From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu May 21 14:03:04 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 OAA13678 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:03:03 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA22969 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:01:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:01:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199805211901.OAA22969@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 #791 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, May 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 791 In this digest: Re: IN> The Superior Question Re: IN> Summoning Superiors Re: IN> Mel Bla(n)c was a Kyriotate Re: IN> Lilith IN> Superiors meeting IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa Re: IN> Re: IN - Lilith Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #789 Re: IN> The Superior Question Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) Re: IN> Right of Passage and Choir/Band Attunements Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:43:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Superior Question Walter Milliken wrote: > Historical plots are tricky, anway, since you don't want to invalidate > future events. This leads to players not seeing that the PC actions > necessarily make much of a difference. I've been thinking about ways > to get around this -- we'll probably want to do some canon historical > stuff for PC adventures at some point. It helps to stick to second-string historical events that the players themselves don't know about. Then, after they win (if they win), you open the history books and show them -- "See? If you guys hadn't intervened, Colonel McFarfle would have lost the Battle of Totleigh and the Civil War might have lasted years longer / been cut short" (depending on how their side wanted that war to run). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 11:45 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Summoning Superiors > If a Prince can only obliterate 2 or 3 PCs a round, they >have a chance -- but as written he can vaporize them all instantly. This doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.... >(Don't think so? Imagine a Superior-level Song of Ethereal Motion. Add >half-a-dozen steak knives. Six dead PCs. Instantly. If there are more >PCs, bring along more steak knives.) Uh-uh... there's nothing I remember that suggests that Ethereal Motion includes MIRV capability. Either all those knives go to the same target, or you need multiple actions to direct them. Baal could do it, probably (I think he's the one with the multiple actions/round). The only ones I could *maybe* see affecting multiple PCs with a single attack are Gabriel and Belial -- it's easy to see how a fire-based attack could affect a whole group. Both of them are also crazy enough to do it, if annoyed sufficiently -- neither cares much about collateral damage, I suspect. (Well, Gabriel might... some of the time.) However, unless it's *supernatural* fire, then it's not going to do much more than scorch the PCs before they have a chance to leave. The real problem I see is that a Superior can probably "freeze" a character in place, if they feel like it. But it's probably only one at a time. >For my own game, I am going to lower the base summoning target number >by 5, and allow the use of the time modifiers for Songs. This makes >summoning Archangels and Demon Princes something usually done very >slowly. This may be a good idea, for other reasons. It seems that Superiors may be just too easy to summon, period, especially in time-critical situations. (This has come up in recent writing discussions on Tether defenses.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:53:01 EDT From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Mel Bla(n)c was a Kyriotate In a message dated 5/20/98 8:13:55 PM, shadowcat@caravan.nomad.net writes: >My fiance and I had an interesting conversation this evening. What choirs >or bands would various old film and radio stars be? Lessee: Humphrey Bogart: Malakite in most of his roles, Elohite in the rest. The Three Stooges: Calabim of Kobal ;) Jack Webb (Sgt. Joe Friday): Elohite (Of Dominic) John Wayne: Malakite (Of War) Frank Sinatra Impudite (of Nybbas) Lon Chaney, Sr., and Jr. Shedite (of Beleth) Mark (That's it for now...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 12:07 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith [jo:] >9 weeks _is_ very cheap, given that they are immortal beings. I'm a bit >uncomfortable with free lilim, just because they have so many advantages >(social advantages as well as fairly simple dissonance conditions -- they're >rare, well-treated, generally pampered etc) and so few disadvantages >compared with pretty much every other band/ superior. Well, the lack of a Heart is a fairly major problem at times. They also can't call for help unless they're willing to pay rather a bit for it. and because it's so hard to tell if one is Renegade, they probably draw more than their fair share of attention from the Game. > Especially when you add in the fact that they tend to be well trained in >bargaining so will often come out ahead in deals with other demons Perhaps we need a bargaining skill -- Frees should pay for this sort of "special effect" from their background. > (I've >been assuming that princes who want to hire the lilim to do some work on >earth will include a vessel as part of the deal, or maybe haggle for a month >of service instead of a week in return for the vessel -- still not an >overwhelming price to pay). In our games, I think we cost a basic vessel/1 at 6 months of service (I'm trying to remember the Geas value guidelines I did up a while back - -- I think they'll be in FotM in some form). We speculate that most Frees get their first vessel from Andre, since he's got plenty of uses for them. And he's an attractive boss to bind to, so having a standing offer to new Frees gives him a chance to make his sales pitch that they should work for him permanently. Several other DPs may do something similar (Valefor and Nybbas come to mind). But they probably only do this *once*. Except for recruiting, there remains the question of why a DP would *want* to hire a Free Lilim. Frees may have serious problems with getting attunements and other things (perhaps even Songs) that require Princely powers. A starting Free Lilim may not have very useful skills, compared to any bound Lilim the Prince has. So you can justify most low-power Frees getting stuck working for other demons (such as other PCs) in exchange for future favors, or maybe Essence, or the odd lower-power artifact, or help with a Role. Some DPs may hire Frees for small, odd jobs, just "on spec". Andre might hire a lot of Frees, but they may not get more than a Role out of it, and a good opportunity to hook lots of humans. And maybe *someday* his Lilim attunement. Princes have a lot of Servitors to draw on; for them to hire a Free, the Free needs to have important skills, powers, contacts or information which the DP's own Servitors lack, or he has to be fairly short-handed. Both of these probably happen often enough, but it's also not easy to bargain with a Prince.... All that said, Free Lilim probably *do* have life easier in many ways than most demons. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:02:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Superiors meeting > This is certainly one good way. If I had Superiors showing up > confronting each other, most of them would probably just growl a bit at > each other, pull their Servitors back, and leave. A few of the most > warlike might battle with each other, if they met directly, but probably > no more than to test the other's strength. Also, I believe Michael and > Baal are *not* supposed to fight each other until Armageddon, in canon. This makes sense. It might be "fate" that Michael and Baal never meet in a situation where they would have to fight. ("Fate" = the GM keeps it from happening.) However, I would think that Michael, at least, and probably Gabriel and some others, would feel obliged to at least pound upon the corporeal vessel of any Prince they came across. (Superiors don't suffer Trauma, I assume, since their limited Mac-like ability to multitask (as opposed to Legion's Amiga-like ability :) ) means they've always got other vessels going.) - -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: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:00:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials > Historical plots are tricky, anway, since you don't want to invalidate > future events. This leads to players not seeing that the PC actions > necessarily make much of a difference. I've been thinking about ways to > get around this -- we'll probably want to do some canon historical stuff > for PC adventures at some point. But I can't see doing Legion, though > maybe something from just after, cleaning up, might work well. One way around it is to make the events be something not quite world-shattering, so that the result can be a part of history without requiring changing the present-day campaign. Another way around it is to keep campaigns set in the present day, and run historical adventures as one-shots. (And, of course, any GM can just run a game in the past, and there it won't matter how badly it futzes up the current-day IN setting.) There's another intriguing approach to this however: In Nomine/Time Travel crossovers! Consider an Angelic game; certain diabolicals (almost certainly led by a servitor of Kronos) have discovered how to travel through time. They begin to futz with history, using their benefit of hindsight to help the dark side of the war. Yves sends a few angels, the PCs, back in time to restore the integrity of the timeline. One could also visualize a crossover with the GURPS "Infinity Unlimited" setting. - -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: Thu, 21 May 98 12:12 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa >I'm not sure, but I *think* Lilith as portrayed in IN is a >supernatural Libertarian -- member of a political party that >wants a minimum of government interference and the maximum >freedom of the individual in an environment of unregulated >capitalism. Sure sounds like Lilith to me. That's probably fairly close, though I think she's a little darker than that. They way we've been playing her, she's not too picky about what problems she causes other people in getting what *she* wants. Like normal demons, she's looking out for #1 first. She rarely does anything that doesn't advantage her, and then it's generally because it amuses her in some way. But she *is* less dark than almost all the other DPs. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 12:21 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN - Lilith > I've found that it >is difficult to motivate the character to really involve itself in anything >unless there is some definite personal obligation, threat or gain involved, >I assume this is typical for frees?). Sounds about right. But Lilim in general want to have fun, too -- it's part of the nature. And "gain" can simply include the chance to hook someone with power (or even someone who *might* have power). So if it looks like fun, and a good opportunity to snag some hooks (especially on other demons, or better yet, angels), and not terribly dangerous, they should be willing to go along for the ride. Getting them to go into *danger*, now.... >I don't think wordbound is likely to be a consideration here ;) It's really >not a big deal -- but I do think it has to be the plum job in hell, >especially when you think that a lilim can be busily gathering geases >herself on every single mission with which to bargain back at the guildhall Since human geases are so easy to get, they're probably not worth much. I can see Lilim comparing geas hooks in the Guildhall, debating how much each is worth. The hooks are probably worth a bit more to other demons, but the Lilim has to be hired to come along to invoke it, so it's going to be expensive enough that most demons will think about it a bit. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 12:29 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #789 >In this case, canon is defined as material or information released and >endorsed by Steve Jackson Games for In Nomine. This includes: > > * IN books published by SJG But *not*, as someone recently asked, Pyramid articles, I believe -- they don't get the same scrutiny as the books, and can include non-canon stuff (since variants from canon are perfectly reasonable things to publish as secondary support material). > * Errata issued by SJG to correct errors in those books > * Rulings and information given in public forums by official >representatives of SJG These are, to the best of my knowledge, only Elizabeth McCoy (Line Editor) and John Karakesh (IN net-rep). Theoretically also Scott Haring (SJGames Managing Editor) and Steve Jackson himself, but I don't believe either of them read this list. Some of the other IN writers and editors hang out here, like myself, Maya, and David Edelstein, but anything we say isn't really "official", though it may include actual canon, or things that may become so. Most of us try to be careful noting whether what we are saying is derived from canon, or personal interpretation. (Elizabeth and John pretty much *have* to do that, since they have personal opinions that are sometimes divergent from canon.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 12:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The Superior Question >It helps to stick to second-string historical events that the >players themselves don't know about. That's pretty much what I was thinking about, but there seem to be a couple of twists on that concept I'm trying to work out, possibly for a future cycle. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 98 12:38 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials >There's another intriguing approach to this however: In Nomine/Time >Travel crossovers! Yes, though we tend to dislike time travel on principle -- it's a *real* pain, unless you have a totally malleable timeline, which then makes for other sorts of messes. In my IN campaign, time travel almost certainly isn't possible, or if it is, it would prove to be pointless -- the "immutable past" model. About the best you can hope for in this model is to bring back artifacts and information. Another form of IN "time travel" is to start PCs way in the past and let them run forward through time as the campaign progresses. Since they're immortal, this is perfectly reasonable, and there are no nasty paradox problems. I've been thinking about something like this, but I've got no desire to start up another campaign right now.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:54:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials > >There's another intriguing approach to this however: In Nomine/Time > >Travel crossovers! > > Yes, though we tend to dislike time travel on principle -- it's a *real* > pain, unless you have a totally malleable timeline, which then makes for > other sorts of messes. Indeed, indeed, although GURPS Time Travel has all sorts of advice about dealing with that sort of thing that could be applied to an IN game that went running amuck up and down the timeline. Dunno -- I may have to give this a try someday :) > I've been thinking about something like this, but I've got no > desire to start up another campaign right now.... How many are you running already? (I have the problem that there are too many different sorts of campaigns I want to run, but I've got limited time and ability to run them.) - -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: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Historical plots & time travelling celestials Walter Milliken wrote: > In my IN campaign, time travel almost certainly isn't possible, or > if it is, it would prove to be pointless -- the "immutable past" > model. I have been gaming for years in a setting that frequently uses time travel and an immutable past. I assure you, the time-travel isn't futile, and while maintaining consistency is an effort, it isn't nearly the effort of constantly having to re-write history. Here's a general strategy in which time travel is useful: You get word that omnious event A has happened. In the natural course of things, this will lead to disaster B, and in fact must already have led to disaster