From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Mar 1 19:58:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03949; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 19:58:01 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA09772 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:01:07 -0600 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:01:07 -0600 Message-Id: <199703020201.UAA09772@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 #49 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 Saturday, March 1 1997 Volume 01 : Number 049 In this digest: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question Re: IN> CP --> Forces question Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> CP --> Forces question Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces Re: IN> CP --> Forces question Re: IN> The Four Horsemen Re: IN> Coolness ;) Re: IN> Adventure Seed Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> A Question of Dominic Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces Re: IN> CP --> Forces question IN> Fluff -- "Heaven and Hell" pictures... Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces Re: IN> Adventure Seed Re: IN> The Four Horsemen IN> Saints and Sorcerers Re: IN> A Question of Cool Re: IN> A Question of Dominic IN> Who were they before the Fall?? IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... Re: IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... Re: IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... IN> Re: Adventure Seeds Re: IN> A Question of Dominic Re: IN> The Four Horsemen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:05:33 -0700 (MST) From: Ron Sago Subject: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, fish wrote: > > Can beginning characters convert their starting character points to > attribute points/Forces? It makes a certain amount of sense to me, but > then you get the related question, namely: > If beginning characters convert their CPs to attributes/Forces, do > they then get more CPs for the attribute points gained, seeing as how > starting CPs are based on attributes? So if you were to buy a 10-point > Force, you'd get four of those points back, making the final cost six > points. > This last, of course, is hooey, but one of my players insists it's a > possibility. > You're the GM, insist it isn't if you don't like it. ronsago Seraph of Dominic, seeking out the corruption that is Rules Lawyering. (Special Rite: +1 Essence anytime you may justifiably use the phrase "Because I'm the GM, that's why!") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 16:07 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question > Can beginning characters convert their starting character points to >attribute points/Forces? There's certainly nothing in the character creation section that suggests this, and I suspect it's not a good idea from a game-balance point of view -- you'll get the "GURPS default-monster" effect, I suspect. The only justification for this notion is that you can use *earned* CPs to buy Forces later (under the "Rewards" sidebar, IIRC), and you start the game with CPs. I've been assuming that starting CPs represent the Resources gained in the character's backstory, rather than a full-blown character-build system. If the designer had wanted that effect, he could have said "Here are X character points, Forces cost 10 points, etc.", rather than saying "you start with 9 (or 5 or 6) Forces". > If beginning characters convert their CPs to attributes/Forces, do >they then get more CPs for the attribute points gained, seeing as how >starting CPs are based on attributes? So if you were to buy a 10-point >Force, you'd get four of those points back, making the final cost six >points. You don't get any additional CPs for buying an additional Force later in the game, so I don't see why you should at the start, either. > This last, of course, is hooey, but one of my players insists it's a >possibility. I suggest awarding that player some Dissonance.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 16:15 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces > If a character has no forces in an area how are characteristics >determined? The example I have is that one of my players wants to play a >remnant and since he can have no celestial forces he wants to know how he >can assign celestial characteristics. I think I'd let him have 2 or three points in characteristics. (If he had four, he'd be entitled to a Force.) Such "excess" characteristics can't be destroyed in combat, I believe, so the average Remnant should probably have 2. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:38:49 -0600 From: Deathdog Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen >>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Deathdog bitched at, Raven who had criticized Kestral >>who hates Christians: > > > >What I said is that I don't like Christians in general. I never >said that I hated them, or that I hated all of them. I hate them all. I hate everyone. EVERYONE!!!! I especially hate the Christian Generals. Colonels are bad enough. >And it's KestrEl. No 'A'. I know, I usually get B's & C's. >>> [lots deleted] >>Me too please >> >>Now kids.. it's all fun and games till someone loses an eye. >> >>;) > >Then the fun really begins. Unless you're already blind, then it doesn't really matter, I suppose. *********************************************************** Brad Everman aka Deathdog, Mac programmer & Grammy-Winning Rap Artist "Friday, February 21st: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops by over fifty percent as millions flock to see The Empire Strikes Back" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:54:21 +0000 From: "J. S. Cardella" Subject: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question On 28 Feb 97, fish wrote: > Can beginning characters convert their starting character > points to > attribute points/Forces? It makes a certain amount of sense to me, > but then you get the related question, namely: > If beginning characters convert their CPs to attributes/Forces, > do > they then get more CPs for the attribute points gained, seeing as > how starting CPs are based on attributes? So if you were to buy a > 10-point Force, you'd get four of those points back, making the > final cost six points. > This last, of course, is hooey, but one of my players insists > it's a > possibility. > > -- fish. Hey, fish- I, too, struggled with this problem. Then I reread the book. Here's how it goes: In the "old rules", you could stsrt out with extra Forces. This, in turn gave you four extra attribute points and four more points of Essence. Essence, instead of CP's, were used to buy Resources. Therefore, in the old verison, 10 gave you 4 for a total of 6. HOWEVER! In the new version, in the section about character advancement (i don't have my book - I'm at work..nice job, huh?) it says something like: You can buy Forces for ten points, and you get four attribute points. It does NOT say you get four more CP's. SO the cost is ten. Period. This also implies to me that you cannot buy Forces to start with. GM's discretion, of course. Sometimes I let my Kyriotates get another Force so they can possess two humans. Well? - - Joel P.S. Thanks for the comments everyone on my seeds. I'll keep 'em coming as fast as they come to me. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joel Cardella "Chinese food IS my life" http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:02:00 +0000 From: "J. S. Cardella" Subject: Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces On 28 Feb 97, Botanically Challenged wrote: > If a character has no forces in an area how are > characteristics > determined? The example I have is that one of my players wants to > play a remnant and since he can have no celestial forces he wants to > know how he can assign celestial characteristics. > > Thank you kindly for your time. My unofficial answer: You don't. Will is 0, Perception is 0. Tough when you want to resist that Song of Charm... Read (or reread) the example story of the tangle-bearded man in the book. It's a great source of what 0 Will can do to you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joel Cardella "Chinese food IS my life" http://www.io.com/~dronf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:20:39 -0500 (EST) From: Don Fnordlioni Subject: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, fish wrote: > If beginning characters convert their CPs to attributes/Forces, do > they then get more CPs for the attribute points gained, seeing as how > starting CPs are based on attributes? So if you were to buy a 10-point > Force, you'd get four of those points back, making the final cost six > points. I wasn't under the impression you could spend your CPs to raise your Forces or Attributes -- page 36, in the box, says you have (4 x Forces) CPs to spend on Resources, and p. 35 says you may spend CPs on Resources and attunements. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:46:57 -0600 (CST) From: Thany Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Andrew Getting wrote: > At 01:25 PM 2/28/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >Now kids.. it's all fun and games till someone loses an eye. > >;) > Then the fun really begins. Except for the kid who just lost an eye. > Kestrel - -- Disclaimer: Those opinions are mine, but have been presented in such a way that everyone will blame you for them. Sosumi. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:55:56 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Coolness ;) At 10:21 PM 2/26/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Hi- > > I'm not sure if it's my mail program (Netsacape) or something on your >end, but your messages come accross as being many screenlengths wide. >Could you check to see if you have your message width set at a high >number of coulumns? I like what you have to say, but have a hard time >reading it. Hi, Dave. Who is this mysterious "you" you speak of? Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:55:57 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Seed At 09:59 PM 2/26/97 +0000, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >> A Scottish scientist has successfully cloned a sheep. Would be Scottish, wouldn't it? ;> >Okay, first of all, I was trained as a genetic engineer, and spent >more than my fair share of time doing various gene-splicing and >cloning projects, before abandoning it to teach philosophy. > >Therefore, I feel I'm in a particularly unique position, from which >to say.... > >OOHH YEAH!!!!!! I LOVED THIS!!!!!!! Mmm. You know, I could have sworn this was old news... Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:56:10 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 12:28 AM 2/27/97 -0600, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Andrew Getting wrote: > >> Hmm. Wouldn't say so much about the Pres, and you'll get more debate >> about the FBI being cool here than you would about him! This is >> an SJGame, after all ;> > > As far as I know, SJG doesn't have any particular thing against the >FBI, unless they're guilty by association. It's the Secret Service that's >the Bad Guy... See the Illuminati sources :> >> Also, if Dominic and Laurence are so cool, why did they persecute >> Gabriel rather than Yves over that whole Islam thing? > > Cool doesn't mean you're *right*, or even smart. Just that you're >cool. > Not that has anything to do with the price of tea in china, but this >is a wasted post anyway, so I thought I'd point it out. Cool also involves having the cajones to stand up to someone you think was wrong, ESPECIALLY if you get nailed by Dissonance for not saying so (like Dominic apparently did). Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:56:27 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 09:25 AM 2/27/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >And I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at *all*. When all is said >and done, these are fictional characters. Ascribing the motivations of >fictional characters to their authors is specious at best. To trot out an old >canard, was Shakespeare an anti-Semite for writing "The Merchant of Venice"? I can't even begin to believe people would seriously think so. Whossname (sorry, been a while since I read the play) is one of the more sympathetic villains I've ever read about. >John: >"On the other hand perhaps both of you are feeding off one another, at least >some of the statments I have found objectionable come from you both." > >Feeding off each other? Granted, we've shared ideas and discussion, but you >make it sound like parasitism. Nah, it's symbiotic when you feed off each other. Just like on Spiderman. >John: >" I seem to believe you said that 'I don't like the idea of an angel named >after a drug'." > >That was DeltaS -- another poster to whom I've replied. But, we've >established the cause of that confusion. > >And, now that we've cleared this up, I'm sorry about the "killfile" comment. >But I still don't appreciate having the opinions of my characters ascribed to >me. It implies that I am incapable of writing or roleplaying characters that >are not thinly-veiled reflections of myself. And I, for one, reject that. Right. I've played a child molestor (as a good guy - he was repetant) in a game by TheUnnamableGameCompany (BTW, Moriah: the idea of this character, a Catholic Priest, was that after he repented, he was a better Christian than those who bashed him afterwards). This does not mean I am a child molestor, or even that I like them (I happen to be of the opinion that unrepetant molestors should be relieved of the terrible burden of breathing). Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:57:09 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> Ultimate Aim for Diabolicals (was Re: Coolness of Evil) Simple, actually. In life, a mortal can further a Demon's word and be manipulated into doing things that the Demon can't conveniently do (not unlike the intro to the book shows). In death, a mortal soul can be slowly, painstakingly stripped of Essence and Forces, and used to create new followers. Of course, this leads to the question of whether or not a demon made in such a way will have the traits of the souls they were made of... Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:57:12 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 12:23 PM 2/27/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >At 09:25 AM 2/27/97 -0500, IQJason@aol.com wrote: > >>There are many instances where holy books support things that strike me as >>'narrow-minded and bigoted'. I tried to ascribe opinions to them that reflect >>the Divine sensibility, not a modern one. > >Yes, but there are also many parts of scripture that support loving and >forgiveness. There have been interpretations of David, one of the greatest >Kings of Israel as Gay. At the very least he loved Jonathan "with love more >than that of man to woman" or something on that order. My aramaic is rusty. Of course! Joseph of Aramythia! Sorry, it's been too long since there was a Monty Python quote. >I feel there is a general notion, especially from non-Christians, that God >is a big meanie in the sky who squishes people like bugs when they offend >him. This notion is portrayed a lot in the Old Testament and I can see many >angels hold this view (Michael, Lawrence, Dominic). But there are a lot of >love peace and granola passages in the bible as well. They mostly show up >in the New Testament and I like to think a lot of angels hold this view as >well (Eli and Novalis are our best examples, Jeordi?) It's more than that. Most non-Christians get their contact from would-be converters, who generally don't have clue one about how to convert (i.e. they rant to anyone they know is a pagan). It's also that Paul, let's be honest, isn't exactly the nicest guy around. He was a murderer before he hooked up with JC, and from the work he put out, didn't change as much as a lot of people want to say he did. Advocating genocide of other religions is a good way to torque off those people. >>And I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at *all*. When all is said >>and done, these are fictional characters. Ascribing the motivations of >>fictional characters to their authors is specious at best. To trot out an old >>canard, was Shakespeare an anti-Semite for writing "The Merchant of Venice"? > >I don't agree. I think in order for an author to accurately portray an >emotion, he has to at least have experience with that emotion. I think when >an author is fixated on an emotion or shows a clear lack of understanding of >an emotion that it bleeds through all his characters in some degree. Look >at Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, or Jack Chalker. There are some obvious >biases that can be attributed to author bias. Stephen King writes about racism, sexism, and abuse on a regular basis, the other stuff aside. He also happens to be a pretty nice guy. >As to Shakespear, I don't have the facts to answer, but one of my Prof's in >a Law and Religion class suggested that Shakespeare made the Jewish >character in that play as sympathetic as he could given the time. That the >solliquiy "If I am cut, do I not bleed (etc.)" was scandalously close to >sympathising with the Jews at the time of the writing. I have no idea one >way or another, but I thought it was interesting. Damned straight. Also helped support the idea that actors were evil, at the time. >>And, now that we've cleared this up, I'm sorry about the "killfile" comment. >>But I still don't appreciate having the opinions of my characters ascribed to >>me. It implies that I am incapable of writing or roleplaying characters that >>are not thinly-veiled reflections of myself. And I, for one, reject that. > >Not necessarily thinly veiled reflections, but I think there is reflection. >Example: I noticed after a while that all of my NPC's were reasonable. They >could be sat down and talked into almost anything given time. This is >because I (think I) am inherently reasonable and always willing to listen to >the other side. My attempts to make characters unreasonable has not been a >smashing success. On the other hand, I am really good at manipulating or >hiding my true intentions (part of the territory of being an attorney). >Most of my villians do this to an extreme I would find distasteful in a real >person. In "Brief Lives" and "The Kindly Ones" from the Sandman comics, Neil Gaiman writes about a character who has murdered his own son. Somehow, I doubt that Gaiman knows how that feels. Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:57:14 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 01:35 PM 2/27/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: > >>I agree wholeheartedly. Different archangels have varying views on the >>symphony. You'll notice, though, that the angels with the "peace and love" >>view are the ones who are least trusted by the hierarchy and, mostly by >>choice, least involved with the politics of Heaven. > >Well, least trusted by the hardnoses, that is. You'll notice there's a web >of connections between the 'apolitical', in the form of a sort of mutual >support network. Of course, I may be biased -- the IN campaign I'm going to >run is going to focus on certain actions of the 'peace and love' angels that >must needs not be discovered by the hardnoses, especially Dominic. (Hi, Blade.) Right. Eli, Novalis, and Jordi have a network of sorts between them, and Dominic's going to have a Hell of a time trying to nail down any of them; directly or otherwise, they're all responsible for Earth, and if Dominic manages to silence one of them, the results will be immediately felt. Besides, Dominic's already hang-gliding in a tornado: God's had to set the dink straight at LEAST once (Michael), and he hasn't learned... Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 15:57:14 -0600 (CST) From: kestre1@airmail.net (Andrew Getting) Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Dominic At 10:06 AM 2/27/97 -0500, in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Kestrel picks on the Archangel of Judgment: It's not why I'm picking on him, it's why he's picking on everybody else. >"Worse, of course, is saying he works for that uptight dink Dominic." > >"Also, if Dominic and Laurence are so cool, why did they persecute >Gabriel rather than Yves over that whole Islam thing?" > >Okay...for those who adored my take on Novalis, here's my view of Why Dominic >is So Uptight: > >Dominic was once an angel's angel, a cop on the Divine beat who loved his >duty: keeping the angels safe from harm. However, when Lucifer and his crew >fell, he took each and every fall as a personal betrayal. In his eyes, they >all lied to him...and we know how Seraphim feel about lies. His duty became a >mission: to see that no angel falls again, even if he has to discorporate him >personally to ensure it. Of course, this does not always work out as planned. > >(Oh, and in case you're wondering -- Casting Out is, to him, the equivalent >of the Scared Straight program. It's to show a celestial how horrible it is >to be without the power of the Symphony behind you, in hopes that you'll >learn your lesson and come back for redemption and cleansing.) Uh-huh. So why didn't he stand up to Yves? Why did he try to kill the messenger? Why is he in cahoots with the third-biggest Demon in Hell, EVEN part time? Kestrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:00:59 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces On Feb 28, 3:13pm, Botanically Challenged wrote: > Subject: IN> Characteristics and Forces > If a character has no forces in an area how are characteristics > determined? The example I have is that one of my players wants to play a > remnant and since he can have no celestial forces he wants to know how he > can assign celestial characteristics. He has 4 times his forces in the area, which is zero. So his total attributes are zero in both stats. Hell of a life isn't it? The only reason a stiff Celestial breeze won't just blow such a wretch away is that they are protected by their Corporeal vessel. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:31:18 -0800 (PST) From: Raven <94fa193@dvc.edu> Subject: Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, J. S. Cardella wrote: > Read (or reread) the example story of the tangle-bearded man in the > book. It's a great source of what 0 Will can do to you. That actually makes sense, now that you mention it... Also, remember he was a step behind in the conversation. "So, What do you do?" "You're looking very nice tonight. I mean, I don't do much." Seems to indicate a general obliviousness, i.e. Perception 0. Of course, he should be able to make most if not all the automatic, no-roll-needed tasks that any normal human can (like hearing somebody speak, notice he's been attacked, etc.), Maybe requiring an Intelligence or Precision roll for some things that an adult could do but a child might fail to, but when it comes to anything that really requires that little extra bit, he's left in the dust. Kinda sad, actually. A bit like a borderline autistic, maybe. |\ /| | | |~~~ |\ | "It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've |_\ /_| | | |__ | \| got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, |\ | | \ | | | | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." | \ | | \| |___ | | "Hit it." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:59:22 -0500 From: "John Karakash - Lucent ASCC" Subject: Re: IN> CP --> Forces question On Feb 28, 1:52pm, fish wrote: > Subject: IN> CP --> Forces question > A quickie: > > Can beginning characters convert their starting character points to > attribute points/Forces? It makes a certain amount of sense to me, but > then you get the related question, namely: > If beginning characters convert their CPs to attributes/Forces, do > they then get more CPs for the attribute points gained, seeing as how > starting CPs are based on attributes? So if you were to buy a 10-point > Force, you'd get four of those points back, making the final cost six > points. The answer to the first question is a qualified maybe. Individual GMs can allow their characters to spend points like that, but it is not, at the moment, officially part of the character creation process. The answer to the second is a definite NO! Basically, your are treating the CPs gotten at the beginning of the game exactly like CPs gotten for play. That rule was put in to generate guidelines for the amount of ability a starting character would have compared to other characters (humans vs soldiers vs celestials). This question came up in playtest and the answer hasn't changed since then... - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ |John Karakash - Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T) | | (919)380-4629 | | "A fundamental principle of economics is that the | | more you tax something, the less you get of it. | | In this country we tax success most of all." | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:05:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Fluff -- "Heaven and Hell" pictures... It's not Smif, but there's some amusement at http://www.BlueMoonRising.com/bmr/ (Go there, choose Selected Works, then choose Subjects, and then choose Heaven and Hell.