From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Jul 21 13:20:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21846 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:20:22 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA06856 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:01:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:01:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199807211701.MAA06856@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #869 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, July 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 869 In this digest: Re: IN> Take cover!!! Re: IN> More questions about Saints Re: IN> Re: Servitors of Dominic Who Go too far; the creator speaks Re: IN> Tether net-book (Re: Tether Sourcebook) Re: IN> Tether net-book (Re: Tether Sourcebook) Re: IN> More questions about Saints IN> Of Tethers and War Re: IN> Of Tethers and War Re: IN> In Nomine Mix Re: IN> More questions about Saints Re: IN> More questions about Saints Re: IN> Of Tethers and War IN> More on Tethers IN> Saints / Tethers Re: IN> Of Tethers and War Re: IN> In Nomine Mix Re: IN> Of Tethers and War Re: IN> Of Tethers and War Re: IN> More on Tethers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:06:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Take cover!!! At 1:08 AM -0800 7/19/98, Armand wrote: >>Now where does that leave all the AppleMac users > >We're secretly planning to get together with the rosicrucians to find the >lost Templar treasure so that we can take over the world and off all the >angels and demons. Bwa ha ha! Me, I'm just sitting here and smiling, that's what I'm doing. And patting my PowerMac. - --Beth, Archangel of Archives, Demon Princess of Nitpicking ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:03:11 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> More questions about Saints At 7:11 PM -0700 7/18/98, Daniel Maberry wrote: >More Saint questions: > >4: Can Shedim possess Saints? On the one hand, the rules say the can >possess humans, and Saints are human. On the other hand, a FAQ somewhere >said that they can't possess celestials, and Saints are celstials. So >which rule, or rather phrasing, takes precedence? ..... I'm obnoxious. I'd let a Shedite do that in my game, if it had equal or greater Forces to the Saint. I'd give the Saint more chances to realize it was ridden, though, and maybe some Will rolls to *push the Shedite out*... I'd have to think about it. Good question, though! >5: What happens if a Saint succumbs to his Fate while on Earth? (A >shorter one than the above, but will probably spawn more debate...) He 'falls' and had better not die without having also hit Destiny somehow, or else he's going to find himself elbowing people and trying to dodge the Habbalah herding everyone to Hellmouth Gate... Servitors of Fate (as well as any other demon) *love* corrupting a Saint... Who knows? Kronos may even give out distinctions for that sort of thing! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 98 15:14 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: Servitors of Dominic Who Go too far; the creator speaks [Querent:] >I've noticed a lot of Word bound celestials haves special rites, and >special resonances. The more powerful the word, the more powerful the >resonances. I extend this to my Archangels like crazy. Things like >"Michael always hits, and he always strips a force away from beings >with 18 or less forces", "Novalis can not be struck without infernal >intervention by a being with 18 or less forces", "Dominic can >scrutinize any judgement, either by his servants, or anyone else, and >know if it was Just. (Not just if it seemed so at the time.)" > >So it's not canon. It's not breaking canon either. This is part of >my "Fill in the blanks with anything, until SJGames fills them in for >you" philosophy of nailing rules lawyers to the wall. Actually, I think any eventual canon on Superiors is likely to be very similar. That's certainly pretty much the way I view them. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 98 15:29 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Tether net-book (Re: Tether Sourcebook) >Someone very recently commented (and I was trying to find the quote to use, >but then couldn't, so forgive me) that Superiors could not create a tether >where ever they wanted to, but sort of had to pick and choose from areas that >were already "predisposed" by some action to be worthy of tetherdom? Probably me or Elizabeth. And that's essentially correct. >Has it ever been addressed as to Why a Superior CAN'T say, "What a lovely spot >for a tether! I think I'll put one here."