From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Apr 23 10:16:44 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 KAA08634 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:16:43 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id IAA06210 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:53:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:53:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199804231353.IAA06210@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 #726 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, April 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 726 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: IN> A burning question IN> A burning question (Uriel) IN> A burning question (Uriel) IN> Dictionnaire Infernal Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets IN> Falling, another perspective. Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> Re: IN- A burning question IN> Marc's rites Re: IN> Character taxonomy Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) [FLUFF] Re: IN> Marc's rites Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) IN> Victory in the War Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. IN> Looking for players ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:26:26 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Hm. This sparked a tiny bit of insight for me, just now, >possibly not worth much. But I have been thinking, on and off, >about the natural "parties" or "factions" within the celestials, >trying to find natural groupings. Uptight vs. laidback was >clearly in there, but not enough. At the moment, it seems to me >that there are three basic flavors, uptight, laidback, and anarchic. I have a somewhat similar scheme, only I grouped the archangels along three axes. Militancy/Pacifism: This is a measure of how far the archangel will go to achieve the ends of the War. In addition to being a measure of how willing the archangel is to use violence, it also measures the relative weight the archangel places on human souls as opposed to celestial ones. Also, the militant archangels tend to think that saving mankind is more important than the redemption of demonkind; at the other extreme Novalis is equally concerned with the salvation of every soul that comes her way, human or celestial. Strongly militant: Michael, Gabriel, David, Dominic, Laurence Weakly militant: Janus, Jean, Jordi Weakly pacifist: Marc, Blandine, Yves Strongly pacifist: Novalis, Eli Hierarchy/Anarchy: The hierarchical archangels tend to value community, tradition, and personal integrity as reliable guides to God. The more anarchic archangels tend to see the relationship between God and the believer as overwhelmingly more important than the relations between the created. Strongly hierarchical: Laurence, David, Dominic, Jean Weakly hierarchical: Blandine, Yves, Marc Weakly anarchic: Novalis, Eli, Jordi Strongly anarchic: Michael, Gabriel, Janus Intuition/Rationality: This is a very poorly-named axis, but there it is. A rational archangel is one that greatly values closely-reasoned theology and ethical reasoning to guide action, whereas an intuitive one would rely much more on a mystical awareness of God. This is not a measure of faith; C.S. Lewis would be a rational on this axis, and he was very devout. Strongly intuitive: Gabriel, Michael, Novalis Weakly intuitive: Eli, Jordi, Laurence, Janus Weakly rational: Marc, David, Blandine Strongly rational: Yves, Dominic, Jean - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:10:30 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> A burning question On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, MUG282 wrote: > Anyway I have a continuity question: On page 5 of The > Marches, Kronos says that Uriel was the first of the Malakim. However; on > page 6 of the Angelic Players Guide it lists the earliest Celestials as: > Michael, Lucifer, Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel, and URIEL. On page 46 of the > Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir > until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! > How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an > answer please let me Know... Easily answered, my new friend. Uriel was originally a Seraph. During the War in Heaven, a new choir of angels was created to embody the wrath of God. These new angels were the Malakim, and they were originally other Choirs who sacrificed their natures to become the Malakim. Uriel was the first to do so, followed shortly (I think) by David. Uriel predates the Fall. Uriel as a Malakim dates to the Fall. I hope that made sense. Rich "Mr. Uriel" Gant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:18:08 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A burning question (Uriel) >>>Anyway I have a continuity question: On page 5 of The Marches, Kronos says that Uriel was the first of the Malakim. However; on page 6 of the Angelic Players Guide it lists the earliest Celestials as: Michael, Lucifer, Baal, David, Eli, Gabriel, and URIEL. On page 46 of the Angelic Players Guide, it says that the Malakim were not created as a choir until the Lucifer's Rebellion. It also lists Uriel as a famous Malakite!!! How can this be? Uriel is supposedly WAY older than the Fall. If there is an answer please let me Know... <<< The angels who became Malakim (including Uriel, who was the *first*) existed as another Choir before the events that led to their transformation. Uriel was a Seraph before he became a Malakite. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:23:22 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> A burning question (Uriel) >>>Uriel was not origially created as a Malakite. The Malakim were "invented" by her at the time of the Fall as something of a response. Others followed her pure lead and changed from their old choir to be Malakim.<<< Uriel didn't "invent" Malakim; Uriel's Word triggered a transformation in response to the Revolt, which turned Uriel into a Malakite and swept up many other angels with him. But it was probably not a conscious decision on anyone's part. (I know you put "invented" in quotes, but I just wanted to make sure that was clear.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:21:39 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Dictionnaire Infernal Heretic103 writes >Does anyone know where to get a copy of dictionairre infernal? > I did a bit of searching some time ago and turned up zilch. AFAIK It's not in print, and I believe that it's probably only going to be found now in special or private collections. I heard that the Bibliotheque Nationale in France has a copy. I haven't gotten around to enquiring as of yet, but even if they have, that's not to say that it will be accessible. Can anybody offer any better help? (I'm interested in seeing this book too.) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:52:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jose Burgos wrote: > Im curious, are there any character sheets that one can download off > the internet or that someone has created besides the one in the > rulebook (not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to know > if anyone has tailored their own)? http://www.concentric.net/~pkitty/nomine I've got one up there (it's all-purpose...demons/angels/mundanes) now. I'm working on a totally new format as we speak. The new one should be up in about a week. 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: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:54:15 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: IN> Falling, another perspective. Some ideas provoked by the axiom that 'Falling is a moral choice - you have to choose to Fall'. These rules are technically in use in my game, but haven't been needed yet, so I'd appreciate comments and ideas. - --- An angel is a free-willed being, capable of betraying their nature. When they do so, their personaly theme in the Symphony becomes polluted with notes of dissonance. This dissonance makes it increasingly difficult for the angel to attune to the resonance of his choir. Eventually, the interference is so great that he will be utterly unable to resonante with the Symphony. It is from this condition that angels Fall. However, it is possible for a sufficiently determined angel to resist the lure of the Pit indefinitely. - ---- Game Mechanics Angels gain dissonance and make dissonance rolls exactly as in IN. However, the results of failed rolls are different. The first failed roll results in an angel 'tripping'. He can no longer use his resonance (or resonance-based attunements), although he is still subject to Choir dissonance. His Superior will not necessarily notice immediately, but will certainly do so on sight, and will almost always make such an angel Outcast. This releases the angel from Superior dissonance. A tripped angel can be rehabilitated just like a demon. The process still requires a Superior, but is slightly less dangerous (only one in six dissolve, rather than one in three). Otherwise, the angel carries on gaining Choir dissonance and making dissonance rolls as normal. Further failed rolls result in the gaining of one note of dissonance, PLUS one level of discord determined by the GM. However, an angel in this state has the option AT ANY TIME of using the Band resonance corresponding to his Choir. If he does so, he has Fallen. The rules for Falling are otherwise unchanged. Why can't Malakim Fall? Their Oaths are an outward symbol of the fact that they have restricted free will: they no longer have the option of falling. Hence their resonance is to detect the ways in which others exercise *their* will. - ---- Sadistic bit Capture an Ofanite. Tie him up. Watch him get dissonant. Eventually, he becomes aware that he can be free: all he has to do is DESTROY. He can BLAST those chains. He can KILL his captors. He has the power to get away, to be able to move again. Heh. A Mercurian 'trips'. Suddenly, the Symphony won't tell him about people any more. How can he make people happy if he doesn't know anything about them? Well... he could *make* them open up to him. They'd tell him anything, if they only knew that he was really their friend. Basically, it is in every Choir's personality to be willing to pervert the Symphony in order to try to get back what they have just lost. Kyrios don't have much choice: they either Fall, or dissolve in CelForcesx10 minutes. - ---- The Point The player more say in their character's motives. You no longer have to tell the player: 'Your character has just decided to become a demon. Rationalise it how you like, but it's his Nature, so you can't avoid it.' You tell them 'Hmm. The Symphony doesn't seem to want to speak to you any more, but you reckon if you just shout a bit louder, you can make youself heard, and get some results.' Anyone? Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> [FLUFF] Faraway, So Close! - ---Doctor TOC wrote: > > David Streeter wrote: > > > > Saw an excellent film called "Faraway, So Close!" last night. It's about > > an angel who becomes a human. > It's funny you should post this at today. I was about to post on the > movie "City of Angels" which is based on "Wings of Desire". > > If anyone's pondering whether to see this movie or not, go see it. > While it lacks the spiritual depth and philosophical weight of "Wings", > it's not a light-weight film. The producers concentrated on the romantic > aspect of the story, but there's still enough meat there for subscribers > to this list. > > Oh yeah...take a hanky. I like the sunrise scene, myself...reminded me of a certain RPG...City of Angels was an excellent movie... Graveyard Greg (AKA Nahtaivel, Angel of Watching) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:00:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > The ambiguity comes in when Heaven manages to come across as not all > that much better than Hell. The individual angelic Choirs are described > fairly favorably -- but in some cases, they're still not very nice > people. And the Archangels, with their backbiting and mutual hostility, > are definitely *not* admirable as a group. As with anything (ANYTHING), it's all in how you run it. The way I see it, and the way my players see it is this: It's fun, yet hard, to be a demon. And it's hard, yet fun, to play an angel. As a demon, you're fairly unrestricted, morally. You can cheat, steal and lie, and you're rewarded for it. Your Superior just wants you to advance his word, but that's usually about it. Fun. Yet you can't trust any other demons. Even in your own party, there's ALWAYS backstabbing and mistrust (sometimes a little, sometimes a hell of a lot), and when you meet some demonic strangers, you don't know if they're going to help you or kill you! There's no trust, no real camraderie, and NO love...just selfishness. As an angel, you're restricted. You have to be good. Your ends can't be used to justify your means (past a certain extent, at least). Your Superior is more strict about what you can and can't do (even Eli is more restrictive, morally, than any demon princes), and you have a certain nobility to live up to. Yet you're part of the Good Guys. You know that behind the backbiting and mistrust, every Archangel and every angel is on the same side, and when the chips are down, if your ass is about to be toasted and you run into some angels, they're very likely to help you out if you're doing the Right Thing...at the very least, they won't ATTACK you, even if they don't agree with you. (Unless they're Malakim and you're going against Heaven, but that's different.) There's camraderie. There's trust. And there's LOVE. You have friends who would stand beside you and die for you if it had to be done...and there are demons who beat their heads against the walls of Hell every night because they can't have that. Both are a lot of fun to roleplay, just for different reasons. 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: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:35:32 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: >Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In Nomine for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons from the onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and i asked what character he would play, he said definately an angel, and also, I have noticed that a lot of games on this list have angel PC's (that's not a criticism just an observation) and in heaven and hell a number of hints, not so subtle really, are given that the demons are fated to lose, which i found annoying because it was a step back from the whole ambiguity thing which seemed to be inherent in the game, is steve jackson doing this to avoid to much criticism from the relgio types, or are they really at heart angel lovers who grudgingly had to give demons a place, now I'm not looking for sympathy for the devil but even in Good Omens the angel admits that heaven only has a fifty percent chance, I think the best games are were heaven's assurety to victory is in doubt, indeed, maybe something more along the lines of Demon Knight where the demons are this close to victory and the fate of the universe hangs in the hands of a blessed few. well enough commentary Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:23:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Seiger Subject: Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: Some very interesting new rules for falling > An angel is a free-willed being, capable of betraying their nature. When > they do so, their personaly theme in the Symphony becomes polluted with > notes of dissonance. This dissonance makes it increasingly difficult for > the angel to attune to the resonance of his choir. Eventually, the > interference is so great that he will be utterly unable