B unless something intervened. But you do not yet know if disaster B has happened yet or not. You can then time-travel back to a point between A and the possible B, to try to prevent B. Whatever the outcome, that is the way history always was, though you didn't know it. In our game, I GMed an adventure in which the PCs got a very *old* letter from the son of a friend, indicating that he'd got himself enslaved in a remote era. They went off to the era in question and rescued him. It would have been possible (though foolish) for them to stay where they were and do research to find out what eventually happened to him. If the answer was "vanished mysteriously," then they were probably going to rescue him and be the cause of the mysterious vanishment. If the answer was "died miserably in servitude decades later," they could only hope the record was wrong. So, in such a situation, ignorance becomes a valuable commodity. After a fair bit of immutable-time-travel, our PCs treasure their ignorance of future events and get quite annoyed at portents and omens. Since a lot of IN adventures involve skulkling around and sneaking, this aspect of suspense lest one learn too much would fit in quite well. Another aspect of time-travel is economics. And I don't mean foreknowledge on how to play the stock-market or the horses. Some things get more valuable with time (like antiques) and others get less valuable (like technical innovations). When I GMed the above, I watched with great amusement as the PCs financed their way across the ages, bringing ultramodern goods back and bringing antiques foreward. (There were complications to that, of course, which also made for good gaming.) Surely something similar could be done with talismans and reliquaries. And of course it can be done with technology thanks to the interest of Jean and Vapula is such things. (Perhaps celestial time travel is a joint venture by Jean and Yves on one side and Vapula and Kronos on the other.) Also, time-traveling celestials are a little closer to "eternal" in the sense of "timeless" rather than in the more ordinary sense of "everlasting." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:40:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> When To Summon, When They Appear At 3:59 PM -0400 5/19/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >>From: Elizabeth McCoy >> >>At 9:20 AM -0400 5/19/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >> >>>Even if PCs and NPCs are circumspect about summoning superiors, this >>>still means that archangels and demon princes will very likely be >>>sommoned at the climax of the adventure. This is bad, both in literary >>>terms and in gaming terms, because it removes the possibility of >>>consequential action from the PCs at the very moment of the most >>>important decisions. >> >> Okay, Feast Of Blades SPOILER. > >Some really big spoilers lie ahead. > >> >> >> >> >>In the grand finale, well... We didn't get to the *grand* finale. > > >SPOILERS BEGIN > >[snip story] > >Er, wasn't whathisface engaged in a plan to replace his boss? So he >*couldn't* summon his boss, but there didn't seem to be any reason >for the PCs not to -- and offing a Prince permanently seems to >entirely justify calling in an archangel. The other thing was that the Evil Mastermind never *got* 2 rounds where someone wasn't harassing him, once he realized he was in trouble. You see, the Kyrio of Jean had a Song of Acid running, and you can't dodge your underwear. >Certainly some of the archangels -- especially Jean, David, and >Laurence -- would be upset if you *didn't* call them at the finale, >seeing the PC as grandstanding at the risk of blowing something >big. There needs to be a solid reason /not/ to call them at that >moment. For both sides. Except we managed to get the Prince dead-a-fied *all by ourselves* (thought as I said, the ritual hadn't even *begun* and we got lucky and didn't know what we were doing). >SPOILERS END > > > > > > > >(For the rest of the post, I'm going to assume the angels are PCs, >because it's easier to phrase things that way. But the same applies >to demons, too.) [...] >>Which means that there are times when the grand finale is something >>that one doesn't *need* to summon a Superior for. Superiors are busy >>busy busy. Call them too much, and they get annoyed. > >Yes, that's why I specified "even if the PCs and NPCs are circumspect." >But that still means that the big guns come in at the climax, moving >the focus away from the main characters. Why? If the PCs can't handle the climax, then maybe. If they get unlucky, and this is something that their bosses *want* to happen, they can call. But there are plots that have climaxes that don't need Superiors. If you're not fighting another Superior yourself, face to face, for instance... >>There are other ways to keep someone alive... > >Use too many of them and credibility is strained. There's a possible >way to keep the PCs alive in any particular instance, but put them >all in a row and suspension of disbelief takes a beating. Don't have them confronting Princes every session! Or if they *do*, then kill their vessels and put them in Trauma for a while. (Obviously the Prince was busy elsewhere and wanted to get back to that hot date with Lilith or something.) Maybe strip a Force off as a warning. >>(Though it *does* take 2 rounds to summon -- if you can *stop* the >>person before they finish, well, that danger is averted.) > >The trouble is that this applies to Princes too -- if they show >up and see a PC