? The main reasons are game design issues -- it makes humans much more important if Tether formation mostly depends on them. It also makes for better plots, in general, since PCs won't just stand around while their Superior makes a Tether, but will get tasked sometimes to go out and stir up the kind of Word activity that creates one. Plus the chance to fight over a wild Tether that hasn't been nailed down by a Superior yet. All in all it's a good motivator for Superiors and PCs to go out and promote that Word! The in-game explanation for why Superiors *can't* do it is still being discussed among the Tether book writers, but it probably has to do with the same sorts of issues that create disturbance. Celestials meddling in the corporeal realm are interfering with the natural parts of the Symphony, and Tethers are going to be considered a natural part. So it may be that intentional tampering to attempt to produce a Tether is normally counter-productive. > I know that Redneck's DV game is >very much "non-canon" but didn't Eli put a lot of effort into making the >University Tower a tether? *Very* non-canon, and I wouldn't use it as any sort of example for how canon is likely to run. So far, there are no canon Tethers produced directly by Superiors, and there are quite a few Tethers in canon now. If it were possible, you'd think that most Tethers would be Superior-generated, since that would ensure that Tethers appeared in useful places, and not necessarily at some broken-down old gas station in Podunk, Iowa. >The reason I was wondering is that in my own IN campaign (which is also non- >canon, and whose isn't in some fashion these days?), Vapula is trying to >create a tether by way of some huge infernal device he's concocted that >utilizes Forces stripped from angels (very ugly process) to "punch" a hole >into Tartarus. It's this climax my players are trying to put a stop to (in >the next couple of sessions, and no I don't think any of them are on this >list...) It may be he's *trying* to do this -- he might try it in my campaign, too. But it might not do exactly what was expected... Vapula tries a lot of things that are pretty brain-dead. He's exactly the sort of person who would ignore the impossibility of the action and go ahead and try to violate "natural law" (or canon, or whatever), anyway. >Now, I know that my campaign has been/is very non-canon too, but it seemed >strange for someone to claim that this aspect of tethers [mentioned above] >*was* canon, at least if I remember correctly. Just looking for some >clarification. Thanks. It's partly from the Line Editor's direction, and partly my own work. And it's quite subject to revision. But I wrote that section of the Tether book draft. So it's proto-canon, at least. I think that particular aspect is pretty likely to survive into the final version, too. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:59:50 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Tether net-book (Re: Tether Sourcebook) At 11:06 AM -0400 7/17/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >> Why don't we organize an >>Net-book??!! This would be great!!! > >There's a real official book in the works -- though a collection of >additional Tethers might be worthwhile, it might be worth waiting a bit >for the Tether book to come out before everyone goes off creating a lot >of Tethers for a net-book. Just to clarify for some people who are feeling squelched regarding net.books -- this doesn't say No Net-Books. Just that there is a real live official with art and everything book in the works -- which may affect how much work people want to put into it, if they care about getting close to canon or not. Heck, the INC can probably get a Tethers section, eventually... (Yeesh, some of you folks are paranoid. What, you think we're going to send a triad around if you do a net-book version of something I'm working on? Well, I might send an Elohite around to make BigSadEyes at you if you said you weren't going to buy the one I worked my fingers to the bone on, typing and editing and squinting at the screen, yea by candlelight even, and making the edits with a quill nib in my own blood...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:39:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Querent Subject: Re: IN> More questions about Saints - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 7:11 PM -0700 7/18/98, Daniel Maberry wrote: > >More Saint questions: > > > >4: Can Shedim possess Saints? On the one hand, the rules say the can > >possess humans, and Saints are human. On the other hand, a FAQ somewhere > >said that they can't possess celestials, and Saints are celstials. So > >which rule, or rather phrasing, takes precedence? > > ..... I'm obnoxious. I'd let a Shedite do that in my game, if it had > equal or greater Forces to the Saint. I'd give the Saint more chances > to realize it was ridden, though, and maybe some Will rolls to *push > the Shedite out*... I'd have to think about it. Good question, though! In counter point to Elizabeth's answer, I'd argue