From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Feb 27 02:14:18 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 CAA17973 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:14:18 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id BAA29625 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:49:48 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:49:48 -0600 Message-Id: <199802270749.BAA29625@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 #650 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, February 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 650 In this digest: IN> Ethereals got the short straw.... /LONG!/ Re: IN> Role Q Re: IN> Role Q Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Eli's Kyrio's Re: IN> Jordi Writeup Re: IN> Jordi Writeup IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ bee Re: IN> Re: Jordi Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> Strength of Lucifer (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Contemporary Ethereals IN> Lost PBeM'ers Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Re: IN> Re: Jordi IN> Re: IN- Evil Trick with Roles Re: IN> Re: Jordi Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:52:40 +0000 From: "PD Andrews" Subject: IN> Ethereals got the short straw.... /LONG!/ Be prepared, I will be using howitzers, not canon! You might also want to read when wide awake, and not OD on caffeine... Its kinda of rules-rant, a plea to Jules(tm)GM to let me play a dragon, and a setting/event I intend to use in an upcoming campaign. It seems to me that certain ethereal creatures really got a bum deal. Namely the 'creatures of myth and legend'. Unlike the 'pagan' gods who blatantly syphon worshipers it seems that these creatures, grown from the creations of human ideals and imaginings, are embodiments of their nature. This nature is defined by the belief - folklore - imagary, call it what you will, that humans conceive. So obviously some will be made good, some bad, & some grey. The pagan gods get destroyed because it IS a different god, but why should these creations of humans, who when taken on individual merits could be usefully harnessed by the heavenly (or otherwise the diabolic) hosts. After all they have a set of skills and abilities unlike celestials, and an innante understanding of *their* realm that blanidine/beleth might not fully appreciate The thing that highlights this is that they haven't been feeding off essence *not* using human essence or worship (INC, Marches, p109) IMO sounds like they are something to be treated completely differently. As mentioned some are going to still be out and out evil (beleths side...) some blatantly good (blandine acquires some unusually skilled helpers) and some who are happy to continue their existence until threatened. Why hasn't heaven/hell recognised this fact? lets have a story, are you sitting comfortably? (I apologise if there is some netiquette I'm breaking, I'll take that note of dissonance and remember for next time) ******************************************** The blame can be layed firmly to rest at the feet of the science fiction and fantasy writer. The increasing frequency of use of fabled creatures from myth and legend has once again started that process of infautating humans with imageries to dream, and film/video SFX have hardly reduced the implausibility of their non-existence. This flow (nay flood) of essence given volunatary to marvellous glimpses of vividly realistically dreamed creatures has kick-started the increasing interaction of the ethereals with the human dreamscapes. This ongoing reap of collection has enabled the mythical to restore to the lives of humans the vivid dream reality they were created (by humans) to provide. (some probably like to be scared. downward.) At first Blandine was indifferent, surely a few stored points of essence had no effect, but then when she saw the great good, and obviously evil they are capable of, and were performing. It was necessary that she cleaned up a little. Or rather those that were good *cleaned themselves* up. Volunteering to help guide humans, and oppose ther own. Now residing in the realm of Blandine are the Unicorns, golden(!?)dragons etc that fight with humanity, and with Beleth the trolls, ogres, golbins, black(?) dragons, that want to fight against humanity (some obvsiouly do not care, thats fine the marches is a *large* place). Blandine knew that to continue to use, co-operate with , and even control these creatures, heaven must know. So first she approached Yves. Unsure of their future, who else could explain their place in the symphony? Yves clearly was anticipating something, for together they petitioned the Seraphim Council to consider its view on ethereals. The ripples of discontent this caused my well have been prematurely conclusive, had not Yves not made the request. They listened because, to him, they always listened. Initially things did not go well in the seraphim council. The opinions of the Archangels were reasonaly predictable, Jordi approved, Novalis was more than willing to give them a try, Eli was, god knows where, and Soldekai was listening hard. Janus was more than happy to blow the establishment anyway, predictable it was David, Michael and Lawrence who dissented. Oh and Dominic, most definitely Dominic! Asking for a recession of the council, Yves took the step of speaking to all of the superiors. Michael was not condusive to persuasion, finally Lawrence and David bought him round. David was suprised to say the least, given time to firmly grasp the situation, he appreciated