From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Oct 23 15:15:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16650 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:15:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA15734 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:40:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:40:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199810231940.OAA15734@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #991 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, October 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 991 In this digest: Re: IN> The Problems with Khalid IN> Sorcery Notes Re: IN> Alternative Khalid Re: IN> Alternative Khalid Re: IN> On Advancement Re: IN> On Advancement Re: IN> On Advancement Re: IN> The Future of In Nomine Re: IN> On Advancement Re: IN> Alternative Khalid, Background Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael IN> [Adventure seed] The Excellency of His Wrath IN> Learning Songs Re: IN> If Michael Fell.. IN> The reason I bought the Revelations cycle... Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine Re: IN> The reason I bought the Revelations cycle... Re: IN> Adventure Concepts IN> Angel of the North Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael IN> ir-Rahman, Kyriotate of Faith Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael IN> Skill Packages (was Adventure Concepts) Re: IN> Skill Packages (was Adventure Concepts) IN> Prince of Fools ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:25:10 +0100 (BST) From: maya@tcp.co.uk (GR Cogman) Subject: Re: IN> The Problems with Khalid >On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, GR Cogman wrote: > >> I run the online game, _Fiat Justitia_, in which Hitherby plays, and >> Hitherby did indeed do a revision. > >Ah. How many Geas levels will I owe you for pestering him to post them? >-- Casca, Seraph of Archives >(bertishg@db.erau.edu) I believe he's on the list, so should see your request. ;) - --- Maya, Elohite of Eli in service to Blandine maya@tcp.co.uk - -- "There are those who say that wizards are subject to temptations and addictions beyond the understanding of ordinary men: the addiction to shape-changing, or to meditation under the influence of certain herbs and conditions of the stars; the obsession with knowledge, and the development of power. Yet this is not so. Temptation is temptation, obsession is obsession, and choice is choice." - Isar Chelladan, Precepts of Wizardry. -- "Dog Wizard", Barbara Hambly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:43:36 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: IN> Sorcery Notes I was making a few notes on how I'd redo the sorcery system. They're up at http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN_sorcery2.html Comments welcomed. jo ps. And thank you immensely to everyone who stumped up suggestions for the shopping list. I'm going to think about it, will maybe post the list I finally come up with. - -- Jo's (desperately out of date) homepage --> http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/index.html Jo's (bland, plagiarised and devoid of ideas) IN page --> http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN.html - -- ** Some of the above is indubitably true ** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Alternative Khalid When I get to work again, I will be printing out this Khalid and stapling him over the horrid one in Final Trumpet. Thank you, thank you, thank you. VERY good job, especially on the background. Didn't like Dark Khalid of Despair as much as the DK of Fanaticism, though, to be honest. Fortunately, I can mix and match. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:14:36 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Alternative Khalid From: Eeyore > >When I got to work this morning, my mailbox was full, so I guess I'll >just post the write-up after all. I liked this a lot. Good work! - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:17:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> On Advancement On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Okay, Traveler is certainly a significant item. Any OTHER > successful RPGs with no advancement of basic attributes? > (How about SJG's "Toon"?) Ars Magica. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 06:37:46 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> On Advancement > Okay, Traveler is certainly a significant item. Any OTHER > successful RPGs with no advancement of basic attributes? > (How about SJG's "Toon"?) Just off the top of my head, Lace & Steel (originally TAGG, now Pharos Press) has no advancement system for attributes and a very slow system for skills. Everway has no experience system at all - awards for PCs tend to be tangible things or intangible, unquantified knowledge. Castle Falkenstein doesn't really differentiate between skills, advantages and attributes, but whatever they are, they advance very slowly. Theatrix advancement doesn't affect your numbers or your Descriptors, but instead gives you tangible rewards or improvement. Those are just the games I have in the house that fit - I'm sure I could find more if I had my old huge library. Personally, I've generally lost interest in experience. There's hopefully enough fun in a character to keep it going for some time, without the delayed gratification of having it 'improve' over time. But that doesn't apply for many published systems (although I also think that 36 points is more than enough for a 9-Force Celestial). - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Sympathy? Not for me. No mercy for a criminal freak in Las Vegas. This place is like the Army: the shark ethic prevails - eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> On Advancement Thanks to the various repliers. It's now clear to me that attribute advancement is not necessary to a commercially successful RPG. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 98 16:53 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The Future of In Nomine >Given the eternal nature of the conflict and the potential >immortality of most PCs, I think historical settings for >In Nomine have real possibility. Agreed. Elizabeth and I have kicked around the idea quite a bit. A decent treatment for historical settings and plots takes a *lot* of research, though. And there would need to be some additional background material on celestial history, changes in Superiors and their attunements over time, etc. If characters span substantial periods of time, then rules or guidelines on how celestials evolve over long time periods may be needed, as well. > I would NOT make every >famous person a celestial or under celestial influence, nor >would I make all major events celestial-engineered, This is already well-established for the IN authors -- it's explicit policy. > but there >is plenty of scope in playing the celestial responses to >historical events. I think in many cases, a setting with major human events as a background, but not necessarily part of the main plot, would be interesting. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 1998 18:23:04 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> On Advancement >>>>> "EB" == Elizabeth Bartley writes: EB> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >> Okay, Traveler is certainly a significant item. Any OTHER >> successful RPGs with no advancement of basic attributes? >> (How about SJG's "Toon"?) EB> Ars Magica. Call of Cthulhu (though some related games have it). - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:09:01 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Alternative Khalid, Background In article <362F3CBE.4C831FC3@visi.com>, Eeyore wrote: > When I got to work this morning, my mailbox was full, so I guess I'll > just post the write-up after all. If I'm never heard from again, it > probably means the list moderator disagreed with the decision. That's some very thoughtful, excellent work. Thank you! (See, no flames after all. Just have faith :-) - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:18:56 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael In a message dated 10/21/98 10:42:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hailes@senet.com.au writes: << hy doesn't Michael then just finish the Son of the Morning off, if he apparently can? The best example I can draw of this is when Obi-Wan :) and darth Vader fought in Star Wars, Obi-Wan won the first fight, but much time had passed, and Vader was stronger, and Obi was weaker, neway, thats all for now. Simon Hailes >> (MAJORLY Slipping off topic) What are you talking about? Obi-Wan could have easily killed Vader! That was *NOT* the Idea. Look closer: BOTH Yoda AND Ben Kenobi... (Luke later on, of course) Both wanted Anakin Skywalker redeemed. They wanted Vader dead. Remember what Obi Said: "Many of the truths we cling to Rely on own own point of view." Could the above sign have been some knind of warning to Elohim out there? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:35:51 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> [Adventure seed] The Excellency of His Wrath So much of what gets posted here is drek, but every now and then a real gem shows up. You should polish that up and submit it to Pyramid, Neel. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:35:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Learning Songs >>>What does it take to learn a new Song? Can non-Superiors or non-Wordbound teach it to each other?<<< The Liber Canticorum will introduce rules for doing this. (Basically, it takes a certain number of weeks and then a roll to see if the student successfully learned the Song.) Note also that many Superiors (especially Princes) discourage Servitors from learning or teaching Songs that aren't sanctioned by the Prince himself. >>>Obviously, mortals couldn't use a non-Corporeal Song if this were true,<<< Mortals _can't_ normally use non-Corporeal Songs. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:35:04 EDT From: Heretic103@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> If Michael Fell.. In a message dated 10/19/98 12:01:09 AM Central Daylight Time, AmadanSJG@compuserve.com writes: << >>>Also, Baal might react in any number of different ways. One of the more likely, I think, is that he would _want_ to serve under Michael again (now that his former boss has realized which is the right side) and actively help him take over from Lucifer. Mr. Edelstein, you wrote the extended write-up; is this a plausible reading of Baal's personality?