to resonante with > the Symphony. It is from this condition that angels Fall. However, it is > possible for a sufficiently determined angel to resist the lure of the Pit > indefinitely. > > > ---- > Sadistic bit > Sorry, I loved the sadistic bit. I haven't posted in a while, but this post brought me out of my shell. Very nice mechanics, I think this will be implemented in my next game (next semester). Thanks! - -Tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:38:25 -0400 From: Doctor TOC Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: > Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In Nomine > for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons from the > onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and i asked what > character he would play, he said definately an angel, and also, I have > noticed that a lot of games on this list have angel PC's (that's not a > criticism just an observation) and in heaven and hell a number of hints, > not so subtle really, are given that the demons are fated to lose, which i > found annoying because it was a step back from the whole ambiguity thing > which seemed to be inherent in the game, is steve jackson doing this to > avoid to much criticism from the relgio types, or are they really at heart > angel lovers who grudgingly had to give demons a place, now I'm not looking > for sympathy for the devil but even in Good Omens the angel admits that > heaven only has a fifty percent chance, I think the best games are were > heaven's assurety to victory is in doubt, indeed, maybe something more > along the lines of Demon Knight where the demons are this close to victory > and the fate of the universe hangs in the hands of a blessed few. > Is this the world's longest sentence or what?! Well done Simon. Somebody call Guinness. Doctor TOC (AKA Caustiel, Angel of Irony) - -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:30:48 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets >Im curious, are there any character sheets that one can download off >the internet or that someone has created besides the one in the >rulebook (not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to know >if anyone has tailored their own)? > >Thanks, >Jose Burgos >Cassiel, Angel of Forgotten Hopes. > There a pair of excellent PDF files on the InNominee web site at www.sjgames.com. You can open them up in Acrobat reader or Ghostscript and they'll print quite nicely on a laser printer or rip-driven Canon copier. (what I use at work) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:24:31 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) At 14:30 22/04/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >Is it just me, or does nearly all the darkness in canon IN's Heaven >radiate from the figure of Dominic and his Inquisition? > I'm finding that much of the brightness comes from the very hardline superiors such as Dominic & Laurence. It's the knowledge that there are archangels up there who will not allow you to compromise on What Is Right. In comparison, Michael's brutality seems quite dark, but that may change when we get a chance to have a closer look at the front lines of the war and what the Other Side are up to ;-) I've been discussing hell this week and my analogy was of Berlin during WW2 - -- a demon can be cute and fluffy and have a reasonably fun time in Hell, as long as they are willing to turn a blind eye to much of what goes on there. So it is quite desensitising. If an angel hears about some random stranger being assaulted they are likely to want to go and do something about it. If a demon does they are as likely to express sympathy and just think 'rather them than me.' So for that reason, even a nice demon is going to be less nice than a nice mortal, on the average. IMO. I'm imagining groups of reasonably well-disposed impudites that throw fun parties in a sociable manner, but everyone knows that there is one topic that is off limits. You don't discuss nasty things that hell does to humans because it might only upset people. So it is all a bit fake, but that's hell for you. Or lilim parties where everyone tacitly agrees not to discuss how little freedom there is in hell -- broaching that topic would be a social faux-pas and would make sure you stayed off the invite list for years. jo - ---------- Chivalry is the art of lying magnificently. -- Ben Hecht jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:01:19 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) At 11:35 PM 22/04/98 +0900, you wrote: >At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: >>Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In Nomine >for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons from the >onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and i asked what >character he would play, he said definately an angel, and also, I have >noticed that a lot of games on this list have angel PC's (that's not a >criticism just an observation) and in heaven and hell a number of hints, >not so subtle really, are given that the demons are fated to lose, which i >found annoying because it was a step back from the whole ambiguity thing >which seemed to be inherent in the game, is steve jackson doing this to >avoid to much criticism from the relgio