out of being Young Luke Skywalker, but it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. Maybe celestial immortality entails a really slow learning curve?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:55:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. Steve Jessop writes: [...] >Otherwise, the angel carries on gaining Choir dissonance and making >dissonance rolls as normal. Further failed rolls result in the gaining of >one note of dissonance, PLUS one level of discord determined by the GM. > >However, an angel in this state has the option AT ANY TIME of using the >Band resonance corresponding to his Choir. If he does so, he has Fallen. >The rules for Falling are otherwise unchanged. [...] >---- >Sadistic bit > >Capture an Ofanite. Tie him up. Watch him get dissonant. Eventually, he >becomes aware that he can be free: all he has to do is DESTROY. He can >BLAST those chains. He can KILL his captors. He has the power to get away, >to be able to move again. Heh. [...etc...] I'm intrigued by the concept excerpted above; it certainly does away with "falling through bad die rolls," big-time. It makes it *very* clear that falling is a choice. It does have the drawback that Kyriotates, as Jessop remarked, have the alternative of Falling or suicide. I'm not 100% sure that it's a good thing as written, though. Suppose the rules were kept as written, with a little bit of cleanup -- the sillier Superior Dissonance conditions were changed, the Ofanim weren't vulnerable to "falling by incompetence", something was done about the Intervention headache. One of the fundamental features of the current system is that you can be *forced* to fall by building up too much dissonance; keep putting a strain on your nature and it will eventually break, no matter how determined you are to resist temptation. This does raise a related issue -- does falling necessarily, always, and immediately warp and twist the victim's values, along with its mode of perceiving and interacting with reality? Possible examples abound -- envision an overloaded Cherub (say Laurence has ordered him to guard multiple subjects), who muffs a bodyguarding assignment and Falls on his third point of dissonance through bad rolling. He's now a Djinn. Does the damage and pain of the transformation *automatically* instil the gloomy Djinn mindset? Or would he still see himself as an ally of former comrades and enemy of Hell? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 13:22 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Marc's rites > Getting hold of a really expensive item is already difficult; >making a 100% profit is also pretty damn hard. Neither of those is particularly hard if you've got capital. Venture capitalists and option traders often make legitimate 100% profits. Of course, they also get a lot of 100% losses.... The trick is to think *big*. Marc's people aren't (mostly) selling groceries retail -- they're wheeler-dealers operating at high levels. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 13:37 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) >But seriously, it seems to me that one of the major themes of In Nomine is >that a person's future is not fixed; a person has both a Destiny and a >Fate, and neither of these is certain to occur. I'd say that the war >shares this same nature; Heaven is Destined to win, and Fated to lose. I believe that this is explicitly stated in the expanded writeups of Yves and Kronos -- Yves represents the Destiny of the Symphony as a whole, while Kronos represents its Fate. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:04:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Armand writes: [...] >Where did you get the idea the the outcome of the war is "fated"? I don't >have all the source books yet, and am interested in reading it myself. Actually, it's obvious, and required by careful use of language in the game's internal jargon. Cf. the sidebar on "predestination". Obviously the demons are Fated to win, and Destined to lose. Vice versa for the angels. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:22:30 -0500 From: "Micah T.J. Jackson" Subject: IN> 100% profit All you need to know is that your local game shop buys the products it sells at 50% of the eventual retail price. Now that's not quite a 100% profit because of overhead and all, but... It's not as difficult as people think. And it doesn't have to involve huge deals, either. I myself, a loyal servitor of Marc (and Angel of Licensing) bought a bunch of games at 50% of the retail at a major summer con last year. I sat at a table at a prominent area bar demoing the game, and selling copies out of my backpack. I made a quite a large profit, and a good deal of essence. <--Micah. PS - I don't like this rite anyway, since Marc's word is "Trade," not "Profits." I am reminded of the old joke about two economists who each bet the other $10,000 that they wouldn't eat something disgusting (fill in your own). They both did it. One said to the other, "This is terrible. We both ate (the disgusting thing) and didn't profit from it at all." The other replied, "Yes, but we caused $20,000 worth of trade!" I don't know who laughed harder, Marc or Kobal. <--M. ________________________________________________________________ Micah T.J. Jackson VOX: (773) 667-9709 Managing Agent FAX: (773) 667-5539 International Entertainment Licensing micahj@ielicensing.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:03:38 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Earl replied: > Actually, I've never noticed any >indication that IN treats the demonic cause as doomed. Wait until >"Final Trumpet," to see the official, canonical take on Armageddon. >I am willing to bet it does not declare a winner. > (Clumsily steering this thread aside. Sort of. }:>) Has anyone else wondered about the little vignette on pg 89 of the IPG? Might this be a taster for the FT? After all, David posted a (albeit non-canonical) certain Fallen ArchAngel write-up some time ago...) >As for the preference for angels among the players, while it can >certainly be artistically interesting to play someone twisted and >heartless, it appears that most people also find it rather a strain >and can get plenty of dramatic tension from the agonies of conscience >suffered by the forces of light trying to puzzle out the Right Thing >to Do. > How many demonic campaigns *are* running out there? I'm interested because I'm about to start one up, and I'm finding that its generating a lot of interest. More so in fact, than my angelic one does. Anyone been in a similar position or could it just be that my players find it easier to roleplay twisted, heartless, characters? ;) - -- Julian - No FT? No comment.