that the Shedim possesses human bodies, with the soul bouncing along for the ride. The Saint no longer has its body. It now has a vessel, just as a celestial does. He has the soul of a human, and because of this, creates no disturbance, but the Shedim suppresses the soul, not claims it. It's the body's link to the symphony the Shedim rides, from my perspective. The Saint no longer has this link. > > >5: What happens if a Saint succumbs to his Fate while on Earth? (A > >shorter one than the above, but will probably spawn more debate...) > > He 'falls' and had better not die without having also hit > Destiny somehow, or else he's going to find himself elbowing people > and trying to dodge the Habbalah herding everyone to Hellmouth Gate... > > Servitors of Fate (as well as any other demon) *love* corrupting > a Saint... Who knows? Kronos may even give out distinctions for > that sort of thing! Clearly this will spark conversation. My view of Saints is that should they either gain enough dissonance, or fulfill their fate, they fall. In which case, they simply become a damned human soul rather than a blessed human soul. Here's the catch... THEY'VE BEEN UPSTAIRS! For millenia, billions have been manipulated into following a prescribed moral code based on the promise of pleasure or the threat of misery in the afterlife. A saint doesn't have to rely on faith as his moral compass, he's been there. He's seen, smelled, touched, and revelled in heaven's wonder. He knows for a fact that Heaven and Hell exist. What's the incentive then to damn oneself to eternal misery? Maybe Heaven wasn't what he was anticipating... Maybe he's been there, and if Angels, who bask in the glory of God and Heaven on a daily basis have doubts, maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story... (insert plot thread here.) -Jayson _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: IN> Of Tethers and War How the heck would you play in a world where superiors could *create* tethers? Superiors are engaged in power struggles left and right. Let's suppose that a small courtroom has recently been made a new Tether of Dominic. Already we can assume that both Michael and Asmodeus will dispatch agents to the area to see if they can't try to invoke influence for their respective interests. As it stands, the rivals would have to sway humanity towards their perspective, and hope that free will works for them rather than against them this time. Should you allow superiors to make their own tethers, what would happen? Asmodeus and Michael would build tethers to keep Dom's power in check. Baal would then take interest and intervene, while Kobal might pop in just for kicks. Laurence would feel the balance of power threatened, Novalis would fear of a pending war zone, Jordi would refuse to allow mankind's needs to overrun the natural surroundings, Andrealphus would realize the power struggles were taxing humanity's will and they may need an outlet... Inside of a month, you'd have the entire domain set up with a bunch of tethers, all in keeping the balance of power going. After this, Michael may want a strategic edge, and build a *second* tether... and so it goes. By the 8th century BC, most of earth should have been divied up between superiors, settled or otherwise. I think Tethers would lose some of their mystique in this scenario. Tethers need to be created by the symphony, if for no other reason, then to create a playable game. -Jayson - ---Walter Milliken wrote: > > >Someone very recently commented (and I was trying to find the quote to use, > >but then couldn't, so forgive me) that Superiors could not create a tether > >where ever they wanted to, but sort of had to pick and choose from areas that > >were already "predisposed" by some action to be worthy of tetherdom? > > Probably me or Elizabeth. And that's essentially correct. > > >Has it ever been addressed as to Why a Superior CAN'T say, "What a lovely spot > >for a tether! I think I'll put one here."? > > The main reasons are game design issues -- it makes humans much more > important if Tether formation mostly depends on them. It also makes for > better plots, in general, since PCs won't just stand around while their > Superior makes a Tether, but will get tasked sometimes to go out and > stir up the kind of Word activity that creates one. Plus the chance to > fight over a wild Tether that hasn't been nailed down by a Superior > yet. All in all it's a good motivator for Superiors and PCs to go out > and promote that Word! > > The in-game explanation for why Superiors *can't* do it is still being > discussed among the Tether book writers, but it probably has to do with > the same sorts of issues that create disturbance. Celestials meddling > in the corporeal realm are interfering with the natural parts of the > Symphony, and Tethers are going to be considered a natural part. So it > may