it's merits. Yves calmed Lawrences perception of insult, the fact that in the past Purity had acted as it should but now, destiny weaves its path for all. Together the three convinced Michael, the releasing of only certain ethereals was benficial, and most definitely useful in the 'war'. Dominic was, for an Archangel, somewhat upset, once the rational of what Blandine had done, or rather allowed, sunk in, the Seraphim Council was convened to pass judgement on the merits of individual *types* of ethereals, should this prove damaging to the symphony, or heavens goals, he fully intend(ed) to try Blandine for her heretical actions. Reconvening the Council later, with some ethereal volunteers to be examined as examples of their kind Dominic chaired the meeting. One of each ethereal creature to be judged had been allowed to heaven, though some were admittely to unharmonius to be allowed in. This did not start the mythical inquisition well. Many of the creatures of myth were still recovering from the long hardships enforced on them by Uriels crusade, dissonance was rife and discord not uncommon in the ranks. Many comments were made of the flaws in there being, until one of the youngest of dragons, sent as a representtive clearly stated that even angels have dissonance, and discord marrs some souls, and YOU live in realm that nurtures that very soul. This did not go down well. The dragon asked the Unicorn to step forth, and to relax its songs of projection. For an ethereal creature the purity of it soul was amazing, until the host realised that the Unicorn *had* managed to raise itself to heaven. Purity is seen in malakim, and on meeting Unicorns they have been known to remark of lacking by comparison, sometimes. Strangely Lawrence ordered the host not to act. cut-scene; about 740a.d. mythical creatures being chased through the marches, by a squad of malakim lead by a virtueous figure (with sword). harrying the fleeing a glimpse of white flickers across the leader, and in mid-offense he stops. Stangely calm descends, with the form of noble horse, a golden spiral clearly marking it a Unicorn, standing between the pusuers and fleeing creatures. Unable to kill such a beast, and perceiving its purpose he leads the malakim toward the more sinsiter beasts escaping. /cut-scene In the virtual silence descendant upon the council chambers the dragon again speaks, noting the diversity in the host before him, "the diversity among the ethereals before you, and in our brethen and yours. Surely you can recognise the similarities in our beings." (This got a few Elohite heads nodding, and some seraphim considered the truth of his words, or rather a lot of seraphim, since it isn't called the seraphim council for nothing!) And then the dragon, wise perhaps even for his kind, asks if the host can curtail the freedom of the humans, for we (the mythical ethereals) are their freedom, we are the embodiments of their perception of you. Very few notice Yves, nodding, or the serene smile upon his face, that particular Unicorn had been of some personal interest for a few years.. Shortly thereafter the Seraphim Council changed it's rulings on ethereals. Each will be evaluated on its own merits, some by their very nature have no merits to evaluate. Accepted into the service of the archangels were the Most serve Blandine, their very nature is attuned to the marches. Though ethereals are becoming more accepted as their kind are understood. Thalirminos draconic ethereal in service to destiny ******************************************************** game mechs: For a start most ethereals don't go by a choir name, thats Heaven's courtly name for them. They describe themselves by using form, ethereal, and the word they serve. Some are granted words, most never are. Hell has adopted a similar stratagem. Personally depending on the type of form you choose, decide with your GM what # forces to use. I would say 1 less than the average angels/demons, 7 or 8, just above soldier level, but for fairness, I expect ethereals to have leeway with possesing discords (never high, always a few low), and allowing them to spend (some) initial points in purchasing forces. Assume that the character has the dreaming skill base/2 and can enter dreamscapes at will (marches p.83/4) He has the malakim of dreams attunement (even the demons...) though it does not function against other similar ethereals, they know all the tricks y'see. Use the marches descriptions of ethereal vessel death (marches, p.111) and any relevent that GM feels relevent to ethereal spirits in his campaign. I would suggest that chars. buy vessels, roles, status etc as per normal. They can take any type of song, though I'd like to see good character backgrounds for some! No choir attunements are ever available, though servitor attunements are sometimes handed out as *rewards*. Ethereals cannot enter heaven/hell, a small (by comparison) niche is carved out of Blandine/Beleths' realm for them (by them!) and cannot assume a celestial form! I see the ethereal creatures of myth as humans embodying the concepts of the angels/demons. Therefore their natures and demeanor are much like some of the elestial choirs. Most seem to be mercurian, in that they identify immensely with humans. They won't be gaining reasonances, their skill in the ethereal realms is their reasonance, they don't disturb the symphony and thats a massive benefit. Superiors can be summoned but at -2 to whatever the roll would be for celestials, unless in the ethereal realm in which case roll +2. Dissonance doesn't effect them but discord remains a bad thing, if