summoning his archangel, it's basic sense to >stomp the angel before it finishes. True. This is why it's a good idea to hide under a car while you do it. >So if you are messing up something really important to the other >side, you show up, summon your boss, and the game is over, because he >can stomp them before they can call in something that can handle >him. If you wait, they can do the same thing to you. Your boss is going to start wondering why he sends you on these important missions if you're just going to call for help at the endgame. If he wanted you to do this, he'd say, "Get to the goal, then call me." (Yes, this means that GMs should *not* get into the habit of portraying Superiors as ordering the PCs in over their heads in the normal run of events. [Em's are going through near-Armageddon right now, and things are *not* normal... And their Superiors are very much busy with their own problems -- like BalDom.]) >Offing one or two a round is gameable -- I just don't think that >this is current canon. I think current canon assumes that PCs aren't going to hang around to duke it out with a Superior. *sigh* >Can a demon prince cause as much damage >as, say, a large-bore artillery round? I think most people would >agree this is reasonable, but if this is true then a Prince can >put every angel in a PC group instantly into trauma, given the body >hits of the average angel. He's only one vessel, though. It might take him a *little* while to go through them. And if it takes more time to soul-kill them than to just vessel-kill them, and he wants to get rid of the threat of summoning an Archangel, then he won't spend the time ripping their Forces away. He'll drop them into Trauma. Which is a nuisance, but hardly the evil thing that killing *mortal* characters would do to a campaign! >(Though I think your example should be the other way around, if the >Prince can only kill one or two angels a round. If only an archangel >poses a threat to a demon prince, then the prince is well advised to >stomp any summoning angels *first*. And I don't really see as how they >wouldn't notice a summoning-in-progress, not with their off-the-scales >perceptions. So the heroic/stupid angel starts the summoning, buying his >friends maybe a round.) If two of them are summoning at once...? If one ran to a safer place when he noticed the demon in the back yelling for help? (Of course, if it's just a single celestial and an enemy Superior, that celestial is nigh unto toast. Such is life.) And there's the other thing that Superiors can do -- take Servitors hostage. Even the Archangels might do this from time to time, to do exchanges of prisoners. (Lilith is particularly likely to do things like this, on the demonic side. Novalis will probably accept surrender, though you spend your captivity sitting with restraints in a Flowers Tether and being Peace-and-Love'ed at.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:40:26 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine, a Sam Peckinpah Film (or, Killing Superiors for Fun and Prophet) At 12:25 PM -0500 5/19/98, Redneck Gaijin wrote: >[Beth Wrote] >>They *become* their Word incarnate. >> >I don't know about that. > >The problem with this view is that, in many, many cases, Words can be >interpreted in a wide variety of ways, and each Superior is dedicated to one >in particular. This is true. Hm. Here, think of it in the concept of Word-Forces... (Can you tell that concept finds great favor with me?) Okay, so you're the Demon of Hair (the english word, yet, not the demonic!). You've been bound to this Word, and it is a part of you. But your Word-Forces don't exceed your normal Forces by terribly much. You manage to attract Lucifer's attention with something spectacular and in a fit of humor, he promotes you to Prince of Hair. Now, *WHAM*, you're connected to this theme in the Symphony in a way you've never *been* before. You see how you can promote this, how you can tap into this, and your Word-Forces start *growing*. Soon, more of you is "Hair" than is not. You stretch a little, and get "hair of the dog that bit you" -- it's a reach, it's hard to drag that theme over to mingle with what you already have, but you manage. Now you have a certain type of alcohol-consumption that also feeds your Word (though in a more minor way). You grab the movie _Hair_ while you're at it, and that's a little more. Your Word-Forces have diffused and exploded into great-big-huge-things that nobody *bothers* to try and number -- but they are certainly now bigger than the little 6/6/6 Forces that you *used* to be. (Think I'd give canon on how many Forces Superiors have? No, no, no, this is just illustration...) From being the main entity, who has a tap into the power of a Word, you're now more an *appendage* to that Word. The vast majority of your being is tied up in that Word. It's all you can think of... ...but the Word itself *could* survive your loss (though without your promotion, might become less important). You are your Word, incarnate. You are the avatar of your Word. You can seek to blend other concepts into the theme that is your Word, that is *you*. That will add them to the theme that you must dance to, to a greater or lesser extent -- and that extent is how much power they will add. [And then there was my other metaphor -- those little deep-see angler-fish, I think it was. The females are huge and agressive, the males are little and, according to the kid's book I'm remembering after about 15 years, latch onto their mate with their