be that intentional tampering to attempt to produce a Tether is > normally counter-productive. > > > I know that Redneck's DV game is > >very much "non-canon" but didn't Eli put a lot of effort into making the > >University Tower a tether? > > *Very* non-canon, and I wouldn't use it as any sort of example for how > canon is likely to run. > > So far, there are no canon Tethers produced directly by Superiors, and > there are quite a few Tethers in canon now. If it were possible, you'd > think that most Tethers would be Superior-generated, since that would > ensure that Tethers appeared in useful places, and not necessarily at > some broken-down old gas station in Podunk, Iowa. > > >The reason I was wondering is that in my own IN campaign (which is also non- > >canon, and whose isn't in some fashion these days?), Vapula is trying to > >create a tether by way of some huge infernal device he's concocted that > >utilizes Forces stripped from angels (very ugly process) to "punch" a hole > >into Tartarus. It's this climax my players are trying to put a stop to (in > >the next couple of sessions, and no I don't think any of them are on this > >list...) > > It may be he's *trying* to do this -- he might try it in my campaign, > too. But it might not do exactly what was expected... Vapula tries a > lot of things that are pretty brain-dead. He's exactly the sort of > person who would ignore the impossibility of the action and go ahead and > try to violate "natural law" (or canon, or whatever), anyway. > > > >Now, I know that my campaign has been/is very non-canon too, but it seemed > >strange for someone to claim that this aspect of tethers [mentioned above] > >*was* canon, at least if I remember correctly. Just looking for some > >clarification. Thanks. > > It's partly from the Line Editor's direction, and partly my own work. > And it's quite subject to revision. But I wrote that section of the > Tether book draft. So it's proto-canon, at least. I think that > particular aspect is pretty likely to survive into the final version, > too. > > > ---Walter > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:37:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Of Tethers and War Jayson Howell wrote: > How the heck would you play in a world where superiors could *create* > tethers? While I think it's fine to make it hard for Superiors to create Tethers, the general cold-war strategy against escalation might also prevent them from packing the Earth with Tethers. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:04:36 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Mix Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > When I first started In Nomine (not all to long ago), I told them to think > of it like this: Jewel, is an angel (possibly a cherub) That's one take on it. Mine would be to say that she's crap. > , and Tori Amos is > a human (and I take exception to someone using her songs for demons). But I think Tori would find it very amusing. > I couldn't say who would be demonic, though I suppose Nick Cave comes to > mind. Early Nick, perhaps... his most recent album "The Boatman's Call" is very spiritual, and deals largely with God & love. We've come a long way since The Birthday Party, baby... - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Life's a piece of shit, woo woo woo Open a vein and slit, woo woo woo TISM, "Bishop Handjob" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:50:34 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> More questions about Saints At 12:39 PM -0700 7/20/98, Querent wrote: >---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> At 7:11 PM -0700 7/18/98, Daniel Maberry wrote: >> >More Saint questions: >> > >> ..... I'm obnoxious. I'd let a Shedite do that in my game, if it had >> equal or greater Forces to the Saint. I'd give the Saint more chances >> to realize it was ridden, though, and maybe some Will rolls to *push >> the Shedite out*... I'd have to think about it. Good question, though! > >In counter point to Elizabeth's answer, I'd argue that the Shedim >possesses human bodies, with the soul bouncing along for the ride. >The Saint no longer has its body. It now has a vessel, just as a >celestial does. He has the soul of a human, and because of this, >creates no disturbance, but the Shedim suppresses the soul, not claims >it. It's the body's link to the symphony the Shedim rides, from my >perspective. The Saint no longer has this link. Ah, but Saints still don't create disturbance unless they're using Songs or directed Essence! (And at least one mode of Saint is reborn and doesn't remember itself until 'awakened'...) >> Servitors of Fate (as well as any other demon) *love* corrupting >> a Saint... Who knows? Kronos may even give out distinctions for >> that sort of thing! > >Clearly this will spark conversation. > >My view of Saints is that should they either gain enough dissonance, Saints are still too human to get dissonance, note. They have to 'fall' the way any other human does -- selfishness... As for the rest? Oh, yes.... Plot Seed. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:05:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: Re: IN> More questions about Saints - ---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 12:39 PM -0700 7/20/98, Querent wrote: > >---Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 7:11 PM -0700 7/18/98, Daniel Maberry wrote: > >> >More Saint questions: > >> > > >> ..... I'm obnoxious. I'd let a Shedite do that in my game, if it had > >> equal or greater Forces to the Saint. I'd give the Saint more chances > >> to realize it was ridden, though, and maybe some Will rolls to *push > >> the Shedite out*... I'd have to think about it. Good question, though! > > > >In counter point to Elizabeth's answer, I'd argue that the Shedim > >possesses human bodies, with the soul bouncing along for the ride. > >The Saint no longer has its body. It now has a vessel, just as a > >celestial does. He has the soul of a human, and because of this, > >creates no disturbance, but the Shedim suppresses the soul, not claims > >it. It's the body's link to the symphony the Shedim rides, from my > >perspective. The Saint no longer has this link. > > Ah, but Saints still don't create disturbance unless they're using > Songs or directed Essence! (And at least one mode of Saint is > reborn and doesn't remember itself until 'awakened'...) > No they don't! So? If a human hits a wall, no disturbance. If a Shedim in a human host hits a wall, there's a disturbance. Disturbance seems more bent on who's in control than on the nature of the body. I'd argue that if a celestial in a human body *can* cause disturbance, what's to say a human in a celestial vessel *can't*? Where would you find a human in a celestial vessel? Well, my take on p.NM45 is that the Saint gets a vessel, not a body. After all, it can be raised in level, unlike a human's body. I'd further argue that a Shedim can possess a human host, but not a celestial vessel. After all, a Kyrio-infested human can be taken by a Shedim, and *that's* an angel getting replaced by a Shedite. > Saints are still too human to get dissonance, note. They have to 'fall' > the way any other human does -- selfishness... Point to Beth. (That's why she's the editor I suppose.) Just playing devil's advocate here. Although I can think of justification for Elizabeth's point, I can also think of justification against it. Personally... ...I allow it. :-) -Jayson _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:30:29 EDT From: SienarFLT@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Of Tethers and War In a message dated 98-07-20 16:42:29 EDT, you write: > Inside of a month, you'd have the entire domain set up with a bunch of > tethers, all in keeping the balance of power going. After this, > Michael may want a strategic edge, and build a *second* tether... and > so it goes. By the 8th century BC, most of earth should have been > divied up between superiors, settled or otherwise. I think Tethers > would lose some of their mystique in this scenario. > Ah, some very good points. Thank you all. I was just thinking that the creation of a tether (in my local "home" town) would make a very good start to a campaign, which it has. All your input has been very helpful and I can still do what I wanted with just a little switch of perspective. There's a particularly "cute" spot here which would make a good tether for Vapula (which would also piss off servants of Jean and not to mention Christopher, Zadkiel, Blandine......) that could already have had the potential for becoming a tether. But I also like Walters take: > It may be he's *trying* to do this -- he might try it in my campaign, > too. But it might not do exactly what was expected... Vapula tries a > lot of things that are pretty brain-dead. He's exactly the sort of > person who would ignore the impossibility of the action and go ahead and > try to violate "natural law" (or canon, or whatever), anyway. Ahhhh, the ideas are already churning out. Thanks Walter! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:24:23 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> More on Tethers The topic of the week seems to be Tethers. Having read what has been written recently, I have a question and a comment. Question: if Tethers are "natural" phenomena, impossible for Superiors to *directly* influence due to Symphonic disturbance and balance of power, why are Tethers so Symphonically noisy? Rereading the passage in the core rulebook, it seems to imply that Tethers are noisy by dint of the celestial comings-and-goings: celestials ascending and descending, wafting about in celestial form for as long as they please and whatnot. Are they noisy as they form, or only after when everyone is partying at them? Is it a safe place for other disturbances (Songs and such) only because a little more noise would go unnoticed (and the other side already knows where it is) or because there is some sort of masking effect involved? Comment: Tethers seem to be the key to citybuilding. Coming to In Nomine from World of Darkness , creating a setting is a very different exercise. WoD cities are all about territory and control; who is the Prince, where do the Garou like to hang out, how big is the local Chantry or Freehold, what factions are vying for some vaunted resource, etc.are the questions of the day. In In Nomine, other than Tethers, the focus seems to be on individual activities (Angel X is involved in social institution Y promoting her Word, demon Z is out corrupting the youth in district A for his dark master) rather than collective efforts. Along the same lines, the celestials don't seem to measure which side controls a city in the same fashion as vampires carve up the US in Camarilla-, Sabbat- and Anarch-held turf. If Superiors don't think in terms of "who has what", then what purpose do Tethers serve in the larger picture of things ? "Celestial forts", as IN pg. 59 calls them, seems reasonable, except that they don't seem geared toward defense (in a purely military sense), stockpiles (as a celestial armory) or even meeting ground for that side ("You and the Michaelite can come, but don't bring your Gabrielite friend--he isn't welcome here"). Useful for the Superior running the Tether, yes, useful as a bastion for their Word, but useful as either a front-line bunker or a strategic headquarters, much less a communication station (again, except for that Superior)? No. I suppose it's possible that Tethers may prove essential in the Final Battle, as a rapid-deployment or staging area, or even as the key to storming either Heaven or Hell ("Down the Tether and into the mouth of Hell, my hearties!"), but until then they seem isolated, disorganized and perhaps overrated. Sigh. I've said a mouthful (written, more like), and expect a bit of comment. If someone can explain it to me, I look forward to reading their posts. - --Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:14:16 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: IN> Saints / Tethers At 16:05 20/07/98 -0700, you wrote: > >> Saints are still too human to get dissonance, note. They have to >'fall' >> the way any other human does -- selfishness... > >Point to Beth. (That's why she's the editor I suppose.) > >Just playing devil's advocate here. Although I can think of >justification for Elizabeth's point, I can also think of justification >against it. > I suspect it must be very difficult to get a saint to fall. Far more difficult than a soldier, a mortal or even a celestial (because you can't trick them into getting dissonance). These are people who have actually _seen_ Heaven and been personally picked out by an archangel to return to earth. They know exactly what would be waiting for them in Hell, so you'd think they'd be quite motivated not to go there if they felt there was even the slightest chance of their faith slipping. If I were an archangel, I'd save my saints for the jobs which would be too dangerous or too risky for an angel. It's not impossible, but you'd think it would be the next best thing. Matthew Gandy wrote: > If Superiors don't think in terms of > "who has what", then what purpose do Tethers serve in the larger picture of things Tethers in my game have tended to end up as local HQs for long-term earth-based activity. The larger ones function as social centres, meeting places, political headquarters, safe-houses, mailboxes for local/ allied celestials (you can't send corporeal items through the celestial realms and not everyone has a role with an address attached), refuges and training centres, as well as conduits for celestials to pass between the corporeal and celestial realm. Any friendly celestial passing through the city would likely be encouraged to drop in and make itself known, in case there are any local circumstances of which it ought to be aware. Mine also sometimes organise training events, or seminars or parties to which they can invite local or out of town celestials (actually, one of the main upcoming storylines involves just about everyone trying to get themselves on the seneschal of trade's party invite list). Basically they are places where you can almost certainly be 'safe' from whatever the other side are doing. Not entirely safe, but mostly, so for any kind of planning or strategy meeting, any kind of negotiations which can't be held in the celestial realms, anything which your superior smiles on but others might not ... a local tether with a friendly seneschal might be the place to go. On the angelic side, the local seneschals all know each other and send messengers