From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 24 11:16:02 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 LAA24712 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:16:02 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id JAA13992 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:57:22 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:57:22 -0600 Message-Id: <199803241557.JAA13992@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 #692 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, March 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 692 In this digest: IN> Angelic Emoticons (complete fluff) IN> NC: Acid Re: IN> Anti-Puritans In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) Re: IN> Ancient Angels? Re: IN> in_nomine-l acronyms Re: IN> Ramped advancement? IN> Eli Question RE: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out IN> Silly Little Seraphim Re: IN> Eli Question Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) IN> Apology (was List Consensus) Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) IN> IN- Holt Ghost Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim Re: IN> An apology for Uriel IN> "Forgetting" skills IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? IN> Re: Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Re: IN- Free Lilim) IN> Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN- IN Correspondance) Re: IN> NC: Acid Re: IN>Kobal's big joke IN> Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Free Lilim) [none] IN> My apologies Gant IN> Uriel and Rutger Hauer IN> Re:Angel of Gargoyles Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out IN> Is it real or Ethereal? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:26:10 -0500 (EST) From: Doubting Eric Subject: IN> Angelic Emoticons (complete fluff) Seraphim: :::) Cherubim: >=oo=< Ofanim: O Elohim: 8| Malakim: :( ={------ Kyriotates: 8_oo:)(0o..;~ Mercurians: O:) Eric, Elohite of Orc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:10:34 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: IN> NC: Acid On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > This, of course, is to encourage players to specialise in their starting > > abilities & keep variety in the party, rather than all players > > eventually having Numinous Corpus Acid/6 because it's the most > > effective. > > > If you make NC:Acid based on Precision alone, with no addition of Fighting > Skill, it becomes usefully different. It places a premium on learning it > at high levels, of course, but not that much more than with most Songs. > The big problem is with singing it. I've changed NC:Acid myself. I got the basic idea from the INC (varying Power and Accuracy), then added a touch or two myself. Acid is for demons, Holy Water is for angels, of course. ACID/HOLY WATER: You can spray this deadly liquid at anyone within [Corporeal Forces x 5] yards, by rolling against Precision + Spray Liquid (new skill, default -1). The Power and Accuracy of the attack are both set by the user, but cannot total more than his level of the song. Thus, if you know this song at level 5, you can spray a +2 Accuracy, +3 Power narrow stream, or a +5 Accuracy, +0 Power mist. Power and Accuracy can never be made negative. The increased range combined with the required skill and reduced Power/Accuracy have made this song MUCH more balanced (and, ironically, much more useful, what with the range boost and the fact that not EVERYBODY is taking it now). My group likes it. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/ anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~ /_( \__/ )_\ \__U_/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:11:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Anti-Puritans At 10:53 PM +0900 3/20/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >At 06:25 PM 20/03/98 +0000, you wrote: >>At 12:11 20/03/98 -0600, you wrote: >>> >>>> The Crusade was an unprecedented and extreme aspect of his >>>> Word, but it is hardly an atrocity comparable with the Holocaust. >>>Oh? 6 million Jews versus 99 percent of all Unicorns, all Griffins, and >>>100 percent of the Phoenix population. You are right; the two events do >>>not compare, but it is the Purge which is the more unholy of the two. >> >>No offence intended to anyone but do you think we could leave this stuff >>out, or at least offlist? >> >> >>sorry about the Jews remark, it was just an example meant to drive my >point home,[...] It's not that. We already had the Hitler discussion. It stayed pretty civil, amazingly. What it is, is a lot of very dense text that's just a *bit* personalfluff. So it should probably go to email very soon. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:35:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) At 10:07 PM +0900 3/21/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >At 11:38 AM 21/03/98 -0600, you wrote: >>Firstly, I am officially disbanding the Anti-Puritans, not because I >accede to anyone's point but because Blandine herself has assured me that >there will be no repeat of the Crusade. >Which brings me to Blandine, Heaven's own lip stick lesbian, oh I know >Celestials don't really have genders but Blandine is as feminine as an >Arcangel can get, so, the title sticks. Actually, Novalis is the most feminine of the Superiors. (p. IN132.) (Ahhhh, my Demon Princess of Nitpicking rite!) >Which brings me to the final part of this post, I know that it would be >inappropriate to post In Nomine Erotica to the list VERY! >(I already got on >peoples nerves with the anti-puritan thing, I now know that propaganda is >not acceptable anywhere) Your own web-pages... >but is there anyone who does publish it? would >Derek Pearcy and the other In Nomine big boys, look down on such a thing, >even though they have included it in the game? There is the INC, but it is currently hanging around at PG-13 to R and that's really the way I want to keep it. I won't link to an X directly. (I would, if there were enough demand, make a page of links to pages that include X-fiction. But I won't make it *easy*...) That said, everything that you do with IN characters and concepts is going to be IN copyright -- IOW, if SJ Games looks at what you're doing and asks you to stop, you are legally obligated to stop. SJ Games *could* be mean and say *NO IN FICTION AT ALL*, but they don't, because that would be mean and kind of silly. They let people do up web-pages. But don't *EVEN* try selling it to anyone. I don't care if you're the best erotical author in the world and can sell something to Circlet Press, if it's IN, it's SJ Games owned, and to try to sell it without their permission is illegal. I believe there's a command you can send to the io.com majordomo that goes into more detail and amplification about this, too. Asking for info on this list, I think it is. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:43:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ancient Angels? At 10:54 PM -0500 3/21/98, Soviet wrote: >Ok my question is this are all Celestials been there since the >begining of times or have some new ones have risen through the ages? >If they have always been why do they have so little >knowledge(A.K.A. skills and songs)? If they are new, how does this >happens?is it when a celestial dies a new one rises to take its >place? > >This question came up during character creation and sadly I was at a >loss to answer it....... Some angels were around since the beginning (most of them are Wordbound or Archanges or both...), some are as new as last year. Some are created by the merging of Forces from two other angels (with the help of Superior stickyglue). Some fledge from relievers. Baby Angels are in the APG. p. IN 108, first paragraph, states that most angels are created by their Archangel. The ancient ones lose Forces, may forget skills, etc. (There's stuff about this in the Angelic Players Guide, too.) The new ones have yet to learn them. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:18:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> in_nomine-l acronyms At 7:37 PM -0800 3/22/98, David Streeter wrote: >>Soviet asked what APG was > >Yeah, this list seems to use a lot of acronyms. These are the few I've >worked out... > >The following are In Nomine books from Steve Jackson Games: > >IN = In Nomine >NM = Night Music (Revelations II) Revelations I. Revelations II is _The Marches_. >H&H = Heaven & Hell (Revelations III) >FOTM =Fall of The Malakim (not released) AKA (Also Known As) FotM. As Heaven & Hell is also HH sometimes... >APG = Angelic Players' Guide >IPG = Infernal Players' Guide (not released) >LR = Liber Reliquarum > >descriptions of the above can be found on the Steve Jackson Games >website (www.sjgames.com) > >Other acronyms: >OOC = Out Of Campaign Out of Character (versus IC, In Character). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 98 18:36 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Ramped advancement? [Dale:] >But if you're purchasing them with character points then those points >couldn't have been experience points in the sense I think you mean (I >could, >of course, be misunderstanding things). Unless character points are only >used to improve skills exercised in the course of the session, they're not >actually representing experience, but some other form of potential. I >think >that the reason that they're not called experience points is that they're >quite a different concept. They actually represent several different things, in-game: experience (improving skills and Songs), personal growth (improving characteristics and possibly Forces), and "brownie points" with one or more Superiors (most everything else). They are most definitely a game mechanic, and are somewhat hard to rationalize if used in inappropriate ways. E.g., Outcasts and Renegades are unlikely to get any benefits that a Superior must supply unless they're actually doing a special job for that Superior, which will generally be part of an adventure. Servitors presumably have access to their Superiors in "down time", and thus have an easier time of it -- they can also run a "tab" with the Superior in some cases. >I accept the correction of my game mechanics. I'm not sure this affects >the >point I was making, namely that in IN a single skill point is a fairly big >Compare, for example, GURPS, where an *average* person with no training at >all has a skill of five and with a little work can get it to nine or ten. >In other words, numerically each point in IN is much more significant, and >not as likely (imho) to improve due to routine use. But for a given individual in GURPS, you rarely see more than about 6 levels of skill (beyond the default). The main difference is the difference in roll granularity (2d6 vs. 3d6) -- the probability increment per level is thus *somewhat* larger in IN than in GURPS, but not "fairly big". More significant is the linear nature of IN skill improvement. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:55:12 -0600 (CST) From: Ziggy Subject: IN> Eli Question On IN117, the description of Abracadabra is a bit vague. I was wondering how other people interpreted this. What form is given to the "base matter"? I have a Malakite of Eli who wants to use this attunement to make swords, or at least pipes. I'm not sure if this fits within the intended interpretation. Thanks also for the input on the Kyrio's, I think I'm going to go with abilities are skills, simply for game balance, but I'm still thinking on it. - -Tim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 20:58:13 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: RE: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out JFZeigler on Uriel's departure: >I think of it in terms of process theology. > >Angels are, in a sense, facets of God's personality. But as the universe >changes, so does God. Sometimes God recognizes that one of His own >aspects, once useful and appropriate, no longer fits new circumstances. >God doesn't destroy angels. Maybe He can't, since that would be a kind >of self-destruction. But He can "retire" them by calling them to the Higher >Heavens. > >Maybe Uriel got removed from the game because God decided the universe >needed more diversity than the Angel of Purity was willing to allow. I think of it in terms of God's reflected aspects. The Good Lord just needed another piss pot boy, and, well as Uriel was attracting a whole lot attention; God grabbed him. Could have been anyone. OTOH, the "piss pot boy theory" is closely followed by the "desk job theory". According to this area of speculation, Uriel was pulled up to Heaven b/c He needed YET another scribe. Why Uriel? This itself is not know. I have heard it whispered in the Symphony that Uriel was a Pure Manifestation of God's aspect of Purity. After trying that out for a bit, He changed His mind and decided that The Sword was a much better Word to lead His Armies. God works in mysterious ways... - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "Your balls are mellifluous, sir!" - Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:12:05 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: IN> Silly Little Seraphim The Resonance of the Seraphim is Truth, no? How can the Seraphim know all of The Truth? When asked basic questions about the nature of God, how can they respnd? Is this choir basically a direct link to the GM? - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "Your balls are mellifluous, sir!" - Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:37:40 -0500 From: eswhanu@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Eli Question Basically anything that is unshaped by the hand of man is considered 'base matter'. You can make a lump of iron ore, not finished steel. BTW, since these are Servitor's of Eli here, and it came up in my live action game: cocaine no, marijuana yes (as for making it with Abracadabra). The first is processed, the second isn't. Brian Ward On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:55:12 -0600 (CST) Ziggy writes: >On IN117, the description of Abracadabra is a bit vague. I was >wondering >how other people interpreted this. What form is given to the "base >matter"? I have a Malakite of Eli who wants to use this attunement to >make swords, or at least pipes. I'm not sure if this fits within the >intended interpretation. > >Thanks also for the input on the Kyrio's, I think I'm going to go with >abilities are skills, simply for game balance, but I'm still thinking >on >it. > >-Tim > > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:07:46 +0000 From: Nathaniel Eliot Subject: Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) > >(Don't feel too bad - I did the same thing with the Janus/Valefor > >thing, when I actually took a second to compare their attunements. > >It's something to think about before you post, though; are you > >preaching to the choir?) > > So, for those of us who have joined the list recently, where can we > find list consensi reached before we signed on? eg I'm interested in > Janus/Valefor, but I expect most list members might be tired of the > subject (if they'd reached consensus already, then you brought it up > again). The basic consensus was that if they aren't the same Celestial, they are damn similar. I just pointed that out rather noisily, before realizing everybody else already knew that... 