types, or are they really at heart >angel lovers who grudgingly had to give demons a place, now I'm not looking >for sympathy for the devil but even in Good Omens the angel admits that >heaven only has a fifty percent chance, I think the best games are were >heaven's assurety to victory is in doubt, indeed, maybe something more >along the lines of Demon Knight where the demons are this close to victory >and the fate of the universe hangs in the hands of a blessed few. >well enough commentary >Simon > > >Longest sentence smah, it seems I always get picked on about grammar. More full stops, more paragraphs, blah, blah. What's important is the content! yeesh, anyone would think this list was populated with ex-english teahcers! Simon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:58:10 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Re: IN- A burning question >The way it works is that Malakim can either be created from scratch or >converted from another Choir; David is an example of a Malakite who used >to be something else (A Cherub, in his case). Uriel started out as some >choir (dunno which offhand), and then during the Fall was changed into the >first of the Malakim to go kick some red ass. Of course, this opens a can of worms... Can angels convert to other choirs? (Why the Hell not? They can turn into demons!) What are the rules for doing so? SurturZ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:56:06 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: IN> Marc's rites Hi, Marc has two basic rites: * Hold an object worth more than $1m (IIRC, could be $100,000) * Make a 100% profit on an honourable transaction Now, these seem to be *way* more difficult than most other Superior's rites. Getting hold of a really expensive item is already difficult; making a 100% profit is also pretty damn hard. I can only think of one example, which is selling the Big Issue (sold by the homeless, it retails for 50p, of which 35p goes to the sellers). More to the point, if you're making a 100% profit, you're probably in a monopoly position or gouging your clients, at least IMHO. So, anyone have an explanation for these rites, and how to make them work better? Sam - -- Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew has moved: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:56:38 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> Character taxonomy Walter Milliken wrote: > > >I was more concerned with the taxonomy in general. > >It just seems to me (at the moment) that Derek wrote > >Superiors in three basic flavors. > > I tend to group them into "war party", "peace party", and "neutrals". > These can usually be deduced by the alliance/enemy data, though the > groupings are a little fuzzy. On the angelic side, there's also a sort > of "green party" (Eli, Novalis, Jordi) which I tend to view as an > environmentalist alliance of sorts. I have a slightly different setup IMC, where I prefer the following grouping: Those that want the war to end by defeating the demons Laurence, Gabriel, Dominic, David Those that want the war to end in a less bloodthirsty way Yves, Blandine, Novalis, Eli Those that like things the way they are Janus, Michael, Jordi, Marc Laurence and David obviously want to smash the demons, and Gabriel wants to get rid of Baal once and for all. Dominic doesn't want there to be any demons left - he clearly preferred it when he didn't have to make all the harsh decisions he's forced into at the moment. Blandine, OTOH, wants to get Beleth back *some way*, and would prefer to avoid out and out war. Novalis doesn't like violence full stop. Yves and Eli have their own plans for resolving the War, but neither of them are talking about it. Janus, Jordi and Marc are fairly obvious stick at homes. Michael, as Archangel of War, would have nothing left to do if angels were no longer at war with anyone; he *might* bounce back, but he might not. Old habits die hard; let's not risk it. Demon Princes I haven't thought about too much, but there's a fairly strong intimation in canon that they divide into the upstarts (Haagenti, Nybbas, Kobal, Saminga, Valefor, Vapula) and the Nobility (Asmodeus, Kronos, Baal, Malphas) - I've missed out some, notably Belial, but you get the idea. Sam - -- Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew has moved: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:13:08 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Simon Hailes wrote: > yeesh, anyone would think this list was populated with ex-english > teahcers! No, but you can't throw a stone without hitting an amateur or professional writer. Seriously, though, the question of how much chance Hell has of winning is supposed to be as much a matter of debate in game as out: far more, in fact. Hence you can't expect ever to get a straight canon answer, and a GM can tailor it how he likes. For my money, the more sympathetic Hell is in a given campaign, the LESS its chance of winning should be. So you either have relatively nice demons who are outgunned by Heaven, or ruthless nasty demons who actually have a chance of making it. That way it should always be fun to play either side of the fence. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:18:03 EDT From: SienarFLT Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) [FLUFF] In a message dated 98-04-23 03:36:53 EDT, you write: > >Longest sentence smah, it seems I always get picked on about grammar. > More full stops, more paragraphs, blah, blah. What's important is the > content! yeesh, anyone would think this list was populated with ex-english > teahcers! > Simon Some of us are are not "ex" English teachers, at least not yet anyway ;-) But I try to ignore most of the spelling and grammar errors lest someone jump on my back about the same thing. What amuses me the most, is how so many people get irritated about the correct way to pluralize "geas," something not of our own language, and no one seems to know how to spell Judgment correctly (hint, there's no "e"), which *is* part of the English language.... :-) Purely in jest people, purely in jest. -- Thom D. Cynic Mercurian of Mispellings ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:25:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: Re: IN> Marc's rites - ---Sam Kington wrote: > > Hi, > > Marc has two basic rites: > * Hold an object worth more than $1m (IIRC, could be $100,000) > * Make a 100% profit on an honourable transaction > > Now, these seem to be *way* more difficult than most other Superior's > rites. Getting hold of a really expensive item is already difficult; > making a 100% profit is also pretty damn hard. I can only think of one > example, which is selling the Big Issue (sold by the homeless, it > retails for 50p, of which 35p goes to the sellers). More to the point, > if you're making a 100% profit, you're probably in a monopoly position > or gouging your clients, at least IMHO. > > So, anyone have an explanation for these rites, and how to make them > work better? > > Sam Try these, I'm not sure how well they'll work for PCs, but they certainly seem appropriate for Marc's workaday angels: 1 pt for every x thousands of dollars invested in a heavenly mutual fund 1 pt for convincing a human to tithe 10% of his income 1 pt for recruiting a homeless person to sell newspapers 1 pt for convincing a human not to take a bogus deduction on his taxes 1 pt for foiling a bank robbery 1 pt for foiling an insurance fraud scam == bruce bdykes@intac.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:38:45 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, York H. Dobyns wrote: > The upshot, at least to me, comes across as a Hell that is unreservedly, > unambiguously, unrelievedly evil -- and a Heaven that, while quite > definitely better, falls rather short of being "good" in any absolute > sense. It's a depressing thought, for Heaven to be the lesser of two > evils. It would've been nice for the balance to come somewhere closer > to the center. I have had the same feeling. The one time I've played a demon was a rather disconcerting experience - there was nothing to hold you back from doing really, really nasty things to people. It was a bit scary, actually, to see how easy it is to take normal people and really f*ck them over when you don't have to take the consequences, and as demons there's very little people can do to stop you. Sure, when there were angels around we ran like Hell, but that didn't stop us from doing all kinds of evil things. (I don't use the word "evil" lightly here.) As an angel you have an internal conflict between the way things should be done, and the "best" way of doing them. That conflict creates depth, makes the character interesting. You have to try to reconcile your AA's orders, the best interests of people as you see them, and your own nature. But as a demon, all the conflict is external. You never need to question your own motives - you're looking out for number one, and everyone else is just a tool or an obstacle. Of course it's possible to play a demon with more depth - one who actually -likes- people, for example - but that's the exception rather than the norm. Playing demons is IMO quite a lot like playing Paranoia, without the silliness, which just leaves the backstabbing and opportunism, which isn't a very pleasant experience, IMO. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Dykes Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) - ---Simon Hailes wrote: > > At 01:00 PM 22/04/98 -0400, you wrote: > >Good on you, you have just identified what I have noticed about In Nomine > for a long time, that the chips are stacked against the demons from the > onslaught, when I introduced a friend of mine to the game and i asked what Not in my campaign. My campaign is IN Forward, where the Demons, while allegedly bound by the noninterference pact between God and Lucifer, are, well, Demons, and have trouble following rules, and Angels, being Angels, can't interfere with humans, they can only try to enforce the interference pact on the Demons. That, and the whole outnumbering thing, puts Heaven at a disadvantage in my campaign. == bruce bdykes@intac.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:49:16 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> Victory in the War The recent discussions sparked an idea in my (admittedly more than a little bit demented) brain - what if the final showdown came, and -nobody- won? There was a great big battle, the Hosts of Heaven and the Hordes of Hell slaughtering each other left, right and center... without a clear winner? God doesn't intervene, at least not in a direct enough manner to tip the scales, most of the Superiors are destroyed or MIA, both angels and demons (and quite possibley humans) are decimated... What happens then? How will the (few) survivors interpret this outcome? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "I kick arse for the Lord!" - Father McGruder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:32:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Fuzzy? (was Re: Character taxonomy) Simon Hailes wrote: > Longest sentence smah, it seems I always get picked on about grammar. > More full stops, more paragraphs, blah, blah. What's important is the > content! Yes, but more standard punctuation, spelling, and grammar makes it easier to GET to your content. That's what the standards are for, really. But on to the content itself: > is steve jackson doing this to avoid to much criticism from the > relgio types, or are they really at heart angel lovers who grudgingly > had to give demons a place [...] I think the best games are were > heaven's assurety to victory is in doubt I doubt very much that this is to appease the "relgio types." If they were worried about that, they wouldn't have put so many dark or ambiguous elements in Heaven. Actually, I've never noticed any indication that IN treats the demonic cause as doomed. Wait until "Final Trumpet," to see the official, canonical take on Armageddon. I am willing to bet it does not declare a winner. As to SJG being "angel lovers," well, you are up against the basic nature of good and evil. Good may not always be nice, and evil may have its seductive side, but if good is good, then it's the common thread in justice, love, and mercy, while evil is the aching lack of those things. So if canon describes angels in more appealing terms than demons, I think that's largely just inherent in the concepts. As for the preference for angels among the players, while it can certainly be artistically interesting to play someone twisted and heartless, it appears that most people also find it rather a strain and can get plenty of dramatic tension from the agonies of conscience suffered by the forces of light trying to puzzle out the Right Thing to Do. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:40:30 EDT From: BarbarJoJo Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Character sheets I generated a nice one in Publisher 95 which is useful for both angelic and demonic players. If you can use it, let me know and I'll send you a copy of the file. Marcia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:40:33 EDT From: BarbarJoJo Subject: Re: IN> Falling, another perspective. I actually had a Soldier of God "fall" in my game. I don't think that the player really understood the concept of the game and refused all of the other characters' offers of help. He had been told exactly what he had to do and he didn't do it, sealing his doom. The situation: The Soldier had beaten up and robbed a drug dealer. The drug dealer's friends chased him and nearly killed him. His angel came to his rescue and kept him from dying, but he had a bullet in his heart and still needed medical attention. A demon representing Asmodeous was sent to the hospital to try to recruit him which he completely rebuffed. However, during that night at the hospital when he attempted to heal himself, he got a little "demonic" intervention (he rolled a 6-6-6) and was completely healed by the demon. But since he had not ASKED for the help, he was under NO obligation to the demon. The next morning he was no longer in critical condition or even in need of hospitalization, so he was released into police custody and he was charged with a LONG laundry list of charges. His angels told him exactly what he had to do to be forgiven of these sins: admit the crimes, ask for for forgiveness, repent, and serve whatever punishment was demanded. However when he got to court, he pled "Not Guilty" and his defense attorney argued that he could not POSSIBLY be the same man that had been brought in two days earlier with a bullet in his chest. At which point, the charges were dropped and he walked away a free, albeit "fallen" man. The player said that he had "forgotten" the conditions for forgiveness and planned to "redeem" his character, but we haven't played it out yet. It should be interesting, as the angelic characters now feel a duty to remove him from demonic influence in whatever way necessary, including killing him. I should also point out that at no point during the entire episode did the character pray, although I asked the player many times if he wanted to. Fortunately, the trial was saved for the last session of that campaign, so that it wouldn't interfere with the mission and we had his character available to solve the actual problem. So, I would say that it is very possibly for a character to fall, especially for an inexperienced or stubborn player. Marcia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:40:34 EDT From: BarbarJoJo Subject: IN> Looking for players Our In Nomine group is looking for players in the Austin area. If you're looking to join a group, please e-mail back. Marcia ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #726 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.