From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Feb 3 18:22:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA30585 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:22:38 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA02919 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:17:17 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:17:17 -0600 Message-Id: <199802040017.SAA02919@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 #609 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, February 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 609 In this digest: Re: IN> Question about the Marches Re: IN> Intervention stuff IN> Song of Location Re: IN> Swipe Re: IN> Song of Location Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Re: IN> Nemesis Re: IN> Question about the Marches IN> Kronos IN> Swipe Re: IN> Kronos Re: IN> Question about the Marches Re: IN> Kronos Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Kronos Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) IN> 12 Janus/Valefor theories IN> St. Brigid ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 20:21:15 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches At 18:52 03/02/98 +0000, you wrote: >> >> I think the problem with the marches is that its implied that there should >> be three realms. Corporeal, Ethereal (ie. marches) & Celestial -- which >> would imply three forms for each celestial, depending on where they were. >> >It says specifically in p52 of the main rulebook that there is no such thing >as an Ethereal Form. Yeah, but I don't agree with that ;) > >Finally found the reference I was looking for. P 85 the Marches, >Dream-Shaping results. Dream-Shaping is done by Will (aided by Celestial >Dreams) or Lucid Dreaming rolls. A check digit of 3 will "Alter the >appearanceo of your dream-self into any roughly humanoid form you desire." >It should be noted that this causes 1 point of disturbance, so it's >detectible within the same domain. I like that (maybe I should get a copy of The Marches before I start spouting opinions.. hmm...) > >I get the strong impression that most of the stuff about the Marches in the >main rulebook is now un-canon, in the same way that Soldiers can't become >Celestials any more. Could they before? > >My interpretation of the question of the Ethereal Form is this: < cool stuff snipped > Very nice. >If you have any of the Songs of Dreams, Dreamwalking, or the Song of >Ethereal Entropy, you can do normal Ethereal attacks. (Intelligence + Eth >Forces, dodged by Precision + Dodge). (p. 82 The Marches, errataed by >reference to p63 main rulebook.) Does high level in Numinous Corpus/tongue still do mind hits? >Personally, I'm surprised by the fact that you don't roll Intelligence + >Fighting, That would be too consistent. Actually I think you could probably aim for a diceless combat in the marches -- anything that gives it a more dreamlike feel should have a better chance to succeed ;-) Can you pull thinsg frmo out of people's dreams to help you fight I wonder... jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:34:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Intervention stuff > Kevin Walsh writes: > >> That would be *double* the probability of a PC rolling two favourable > >> interventions in a row then? > > > >No, it would be the square of the probability. > > No, it's double. Damn. I should read things more carefully. > > For a concrete example, the Marches contains a scenario -- I'll try not > to include any spoilers - I'm familiar with it. - - where Dominic is planning to step in, and > for a change has what I would consider good and sufficient reason even > though it's part of his ongoing vendetta against Eli. Nonetheless, being > Dominic, he of course has a plan of action that will frighten and > threaten the angels involved and cause considerable risk if not > outright suffering to a large number of "unimportant" mortals. (Have you > gotten the impression that I don't much like Dominic?) There _are_ no good ways to sort things like this out. The situation is a mess, and the consequences of shutting it down are not as bad as the consequences of sitting idly by. I can readily see > a situation where two sets of angels are in conflict over this mess, > and both consider themselves in the right, with excellent justification. > What is the outcome of *any* Intervention roll in this kind of > situation? > You have to work out what God, or Lucifer, as the case may be, wants to happen. Probably it should be some sort of solution that hasn't occured to either side (in the case of God) and will make everything all right again, or in the case of Lucifer, the side which is disrupting his plans gets trashed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:07:02 