From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Feb 26 12:48:33 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 MAA01506 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:48:33 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA14566 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:19:50 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:19:50 -0600 Message-Id: <199802261819.MAA14566@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 #648 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 Thursday, February 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 648 In this digest: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors IN> Role Q IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" IN> Superior Statistics (literally....?) Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Role Q Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ been taken.) Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ been taken.) Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" Re: IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:27:40 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors >Nope. Consistancy doesn't require balance. In fact, an internally >consistant world is often changing. But what I meant is that the >balance is not one caused by physical power. IMO, much of hell is >unbalanced; Lilith is not as powerful as Baal, for instance. But >Lilith has political power (which isn't really easy to apply a stat >to, if you want realism) that keeps her in place. Hmm. Perhaps I shouldn't have used 'balance'. What I meant was that if all things are part of the GM design, then the effect of one upon the other is largely patent, excusing GM whimsy and role-playing reward. >(Roll and shout just means that I don't let my players know I'm >making it up as I go along...) Aren't we all, GMs and players alike, making this up as we go along? >> Whether you have time to work it out or not, I'm suggesting there >> is no point unless you intend for the GM and players to play Mortal >> Kombat. I can't see the benefit of a random element in GM contrived >> circumstances. One could almost say that the GM is condoning an >> argument from a player about a GM decision along the lines of: >> 'let's just make a roll to see if you're right, GM.' > >The thing is, I like my world to be unpredictable, at every level. I >may set up things so that one party is likely to win, but if I set >things up so that one party *will* win, the players have no chance of >having sweeping effects. Sure, things are unpredictable in a world - so the GM modifies or adds events which reflect this. Unless of course the intention is for the GM to surprise the GM. >I don't want to "just decide"! If you do, fine; you can ignore stats >for Superiors. But don't tell me I shouldn't do it... Now that you've said that, I won't. Unless of course you post again of this subject, then... :-) >> I believe Superior statistics are a liability rather than a >> resource. But, in the end, we all do what we want to do. I'm happy >> to debate the pros and cons of Superior statistics ad infinitum >> without either of us ever seeing the light. If that's a problem, >> I'll stop now. :-) > >Well, yeah. I know I won't convince you of the need for Superior Oops. Does 'yeah' mean there's a problem? >statistics, because you just don't have that need. I, however, do >have that need; I want a world where PCs (if they do things right) >might be able to hurt, or even (gasp!) to kill a Superior. > > >Nathaniel Eliot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 01:34:27 -0500 From: "Michael Stanley" Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors > Drake said: > > DISSONANCE - Superiors suffer from the same Dissonance that their > servents have as well as those of the individual Superior's Choir/Band. What about the statement in "The Angelic Player's Guide" that says that Blandine prefers to appear in her Corporeal form? This causes dissonance for her servants, but she can do so (it's not been listed in the errata or explained in the FAQ at least:-)). L8R, - -Mike- Michael Stanley "Self Proclaimed Demon Prince of Tortured GMs" Email: stanman@netset.com WWW: http://www.netset.com/~stanman/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:59:11 +1000 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors At 08:05 PM 25/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >As to giving Superiors actual stats, I have been thinking about using 2 >sources from another game as a suggested guideline. Legends and Lore and >Wrath of the Immortals from Dungeon and Dragons games. These products do >attempt to give power levels for the Gods. One noteable thing is their >stature levels. In legends and lore it ranges from Demi, Lesser, >Intermediate, and Greater Gods, with increased power the higher you go. >Wrath of the Immortals has a smilar structure, but I can't remember it >off hand, but it has about 6 levels of power. And within those 6 levels, >the Gods have various other power levels as well. Such as a Power Point >level, which is similar to Essence in IN, and is used for the same >things. Attribute wise, they range from slightly better then normal >humans, to 4 times the maximum stat level (which is 25, 100 for the most >powerful Gods). So thus in attributes, the most powerful Gods out there >would be roughly 10 times more powerful then a normal human. What made >them so powerful though, wasnt their attributes, but their actual powers >and what they could do. Including an ability to actually create things, >such as countries, planets, moons, stars, even an entire universe, or >simply to change these. This of course required a great amount of Power >and only the most powerful of beings could do it. Yet they did not have >that powerful of attributes. So thus I think that Superiors shouldn't >really have that high of Forces in comparison to characters, but should >have an Essence Cache of about 100 times their Forces. That should be >more then enough to make them more powerful then most characters, even >an 18 Force Archangel would have 1800 Essence to use. Not to mention the >fact that they would have high levels of songs, characteristics, >attunements, rites, and probly a lot of special abilities. > >So whatcha think? > >Amon-Nahashel "Drake", Faithful Serpent of God and Seraph of War > >Good idea, read those supplements and found them intriguing, I think it would be interesting to have a campaign where characters are superiors, it would be quite fun, sorta like Birthright In Nomine style (you know, managing a realm, souls, servitors, every now and then kicking butt) and oh yeah, Mister whoever it was who gave only 75 forces to Demon Princes, if anything they are probably several times more powerful then the average Arvhangel (except for Michael of course) I mean, Archangels don't rench Forces from the souls they caretake, Saminga is probably a Juggernaut by now (You don't really think he puts them all in to Undead creation?) Simon, Demon PRINCE!! of lots more Forces then an Archangel Sorry if I sound petty but I do love my Demons! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:59:29 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Role Q How would you cost up a role which had a role of its own? ie. Role/6 common thief. Presumably the guy doesn't introduce himself to friends and family (of which he has some, given a level 6 role) as 'Hi, I'm a thief' so he must have a 'day job' of some kind to go with it -- maybe a window cleaner. Do you charge the PC for both roles (ie. window cleaner/6 and common thief/6)? Even though they are going to apply to the same vessel. Or just assume that all thieves can clean windows? ;-) This applies also to roles such as spies or undercover policemen, where the role has a role. jo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:16:27 +0000 From: "PD Andrews" Subject: IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" Brian, thanks for the reply, yes now that I stop worshippping Ralph, I look at past digests and see your involvement. Sounds like fun! Though on the SJG site the upcoming bit talks about the liber reqi-thingy, IPG & "the symphony" being released in 1998. Is this your work? More details please! Paul Calabite of alaemon assigned the word "conspiracy" (though now that you mention it that's what alaemon said, lucifer wasn't around at the time, maybe I'd just better check that...) Why calabite? (They get me to break all the lighting devices in episodes of the x-files, and use agents of valefor who 'hide' the torches from me...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:56:33 +0000 From: "PD Andrews" Subject: IN> Superior Statistics (literally....?) Finally having read some quantity of past digests I finally feel semi-qualified to commment. (That and my GM originally raised this, Jules: can my malakim *please* lose some of those 3 levels of discord soon.....) Let us consider the celestial being as a collection of statistics. Not good roleplaying but a persuasive argument I feel. (Apologies for mistake bits, I'm doing this from memory since I can't find my core rules!) Consider the standard begining PC angel (lucifer went for quantity not quality so this is the best-case scenario..) 9 forces, 36 points, assuming you want to consider the power of a being in offensive/defensive terms then lets max out it's combat based stats: 6 corp forces, Strength & Agility 12. (alternatively will & perception for celestial combat etc...) This in itself is unlikely in itself: that leaves three forces for the other 2, song of possesion on will of 4 anyone? So if our angel has maxed out fighting skill, CD, some appropriate artefact then damage, or dodge is in the region of: roll= autosuccess, damage/dodge = CD + skill/6 + artefact/6 + forces/6 = 24! Now lets take that arbitary figure of 30 forces for a superior, assuming the forces are split evenly then thats 10 per category. roll= autosuccess, damage/dodge = CD + skill/6 + artefact/6 + forces/10 = 28! (and I'm quite happy for beings like michael to have fighting skills/12!) So even at 30 forces it looks like the random CD allows 2 damage on a good roll, to the superior, but I very much doubt that an angel will have dodge/attack statistics that good, where clearly the superior will! Also the superior will have this sort of ability in *all?