From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue May 5 14:28:55 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 OAA32306 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 14:28:54 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA08480 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 14:22:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:22:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199805051922.OAA08480@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 #755 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, May 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 755 In this digest: Re: IN> Dominic Re: IN> Dark Destiny, Bright Fate IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) Re: Grand'ma is toast (was Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment) Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) Re: IN> Yves Re: IN> Disturbance Rules (was: Uriel's next assignment) Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) IN> New SWM GM seeks advice Re: IN> Jordi's big move Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words Re: IN> IN: Resonance/Wheel of Time parallell Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings Re: IN> New SWM GM seeks advice Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition IN> Essence "flavors" Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition Re: IN> Essence "flavors" Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Dominic - ---Titus 3 11 wrote: > > Your "humorous" observation has been noted. Your position has been > recorded. Please hold your position while we dispatch a triad. ***puts on the fake nose and glasses*** Graveyard Greg? Who is Graveyard Greg? Nahtaivel, who doesn't look a thing like Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Dark Destiny, Bright Fate - ---"The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather" wrote: > > >Is this better or worse that bat-toting Wally? > > Kara, Ophanim of Gabriel. Serverly injured in a celestial fight Gabriel for reasons of her own binds her to a vessel identical to a recently dead human called Linda Danvers. A gift of Yves allows her to access Lindas memories and skills. > > She's in my game, if I bring in her character sheet I'll post her stats if anyone is interested. > LOL! That would be Super! LOL! Graveyard Greg _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) Elizabeth McCoy writes: >At 2:33 PM -0500 5/3/98, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: >>It is Dissonant for a Seraph to lie. [...] >>How do the Seraphim know what the Truth is? >>It is Dissonant for a Seraph to lie, but can a Seraph avoid lying when >>he cannot perceive Truth except on a CD of 6? > >The thing that makes Seraphim dissonant is not precisely lying, Actually, we seem to be having a language problem here. (I remember a few years back Murphy's Rules gigged RuneQuest 3rd ed. for the fact that native speakers of the same language had about a 1-in-3 chance of being mutually unintelligible. Alas, I begin to fear Runequest had it right, given the number of times English-to-English Translating Dictionaries seem to be needed, especially on the Net.) The Rules say that Seraphim gain dissonance by lying. (Well, actually, they *don't* ever come straight to the point and *say* that in so many words; it's just deducible from the way the Dissonance section of the Seraphim writeup is full of prose about how revolting and painful the mere presence of a lie is to a Seraph.) On the other hand, at least one post here announced that Seraphim gain dissonance by speaking an untruth. And here we come to the crux of the matter, because I've seen before that a substantial minority of native English speakers understand "lie" to mean "speak an untruth", while the majority understand "lie" to mean "speak something the speaker *believes* to be an untruth." I once had a conversation with a member of the linguistic minority who furiously denounced the Pope as a liar. (Need I add that she's not a Catholic?) My attempt to point out that all evidence indicated that the Pope sincerely believed all of his claims cut no ice with her; as far as she was concerned, he said things that weren't true, and that made him a liar, *no matter what he believed*. It is fairly evident, on the other hand, from the way the Seraph rules are written, that the writers of IN belonged (unsurprisingly) to the linguistic majority. Note that the Seraph resonance *does* distinguish between what the speaker believes, and what the real Truth is. Say a believing member of the Flat Earth Society is trying to pass himself off as a mainstream astronomer. A Seraph truthreads him with CD 6. The guy offhandedly announces "The Earth is round, of course." The Seraph notes that the speaker is lying, because he actually believes the Earth is a flat disk. The Seraph *also* notes that the statement is actually a *true* description of Earth's real shape, since he's sufficiently in tune with the Symphony to spot reality regardless of the speaker's beliefs. The way the Seraph rules are written makes it clear that the authors of the rulebook understand "lying" to mean the intent to deceive; the attempt to get others to believe a proposition that you don't believe. You