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: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:01:23 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) Nathaniel Eliot writes: >> >(Don't feel too bad - I did the same thing with the Janus/Valefor >> >thing, when I actually took a second to compare their attunements. >> >It's something to think about before you post, though; are you >> >preaching to the choir?) >> >> So, for those of us who have joined the list recently, where can we >> find list consensi reached before we signed on? eg I'm interested in >> Janus/Valefor, but I expect most list members might be tired of the >> subject (if they'd reached consensus already, then you brought it up >> again). > >The basic consensus was that if they aren't the same Celestial, they >are damn similar. I just pointed that out rather noisily, before >realizing everybody else already knew that... My nigh-canon response would be that The Wind and Theft represent two sides of the Symphony's (or is it God's) potential, like Destiny and Fate. (And maybe even perhaps Fire and Fire, and War and The War... ?:) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd The Soldiers of Linn webpage is back in business! http://159.28.171.24/sol Gaming Quote of the moment: "Your balls are mellifluous, sir!" - Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:45:03 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) > Date sent: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:07:46 +0000 > From: Nathaniel Eliot > Subject: Re: IN> List Consensus (was Re: IN> Anti-Puritans) > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Organization: hop.ec.hk > Send reply to: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > >(Don't feel too bad - I did the same thing with the Janus/Valefor > > >thing, when I actually took a second to compare their attunements. > > >It's something to think about before you post, though; are you > > >preaching to the choir?) > > > > So, for those of us who have joined the list recently, where can we > > find list consensi reached before we signed on? eg I'm interested in > > Janus/Valefor, but I expect most list members might be tired of the > > subject (if they'd reached consensus already, then you brought it up > > again). > > The basic consensus was that if they aren't the same Celestial, they > are damn similar. I just pointed that out rather noisily, before > realizing everybody else already knew that... > > > 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 Who the fuck are you and what the hell do you think you are doing writng such crap to me! If you ever write to me again I will be forced to hunt you down and really put the fear of God into you. Thankyou for your time Preacher Boy.> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:02:07 GMT+10 From: "Leath Sheales" <938269@wrpc.riv.csu.edu.au> Subject: IN> Apology (was List Consensus) To the list in general and Nathaniel in particular, Anyone who may have received an abusive e-mail from my account please forgive me. I did not send it. I was logged on to my account and when I finished using the computer for some reason my log-off command was not interpreted. The next person to use the computer received my e-mail and, apparently being a petty person, decided to write abuse. I haven't yet read exactly what was written, but a friend of mine sitting near this computer overheard what was happening and was kind enough to log me off (unfortunately after the offending letter). So hopefully this letter will help explain. Again, sorry. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:55:54 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN> IN Correspondance) >SJ Games *could* be mean and say *NO IN FICTION AT ALL*, but they >don't, because that would be mean and kind of silly. They let people >do up web-pages. But don't *EVEN* try selling it to anyone. I don't >care if you're the best erotical author in the world and can sell >something to Circlet Press, if it's IN, it's SJ Games owned, and to >try to sell it without their permission is illegal. Yes but does SJG have a legal monopoly on In Nomine? I speak without really knowing but wouldn't the copyright laws support Croc's claim to the In Nomine trademark and materials, at least to the extant that it SJG has not changed them in the American printing of In Nomine. Does SJG have a right to the names of angels like Cherubim, Seraphim and to traditional demon names like Furfur and Baal? And how does this relate to publishing articles in other publications like Dragon? SJG has been supportive of publishing articles about their games in other publications esp. through their generous matching program, but if we need the permission of SJG to sell an In Nomine article to TSR is that really support? If I publish an erotica story about angels today assuming I do not mention things which SJG may have an exclusive right too such as Orc the angel, but do include things which In Nomine mentions but are in the public domain, such as I assume Lilith and Seraphim, would it be a copyright violation? What if I had never posted on the list? These questions should be answered since they deal with the possibility of the In Nomine universe expanding and because of SJG's reputation for going after people, and Ulitima Online clans, which SJG views as threatening their copyright. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:01:19 -0500 From: Jesse Subject: IN> IN- Holt Ghost We have in the past discussed the nature of Jesus the Son of Man and the nature of the Father God, but what about the last, and in my mind most interesting, person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost? Anyone want to take a stab at an In Nomine interpretation of that? Perhaps it is a Seraph of Eli with the ear of God, running around and making soldiers of apostles. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:56:46 EST From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out In a message dated 98-03-23 09:20:14 EST, you write: << God doesn't destroy angels >> Funny but the selfish bastard kills numbers of humans at a whim and leaves nothing but broken dreams when he feels like it ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:58:29 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Silly Little Seraphim Perry M. Lloyd wrote: > > The Resonance of the Seraphim is Truth, no? > > How can the Seraphim know all of The Truth? > When asked basic questions about the nature of God, how can they respnd? > Is this choir basically a direct link to the GM? At times yes. Well you asked. When asked a question about the true nature of God by a mortal they can answer completely truthfully that they are not ready to know that. If asked by another angel they can answer just as truthfully that the angel should already know that. Seraphim don't necessarily know all the Truth, just an awful lot of it. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:01:37 EST From: Heretic103 Subject: Re: IN> An apology for Uriel In a message dated 98-03-23 13:28:50 EST, you write: << But, there has been no real explanation of why uriel was taken or what is hapening to him >> Or imagine this uriel ask god but why can't I anhilate the eternals mommy? and god replys with that answer we all hate: Because I SAID SO Uriel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:28:39 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> "Forgetting" skills >> I hate seeing skills at level 6, because it seems to me like >>that's the kind of thing you should only get if you spend 2-3 hours a day >>practicing them, and should decrease if you fail to practice them. > >This is a level of realism even GURPS dropped -- at one time during the >original playtest, it apparently had skill practice and deterioration >rules, which were so much trouble they were trashed. I can't see Here's ideas for house rules to simulate "forgetting" skills - this is also relevant to the "ancient angels" thread... House Rule Idea 1: "Forgetting" skills - -------------------------------------- The GM is miserly with XP - about 0.5 to 1 XP per session. However, characters are allowed to "trade in" skills & songs (perhaps other abilities too) at a rate of one point for two levels. e.g. a character can reduce her Song of Form from /6 to /4 in exchange for increasing her Song of Shields from /4 to /5. This represents the character forgetting old skills by disuse in favour of earning or improving new ones. The character can also trade in a skill level and half an XP for a new skill level. To emulate the "you never forget how to ride a bike" factor, you might want to discourage characters trading in the first level of a skill/song, either by making it expensive (e.g. 2 points to buy the first level after character creation, but still 1/2 a point trade in), or simply forbidding it. House Rule Idea 2: Song Level Limits - ------------------------------------ There is a maximum limit on the number of songs and/or skills able to be learnt at high levels. For level/6 and level/5 songs & skills, the limit for each is your forces in that domain, twice your forces for level/4 and level/3 songs, and triple for Level/2 and level/1. e.g. A Corporeal/4 Ethereal/2 Celestial/3 angel would have the following limits: Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 6: maximum of 4 Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 5: maximum of 4 Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 4: maximum of 8 Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 3: maximum of 8 Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 2: maximum of 12 Corporeal songs and/or skills at level 1: maximum of 12 Ethereal songs and/or skills at level 6: maximum of 2 Ethereal songs and/or skills at level 5: maximum of 2 Ethereal songs and/or skills at level 4: maximum of 4 Ethereal songs and/or skills at level 3: maximum of 4 etc. The number of songs and skills in a realm are added together for the calculation. This rule represents the constant practise needed to keep skills at high levels. The rule kind of needs House Rule Idea 1 so that a player has a mechanism for changing his level 6 skills/songs. SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:43:42 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Ramped advancement? Some Balseraph said... >You're confusing me now. In what way are character points different from >GM rewards? And how do you propose to reward learning by doing, then? I'd suggest the original poster was suggesting there are two types of rewards - permanent and transitory. Permanent rewards (what most of the list would call "GM rewards") are usually in the form of character points, that the player is more-or-less free to spend as she likes. The GM will not normally remove such rewards - - they are an encouragement for long-term play (and tend to be at a fixed rate per session, with occasional bonuses). Transitory rewards (what most of the list would call "Superior rewards"**, but the original poster refers to as "GM rewards", hence the confusion) are usually in the form of specific items, songs, etc. and can be removed by the whim of the GM. In RP terms, permanent rewards represent character growth and "learning by doing", whereas transitory rewards are gained from plot devices. SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Demon of Constructive Criticism (but... does Balseraphism rub