From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Feb 25 15:26:26 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 PAA26631 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:26:26 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id NAA22104 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:33:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:33:57 -0600 Message-Id: <199802251933.NAA22104@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 #644 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 Wednesday, February 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 644 In this digest: Re: IN> Lots of stuff, on topic even (was Varying superior disturbance levels) Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> In Nomine Sideways Qs Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors IN> Calabite thoughts. IN> Thor Point Re: IN> Thor Point Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Falling/Repenting and Words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:09:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lots of stuff, on topic even (was Varying superior disturbance levels) Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > Jean is the guardian who makes sure that the physical world obeys > the laws God laid down at the first instant of Creation. There > are angels of Jean responsible for such things as making sure > planets stay in their orbits and electrons obey Schrodinger's > wave equations. and yet > Jean is a minor archangel because I like underdogs !! If a "minor" Archangel in your campaign has a job like that, your campaign must have quite a cosmic sweep to it, at least in the abstract. (Canonical IN limits the Archangels to interest in Earth, for a start.) Are there any hints of off-planet activities in your campaign? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:18:33 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors > I've often heard this claim. That if you stat up a diety then certain > players will only find ways to topple it. Yet, being honest, I have > never, ever, seen this happen. I don't deny that it does, and I > appreciate that there are many power games out there, but that doesn't > mean that the player characters IMC will ever get that tough and neither > should yours if you don't desire them to. > Giving *full* stats to Superiors isn't really necessary, granted, but > having relative power levels would be helpful. Take the case of Furfur > in NM. One minute he is a nicely defined Baron of *X* forces and *X* > powers, and the next he's a Prince and thus off the scale. If you want to "stat-up" the Archangels and Demon Princes relative to themselves, that shouldn't be a problem. Giving them a list of Forces etc. would be a mistake in my opinion. The AA and DP are beings of almost infinite power within their own baliwick and should be left that way. I agree that it is rare that players will attack their Superior or other allied Superiors but what if they could gang up on an enemy Superior? Work it out. A group of pretty powerful angels (around 12 forces) would be able to take on a 20 force Superior and have a decent chance of hurting them very badly, or worse. Also, if you give them stats you will be somewhat boxed in as far as what will happen when two Superiors fight. > And what *does* happen if Haagenti tries to eat Mammon? Depends upon what you want to have happen and what will fit your campaign. If you give the Superiors stats you might be boxed into the idea that if the two fight one would win while the other would be crippled. If you want that, fine. But there is something about Haagenti eating Mammon and consuming the Word of Greed within himself. Its up to you, I think it enough to get an idea of how powerful each superior is in your mind and work from there. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:19:34 -0500 From: John Karakash - LUCENT ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD Emily Dresner wrote: > > [This is just a teaser. See the URL at the bottom of the message.] > > Disclaimer: > > This is just a really bizarre story. If you are offended by some rather > strange takes on some religious ideals, this is not a story for you. > Contains language, vulgarity, some violence, and a very dead cat. Very nice, Em! Well worth reading. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:24:55 -0500 (EST) From: Raoul Duke Subject: Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Twila Oxley Price wrote: > Erm. Okay. After a looong time musing over what I wanted to do in my > campaign, I decided to have as NPCs a grey lilim and a malakite who > are, erm, involved. Now, my question is: is it possible? I would say yes. Demons aren't innately evil (except perhaps Shedites), they just tend to be. As long as the Grey acquits itself honorably, the Malakite would be pleased. This assumes a reasonably good Lilim and a reasonably laid-back Malakite, tho. > And if the lilim placed a geasa on the malakite, how would that fly with > his superior? (I am thinking Eli, for obvious reasons.) Gee... I'm of two minds about this. The Malakim are big on keeping their word (that whole oath thing), but anyone having a hook in one of Heaven's warriors wouldn't sit well... As with many things, this would depend on Superior. Eli himself probably wouldn't care much (he's light and flaky that way), but expect some pointed questions from Dominican triads. > Are there written down any rules about how a grey lilim acts? Not officially, but check the In Nomine Collection pages; I'm positive Beth (Queen of the Lilim) has done something on it. Joe - ------ Big Brother's watching? Learn to become Invisible. "Looking at my action figure, it occurred to me that that's not a bad way to face the world: gorgeous, heavily-armed, and distinctively masked." - -- Amy Rambow, contemplating Cosmic Angela How I waste my time: http://acs1.bu.edu:8001/~arie/rpg.