going against the initial character outline, build up to smashing them with a level (probably ethereal ), buy off with XP & roleplaying. (note vessel death is really *harsh*) Otherwise GM's use 'No' and players use 'Please'. An especial mention is deserved of Dominic. Even the ethereals are monitored. He really loves his Unicorns....so pure. Storylines & Plots; get upto Blandine involving herself and go through the trial, with players for agains't etc.. afterward, Dominic still investigates Blandine new servitors are assigned the dregs. treat them like soldiers, angels look down at them, make them really prove their worth. running No Dinero? How would a hoard of rampaging dragons effect a certain cunning individual? with these dragons around, Belial is really pissed he didn't get any that spewed forth fire, and has started a diabolic assasination of 'fire' dragons. Gabriel, who acquired a few stable, stoic ethereals, is pissed. time for the usual I think..... What have I created a monster! Munchkinisms? Now it's way past my bedtime. Sweet-dreams!? Paul bronze draconic ethereal of imaginings (with all the appropriate Numinus Corpus!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:12:33 -0800 (PST) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> Role Q I've got to disagree with Beth on this one. ("Uh oh Earl, looks like that Querent kid's feelin' mighty uppity again...") My understanding is that a role is a "grounding in reality" that dampens the disturbance unauthorized interaction (ie. Celestial meddling) would cause. There is no point difference whatsoever for a status 2 window cleaner or a status 2 marine on the front line of a war. It's just a matter of being "almost real". The rest is just a matter of occupation. Do you have 1 job that takes 24 hours of your life, or 3 that take 8 hours each? If it's within an established character, I'd go with it. In this case, the established character is a thief who washes windows. Kind of similar to the Marine who plays role playing games (makes no disturbance if he punches another player who looks at his character sheet.) Because there's no cost difference for the amount of disturbance you can get away with, I would argue there's no difference in cost for number of things you do, professionally or otherwise. To sum up, roles are rated for two things: 1) How much resources (material or otherwise) are at your disposal. (ie. status) 2) The chances the role will mask any disturbance made while "playing in character", *regardless* of what that actual character is. - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 9:59 AM +0000 2/26/98, 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. > > > I'd charge them for the most useful Role, I think -- a thief can > break glass to steal something, but a window cleaner is much less > likely to be able to use that... > > Or, to go game-mechanicky -- I'd charge for the Role that would be > used to try to damp disturbance. This could mean that if he breaks > something while in his day-job, it makes noise... > > For a spy or undercover cop, it's easier -- everything they're > doing is because their job (Spy, Cop) is telling them to. So > just charge them for the Spy/Cop Role, and maybe tack a few extra > points on just to be sure. == --Querent, Angel of Widescreen. Mercurian Servitor of Creation. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:09:25 +0900 From: Dave Conrad Subject: Re: IN> Role Q Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 9:59 AM +0000 2/26/98, 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. > Or, to go game-mechanicky -- I'd charge for the Role that would be > used to try to damp disturbance. This could mean that if he breaks > something while in his day-job, it makes noise... > > For a spy or undercover cop, it's easier -- everything they're > doing is because their job (Spy, Cop) is telling them to. So > just charge them for the Spy/Cop Role, and maybe tack a few extra > points on just to be sure. I think it would be easier to just let them buy the original role as a role and then have them buy some levels of Lying or Emote to use whenever they try to convince someone that they are actually their cover Role, or at least not their primary Role. Think of it the same way you would a Soldier or mundane with the same background as your role. A thief with window washing as a joe-job would need some skill in window washing (free if the GM is generous) and enough skill and will in Acting, Emote or Fast-talk to convince others that he wasn't the thief they were looking for. This way nobody is getting a free lunch, but they will get what they pay for. - -- Dave C. iN*T*x "To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:41:43 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Elizabeth replied to: > >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:-)). > > I think the decision was "Superiors Break The Rules Sometimes." > > The concept of dissonance and Superiors is also one that's rather > gray at the moment. It's certain that they don't experience it > in the same way that normal celestials do, though. > I agree that Superiors go beyond the 'normal' rules, but if anything, they should be MORE constrained by their Dissonance conditions than their Servitors. After all, Servants are merely trying to follow a Word to the best of their ability and sometimes fail, Superiors ARE the Word. In this case, Blandine should NEVER appear Celestially. Probably the easiest course of action would be to Errata the statement so. From my interpretation, I had decided that Blandine almost never left the Marches, so if Successfully summoned she would use a Song of Projection, or in the most extreme cases appear Corporeally for the briefest of periods. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:45:22 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Kyrio's Jules wrote: > Simple question really. One of my players thinks that you get a free > Celestial Song of Form as one of Eli's Kyrios, as well as being able > to use it essence free. I think he's wrong and you still need to buy the > song in the first place. But, fair being that I am, I thought that I > would give him the benefit of the doubt and ask here. If he is correct, > then what level do you get it at? > From memory, according to the Angelic Player's Guide, the character still has to purchase the Song, and only get to use it for free once they have it. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:02:30 -0500 From: "R. Sean Borgstrom" Subject: Re: IN> Jordi Writeup Hm! Yes, I've located the canon bit with Jordi complaining about Uriel's purge now. Thanks. Personally, I rather like the Laurence quote I gave ... but for those who like to stick close to the books, a revised Laurence quote: /Laurence/: I have to question whether he truly understands the cause we are fighting for. It would take no more than a quarter of his strength to defend his Word against the handful of demons who defile it. He spends the rest of his power meddling with the untainted Symphony, and does not acknowledge my authority. It would be unforgivable -- except that he is, blood and bone and soul, a living testament to Heaven. - -- Ta da! - -- Hitherby, Kyriotate of Jordi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:16:50 -0500 From: "R. Sean Borgstrom" Subject: Re: IN> Jordi Writeup A modified version taking into account the comments people have made so far is now available at http://www.dev-com.com/~marith/Keely/gaming/jordi.html. The second paragraph of the history now mentions Jordi's plan to destroy humanity and the canon reason he did not; the Laurence writeup is no longer in blatant contradiction to the bit in the Marches. :) Hopefully, that's it for the canon incompatibility, and people can now use it without breaking with the books /unintentionally/. I think it's likely to be a ways from the canon writeup, when we get that, though, even so. A long ways. :) - -- Hitherby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:52:23 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) As the Duke of Paperback Books in service to Haagenti, I must respond! >From: Julian Breen >I always wondered why Mammon wasn't an original DP. His power must be >immense. Money is the root of all evil, after all. No, the aphorism is "the love of money is the root of all evil". And relatively few people love money for its own sake -- most love it because it can get them creature comforts. That is, most people love money out of Gluttony, not Greed -- so Gluttony is the root of most evil. Which is why I serve Gluttony. Mammon really only rules the hearts of those who want money for its own sake. Ever see the movie "Wall Street"? Gordon Gecko, a paragon of Greed, bought artwork because it would become more valuable -- an Art Glutton buys artwork because he likes it. >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... Yes, but what does the government spend the money on? Fine art? No, the money winds up being spent on military hardware that doesn't serve any purpose, as income supplements allowing private individuals to indulge their personal Gluttony, to pay the salaries of bureaucrats who have absolutely no practical function, the personal expenses of MPs, spooks who can't find out anything more than what's printed in the London Times . . . all wastes of money, all in service to Gluttony. >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...(:)))) And 51% already are, and a bunch of the rest are bullemics who also strengthen my Prince. Which is perfectly nice. But did you know consumption of literarily worthless novels is also skyrocketing? Millions of dollars spent on books not worth the paper they're printed on, read once and then put on bookcases to moulder and eventually be thrown away. That's where Gluttony is making *real* strides. Not to mention my colleauges in the software industry, busy promoting software bloat so hardware that will work for 50 years is junked after five. Or the Marquis of Roleplaying Supplements who reports to me, busy cranking out M:TG expansion sets and Complete Half-Elven Barbarian Druid Paladin Handbooks and second editions of fourth editions of RPGs. Or the Duke of Arms Races, whom Haagenti shares with Baal, helping countries waste billions in weapons research and procurement... Steven Ehrbar, Calabim Duke of Paperback Books, Servitor of Gluttony. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:23:08 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> An Expanded Jordi Writeup (warning: liberties /have/ bee > #2: this is, of course, entirely untrue -- cats are demons. Or > Habbalah. Hm. Definitely Habbalah-ish -- beautiful, make you > love them and do what they want, selfish, and will bite and > scratch when annoyed. Impudites. Habbalah aren't that nice. 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:23:08 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jordi > Unless y'all mean that Jordi wouldn't have associated with > Uriel at all? That's what I meant (kinda). IMO, Jordi wouldn't have made much distinction between Ethereal creatures and regular creatures; they're still animals, albiet very strange ones. But I can see the arguement for it being the other way, and wouldn't complain in the least if it was made that way in canon. 