From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Apr 20 22:43:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by deliverator.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA20014; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:22:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13313 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:09:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:09:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199704210309.WAA13313@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 #127 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 Sunday, April 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 127 In this digest: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance Re: IN> Know Your Diabolicals #2, #5, #8, #11, #13 Re: IN> All of Creation finale IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #126 Re: IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance Re: IN> Games I've played Re: IN> Xexistanai, Lilim and Death Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance IN> In Nomine problems Re: IN> In Nomine problems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:03:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Calabim@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance In a message dated 97-04-18 21:02:51 EDT, Rob Wolff / Bodhi wrote: << Elohim can show emotion, have emotion, cause emotion, and receive emotion. They just can't act upon emotion. Their actions, and the ways in which they choose to change the Symphony, must NOT be based on emotion. Thus, by all means, show emotion! Just don't let that emotion bias your judgement. >> (and lots more of yet another awesome letter snipped) OK, you open up an intersting little can of worms here. It's about the same in my game. I've an NPC Elohite, name's Artie Hill, has a role as an elderly bus driver. On the surface he seems very emotional. Cheery, big smile, very warm and friendly. He listens to people with a sympathetic ear and has a little discussion group on his route. Many people think he'll accumulate dissonance at a record breaking speed and fall on the first day he's in his role. But such is not the case. He will listen if you tell him about breaking up with your fiance. And show genuine sympathy. He'll ask questions..."Did she say that? Did you ask her? Are you sure? Maybe you should ask again, just to be sure..." but he doesn't take sides. Not yours, not hers. He doesn't even take sides to the extent of assuming you two should get back together. He simply tries to help people "think it all through" But now I have to ask at what point do you "act on emotion"? Say he's off work and he see's an old lady take a nasty fall. He decides to help out. Is that an act? is it based on an emotion? (Sympathy?) Is this dissonant? It seems to me that most angelic behavior is based on emotion. If nothing else the Big Guy (who appears very very little in In Nomine) seems to have gone to great lengths to speak of the value of the myriad forms of love. I would have to think that in his objective way, Artie cares about people, *loves* them. Would you say this is dissonant, or no? Or...Artie's a pretty chaste guy, it goes with the Elohite bit. But say he did get the hots for someone. I dunno, a really really objective, unbiased lilim maybe. (Hey, the universe is BIG and the universe is STRANGE. So sue me.) In an effort to dodge dissonance Artie would probably use his emote skill to HIDE emotion. would this be dissonant? Rob, I continue to enjoy your letters. Thank you for going above and beyond to do your part to keep our mind warped. - -Calabim@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:45:22 -0500 From: "Scott Turnbull" Subject: IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. I was wondering if anyone had some good thoughts on how one would actually destroy a tether? Granted the task at had would be a difficult one considering there is an open doorway for reinforcements to pop in from, so I'm more talking game mechanics. How does one actually go about destroying one. The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to write a history for an Angel who was at a fight to defend a tether that was eventually destroyed in LA. (This happened at the high point of the LA riots) Additionally, this angel was suppose to suffer enough spiritual damage to lose several forces (thus making him a starting point character). In the angels history he now has very fuzzy glimpses into a mostly forgotten past. So any comments on angelic amnesia and its feasibility are welcome also. Cheers, Scott Turnbull [scotwt@ksu.ksu.edu] [http://www-personal.ksu.edu/] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:50:34 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. >"Scott Turnbull" Asked >I was wondering if anyone had some good thoughts on how one would actually >destroy a tether? Granted the task at had would be a difficult one >considering there is an open doorway for reinforcements to pop in from, so >I'm more talking game mechanics. How does one actually go about destroying >one. The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to write a history for an >Angel who was at a fight to defend a tether that was eventually destroyed >in LA. (This happened at the high point of the LA riots) From the description of tehters in the main rules it seems to