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com // emccoy@jade.mv.net GURPS characters, Roleplayers; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:07:47 -0600 (CST) From: fish Subject: Re: IN> Characteristics and Forces On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Raven wrote: > Maybe requiring an Intelligence or Precision roll for some things that an > adult could do but a child might fail to, but when it comes to anything that > really requires that little extra bit, he's left in the dust. Kinda sad, > actually. A bit like a borderline autistic, maybe. Yeah, well, Remnants *are* a little sad. That's sorta the point. -- fish. | fish flowers (i don't exist!) ><> |\ |\ \ / | | | |\ | > \/ |/| | awflower@midway.uchicago.edu, eidolon@io.com | |< /\ |/| | http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/awflower/index.html | | \ / \ | | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:13:20 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Seed Bodhi Wrote: > > > >Therefore, I feel I'm in a particularly unique position, from which > >to say.... > > > >OOHH YEAH!!!!!! I LOVED THIS!!!!!!! Kestrel replies, in his , er... manner... > Mmm. You know, I could have sworn this was old news... > Exactly which is old news? Do you refer to the story? The cloning of mammals from differentiated adult DNA samples? My background? The fact that I loved the adventure suggestion? Brevity may be the soul of wit, but I'm confused with your too-brief-by-half response. (what a Wilde thought, that is...) Walk in Beauty, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com Did you hear the one about the Buddhist Monk who Walked up to the hot-dog vendor and said ... "Make me One with everything!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:49:57 -0500 From: Plki Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen > Religious debate snipped Since this is WAY meta, can you guys move this to e-mail? The list is filled with enough posts as it is... I can go to any of a number of usenet groups and see a rehased religious debate. Thanks ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 97 18:53:58 EST From: Moriah - Steve Jackson Games <73407.515@CompuServe.COM> Subject: IN> Saints and Sorcerers OK. Time to settle the problem of saints and sorcerers. 1. We'd like to keep the metaphysical distinction between humans and angels. While there are similarities, we don't want celestials to be over powered humans. 2. The big differences so far: Humans don't have Resonances, Dissonances, or are Word-bound. Celestials are structured to be part of the Symphony representing the Symphony itself, they resonate with part of it and are so bound to it that it creates Dissonance and Discord to go against that nature. Humans are more of free agents. Disobedience to self, ideals, or Superiors does not fracture their being (though they may have to suffer consequences of their actions). 3. Death. For celestials, it's just a broken vessel. They might switch vessels, inhabit another human, or suffer a little Trauma before coming back. For humans, Death is a Real Big Thing. Heaven or Hell is in store for them -- and it's supposed to be no more earth for them. Soldiers of Hell try to get around this by becoming mummies. They never die, at least not naturally. Thus, they never have to deal with Hell. For them, death is a Very Big Thing, since it destroys their souls, too, bound to their corporeal form. Soldiers of God are supposed to go to Paradise when they die. The natural inclination to go to the upper heavens is very, very strong. Some, though, stick around Heaven wanting to still serve in the War (for a variety of reasons -- but most angels will not want help from the ones with bad reasons). These are the Bodhisattvas. Some of the Bodhis, when proved worthy, are given a Vessel to inhabit and get to go back to earth. But death for these *Saints* should still be a problem. They shouldn't be allowed to continually incarnate willy-nilly, not worrying about death at all. So, I propose that for each death, the Saint must make some sort of roll to not give up the War and ascend to the upper heavens. This will teach all human PCs never to take death lightly. Death is always a sacrifice for humans -- it is the final and ultimate moral choice to make. For celestials, death can be very inconvenient. For humans, it eventually has a finality about it. 4. Patron Saints. Humans can't be Word-bound, but they can receive attunements. Word-bound angels have a distinction for Saints, namely, the Distinction of 'Patron'. There you go, Patron Saints. The attunement of this Distinction