From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Dec 12 19:53:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA01521 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:53:24 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id TAA21109 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:41:59 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:41:59 -0600 Message-Id: <199712130141.TAA21109@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 #511 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, December 12 1997 Volume 01 : Number 511 In this digest: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #510 IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #510 Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance Re: IN> American TV Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire IN> IN resources Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:34:26 EST From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #510 : Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:00:25 -0500 (EST) : From: Emily Dresner : Subject: IN> New Batch of History Stuff : : The world is coming to an end. God help us all, I am busy reading Near : Eastern History (Axial Age, mostly, 800-200BC) right now, and it's messing : with my head. But, it did bring up some pretty big questions about Canon : History, and how well it's really going to accurately reflect history. Not too well, most likely, since it doesn't seem settled whether the Universe was created 6000 years ago or 15 billion. :) : 2. Andrealphus : : So when did it start going to hell? As much as the Western Philosophers : have tried to change it, Yahweh is still predominantly a very male God, : and as his dominance spread, he gave way to a predominiately male society. : Sexuality was changed from something which was taken as a part of culture : and ritual to something that was hidden under heavy robes and hidden in : the back room. Incidentally, there's a thread on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written about when anti-sexual attitudes entered Christian thought. The consensus is that no one is sure. (Paul seems innocent(?) and he probably had a good handle on how the early church felt. I'm sure Earl will pop up and blame Origen now. :) Being opposed to sex is kind of hard to reconcile with the "be fruitful and multiply" thing, as Milton so deftly points out in _Paradise Lost_: "Our Master bids increase; who bids refrain, Save the Deceiver, Man's enemy and His?" (Adam coming on to Eve in iambic pentameter; deeply surreal if you think about it too long...) - ---- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:15:09 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Interesting stuff, Em! I'm not partial to IN backwards, myself, but I do have a fondness for history. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:30:38 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #510 >: Sexuality was changed from something which was taken as a part of culture >: and ritual to something that was hidden under heavy robes and hidden in >: the back room. > >Incidentally, there's a thread on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written >about when anti-sexual attitudes entered Christian thought. The My limted research on this very subject seems to point too after the Reformation as the start of anti-sexulaity and a climax during the colonization of North America, esp what would become the United States. If you look at Chaucer and Dante (and the Gospels) both have little objection to describing human functions such as defecation and copulation. Both have a disdain for blasphemy, which is fairly bland today. I belive the movement really moved along esp. in England with the infulence of the Calvinites and Cromwell. The anti-sexulaity movement spread from England coloinizated North America these "purtain" views came along. Once America, with its WASP values, became powerful these views spread. I belive that this anti-sexulaity is mostly limted to English speaking nations. Non-Angleophonic Christains (and esp. Catholics) don't seem to have a probelem, though. In addition you can still see the lantent sexulaity in Catholism by going to an older Church (preferably before 2nd Vatican) and looking at the art of sainted glass which often presents a sexual side in the pierced, youthful, Saints linning the Windows whereas many Protestent churches are bare of that. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:13:40 -0700 (MST) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels > Well, sometimes it's not clear exactly what you're objecting to. I know...I went too much into the details, so my major point got buried... > canon. It doesn't bother me, because it makes sense to me that Shedim are > less flexible than Kyriotates, and if Shedim could possess other I'll go ahead and start with this, though, because I think I need to get this cleared out a bit before getting to the main point. The Shedim only come into it by comparison, and, well, as you yourself note; > there is some gaping logical hole here. I see a restriction that applies to > Shedim and not to Kyriotates primarily for game balance reasons. "Primarily for game balance reasons" always bugs me. Game balance is important, obviously, but when things get set up for -no other reason-, I get unhappy...and when the people we've got who, in theory, are actually at least talking with the designers and are supposed to KNOW the Canon reasons for it (by which I mean, Beth and Karakash) have to come back with, "Well, there's nothing official for it, but here's my take," it's evident that there really -IS- nothing official behind it...it's just there for game balance. But, to emphasize, Shedim not being able to do it is very, very secondary...it's Kyriotates BEING able to do it that's my problem. Now, to put the focus where it belongs, I can't sum it up much better than you did; > Kyriotates are a bitch-monkey no matter how you slice 'em (or divide 'em). Exactly. Now, being that they're obnoxious enough and, in my opinion, have enough holes as they ARE...why add a new one? My MAJOR problem with it is on the conceptual, world-view, level. First, it doesn't match the concept of Kyriotates. Kyriotates possessing Vessels doesn't fit with their nature. It's clear, all through their description, that Kyriotates CANNOT support Vessels, to the point that, like you, I'd even had the impression that the special Superior attunements that let them have very specific types of Vessels were more `Vessel-like-things'. (That's why not only can Kyrios of David, say, only do stone Vessels, it's also why other Servitors of David still -can't- necessarily do stone Vessels. It's a whole different concept.) Now, suddenly, they -CAN- support Vessels. They can take one over, kicking out the current occupant, and...support it, no problem, no conflicts, no limitations. Its theirs for the next few days. Apparently, the only limit on them now is that they can't OWN Vessels. Now, excuse me, but..huh? Up to now, the problem has been that their basic nature isn't compatible with Vessels; if it IS, then what's the deal here? Secondly, it doesn't match the concept of Vessels. A human or an animal, as I've noted, has an intrinsic number of Forces. For that to be either lower or higher requires something pretty big, and entails a fundamental change of nature. Vessels -don't-. A Celestial who bought a Vessel as a 4-Force Reliever can still be using the same Vessel when they're a 16-Force Word-Bound..and the suit analogy, frankly, sucks. No offense to our favorite Archangel, of course, but by the time someone's quadrupled their size, they're going to need a new suit. Not so Vessels. Vessels don't care about that, so while needing the same number of Forces to displace someone makes sense, needing them afterwards...doesn't. On a lesser, but still important, note, it doesn't work for game balance, either. 1) Not being able to have a Vessel has been a major balancing factor to keep Kyriotates from being too powerful. With this, as I've already demonstrated, they can...they just need a friend willing to loan them 3 points. (With a tether or a Body Bag, you don't even have the noise problem. Maintaining the, "You can't leave it broken" problem in place isn't too big a deal, since they have to deal with that anyway, and how many groups of Angels don't have ANYONE with Corporeal Healing?) 2) I submit for your perusal - Kyriotates of Destiny. What happens when one of these cheerful little snits takes over a demon's Vessel? Do they suddenly know everything about them, their friends, their plans, etc? 3) Even worse; Kyriotates of Marc. Automatic entry? Bleah. The Will roll's still there, but only the most Celestially-overbalanced demons aren't going to miss eventually, and without failed Resonance rolls per se, the Kyrio can just keep trying. 4) Kyrios of War already have noted that their Vessels (here suggested as more Vessel like, but emphasizing that the others aren't by it) can be possessed according to Corporeal Forces...how does that mesh with the `total Forces' ruling? (I'd suggest that it doesn't, but that might suggest a lack of faith in our Line Editor, and that could get dangerous. ) Hopefully that's at least a bit more clear, and covers -most- of my problems with it... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:32:09 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance From: "David Chart" >I thought a bit more about my setting, and came up with something very close >to this. Everyone has to Fall (everyone Celestial, anyway) so that they can >know that they have free will: they rebelled once, they could do so again, >but they don't want to. Otherwise, that nagging doubt would poison eternity. What about those who already have redeemed. Do they have to fall again? :-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:40:00 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff >The temples of Ishtar had >religiously sanctioned brothels and whore houses, women owned land in the >Middle East, and were as forceful and brash as men. Not to downgrade the role of temple prostitutes, but women could own land under Jewish law as well, so I think that must have been common throughout the Middle-East. There were female prophets, even and some strong female figures in the OT -- I think all those cultures were pretty much discriminatory as to what women could and couldn't do, which gods they could or couldn't be priestesses of. Who was it that actually destroyed Babylonian culture; the Romans? Were they Christian at the time? ;) Was the God of the Hebrews really the first patriarchal god/ society? I think some of the Achaean Greeks did a similar purge on older Greek cultures. Other than that I really like the idea -- only, what if the temple prostitutes with their emphasis on sharing and freely giving etc were more attached to Creation than to Lust? I usually figure Eli to be one of the oldest archangels (after all, 'go forth and multiply' is the first commandment in the OT), but maybe he was promoted after Andre fell... So.. precisely what is their relationship and does it have anything to do with where Eli is at the moment? ;-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:40:00 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff >The temples of Ishtar had >religiously sanctioned brothels and whore houses, women owned land in the >Middle East, and were as forceful and brash as men. Not to downgrade the role of temple prostitutes, but women could own land under Jewish law as well, so I think that must have been common throughout the Middle-East. There were female prophets, even and some strong female figures in the OT -- I think all those cultures were pretty much discriminatory as to what women could and couldn't do, which gods they could or couldn't be priestesses of. Who was it that actually destroyed Babylonian culture; the Romans? Were they Christian at the time? ;) Was the God of the Hebrews really the first patriarchal god/ society? I think some of the Achaean Greeks did a similar purge on older Greek cultures. Other than that I really like the idea -- only, what if the temple prostitutes with their emphasis on sharing and freely giving etc were more attached to Creation than to Lust? I usually figure Eli to be one of the oldest archangels (after all, 'go forth and multiply' is the first commandment in the OT), but maybe he was promoted after Andre fell... So.. precisely what is their relationship and does it have anything to do with where Eli is at the moment? ;-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:32:09 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance From: "David Chart" >I thought a bit more about my setting, and came up with something very close >to this. Everyone has to Fall (everyone Celestial, anyway) so that they can >know that they have free will: they rebelled once, they could do so again, >but they don't want to. Otherwise, that nagging doubt would poison eternity. What about those who already have redeemed. Do they have to fall again? :-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:38:50 -0500 From: johnk@lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels > >Also, can other Servitors of Stone purchase stone, non-human vessels > >like the Kyrios? The book doesn't say anything about it, but it makes a > >kind of sense. Perhaps they have to purchase the Kyrio of Stone > >attunement to do it, though? > > The mind runs boggling. I like it... As a GM-type, I'd let my players > do it, sure, if they bought the Kyrio of Stone attunement. All the > usual stuff that the Kyrios have to deal with, of course. I think this should be canon. There's nothing in the attunement that would prevent other servitors of Stone from getting it (they mention several kyrio-specific things in the description, but this makes sense since it _is_ the kyriotate attunement!) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:48:53 -0500 From: johnk@lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels > On a lesser, but still important, note, it doesn't work for game > balance, either. > 1) Not being able to have a Vessel has been a major balancing > factor to keep Kyriotates from being too powerful. With this, as I've > already demonstrated, they can...they just need a friend willing to loan > them 3 points. (With a tether or a Body Bag, you don't even have the > noise problem. Maintaining the, "You can't leave it broken" problem in > place isn't too big a deal, since they have to deal with that anyway, and > how many groups of Angels don't have ANYONE with Corporeal Healing?) It still takes up ALL the kyrio's forces (or near 'nuff) and it takes up somebody else's points. Noisy, too. > 2) I submit for your perusal - Kyriotates of Destiny. What > happens when one of these cheerful little snits takes over a demon's > Vessel? Do they suddenly know everything about them, their friends, their > plans, etc? Vessels don't carry memories the way bodies do. I'd say that Kyrios of Destiny get _nothing_ when in a vessel. (I had actually thought about this but was waiting until the question was asked to spring it on people.) > 3) Even worse; Kyriotates of Marc. Automatic entry? Bleah. The > Will roll's still there, but only the most Celestially-overbalanced demons > aren't going to miss eventually, and without failed Resonance rolls per > se, the Kyrio can just keep trying. Read the kyrio resonance again: if the roll fails or the resistance roll succeeds, the kyrio is blocked for CD hours. > 4) Kyrios of War already have noted that their Vessels (here > suggested as more Vessel like, but emphasizing that the others aren't by > it) can be possessed according to Corporeal Forces...how does that mesh > with the `total Forces' ruling? (I'd suggest that it doesn't, but that > might suggest a lack of faith in our Line Editor, and that could get > dangerous. ) I _think_ this is errata. (The original drafts had a concept of Corporeal Forces for taking over things... must check this.) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:50:44 -0500 From: johnk@lucent.com (John Karakash - Lucent ASCC) Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff > Was the God of the Hebrews really the first patriarchal god/ society? I > think some of the Achaean Greeks did a similar purge on older Greek > cultures. If I recall correctly, the use of the masculine pronoun was not consistent throught the original documents. The neutral pronoun is used quite a bit and even the feminine at one point! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:00:52 EST From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff In a message dated 12/11/97 10:27:21 PM, zenith@umich.edu writes: <> El Shaddai, literally, means "God with Breasts" with the strong implication of "Lactating Breasts." The modern translation is "God who supplies." Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, I'm not certain most of these gods that Em mentions were actually worshipped by the Canaanites. Ba'al means master/lord/god in the Philistine language, and Asherah/Astarte/Ishtar/Isis was a universal goddess in the Middle East. Lucifer himself (If you use the Biblical passage about him) actually turns out to have been Molech/Moloch, the King-God of Tyre, who was something of a celestial bully. In "Historical In Nomine" (for lack of a better term), Lucifer was just trying to get the people of Tyre (and Sidon) in what is now Lebannon, northern Jordan, and Syria, to form a cohesive group when he ran into this upstart Sumerian family deity who had literally bred himself a nation. The conflicts between the urbane, widely traveled, and slightly vicious Molech and the insular, xenophobic, and slightly less vicious YHWH became, over time translated into the Fall. On an unmentioned "Historic In Nomine" line, Satan in the Bible, specifically Job, is actually a great deal like Dominic. "And if that be treason, make of it what you will." Mark(I love this thread...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:25:32 +0200 From: Ijon Tichy Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff At 09:50 12/12/97 -0500, Karakash wrote: >> Was the God of the Hebrews really the first patriarchal god/ society? I >> think some of the Achaean Greeks did a similar purge on older Greek >> cultures. > > If I recall correctly, the use of the masculine pronoun >was not consistent throught the original documents. The neutral >pronoun is used quite a bit and even the feminine at one point! Ah, but you see, Hebrew _has_ no neuter pronoun! - -- Ijon Tichy Sailing the 'net in the only e-mail: ijon@forum2.org Space Barrel known to man. Homepage: http://www.forum2.org/ijon MOO: VotSB, telnet://forum2.org:7777 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:17:32 +0000 From: "David Chart" Subject: Re: IN> Second Fall/Second Chance - --On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 12:32 pm +0000 "Hart, Joanna" wrote: > What about those who already have redeemed. Do they have to fall again? :-) No. That's where the Remnant of Angels who help out the Soldiers of God come from. Angels falling and redeeming has always been part of the Plan, you see. David Chart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:29:12 -0600 From: "Scott A. Ellerman" Subject: Re: IN> American TV >Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:42:22 -0500 >From: Jesse Rooney >Subject: IN> American TV > >Okay here we go, > Last night after my last post I thought about what kind of intellectual TV >there is in America and here is what I came up with: > >Sitcoms: >None! No intellectual content what so ever! Er...have we all collectively forgotten "M*A*S*H?" Personally I think that show is one of the best examples of comedy programming out there...and it's the ONLY comedy i've EVER seen that successfully "gets serious" on occasion...OTOH, I can see the argument that it's not a sitcom for precisely that