can lie without ever saying anything untrue -- if you are mistaken about the truth. The Flat Earther from the above example is lying when he makes the true statement that the Earth is round; he is not lying when he speaks the untruth that the Earth is flat. A previous discussion of the Celestial tongue, in which one cannot lie, further confirms this intended meaning of "lie". If the Celestial tongue could not express untruths, it would be a magical way of finding out absolutely *any* fact the speaker needed to know; simply attempt to make the assertion, and see whether it works or not. Fortunately, this is not the case; the Celestial tongue is not a language that disallows untruths, it is a language that doesn't allow *you* to make an assertion that *you* disbelieve. Two Celestials who disagree with each other about some matter of fact (e.g. free will :-)) can directly contradict each other in their own language, despite the fact that no *one* celestial can manage to speak both sides of the argument. Getting back to Seraphs and their dissonance problem: it seems fairly clear from the foregoing that a Seraph can speak untruths all day long, provided they're untruths that he honestly believes, and never earn a single point of dissonance. Here's another lying issue: it's possible to lie without ever making an untrue statement -- in a different way than the "honest mistake" mentioned above; let us, for the moment, presume that our hypothetical liar is not actually mistaken in any of his beliefs. It's been said that the two most effective ways to lie are to say only carefully selected parts of the truth, and to tell the whole truth in such a way that it will not be believed. You've been to a formal dinner where the most bizarre, ghastly, indigestion-producing ethnic food was incompetently served; you tell the hostess that it was a very interesting experience. Now, Seraphic truthscan will presumably foreclose the "tell the truth in such a way as to be disbelieved"; the resonance *tells* the seraph what to believe. But what about the lie of silent omission? Does truthscan detect missing context, when everything the speaker says rings true in the Symphony? Does this form of lying work in Celestial language? And another digression on lies: as noted above, Celestial tongue does not allow the speaker to lie. Doesn't that make the Seraph resonance fairly pointless in Heaven? Or are all Seraphs in their natural home looking for CDs of 6, so they can detect speakers who are honestly deluded? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 12:53:39 -0400 From: Jesse Subject: Re: Grand'ma is toast (was Re: IN> Uriel's next assignment) >> ???The grail? >> the grail has direct connections to Gran'ma and worse! They are not >good >> guys! They are fanatics of the worst kind - the kind with access to >> Nukes!!!!! >> Enosh >> Malakite > >Why do you care? Yer fallen! ;) And besides, THEY think they're on the >side of Good, eh? For their OWN good! > >And as for the Nukes...they ain't afraid to use them... > >All hail the Allfather Odin? Why would we hail Odin? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:31:17 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 09:08:48AM -0500, Titus 3 11 wrote: > > What the hell is A and E? > Calm down Kevin! It's the Arts and Entertainment television network. I am calm. But it isn't wise to assume that I'll get every American reference, especially since I (among others, I'm sure), has never been to America. I don't make posts referring to Blueshirts and Stickies, do I? > > Micheal as being the main > > > character of All Quiet on the Western Front ( or the French guy he killed > > > in a Trench). <> And I would think that he Micheal (if he > > > were the main character from AQWF) would see Laurence as a competent but > > > too-green commander, > > > > War, of course, doesn't have just one meaning. The "flower battles" of the > > Aztecs, carried out solely in order to gain captives for sacrifice, were > > also War. > I'd say Baal rejoiced as those Wars rang out. Quite possibly. But I don't see why you'd think that Michael wouldn't rejoice at it also. War is War, and I haven't seen any indication anywhere that Michael attempts to restrain the methods used (though he might prefer that they die in combat rather than be sacrificed). Of course, I also fail to see why Michael's dissonance is against retreating. It's a very Eurocentric view of War, IMO. Throughout history, the idea of fighting to the death rather than retreating has been an aberration, entirely alien to most military traditions. The whole idea of face-to-face combat with genuinely lethal weapons, no quarter asked or given is, at least according to John Keegan's History of Warfare, a European innovation, and very frightening to non-Europeans. > I'd also say Saminga's servants were at the front ranks of those groups > foolish enough to side against sacrificers. Why? The place for one of Saminga's Servitors to be is in the priesthood, charged with organising the sacrifices to "Our lord, our executioner, our enemy" as the Aztec ruler was styled. > > and Yves as <> Hitler. If you > > > "get" the limited comparison I'm making > > > >From Micheal's viewpoint - Yves is the guy whose idea this really