From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jun 29 12:58:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04857 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:58:39 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA00600 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:52:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:52:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199906291752.MAA00600@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 #1269 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 Tuesday, June 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1269 In this digest: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Dragoncon Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> Dragoncon IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? Re: IN> IN: New GM questions IN> modifiers Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? IN> Superiors Re: IN> Superiors Re: IN> modifiers Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Re: IN> Superiors RE: IN> Dragoncon Re: IN> Superiors Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:21:42 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 07:47 AM 6/28/99 -0400, you wrote: > It may be prejudiced but it's canon. And it has nothing to do with >intelligence. Check the APG. It's also part of the reason that Humanity >is so important. Celestials can only truly harmonise themselves as either >selfless or selfish beings. Humans can do both. Perhaps that's part of >the reason there ever was a Rebellion in the first place, to the angelic >mind it was either this way or that, believe wholeheartedly or fall all the >way. To be /simple/ is not to be a /simpleton/, to use your word. The only section in the APG that I can find that relates to this deals with a celestial's innate desire to represent a pure concept, as opposed to the humans who are a mishmash of goals and ideas. However, until a celestial decides on a Word to pursue, he doesn't have that kind of purity or sense of purpose. I objected to your use of "simpleton" and "idiot-savant" to describe celestials; that's certainly not the case. What is the case is that celestials aim for simplicity, rather than the jumbled complexity of humans. Humans are general; angels specialize. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:37:18 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Dragoncon At 09:58 AM 6/28/99 -0500, you wrote: >I'm going to Dragoncon this weekend and I was wondering if anyone else on >the list is also planning to attend. I remember someone mentioning it a >while back and even saying they might try to run an In Nomine LARP. Does >anyone know the status on that? I'd love to give it a try if its still >happening. I'd even settle for a table top game, since I haven't actually >had a chance to play in a looong time. That's Ben Aldred who's running the LARP at DragonCon. I haven't heard from him since early May, but I'm planning to give him a call to see how things are going. I'm not entirely sure he's checking email over the summer... - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:48:35 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 7:34 PM +0200 6/28/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Micheal Knight wrote: > >> >So, what stops a reliever from fledging as a grigori? [...] >In a low-contrast game there might be a whole branch of Judgies weeding >out the relievers who show Grigori tendencies... ;) Even in a high-contrast one, though the counseling they did might be different. And, of course, it's perhaps implicit in other material that an Archangel can fledge a reliever as the _Archangel_ chooses -- maybe Grig-ish ones get... redirected. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:45:44 -0400 From: Hilary Hayes Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) From Ashley.... >I was pondering this earlier, and it occurred to me that even if a Bright >were promoted to superior-status, she still wouldn't be able to create more >Lilim. Probably not Lilim. Possibly some sort of new Angel. Only Lilith can make Lilim. Ashley. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:45:46 -0400 From: Hilary Hayes Subject: Re: IN> Dragoncon >>I remember someone mentioning it a while back and even saying they might try to run an In Nomine LARP. Talking of LARPs Hilary and I will be running an IN LARP at Gen Con UK this September, Ashley ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:30:57 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine >>>Or real life even. Suppose a mortal with 0 toughness, 1 Corp Force, 2 Strength; OK, so it's the wimpiest you can get, but are you really saying that he goes down after 2 punches?<<< It's quite possible for someone to go down with one punch. Most fights, if they're really serious, aren't the extended, bloody brawls you see in movies.....a real person will find a lot of fight taken out of him with one good punch in the face or kick in the ribs. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:32:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine >>>A third way of which I just thought, and one which makes combat a bit slower and adds a bit of math, but allows for greater verisimilitude, is to take the difference between the target number and the actual roll and add it to the check digit. Thus, if your player rolled, say, 4-2/1 vs. a TN of, oh, 9 (Str 6 + Fighting 3), you'd subtract 6 from 9 - 3 - and add it to the check digit, for an effective check digit of 4. Likewise, if he'd rolled 6-5/1, you'd subtract 9 (the TN) from 11 (the roll), and add the result (2) to the check digit, getting an effective failed CD of 3. It's probably appropriate to use this for all skills, in fact, but you'd need to modify CD tables slightly.<<< Interestingly, that's an optional rule I thought of myself, and will be including in the GMG. Not sure if it will stay in the final draft, though. It has the problem that anyone with a high base target number is going to have ridiculously high CDs. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:13:44 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine At 07:32 PM 6/28/99 -0400, you wrote: >Interestingly, that's an optional rule I thought of myself, and will be >including in the GMG. Not sure if it will stay in the final draft, though. >It has the problem that anyone with a high base target number is going to >have ridiculously high CDs. So suggest it strictly for cinematic games, where CDs should be high anyway... it also tends to be more realistic (oddly) in terms of power levels, such that the best result for a powerful character is going to be better than the best result for a non-powerful character. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:08:12 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, David Edelstein wrote: > It's quite possible for someone to go down with one punch. Most fights, if > they're really serious, aren't the extended, bloody brawls you see in > movies.....a real person will find a lot of fight taken out of him with one > good punch in the face or kick in the ribs. Optional rule (or rather roleplaying hint): any character describable as a 'real person' (i.e. mehum, mook, extra) will stop fighting after 'one good punch' (i.e. if stunned). Steve. - ------ To fall in love is to create a religion that has a fallible god. - - Jorge-Luis Borges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:36:23 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > Or real life even. Suppose a mortal with 0 toughness, 1 Corp Force, 2 > > Strength; OK, so it's the wimpiest you can get, but are you really > > saying that he goes down after 2 punches? > > Knocking someone out with a single punch isn't difficult at all. It's even > possible to kill someone with just one punch. > Movies really do exaggerate somone's ability to withstand multiple punches and kicks in vital or semi-vital areas without sustaining serious injury. Boxers wear padded gloves (nowadays they do) and many sorts of fighters train themselves to properly withstand a beating (Muy Thai comes to mind as regards the limbs). Striking someone in the face -properly- is rather likely to send them into unconsciousness. Fortunately, not too many people know how to hit someone that precisely, but talk to someone who's received hand to hand training in the Army or Marines and they'll probably be able to explain how that works. Also, a good martial artist can break bone with little effort if, again, the strike is properly executed. And I'd say the average Calabite or Malakite (and every angel/demon of War, the Sword, or Fire) knows how to throw a punch properly. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:39:55 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Prodigal wrote: > > Lilim, who > > in many ways are closer to humanity than any other breed of celestial. > > Except for the Kyriotates, and the Mercurians, and the Impudites, and the > Shedim... > > They're all closer to humans and humanity than the Lilim... Now I wonder, closer in -what way- exactly? Shedim and Kyriotates are - -shockingly- alien when compared to humans on almost every level. Formless, with minds that function in ways humans can't conceive of, even unable to be -looked upon- by humans, these Celestials don't strike me as being very much like the humans they inhabit. So what exactly is meant by "closer to humanity"? - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:00:48 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 2:21 PM -0400 6/28/99, EDG wrote: > >To be /simple/ is not to be a /simpleton/, to use your word. The only >section in the APG that I can find that relates to this deals with a >celestial's innate desire to represent a pure concept, as opposed to the >humans who are a mishmash of goals and ideas. However, until a celestial >decides on a Word to pursue, he doesn't have that kind of purity or sense >of purpose. > >I objected to your use of "simpleton" and "idiot-savant" to describe >celestials; that's certainly not the case. What is the case is that >celestials aim for simplicity, rather than the jumbled complexity of >humans. Humans are general; angels specialize. > I understand the distinction between being simple and being a simpleton. Most celestials either newly arrived or veterans to the corporeal scene, never develop a full understanding of the Human situation because they are lacking that complexity that humans start off with at birth. Those that move closer to the complexity of humanity inevitably become dissonant as they pick up contradictions to their selfless(ish) natures. The long-term survivors strike some sort of middle ground that leaves a gulf of understanding that they can never bridge. Most celestials lack areas of comprehension that even most simple humans have. the greater intelligence in many ways makes it that much more frustrating and can make them seem ludicrous at times. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:07:55 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Our spies report that on 06:39 PM 6/28/99 -0700, Steel Angel said: > Now I wonder, closer in -what way- exactly? Shedim and Kyriotates are >-shockingly- alien when compared to humans on almost every level. Formless, with >minds that function in ways humans can't conceive of, even unable to be - -looked >upon- by humans, these Celestials don't strike me as being very much like the >humans they inhabit. So what exactly is meant by "closer to humanity"? Speaking in terms of angels, it is a matter of level of divinity. Seraphim are the most divine and also the least able to relate to humans. Mercurians are the least diving and most able to relate to humans. I think the key is in how well the angels relate to humans, not how much like humans they are. But really, it's how divine they are. Demons are listed in reverse order. But there isn't the same kind of distinction, the Princes don't allow Balseraphs as a whole the importance Seraphim ahve in Heaven. There isn't really an order anymore, they are just twisted versions of angels. Malakim are in the order they are because they are less divine than other choirs. Lilim appear in the list in that spot because it's easy to decide they belong there. This is all my opinion... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:15:36 -0500 From: "Dan and Dave Scheppard" Subject: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BEC1BC.213FE300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>A third way of which I just thought, and one which makes combat a bit slower and adds a bit of math, but allows for greater verisimilitude, is = to take the difference between the target number and the actual roll and = add it to the check digit. Thus, if your player rolled, say, 4-2/1 vs. a TN of, oh, 9 (Str 6 + Fighting 3), you'd subtract 6 from 9 - 3 - and add it = to the check digit, for an effective check digit of 4. Likewise, if he'd rolled 6-5/1, you'd subtract 9 (the TN) from 11 (the roll), and add the result (2) to the check digit, getting an effective failed CD of 3. = It's probably appropriate to use this for all skills, in fact, but you'd need = to modify CD tables slightly.<<< That's a rule I thought of as well, only I thought of using the actual = roll difference to replace the CD completely. It depends on how dramatic = you want the CDs to be. You might have to modify check digit tables. Im = going to test out different methods and see what works best (trying not = to piss off my players too much) Dan, another Elohite of Eli,=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BEC1BC.213FE300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>A third way of which I just thought, and = one which=20 makes combat a bit
slower and adds a bit of math, but allows for = greater=20 verisimilitude, is to
take the difference between the target number = and the=20 actual roll and add
it to the check digit.  Thus, if your player = rolled,=20 say, 4-2/1 vs. a TN
of, oh, 9 (Str 6 + Fighting 3), you'd subtract 6 = from 9 -=20 3 - and add it to
the check digit, for an effective check digit of = 4. =20 Likewise, if he'd
rolled 6-5/1, you'd subtract 9 (the TN) from 11 = (the roll),=20 and add the
result (2) to the check digit, getting an effective = failed CD of=20 3.  It's
probably appropriate to use this for all skills, in = fact, but=20 you'd need to
modify CD tables slightly.<<<
 
That's a rule I thought of as well, only I thought = of using=20 the actual roll difference to replace the CD completely. It depends on = how=20 dramatic you want the CDs to be. You might have to modify check digit = tables. Im=20 going to test out different methods and see what works best (trying not = to piss=20 off my players too much)
 
    Dan, another Elohite of Eli,=20
- ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BEC1BC.213FE300-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:09:05 -0500 From: Matt Trent Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine EDG wrote: > > On the other hand, you could take Beth's suggestion - that fistfights are > supposed to mimic those seen in film, where the participants get bruised > and bloodied but not really very _damaged_. > > Keep in mind also - you say you have a very Strengthy character - that high > levels of Strength and Fighting add to the Power of kicks and punches. > > Hope this helps! > > -EDG Also if you are using angels you can allow your pc to train in Celestral Glory Kung Fu as described in a recent Pyramid. I supose that even if you are running angels they could get training if they kept Yephiel from discovering their true nature (though mabe even this wouldn't be nessasary if she is serious about her planed kumite). Novice angel of Wind Trent FYI I'm new to In Nomine (don't even have the source book yet but it is in the mail) most of what i know i've had to glean from Pyramid and playtest files. 8) I just can't wait to figure out what a d666 is. I've decided to kick of a game in my area so any GMing tips will be appreicated. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:45:15 +0200 From: Alex van Niel Subject: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Hi Leath Sheales, mmm, removing the modifiers (negative ones) and heightening the others would require me to increase the body number of every player as well... (not to mention NPCs) but it does sound reasonable (me and my players thought of this as well but I decided to wait what you guys had to say about it :) .. Doing standard 1 point damage sounds much easier and more fair to implement .. This is something I discussed with one of my players intensively (weird where such discussion can lead to :) ) ... And again, I decided to wait until I heard something from you all... And also I had decided to put the change off until at least the session has ended or the adventure.. not sure yet what I`ll do yet.. I had just hoped there would be some kind of tiny rule I had missed... Apparently not.. Thanks for your help. Greetings, Alex van Niel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:50:44 +0200 From: Alex van Niel Subject: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine Hi All who reacted on my question. Thanks a lot for the suggestions.. If the "above 12 is added to check digit" is somewhere in the book or in the errata (or players guides which I don`t have yet :( ) then I must have missed it but it sounds the best sollution to my problem. Thanks Elizabeth.... Greetings, Alex van Niel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:51:57 -0700 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) Sean McCarthy wrote: > > Speaking in terms of angels, it is a matter of level of divinity. > Seraphim are the most divine and also the least able to relate to humans. > Mercurians are the least diving and most able to relate to humans. > > I think the key is in how well the angels relate to humans, not how much > like humans they are. But really, it's how divine they are. Demons are > listed in reverse order. But there isn't the same kind of distinction, the > Princes don't allow Balseraphs as a whole the importance Seraphim ahve in > Heaven. There isn't really an order anymore, they are just twisted > versions of angels. > What does "less divine" or "more divine" mean in your definition? That's one of the thigs in IN I've always found the most vague, especially where demons are concerned. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:44:07 -0400 From: "Eddie" Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to suffer from someone else's mistakes? What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori 1000s of years ago that caused the problem. You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Anders Gabrielsson To: Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:34 PM Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Micheal Knight wrote: > > > >So, what stops a reliever from fledging as a grigori? > > >And if for some reason one did, what would everyone's reaction be? > > > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nothing, in theory, > > does. In practice, though, with no actual Grigori in Heaven, it's > > very probable that a lack of working models could stop it. > > Perhaps a reliever needs a fully fledged angel of the Choir it's going to > fledge as as a "force matrix model" or something, which would make it > impossible for one to fledge as a Grigori. > > > But man, if one did, panic time. > > In a low-contrast game there might be a whole branch of Judgies weeding > out the relievers who show Grigori tendencies... ;) > > Anders Gabrielsson > anders@stp.ling.uu.se > The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! > We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only > score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we > relieve. - Ghost > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:56:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Eddie wrote: > My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to > suffer from someone else's mistakes? > What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori > 1000s of years ago that caused the problem. > You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? That information is not available at your security clearance. Trust Dominic. Dominic Is Your Friend. Seriously, I mentioned this specifically as an option in a low-contrast setting, that is, where the Archangels aren't at all nice and cuddly, but very ruthless. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:23:03 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> IN: New GM questions Kevin Walsh wrote: > > My favourite was the bit where an entire party of Celestials is supposed > > to witness the death of the holiest man on Earth, after having spent > > time with him and not realised he was exceptionally, almost > > supernaturally holy. (They're supposed to witness him in prayer at the > > Mosque, as well.) I went through all the Angelic resonances, and the > > only ones that would have problems in detecting that would be Cherubim > > and Kyriotates; the rest would see it as a matter of course. > > > Have you ever played a Seraph? You can't just look at people and find > things out. I'm not convinced an Elohite or Mercurian would do much > better, either, even with CD6. Beth pointed out an Ofanite wouldn't do much good in this situation - fair enough. But consider the holiest man on Earth at prayer. The Malakite has known for a while he's amazingly holy. The Mercurian will probably pick up his vast network of relations with other people in the church/mosque, and at least know he's a regular; pick up the nature of his relation with the priest, and you're pretty much there. The Elohite will pick up that he's unusually calm and content. The Seraph may well overhear him saying prayers along the lines of "I exist only to serve", or suchlike, and realise that he *means* it. If you have such giveaway lines in prayers, the Seraph's in there on a CD1. My point isn't that any bunch of angels will be an automatic holy man detector; merely that it's unlikely that nobody will pick up on it when observing a holy man in church. Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:22:59 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: IN> modifiers has anyone here used or had players use the option to make roll less or more risky? my players never seem to want to do that even when their target number is high enough that they stand to make a rather remarkable roll. - - Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -"ACF", Stabbing Westward ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:25:46 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) for me, more divine and less divine links into how distant the angel or demon is from humanity, and how easy a time it will have interacting with it. - - Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -"ACF", Stabbing Westward - -----Original Message----- From: Steel Angel To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 1:59 AM Subject: Re: IN> Making Brights (was: Do relievers have to fledge?) > >What does "less divine" or "more divine" mean in your definition? That's one of the >thigs in IN I've always found the most vague, especially where demons are concerned. > >- Abracax: Shedite of Riots > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:30:12 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? IMO, it's because the Grigori are so low on the divinity scale and so close to humans that they're actually part human. they can naturally have offspring, and I believe I read somewhere that they don't have vessels, their natural bodies are their vessels. to be that able to relate to humans makes it too easy to fall into the same problems humans have. no human is entirely selfless, and Grigori are especially susceptible to falling. - - Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" nallix@bellsouth.net ICQ: 11430261 "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -"ACF", Stabbing