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:37:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors For comparison, Iron Crown Enterprises puts stats to the gods of Greek and Egyptian myth, and to the Valar of Tolkien (who are gods in everything but social position, so to speak). I think they did the same with the gods of their own pantheon for "Shadow World." They were all generally about fifty times more powerful than any PC could reasonably hope to ever be, plus they were strictly immortal. (Okay, so Egpytian gods aren't *exactly* "immortal," but as the example of Osiris shows, even being dead only slows them down temporarily.) There were a few specific areas of vulnerability. For instance, Aphrodite is *not* a militant goddess in the same league as Athena or Artemis, or even Hera, and fled weeping from the battlefield of Troy when smacked by a merely mortal hero. (Of course, she was not at all seriously injured and I would not take bets on that warrior's subsequent good fortune.) This was duly noted in the game book. In "Mythic Egypt," I recommended that a very advanced PC party *might* be able to best a very *minor* Egyptian god, but the PCs should never be the same again, for good or ill, and they had acquired a permanent enemy to steer clear of. The IN equivalent would be trying to take out a non-Archangel member of the Seraphim Council or a very minor Archangel (probably one crafted by the GM for the individual campaign rather than a canonical one). Or, of course, an equivalent demon. The results should permanently change the PCs, and they should not be able to do better than put the foe in Trauma. For inter-Superior gaming, rather than give specific stats, why not just rank the Superiors on their different Characteristics? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:39:48 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> An attempt to inject understanding. Jo Hart wrote: > Ru'ach would be better for wind IMO ;-) (Because as well as literally > translateing as wind, it is also used to mean 'spirit of God' in some > verses, such as the verse in genesis which is usually translated 'the > spirit of God moved over the face of the waters') I like that as well. It doesn't flow as well in English though even if the translation is closer to the Truth. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:58:16 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors > For inter-Superior gaming, rather than give specific stats, why not > just rank the Superiors on their different Characteristics? Because then, suddenly, they'd be playing Amber! Huzzah! Which is not a really bad idea. If people want to actually PLAY the Superiors, or on that power level, I suggest going to your local hobby store and picking up a copy of Amber Diceless Role-Playing Game, and then sit down and tailor the Amber rules to a better, happier IN universe. I mean, Amber vs. Chaos, Heaven vs. Hell. It's not that much of a difference. And everything is done on a ranking system, with everyone having their own sets of powers. So which Demon Prince is Brand? }:::> - - Em, Demon of Goofy Plaid Pants ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:10:13 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim Twila Oxley Price wrote: > > Erm. Okay. After a looong time musing over what I wanted to do in my > campaign, I decided to have as NPCs a grey lilim and a malakite who > are, erm, involved. Now, my question is: is it possible? And if the > lilim placed a geasa on the malakite, how would that fly with his > superior? (I am thinking Eli, for obvious reasons.) Are there written > down any rules about how a grey lilim acts? This particular lilim > tends to manifest as male and to have the discord of need:blood (yes, > he is a vampire, kinda sorta, only ... well, that's a long story and > it's why he became grey. I'd have picked bright, but the need discord > has to be there for the story purposes.) I'll try to help you one question at a time... Yes it is possible. Even if the Malakite knew that h is a Lilim, the Malakim only met out punishment to Evil. You said he's grey, no problem, as long as he's trying to do good too. Oh, the Malakite's Superior would be pissed if the Geasa caused the celelstial to behave in a way against their word or in conjunction with Evil. Other than that, it would be a grey area. Grey Lilim. By this I am assuming that you mean that they have not redeemed but are free and doing both good and bad (sort of a celestial neutral). As far as I know there are no canon rules as to how they act other than with accordance to their band and the geasa they probably still owe (the nine geas/6 they start with as free Lilim). I would imagine that they would play their cards close to their chest and be rather selfish (they aren't redeemed). I would also imagine them to be the ultimate go between for shady deals. Perhaps a role within organized crime as an accountant or negaotiator. That might be fun. Or maybe working as a union organizer. > Twila (who -- if she can get these annoying little queries answered -- > may have a slightly skewed almost-Good-Omens-ish but-not-quite > campaign on her hands.) Super cool. I want in. Vampire Lilim and their Malakim mates... next time on Geraldo. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:14:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Emily Dresner wrote: > > > For inter-Superior gaming, rather than give specific stats, why not > > just rank the Superiors on their different Characteristics? > > Because then, suddenly, they'd be playing Amber! Huzzah! > > Which is not a really bad idea. ... I admit, I would be interested to see an IN-Diceless, using Amber mechanics or an adaptation of them. Wasn't someone on the list toying with such an idea a while back? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:10:09 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Sideways Qs On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > What resonance did you give them, then? > > I have absolutely *no* idea yet. I only realized recently that the > canon resonance wouldn't work in my campaign. Anybody got a cool > Will-based resonance that would fit their idiom (fire & punishment) > and is not a direct steal from the Calabim (which is all I can think > up)? Just tossing ideas out here: How about something similar to the Calabim resonance, but which inflicts pain instead of damage? Only with a restriction on the pain based on the level of punishment which can be justified by their actions. The Malak resonates the target to learn the greatest sin the target has committed (as limited by the check die), and then invokes the second part of his resonance. The pain causes a negative on all dice rolls equal to the check die for a certain period of time (no idea how long), and then the target has been punished and cannot be punished for that specific act again. I know it needs more work, but there's an idea. Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:24:16 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors > >> I concur, adding what happens is what makes for the best story. > > > >Well, I'll step in here and say "no, I won't always have an answer". > >Some GMs like to have a world that runs 'realistically', as opposed > >to 'dramatically' - it is hard to even guess at a realistic outcome > >without some sort of markers to go against. By contrast it is easy > >to say "not in my game, they aren't" if you don't like the results it > >would give, or if you prefer dramatic results. > > Realism in a world of supernatural things? An interesting notion. Don't knock it till you try it. Realism isn't about keeping the laws of physics; things must be internally consistant, that's all. > Unless a player is controlling an arch beast, isn't the result > the impact of one GM-defined thing against another GM-defined thing? At some point, yes. That's the whole point: I want to know how Baal is going to walk when he leaves a fight with Mammon. Without simply rolling and shouting - roll and shout (IMO) is something that should be reserved for when you don't have time to work out the answer. I have time to work out a Baal vs. Mammon match. > I would think that all these GM-defined things form a cosmic > balance, realistic or not, and the outcome would be patent. Not necessarily; in my campaign, the balance is political, and many of the lesser superiors would take a tromping in a good long fight. > Granted a realistic determination requires some frame of reference, > but why must it be quantifiable? Surely a qualitative assessment > would serve as well. Not if I wanted to know specifics from an inter-Superior fight. How hurt will Baal be before he reduces Mammon to kibble? Would it be enough for another Prince to risk an attack? And would that other Prince succeed or fail? > But by saying 'not in my game', isn't the GM invalidating his or her > own quantifiable argument? What I was saying is that by saying on the list that "Superiors shouldn't be quantified", you discourage a potentially valuable resource for both yourself and me. I, personally, am in favor of finding some good frame of reference; if you don't like it, replace it with your own or discard it completely. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:24:16 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD > [This is just a teaser. See the URL at the bottom of the message.] > > Disclaimer: > > This is just a really bizarre story. If you are offended by some rather > strange takes on some religious ideals, this is not a story for you. > Contains language, vulgarity, some violence, and a very dead cat. Thank you. I think. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:47:44 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Story Teaser - THE LETTER TO GOD On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 11:24:16AM +0000, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > [This is just a teaser. See the URL at the bottom of the message.] > > > > Disclaimer: > > > > This is just a really bizarre story. If you are offended by some rather > > strange takes on some religious ideals, this is not a story for you. > > Contains language, vulgarity, some violence, and a very dead cat. > Having read the whole of it, and having once been proud of my Band-identifying powers, I'm going to start venturing guesses. Keros and Erymius are Balseraphs. (Erymius is hilarious.) Hannah is a Djinn(i). The guy whose name begins with J is a Calabite. More generally, I think that, apart from the fact that it was damn strange, that it could have done with a better answer to where God is, but *spoiler* sending Erymius off with the letter was inspired. And Erymius in general was cool. Very nice altogether. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:51:53 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors > I agree that it is rare that players will attack their Superior or > other allied Superiors but what if they could gang up on an enemy > Superior? Work it out. A group of pretty powerful angels (around > 12 forces) would be able to take on a 20 force Superior and have a > decent chance of hurting them very badly, or worse. Well, a 20 force superior is pretty small; there are canon Word-bound that are larger than that. My preference would be ~75 for DPs and ~120 for AAs; that would take a small army of regular angels and demons to take down. Especially if you're using the vanilla Celesital Combat rules; a superior with ~30 Celestial Forces (which is low for AAs, because most aren't going to take many Corporeal) is going to have an average of 1,800 Celestial hits, before he looses a single Force. Even if the force he looses is Celestial (1 in 3 chance), he's still at an average of 1,682 hits to the next one. His average Dodge (even if he lacks the skill) will reduce any attack on him by 48 (autosuccess). In the mean time, he's rolling autosuccesses with a power of 78; enough to strip the average Celestial with under 6 Celestial Forces (72 celestial hits) of a Force each turn. A Dodge by that angel will reduce that by about 3 points (or more if they have a high Dodge skill). And their own attacks do an average of 6 points of damage. In other words, not likely. Not even close to likely. Word-bound (20+ forces total) would have problems in groups, trying to take a Superior down. On the corporeal plane, with a Corporeally wimpy superior, and a bit of luck, maybe. But realize that they would have a Trauma for a number of days equal to Corporeal Forces, and then they are back (unless they roll a bad Intervention, they have an autosuccess). And Larry or David would have a turnaround time of about 0.025 seconds... > Also, if you give them stats you will be somewhat boxed in as far as > what will happen when two Superiors fight. You can always discard results you don't like; it's easier to do than to make up results on the spot without information. > > And what *does* happen if Haagenti tries to eat Mammon? > > Depends upon what you want to have happen and what will fit your > campaign. If you give the Superiors stats you might be boxed into > the idea that if the two fight one would win while the other would > be crippled. If you want that, fine. I do, personally. I want internal consistancy. I want to know what would happen without having to decide on the basis of plot. Does anybody else, or should I just quietly slink away? Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@mci2000.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:28:20 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: IN> Calabite thoughts. Calabite stereotypes have been a pet peeve of mine since the dawn of my In Nomine habit, so I decided that I'd do something about it. Besides, my ego needs feeding, and I don't feel like working on the stuff I have to do. OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER NOTICE. Nothing within these pages should be interpreted as being in any way creative. The characters, situations, and events portrayed below were all either based on real people, or on the works of other people. The author reserves the right to complain at length to anyone who gives him any credit for this work. "Destruction. That's what we are. Pure and simple. When you're in trouble, call on us, and we'll blow up your trouble, right? It's what we're there for, after all. Just don't expect us to be anything else but trouble the rest of the time. It's so pathetic it's fucking funny. Everyone out there; angels, other demons, even snotty little demonlings and Ethereals think that we're simple to spot, simple to understand, simple to outthink and outmaneuvre. It'd almost make you wonder why the Princes care to make any of us at all. I mean, let's face it, a thick Servitor is going to cause you nothing but trouble no matter how good at blowing things up they are. In fact, the better they are at blowing things up, the more likely it is that they'll cause you trouble if you're thick. But still the Princes make us. So obviously, there must be some point to us. That doesn't mean the Princes respect us, of course. Andre, for example, treats us like shit. While it might be noted in fairness that he treats everyone like shit, it's particularly pronounced in our case. He spares the Habbalah from dissonance, he gives the Balseraphs the ability to alter people's perceptions of