From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat May 16 05:31:03 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 FAA24356 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 05:31:03 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id FAA32385 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 05:23:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 05:23:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199805161023.FAA32385@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 #781 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 Saturday, May 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 781 In this digest: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" Re: IN> Combat Clarification Re: IN> Combat Clarification Re: IN> In Nomine Online Re: IN> More Offing Superiors (Long) Re: IN> Combat Clarification Re: IN> Dis (Long) Re: IN> Saints Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" IN> Superior Slaying 101 Re: IN> Combat Clarification IN> Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior Re: IN> Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 Re: IN> Eli Re: IN> my game last night (slight spoilers to night music) Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 Re: IN> Dis (Long) Re: IN> Eli Re: IN> Fluff-Quotable Celstial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:33:06 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" On Thu, May 14, 1998 at 03:44:08PM -0500, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > > We can choose to say, "Nothing a PC does will ever affect a superior > > directly unless the superior co-operates. However, the superior can do > > whatever it wants to a PC unless another superior intervenes. They really > > are a totally different plane of existence and represent elemental forces > > which are completely out of PC reach." I think this is the standard > > interpretation. > > I get the impression this is actually Canon. In any case, it's an > interpretation I'm not overly fond of. Well, I like it, for one simple reason. Without that idea, the War doesn't make sense. If Superiors are not vast elemental forces, then how did one of them get the idea that he could beat God? You can play with the idea that the War is all part of the Great Plan, but to me that cheapens the setting far more than making Michael or Belial massively kickass could possibly do. And there's a difference between being a massive elemental force capable of trivally killing a PC and being omnipresent and omnipotent. Superiors are the former, but not the latter. > > But it does leave the lingering question -- what happens when the superior > > decides that enough is enough? Is the threat of another superior intervening > > enough to preclude going to squash the PCs personally -- because that is the > > only thing that /could/ stop them? > > > Well said! > I don't see why you think it's so easy for a Superior to find the PCs in order to off them personally. They have to know who the PC is, and know where to find the PC. Given the number of successful Renegades, who suffer from far worse disadvantages in evading Superiors, I don't see why it should be assumed that PCs are easily tracable, especially Servitors of the Wind or Theft. Maybe your Servitors never saw who did it, or it was done through mortal cover groups, or the descriptions they got are too vague. ("Right. So, it's a woman, short, with dark hair." Or, possibly even worse, "It was a Seraph. No, I didn't see its Vessel.") If a Djinn is attuned to them, then they can be taken out at your leisure, but that's not a common circumstance. > > Ultimately, it is the protection of their own superior and a certain amount > > of judicious caution which will keep their hides together. Venture into the > > corporeal world without that judicious caution and see Darwinism in action! > > Or just don't get caught doing it. This works for me for demons, but the > idea that Angels have to conceal their greatest deeds so that vengeful > DPs don't squick them is less palatable. > Judicious caution doesn't necessarily mean concealing your deeds. It means doing them in such a way that you can't be caught afterwards. This can be done even if it's known who did it. > > A large amount of the war is fought covertly, between servitors of either > > side who all wish not to draw too much superior attention. I like the cold > > war feeling. > > This is a good argument, if that's the kind of game you want to play. > Big honkin' superiors *force* the PCs to be subtle, because if you stand > out, you draw their attention. If your PCs *want* to stand out, this is > not so fine. > You can stand out. You just have to run quickly afterward. It's not as if you wouldn't have to do it anyway, given the existence of mortal police (remember them?). If you're seen publicly wielding bombs and guns, then you're in trouble anyway. > > A problem on the GM side of the fence is trying not to be desperately unfair > > to the PCs. If they are cautious and sensible, then it isn't a problem (but > > how many PCs will be? :) ), but once you have