mouths and actually grow a link so that they're supported by *her* entirely, dependant on her for nutrition and protection. Kill her, and they die. Kill the male, and the female lives on.] >>In return, they sacrifice some of their freedom of choice and of >>perspective. Andrealphus *does* see everything in metaphors of >>flesh and sensation. Gabriel *cannot* refuse to burn. > >These characteristics, and others possessed by other Superiors, are not >because of the Words, I think, but pre-existed Words and were the aspects >which made them ideal for those particular Words in the first place. It's not an either-or thing. Take Haagenti, as you did. If the _Pyramid_ article is to be taken seriously, the little Maw was chowing down through the ranks of Legion's hosts (attracting Kobal's attention). This got Kobal to sponsor him for the Word of Gluttony, and then his appetite *really* picked up. Yes, he had an affinity with the Word before he got it, but once he got it, he couldn't *not* think in those terms. This *may* be what destroyed Sloth, actually -- if Meserach was a Djinn (my personal notion), then he was a member of a Band which often *seeks* apathy and not-doing-anything. He was too much coupled with his Word by nature. It took him over, and from promoting it, he went to personifying it to a degree that was, obviously, fatal. Now, let's say the Seraphim Council had had a bad case of brainfry around the time of Meserach and appointed an *Angel* of Sloth -- an Ofanite. One who had little interest in the Word, even. What would that do? Well, in my model, he'd suddenly have it as *part* of him. He'd start having problems, since a part of him was so *very* out of sync with his nature. Say that God loses a bet with Kobal and has to appoint this poor Ofanite to Archangel level. Suddenly, his "gotta-keep-moving" nature is *SWAMPED* by the theme of "SLOTH." He's probably going to either be miserable, trying to balance his Choir needs against the overwhelming urges of what he has become the avatar of -- or he's going to Fall. Druiel, the Angel of Teenage Death, is another case of where a Word doesn't fit its wearer well. But he *must* promote it: it's a part of him, just like being the Angel of Catchy Tunes is a part of Tomas. If the urge to promote one's Word is *that* strong, that pleasurable, to someone who isn't a Superior, how much stronger must it get to one who is? >>(That seems to be a potential theme in IN -- a loss of a certain >>amount of Free Will for Power. A voluntary surrender to "something >>greater" in exchange for glory. A forsaking of everything you ever >>were, in exchange for Free Will above all. Maybe the Lilim's >>TANSTAAFL is applicable in more metaphoric ways. >> >I look on these themes more in a political sense than a metaphysical sense. >Each Worded Celestial promotes and defends their Word as their power base, >and Worded Demons actively seek to subsume other Words into their own. In >order to attain a Word, the Celestial must be predisposed towards aspects of >that Word beforehand. Afterwards, they may change to more closely mirror >their Words, but these changes are caused by choices and actions taken in >promoting and defending those Words, not by the nature of just being bound >to those Words. I believe that it is *both*. Assign a Word that is not one the celestial is already interested in and able to cope with, and you're likely to get weird synergy effects. And yes, different Celestials can probably put different spins on the concept -- they are sentient, still, and have free will -- but they're still Avatars. Actually, *do* look at the difference between the *old* Princes and the younger ones. (Or Laurence and the rest of the AAs, for that matter.) The older the being, the more it reflects its Word, from what I can see. If Michael managed to catch up to Andre and lop off a few important parts, even if Lucifer assigned another Impudite to the title and Word, there would probably be a periord of time where the new Prince just wasn't as much Lust incarnate as Andre was, or put a slightly different spin on it. >It is perfectly -possible- to have a Word and not reflect it in oneself, but >Celestials who have taken this approach are seldom successful. (Fleurity >comes to mind as one of the rare successes- the Demon Prince of Drugs is >possibly the most sober being in Hell shy of Kronos.) Fleurity is living in his own "Trip" -- he's a Habbalite... Also, there's nothing that *I* see in the writeup that says one way or the other -- except that he's a rising star, so if he *is* indulging in his own wares, he's not being incapacitated by them. Which may just mean that he's not able to get addicted to them. (Maybe gaining power in the Symphony is the Addictive part!