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Song of Location It will appear in the Liber Reliquarum. :) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:20:51 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Swipe At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/98, Peter Frederick wrote: >>>My personal thoughts are hedged in the 'no' vein, but there's something >>>to be said for the Merc of Janus who 'swipes' the gun being held to his >>>head with a smile. >> >>It'll make noise if anyone is watching... *I'd* let it happen, but >>then I have a soft spot for roguish thieves with style... (If it's >>being held by a living being, perhaps the living being in question >>could have a Strength vs. (something?) contest to hold onto it? Or >>simply make a Strength roll?) >> >>(I'm leaning towards the "sure" answer for canon, but will need to >>hear all the evil abuses that could generate.) > >How about Swiping the bullets out of the gun, no one can see them, and the >bad guy _might_ have forgotten to load it that morning. Since the >Attunement say "a corporeal objext" then it would get expensive to get all >the bullets, but the one in the chamber would be a nice start. Good point. Perhaps the Swipe attunement requires that the celestial at least be able to *see* (or maybe even touch?) the item swiped? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:23:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Song of Location At 12:16 AM -0800 2/3/98, Querent wrote: [Song of Location] >Thinking of having the antagonist of my campaign use this plot device, >I looked it up. Oddly enough, I can not find it anywhere. It doesn't >seem to be in any of the sourcebooks out so far. Was this in a >Pyramid article I missed? Perhaps a paragraph laying on the editor's >floor? Two answers: #1: it's a typo for the Song of Motion. (This is probably the *actual* answer...) #2: it's in the upcoming In Nomine Songbook (and I think it may have a mention in Relics, since there are some artifacts that use it). #2, of course, allows us to lick our shoulders like cats and say, "See? We meant to do that." - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:01:56 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) At 12:35 AM -0800 2/3/98, Querent wrote: >In Nomine, p.86, the Corporeal discord of Stigmata says "These wounds >will not heal until the Discord is bought off." Hello? Bought off? >I was of the impression the only method of ridding oneself of discord >is to have a superior do it. I was going to submit this as errata, >but is it? Is there a method for a PC to buy off discord if they get >enough points? How would this be rationalized within the game? If PCs get enough points, it's generally rationalized that they've accumulated enough brownie points with their boss to get the Discord removed -- it's the same with learning Songs. The PC spends the points, representing catching the boss in a good mood and asking for a favor in the right way, and getting the Song imprinted into hir little celestial head. "Removed" might be a better in-game phrase, but "bought off" is accurate for the game-mechanics of the process. At 9:19 AM -0800 2/3/98, Querent wrote: >Even so, I believe the line should become errata saying instead "These >wounds will not heal until the Discord is removed." That way, my >players won't come up and ask me how to buy off discord (which is what >sparked this in the first place.) Tell them that they buy it off by accumulating "brownie points" with their Superior, and then trading those in at the rate of 3 brownie points per level of Discord removed... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:31:19 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Nemesis At 2:45 PM +0000 2/3/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >> >> Would he get Nemeses based on the number of previous attunements, or based >> on the number of enemies (does the Shed have one or five on him?) >> >Given that if you fail a resonance roll, you can't use it for that >purpose for (check digit) hours after that, I'd say he only gets one roll. >Don't forget to subtract the dissonance from his Perception roll. No, not the first one, certainly -- that's a Perception roll, not a resonance roll. I can see an argument either way for letting him make the Nemesis-attunement roll with or without the dissonance subtracting. >Another point, wouldn't he only be attuned to the Shedite's Vessel? He's not doing this via touch, he's doing it via a Symphonic link to the person responsible for toasting his attuned -- he'll get the Sheddie, unless he gets that 666... Or so I'd rule. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:06:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches At 10:48 AM -0500 2/3/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >> The Marches, mostly.... p79-80, 82. > >I read that, and now I have a further question. What does a celestial >look like when they enter the Marches? You would ask me that... >pg. 52 of the Source Book says: "While cruising the Marches, most visitors >look like the last physical vessels they inhabited, whatever they were." >So I assume, on entering the Marches via Dreaming, they look just like >their last vessel. Right, and I *bless* that "most visitors", since it doesn't say *all* visitors.... >So I assume all the Celestials who are wandering the Marches who entered >via dreaming all look like their last vessels. But those who enter the >Marches proper (through Beleth's/Blandine's Tower, or however you usually >get a large army out into the Marches) are in their Celestial form. (pp. >80 of 'The Marches'). So do those who enter the Marches proper get forced >into a version of their previous vessels? I'd kick and waffle and say that it depends on how much their vessel is part of their self-image. I will also refer you to Dream-shaping, p. 85 -- "A dreamer can alter the events of contents of a dreamworld with a successful Will roll." I would take this to mean that a celestial can look like whatevertheheck it wants, with a Will roll. (If they entered via "falling asleep," they can do a Will roll to look like their celestial self. If they entered via the Tower, they can make a Will roll to look like a human instead of a wheel of fire, etc.) This can be used to confuse the issue about one's nature, I'd say. ("Why, yes, I *am* a Seraph of Blandine! See the feathers?" *resonate*) ("Funny, you have the honor of a Balseraph. DIE!") But if one is carrying talismans or relics, they're still going to look like talismans and relics. >What about those who enter via a Tower and never had a previous vessel? >What form do they take? Are they visible? They look like their Celestial self, and they are visible. (And they can alter their self-image with that Will roll.) After all, there aren't *really* ethereal bodies -- there are only the "iconic" representations of the entity's point of view and "location." Sort of like someone kicking around a MUD, I guess... >In celestial combat in the Marches, does the celestial take celestial >form? Is _this_ visible? What happens to their vessel? Urm. Hm. I don't think it's required, and I suspect that their vessel stays put unless they get stripped of corporeal Forces, in which case the vessel could vanish or die at the GM's option, as the celestial has become unable to maintain its link to the physical world. I say they don't need to go celestial, since it says, "[people] in the Marches are not protected by their corporeal vessels [...] so anyone with Celestial Forces is vulnerable to celestial attacks in this realm." In a sense, they're *already* celestial enough for the purposes of combat. At 4:48 PM +0000 2/3/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: [...] >For some more unclearness, how does the Calabim of Nightmares attunement >work? Does it provide information, or is it catalysing someone's fear? To >put it crudely, does the Calabite have to do the footwork of altering >someone's dreamscape/physical reality in order to confront them with this >fear? And if so, why is it phrased as if it is a combat attunement? Information, I think, and the Ethereal Song of Light is a good way to come up with a fear-source to do the paralyzing. (So it's a "one-two" combo, if you have that Song.) The IPG will do a bit of clarifying here. >Why is the fact that it's so damned hard to find dreamscapes without the >Celestial Song of Attraction (I presume mention of the Song of Charm is >an erratum.) mentioned prominently, instead of being tucked away at the >bottom of p88? Charm is errata, yes... *sigh* And I don't know... >Does the Corporeal Song of Dreams, if sung on Earth, send the singer to >sleep? I suppose it could, but there will be a Song of Sleep in the future... At 5:06 PM +0000 2/3/98, Hart, Joanna wrote: >I think the problem with the marches is that its implied that there should >be three realms. Corporeal, Ethereal (ie. marches) & Celestial -- which >would imply three forms for each celestial, depending on where they were. Yes, well, but there Are No Canon Ethereal Forms. (Something that I occasionally curse, myself. It would make my life a lot easier if I didn't have to keep the "icon" argument in mind when dealing with the ethereal.) Therefore, if you want to disagree with canon, I will smile benevolently and say, "More power to you." >(Q: Can you do this and then return to a 'spare' vessel instead of the one >you just left? If so, does that negate the need for body bags?) YUG! Dear stars, please, no... Or if you do, the "spare" vessel dies if it's