(Sorry, just a BritQuip) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:21:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) > How many demonic campaigns *are* running out there? I'm interested > because I'm about to start one up, and I'm finding that its generating a > lot of interest. More so in fact, than my angelic one does. > > Anyone been in a similar position or could it just be that my players > find it easier to roleplay twisted, heartless, characters? > > ;) > My opinion - and this is just my opinion - is that playing twisted, heartless characters would get old after a while. I'm sure it's great fun for the first time you play, or the second, or even for the first few months. But if your campaign is long running, you need a reason for your PCs to want to stay together and work together and generally work toward a common goal. I think demon games make fantastic one shots. I think they make terrible long term campaigns. The backbiting and the players getting irritated at each other would get tiring after a while. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:51:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > How many demonic campaigns *are* running out there? I'm interested > because I'm about to start one up, and I'm finding that its generating a > lot of interest. More so in fact, than my angelic one does. > > Anyone been in a similar position or could it just be that my players > find it easier to roleplay twisted, heartless, characters? Possibly. Demons are a LOT of fun. Some people get all squicky when they play true, unadulterated evil characters...our group doesn't. We'll play anything from saints saving the world to cannibalistic serial killers trying to eat it...as long as the game is fun. ANd there is something quite fun (to us, at least) about just going out into the world and spreading evil, devastating lives, and just being the cause of all those little problems that make life harder. I think it's got to do with closure...things bother you every day, things happen that drive you crazy, and it doesn't make sense--it's just life screwing you over. As the demons, we're actually seeing/being the forces that CAUSE that stuff to happen, and it makes it kind of easier to accept because of it. (Not that we believe in demons--no one in our house is even remotely Xtian--I mean it in a psychological way.) It's like being Chaotic Neutral in AD&D...screw the others, sky's the limit, do whatever the hell you want, and eventually get killed because of it. SPells F-U-N, fun. :) Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:53:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> The Destiny of Bananas! [After having read an awful lot of seriousness on the List today, I thought I'd just add this piece... -Em] Demiurge returns, chewing banana. Demiurge burps a lot. Daimon says "You ate that poor banana!" Daimon says "What did it do to you?" Demiurge smiles. Demiurge says "It .. existed." Daimon says "Did it have a banana destiny?" Demiurge says "And I have no empathy for bananas." Daimon says "Urgh." Demiurge says "Perhaps its destiny was to be eaten by me. Who can tell?" Daimon says "YVES!" Demiurge passes Daimon the telephone. Daimon calls up Yves. (111) 111-1111. Eduardo waves his own banana at Urge Daimon blinks, and is SCANDALIZED! Demiurge . o O ( Fiery Banana! ) Daimon waits for Yves to pick up. Man, that old man takes forever. Yves answers. "Hello, is that Daimonique?" Daimon says "Yeppers. I have a banana question." Yves says, "Ask away, my boy." Daimon says "I just witnessed the vicious consumption of a defenseless banana. Did it have a destiny to be eaten?" There is a riffling of pages, then Yves says, "All bananas, in the end, will either be eaten, or not be eaten. Was it done cruelly?" Daimon peers at Demiurge. Daimon says "I think so. It was a pretty vicious attack on a banana. It didn't even have a chance to fight back." Yves says, "It is possible that the banana will achieve its Destiny by changing the eater, then." Daimon says "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh weird. How?" Yves says, "Answer uncertain. Ask again later." There is the sound of thumping the phone, and a mutter of, "Those wretched 8-balls get everywhere." Daimon giggles muchly into the phone. Daimon says "Is the entire universe run on Magic 8-balls?" Yves says, "That may be its Fate." Daimon says "So Angels have to prevent the universe from being run on Magic 8-Balls?" Yves says, "That is one of their tasks." Daimon says "Woah! How totally cool! How completely and totally cool! To fight the wretched creeping drooling evil of round plastic fluid filled balls, with any means possible! But.... if the universe's Fate is to be run on Magic 8-balls, what is its Destiny?" Daimon has an image in his mind of Destiny Malakim tossing 8-Balls against walls, yelling 'Take that, you evil dishonorable sphere! How dare you say 'Ask Again Later!' Forsooth!' Demiurge giggles. Yves says, "That is yet to be determined, my boy. Perhaps there will be a day when even 8-balls may achieve some measure of the truth." Daimon says "But right now you just shake 'em and read the message in the little round window." Yves says, "Alas, yes." Daimon says "Mmmmmm.... Balseraphic. A true universal mystery. Do you make angels stop stuff like astrology and horoscops in the daily papers, too? Mine says, 'You will call someone old and wise and he will baffle your socks off' today." Yves says, "My boy, truth may be found in the strangest of places." Daimon says "The universe is a wild and weird place, indeed." Yves says, "It is. And you have called reversed charges." Daimon says "Well, umm... quick, do I have a cool destiny? Is it as cool as a banana's?" Yves says, "Cool and beautiful." Daimon says "Can I get details? Does it include looking good in leather?" Yves flips papers. Finally, he says, "It does." Daimon says "Oh wow. Um... hmmm... do I become important, or am I just a schmoe?" Yves says, "Everyone is important." Daimons says "Oh. Schmoedom. Well, okay, that's cool too. Uh... is my Fate bigger then my Destiny? Am I like Fated to become World Dictator and Destined to be Just This Guy?" The operator cuts in. "I'm afraid your money has run out. Thank you for calling the Library. Please call again. Dinnnnnnnnng." Daimon stares at the phone, and shrugs. "Oh well. It's not good to know this kinda stuff anyway." Daimon hands the phone back to the Demiurge. "Beware Magic 8-Balls." Demiurge grins. Demiurge imagines Daimon as a Servitor of Laurence in stylish leathers on the back of a motorcycle. Daimon is just boggled now. - - Em, often playing Daimon Current Quote: C is often described, with a mixture of fondness and disdain varying according to the speaker, as "a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language". ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #727 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.