* forms of fighting, and all the songs & essence required to power them, let alone some truly monstrous artefacts (why do I think Gabby has something special in store for (ex) servitors of Belial?) Not to mention multiple vessels (they make'em after all..) Now to use an 18 force angel (martenas was it?) The importance of all maxed out stats forces & fighting stats / songs makes things more even, he might hold his own 1-2-1 for a short while (seconds...) (it's the fact the superior is unlikely to take those 1/2 points whereas he will) This is the level of multiple opposition (demonic?) superiors need to fear, and from what I gather in the rules they do! Hopefully lots of interesting stuuf will be explain in the IPG! Summarising my ravings: 6 forces is mean. (144 hits) 6+ forces is exponetially more offensive/defensive per force. (at 12 corporeal forces, thats 12*(vessel/6+10 forces)=192 hits (and would it be unreasonable to expect some over 6 or 'toughened' (vessels? ) Though I think someone noticed this in the rules. Thats why there exists some universal invocation modifiers! When in combat: +2 vessel in danger of death, +3 in presence of enemy celestials, +4 enemy superior (p108) erm.. (not Em!) +6 if 'fleeing' enemy superior? With a couple of essence this equates to "your supposed to call me when something like that happens" [ average base=2 +6 +2 esssence = 10- or 1/12 probability of failure!) Of course if your superior shows you could still get ordered "to help & try to stay alive a bit longer this time..." Personally I predict a 60% chance that you won't but that is taking into account the variations in the deviation, and average celestials' combat abilities since the sauntering downward of certain celestials, however one most not forget to consider the.. (why do I feel like people are no longer paying attention. Honestly you can trust this, a /friend/ serving kronos acquired this material for me, I know we can trust his integrity... and of course the actual figures quoted fall well within Bullshit test tolerances....) PAUL Balseraph of Statistical Analysis (serving Malphaes of course, do your realise how many different opinion's there aren't *yet*) - -lies, damn lies, and balseraphs! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 06:15:26 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > How does that sort of thing work in canon, anyway? I have seen the > statements that having a Role lets you perform your Role's duties without > causing a disturbance in the Symphony, but how does it work? Is there a > mechanic I've missed? Yes. Add the level of the role to the celestial's corporeal forces and make a d666 check. If it succeeds the disturbance is masked by the role. This only works if the action would be within the normal bounds and duties of the role. Personally I would overrule the serial kiler thing unless you defined the characteristic of those you kill in the role rather explicitly. Almost better than this is the role of Assassin, just accept money to kill someone and it falls under your role. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:26:21 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles > This got me thinking... if I was a Calabite of Death, I'd get a level 6 > Status/2 role as "A Serial Killer". That way I could kill humans without > causing disturbance! > > The basic idea is to get a role as a criminal. Nifty, huh? > > SurturZ > Habbalite of Factions > Hmm...a Role/6 as a serial killer means that's there's quite a lot of evidence out there as to your methodology, preferred prey, etc, and likely means that the FBI would dearly love to get their hands on you, even if you're not particularly famous. Having a Role of that type at such a high level is also going to result in an inconveniently large number of other Celestials knowing who you are, and likely figuring that there are going to be damn few repercussions if they set you up. Most likely there would also be a fairly large number of demons, and almost all angels, who would find you somewhat distasteful. Having a Role as a hit-man, on the other hand, is a much better option. Firstly, it gives you mortal connections and a reliable source of income. Secondly, you're more likely to be regarded as a professional than a simple monster. Thirdly, it makes useful weapons part of your Role, which isn't often true with serial killers. While it certainly doesn't give you a licence to kill whenever you want, and it's probably best to restrain your sadism, these disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits. (Yes, I've made such a character, though he's untested.) If you must kill in a guaranteed Symphony-silent way, take the Balseraph of Death attunement, along with good fighting skill and Strength. 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:31:45 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles > > How does that sort of thing work in canon, anyway? I have seen the > statements that having a Role lets you perform your Role's duties without > causing a disturbance in the Symphony, but how does it work? Is there a > mechanic I've missed? > > Rich Gant You roll against Corporeal Forces + Role Level. This makes philosophical sense, but penalises characters whose Roles are mentally oriented, like teachers, painters and cat burglars. Of course, those whose Roles are mentally oriented are less likely to be hurting the Symphony in the name of their Roles, but there are exceptions. 