off?) ** ironically, they probably are not superior to permanent rewards ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:49:10 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Re: IN- Free Lilim) Probably the same Balseraph said... >> This is a level of realism even GURPS dropped -- at one time during the >> original playtest, it apparently had skill practice and deterioration >> rules, which were so much trouble they were trashed. > >I wasn't intending to have rules for those things. There might be an opportunity for a web-published "Advanced In Nomine", if anyone could be bothered editing suggestions from the list. However, you'd have to weigh it up with biting the bullet and switching to GIN. (GURPS In Nomine :-) SurturZ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:05:23 PST From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: In Nomine Fiction/Erotica (Re: IN- IN Correspondance) >>Which brings me to the final part of this post, I know that it would be >>inappropriate to post In Nomine Erotica to the list Damn, I have a word, otherwise I'd apply for "Demon of Very Sad Internet Users" :-) SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:42:55 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> NC: Acid On Mon, Mar 23, 1998 at 06:10:34PM -0500, Pee Kitty wrote: > > If you make NC:Acid based on Precision alone, with no addition of Fighting > > Skill, it becomes usefully different. It places a premium on learning it > > at high levels, of course, but not that much more than with most Songs. > > The big problem is with singing it. > > ACID/HOLY WATER: You can spray this deadly liquid at anyone within > [Corporeal Forces x 5] yards, by rolling against Precision + Spray Liquid > (new skill, default -1). The Power and Accuracy of the attack are both set > by the user, but cannot total more than his level of the song. Thus, if > you know this song at level 5, you can spray a +2 Accuracy, +3 Power > narrow stream, or a +5 Accuracy, +0 Power mist. Power and Accuracy can > never be made negative. > Essentially, I rationalised it thus. Your level with the Song indicates the Power and how good you are at directing it. It makes sense that as you practice with the Song your aim would improve at the same time. It combines the attributes of a Song and a Skill. And I don't particularly like the idea of boosting range because it makes guns less useful. Our fixes are actually pretty similar. What I don't understand is what NC: Horns is for. I don't agree with the division of NC into demonic and angelic types myself. I dislike overeasy identification of Celestials, and I think it's also a sign of speciesist prejudice. Does anyone here really think Jordi's Servitors have a problem with Acid and Claws? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "He was wont moreover to complain openly of the condition of the times wherein he lived, as not being renowned by any public calamities...And, at times, he wished for some terrible carnage of his armies, a famine, a pestilence, conflagrations, or an earthquake." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:14:29 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN>Kobal's big joke At 10:27 AM -0500 3/23/98, Querent wrote: >You can't see the fnords, can you? > No, I can't. Three of Jean's Malakim in Black showed up Thursday and confiscated my Fnord-Sensitive Sunglasses, claiming that "The Human Race is not ready for such things." At least they fixed my VCR before they left. = http://www.io.com/~beholder ===================== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Trudy, Impudite Captain of Gluttony, the Demon of Popcorn ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:22:18 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Rewards and character evolution (was Re: IN- Free Lilim) Earl writes: >John Karakash: > >> IMO, the granting of a Force is a major reward by >> a Superior. Forces are the benchmark against which celestials >> measure each other (and other beings as well!) and aren't >> granted lightly. > >This brings up an issue I have put to the list a few times. >In most games, things like character points and hit points >are just features of the mechanics and have no reality for >the characters. But it seems that Forces, being so coarse- >grained, and spoken of as they are in canon, may be things >that the celestial characters *are* aware of. Clearly, this >is the way your campaign works it. > >Earl > Personally, I have always wondered why you get to add your relevant forces to combat rolls and yet not to skill rolls. If clobbering somebody corporeally (for example) = Fighting + Str + Corp Forces then why shouldn't Climbing (for example) = Climbing + Agl + Corp Forces? Is this simply the reward mechanic of a combat-based game? ;) I don't use the bolt on of relevant forces for combat. About the only thing that I do use Forces for is the performance of Songs (which are a supernatural occurence). Some of you may argue that so is celestial combat! True, but until I can justify the distinction between combat and skills I won't use the Force add. Now, on the subject of 'Force Awareness', I tend to think that celestials (and spirits, undead, ethereal gods, etc) *are* aware of their Forces. Certainly, if your celestials are carefully buying up their stats just shy of attaining a new Force (so as not to attract