imply to me that a tether is destroyed by making the terestrial end dissonant with the word that the tether is attached to. So for example if the Tether is one of Marc's in a shopping mall. Having the place completely looted of stock might snap the connection. Since the custodian is going to object strongly assume that he/she/them are going to have to be decoyed away from the tether and then prevented from returning i.e. cause a destraction and mug him and tear shreds out of his celestial form as he shifts to it to run for cover. If I am right in reading the rules a Tether provides certain addvantages to the defenders : a prepared position and the ability for celestials to run for the appropriate realm very fast and the inability for demons to enter in celestial form if it is a devine tether.but does not provide any assistance in getting from heaven to earth except that if some one pops to heaven from a tether they can take other angels with them on the way back and of course superiors can send servitors to manifest anywhere on the corporeal plane if they feel like it and the superior whose tether is being molested will send reinforcements when he learns of it. Thus strike fast and hard and sneaky or face a major battle. The LA Riots would have been a good cover for such an attack but are likley to have been started by human actions in any case. IN has the basic premise that history is the result of human action and the celestials at most just nudge things from the sidelines. From the Description of loss of forces [IN p68] loss of Ethereal Forces involves memory and personality damage. a total loss of Ethereal Forces reduces the being who suffers such to a skeleton of memory and personality who may still continue the fight.... It seems reasonable that major loss of Ethereal forces could thus cause memory loss and amnesia in the way you describe. Adam Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:06:31 -0500 (CDT) From: "Micah T.J. Jackson" Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 Calabim@aol.com wrote: > OK, you open up an intersting little can of worms here. It's about the same > in my game. I've an NPC Elohite, name's Artie Hill, has a role as an elderly > bus driver. On the surface he seems very emotional. Cheery, big smile, very > warm and friendly. He listens to people with a sympathetic ear and has a > little discussion group on his route. Many people think he'll accumulate > dissonance at a record breaking speed and fall on the first day he's in his > role. > > But now I have to ask at what point do you "act on emotion"? Say he's off > work and he see's an old lady take a nasty fall. He decides to help out. Is > that an act? is it based on an emotion? (Sympathy?) Is this dissonant? It > seems to me that most angelic behavior is based on emotion. If nothing else > the Big Guy (who appears very very little in In Nomine) seems to have gone to > great lengths to speak of the value of the myriad forms of love. > > I would have to think that in his objective way, Artie cares about people, > *loves* them. Would you say this is dissonant, or no? Well, Elohites are a particular favorite of mine (all of my characters are of this stripe.) Seems to me that the real test comes from the book itself. In the description of the Elohim a sentence on dissonance begins, "when an elohite alters the symphony out of selfish desire..." It seems to me that there is no problem with helping up an old lady, this is pretty unselfish. (especially if she was tripped by a Impudite servant of Kobal) Artie should be careful to stay away from emotional entanglements that could cause him to wish the symphony was singing a differnt tune. Remember the old Star Trek episode where Kirk had to let the woman he loved die, because her death was important to the greater good. This kind of thing is good to pull on Elohite PCs (or bad depending on whether you're the GM or not.) It is not the case that Elohites have no emotions, it is just that they don't believe that feelings are a good enough reason to influence the situation. Artie seems like a good Elohite to me. He's fulfilling his place in the symphony. Remember he's an Angel, so he has to interfere when necessary, but because he's Elohite, an emotional reaction doen't make it necessary. If he's got other reasons, though... <--Micah T.J. Jackson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 09:51:45 -0700 From: Hollis McCray Subject: Re: IN> Know Your Diabolicals #2, #5, #8, #11, #13 Thanks for this! Hollis McCray Madman at Large email: Mccrayh@yoda.cochise.cc.az.us "No matter where you go, there you are." - -Buckaroo Banzai ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 09:51:47 -0700 From: Hollis McCray Subject: Re: IN> All of Creation finale At 02:57 AM 4/19/97 -0400, you wrote: >: Or maybe he's just stopped answering all his calls (if the GM >: starts rolling the summoning dice, that would be good...), for some >: reason, and this is why Dominic thinks he can pull the "reassign >: the Word" trick. I already roll the invocation dice, thank you-but I do let them roll te check die. I roll the die for Eli's chance, too. Hollis McCray Madman at Large email: Mccrayh@yoda.cochise.cc.az.us "No matter where you go, there you are." - -Buckaroo Banzai ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 12:12:46 -0500 (CDT) From: rogue@ez-net.com (RogueLdr) Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #126 >>>Jean: He just doesn't understand how funny it would be to crack into >>>Heaven.Net and go play with the keyword search on DominicNet. >> >>WE HEARD THAT. YOUR JUDGMENT WILL COME. >> >>-DominicNet. Keeping Heaven safe from Heresy. > >Hey, I'm just reporting the demonic summeries here! Don't think >that I'm *advocating* that, okay? (Psst, Bez... Do you think >it's possible?) THAT'S WHAT THEY ALL SAY. WE ARE WATCHING YOU. - -DominicNet. Keeping Heaven safe from Heresy. [snip Dragon idea] >Develop it further. The more adventure seeds I can assimilate, uh, >put on the INC, the better. Will do. >>-Rogue, who *knew* he shouldn't have watched Dragonheart just before bed... > > That'll do it. > >Beth, Archangel of Borg... Prepare... Don't even kid about that! > > Id like to point out, as one of the caretakers of the net for Jean, >that Dominics inability to pin anything on Eli has occured because we >control the network. Hehehe. We owe him for giving us Kibo :) > And he does too understand how funny it would be. Hes just not >stupid enough to admit it... (oops.) >Jared (Malakim of Jean) whose word is Hacking. ERROR. ERROR. THIS TRANSMISSION DEEMED HERETICAL BY DOMINICNET. REPORT TO THE HALLS OF JUDGMENT IMMEDIATELY. AND BRING YOUR LAPTOP, CYBER-BOY. - -DominicNet. Keeping Heaven safe from Heresy. >probably need a lot of maintenance! ("I'm sorry, Dominic, I'd like to >help nab those demons, but the kids've got Little League, and the >Wife's been nagging me to take her to see that new play, so I'm not >sure if I can spare the time... how about next week, huh?") WATCH YOURSELF, BODHI. YOU'RE BORDERLINING. - -DominicNet. Keeping Heaven safe from Heresy. - -Rogue, who can't believe he's working for Dominic now..... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 19:41:41 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> How do you destroy a Tether, and Celestial Amnesia. On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:45:22 -0500, "Scott Turnbull" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had some good thoughts on how one would actually >destroy a tether? Granted the task at had would be a difficult one >considering there is an open doorway for reinforcements to pop in from, so >I'm more talking game mechanics. How does one actually go about destroying >one. The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to write a history for an >Angel who was at a fight to defend a tether that was eventually destroyed >in LA. (This happened at the high point of the LA riots) One start would be to kill the Seneschal. The Tether is his Word. We don't know the game mechanics of forming or unforming Tethers yet. Presumably the Archangel of the Tether would be invoked to defend it, so a Prince would be necessary to defeat him, I would expect; though perhaps if the Archangel were overwhelmed by numbers--but we don't have Archangel or Prince mechanics either. Maybe the Tether is formed of pure celestial forces, but this is only speculation. Another possibility is that defending the Tether would disrupt the Symphony too much. For example, suppose defending the Tether would have required the deaths of many mundanes. The damage to the Symphony might be too great. Novalis might consider the Tether too unpeaceful to maintain; maybe it was Janus's Tether and it was time for it to move. :) Another Archangel might even intervene against the Tether's Archangel demanding that the Tether be removed. For instance, Yves might argue the Tether is destined to fall: this wouldn't have any effect on Michael, but Marc might cut a deal. > Additionally, this angel was suppose to suffer enough spiritual damage to >lose several forces (thus making him a starting point character). In the >angels history he now has very fuzzy glimpses into a mostly forgotten past. > So any comments on angelic amnesia and its feasibility are welcome also. Check out page 68: He became a remnant in the fight, then was rescued. He might even be the defeated Seneschal. *This* there are mechanics for. :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:21:57 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance > But now I have to ask at what point do you "act on emotion"? Say he's off > work and he see's an old lady take a nasty fall. He decides to help out. Is > that an act? is it based on an emotion? (Sympathy?) Is this dissonant? It > seems to me that most angelic behavior is based on emotion. If nothing else > the Big Guy (who appears very very little in In Nomine) seems to have gone to > great lengths to speak of the value of the myriad forms of love. The way I tend to think about this is to think of a non-emotional morality. Elohites always "do the right thing", regardless of their own personal desires or wants. They are the objective, chivalric, noble, virtuous, and slightly distant mediators for morality. Thus, if helping an individual is "the right thing to do", it doesn't matter that it also makes you "feel good" to do it. On the other hand, even if it would "feel good" to go and kick some scum-bag's spine up through his cranial cavity, you shouldn't do it because it is not "the right thing to do". As for the "star trek" analogy, the prime directive is the best basic example for an elohite's perspective. While there are times when the prime directive is tested, we always uphold it because it