<<< >> In my personal view if michael fell Baal would loose all interest in the war because the only reason he has anything to do with it is his competition with michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:49:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: IN> The reason I bought the Revelations cycle... Before I get into the what I found useful in the Cycle, and what I would rather have seen, let me just preface this by pointing out that, as I remember, the original idea was to have two families of supplements, one family was to be world specific, adventures, settings, characters, that sort of thing, the second was to be rules expansion, much GURPS Cyberworld (and Cthulupunk) vs. GURPS Cyberpunk. I wasn't all that interested in the setting. When I'm gaming with the celestial forces of creation, I pretty much accept the license to fashion the cosmology out of whole cloth. Which was why I was glad to see the separate supplement lines. So how did I end up buying the Cycle, and what would I rather have purchased? First: All the expanded superior writeups for the core superiors should have been gathered in a single book, the Liber Magna Celestae, or whatever. Maybe throw in one or two bonus superiors, but really, leave the others for the setting specific supplements. If I find them compelling enough, I may buy the supplement. Second: Rules for sorcery, undead, and Soldiers, and all the other human stuff, put in the Liber Humanis. Third: Heaven, Hell, and the Marches should be gathered in the Liber Geographica (it sounds horrible, I know, but the Latin module on the Babelfish is broken). Those three items are all core elements of the game, and really should have been available sans setting. Those were the reasons I bought the cycle, and if those specific supplements were available, I would have purchased them instead of the setting and adventure pieces. Just my opinion, do with it what you will... == Bruce bkd69@yahoo.com - -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCC dx(+) s-: a C++ P+ L+ E-- W+(++) N+ !K w O+(++) M- PS++ PE++ Y+ PGP t(+) 5+++ X+(++) R+ tv+ b+(++) DI+ D G e h+ r y*+ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:07:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine - ---John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > > The current talk on the list about how to distribute IN information > > through the books made me think of this -- > > > > I gather from the SJG web pages that, at the moment, GURPS IN is > > a serious consideration, but still very remote. While it is > > thus conveniently far off, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let > > the GURPS In Nomine book gather together *ALL* the various pieces > > of mechanics, e.g. for Saints & Sorcerors. > > This is a good suggestion, and I think it will be > followed. The reason this will be possible is a lot of > the mechanics of GURPS are included in the basic book and > the Compendia. I especially hope Sorcerers will be less > of a kludge. Okay, this may be really screwy, but I think you'd have a better product if GURPS IN focused exclusively on the human POV and human PCs in the war. This way you fill two niches, one for human-centric campaigns, one for celestial campaigns, with the addition of approprate crossover conversions, of course. I think you'll also find a freer hand in development, once you remove the aspect of converting celestials, and focus on a segment of the IN universe that's really not well fleshed out. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. == Bruce bkd69@yahoo.com - -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCC dx(+) s-: a C++ P+ L+ E-- W+(++) N+ !K w O+(++) M- PS++ PE++ Y+ PGP t(+) 5+++ X+(++) R+ tv+ b+(++) DI+ D G e h+ r y*+ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:36:55 -0700 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> The reason I bought the Revelations cycle... Bruce Dykes wrote: >Those were the reasons I bought the cycle, and if those specific >supplements were available, I would have purchased them instead of the >setting and adventure pieces. A cynic might suggest that this is exactly why they were bundled in with adventure material - to force you to buy the adventures to get the new rules, etc. But hey, companies, even gaming companies, have gotta make money, right? - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:44:59 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 at 11:02:00AM -0400, Walter Milliken wrote: > >ObSomewhatOffTopic: I'm not entirely sure how prevalent it is, but I > >strongly suspect that a number of times characters are created with no > >Emote, Savoir-Faire, Fast-Talk, Seduction or Lying skills, but aren't > >roleplayed as socially inept people, which is, after all, exactly what > >they are. They literally have no social skills. And a lot of my characters > >should have social skills greater than I give them, but I can't afford it. > > I'm not convinced by this argument -- after all, there are defaults. > Someone who had no clue about Earth behavior wouldn't really be entitled > to them, I think. > As you noted yourself, you're unlikely to get decent levels with the defaults. > Another thing that could be used to fix this is to add Knowledge (Human > behavior), so that a character could be somewhat clueful about these > sorts of activities without necessarily being very good at them. > It isn't a bad idea, but has the unfortunate effect of reducing an already limited pool still further. > Overall, I think this problem arises from a desire to streamline the > character to a minimum set of *major* skills, with "everyday" skill (Some might argue that the existence of social skills indicates that they're intended to be used.) I don't believe that this desire was attained, because of how narrow the skills are. Instead of skills like Melee or Edged Weapons, each