From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 7 11:08:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27187 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:08:43 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id KAA13040 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:52:51 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:52:51 -0600 Message-Id: <199901071652.KAA13040@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1083 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, January 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1083 In this digest: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Hebrew words Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Gabriel's servants IN> Re: IN- Discord and Rites Re: IN> Re: IN- Discord and Rites Re: IN> Gabriel's servants IN> Re: IN- Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Humanity (was Gabriel's attunements or something) Re: IN> New Member Who's Who in the Symphony (was Re: IN> Gabriel's servants) Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Gabriel's servants IN> Re: IN- INRI IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Discord and Rites IN> Re: Who's Who in the Symphony (was Re: IN- Gabriel's servants) Re: IN> INRI Re: IN> Re: IN- INRI IN> Destiny\Fate of Angels\Demons Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Humanity (was Gabriel's attunements or something) Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Re: IN> Discord and Rites IN> David vs Martin - the End (we hope!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 17:33 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >>Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 >>Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. > I seem to recall two Cherubs attuned to Gabriel, in the service of Yves, >who were supposed to be 21-Forces monstrosities. Were they pruned down, too? Anyone who was over 18 Forces -- and not a Superior, who aren't supposed to have listed Forces values -- should have been errata'ed by now. If you know of one that's not listed in current errata, you should mention it to Elizabeth McCoy or John Karakesh. (I'm not sure who's doing errata right now -- normally there's an Errata Coordinator, but they lost the old one a little while back.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:48:33 +0200 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Hebrew words At 22:23 06/01/99 , you wrote: >This is kind of a long shot, but does anyone out there know the Hebrew >word for "abomination", or a place where I could look it up? I need it >for something I am working on for my campaign. Two good translations are "SHI-kutz" and "TO-e-vah". "Abominable" would be "meh-TO-av" or "me-SHU-ka-tz". Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 18:10 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >You wrote: While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, >> >> he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a >> >> fairly important pantheon). > >It's the "is" part that I objected too. I also seriously doubt that >even at the height of their power Ethereal Gods were the equivalent of >Superiors- equivalent to powerful Word-Bounds with certain powers >above and limitations below that based on their origins, but I suppose >that depends on whether what the Celestials believe about the universe >is true (God made everything, he's the Most Powerful, Numero Uno, >One-And-Only Creator) or the theory of some Ethereals, that God is >just a jumped up Ethereal God, is true. I personally believe (in In >Nomine) that he's the Creator- non-opinion references seem to indicate >this, but until a Canonical reference goes clear on that, it's up for >discussion, and of course, a GM can make up whatever they want. ^_^ Well, canon is supposed to be decidedly ambiguous on the "God=big ethereal" question. Among other things, this implies that ethereals should probably have the equivalent of Superiors. And I think it is canon that once someone achieves a quantum jump in ability (celestial to Word-bound for sure, but probably Word-bound to Superior also), they don't lose those abilities even if they later weaken. Case in point, the "Old Guy" in Night Music, who's very weak these days, for a Word-bound. Certainly no ethereal ever approached the power of the major Superiors. But I think some of them are probably a match for the more minor ones. >> Hence my comments. I also believe they're in line with expected canon >> directions, but Elizabeth would have to speak to that. > >I don't know. I read the references to them differently. Mind, I >don't have the Tether or Songbook, nor Final Trumpet. I've got >everything else that's out so far, but if there are references in >those three books that I've missed, I'm not responsible for that. No, not in published stuff -- this is more from discussions with Elizabeth about the hows and whys of the IN universe, when we discuss future canon. But that's all subject to change, and often very fuzzy. >> Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 >> Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. > >Hmm. Need to check the errata about that... but doesn't Thor have >some mega-high Strength? Or was that errata'ed too? Should have been.... Or he may have slipped through under the Superior loophole -- Superiors aren't bound by those limits, necessarily. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:19:15 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> INRI In a message dated 1/6/99 10:45:14 AM, jhart@btinternet.com writes: >But the New Testament hadn't been written. If I was running a historical >type game, I'd be tempted to have Jesus as a Che Guevara revolutionary >anti-Roman type, and Paul as the angel who decided that it would be worth >making a new religion up about it. Then he just adopted some of the >traditional saintly/prophetic miracles (as practiced by Elijah et al., such >as raising the dead) and by the time the gospel writers got to work, the >myths were very widespread. *sigh* It seems that there is a misconception here about when the Gospels were written. The Gospel of Mark has a last possible date of composition (if I recall correctly) of 75AD, even according to the most liberal (i.e., want to make it later) bible historians. There is some physical evidence (heavily debated...) that a copy of the Gospel of Mark was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which forces an authorship date of previous to 48AD. Either date is well within the lifespan of people who would have met and spoken with Jesus. The confusion may be due to the date of the establishment of the Canon of Scripture, which was 320AD (or was it 340AD?) at either the First or Second Council of Nicaea, a much later date than the dates of composition of the Gospels. A similar case is true for the rest of the New Testament. Date of Composition is always much earlier than the date of Canon. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:48:20 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants At 9:52 PM +0200 1/6/99, Yossi Gurvitz wrote: >At 20:49 06/01/99 , you wrote: > >>Nope -- he got errata'ed down to 18. No non-Superior has more than 6 >>Forces in each attribute in canon, or characteristics above 12. > I seem to recall two Cherubs attuned to Gabriel, in the service of Yves, >who were supposed to be 21-Forces monstrosities. Were they pruned down, too? Yes. They're in _The Marches_ and are 15 Forces. There's other errata on them too. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 19:53:59 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Discord and Rites >And how are you going to fight them? The way Asmodeus would set it up IMC >is to send personal messages telling them to report back for duty >within the hour every hour, which if disobeyed will inflict dissonance. >Very shortly the Renegade will be a puddle of Discord, permanently unable >to use its resonance. (Remember the secondary effects of gaining >dissonance?) Crap, how can having Discord rather than Dissonance lead to being permanently unable to use one's resonance? - -Perry, confused kyrio Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:06:52 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Discord and Rites At 7:53 PM -0500 1/6/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>And how are you going to fight them? The way Asmodeus would set it up >IMC >>is to send personal messages telling them to report back for duty >>within the hour every hour, which if disobeyed will inflict dissonance. >>Very shortly the Renegade will be a puddle of Discord, permanently >unable >>to use its resonance. (Remember the secondary effects of gaining >>dissonance?) > >Crap, how can having Discord rather than Dissonance lead to being >permanently unable to use one's resonance? Demons get Discord from failing dissonance rolls, but IIRC, the dissonance *doesn't vanish* unless the demon deliberately converts it -- into more Discord. And every note of dissonance is a -1 penalty to your resonance roll. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:07:00 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >>(* Spoilers from "No Dinero" included, you are warned! *) >> >>Along these lines, how about if the cruel person is not human? I'm >>thinking specifically of Loki. If an Ofanite of Gabriel catches sight of >>him in one of his many disguised forms, will they know he is the cruel >>one? Or does this only apply to mortals? > >Interesting question. Ordinarily, I'd say yes, they could tell he was >cruel (but not who or what he is). However, it's verging on proto-canon >that Superiors can mask themselves from lesser beings' resonances, >attunements, etc. While Loki is an ethereal, and now relatively weak, >he *is* more or less a Superior-grade one (i.e., a major member of a >fairly important pantheon). > >So it might go either way -- he might still have the ability to mask >himself from lesser beings, or he might have lost it. Or canon may >never establish this masking ability.... I'd say that one is a GM call >right now, though it might wind up conflicting with future canon >someday. I wouldn't see this as being an issue of "masking", rather an issue of the power of an angel's resonance and from what it draws its power. First off, an angel's resonance allows it to "get in touch" with the Symphony, or a particular aspect of it (Truth, Emotion, Hope, etc...) and learn things. Well, while humans *are* part of the symphony, celestials are not, which is why they create disturbance while humans do not. So, logically, if ethereal spirits *are* part of the Symphony then (a) angelic resonances should be able glean information from the Symphony about them AND (b) ethereal spirits do not disturb the symphony except