represents the impartial morally-justifiable "right thing to do", even if sometimes it doesn't feel very nice when we uphold it. Where others would allow emotions to sway their judgements, Elohites will not fail in this judgement because it would be dissonant for them. This doesn't mean that they are unemotional, or emotion-less... simply that their ultimate moral judgement is never tinged by emotion. > I would have to think that in his objective way, Artie cares about people, > *loves* them. Would you say this is dissonant, or no? I can care about you, but if you screw up, I must punish you. Unemotionally, and for your own good. This is the "right thing to do". If you succeed, I must compliment and reward you. Unemotionally, and for your own good. This, too, is "the right thing to do". Both cases are done impassionately, or at least unaffected by passion. > Or...Artie's a pretty chaste guy, it goes with the Elohite bit. But say he > did get the hots for someone. I dunno, a really really objective, unbiased > lilim maybe. (Hey, the universe is BIG and the universe is STRANGE. So sue > me.) > > In an effort to dodge dissonance Artie would probably use his emote skill to > HIDE emotion. would this be dissonant? > OOhhh... now wait a minute. Elohites probably share Roger Scruton's perspective on sexual ethics. Thus, Artie's having the "hots" for some__ mortal__ is NOT enough reason for him to act upon those emotions. If he loves her, and she loves him, and they agree to form a bond of personal and spiritual commitment towards one another, then he is justified in showing Love for her. On the other hand, he should not allow his Love for her to push him towards a bond of personal and spiritual commitment. Causality is everything. When it is mete and proper that one should commit, then one commits, and allows love to flourish. One doesn't let love decide those commitments. Those commitments are decided by strict adherence to spiritual and moral principles. Sorry, Artie... Nobility first... then Love second. BUT!!! Celestials don't have affect on the Symphony. Therefore, they are not "when an Elohim alters the Symphony out of Selfish desire..." So he's not changing Reality by allowing emotional commitment to a Celestial, is he? I think he's off the hook! When it comes to Celestials and Diabolicals, emotions are okay because they are outside of the Symphony. On the other hand, when it comes to the Symphony, they are going to follow their STRICT MORAL JUDGEMENT, and only interfere when it is objectively justifiable (and not merely subjectively pleasing!) What do others think? Walk in Beauty, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 19:41:30 GMT From: w_mazur@primenet.com (Walt Mazur) Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:03:59 -0400 (EDT), Calabim@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-04-18 21:02:51 EDT, Rob Wolff / Bodhi wrote: > ><< Elohim can show emotion, have emotion, cause emotion, and receive > emotion. They just can't act upon emotion. ... >But now I have to ask at what point do you "act on emotion"? Say he's off >work and he see's an old lady take a nasty fall. He decides to help out. Is >that an act? is it based on an emotion? Zero problem: she's objectively hurt. The Elohim can feel sympathy and act on it. His disonance isn't being emotional, it's being subjective. Ok, now say the lady complains that her son wasn't there to keep her from falling. *Objectively* her son cannot be behind her at all times waiting to catch her if she falls. The Elohim would get dissonant if he acted on this: for example, calling the son and telling him he should have been there for her; but he could call him and tell him he should not feel guilty because he can't always be there for her, because that's the objective view. He might truthfully say it's too bad he wasn't here for her, because objectively he could have stopped her fall; but he can only do this as a theoretical exercise, because it's objectively not possible. >I would have to think that in his objective way, Artie cares about people, >*loves* them. Would you say this is dissonant, or no? He can care all he wants. He just has to have objective reasons for everything he *does*, not just reasons based on opinion or emotion. >Or...Artie's a pretty chaste guy, it goes with the Elohite bit. But say he >did get the hots for someone. I dunno, a really really objective, unbiased >lilim maybe. (Hey, the universe is BIG and the universe is STRANGE. So sue >me.) This gets tougher. Say he has a relation because objectively he enjoys it. Well enough, but is that enjoyment objective or subjective? Sex is objectively enjoyable, so that works. Spending time with her: does she objectively improve the use of that time? For example, if he goes to an art show with her, does she point out things he doesn't notice? That's an objective improvement. If she offers nothing but vapid flattery, he has no objective reason to spend time with her, only a subjective, emotional reason. >In an effort to dodge dissonance Artie would probably use his emote skill to >HIDE emotion. would this be dissonant? Unneeded. If his emotions are based on objective fact, he's safe. If not, hiding the emotion won't help--you can't hide from the Symphony. For example, someone gives him a lottery ticket. If he wins the lottery, he has an objective reason to be joyful. If he comes