individual weapon has a seperate skill. Each Artistry skill is also a seperate skill, and so is each science skill. I'm sure there are other examples which I could think of with time. Because of this, it is difficult to build a character who's competent in their chosen specialisation without making them inept outside that specialisation. The skill lists and point allowances mean you neither have a small number of broad skills nor a large number of narrow skills. You have a small number of narrow skills, which is the worst of all worlds. Cutting down a character by removing skills they should logically have is painful, and while inevitable in any system, it happens to far too great a degree in In Nomine. > levels not really showing on the chart at all. Yes, that isn't what the > mechanics imply statistically, but I didn't say this really made > sense.... > > > ---Walter - -- "From your first day in camp everyone will try to deceive and plunder you ... in camp no one ever does anything for nothing, no one does anything out of the generosity of his heart. You have to pay for everything. If someone proposes something that is unselfish, disinterested, you can be sure it's a dirty trick, a provocation." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:55:49 +0100 From: Peter Witney Subject: IN> Angel of the North Just a quick adventure seed idea from England... If you haven't heard of it, there's a massive metal sculpture just outside Gateshead (UK) called the Angel of the North. It stands with huge metal wings (175ft wingspan) outstretched overlooking the motorway (well the A1 actually). It struck me that this could quite likely be a new tether (or potential tether) for AA David. It is a powerful symbol of strength with obvious celestial overtones. My own idea for the statue involved an ambitious Malakite of David attempting to establish a tether, coming into conflict with an Impudite of Kobal, who finds great ironic humour in causing people to crash their cars while 'rubbernecking' at an 'angel'. If you want to find out more about the angel (including some great pictures) you can find them at http://on-tyne.north-east.co.uk/angel.asp http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk/angel.html Peter Witney peter.witney@kobal.demon.co.uk To share with each other / Virtues ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:28:43 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Kevin Walsh wrote: > I don't believe that this desire was attained, because of how narrow the > skills are. Instead of skills like Melee or Edged Weapons, each individual > weapon has a seperate skill. Each Artistry skill is also a seperate skill, > and so is each science skill. I'm sure there are other examples which I > could think of with time. Because of this, it is difficult to build a > character who's competent in their chosen specialisation without making > them inept outside that specialisation. The skill lists and point > allowances mean you neither have a small number of broad skills nor a > large number of narrow skills. You have a small number of narrow skills, > which is the worst of all worlds. Cutting down a character by removing > skills they should logically have is painful, and while inevitable in any > system, it happens to far too great a degree in In Nomine. I think it's worth noting in this context, that most of the NPCs in the books, barring the ones labeled as balanced starting PCs, have roughly 7-10 cps per Force, and that's usually without buying any languages (I noticed this bit while working on angels in Islamic countries where more than one language is important). It can be argued that they're simply more experienced, but this brings us back to the question of how well celetials learn. I fall pretty heavily into the camp that thinks 36 cps isn't really enough. I have absolutely no margin to take the mostly useless but character building skills I have in other games. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:54:37 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael A > >In Isaiah 51:9 (KJV), > >"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the >ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut >Rahab, and wounded the dragon?" > >This is reminiscent of the Babylonian myth of the god Marduk slaying the >great dragon Tiamat. IIRC, Marduk was the mightiest servant of the high >god. Sound familiar? > >In Revelations 12:7-8, we see > >"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the >dragon; >and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their >place found any more in heaven. > >This is generally understood to refer to two battles: one at the beginning of >time and one at the end. Now, we can mix these ideas to come up with a >campaign >seed. > >Rahab was the great dragon that inhabited the waters of the deep; before the >Spirit of God could move upon the face of the waters and make Creation, He >had >to smite the dragon and prevent it from disrupting His work. However, as >Isaiah >notes, Rahab was not slain, but merely driven off and badly wounded. > >Creation happens, and then the Fall. Lucifer and Michael fight, and Lucifer >is crushed. This happens exactly in accordance with the prophecy of >Revelations: Lucifer, the great dragon, will fight Michael and lose in >battles at the beginning and end of time. > >So, the forces of Hell are in a bit of a bind -- if they start Armageddon, >then they know that they will lose, because their great dragon and its >host will