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:42:12 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Right of Passage and Choir/Band Attunements At 2:25 PM -0700 5/20/98, Dale Friesen wrote: >A couple weeks ago Walter Milliken wrote: >>(3) you *may* be granted *your* Choir/Band attunement from another >> Superior (or keep it when switching Superiors). You cannot have >> *other* Choir/Band attunements of *other* Superiors (your nature has >> nothing in common with them, either by Word-attachement or >> Choir/Band nature). > >Does Pyramid count as canon? In a recent article > there's a Cherub >Vassal of Flowers with the Mercurian of Fire attunement (Karaziel, the >Angel of Self Destruction). Does this reflect a new official policy? This reflects errata that I sent in the day I read that article. (Yes, it's dead on. Yes, a GM could decide that this is just *so* fitting... The Elohite below *has* the Mercurian resonance, due to his Word, and has therefore acquired a Mercurian attunement from another Archangel. But Karaziel's description doesn't include anything like that, and is therefore going to be Nitpicked.) And, to answer the earlier question, no, Pyramid does *not* necessarily count as canon. I didn't vet that particular article, and therefore had no chance to make sure it complied. The people who get stuff accepted into Pyramid are not necessarily part of the core stable of writers who are given access to all known canon so that they can comply with it. Even if they are, they may still make mistakes that don't get caught. An adventure in Pyramid may directly contradict something that happens in canon later. A Supporting Cast In Nomine character may directly conflict with one which is later published. Some of it may be that "fuzzy canon" that has a cool name I keep forgetting. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:17:05 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Lilith and the Lilim carry over from traditional folklore her >role as femme fatale. Behind *that* is an even nastier figure >responsible for night terrors and crib deaths. This is what I use for my game; I prefer my Demon Princes to be very scary. Lilith is Asmodeus's consort, with all that implies. >I'm not sure, but I *think* Lilith as portrayed in IN is a >supernatural Libertarian -- member of a political party that >wants a minimum of government interference and the maximum >freedom of the individual in an environment of unregulated >capitalism. Sure sounds like Lilith to me. A free market requires strong property rights to function properly, and to establish this convention requires an efficient, honest, and extensive legal system. (Though right anarchists like myself question whether or not you need a government to maintain the legal system.) Precisely because property is a social convention, I suspect that few Lilim have much problem with violating it (as long as they themselves are not the victim). They seem seem a lot more Hobbesian to me, meaning that the Leviathan state is the only way to maintain the peace among a bunch of Lilim. (Clearly, Asmodeus deserves more credit than he gets. :) It is worth noting that classical liberalism as a political philosophy is not especially compatible with traditional theology (as the Catholic Church keeps pointing out, much to the displeasure of modern American Catholics). Virtue is traditionally defined as obedience to the will of the sovereign Lord, and redemption as surrender to Him. Submission to God is what Islam *means*, and the Old Testament is quite clear on the importance of that point as well. For me, this is where the game gets a lot of its conceptual strangeness: the world of IN looks an awful lot like our own, but the basic axioms are completely different from what I believe. And what's more, those altered assumptions are the ones familiar from literature and the culture -- which is what makes it more intriguing to game in than Call of Cthulhu or Kult or so on. All this makes me wonder what the game looks like to a believer. Anyone want to explain it to me? :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:13:01 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN>Demon Prince Auditions At 10:24 PM +0900 5/20/98, Simon Hailes wrote: >Now what does that leave me with, oh yeah,Lilith, Saminga, Valefor and >Vapula (I decided to get this all finished in one go). Lilith. Um. Whatshername, who does Captain Janeway on Star Trek: Veeger. Why? Because, well, I finally figured it out. She did the voice of Titania on the _Gargoyles_ cartoon (the first two seasons were cool!). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:26:03 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith At 12:07 PM -0400 5/21/98, Walter Milliken wrote: [...] >All that said, Free Lilim probably *do* have life easier in many ways >than most demons. Except for the Game breathing down their necks a fair amount of the time. "So, cutie, what have you been up to lately? Been working for Hell like a good girl?" - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:44:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Lilith, Free Lilim, geasa Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > All this makes me wonder what the game looks like to a believer. > Anyone want to explain it to me? :) Okay, I'll give you my perspective, at least. The game is a little like watching "Star Trek" when you've got a science education. There's overlap in vital areas, but also lots of errors or at least implausibilities. Some are funny or clearly central to the concept. Some seem just like poor research. The hierarchical nature of the IN world doesn't bother me, because, as you note, the world-picture of any monotheistic religion is likewise hierarchical. That archangels should be jerks, on the other hand, is more bothersome, so I dislike IN interpretations in which that is the case. Angels ought to be holy, and archangels ought to be holier still. For me, that is equally part of the point of a concept like IN's and a matter of religious sensibility. Just as, in "Star Trek," science is part of the game concept and it is also annoying watching what they often do with DNA or the particle du jour. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #791 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.