close without winning and feels anything--either way--he's disonant because nothing has objectively changed: he's formed an opinion based on a subjective feeling of loss (or almost-gain). BTW, he couldn't buy a lottery ticket: objectively he knows that the lottery cannot pay out more than it takes in, and so knows the average value of the lottery ticket is less than what he pays for it. The Elohite thing to do would be to give the shopkeeper his 20 cents because the shopkeeper needs the profit to stay in a location convenient to the Elohite, donate 50 cents to the public schools (or whoever the beneficiary of the lottery is), and keep or do something else objective with the rest. All IMHO, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:24:26 +0000 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Games I've played Well, here we go: Starting in fifth grade I started with a little something I designed myself using some attributes, armor class, Roll vs Dragon Breath and whatnot, taken from D&D. It was a hack and slash game which mixed magic, steel, and techology. From there I designed a few other settings, played with math a little and then... In seventh grade I "borrowed" a copy of TMNT from a guy in New York. He never saw it again... he he he... from there I moved onto Heros Unlimited, TMNT Second Ed., Ninjas and Superspys, NO Rifts, but I did find Robotech. I also explored the world of ShadowRun, wonderful world, but what the heck is up with those damage rules? DC Heros was explored for a while, I acutually was introduced to that arena through BATMAN: the Role Playing Game, or some such title. GURPS I have found to be perhaps perhaps my all-time favorite system, campaign and world crossovers are my favorite, thus GURPS is perhaps my favorite system. I had a un-fun incident with BattleTech... In high school I fell prey to the World of Darkness, so to speak. It Actually, I entered backwards, buying a copy of GURPS V:TM a conversion. I moved to GURPS W:TA and then GURPS M:TA. I don't regret any of it. D&D (or was it AD&D) only entered the picture my first year of college, and then for only 20 weeks. I had a wonderful DM and had a wonderful time, but never purchased any books. I have had only limited exposure to CyberGen. Cool stuff though. And then there's In Nomine. I waited for TWO years for this little puppy to be published and it's finally here. Merci, mon dieu. - -Perry Perry M Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:24:26 +0000 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Xexistanai, Lilim and Death "Leathal Weapon" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> wrote On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:01:49 GMT+10 > In reply to: > > > >> >Lilim > > >> > Lilim of Xexistanai can grant a new type > > >> >of favor: pleasure. The Lilim damages one-sixth > > >> >of the person's Body hits for each Level of the favor > > >> >but the victim feels it as pleasure. Each time the > > >> >addict meets the Lilim again, he must make a Will > > >> >roll (minus the Level of the last 'favor') or beg > > >> >for another Favor from her. A successful roll > > >> >means that addict never has to involuntarily ask > > >> >another Favor again, but if he does it voluntarily > > >> >the addiction is reinstated. And each Favor must > > >> >be at least one level higher than the last. The > > >> >seventh time automatically kills the victim. > > >> > > >> Can the Lilim extract Geasa from her victims like this? > > > > > > Yup. Standard scenario is the Lilim offers to > > >show her victim 'a VERY good time'. She abuses the > > >heck out of him, he enjoys it and owes her a favor. Of > > >course, she won't do him again until he pays off the > > >first favor (in most cases). So the fool does his darndest > > >to pay of the favor, she whups him again, harder this time, > > >and the cycle continues. After he has paid off the Level/6 > > >Geas, he gets his final reward. > > The only other question I can think of is when the pain-loving mortal > gets their final reward (ie, death), does this cause a disturbance, > or is it masked? > > Leath > > In case of a death caused directly by the Lilim, by her slowly destroying her victim, why would it NOT create a disturbance in the symphony. Now, if she were able to move away from the situation far enough before he croaked, I mean in terms of cause, not distance, then perhaps there would be no disturbance. What I mean is something like the way HIV doesn't kill you, per se, just opens you up to death by other diseases. The same with the Lilim, she weakens the victim to the point where he dies "naturally" from heart attack or what not. She doesn't HAVE to take that last Body Point... Talk to your GM about causation. Also, if took a Role, perhaps as a prostitute or someone else who might make it her business to please others, then her Role might very well cover up the target's death. Many have died in bed, I'm told... Perry M Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:47:56 GMT+10 From: "Leathal Weapon" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance In reply to: > But now I have to ask at what point do you "act on emotion"? Say he's off > work and he see's an old lady take a nasty fall. He decides to help out. Is > that an act? is it based on an emotion? (Sympathy?) Is this dissonant? It > seems to me that most angelic behavior is