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 06:39:36 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Role Q Hart, Joanna wrote: > > How would you cost up a role which had a role of its own? > > ie. Role/6 common thief. Presumably the guy doesn't introduce himself to > friends and family (of which he has some, given a level 6 role) as 'Hi, I'm > a thief' so he must have a 'day job' of some kind to go with it -- maybe a > window cleaner. > > Do you charge the PC for both roles (ie. window cleaner/6 and common > thief/6)? Even though they are going to apply to the same vessel. Or just > assume that all thieves can clean windows? ;-) This applies also to roles > such as spies or undercover policemen, where the role has a role. Hmmm... Off the top of my head I would say that the second role would be part of the definition of the first. You would have to be careful as your real role is still the priority and you would only be protected from disturbance when engaged in activities that this role would be presumed tobe doing. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:59:19 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 02:08:01PM -0500, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > 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. > A lot of that, IMO, isn't due to the amount of Forces they have, but the effect of having a powerful Word and having lots of subordinate Words which also further your power. I will gladly pit my 18 Force Celestial with the Word of War against another 18 Force Celestial with the Word of Tank Battalions in full confidence of victory. Being a Superior involves having hundreds of kewl powers, kewl Rites, Servitors, and benefits from every Rite invoked by someone with a subordinate Word. The effect of making a Word subordinate to another very important and should be emphasised. If, to take the above example, Tank Battalions had deep religious significance, and were rarely used for the purpose of warmaking, which was generally obsolete and only a minor function of Tank Battalions, the Word of War would obviously be subordinate to that of Tank Battalions. But this might also apply if War was just as important in its own right (to an outside observer) as Tank Battalions, and Tank Battalions were frequently used in War, though War was not entirely fought by Tank Battalions, the effect of designating the Angel of Tank Battalions an Archangel and placing the Angel of War in a subordinate position to the AA of Tank Battalions would be to elevate the Word of Tank Battalions in the Symphony. This would likely produce a cultural assumption that Tank Battalions were more important than War, which would be rooted in reality, despite the fact that prior to this subordination, they were equally important. And in fact we don't need to posit an Archangel of Tank Battalions, since we have an Archangel of the Sword. If we posit a scenario where Michael gets toasted, and the new Angel of War is bound in service to Laurence, then the Word of War in general will become less important than that of the Sword, and it cannot help but be so, because every advance in the Word of War would strengthen the Word of the Sword. 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:10:04 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank > > Just out of curiousity (and yes, you can read this, Dan)... > > > > What happens if someone shoots a vessel pointblank with a > > shotgun, or cuts its throat, etc? Is it automatically *dead*, > > like a human would be, or is there just damage and it keeps > > functioning? > > I don't know how *canon* handles this, but here's my take... > > The vessel takes normal damage, and looks like hell. Then the eyes open, > and the celestial gurgles "My turn"... > While I think this is acceptable for the likes of Furfur (My character in Demon Prince of Rock & Roll had an opportunity to walk up right behind him while he was distracted, aim her gun at the base of his head, and fire. She wisely decided that cowering in a corner under invisibility was a much more sensible option.), I don't think it's for everyone. Methinks the most realistic way of doing this is that point-blank hits, or specials like ripping someone's throat out, do x times as much damage as normal, where x is a number dependent on just how evil the GM thinks the attack is, (cutting a throat not being as good as ripping it out, etc.) which will certainly toast the average human, and likely stun combat-medium Celestials, but will leave high-Strength, CorpForce 4 characters alive, standing, if not healthy. Side issue question. Does Ethereal Form affect infrared sight? My GM kindly ruled that it protected from that as well. And what happens if you get an equal check digit when resisting the Calabite or Habbalite resonance? 