reason. An example of Novalis/Eli team-up? >Cartoons: >Simpsons, The Tick, AEon Flux, and South Park come to mind as animated yet >intellectual comedy programming. Aeon Flux is a comedy? I didn't laugh once...but then, I haven't seen the whole thing... Wish people and video stores would stop filing it in with the Japanese animation though... >Poltical Shows: >Politicaly Incorrect is real funny and quite intellectual. Kurt Loder on >MTV News is also an intellectual commedian but you have to watch his off >hand remarks to get it. Really. Dennis Miller...I realize he doesn't appeal to a lot of people but personally I think the man's a genius. But then again, I'm steeped enough in obscure references of my own to actually GET most of his... :) >Other Shows: >Mystery Science Theater is funny and intellectual and the nature >programming on the discovery channel is top notch. As is a lot of the stuff on the History Channel and TLC...Can we all pretty much agree that (aside from PBS) Discovery/History/A&E/Bravo/TLC are Nybbas' biggest TV-related defeat? :) Oooo...or are they just pretending to be good for us? Maybe the Demon of Subliminal Messages has been putting in overtime? from the warped mind of... Scott Ellerman Scott.Ellerman@mci.com MCI doesn't tell me what to say and what they DO tell me, you're not cl eared for... :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:21:29 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels At 9:48 AM -0500 12/12/97, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >> 4) Kyrios of War already have noted that their Vessels (here >>suggested as more Vessel like, but emphasizing that the others aren't by >>it) can be possessed according to Corporeal Forces...how does that mesh >>with the `total Forces' ruling? (I'd suggest that it doesn't, but that >>might suggest a lack of faith in our Line Editor, and that could get >>dangerous. ) > > I _think_ this is errata. (The original drafts had a concept >of Corporeal Forces for taking over things... must check this.) I certainly don't see anything around regarding possessing War-Kyrio vessels by Corp-Forces. The only thing I recall is that those vessels tie up the number of Forces of an average critter of the same species -- 5 for human vessels, and (implied in the expansion of the Stone-Kyrio attunement, not stated) less for non-human ones. This does imply that if a *second* Kyrio wanted to borrow the vessel, it would only take 5 Forces... (And yes, I'd certainly agree that Kyrios of Destiny shouldn't get anything in a vessel -- they already know that it's taking 7+ Forces to control... But they shouldn't know if it's an angelic vessel or a demonic one.) And if you don't want Kyrios possessing vessels, then don't let 'em. There are certainly headaches. Servitors of the Game will *not* come and complain that you're not using all the rules. Heck, Em has Lilim trading Geasa, and she *is* a Bal of the Game. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:02:22 -0500 From: Dan Rice Game Master at Large Subject: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire If an angel loses track of the person they have to punish? I say this because they will keep on getting dissonance unless they can find them? So if you hide that person they will fall quite quickly won't they. Game Master at Large ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:54:52 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire At 3:02 PM -0500 12/12/97, Dan Rice Game Master at Large wrote: >If an angel loses track of the person they have to punish? I say this >because they will keep on getting dissonance unless they can find them? >So if you hide that person they will fall quite quickly won't they. It is, unfortunately, not entirely clear whether the time limit is "pass this, and get dissonance in gobs" or "take one note of dissonance, whether you leave off for a year or only a day". Karakash, what do you think? If you decide that they *keep* getting dissonance, Servitors of Fire can get very unsubtle sometimes. ("Cruelty! SMITE! There, that's done. Safe for a little while...") If a GM wants to be kinder, set a "threshold" of cruelty that tips off the angel, so that they're more likely to get people who are more high-profile... Or make them very good detectives. I suspect that surviving Servitors of Fire are a minimum of 3 Corporeal Forces (the time limit!), have a number of "Private Detective"/"Bounty Hunter" kinds of skills, may have servants in places like the local driver's license registration, and tend to be Discordant in minor ways. http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/HeavenAndHell/excerpts.html does have Dommie saying that Discord is what is to be expected from those who serve Fire. Apparently, he's right? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:19:29 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire >I suspect that surviving Servitors of Fire are a minimum of 3 >Corporeal Forces (the time limit!), have a number of "Private >Detective"/"Bounty Hunter" kinds of skills, may have servants >in places like the local driver's license registration, and >tend to be Discordant in minor ways. There are other ways to punish than in a corporeal manner. For example, I used to play a Seraph of Fire that was a reporter -- media exposure is a fine punishment for anyone who's doing things they'd be ashamed to admit in public. Not to mention it doesn't say *how much* to punish someone -- I mean, if someone is just minorly cruel, you can "accidentally" step on their foot... -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:02:11 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire >At 3:02 PM -0500 12/12/97, Dan Rice Game Master at Large wrote: >>If an angel loses track of the person they have to punish? I say this >>because they will keep on getting dissonance unless they can find them? >>So if you hide that person they will fall quite quickly won't they. > > It is, unfortunately, not entirely clear whether the >time limit is "pass this, and get dissonance in gobs" or "take >one note of dissonance, whether you leave off for a year or >only a day". Karakash, what do you think? I don't know what -he- thinks, but -I- think that particular Dissonance listing is as unclear as it's possible to be. "Gabriel does not insist that her angels cleans the earth of every human louse they encounter- but each time they finish with one, they must deal with the very next one they meet." I read this as "Gabriel doesn't insist that her angels cleanse the earth, but if you don't think that's exactly what she wants, you won't last long." In the next paragraph, the sentence says, "The cruel must feel Gabriel's fire within a number of days equal to the angel's Celestial forces, or the servant generates a note of Dissonance." What -does- this say? (1) The servitor must smite -any- cruel person in this time? (2) The servitor must smite a -specific- cruel person within this time? (3) The servitor must smite -all the cruel people it knows- within this time? Beth, you've got a copy of the Marches, does it get any clearer than this? >If you decide that they *keep* getting dissonance, Servitors of >Fire can get very unsubtle sometimes. >("Cruelty! SMITE! There, that's done. Safe for a little while...") In order to keep Servitors of Fire -playable,- I've interpreted their Dissonance requirements to read that they must bring someone who is cruel to justice- no specifics- within the time period. Anything more stringent makes the Servitor unplayable except as an NPC, and difficult to work as anything other than an annoying plot device then. >If a GM wants to be kinder, set a "threshold" of cruelty that >tips off the angel, so that they're more likely to get people >who are more high-profile... >Or make them very good detectives. > >I suspect that surviving Servitors of Fire are a minimum of 3 >Corporeal Forces (the time limit!), have a number of "Private >Detective"/"Bounty Hunter" kinds of skills, may have servants >in places like the local driver's license registration, and >tend to be Discordant in minor ways. Excepting Malakim and Mercurians, I expect this is true. >http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/HeavenAndHell/excerpts.html >does have Dommie saying that Discord is what is to be expected >from those who serve Fire. Apparently, he's right? > It depends on how impossible the situation is. If Gabriel is played as a stringent taskmaster, she'll go through Servitors like Bill Gates goes through checks. Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:04:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire At 5:02 PM -0600 12/12/97, Redneck Gaijin wrote: >>At 3:02 PM -0500 12/12/97, Dan Rice Game Master at Large wrote: >>>If an angel loses track of the person they have to punish? I say this >>>because they will keep on getting dissonance unless they can find them? >>>So if you hide that person they will fall quite quickly won't they. >> >> It is, unfortunately, not entirely clear whether the >>time limit is "pass this, and get dissonance in gobs" or "take >>one note of dissonance, whether you leave off for a year or >>only a day". Karakash, what do you think? > >I don't know what -he- thinks, but -I- think that particular Dissonance >listing is as unclear as it's possible to be. > >"Gabriel does not insist that her angels cleans the earth of every human >louse they encounter- but each time they finish with one, they must deal >with the very next one they meet." > >I read this as "Gabriel doesn't insist that her angels cleanse the earth, >but if you don't think that's exactly what she wants, you won't last long." They don't backlog, I think is what it means. If you meet five cruel people while working on your curent target, you don't have to go and deal with *them* -- you deal with the *next* one who crosses your path, and those five are safe enough to ignore. So once you've dealt with someone, you can safely ascend or run around doing some business