be defeated by Michael's host. > >This is when one of the Princes has a bright idea. Perhaps it is possible >to change the meaning of Revelations 12:9. The plan is very simple: Michael >is destined to defeat the great dragon, but is there any need for that >dragon to be Lucifer? After all, as long as the great dragon is defeated >and cast down, the prophecy will be fulfilled.... > >So the plan is to find and awaken Rahab, and send it to do battle against >the angelic hosts. Michael *will* defeat it -- it's prophecied -- but this >leaves the forces of Hell largely intact. And Armageddon can take place >without any prophecy nailing down the outcome, because Michael has "used >it up" killing Rahab. > >Errm, to quote the Devil's Advocate, the Bible is a rather biased text, would a publicist of the Third Reich say Hittler was doomed to fail? and would a religion authorize a text in which their chief focus of worship might get smashed in the future? but as a campaign idea in and off itself its not bad, just as long as your not trying to state canon here Simon Hailes > >-- > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:23:02 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> ir-Rahman, Kyriotate of Faith ir-Rahman Kyriotate Friend of a Higher Cause, Angel of Ijtihad Corporeal Forces: 2 Str: 3 Agl: 5 Ethereal Forces: 5 Int: 12 Pre: 8 Celestial forces: 5 Wil: 9 Per: 11 Songs: Form (Corporeal-3, Ethereal-3), Healing (Corporeal-3, Ethereal-4, Celestial-2), Harmony (Ethereal-4), Light (Corporeal-2), Shields (Corporeal-2, Ethereal-3, Celetial-3), Tongues (Corporeal-5), Projection (Corporeal-3) Skills: Artistry (Calligraphy)-4, Artistry (Dance)-2, Computer Operation-2, Dodge-3, Emote-4, Fast Talk-4, Ranged Weapon (Pistol)-1, Savoir-Faire-3, Survival (Desert)-1, Knowledge (Sharia-5, Philosophy-3), Area Knowledge (Iran-2, Egypt-2), Language (Arabic-4, Farsi-4, English-2, French-2) Attunements: Kyriotate of Faith, Elohite of Faith, Friend of a Higher Cause, Ray of Hope, Evolution of Cooperation, Angel of Ijtihad Ir-Rahman is not one of the most powerful Servitors of Faith, but she is one of those closest to Khalid. She is quite young for an angel of her importance; Khalid created her about 300 years ago. She has had a profound effect on him. From her multiple perspective as a Kyriotate and her job helping individuals, ir-Rahman became frustrated with the ulama (roughly, religious scholars) who had monopolized legal and ethical judgement and the reactionary way they used this monopoly. In response, she helped in any way she could the revival of ijtihad. This is the tradition that the Qu’ran, the hadith (non-prophetic teachings of Muhammed) and other sources of tradition can and must be interpreted by individuals. So successful was her work that she was given the Word of Ijtihad during the nineteenth century. Ir-Rahman is light-hearted and an impish sense of humor (not to be confused with an imp’s sense of humor…). Always chatty, she considers one of her tasks to be to tease Khalid and get him to take himself a little less seriously. She’s one of the few who can consistently get away with poking fun at him. This bubbly front often hides, but does not diminish, the rigorous mind and deep sense of responsibility that lies behind it. The Angel of Ijtihad is almost ruthless in her use of logic and, if pushed far enough, can be withering in her assessment of those who disagree on matters she thinks are important. Ir-Rahman spends much of her time traveling. She can be found on almost any continent, searching for those who need help in understanding their faith. She herself is a devout Muslim, but she helps those of all faiths, or even none at all. Increasingly, at least part of her being remains close to Khalid, often possessing one of the camels or goats around his camp. She is very worried about his continued withdrawal. She has noticed Malphas coming to visit; though she has not identified him yet, she can read enough to know that he’s bad news. If angelic PCs come to Khalid’s camp during the course of the Final Trumpet, she will probably contact them to find out what they know, and, if she trusts them, share some of her concerns. If Khalid Falls: Ir-Rahman will be heartbroken, but will not follow him. Her own faith in God is secure. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:00:25 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael At 09:18 PM 22/10/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/21/98 10:42:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >hailes@senet.com.au writes: > ><< hy doesn't Michael then just finish the Son of the Morning off, > if he apparently can? The best example I can draw of this is when Obi-Wan > :) and darth Vader fought in Star Wars, Obi-Wan won the first fight, but > much time had passed, and Vader was stronger, and Obi was weaker, neway, > thats all for now. > > Simon Hailes >> > >(MAJORLY Slipping off topic) > >What are you talking about? Obi-Wan could have easily killed Vader! That was >*NOT* the Idea. Look closer: BOTH Yoda AND Ben Kenobi... (Luke later on, of >course) Both wanted Anakin Skywalker redeemed. They wanted Vader dead. >Remember what Obi Said: "Many of the truths we cling to Rely on own own point >of view." > >Could the above sign have been some knind of warning to Elohim out there? > >It is off-topic :) sorta, but hey I needed an example, but to finish off, we dont know how close Lucy came to winning the first fight, was it one way, or did Michael win by a