their superior's attention), then they surely MUST have an intricate knowledge of how their Forces operate? Unlike mundanes, they are not a part of the Symphony, and are thus a little more knowledgeable of how they fit into it across all three planes of reality. Soldiers, being corporeal beings in the first place, thus become aware of their 'corporeality' and would become aware of their ethereal and celestial Forces should they ever attain sainthood. This leads me on to the point that maybe you should only figure in Forces to combat and skills *if* you are so aware. Comments? - -- Jules ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 06:58:24 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: [none] From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Uriel v. Anti-Puritans: round 1 scores. >>These were living, corporeal creations of God (and it pissed Jordi off a great deal when Uriel slew them). I believe in the intro to the Marches he (Uriel) gave his reason for destroying them, but i don't remember it now. < Basically, Uriel claimed that they were _not_ creations of God, but the result of celestials and ethereals meddling with natural creatures to create magical beasts. Jordi may in fact have been one of the culprits. - - -David< No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory serves correctly. Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:03:19 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> My apologies Gant >Remember, that first post was in character. As a character, I would have had no way to know about the upcoming Fall of the Malakim book. So it only makes sense to argue that way.< Um..yeah..after posting that message i reread your original posting and realized it was in-character, my bad, won't happen again. :) Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:06:54 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Uriel and Rutger Hauer >Furthermore, I don't think Uriel could Fall, really. I find it much more likely that his Word would destroy him, first.< I do like that one. very nice. >I just seem to visualize him as Rutger Hauer for some reason< You know, i think you're right. Have you seen Blind Fury? A blind guy with a katana kicking everybodies asses. Definatly a Soldier of God there. Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:09:56 PST From: "Chris Crowe" Subject: IN> Re:Angel of Gargoyles >Jax, Angel of Gargoyles< Everytime i come up with a good idea someone else always manages to beat me to the punch. i was thinking nearly the same thing for a character IMC. oh well. i just use yours and save me the trouble of writing him. :) Krowe, Malakim of Destiny, (Arch)Angel of Redemption ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:23:52 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Why Uriel got pulled out On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Heretic103 wrote: > << God doesn't destroy angels >> > Funny but the selfish bastard kills numbers of humans at a whim and leaves > nothing but broken dreams when he feels like it Bitter, ain't ya? Since we appear to have segued off into IRL beliefs about God here, how do you support this claim? Selfish? Support it. I've never seen it in scripture. Unless, of course, you resent his "irrational" demand to be worshipped as the only true and living God; of course, if you accept the idea that God is real as described in scripture, he kind of has theat right. In scripture, God *is* the only true God. Kills numbers of people at a whim? Again, support it. Scripturally. Sure, He has killed a lot of people. But not at a whim, and not without warning. When the killing comes, they had been warned it would come. Broken dreams? Sounds like a personal problem. In short, kindly remember that some of us on this list really do believe in God. If you're going to make wild accusations about Him (or anyone else someone might care for/about), kindly back them up. Or better yet, don't troll by making the statement in the first place. Thank you, Rich Gant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:42:59 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Is it real or Ethereal? On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Chris Crowe wrote: > No, i think you're wrong here. i don't have the Marches with me, but > Uriel says they (creatures of myth) WERE creatures of God if my memory > serves correctly. It's pretty ambiguous, actually. Here are the references. _The Marches_, page 4: 'And Uriel said, "Thou hast forgotten that God gave Men dominion over the animals. He made the dragons, verily, they and their ilk, and He made them mortal that they might die when their time was over. They consorted with Evil, and were slain to the las, and thou shouldst rejoice in that cleansing."' _The Marches_, page 5: 'But Uriel stood proud and held his sword aloft and said, "With this sword I will destroy all things that are not of God, and if thou permittest creations of Man, and Ethereal spirits, and dreams that become real, to live and thrive in thy Marches, I will slay them."' Within about 4 paragraphs, The Marches manages to say that they are creations of God and Ethereal spirits at the same time. Is there some way we can get a canon ruling on this? Rich Gant ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #692 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.