that might take a little while but won't get you where cruel people are around. >In the next paragraph, the sentence says, "The cruel must feel Gabriel's >fire within a number of days equal to the angel's Celestial forces, or the >servant generates a note of Dissonance." > >What -does- this say? My reading: The Current Target must get smited (appropriately) within a number of days yadda. Once this is accomplished, the next cruel person spotted becomes the Current Target. (Anyone else cruel who is *not* in the Current Target slot does not need to be smited, but the angel can always go back and look them up to put them in the Current Target slot.) >Beth, you've got a copy of the Marches, does it get any clearer than this? "Generally, a Servitor of Gabriel will have a 'current project' -- one of the cruel who has yet to taste the Fire, that they spend most of their time on. However, Sol [Gaby's second-in-command, the Malakite Soldekai] will infrequently show up with a 'special mission,' and the cruel-of-the-moment will either go unpunished for a short time (Sol making the dissonance worth the Servitor's while) or plans will be stepped up to finish them off so that Sol's needs can be made a priority." (p. 22, Marches.) >>If you decide that they *keep* getting dissonance, Servitors of >>Fire can get very unsubtle sometimes. >>("Cruelty! SMITE! There, that's done. Safe for a little while...") > >In order to keep Servitors of Fire -playable,- I've interpreted their >Dissonance requirements to read that they must bring someone who is cruel to >justice- no specifics- within the time period. Anything more stringent makes >the Servitor unplayable except as an NPC, and difficult to work as anything >other than an annoying plot device then. I think they do lock onto a Target, and have to go after *that* Target, is the intent. So they're always hunting someone. But death isn't necessary, of course -- stepping on feet can work for some. O:> I would, however, say that the cruel person has to be physically present to become the Current Target -- they're safe reading the newspaper or watching TV. (Of course, a Servitor of Fire can try to *arrange* to lock onto someone they saw on TV, later, in the flesh.) >>If a GM wants to be kinder, set a "threshold" of cruelty that >>tips off the angel, so that they're more likely to get people >>who are more high-profile... > >>Or make them very good detectives. >> >>I suspect that surviving Servitors of Fire are a minimum of 3 >>Corporeal CELESTIAL! >>Forces (the time limit!), have a number of "Private >>Detective"/"Bounty Hunter" kinds of skills, may have servants >>in places like the local driver's license registration, and >>tend to be Discordant in minor ways. > >Excepting Malakim and Mercurians, I expect this is true. Though if Gaby sends her Malakim out after some *class* of people, then they're just as subject to it! >>http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/HeavenAndHell/excerpts.html >>does have Dommie saying that Discord is what is to be expected >>from those who serve Fire. Apparently, he's right? >> >It depends on how impossible the situation is. If Gabriel is played as a >stringent taskmaster, she'll go through Servitors like Bill Gates goes >through checks. Gaby is a *weirdie*, is what she is... p. 19: "In the midst of guttering, sparking, firey madness, she has moments of utter clarity. During this time she reveals her brilliance, the inimitable spark of inspiration that embodies her Word. She speaks quietly and with great love to her Servitors [...]. It is in these times of clarity that she will remove dissonance from favored Servitors, something she has no apparent interest in when the madness is upon her." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 97 20:23:04 PST From: "bruce dykes" Subject: IN> IN resources okay, some nonspecific resources: For a 17th century post reformation campaign,take a look at Michael Moorcock's Von Bek series (available as an omnibus edition fromWhite Wolf), And January 2nd on the SciFi channel we'll get to see the ultimate IN type TV show, American Gothic... just some additional resources for your consideration... bruce bdykes@intac.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:34:56 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Is it as easy as it seems to make Servitor of Fire >At 5:02 PM -0600 12/12/97, Redneck Gaijin wrote: >>"Gabriel does not insist that her angels cleans the earth of every human >>louse they encounter- but each time they finish with one, they must deal >>with the very next one they meet." >> >>I read this as "Gabriel doesn't insist that her angels cleanse the earth, >>but if you don't think that's exactly what she wants, you won't last long." > >They don't backlog, I think is what it means. If you meet five >cruel people while working on your curent target, you don't have >to go and deal with *them* -- you deal with the *next* one who >crosses your path, and those five are safe enough to