through use of Songs, etc, just like Soldiers. But, if they *are not* then they (a) cannot have information gleaned from about them and (b) disturb the Symphony like Celestials. Of course, I am NOT all the familiar with Canon, but... since the Malakite Resonance can be used on demons, my theory is blown to shreds. Crap. Plus Angels and Demons have Fate and Destiny (right?) which implies that they ARE part of the symphony. I just don't really understand the metaphysics behind the way powers work in this system. Do Gabbie's choir attunements work on Ethereals? I'd say if they work on Celestials, then they also work on Ethereals. Also, IMO, since Uriel's crusade, have any ethereals been of Superior-like status, enough to mask themselves, or do they have abilities to mask themselves, I haven't seen anything in the books (like the Marches) that implies it. IMC, yes, Gabbie's Choir attunements for detecting cruelty work on ANY being, except perhaps a Superior. (I'd extend the definition of the word "people" in the description of the Kyriotate of Fire attunement to include all sentient beings, yes even sentient plants.) - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:09:02 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Gabriel's servants >> IMHO, as of canon he doesn't, but a GM can do anything, and a logical >> justification is that even though created out of human thought he is >> sufficiently alien to both Celestial and Corporeal minds that there >> is some interference- which may be suspicious in and of itself. > >One way Loki might be alien enough is that he does NOT originate >in *human* minds. It's canon that the Marches are older than >humanity, at least as old as anything that dreams. Perhaps Loki >has been recently *shaped* by humanity's imaginations, but he might >*originate* far, far further back than that, in some amalgam of >animal dreams of ambush, aggression, and deceit. > >That even fits with his myth, kinda. He's not an Aes by birth, >but instead he just shows up and becomes Odin's blood brother. >I believe he's vaguely said to be of Jotun stock, but no specific >parents were given that I recall, and the Jotuns are, themselves, >something in the way of personifications of unhuman nature. > >Earl Woah. Cool. I love the Marches. :) - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:26:51 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Humanity (was Gabriel's attunements or something) >God originally commanded that the Angels leave Humanity strictly >alone. He only rescinded this in order to deal with the Demons. What >if the reason for this is that humans (and this would be why they >don't cause disturbance) can actually "write" the notes for the >symphony? It would make sense, too, in terms of Uriel's Crusade- he >didn't get punished for supporting his Word- he just overstepped God's >permission for interference in Human events- maybe we're /supposed/ to >create Ethereals- maybe there is a way for us to /become/ them... >After all, it only appears that humans have an upper limit of 5-7 >forces, depending on Celestial interference... Maybe we can go the >full fifteen (tens in all traits, maximum allowed for humans)- or >beyond. It's possible that that was the function the Ethereals were >supposed to perform- a kind of crutch or step-ladder to taking control >of our own universe... In fact, Uriel might have actually been doing >something he should have, but just went too far- if we became too >dependant on the Ethereals for help, we'd never make the final jump >ourselves, and there needed to be some scaling back of the Ethereal >power- but not utter extinction, Purity-style. Or maybe I'm just >blathering on. ^_^ No, you've got something here. I was just looking through GURPS Black Ops the other day, in which you play a character with a point total of 650pts plus. Normals GURPS hero material is 100pts, that's like a six force human, I'd say, in In Nomine. Now, if human training alone could turns a 100pt character (10's average characterist rating, like 4 in In Nomine, 100pts character could easily have Strength of 12, Intelligence of 13, Dexterity of 11 and Health of 10, with a fair assortment of skills and advantages) into a 650pt character (Strength 19 (10 in In Nomine), Dexterity 18 (probably a 9 in In Nomine), Intelligence 14 (call it a 7), and Health 16 (equivalent of 8?) plus over one hundren different skills. That's like a human with 5 Corporeal Forces and 4 Ethereal Forces and, judging by their Willpower, at least 3 Celetial forces. Why isn't this kind of power available to humans in In Nomine? Spiritual growth is *necessary* before physical development? In order to have a Strength of 10, a five force human has, what: Corp Forces 3 Str 10 Agl 2 Ethe Forces 1 Int 2 Pre 2 Cele Forces 1 Wil 2 Per 2 ??? That's not right to me. Of course, I grew up on GURPS -and- I prefer playing humans to angels and demons, if it weren't for the fact that they are hardly able to achieve the attributes which are claimed to be in human range without sacrificing the two other realms. - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:41:57 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> New Member Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > No -- they can only possess humans. Can't corrupt animals. (Animals only > go to Heaven, after all -- or, possibly, get reincarnated and/or dissolved > into the Symphony.) That works, although I'm sure it's -possible- to 'corrupt' an animal by making it act outside its usual nature. Make a big, friendly German Shepherd go around eating Girl Scouts, that sort of thing. > The latter. But the celestial's mind is AWOL in the Marches, as in > a typical Song-of-Possession. The Shedite does not get the ability to > tap the celestial's memories, nor will any of its actions have the least > chance of causing the owner of the possessed vessel any dissonance. No, but you could sure as hell destroy a reputation and ability to use a particular vessel in public ever again. Also, you can apparently use - -some- of their attunements (A Dark Dream, Marcus using Adam's Gluttony Attunement to snap a thumb right off). So, it'd probably be worth it to lose a human host for the chance to muck about with a Celestial's host, if it fits your plans. One can always find another human almost anytime. It's -hard- to go hostless in any city on Earth. - - Abracax, Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 22:20:30 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Who's Who in the Symphony (was Re: IN> Gabriel's servants) On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > First off, an angel's resonance allows it to "get in touch" with the > Symphony, or a particular aspect of it (Truth, Emotion, Hope, etc...) > and learn things. Well, while humans *are* part of the symphony, > celestials are not, which is why they create disturbance while humans do > not. As I understand it, Celestials *are* part of the Symphony. They are just not a part of the Corporeal movement of the Symphony. That is why they cause disturbances there. IMHO, I think that would logically mean that Celestials do not cause disturbance in the Celestial movement of the Symphony; they belong there, after all. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:25:03 +0000 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Perry wrote: . Well, while humans *are* part of the symphony, > celestials are not, which is why they create disturbance while humans do > not. So, logically, if ethereal spirits *are* part of the Symphony then > (a) angelic resonances should be able glean information from the > Symphony about them AND (b) ethereal spirits do not disturb the symphony > except through use of Songs, etc, just like Soldiers. But, if they *are > not* then they (a) cannot have information gleaned from about them and > (b) disturb the Symphony like Celestials. The way I understand it, *Everything* is part of "The Symphony". Earth, The Marches, Heaven, Hell (probably even Limbo). Therefore Humans, Celestials and Ethereals are also all part of the Symphony. However, they are from *different parts* of the Symphony. Humans are native to the Corporeal realm, therefore they do not cause disturbances there. They've also been 'created' so that their souls go to the Celestial realm when they die (or are reincarnated in the Corporeal), and that they visit the Ethereal when they sleep. Therefore they do not cause a disturbance on those realms. Celestials, on the other hand, are Celestial beings. They don't belong in the Corporeal relam, therefore they cause disturbance when they are there (usually minor, but major when theye spend essence or damage things). Similarly, they can cause a disturbance on the Ethereal realm. By following this reasoning, Ethereals would also generate a disturbance on the Corporeal realm, and are able to be affected by Celestial resonances. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:05:56 -0800 From: "B.H." Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Walter Milliken wrote: > > Well, canon is supposed to be decidedly ambiguous on the "God=big > ethereal" question. Among other things, this implies that ethereals > should probably have the equivalent of Superiors. > I personally hope not. I like the universe ordered as it is. But that's just me. ^_^ > And I think it is canon that once someone achieves a quantum jump in > ability (celestial to Word-bound for sure, but probably Word-bound to > Superior also), they don't lose those abilities even if they later > weaken. Case in point, the "Old Guy" in Night Music, who's very weak > these days, for a Word-bound. > > Certainly no ethereal ever approached the power of the major Superiors. > But I think some of them are probably a match for the more minor ones. > What do you call a 'minor' Superior? I don't think any true Superior can be called 'minor'- unless you mean a powerful Word-bound with a hierarchy under it.... But again, that's IMHO. > No, not in published stuff -- this is more from discussions with > Elizabeth about the hows and whys of the IN universe, when we discuss > future canon. But that's all subject to change, and often very fuzzy. > *grumble* Lucky. *loves talking to game designers* > > Should have been.... Or he may have slipped through under the Superior > loophole -- Superiors aren't bound by those limits, necessarily. > That would tend to support your argument... Unless Ethereals play by vastly different rules.... ^_^ > ---Walter - -- Brian A.H. "I am Don Arturo de Los Angeles. I am the greatest reader of all time. I have read over a million books in my lifetime, and their pages flow through my mind like summer days..." Phoenix Clan Purifier*Gaijin*Shugenja*ABC Geeky Shugenja Man*Totoroan L5R(1.1) PX+ S(LA) G++ R Y+ C+ E+ M-- T-- D++ K U+++ L5R(R1.3) GP++ (PR+++ CC++) RP+ GT:! P+ PX/LN+ S++ G+++ R Y+ C++ CG++ U+++ J---- ABC(1.0) PX/ABC++(ic, anyways. =)) S(LA) Y+ A++ D++ BO/OC!N!