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:16:06 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ been taken.) On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 11:23:24PM -0500, Pee Kitty wrote: > > That was truly, absolutely wonderful. Worthy of canon, definitely. > Indeed. Methought it was very cool. I thought the Habbalite thing was cool, because Jordi certainly resembles them more than any other Band. (In my IN-Inverted, he's a Habbalite.) I find the identification of Cherubim with cats in canon a bit strange, but maybe that's because I'm convinced that there are deep similarities between cats and Seraphim. ObQuibble: I didn't like the bit about Jordi's role in the Purification Crusade, though it isn't quite anti-canon. (He wasn't pleased with it, but I can imagine him trying to palliate the effects.) 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:05:07 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup - ---Kevin Walsh wrote: > I find the identification of Cherubim with cats in canon a bit strange Yes, I'd have thought dogs would be more appropriate. But then again, I think Mercurians should be associated with rats, not apes ;-) They're cute, fluffy, intelligent and have mastered the art of getting along with humans (its the vice versa side that needs some work...) jo (a big awww for grey, furry angels!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:02:46 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles >On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, David Streeter wrote: > >> This got me thinking... if I was a Calabite of Death, I'd get a level 6 >> Status/2 role as "A Serial Killer". That way I could kill humans without >> causing disturbance! It wouldn't be "guaranteed" unless said Calabite had six Corporeal Forces...and even then, it's a Role that stand a good chance of getting you caught and thrown in jail. > >How does that sort of thing work in canon, anyway? I have seen the >statements that having a Role lets you perform your Role's duties without >causing a disturbance in the Symphony, but how does it work? Is there a >mechanic I've missed? > >Rich Gant In Nomine, Page 44: "Using Roles." "When a Celestial performs an action which woul normally upset the balance of the Symphony (see Percieving the Symphony, p54) the GM may roll against the level of the character's Role plus his Corporeal Forces, if a case could be made for the action occuring "in the line of duty." if the roll is successful, then the celestial's Role has successfully masked his meddling from the attention of other divine or infernal forces." In terms of Disturbance-Dampin power, though, Roles aren't much use beyond the breaking stuff and killing people Disturbances, in my opinion. As I see it, a Role dampens a Disturbance by telling the Symphony "He's human, and Humans don't make that kind of Noise." Anything else a Celestial would do that would cause a Disturbance would cause a similar Disturbance if a Human did it. As for the Serial Killer Role...I don't think it's as useful as it first seems. Serial Killers tend to have a style, a type of victim they normally go after, a manner in which they kill their victims, and so on. Very few Serial Killers will just off a guy in a fight. The Dampaning powers of the Serial Killer role should apply only tovictims taken in the Killer's style, and no others. = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Spiner, Djinn Knight of Dark Humor, the Demon of Straight Men ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:32:15 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Jo writes >>You see, I happen to think that he could get overwhelmed and trounced >>most horribly. But how many good guys would this take? > >No amount could take him down in a straight fight IMO, because that is >related to his word and strengthens it. > So by this reasoning, can the archangels stomp him? After all, beating up on him is furthering his Word, isn't it? For my game though, I'd like the actual hosts of Heaven to *mean* something. If you do it your way, I can see that, come Armageddon, the only thing that matters is the Superiors. If Baal (as an example) is this tough then he has no need to fear the great hordes of malakim just hoping for a pop at him come the Big One. IMHO Baal, and his peers *do* fear the malakim, just like they fear the rest of the Host. Victory for Hell depends very much on having Baal at the helm and for him to make the correct tactical decisions. If the superiors are untouchable by lesser beings then tactical decisions become largely irrelevent. Why does Mike need to concern himself with the precise number of infernal legions when they can't touch him? Q: Why has Lucifer gone for the quantity not quality approach? Why bother with creating any new demons if this is how tough the Big Guns are? A: Apart from the fact that he wants to keep himself King of the Hill, It's because numbers *are* important. It's the school of piranha effect. >Bear in mind he can probably teleport in several legions faster than most >angels can think, if he needed to. > Yes, he could. But that might mean bringing them in from where they were currently ganged up on David or Michael, and that might mean that that part of *the plan* goes awry. As I said, Baal has to make the *correct* decisions. He'll also be aware that he is the Number One target of the heavenly strike teams, because without Baal, the only hope for Hell is if Lucifer commands, and he's got other priorities (As well as perhaps not being *that* competant at generalship). - -- Jules - Demon of