is, who > refuses to listen to good advice form his generals, and appears to be mad > and obssesed. > Mind you, thats how he thinks of Yves, not how Yves may or may not > actually be. > That's fair enough, though I might add from a historical perspective that a lot of the problem Hitler's generals had with restraining Hitler is that they had so often been proved wrong on those issues before. > Sounds feasible to me. I didn't mean military tactics but the method of > thinking and relationships, but the points you're making are sound. > I was aware of that. > Not, however, psychotic desire to move and change...make supply lines > hard..and try to keep him focused at the meetings. > I'd say he's very focused when in pursuit of a goal. He's an Ofanite, it's almost dissonant for him not to be focused when he has to be. And I'd say he'd be damn good at picking out the weak spots in the enemy line. And while advancing quickly often has deleterious effects for your organisation, it tends to be much worse for the enemy's. Besides, you can often get by by capturing your enemy's supply dumps. It's when the advance gets held up that you have problems. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 13:39:17 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words In a message dated 5/5/98 2:20:52 AM, hjalkar@RedBrick.DCU.IE writes: >On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 06:28:15PM -0400, MarkDEddy wrote: >> In a message dated 5/1/98 7:50:40 AM, stephenj@linc.ox.ac.uk writes: >> (Talking about Michael): >> >He's a tactical genius, but that isn't his main strength. He is the patron >> >of soldiers, not generals. (Dunno if that's Catholic canon, but it would >> >sure help my argument if it was.) >> >> Soldiers specifically, yes. Also Policemen and the Irish. > >Is this some sort of comment on Irish belligerence? And if it isn't, it's >rather bizarre, because I have been under the impression that St Patrick >was the patron saint of Ireland, for his labours in subjecting the Celtic >Church to the supremacy of Rome. Patrick/Padraig is *one* of the Patrons of Ireland. The others are Bridgit/Bride, Michael, and Columba. Michael (in the reasons I've seen given) is a Patron because of the Celtic Church's fascination with Angelology. >Anyone who can say, >> "Don't call me sir, I work for a living," is under Michael. >> >So he's the patron Archangel of everyone, is he? Everyone in Ireland, evidently... ;) Specifically, however, the above quote refers to non-commissioned officers, who want to be distinguished from either civilians or commissioned officers. >Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. >-- > "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we >sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." > N.V. Krylenko. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:40:32 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Lying (was Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 12:50:00PM -0400, York H. Dobyns wrote: > Getting back to Seraphs and their dissonance problem: it seems fairly > clear from the foregoing that a Seraph can speak untruths all day long, > provided they're untruths that he honestly believes, and never earn a > single point of dissonance. > It is, however, bad form to make statements of fact about things you're unsure of, even if it's your opinion. Seraphim do almost as much "if and but"ing as Elohim. It's been said that > the two most effective ways to lie are to say only carefully selected > parts of the truth, and to tell the whole truth in such a way that it > will not be believed. And Seraphim of the Wind do that endemically. It's what their Choir attunement makes them do. It's not dissonant for Seraphim to deceive people in that fashion, because it's still truth. And some Seraphim think of very creative ways to make sure what they say will be misinterpreted. You've been to a formal dinner where the most > bizarre, ghastly, indigestion-producing ethnic food was incompetently > served; you tell the hostess that it was a very interesting experience. You've been offered a deal you want to pretend to accept but not actually accept. You say it sounds reasonable. > Now, Seraphic truthscan will presumably foreclose the "tell the truth in > such a way as to be disbelieved"; the resonance *tells* the seraph what > to believe. But what about the lie of silent omission? Does truthscan > detect missing context, when everything the speaker says rings true in > the Symphony? I'd say that intention to deceive is picked up, and after that weird stuff happens. So the Seraph resonance is useful on Seraphim. Does this form of lying work in Celestial language? > I'd say yes, because it's not dissonant for Seraphim. > And another digression on lies: as noted above, Celestial tongue does > not allow the speaker to lie. Doesn't that make the Seraph resonance > fairly pointless in Heaven? They can presumably pick up the forms of deception listed above. Or are all Seraphs in their natural home > looking for CDs of 6, so they can detect speakers who are honestly > deluded? Well, it's certainly an option. Then again, what do Kyriotates do in Heaven? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:36:22 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Yves At 08:19 05/05/98 -0400, you wrote: > >At the same time, I agree that cold war Russia is a great model for Hades >in Hell. > I'll take the opp for a quick plug. Next ante installment is up at http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/ante3.html and who IS that oddly familiar moustached man who is (literally) Uncle Azzie's poster boy? jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:43:44 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance Rules (was: Uriel's next assignment) On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 11:05:08AM -0400, MarkDEddy wrote: > >ObIN: does anyone have /sane/ house rules for handling disturbance? > > All the ones I've seen are at least as complicated as the > > official rules, which is kinda self-defeating. > > My rules are: Kill a human, it's audible city-wide. Go celestial, you've got a > five-block radius. Actually, killing a human and going Celestial cause approximately the same amount of disturbance, so the difference shouldn't be that big. Spend a point of essence, you're only heard in the same > room. Scale accordingly. When the Malakim of Laurence killed two humans in two > rounds, half of the party was stunned from the Symphonic backlash... > Mark(Disturbance sounds like a misplayed violin chord IMC) Wow. Funky house rules. I'm glad you weren't GMing when we nuked a French town. (Well it wasn't me, I got the Shedite to do it.) I remember suggesting that my Forces should be shredded apart by the disturbance, seeing as they were somewhat traumatised. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:45:23 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seraphim and the TRUTH. (help!) On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 10:02:26AM -0500, Perry M. Lloyd wrote: > Highlighting a False Symphony and piecing out which parts God's Symphony > agree with it are two different things, neh? > > I just don't know whether or not a Seraph would be able to pick what > agreed with the Truth out of the Bal's Personal Truth. > You run it the same way as normally with the note that the Balseraph is self-deluded, so only check digits of 5 and 6 tend to be useful. That's assuming the Balseraph makes his/her resonance roll. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:47:05 PDT From: "jev h." Subject: IN> New SWM GM seeks advice Hey! I'm very new to In Nomine, but I really like it. I have the core book and the Angelic Player's Guide, and I am preparing to GM a group, but I need advice on what to do, get, etc. I have GM'd other role-playing games, but In Nomine is different. Any help would be appreciated. Sincerely, Cadavaca ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:51:44 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Jordi's big move On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 10:57:12AM -0400, Jesse wrote: > >Dissonant. A Djinn can't ask someone else to get rid of an object of their > >attunement, though they can make hints, like "I'm really sick of being > >attuned to X, and if you do me a favour, I'll give you this relic." > >"What sort of favour?" > >"I can't say." > > He's Geased, he'll swallow it. > I dunno. Given a conflict between Geas dissonance, which won't give me Discord, and Band dissonance, which might, I'm not sure what I'd pick. Unless it's Lilith who holds the Geas, in which case I'd wonder why it isn't better planned. (It's simple. The Djinn tells you where the guy is, and somebody else asks you to kill him.) > >And of course maybe the angels say no and try to kill the Djinn and take > >the relic off his corpse, or steal the relic from the Djinn. It's what > >Mithredath would do. > > Hide the relic. Don't make it that easy. Besides, if they kill the > Djinn he can always come back via Body Bag. > It comes down to this. Are your angelic PCs ready to kill a (probably innocent) human and encourage a Renegade in demonic behaviour in order to get their hands on a relic which may or may not exist? I'm pretty sure most of my characters wouldn't do it. (I mean seriously, it's so obviously a setup, and it's morally wrong.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 13:53:47 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings >From: Kevin Walsh > >On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >> As for contact, an angel could take celestial form and then it can get >> close enough to attune without being blocked by barriers of flesh. >> >I thought only Djinn could do that. That was my interpretation of the >mention in the IPG under Sophisticated Uses of Resonance, because >otherwise it doesn't give the Djinn anything other people don't have. I haven't really had time to do a close reading of the IPG yet (this is why my long review has yet to appear). But I'd let it go, since the celestial form is the true form of the angel/demon and it ought to be able to use its powers fully from that form. But as a rule I prefer to err on the side of greater PC power, since it makes players happy. They tend to use their powers to get into more trouble than they would have otherwise, anyway. :) >> So the minimum character point cost to find out if someone has a human >> soul are: >> >> 0 for Shedim (who can just try to do a possession). >> 