++++(nosebleed) P+++ U++ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:19:05 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >Perry wrote: > >. Well, while humans *are* part of the symphony, >> celestials are not, which is why they create disturbance while humans do >> not. So, logically, if ethereal spirits *are* part of the Symphony then >> (a) angelic resonances should be able glean information from the >> Symphony about them AND (b) ethereal spirits do not disturb the symphony >> except through use of Songs, etc, just like Soldiers. But, if they *are >> not* then they (a) cannot have information gleaned from about them and >> (b) disturb the Symphony like Celestials. > >The way I understand it, *Everything* is part of "The Symphony". D'oh! I always forget that one. :) My players could tell you why. Hee hee hee... "This is **MY** realm" -Lucifer to Sthood >Earth, The Marches, Heaven, Hell (probably even Limbo). Therefore >Humans, Celestials and Ethereals are also all part of the Symphony. >However, they are from *different parts* of the Symphony. Humans are >native to the Corporeal realm, therefore they do not cause >disturbances there. They've also been 'created' so that their >souls go to the Celestial realm when they die (or are reincarnated in >the Corporeal), and that they visit the Ethereal when they sleep. >Therefore they do not cause a disturbance on those realms. >Celestials, on the other hand, are Celestial beings. They don't >belong in the Corporeal relam, therefore they cause disturbance when >they are there (usually minor, but major when theye spend essence or >damage things). Similarly, they can cause a disturbance on the >Ethereal realm. By following this reasoning, Ethereals would also >generate a disturbance on the Corporeal realm, and are able to be >affected by Celestial resonances. > >Leath. Wow, talk about me having a blind spot. - -Perry, KFC Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:34:41 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- INRI >In In Nomine terms, all the miracles I can think of offhand except for the >resurrections are plausible with enough Essence. And if you're willing to >posit the ability to use the Essence of consenting (insofar as they >understand) recipients without gathering it to yourself, the Essence >wouldn't be an issue. > > Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com I just think he was Eli, Eli who had stripped himself of his memories and was walking among men, etc etc... Yeah, he had himself born into a baby human vessel and then, you know the rest. Of course, I hope Dominic doesn't find out. :) - -Perry, Kyriotate of Flowers serving Creation and sometimes Tanniael, Archangel of Tea Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:50:30 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Discord and Rites >>>And how are you going to fight them? The way Asmodeus would set it up >>IMC >>>is to send personal messages telling them to report back for duty >>>within the hour every hour, which if disobeyed will inflict dissonance. >>>Very shortly the Renegade will be a puddle of Discord, permanently >>unable >>>to use its resonance. (Remember the secondary effects of gaining >>>dissonance?) >> >>Crap, how can having Discord rather than Dissonance lead to being >>permanently unable to use one's resonance? > >Demons get Discord from failing dissonance rolls, but IIRC, the dissonance >*doesn't vanish* unless the demon deliberately converts it -- into more >Discord. And every note of dissonance is a -1 penalty to your resonance >roll. Point, I had forgotten the fact that failing a dissonance roll (as a demon) generates discord. However, I was wondering how Discord (not Dissonance) could disable one's Resonance. Of course, if you're gaining Dissonance every half and hour, you're pretty much screwed anyway. Every hour and a half, another level of Discord. :) Whee-hee. My players know all about that, don't you? heh heh... - -Perry, the evil GM from Heck. Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 02:14:40 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Re: Who's Who in the Symphony (was Re: IN- Gabriel's servants) >> First off, an angel's resonance allows it to "get in touch" with the >> Symphony, or a particular aspect of it (Truth, Emotion, Hope, etc...) >> and learn things. Well, while humans *are* part of the symphony, >> celestials are not, which is why they create disturbance while humans do >> not. > >As I understand it, Celestials *are* part of the Symphony. They are just >not a part of the Corporeal movement of the Symphony. That is why they >cause disturbances there. IMHO, I think that would logically mean that >Celestials do not cause disturbance in the Celestial movement of the >Symphony; they belong there, after all. > >Richard Gant I believe I had 10pts o' disturbance Brain-fart. Not pleasant, I can assure you. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:42:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> INRI MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > A similar case is true for the rest of the New Testament. Date of > Composition is always much earlier than the date of Canon. The date by which a book was widely accepted is also long before official entry into canon. The four gospels and several letters of Paul were apparently circulating very early. The whole issue of canon didn't come up until the early Gnostic heretic Marcion (died c. 160) proposed his own radically edited and truncated canon, stimulating the church to define the orthodox canon. But all the books now in the canon were already circulating, with varying ranges of acceptance. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:43:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- INRI Perry Lloyd wrote: > I just think he was Eli, Eli who had stripped himself of his memories > and was walking among men, etc etc. I think Heaven might have noticed if Eli had gone missing for 30-odd years. It certainly didn't take long for them to notice when he went AWOL this time, which started in the 1930s. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:19:28 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Destiny\Fate of Angels\Demons Perry Lloyd wrote on 07 January 1999 01:22 Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants Plus Angels and Demons have Fate and Destiny (right?) which >implies that they ARE part of the symphony. On a side note if the attunements from Yves & Kronos (I assume Kronos is the same) give information barring Celestial intervention, surely it is impossible (except possibly by Yves & Kronos) to detect the Destiny or Fate of a Celestial because when they do anything they have intervened in their own life causing Celestial intervention (I'm not saying angels and Demons don't have Destinies/Fate just it's impossible to detect). Also I have got the impression from a number of books that it is possible to change someone's destiny/Fate through Celestial intervention, is that right? The only source which gave me that impression that I recall is the reaction of Demons of Fate to getting dissonance from the IPG (which I have now lent out so I can't check/quote) which said something about them going into overdrive. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:00:51 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >And I think it is canon that once someone achieves a quantum jump in >ability (celestial to Word-bound for sure, but probably Word-bound to >Superior also), they don't lose those abilities even if they later >weaken. Case in point, the "Old Guy" in Night Music, who's very weak >these days, for a Word-bound. Nitpicking note: A quanta is the smallest possible unit, so a "quantum jump" is the smallest possible jump that is possible. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:41:35 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants >What do you call a 'minor' Superior? I don't think any true Superior >can be called 'minor'- unless you mean a powerful Word-bound with a >hierarchy under it.... But again, that's IMHO. I thought most of the extra Superiors in the supplements were "minor" Superiors, - which I think means that their Word doesn't have such a presence in the Symphony when compared to the BIG 26 (27?). Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:37:05 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Humanity (was Gabriel's attunements or something) Perry Lloyd 07 January 1999 >No, you've got something here. I was just looking through GURPS Black >Ops the other day, in which you play a character with a point total of >650pts plus. Normals GURPS hero material is 100pts, that's like a six >force human, I'd say, in In Nomine. Now, if human training alone could >turns a 100pt character (10's average characterist rating, like 4 in In >Nomine, 100pts character could easily have Strength of 12, Intelligence >of 13, Dexterity of 11 and Health of 10, with a fair assortment of >skills and advantages) into a 650pt character (Strength 19 (10 in In >Nomine), Dexterity 18 (probably a 9 in In Nomine), Intelligence 14 (call >it a 7), and Health 16 (equivalent of 8?) plus over one hundren >different skills. That's like a human with 5 Corporeal Forces and 4 >Ethereal Forces and, judging by their Willpower, at least 3 Celetial >forces. > >Why isn't this kind of power available to humans in In Nomine? >Spiritual growth is *necessary* before physical development? In order >to have a Strength of 10, a five force human has, what: > >Corp Forces 3 Str 10 Agl 2 >Ethe Forces 1 Int 2 Pre 2 >Cele Forces 1 Wil 2 Per 2 > >??? That's not right to me. Of course, I grew up on GURPS -and- I >prefer playing humans to angels and demons, if it weren't for the fact >that they are hardly able to achieve the attributes which are claimed to >be in human range without sacrificing the two other realms. I know a *little* about what happens at the training of the Black OPs and to be honest If that can't cause a human to gain a 6th Force *NOTHING* humans can do can. The intensity of that training would IMHO cause them to gain a 6th Force and quite possible go furthur. For those who don't know about it, all you need to know is that in order to prepare the Black OPs for the harshness of their jobs the leader puts them through things worse then they would ever come up against and if they don't survive, they obviously weren't cut out for the job. P.S. Thanks you just gave me another evil idea for the Campaign I'm planning. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:11:12 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Gabriel's servants B.H. Wrote on 06 January 1999 >Hmm. Need to check the errata about that... but doesn't Thor have >some mega-high Strength? Or was that errata'ed too? Thors Strength is 12 as per FT & IIRC it's the same in H&H but I can't find it at the moment. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:24:45 -0500 From: dahak Subject: Re: IN> Discord and Rites - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:08:46 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 06:49:59PM -0500, dahak wrote: > Maybe I'm being dim but I thought you only suffered dissonance once > for each time you broke your dissonance conditions so If I disobey orders > and become a renegade that's one note of discord in either case > [possibly 2 if I was ordered not do go renegade as well as failing to carry > > out my current orders.] > plus one for being a servant of the game helping a renegade i.e. me. > 3 notes of dissonance is unpleasant, to say the least. > Bad news admittedly but making them unplayable [the fact that the > superior wants you stapled to a wall somewhere is what makes them > unplayable. Compared with avoiding your ex comrades in the game or > Laurence's Malakim death squads a little more dissonance isn't going > to hurt much. And how are you going to fight them? The way Asmodeus would set it up IMC is to send personal messages telling them to report back for duty within the hour every hour, which if disobeyed will inflict dissonance. Very shortly the Renegade will be a puddle of Discord, permanently unable to use its resonance. (Remember the secondary effects of gaining dissonance?) So In your campaign if in his instructions to his minions. Asmodeous tells them to do something three times they take three notes of dissonance if they disobey him? Not to mention the fact that its direct orders, IE in person rather than through messages and the essence cost involved in using Cel Tongues on the player multiple times. Especially as all renegades and outcasts have been playing > fast and loose with their dissonance conditions or they wouldn't be > renegades > and outcasts. It's true of most Outcasts, but it isn't necessarily true of Renegades at all. You can be made a Renegade for just about anything. As the quote goes, "There is no thought, step, action or lack of action under the heavens which cannot be punished under the heavy hand of Article 58." This can happen to them anyway, if they fail to break their Heart, but their should be some incentive for doing so. Asmodeus still needs a reason to get rid of you. And if it is just to encourage the others, you are so heavily stuffed anyway that extra dissonance isn't going to be noticeable. > Most of the above notes can be got rid of by either following your orders > again > if your that way inclined and if not well that's the cost for getting from > under the thumb of one of the universes top three or four micro managers. > No, it makes them unplayable. The Heart is the focus point of a Celestial's connection to a Word, and if it's cracked, the connection is gone. So how can they use word based attunements? Like for example Shedim of the Game? > PS on rites as far as I could find there are mentions of not being able to > use them but renegades who can't can become angels who can. I believe it's for instant redemption cases, rather than renegades on the run for X years who see the light. Anyway, Demon Princes have the option of letting Renegades use their Rites, but if they're used, the DP finds out where the Renegade is, so most Renegades aren't going to use that option. That is a better option but only at best deutrocanonical. > Nothing about what happens to fully fledged angels with demonic rites. > If demonic rites are dissonant, demonic rites are dissonant. The normal dissonance rules apply. All dissonance conditions are situational. The problem comes with characters like Damion in Maya's Fiat Justinia who have both Andre's 30 minute sex rite and Eli's one hour making love rite. The first triggers most times when you do the second. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. - ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:49:11 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> David vs Martin - the End (we hope!) "However, the implication that I have been privately harassing you (stop screaming, I know you didn't claim that explicitly, but it _is_ implied by the tone and context of the above statement) is sleazy and something I can't ignore." Well as I didn't 'claim that explicitly' perhaps you could also explain how you could make such a prejudiced statement? I didn't say you harassed me - don't infer something that I CLEARLY never said because what you've come up with is pretty insulting! I DON'T harass people! I am NOT sleazy and this is some thing I cant and won't ignore! You are really pushing it if you think you are justified in making these sorts of malicious claims! Whining, screaming, moaning; these are all adjectives YOU have used. FYI: I haven't done any of that and I'm not doing it now - any more than you I suspect are! So please spare the melodrama! Now this is where it really gets ugly… "You sent me unsolicited e-mail off-list that demanded a response." NO David; YOU sent me unsolicited email off-list. I am happy to respond to any email - if you weren't perhaps now would be a good time to clearly state that you don't want that. But you and I both know who