hairs breadth? and does Lilith shave her arm pits?..... Simon Hailes, who can get far more off-topic then this if he wants too ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:22:41 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts In a message dated 10/23/98 1:29:03 PM, eeyore@visi.com writes: >Kevin Walsh wrote: > >> I don't believe that this desire was attained, because of how narrow >the >> skills are. Instead of skills like Melee or Edged Weapons, each individual >> weapon has a separate skill. Each Artistry skill is also a separate skill, >> and so is each science skill. I'm sure there are other examples which >I >> could think of with time. Because of this, it is difficult to build a >> character who's competent in their chosen specialisation without making >> them inept outside that specialisation. The skill lists and point >> allowances mean you neither have a small number of broad skills nor a >> large number of narrow skills. You have a small number of narrow skills, >> which is the worst of all worlds. Cutting down a character by removing >> skills they should logically have is painful, and while inevitable in >any >> system, it happens to far too great a degree in In Nomine. > >I think it's worth noting in this context, that most of the NPCs in the >books, >barring the ones labeled as balanced starting PCs, have roughly 7-10 cps >per >Force, and that's usually without buying any languages (I noticed this >bit while >working on angels in Islamic countries where more than one language is >important). It can be argued that they're simply more experienced, but >this >brings us back to the question of how well celestials learn. I fall pretty >heavily into the camp that thinks 36 cps isn't really enough. I have absolutely >no margin to take the mostly useless but character building skills I have >in >other games. > >J. Michael Neal > I have a house rule that helps with that problem. Instead of requiring characters to buy skills to fill a Role, the Role includes a number of skills inherent in the Role equal to the level of the Role at the Role's level. (i.e., Police Detective/3 has firearms/3, investigation/3, and knowledge: police procedures/3.) This leads (in my campaign) to the amusing problem of switching vessels (and thus Roles) and losing skills that might have been useful. (The same character also has a vessel/1 with the role Wino/1 with the role skill area knowledge: shelters/1) Hope this helps, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:27:47 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael Simon Hailes wrote: > >Errm, to quote the Devil's Advocate, the Bible is a rather biased text, > would a publicist of the Third Reich say Hitler was doomed to fail? and > would a religion authorize a text in which their chief focus of worship > might get smashed in the future? but as a campaign idea in and off itself > its not bad, just as long as your not trying to state canon here I'll refute this by citing Norse mythology. Ragnarok, there, is the battle at the end of the world, and in said battle, pretty much everyone dies. In fact, if I remember correctly, there are two humans out of all the people in the world who survive - Lif and Lifthrasil, who've hidden out in Yggdrasil, the World Tree. There are also variants of Greek and Roman mythology which have the gods falling at the end of time to the Titans and the humans, who then turn on each other. I'd have to look them up, but I'm certain there are several more in smaller modern religions. So yes, there are/were religions in which the primary focus/foci of worship is destroyed at the end of time. It doesn't necessarily negate your point, but there it is. :) Regards, EDG Self-styled Mercurian of Janus - -- "What doesn't kill you... should have been done properly." -Moogle on IRC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:40:57 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Lucifer vs. Michael Perestroika wrote: > Self-styled Mercurian of Janus (Janus? Try Jean, Chris. That's what you get when you type while thinking about something else...) - -EDG Mercurian of Jean - -- Carry on my wayward son There'll be peace, when you are done Lay your weary head to rest, and Don't you cry no more ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:10:56 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Skill Packages (was Adventure Concepts) MarkDEddy wrote: >I have a house rule that helps with that problem. Instead of requiring >characters to buy skills to fill a Role, the Role includes a number of >skills inherent in the Role equal to the level of the Role at the Role's level. >(i.e., Police Detective/3 has firearms/3, investigation/3, and knowledge: >police procedures/3.) I like this a lot! It does get past the problem of how someone could have a high level high status role without the skills to back it up. I suppose if you wanted a high level role which was actually supposed to be incompetent at it's major skill then you'd need to take a role as 'Incompetent Police Detective/6' rather than 'Police Detective/6' (Why would you want to do this? I dunno offhand, but I don't think you should be forced to be brilliant at a set of skills just because your role is very well worked into society) The other thing I was thinking was whether it might work to allow people to have sub-roles, to cover things that their role-character might get up to in it's spare time. So for example, if the incompetent police detective is also a founder member of