Westward - -----Original Message----- From: Eddie To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:44 AM Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? >My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to >suffer from someone else's mistakes? >What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori >1000s of years ago that caused the problem. >You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anders Gabrielsson >To: >Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:34 PM >Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? > > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Micheal Knight wrote: >> >> > >So, what stops a reliever from fledging as a grigori? >> > >And if for some reason one did, what would everyone's reaction be? >> > >> > I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nothing, in theory, >> > does. In practice, though, with no actual Grigori in Heaven, it's >> > very probable that a lack of working models could stop it. >> >> Perhaps a reliever needs a fully fledged angel of the Choir it's going to >> fledge as as a "force matrix model" or something, which would make it >> impossible for one to fledge as a Grigori. >> >> > But man, if one did, panic time. >> >> In a low-contrast game there might be a whole branch of Judgies weeding >> out the relievers who show Grigori tendencies... ;) >> >> Anders Gabrielsson >> anders@stp.ling.uu.se >> The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! >> We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only >> score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we >> relieve. - Ghost >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:53:42 -0400 From: "Yves Dorval" Subject: IN> Superiors I wonder how many Forces a typical superior has... If you go by the book, the maximum amount of forces a celestial can possess is 18 Forces (12 in all their attributes). Is being a superior just on the other side of that (19, 20+) or in a scale that cannot be measured (200-300) ?? Though your average celestial has no hope in single combat of defeating a superior (aside interventions or sheer ingenuity on behalf of the celestial on a scale that the GM is blown away), if the average superior has 20-30 forces, he could slow him down, even if only for a round or two (often a round or two is sufficient to allow someone else to run away, get help or do something rash and stupid like attack that superior. If they have 50 forces, a typical celestial would not last part of a round. I know they would need a lot of Forces in order to make more angels, but they dont mass produce these, right? Also, could one take a vessel that is an exact *representation* of his celestial form (for example a mercurian with his wings)? Would those wings be functional? On the upside, they may enjoy being in *their true form* but on the down side, it would be hard for many of them to explain exactly who or what they are if spotted by mundanes (with the exeption of October 31 where everyone say you have the coolest of costumes). I think it could do for many interesting role-playing opportunities. What do you think about this? Jason would be angel of cookies ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:39:34 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Superiors At 10:53 AM 6/29/99 -0400, you wrote: >I wonder how many Forces a typical superior has... If you go by the book, >the maximum amount of forces a celestial can possess is 18 Forces (12 in all >their attributes). Is being a superior just on the other side of that (19, >20+) or in a scale that cannot be measured (200-300) ?? Though your >average celestial has no hope in single combat of defeating a superior >(aside interventions or sheer ingenuity on behalf of the celestial on a >scale that the GM is blown away), if the average superior has 20-30 forces, >he could slow him down, even if only for a round or two (often a round or >two is sufficient to allow someone else to run away, get help or do >something rash and stupid like attack that superior. If they have 50 forces, >a typical celestial would not last part of a round. I know they would need >a lot of Forces in order to make more angels, but they dont mass produce >these, right? Superiors have an uncountable number of Forces - if, in fact, they still use Forces to quantify what they're made up of. It's deliberate that nobody knows how many Forces a given Superior has... they're supposed to be incredibly powerful beings, always vastly more powerful than the PCs, and giving them a Force rating takes away from that. (However, it's my personal theory that Saminga is the only Superior on either side with only 2 Ethereal Forces.) >Also, could one take a vessel that is an exact *representation* of his >celestial form (for example a mercurian with his wings)? Would those wings >be functional? On the upside, they may enjoy being in *their true form* >but on the down side, it would be hard for many of them to explain exactly >who or what they are if spotted by mundanes (with the exeption of October 31 >where everyone say you have the coolest of costumes). I think it could do >for many interesting role-playing opportunities. What do you think about >this? One could. Now how likely is it that your Superior will give you one? Part of the War is keeping it away from the notice of the mundanes - and a seventeen-eyed serpent wandering the streets is going to alert _someone_. Also, how desirable is it? If your vessel is exactly the same as your celestial form, every celestial that sees you will know exactly what you are... - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:51:24 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> modifiers Our spies report that on 07:22 AM 6/29/99 -0500, Amo Nympham said: >has anyone here used or had players use the option to make roll less or more >risky? my players never seem to want to do that even when their target >number is high enough that they stand to make a rather remarkable roll. > Yes. In the games I've played in, we frequently risk, adjusted the die roll downwards to raise the check digit. Only rarely would we do it the other way. This would happen ESPECIALLY with people who needed to roll 10, 11 or 12 to start with. Lower than that and you couldn't stand the odds in a bad situation...higher than that and you got automatic check digit bonuses, so it was unwise to risk. Sean (Anyone with Strength 8 Fighting 4 will risk for damage a lot...