personally annoyed (or killed) > > enough powerful opponents even at the sub-superior level you should be in > > deep deep trouble. I've never had problems designing unstoppable demonic > > strike forces which could take out a group of PCs easily, > > Designing one might be easy, but IMHO, at least, such groups are hard to > come by in Hell. Baal might have a few. Asmodeus might have some almost > as powerful, and more devious. Why would they be hard to come by? There are between tens of thousands to millions of demons, if you cut down canon numbers drastically. And how many Superiors are they divided between? Heaven, of course, has disciplined hodres > of Malakim to deal out devine wrath, but they tend to be a tad clueless. > Malakim don't have to be clueless, and I don't see why they would be, in fact? And Hell has greater numbers than Heaven. > Right. However, since everyone on this list seemed to be of the opinion > that killable Superiors were badbadbadbad There's a difference between killable and easily killable. And also a difference between killable and hurtable. > > You have to _catch_ them first. And that can be difficult. It's not as if > > you can hold onto their Hearts to find them. > > Of course, they have hordes of Servitors, access to a large set of special > abilities, and Essence on a scale PCs can't dream of. PCs would have to > lay *very* low. > And how do the Servitors find them? If you're Gabriel, you can imprint the image of the PCs on your Malakim, but no one else can do that sort of thing without special effort. > > And these Celestials may well have backup (they'd be insane to try > > without it, IMO), > > Part of my problem with the concept. > I'll put it to you this way. You don't necessarily need backup to destroy a (reasonably small) Tether, if you plan well enough. If you succeed in this task, by virtue of competence you fall into the category of being deserving of backup. And you can even do this entirely on your own initiative, but don't expect unalloyed praise afterwards. You might just have messed up your own Superior's plans. Taking out a Superior is orders of magnitude bigger than this, and generally requires heavy intrigue, lots of favours, and often the help of other Superiors, because, after all, they have a power structure under their control, and have demonstrated the ability to gain the respect of this power structure and use it effectively. If this isn't the case, then you have to explain how it happens that _any_ of the original Demon Princes have managed to hold onto power, or else rewrite the game history entirely. > > in addition to > > being kickass themselves. And you don't want to show too much interest in > > them because it'll attract the attention of other Superiors. Spending > > excessive attention on a few PC types is tantamount to a confession of > > weakness, which could well start a feeding frenzy. And then you're f***ed > > no matter what happens. > > > Allowing a bunch of piss-ants to trash your plans/tether/operation and > get away with it is *not* a sign of weakness? > There are plenty of ways not to let them get away with it that don't involve offing them personally. The aforementioned hit squads are part of it. And regardless of your arguments, I assume that all Superiors have them, because not having a few of them is criminal folly of the sort that would get them offed quickly by one side or the other. > "Excessive" is also dubious. Squiking the PCs personally should not take > the Superior long, and finding them can be their servitor's > responsibility. > > I also don't see "feeding frenzy" as in character for AAs. > Did I specify that the feeding frenzy had to come from allied Superiors? If Baal takes a trip to New York to off some hapless PCs, what are the odds that Michael and Laurence, if aware of this fact, won't head to Beijing to take out a Tether while he isn't looking? Taking your eye off the ball for any length of time can be dangerous. > > And there's always other stuff you have to attend to. Always. Sometimes > > you mightn't be able to spend enough resources to do the job. > > This is back to trivializing everything the PCs do. Nothing they do can > be important enough to warrent the enemy Superior's personal attention. Let me put this into perspective. The Superiors in the main rulebook have a worldwide focus, hundreds of Tethers, and either have their own personal realm, or have vast stakes in realms with allied Superiors. One Tether destroyed is a significant loss in prestige terms, and does impact local operations, but is not going to kill a Superior. > > Seriously, though, I don't see why they *must* be limited to being > catalysts. > Suspension of Disbelief. I'm pretty sure Furfur as written in Night Music before attaining Princehood could off the average PC party by himself. (Hell, the Old Guy would have a damn good chance.) I fail to believe that Asmodeus is less powerful than Furfur. > > If they want to do it > > themselves, they can do as Haagenti did and build themselves up over > > several hundreds of years with the covert assistance of another Superior. > > > That's just a little *too* Epic, unless there's a lot of fast-forewards > involved. > If you want to do this sort of storyline quickly, there is one obvious recourse. Give them 15 Force Word-Bounds with a fair number of Servitors and lots of character points. Then they have a fair chance of success, assuming that they don't disclose their hand prematurely. > Cool story and classic example of the technique. The point remains that > if Andre had had them alone in a room for any length of time, they would > have been in Trauma at best, and quite likely soul-killed. Luckily > Andre's not one to hold a long grudge. :) > And I don't see what's wrong with that. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:16:01 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Combat Clarification On Thu, 14 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > But in > general it's hard to take someone out in a fist-fight, which isn't > something I have a problem with. (I can't think of any RPG with even a > semi-realistic combat system where it's easy.) Just a perspective-inducing point: it's not difficult to be killed by a single kick to the head. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:31:49 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Combat Clarification On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > But in > > general it's hard to take someone out in a fist-fight, which isn't > > something I have a problem with. (I can't think of any RPG with even a > > semi-realistic combat system where it's easy.) > > Just a perspective-inducing point: it's not difficult to be killed by a > single kick to the head. > And kicking someone in the head while they're standing up isn't exactly an easy task. If someone is on the ground, you can give substantial to hit bonuses, and give substantial damage bonuses if they manage to actually kick them in the head. That's why I referred to the concept of called shots in my post. The thing is, you have to get them on the ground first. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:32:28 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Online I suppose you could also play RPG:s on one of the chat-sites that are available. This would be quite similar to IRC, I think, but I have no experience with IRC so I can't really say. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:38:31 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> More Offing Superiors (Long) On Thu, 14 May 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 10:53 AM +0100 5/14/98, Hart, Joanna wrote: > > >Jean may be crackling with the essential energies of the universe but if he > >is summoned to a rubberised stone chamber far away from any power supplies > >when he was already reeling from a nasty bout with Vapula's raygun ... and > >then bound into a shard of glass... I don't think he would be laughing. > > True. It probably wouldn't hold him *long*, but it could be > *very* annoying. (Of course, Jean wouldn't laugh anyway unless it was > either necessary or wholly un-important.) I always thought that when you summoned a Superior, you just got "part" of them - they can be in several places at once, right? So even if you managed to get it to a nasty place and kick the stuffing out of it, it would still be around... Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:52:52 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Combat Clarification On Fri, 15 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > But in > > > general it's hard to take someone out in a fist-fight, which isn't > > > something I have a problem with. (I can't think of any RPG with even a > > > semi-realistic combat system where it's easy.) > > > > Just a perspective-inducing point: it's not difficult to be killed by a > > single kick to the head. > > > And kicking someone in the head while they're standing up isn't exactly an > easy task. If someone is on the ground, you can give substantial to hit > bonuses, and give substantial damage bonuses if they manage to actually > kick them in the head. That's why I referred to the concept of called > shots in my post. The thing is, you have to get them on the ground first. Getting struck by a fist while standing up can be pretty bad too, though. I don't think it's deadly all that often, but it happens. But then again, IN isn't really a realistic game, though I do think Body Hits should be lower than they are. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:07:01 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Dis (Long) Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > I like it. Very interesting. Any plans to develop it, like Dark > Victory? Thank you. I have no opportunity to GM it, no. I just offer it as an adventure seed. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:26:39 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Saints In a message dated 5/14/98 5:49:49 PM, crossbyte@juno.com writes: >For instance, someone was asking about St. Bridgid (or Bridget) a few >weeks ago. >She was indeed a real person, in no way related to the Celtic goddess. Not quite. The Abbess St. Bridgid was named for the Goddess Bridgid/Bride. The cult of St. Bridgid/Bride is recorded as having *many* parallels to the worship of the Goddess. (Read the section on St. Bride in the Carmina Gaedelica, if you can get your hands on a copy; it's very enlightening.) >But there are several accounts of Saints receiving honors through, talking >to, or having other contact with the heavenly host. > (Snip St. John Bosco's story) >Anyway, I'd like to know what everyone thinks...using the stories of the >Saints for role model Soldiers or insight into the celestial realm... > I've done that. I used the story of St. Bride/Bridgit as the back story for the Purification Crusade. (It should be somewhere in the archives, but I'll resend it if anyone's interested....) >Keep happy in He who is eternal! > > >...The wild truth, reeling but erect. >-G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy >____________________________ >http://www.mrmark.com/forums/virtualireland/ >http://www.angelfire.com/nj/RIMworld/ Mark (Anglo-Celtic pre-candidate for Holy Orders) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:55:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: cd skogsberg Subject: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" At 3:44 PM -0500 5/14/98, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: >Or just don't get caught doing it. This works for me for demons, but the >idea that Angels have to conceal their greatest deeds so that vengeful >DPs don't squick them is less palatable. Ehhhhhhh. *Severe* cognitive dissonance there. Read the alt.tasteless FAQ to see what I mean. /cd, tired and going away to get drunk... - -- d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se | cd skogsberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:54:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Superior Slaying 101 > From: Elizabeth McCoy > Subject: Re: IN> Offing Superiours > >They can successfully infiltrate the Rouge Xenocidal Cidi Death fleet, > >even though crack Space Patrol agents have failed. > > I want to watch this, considering that Cidi are sentient hamsters... > of slightly-larger-than-hamster-but-not-much size. I consider myself officially bonked for making cheezy GURPS Space in-jokes on the IN list. Sorry all. > Well, think of Call of Cthulhu. Do the PCs read Things Man Was Not > Meant To Read without making SAN checks (and losing it)? Do they > kill Cthulhu? Thankfully, IN is not CoC. (And vice versa - although being a servitor of Cthulhu might be . . . interesting...) > It's the same thing with Superiors.... CoC doesn't work if the PCs can summon a freiendly version of Cthulhu relatively easily, and their enemies can do the same. > Hey, anyone wants to play IN Out Of Canon, *go* for it! Tell > me how it went! But I'll argue canon because I happen to like it... Canonophilia/3. -9 pts > >Wow. It was like skipping through alpine meadows, then being > >slapped with a halibut. :> > > Just for the halibut... *ahem* Sorry. Lost a bet with Kobal, have to > say things like that sometimes? (And a tip of the hat to ehp.) *Never* bet with Kobal. (ehp?) > > >But it is canon that Superiors *can* kill each other, *without* > >destroying the dead celestial's Word. > > Yup. Of course, those are Superiors and Superiors. They have those > boatloads of Power to throw around. Mind you, only Sloth and Oblivion > seem to have been killed without pyrotechnics, and *maybe* Vephar. My point was that if the Superior *is literally* some aspect of the Symphony, as you wrote, killing them should kill that aspect. > >(Q: Are non-Superior worded celestials in the same boat? ) > > Not quite -- they haven't made that state-change. They're much > easier to toast. So they aren't literally their Word like Superiors are? > tacit assistance of your own Superior...). You need to plot and plan > and take advantage of luck, and it may take *centuries*. I don't think I can keep my players interested that long. :) > It's not epic if all you need to do is play video game "I take out the > servitors, I take out the Knight, I take out the Baron, I take out the > Duke, I take out the Prince." Although this is kinda sick, that sounds like a neat videogame. The graphics could be awesome. >:^) > >BTW - why does anyone confronting a Superior have to be a hotshot? > > Because only a hotshot overconfident person would *confront* a > Superior in a snit.? Or a Malakim. Or a truly deparate being who had nothing to lose. Or a Michealite. Or perhaps a very powerful, very well-prepared, very careful indivdual who thinks they have a way to win, and a good reason to risk it. There are plenty of other reasons. > >Jean may be crackling with the essential energies of the universe but if he > >is summoned to a rubberised stone chamber far away from any power supplies > >when he was already reeling from a nasty bout with Vapula's raygun ... and > >then bound into a shard of glass... I don't think he would be laughing. > > True. It probably wouldn't hold him *long*, but it could be > *very* annoying. This is where I differ. If my players pulled off