not quickly popped into a body-bag. At 6:52 PM +0000 2/3/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: >I get the strong impression that most of the stuff about the Marches in the >main rulebook is now un-canon, in the same way that Soldiers can't become >Celestials any more. When could Soldiers *ever* become Celestials in the main book??? There's a reference to it in Night Music which *SHOULD* have been caught -- the author was doing it sarcastically and forgot to smiley-caption it. But I can't think of any other places... >[...] After all, it only takes a succesful Will >roll to become effectively invisible. That's the one thing I'd say you *can't* shape yourself into. Why? Because if you could, then what would the point of the Malakim of Dreams attunement be? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:07:00 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Kronos >>>It may be Tuesday and I may be nitpicking, but this is exactly what I was talking about when I was referencing internal game world consistancy. For my purposes, the main rule book is Lord and Master, because people, especially players, are far more likely to own that then the additional books.<<< Well, the revelation about Kronos not really being a Balseraph was planned. The main book presents information that can be considered "public knowledge". Heaven and Hell gives the *real* scoop, but most demons (and angels) DO believe Kronos is just a really powerful Balseraph. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:07:03 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Swipe >>>It'll make noise if anyone is watching... *I'd* let it happen, but then I have a soft spot for roguish thieves with style... (If it's being held by a living being, perhaps the living being in question could have a Strength vs. (something?) contest to hold onto it? Or simply make a Strength roll?)<<< That would make it more like the Celestial Song of Motion. I say sure -- if the demon or angel is willing to make a gun disappear out of plain sight, he'd probably be willing to do other supernatural things, like use a Song, go celestial, etc. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:38:01 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Kronos > Well, the revelation about Kronos not really being a Balseraph was planned. > The main book presents information that can be considered "public > knowledge". Heaven and Hell gives the *real* scoop, but most demons (and > angels) DO believe Kronos is just a really powerful Balseraph. Since I was unclear that this was planned, or if this was changed canon, or what (and it's apparently both), my suggestion was to add some sort of quantifier in the source books in the future that this be just GM knowledge, and everything in the main source book is common knowledge. My players buy these books, dontchaknow, and then ask. _I_ got confused, and then I noticed it threw my entire cosmology out of wack in sort of an ugly way. (Personally, I'm just outright ditching the idea, mostly because I think it's terribly lame. But that's another story altogether.) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:52:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Question about the Marches > > > >I get the strong impression that most of the stuff about the Marches in the > >main rulebook is now un-canon, in the same way that Soldiers can't become > >Celestials any more. > > Could they before? > It's mentioned somewhere, I think, but it's late and I'm hungry and I'm not getting the book out of my bag. > > >If you have any of the Songs of Dreams, Dreamwalking, or the Song of > >Ethereal Entropy, you can do normal Ethereal attacks. (Intelligence + Eth > >Forces, dodged by Precision + Dodge). (p. 82 The Marches, errataed by > >reference to p63 main rulebook.) > > Does high level in Numinous Corpus/tongue still do mind hits? > It would indeed. And stuff like Ethereal Shields would still work normally. > > >Personally, I'm surprised by the fact that you don't roll Intelligence + > >Fighting, > > That would be too consistent. Actually I think you could probably aim for > a diceless combat in the marches -- anything that gives it a more dreamlike > feel should have a better chance to succeed ;-) Can you pull thinsg frmo > out of people's dreams to help you fight I wonder... > You can make stuff with dream-shaping. Get a check digit of 6 and you can erect palaces, though it's probably best not to do this in the Vale. People might just notice. The Marches are weird and scary. I reckon Servitors of Nightmares regularly get God-complexes from the stuff that they're able to pull. But Beleth is always happy to cure them, so that's all right. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:12:35 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kronos At 4:38 PM -0500 2/3/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >[...] my suggestion was to add some sort >of quantifier in the source books in the future that this be just GM >knowledge, and everything in the main source book is common knowledge. [...] Ahhhh, *good* notion, *good* notion. I'll see what I can do. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:20:19 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > > On the other hand, I'll point out, wild baseless speculation is fabulous, > > because it's good grounds for creativity. :) > > > I'm opposed to creativity on principle. We need more rigid rules, more > order, more structure, etc. *laugh* That sounds like my line, as a good ole' servitor of the Game. :) > > I can buy that he Fell, and I can buy your argument 100% and I'm certainly > > willing to, but how does he get back into Heaven? How does he create > > angelic servitors? How come no one notices he's a Calabite? > > > Look at the Words, Theft in particular. Theft can be interpreted to > include all the essential preliminaries to Theft, such as stealth and > disguise. When Janus Fell, he was already resonating with the Word of > Theft to some extent, so it wasn't too hard for him to get it on his own, > while hiding this fact from Lucifer. Then, since there was no one who > realised that Janus had, in a sense, died, there was nothing to stop him > from stealing Janus' identity, giving him a Role/6 as the Archangel of Wind. > And I reckon he somehow mimicked that trick Kronos has of giving demons > angelic resonances, but only to himself. The perfect Theft. (I'm so glad my players don't read this list all of the sudden. For reasons other then about Janus.) But how does he create new servitors of the Wind? How do the old servitors of the Wind continue to propogate the new Word? Why don't they notice? > (Now that I've given myself nightmares with this extension of a Word's > power, I'm going to carefully refrain from thinking about the sort of > things Baal and Michael can come up with when they're bored.) I thought they just tried to hack each other into kibble in their spare time. > But then I had so much ickiness going > > on, I really needed Laurence to be a Very Good Guy. And he's a Malakite, > > ya know. And he looks fabulous in leather. > > > I have no problem with him being a good guy. But I reckon he'd still look > fabulous if he was Fallen, not that I want him to Fall. Me neither. I've really gotten to the point of really LIKING Laurence, because he turns out to be a pretty likable guy, strangely enough. That could just be my take on him, but turning him into the honorable Shining Knight of Heaven just makes him the Man. > If there's one of > them I'd really like to make Fall, it's Uriel, but it ain't gonna happen. > Instead, I reckon that a cult of Uriel will exist in my version of Gehenna. > Suitable punishment, IMHO. Oooh... Cults are cool. Evil cults that promote Celestial sacrifice to their downed lost Prince who has been given sort of a post-mortem 'Godhood' is even cooler. Sticking it somewhere in my game would be the coolest. Hehehehe. > > I can make the argument both ways quite easily. It's one of those > > swinging door kind of things. But I really like that they just don't > > Fall. > > > I was dubious about it, and there's something about absolute statements > like that that set my teeth on edge. When I'm told flatly that something > can never happen, I assume that there's a way to get around it. On the > other hand, when I'm told that there are really rare ways to get around > stuff that will be dealt with in an upcoming supplement, I assume it'll > be left up to GMs. > Well, I usually don't like absolute statements either, since I've long since learned otherwise. But in this case, the absolute draws a sort of sick fascination. I mean, an entire Choir? And _never_? Not even once? No one got curious and ran off and tried it? > > > are the embodiments of Freedom, which is neither good nor ill in itself, > > > but only in its uses? (I find that argument unconvincing myself. Lilim > > > don't look like the embodiments of Freedom to me.) > > > > I am unconvinced. Try again. :) > > > Because Lilim are the embodiments of Slavery, which is neither good nor > ill in itself, but only in its uses? (And Lilith's Word is the result of > an early experiment by Lucifer in doublethink.) I agree with this, actually. And I've had multiple arguments everywhere to this effect. A geas - both ways - is not an act of freedom. It's a forced act where someone does something for someone else and has no choice about it. > > > Just one of the manifold theories about Hell's existence held by > > > Habbalah, but quite possibly a popular one. > > > > Yes, but