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:17:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine At 4:50 PM +0200 6/28/99, Alex van Niel wrote: >Hi All who reacted on my question. > >Thanks a lot for the suggestions.. >If the "above 12 is added to check digit" is somewhere in the book or in >the errata (or players guides which I don`t have yet :( ) then I must have >missed it but it sounds the best sollution to my problem. Thanks Elizabeth.... Main book, page 39, first column, under "Automatic Success." (Not under Skills, on p. 45, nor even a reference, drat it.) The example it uses is Fighting, even. (Though erronious -- CorForces should be being added too!) - --Beth, Archangel of Archives http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Angels/Arcangel.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:24:28 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> Re: Fighting in Inomine On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 12:45:12PM -0400, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > I don't know about errata. I just add 3 to the Power of all weapons and > attacks in the game. It seems to work out pretty well. > Ah, but then you're likely to get instant kills with firearms, which isn't terribly realistic. (I got converted to this position by reading things about real life assassination attempts. The one that stuck with me was when a group of 4 people were attacked with submachine guns. Each of them took at least a dozen bullets. One of the two survivors even took one in the eye.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "... the expression "secret society" means an association, society, or other body the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into an oath, affirmation, declaration or agreement not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society, or body." Offences Against the State Act, 1939, Appendix A, Section 3.2 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:50:38 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Superiors From: Yves Dorval >I wonder how many Forces a typical superior has... A lot. I have no idea whether my personal take matches canon or not, but my take is that when a superior's Word is futhered in the mortal world, they can actually gain Forces. This is where they get the Forces to fledge new angels from. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:53:02 -0500 From: "Acosta, Ben" Subject: RE: IN> Dragoncon From: EDG >That's Ben Aldred who's running the LARP at DragonCon. I haven't heard >from him since early May, but I'm planning to give him a call to see how >things are going. I'm not entirely sure he's checking email over the >summer... Well, I don't see an In Nomine LARP listed on the Dragoncon web page so either the plans fell through or it's an unofficial LARP. Ben, Elohite of Eli Angel of Neat Ideas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:57:41 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superiors At 10:53 AM -0400 6/29/99, Yves Dorval wrote: >I wonder how many Forces a typical superior has... Superiors are unquantifiable. But if you really want to, there's a few guidelines (for different options) in the last draft of the GMG that I saw, so jes' hold yer horses and something official will be around. Or talk about it in a thread, see if I care. O;> >Also, could one take a vessel that is an exact *representation* of his >celestial form (for example a mercurian with his wings)? Sure. If you can talk a Superior into giving it to you, or make it yourself in Limbo. (If your GM lets you make something in Limbo you've never had as a vessel and therefore can't 'remember.') >Would those wings be functional? Only if the whole vessel was messed with. People with the Song of Wings don't fly because they're adapted to it, like birds -- they fly because they're using a _Song_. Of course, with all the muscles attached, you could hit people with the wings, or use them to slow down (esp. a fall), or maybe even glide a bit. Of course, a GM can always say that sure, they're functional, if you want to spend 2 Essence and make a lot of disturbance every time you swap between winged and non winged... O:> And if you get a vessel that's been modified for flight, then it could fly. Start with hollow bones (represent this with fewer hit points), an altered body-shape for better balance and streamlining... And remember that though this shape would mimic a celestial form, it will still be made out of flesh and blood and bone, not ineffable spirit- stuff. It will be subject to gravity, extremes of heat and cold (okay, humans collapse before vessels, but still), and any other hazards of life on Earth. It may be closer to a true form than a human or animal vessel, but it's not necessarily that comforting compared to all the problems. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:57:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- Do relievers have to fledge? At 3:44 AM -0400 6/29/99, Eddie wrote: >My question is why can't one fledge as a Grigori, why should they have to >suffer from someone else's mistakes? >What ever happened to, to forgive is Divine. It was not them but Grigori >1000s of years ago that caused the problem. >You can have redeemed just about anything. Why no Grigori? 'Cause God said so? O:> Heck, how else to keep them on Earth, breeding... (See "Eighth Choir and Free Will" box, p. 105, for the Illuminati Conspiracy view.) O;> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1269 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.