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: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:31:30 -0500 From: The Baron Samedi Subject: Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) > >No, the aphorism is "the love of money is the root of all evil". And >relatively few people love money for its own sake -- most love it because >it can get them creature comforts. That is, most people love money out >of Gluttony, not Greed -- so Gluttony is the root of most evil. Which >is why I serve Gluttony. > True, but your limiting Greed and expanding Gluttony. Gluttenlys primary connotation is food, while Greeds is Money and material wealth. overall, I'd say they are at least even, if not Greed stronger, given that Gluttony should, IMHO, fall under Greed. The Baron Samedi no longer occasionally Salem, Cherub of Destiny till I find a new game for him ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:42:56 +1000 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Strength of Lucifer (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) The age old question of In Nomine is, can Hell win? I know this has been discussed before but I don't thin anyone has really paused to think of the implications. Now Lucifer is a smart fellow (he reads his Kant and Zeno) and I'm sure that if challenged to a match of chess he would beat all those uppity russian blokes (check mate! next, oh gee, only five seconds this time!) so why would he fight a war which he knew he could not win? Is it as a Balseraph he has convinced Himself he can, or is it he knows something no one else does? (no one except for God). Hell is described as a place beyond the light of God (in both In Nomine and The Prophecy) except for those rare Divine Interventions, which means, Lucifer as the presumably most powerful being in Hell (we have no idea what could be lurking in the Lower Hells but as a GM I'm working on it!) then Lucifer is for all sakes and purposes God in Hell (which is yet another reason why Michael and chums don't just march of in to the depths to make Lucifer Kebabs) just as he took a third of the angels from Heaven he also took a third of reality with him, which means that Lucifer has roughly a third of God's power, making him weaker then God yes, which accounts for the whole Intervention bizzo, but not that much weaker, He could, conceivably with a lot of luck, and cunning, defeat Numero Uno Herself (Himself, Itself, whatever, I don;t think God is definable by gender). If you had control of a third of our a country's power, would you go towar against it, I would, and remember, Vietnam did not have half the man power or the equipment of the U.S. but it still was able to defeat the U.S. Also, Lenin took Russia with just a beginning fellowship of a few thousand followers (which grew and grew until all opposition had been wiped out). So, Lucifer, being the smart guy I referred to before, knows he can win, even if only by subverting the majority of the Symphony, except for that closest to God, that would still be a victory, for all practicalities God would be exiled! Okay, okay I'm finishing now, I have a lot more to say but I'm sure you've got a lot more messages to read, so see ya in the future. Simon, Demon Prince of Why Lucifer could Win "Evil will always defeat good because good is dumb!" Lord Helmet, Space Balls ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:31:58 From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors Dear Julian, and many others Firstly just a quick apology. I did scan through the discussion generated on this thread late yesterday, but am writing this without access to those posts, so apologies to those whose excellent ideas I mention without proper credit. I am also writing without having read todays posts yet, so bear with me if I am going over newly trodden ground. I might also say that all the following is only my own humble opinion, and as a Sevitor of the Angel of Heresy I encourage you to have one of your own. Also thanks to Julian for his comments which allowed me to sharpen my own thoughts on the matter. >Julian Wrote > 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... Point taken, but we are talking about a lot more than being able to command the respect of your subordinates. The Angelic Hierarchy is a lot more than political structure. It represents the conceptual framework of the universe, as I thought someone's fine analogy about the relationship between the Word's of War and Tank Battalions showed clearly. Taking a bit of a backward step my numbers (100 and 1000) were meant to be qualitative more than quantitative. What I feel is that Major AA’s should be BIG. Some will be bigger than others, at the GM’s discretion, and some will be closer to the bigger non AA Word Bound. I tend to put all the later published AA’s at that level. IMHO the levels of the Hierarchy have a kind of quantum nature, but someone asked for numbers so I gave them. Adding a lot of one level in some mathematical manner shouldn't equal a higher level. Other wise my 1000 Force AA's could be stood up by a mere 100 or so PC level Angels, which seems a bit light. I guess I see it along Amber DRPG lines, as a number of people commented. Major Word Bound and AA's have reached a level where actions are not a matter of chance, but of simple comparision of levels of power/skill. PC's are in a quantum level below that and therefore not playing in the same league. To game interactions between characters on those higher