that doesn't explain why I can't get a good haircut in Shal-Mari. > > > Because you are unworthy of such an honour. Consider it part of your > Punishment. (And of course I've seen your explanation, which makes that > statement a complete non-sequitur.) > But non-seqs are deep and meaningful. :) - - Em, Balseraphin' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:22:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Kronos > >[...] my suggestion was to add some sort > >of quantifier in the source books in the future that this be just GM > >knowledge, and everything in the main source book is common knowledge. [...] > > Ahhhh, *good* notion, *good* notion. I'll see what I can do. > Thank ya much. It keeps all of us out here in the wilds of Ann Arbor, Michigan, from tearing our hair out and frothing. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:41:43 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 5:20 PM -0500 2/3/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >>>On the other hand, I'll point out, wild baseless speculation is fabulous, >>>because it's good grounds for creativity. :) >>> >>I'm opposed to creativity on principle. We need more rigid rules, more >>order, more structure, etc. > >*laugh* That sounds like my line, as a good ole' servitor of the Game. :) More *clarity*. (It's Tuesday, you're *MINE*....) [...] >>stealing Janus' identity, giving him a Role/6 as the Archangel of Wind. >>And I reckon he somehow mimicked that trick Kronos has of giving demons >>angelic resonances, but only to himself. The perfect Theft. > >(I'm so glad my players don't read this list all of the sudden. For >reasons other then about Janus.) > >But how does he create new servitors of the Wind? Why, it's *obvious* -- he doesn't! He merely gets some of his Servitors together to create angel-babies -- he still has the ability to stick them together, and if he uses pure angel-Forces, then he gets an angel! (This is evil and wicked. I like it.) > How do the old servitors of the Wind continue to propogate the >new Word? Why don't they notice? Hm. Maybe they *do* notice, and simply are trying to stall for time until they can bring him back into the fold? >>I have no problem with him being a good guy. But I reckon he'd still look >>fabulous if he was Fallen, not that I want him to Fall. > >Me neither. I've really gotten to the point of really LIKING Laurence, >because he turns out to be a pretty likable guy, strangely enough. That >could just be my take on him, but turning him into the honorable Shining >Knight of Heaven just makes him the Man. Nobility, a touch of vulnerability, Malakite Buns In Leather -- what's not to like? - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 22:45:43 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) At 17:20 03/02/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Oooh... Cults are cool. Evil cults that promote Celestial sacrifice >to their downed lost Prince who has been given sort of a post-mortem >'Godhood' is even cooler. Sticking it somewhere in my game would be the >coolest. I think this is one of the neatest ideas I have seen here. Cheers. jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:52:41 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > >>I'm opposed to creativity on principle. We need more rigid rules, more > >>order, more structure, etc. > > > >*laugh* That sounds like my line, as a good ole' servitor of the Game. :) > > More *clarity*. (It's Tuesday, you're *MINE*....) Oops. Sorry, my Princess. > >>stealing Janus' identity, giving him a Role/6 as the Archangel of Wind. > >>And I reckon he somehow mimicked that trick Kronos has of giving demons > >>angelic resonances, but only to himself. The perfect Theft. > > > >(I'm so glad my players don't read this list all of the sudden. For > >reasons other then about Janus.) > > > >But how does he create new servitors of the Wind? > > Damn those Evil Threads of Conversation! > > Why, it's *obvious* -- he doesn't! He merely gets some of his > Servitors together to create angel-babies -- he still has the > ability to stick them together, and if he uses pure angel-Forces, > then he gets an angel! (This is evil and wicked. I like it.) Oh! *snap fingers* Well, that makes perfect sense. That also fills a gap in my reasoning that I was attempting to ignore to the best of my ability. It's evil and wicked and pretty damn cool. And totally logical, even in my own weird version of celestial genesis. I like it. :) > > How do the old servitors of the Wind continue to propogate the > >new Word? Why don't they notice? > > Hm. Maybe they *do* notice, and simply are trying to stall for time > until they can bring him back into the fold? Or maybe they do notice, and they are just trying to cover it up all the time? Besides, no