pain, and what do we get? The ability to hurt, but not destroy, the soul. Pathetic. Useless in almost all circumstances. It's painful, sure, and I confess I don't remember ever seeing one of Andre's lads who didn't like pain, but it's an amusement, nothing more. And we can make plenty of our own amusement without any help from Andre. There are other Princes who value us more, of course. Saminga, Belial, Beleth and, above all others, Malphas. The reasons for the first two are obvious with even half a thought, but Beleth and Malphas are a Hell of a lot more interesting. For the narrow-minded, the connection between Nightmares and breakage isn't obvious, and the same goes for Factions. But they just don't understand what it's about. Destruction is more than literal. You don't have to sit at home tearing paper when there all sorts of other things you can destroy. Hopes. Aspirations. The feeling of security. Self-respect. Ideals and beliefs. Sentiment. All of those things are out there, and can be hurt silently, warping the Symphony without letting the other side notice a thing. That's what it's all about in the end, right? Silence is golden, especially when your resonance is naturally noisy. If that seems too subtle and slow for you at the moment, then you should think about it first. Breakage is good, but at the end of the day, does it really matter whether it's your hand that caused it if it was your Will that was behind it? Think of the more subtle damage as an aid to causing obvious damage without repercussions at first, and after a while you'll begin to appreciate the finer pleasures. I mentioned repercussions, and that's another thing to remember. Whenever you break something, there's a price to pay, and it's important not to pay it yourself. Our resonance is naturally treacherous and unpredictable, and if you want it to serve you properly, you had better learn the lessons of how to use it. They're good lessons for all of life anyway, so it'll do you good in every way. The first, and most important lesson all Calabim should learn is this: Strike against points of weakness. No, I haven't turned into a Habbalite when you weren't looking. There are important similarities between us, but what they wrap up in mysticism, we acknowledge to be simple pragmatism. The strong resist, and that hurts you. In fact, if you're not sufficiently careful, it can hurt you very badly indeed. So the obvious lesson is this, don't attack the strong directly. Find out what they rely on, learn how to break it, and break that instead. That goes especially for angels. Unless you're damn sure of yourself, don't try using your resonance against angels. It's almost never worth it. Blow the grenade out of the Malakite's hand, shoot the wheels out from under the Ofanite, and strike at the object of the Cherub's obsession. If you bear this in mind when using your resonance, it'll stay in your mind at every other time. And of course, since we are not Habbalah, or Pachadim for that matter, we don't feel that we have to worship the strong. The strong are a bigger challenge, and need greater preparation, but if they stand in your way, then remove them. All of what I've said could do with a lot more elaboration, and if I can find the time, I may even do so, but there's another issue, a very large issue, that I haven't dealt with so far. Simply put, it's the connection between Creation and Destruction. At its most obvious level, that which hasn't been created can't be destroyed. So it is essential for all of our Band to ensure that there is a certain amount of regeneration. Fortunately, the intimate link usually means that when there's been a lot of destruction, it merely means that room has been cleared so that more creation can take place, but it isn't inevitable. Some things don't need to be replaced, like angels (though they usually are). but in general, if the last of its kind is gone, you've just fucked up. You are never going to have the chance to break anything like it again. People like Haagenti forget that, and are part of the reason people treat us with disdain. That's all right, underestimating others is definitely an exploitable weakness, so long as you don't forget the lesson Haagenti forgot yourself. Survival is everything, and you have to look to the long term. Because of the connection I've mentioned above, Calabim engage in activities that seem strange to members of other Bands. Often, they put it down to Discord. But it's a misperception, and a sign of a fundamental lack of understanding. To give an example, there's a guy I know who runs a cycle-repair shop. Most non-Calabim, if they ever stir their heads to notice this seeming incongruity, are utterly baffled. They fail to see that what drives us to create and to heal is an extension of our desire for self-preservation. Without other things to destroy, we'd have to destroy ourselves. It's what we are, after all. But of course, on another level it's a lot simpler. Creation can be employed for the purpose of destruction. There, isn't that easy to understand? Motorbikes are an obvious instance of this, given the extent of the damage they cause to the very air that humans breathe. Guns and weapons of all description are also obvious. But, if you remember what I said earlier about metaphorical destruction, you'll realise that _anything_ you make can be a cause of destruction. A painting, a political tract, even a dream. Anything at all can serve the cause of destruction. Just ask the Malakim of Creation. On second thought, don't, you're better off taking it on trust. I hope I've cleared up some of your misunderstandings, but if I haven't, it's your own lookout. I'd like to see you do well, but you can hardly expect me to do all the work for you. Think it over, and get me back to me if you need something clarified. Ciao." Kevin Walsh, in his aspect as the Demon of Friendly Advice, a Calabite of Factions. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:47:07 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Thor Point Who said that Thor from H&H was weak??? With the errata to combat, Thor hits you with Mjolnir for 34 points of damage per turn! "Thou may kiss thy vessel goodnight thou base varlet!" Incidentally, do any of you beautiful people have any idea on how much each strength level can lift? Especially the upper levels...9+? - -- Jules - Demon of Kicking Sand In Your Face jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:14:53 -0500 From: "Thomas Davidson" Subject: Re: IN> Thor Point - ---------- > From: Julian Breen > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: IN> Thor Point > Date: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 10:47 AM > > Who said that Thor from H&H was weak??? Well, he is weak compared to what he was during the Purification Crusade. Remember, he lost a *lot* of forces in that combat with those six Malakim. Also, somewhere (I can't remember where! So SUE me! :) ) it says that some pagan deities at their peak were as strong as a low-powered Archangel. He is still strong compared to most PCs, but he is still weaker than he was at his peak. Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7789233 MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, The Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, The Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:31:33 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Peter Frederick writes >I tend towards the abstract and freeform for anything over 18 total forces. > As a Word Bound Angel of Over 18 Forces in my mind is the sort of entity >who has a fair number of servitors who have anything up to 18 Forces then >they should be much bigger than their servitors, a figure like 100 Forces >occurs to me. And given that Arch Angels (and DP's) can have a fair number >of these sort of Word Bound working for them they should have even more >Forces, the figure 1000 springs irresistably to mind. This set up also >reinforces the "flash you're dead" aspect of directly facing up to any >Superior. > I, *personally*, don't see why the superior has to so excede his immediate inferiors by such a high margin. Take as an example, a feudal baron. He didn't have to be tougher than any vassal beneath him, and in many cases would be considerable weaker or less experienced. All that he had to do was be capable of commanding the obediance of his subordinates... >If there wasn't this sort of rise in power as you went up in the hierarchy, >or down the lowerarchy, then I feel there would be a lot more upward >movement, as opposed to the downwards movement we hear about amongst Demons >who's ambition attracts their Superior's attention. But surely, if you were this powerful as a DP, you wouldn't worry about intrigue and backstabbing because no uppity servitor is going to touch you. If there is not *much* difference between you and your more senior servants then you're constantly having to monitor them and/or slap them down. - -- Jules - Balseraph with Eyes in the Back of his Head jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:08:01 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Julian Breen wrote: > I, *personally*, don't see why the superior has to so excede his > immediate inferiors by such a high margin. He doesn't, but the IN book talks up the power of the Superiors no end, and makes them clearly beyond the reach of mere PCs. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:59:48 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Nathaniel writes >> >>And what *does* happen if Haagenti tries to eat Mammon? >> > >> > Well, considering that you're the Gamemaster and in control of >> >both, you'd already have an answer to that, no? >> >> I concur, adding what happens is what makes for the best story. > >Well, I'll step in here and say "no, I won't always have an answer". >Some GMs like to have a world that runs 'realistically', as opposed >to 'dramatically' - it is hard to even guess at a realistic outcome >without some sort of markers to go against. By contrast it is easy >to say "not in my game, they aren't" if you don't like the results it >would give, or if you prefer dramatic results. > Thanks! I don't feel all alone in my indecisiveness now :) I agree, I *don't* always have an answer ready for such an event, and if I had some better idea of the comparative power levels of superiors it would help. Of course, adding what suits your own storyline is fine, and the 'storyteller approach' is great and at times necessary for a game along the lines of IN, but there are times when I personally might be completely dumbfounded by a series of events and simply look to stats for