based on emotion. If nothing else > the Big Guy (who appears very very little in In Nomine) seems to have gone to > great lengths to speak of the value of the myriad forms of love. The point that emotion takes over is GM's discretion, but I generally let my players justify how their actions are impartial. If they can justify the action logically, then okay. If their logic seems to be getting a bit stretched, it's dissonant. Mind you, I don't force them to justify every little action. I just keep an eye on things, and if I think an action was a little too emotional, I'll ask for justification. > In an effort to dodge dissonance Artie would probably use his emote skill to > HIDE emotion. would this be dissonant? Hiding the emotion (IMO) wouldn't be dissonant, but acting upon the hidden emotion would be. The Elohite can't fool himself by hiding his emotions, or if he can, he's on the first step to becoming a Habbalah. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:42:19 -0500 From: tom timberlake Subject: Re: IN> Roles, Mercurian, Elohim Dissonance funny you should mention Star Trek in talking about the Elohim---Mr. Spock is probably the best mortal example of an Elohim in action---the series version of Mr. Spock, not the movie version, where he is starting to draw on, and act upon, his human, emotional, nature--"tell my mother: I _FEEL_ fine". the Vulcan way--rational, logical, totally uncontrolled by personal consideration---Elohim at their best! or to skip genre here, "just the facts, ma'am". Adam-12 or Dragnet could also be a less fitting guide to Elohim behaviour--they had feelings and emotions, but they had to act according to the law or the bust wouldn't stick and they would get reprimanded by their superiors--dissonance! someone else earlier brought up a good point--does their action affect the Symphony? if it does produce a Symphonic effect, then it better not be emotionally based. as long as the Symphony remains undisturbed, then they are free to act as they want, including having love affairs. oooh, just thought of an example--the Fair Witnesses in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". somebody who has read it more recently than 10 years ago care to comment?? tom "my name is garibaldi" timberlake ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:35:35 +1000 From: Mark Grundy Subject: IN> In Nomine problems Hi, I've run two games of In Nomine now -- a very straight investigation/get the bad guy game to introduce the players to the game, and a curlier intrigue game to explore the world and its influences more. What I'd hoped for from this game was: * support for playing beautiful stories about moral choices, the grandeur and wonder of the world as it `really is'. * diabolical plots, cunning betrayals and hidden hands. * support for my players to explore what makes celestials tick. The introductory story in the book seemed to promise all of these things. I was so convinced by the story that I bought two copies of the game -- one for me, and one for my friend. The two games we've run though, have been disappointing. The games felt very different from the kind of story in the front of the book, and I've come to wonder if this game could support long-term play with the `look and feel' of the introductory story at all. Has anyone else had these kinds of comments from IN players? * ``It feels like superheroes, only more constrictive.'' * ``There are too many `clans'; too much politics to memorise.'' * ``The character classes are too complicated and obscure.'' * ``The game system is too complicated.'' * ``I'm still not sure what it is that motivates a celestial.'' * ``Pendragon gives you better mechanics to support moral issues.'' * ``Are all the plots going to be just more clan conflicts?'' * ``How come there are so many special cases for simple rules?'' * ``Do we have to memorise all these dissonance and attunement rules?'' * ``Why do characters take so long to generate?'' * ``Why should a celestial care which city he's in, or who he meets?'' * ``Do devils really have to go around parking badly?'' * ``Why should the angels and demons hate each other?'' My players had already done some experiments with `angels and devils' games before In Nomine came out, and they're very keen on morality games, having had many years experience in a morality-ridden Pendragon campaign. Even allowing that some of the above are just teething comments, I still think that the game isn't working for us. I'd like to see what I can do to improve matters. So, here are some questions: * What's the use of mechanics for `essence', `dissonance' and `discord'? How do these improve the quality of play? Couldn't you just have discretionary rewards and punishments from your superiors/the universe whenever the GM sees fit? Why not just have celestials use Songs/discorporate etc... as often as they want? (Has anyone tried this? How well did it work?) * The players have suggested a game where angels and demons play a much less violent conflict against each other. Where they may actually like each other, due to pre-Fall history, but are duty bound to conflict at times. They argue that it would make the play less caricatured. Does anyone else run such a game? * There do seem to be a lot to memorise before you can play this game. I've noticed too, that most of the traffic on this list in past weeks has been about politics and