his local railway enthusiast society and plays a big part in organising their local newsletter then he might also have 'Train Spotter/3' which would involve skills at train recognition, and various social skills (?) associated with organising meetings, and maybe even some computer/ DTP skills. There would have to be a maximum total level of roles which any one vessel could have (because after all, there are only so many hours in a day), but I think it'd reflect that fact that many people have several sets of skills which don't all originate from their day-job. Hmm. I'd probably have the maximum level being dependent on the level of the main role (ie. the more developed your main role, the more likely it is that you'd have sub-roles). This would also be a way to give standard mortals more skills. It would require the GM to be fairly clear on which skills were allowed, and at which levels. Even the police detective is unlikely to have Fighting/6 unless he was the divisional champion and spent all his spare time in training, but he should have some skill in self-defense. Some of the sub-roles might even be roles that the person had filled in the past, at a low level to reflect the skill being a bit out of use (eg. If the incompetent policeman had been in his school's cricket team and kept loosely in shape then he might have Village Cricket/2 as a third sub-role, conferring a poor tactical ability, with some athletic skills and excellent mental arithmetic!) I'm going to think about this ;) jo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:34:33 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Skill Packages (was Adventure Concepts) "Hart, Joanna" wrote: > MarkDEddy wrote: > > >I have a house rule that helps with that problem. Instead of requiring > >characters to buy skills to fill a Role, the Role includes a number of > >skills inherent in the Role equal to the level of the Role at the Role's > level. > >(i.e., Police Detective/3 has firearms/3, investigation/3, and knowledge: > >police procedures/3.) > > I like this a lot! It does get past the problem of how someone could have a > high level high status role without the skills to back it up. I suppose if > you wanted a high level role which was actually supposed to be incompetent > at it's major skill then you'd need to take a role as 'Incompetent Police > Detective/6' rather than 'Police Detective/6' > > (Why would you want to do this? I dunno offhand, but I don't think you > should be forced to be brilliant at a set of skills just because your role > is very well worked into society) > > The other thing I was thinking was whether it might work to allow people to > have sub-roles, to cover things that their role-character might get up to in > it's spare time. > > There would have to be a maximum total level of roles which any one vessel > could have (because after all, there are only so many hours in a day), but I > think it'd reflect that fact that many people have several sets of skills > which don't all originate from their day-job. Hmm. I'd probably have the > maximum level being dependent on the level of the main role (ie. the more > developed your main role, the more likely it is that you'd have sub-roles). [Above has been snipped in places for brevity and focus] Here's a thought: have either Precision,Intelligence, or Etherial Forces determine the maximum number of roles/ number of levels of roles one person may have. The stumbling block for this is the limited number of Etherial Forces a human may have, and hence their Precision and Intelligence. Maybe Precision+Intelligence, giving even the most primitive human the potential for at least 4 roles, such as Family person, professional, and 2 hobby-related roles. Reasoning on this: these are the characteristics that would govern keeping your stuff straight, and not acting like a Rowdy Pro Football Fan when you are supposed to be acting as a Federal Judge. comments/reactions? tom t., Cadre Cherub of Heaven. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:27:42 EDT From: CaelinR@aol.com Subject: IN> Prince of Fools What are we to make of Saminga? Here is a Demon prince, one of the most powerful beings in the universe-- and one of the very few to earn that status through his own cleverness rather than through being created with inherant power. Presumably, he has forces galore, and truly hellacious stats (as much as the current stat rules apply to Superiors). And yet, we're supposed to believe he's a paranoid idiot. ("Saminga isn't particularly bright.") I submit, for your approval, the concept that Saminga is not, in fact, the fool he appears to be. He's simply quite insane (not to mention sloppy) because he's bought the (entirely plausable) concept that no matter what he does, *he can't lose*. He simply has what is arguably the most powerful word in existance: Death. We stretch most superior's words to their utmost conceptual ramifications (Lightning, Flowers), so why not apply the same concept to Death: the inevitable end of everything. No matter what happens with the War, or with men's souls, all things end. Take, for example his view of Kronos: (paraphrased) "Everyone has the same fate. Me." Since, by that logic, it really doesn't matter *what* he does, he might as well be as capricious as he chooses-- which comes off as stupid, paranoid actions, since they're simply careless. Humbly yours, -ALD ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #991 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.