around quite frequently to keep updated on current events, and attempt to co-ordinate. Their is a certain amount of 'friendly' jockeying for position. On the demonic side, the seneschals are more likely to be sending spies... I imagine most seneschals as having access to a large range of servants, relievers/ familiars and celestials (who are either working off dissonance or doing their first earth stint somewhere they can get a lot of supervision) and using them to keep track of mortal affairs which pertain to their tether and superior's word in the vicinity -- mainly because their tethers are vulnerable to attack by other parties trying to affect mortal attitudes. If a tether dies for this reason, a superior might well think the seneschal deserved it by not being a bit more pro-active. I've never really stressed the military side, although I'm sure some of them are extremely well prepared or stockpile relics and ammunition. Its mainly because you'd have to be insane to attack a tether head-on, knowing that there was a really good chance the enemy superior would personally show up. jo http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ - -------------------------------------------------------- "You say I play as if possessed by the Devil?" "Madame, I play with PASSION!" "Passion is not evil! Passion is ecstasy enacted!" "...And ecstasy is DIVINE!" -- Paganini - -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:49:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> Of Tethers and War On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Jayson Howell wrote: > > > How the heck would you play in a world where superiors could *create* > > tethers? > > While I think it's fine to make it hard for Superiors to create > Tethers, the general cold-war strategy against escalation might > also prevent them from packing the Earth with Tethers. Hmm, that's not the cold war I remember. All those stockpiles of nuclear weapons more than enough for destroying the earth multiple times, huge standing armies to the point of economic ruin, that is the cold war I remember. mvg, Jasper Floor "There's never an excuse for rudeness" - Doon Mackichan "Oh bollux" - Graem Garden If I ruled the world (BBC game show) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:52:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> In Nomine Mix On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > > > When I first started In Nomine (not all to long ago), I told them to think > > of it like this: Jewel, is an angel (possibly a cherub) > > That's one take on it. Mine would be to say that she's crap. That is your opinion, and not realy relevant. > > , and Tori Amos is > > a human (and I take exception to someone using her songs for demons). > > But I think Tori would find it very amusing. I agree with you on that. Actually the problem I have with it, is that the songs are against self-deseption, if anything, and that goes against demon nature. Of course, demons could just be fooling themselves. mvg, Jasper Floor "There's never an excuse for rudeness" - Doon Mackichan "Oh bollux" - Graem Garden If I ruled the world (BBC game show) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:05:33 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Of Tethers and War On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > Jayson Howell wrote: > > > > > How the heck would you play in a world where superiors could *create* > > > tethers? > > > > While I think it's fine to make it hard for Superiors to create > > Tethers, the general cold-war strategy against escalation might > > also prevent them from packing the Earth with Tethers. > > Hmm, that's not the cold war I remember. All those stockpiles of nuclear > weapons more than enough for destroying the earth multiple times, huge > standing armies to the point of economic ruin, that is the cold war I > remember. Yes, but there's a big difference between stockpiling and deploying. I think that creating a Tether would cause something like the Cuban missile crisis... Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:23:41 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Of Tethers and War >On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >> Jayson Howell wrote: >> >> > How the heck would you play in a world where superiors could *create* >> > tethers? >> >> While I think it's fine to make it hard for Superiors to create >> Tethers, the general cold-war strategy against escalation might >> also prevent them from packing the Earth with Tethers. > >Hmm, that's not the cold war I remember. All those stockpiles of nuclear >weapons more than enough for destroying the earth multiple times, huge >standing armies to the point of economic ruin, that is the cold war I >remember. > >mvg, >Jasper Floor The difference between a Tether and a nuclear missile is important in this reference to a