mechanics. Why is it so complicated? How could I make it easier for players to get into the game? * What are the long-term aspirations of characters in your game? The sense I got from the book is that they are all doing revenge or self-agrandisement. Is there a place for celestials to love people, places, and things of the mundane world? Can they have desires that are not really part of the War at all? Has anyone tried this? With what results? * Do the demons have to be so psychotic? It makes them very hard to play credibly, and makes them hard to support as long-term PCs. * In our last game the mechanics kept getting in the way of the story needs. (Too many Perception rolls, and far too many Will rolls.) I got so frustrated that I thought about abandoning In Nomine, and working up a version using the Feng Shui system instead. Before doing this, I thought I'd ask: does anyone have any working simplifications already in place? I'm not sending this mail to pick on the players who like In Nomine; I did want the chance to complain though, because I am very disappointed in how the game has played so far. I'm also hoping to pick up any advice that could improve the game for my players. I'd be very grateful for thoughts or tips from experienced In Nomine GMs. Thanks, Mark - -- Dr Mark Grundy, DCS, Phone: +61-6-249 3785 Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0010 CRC for Advanced Computational Systems, The Australian National University, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grun dy 0200 Australia Email: Mark.Grundy@anu.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:45:42 +0000 From: "Bodhi" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine problems > * support for playing beautiful stories about moral choices, the > grandeur and wonder of the world as it `really is'. > * diabolical plots, cunning betrayals and hidden hands. > * support for my players to explore what makes celestials tick. Well, I for one have been throwing out adventure ideas that I HOPE involve these elements to some degree. I think that there is a danger in allowing ourselves to play "generic adventures" that we're all used to. Check out the plot lines on the In Nomine Collection. (hi, Ms. McCoy) It takes careful preparation, and player participation, to make In Nomine come across as something other than a "generic role-playing / beat-em-up" experience. > The two games we've run though, have been disappointing. The games felt > very different from the kind of story in the front of the book, and > I've come to wonder if this game could support long-term play with the > `look and feel' of the introductory story at all. > > Has anyone else had these kinds of comments from IN players? > > * ``It feels like superheroes, only more constrictive.'' Nope. Player responsibility to make characters live. GM responsibility to find settings in which this type of activity flourishes. > * ``There are too many `clans'; too much politics to memorise.'' Hmmm... My players got the politics after the first night. Start them with the relationships between choirs, second night they get a couple of AA's, third night they finish off AA's, and then move on to Diabolicals (or reverse if you're one of those wacky diabolical-playing gamers ;-) ) > * ``The character classes are too complicated and obscure.'' > * ``The game system is too complicated.'' LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH ;-) I spent 5 years playing Dangerous Journeys, with every single rule in over 1000 pages of 9 point font! Compared to that, this system is so simply a heroin-addicted monkey could pick it up! That's one of the things that sold my group on this. The fact is, the dice come into play about once every 15 minutes. The rest of the time, we cruise along through conversation and "judgement calls". > * ``I'm still not sure what it is that motivates a celestial.'' What motivates a human being? Different things for different people. You need to define a character BEFORE you even open the book to begin rolling it up. > * ``Pendragon gives you better mechanics to support moral issues.'' Moral issues are not about mechanistic interpretation. They are a subjective interplay between thinking/caring/invested individual beings. If your characters are "alive", then they need no mechanics to help them find the interesting aspects of moral quandaries. If they are simply two-dimensional caricatures, then they probably will fall short of lively role-play. > * ``Are all the plots going to be just more clan conflicts?'' GM responsibility to write interesting stories. > * ``How come there are so many special cases for simple rules?'' I'm not sure what you mean? > * ``Do we have to memorise all these dissonance and attunement rules?'' NO! > * ``Why do characters take so long to generate?'' LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH. Characters took us about an hour and a half to generate. I'm used to a system where it took, on average, 12 hours to finish a character. The hour and a half was for people who didn't know the game. When you become comfortable with the rules, you knock this down to about 15 minutes! > * ``Why should a celestial care which city he's in, or who he meets?'' Why should a human care? because it is related to his job, his life, his contacts, his friends, his pets, his interests... There are people who treat "work" as separate from "home", and there are people who live wherever their feet happen to be planted at that moment. Some celestials treat "corporeal" as uninteresting, and can't wait to get back to the "celestial". Some celestials treat corporeal as their "home away from home". And some celestials absolutely love it here... one giant vacation! > * ``Do devils really have to go around parking badly?'' ?Za? > * ``Why should the angels and demons hate each other?'' They don't necessarily. Some do, some don't. They're on opposite sides, but not EVERY angel hates every demon. Think spies. Some hate the "enemy", while some recognize that time heals all wounds, and thus cultivate careful relationships with their "opposite numbers", banking on the day when they might be working together again. SNIP Okay. Here's my take on the subject. Morality games tend to be either driven by player interest, or dead-boring! If your players have interesting characters (NOT just standard archetypes, but actually well-developed character outlines BEFORE they even open the book), then they will BY DEFAULT interact with their environments in morally enlivened fashions. This means that it is up to the players to provide a lot of the "spice" that gives the game motivation and momentum. If this isn't happening (for a variety of reasons, not necessarily anybody's fault), then odds are In Nomine isn't for you. It is also the GM's responsibility to work hard to find ways to encourage innovative and enlightening role-playing situations, and not simply crank out generic adventure scenarios. In Nomine could be used to do standard "seek the magic item, destroy the opposing forces who are also seeking the magic item" types of campaigns, but it will be dead-dog-boring if you do so. The mechanics support a nice general system of player guidance with regards to moral issues, and differing general moral perspectives (Vis. Choirs/Archangels) but do NOT supply one with a mechanistic approach towards handling moral quandaries or political interplay. The interplay between individuals, groups, sides, what-have-you is not so much governed by the rules of any game, but rather by the innovation of the GM and player interaction with the environment. If the political setting isn't developed IN THE MINDS OF THE PLAYERS, then political intrigue will be lost on them. Thus, it is the responsibility of the GM and the players to make sure that they know what the setting is BEFORE they play! For my group, we always start a new campaign by watching a couple of movies together, to get our juices flowing. We watched The Prophecy and Seven, and I myself re-watched (for about the 12th time) Wings of Desire and Far Away, So Close. These movies provided great role-playing cues for me as a GM. As well, we made sure that, before we even opened the books, the players had definite ideas about the characters they wanted to play. Then, we simply fit the characters into the rules, and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Thus, I have one guy who knows absolutely NOTHING about the rules system for those areas that he doesn't touch. He probably won't ever get around to learning how the rules for other dissonances work, etc. And I KNOW that he thinks of demons as all "the enemy". However, his role-playing and character outline make him an absolute joy to play with. If we put the books away, and simply talked through the story, it would be just as interesting as if we actually use dice. I've got another guy who knows every rule by heart! He's a great rules lawyer. However, he is having trouble finding his purpose in In Nomine, because he failed to develop a character in his mind before he really rolled it up. Now that he's settled on a couple of character-based obsessions and interests, he's coming along just fine. Your points are well taken. However, I think that blaming the rules of this EXTREMELY SIMPLE (and I mean that as a compliment!!!) game may be misguided. It takes a bit to get re-oriented with regards to the setting. THIS is the thing that deserves attention. Forget the rules. Concentrate on the setting, the stories, the characters, and the plot-lines. The rules can go hang, as far as I'm concerned. They work themselves out. If you have lively characters, richly developed NPC's, and a plot-line that is something a little different (an absolute NECESSITY for my crew), then the rules are NEVER an issue. I've always found that if your players think like super-heroes, they'll play super-heroes. If you design an adventure that is basically a dungeon-crawl, you'll play a dungeon-crawl. If you always design a combat-game, you'll play a combat-game. Rules have nothing to do with that. Let me know how it is going! I'm really hoping that you can find it as enjoyable as I do. If you don't, however, then remember that gaming is supposed to be RECREATION, and go and play a system that is better suited to your purposes and personalities. (I know that I avoid certain systems, maybe In Nomine is one that is like that for your players.) However, before you do, please check out the adventure seeds on the In Nomine collection. Maybe there's something there that is just what the doctor ordered. Walk in Beauty, Rob Wolff / Bodhi rob@v-wave.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #127 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1996 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.