1 for Cherubim and Djinn (for 1 level in the Song of Dreams) >> 2 for everyone else (for 1 level in the Songs of Attraction and Dreams) >> >> This is low enough that the answer should probably be common knowledge >> among celestials. >> >And as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's (next to) impossible to prove a >negative. I never disputed that if the foetus has a soul, its existence >could be determined. You can prove the absence of the soul with the same degree of confidence that you can demonstrate its existence (in IN). Mind, this is not a level that would convince David Hume, but then, you couldn't offer David Hume an argument that would convince him you exist at all. :) You can formulate the hypothesis -- "this fetus has no soul" -- and run an experiment to test it. You can estimate the probablity of a false result by running tests on beings you know to have a soul, and then can make that probability as small as you like by repeating your experiment multiple times. Do you want 3 sigma confidence, or are you going to be super-strict and demand 5? The old saw that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only true when you haven't looked for any. There's plenty of evidence that it's impossible to build a perpetual motion machine, for example. >In any event, trying to sing Songs when you have level 1 in them is >usually an object of futility, and I can count the number of my characters >who have the Corporeal Song of Dreams and the Celestial Song of Attraction >on one hand... Not really -- with just a few minutes extra time, you get a +3 to your roll, without having to spend any essence. If you're really slow and take um a half-hour you get a +4. You might even be able to reduce the check digit for another +1 to your roll, if I am not getting the rule backwards. (It's lunch, and my books are at home.) I'll agree that low-level (and even medium-level) songs are unreliable in any crisis situation, though. The failure rate for numinous corpus in particular doesn't fit the feel of the genre, IMHO. I am a bit tempted to declare that they cost double what they do now but work automatically. >> Though this raises an interesting question...can Shedim possess the >> undead in canon? > >They're humans, ne? With wacky things done to their souls, though. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:57:00 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Angels and Dicey Words On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 01:39:17PM -0400, MarkDEddy wrote: > >Is this some sort of comment on Irish belligerence? And if it isn't, it's > >rather bizarre, because I have been under the impression that St Patrick > >was the patron saint of Ireland, for his labours in subjecting the Celtic > >Church to the supremacy of Rome. > > Patrick/Padraig is *one* of the Patrons of Ireland. The others are Patricius (ie of the Patrician class). He was a Romanised Briton. > Bridgit/Bride, Michael, and Columba. I've heard Brighid and Colm Chille mentioned all right, but never Michael. Possibly because of the Celtic fascination with Trinities. Michael (in the reasons I've seen given) > is a Patron because of the Celtic Church's fascination with Angelology. I see. > >Anyone who can say, > >> "Don't call me sir, I work for a living," is under Michael. > >> > >So he's the patron Archangel of everyone, is he? > Everyone in Ireland, evidently... ;) Well, anyone can say the above quote, so long as they are capable of speech. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 19:04:37 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN: Resonance/Wheel of Time parallell On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > Just got this weird flash when reading the Seraph/Balseraph thread... > > The difference between Angelic and Demonic resonances is oddly similar to > the difference between femal and male magic in Robert Jordan's Wheel of > Time series - men seize the Source, fight to control it, thrust their > magic upon the world, They're vicious bastards, those men. while women open themselves to it, surrender to the > beauty of it. Except, need I add, the Kyriotates, who do a damn good job of imposing their Will upon the world. (Yeah, I know what kind of imagery this creates in your > filthy minds. I'm subbing for Andre today.:) Do you realise what happens if you extend this metaphor? Balseraph is resonating on Seraph. But I reckon that as long as the Seraph isn't getting check digits of 5 or 6, it's actually worse if they resonate on the Balseraph, because they're more likely to believe the Balseraph. It's almost a paradox. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. (I didn't know there were other WOT fans on the list, besides Adam.) - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 19:13:47 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Identifying ensouled beings On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 01:53:47PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >I thought only Djinn could do that. That was my interpretation of the > >mention in the IPG under Sophisticated Uses of Resonance, because > >otherwise it doesn't give the Djinn anything other people don't have. > > I haven't really had time to do a close reading of the IPG yet (this is > why my long review has yet to appear). But I'd let it go, since the > celestial form is the true form of the angel/demon and it ought to be > able to use its powers fully from that form. > Whereas I tend to say that physical contact is physical contact, not Celestial contact. You're on a different plane, after all. > But as a rule I prefer to err on the side of greater PC power, since it > makes players happy. They tend to use their powers to get into more > trouble than they would have otherwise, anyway. :) > Cool. Will you give my Seraphim dodge bonuses when they resonate on their opponents with a check digit of 6? > >And as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's (next to) impossible to prove a > >negative. I never disputed that if the foetus has a soul, its existence > >could be determined. > > You can prove the absence of the soul with the same degree of confidence > that you can demonstrate its existence (in IN). Not quite the same degree. If a Shedite possesses something, the Shedite knows, and has a 100% confidence. If the Shedite fails repeatedly to possess, it can guess. > >In any event, trying to sing Songs when you have level 1 in them is > >usually an object of futility, and I can count the number of my characters > >who have the Corporeal Song of Dreams and the Celestial Song of Attraction > >on one hand... (Sorry, that should have been one finger.) > > Not really -- with just a few minutes extra time, you get a +3 to your > roll, without having to spend any essence. Wow, five minutes in Celestial form, using that trick you were thinking of using. That's inconvenient, you know. Of course, this is largely quibbling. Certainly I think _someone_ knows by this stage, but I don't think that it's a trivial problem for most Celestials. If you're really slow and take > um a half-hour you get a +4. An hour, actually. You might even be able to reduce the check > digit for another +1 to your roll, if I am not getting the rule backwards. > (It's lunch, and my books are at home.) > You're not getting the rule backwards, but I'm a cruel person. > I'll agree that low-level (and even medium-level) songs are unreliable > in any crisis situation, though. The failure rate for numinous corpus in > particular doesn't fit the feel of the genre, IMHO. I am a bit tempted > to declare that they cost double what they do now but work automatically. > I amn't. Numinous Corpus are easily set up in advance. None of my characters with NC have been caught in a fight without them ready. > >> Though this raises an interesting question...can Shedim possess the > >> undead in canon? > > > >They're humans, ne? > > With wacky things done to their souls, though. > True. But without a canon ruling against, I don't see why not. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:10:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> New SWM GM seeks advice > Hey! I'm very new to In Nomine, but I really like it. I have the core > book and the Angelic Player's Guide, and I am preparing to GM a group, > but I need advice on what to do, get, etc. I have GM'd other > role-playing games, but In Nomine is different. In terms of supplements, it depends on the group you are goign to run. Will the be just angels, just demons, or both angels and demons? If just angels, will they run into many demons? Will the NPC demons be token adversaries, or full fledged individuals? If there are demon PCs, or if individual demons are expected to be recurrent, well-developed NPCs, then the Infernal Player's Guide is the first supplement I would recommend you get in addition to the one you've got. The value of additional supplements (Liber Reliquarium or the Revelations Cycle) would depend on what your game is focusing on, or what you are interested in. In any event, take a look at the Errata on the SJ Games home page. Then, read this list, and the In Nomine Collection web page, and plunder mercilessly for ideas and inspiration :) What other games have you GM'ed, and how is IN different? - -Rob === Rob Knop === rknop@crl.com ==== http://www.wco.com/~rknop === Amiga PGP information at http://www.wco.com/~rknop/amiga_pgp Visit the Dramatic Exchange at http://www.dramex.org/ ================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:32:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Titus 3 11 wrote: > anyone who thinks that ivanova, after four years of running Babylon 5 (the > capitan was always an accesory), could not, while sleeping, run "the War," > deserves a smiting. Her skills as a Demon Prince would be exceptional... I'm not saying she couldn't do the job, I'm saying she shouldn't be a DP. Ivanova as Michael, on the other hand.... - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:36:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, 5 May 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > (re: Ivanova) > >Her skills as a Demon Prince would be exceptional... > > Her skills at acting however, leave something to be desired ;) You're walking on thin ice, Jo...*wields flaming sword menacingly* Beth likes Malakim with Good Views. I like Ivanova for the same reasons. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 98 14:49 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Essence "flavors" [From the "Double Agents" thread:] >I thought Gabriel noticed that the Essence used in summoning her was >generated by a non-Fire Rite. >This raises a bunch of other questions - I've always thought of Essence as >being a completely uniform, without distinctions to separate one "unit" >>from the next. In the Lilith writeup in the main book, I believe, there's a mention of "dark Essence". I've been considering that Essence can come in "flavors"; specifically that the Essence that arrives at different times of day is actually different (that gives us 4 basic "flavors": angelic, demonic, human, and ethereal). But it's not *very* different -- anyone can use any type. I have considered that using demonic Essence might be dissonant for angels, though (or at least frequent use). There may also be "Word-flavored" Essence -- if a Rite is used, or it's generated by human activities that are Word-related. Essence given by a Superior (which is probably going to include Rite Essence in future canon) would also be flavored by that Superior's Word. > If Gabriel can tell that a certain amount of Essence was >generated in a certain way, how much more can she tell? If Nichole had >been given the Essence from someone else, would Gabriel be able to notice >that? Could she tell who had given the Essence? If it was an angel or a >demon? This could create all kinds of interesting problems for PC:s... ;) Gabriel's capabilities are somewhat unpredictable, since she has a very close connection to the Symphony sometimes. This may have been an instance, or it may be a general Superior ability. But it is essentially canonized now (in the IPG) that Superiors can look at you and tell what connections you have with other Words (specifically Rites, attunements, and Distinctions). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 20:04:20 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Audition On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 02:36:57PM -0400, Casca wrote: > > (re: Ivanova) > > >Her skills as a Demon Prince would be exceptional... > > > > Her skills at acting however, leave something to be desired ;) > > You're walking on thin ice, Jo... Shouldn't you specify that it's metaphorical thin ice? Of course, Michael does go around calling Dominic a hyena. *wields flaming sword menacingly* > Be careful about where you wave that thing. Do you really want to do it in the Library? > Beth likes Malakim with Good Views. I like Ivanova for the same reasons. Frankly, if not for the fact that by this stage I don't expect anything better from the forces of Heaven, I would be dismayed. Imagine allowing your objectivity, which should be sacred, to be influenced by the sight of some woman's curves. It just goes to show how false their claims of moral superiority really are. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 20:09:49 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Essence "flavors" On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 02:49:00PM -0400, Walter Milliken wrote: > In the Lilith writeup in the main book, I believe, there's a mention of > "dark Essence". > Indeed there is. I > have considered that using demonic Essence might be dissonant for > angels, though (or at least frequent use). > My understanding was that it had to be connected to a Rite for it to be dissonant, since it's a rather important rules point which should have been specified otherwise. I presume that you can perform activities which would allow you to benefit from a Rite without actually drawing Essence from the Rite, because otherwise (for example) Redeemed demons of the War in service to the Sword or War would be in some difficulty about killing an opponent. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "In the period of dictatorship, surrounded on all sides by enemies, we sometimes manifested unnecessary leniency and unnecessary softheartedness." N.V. Krylenko. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 98 15:07 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Question about Motion (Celestial) [Em:] >A) What is the ruling on teleporting objects? I'd say you can do it as long as you can see the target location (or have seen it recently or are very familiar with it), it's in range, and the object is under your weight limit. (Notice that the range factor is a bit fuzzy, since it depends on the CD, if I recall right. >B) What is the ruling on picking the destination of teleportation? I'd allow anywhere you've been recently (maybe Intelligence roll - days since you've been there) or are very familiar with, or in sight (including remote vision of various sorts). >C) Can you teleport something into someone? I'd say no, ordinarily. *Over* them, yes. And it would probably make a good Intervention result. >This is just future knowledge - at this point I set a precident, and I'm >going to let it just run like this. I think you may want to keep it less effective. You can always say this was a case of Intervention, even though the die rolls didn't -- the *PCs* don't know that. Anyway, against a Kobalite, I think it counts as divine justice.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #755 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.