should allow the Saint to work to help further that Word. 5. Sorcerers. SJ is right that any human who can control a demon will soon have that demon's Superior showing up to make him into an oily grease mark. And Dominic will send that Prince a thank-you note. Sorcerers can summon, but they can't control. They'll have to bargain. Unlike Soldiers of Hell who get tricked into service, PC sorcerers know not to trust their demon supervisor. PC sorcerers will trade service for power. Kill a Saint, get an Attunement; blow up a Cathedral, be made a mummy; and so on. Bargaining and contracts... for real. PC Demons could always run up against stupid NPC Sorcerers and play them for a laugh (as in Feast of Blades). Sorcerers can summon and control ethereal spirits. This is the contest of Wills. The looser servers the winner (for a period). Also, get Familiars, Imps, and Gremlins involved! Peace, Moriah ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:16:43 -0500 From: John Maurer Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Cool At 03:57 PM 2/28/97 -0600, Kestrel wrote: >>I feel there is a general notion, especially from non-Christians, that God >>is a big meanie in the sky who squishes people like bugs when they offend >>him. >It's more than that. Most non-Christians get their contact from would-be >converters, who generally don't have clue one about how to convert >(i.e. they rant to anyone they know is a pagan). I find that unlikely. I imagine the average Non-Christians is surrounded by Christians on a regular basis and probably has friends that are Christians. Most of America claims to be Christians, and only a very small few are evangalists. I will admit that often those who are least suited to evangalize are sent out as evangalists. I think it is because a lot of these evangalists are newly converted college students. (At least those are the worst I have dealt with) >It's also that Paul, let's >be honest, isn't exactly the nicest guy around. He was a murderer >before he hooked up with JC, and from the work he put out, didn't >change as much as a lot of people want to say he did. Advocating >genocide of other religions is a good way to torque off those people. Well, there is LOTS we could go over regarding Paul. With regards to his past life, 'let he who is without sin' etc. etc. I don't believe Paul proclaimed genocide of other religions. There might be a passage somewhere. Paul (or people writing in the name of Paul) wrote some whacky stuff, but I doubt it. As a fairly mild-mannered Christian I feel I should not that Christianity is taking a lot of lumps that are to a degree undiserved. It has been arround for a long time, and no organization is around that long without having done some atrocious things. That doesn't make the things right, it just means that Christianity should not be singled out and despised for the Crucades any more than the United States for its treatment of Indians or Blacks, or Pagans for those nice Druid Sacrifices. (Yes, the druids used to practice divination by torturing a human to death and analyzing his spasms) >Stephen King writes about racism, sexism, and abuse on a regular basis, >the other stuff aside. He also happens to be a pretty nice guy. Well, I also find Stephen King's characters flat and uninteresting. Seriously, perhaps his niceness prevents him from writing good characters who are racist, sexist or abusers. >In "Brief Lives" and "The Kindly Ones" from the Sandman comics, Neil Gaiman >writes about a character who has murdered his own son. Somehow, I doubt >that Gaiman knows how that feels. I'll bet Neil Gaiman has felt regret before. I'll bet he has felt sorrow. Given his stories I'll bet he has felt a lot of both. Nothing so horrible as killing ones son, but it gives someone a framework as to how to write a story in that direction. I also think Gaiman's moral stance on several issues comes out through the comic books. Most notibly Death and Matthew's mouths. Speaks-Without-Breathing "He was possessed of every art and grace except for that of making his own living" -Cold Comfort Farm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:59:57 -0600 (CST) From: James Kiley Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Dominic On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Andrew Getting wrote, about Dominic: > Uh-huh. So why didn't he stand up to Yves? Why did he try to kill > the messenger? Why is he in cahoots with the third-biggest Demon in Hell, > EVEN part time? Maybe Asmodeus is his ex-partner, and this is Dom's one weakness? And who says he knew about Yves ordering Gabe about? jk Demon of Thai Yellow Curry, in service to Gluttony ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 12:48:46 +1100 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Who were they before the Fall?? At 06:59 PM 28/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Andrew Getting wrote, about Dominic: >> Uh-huh. So why didn't he stand up to Yves? Why did he try to kill >> the messenger? Why is he in cahoots with the third-biggest Demon in Hell, >> EVEN part time? > >Maybe Asmodeus is his ex-partner, and this is Dom's one weakness? And who >says he knew about Yves ordering Gabe about? >jk >Demon of Thai Yellow Curry, in service to Gluttony > Dear Andrew, jk and list has any one had any thoughts of what the Demon Princes who were Angels at the Fall had as "Words" if any and who their superiors were? Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours PeterF. > > > Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Any Institution big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:00:43 -0600 (CST) From: James Kiley Subject: IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... It would be hundreds of times more amusing to me, suddenly, if Asmodeus and Dominic had been lovers before the Fall. Or still were. jk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:22:52 -0500 From: Turhan Herder Subject: Re: IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... James Kiley wrote: > > It would be hundreds of times more amusing to me, suddenly, if Asmodeus > and Dominic had been lovers before the Fall. > > Or still were. > > jk I don't know. Personally, this sort of thing doesn't interest me. I don't want my IN games to look like an episode of Melrose place. Some of the ideas on the list have been interesting, but a bit too "out there" for my tastes. I'm just a purist, I guess. - -- "Because Nietzche's too butch and Kafka reminds me of your friend over there." -Fox, Disney's Gargoyles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:34:20 -0600 (CST) From: James Kiley Subject: Re: IN> Dom and Azzie, sitting in a tree... On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Turhan Herder wrote: > I don't know. Personally, this sort of thing doesn't interest me. I > don't want my IN games to look like an episode of Melrose place. > Some of the ideas on the list have been interesting, but a bit too "out > there" for my tastes. I'm just a purist, I guess. Well, that's what the list is for, after all. Hell, I don't even post a tenth of the ideas I have, and I don't guarantee that even I won't think they're stupid by morning. But, what the hell, the image made me laugh. jk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:05:33 GMT From: "Psychedelic Goblin" <942777u@merkland.rgu.ac.uk> Subject: IN> Re: Adventure Seeds >I am especially fond of your adventure seeds, I apologize for not >speaking up about it sooner, and infact good sir, they are one of the >few reasons that I stay on this divergent list. Please keep them >coming. I'm in agreeance here. Keep the seeds coming. They're some of the few gems among a list of fluff. keep up the good work. Psychedelic Goblin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:55:19 -0600 (CST) From: Thany Subject: Re: IN> A Question of Dominic On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, James Kiley wrote: > Maybe Asmodeus is his ex-partner, and this is Dom's one weakness? Hm. Blandine and Beleth WERE once lovers, but I think it's more likely that their interests are often the same, so they work together to gain it more quickly. Did someone mention the CIA and the KGB sometimes working together during the Cold War? It's at least similar. > jk > Demon of Thai Yellow Curry, in service to Gluttony What Prince would you have to be serving to be the Demon of Ritalin? Vapula? - -- Disclaimer: Those opinions are mine, but have been presented in such a way that everyone will blame you for them. Sosumi. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 20:56:24 EST From: jdye@juno.com (JOHN C DYE) Subject: Re: IN> The Four Horsemen On Thu, 27 Feb 97 23:00:42 -0600 Deathdog writes: >>> >Kestrel: >>> >I'm not. I have a low opinion of Christians in general, >particularly >>> >the ones who proclaim it from the mountaintops. >> >>Oh really? Statistically speaking, there's a good chance that at >least >>one person you're on good terms with is Christian, and even goes to >>church on Sunday, but surprise surprise, he doesn't preach or >proselytize >>every chance he gets. He just believes in the Christian god and >chooses >>to worship Him. > >[lots deleted] > >Ummm, what the hell is this crap? >For someone who is not trying to be preachy, you went about it in the >wrong way. I don't know. I'm a Christian and I have met with a lot of derision and scorn for my beliefs from so called tolerant people before. A lot of people talk toleration, until you reject "the obvious Truth", as we have so plainly seen from posts of just the past few days But I digress. Perhaps we should not continue this flame on "my religion is bigger then your religion" nonsense. jdye@juno.com Formerly the GM God, evicted from Beleth's Lands for excessive Internet Use Since becoming John whose Word is Undead Hunter, Malakim of Gabrial in the hopes of getting some Flame proofing ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #49 ****************************** The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.