levels is another prospect altogether and one that I am not going to rush into. I can't see a good way to represent the interactions and I am not confident I, or any players I might get, could wrap their brains around the way such beings would think. Mere Angels and Demons aren't a problem, but one step away from God or Lucifer I am not ready for :) . >>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. Yes, but to softshoe around that, IMHO the situation with the Lowerarchy is not as clearly defined. Where Heaven arranges itself in relationship to the ebb and flow of the strength of primary concepts of the Universe, and their coresponding sub concepts, Hell's organisation is purely at the whim of Lucifer. Overall I would say that Lucifer is a rational and very ambitious individual with a high degree of intelligence, so he must pursue his aims in a manner best suited to achieve them. OTOH he also does things just to show he can. Like giving some demon the Word of Ragweed, or promoting Furfur to DP, but leaving him vulnerable to hostile actions by other ambitious demons. I don't think that the Major DP's, those in the original rules, have too much to worry about, but newcomers like Furfur and some of the other later published Infernal Superiors may not have the same margin of security. Thanking you for your indulgence. Regards, Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au May the Goddess shelter you in the palm of her hand until we meet again. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:27:17 -0500 From: "Ehrbar" Subject: Re: IN> Evil Trick with Roles Here's a scary idea -- you're a DP, and one of your better Soldiers of Hell has gotten himself offed by one of your Servitors, his body disposed of successfully, and his soul sitting in your Realm. You off the idiot Servitor and promote a loyal one to Earth duty -- and give him the Role/6 of and a vessel that looks like your dead Soldier of Hell. Now you have a 9-Force demon on Earth whose every act that would be in character for a Soldier of Hell is protected from causing disturbance. Which includes smashing things to further the goals of his DP... Steven Ehrbar, Calabim Duke of Paperback Books. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:39:31 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Contemporary Ethereals > On a more serious note, I assume that the Marches are still being > filled wit new gods. While American culture disdains religion in general, > it seems as if never have more people worshipped concepts and > ideas...which can eventually create the Gods once again. Great thats all we need, a 50' Ronald Mc Donald running rampant in LA, ala Stay-Puft in Ghostbusters. Still the idea makes sense. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:48:43 From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> Lost PBeM'ers Dear List has anyone heard from Dorothy or Donald Bixler or Laura Davidson recently. They were in a PBeM IN game I am running, well walking very slowly, but I haven't heard anything from then since the new year and I am starting to get bounce backs from the Bixler's email addresses. Thanking you in advance. Regards, Peter. Reply to peterf@wr.com.au May the Goddess shelter you in the palm of her hand until we meet again. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:49:10 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" 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 > > No, by that Logic Brand would be Eli and Random is already Eli. No I think that Dworkin is Eli, either that or Gabriel. and Novalis is Flora right. This is truely scary, we're having a discussion on Amberites in IN. Seriously, the group I play with has been playing Amber for the past year. In this spirit, I've been considering doing a few adventures involving the Amberites. I'm not sure how I'll do it, but I do know that Amber and Chaos are going to be in the deep parts of the marches. The shadows are actually dreams that they enter, with the exception of Earth which is the same Earth as the In Nomine setting. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:56:07 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jordi > If anyone (other than Blandine) would have been offended by the > destruction of mythical/legendary beasts during the Crusade, I would have > thought it would be Eli. After all, they were created by human > imagination, which put them under his Word. Not Jordi's. Eli (IMHO) > should have been the one to rail against Uriel for the destruction of the > unicorns, not Jordi. Unless Uriel got a little carried away, and killed a species that he beleived wasn't natural, but actually was. Which sounds more realistic: A) A horse with a single horn B) a mammal with poison glands, webbed feet, a beavers tail, and a ducks bill. INO I'm surprised that he didn't go after the duck-billed Platypus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:26:13 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Evil Trick with Roles >Here's a scary idea -- you're a DP, and one of your better >Soldiers of Hell has gotten himself offed by one of your >Servitors, his body disposed of successfully, and his soul >sitting in your Realm. You off the idiot Servitor and >promote a loyal one to Earth duty -- and give him the >Role/6 of and a vessel that looks like your dead Soldier >of Hell. > >Now you have a 9-Force demon on Earth whose every act that >would be in character for a Soldier of Hell is protected >from causing disturbance. Which includes smashing things >to further the goals of his DP... I don't think you can have the