a dangerous, cool and involved plan like that, I'd let them trap the AA. > There are ways to take out Superiors, sure. But they aren't going > to be simple straightforward knock-'em-down fights between the > Superior and the PCs. Ruins the climax, especially for combative types. :( Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:48:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Combat Clarification On Fri, 15 May 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > > But in > > > > general it's hard to take someone out in a fist-fight, which isn't > > > > something I have a problem with. (I can't think of any RPG with even a > > > > semi-realistic combat system where it's easy.) > > > > > > Just a perspective-inducing point: it's not difficult to be killed by a > > > single kick to the head. > > > > > And kicking someone in the head while they're standing up isn't exactly an > > easy task. If someone is on the ground, you can give substantial to hit > > bonuses, and give substantial damage bonuses if they manage to actually > > kick them in the head. That's why I referred to the concept of called > > shots in my post. The thing is, you have to get them on the ground first. > > Getting struck by a fist while standing up can be pretty bad too, though. > I don't think it's deadly all that often, but it happens. But then again, > IN isn't really a realistic game, though I do think Body Hits should be > lower than they are. Well, NM did fix mortal body hits to bring them down to a more reasonable range. Celestial body hits are still unmanageable (IMO) as written; an angel can have anywhere from 2 to 144 body hits. That's just goofy. The fix that I use, which I stole^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed from the list has worked out GREAT and solved all the problems I had with body hits varying so much and getting so high. After figuring out hits (body, mind, or soul), divide them in half, then add the being's forces. This means that instead of ranging from 2-144 body hits, a 9 force celestial will range from 10-81. Much, MUCH more manageable. The only change I made because of this was to make vessels and Toughness one point/level cheaper, and the players liked that, too. 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:57:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior > From: Elizabeth McCoy > Subject: Re: IN> "I'm off to Squick Baal Luv - Back fer Dinner!" > > >I would hope that mellenia-old Superiors, especially the more thoughtful > >ones, would have more perspective. > > Don't tick off Yves or Jean... Or Kronos or Asmodeus. I once tried to explain to a player once why it was a bad idea to pick on a Servitor of Fate that he thought (correctly) he could toast in combat. He didn't *get* it. Scarey. > From: David Edelstein > Subject: IN> Offing Superiors > > If the Superior bothers to hunt them down personally....but every Superior > has scads of lesser Servitors of other Superiors doing things to harrass > and weaken it. If they personally hunted down everyone who stings them, > they'd be spending all their time squashing small fry. This trivializes everything the PCs do. It only works if their greatest deeds are average or sub-par. > That's what _their_ > Servitors are for.... not to mention, there is the escalation principle: > "If you go around personally hunting down and killing my Servitors, I'll do > the same to yours." Most Superiors don't want to get into that kind of a > personal one-on-one confrontation with another Superior. What stops "Superior Ambush?" I.e. the angry Superior has a Servitor summon him in front of the PCs, squicks them, then leaves? > No doubt if a PC group comes face-to-face with a Superior they happen to > have really pissed off in the past, it's time to invoke their own Superior, Unbelievably fast. > run, Unbelievably fast. > or die. Considering relative power levels, this seems likely. In the first round. > But it does not make sense that a Superior will personally go > after individual celestials, except in truly exceptional situations. My PCs are truly exceptional. :) > > >>>BTW - why does anyone confronting a Superior have to be a hotshot?<<< > > Because they are Superiors, and anyone who confronts a Superior should be > pretty dang awesome themselves. I can't imagine where you get the idea that > average PCs should be capable of taking on an Archangel or a Prince. If > they can, it trivializes Superiors. On the contrary, it makes them more awesome. "Yes, you could probably kill Baal if a bunch of you gang up on him, sure. No one has in the millenia he's been a DP. Think about that before you try it." I must admit I find the entire idea of PC-scale Superiors intriuging. As Mr. Milliken pointed out, it results in a more volatile Hell (not nesc. a bad thing, IMHO). I can see a game where Heaven has a massive edge in experience due to lack of leathal infighting, where Hell has new ideas, new ambition, and new Princes. It also reshapes the PCs perception of their role in the Universe. They are no longer midges, mosquitoes, or small fry. They are simply Angels or