cold war. If you use a nuclear device, then everyone knows it. Tethers fall below such radar. In the height of the US v. USSR cold war, everyone that could get their hands on a nuclear missile had one. After you had a sufficient amount, then you'd do what you could without making your opponent launch his. This excluded the actual launching of nuclear missiles. Tethers work more like the tunnels used in Hogan's Heroes; able to get you in and out of enemy hands without causing a disturbance. On a small scale (extending on the rarity of Tethers), the effects are barely noticeable. However, I tend to think that Heaven would notice if Hell started flooding the world with demons, and vice verse. That, in cold war nomenclature, would call for a launch. No one really wants Armageddon. Armand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 98 12:42 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> More on Tethers > Question: if Tethers are "natural" phenomena, impossible for Superiors to >*directly* influence due to Symphonic disturbance and balance of power, why are >Tethers so Symphonically noisy? Rereading the passage in the core rulebook, it >seems to imply that Tethers are noisy by dint of the celestial comings-and-goings: >celestials ascending and descending, wafting about in celestial form for as long >as they please and whatnot. Are they noisy as they form, or only after when >everyone is partying at them? Is it a safe place for other disturbances (Songs and >such) only because a little more noise would go unnoticed (and the other side >already knows where it is) or because there is some sort of masking effect >involved? Most Tethers are not *intrinsically* noisy, though some of them are. The noise is typically caused by frequent celestial operations at the Tether. So it is possible to have a "stealth" Tether. Note that the Vapulan Tether in Night Music is essentially quiet, since no one has noticed it yet. > In In Nomine, other than Tethers, the focus seems to be on individual >activities (Angel X is involved in social institution Y promoting her Word, demon >Z is out corrupting the youth in district A for his dark master) rather than >collective efforts. Along the same lines, the celestials don't seem to measure >which side controls a city in the same fashion as vampires carve up the US in >Camarilla-, Sabbat- and Anarch-held turf. I don't know WoD very well, but that's probably right -- most places in the world aren't dominated by one side or the other. Though there are exceptions -- LA in Fall of the Malakim is one example. There are probably many cities where one side or the other holds a stronger position, but doesn't really control it. Generally, though, an area is defined as much by the celestials who are assigned there, and their human associates, as anything else. Tethers do matter though, since they indicate which Words are strong in the area, and to a lesser extent, which Superiors are most influential. > If Superiors don't think in terms of >"who has what", then what purpose do Tethers serve in the larger picture of things >? Depends a lot on the Tether, and which side you're looking at. As currently proposed in the Tethers draft, one major function is to supply Essence to the Superior. They also serve as places of refuge (especially for angels -- even "hostile" Words will normally help out when someone's being chased by demonic forces). And there are some resources available at Tethers, most especially (again in the current draft) Essence -- the Seneschal can tap the Tether's Essence flow. This is not something done routinely, but someone in great need of Essence for an important purpose can probably get Essence from a friendly Tether. Tethers also serve an important transport function in moving celestials between realms, or even between points in the corporeal realm (though this isn't guaranteed to be convenient). This is especially important for tactical considerations -- if more celestials of the Superior are needed in the area for some urgent reason, they can be sent down a nearby Tether without bothering the Superior. Communications is important as well, though the Celestial Song of Tongues can handle some of that, as can the Celestial Song of Projection, for those servitors who have them. In my game, Tethers also serve as coordination centers for the celestials in the area, especially with regards to contacts, mundane resources and Roles, and the like -- they're basically the local headquarters for the Superior, and often serve as a lesser hub for allied and associated ones. > but until then >they seem isolated, disorganized and perhaps overrated. The Tethers book is intended to address a lot of these issues. One chapter will address the roles of Tethers in the campaign. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #869 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.