role "Soldier of Hell", since that would admit the existence of the celestial, which roles are meant ot hide... SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:44:55 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> Re: Jordi > >> If anyone (other than Blandine) would have been offended by the >> destruction of mythical/legendary beasts during the Crusade, I would have >> thought it would be Eli. After all, they were created by human >> imagination, which put them under his Word. Not Jordi's. Eli (IMHO) >> should have been the one to rail against Uriel for the destruction of the >> unicorns, not Jordi. > >Unless Uriel got a little carried away, and killed a species that he >beleived wasn't natural, but actually was. Which sounds more realistic: >A) A horse with a single horn >B) a mammal with poison glands, webbed feet, a beavers tail, and a ducks >bill. >INO I'm surprised that he didn't go after the duck-billed Platypus What makes a critter natural? IMO they all were. It's just that thought flees in the face of dogma. Uriel had too many kangaroos in the top paddock and being a good conservative angel opted for a cull. And if you're going to start hassling the platypus, throw in the echida. I mean to say: what god-fearing creature would defecate out of the same hole they use to reproduce? Duck, drop-bear! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:37:55 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Statistics for Superiors At 13:32 26/02/98 +0000, you wrote: >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? Well, I was largely thinking of PC level characters when I said that. If you are backed up by an AA whose word is also connected then naturally that makes a difference. But at the end of the day, there is no point in saying X thousand 9-force angels could take down Baal -- how are they going to do it is a more intersting question to my mind. Its a geometry thing - if he is using a mortal sized vessel then how many could attack him at once? (whats going to happen to the symphony if 10,000 angels all simultaneously try to invoke the celestial song of light and throw all their essence into it?) -- and even if the fight was going badly, how're you going to stop him caving the earth in around you and getting out? Baal is an odd case because of the dissonance thing -- so it is notionally possible for PCs to be in a situation where Baal has turnd up, successfully summon Michael and then leave them to it. I'd prefer to see a way for the superiors to back out, despite what their servitor dissonance conditions would imply. If not then I think one or other of those superiors would have been toast by now. Do you see why 'how many good guys would it take?' just isn't a helpful question? ie. It should ALWAYS come down to how the superior uses its resources -- it should never just be one on one/ many because that's not using a fraction of the influence which the superior actually has. I suspect that superiors actually get essence whenever one of their servitors uses one of their rites, in addition to anything else. Dominic doesn't need to spend 2 hours a day defending the innocent (although I guess he could if he wanted to) -- he has a cadre of angels and soldiers who will support his word by doing that. This is the precise thing that servitors are FOR! They create servant angels to carry on their words, not to hang around heaven and serve the soft drinks ;-) This is what they invent rites for, and why they get snippy (like Gabriel in the intro story) when their servitors use other superior's rites. So to estimate a superior's true power, you'd need to know how many servitors they had (and how competent/ powerful/ active they were), how many subordinate Words & word-bound, how many soldiers/ saints, how many tethers (for a good solid link to the corporeal plane) and roughly how powerful their word was in heaven, hell & the marches. For archangels, you'd need to know how many servitors they had on the seraphim council to estimate political power and for DPs you'd need to know how large their realms were, relative to each other. (Still not entirely sure what the point is ;-) ). One thing I would assert is that no amount of enemy celestials will ever be able to take out a superior on its home turf (don't attack Vapula in Tartarus, boys and grrls). I am kind of wondering what effect offing a superior has on their word -- are there less Oceans because Oannes is no longer around? Are people less slothful because there is no longer a Demon Prince of sloth? If not, then what do superiors really do? Eli looks after his word by.. ignoring it. > 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? Because the war is more than one superior. They may not be able to touch him, but they can devastate his troops and plans AND (more importantly) the mortals. OK, for Michael this may not be a major concern but it should be for Laurence. In my view, Victory for either heaven or hell is very much bound up in the corporeal plane -- it will never be just determined by what celestials do, however many there are. But YMMV. >>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. Right. There may be reasons not to do it (although I'm sure he has plenty of soldier demons and special forces hit squads on call in Hell in any case) but its an example of why you have to think these things through in terms of what motives and resources a superior will have before just writing down '10,000 shedim can take down Michael'. jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #650 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.