one really hangs out with Janus that much, and why would the Malakim resonante on an Archangel? Hmmm. Contemplate. > >Me neither. I've really gotten to the point of really LIKING Laurence, > >because he turns out to be a pretty likable guy, strangely enough. That > >could just be my take on him, but turning him into the honorable Shining > >Knight of Heaven just makes him the Man. > > Nobility, a touch of vulnerability, Malakite Buns In Leather -- what's > not to like? > You know, I had a long day. I had back to back meetings, most of which I walked away from with a headache. And then I read that and my brain promptly exploded in a big nasty gloopy mess all over my keyboard. And brains are a damn sight harder to get out from between the keys then honey mustard, lemme tell you. - - Em, Bal of the Game, hangin' out with the Nitpicking people today. "Mmm... complete with a salad bar!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:03:53 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: Canon Doubt And Uncertainty (Re: IN> By Any Other Name) > >Oooh... Cults are cool. Evil cults that promote Celestial sacrifice > >to their downed lost Prince who has been given sort of a post-mortem > >'Godhood' is even cooler. Sticking it somewhere in my game would be the > >coolest. > > > I think this is one of the neatest ideas I have seen here. Cheers. > Dammit, now I'm all inspired and such and soforth. Let me get my fanny on home, and I'll ponder this for a bit. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:28:39 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) I only have one problem with that. If the discord can truly be "bought off", then Outcasts and Renegades should be able to buy it off as well, just as they can purchase resources, characteristics, and forces. In this sense, points clearly do NOT represent a superior's favor, as no superior is applicable. I don't think a point value is appropriate for removal of discord. One, it makes discord a little less ominous, and two, other such boons from a superior, such as rites and distinctions do not have a corresponding point cost. They are a matter of role playing, just as I believe the removal of discord should be. Personally, I'm in favor of submitting this as errata. I just wanted to know if it was deliberate before doing so. - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 12:35 AM -0800 2/3/98, Querent wrote: > >In Nomine, p.86, the Corporeal discord of Stigmata says "These wounds > >will not heal until the Discord is bought off." Hello? Bought off? > >I was of the impression the only method of ridding oneself of discord > >is to have a superior do it. I was going to submit this as errata, > >but is it? Is there a method for a PC to buy off discord if they get > >enough points? How would this be rationalized within the game? > > If PCs get enough points, it's generally rationalized that they've > accumulated enough brownie points with their boss to get the Discord > removed -- it's the same with learning Songs. The PC spends the points, > representing catching the boss in a good mood and asking for a favor in > the right way, and getting the Song imprinted into hir little > celestial head. > > "Removed" might be a better in-game phrase, but "bought off" is > accurate for the game-mechanics of the process. > > >Even so, I believe the line should become errata saying instead "These > >wounds will not heal until the Discord is removed." That way, my > >players won't come up and ask me how to buy off discord (which is what > >sparked this in the first place.) > > Tell them that they buy it off by accumulating "brownie points" with > their Superior, and then trading those in at the rate of 3 brownie > points per level of Discord removed... == --Querent USELESS FACT: In Fantasia's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" story, the wizard's name is Yensid. (Disney backwards.) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:53:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Buying off Discord? (errata?) At 3:28 PM -0800 2/3/98, Querent wrote: >I only have one problem with that. If the discord can truly be >"bought off", then Outcasts and Renegades should be able to buy it off >as well, just as they can purchase resources, characteristics, and >forces. Find Lilith. (Or some other Superior who wants to do a little black ops. work...) > I don't think a point value is appropriate for removal of discord. >One, it makes discord a little less ominous, and two, other such boons >from a superior, such as rites and distinctions do not have a >corresponding point cost. They are a matter of role playing, just as >I believe the removal of discord should be. Then don't use any point-value for your games. >Personally, I'm in favor of submitting