the War Room jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:24:27 -0500 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles >This got me thinking... if I was a Calabite of Death, I'd get a level 6 >Status/2 role as "A Serial Killer". That way I could kill humans without >causing disturbance! If you make your roll. This has come up before -- the problem with Roles like "demon hunter" and "serial killer" is the official scritiny -- and unofficial, Celestial scrutiny, possibly from *both* sides, that would come with it. -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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:34:53 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank > What happens if someone shoots a vessel pointblank with a > shotgun, or cuts its throat, etc? Is it automatically *dead*, > like a human would be, or is there just damage and it keeps > functioning? I made a GM call on this once. Maxwell, Cherub of the Sword, was wielding Soulpiercer, his Sword of Mighty. He was in the middle of going another round with those pesky Lusties that keep popping up everywhere, and he was annoyed because they pierced his nipples. That in itself is a long story, but the point is he found himself in a shoot out in a corridor of a mansion and could get close to the Head Cheese of this place. He got a good swing in, did rather well on his attack roll, and hit his called shot to the head for 22 points of damage. I ruled that he had taken the demon's head clean off, even if it was only about 50% of the demons body points. Allen protested, and I'm like, "Okay, he fights you. Without a head. For about 13 seconds." GM call on it. If the character calls a shot to a head or puts an arrow through an eyeball and does gratuitous damage, I call that demon's vessel dead. Besides, it just pissed Andre off further, which is exactly what I wanted. - - Em, Demon of Plaid Pants ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Question about Grey Lilim and Malakim > >I would say yes. After all, I'm doing something similar in my campaign > >-- I have the original grey Lilim there.... > > http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Lilim.Urilebana.html > > The original "Gray Lilim." And we all love Ellen! *look for chocolate cache....* > >Other Malakim are more flexible, either understanding that not all > >demons are strictly evil, or interpreting "not suffer ... to live" as > >not necessarily requiring killing the perpetrator as much as correcting > >their evil nature. > > Destiny, for instance, might say, "Well, this demon isn't very > evil, and with a little work and guidance, could go Bright! And > thus evil is no longer living, *and* we have another angel! Besides, > just toasting the vessel will probably result in a ticked off > selfish demon popping out later. Bad. Encourages evil and fate." > > Others might simply twitch and remove themselves from the presence > of the abnormal demon -- they don't have the patience to deal with > the conflict of "evil demon" and "this demon not very evil". Or Creation. Or Flowers. Especially Flowers. Fox, Malakite of the Sword, had put it literally about why he didn't off the Renegade Lilim. "Oh, I took an oath, certainly. 'I swear never to suffer evil to live.' And I won't, I assure you. When the evil shows up, I'll be the first one to slay it." Which confused the Lilim, but that's okay, it's his job to be confused. I give the Malakim some judgment here. They swore to literally never suffer evil to live, and 99.9% of the time, a demon and being evil are pretty synonymous. But they aren't just mindless killing machines as far as I know. I would think, if a Malakite was just going to go walking down the street to get a paper and a coffee, and he was so hair-trigger, he's either going to fry from resonating on all those humans who do casual petty evils constantly, or he'll soon be the source of a multistate manhunt when he chops people up on the street because he can't deal with them. Some Malakim will leave the Lilim in question, some will tolerate, and some will kill the Lilim. It all depends on who they are and who they work for. On the other hand, Lilim have been known to become Need-junkies. "Woah, I sense this Need, and what he Needs is me and to cuddle me and to love me, and when I let him do it, it feels good inside..." > >> And if the > >>lilim placed a geasa on the malakite, how would that fly with his > >>superior? > > > >Generally not well. A "nice" Lilim would give back the hook -- if > >they're keeping it, it implies selfishness, which is generally a bad > >sign. > > If there were some *reason*, that the Malakite agreed with, to > keep a hook or invoke a Geas, that might work. But I can only > think of two, and any sensible Lilim would be *very* dubious about > having a Geas on a friend that she might be forced to invoke in > the cause of evil! (Her own Geases might get called in at any time, > after all!) I agree, it depends on the reason. If the Lilim is racking up Geasa on their lover, then it's just another demon, and the Malakite should just off her and move on. If this is someone she *gasp* cares about, there are better ways of going about doing things. She would need a pretty good reaons. > >> 