ignore. > >So once you've dealt with someone, you can safely ascend or run >around doing some business that might take a little while but >won't get you where cruel people are around. Maybe, but it also means that Gabi wants her angels hunting cruelty 24/7/365. They don't get time off, they don't get space to take care of other business, it's "CRUELTY! Wait... wait... wait... SMITE! Okay, now for a cocoa and a nice- CRUELTY! Wait... wait... SMITE! Whew, this is hard work, I think maybe a movie would do me- CRUELTY! Wait...." etc. (I have this evil image of Gabi in a cheerleader's outfit. "Smite 'em to the left! Smite 'em to the right! Smite 'em into greasy spots, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!") What gets me about this (having finally found the little sentence before the Choir Attunements which says, "X choir can detect X type of cruelty on sight) is that the Choir most suited to going out and hunting up cruelty to punish (Malakim) are specifically discouraged from doing so. >>In the next paragraph, the sentence says, "The cruel must feel Gabriel's >>fire within a number of days equal to the angel's Celestial forces, or the >>servant generates a note of Dissonance." >> >>What -does- this say? > >My reading: >The Current Target must get smited (appropriately) within a number >of days yadda. Once this is accomplished, the next cruel person >spotted becomes the Current Target. (Anyone else cruel who is *not* >in the Current Target slot does not need to be smited, but the angel >can always go back and look them up to put them in the Current Target >slot.) > >>Beth, you've got a copy of the Marches, does it get any clearer than this? > >"Generally, a Servitor of Gabriel will have a 'current project' -- one >of the cruel who has yet to taste the Fire, that they spend most of >their time on. However, Sol [Gaby's second-in-command, the Malakite >Soldekai] will infrequently show up with a 'special mission,' and >the cruel-of-the-moment will either go unpunished for a short time >(Sol making the dissonance worth the Servitor's while) or plans will >be stepped up to finish them off so that Sol's needs can be made a >priority." (p. 22, Marches.) Well, this makes things interesting- in effect, this makes every one of Gabi's Servitors except her Malakim act like a manic-obsessive or get Dissonance. In the best of circumstances, the characters would concentrate on their 'project' to the near exclusion of all else, making them difficult to recruit for group assignments without Gabi's explicit orders. At worst, they'd be totally obsessive about it, stalking and attacking full time, not giving a Smite for demons (except Belial's bunch) because there's just so much cruelty to punish. Under this circumstance, I'd play the Dissonance as once after the time period, and then another one EVERY DAY thereafter until the cruel was punished, the angel Falls, or the angel has tusks and glows in the dark. }:-{D And finally, Ascending to Heaven is no escape- there are plenty of cruel angels in Heaven, too. The work NEVER stops. >I think they do lock onto a Target, and have to go after *that* >Target, is the intent. So they're always hunting someone. > >But death isn't necessary, of course -- stepping on feet can >work for some. O:> My thing is, there's not a 'lock on' effect stated here- just recognition of a being's cruelty. I still see two possible interpretations of the Dissonance requirements. (Lenient) A Servitor of Gabriel must punish someone within their time limit. They can tell at a glance who deserves punishment, but aren't forced to chase down every one of them. (Strict) A Servitor of Gabriel imprints on the first cruel person they see, no matter how minor or egregious the cruelty. While dealing with this person, they will not imprint on another- but as soon as the person is dealt with the VERY VERY next person the Servitor sees will be targeted- even if it's just a little child which tears the wings off butterflies. By my reading of the basic IN Rulebook, which does -not- mention any imprinting or similar mechanism, I incline towards the former, although Gabriel is better pleased with Servitors who -act- as if the latter were true. (Quite frankly, if the latter were true, I'd have to file Gabriel along with Janus and Valefor as Superiors whose servants are nearly impossible to have as PCs in anything other than a one-player campaign.) >I would, however, say that the cruel person has to be physically >present to become the Current Target -- they're safe reading >the newspaper or watching TV. (Of course, a Servitor of Fire >can try to *arrange* to lock onto someone they saw on TV, >later, in the flesh.) I'd disagree. The attunement list says 'at a glance.' I'd say this includes television and photographs, but not artistic representations or audio recordings. But then, I'm not the Line Editor... (though it would be nice) Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #511 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.