called first! "You didn't like my response, and continued sending me e-mails." NO, wrong way around David. You are not going to convince me I'm in error by blatant lying! "In public, I feel some obligation to refrain from *really* letting people have it -- I'm under no such obligation to "play nice" in personal correspondence, especially correspondence initiated and continued by the other party." What a laughable statement! I say it again - it was YOU who mailed me, initially in response to my earlier rant. You are the one who can't let it go; maybe I've touched a nerve. I don't know, but this is now becoming ugly. You are displaying an utterly unpleasant side of yourself I find sad. If you didn't want to take part in the private conversation you should have said. As I recall it ended with you telling me you were just mailing me for a laugh. This is why I called you frustrated, because anyone who winds people up for a laugh is pretty twisted. Especially when they turn around and make the comments you have. You accused me of 'playing a game' - that was a game that existed solely in your head; and one in which you clearly admitted 'I would never win'. Of course not; it's YOUR game and YTOUR rules - just like that little competition you set up. It's sad that you should treat my post correcting Eeyore for assuming I HAD insulted you. It's sad you see the worst in people, and that you seem to want to. Its sad that all you can see is anger and aggression and that you have to continue exacerbating a thread that I DID let go. "I gave you the opportunity to cut your losses and drop it; I never asked you to continue the exchange, but you did, until you couldn't take it any more." 'Cut my losses'; 'take it anymore' - these are all in your head David. I engaged you in a conversation (that's how I treat email debates, discussions or whatever) YOU initiated. How magnanimous of you to offer me the chance to leave - I didn't want to ; I wanted to continue talking but it became pretty clear where your head was (and is) at. I respond now because of the strength and outrageousness of what you have said. I was never fighting you, but you seem to enjoy the 'Sergeant-Major' role a little too much. I'm surprised you didn't ask me to drop and give you twenty! As far as your claims to never asking me to continue the exchange; WHY REPLY THEN? WHY EMAIL ME IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU DIDN'T WANT A CONVERSATION? Maybe 'you' couldn't take it any more! Anyone who would email someone and then feign surprise upon receiving a reply is missing a few forces I think. Especially when they were as ugly as yours were. "No skin off my nose, but don't then bring your grievances to the list and complain publicly about being insulted privately." A LOT of skin off your nose, it would seem! If you don't want to keep on discussing this - DON'T BRING IT UP. DON'T PROVOKE A RESPONSE WITH HYPE AND BS! In other words don't wind people up! "and you slung your share of insults as well....which I am NOT complaining about, other than that it is hypocritical and disingenuous to start a fight in private and then try to paint the other party as the instigator in public." NO David - I didn't. Not unless you regard disagreement as insult. I never called you names or responded with offensive hyperbole. And you are complaining about it, aren't you. "I'm sure everyone else would be very happy if this flamewar would die now." Then let it. "If you want to keep snivelling about how mean and unjust I've been, here's an _invitation_ to send me more private e-mail, and I'll be happy to give you more of the same." You show your true colours once again David - this is why a said you do yourself a disservice. Now it seems you welcome my email - only you wont get any. This will stay public because you made it public, I won't run away from you and I wont let you get away with spurious postings and lies. Be it on your head! "But keep private stuff off-list, unless you're really eager to get flamed again on the list." Oh, and don't try and threaten me. "You implied it, by whining that I didn't flame someone who posted a review of a product" I didn't imply it- you did in coming up with that assertion. Not that flaming is a necessary reply (like I said that's all you know and all you seem to be). I just commented on what seemed very ironic (hence my use of the word - 'irony'!) plain and simple. You draw your own conclusions. "If you _review_ a book, I won't flame you. I never flame people for reviewing books. What you got flamed for asking for was nothing remotely like a review" at this point there are no more words; I am just left shaking my head in disbelief. Goodbye David, if only you could channel all this energy into your writing, we'd all have a product we could be proud of - especially you. Okay, now I would like to make a public apology. I apologise that this argument has had to continue the way it has. Plain and simple. I'm sorry people have to witness such and I hope it wont happen again, but in the end that really is up to you David because I will respond to anyone who posts mail such as this. You know this in posting your poison, which is what makes your attitude all the more pathetic. This is now over, file it where it belongs - in the gutter. Martin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1083 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.