inspiration. IMC Haagenti would get trounced for example, because Fat Boy just ain't in the same league as Deep Pockets. But refereeing a fight between Saminga and Belial, for example, would give me more of a pause for thought... >So I tend to be in favor of Superiors having statistics. Most likely >I'd give them around 120 forces for Archangels, and around 75 forces >for Demon Princes. For the most part they would be concentrated in >Ethereal and Celestial, but I could see David, Belial, or other of >the more warlike Superiors as having lots of Corporeal Forces as >well. That makes them neigh untouchable by beginning celestials, but >not so powerful that their level couldn't be attained during a long >campaign. > I personally wouldn't make the superiors *that* high. I reckon that they should be within the 20's to 30's, possibly with the more senior ones somewhere in the 40s, but not much beyond that if at all. This is based upon several things: Firstly; a reference to Martenas, the Sergeant at Arms of the Seraphim Council, listed in H&H as having 18 forces and being somebody that nobody messes with. If you vastly outnumber him in forces, then you wouldn't think twice about messing with him, if the thought so took you... Secondly; it is also a question, I suppose, of how you you view your Ethereals. IMC, the major ethereal gods are/were perhaps on a par with the most senior angels and demons in service to their bosses, i.e. somewhere in the late teens early 20s. I don't see *my* ethereals as being hopelessly outgunned by the superiors to an extent that such high forces would leave them. It also seems to be an incredible leap from going from about 15-18 forces to 75 or 120. To mention Furfur again, did he suddenly achieve Princedom along with a cheque for 60 Forces? I also reckon that the AAs or DPs should not be *that* far removed from their immediate subordinates. If a squad of Mike's Heavies managed to surround and isolate *any* prince then they'd probably get him. But it would take a team effort. Ironic for them... Incidentally, I wonder how tough Legion got? If it took the combined efforts of Heaven and Hell to stop him and almost cost the soul of Michael, how many forces did Legion have? Mammon says; "Lunch is for Wimps!" - -- Jules jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:18:59 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) I always wondered why Mammon wasn't an original DP. His power must be immense. Money is the root of all evil, after all. In fact, over here in the UK, Greed is working very nicely in government thank you. How so? Well, British beef on the bone has been banned due to the fact that it *might* kill you. Cigarettes on the other hand might also kill you, yet they're still out there on sale. Could it be something to do with the fact that about 60p in the pound spent on cigs goes directly to the government? Surely not... But then again Mammon is cited by DePlancy as being 'Hell's Ambassador to England'. IMC, Haagenti has very little power, and is hanging on to his Princedom by the skin of his teeth. On earth, he is only really powerful in the US. His word is virtually non existant in the Third World. His word *is* set to gain momentum however. Read the other day that by 2010, 75% of Americans will be clinically obese...(:)))) - -- Jules - Demon of Sedentary Lifestyles jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:25:12 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors >So which Demon Prince is Brand? }:::> Dominic. After all, Brand was supposedly part of Amber, right, and then turned on them... -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 14:12 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Falling/Repenting and Words [Andrew Frades:] >> >Actually a strong case could be made for Words not changing even if you >> >fall. >> >> Canon definitely is the other way, though. Beleth, for example, was >> Fear, but became Nightmares when she Fell. Lucifer may often grant a >> powerful Fallen a roughly-equivalent Word, simply because that is >> efficient, but it's not a given. > >Argh. I shouldn't even respond, but if this is what you replied there >is no way you read the rest of the message. I did -- I was merely stating what I understand to be the canon position, relying to some extent on canon that's not yet out (the IPG), part of which I worked on. (The APG may also say something on this, I don't recall offhand.) > I >believe both celestial tongues to be ones of symbol and context This I agree with. > and when >a celestial is attached to part of the Symphony it is permanent, not >even falling can change it. Your interpretation is somewhat plausible, given the data you've got, but isn't how things are intended to work, as I understand it. Falling changes your nature in *very* fundamental ways -- note what happens to normal angels who Fall. A Fallen Word-bound might retain some affinity for his former Word, but wouldn't be necessarily still be connected to it. >Another string case could be made for repented demons not keeping their >Words as they were connected to a false Symphony. They don't, but that's not the reason given in the IPG. (Redemption was one of the pieces I worked on....) - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #644 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.