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. > > Queen? And poor Lilith a mere Princess? Hm. I suppose it > could work that way. Though Em has a certain influence on me as > well. (It's Dai. That angst-fest Lilim is just too insidious.) *bow* Redeemable for Valuable Cash Prizes! The problem is that we've never actually figured out exactly HOW Valuable, and further, if you redeem him, you're stuck with him and listening to his pathos for eternity. The Horror! - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:22:49 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ been taken.) Wow. I bow before your mightiness. I am not worthy to game with you. Okay, maybe I AM, but that's another story. :) I'm very impressed. You've figured out Jordi in a way that has just simply eluded me. Emily K. Dresner, M.S.Eng. Applications Programmer III and Balseraph of the Game Desktop Applications Team - Medical Center Information Technology Current Quote: Absurditas es fortis nostrum. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:29:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Julian Breen wrote: > But then again Mammon is cited by DePlancy as being 'Hell's Ambassador > to England'. Well, England *is* a "nation of shopkeepers," after all. (Though, frankly, your semi-detached colony over here in the USA has surpassed the mother-country in that regard, I think.) > 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. Ah, but read "The Screwtape Letters" to find Screwtape's pointers on gluttony. There's more than just "gluttony of excess." There's also "gluttony of delicacy," found among gourmets and gourmet-wannabes, who fuss endlessly about getting stuff just right. And, for the poor, there can be "gluttony of privation," where the scramble for food lures the hungry into acts of fraud or violence. As long as a desire for food (and drink, and other consumables I suppose) are the occasion for sin, you have gluttony. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:20:31 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" Long ago, just after In Nomine was released, and before even the titles for "Fall of the Malakim" and "The Final Trumpet" were made public, an article in an issue of Pyramid magazine confirmed that yes indeed work was being done on a Live Action version of the game entitled "The Symphony". Then, on the SJGames website, this project has been slated for a 1998 release. It does *not* appear as a playtest file from SJGames, so to my knowledge, it's not being officially playtested by anyone. I've heard of a couple of conventions where a live In Nomine game was attempted and/or played, but none of these so far has claimed to be using any *official* rules from SJGames. As of yet, no further public announcement concerning the project has been released to the best of my knowledge. As a fervent and rabid In Nomine fan, you can rest assured that when SJGames gives any more information about it, I'll know. == --Querent, Angel of Widescreen. Mercurian Servitor of Creation. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:51:02 -0500 From: eswhanu@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Innomine LRP "tHE SYMPHONY" Wow, that might just actually be me and my staff... We are doing final editing in March, and hope to have something away in April or May. Brian Ward On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:16:27 +0000 "PD Andrews" writes: >Brian, > >thanks for the reply, yes now that I stop worshippping Ralph, I look >at >past digests and see your involvement. Sounds like fun! >Though on the SJG site the upcoming bit talks about the liber >reqi-thingy, >IPG & "the symphony" being released in 1998. > >Is this your work? More details please! > >Paul > >Calabite of alaemon assigned the word "conspiracy" >(though now that you mention it that's what alaemon said, lucifer >wasn't >around at the time, maybe I'd just better check that...) > >Why calabite? (They get me to break all the lighting devices in >episodes of >the x-files, and use agents of valefor who 'hide' the torches from >me...) > > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:10:29 -0500 From: Sean Michael Whipkey Subject: Re: IN> Damaging vessels pointblank At 9:34 -0500 2/26/98, Emily Dresner wrote: >he was annoyed because they pierced his nipples. That in itself is a long >story I keep telling myself that I really don't want to know, but I can't help it. That sounds like an...interesting...story. I think from now on I'm just going to play it cinematically. When the Mercurian with no Ranged Weapons skill stole Tiny's shotgun and blasted her with it, it took away half her hit points in one shot. I had her dive over the front seat of the car she was in, spraying blood everywhere. It sounded good, and kept her alive for later. BWAHAHAHA! Of course, if he'd actually had it to her head, then it would just have made a bigger mess in the backseat. Pulp Fiction, anyone?:) Oh, and I liked Jordi's writeup, though doesn't it say in the APG that he initially was for the wiping out of Humanity? The write-up makes it sound more like he was tempted to, but refused. SeanMike - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #648 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.