Demons, their AAs or DPs leaders rather than forces of nature, and the only power unreachably above them is God. (Perhaps Lucifer.) Let's christen this "Large Fry" IN. I havn't ever played that way, but I can see it being an interesting world to explore. > This is like saying "Why can't a party of fantasy adventurers off a > god?" Note that killing a god is one of the canonical high-fantasy Quests. > Superiors are like gods in a fantasy campaign, Where everyone is a cleric powerful enough to summon their God without extrordinary effort. Players talk to their Superior fairly regularly, and they work every day at jobs assigned to them by their god. You could run a fantasy campaign where the gods were this interventionist, but the idea doesn't appeal to me. > toss a lightning bolt at them or something....but rarely do you see gods > showing up personally to toast everyone who annoys them (except in the > Greek myths, and even then they usually don't outright kill people), No, but what they do do to them is usually a hose of the same scale. > yet no one complains that mortals are irrelevant in a fantasy campaign > where gods exist. I do, and have, when the gods are too interventionist. "Mortal Pawns" should not be aware of the fact. If they are, they should be able to do something about it. (This is in fact another canonical fantasy Quest.) If the players are merely helpless midges incapable of making a real difference in a war between heavyhanded near-omnipotent forces, they tend to get frustrated. > From: Drake > Subject: Re: IN> Offing Superiours 88 Regards, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:51:58 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Cajun-Style Blackened-Superior On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 12:57:30PM -0500, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > Where everyone is a cleric powerful enough to summon their God without > extrordinary effort. Without extraordinary effort? Have you looked at the +6 modifiers before making that statement? What if your Superior is one of those types that has a base invocation of 0 or 1? I remember in No Dinero, I considered that I could only reliably get hold of Janus by blowing 9 Essence, despite the fact that important matters were in progress in the same building as me. All of this despite the fact that in canon, PCs are special agents who get priority channels, and can work outside the normal chain of command. >Players talk to their Superior fairly regularly, Define fairly regularly. Does an irregular time period ranging from a couple of months to a couple of years count as regularly? > and they work every day at jobs assigned to them by their god. Or at jobs they've picked out for themselves. Not all Superiors scrutinise their Servitors closely. Just because Servitors of Dominic see their Boss once a week doesn't mean that Servitors of the Wind or Creation do. As for interventionist Gods, I haven't played Earthdawn, but the Passions seem pretty similar in that regard to Superiors in IN. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 20:02:57 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 11:54:34AM -0500, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > My point was that if the Superior *is literally* some aspect of the > Symphony, as you wrote, killing them should kill that aspect. > To be more succint, Superiors embody an aspect of the Symphony. When a Superior is toasted, that part of the Symphony is no longer embodied. > > Not quite -- they haven't made that state-change. They're much > > easier to toast. > > So they aren't literally their Word like Superiors are? > Their Word is dependent on another Word, and subsidiary to it. This is not true of Superiors. Isn't that a state change? In addition they can't make new Celestials or, to the best of my knowledge, Hearts. This is somewhat relevant. > > Because only a hotshot overconfident person would *confront* a > > Superior in a snit.? > > Or a Malakim. No. The words "when it is your own choice", implicit in the word "suffer", are made explicit in the wording. Malakim attacking Superiors with no hope of victory without specific orders to do so could arguably take dissonance. If they're soul-killed, they're not going to be able to prevent evil. >Or a truly deparate being who had nothing to lose. Nothing to lose? Or a > Michealite. I think Michael would be forgiving about dissonance in these circumstances. Or perhaps a very powerful, very well-prepared, very careful > indivdual who thinks they have a way to win, and a good reason to risk > it. There are plenty of other reasons. > Very powerful is not a term normally applied to PCs. > > There are ways to take out Superiors, sure. But they aren't going > > to be simple straightforward knock-'em-down fights between the > > Superior and the PCs. > > Ruins the climax, especially for combative types. :( > I disagree. Seeing a well laid plan fall into place is great fun. I did the Demon Prince of Rock & Roll scenario, and I was quite satisfied about winning by means other than daring him into Celestial combat. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia - -- "If you let it get too far it would be the end of everything. You would have bicycles wanting votes and they would get seats on the County Council and make the roads far worse than they are for their own ulterior motivation." The Third Policeman, by Flann O'Brien. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Eli - ---Casca wrote: > My current pet theory (working on the specifics now) is that Nyarlathotep > is one of the Demon Princes. No, I'm not going to give away who it is > just yet. ;) > > -- Casca, Seraph of Archives > (bertishg@db.erau.edu) Haagenti? Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> my game last night (slight spoilers to night music) - ---"The blue eyes, the leather, some guys just like leather" wrote: > > wierd things happened in my game last night. > > 1. Chorus, meercurian of yves, is acting a little paranoid about marty the drummer Heh. In my game, they were suspicious about the drummer too > > 2. Vamariel, cherub of Eli, acts as the currier to take the recording of the band to the cd-pressing facillity. Heh, it happened differently in my game, but the end result was great > Starsurfer, seraphim of creation in service to destiny, angel of words > Night Music was my first In Nomine game, and it was a success! Gotta play the No Dinero adventure next Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:14:50 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Superior Slaying 101 On Fri, 15 May 1998, Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > > From: Elizabeth McCoy > > >BTW - why does anyone confronting a Superior have to be a hotshot? > > > > Because only a hotshot overconfident person would *confront* a > > Superior in a snit.? > > Or a Malakim. Or a truly deparate being who had nothing to lose. Or a > Michealite. Or perhaps a very powerful, very well-prepared, very careful > indivdual who thinks they have a way to win, and a good reason to risk > it. Sounds like a description of a hotshot to me. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! "Jag har känsla för feeling" - Dom Dummaste ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:16:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Graveyard Greg Subject: Re: IN> Dis (Long) - ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > > > I like it. Very interesting. Any plans to develop it, like Dark > > Victory? > > Thank you. > > I have no opportunity to GM it, no. I just offer it as an adventure > seed. > > Earl > Adventure seed? NO WAY! This is an EPIC! Time to think up of fiction for this baby.... Graveyard Greg, Malakite of Creation _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:57:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Eli On Fri, 15 May 1998, Graveyard Greg wrote: > > My current pet theory (working on the specifics now) is that > Nyarlathotep > > is one of the Demon Princes. No, I'm not going to give away who it is > > just yet. ;) > > Haagenti? No, but at least you didn't pick one of the obvious choices. - -- 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: Sat, 16 May 1998 07:38:54 +0900 From: Simon Hailes Subject: Re: IN> Fluff-Quotable Celstial Heirin is a collection of Superior quotes, a non serious version Blandine-'Inyour dreams' David-'He's hard as a rock' Dominic-'You're under arrest' and 'I hereby sentence you..' Eli-'So you cook the chicken for three minutes then add tartar sauce, cool' Gabriel-'Don't be cruel' Janus-'What, a quote? nah, gotta run' Jean-'Now if you power up the trilithium crytsals-' Jordi-'Grrrr' Laurence-'Can't you see I'm busy? close the door on your way out!' Marc-'As you can see we can expect a twenty percent profit margin over the next four years-' Michael-'This is my rifle, this is my gun-' Novalis-'Peace brother' Yves-'It's bound to happen' Andrealphus-'Look at that fine pair of-' Asmodeus-'Nice move there son, cunning, not too bold, and perfectly within the rules of the game, however, have you heard of my special brand of rules?' Baal-'Attention Maggots, get in line you sorry excuse for a soldier' Beleth-'What a nightmare!' Belial-'Burn baby burn' Haagenti-'Ahh, twenty pounds of chocolate pudding, I could do with a before brunch snack-' Kobal-'What a joke," Kronos-'You're doomed' (thanks Kronos) Malphas-'You want a quote do you, well, I've got news for you, your girlfriend has been against your quote project from the start!-' Nybbas-'And tonight on Rough Exposure, a man who eats bottles for a living-' Saminga-'You're dead, you're all dead, you just don't know it yet-' Valefor-'I found it, it's mine, I don't see your name on it, it could belong to any Simon out there!' Vapula-'Watch what happens when I push this button-' Needless to say some of these quotes are corny, don't blame me, blame Celestial misinterpretation of humor, and yeah, you really don't want to know what that button did! Simon, Demon prince of Pearls "What you call being evil I call asserting myself!" Elizabeth, Lilim of Lust ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #781 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.