this as errata. I just wanted >to know if it was deliberate before doing so. It means "bought off," I am pretty sure -- as in, the PC uses points, *or* a Superior does the removal (possibly in lieu of points for an adventure session). If there's no in-game justification, then the GM laughs evily (what are you doing as a GM if you can't laugh evily?) and explains what Asmodeus does to the souls of rules lawyers. And if you must, point out the "Losing Discord" section on p. 61, and the "Superiors and Discord" box on the same page. In particular, "Only allow characters to get rid of Discord at the end of an adventure, to reward exceptional game play or exemplary roleplaying *instead* of getting character points or a new attunement." "Bought off" may be a mildly poor word-choice -- using point-based mechanics language instead of in-world language -- but it's hardly *errata*. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:46:34 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> 12 Janus/Valefor theories Janus and Valefor: Some solutions Presented for your perusal are a few ideas on how Janus and Valefor do that thing they do. 1. They are not related. This is probably the closest to current canon. Problems: It is boring and does not answer any questions. 2. They are the same. Janus and Valefor may be the same guy. The problem is that how come no one notices that he is an Ofanite or a Calabite. 3. They are the result of some sort of mutant Kyrio that established itself as the Ofanite Angel of Wind and the Calabite demon of Theft. Problems: It may be a little far fetched to put one over on Lucifer, although it has been done before. 4. Valefor is a former (or current?) servant of Janus who fell or went undercover. This could be the best explanation from my point of view. 5. They could both be celestial vessels of a trickster god such as Coyote, Loki, or Apollo. But why wouldn't have anybody, esp. Lucifer, have noticed? 6. Valefor is a garden variety Demon Prince made sure to organize his servants after Janus's organization to further sow discord in Heaven. Problem is how Valefor would know about Janus's organization and why he would bother anyway. 7. They both could be the change of the symphony manifested like Yves and Kronos are the Destiny and Fate of the symphony. Of course we have nothing to back this up. 8. Somewhere along the line Janus may have gotten in a big fight and lost forces. Rather than the symphony absorb the forces immediately, Lucifer used those same forces to create Valefor who grew to become the Demon Prince of Theft. This would be interesting. 9. An alternative to #8 is that Janus may have had some forces separated by some other means or maybe Lucifer did not know he was using Janus's forces and did so by accident. 10. It could be that Janus fell a long time ago and become Valefor. Valefor than "stole" his old identify back and worked both sides of the line. 11. Maybe Janus's mind is trapped somewhere and Valefor has stolen his celestial form and duties. This would explain way Janus has not changed recently. 12. It could be that Janus and Valefor are celestial "twins" like Gabriel's "firemen" are described in Marches. One rose to become an Archangel and the other fell into Demon Prince-hood. - -Jesse, sometime Soul of Tongue-Planted-So-Far-in-Cheek-I-Have-a-Second-Set-of-Lips "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." Peter Lamborn Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:11:37 -0800 From: Armand Subject: IN> St. Brigid Warning, the following question may contain things that may offend some forms of Christianity. I don't want to hurt any feelings, so if your are offended by someone questioning the practices of the Midieval church, delete this now. There was a discussion of saints earlier. This made the wheels in my head start on their own again. Hence, I am brought to those saints adopted by the Catholic church that were originally pagan gods; specifically St. Brigid. Brigid was the Celtic goddes of fire before the Catholic church got their hands on her. If you pick up a "Live's of the Saints," you'll find that she was actually a pretty girl who prayed to God to be ugly so that she wouldn't have to marry. She entered the church and did charitible works. Dying aroud 540 AD. You can pray to her to rekindle creative fires. I forgot the exact date that the "Lives" has her death at, but at the time; illiteracy was the happenin thing. So, any information about her being a "saint" or goddess is specualtive at best. My question then comes down to this, is she a saint or an ethereal? Is it possible to be one then the other? Or are there two Brigids of the Isles? Armand ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #609 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.